I thought about writing about this last week, but hoped the whole thing would go away. I hoped common sense would recognize this for the idiocy it is. But, in the land of a monochromatic mainstream media, I've clearly expected too much...

Patient Zero: Grist Magazine

Back in October, Glenn Scherer wrote a piece in "Grist" magazine entitled "The Godly Must be Crazy" in which he blamed the world's ecological problems -- both real and imagined -- on evangelical Christians.

Of course, Glenn's lifestyle is probably no different than most of those he attacks, but it's always been simpler to localize evil in some popular whipping-boy than to admit your own complicity and responsibility for the problem. Much less engage in tough debates about science, policy, and values.

In Glenn's narrative, anyone who believes in the bible is apparently a potential member of a conspiracy to deliberately destroy the world ecologically in order to force Jesus to return. After mentioning a number of common Christian beliefs -- such as the return of Christ and the existence of hell -- Scherer adds:

They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming Apocalypse.

This is Scherer's thesis, and he advances it using tactics which range from specious reasoning to outright fraud. For a first example, you need look no further than the quote above, in which the weasily phrase "they may also believe" is used to create a false impression without lying outright.

In another example, the following Watt quote appears to have been fabricated -- "from the whole cloth", as they say:

Odds are it was in 1981, when President Reagan's first secretary of the interior, James Watt, told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. "God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back," Watt said in public testimony that helped get him fired...

II could find no record predating Scherer's article of Watt saying any such thing. If Watt said this, I find it inconceivable that the many sites which mocked Reagan on the net, and contained many other stupid Watt quotes, would have failed to omit such a prize-winning specimen.

Instead the closest I found was, "I do not know how many future generations we can count of before the Lord returns," which might be used to show Watt didn't care much about the environment (if he hadn't have followed it with a statement about how we would have to conserve until then), but that doesn't exactly deliver the goods Glenn wants: a deliberate Christian plot to destroy the environment.

Scherer's assertion that this quote is the one which "helped get him fired" is also false. Watt was fired in 1983, not 1981, and the cause was an entirely different quote: as one critic notes, he was forced to resign for his stupid gaffe about having "a black", "a woman", "two Jews, and a cripple." Again, this not flattering to Watt, but it's also not the kind of ammo Scherer needs to prove his foregone conclusion.

In his quest to weave his conspiracy theory, Scherer breathlessly informs his readers about a group called the "Christian Zionists" which, he assures us, claims some 20 million members in the US, and holds many conservative Christian leaders in it's sway. We are told "they are committed to making that doomsday clock tick faster, speeding Christ's return" -- apparently by deliberately pursuing policies of environmental destruction. (Amazing! About 7% of the US population -- approximately one out of fifteen of your friends and neighbors -- is "committed" to doomsday-clock-accelerating! Who knew?)

Yet "Christian Zionism" is nothing more than the belief that Israel will play a role in end-times prophecies -- it's a label so broad it could be successfuly apply (and Scherer applies it) to any Christian who reads the bible and notices it mentions Israel in unfulfilled prophecies. But it does not follow such people will therefore believe they can -- much less should -- somehow bring about those prophecies themselves, much less through inflicting deliberate environmental destruction.

I can't help but suspect that Scherer's choice of the term "Zionism" is no accident, given that we are currently seeing on the left a resurgence of anti-Semitism not seen since Nazi Germany. Many leftists now regularly create narratives which use terms such as "Zionism" (or the proxy term "neocons") to explain how current political events are orchestrated around the needs of Ariel Sharon's Israel. No doubt such a term will resonate well with this group, assuming Scherer himself is not also a believer.

In order to bolster his case, Scherer notes that Tom DeLay once attended fringe preacher John Hagee's church in Texas, and connects together three separate quotes -- undoubtedly uttered over the space of an hour -- to create the appearance that DeLay supported war with Iraq in order to bring about "the Apocalypse." Scherer also quotes DeLay critic Lou Dubose saying "If John Hagee says it, then it is true" in a clever manner which misleads the reader into thinking the quote actually originated from DeLay rather than Dubose.

In another case, Scherer attempts to demonstrate that Senator James Inhofe's scepticism regarding man-made global warming is fueled by this religious plot, not conflicting scientific evidence. The proof is apparently (a) Inhofe once gave a speech against global warming, (b) Scherer found a web page on a Christian-friendly web site which contained similar arguments, and (c) Jerry Fallwell also once said he didn't believe in global warming.

And of course these two cases are presented as representative -- the "powerful tip of the iceberg", Scherer calls them -- of the views of most evangelical Christians in the United States. They're all around you! Look out!

To most people the above sequence of reasoning is cause for sympathy, concern, and gentle inquiries regarding medication schedules -- if not hearty gales of amazed laughter. After all, if scepticism towards current environmentalist dogmas can only be explained by Christian theology, what do we make of atheists like Michael Crichton who adopt the same stance? (Actually, Crichton argues environmentalism is itself a religion -- a view that would certainly explain the apocalyptic tone of Scherer's jeremiad against a competing faith.)

And if the "religious right" are trying to bring about the end of the world, and Jesus predicted a time of great sin before his return, then why would they be working so hard to stop practices they view to be abhorrent like abortion and gay marriage? Wouldn't stopping the final wave of sin be self-defeating? And why would they bother to fight to change culture at all if the end were so near? That's something you do for your kids and grandkids -- not for the short term.

And finally, if inflicting damage to "Mother Earth" is mostly traceable to the Christian religion, what do we make of the hypocrisy of the largely humanistic Hollywood Gulfstream crowd who own their own private jets, drive SUVs, live in mansions, and yet preach all the fad environmentalist doctrines? Are they somehow members of this Christian conspiracy too?

The Virus Spreads

All of the above may strike you as laughable. And apparently, many of Grist's regular readers thought the same way -- even those who usually eagerly swallow it's other talking points:

This is a first -- I've been offended by Grist. As a Christian and an environmentalist, I found this article ridiculous. I've been attending church for most of my life, and I have never, ever, been preached to about not needing to care for the environment because of the second coming of Christ.

And:

While Scherer -- and the rest of the savvy electorate -- has a significant bone to pick with the social and environmental policies of the religious right, I feel that this article declares war against Christianity as a whole.... I myself am a Christian. As such, I believe it is my God-given duty to be not only environmentally conscious, but also open to the needs of the socially downtrodden the world over. The biblical record makes it quite clear that stewardship of our natural resources is in order...

But many others swallowed it hook, line, and sinker -- as Scherer no doubt intended:

I have never been able to fathom how the Christian right cares so little about the environment -- after all, doesn't God want us to cherish and protect the earth He has given us?

After reading this excellent article, now I understand. And I'm scared to death. These radical evangelical Christians actually believe that the faster we destroy the earth and our environment, the faster the "second coming of Christ" will happen.

But so what? So what if a few gullible readers of a fringe environmental magazine buy into one article?

Well, it seems Scherer's article is poised to go mainstream: Some of the softer talking heads on the left also have swallowed his theory hook line and sinker.

Recently, on January 22nd, Bobby Kennedy gave Scherer's views an airing on "progressive" talk radio network Air America. But hey, that's pretty "fringe" too -- they also entertain the theory George Bush caused 9/11.

Yet on December 1, Bill Moyers used Scherer's narrative as the subject of his speech at Harvard Medical School, when he accepted a "Global Environment Citizen Award". What are you are about to witness isn't pretty, but remember that Moyers is viewed by many Democrats, not to mention the people at PBS (but I repeat myself), as an esteemed, respected, and credible journalist.

Excerpts from Moyer's speech include:

Remember James Watt, President 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." ....

Of course, Moyers was "reminded" of this quote. Thus, Moyers swallows Scherer's apparent fabrication whole, without even noticing nobody -- even Watt's worst critics -- ever seem to have heard the quote before.

These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century... It's outline is rather simple, if bizarre... once Israel has occupied the rest of its "biblical lands," legions of the anti-Christ will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts, and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow....

Particularly their political opponents, no doubt.

That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelation where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed - an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 - just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter heaven, and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.

So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist, Glenn Scherer - "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse.

Ah yes, just like Scherer, Moyers knows exactly what he's doing, and how likely it is to be true: "may believe." It's only a possibility, but -- hey! -- why take a risk by not alarming everyone about the danger all these Christians may pose?

As Grist makes clear, we're not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election - 231 legislators in total - more since the election - are backed by the religious right. Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian coalition was Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, who recently quoted from the biblical book of Amos on the senate floor: "the days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that i will send a famine in the land.' he seemed to be relishing the thought.*

Yes, of course. Zell Miller supports the Iraq war because he's trying to start a war with Muslims in order to force Jesus to return so he can stand next to Him in heaven, naked, watching Terry McAuliffe, John Kerry and Barbara Boxer suffer plauges of frogs and boils.

And this is being recounted as truth by a "respected journalist", to a group of academics, at Harvard Medical School, with a straight face.

(And Scherer thinks Christians are gullible?)

[* Miller's speech is here being taken out of context in a way which inverts it's meaning. His next words were: "Not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water." Miller was actually offering a "liberal", e.g. non-literal interpretaton of the verses in question. He subscribes to a position that few fundamentalists would share (that Amos came up with the idea of a single God), and used these verses a symbol of lost moral values, not to predict an actual famine. Giving the opposite impression here is strikingly dishonest.]

Moyers continues...

And why not? There's a constituency for it. A 2002 TIME/CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the Book of Revelation are going to come true... people under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected, as Grist puts it, "to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?" ....

... which surely explains why Bush keeps pushing all those long-term plans to find new domestic sources of oil... (Consistency is apparently optional here.)

No wonder Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers." He turned out millions of the foot soldiers on November 2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics.

Yes, we all remember how Bush ran on the "Apocalpyse" platform. "Vote for me and Jesus will return right away!" Which makes a lot of sense out of Bush's choice of long term social-security reform as a top issue! (Again, consistency and critical thinking clearly aren't Moyer's strong suits.)

I can see in the look on your faces just how had it is for the journalist to report a story like this with any credibility....

Okay, so his audience wasn't quite as easily fooled. That's reassuring.

But guess what?

Now Moyers has been invited to air his newfound anti-Christian conspiracy theory in the mainstream media. It seems the Minneapolis Star-Tribune now features Moyers ravings on it's editorial page.

Is Moyers unusually soft-headed? Or will this meme continue to resonate and catch among many other left-leaning journalists, of similar esteemedness?

We'll see.

Update: Lileks -- extremist vodka-enjoying Luthern-dinner-attending hummell-figurine-collecting fundamentalist that he is -- has also taken a shot at this monstrosity. He notes a further deception I missed (it was a target-rich environment) and has some fun with Scherer/Moyers mischaracterization of a Florida program to study pesticide use (in any economic bracket) as one that "pay[s] poor families to continue to use pesticides in their homes."

You see, here's what I wonder: These Christians -- they're bad and stupid, right? And these guys like Moyers and Scherer -- they're good? Am I getting this correct?

Now, here's the part that puzzles me: Omitting hard-to-prove/disprove topics like whether God created the universe or escatology, why are the "good" guys so often wrong, or even caught knowingly lying about the readily available facts? And why do we keep accepting them as "good"? Shouldn't it be clear that -- whatever we might think of those bible-believing fundies -- guys like Scherer (and Moyers by extension and collusion) are objectively, provably "bad" by the standards they themselves employ?

Update 2: Powerline reports that some other in the blogosphere have picked up on the same ideas I mentioned here, including the faked Watt quote and false implication about Zell Miller's quote.

It seems Grist has now modified the original article, and issued a half-retraction:

In fact, Watt did not make such a statement to Congress. The quotation is attributed to Watt in the book Setting the Captives Free by Austin Miles, but Miles does not write that it was made before Congress.

According to Hindraker, Setting the Captives Free is an anti-religious tract, which gives you some of idea of Glenn Scherer's motives in scrawling this bit of hateful tripe.

Further, James Watt himself has now surfaced and is exposing the fantasy quote for what it is:

I have never thought, believed or said such words. Nor have I ever said anything similar to that thought which could be interpreted by a reasonable person to mean anything similar to the quote attributed to me.

Because you are at least average in intelligence and have a basic understanding of Christian beliefs, you know that no Christian would believe what you attributed to me.

Because you have had the privilege of serving in the White House under President Johnson, you know that no person believing such a thing would be qualified for a Presidential appointment, nor would he be confirmed by the United States Senate, and if confirmed and said such a thing would he be allowed to continue in service.

Since you must have known such a statement would not have been made and you refused or failed to do any primary research on this supposed quote, what was your motive in printing such a damnable lie?

How about a desparate need to create evidence where none existed? Reckless disregard for the truth? Hatred for members of another religion?

And further, it seems The Washington Post is showing it's journalistic credentials, too: "Sounds like the Post reporter, Blaine Harden, read Moyers' speech and cribbed from it without doing any fact-checking."