When one considers the two topics, Religion and the environment, one must look at the opposite of religion and that is politics. True, it can be argued that politics is also a ‘religion’ of sorts. The whole conundrum of the
church and state and the separation thereof plays into our subject matter, the environment!
After reading an article by Bill Moyers titled, "There Is No Tomorrow", and after some late night research the article which it drew heavily from The “Godly Must Be Crazy”, I was left with a conundrum.
For this convention [Gaia Conference; May 21 2005], we've been asked to examine our own moral codes and to look at how our actions and choices affect the environment. For the most part, we've moved towards protecting the environment and eco-friendly ideas.
However, what if there existed a moral/ethical system in which it was acceptable, and indeed desirable, to hasten environmental degradation and destruction? Scary thought isn’t it? What sort of response can one give when someone believes that they will be rewarded for doing their part to render our world uninhabitable? What are we to do?
I fully realize that not all Christians are breeding genetically pure red heifers in Alberta to sacrifice and begin the apocalypse, and that not all Christians believe that when we cut down the last tree, Jesus/ Mohammad or Buddha will return. But that there are people out there who in all seriousness do believe that as soon as we ruin the planet, they will be rocketed up the Heaven with their God (s) while those of us who did not believe as they do will face years of brutal torture is, to say the least, incredibly disturbing.
What's more, policymakers both in US Congress and at the local level are learning now that it is extremely beneficial to their long-term goals to align themselves with people who espouse such beliefs because of their newfound political clout.
The reason this is a problem, for me at least, is because I am all in favor of religious expression. I believe in the freedom of religion and, for the most part, free expression of that belief. However, when the expression of a belief leads one to favor a war in the Middle East because it will make the Second Coming come faster, or that disease, famine, droughts and natural disasters are signs of the End Times and their ill effects should bemaximized, I am torn. I do not wish to infringe on anyone’s religious beliefs (within reason, of course), but at some point, does not the preservation of our planet and its inhabitants come first?
So what are we to do? It is not an option to outlaw this form of religious expression because I'm sure no one would like to even consider the implications of that. But at the same time, are we to sit idly by and let our planet be ransacked because of an idea that some people have?
Sometimes I characterize myself as ‘essentializing’ all Christians. I know I said that "I fully realize not all Christians" but when I dichotomize the problem into religious freedom or a safe planet (as if the two were not able to coexist), that is how it comes off.
As I read the articles, "There Is No Tomorrow" and “The Godly Must Be Crazy.” I feel more or less justified in such totalizing sentences like: "Are we to sit idly by and let our planet be ransacked because of an idea that some people have?"
Clearly the people I am speaking of are Christians because, as Christians, they seam to be vocal, about these issues.
Unfortunately, there are some people who believe they can do anything they want to accomplish their cause. We should deal with those people. But let us be reminded that those people can be found everywhere, not just in religious groups. For instance, how about environmental terrorist groups? Groups such as the Environmental Liberation Front (ELF) "ransack our planet because of an idea" all the time.
Crimes should be dealt with as crimes, not as the product of religious beliefs. But when crimes in the name of religion take place, in this instance against our environment, then what and how do we justify those actions? Are those individuals protected by some special religious freedoms so that they can get away with raping, destroying and polluting our earth only to bring about what they believe to be a salvation or second coming of some kind?
Just because one group wants it to happen, and the other doesn't, doesn't put the blame onto one more than the other. It's like saying the weatherman is to blame for all the crappy weather we been having. Just because the weatherman has a job only because we have weather doesn't put him to blame for the type of weather we're having. Obviously, this issue is bigger than all religions.
What needs to be asked is what should we do, if anything, about this very small group of people within the Christian faith (and not the faith as a whole) who share this strange view and think it is their duty to harm the
planet? I know that many people within the various faiths believe it is their job to protect the planet and treat all living beings well and with respect.
The problem is that the people who do believe that the end times should be hastened by destroying the environment, or at least by allowing it to be destroyed, hold the power to support political candidates in exchange for action based on their beliefs. In no way does mentioning this issue overgeneralize. Just as we know, or should know, that not all Muslims are terrorists, we know, or should know, that not all Christians are fanatics.
There are people who are not concerned with using all of our earth’s oil or natural resources because we’re all going to be gone in a short time. Why bother with moderation and protection when, in the end, the world is going to be destroyed anyway? This is where I see a problem with expression of religious belief.
I do not wish to repress anyone in any way, but when their actions, stemming from a warped belief system (and I mean only theirs, not Christianity as a whole) directly affect the entire planet and the welfare of every other living being on this planet, I see a need for intervention which is a fearful thing.
Again, who and how do we intervene, and on what basis? On a basis of concern for our earth? Do we intervene by use of the courts, politics, or common sense? Who leads such a radical thought? Politicians, religious leaders, the entertainment industry?
I do believe that everyone has a right to express his or her religious beliefs, but I also feel that there is a line that must be drawn. If someone's religious practices are infringing on the rights of (or harming in some way) an individual, then these practices should be outlawed. Why shouldn't the same hold true for animals and the environment? I believe in full separation of church and state, but it is the responsibility of the state to protect all of its citizens as well as its environment.
It is indeed bizarre. The idea of Apocalypse and how it will come about all hinges on some strange interpretations of Biblical literature and other sources. The pure red heifer is needed as a sacrifice to purify worshippers so they can enter "the third temple" (I'm not entirely clear on all the details of that which, when it is built, will be one of the beginnings of the end. The only reason I mentioned that is to illustrate the fanatical devotion some of these people have to this idea.
I suppose the cow does have other implications, however. In Israel and Palestine, everyone for the most part is very aware of end time prophecies and what they entail. The situation over there is already very tense and, as mentioned in one of the articles I linked, if the Israelis start sacrificing animals at temples, things could get very ugly, very quickly. Just something to think about.
Now comes the reality; I think the scary thing to consider is the “political” influence these people have. I think it’s not so much a matter of religion and environmental safety facing off, as it is a matter of politics and environmental responsibility. Why people believe the planet should be damaged or destroyed isn’t the main issue or at least it shouldn’t be. The issue of real concern should be the politician’s tendency to align themselves with people who wish to destroy our planet.
I’m not saying that religion and the environment don’t hold sticky ethical issues. I just think that, practically speaking, the first issue should be to hold the politicians associated with these people accountable for their environmental policies.
As someone who came from a religious household, I have been exposed to religious beliefs and the different ways individuals express those beliefs. Clearly some people choose to live in the ‘now’ or present and express their religious devotion through charity, generosity, daily kindness and love.
Others choose to live their entire life in preparation for an afterlife.
For the first group, protecting the environment would be essential to protecting and loving others around you in the present day. The second group, however, would see this life as something less valuable and less worthy of concern. All of their focus is on the afterlife and how to ensure its eternal "goodness."
I tend to have a problem with this set of beliefs. This is the sort of fundamentalist ideas that lead people to participate in kamikaze air attacks. These people can dismiss the implications in this life in hope that something better and more worthy of focus lies on the horizon. Many people tend
to think they are senseless and tend to be fanatical. After all, it is difficult to rationalize dismissing and abandoning something tangible (like this present) in favor of something intangible (like the afterlife).
I have a problem with this view because I cannot allow myself to focus my energies entirely on something intangible, something that cannot even be proven. I think an ideal religious devotion would be one that called for us to focus our spiritual energies on both the here-and-now (i.e., humanity, the environment, daily life), as well as the afterlife.
Focusing entirely on either one of these things, however, may lead a person toward an extremist mindset. We have a hard time identifying with people who choose to devote their lives only to an intangible afterlife. This is because many of us are inclined to ask, "what if this life is all we get?"
If this were true, I would hate to be the person that chose to forego living and appreciating this life in preparation for the next. This is the real issue behind this debate, as far as the environment is concerned. I tend to agree with argument regarding the "political clout" that people with extremist views tend to possess.
We, as pagans, should be intelligent enough to recognize why politicians align themselves with such views. More often than not, it is to further their own agendas. We should ask ourselves not only if we support their agenda,
but also whether or not we agree with such a shameless attempt to promote their own political desires. They're simply masking their real desires by buying into some extremist mindset.
In conclusion, … the weathermen do not stop it from raining anymore than they can make it rain. However, when a religious group or an idea that becomes popular has political clout, these adherents via politics can make
things happen unlike the weatherman.
Without a doubt, religious political clout is scary in a polytheistic society. And just because one fraction of a religious group believes something does not mean everyone on our Mother Earth should.
W E A R E T H E W E A V E R S W E A R E T H E W E B
Imbolc 2007
Another Perspective.....
A Word to the Wise: Transmutation - Making Changes
We are born into this life with a certain set of weaknesses to overcome and a certain set of strengths to acquire, and the circumstances of our lives are such to teach us these things about ourselves.
We grow by learning through trial and error to repeat those thoughts and actions that are rewarded or to make other choices when we feel punished by the results. This is the Great Spirits Law of Cause and Effect in action. We change for the better when we choose those thoughts and actions that are rewarded. We improve our character by being aware of the lessons that life teaches us through the circumstances of our lives.
Change is a necessary part of growing. Without change there can be no spiritual growth. Only with spiritual growth can we gro closer to the Great Spirit and Holy Earth Mother and thereby allow their Power to flow through us to work our magic more effectively. The more we come to know ourselve,s the more we come to know Spirit, and the more we find our way to the Source of creative power.
Do you welcome challenges in your life as opportunities for growth? Do you think of them as puzzles to be figured out and put together?
"If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change," says Dr. Wayne Dyer in his book "Real Magic."
My teacher, Father Eli, was fond of saying: "No problems, no thinking
No thinking, no learning."
How do you view the challenges in your life? Are you ready for the opportunities life gives you? Are you willing to try something new? Are you able to accept change when you find a way that works better?
How easily can you change?
It's worth thinking about....
TRANSMUTATION QUOTE FOR THE DAY
Life is a process of becoming, a combination of states we have to go through. Where people fail is that they wish to elect a state and remain in it. This is a kind of death. ~Anais Nin
POSITIVE THOUGHT
A full and glorious life flows through the power of change.
POSITIVE AFFIRMATION
I AM ready and willing to change for the better
POSITIVE VISUALIZATION
I take a slow and even breath and imagine myself filled with positive thoughts of change. In my mind's eye, I feel myself courageous, strong, and unafraid of change.
I imagine myself easily breaking from old ways that do not serve me well. I see myself going forward toward the new with faith and assurance.
I combine these images with the feelings of joy and let them go, knowing that they will create the good things I am visualizing and thinking.
The director of the international Drug-Free Alliance says objective, independent safety net needed to reign in the corruption of Big Pharma
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was created to promote the public health by promptly and efficiently reviewing clinical research, taking appropriate action on the marketing of regulated products in a timely manner and to protect the public health by ensuring that drugs are safe and effective.
However, new drugs that are found unsafe are continually reaching the market and pharmaceutical profits are hitting record highs.
The Vioxx fiasco is not an isolated incident. The fallout from that drug produced over 27,000 lawsuits, 265 class-action suits and there were an additional 14,000 settlements. Some financial experts have estimated the cost to Merck to be around $5 billion when it is all said and done, yet nothing can compare the lives lost or altered due to the heart attacks and strokes caused by the drug.
A federal grand jury indicted one physician and six TAP Pharmaceuticals managers with conspiracy to pay kickbacks to doctors and other customers and conspiracy to defraud the state Medicaid programs. The result was that the company had to pay out more than $1.2 billion in settlements with the United States in 2003.
In 2004, Warner-Lambert, a subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc. - the world's largest pharmaceutical company - entered into a settlement worth $430 million with federal and state agencies due to Medicaid fraud over Neurontin. The settlement is over allegations that the company illegally promoted the drug to doctors for many unapproved uses.
More recently, Lilly has paid out at least $1.2 billion to over 28,000 people who were injured by the drug Zyprexa, which was found to have caused diabetes. More than 1,000 lawsuits against the company are still pending.
Despite the corruption and enormous settlements, prescription drug profits continue to rise – and so has the number of Americans abusing prescription drugs.
Perhaps Pulitzer prize-nominated author Stephen Pizzo put it best last year when he compared Big Pharma to Big Tobacco. He wrote that they both produce and sell products that often cause injury or death when used as directed; that they knew that some of their most profitable products were injuring and killing people, and either hid such evidence, lied about it or both; that they hired their own experts to produce often phony, always misleading non-peer-reviewed, research designed solely to cast doubt on any genuine research by outside experts that came to conclusions that could hurt sales.
Big Tobacco has had to pay big, and the numbers of smokers continue to decrease. At least those who still smoke know they’re causing their own ill health and possibly death. After all, there is a Surgeon General’s Warning on cigarette packages, one of which reads: “Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.”
Black box warnings aren’t enough. Perhaps we could have a similar Surgeon General’s Warning on most prescription drugs – something like “This drug might make you feel better temporarily, but over time you have a high risk of developing dependency, serious mental and/or physical side effects and possibly death.”
Mike Adams of Newstarget.com wrote “It's the greatest con in American history. It's the racket of the millennium. The drug companies are running the show, cutting off drugs from Canada, monopolizing the U.S. market, running the FDA, bribing doctors and killing patients all the while. Even based on statistics from conventional medicine, prescription drugs are right now killing 100,000 Americans each year and injuring another two million.”
Earlier this month the Public Citizen, a national non-profit public interest organization, wrote a letter to the British medical journal the Lancet regarding a study conducted on the FDA’s use of advisory committees. The study found that the FDA follows committee recommendations only 72 percent of the time, and in 18 percent of the time didn’t even present its own oral reviews. The Public Citizen also reported that an advisory committee meeting was held on only 24 percent of new molecular entities (NMEs) approved between 2000 and midway through 2006.
An interview conducted by Manette Loudon, the lead investigator for Dr. Gary Null, Dr. David Graham (senior drug safety researcher at the FDA) said, “As currently configured, the FDA is not able to adequately protect the American public. It's more interested in protecting the interests of industry. It views industry as its client, and the client is someone whose interest you represent. Unfortunately, that is the way the FDA is currently structured. Within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research about 80 percent of the resources are geared towards the approval of new drugs and 20 percent is for everything else. Drug safety is about five percent. The “gorilla in the living room” is new drugs and approval. Congress has not only created that structure, they have also worsened that structure through the PDUFA, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, by which drug companies pay money to the FDA so they will review and approve its drug. So you have that conflict as well.”
A study released in April of 2006 also revealed that the majority of psychiatrists who worked on the most recent edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s widely influential diagnostic manual had financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry before, during or after the latest edition of the growing manual was published.
Today there are numerous law suits being filed against makers of antidepressant drugs since the release of new evidence showing that many actually increase the risk of suicide, and one can bet that some of these drugs will be removed from the market in the future as well, but not before the drug companies make many more billions of dollars. By then, a few hundred million dollars spent on settlements is nothing to them.
In case you haven’t guessed, my point is this – the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry, the FDA, and our healthcare system is seriously flawed and costly in many ways. It threatens American lives every single day, and it will take average citizens like you and me to do something about it, because those who have been trusted to look out for our health and safety have clearly failed.
###
Lucas A Catton is the President of the Foundation for Social Improvement, and is the director of the international Drug-Free Alliance. He is the author of “Losing the Beer Goggles” and his articles have appeared in hundreds of publications throughout the country.
Silentium
translated by Vladimir Nabokov
Speak not, lie hidden, and conceal
the way you dream, the things you feel.
Deep in your spirit let them rise
akin to stars in crystal skies
that set before the night is blurred:
delight in them and speak no word.
How can a heart_expression find?
How should another know your mind?
Will he discern what quickens you?
A thought once uttered is untrue.
Dimmed is the fountainhead when stirred:
drink at the source and speak no word.
Live in your inner self alone
within your sould a world has grown,
the magic of veiled thougths that might
be blinded by the outer light,
drowned in the noise of day, unheard...
take in their song and speak no word.
artwork by Teralyn Dahl
This one says so much to me about humanity.....
Hidden Souls
By Skye Thomas
I suppose it’s the nature of the thing that you would feel that you are alone and that nobody else is going through what you are going through. You have worked on yourself, healing, changing, growing, and becoming more enlightened as to the way the game of life is played. The result is that you really don’t feel like playing anymore. No, you aren’t suicidal, but rather you just want to be left alone. You see the world as superficial and fake. You see the people you love self-destructing right before your very eyes and you have tried to help them only to find that your help is not wanted. You have even wrestled with that until you understand that you cannot force others to accept your enlightenment and your wisdom. You cannot force others to accept your views of life, of peace, of balance, of harmony, of personal reflection, and self-accountability. Eventually, like a hermit, you go off to live your simple perfectly balanced beautiful little life alone.
This is not the same as the lost souls who do not know who they are or where they are in life. This is about those souls who know exactly who they are, where they are in life, and have a pretty good idea of where they are heading and what it will look like when they get there. These people have ambition, direction, drive, and often some form of a spiritual calling, a higher ideal, or a humanitarian cause that motivates them to give of themselves to humanity in ways that others cannot understand. These souls hear a small voice whispering to them to go public with their peaceful harmonious ways. But going public is noisy, harsh, rude, prejudiced, and often dangerous for the gentle calm souls. So they hide.
Anger and pain controls a lot of people. It’s a sad fact. We all know someone who still allows their childhood wounds to dictate and control their every decision. We all know of people who are afraid to really open up and love someone else for fear of being rejected and hurt again. Anger is a passionate motivator. People who are really ticked off are seldom docile and quiet about it. Take an angry mob and see how long you can keep them in a peaceful calm quiet logical state. Anger is overwhelming and powerful. It controls and threatens whatever looks like the source of that rage, fear, or pain.
Now look at love and inner peace. By nature, love is not controlling or dominating. It is a light that shines and warms, but it does not push and shove. Take a crowd of people who are all in a loving openhearted peaceful state, like a congregation after listening to a beautiful uplifting sermon, or an audience who has just watched a musician play something amazingly spellbinding that touches their deepest heart. For just a moment, the crowd sits awash in the joyful calm not wanting to break the sacred silence.
The hidden souls are trying to live their lives like that congregation and the truth is, it is hard to hold onto our warm cozy feelings while being cut off in traffic, screamed at by irate customers, and listening to a critic say that we aren’t very good at whatever gift we are trying to offer the world. It’s so much easier for the musician to play alone in his room, the writer journals just for themselves, the artist hides their work away, and the heart does not reach out to new people anymore. These people hide their gentle souls because they want to remain gentle in a world that is harsh and often cruel.
Then that small voice of spirit calls out from the inner sanctuary of our minds telling us we must come forward and share our gifts. “The world needs your gift as much as you need to share it.” Terrified, we wrestle with that guiding voice telling it to leave us alone in our hermit’s nest. It is in that struggle to maintain our loving hearts while confronted with other people’s hatred that we find just how sacred the love in our hearts is.
You were taught how to hold an inner light while held safely away from the chaos and ugliness of the “real world.” You were spiritually healed, taught, and enlightened in your safe sanctuary, but that is just a false world designed for the beginner to learn. Once you have mastered your own heart and mind and have learned how to be a truly beautifully balanced loving soul, then you will be kicked out of the nest and told to go spread that light. Yes, you are different from what appears to be the norm. You won’t know how many others are out there just like you until you come out of your hiding spot and begin to interact on a deep heartfelt level with all of humanity.
You must step into the darkness or nobody will know that you are a shining light, my dear. Yes, I know you are content to simply light up your safe secret little corner of the world. Yes, I know that you no longer have an ego attachment that needs for the world to see you as shining and glorious. You would be perfectly content hiding away in your sanctuary, working, singing, laughing, and loving just the safest people that you have met. However, it’s not for you that you must shine your light into the darkness. It’s for those lost souls who are frightened, broken, and alone. It is so seldom that a Gandhi or a Mother Theresa appears on the scene, that the lost souls do not believe that unconditional love really exists on a day-to-day level. You do not build lighthouses in safe sunny places. You put them on the edge of the shore where the storms are. You are a beacon of light in the storm of humanity. Deal with it, and get to work doing what you were trained to do.
Copyright 2004, Skye Thomas, Tomorrow’s Edge
Skye Thomas is the author of four books, almost 200 articles, a monthly horoscope, and the founder of Tomorrow’s Edge an Internet leader in inspiring leaps of faith. Her articles can be found in magazines, newsletters, and websites all over the world. She specializes in quieting the inner critic, breaking free from dysfunctional family dynamics, and making peace with the person you see staring back at you in the mirror.When asked about her mission in life, Skye Thomas responded, “My favorite part of this job is working one-on-one with people to help them break out of situations that have them feeling stuck. It doesn’t matter to me what path they choose, just so long as they don’t sit there stagnant and decaying on an emotional and spiritual level. I just want them to take a bite out of life. Find something meaningful and go do it.” Through her website, www.TomorrowsEdge.net , people can explore all of her articles, schedule life coaching sessions, sign up to receive one or more of her eighteen monthly newsletters, order personalized astrology reports, and read previews of her books. Skye Thomas and Tomorrow’s Edge want to help you re-commit yourself to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
