Why evangelical dislike the environmentalists themselves

From the New York Times Magazine's Deborah Solomon interview with c evangelical lobbyist Richard Cizik:

Excerpt:

""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 over."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote.html

Even taking him at his word on those four points, is he suggesting that evangelicals, by contrast DON'T prophesy gloom and doom? Because if he is, I'm thinking he doesn't know evangelicals as well as he claims to.

be discussed with children before bed each night.

<sarcasm off>

it all goes to hell in a hand basket the sooner the messiah will come and they will fly heavenward out of their SUVs.

Ha ha - kooky religious company. Right.

Oh yeah, thats a "kooky religion" thats only been around since the beginning of time, in every culture, in every part of the world.

Unlike the adolescent religion and it's mere 2000 years, and it's mutation into fundyism for about 75 years.

The idea that God and those things that are spiritual are somehow holy while the Earth and physical things are not has nothing to do with anything taught be Jesus and I would be surprised if it had anything to do with Judaism either. St. Paul gleened these ideas from Greek philosphy, especially Plato, who taught that there is a realm of forms and a realm of ideals. The forms, physical things including people, were merely the imperfect reflections of the ideals. Paul was a Roman citizen and was familiar with classical philosophy.

The idea that the whole of of it is all of the same nature seems a lot more logical to me than Platonic idealism. Further, we know for a fact that the Earth, humans and heavenly objects (basically the entire universe minus the Earth) are all made of the same stuff and follow the same natural "laws."

Do they know how ridiculous they are?

How in the name of hell can we protect the environment without population control or restrictions on corporations? And just what does big government have to do with their religious concerns? As far as theological disagreements with the half dozen or so pagans in the environmental movement, all I can say is that Jesus had no trouble working with people of different religions. This is a straw-man argument. What a bunch of damned hypocrits. :grr:

And since when do Hollywood movies have anything to do with environmentalism?

These people would rather see the world destroyed than allow themselves to think that people might legitimately disagree with them, to say nothing of questioning their own views.

I was under the impression that Protestants were okay with contraception. I am sure most of this dipshit's followers use it.

"Some environmentalists are pantheists who believe creation itself is holy, not the Creator."

Universe was developed by god thus holy. Besides, pantheists think Universe=god.

"There's a certain gloom and doom about environmentalists. They tend to prophecies of doom that don't happen.

And Christian predictions that Jesus would come in 2000 to show his love by killing us all was dead on.

Why does the media give these late 19th century backwater fools the time of day?

I thought I read that somewhere.

The brochure I received from them two weeks before the election stated that they were breaking with their tradition of not endorsing candidates to urge people to vote for Kerry. They went on to predict an ecological disaster that would result from another Dubya term.

They first threw their support to Mondale following the appointment of Watt to Interior and convicted perjuror LaVelle to EPA.

Maybe I am confusing it with something else. Nevertheless, I know Sierra was emphatic if not to say desperate in its opposition to Dubya.

We can be confused together.