There is no moral high ground on the right or the left. If the goal is conservation as opposed to “being right”, then it should be an all hands on deck approach. Otherwise, all you have is yet another organization that has “a better way”. We all have something to contribute, whether we call ourselves “conservative “ or “progressive”, left, right or center. Supporting good public policy is obviously important, but be careful not to support one side against another. We need to find useful ways to come together. I would caution you to not lean to hard one way or the other and not to spend time criticizing others approaches to conservation. The fact that you are reaching out to those that have previously felt left out of the conservation movement is admirable. They are needed as much as the rest of us, not more or less.
I both sincerely agree with the point that conservation stems from love of place and community, and respectfully disagree with the application that the place and community to be loved is intrinsically tired to a national/political entity. The land we love was home to nations long before America, and , if the Lord wills, will be home to nations long after America is gone. Politically or nationally motivation conservation is both short sighted and narrow minded. The need to steward the land we call home has existed since the day man was created and placed in it. The community we love has far less to do with political entities and should rather be rooted deeper in a love for our neighbors. Political systems come and go, they succeed and fail, they are not not above criticism and sometimes they do become irredeemable. But we always have our neighbors and our communities, and these are worth loving. This nationally/patriotically driven conservation falls apart under the weight of its own demands. If we can only conserve the home of a nation we feel is not irredeemable, what do we do when it is irredeemable? What can be said about conservation in failed states, crumbling socialist dictatorships, truly fascist and oppressive nations? Can people not conserve under these rules? Unless we are specifically speaking of public policy (which falls by the wayside in these kind of governments), people can and should still care and come together successfully, not because they love their oppressive nations, but because they love their neighbors, know their land will out live them, and are grateful for the divine gift they have been given in a good and beautiful world.
Paradoxically, as we became more materialistic and secular we also became more dualistic. We seem committed to the belief that, the embodied beings we are, can possibly "think global." Or love "the Earth" and not plant a garden
There is no moral high ground on the right or the left. If the goal is conservation as opposed to “being right”, then it should be an all hands on deck approach. Otherwise, all you have is yet another organization that has “a better way”. We all have something to contribute, whether we call ourselves “conservative “ or “progressive”, left, right or center. Supporting good public policy is obviously important, but be careful not to support one side against another. We need to find useful ways to come together. I would caution you to not lean to hard one way or the other and not to spend time criticizing others approaches to conservation. The fact that you are reaching out to those that have previously felt left out of the conservation movement is admirable. They are needed as much as the rest of us, not more or less.
I both sincerely agree with the point that conservation stems from love of place and community, and respectfully disagree with the application that the place and community to be loved is intrinsically tired to a national/political entity. The land we love was home to nations long before America, and , if the Lord wills, will be home to nations long after America is gone. Politically or nationally motivation conservation is both short sighted and narrow minded. The need to steward the land we call home has existed since the day man was created and placed in it. The community we love has far less to do with political entities and should rather be rooted deeper in a love for our neighbors. Political systems come and go, they succeed and fail, they are not not above criticism and sometimes they do become irredeemable. But we always have our neighbors and our communities, and these are worth loving. This nationally/patriotically driven conservation falls apart under the weight of its own demands. If we can only conserve the home of a nation we feel is not irredeemable, what do we do when it is irredeemable? What can be said about conservation in failed states, crumbling socialist dictatorships, truly fascist and oppressive nations? Can people not conserve under these rules? Unless we are specifically speaking of public policy (which falls by the wayside in these kind of governments), people can and should still care and come together successfully, not because they love their oppressive nations, but because they love their neighbors, know their land will out live them, and are grateful for the divine gift they have been given in a good and beautiful world.
Paradoxically, as we became more materialistic and secular we also became more dualistic. We seem committed to the belief that, the embodied beings we are, can possibly "think global." Or love "the Earth" and not plant a garden