SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a recent interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Scott Pruitt, EPA Chief, said that the Bible tells people to use all the resources available to us, including fossil fuels:
"The biblical world view with respect to these issues is that we have a responsibility to manage and cultivate, harvest the natural resources that we've been blessed with to truly bless our fellow mankind".
According to Vox: "But as far as his biblical assertion goes, Pruitt's words reflect a wider trend among American evangelicals, who largely have not embraced scientific thought on environmentalism or global warming."
The Trump administration has used a variety of excuses to legitimize its record-setting rollbacks on environmental protections: calling global warming a hoax, or arguing that the economic consequences of increased regulation would outweigh their benefit.
The latest justification? The Bible.
In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, a media outlet that also seems to double as a propaganda arm of the Trump administration, Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt said his Christian convictions led him to conclude that America should use gas and coal freely because natural resources exist purely for man's benefit.
[...] That's why evangelical groups have, therefore, been historically resistant to environmentalist causes. Creationist lobbying groups frequently fund initiatives like the Louisiana Science Education Act, which mandates a "balanced" (and climate change-denying) approach to teaching environmental issues in public schools.
Please read the linked article as it explains the connection between contempt for science and protecting the environment and the beliefs of evangelicals.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday February 26 2018, @02:14PM
It didn't. It did string together a bunch of narrative and implications in the sense of a conspiracy theory. Note I like recreational conspiracy theories; this one isn't very good; I've personally done far better and compared to the universe of whats out there this did not rank highly. I think I have good taste when discussing delicious conspiracy theories and this not exactly gourmet, its pedestrian McDonalds at best.
There's a lot of leading questions in the article. If the narrative as provided is wrong in the sense of being illegal or immoral, well, surely at least some of the postulates are wrong, and then upon further analysis the narrative REALLY runs off the rails. So rather than tangent-running, lets take a look at what Pruitt actually said which is supposedly the evil kickoff play at satan's own football game of anti-environmentalism:
So if in bizzaro world what he said is wrong, I'm open minded enough to consider maybe reality is the inverse of his statement:
So if the long story is that Pruitt is evil, then there's not much in his tiny little statement to invert and analyze to determine the truth; and when you invert his little statement it turns out thats FAR more of an anti-environmentalist jerk than his original statement! So logic would seem to dictate that his original statement is actually "environmentally correct" and his opposition hate him because he's a white non-Jewish male christian republican, not because he said anything anti-environmental, OR the whole thing is the logical equivalent of a feverish conspiracy theory of the lowest ickiest sort where political ranting overrides coincidence and logic and motivation.
The whole article is shitty in that manner. Another example: if Satan himself claims "Pruitt condemned the “weaponization” of the EPA" then the correct way to live life is to intentionally with malice weaponize the EPA, WTF who is that crazy? We don't have enough police militarization, we need EPA agents in body armor and shotguns shooting unarmed black men in the back for littering, am I right or am I far right? No wait this is what the left wants, not my people at all. Hmm you look at body count and the narrative is "my side" wants to kill black men, but there's dark skinned bodies stacked like cordwood around the leftists. Who coincidentally really enjoy blaming the right for using bad words or not being nice enough, shouting that at us over heaps of dark corpses killed by their miserably failed social engineering. This seems obvious in race relations... maybe in environmentalism the lefties actually screw stuff up like the USSR did, whereas the right is the true protector of the environment despite lots of shit talking from the left. Its not an unrealistic analogy.
To be honest, this isn't an article about environmentalism at all. It reads as a parody about anti-environmentalism because its really a boring preaching to the choir Trump derangement syndrome rant.