To Bruce Edward Walker and his blogpost on how the religious left wants to keep fossil fuels in the ground. This appeared on the Acton blog
Basically, the differences between the Left and the Right on the issue of fracking is one of focus. The Left focuses on the environmental impact of both the fracking process and any possible increased use of fossil fuels. The Right focuses the immediate economic impact concerning increased production and consumer cost. And while the Right will occasionally slip in an environmental note, it, again, uses selective focus to quell any environmental concerns. For example, this post cites new technology as significantly reducing methane emissions at each well. Unfortunately, other significant environmental concerns still loom over us such as maintenance of nonactive wells to prevent leakage and accidents, pollution of ground water, and accidents in transporting fuels--which is not to mention the increased use of fuels. A number of recent accidents indicate that the severe and sudden impact from some accidents show the need for more emphasis on the safety for the surrounding communities, especially with the lack of concern demonstrated by energy harvesting companies, to the extent that all alternatives must be explored so as to eliminate future accidents. In addition, individual studies cited here must be followed up to establish the findings and conclusions of the study mentioned here.
We need to reconsider the status quo both in terms of need vs production and consumer costs. The current situation is pressuring some to deny the environmental dangers that could be hovering over us in the distant and even near future in order to increase use and contain costs. It is basically a deny the future to satisfy the present mentality--which is something we are not suppose to associate with successful business types. And what drives all of this is the desire to increase individual consumption and profits. What is denied consideration in the discussion is how sharing and cooperation can both maintain a healthy economy while heading off future environmental dangers and disasters by decreasing consumption and production.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Joe Carter's blogpost on whether one can be both pro-businesss and pro-market. This appeared on the Acton blog.
What is interesting is to see the reaction of those who favor the market to its corruption. Here, the market is to be a place of fair competition. But the market has also been billed as a place where self-interest acts as the only strength, in terms of source of energy, and guide for the market's participants. Thus, the market, to pro-market people, is where one only needs to be concerned only for oneself and a machine that keeps that self-concern from doing harm.
But by reducing all concern to self-interest, how could we ever expect the market's participants to want fair competition? To be interested in fair competition would mean that self-interest is not the only concern that one must have. In fact, to ensure fair competition, many, if not all, of the market's participants would have to be willing to sacrifice certain advantages that comes one's way. Thus, we might even say that to expect fair competition to be the predominant state of affairs in a place where self-interest rules seems to be more utopian than the expected state of affairs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 16
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost on science and Christianity. It appeared in the Heidelblog.
if Christianity is seen as being anti-intellectual, is in part due to the behavior of Christians. In particular, it is due to our response to evolution in past and to climate studies in the present.
Certainly we can't agree with all of evolution. But that means we can, quite Biblically agree with part of it. At the same time, we can challenge those who hold to a secular view of evolution about spontaneous generation. It is something that has never been observed and thus cannot be asserted to have happened outside of faith in that it has.
Our response to climate science is another unnecessary stumbling block we put in the way of a modernist believing the Gospel he has heard. There is much about climate science that climate scientists will say is speculative and some that isn't. And yet, many Christians write climate science off totally and one of the reasons why is because to accept their warnings is to agree to significantly changing one's own and society's way of life. And if we are honest, we will admit that most of our objections to climate science is due to the changes that its warnings call any responsible person to accept, And that is outside of any disagreement on what has been observed and what is being predicted. For if we were honest, we would have to say to ourselves that the warnings given by climate scientists are very possible though not certain. But many of us have a much stronger reaction. We reject everything that climate scientists say including their observations.
Finally, let's not be selective about the past between Christianity and Copernicus. He and his theory was widely condemned by all sorts of Christian leaders. And to point out that Christians published his works is no great achievement for Christians since Copernicus lived and wrote in a Christian culture where most were considered to be Christians. This is just another example of how Christian behavior can be fit the role of being anti-intellectual. If we have faith in God's Word, we don't have to go out of our way to show the intellectual integrity of the Gospel.
The same goes for the relationship between accepting criticism and intellectualism. Pointing out the anti-intellectual practices of others while one suppressing criticism of their own positions is not intellectually honest, to say the least. And suppressing criticism can be done by filtering who is allowed to speak.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Peter Dziedzic and his blogpost on the Vatigan's attention to the connection between family values and economic development. This was posted on the Acton Blog.
The article strongly suggests that we have a exclusive choice between families taking care of their own or the state. But such doesn't answer the following:
1. What if there is no family of a person in need?
2. What if the family doesn't have the resources to help a family member in need?
3. Shouldn't the state also care about and have a responsibility for those in need?
Why can't both the state and the family help those in need? Because it causes debt. And it causes debt because those with the most wealth are looking to give as little as possible to the state. And those with the most wealth have the most resources in avoiding paying taxes to the state despite the resources they demand from the state. In addition, businesses with the most wealth often require the state to supplement the poverty wages the pay to many of their employees, most of whom are family members.
We cannot afford to view the issue of helping those in need as a turf war between the state and the family where one or the other side claims complete control over that area. Rather, the state and family should work hand in hand to help those who are in need. To make the choice and exclusive one is to simply politicize the plight of the most vulnerable.
