More on "Bill Moyers" and the Jesus-Loving, Environment-Hating Nutjobs

Please pardon the Ombudsman his cynicism--or perhaps his attractive, Gaulois puffing, languid world-weariness, with a touch of je ne sais quoi--but it is with a complete lack of surprise that he reads that "Bill Moyers" in his lengthy opinion piece in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune committed some errors of fact.

You will recall that "Bill Moyers" in his essay made the following syllogism: Christian fundamentalists believe in the bodily return of Christ to earth; this is an event which these Bible-thumping wackos led by the "Right Rev. Bush" [thank you, James Lileks] believe will be preceded by, among other things, the devastation of the environment (due to plagues, droughts, infestations of locusts, hordes of mice, and PBS pledge drives); ergo, Christian fundamentalist nutjobs eagerly approve of environmental destruction since they believe it will move the return of Jesus several millennia forward in the Divine EpochTimer.

As "evidence" for this "syllogism", "Bill Moyers" offered the testimony of James Watt, once Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Interior. Watt is Exhibit A for "Bill Moyers" of a Christian fundamentalist nutjob; "Moyers" writes the following:

Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."

Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious.

BTW, notice the nice rhetorical self-stroking? "Bill Moyers" alone knew what Watt was talking about, snickered, and realized that this Christian fundamentalist nutjob was, you know, really dangerous because he was a Christian fundamentalist nutjob. This "Moyers", with his deep perceptiveness, will ruin all the plans of the nutjobs. If you want to make yourself look good, be certain to employ the same rhetorical techniques, OK?

Too bad for Bill, in terms of the whole logic and dialectic and truth part of the argument, that James Watt never said any such thing.

You see, it turns out that "Bill Moyers" favorite envirojournal was wrong, because it was quoting from a guy who didn't know what he was talking about. Go to Powerlineblog to read the whole thing, including Watt's actual testimony from the Congressional Record. Powerline, thanks in part to a phone call they received from James Watt himself, tracked down the Watt's testimony.

But hang on a moment! What's this?

Even for green activists within the evangelical movement, there are landmines. One faction in the movement, called dispensationalism, argues that the return of Jesus and the end of the world are near, so it is pointless to fret about environmental degradation.

James G. Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first interior secretary, famously made this argument before Congress in 1981, saying: "God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back." The enduring appeal of End Time musings among evangelicals is reflected in the phenomenal success of the Left Behind series of apocalyptic potboilers, which have sold more than 60 million copies and are the best-selling novels in the country.

That's from the Saturday's Washington Post, in an article entitled "The Greening of Evangelicals". It reads as a Post attempt to educate blue state intelligentsia about the complexities of the evangelical movement. And it does make a refreshing change from reading "Bill Moyers", to be sure.

But it's too bad they had to repeat what seems to be a canard of long standing. Sigh. Maybe they too have been reading Grit.

The rest of the article, BTW, is enough to give Virginia Postrel and Glenn Reynolds nightmares and a warm case of smug self-satisfaction. Both of these highly intelligent libertarians deplore any dust mote that lands on the tracks of Human Progress. As the Instapundit blogged recently:

SONIA ARRISON WRITES about the mainstreaming of transhumanism. And Alyssa Ford writes that the next big political divide will be between transhumanists and technophiles on one side, and bioconservatives and lefty-Luddites on the other.

I hope not, but as Rand Simberg observes: "If this is the next political divide, I know which side I'm on."

And that was about transhumanism, for crying out loud! Imagine how green (heh) Professor Reynolds could get reading this:

"Stop Mercury Poisoning of the Unborn," said a banner that Ball carried in last month's antiabortion march in Washington. Holding up the other end of the banner was Cizik, the National Association of Evangelicals' chief lobbyist.

They handed out carefully footnoted papers that cited federal government studies showing that 1 in 6 babies is born with harmful levels of mercury. The fliers urged Christians not to support the "Clear Skies" act, a Bush administration proposal to regulate coal-burning power plants that are a primary source of mercury pollution.

Not that I don't get more than a little squeamish myself at such reckless trampling upon scientific data. (Just how many parts per billion is this mercury poisoning that's killing the unborn? Do you think that abortions might kill more?) But that's because I believe in prudential judgments.

That's why I can believe that transhumanism is sick-inducing and not a little silly; that "Stop Mercury Poisoning of the Unborn" is disingenuous rhetoric; that coal plants do pollute too much; that they should be replaced by third-generation nuclear fission reactors; that wilderness must be protected; that resources must be preserved and improved for future generations; that Progress is not a moral good; and that "Bill Moyers" is the Blue State version of a shameless, dishonest, disingenuous, and deceitful revival preacher.

See? You can believe all those things at once, with a little prudence.