My impression (of course I only move in limited

circles, usually three times before I lie down) is that this past Earth

Day was a relatively muted celebration. The Greenies were observing in

private, while we Spoilers of the Earth were having a big old time

whooping it up over tired Al Gore jokes.

So I think I’ll pile on a little more. But in a serious vein.

One of the most common responses I’ve met when talking religion with

non-Christians (and liberal Christians) is, “I can’t believe in your

angry God. Your doctrine of Original Sin offends me. My God is a God of

love. My God would never condemn a baby for something Adam and Eve did.”

And it occurred to me, “Well, what do environmentalists believe

about sin and guilt?”

By and large (no doubt there are gradations and exceptions) Greens

seem to worship nature, at least for practical purposes. And if they

don’t, they place supreme ethical value on treatment of the environment,

in the same way a Christian reverences the commandments of the Bible.

Speaking as an outsider, I can certainly say that I come away from their

sermonizing with a strong feeling of having been preached at.

So how compassionate is their “scientific” moral system?

First of all, they believe in Original Sin. They believe that every

human being (most particularly every human being in the western world)

is a miserable sinner. By our very existence, we are consuming precious

resources and generating unnecessary waste that is destroying Mother

Earth. For all the emphasis on self-esteem in our schools, students are

taught a contradictory message at the same time—the message that they

don’t really deserve to be alive, and that they are killing seals and

squirrels every time they turn on their Play Stations.

So they are in the condition of being sinners through their very

existence. Through birth, and not through any choice of their own.

(By the way, it fascinates me that many people who don't accept the

idea that humans are special creations of God, nevertheless insist that

there is an essential difference between humans and animals, so that,

although [they insist] humans are merely animals, nevertheless that

particular animal, unlike all others, is capable of doing things that

lack the “natural” imprimatur.)

And how is atonement to be made under the environmental sin system?

One can reduce, re-use and recycle, but that really doesn’t wash sin

away. The great Carbon Footprint hangs over the sinner’s head his whole

life long, a sin-debt he can never repay. Even if he were to move to the

woods and live off the soil, would that really settle the books? Even

if all of us went back to nature, would that really cover over our

transgression? Wouldn’t there still be too many of us, polluting the air

and the earth and the water without benefit of recycling centers or

sewage facilities?

No, the only way to atone for environmental sin is to die. But even

in our coffins, sin follows. Think of the waste of our funeral customs,

and the chemicals our embalmed bodies inject into the earth! What about

cremation? Well, that’s air pollution, isn’t it?

There is no full atonement in the Green Religion.

But they do have indulgences. Carbon credits, driving hybrid cars,

solar water heaters, these help to ease the troubled conscience, so that

the environmental Pharisee may say, “Thank God I am not as other men,

even this (Re)publican.” The Energy Star label is the papal certificate

that remits a thousand years in Purgatory.

So here is how the two religions stack up, in my opinion:

Christianity—Original sin, but full atonement available through the

finished work of Christ.

Environmentalism—Original sin, with lifelong guilt and limited

indulgences.

Which moral code is more tenderhearted?