Evangelical lobbyist Richard Cizik, Vice President for Governmental Affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) is getting his hand slapped by members of the Arlington Group for his statements about Global Climate Change and Population Control. Cizik recently told the media that it is indisputable that human activity has contributed to global warming and has encouraged evangelicals to make it a top issue.
The NAE president used to be, until very recently, the Reverend Ted Haggard, who you may recall stepped down after being exposed as an idiot by Richard Dawkins and as a hypocrite by a male prostitute. Haggard’s knowledge of nature and the scientific method were both shown to be lacking in his talk with Dawkins, so I’m not surprised that the NAE has shown similar scholarship and has chastised Cizik for saying that climate change and overpopulation were things that we should all worry about.
Mr. Cizik not only believes that global warming is an indisputable fact, but he also holds related views that he has not been willing to reveal to the membership at large. In an alarming speech he delivered to the World Bank in May of 2006, he said: “I’d like to take on the population issue, but in my community global warming is the third rail issue. I’ve touched the third rail but still have a job. And I’ll still have a job after my talk here today. But population is a much more dangerous issue to touch. We need to confront population control and we can — we’re not Roman Catholics, after all, but it’s too hot to handle now.” We ask, how is population control going to be achieved if not by promoting abortion, the distribution of condoms to the young, and, even by infanticide in China and elsewhere? Is this where Richard Cizik would lead us?
Finally, Cizik’s disturbing views seem to be contributing to growing confusion about the very term, “evangelical.” As a recent USA Today article notes: “Evangelical was the label of choice of Christians with conservative views on politics, economics and biblical morality. Now the word may be losing its moorings, sliding toward the same linguistic demise that “fundamentalist” met decades ago because it has been misunderstood, misappropriated and maligned.” We believe some of that misunderstanding about evangelicalism and its “conservative views on politics, economics and biblical morality” can be laid at Richard Cizik’s door.
Infanticide? Okay, yes I know that the “one child” rule in China has resulted in infanticide for baby girls, but honestly, are these people asking if Cizik will promote infanticide? What kind of slippery-slope mudslinging is that? Still it’s nice to see Christians flinging mud at each other for a change.
Oh dear. The fundamentalists don’t like the label anymore, and now they are worried that Cizik will mess up their cherished label of “evangelical”. I’ve got news; fundamental religious groups are going to be seen as nutty as long as they continue to preach against science, against human rights, and as long as they keep turning a blind eye toward the environment while sitting in the hip pocket of political leaders who successfully pander to religion and big oil at the same time.
There is no misunderstanding about evangelical fundamentalists – I understand quite well that you have “faith” in knowing what is best for me. Who knew Big Brother would carry a cross?
I can only hope that these religious groups continue to attack each other like this. It helps me in my small bid to make the world a better place when these religious groups start eating their own.