The bad math of mercury - good points on the far Christian right

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edpfarago21032104mar21,1,6384691.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines

By Alan Farago | Special to the Sentinel
Posted March 21, 2004

<snip>
The Environmental Protection Agency is reacting badly to data that its brand-spanking-new rule for reducing mercury pollution, calling for a 70 percent reduction in mercury pollution by power utilities, may not be achieved as promised in 2018, a date many experts say is already too far in the future, but only by 2025 or longer.
...
Today, one in six mothers and 600,000 children per year are at risk to be born with elevated mercury levels. So whether you are Christian, Jew, Buddhist or Muslim: the fetus of your child is likely to be ingesting nutrients and also mercury at twice the rate previously predicted.

Which leads to a question of President Bush's staunch supporters: Why isn't the religious right joining the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Sierra Club to sue the federal government for failing, in its new mercury rule, to account for "lost" mercury from chlorine plants, which spews more mercury into the atmosphere every year than the entire power plant industry?

And a few other questions: If the religious right is really concerned about the well-being of fetuses, why has it not focused on the manipulation of science to benefit polluters, why has it not rooted from the White House those ideologues putting the profits of industry ahead of the weakest, most vulnerable, the least able to defend themselves; fetuses, infants, and the young? Where are the protests and Sunday sermons?
</snip>

read more...

"If the religious right is really concerned about the well-being of fetuses, why has it not focused on the manipulation of science to benefit polluters..."

Mainly because the religious right is only interested in power, and the ability to control what a person does with their body as well as their lives.

And besides the government allowing polluters to kill or cause birth defects in fetuses is not the same as abortion, at least I guess that's the way they think.

The religious right is only concerned with the fetus, they want little or nothing to do with the child after it leaves the womb.
Which is why the religious right supports candidates who will cut the
social programs that are needed to help these children.

In my opinion I don't think the religious right really is concerned about a fetus, to them it makes good PR.

The issue for the religious right is purely one of power - getting it and keeping it - over individuals and institutions.

If a religious leader or movement has gained enough control over a person to regulate his/her sexual behavior, then that person is completely controlled. When one cedes control of sexual behavior, which is perhaps the most intimate and personal part of our lives, there is nothing else to lose. Maybe this is what TV preachers really mean by "surrendering your life".

http://www.theocracywatch.org/environment.htm

An impending sense of "end times" is good news for that portion of the Religious Right that sees destruction of the earth as fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy. Those who don't seek "end times," blame resource depletion on environmentalists who view natural resources as limited. Secular society "lack(s) faith in God's providence and consequently, men will find fewer resources... The Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth." (America's Providential History.)

<snip>

Christian Coalition Scorecards compared to Environmental Scorecards

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) publishes a National Environmental Scorecard. The Scorecard provides objective, factual information about the environmental voting records of U.S. Representatives and Senators. more The higher the rating from Religious Right groups, the lower the rating from the League of Conservation Voters.

The following graphs compare how Christian Coalition and the League of Conservation Voters(LCV) rated Congress in 2001. Republicans are red, Democrats blue. LCV is made up of several environmental groups.





<snip: there's also a similar chart for the House of Reps>

The first graph measures the Christian Coalition's scorecards for the United States Senate in 2001. Republicans, mostly in the 100% column, scored very high. Most Democrats received 0. The second graph -- which is the opposite -- shows how the League of Conservation Voters rated the U.S. Senate that year. 15 Democrats voted in favor of environmental issues 100% of the time. 34 Republicans voted in favor of environmental issues 0% of the time. If you add the 25 Democrats who received 80% with the 15 who received 100% the number is 40. 40 out of 50 Democrats in 2001 had strong environmental voting records. If you add the 10 Republicans who received 20% with the 34 Republicans who received 0%, 44 out of 49 Republicans that year had very low environmental voting records.

<snip>

Senator James Inhofe: Chair of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works

U.S. Senator James Inhofe, (R-Okla) said at the 2002 Christian Coalition Road to Victory gathering, "Get the few liberals out! You will be doing the Lord's work, and He will richly bless you for it." Senator Inhofe was richly blessed. Since 2000 he has received more than $500,000 in campaign contributions from oil, gas, electric and mining industries. more

When Republicans won a majority in the U.S. Senate after the 2002 elections, Senator Inhofe became chair of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works. One of his first acts was to appoint a coal mining lobbyist to oversee clean air legislation. more

<much, much more...>

not all of the other things that can happen to unborn children and children already here. There is no other way of explaining it, as abortions are a drop in the bucket compared to the evils that happen to children around the world as a result of poverty, neglect, abuse and exploitation.