Re: [asa] Dobson

From: Jack <>
Date: Tue Mar 06 2007 - 02:50:56 EST

Senator Inhofe is another interesting character in this debate. He claims to be evangelical, but I have heard him deny that any evangelical groups are supporting global warming. Is there some reason that he is denying the stance of the National Association of Evangelicals?
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Rich Blinne
  To: David Opderbeck
  Cc: Carol or John Burgeson ;
  Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 10:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Dobson

  On 3/5/07, David Opderbeck <> wrote:
    Well, it was pretty stupid of Cizik to mention population control. That feeds the worst fears of folks like Dobson. Frankly, it scares me as well, and I think Dobson's comment about forced abortion and infanticide in China is right on point. Christian environmentalists need to acknowledge that the environmental movement was dead wrong about the "population explosion" and must distance Christian responses to problems like gobal warming from the "secular" environmental movement's untoward emphasis on population control.

  I've tried to run down this quote and its provenance is dodgy. It comes from an e-mail from an AEI member. I could find no transcripts or evidence that this meeting ever happened. The Christian blog, Bene Diction Blogs On, ran into similar problems:

    As far as I can tell the Cizik quote from the World Bank Sustainable Development Forum was first trotted out at the Focus on the Family Value Voters 2006 Summit by Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. I cannot find a transcript of the World Bank Forum (May 2006) online to put Rev. Cizik's quote in context.

  Bene Diction and Christianity Today may have found the real reason for the hostility:

    Christianity Today has noted Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family wants Rev. Richard Cizik fired for endorsing this book. [THE JESUS MACHINE How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War]

  What made Dobson so mad?

    "Gilgoff is a writer and journalist of the first rank... This is a book that evangelicals, as well as the critics of our movement, should surely read."


  You have this quote being passed only by two hostile witnesses so I looked to see if Cizik talked about this topic at some other time and I did find something here. Cizik has talked on the record about this and here is what he told the New York Times magazine:

    ""Creation care'' sounds like a division of Medicare."
    It's still better than environmentalism.

    "What is wrong with that term?"
    "It's not the term. It's the environmentalists themselves. I was recently speaking with the leadership of the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation, and I told them, 'Gentlemen, I respect you, but at this point don't plan on any formal collaborations.'"

    "Why? Because they lean to the left?"
    "Environmentalists have a bad reputation among evangelical Christians for four reasons. One, they rely on big-government solutions. Two, their alliance with population-control movements. Three, they keep kooky religious company."

    "What is your idea of a kooky religion?"
    "Some environmentalists are pantheists who believe creation itself is holy, not the Creator."

    "And what's No. 4?"
    "There's a certain gloom and doom about environmentalists. They tend to prophecies of doom that don't happen. Look at the movie 'The Day After Tomorrow,' in which New York City freezes

  That doesn't sound like someone who is pro-population control to me and he did what you asked Christian environmentalists to do in that interview.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 6 02:51:41 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 06 2007 - 02:51:41 EST