It is time American and global environmentalism advocate for the human cause with the same ferocity they have advocated for nature's cause. It is not only morally right, it is the only path available to cut the common roots of injustice that harm equally people and the environment.
As Yale law professor Stephen Carter pointed out in an interview on an NPR broadcast Dec. 13, "It strikes me that you can have a program that is immoral and also occasionally produces good information."
She deftly manages not to dismiss, for instance, evolution or astrophysics altogether, but she doesn't find that they have as much relevance to her daily life as the Bible. To her, there is an opposition between the poetry of religion and the coldness of science, and given the choice she chooses the former.
What are the sociological implications behind the notion of "sin," religious or otherwise? The claims that humans are intrinsically evil are highly problematic not solely do to the fact that the claim resides on a false-dichotomy. It only sees one-side of the story.
The problem with gender essentialism is that it means that only half of humanity can be saved because only half of humanity was assumed by Jesus. Jesus Christ is a man. Thus he assumed male nature and women have yet to be redeemed. They must await the coming of their Christa.
At a time when religiously motivated concerns make it almost impossible to discuss the warming of our planet, the curriculum in our schools and even the reproduction of our species, we should embrace efforts at dialog, not assault them.
Aquinas argued that we have no right to goods which are not needed to support our station in life when others are in need. In such situations their need trumps our superfluities.
If he were alive today, would Saint Thomas Aquinas be an evolutionist? His writings suggest a mind already resonating with many evolutionary concepts.