Evangelicals seek million supporters of ‘We Get It!’ campaign
- May 20, 2008 - 13
The theme of this Evangelical campaign on environmental stewardship is simple: We Get It! Helping the media and politicians to “get it,” however, is much more complex, requiring a concerted effort among Christians, who have been muzzled and misrepresented in the global warming debate.
The We Get It! campaign—launched May 15 by the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission alongside other pro-family groups, as well as several members of Congress and scientists—hopes to attract a chorus of one million Christians to help turn the tide in the largely one-sided debate fostered by the media that has locked arms with lawmakers intent to impose policies based on unproven science that could imperil the already impoverished.
Global warming alarmists are trying to win converts by propagating a false dichotomy between Americans: pro-environment versus anti-environment. Only those who support policies to restrict carbon dioxide and other emissions, they argue, truly care for the environment, while those who oppose such cuts are hostile to the environment. This attempt to put people into one of two boxes falls flat.
The “We Get It!” campaign stakes a third alternative—a biblically-based, scientifically-backed view of care for creation and the poor. It rejects a fast and furious federal response but admonishes a careful look at the science and the impact of policies on the poor.
The main objective of the campaign is to help policymakers understand that a vast segment of the population is not convinced that drastic action on greenhouse gas reductions is warranted. The campaign proposes a biblical balance of care for the environment with concern for human needs, especially the poor. The campaign also focuses on the need for policymakers to be sure they are working from a solid foundation of the current state of the science. Further, it reminds them that they have an obligation not to overburden the poor and vulnerable communities or to wreck economies as they address environmental concerns.
The “We Get It!” declaration acknowledges that “Our stewardship of creation must be based on Biblical principles and factual evidence,” while recognizing, “We face important environmental challenges, but must be cautious of claims that our planet is in peril from speculative dangers like man-made global warming.”
It further states, “With billions suffering in poverty, environmental policies must not further oppress the world’s poor by denying them basic needs. Instead, we must help people fulfill their God-given potential as producers and stewards.”
Incidentally, the campaign coincides with a petition project circulating among the scientific community. More than 32,000 scientists—over 9,000 of whom with PhDs—have signed a petition stating that “there is no convincing scientific evidence” that human activity “is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
ERLC President Richard Land notes that contrary to media reports, most Evangelicals have not bought into the global warming bill of goods.
“A recent Barna poll showed that less than one-third of Evangelicals, far fewer than non-Evangelicals, believe that global warming is a major problem,” he said. “You wouldn’t know that from the news headlines. It’s time to set the record straight, and the ‘We Get It!’ campaign is just what’s needed. It has a high view of man, a Biblical view of stewardship, and a responsible regard for the needs of the poor.”
If you want to stand up and be counted among the growing numbers who support biblical stewardship that seeks to protect and enhance the lives of the poorest among us, please visit www.We-Get-It.org and add your name to the “We Get It!” campaign. Then urge your family and friends to do the same. One million Christian voices can hardly be ignored.
In addition to the ERLC, endorsers of the new declaration include Focus on the Family Chairman James Dobson, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, and Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright, as well as Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and James Inhofe (R-OK), and Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA).
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission works to educate Americans about the importance of recognizing God as Creator. To learn more about this important topic, additional resources are available here. If your church is interested in purchasing materials on the Intelligence Design debate or the tension between creationism and evolution, please visit our online bookstore. Copies of Dr. Land’s interview with Ben Stein are also available for purchase there.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, Hunger/Homelessness, , Science, Environment
13 comments (post your own) feed
1 On May 20th, 2008, at 5:52pm, Greg Lyman wrote:
This is the best counter-movement I have heard of in what may be, currently, the most dangerous threat to liberty and well being of most of earth’s inhabitants.
2 On May 21st, 2008, at 7:42am, E. Lee Griggs wrote:
Al Gore is raking in millions and almost became president tnrough his unscientifically- based global warming hysteria. Many of the Hollywood characters who promote “green” have a
private fleet of buses and planes. Hmmm, smacks of hypocrisy.
My uneducated guess says the jury on “green” is
still out.
E Lee Griggs
Fellowship Baptist Church
Chickamauga, Georgia
3 On May 21st, 2008, at 8:47am, Stacey Daugharthy wrote:
Thanks to the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and the other organizations who spearheaded this great campaign. And thanks to Doug Carlson for such an informative article.
4 On May 22nd, 2008, at 1:00pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Mr. Carlson writes...."The main objective of the campaign is to help policymakers understand that a vast segment of the population is not convinced that drastic action on greenhouse gas reductions is warranted.”
Are you serious Mr. Carlson? There is no longer any debate within the scientific community about global climate change. There is widespread consensus among scientists that something must be done and it must be done right away if we are to avert a major climate change of potentially biblical proportions.
We can no longer bury our heads in the sand. As the USA we should be the standard bearer for innovation but these regressive policies make us appear backwards and ignorant of the facts.
There are NOT vast numbers of educated, well informed scientists or even John Q. Public that thinks reducing carbon emissions can wait.
5 On May 23rd, 2008, at 9:00am, Matt wrote:
Au contraire, Mr Valdes:
Last year, the ERLC alone compiled a list of scientists (U.S. and abroad) who don’t buy into human induced global warming. (Obviously, climate change happens...warming & cooling.)
That document may be downloaded here. (280 KB PDF)
And the scientific petition project mentioned in the article above may be found here.
As far are “consensus” thinking goes, there was once “consensus” that the earth was flat and/or the center of the universe, among other things. Clearly, “consensus” does not necessarily indicate truth…
Even if you buy the “human induced global warming” theory completely, certainly you wouldn’t disagree with the campaign’s statement that “environmental policies must not further oppress the world’s poor by denying them basic needs.”
Or would you?
6 On May 23rd, 2008, at 10:07am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Dear Matt,
You can “buy” just about any “scientific” opinion desired. The tobacco companies did it, the oil companies did it and the pharmaceutical companies do it.
It’s no real surprise that big business and polluters do the same thing.
No real academic debate exists on this issue any longer. Man is polluting the planet and creating deleterious harm at unprecedented rates.
The only surprise here is that I would imagine Christians would be on the side of being good stewards of God’s creation, not exploiting it.
7 On May 23rd, 2008, at 11:23am, Matt Hawkins wrote:
Dan,
Interesting. You’ve changed you’re argument from “there are no such scientists” to “that opinion was paid for by big business.” Which is it? Either they don’t exist or they do exist. You’re contradicting yourself, Dan. But let’s not get bogged down in logic…
RE: “You can “buy” just about any “scientific” opinion desired.”
I could make the same statement about the folks you agree with but that wouldn’t get us anywhere.
But if you want to go there, I suppose we can conclude that any opinion that disagrees with your “consensus” view has been purchased by unnamed ‘big business’ masterminds?
[Insert X-files theme music here.] :-)
That’s an awfully convenient, conspiratorial and, more importantly, unfounded argument.
Now, if you will show me what scientists (by name) have been paid (how much) by which big evil corporation (by name), than let’s have it. I’ve offered names and documentation to support my position.
And you still haven’t answered my initial question about this statement: “environmental policies must not further oppress the world’s poor by denying them basic needs.” Agree or disagree?
8 On May 23rd, 2008, at 12:35pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Dear Matt,
Just a quick note from the first person I looked up...this from desmogblog...”
Hayden and CFACT
Hayden sits on the “Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors” of a US think tank called Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Also on the board are many other well-known climate change “skeptics,” including Sallie Baliunas, Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels. ExxonMobil has contributed $472,000 to CFACT over the last 7 years. Founded in 1985, CFACT has been critical of government regulation on many issues, including the o-zone layer, mercury emissions, global warming, taxic waste and the use of pesticides.”
I will gladly continue to look up your scientists and get the data to you about their activities.
Dan Valdes
9 On May 23rd, 2008, at 1:28pm, Matt wrote:
Well done. A fact-filled post, kinda.
But let me make sure I hear you correctly:
Because…
1) ExxonMobil has given an average of about $67,000 dollars (barely a salary) a year to ...
2) CFACT (a 501c3 non-profit),
3) which “has been critical of government regulation on many issues”,
4) and Dr. Hayden sits on their academic board (along with at least 50 others),
... you conclude that Dr. Hayden’s opinion was bought?
If that were actually the case, I’d say $1300 a year is quite a bargain for a PHD’s opinion. ;-)
Nevermind desmogblog is the project of a PR firm…
I bought my last tank of gas from Exxon: I suppose you could accuse me of purchasing Dr. Hayden’s opinion. :-)
10 On May 23rd, 2008, at 2:17pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Well Mr. Hawkins....
I would suggest that $67,000.00 given by Exxon annually to CFACT that seems to result in a “scientific” report that is critical of government regulation
...meaning a report that does not support more stringent government regulations protecting the environment and perhaps seen as onerous to industry…
but rather supporting lax regulations of the energy and oil industry is quite a bargain for Exxon Mobil and yes it reeks of buying “science” or at the very least..it suggests there may be a strong conflict of interest.
Not sure how you could draw any other conclusion..but I guess you can..
11 On Jun 3rd, 2008, at 2:56pm, Manny wrote:
While I agree with Mr. Valdes that the evidence is overwhelming, my real concern is why is an agency of the Southern Baptist Convention again taking action to oppose legislation which is so obviously partisan and political. Why would Richard Land say a year ago that there was no consensus on the issue among his constituency and then act as if he had a mandate? Why at the last minute would they bring in concerns about the poor, an issue that the ERLC has been woefully silent on for many years? All of these questions are rhetorical. I don’t expect any reasoned response.
12 On Jun 4th, 2008, at 8:45am, Dan Valdes wrote:
I would argue Manny that those questions you bring up should not be rhetorical but rather asked in earnest. If I belonged to the body of the SBC I would expect a reasoned response.
Why indeed does the SBC take this position at this time?
13 On Jun 5th, 2008, at 4:59pm, Obie wrote:
I think way Manny is saying is that there is not much hope of getting a reasoned response. I agree with you Dan that somebody needs to be seriously addressing these issues. I work with students at one of the Baptist colleges that is still affiliated with an SBC state convention and our students overwhelming support the global warming initiatives and are disgusted with actions like this one from the ERLC.