It Is A SIN To Fly Or Drive An SUV (Bishop of London)

[kpete]

The Sunday Times July 23, 2006

It's a sin to fly, says church

THE Bishop of London has declared it sinful for people to contribute to climate change by flying on holiday, driving a “gas-guzzling” car or failing to use energy-saving measures in the home, writes Jonathan Leake.
Richard Chartres will encourage vicars to preach more green sermons and warn congregations that it is now a moral obligation for Christians to lead eco-friendly lifestyles.

Chartres, who chairs the bishops’ panel on the environment, said: “There is now an overriding imperative to walk more lightly upon the earth and we need to make our lifestyle decisions in that light.

“Making selfish choices such as flying on holiday or buying a large car are a symptom of sin. Sin is not just a restricted list of moral mistakes. It is living a life turned in on itself where people ignore the consequences of their actions.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2281620,00.html

[NoPasaran]

1. And flying an SUV is right out!

[RB TexLa]

2. Are there any horses that can swim you to Cancun?

[jobycom]

4. No, but I think his point was there are closer beaches. nt

[alarimer]

3. yeah we should just stay home

Or you could swim to France I guess.

[RB TexLa]

5. didn't say what penance he is planning on giving out for it

:shrug:

[Meeker Morgan]

6. Damn religion!

Even "liberal" religion.

Inventing new sins to feel self-righteous about the other guy committing.

Driving an SUV is wasteful or not depending on passenger load. Or is that too much like "situation ethics"?

[pooja]

7. Do ya'll know any other way to get people to change other than

call it a sin. Say it more often for the sheeple to hear. Then they won't be in our favorite vacation spots, and they would impact the environment less.

[Gormy Cuss]

8. Those crazy Anglicans.

Taking a stand for the environment. What a concept.
The bishop's rhetoric is a bit over the top, but he is calling for his church to set an example by reducing its carbon footprint.

Contrast that with the view of some fundies that the sooner the environment collapses the better, because that will precipitate the Rapture or the return of the Christ.

I'd take the Anglican zealot over that lot.

[Solly Mack]

9. Why does this have to be framed as a sin?

Why not say "more responsible" to do this instead of that
"Better for the environment" to do this instead of that


and so on and so forth

It's gotten to the point, and truth be told, it's been that way for centuries, that everything that someone doesn't like or thinks is bad,or actually is bad, becomes a "sin" (you're going to hell!!! Hell!!! I tell ya!!! If you don't stop flying that SUV!!!!)

I think in terms of an action being more responsible, less harmful, not harmful...not in terms of sin!sin!sin! Not everything that is bad is a sin is it? And if you're like me, and don't do religion at all, nothing is a sin...actions can be bad or harmful or not responsible...but "sin" isn't a word that comes to mind.

Is it because of people's embracing of religion that they pay more attention to something if it's framed as a sin? You know, if a scientist tells you to work to save the earth, they get blown off...but if the preacher man calls it a sin not to save the planet, then you listen?

Does an action have to be ordained as divine and a part of Christ's plan for some people to take notice? Does it have to be framed as "Christian duty" first?

Can't the consequences of people's actions be explained without ever once using the word sin?

For the record - No, I don't have a SUV. I have never owned a SUV. This isn't my way of trying to defend SUV's. And I know many, many people who follow a religion listen to what science says and they don't need confirmation from the pulpit.



but I'm wondering if for some people, if it's not a case of - it's not true until the preacher says it's true...and frankly, I find that very disturbing.