Environmental issue is not necessarily a religious issue but just like political issues, people with different religions may respond to environmental issues differently. For example, the term "Mother Earth" is used among some enviromentalists to suggest the ties between the Earth and humans. The term has received some criticisms even though it might not be the majority opinions. Can you think of other examples and do you think environmental issues would be more accepted if more neutral terms are used in their slogans?
2007-05-25 06:51:14 · 8 answers · asked by White Polar Bear 4 in Environment ➔ Other - Environment
One religious way of describing it would be that we are 'stewards left in charge of God's creation'. Evolutionists might agree but re-word it to 'as the fittest champions, we have a duty to take care of the weaker species.'
I don't think making the slogans more or less neutral will have much of an effect. If it's on people's hearts to take care of the environment, they'll do it no matter what. Better education about the causes and effects of the decisions we make trumps any slogan.
2007-05-29 14:52:37 · answer #1 · answered by Ken F 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you honestly look at religion, you see that it's main idea is of peace. It's man who warped it. Say, for instance, a dj on the radio says, "I think (so and so) should just die" and someone goes out and does the deed. The dj was only kidding, but now he's held accountable for planting a suggestion in someone. They use him as a scapegoat. The same is true for religion. Someone takes a passage they like to justify a means, and runs with it. Religion gets blamed, when that was not the message at all. Quite blaming religion for man's short comings. I can probably take something from MOther Goose, warp it and use it to cause a war. Does that make Mother Goose bad, or me?
2016-04-01 07:58:40 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know about slogans, but I feel that as a Christian I don't really realate to the term "mother earth". However, I do feel that it is my responsibilty to take good care of the environment and not abuse it. I feel that trying to be "green" is also being a good steward of the "creation" and honors the "Creator" : )
I also agree with the previous post that in order for this issue to be taken seriously we need science not a bunch of political hoopla.
2007-05-25 07:55:42 · answer #3 · answered by Mama K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can;t think of any other examples, but I know what you mean. Sadly, however, I don't think that more neutral terms would have much effect. People just don't care enough. They think it takes too much energy and time to do things that are better for the Earth. It's the same reason people are having so many probs with obesity... they just don't care enough. Even though it's killing htem, it would just take too much effort than they think it is worth to fix the problem.
2007-05-25 13:11:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Slogans really do not say anything, their primary purpose is to evoke emotions.
If environmental 'issues' are to be taken seriously, then there must be some real science involved, not just a movie and some Hollywood actors spewing nonsense.
2007-05-25 06:56:08 · answer #5 · answered by credo quia est absurdum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The money is nothing mopre than guarantee that the ethanol program will keep going! If it weren't for the subsidies it would fail ! As most people are not concerned about the environment and don't trust the feds either..
2007-05-30 07:07:32 · answer #6 · answered by J dog 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
On the contrary republicans seem to be religious zealots but at the same time ignore environment issues.
2007-05-25 09:04:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I believe so !!!
2007-05-28 09:05:12 · answer #8 · answered by apreston60 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋