(Ir)religiosity

I was reading parts of Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt‘s Empire this morning and I ran across a really interesting section in which they are quoting Marx and Engels (Don’t run away!  I’m not trying to make Communists out of anyone!).

“The bourgeoisie,” Marx and Engels write, “compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates the world after its own image.”

This is interesting because I place a great amount of importance upon the Imago dei in my theology.  Moreover, I interpret the concept as a broad sort of foundational etiological myth from which our common humanity is derived and by which we pursue justice, reconciliation, and all those other warm fuzzy words.

So that being said, I wonder what it means to radically assert the veracity of the Imago dei presently in the midst of our failing economic system.  Clearly we have misplaced our trust and relied upon a system of exploitation and greed.  To assert that we are indeed created in the image of God is to say that we derive are meaning from God as we participate in the divine life.  It seems to me that we have betrayed that trust opting instead to derive our meaning from the unrestrained free market, participating in the life of consumption.

We have thus traded the Imago dei (the image of God) for the much more destructive Imago comburo (the image of consumption) that is indicative of our current economic crisis.

Perhaps a radical reordering of priorities should be in order.

Global warming has become quite the hot button issue these days. For that reason I don’t even like to use that phrase anymore. I prefer to use global climate change. It’s much less divisive than the alternative and its much more accurate. While the temperature is rising worldwide, resulting in our planet suffering from the equivalent of a moderate-to-high fever, the effects are much more widespread. More natural disasters. More flooding. More drought. I could go on. This is not just ‘warming.’ This is global climate change.

But that’s not really what this post is about. I know plenty of people who couldn’t care less what I called it. Regardless of overwhelming consensus in the scientific community, they simply deny its existence. It simply isn’t real. It’s a hoax. A dirty trick and an elaborate scheme fabricated by the liberal left and the Hollywood elites to raise taxes and make Al Gore rich. Seriously. I know some people like that. After all I do live in Oklahoma and Jim Inhofe is my senator.

First of all, to say such a thing is ignorant at best. The consensus of scientists and climatologists is that global climate change is happening and it is growing worse because of human action (or inaction). Peer-reviewed literature concurs. Let me say that again peer-reviewed literature concurs. Not some crazy wack-job writing up an article, peer-viewed work from within the community. So, denying it is kinda silly. I can deny gravity all I want to, but that doesn’t make its effects on me any less damaging were I to jump out the window.

But some people still deny the science. And personally, that’s fine with me. We need some skeptics to keep us questioning and fact-checking. In that case, what does it matter? Suppose the science is wrong. Suppose the whole thing is a hoax. Shouldn’t we still be environmentally friendly in our actions? Isn’t caring for the environment a good idea itself? Regardless of whether we’re in the middle of crisis, shouldn’t we care about the world in which we live? Isn’t reducing your carbon emission a good idea regardless of whether it’s a pressing issue? Shouldn’t we take care of something even when it’s in good condition and not wait until it’s in bad shape? I don’t wait until my dog is starving to feed her. That’s asinine. No, I feed her everyday because she needs to be fed. Not because she’s starving to death and I want a quick fix. I feed her because I care for her well-being. What’s so wrong about taking care of the environment in itself?

I find it quite interesting that some of the staunchest critics of the science behind global climate change are also benefiting from and getting elected by the oil and gas industry. It is interesting that some people who claim the whole thing is false are the same people who drive Hummers and other SUVs. It is interesting that some people who decry the “alarmists” are the same people who have always refused to recycle and conserve energy because it took to much time and effort.

You want to know what I really think? I think that some people use the whole “global warming is a hoax” story as a cover so they can continue to treat the world as an endless resource and an endless garbage dump. They are the same people who are completely enamored in the dripping hyper-consumerism that is so rampant in our culture. They don’t want to put forth the effort, the time, or the money to “Reduse, Reuse, or Recycle” because they don’t really care either way. They are lazy and don’t want to be pushed out of their sphere of comfort. After all, that would be too inconvenient and too demanding.

I don’t have a people with those that refute global climate change as much as I have a problem with those that refuse to care for the earth because it might cramp their style.