If you read Bill Moyer's latest article, there is some doubt that the groups that believe in the "Rapture"™ even care if the earth turns to dust. It just means Jesus is coming sooner.

IMHO, WTF are they thinking?

Evangelicals?? whats next for the Dems? trying to lure some racists away from the GOP? I say let the GOPers keep their wack jobs, we got plenty of our own on the left.

Maybe it is worth a try. But, IMHO if losing half of all textile jobs in a state like SC in four years results in Bush being 'punished' with a 17 point victory in 2004 as opposed to a 16 point victory in 2000, I doubt the 'punishment' for environmental crimes is going to hurt the GOP much.

Evangelical Christians could give a shit about the enviroment. They're obsessed with making sure everyone lives their lives according to their religion. They'll dispatch hordes of disciples to the Middles East to convert the "Godless heathens" to Jesus but let a few Greens protest acid rain, global warming or destruction of the rain forest and they're pointing fingers and crying traitor. Were Bush to announce he wanted to personally oversee the extinction of every living thing but cows, dogs, chickens and Baptists they'd nod and chime in unison "George will deliver us from evil, let his will be done".

There are two schools of thought on theology/environmentalism. There are the "Dominion Theory" fans who believe that natural resources exist for humans to use, not preserve. But there is also a small faction, or used to be, of religious people who believe more like Thomas Berry (Dream of the Earth) that we are part of the environment and must preserve the earth. I would imagine that Evangelicals believe more in Dominion Theory given that they're still waiting for the rapture.

You know, you don't have to be a far-right wacko Christian to believe the environment is for our use and ultimate destruction. There are plenty of companies that believe in padding their pockets at the expense of the invironment. Logging in the Rain Forest comes to mind.

Not all evangelicals are conservatives! There are liberal evangelicals, as well as moderates. There are already some bridges between the secular left and the leftist evangelicals.

There are a number of issues that the evanglicals care about on which the Republicans should be losing: poverty reduction, environmental protection,
economic justice, etc.

I wrote on my blog a while ago about the contradiction that the religious right has thrown their support behind the Republicans, while the Republican party has been the force most pushing the selfish, destructive, pure capitalism which is behind the assault on the traditional cultural values that the religious right cares about.

I am sceptical. If they believe that the Bush republican policy remotely incorporates traditional christian humanitarian concepts they are beyond hope. If they can accept christian humanitarian concepts (ie. elimination of poverty, hate crimes, hunger, aids etc.) then they are not voting republican in the first place. If they can accept christian humanitarian principles but still voted for Bush then they are one issue voters (ie. abortion).

"Obviously continuing the focus on the scientific rationale behind environmentalism will not appeal to this voting bock, but a retooling of the message towards the moral values behind preservation, conservation, and public health could strike a chord."

I'm not sure how we win if we leave the science out of it. After all, we are being attacked as purveyors of "junk science" by the deep-pocketed polluters who bankroll the GOP political campaign. If we switch to talking about the immorality of anti-environmental policies we may strip away a few of the the moderate Evangelicals (few of them can honestly be considered "liberal"), but how will we fight back against the real junk "scientists?"

Jong, you hit it. They are and were one or two issue voters. Abortion and gay marriages.

I don't care so much that evangicals who are environmentalists become Democrats as long as they get the Republicans to change their positions on the environment. I would be nice if both parties were pro-environment.

There's common sense environmentalism, which pretty much all of us agree on. There's a saying that you spend 1% of the effort getting 99% of the work done, and 99% of the effort getting 1% of the work done.

The weirdo nutball environmentalists focus on that 1% that really doesn't make much of a difference, yet costs so much.

The "evangelicals" - pentecostals - what you want to call them - are dominionists - they don't care about pollution or resource depletion or overpopulation.

But there's an awful lot of Christians who don't even know they are part of the Dominionist takeover, because their sense of reason has been hijacked by the diversionary gay-marriage issue and the thought that babies will go to gay people.

Very interesting post.

Clearly, "evangelicals" is a loaded term that freaks out most progressives. And the previous posters are right, no environmental message is going to persuade the Rapturists that Moyer talked about in his piece. But the WaPo piece is compelling. If Dobson and Colson have signed on to a notion, there's potential for A LOT of Christians to follow them.

Framing makes all the difference here. In the mind of the Christian Right Radio Orthodoxy, "environmentalism" equals "secularism," so any environmentalist message will get no traction. "Creation care" is handy within those church communities, but I can't envision too many Dem politicians running with that one.

Framing the issue as one of "stewardship" is dead on. A truly progressive value expressed in language that will sink in with people of faith. Hope you keep at this one, Steve.