Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [orthodox-rocor] Re: Question about Gov Agency

Expand Messages
  • hermitage@infoave.net
    What I think mostly is that Audubon, in search of money and to take advantage of various legislation, sold itself out to association with other special
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      What I think mostly is that Audubon, in search of money and to take
      advantage of various legislation, sold itself out to association with other
      special interest groups, and therefore are obliged to toe the "party line".
      Of course, this compromise makes for all sorts of facades in attempts to
      cover up dubious activities whilst ostensibly promoting societal benefits
      under the guise of environmental concerns.

      What a lot of people are unaware of is that, from my understanding, though
      the Audubon Society calls itself "National" it is little more than a private
      corporation not-for-profit that self servingly is now making major efforts
      at land acquisition, but use of this land is for the most part not open to
      the public (and when it is it is at a price), nor is it regulated entirely
      by governmental legislation as are, say, the National Parks.

      Not that some good doesn't come of NAS work, and I have personally enjoyed
      these benefits, but now with their heavy bias towards "education" (this is
      where such groups can affect our Orthodox children, hence the topic's
      relevance to this list), such hidden agendas, eg abortion advocacy, can be

      Take for instance, because my local Audubon receives money from lumbering
      groups (clear cutters) and cement processors (with gravel pits and chemical
      waste impacting the water quality, etc) their curriculum largely skirts
      around these issues, probably so as to not lose funding, which is almost
      equivalent to hush money. And of course these funders use their association
      with NAS as a type of "justification" for continued questionable acts. "See,
      Audubon doesn't complain about what we are doing so it must be OK!" And
      Audubon justifies themselves how? "Well, by associating, we get a foot in
      the door to mitigate the worst effects of these other corporations." Which
      may or may not be true, but it seems rather shallow at best, when they
      possess the clout and legal "machinery" to take a direct stance against
      such, but don't.

      One of my strongest objections is the dichotomy between the seeming
      pretenses under with they forward their causes, and the behind-the-scenes
      undercurrents and doubtful alliances. Certainly many other "public spirited"
      groups fall under the same suspicion. Needless to say, I have had some run
      ins with the local NAS (their activities directly affect the property here),
      which I find rude in their "whatever it takes to get what we want" attitude
      (when what they want is not always what is best), and who do NOT like having
      these concerns brought to their attention. The best word to describe their
      affliction might be *hubris*.

      If they would at least come clean, at there would be some praise for
      honesty, whether I was in agreement or not. But as it is, the more I search,
      the more side stepping and spin-art on their parts is found. (Actually, even
      within the NAS themselves these same concerns have been raised)

      Kinda reminds me of a comment (I think it was of St Gregory V, Patriarch)
      who (paraphrased) said it was preferable that the Turks had the rule, rather
      than western european Protestants, because it was pretty clear to the
      Faithful that the Turks' beliefs were in error, but those of the Prots were
      much more hazy (and thus more pernicious) insofar as the errors were
      occasionally more difficult to discern.

      As Orthodox Christians, the environment, and it's proper management, should
      be one of our concerns--the world being a gift (as it were) to us from God,
      and the stewardship of it as a charge that we have been appointed in a small
      way. This entails wise choices as to whom we will "contract" to attain an
      acceptable end. Agencies with double-standards or outright immoral biases
      certainly should not be included on the list of viable options.

      Responsible use of what has been entrusted to our care is certainly a tenet
      of our Faith. For the Orthodox to stand by and adopt a policy of
      non-involvement or laissez faire in this and like issues cannot, in my
      opinion, always be recommended. Instead, first by prayer ("for the abundance
      of the fruits of the earth") and then by example, and then by rational
      intervention we ourselves can promote a healthy and well advised stance that
      cannot fail to benefit all and proceed in accordance with God's will.

      In Christ,
      John, monk

      At 06:04 PM 12/29/2001 +0000, you wrote:
      >Groups like the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club use their
      >environmental stance as a front for an anti-Christian agenda. No one
      >wants to be critical of organizations one associates with harmless
      >birds and other creatures, but when you find "family planning" (viz.
      >abortion and sterilization) propaganda in their newsletters, this
      >should be a red flag. What does concern for the environment have to
      >do with "family planning"? Nothing, unless you are a radical
      >environmentalist who believes that man is not the crown of God's
      >creation but rather a pest to be eliminated so that all the birds and
      >beasts can live in peace. Please see www.overpopulation.com/faq.
      >In Christ,
      >Fr. Peter Jackson
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.