Charles, Christ and GM

Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:47:53 +0100
To: sfp-net@chebucto.ns.ca
From: pnicholl@essex.ac.uk
Cc: fawcett@physics.utoronto.ca
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <sfp-net-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects


Re: sfp-146: Don't fool with Mother Nature, warns HRH Prince of Wales.
Eric writes:
>A measure of the ascendancy of the economic-technological imperative is
>the almost unanimous condemnation of Prince Charles in the British media
>for introducing the term "sacred" and concepts of deep ecology into a
>debate dominated by the academic-corporate elite. I don't recall seeing
>any response at all in the G&M.
Despite substantial general comment (in today's Guardian princess Anne and
the Duke of E. are cited as royal critics of Charles' views!) I am provoked
to respond narrowly about one piece of the 'sacred' in Charles' speech. He
cites "St. Matthew" as emphasizing that 'not even Solomon in all his glory
was arrayed as the lilies of the field'. As so often happens biblical
quotations are torn from context to support an argument almost exactly
opposite to the one  notionally being expressed - in this case by Christ in
the Sermon on the Mount. What does Jesus' sermon (at least according to
King James' assembled divines) say?
"6:25: Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye
shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put
on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? 6:28
Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do
they spin: 6:29: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory
was not arrayed like one of these. 6:30: Wherefore, if God so clothe the
grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven,
shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 6:31: Therefore
take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or,
Wherewithal shall we be clothed?"
It does not call upon us to regard nature as sacred. It emphasizes the
transience of the natural world. The grass is cast into the oven. It says
there are things worth worrying about and things we should not worry about
at all because "God" will take care of them. The latter include our
immediate daily needs such as food and clothing. If there are any followers
of this philosophy in the UK they are to be found among various protestors,
against road building projects and nuclear weapons, and in camps like the
one at Faslane. Some of these too are against GM foods because they see
themselves and ourselves as being corrupted by concerns that are
essentially trivial and our ability to lead creative and morally meaningful
lives being taken away from us. This kind of enabling fear can translate
into a disabling fear of science itself. Christ - as portrayed - and others
of a similar philosophical bent, such as Ivan Illich, do not make the
latter mistake. Illich, when asked why he did not join the young people
protesting about the environment and possible harm to the future, said that
they should not worry - there is no future....
I wait for Charles to go to Faslane to discuss the 'sacred' and its
relation to nuclear weaponry over the camp fire - and to follow the sermon,
by abandoning his concerns for food and clothing, to say nothing about his
palaces and the royal future. It's actually a quite contemptible moral
stance to quote the bible in this way unless the moral precepts are acted
upon.

Peter Nicholls, Department of Biological Sciences,
Central Campus, University of Essex,
Wivenhoe Park, Colchester, CO4 3SQ, England.

Tel.: +44-1206-873776 (office) +44-1206-873333 (ex. 3015) (Lab)
Fax : +44-1206-872592
e-mail : pnicholl@essex.ac.uk
http://www.essex.ac.uk/bcs/staff/nicholls/


next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects