Respect is something I highly value. It is something I was raised with, something I hope to perpetuate, and something which I hope to receive in return. I believe that every person has the right to dignity and respect. Viewpoints, ideas, and individuals, evening those in contrast to my own beliefs, deserve a certain level of courtesy. I truly do try to embody this virtue.
I have never had to try so hard in my entire life than I did at Ann McElhinney’s lecture on the hypocrisy and fallacy of the Green Movement. I anticipated disagreeing with the majority of her statements. I predicted it would be a challenge – a challenge to remain calm and collected. However, I did not expect the gross level of disrespect she directed towards environmentalists and the CSBSJU community. I felt as though she took every opportunity to point her finger at both groups and yell, “shame!” She insulted the Abbot, the Abbey’s mission, and the practicing Catholics on campus. She called environmentalists “elitist” and, essentially, heartless hypocrites who willingly kill five-year-old African children. She asked if her bottled water was hurting us. It was almost too much to handle. There was no respect.
Perhaps the root of this tremendous challenge was the fact that McElhinney’s lecture was intended to be defeatist. Her purpose was to disagree with and discredit the environmental standpoint rather than prove her own. I went into her lecture with the intention of discovering what she wanted – not what she did not want. What was she advocating for? Amidst all of her disparaging comments about environmentalists and all the “stuff” we preach and own, I pulled out a few key ideas. First, DDT needs to be used in countries plagued by malaria as a disease prevention agent. Second, the Bible needs to be interpreted literally. Third, the Earth possesses resources that are strictly intended to be utilized and consumed. The rest of her lecture, I felt, was dripping in disdainful comments about bearded environmentalists, erroneous (peer reviewed) science, and sandals.
DDT – I can agree with that. If used wisely, sparingly, and precisely, DDT has the potential to save lives. It simply cannot be applied in massive clouds such as it was in the United States in the 1950’s. The Bible and theology is an individual concern and should only be determined by the individual. It must be a free decision. The Earth’s resources, however, are not strictly intended to be commoditized by humans. From my perspective, that is a selfish, wasteful, and unsustainable process. We cannot continue to use coal for the next 300 years assuming we will eventually invent a replacement.
Honestly, I just do not know how to respond. She dismissed any outside facts, insulted and used religion as a fighting point, and blatantly tried to provoke the environmentalists within the room. In addition, McElhinney repeatedly used one argument to dodge questions. I honestly tried to go in with a respectful mind. I tried to hold myself back and not fall into the hateful polarization of society. I tried to be courteous. I do not think I succeeded.
I completely agree with how you feel about McElhinney's talk. She never let anyone finish asking their question, and she made it sound like her way was the only way. I agreed as well that DDT can be okay if used sparingly. She was closed minded and very frustrating to listen to.
ReplyDeleteThis reviews are very interesting. There are some anti-environmentalists who have some smart arguments to make, and it's important for these perspectives to be heard. But we do need to keep in mind that a lot of people in our society agree with her: where do we go from there?
ReplyDeleteShe had a point with her opening argument. It made me realize that both sides stretch the truth. It is also true that there are individuals who hide under the guise of environmentalist while owning three homes in Malibu (James Cameron). She had some very good points that made me examine my own practices, however her delivery troubled me so much. If she had presented herself as less condescending and hostile, she may have converted me.
ReplyDeleteWhere do we go from here? The best I can think of is calm and collected dialogue. Everyone who walked into that lecture hall went expected a fight. We can't hold onto that mindset. In this polarized society, we need to be open to compromise. I understand that is a difficult thing to ask for, but it is imperative. I also understand that compromise requires that I shift towards the middle as well. If we all stay at our respective extreme ends, then nothing (not even what could happen in the middle) will actually be done. Better the middle than nothing.