All Comments (33)

Google is the best search engine Google

He does have a certain viewpoint all right, much of it based on the Bible and his time in Prison. Look, go to breakpoint.org and see the ministry for yourself. Yes it does have a Christian world view but it is following Matthew 25. You probably will disagree with him on many things, and that is fine, but when people are doing good things then give credit where it's due. I've listened to him for many years and even when I don't agree with him I respect his view.

are you still in jail, or born again? are you wealthy yet? You moron, who presumes the rest of us are idiots . . .

Thank you.

Greg

Sorry my friend, I just don't see it. Colson is sticking his nose into all sorts of political affairs again, including being a signatory to the so-called Land letter, which urged Bush to carry out a preemptive attack on Iraq. That didn't work out so well, and maybe Colson was operating quite far out of his range of expertise. As far as I am concerned redemption only goes so far, and as for paying big time, he didn't spend much time in prison before getting his "I have found the Lord" pass out. I am a bit of a cynic about these things, maybe too much.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=073106B

Go read that Hermit...

(Not a)Scientist says: "A simple google search brings up several opposing views, just never heard of in the mainstream meda..now i wonder why that is?"

Well, "scientist", maybe it's because they are hacks in the pay of the big energy companies who misrepresent their credentials as well as the facts...

http://www.desmogblog.com/discredited-friends-of-science-emerge-as-the-natural-resources-stewardship-project

http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-controlled-by-energy-lobbyists

Well,
If he wanted to start a discussion, he succeeded. lol

BA'AL has Duke Cunningham spent the last 30 years ministering to prisoners like Colson has? Colson screwed up big time and paid the price. He had two choices, let it beat him or try to make some good come from it. He chose door #2. He's never pretended that he's not an ex-con as many gleefully point out. But he has taken that experience and is trying to make a difference in the world.

Years ago it was global COOLING that had environmentalists roaring...same old scare tactics. Very little real data to conclude that humans are the cause of it.

A simple google search brings up several opposing views, just never heard of in the mainstream meda..now i wonder why that is? Maybe because they love the idea of big brother controling the world.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Just wondering, cause it seems like the exact same people who *happen* to be decrying the miniscule 'scientific uncertainty' of 'Is Global Warming real' who think if they can manage to just get on a certain day a poll over the line of Constitutionally denying, say, gay people the right to life, liberty and property, that that's a 'mandate.'

I'm wondering exactly what your idea of statistical, never mind scientific, certainty is *supposed to be.*

Really, now. It'd seem that apart from longtime scientific consensus, some formal findings were recently presented that say otherwise.

Exactly what fraction of a percentage point are you living in?

There is NOT evidence to state that global warming is caused by humans or industrialized nations. Period.

Dear Sir,

You speak of the poor. Those who have not are subject to enter the work of crime and punishment, are they not? That made me look at a book entitled We are Number One by Andrew L. Shapiro that I first heard of on NPR. Copyright 1992.
We are number one in percentage of population who have been the victim of a crime..
We are number one in ranking the importance of God in our lives
We are number one in murder.S
We are number one in the murder of children
We are number 14 in percentage of murders solved
We are number one in murderers still at large
We are number one in deaths by gun.
We are number one in deaths by capital punishment
We are number one in reported rapes
We are number one in drug offenders per capita
We are number one in marijuana and cocaine seized per capita.
So my question to you Mr. Colson is How do you maintain your faith in the face of such *odds*. May God have Mercy, and Bless you for the truly trying tasks you have taken upon yourself in the interests of rehabilitation in a system bent upon punishment alone. amen. Once again, I am humbled. Thank you for being here with us.

That's good, cause the spooks are getting annoyed at our self-centeredness and the sky spirits are pretty much saying, 'What, did I step on your town? Sorry.' :)

Just a couple of points -
- Why is every economic model predicated on "growth" instead of "enough?"

- Whatever the cause, dealing with environmental change that bodes ill for the occupants is the responsibility of whoever is sufficiently sentient to recognize it.

- Even a small change in the average global temperature will be accompanied by increasingly severe meteorological fluctuations. (That's "more and worse storms and droughts" for you-all on the single-wide side of the park.)

- The climate best for growing food will move much faster than the ability of the land under it to support agriculture.

- There are too many of us.

- I have not had to invoke any spooks or sky spirits anywhere in this post.

Oh, btw. Nother newsflash: Toxic Victorian factory conditions....

(psst: stagewhisper: Aren't actually good for the poor... )

Dan: Your problem here would seem to be the common one from anti-environmentalist Christians: "I refuse to believe this is our *fault,* therefore somehow making it worse through known effects of our waste isn't my responsibility."

'Questioning the debate' does *not* make the *effects of our actions* just go away.

Though the 'debate' is all but over about 'blame,' there's *no* case made whatsoever that putting *more* greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, (not to mention anything else that comes with it) is a *good* idea in any way.

As for the 'poor' in Third world countries, they wouldn't *need* to industrialize if colonialism and all *that* arrogant interference hadn't *made* them need to. (not to oversimplify, but all those cultures that the West sought to exploit were getting along more or less OK as they were, economically.)

Not that this was necessarily all intentional, but it's on *us* in the West to lead the way, not keep selling (and buying) dirty technology and the products thereof, so people can 'keep up' with *our* excess.

If there *were* a 'natural warming cycle' on, with a rate of change that we have no hope of keeping up with as we're going, then it's *triply* foolish to pretend that it's a good idea to keep increasing our rate of making it worse, in the name of 'development' of dependence on things which.... newsflash... We know darn well can't *stand* in the future.

I question this whole debate. The earth has been warming for 18,000 years (4.2 degrees C since the last ice age Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). Ironically, there have been some major spikes 13,000 and 10,000 years ago (same IPCC Assessment) the same people who say the world is going to end. If it wasn't SUVs and Americans then, could this all be natural? And Homo Sapiens have been around this whole time so now, the current temperature is what? The right temperature? Should we be one degree cooler or warmer? Why is now or 100 years ago right? The world's temperature has always fluctuated and will continue. I think we are wasting too much time and money on this issue when millions are starving and being oppressed due to poor governments and a lack of education.

Ba'al,

You're right on nomenclature - there are damn few true conservatives left in American public life.

Most of those who call themselves "conservative" are really radical reactionaries - like four members of the Supreme Court.

Norrie

Much of what conservative President Eisenhower warned us about was prescient. As you say, take it case by case. Fundamentalist right wing fanatics are problematic -- I am amused for example by claims that their homosexuality can be "cured" in three weeks -- but when they have also been convicted for abusing the public trust in high office, they are positively loathsome. Chuck Colson and Duke Cunningham are peas in a pod (but Colson was far more dangerous). Also, I am not sure that the word conservative can any longer be used to accurately describe this crowd. They long since moved to the right of that.

There has been absolutely no attempt made to mandate energy conservation practices in this country. The current administration [Chuck Colson's favorite guys possibly because many of them will eventually join him among the ranks of felons] resists any and all efforts to mandate improved fuel efficiencies in cars, what would seem to be a minimum step. I am always amazed when I come back from abroad at what boats we drive for no good reason. Talk is cheap. There is no action at all.

Marie,

I like the style of your post replying to mine. It's nicely clever.

As for substance, though, I think it's lacking. Mr. Colson goes on at length proclaiming his support for environmental protection, and then, at the end, he closes with this:

"Christians should place a high priority on protecting the environment—clean air, clean water, and certainly not contributing to global warming. But we must not do this in ways that would cripple economic development—particularly in Third World countries. In protecting the environment, we must not punish the world’s poor."

So we can't "cripple" economic development in third-world countries. Translated, this means we can't regulate their industrial practices that harm the environment.

What two things are common to the third world? Lack of environmental regulation and rapacious capitalists interested in exploiting the environment only for money.

The only intelligent way to read Mr. Colson's essay is as I posted: "We must not punish the capitalist rich..."

Let me respond further to your post.

(1) I didn't stereotype what Mr. Colson wrote. I read it and translated it for the casual reader.

(2) As for my supposedly not liking conservatives, some I do - some I don't.

I confess to not being a big fan of conservatives who move on from criminality to political bible- thumping.

But as a Buddhist sympathizer, I'm enjoined to pray for the enlightenment of all beings, human and otherwise, including Mr. Colson. This I will do.

Best wishes.

Norrie,

Within your replies is the hidden message,

"I don't like conservatives, so I will stereotype everything they say."

Dear Mr. Colson, I want to apologize for breaking my promise to get back to you on your previous column. A promise is a promise and I failed to live up to my word. I am sorry. I was trying to get back into shape and I am still sore from over doing it. I almost fell asleep driving home. I can not concentrate on today's topics because I am so upset with the Supreme Court. Justice is crumbling in our Society Sir. As a prominent part of the Criminal Justice System you must grabble with those realities every day of your life. God Bless you for your stalwartness in the face of such adversity. I will try to return later. I make no promises, not because I do not want to. Thank you for taking me to task. A man's word should be his bond. Amen.

Very informative HALOZCEL. Like the GICO geco says, "I'm so rich I think I'll keep my seat."

Do not store up for yourself treasures on earth.Matthew 6.19 Again I tell you,it is easier for a gamel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingtom of God.Matthew 19.24 But the cowardly,unbelieving,the vile,the murderers,the sexually immoral,those who practice magic art,the idolaters and ALL LIARS,their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur.Revelation 21.8.Everyone who wants to protect the Environment and wants to go to Heaven Please STAND UP.

Mr.Colson, I think you are too Christian centric for you and your ilk to make any difference to the world! We are humans first and then Christians, jews, Hindus, etc...If you realised that and acted accordingly, the world would be a much better place to live in.

What happened to American entrepreneurial spirit? The need for new technologies should be seen as an economic opportunity. This head in the sand attitude with regard to issues like global warming and stem cells will leave America in the position of folowing where they used to lead.

“When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why the poor were hungry, they called me a communist.” Dom Helder Camara

Jesus also told the rich man to give all (I would have just said most) of his money to the poor.

I believe every human being has the right to basic levels of food, shelter, clothing, health care. If individuals want more, they should be free to work for it. But I'm sure neither God nor Jesus would say, "Well, I'm not going to help you or give you anything unless you pay for it. Go find a job first." When Jesus healed so many people, he didn't ask if they had money or health insurance.

So call me a socialist if you like. But I believe, heaven's economy is definitely not capitalist, with some few souls reside in luxurious mansions while the majority of the rest toil 9-5 and live lives of quiet desperation and stress, just so that they can put bread on the table and survive. If anything, hell is capitalistic.

This is one major reason why what we have on earth today is very far away from being "heaven on earth," and much closer to being hell on earth.

Mr. Colson,

Encoded within your nice-sounding words is this hidden message:

"We must not punish the capitalist rich..."

A fine, Christian message.

BA'AL,

I agree that we need to give the poor a hand up. So does Chuck Colson, which means that it's going to be a balancing act between economic growth and protecting the enviornment. I know what it's like to live in a less affulent neighborhood, at times it looks like a COPS episode where I live. But that's one reason why I went back to school.

In fact, however, here and abroad, it is the poor who bear the brunt of it. In Houston where I live, I note that George HW Bush does not live close to any refineries. Think of who is most affected by what happened in New Orleans for a preview.

Neal,
You are right about the poor, they will indeed always be amoung us. You are also right about developing countries. What needs to be done is to focus more energy on green technology that will allow those countries to develop while lessening the impact on the Earth. That development is well on it's way and gaining steam. What needs to be done now is to convince people how easy and cheap it can be to help the enviornment, once people start doing the easy things they'll be inclined to go further. Force them and they'll just dig in their heels...

Chuck

You make a very good point regarding the poor in developing countries. Their economic needs really do trump the rest of the worlds environmental needs, at least in the short run. But the picture regarding the poor and the environment is much more complicated than simply economy versus environment.

The pattern seen in every industrialized society is that the economically privileged always send their polution to areas where the poor live. This happens even in healthy democracies like America, Britain and Japan.

When it gets down to it, the reason for this is that "money talks". In this regard the poor haven't much voice. Of course this is nothing new, and in fact much (if not most) of Jesus' ministry was advocating for those who cannot advocate for themselves. He even says "the poor will always be with us" yet continues to advocate and instructs the rest of us to do likewise.

I would be much more inclined to support economic progress in developing countries at the expense of environmental progress if I could be sure the above pattern was broken. As it is I am skeptical.

But even if we allow developing countries an out from global environmental laws, this is no reason for the U.S. to abstain as well. The idea that our economy is in danger from environmental laws is preposterous. Even the poorest Americans aren't at risk of starving to death, as they are in the developing world. Our economy could shrink by a factor of 75% and we would still be one of the richest nations on earth.