Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

by Ruth Fannin

I was searching for my New Year's Eve party dress in a seldom visited
closet and once again I encountered The Coat.  It has become a yearly
dilemma for me.  Should I wear it or not?

I adoringly run my hand over the sleeve, its softness sending sensuous
signals through my fingertips.  It's a sweet number; full-length, mostly
white, luxurious...I love my fur.  I bought it as a self-congratulatory
reward for a major promotion.  

But, once again I sigh and leave it on the hanger.

My friends have made it clear that only the auntie-christ herself would
venture into public wearing fur.  Cruella, Killer of Dalmatians, wears fur.
Clear-cut-and-burn Republicans wear fur.  When I admitted to a friend that
I had one of these in my closet, she immediately tried to find an excuse
for me...well, you inherited it, right?

What is it about wearing these expensive animal hides that stirs up so much
anger and judgment from that subset of society most likely to have a
pro-choice bumper sticker?

The wearing of animal fur has become one of the seven deadly sins of the
"celebrate diversity" crowd.  This doctrine has become so prevalent that
its validity isn't even discussed or questioned.  I've seen people who wore
the lightest shade of political green unflinchingly accept the commandment
"Thou shalt not wear animal fur," and it's corollary "Thou shalt be
boorishly sanctimonious to those who do."

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard the antifur party platform.  Little animals
should not suffer for mere human vanity.   They writhe in agony for hours
in traps, dontchaknow.  The farm-grown furs are out too--the animals are
executed in little mink holocausts.  There are lovely faux furs.  If you
like fur, buy a synthetic, etc., etc. 

There are some very serious Animal Liberationists who started this
campaign.  Most of them are vegetarian or vegan--they abstain from all
animal products.  You know the type.  They've been storming animal testing
labs and writing letters to the editors for years.  These activists protest
meat consumption, animal testing, and wearing any kind of animal skin.   I
have a lot of respect for these people -- they act on their convictions.  I
can listen to their arguments, because they live their lives in harmony
with their beliefs.

It's the other people, the fashionable instant-green crowd, who bother me. 
The antifur philosophy hit some kind of public sympathy motherload.  The
public ate it up.   

What is it about fur that inspires this disproportionate attention?  

What about eating meat and wearing leather?  Animals suffer and die.  Yet,
with the exception of a few antifur activists who walk the talk and also
abstain from meat and leather, most fur protesters still eat their steaks,
wear leather shoes, and wouldn't give a second thought about someone
strolling by in head-to-toe suede.

When is the last time you heard about someone spray painting the interior
leather in a doctor's Mercedes?  Have you ever seen anyone carrying protest
signs outside of the neighborhood steak house?  What gives?  If the same
logic is applied, steak and leather crimes are surely just as heinous and
most certainly committed in higher volume.

I remember the last time I was a target of this kind of attention.  It was
when I made the serious social blunder of putting my daughter in a
disposable diaper at a peace rally.    From the reactions I got, you'd
think that my baby's posterior attire was solely responsible for ozone
layer depletion and the disappearance of the rain forest.  

We know that disposable diapers account for less than two percent of the
waste in landfills.  There are a lot more plastic bottles and vague pieces
of Styrofoam.  Nevertheless, several well-meaning souls felt that it was
their responsibility to give me a lecture about cloth vs.. disposables.  I
felt like the object of a witch hunt.  I started hiding the Huggies under
the cloth diapers in her diaper bag like they were contraband--it would
have created a smaller outcry had it been eye of newt.

As I stood there, closet open, thinking about diapers and mink it all
became very clear.

Fur is a feminist issue.
 
The wearing of fur is a female symbol of power and affluence.  Disposable
diapers are primarily used by women for convenience--it frees us from some
of the drudgery of raising a child.  Both disposable diapers and furs have
garnered a disproportionate amount of condemnation from the politically
trendy.   
  
These very nice people would never dream of walking up to a man eating his
lunch from a Styrofoam hamburger holder and telling him that he should only
frequent restaurants that serve the menu items in paper.  Why do they feel
they have a right to tell me what I can wear or how my daughter's bottom
should be dressed?

Are women just easy prey? Most of us are already feeling some kind of
personal guilt for simply occupying space, for having bodies that aren't up
to media specifications.  

Our system has been efficiently declawing and disarming women for
centuries.  Women have been burned as witches, stereotyped as ugly villains
(take a look at all of the old Disney animations), and dismissed as
ineffectual. It has kept the balance of power securely in male hands. 

What if all this antifur zealotry is just tapping into a much bigger
reservoir?  Maybe the source of all this religious passion is really a
fundamental fear of powerful women.

If you don't believe me, notice your reactions the next time you see a
woman in fur. Before your default fur-is-evil program kicks in, is it
preceded by the thought Who does she think she is?  Would your initial
gut-level response be different if the fur was on a man?   My guess is yes.

Besides, real fur is greener.   The same people who point out how many
Pampers are being pitched, also suggest that we opt for synthetic fur. 
These are manmade fibers that wouldn't decompose in a landfill in hundreds
of years. Fur, on the other hand, is a natural fiber. It is made from
renewable resources.  Fur farms create significantly less environmental
waste than polyester and synthetic fiber factories. 

My Coat makes sense.  It is aesthetically pleasing and is warmer than my
woolen and down coats.  It will last me a lifetime.  It is a symbol of my 
success.

Maybe I'll wear it anyhow this year. 

Hmmm. I just thought up a new bumper sticker:  I'm green.  I'm feminist.  I
wear fur.

    God created the first clothing from animal skin.

    .2  So true.
    
    After their fall from grace, God almighty became the world's first
    tailor for the man and the woman.  I'm not sure that God did ever
    such a thing for anybody else, but I tend to doubt it.
    
    I suppose some might use this passage (Genesis 3.21) as justification
    for farming fur-bearing animals or clubbing baby seals in the wild.
    I don't think I would.
    

RE:         <<< Note 947.3 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Heat-seeking pacifist" >>>

       
   > I suppose some might use this passage (Genesis 3.21) as justification
   > for farming fur-bearing animals or clubbing baby seals in the wild.
   > I don't think I would.
    

     Nor would I.  



 Jim

    
    I loved Ruth's note (thanks Richard!).  It's true..there is quite the
    fervor over fur.  Actually, over animal rights in general.  The
    extremists drive me crazy ramming ships to stop whales from being
    killed while they endanger human life.  To some there is no difference. 
    I believe the Bible presents evidence to the contrary.  There is a big
    difference between us and the animal kingdom.  God put us over the
    animal kingdom.  He gave us authority after the fall to kill animals. 
    However, I believe he also left us in a custodial role and as such we
    need to have concern for all of God's creation.  I advocate balance. 
    Acting responsibly within the boundaries God set up should be fine. 
    But elevating animals to equal status with humans is absurd and I think
    quite possibly stems from years of evolutionary indoctrination.  I
    think the green craze is as much a get rich quick scheme as it is truly
    conservatorial, sometimes more so.  I mean if people really cared about
    everyone recycling why would all the waste management services cost 2-3
    times more than regular trash pickup.  Have you ever priced how
    expensive it can be to help our environment.  Someone is lining their
    pockets big time!
    
    That's all I have time for...gotta go.
    
    Jill
                                        

    I have heard that it's true that, at present anyway, recycling of
    some materials is a more expensive proposition than continuing to
    exploit the Earth's resources.  And, I hear, a certain percentage
    of recycled materials is unuseable and must be disposed of anyway.
    In other words, recycling is not presently 100% effective.
    
    Perhaps it's not worth the extra monetary expense to slow the depletion.
    Perhaps it is.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    I'm living with my teenaged sister, who is a vegetarian and is, like
    most of her friends, very environmentally conscious. The way I live has
    certainly been affected - we recycle as much of our rubbish as we can
    (we have a line of bins in the kitchen, all carefully marked!). The
    cats mean that I have lots of tins that need to be taken to the
    recycling units on a regular basis (not the most exciting job in the
    world!). 
    I also find myself eating a lot of vegetarian/vegan food - with just two 
    of us, it's ridiculous cooking separate meals, although I would not say 
    that I was a vegetarian.  
    If she left, I think I'd keep it up - it's very much a way of life now,
    and she has certainly made me stop and think about what I'm doing.
    
    I know that God put us on this earth as caretakers - I believe that we
    have failed Him miserably, as in everything else. 
    He may have given us permission to kill animals for food and clothing, 
    but did He give us permission to hunt them to extinction? Did He give us
    permission to pollute His beautiful creation? 
    I've never understood why being "green" is considered to be
    non-Christian by so many people. It is, in my opinion, a Christian
    issue. We are supposed to be taking care of this world - we were
    commanded to do so. Many Christians I know DO recycle; they DO
    volunteer to clean up rivers; they ARE worried about our environment. 
    Recycling may not be 100% effective, but then, neither am I! Even if
    it's only partly effective, it helps.

If being "green" means good stewardship, it is not non-Christian.

But so often those who are "green" are overtly pagan, worshipping
"Mother" Earth as a goddess who brings forth creation.

This is worshipping the created rather than the Creator.

/john

Note 947.8

>But so often those who are "green" are overtly pagan, worshiping
>"Mother" Earth as a goddess who brings forth creation.

I keep hearing about these people.  Maybe I'm leading a sheltered life.
I've yet to meet one.  Now, when I say this it is not to include people
who occasionally refer to Mother Nature or something similar as a poetic
figure or symbol.  Are you speaking of these?

Shalom,
Richard

re .9

No, I am not referring to those who poetically refer to Mother Nature.

I'm referring to those who worship the goddess Gaia.  Massachusetts
(and Digital in the GMA) is full of these so-called Gaia Groupies.

Look in the bookstore for recent books with the word "Gaia" in the
title.

/john

    
    Thanks for your note Judy.  I enjoyed it alot.  I agree that we have to
    be caretakers.  I'm not sure I'd agree as much with Christians thinking
    that being "green" is non-Christian.  I think John pegged it when he
    talks about those who worship nature above the God who created it. 
    Romans warns against just that.  I think what hits a sour note with me
    about the environmental craze is not only some of the hypocrisy that's
    already been mentioned in this note, but also the legalism.  I don't
    think legalism is a good thing; not in the Christian life and not in
    the life of non-Christians as well.  I think anything can be taken to a
    unhealthy extreme.  I think anything that is popular can be capitalized
    on by the greedy.  I honestly believe that most people want to be good
    caretakers of our planet, but to do so right now can be quite costly
    and when people are already strapped with so many bills, they just
    can't see how they can do it.  So they do little things that help. 
    They start changing to energy efficient light bulbs.  They put water
    savers in their shower heads and toilet tanks.  They are buying things
    in packaging that has less waste. Where there are bins to recycle, they
    do.  They buy fuel-efficient cars and try to keep them maintained
    better.  I think people are really trying to do what they can, but I
    think there are lots of greedy people trying to capitalize rather than
    truly trying to convert our society over to be truly "green".  I think
    it's a worthy endeavor, but there are those who make me skeptical.
    
    Jill
    

    I think anything can be taken to a unhealthy extreme.  I think anything that
    is popular can be capitalized on by the greedy.

Including religion? :^)

    Especially religion!!!

    
    Hi Steve,
    
    You betcha!  This was a problem from the beginning.  Paul even comments
    on it in II Corinthians 2:17 "Unlike so many, we do not peddle the
    Word of God for profit.  On the contrary, in Christ we speak before
    God with sincerity, like men sent from God."
    
    I think there have been many people through the ages who have taken
    advantage of those seeking for God.  Although, there are many people
    through the ages who have been taken advantage of when seeking other
    things too.  This is a fallen world we live in.  It affects everything.
    
    Jill

    > But so often those who are "green" are overtly pagan, worshipping
    > "Mother" Earth as a goddess who brings forth creation.
    
    A few extremists in Massachusetts, from what I can gather. "Green"
    policies are practiced all over the world. I'm another who has yet to
    meet on of these pagan Earth worshippers. 
    
    It's exactly what I mean - WHY are the environmentalists so often
    branded as pagan (many of them are Christians, incidently)? I think 
    it's shameful. It ought to be the CHRISTIANS who are associated with 
    taking care of the Earth because they have been commanded to do so.
                                               

>   It ought to be the CHRISTIANS who are associated with 
>   taking care of the Earth because they have been commanded to do so.
                                               
Amen!  But it appears many Christians are more concerned about disassociating
themselves from pagans, humanists, and New_Agers with whom they may or may
not come in contact in their efforts.

Richard

    RE:  .15
    
    Ummm....actually all of mankind was commanded to take care of the
    earth, not just Christians.  I don't know about the churches you've
    been to, but mine advocates being good stewards of God's creation.  It
    shows respect for the Creator.  I've never met a Christian who condones
    trashing the earth.  Have you heard sermons or statements to the
    opposite.  Why are environmentalists so often branded pagan?  Because
    of the priority the created gets over the Creator...actually many times
    it's the disbelief in the Creator all together.  The concept that this
    perfectly ordered and beautiful world just fell chaotically into place
    over billions of years.  I didn't find anything wrong with John's
    statement. he's not putting down good stewardship of God's creation
    just groups who are not only promoting being "green" but also promoting
    the non-existence of God.
    
    Jill
           

    RE:  .16
    
    Richard,
    
    The one really doesn't have anything to do with the other.  I feel
    there is plenty to be done without donating my money or time to
    organizations that are promoting more than just being "green".  I'm not
    going to give my voluntary support to a group that goes against what I
    believe.  No more than you like supporting troops being sent to Somalia
    to feed hungry people.  Why? Because there is more there than just the
    good we'd like to see happen.
    
    Jill

    .18  Jill,
    
    Methinks thee misperceives my posture as a Christian.  It is not the
    first time I've noticed this occurring, but I've not the inclination
    nor persistence to attempt to clear it up with you.
    
    In Christian conferences, whenever environmental issues are brought up,
    almost invariably somebody brings out the fear of being contaminated
    by pagans or some other objectionable group.  It happened again in this
    very string, that's all.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    RE: .19
    
    Hi Richard,
    
    >Methinks thee misperceives my posture as a Christian.
    
    ??? Hmm...I didn't mention anything about you as a Christian.  Perhaps
    I miscommunicated something.  I was talking more about your pacifist
    activities.  While I'm sure for you they are closely entwined; please
    pardon my separating them as not every Christian is a pacifist in the
    strictest sense of the word and not every pacifist a Christian.
    
    I was trying to make an analogy, perhaps one that didn't work, but I'll
    try it again.  I could be wrong, but I believe you've stated in the
    past that you don't like your tax money going to fund the great war
    machine. That money is forced out of you.  I'm sure you don't offer any
    of your voluntary funds to support like causes even if there is some
    sort of humanitarian cause mixed in.  In turn...I have no problem
    spending my money or time on what I feel God has called me to support. 
    I spend my money and time on things that I believe help the
    environment, but that doesn't mean I am willing to support every
    organization who is involved in the environmental movement.  I'm sure
    some of my money finds its way into the hands of those whose actions
    and beliefs I disagree with, but I try not to support groups I disagree
    with directly.  For instance, I don't support groups such as Greenpeace
    because of their practice of ramming ships.  I understand their disgust
    with the whalers, however, I think that their willingness to put human
    life at risk because of that is inexcusable.  But it is their actions
    that keep me from supporting them, not because of the fear that I might
    be contaminated by their their "pagan ways."  I think there is a
    difference between not wanting to support certain groups and this fear
    you think seems to prevade the lives of some Christians.  I might go to
    church, but I am by no means a mouse.
    
    Jill
    
    P.S.  I do contribute, sometimes too much, to Ben & Jerry who do
    support the peace movement.  Does that count in my favor???  ;^) ;^)
     

    Ah, Ben & Jerry.  It certainly shows good taste in ice cream, whether
    or not you agree with their politics.
    
    Richard
    

Seen on bumper sticker just today:

"Politically incorrect, white, straight Christian who
thinks Spotted Owl tastes like chicken."

I saw this bumper sticker last week:


	Save the Males!

:-)

-Steve

    .23
    
    :-) Where can I get one?

    
    
    > Spotted owl tastes like chicken
    
     ....more like pheasant if you ask me :-)

    
    RE: .21
    
    > Ah, Ben & Jerry.  It certainly shows good taste in ice cream, whether
    > or not you agree with their politics.
    
    But that's part of my point.  If I as a Christian were fearful of
    environmentalists as you claim because of some of the groups you've
    previously named, than I certainly would not buy their product.  I mean
    I can buy any kind of ice cream.  Yes, B&J's is good, but it's not the
    only one that's good.  I would be willing to guess from the little I've
    seen of their politics on their packaging that I probably wouldn't
    agree with them, but I'm not fearful of that....of this contamination 
    you talk about.  The calories, yes.  The contamination, no.   ;^)
    
    Jill

I would still stand by what I said in Note 947.16:
                                           
>Amen!  But it appears many Christians are more concerned about disassociating
                       ^^^^
>themselves from pagans, humanists, and New_Agers with whom they may or may
>not come in contact in their [environmentalist] efforts.

Richard
    

    
    -1
    
    I'd still say that's a pretty sweeping generalization.  I think
    the use of SOME rather than MANY might be more accurate.
    
    Jill

    I have been known to purchase Welch's grape jelly.  But that doesn't
    mean I endorse the John Birch Society.
    
    You are, of course, perfectly free to think yours is a more accurate
    point of view.
    
    Richard
    

    Revelation 11:18 "And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come,
    and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou 
    shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, 
    and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them 
    which destroy the earth."