Religion, Environmental Crisis, Fascism

This essay argues for a certain normative conception of religion's current responsibilities. It is directive in intent, even though I realize that religious communities have their own deep sense of how their faiths should direct their lives. Yet, as Alasdair MacIntyre (1988) observed, a good deal of the history of any religion (indeed, of any of what he called “traditions”) is made up of extended disagreements about what that tradition should be. In that sense, not only my relation to the mild-mannered Reform Judaism in which I was raised but my deep connection to other religions makes a space for an argument about what I—and of course a large group whose positions inform my own—seek.1Whatever the effect of religion on metaphysical realities (God, heaven, afterlife), its task on earth is—or should be—to sustain human communities. These communities are all partial: defined and limited by disparate cultures, distinct theologies, history, geography, and personal choice. While some religions aspire to include everyone—through persuasion or force—none now have anything approximating universal assent. In some cases, religions are comparatively small—Reconstructionist Judaism perhaps 100,000. And in some cases, vast: Islam's 1.8 billion. Yet the tasks for each religion, whatever the size, is the same: to orient human communities to past and present, and to guide them in the ongoing and often bewildering task of living a mortal life dependent both on other people and the earth's ecosystems.Presently both of those forms of dependency are in crisis. Certainly, social conflict and breakdown—with others perceived as violent threats or as in some way putting the moral condition of humanity at risk through heresy, denial of God or ethical goodness, or refusing to give up “primitive” cultures or deeply mistaken values—are nothing new. Ancient texts from the Torah to the Bhagavat Gita record armed conflict and oppression as essential elements of religious life more than 2500 years ago.However, over the last century or so the degree and pervasiveness of threat have changed. Industrialized warfare makes possible the obliteration of entire cities with rockets from thousands of miles away. Also, small groups can mobilize lethal threats of explosives, poisons, and pollutants. Further, our dependence on highly mechanized and digital supports allows hidden, not immediately violent, threats to cripple financial, health care, communications, education, and more. To the extent that small groups or independent nations wish us ill—which in many cases they most certainly do—we are besieged by threats many of which we cannot even be aware of until it is too late. There can be poison in the Tylenol, a threat to family secrets in a phishing e-mail, an attempted scam in a phone call from someone claiming to work for the FBI. On a broader scale, old-fashioned war—as today's Russian invasion of Ukraine makes clear—is hardly a thing of the past. And there are also intranational struggles that make any neighbor a potential threat: Sunni–Shi'ite slaughter in Iraq, terrorists of various stripes throughout the world, the Syrian civil war, the abduction of schoolgirls in Nigeria.The fear that awareness of these threats provokes is worsened by what appears to many people to be the fundamental irrationality of their many real or imagined adversaries: individuals and small groups of people who are willing to inflict violence on complete strangers without serious hope that the violence will accomplish anything. The usual pursuit of power, financial gain, and cultural (religious) hegemony is joined by what seems to be a kind of madness. How else explain mass shootings at rock concerts? Violent rape of children in India?Along with the threat of a deep kind of irrationality that can neither be empathized nor be negotiated with, there exist cultural threats that express definite points of view. These points of view appear to those on the opposing side as a mix of gross ignorance, unreason, or purposely chosen evil. Supporting or opposing Trump or vaccine mandates, transgender liberation or transgender surgery for adolescents, following or rejecting the Church (whichever Church that is) seem to be moral and political postures that put adherents outside the realm of morally acceptable humanity. For someone located on the progressive ideological spectrum, moral horror arises with the visions of Buddhist priests turned nationalist and fascist; rabbis gleefully supporting the oppression of the Palestinians; Imams calling for Jewish blood; a U.S. member of Congress sending holiday greetings with a picture in which every one of their family is holding a gun. For conservatives, abortion on demand and full LGBTQ+ social equality, not to mention atheism, are anathema.To make matters that much worse, it is not only people who are threatening and often perceived as morally perverse or mad, but nature as well. A town that gets four feet of rain in three days; rainforests putting out rather than taking in CO2; snow on the top of Mt. Everest too polluted to melt for drinking; mother's milk carrying toxins to infants who are already born with 100 pollutants in their bloodstreams; an American West where the air is poisoned for months from endless fires; a Central America where the drought is making the region unlivable—and thus provoking an immigration crisis on the U.S. border with serious political consequences.2Thus, the present context in which global religions exist.If we return to my premise—that the authentic task of religions is to support (some section of) the human community— what are the dangers, challenges, and possible contributions that religion can make? What can religion do that is authentically in the service of these tasks when large groups of other people are perceived as threats and ecosystems are rapidly deteriorating to the extent that fellow species and support systems of climate, air, water, and land now range from being troubled to being threats to basic economic structures and human life itself?For a start, we must notice that that there is no significant way to describe the social context in which religions find themselves that is not itself partial to one side or the other. We can say, without risk of much disagreement, that there is a vast amount of conflict, distrust, actual and verbal violence, and disrespect. However, as soon as we begin to describe the actual content—the reasons people give for their lack of respect for the other side, how they motivate their vitriol and violence—in all likelihood we will be expressing one partial perspective. Both sides always think they themselves are informed, reasonable, moral, holy. Yet I cannot accurately describe the “other” side if I do not use critical terms like racist, sexist, homophobic, immoral, anthropocentric, tree-loving, and the like. When the Dalai Lama says that the essence of his religion is kindness, he seems to be offering a universal way to get around the partiality of opposing sides. Yet who is to say what “kindness” consists in? Is it gay liberation, or therapy to “cure” gay teenagers of their gayness? Is it women's liberation, or women cheerfully accepting the leadership of men? When it comes to moral and political principles and roles, there is no neutral way even to meaningfully describe the conflict. To describe a murderer only as a “killer”—or a group that commits genocide simply as a group responsible for many deaths—is not to be objective but to fail to accurately describe what is happening in the real world.So, our first conclusion is that the commentator—in this case, me—is always already on one side or another.One implication of this conclusion is that amid global cultural and political conflict, every religious group is necessarily morally and politically situated. It cannot be above the fray, seek neutrality by preaching universal kindness, or claim to “really” accept everyone's point of view. You cannot support the interests of both the weapons manufacturers and the innocent civilians killed in war; the victims of rape and the men who think rape is a useful tool of military conflict; those who make profits off pollution and those who are made deathly ill from it; the rights of both Indian Muslims and right-wing Hindu religious leaders; gay liberation and those who think gay identity is an affront to God.We might then ask: How do we define religions and how do we individuate them? If human society is now in some sense constituted by the twin crises of political division and if religions necessarily themselves of positions on both now it always necessarily include a on current social and for We can define this in terms of certain metaphysical the the and of the of Yet the of these and the way they are with in the of moral that simply the metaphysical too to be of much for the Church of a the is a It is by on all social and political And those it is of in and the of the of as a of the crisis. In the the way about the and of their by the not are of to or the and often to and as as at with These are in support for and the and themselves on the moral and of matters many and they are deeply they the In a political so essential to religious groups that a social kind of If it then when I in the three can religions do to to the twin crises of and I not necessarily out those of religion and that in the crisis and the It is to that what I as the of social forms as the religious and the political can be throughout the The in the and of and the in Indian of Hindu in highly and politically on various social support for be that significant and social religions have always the Church in the of the point of the at and Hindu Yet for at reasons the present is religious life now in the context of the years religions about what the should but in the the not do all that the is in every of care, education, of the these are or by political To now is to in a religious identity is a political all political identity is all religious identity is for all religious identity is to to a in which are the of to was highly by religion moral from the religious there is an of cultural some of which is religion but a vast amount of which is must and to as as to and political and itself in a sense, its own political supporting or ethical forms of or in with or from current social what it to be significant and what it as religion its adherents to certain moral our are so by political and moral life is necessarily How not our to our military without the we the of be extended from the in the Torah to all raised in the of To our religious which political or or political our If we do not can we say we are our our the I will that the I in the of this essay are to the of religion and to religion in accepting the partial nature of all religious to find with other to from as and of metaphysical as but not to moral over to that of the religion serious moral the usual and human and equality, for the and These can be in the for and in Reform in many of the in the of the Church for and are men rather than in and for with other religions and with in the of the of and for those for is a of Hindu it is the task for these to God or to sustain human then it is to the following these to to metaphysical and even the that is only a for moral and religions as actual human all other of human an This if human life is to sustain to certain of of water, air, and that do not make human life if to by if to in and pollution can the of with violent the of species that are essential to will economic and social and political struggles that make anything like the present of religions or at and it is that this point to be are whatever other realities they global religions in this To some the last years there have a range of and by religious of of and Buddhist as the Dalai Lama and and in for religious reasons I the degree of with which these are to the on the of the of American or the for and are one of a by side with to abortion and and can the of those without that with the of other on every other will have if climate, and species are not as is of more and denial of the of the crisis we have there have some of religions significant with For the and the of a in of the religious and have and on Yet these as as they have are and are the religious that each of its support by personal and financial is the direct by to is the that the of also an And is that not at the top of for the many for a it be a that these other are more to being serious to the oppression or will not a fundamental of our and to mention fundamental moral about our to other species in and to throughout the And is it an to the crisis the moral of the religious who are already morally in of or to or military have to their own of and to It is no a good thing to or on the history of American It is to a in for fellow or there is that the crisis the social by human The of of of rights for women and social and and of many what is now any authentic religion, whatever else might be about was to be And religious in a when global moral they are than It was a small thing to neighbor as when my the living of people miles it a of and that was simply not when the global religions of by highly the vast of without any of the of and cultural for the in with much direct of economic or the with the social and political of its the religious groups are now with of the of and social equality, direct to the as a There are good reasons for them the of a that and moral in the and In many the of the economic seems to most an of social While of and from to America do seek on the in to over humanity is one of the essential of the crisis. in when their in in the a its and its morally and of to the crisis with systems of in is and Yet what do we have to any serious of say, what we is a to the social and of might to the good of as well. Yet, and the is perhaps where are the of people who are of what is at in fundamental economic and If these do not if the of of social and political to say, is as as it what the of and it from being the of a more to their own and than anything What the of from the in social positions than those they their own interests above We are with the conclusion that a to the crisis is However, it be to with there a that religions can to this The I can is the to both support any possible that any can always be by a in and a by the to an economic can to and it can to a to a more to for can with awareness of the threatening of the as a Reform and as in to each thus in the a of also the of religious The have their on the of both and is a of What will to the which In the we might what if a a to contributions from and the of a If they not someone who made violent their of or they do the thing with and cultural certain essential of a of by power, of civil and and on the an of of and the of to those or communities and to be at all an of and that for rights and the gross and of about both history and current political In this it is no that are always of the of the crisis in and the crisis in and of the current the last years to to of the and in the sense There as in other the in the in and in for a relation of religions to is In and of the faiths are supporting a as the of religious and God and it are Muslims in and are Muslims in and are its this which a in which religious are not an essential of the of power, should not the that through the It is that of the might be to define themselves as as as and their military and in that way However, in and the like should not the of and in global This is one of to be to each other. of seek a in which of equality, critical and do not and to the of God find in the oppression of and the of LGBTQ+ is for this that I now religions not in terms of their and metaphysical but in terms of how those texts and are being in relation to the current political Is the of the religion as that of his in the of In some but for the of the tasks of religion in the of current global in this sense the of the is much more like Reform Judaism than it is like that of and politically and And Reform in is much more like the it an of and gay it is like the religion of to say the are in to the it be that in the present there are There are the who seek with people and other species on care, and use of the who to one degree or all those can I the do about it be in a Is there a way to what is on in or without at the potential fellow is to a good deal of for with its of cultures, and communities and of people for a is at The at to say, of necessarily potential to a small group of who with some but not or who or who have or family the highly political are to out of is the that might have but have This will I for all the elements of that to be and where will that the is it that religious tradition to it to morally it certainly will much is much to these are and their too often by religious Yet they have and are a These religious of political the U.S. in cultural like and economic in so they their to respect for people on the other that that all people are children or was that all of are both men and moral no in In more than in rather than and themselves as to those they to moral from which the themselves This of the moral of those in their own a sense of for people who politically And it to the that the was not their or but their moral an both the but also a potential for moral and in for for their and for their that each of the politically who are making the have their own of And at the can with to the we In some and violent To religious and Muslims who on or someone in the social of the as can only deep In that social it should be that the and and to political in opposing the but not in their own For political is an essential of moral We cannot our for the the and the or seek the of all if we do not do we have any hope of to the crisis if comes to is a of political life that opposing are it is to and the twin crises as and as and the crisis the to the human or at the human in anything like the in which we now These are not to or in the When in and and as U.S. are to And as the and and species it is not that society will There is that years the of and about pollution and whatever is not it will do good to simply describe opposing political in terms of mistaken a not taking or seek to the political as nations have to If religious do not make this to their they are at the it is that all the who these work in whatever they can And this and support with groups who do not the who be on some but not on others be aware of the of but or violence that any group that one of the of and on human rights or the power, or at of support and a possible for with groups that are a full of the of what we is as as A kind of moral arises when we someone to our way of is any that in the arises that someone so in the of those is not to be be with, should not be of even if we have a in we in a the history of progressive from the struggles and in that the way for power, to and more in to the many for of human more to disagreements and both violent and and than It might seem to to religious as to Yet there are religious if they will only be that some support in living with this of with full awareness of a where the human is as as it and in which in the of our species to with and should be at its in at perhaps there are elements in religious tradition that that the of our are not the of their We can we are do our as as we and the to This is a religious that can be in disparate as the Gita and the of not in God to realize the of an For one no one can be of the of our We have no real what effect today's moral will have in the if only to give hope that people up to today's oppression and madness. For over the our for in the we must to our but and the for with at those who are progressive and thus should it our not to which today's give is one of the and of groups religious the group A the way we have the make the use the the then be at a and elements of religious tradition to which I now can us that there is some in which every good and are no what the If our can be with this whatever the or lack of metaphysical elements it we can perhaps be more accepting of the of and for a of without is if any is the actual in which we it will only on the of as a as it is possible that the crisis some for as well. To do religions have to in the and their to be It might be that the amount of now should have this around this at is a of the and most However, as or do not to our in a are a a and thus any can be and to in a of The crisis can be the that is or it can be off as a to be but not as as a to get more for or to our we can say it is already so that there is nothing to be and we can to other religious communities are to the they must but and all In that and for first with about the of religions with political awareness and can find their and a for with those who are more or on the

Environmental crisis · Environmental ethics · Political science · History · Philosophy · Religion and Society Interactions · Religion, Ecology, and Ethics · Religious Tourism and Spaces

• A Greener Faith

  Roger S Gottlieb•A greener faith•2006

  Add to list

• Political Parties

  R Michels, Seymour Martin Lipset et al.•Political Parties•2017

  Add to list

• Whose Justice? Which Rationality?

  Alasdair Macintyre•Whose Justice? Which Rationality?•2020

  Add to list

• The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology

  Roger S Gottlieb•The Oxford handbook of religion…•2006

  Add to list

• Morality and the Environmental Crisis

  Open Access•Roger S Gottlieb•Morality and the Environmental…•2019

  Add to list

• Main Trends in Recent Philosophy

  W V Quine•The Philosophical Review•1951

  Add to list