In July 2008, Tim Nicholson was let go from his job at a property management firm. According to Nicholson, his dismissal was due to his beliefs about man-made global warming. Nicholson calls man-made global warming “the most important issue of our time” and believes that “nothing should stand in the way of diverting this catastrophe.” This led to “frequent clashes” with his co-workers over his concerns. For instance, Nicholson, out of concern about excess CO2 emissions, refuses to fly. He objected when the firm’s CEO flew someone from London to Ireland to retrieve his Blackberry.

When he was dismissed, Nicholson sued under Britain’s Employment Equality act, specifically the part that prohibits discrimination on account of “religion and belief.” According to Nicholson, “Belief in man-made climate change is…a philosophical belief that reflects my moral and ethical values.” For its part, his former employer countered that “green views were political and based on science, as opposed to religious or philosophical in nature.”

In what’s being called a “landmark ruling,” a British judge ruled for Nicholson, saying that “a belief in man-made climate change…is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose” of laws covering discrimination in employment. The judge’s ruling opens the door to the possibility of employees suing their employers “for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.”

Theoretically, an employer could say “I need you in Helsinki by tomorrow,” to which the employee could reply, “Too much carbon, we’ll have to aim for next week, since I’ll be going by bicycle, train, and boat.”

The possibilities are, as advertisers say, endless.

Breakpoint: Global Warming As Religion

This is NUTS.

I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

Al Gore in a 2006 interview (h/t James Taranto)

I think this speaks for itself.

If you are a serious believer in the Lord Jesus Christ as we know him in the Gospels, summarized in the creeds—true God of true God, God incarnate, born of the Virgin Mary of the Holy Spirit, suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead, buried and rose again from the dead and ascended to God the Father, and that he will come again to judge the living and the dead—ask your priest or your pastor: “Do you really believe all that stuff?” Ask it in the mainline, ask it in any Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant Church, and let’s see what we get.

James M. Kushiner. Reading this made me remember a quote from C. S. Lewis (found in God in the Dock): “It is your duty to fix the lines [of doctrine] clearly in your minds: and if you wish to go beyond them you must change your profession. This is your duty not specially as Christians or as priests but as honest men. There is a danger here of the clergy developing a special professional conscience which obscures the very plain moral issue. Men who have passed beyond these boundary lines in either direction are apt to protest that they have come by their unorthodox opinions honestly. In defense of those opinions they are prepared to suffer obloquy and to forfeit professional advancement. They thus come to feel like martyrs. But this simply misses the point which so gravely scandalizes the layman. We never doubted that the unorthodox opinions were honestly held: what we complain of is your continuing in your ministry after you have come to hold them. We always knew that a man who makes his living as a paid agent of the Conservative Party may honestly change his views and honestly become a Communist. What we deny is that he can honestly continue to be a Conservative agent and to receive money from one party while he supports the policy of the other.” (via wesleyhill)

Sincerity of belief is important. But truth of belief is even more important.

Rather than pouring our efforts into two hours of worship, bible study and Christian fellowship on Sunday why don’t we just take a moment and a few extra bucks to act like a decent human being when we go to lunch afterwards? Just think about it. What if the entire restaurant industry actually began to look forward to working Sunday lunch? If they said amongst themselves, “I love the church crowd. They are kind, patient and very generous. It’s my favorite part of the week waiting on Christians.” How might such a change affect the way the world sees us? Think about it. Just being a decent human being for one hour each Sunday and the world sees us in a whole new way.

Experimental Theology: The Bait and Switch of Contemporary Christianity (via sds)

May I propose :

Think about it. Just being a decent human being for one hour each Sunday and the world sees us in a whole new way.

Why the quid pro quo?  Just be decent.  There’s no need to tie simply being a good person to a particular theology.

It’s remarkable that anyone needs to be reminded of this, regardless of their faith-based affiliation.

(via danielholter)

I would find it remarkable if you could find anyone who never needs to be reminded of this.

I also submit that “being a good person” is a highly subjective term, so it necessarily must be associated to, if not (to use Daniel’s term) a “particular theology,” then at least a belief system. Not all explanations for the human condition (and what “good” even means) come to the same conclusion.

Though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science.

Anyway, I’m an Angry Agnostic - I don’t believe in God, I don’t not believe in him, but I’m very interested in him. How could I not be? I have a mind and I’ve read a lot of stuff. I am also hyper-aware - as are most intelligent scientists - of the excessive claims made for science… . If you are really interested in any of this - and you should be - you should read the argument between the theologian Richard Swinburne and Richard Dawkins. Properly done, this will keep you going for the rest of August. You may take the view that it’s not worth it because Swinburne is a theologian and, therefore, a silly fantastist. If you do take this view, then you are a a fool, a prat, an illiterate and a bore etc. and you are banned from reading this blog.

Brian Appleyard (via ayjay)

This made me laugh.

Morality doesn’t come from religion. Healthy human children come into the world primed to become moral members of society, just like they come into the world primed to acquire language. Moral emotions like empathy, shame, guilt and disgust begin to emerge during the toddler years regardless of a child’s cultural or religious context. A toddler may pat an injured peer or offer a grubby toy to an adult who is distressed. A preschooler may hide behind a couch to cover a transgression. As a child’s brain develops, moral emotions are joined by moral reasoning. By age five or six, kids can argue long and loud about fairness. Research is just starting to show how our moral emotions and reasoning are guided by powerful moral instincts. I think these instincts are the reason that across secular and moral traditions we humans share some basic agreements about goodness. The golden rule appears in some form or another in every ethical system.

Valerie Tarico (via azspot)

It would be impossible entirely unethical impossible, but I would like to see a study that shows whether or not this is actually true; would children left to themselves, without any outside human influence at any time, really come to these conclusions?

(via bellatoris)

This quotation misses the point entirely. At the basic level, religion is

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Of course religion comes after morality, because certain moral laws are recognized innately by humans and do not have to be taught them. Religions simply systematize and organize various explanations (aka beliefs) for why we all recognize a moral law—and then extrapolate further implications for living.

The question then becomes: “Which explanation for our innate sense of morality is the most reasonable?” Unsurprisingly, I believe Christianity best answers the fundamental questions about the human condition, etc. But don’t fall for the lie that says “non-religious” is even a valid category. Unless you’re a vegetable, that in itself is a religion.

First, remember that post-everything people like narrative and story. They tend not to like the older kind of preaching that simply enunciated doctrinal principles. Neither are they excited about the newer user-friendly sermons of seeker-churches on “How to Handle Fear,” “How to Balance Your Life,” etc. So, do we throw overboard everything we have done? Absolutely not. We turn to Geerhardus Vos who says that every single part of the Bible is really about Jesus. If you know how to do Christ-centered preaching, then you turn every single sermon into a kind of story. The plot of the human dilemma thickens, and the hero that comes to the rescue is Jesus. Christ-centered preaching converts doctrinal lectures or little how-to talks into true sermons. Post-everythings who are interested in narrative are reached by such preaching that is deeply Reformed.