The Greenhouse and the Garden of Eden
April 30, 2007 · By Shane Edwards
Who knew? Elizabeth May, Green Party leader, preaching a sermon on the environment and Jesus! (Hat tip to the inestimable Small Dead Animals)
It is interesting to see the intersection of faith and environmentalism coming to light in the media. I find it fascinating that the newspaper didn’t slander her beliefs in any way, as long as she stuck to the envirofascist script.
However, for those of you who keep count, this means that Elizabeth May:
- believes in the Garden of Eden
- believes that we all descended from one man and one woman
- believes that we were all created, that God engineered the universe
- believes that God is a MAN(!)
Wow. If Harper preached a sermon like this, he would be impeached (if you can do that in Canada). We don’t want any nutcase misogynist young-earth creationists in our government!
Borrowing a quote she said was made by a foreign dignitary about Prime Minister Stephen Harper, May said his stance on climate change “represents a grievance worse than Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of the Nazis.”
2 points on this statement:
- I thought churches weren’t allowed to express political opinions. Isn’t this kind of a condemnation of a sitting Prime Minister grounds to revoke the charitable status of the church? Or does that only apply to Conservative churches who condemn leftists?
- Look at that. a Nazi comment. Ms. May, whether you know it or not, you just lost.
An interesting illustration of the weakness inherent in the classic straw man fallacy.
Shane’s mock astonishment relies for its impact on a silly cliche: that “lefties” (whatever they are) are somehow anti-Christian. Thus his chortle at the fact that Elizabeth May believes what other Christians believe. To Shane, this seems to underline some contradiction: to those who recognize the straw man, it points out how little many of conservative friends seem to know about the diversity of Christianity.
Shane, did you read anything in your source that suggested Ms. May’s view of the Garden of Eden is any more literal than the belief of any Christian who sees it as a deeply symbolic moral story of our origins rather than a literal, historical account?
In general, yes, left wing politicians are against Christianity in its truest sense - that of a proselytizing religion that makes unique truth claims. No straw man there.
She uses “the garden of eden” in in a manner consistent with being held as an actual truth, verified by science. To use it in conjunction with references to “proven science” implies both have equal veracity. She did not suggest one was fiction and one was not. There was no differentiation as far as the article is concerned (I wasn’t there so I didn’t hear the whole sermon).
Or were you suggesting that her references to global warming were in fact references to a symbolic literary device meant to pose as a euphemism for the end of the world, a common myth amongst all people groups and religions? After all, according to you, if one is simply a myth, so too could the other be.
Or are you simply perhaps reading this story through your preferred lens of understanding instead of through the lens of the speaker, whose communication paradigm can be the only source for deriving her intended meaning?
Of course churches are allowed to express political opinions. When the Pope denounced Canadian politians for enacting SSM, no-one suggested the Catholic Church should lose its charitable status. There are even exceptions in Canada’s hate-speech laws that protect religious speech.
And any true ‘leftist’ would not have a problem with a religious person in government, so long as they did not allow their beliefs to direct government policy.
On the contrary. there were many cries for delisting churches after the Catholic Bishop Henry spoke up vocally during the debate.
Also, it is a matter of record that Elections Canada gave some very specific threats to many Christian organizations and churches during the last two election campaigns with regards to endorsing candidates or parties, and the possible loss of charitable status if they failed to comply.
Look it up.
And as for what a “true leftist” would do, your statement makes the exact point. As long as the Christian remains in the closet, everything is fine. But one thing that has been made clear, any man or woman of faith who runs for office, leftist opponents will trot out the “Will they check their faith at the door, or will they IMPOSE A THEOCRACY???” question to knock them down. The seed of doubt will be used against them.
It doesn’t happen every time but it happens enough to generalize about.
Actually no Shane, many people are against Christianity trying to enforce it’s laws, it’s beliefs, and it’s morals, on the rest of us - which is not the same as being against Christianity at all.
“In general, yes, left wing politicians are against Christianity in its truest sense - that of a proselytizing religion that makes unique truth claims.”
Shrug. Some “left wing politicians” are no doubt against what you personally define as Christianity “in its truest sense”, as are some “right wing” politicians. As long as you’re personally selecting the definition of “Christianity in the truest sense”, you can, of course, assert anything all. I personally think the version of “Christianity” espoused by hatemongers like Kate Shaidle is as far from Christ’s vision as you can get, but I don’t make the mistake of thinking “right wingers”, as a class, share her sad, sick version.
“She uses “the garden of eden†in in a manner consistent with being held as an actual truth, verified by science.”
She also uses the phrase in a manner consistent with being held as a symbolic or mythical spiritual teaching. Don’t be silly.
As for my “preferred lens”, I guess I’m playing the odds. My sense is that most Christians don’t believe in the literal truth of a Garden of Eden. You’re interpreting her words that way because, I supposed, it’s a mockable belief. Unfortunately, it’s not borne out by the article. So sorry.
Actually no Shane, many people are against Christianity trying to enforce it’s laws, it’s beliefs, and it’s morals, on the rest of us - which is not the same as being against Christianity at all.
Now THAT, my friends, is a straw man. I don’t know of a single Christian that espouses that idea, INCLUDING Kathy Shaidle.
This ain’t the dark ages, people. There is no holy jihad instituted by Jesus Christ.
“May said his stance on climate change “represents a grievance worse than Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of the Nazis.—
When you say nutty things, you attract nutty people. May must be trying to win back Kevin Potvin’s loyalty.
“It doesn’t happen every time but it happens enough to generalize about.”
Well, at least you’re acknowledging that you’re generalizing. That’s a good first step.
So. Elizabeth May, a Christian, speaking to Christians in a Christian setting, uses Christian imagery and language to illustrate her point.
Yes, I can certainly see why that astonishes you.
“there were many cries for delisting churches after the Catholic Bishop Henry spoke up vocally during the debate.”
Ah. I guess I missed the step where Elizabeth May was appointed to the rank of ordained spokesperson for the Church. Got a link?
Balbulican: You preach a sermon from a pulpit, it don’t matter who you represent. Where exactly is it written that only “ordained spokespersons” speaking on political matters cause a church to incur tax-related consequences for violating separation of church and state?
I am perfectly happy to concede that she may have been using the garden of eden as imagery. The question then becomes, what is global warming an image for? You haven’t made a case for differentiating one “image” from the other from her words. If one is mythical, then both are. If one is not mythical, then neither are, at least in terms of understanding basic English grammar and syntax if not in truth.
Shane:
On the contrary. there were many cries for delisting churches after the Catholic Bishop Henry spoke up vocally during the debate.
Bishop Henry attempted to use his position as a member of the clergy to threaten politicians as well as (some read it) demanding the law be used in particularly ideologically violent ways.
There is a huge difference between the expression of an opinion, and attempting to coerce people by means of threats - physical or spiritual.
It is quite arguable that Bishop Henry was stepping over that line, and using church resources to do so. (Let us not forget the privileged status that Churches enjoy in this country with respect to taxation and numerous other legalities)
Since any other political lobby is, under Canadian tax law, ineligible for tax exempt (charitable) status, it is quite arguable that churches which act in the capacity of political lobby organizations should be subject to the same rules - at least to the degree that church resources are used in the lobbying endeavor.
“You preach a sermon from a pulpit, it don’t matter who you represent.”
Gosh, you keep pulling out all these interesting theological points that are utterly new to me. And I thought I knew something about Christianity. Silly me.
Care to share your canonical authority for this statement, Reverend Edwards? Or is this another tenet of that very special “Christianity in its truest sense”, vouchsafed only to yourself?
“If one is mythical, then both are. If one is not mythical, then neither are, at least in terms of understanding basic English grammar and syntax if not in truth.”
Umm…this statement makes no logical sense at all. Sorry. She suggested that humanity had not learned the “lessons of the Garden of Eden”. I fail to see what your elaborate linguistic contortions have to do with that fairly straightforward assertion.
I am honoured at your honorific, as sarcastic as it may be. Although evidently you weren’t being sarcastic about your knowledge of Christianity if you think that a point about the tax system’s view of churches has anything to do with theology.
“If one is mythical, then both are. If one is not mythical, then neither are, at least in terms of understanding basic English grammar and syntax if not in truth.”
Oh brother . . .
Sorry, Shane - are you under the mistaken impression that I said or responded to anything related to a “tax system’s view of churches”?
“Ah. I guess I missed the step where Elizabeth May was appointed to the rank of ordained spokesperson for the Church. Got a link?”
And I KNOW that if a Canadian church invited Fred Phelps to deliver a guest sermon, Balbulican would be falling all over himself to remind everyone that Phelps was not an ordained spokesperson for that church.
And that observation illuminates Shane’s surprising assertion of equivalence between guest sermonists and ordained church officials…how, exactly?
Has her speech/sermon been posted on the internet?
I appreciate you’d rather say, “Prove it” to me than prove it yourself, so I’ll indulge you.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/aug/04081002.html
Quote:
“should their church’s become involved in “partisan” political activity during the then-upcoming 2004 federal election they would risk losing their tax-exempt status.
According to the federal agency, to avoid being ‘partisan’ means to not address issues on which the competing political parties have opposing views. Dawna Lynn Labonté, a media relations officer for the federal Minister of National Revenue, told LifeSiteNews.com that not only would churches be penalized for telling congregants to vote for a certain party or candidate, they would also be penalized for coming out strongly on an issue on which the parties were opposed, such as abortion or same-sex ‘marriage’.” (Emphasis mine)
Now, would you or would you not say that a church body that invites a guest to come in and expound on “issues which the competing political parties have opposing views” to their congregation constitutes becoming “involved”? She was not a member of the congregation. She was an invited guest, which strongly implies endorsement of her viewpoint.
Ummm…thanks, that’s all very interesting, and unrelated to any point I was making.
If you do somehow find anything that says an invited sermonist is speaking on behalf of a church with the same authority as a bishop, do let me know, won’t you?
Are you actually addressing your argument to “Grog”, who, I believe, was making a very different point?
“If you do somehow find anything that says an invited sermonist is speaking on behalf of a church with the same authority as a bishop, do let me know, won’t you?”
And you’ll make sure to let me know when you stop beating your wife, right? Thanks for coming out. Nothing like winning an argument by pretending your opponent isn’t saying anything.
Oh, you’re saying lots. It’s just not addressing any of the points I made. I think perhaps you may be addressing remarks to another writer here.
“And you’ll make sure to let me know when you stop beating your wife, right? Thanks for coming out. Nothing like winning an argument by pretending your opponent isn’t saying anything.”
A swing and a miss.
Hm. I seem to recall a couple of questions I asked in my post - you know, the actual subject that the comments were supposed to be about - that nobody answered as well. But again, if you think I haven’t answered your questions, then I can only conclude that you are not actually reading my responses.
Well, I thought I had addressed at least two points in your post. I’ll summarize.
a) There’s nothing particularly odd about a Christian addressing a Christian audience in a Christian setting by using Christian imagery.
b) To use Biblical imagery does not imply an acceptance of its literal or historical truth.
c) An invited sermonist is not necessarily uttering Church doctrine, and does not speak for a Church to the same degree as an ordained bishop.
Those were my points. They arise directly from and respond to your original post.
We have no lives do we? :D
a) There’s nothing particularly odd about a Christian addressing a Christian audience in a Christian setting by using Christian imagery.
Ok.
b) To use Biblical imagery does not imply an acceptance of its literal or historical truth.
Then I guess we have to take at face value that other things she talked about could have been imagery as well. If you don’t believe in it, why talk about it? If it is not truth, what possible reference could it have to the truth that you ARE trying to communicate?
c) An invited sermonist is not necessarily uttering Church doctrine, and does not speak for a Church to the same degree as an ordained bishop.
Does that degree have any distinction with reference to the potential legal ramifications the endorsement of her invitation and use of the pulpit suggests? My response is, given historical events, the answer is or would be likely no, had this speaker been a conservative speaker slamming a liberal position.
“We have no lives do we? :D”
Unfortunately for us both, I’m stuck en route to Placentia, Belize, with nothing better to do than harass the poor buggers at The Politic.
“Then I guess we have to take at face value that other things she talked about could have been imagery as well. If you don’t believe in it, why talk about it? If it is not truth, what possible reference could it have to the truth that you ARE trying to communicate?”
That didn’t make sense the first time you said it, and it hasn’t gotten any wiser since then. Are you suggesting that the only who believe wisdom can be drawn from the Bible and applied to real life are Biblical literalists??
“Does that degree have any distinction with reference to the potential legal ramifications the endorsement of her invitation and use of the pulpit suggests? My response is, given historical events, the answer is or would be likely no, had this speaker been a conservative speaker slamming a liberal position.”
That’s not very clear, but if it’s just one of those petulant “Well, the LEFTISTS do it all the time” observations, I think I’ll just let it sit there.
If the shoe fits…
On another note, here is one of those leftists right now…
http://politiquevert.wordpress.....abeth-may/
“If the shoe fits…”
It doesn’t, thanks.