Rise of Global Green Religion

Don't let the Greens Steal Your Child

The Rise of Global Green Religion

© 1996 Environmental Conservation Organization

The National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE) announced its $5 million program on October 4, 1993, at the Mount Gilead Baptist Church in Washington, DC, “to underscore the connection between addressing issues of poverty and the environment.”(1) The Partnership is a formal agreement among four of the nation’s largest religious organizations:

Although not a full partner, the Union of Concerned Scientists is identified in a special “consultative” relationship, and the NRPE has established an office in their headquarters.

The NRPE is presently engaged in mailing “education and action kits” to 67,300 religious congregations which ultimately reaches 100-million church-goers. Paul Gorman, Executive Director of the Partnership, says: “…how people of faith engage the environmental crisis will have much to do with the future well-being of the planet, and in all likelihood, with the future of religious life as well.”(2)

Gorman’s comment may prove to be the understatement of the century. The objectives of the NRPE are nothing less than the transformation of social order into a global society organized around the notion that the earth itself is the giver of life, and that all the world’s religions are evolving into a state of enlightenment that recognizes Gaia as the true source of life and spirituality, and is the only relevant object of worship. In order to fully appreciate the scope and significance of the NRPE, it is necessary to examine its origin, trace its development, and explore the motivation and philosophy of the individuals who brought the idea to fruition.

In the beginning…

The Temple of Understanding, housed at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, was founded in 1960 by Juliet Hollister and a prestigious group of “Founding Friends” which included: H.H. the XIV Dalai Lama, Jawaharlal Nehru, H.H. Pope John XXIII, Eleanor Roosevelt, Anwar el-Sadat, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, UN Secretary-General U Thant, and others. The Temple developed a series of “Spiritual Summit Conferences” that met in Calcutta (1968), Geneva (1970), Harvard and Princeton Universities (1971), Cornell University (1974) and at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City (1984). The Temple also convened a conference on Mount Sinai in October of 1984 to “thrash out an inter-religious consensus,” for which Dr. Robert Muller, Assistant UN Secretary-General, and author of New Genesis, was asked to draft a “Declaration of the Unity of World Religions.”(3) In 1988, the Temple co-founded the “Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders for Human Survival,” an unprecedented event sponsored jointly with the UN Global Committee of Parliamentarians on Population and Development. The Forum met in Oxford, England in 1988, and again in Moscow in 1990.(4) The Temple was also instrumental in creating the “North American Interfaith Network” which held international conferences in Wichita in 1987 and in Seattle in 1990.

The UN Global Committee of Parliamentarians on Population and Development was created in 1982 with funding support from the UN Population Fund, and a special trust fund established by the UN Development Program “to provide information on global survival issues to parliamentarians, spiritual leaders and the media, and to fund network meetings at national, regional and global levels.”(5) It is significant that twelve individuals listed on the Board of Directors or Advisors of the Temple of Understanding are also listed as members of the Global Forum Council, including the Very Reverend James Parks Morton who is Dean of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, President of the Temple of Understanding, and co-chair of the Global Forum Council.

The featured speaker at the 1988 Forum in Oxford, England was James Lovelock, author of The Ages of Gaia. He told the audience: “On Earth, she [Gaia] is the source of life everlasting and is alive now; she gave birth to humankind and we are a part of her.”(6) Lovelock’s gaia hypothesis first appeared in 1979 and evolved into Gaia: A New Look At Life On Earth, published by Oxford Press in 1982. The gaia hypothesis contends that the earth itself is a living organism, the source of all life, and which has the capacity to regulate, or “heal” itself under “natural” conditions. Lovelock’s contention is that the human species has developed the technology to overwhelm gaia’s capacity to “heal” itself, and is therefore doomed to destruction unless the human species stops its technological assault. He told the Forum that global warming is the result of the human assault on the earth, and likened it to a fever in humans, but is worried that humans are not allowing gaia to recuperate. He said: “She may be unable to relax because we have been busy removing her skin and using it as farm land, especially the trees and forests of the humid tropics…we are also adding a vast blanket of greenhouse gases to the already feverish patient.”(7)

The 1990 Forum in Moscow featured Mikhail Gorbachev and then-UN Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar. It was sponsored by the Supreme Soviet and the International Foundation for the Survival and Development of Humanity, along with the Temple of Understanding and the UN Global Committee of Parliamentarians on Population and Development. Gorbachev said “Perestroika has changed our view of ecology; only through international efforts can we avert tragedy.” He called for each nation to produce state-of-the-environment reports at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. He reiterated an earlier call for a UN “green cross,” an international emergency task force that could be rushed to the scene of an ecological disaster.(8) Transportation was provided to invited participants free of charge by Aeroflot, and local expenses were paid by the host country. The primary thrust of the Forum was to explore the role the news media could play in promoting global survival, “and especially sustainable development.” More than 50 international journalists, 20 international business leaders, scientists, including Carl Sagan, and selected leaders of the arts and cultural community were invited to join 700 spiritual and parliamentary leaders.(9)

Carl Sagan led 22 other noted scientists in an appeal for science and religion to “join hands” in a new ecological alliance. More than 100 religious leaders endorsed the appeal. James Parks Morton, co-chair of the Forum, said “We welcome the scientists’ Appeal and are eager to explore as soon as possible concrete, specific forms of collaboration and action. The Earth itself calls us to new levels of joint commitment.”(10) Other religious leaders who signed the Appeal document, included: Elie Wiesel; sheikh Ahmad Kuftaro, the Grand Mufti of Fyria and co-chair of the Forum; Joseph Cardinal Bernadin, Archbishop of Chicago; the Reverend Theodore Hesburgh, President Emeritus of Notre Dame University; Oren Lyons, Faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation; Jain leader Acharya Sushil Kumarji Maharaj; The Reverend Ronald F. Thiemann, Dean of the Harvard Divinity School; and the Reverend Dr. Milton B. Efthimiou, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America.

Among the scientists launching the appeal were James Hansen of NASA (whose testimony before the U.S. Senate brought global warming to public attention); Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University; Mohammed Kassas of the University of Cairo; Motoo Kimura of Japan’s National Institute of Genetics; Sir Frederick Warner of Exxes University; and Jerome B. Wiesner of MIT.(11)

Five months after the Moscow Forum, a similar conference was held in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the North American Conference on Religion and Ecology (NACRE), described in conference literature as an “Inter-faith organization designed to help the North American religious community enter into the environmental movement in the 1990s.” The program featured HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and President of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Russell Train, Chairman of the WWF-US, Carl Sagan, Cornell University, Jessica Mathews, Director of Global Issues of the National Security Council and editorial board member of The Washington Post, Lester Brown, President of Worldwatch Institute; and Brian Swimme, co-author with Thomas Berry of The Universe Story.

NACRE President, Donald B. Conroy, said the conference, entitled “Caring for Creation,” was “an introduction to congregational habitat,” which will provide resource materials for local congregations, “the first steps of an environmental ministry.”(12)

Paul Gorman, former Vice President of public affairs of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, then-Director of the Temple of Understanding’s Joint Appeal, led a coalition of 200 local environmental organizations in 1990 to assist in the election of Mayor David Dinkins. The Coalition invited then-Senator Al Gore to a breakfast symposium with its members before he delivered the Sunday sermon at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine.(13) Senators Al Gore, Tim Wirth, John Heinz, and James Jeffords, then arranged an October, 1990 Congressional breakfast in Washington which led to a decision to expand the Joint Appeal to “initiate environmental programs, to measure interest in grass roots religious environmental activity, and to facilitate formal consultations between religious leaders and scientists.”(14)

In June, 1991, another meeting of the religious leaders, scientists and members of Congress was convened. At the end of the gathering, they concluded: “We believe a consensus now exists, at the highest level of leadership across a significant spectrum of religious traditions, that the cause of environmental integrity and justice must occupy a position of utmost priority for people of faith.”(15) Eleven chief executive officers of major national environmental groups sent a letter endorsing the program, “particularly in our efforts to support struggles for environmental justice by poor, minority and indigenous peoples.” Among the groups were: the National Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the World Resources Institute.

The four major partners of the NRPE met on May 11, 1992 and agreed to a three-year program. The first year was devoted to fund-raising which produced an initial $3 million. Program activity began in late September, 1993. The formal announcement in a black church in the ghettos of Washington, D.C., was followed by a day-long celebration a few days later featuring a press conference by Vice President Al Gore who said the NRPE “will trigger the beginning of grassroots activity in tens of thousands of religious congregations across the country.” Other dignitaries celebrating the event included: James P. Morton, Dean of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, who praised Gore “for the role he played in bringing the partnership to life;” Chancellor Ismar Schorsch of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America; Bishop James Malone of Youngstown, Ohio; Reverend W. Franklyn Richardson, general secretary of the National Baptist Convention; and representatives from the National Association of Evangelicals; World Vision; Sojourners; the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship; the AuSable Institute; and Carl Sagan, who said: “…separately, neither science nor religion could solve the problem of redeeming the environment from the shortsightedness of the last few decades.”(16)

The Program

The program seeks to “broaden exponentially the base of mainstream commitment, integrate issues of social justice and environment, and urge behavioral change in the lives of congregants.” Specific goals include:

Distribution of education and action kits to 67,300 congregations (including every Catholic parish plus every Reform and Conservative synagogue in the nation) for three successive years;

Clergy and lay leadership training programs;

Legislative updates, testimony and action alerts, with highest priority given to issues of “environmental justice;”

Creation of a “1-800 Green Congregation Hotline” documenting grass-roots religious environmental activities;

Joint educational initiatives with Nobel laureate and other eminent scientists and national scientific associations;

Summit meetings for leaders of historic black and Orthodox Christian churches;

Preparation of environmental curriculum for every Jewish seminary;

Teleconferences and videos for Catholic dioceses, parishes and schools.(17)

Education and Action kits are prepared for each faith, and each denomination. NRPE literature provides a telephone number for ordering the kits. The NRPE has also developed a 171-page directory of congregations and organizations that are involved in “environmental programs” in cooperation with the partnership.

A January 23, 1996, mailing by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America provides insight into the “education and action” sponsored by the NRPE. The letter, signed by Kristin D. Sundell, Advocacy Associate for Environmental Concerns, accompanies a bulletin insert and an action alert about the Endangered Species Act. The letter says, “This Noah’s Ark is under attack by persons in the current Congress….The efforts of the religious community are key to its survival.” The action alert in the package claims that “Many scientists estimate that one quarter of the world’s species could be lost within the next 50 years.” Such claims are grossly exaggerated according to Julian L. Simon and Aaron Wildavsky, in an article published by the National Wilderness Institute. The best scientific studies reveal that the extinction rate between 1600 and 1900 is one species every four years. Since 1900 until the present, the best studies estimate that about one species per year has become extinct. There is virtually no scientific evidence to support the claims made in the action alert.(18)

The alert also claims that the Endangered Species Act “has been successful in protecting and recovering many species.” Again, the action alert is wrong: “…after twenty years, no species has been legitimately recovered and delisted primarily as a result of efforts taken pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.”(19) The alert said the bills before Congress should be opposed because they would (1) overturn the Supreme Court decision, Babbitt v. Sweet Home, (2) require landowners to be paid for complying with the ESA, (3) allow the Secretary of the Interior to “choose extinction,” and (4) increase bureaucracy and delay. The analysis failed to explain that the Supreme Court decision substantially expanded the definition of “harm” in the ESA, to include not only the endangered species, but also to include the habitat that a species might use. Such judicial expansion beyond the intent of Congress gives the federal government the power to declare virtually any land to be the potential habitat of an endangered or threatened species, sub-species, or population, and thereby prohibit the land owner from using his own land, whether or not an endangered species, sub-species, or population has ever been seen on the property.

The analysis failed to recognize the 5th Amendment imperative that requires the government to pay just compensation for private property when taken from individuals for the “public good.” The analysis says instead, that payment for a regulatory “takings” “…ignores the responsibility of all landowners for the common good and creates a costly entitlement program.”

The alert package includes sample letters to Congress which oppose changes to the Endangered Species Act along with an appeal to “support our biblical covenant to `be stewards, protectors, and defenders of all creation.'” The admonition includes this:

“God has woven creation together like a beautiful and marvelously intricate fabric. Human greed and exploitation, however, are pulling the threads out of this fabric one by one. As many as 75 to 100 species are becoming extinct each day. If that trend continues it will only be a matter of time before the entire fabric unravels and the ecosystem collapses around us.”

The final item in the packet is this prayer by St. Basil the Great (329-379):

“O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, even our brothers and sisters the animals, to whom you have given the earth as their home in common with us. We remember with shame that in the past we have exercised our high dominion with ruthless cruelty so that the voice of the earth, which should have gone up to you in song, has been a groan of pain. May we realize that they live, not for us alone, but for themselves and for you, and that they love the sweetness of life.”

The Legislative Update, also provided in the “education and action kit,” (Volume IX, Issue 1, February, 1996) praises Clinton’s veto of the Republican Comprehensive Welfare Reform proposal. Another article is headlined “Budget cuts disproportionately affect the hungry,” and calls on readers to “continue to express your concern….” Another article is entitled “Availability of housing for poor at risk,” and readers are told “advocacy is needed on these issues.” Still another article advises “anti-family and anti-refugee provisions remain in House [immigration] bills.” Kristin Sundell, author of the ESA action alert, also has an article entitled “Help stop the attack on endangered species.” The article repeats the incorrect information about the number of species going extinct each day (75 to 100), and tells readers that protection of endangered species “is not a matter to be decided by politics or economics alone. Rather, the protection of God’s creation is a profoundly spiritual issue.” Ironically, Sundell has no problem inciting congregants to use the federal government to enforce the “spiritual issue” of endangered species, while another article on the same page opposes laws that would allow school prayer.

It is more than coincidence that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America uses an “education and action kit” that closely parallels the Clinton/Gore program. As a part of the Evangelical Environmental Network, a full partner in the NRPE, its message is heavily influenced and coordinated by professionals who have close ties to the Clinton/Gore administration. The Lutheran “education and action kit,” containing the endangered species action alert, was mailed on January 23, 1996. On January 31, 1996, a press release was issued by Fenton Communications, with the headline: “Evangelicals Kick Off Million-Dollar Campaign to Protect Endangered Species.” Here it is necessary to look behind the headlines, behind the scenes, and examine the sources of funds and the loyalties of individuals.

Fenton Communications is the Washington Public Relations firm hired by the Natural Resources Defense Council to develop the campaign against Alar that devastated a portion of the apple industry. On February 26, 1989, nearly 50 million people watched Ed Bradley of CBS’s 60 Minutes, tell America that “The most potent cancer-causing agent in our food supply is a susbstance sprayed on apples to keep them on the trees longer and make them look better.”(20) The report, and the entire campaign, was based on a report produced by the Natural Resources Defense Council entitled Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in our Children’s Food. Ed Bradley’s statement and the NRDC report were clearly wrong. The EPA had already rejected the flawed studies on which the NRDC report was based.

“Extensive studies carried out with scrupulous attention to scientific protocol have failed to find any credible evidence that Alar causes cancer. Extrapolating to humans from the NRDC mouse tests, a person would have to eat 28,000 pounds of apples every day for 70 years to produce tumors similar to those suffered by mice exposed to megadoses of Alar. What the NRDC did not include in its well publicized attack on Alar was that mice fed half the maximum amount — which would equal a man’s eating 14,000 pounds of apples a day for 70 years — produced no tumors at all.”(21)

Neither accuracy nor truth were objectives of the Fenton-NRDC campaign. The objective was simply to get Alar banned, regardless of the estimated $300 million cost to many apple growers, and regardless of the unwarranted fear instilled in the American people.

Fenton Communications has left its fingerprint on several public relations campaigns that might be called less than honorable: an “Ancient Forest Campaign,” funded by the Rockefellers’ Environmental Grantmakers Association, as well as campaigns for the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, Andreas Papandreau of Greece, and the People’s Republic of Angola.(22)

Fenton’s client for the endangered species campaign was apparently the Environmental Information Center, not the Evangelical Environmental Network. Stan LeQuire, Director of the Evangelical Environmental Network, told The Washington Post that the Environmental Information Center had been asked to help set up the January 31 news conference because “We’re not politically skilled.”(23)

The Environmental Information Center’s Board of Directors includes Francis C. Beineke of the NRDC; Donald K. Ross of the Rockefeller Family Fund and coordinator of the Environmental Grantmakers Association; and Thomas A. Wathen of the Pew Charitable Trusts. The Executive Director is Philip E. Clapp, former employee of Senator Timothy Wirth, and a member of the National Steering Committee of Environmentalists for the Clinton/Gore Campaign. Arlie Schardt is a media coordinator, a former employee of the Environmental Defense Fund and Press Secretary of the Al Gore for President Campaign. Mike Casey is the Media Relations Director who joined the EIC directly from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. EIC Communications Director, Peter Kelley, came from the League of Conservation Voters, whose former President, Bruce Babbitt, is now the Secretary of Interior, and whose Political Action Committee contributes 96% of its funds to Democratic candidates.(24) This cast of characters operating behind the scenes, explains why the Evangelical Environmental Network’s literature so closely follows the Clinton/Gore agenda. Bruce Babbitt told a reporter for The Oregonian:

“When God directed Noah to build the ark, the commandment was to take all the creatures of the Earth aboard, not just those useful to mankind.”(25)

Babbitt is making and implementing public policy based on his biocentric interpretation of the Bible.

A broader agenda

The Clinton/Gore agenda, is but a small part of a much broader global agenda being advanced by the NRPE. The 230 organizations that participate in the Evangelical Environmental Network are hardly one battalion in the army of foot-soldiers marching in the parade toward a global green gaia-religion that seeks to swallow up all the world’s religions into a single, unified “earth ethic” administered and enforced through global governance.

Such a notion is incomprehensible to Christians, especially those who feel the need to protect the environment, and those who are caught up in the appeal of the NRPE. Examination of the ideas of those who brought the NRPE into existence, however, reveals how each program of the Evangelical Environmental Network is but another step toward the inevitable objective pursued by the organizers of the NRPE.

Meet Dr. Robert Muller, a member of the Board of Advisors to the Temple of Understanding; a former Assistant Secretary-General to three UN Secretary-Generals, Chancellor of the UN University, author of the World Core Curriculum, and founder of the Robert Muller Schools. Muller described his religious views to an audience in Costa Rica in 1989:

“We thought at the time that the sun was turning around the earth until we learned from Copernicus that it was not true. Now we’re learning that perhaps this planet has not been created for humans, but that humans have been created for the planet. We hear now of the Gaia hypothesis, of the interdependence of all inert and living matter, that we are part and parcel of a living planetary organism. We are temporary living manifestations or incarnations of this Earth. We are living Earth. Each of us is a cell, a perceptive nervous unit of the Earth. The living consciousness of the Earth is beginning to operate through us. You as cosmic and earth cells, are part of a vast biological and evolutionary phenomenon which is of first importance at this stage, namely humanity as a whole, the whole human species, has become the brain, the heart, the soul, the expression and the action of the Earth. We have now a world brain which determines what can be dangerous or mortal for the planet: the United Nations and its agencies, and innumberable (sic) groups and networks around the world, are part of the brain. This is our newly discovered meaning…we are a global family living in a global home. We are in the process of becoming a global civilization. I hope that religious leaders will get together and define before the end of this century the cosmic laws which are common to all their faiths. The third millennium should be a spiritual millennium, a millennium which will see the integration and harmony of humanity with creation, with nature, with the planet, with the cosmos and with eternity.”(26)

Muller’s vision is a little more than can be digested in a single bite. But it succinctly expresses the world view that underlies the NRPE agenda as well as the policy agenda of the United Nations.

Mikhail Gorbachev is an advocate of Muller’s world view. As recently as October 23, 1996, Gorbachev appeared on the popular Charlie Rose PBS television program where he said:

“We are part of the Cosmos…Cosmos is my God. Nature is my God…I believe that the 21st century will be the century of the environment, the century when all of us will have to find an answer to how to harmonize relations between man and the rest of Nature…We are part of Nature….”(27)

Both Muller’s and Gorbachev’s world view are an outgrowth of James Lovelock’s gaia hypothesis and Thomas Berry’s theological interpretations. Thomas Berry is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Temple of Understanding. The Florida Catholic describes Berry as “…perhaps the leading figure in the movement to preserve the environment.”(28) Berry believes that the world is being called to a new “post-denominational,” even a post-Christian belief system that sees the earth as a living being — mythologically, as Gaia, Mother Earth — with mankind as her consciousness.(29) It is difficult to grasp Berry’s theology, or more properly described — cosmolatry. He believes the world is experiencing a new enlightenment of a greater magnitude than Copernicus’ discovery that the earth actually revolved around the sun. He believes that the traditional Christian view of an external God who created man in His image is as wrong as the pre-Copernican view of the sun revolving around the earth. He is convinced that the earth itself is the life-giver, and that humans have no special place in the universal community of life which is, collectively, the manifestation of the divine.

This enlightenment is described by Brian Swimme, in his introduction to Berry’s book, The Dream of the Earth, by comparing Berry’s vision of cosmolatry to the moment in time when physical vision was experienced for the first time in evolutionary history. Berry himself says: “It has taken the entire course of some fourteen billion years for the universe, the earth, and all its living creatures to attain this mode of presence to itself through our empirical modes of knowing. One of the finest moments in our new sensitivity to the natural world is our discovery of the earth as a living organism…awareness that the entire planet is a single organic reality that needs to be addressed in its spirit and person qualities as well as in its physical aspects.(30)

Berry is also convinced that:

“This reenchantment with the earth as a living reality is the condition for our rescue of the earth from the impending destruction that we are imposing upon it. To carry this out effectively, we must now, in a sense, reinvent the human as species within the community of life species. Our sense of reality and of value must consciously shift from an anthropocentric to a biocentric norm of reference.”(31)

This conscious shift from an “anthropocentric” world view, to a “biocentric” world view is perhaps the most significant paradigm shift since monotheism overwhelmed pantheism four thousand years ago. And the shift is well under way.

Thomas Berry had a profound influence upon the Very Reverend James Parks Morton, President of the Temple of Understanding, Dean of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, co-chair of the Global Forum for Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders, and a member of the Board of Directors of the NRPE.

“Morton shares Berry’s belief that an ecological interpretation of the cosmos requires a corresponding re-interpretation of the story of creation. `The new scientific evidence about the origins of life made me realize that we could no longer deal with the human story as something apart from the life story, or the earth story, or the universe story,’ says Morton.”(32)

From his Cathedral of St. John the Divine, at 1047 Amsterdam Avenue in New York City, the seat of a bishop in the Anglican Church, one of the largest religious denominations in the world, James Parks Morton is translating Berry’s cosmology into specific programs, rituals, and institutions. The NRPE is but one.

The Cathedral of St. John the Divine is also home to the Gaia Institute, “whose mission is to explore the practical implications of James Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis,” directed by Paul and Julie Mankiewicz.(33) It is the home of the Lindesfarne Fellowship, a membership organization of influential world leaders who subscribe to Berry’s cosmology. Maurice Strong is a member and a frequent speaker at the Cathedral. Strong was the Secretary-General of both Earth Summit I and II, and was the first Director of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The Cathedral is also the home of the Feast of St. Francis. This special ritual in this most unusual church epitomizes the cosmolatry of Thomas Berry. In the words of William Bryant Logan, editor of the Cathedral’s newsletter:

“I saw children lying in the laps of large dogs and a boy bringing his stuffed animals to be blessed. I saw the not-yet famous elephant and camel march up the aisle; a lawyer who scoops the poop and enjoys being clown-for-a-day; a priest who finds himself covered with wriggling ferrets; a man and a woman who meet when their leashes become enmeshed; a volunteer gardener marching to the altar with a bowl full of compost and worms; a sermon by Al Gore, in which he called on the congregants to recognize that `God is not separate from the Earth.'”(34)

The ritual is not limited to the New York Cathedral.

The Episcopal Diocese of Kansas and the Stewardship Office of the Episcopal Church sponsored a celebration of Earth Day in April, 1995 that featured, among others, James Parks Morton, Thomas Berry, and Paul Winter, official musician of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine. Samantha Smith, author of The Trojan Horse and Goddess Earth, attended the affair and offered the following report:

“The gathering, held at the Westin Crown Center Hotel, included a North American Native Indian praying to God, then praying to the Grandfather Spirit and to spirits of the Four Directions to bless the earth and oversee the conference. California Senator, Tom Hayden, offered an Earth Day prayer, claiming the earth was speaking through him: `On this Earth Day let us say an earth prayer and make an earth pledge. In the Bible ruah means both wind and spirit, so let us take time to breathe with the universe, connect with the earth and remember what we need to know and do. Celebrate that ancient spirits are born again in us, spirits of eagle vision, of coyote craft, of bear stewardship, of buffalo wisdom, of ancient goddesses, of druids, of native people, of Thoreau and Sitting Bull — born again and over again in John Muir and Rachel Carson and David Brower and Alice Walker.’ He then asked us to `commit ourselves to carry the written word of Al Gore into official deeds.’ Thomas Berry offered a prayer for the healing of the earth.”(35)

Paul Winter then entertained with his saxophone. He explained that he had gone into the Superior Forest and taped exchanges of howls between his saxophone and a wolf. With his sax, he demonstrated the sound. He then asked the audience to join him in a “Howl-le-lu-ia Chorus.” He made a wolf sound, and nearly 200 people howled back, expressing their oneness with the wolf.

This is the theology, or cosmology, which underlies the NRPE. These are the people who conceived the NRPE, and these are the people who are creating the material that is being delivered to 67,300 churches in America.

Gaia awakened

The gaia hypothesis, introduced by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis (formerly, wife of Carl Sagan), is an ancient idea, presented in scientific-sounding language that makes it politically correct for the new age. The idea itself pre-dates the Christian era and even Greek mythology, from which the name gaia was taken. The idea is rooted in ancient cultures and, until Lovelock, was generally known as “paganism.”

“There are three principles of paganism: (1) animism — the belief that everything is imbued with a soul; (2) polytheism — the belief that many gods exist and each one has a function to preside over various aspects of nature and life; and (3) pantheism — the belief that all things, animate and inanimate, including the earth and humans are manifestations of God, that God is all; the universe is totally God.”(36)

Some form of paganism was practiced by almost every known culture before the emergence of the Hebrews circa 2000 BC. Hebrew tradition rejected “many gods” in favor of the concept of “one God” – Yahweh. Out of this monotheistic tradition, Christianity was born, and in the third century, Constantine declared Christianity to be the official state religion of the Roman empire. Paganism faded, but did not die. In the jungles of Africa and the Americas, it continued untarnished by European influence. In Europe, paganism went underground, emerging periodically in the form of secret societies and eclectic writings. Despite persecution by the established church and proper society, secret pagan societies survived into the 20th century.

One of the more influential of those societies was the Theosophical Society, created in 1875 by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky and Colonel Henry Steel Olcott.(37) Blavatsky’s two books, The Secret Doctrine and Iris Unveiled, articulate the pagan world view. A glimpse of Blavatsky’s view is revealed in Iris Unveiled: “Interference by man in this civilization can disrupt the life forces of nature and the occult. Only in countries where there is no civilization can the power of nature be found — the world’s soul.”(38) After Blavatsky’s death, Annie Besant and Alice Bailey assumed leadership of the society. Besant headed the more radical European branch, and Bailey led the movement in America until she established the Lucifer Publishing Company in the early 1900s. One of the earliest books published by Lucifer, was The Consciousness of the Atom, by Alice Bailey. It was a series of lectures delivered in New York City during the winter of 1921-1922. In the book’s Foreword, Bailey says:

“The purpose of this series was to present to their auditors the testimony of science as to the relation of matter and of consciousness; to enable the hearers to observe the identical manifestation of these relations and of certain basic laws in successively higher states of being, and thus to bring to them a realization of the universality of the evolutionary process and its actuality; and to deal somewhat with the nature of the expanded states of consciousness and the enlarged life toward which all mankind is traveling.”(39)

The name “Lucifer Publishing Company” was not well received in the early 1900s, so the name was changed to Lucis Publishing Company, but Bailey continued her prolific writing.

It is essential to understand Bailey’s world view in order to fully appreciate her influence on the individuals who organized and are advancing the NRPE and the agenda moving toward global governance. Here follows a series of excerpts from Bailey’s writings:

“…the problem with which the Hierarchy is now concerned is…to awaken all the nations…to the dramatic import of the present time…and thus to engineer a climax wherein the correct world lesson may be learnt; whereby the world may be purified by the elimination of the undesirable elements which hinder the new era and the upspringing of a more spiritual civilization; and whereby the forces of hate, of cruelty, of materialism and of darkness may be driven back (wherever found) before the sweeping onslaught of the Forces of Light…just as the Aquarian Age is coming into manifestation…bringing in its wake universal awareness and the new modes of expressing world synthesis, human interests, and the world religion….” (Alice Bailey, Esoteric Astrology, pp. 373-374.)

“…it is as one humanity, chastened and disciplined but illumined and fused, that we must emerge into the future. Those who do not grasp this important fact, whether they are what is called belligerents or neutrals, will suffer deeply as a result of their non-participation in the fate of the whole…. The Hierarchy is not neutral, it is one with the right element in every nation and set against all separative, isolationists and materialistic attitudes….” (Alice Bailey, The Destiny of the Nations,, 1939, p. 65.)

“Another fear which induces mankind to regard death as a calamity, is one which theological religion has inculcated, particularly the Protestant fundamentalists and the Roman Catholic Church, the fear of hell, the imposition of penalties, usually out of all proportion to the efforts of a lifetime, and the terrors imposed by an angry God. To these, man is told he will have to submit, and from them there is no escape, except through the vicarious atonement. There is, as you well know, no angry God, no hell, and no vicarious atonement…and the only hell is the earth itself, where we learn to work out our own salvation…. This teaching about hell is a remainder of the sadistic turn which was given to thinking of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages and to the erroneous teaching to be found in the Old Testament about Jehovah, the tribal God of the Jews! Jehovah is not God…. As the erroneous ideas die out, the concept of hell will fade from man’s recollection and its place will be taken by an understanding of the law which makes each man work out his own salvation…which leads him to right the wrongs which he may have perpetuated in his lives on Earth, and which enables him eventually to clean his own slate.” (Alice Bailey, Esoteric Healing, p. 393.)(40)

Robert Muller is a devotee of Alice Bailey. The preface of the Robert Muller School World Core Curriculum Manual, November, 1986, says:

“The underlying philosophy upon which the Robert Muller School is based will be found in the teachings set forth in the books of Alice A. Bailey, by the Tibetan teacher, Djwhal Khul (published by Lucis Publishing Company, 113 University Place, 11th floor, New York, NY USA 10083).”(41) (The Tibetan teacher, Djwhal Khul, is said by Bailey to be an “ascended master” who speaks through her while she is in a trance).

The school is fully certified by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as a “participating institution in the UNESCO Associated Schools Project in Education for International Co-operation and Peace.”

Muller’s words take on a new relevance in light of his devotion to Bailey. Muller spoke at the University of Denver on March 30, 1995. He told his audience:

“…now we have a spiritual dimension entering the United Nations. I have seen how spirituality can help the poor. We are becoming a new species on this planet. The United Nations is the biological metaorganism of the human species. We have now the birth of a global nervous system. We are beginning to have a global heart, be it only our love for nature, to preserve this earth — this planet of ours — and we will also see the birth of a global soul. Whoever will understand that we are a part of the universe and of evolution — that we are cells of a total humanity. We should replace the word politics by planetics. We need the planetary management, planetary caretakers. We need global sciences. We need a science of a global psychology, a global sociology, a global anthropology.”(42)

Vice President, Al Gore, is seen by the contemporary pagan community to be one of their own. In Green Egg, the newsletter of the Church of All Worlds, whose mission is “to evolve a network of information, mythology and experience that provides a context and stimulus for reawakening Gaea [gaia], and reuniting Her children through tribal community dedicated to responsible stewardship,” Otter Zell applauds the Clinton/Gore election victory. He says:

“We are Neo-pagans — implying an eclectic reconstruction of ancient Nature religions, and combining archetypes of many cultures with other mystic and spiritual disciplines — and our beliefs and values are no different from those you describe as your own. As you observed in your book, Earth in the Balance, the `best-documented tenet seems to have been a reverence for the sacredness of the Earth — and a belief in the need for harmony among all living things.’ Your book is heralded by our People as a manifesto of all we hold dear. In the last quarter-century a movement has grown up to reclaim that connectedness at the deepest and most spiritual level. We are Gaians…. We have always agreed with James Lovelock…that this realization evokes a spiritual response. But we are not just trying to recreate a Paradise Lost; we are working to actualize a visionary future. We ask no special favors; we wish nothing more than that you be true to yourself, and to your own values and ideals as expressed in Earth in the Balance. Know that there are half a million American NeoPagans out here who support you, who voted for you, and who will rally to the aid of your policies for the salvation of the Earth and the reunification of the Great Family.”(43)

The literature of the NRPE, and of its partners, skillfully avoids direct linkage with the more overt statements of Alice Bailey and Otter Zell. The ideas, however, are clearly present. Read again the prayer by St. Basil the Great. The literature produced by the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, an NRPE partner, says:

“We understand ourselves as partners in Creation, responsible for protecting the Earth’s ecological integrity and the common good. Judaism teaches us that consumerism should not be placed at the center of our lives, but rather the pursuit of justice, peace, and spiritual development. We are united in deep concern that the quality of human life and the earth we inhabit are in danger, afflicted by rapidly increasing ecological threats. Among the most pressing of these threats are: depletion of the ozone layer, global warming, massive deforestation, the extinction of species and loss of biodiversity…. Narrow private interests (such as the mining, timber, and petro-chemical industries, among others) have been building a movement to dismantle the environmental protections that we have come to take for granted….”(44)

While the literature hints at biocentric underpinnings, it is carefully written to avoid offending the Judeo-Christian community by denying its New Age characteristics, and fending off charges of paganism.

A starter-kit for Evangelical Churches says:

“What New Age followers don’t realize is that they love creation because they are actually seeing and experiencing the invisible attributes of God. Some even worship the creation because they do not know the Creator.”(45)

The Feast of St. Francis, with elephants, worms, dogs, and cats, brought to the altar to be blessed in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, which houses the Gaia Institute and boasts of a “sacred ecology” wall that is decorated with rainforest flora, appears to be a ritual of worship focused on the creation rather than on the Creator.

The rituals in Kansas City, where Paul Winter led the congregants to “howl” in response to their “oneness with the wolf,” where prayers were offered to the “Four Directions,” and to the “spirits of eagle vision, coyote craft, of bear stewardship, of buffalo wisdom, of ancient goddesses, of druids…” certainly appear to be rituals of worship to entities other than to the Creator God of the Judeo-Christion tradition. Yet, the literature that is mailed to the churches says, “…the God we worship is beyond nature, rather than within nature.”(46)

This statement stands in stark contrast with James Lovelock’s “…she [Gaia] is the source of life everlasting and is alive now, she gave birth to humankind…;” with Thomas Berry’s “One of the finest moments in our new sensitivity…is our discovery of the…entire planet [as] a single organic reality that needs to be addressed in its spirit and person qualities…;” and with Al Gore’s “The earth is not separate from God.”

Christian leaders who support the NRPE ignore the paganistic rituals of the program’s founders and try to deflect charges of New Age. Richard Land, executive director of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Christian Life Commission, one of the Christian denominations listed in the NRPE’s directory, told The New York Times, that “We make it very clear, we do not worship creation, we worship the God of creation.”(47)

The organizers of the NRPE have no problem with its members denying paganism and insisting that they worship the God of the Bible rather than gaia. To them, it makes no difference what name is applied to the object of worship, so long as individual behavior is modified to support laws and regulations that enforce behavior modification of the masses to conform with the tenets of biocentric paganism. In the final analysis, the religious context for the political activity is designed to draw a cloak of ethics and morality around the unethical, immoral distortion of scientific evidence which, when revealed, will crumble the foundation of the entire appeal.

Amy Elizabeth Fox, former coordinator of the Joint Appeal, and initial Associate Director of the NRPE said that “we began by thinking in terms of the four sacred elements: earth, air, fire and water.” She continued:

“`We are required by our religious principles to look for the links between equity and ecology.’ In the materials that the Partnership has sent out to more than [67,300] congregations, the fundamental emphasis is on issues of environmental justice, including air pollution and global warming; water, food and agriculture; population and consumption; hunger, trade and industrial policy; community economic development; toxic pollution and hazardous waste; and corporate responsibility.”(48)

The biocentric philosophy of the gaia hypothesis which underlies the NRPE is being translated into public policy, now assisted by more than 100 million congregants under the influence of the NRPE.

The paradigm shift from anthropocentrism to biocentrism is increasingly evident in public policy and in the documents which emanate from the United Nations and from the federal government. Public policies are being formulated in response to biocentric enlightenment, rather than in response to scientific evidence. The picture of an imperiled planet, as described in the literature of the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, rests upon three mythological expressions of biocentric enlightenment: (1) global warming, (2) biological impoverishment, and (3) excessive population. None of the three is supported by convincing scientific evidence.

Global warming

The idea of global warming entered the world in 1896 when Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist, postulated that the elevation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would eventually result in global warming. The scientific community paid little attention. In the 1970s, Dr. Stephen Schneider, and others, postulated that elevated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was causing global cooling, and articles appeared that warned of a coming ice age. In 1971, Paul Ehrlich published:

“The continued rapid cooling of the earth since World War II is also in accord with the increased global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization, and an exploding population, added to a renewal of volcanic activity….”(49)

Science magazine’s March 1, 1975 issue said:

“According to the academy [National Academy of Sciences] report on climate, we may be approaching the end of a major interglacial cycle, with the approach of a full-blown 10,000-year ice age a real possibility…with ice packs building up relatively quickly from local snowfall that ceases to melt from winter to winter.”(50)

In the 1980s, global warming again became the rage. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) held a conference in Toronto and then created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Then-Senator Al Gore convened a hearing at which James Hansen testified that he believed the current heat wave was the first sign of anthropogenic (human-induced) global warming. In 1990, then-Senator Timothy Wirth (now Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs) said: “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”(51) Richard Benedick, an employee of the State Department , said “A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the green house effect,”(52) And Dr. Stephen Schneider told a group of scientists, “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”(53)

There is little or no reliable scientific data to support the global warming theory. The theory is based on computer models which the IPCC has revised downward three times since 1990. In November, 1995 world-renowned climatologists and other scientists met in Leipzig, Germany. The conference document they adopted, known as the Leipzig Declaration, says “…most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever. Based on the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the so-called “scientific consensus” that envisages climate catastrophes….”(54)

The NRPE literature sent to the churches makes a strong case for political action based on the global warming scare. A chart measuring the century-long increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dramatically presented as the basis for the computer projections of global warming.(55) The publication failed to print, however, a diagram showing the actual global temperature during same the period. Those diagrams are readily available from a variety of legitimate scientific sources. They all reveal that the actual global temperature declined during the second half of the century, during the period of sharpest increases of carbon dioxide. Where the actual science fails to support the “enlightenment”, the science is ignored.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is an example of public policy that has been adopted on the basis of “enlightenment” rather than on the basis of scientific evidence.

The paradigm shift has moved away from the anthropocentric, and close enough to the biocentric world view, that the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) actually adopted the following principle as a part of the Rio Declaration:

Principle 15: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”(56)

As written and adopted, “threats” do not have to be verified or confirmed, simply declared. Global warming has been declared to be a “threat” by Al Gore and Timothy Wirth, both of whom were instrumental in organizing the NRPE, and by the United Nations organizations, on the basis of what can best be described as “biocentric enlightenment.”

Biological impoverishment

The notion of biological impoverishment stands on an even less-firm scientific foundation.

Through the media, movies, and textbooks, environmental organizations have painted a vivid picture in the public mind that tropical rain forests are disappearing, that biodiversity is being paved over, and that species are becoming extinct at a rate greater than at any time in history. The figure used in the Evangelical Environmental Network’s action alert (75 to 100 per day) is typical of the propaganda that is constantly repeated. Where do these ideas originate? How valid are they? An unusually frank analysis of the issue appeared in U.S. News & World Report. Here is an excerpt:

“…many oft-cited `facts’ used to paint a picture of impending ecological disaster are more myth than reality…. Although field studies had documented an extinction rate of only one species per year worldwide, in 1979 biologist Norman Myers [The Sinking Ark] predicted that the rate would balloon, with the loss of 1 million species by the end of the century. Myers offered no basis for his prediction other than to call it a `reasonable working figure’ [enlightenment?]. Nonetheless, the number received much attention and is still frequently cited by activists.

“More recently, Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson has heavily publicized his claim that 4,000, or 30,000, or 50,000 species a year — he has used all three numbers at different times — are being driven to extinction. Such numbers, carrying the ring of scientific authority, have featured prominently in calls to action from environmental groups, and they played a persuasive part in the debate over the U.S. position on recent international treaties to slow deforestation and protect biodiversity.”(57)

Reason magazine quotes an unnamed “conservationist” who admitted that “the lack of data does worry me. I’m absolutely sure we’re right, but a gut feeling isn’t much backup when you’re asking people all over the world to change their lives completely.”(58)

Like the global warming myth, the biological impoverishment myth is based, not on scientific evidence, but on an “enlightened” declaration of a “threat” to the environment. The Lindesfarne Fellowship, founded by William Thompson and James Morton (President of the Temple of Understanding), published a book entitled G-A-I-A, A Way of Knowing: Political Implications of the New Biology. James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis contributed to the book. Enlightenment is the “new way of knowing.” Enlightenment, as understood by the biocentric community, may be compared to the “conversion experience” of Christians. As the Christian is “born again” by his acceptance, or “belief,” the biocentric becomes “enlightened” by his acceptance, or belief in gaia as the giver of life. A major difference, however, is that the Christian accepts that he is subservient to the omnipotent giver of life, while the biocentric believes he is a part of the omnipotent giver of life, and therefore, a part of god; whatever he thinks, or believes, must be “enlightened.” Biological impoverishment is a “threat” declared by “enlightened” biocentrists. Public policy has been formulated and is being implemented in response to the alleged threat, even though in reality, there is little or no scientific evidence to support the threat.

The Convention on Biological Diversity is a sweeping public policy formulated in response to the perceived threat of biological impoverishment. The Convention, often called the “Biodiversity Treaty,” was adopted in Rio de Janeiro at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992. Then-President George Bush refused to sign the treaty, but Bill Clinton, shortly after he defeated Bush, signed the treaty and sent it to the Senate for ratification. Al Gore anticipated rapid ratification since the Senate was controlled by his political party, and began immediately to revise the policies of the Department of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency to implement the provisions of the treaty, despite the fact that the treaty never came to a vote in the Senate.

Behind the facade of “reinventing government,” Gore created a White House Task Force on Ecosystem Management. The task force oversaw the development of the Administration’s Ecosystem Management Policy which coordinates the activity of 20 federal agencies toward the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Perhaps the most significant shift in public policy is the shift away from implementing policies for the benefit of humans; the new Ecosystem Management Policy is designed to benefit biodiversity — at the expense of humans. Federal policy has shifted from anthropocentric to biocentric. The Environmental Protection Agency’s policy says: “EPA must make ecosystem protection a primary goal of the Agency, on a par with human health….”(59) The Department of Interior ecosystem management policy statement says: All ecosystem management activities should consider human beings as a biological resource.”(60) In the Clinton/Gore White House, the paradigm shift has already occurred. Public policy is being formulated based on the biocentric view that humans have no value greater than any other life forms.

The policies that have been and are being formulated to prevent biological impoverishment have much broader implications for the human community. The ultimate objective is to replace the 50 states with 21 “bioregions” where the human population is relocated into “sustainable communities” that occupy no more than 25 percent of the land area of North America, while half the land area is restored to “wilderness,” and the remaining 25 percent is managed collaboratively by the federal government and environmental organizations. This bizarre plan is met with, at best, skepticism, and most often, with utter disbelief — until the documentation is examined. The idea of bioregions originates in the enlightened minds of people such as Thomas Berry, Dave Foreman (Earth First! founder), and others. The public policy of bioregions originates in the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The Convention itself is quite bland and even more ambiguous. For example, Article 8 says simply: “Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: (a) Establish a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity; Since nearly 12 percent of North America is already protected by an extensive system of areas protected as National Parks and Monuments, wildlife refuge areas, and wilderness (more than 100 million acres), this particular Article should not present a problem to anyone. That is, until what the United Nations means by “a system of protected areas” is discovered.

Article 25(a) of the Convention calls for “assessments of the status of biological diversity” to be developed by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention. When the Conference of the Parties convened its first meeting in Naussau, November, 1994, it was presented with an 1140-page document entitled Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA), developed by the United Nations Environment Program over the previous three years with a $3.3 million grant from the UN’s Global Environment Facility.(61) More than 200 pages of the document are devoted to describing what is an acceptable “system of protected areas.”

Section 13 of the Global Biodiversity Assessment is entitled “Measures for Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Use of its Components.” The “measure” described is the creation of bioregions and a system of protected areas. Here’s what it says:

“The protection and management of natural habitat fragments requires a reduction in the deleterious effects of matrix-derived influences [human activity] on remnants and an increase in the area and connectivity of habitat. This means that representative areas of all major ecosystems in a region need to be reserved, that blocks should be as large as possible, that buffer zones should be established around core areas, and that corridors should connect these areas. This basic design is central to the recently proposed Wildlands Project in the United States (Noss 1992)….”(62)

The Wildlands Project is a “land conservation strategy” developed by Dr. Reed F. Noss under contract with the National Audubon Society and The Nature Conservancy.(63) Noss says:

“I suggest that at least half of the land area of the 48 conterminous states should be encompassed in core reserves and inner corridor zones (essentially extensions of core reserves) within the next few decades…. Nonetheless, half of a region in wilderness is a reasonable guess of what it will take to restore viable populations of large carnivores and natural disturbance regimes, assuming that most of the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zone. Eventually, a wilderness network would dominate a region…with human habitations being the islands.”(64)

A review of the Wildlands Project, published in Science magazine, June 25, 1993, said: “It is nothing less than the transformation of America to an archipelago of human-inhabited islands surrounded by natural areas.”

The Wildlands Project is being implemented in America through the Administration’s Ecosystem Management Policy, in compliance with an unratified treaty developed by the United Nations, in response to an unsubstantiated “threat” declared by a small group of biocentric, enlightened elite.

In his essay, Bioregions: The Context for Reinhabiting the Earth, Thomas Berry says:

“The most difficult transition to make is from an anthropocentric to a biocentric norm of progress. The solution is simply for us as humans to join the earth community as participating members, to foster the progress and prosperity of the bioregional communities to which we belong. A bioregion is an identifiable geographical area of interacting life systems that is relatively self-sustaining in the ever-renewing processes of nature. Such a bioregion is a self-propagating, self-nourishing, self-educating, self-governing, self-healing, and self-fulfilling community. For humans to assume rights to occupy land by excluding other lifeforms from their needed habitat is to offend the community in its deepest structure. Further, it is even to declare a state of warfare, which humans cannot win….”(65)

Dave Foreman shares Berry’s view:

“All of us are warriors on one side or another in this war; there are no sidelines, there are no civilians. Ours is the last generation that will have the choice of wilderness, clean air, abundant wildlife, and expansive forests. The crisis is that severe (emphasis in original). It is not enough to protect our few remaining bits of wilderness. The only hope for Earth is to withdraw huge areas as inviolate natural sanctuaries from the depredations of modern industry and technology, …identify big areas that can be restored to a semblance of natural conditions, reintroduce the Grizzly Bear and wolf and prairie grasses, and declare them off limits to modern civilization.”(66)

Dave Foreman not only co-founded Earth First!, he is Chairman of the Cenozoic Society, Chairman of the Wildlands Project, and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club, which published a special edition of Sierra in 1994 which proposed replacing the 50 states with 21 bioregions.

The cosmology of Thomas Berry, James Parks Morton, and Robert Muller, all officers of the Temple of Understanding, is being translated into public policy with the aid of 100 million congregants who respond to the “action alerts” generated by the NRPE.

Excessive population

The third expression of biocentric enlightenment which drives the global environmental agenda is the notion that population growth has exceeded the earth’s carrying capacity. This idea was exploited by Malthus (1766-1834), and has been dredged up periodically by the likes of Paul Ehrlich, who in 1968 wrote The Population Bomb. Ehrlich advanced three scenarios, in two of which, human populations were devastated as the result of overpopulation. In the third scenario, an “enlightened” government imposed severe population control measures and spared the planet.(67) Both Ehrlich and E.O. Wilson are a part of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and are advisors to the NRPE. The exponential increase in population is given as the reason for biological impoverishment, and therefore, population must be reduced forcefully by governments. Jaques Cousteau wrote in a UNESCO publication:

“It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.”(68)

The myth of excessive population, like the myths of global warming and biological impoverishment, are deeply instilled in the public mind and in official public policy. The Global Biodiversity Assessment, has concluded:

“…an agricultural world, in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people…a reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2-3 billion would be possible.”(69)

The current global population is approximately 5.8 billion.

Again, the conclusions reached about the earth’s carrying capacity are based on enlightenment rather than on science. Colin Clark, former director of the Agricultural Economic Institute at Oxford University, conducted studies which indicate that by using “best methods,” enough food could be produced to provide an American-type diet for 35.1 billion people. In Clark’s estimate, no more than half the land area would be used for agriculture. Roger Revelle, former director of the Harvard Center of Population Studies, estimated that world agricultural resources are capable of providing an adequate diet (2,500 kilocalories per day), as well as fiber, rubber, tobacco and beverages, for 40 billion people, using 25 percent of the land area.(70) A simple calculation that divides the global population by the 262,000 square miles of Texas, reveals that the entire global population would fit nicely into that state, with the average family of four having space approximately the size of an urban building lot.

The claim that population is exploding is also a myth. The fact is that the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is declining world wide. In developing countries, where the problem is said to be most severe, the TFR reflects a 45-year decline, down from 6.1 in 1950, to 3.9 currently. In developed countries, the rate is below zero growth. A TFR of 2.1 is generally accepted as population stability. In America, the rate is 2.0; in Europe, 1.6; in Japan, 1.5; in Spain and Italy, the rate is 1.3.(71)

The shift from an anthropocentric world view to a biocentric world view is almost complete in America, and throughout the world. While the biocentric view is clearly based on a religious, rather than scientific foundation, its advocates strive to avoid the appearance of pagan religious motivation. The ideas are presented in the form of public policy proposals to protect the environment, justified on the basis of morality and ethics, rather than on the basis of sound science. Science itself, is being diluted by advocates, who use science not to discover truth, but to “prove” preconceived ideas which have arrived as the result of biocentric “enlightenment.” The Union of Concerned Scientists is led by people who are first advocates of the biocentric world view, and who also happen to be scientists. E.O Wilson, Paul Ehrlich, Carl Sagan, Stephen Schneider, Robert Watson, and others frequently ignore scientific evidence that fails to support their agenda, and, as in the NRDC studies that spawned the Alar scare, misrepresent evidence to advance their agenda. Thomas Berry openly advocates expanding the “enlightenment” process in the scientific arena:

“We must awaken a consciousness of the sacred dimension of the earth. We have treated the nonhuman world as object for exploitation rather than as subject to be communed with. Yet the soil is a magic place where the alchemy takes place that enables living forms to survive. Even Paleolithic humans knew this. We feel that the scientist must participate to some extent in shamanic powers. We might say that the next phase of scientific development will require above all the insight of shamanic powers.”(72)

Advocates of biocentrism realize that Americans, raised under the influence of the Judeo-Christian tradition, would resist a missionary attempt to convert Christians to paganism. Therefore, rather than seek converts to a religion, they seek public policy to modify behavior of individuals to conform to the tenets of their religion while calling the result of the transformation the emergence of a new “earth ethic.”

Our Global Neighborhood, the official report of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance, refers to this new “earth ethic,” as a “global civic ethic” to guide action within the “global neighborhood.” “People have to see with new eyes and understand with new minds before they can truly turn to new ways of living. That’s why global values must be the cornerstone of global governance.”(73) The Commission on Global Governance believes that the world is now ready to accept “a set of core values that can unite people of all cultural, political, religious, or philosophical backgrounds. They all derive in one way or another from the principle, which is in accord with religious teachings around the world….”(74) Central to this set of “core values” is the idea of the sacredness of earth and all its life forms.

The Global Biodiversity Assessment reports that primitive (indigenous) people who were hunter/gatherers, viewed “themselves as members of a community that not only includes other humans, but also plants and animals as well as rocks, springs and pools.” Consequently, biological communities evolved as “sacred sites” which afforded some measure of protection.(75)

This perception of the earth as a “sacred” community of life is the core value which, when fully appreciated by humans, will allow them to embrace the draconian restrictions proposed by the emerging public policies called for in the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Climate Change, and in other international agreements.

If children are taught from an early age that the earth is the sacred giver of life, that all life forms are of equal value, that humans who reject that idea are immoral, or unethical, then their vision of the earth will be substantially different from the vision that evolved through the Judeo-Christian tradition. In fact, Christianity is identified as the culprit most responsible for the degradation of the planet.

“Societies dominated by Islam, and especially by Christianity, have gone farthest in setting humans apart from nature and in embracing a value system that has converted the world into a warehouse of commodities for human enjoyment. In the process, not only has nature lost its sacred qualities; conversion to Christianity has meant an abandonment of an affinity with the natural world for many forest dwellers, peasants, fishers all over the world. These people followed their own religious traditions which included setting apart between 10 and 30 percent of the landscape as sacred groves and ponds. Most of these people were drawn into the larger market economy and converted to Christianity by the late 1950s. On so converting to a religious belief system that rejects assignment of sacred qualities to elements of nature, they began to cut down the sacred groves to bring the land under cultivation, as well as to market rattan and timber.”(76)

This sentiment is buried on page 839 of an 1140 document entitled Global Biodiversity Assessment, where very few church-goers are likely to see it. Rather than to denounce Christianity publicly, the strategy is to infiltrate Christian churches and Jewish synagogues and enlist their support to enact laws and regulations to ostensibly “protect the environment,” but which will in actuality coercively modify the behavior of individuals to conform to the belief system described by Thomas Berry, James Parks Morton, and the other instigators of the NRPE.

Behavior modification is the goal, not just for Christians and Jews, but for the entire human race. In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore articulates both the principle and the means:

“I have come to believe that we must take bold and unequivocal action: we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization. Adopting a central organizing principle — one agreed to voluntarily — means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action — to use, in short, every means to halt the destruction of the environment and to preserve and nurture our ecological system. Minor shifts in policy, marginal adjustments in ongoing programs, moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change — these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.”(77)

Al Gore’s passionate plea to reorganize civilization around the principle of “environmental protection,” is well underway. And while he suggests that the “wrenching transformation” should be voluntarily agreed to, he is advancing regulations, laws, and international agreements to force behavior modification, often without prior knowledge by the individuals affected, and certainly without their voluntary agreement. Gore has maximized the influence of his position as a Senator, and as Vice President, to implement the tenets of biocentric paganism through domestic policy. But it is the international community, particularly the United Nations system, that generates the policies that are being implemented in nations around the world.

The Temple of Understanding is an accredited NGO (non-government organization) of the United Nations. Temple literature boasts:

“The Temple of Understanding is a Non-Government Organization affiliated with the United Nations. In cooperation with the Pacem in Terris Society of the United Nations staff, we sponsor monthly roundtables at the United Nations Headquarters featuring outstanding religious leaders and scholars. The Temple of Understanding is working on a conference to incorporate the role of spiritual values at the United Nations and as part of the emerging new world order.”(78)

A major link between the Temple of Understanding and the United Nations comes in the person of Maurice Strong.

Strong, a frequent speaker at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, was the Secretary-General of the first Earth Summit in 1972. He was the first Director of the United Nations Environment Programme. He was the Secretary-General of Earth Summit II in Rio in 1992. He is the founder of the Earth Council, Chair of the Business Council for Sustainable Development, co-chair of the World Economic Forum, a member of the UN’s Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development, a member of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance, and a member of the Lindesfarne Fellowship, housed at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine.(79)

Among Strong’s world-wide holdings is a 63,000 acre Colorado ranch called the Baca Grande. It is a mecca for mystics. The ranch is home to a group called Disciples of the XVI Gyalwa Karmapa, a strain of Tibetan Buddhism. Shirley MacLaine planned to build her New Age Center at Baca, but locals resisted the idea of a resort. A group of Carmelites built the Spiritual Life Institute, a co-ed monastery for silent contemplation. The Disciples of Babaji, an Indian Guru, celebrate Hindu rituals in a $175,000 solar-powered, gold-domed, adobe temple which features an alabaster statue of Murti, the Divine Mother, built by the Lindesfarne Fellowship. There is a temple for Sufis, and another for Taoists. Still another group was blocked by county officials who quickly enacted a building height restriction when it was learned that the group intended to build a 46-story pink granite pyramid in compliance with instructions received from an intergalactic leader named Commander Kuthumi who was channeling from the planet Arturus. Strong and wife Hanne see the Baca Grande as the “Vatican City” of the new world order.(80)

Strong uses his influence with the United Nations in the same way Al Gore uses his influence in the White House. Both are using governments to implement laws which force behavioral conformity to the tenets of their biocentric, pagan-gaia belief system.

The Convention on Biological Diversity seeks to convert half of North America to core wilderness areas off limits to human beings. Although the treaty is not yet ratified, the White House Task Force on Ecosystem Management is implementing the provisions of the treaty administratively.

The President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) has issued its final report (Sustainable America: A New Consensus, February, 1996), which sets forth a Plan of Action with 154 “action items” to transform cities and towns into “sustainable communities,” designed to conform with the UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II).(81)

The UN’s Vienna Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances, and its subsequent Montreal Protocol, have already banned CFC’s (freon and halons) in America, which has dramatically increased the cost of refrigeration and air-conditioning and eliminated an important fire-fighting material.

The UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change is currently developing a Protocol which will have the effect of increasing the cost and reducing the availability of electricity, gasoline, and all fossil-fuel-generated energy. The Protocol is scheduled for adoption in 1997. The United States has ratified this treaty and Timothy Wirth (Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs), has announced the U.S. government will accept legally binding timetables and targets for the reductions — even before it is known what those reductions will cost or what the timetables and targets will be.

The UN’s Convention on the Law of the Seas declares the non-territorial seas to be “global commons” under the authority of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) which has the authority to impose global taxation on the use of the global commons. An $85-million headquarters facility is under construction in Hamburg, Germany, and Boutros Boutros-Ghali has selected 21 justices to oversee the treaty’s implementation.(82) The treaty is in force and Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, has announced that U.S. ratification would be a high priority for the second term of a Clinton/Gore Administration.(83)

The UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child identifies the “rights” of children, which, if not provided by parents, must be provided by the state, enforced by the UN. Those “rights” include the right to privacy, the right to associate with whomever the child wishes, the right to birth control, and a host of other so-called rights that could no longer be determined by the parent. The treaty actually strips authority for child-rearing from parents and gives it to the government, with the UN setting the guidelines and having ultimate enforcement authority. This treaty, too, is on Warren Christopher’s “high priority” list. The treaty has been ratified by 169 nations. The U.S. is one of 8 nations that has signed, but not ratified the treaty. (84)

The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) grants the “right” to housing to all women in the world. Each nation is required to provide housing, with the ultimate authority vested in the UN. Developed nations are expected to pay the cost of securing this right to women in undeveloped nations.

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization is developing a Convention on Food Security that would grant the “right” to a full stomach to every citizen on earth. Each nation would be required to secure the “right” with developed nations again, expected to pay the costs of feeding people in developing nations.

These are only a few of the hundreds of treaties and international agreements either now in force or rapidly making their way into international law. The ratification of the World Trade Organization Charter (WTO) by the 103rd Congress gives the United Nations — for the first time in its history — the enforcement mechanism necessary to actually enforce these treaties and agreements. The WTO has the authority to impose trade sanctions upon nations, or upon industries within nations, for non-compliance with international treaties. A Subsidiary body of the Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change treaty, charged with developing an enforcement mechanism, has identified the WTO as the favored and most effective enforcement tool.(85)

Enforcement of international treaties by the United Nations is becoming even more effective as global governance plans move forward. One of the recommendations of the Commission on Global Governance is the creation of a new International Court of Criminal Justice which would have its own panel of prosecutors with the authority to investigate inside the borders of any sovereign state. An official “Preparatory Committee on the International Criminal Court” has been created and held its second session in New York, August 12-30, 1996.

Another recommendation of the Commission on Global Governance is the creation of a new Economic Security Council, under which the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Global Environment Facility, and the World Trade Organization would be consolidated. The purpose is to create a global currency under the control of the United Nations. One of the 20 global taxation schemes is to tax international currency exchange. Revenue estimates project a yield of $1.5 trillion per year, 150 times more than the total UN budget. This tax alone would produce two and a half times the $600 billion per year estimated to be the cost of implementing Agenda 21, adopted in Rio in 1992. This new structure and taxing scheme are the vehicles for redistributing the wealth of developed countries to the developing countries. This process is called “equity,” and “social justice.”

Equity and social justice are among the “core values” the Commission on Global Governance believes the world is now ready to embrace:

“Justice and equity are essential human values. Respect for them is indispensable for peace and progress, as their absence can give rise to resentment and be destabilizing. Although people are born into widely unequal economic and social circumstances, great disparities in their conditions or life chances are an affront to the human sense of justice. A concern for equity is not tantamount to an insistence on equality, but it does call for deliberate efforts to reduce gross inequalities…and to promote a fairer sharing of resources.(86)

Redistribution of wealth is necessary, according to the Commission on Global Governance, to achieve what is called the “security of the people.”

The United Nations was created to promote national security by reducing the risk of war between and among nations, through a forum provided by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council. Now, the UN is expanding its definition of security: “The security of people recognizes that global security extends beyond the protection of borders, ruling elites, and exclusive state interests to include the protection of people.”(87) Security of the people is said to include safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease, and repression, as well as protection from sudden and harmful disruptions in the patterns of daily life — such as the loss of a job or catastrophic illness. The Commission lists the principles that must be adopted to provide “security of the people:”

“The world needs to translate these concepts of security into principles for the post-cold war era that can be embedded in international agreements:

All people, no less than all states, have a right to a secure existence, and all states have an obligation to protect those rights;

The primary goals of global security policy should be to prevent conflict and war and to maintain the integrity of the planet’s life-support systems by eliminating the economic, social, environmental, political, and military conditions that generate threats to the security of people and the planet, and by anticipating and managing crises before they escalate into armed conflicts.

Military force is not a legitimate political instrument, except in self-defence or under UN auspices.

The development of military capabilities beyond that required for national defence and support of UN action is a potential threat to the security of people.

The production and trade in arms should be controlled by the international community.”(88)

An extremely important change in the function, purpose, and methods of the United Nations is represented in the following statements:

“We do think…that it is necessary to assert…the rights and interests of the international community in situations within individual states in which the security of the people is violated extensively. We believe a global consensus exists today for a UN response on humanitarian grounds in cases of gross abuse of the security of people.(89) (Emphasis added).

In other words, the Commission on Global Governance believes the world is now ready to grant to the UN the authority to enter the sovereign borders of any nation to guarantee the “security of people” as defined by the “rights” expressed in the various international treaties and agreements.

This notion is a major expansion of authority for the United Nations. This is the essence of global governance. This is the mechanism being developed to force individual humans to modify their behavior to conform to the tenets of the underlying belief system demonstrated by the organizers of the NRPE. Churches are being recruited through the NRPE to support political agendas designed to expedite the objectives of global governance. The paradigm shift is being called an appropriate response to an emerging global “earth ethic.”

It is not a coincidence that the recommendations offered by the Commission on Global Governance closely parallel the policies of socialist countries. Many of the architects of the global agenda are socialists. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Chair of the UN Commission on Environment and Development that produced the 1987 report, Our Common Future, was Vice President of the World Socialist Party. Maurice Strong is closely alligned with the Socialist Party of Canada. Most of the power-brokers responsible for the development of the global agenda have their roots in socialist governments or in the century-long effort to achieve a world government. The global governance agenda seeks to establish a world-wide system of governance in which the state (the United Nations) is the omnipotent authority which establishes policy that is implemented by national governments, enforced by the ultimate power of the United Nations either by taxation, trade sanctions, or as a last resort, by consolidated military action.

Few of the 100 million congregants that are being influenced by the NRPE have any idea of the massive agenda behind the “action alerts” to which they respond. Indeed, most of the pastors, priests, and rabbis who respond to the NRPE have no idea that they are being used to advance a global governance agenda. Most sincerely believe that they are taking responsible action to help protect the environment. Until the evidence is reviewed, there is no way that the average church-goer could possible realize the sinister objectives of those who organized the program. The organizers — James Parks Morton, James Lovelock, Robert Muller, Al Gore, Timothy Wirth, and many, many others — have been “enlightened” through their biocentric belief in gaia, and, therefore, they know what is best for the planet. They also know that the only way to protect the sacred gaia, is to control the people who are degrading her. The only way to control the people is through an omnipotent government that is, at this moment, consolidating its power into an evergrowing bureaucracy, now stretching around the globe, extending its tentacles into every corner of human life, creating de facto global governance. The National Religious Partnership for the Environment has reached into 67,300 churches and is drawing those congregations into the lair.

  1. Dorothy Vidulich, “Poor, black church hosts service when program goes public,” National Catholic Reporter, Kansas City, MO, Friday, October 15, 1993.
  2. The National Religious Partnership for the Environment, (P.O. Box 9105, Cambridge, MA 02238-9105, (617) 547-5552), “Statement of Goals,” (undated), p. 3.
  3. Michael J. McManus, “Ethics & Religion,” Courier Gazette, Rockland, Maine, April 26, 1984.
  4. Private communication with Eileen Laurence, Assistant to the Executive Director of the Temple of Understanding, June 1, 1992, with photocopies of brochure and newsletter (on file).
  5. Update, published by the Global Committee of Parliamentarians on Population and Development, 345 East 45th St, 12th floor, New York, NY 10017, (212) 953-7947, 1988.
  6. Shared Vision, Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders on Human Survival, Volume 3, Number 1, 1989, p. 3. (Note: the address on the publication is 345 East 45th Street, 12th floor, New York, NY 10017, the same address as the UN Global Committee of Parliamentarians on Population and Development.)
  7. Ibid.
  8. Sabbath Newsletter, Volume 1, Number 2, United Nations Environment Program, Winter, 1990, p. 1.
  9. Ibid.
  10. Shared Vision, Volume 4, 1990, p. 4.
  11. Ibid.
  12. Program, The Inter-continental conference on “Caring for Creation,” Washington National Cathedral, Washington, D.C., May 16-19, 1990 (on file).
  13. Jon Naar, “The Green Cathedral,” The Amicus Journal, (Quarterly publication of the Natural Resources Defense Council), Winter, 1993, p. 27.
  14. “History and Organizational Background,” The National Religious Partnership for the Environment, Op Cit.
  15. Ibid.
  16. David Anderson, “Gore, churches join environment forces,” Chicago Tribune, October 8, 1993, page 7.
  17. “Statement of Goals,” The National Religious Partnership for the Environment, Op Cit.
  18. Julian L. Simon and Aaron Wildavsky, “Extinction: Species Loss Revisited,” NWI Resource, Volume 5, Issue 1, Fall, 1994, p. 4f. (Note: This article provides an excellent foundation for understanding the conflicting claims about species loss. The authors also wrote “On Species Loss, The Absence of Data and Risks to Humanity,” in The Resourceful Earth: A Response to Global 2000.)
  19. Ibid., p. 16.
  20. Michael Fumento, Science Under Siege, (New York: William Morrow and Co., Inc., 1993) p. 19.
  21. Dixy Lee Ray and Lou Guzzo, Trashing the Planet, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1990) p, 78-79.
  22. Ron Arnold and Alan Gottlieb, Trashing the Economy, (Bellevue, Washington: Free Enterprise Press, 1993), p. 242.
  23. Guy Gugliotta, “Spreading the word on preservation,” The Washington Post, February 27, 1996.
  24. Jack E. Kinney, “Truth and Ethos,” prepared for the Workshop on Environmental Ethos, Institute for Theological Encounter With Science and Technology, St. Louis, MO, March 15-17, 1996, (on file).
  25. Harry Bodine, “Bureaucracy and the Bible meet beside Fanno Creek,” The Oregonian, February 29, 1996.
  26. Robert Muller, “A Cosmological Vision of the Future,” World Goodwill Occasional Paper, October, 1989, World Goodwill, P.O. Box 722, Cooper Station, New York NY 10276.
  27. Mikhail Gorbachev, transcribed from the Charlie Rose television program, PBS, October 23, 1996.
  28. Thomas J. Grady, “The integrity of the universe,” The Florida Catholic, February 14, 1992.
  29. Donna Steichen, UnGodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, (Ignatius Press, 1991), p. 237.
  30. Thomas Berry, The Dream of the Earth, (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1990), p. 18.
  31. Ibid., p. 21.
  32. The Amicus Journal, Op Cit., p. 24.
  33. Ibid., p. 25.
  34. William Bryant Logan, “Saint Francis in the Cities,” Cathedral, Volume 8, Number 2, Fall, 1994, p. 7.
  35. Samantha Smith, “The Pagan Howl-le-lu-ia Chorus,” The Eagle Forum, Volume 15, Number 4, Winter, 1995, p. 1.
  36. Samantha Smith, Goddess Earth, (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1994) p. 68.
  37. Michael S. Coffman, Saviors of the Earth, (Chicago: Northfield, 1994) p. 221.
  38. Ibid., p. 214.
  39. Alice A. Bailey, The Consciousness of the Atom, (New York: Lucifer Publishing Co.) Foreword (page unnumbered). (Note: Lucifer Publishing Company, 135 Broadway, New York City, is the address in this 1922 publication. The company was later affiliated with the Lucis Trust.)
  40. Willy Peterson, “Independence Day: A Parable for Mother Earth,” cologic, September/October, 1996, pp 20-21.
  41. The Robert Muller School World Core Curriculum Manual (Overview), November, 1986, Preface. (Note: Published by: Gloria Crook, Founding President, The Robert Muller School, 6005 Royaloak Drive, Arlington, TX 76016, (817) 6654-1018.)
  42. Robert Muller, “United Nations at 50: Achievements & Challenges,” The Wisconsin Report, Volume XX, Number 32, August 24, 1995, p. 1. (Note: The Wisconsin Report is available at P.O. Box 45, Brookfield, WI 53008. (414) 782-4832.)
  43. Otter Zell, “On the Occasion of Bill & Al’s Excellent Election,” Green Egg, Volume XXVI, Number 100, Spring, 1993, p. 2.
  44. Caring for Creation, literature published by the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, 443 Park Avenue South, 11th floor, New York, NY 10016, (212) 684-6950 (undated, on file).
  45. Let the Earth Be Glad: A Starter Kit for Evangelical Churches to Care for God’s Creation, p. 4. (Note: published by the Evangelical Environmental Network, 10 E Lancaster Ave, Wynnewood, PA 19096, (610) 645-9392).
  46. To Till and to Tend: A Guide To Jewish Environmental Study and Action, p. 1. (Note: published by The Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, 443 Park Ave. S., 11th floor, New York, NY 10016, (212) 684-6950).
  47. David Gonzales, “Religions Are Putting Faith in Environmentalism,” The New York Times, November 6, 1994, p. 34L.
  48. Cathedral, Op Cit., p. 7.
  49. Reid Bryson, “Environmental Roulette, Global Ecology: Readings Toward a Rational Strategy for Man, John P. Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, eds. 1971.
  50. Dixy Lee Ray, “Up in the air: Shattering the global warming say-so,” cologic, March, 1992, p. 16.
  51. Michael Fumento, Science Under Siege, Op Cit., p. 362.
  52. Dixy Lee Ray, Trashing the Planet, Op cit., p. 167.
  53. Ibid. p. 167.
  54. “Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change,” cologic, July/August, 1996, p. 15.
  55. To Till and to Tend, Op cit., p. 5.
  56. “UNCED Declaration,” cologic, August, 1992, p. 12.
  57. Stephen Budiansky, U.S. News & World Report, December 13, 1993, p. 82.
  58. Charles Oliver, Reason, April, 1992, p. 25.
  59. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Performance Review, “Ecosystem Protection,” August 6, 1993, p. 11.
  60. Special Issue Briefing Papers Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management Summit, April 30, 1994, “Human dimensions of ecosystem management,” (page unnumbered, on file).
  61. Convention on Biological Diversity, UNEP/CBD/COP2/5, 21 September, 1995, “Report of the First Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice,” p. 2 (on file).
  62. “Measures for Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Use of its Components,” Global Biodiversity Assessment, (Published for the United Nations Environment Program by Cambridge University Press, 1995) Section, p. 993.
  63. Reed F. Noss, “The Wildlands Project,” Wild Earth, Special Issue, 1992, p. 21. (Note: Wild Earth is published by the Cenozoic Society, editorial address: P.O. Box 492, Canton NY 13617, (315) 379-9940. Dave Foreman and Reed F. Noss are Directors.)
  64. Ibid., p. 15.
  65. Thomas Berry, Dream of the Earth, Op Cit., p. 166.
  66. Dave Foreman, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, (New York: Harmony Books, 1991), pp.ix, 19.
  67. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, (New York: Ballantine Books, Inc., 1968), pp. 69-80.
  68. Jaques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier, November, 1991, p. 13.
  69. Global Biodiversity Assessment, Op Cit., Section, p. 773.
  70. Jacqueline Kasun, The War Against Population, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), pp. 34-35.
  71. Jean M. Guilfoyle, “The Agenda,” Review, Volume 4, Number 6, November/December, 1994, p. 8. (Note: Published by Population Research Institute, P.O. Box 2024, Baltimore, MD 21298, (301) 670-1864.)
  72. Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry, “The Universe Story,” The Amicus Journal, Winter, 1993, pp. 30-31.
  73. Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighborhood, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 47.
  74. Ibid, pp. 48-49.
  75. Global Biodiversity Assessment, Op cit.,, Section 12.2.3, p. 838.
  76. Ibid, p. 839.
  77. Al Gore, Earth in the Balance, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992), pp. 269, 274.
  78. Eileen Laurence, private communication, Op cit.
  79. Elaine Dewar, Cloak of Green, (Toronto: James Lorimer & Co., 1995), pp. 249-283.
  80. “Meet Maurice Strong,” cologic, November/December, 1995, p. 4.
  81. Sustainable America: A New Consensus is available from the U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402, ISBN 0-16-0485299-0. (Note: a comprehensive report on Habitat II may be found in July/August, 1996 cologic).
  82. “UN Chief Launches Law of the Sea Tribunal,” The Tampa Tribune, October 18, 1996.
  83. Warren Christopher, Foreign Policy Speech, Stanford University, April 9, 1996.
  84. Convention on the Rights of the Child is available from the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 3 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017 (212) 326-7000.
  85. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Volume 12, Number 30, Wednesday, July 10, 1996, p. 1. (Note: Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), http://www.iisd.ca/linkages/climate/).
  86. Our Global Neighborhood, Op cit., p. 51.
  87. Ibid, p. 81.
  88. Ibid, pp. 84-85.
  89. Ibid, pp. 88-89.

MPs vote 207 to 81 to back Paris climate change agreement

More proof the “elected” are nothing more than UN/Globalist/Corporate puppets. Global warming/climate change is one of many mechanisms used to implement UN Global gov. and destroy nation states. The UN and their Globalist/Corporate partners need “global problems” that can only be solved at the global level. They make them up as needed, Simple as that. Trudeau, Suzuki, May, Layton (deceased) Senators and many others are members of the UNPA pushing for a UN Global parliament. The “elected” are part of an international crime syndicate  known to most as the UN, which CANADA is a member state of.  The “elected” need to be held accountable for their actions against the peoples of these lands. CBC is well aware of the Scam and is a facilitator of it via their media outlets as are the other major media.

New United Nations Secretary General Chosen

Meet Antonio Guterres, the next UN/Globalist/Corporate A-hole who is going to continue trying to ram the Global “gov” down our throats. Time people Stand, Say NO! and mean it. Time people understand that all “gov” everywhere are doing the bidding of the UN and it’s Global/Corporate friends/partners.

This is a Breach of Trust….which is TREASON

Portugal’s Antonio Guterres chosen as UN secretary general

Former PM ‘clear favourite’ for top job after Security Council casts secret ballot, diplomat says

The Associated Press Posted: Oct 05, 2016 11:45 AM ETLast Updated: Oct 05, 2016 12:10 PM ET

Portugal's Antonio Guterres speaks to the media during a news conference at the UN's European headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland in December 2015.

Portugal’s Antonio Guterres speaks to the media during a news conference at the UN’s European headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland in December 2015. (Salvatore Di Nolfi/Keystone/Associated Press)

Guterres also served for a time as President of the Socialist International. He served as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from June 2005 to December 2015. In October 2016 the United Nations Security Council announced he will be the next United Nations Secretary General. The 15-member Security Council cast secret ballots for each of the 10 candidates on 5 October 2016 and none were found to oppose Guterres. They were asked to select from a choice of encourage, discourage or no opinion for each candidate, with Guterres receiving 13 encourage votes and two no opinion votes



Environ-Mental! The environmental movement was never about saving the planet..its always been about power and control. Unfortunately environmental propaganda has left too many people in a mental vacuum, void of the ability to think clearly (hypnotized) . Environ (encircle, surround) mental (of the mind, in the mind, mental illness, insane) So, the UN/globalists/politicians/teachers/preachers/media etc. have used unrelenting propaganda to surround the mind and have it accept the environmental message (lies) until people become mentally ill/insane. All those sucked in by the environmental movement should be severely PISSED! The same method is used to push the Wars, World gov, Vaccines, Fluoride, GMO, Wind farms, Geo-engineering, LBGT, Islam, etc.agendas. Give your Head a good shake and Wake Up from what can only be described as an induced Bad Dream. Time we deal with Reality!



Editor: The Halifax Declaration shows how the Universities and student body were used to usher in Agenda 21. Link to Halifax Declaration which is posted below. Link to International Association of Universities Please spend time studying the IAU as it is important to understanding the role and goals of the UN and its agencies as it moves us closer to World gov. Sustainable Development, Global Warming/Climate Change, Renewable Energy, Water Shortage etc. are all Mechanisms used to convince people of the need for World gov. Ask yourself why neither “gov” or media ever mentioned the real goals of the UN. If they did they would expose the Fraud they are so heavily involved in.

Creating a Common Future: University Action for Sustainable Development

(A preparatory conference to UNCED of universities from across the world

Over the period 8-11 December 1991, the presidents and senior representatives of 33 universities from 10 countries on 5 continents met in Halifax, Canada to take stock of the role of universities regarding the environment and development.  They were joined by a number of senior representatives from business, the banking community, governments, and non-governmental organizations.  The meetings were sponsored by the International Association of Universities, the United Nations University, the Association of Universities and Colleges Canada and Dalhousie University, Canada, which also provided the detailed planning and secretariat support.

At the end of the meetings, the following declaration was released by the conference:


Human demands upon the planet are now of a volume and kind that, unless changed substantially, threaten the future well-being of all living species. Universities are entrusted with a major responsibility to help societies shape their present and future development policies and actions into the sustainable and equitable forms necessary for an environmentally secure and civilised world.

As an international community marshals its endeavours for a sustainable future focused upon the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil in 1992, universities in all countries are increasingly examining their own roles and responsibilities. At Talloires France in October 1990, a conference of university presidents from every continent, held under the auspices of Tufts University of the United States, issued a declaration of environmental commitment that has attracted the support of more than 100 universities from dozens of countries. At Halifax, Canada, in December 1991, the specific challenge of environmentally sustainable development was addressed by the presidents of universities from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Zimbabwe and elsewhere, as well as by the senior representatives of the International Association of Universities, the United Nations University and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

The Halifax meeting added its voice to those many others world-wide that are deeply concerned about the continuing widespread degradation of the Earth’s environment, about the pervasive influence of poverty on the process, and about the unsustainable environmental practices now so widespread. The meeting expressed the belief that solutions to these problems can only be effective to the extent that the mutual vulnerability of all societies, in the south and in the North, is recognised, and the energies and skills of people everywhere be employed in a positive, co-operative fashion. Because the educational, research and public service roles of universities enable them to be competent, effective contributors to the major attitudinal and policy changes necessary for a sustainable future, the Halifax meeting invited the dedication of all universities to the following actions:

(1) To ensure the voice of the university be clear and uncompromising in its ongoing commitment to the principle and practice of sustainable development within the university, and at the local, national and global levels.

(2) To utilise the intellectual resources of the university to encourage a better understanding on the part of society of the inter-related physical, biological and social dangers facing the planet Earth.

(3) To emphasise the ethical obligation of the present generation to overcome those current malpractice’s of resource utilisation and those widespread circumstances of intolerable human disparity, which lie, at the root of environment unsustainability.

(4) To enhance the capacity of the university to teach and practice sustainable development principles, to increase environmental literacy, and to enhance the understanding of environmental ethics among faculty, students and the public at large.

(5) To cooperate with one another and with all segments of society in the pursuit of practical capacity-building and policy measures to achieve the effective revision and reversal of those current practices which contribute to environmental degradation, to South-North disparities an the inter-generational inequity.

(6) To employ all channels open to the university to communicate these undertakings to UNCED, to governments and to the public at large.

Done at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada, the 11th day of December, 1991.


Creating a Common Future: An Action Plan for Universities.


Follow up to the Halifax Conference on University Action for Sustainable Development, December 9-11, 1991.  Halifax: Lester Pearson Institute for International Development, Dalhousie University, 1992.         This pamphlet is issued as part of the follow-up activities to the University Action for Sustainable Development Conference held in Halifax, December 9-11, 1991.


“The justification for our existence as universities is that we must make a difference to the human condition, to the social and economic conditions of humankind.  Even if one accepts that we are in the business of the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, we are still responsible in terms of the development of our peoples.” Walter Kamba, Vice-Chancellor, University of Zimbabwe and President, International Association of Universities

University presidents and senior officials from universities, governments, the business community and NGOs from five continents met in Halifax, Canada in December, 1991 to discuss the role of universities in improving the capacity of countries to address environment and development issues.

An important and somewhat similar process had been initiated at the Tufts European Centre in Talloires, France in October, 1990.  It had become clear to the Halifax conference organizers that the UNCED meetings, planned for Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, must be widely seen to be a catalyst for serious efforts to steer the world towards sustainable development patterns.  It was also clear that the university community must be challenged to re-think and to re-construct many of its traditional activities and frameworks in order to play a leadership role in a world at serious risk of environmental destruction.

The conference was organized by the Association of Universities and Colleges Canada, the International Association of Universities, the United Nations University, and Dalhousie University.  Support was received from the Department of External Affaires and International Trade Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency, and the Province of Nova Scotia.  Mr. Ivan Head, past President of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) served as conference chairman.  Among those delivering key-note addressed were the Hon. Jean Charest, Minister of the Environment, Canada; Professor Walter Kamba, President of the I.A.U. and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Zimbabwe; and Mr. John Bell, chair of the Canadian Delegation to UNCED.

In readiness for the conference at Rio, key papers from the conference are being published in a special issue of Higher Education Policy, the journal of the International Association of Universities.  The detailed proceedings of the conference are being published by Dalhousie University and will be available, upon request after May 1, 1992.

This brochure contains two essential outcomes of the Halifax conference:

·        A follow-up plan of action, as a basis for practical strategic plans for sustainable development—details of which are now being refined and pursued by many of the universities represented in Halifax and by their ‘converts’.  Emphasis is to be placed on concrete actions at home as well as the vigorous and strategic use of worldwide networks.

·        A Declaration, done at Halifax, which provides a general direction being pursued by the universities involved.  Emphasis is to be placed on education and training, on research and policy information, on inter-disciplinary work and on a pro-active role by universities for sustainable development.

Those in attendance at the Halifax conference believe the UNCED process is a critical step towards an environmentally sustainable future and pledge their support.  They invite their colleagues in other universities and institutions to help ensure the long-term success of the UNCED challenge to create a sustainable and more equitable world.

We try to enlarge the activities of the universities not only on the academic side but also in the action programs because of pressing physical needs and because of the ethical aspect of the problem of the poor.  With respect to the environment, the tensions between those who have been successful in the process of development and those who have been left behind is very, very serious.” Sukadji Ranuwihardjo, Director of Higher Education, Indonesia


This plan ‘model’ is strategic in approach –not detailed. It is intended to provide a clear sense of direction for a number of core activities to which many others may be added and, of course, from which some may be subtracted. Examples of other possible activities which originated at the conference appear in the recommendations which follow this plan.

This plan outline identifies short- and long-term goals at the local and regional, national, and international levels. The short-term goals are those to be effected between December 12, 1991 and June, 1992; the longer-term goals are those which continue past the June 1992 UNCED Conference. While this preliminary plan focuses on the period leading up to the UNCED Conference, it also examines some mechanisms for designing longer term strategies.


The local-regional framework comprises actions which may be instituted within the university itself, and those which require that the university interact within the geographic region where it is situated.
Within the university itself, the following actions might be considered in the short-term:

Unit/focal Point Identification: the first step recommended is to identify a unit or focal point responsible for developing a sustainable development strategy for the university. Minimally the unit/focal point would be an individual: ideally the unit should be a small task group linked clearly to an administrative unit in the university for support purposes. The unit must work comfortably across the university system –so the working style will be important. It should not be a new centre or bureaucratic body: it is simply to be seen as a small task force to help refine and launch these initiatives. The president of the university should work closely with this unit to demonstrate personal commitment to the process.

University Sustainable Development Strategy: It is suggested that within two months of establishment, the sustainable development unit should have completed an initial sustainable development strategy for its particular university (i.e. by March 31, 1992 a the latest). The emphasis should be on actions and results — not on lengthy papers.  Such a strategy could have two time frameworks: (1) up to June 1992; (2) longer-term. Some longer-term, outputs can/should be started before June, 1992. A more refined strategy can be designed in the later period (e.g. April – August 92).

Practical Tasks: It is suggested that, in the initial strategy, a number of clear and operationally practical tasks be identified. For the shorter-term, each university strategy might include the following eight activities:

  1. A meeting between the president and senior management of the university to explain the conference and its outcome and to distribute copies of the key conference papers (including the Halifax Declaration and this follow-up strategy). The group would determine the best approach for follow-up in their particular university. It is suggested this be undertaken in January, 1992. The Board of Governors and also Senate should, it is suggested, be informed of the process underway and the proposed university specific strategy should be tabled at senate, once it is drafted.


  1. A meeting between the president and other university presidents within the province/state/region should be arranged to explain the conference outcome to those not represented and to encourage them to endorse the Halifax Declaration and to participate in this process. Some regional mechanisms for follow-up might well occur and should be encouraged. It is suggested this should be undertaken in January 1992. Obviously it can be added to the agenda of routine meetings.


  1. Each university represented (and endorsing the Halifax Declaration) might organize at least one substantial public presentation on sustainable development and the challenge represented by UNCED, at which time reference should also be made by the organizers to this process. The focus should be on the challenge and content of sustainable development, not narrowly on the process of UNCED itself. The sessions might include panelists from several disciplines (sciences, law, social sciences, arts). Obviously the more ambitious the event(s) the better — but since this should not be viewed as a single event, but the start of a process, it is important to make a beginning. The suggested initial session is before the end of March, 1992, so a maximum number of students can participate.


Each university might encourage faculty to review their course curricula and also their research agendas to see how sustainable development might best be integrated in and between disciplines. This should not be introduced in a “threatening” way. Special workshops for faculty on sustainable development ideas might be considered as one way of approaching the situation. (To be started before June, 1992.)


  1. Each university might sponsor a series of university prizes in sustainable development, linked to UNCED. They could be for papers contributed by students and also by faculty from any discipline.


  1. Each university might review all university linkage projects to explore how sustainable development elements are being or might be addressed.


  1. Each university might undertake a review of its own “sustainable development” impact on the region, e.g. from recycling paper to “green architecture”. This goes beyond a narrow tradition of “environmental audit”, to include a proactive dimension.


  1. Each university might participate in a “Sustainable Development Day”, linked to UNCED in June, 1992.

These eight activities only represent a starting approach. Obviously the sustainable development units in each university might add new activities, drawing from the Recommendations for Follow-Up to this strategy and adding to it also.

Within each university in the long term: Proposals for the longer-term are not identified in this strategic plan, but a number of ideas are listed in the Recommendations for Follow-Up. A longer-term strategic plan for sustainable development should be identified as an outcome of the work of the particular university units for sustainable development and their work. A representative task force from these universities could be set up to design the draft for a longer-term strategy to be completed by May 31, 1992 (in advance of UNCED). It could be along the lines of this initial plan, i.e. some eight or so strategic steps, with additional recommendations in an annex that can be routinely enlarged upon as ideas are exchanged within the network of universities. The strategic steps are likely to include curricula and teaching steps, new or reinforced research programmes across disciplines, inter-university linkage arrangements, new approaches with NGOs and governments, etc.

With respect to the interaction of the university and the local region in the short-term each university might undertake the following:

  1.  University presidents and representatives from the sustainable development units might meet with the Minister of the Environment of their province to brief the Minister on the process underway. Similar meetings could be held with appropriate representatives of chambers of commerce, NGOs, federal departments, municipal governments. The precise mechanism would vary from province to province; for example, while the initial meeting with the responsible minister would be a special meeting, the other meetings could be through the mechanism of adding the subject to appropriate conferences that are already being organized, at lunch-time speeches that the presidents may already be scheduled to give to Chambers of Commerce, and so on.


  1. Each university might arrange to give a series of talks in schools on sustainable development and UNCED.


  1. Each university might work with the Citizens Support Programme, linked to the Ministry of the Environment and UNCED, in order to contribute ideas and help make it effective.


  1. Each university might meet with local NGOs to see how they can work effectively together for sustainable development (e.g. see the ideas in the Recommendations for Follow-Up re: possibilities in cooperation with the Red Cross).


  1. Each University might meet with representatives of key sectors in the province (e.g. banks, forest industry representatives) to work out ways to cooperate for sustainable development


  1. Each university might meet with local town/city councils to see how they might cooperate in support of sustainable development.


The national framework comprises both actions within the national university community, and the role of the universities within the national fabric.
Within the national university community, in the short-term where there are overall bodies representative of the national community of universities, they might be encouraged to establish a sustainable development advisory group which would comprise a mix of university presidents and members of the sustainable development units. The groups should meet by March 1992 at the least, to review progress at the national level — following up on the Halifax Conference and preparing both for UNCED and for a longer-term sustainable development national university-wide strategy. This could be an integrative process linked clearly with the various university strategies for sustainable development.
A list of possible shorter and longer-term outputs appears in the Recommendations for Follow-Up, from which to make a start. In the Canadian context, the body responsible for this work will presumably be the AUCC. In the case of Canada, the secretariat of the AUCC will be drafting a preliminary set of goals and strategic plan for the AUCC regarding sustainable development.
With respect to the role of the universities within the nation, in the short-term, both individually and through the appropriate national body (e.g. AUCC), the universities might draw up a number of activities in support of sustainable development at the national level.


Four particular activities are suggested:

  1. Work with the national (Canadian) delegation for UNCED, preparatory to UNCED.


  1. Review the key public policy documents on sustainable development and write critiques of them both to assist the sponsor (e.g. CIDA) and by way of encouraging public awareness and interest.


  1. Support national citizen participation programmes through the provision of skills and advocacy.


  1. Approach the national media services (e.g. CBC) to identify practical ways the universities can contribute to national programmes on sustainable development.


A longer-term strategy will need to be prepared by the national bodies (e.g. AUCC).




At the international level, universities in the short-term, could take the following actions:


  1. Support the President of the IAU, in cooperation with UNU, to represent the international university community at UNCED.


  1. Establish an appropriate international council for sustainable development linked coherently to the IAU. IAU to draft a proposed mandate, in cooperation with UNU and Halifax Conference organizers.


  1. Endorse the idea and assist the Rector of the University of Rio de Janeiro in his proposal to organize a parallel university conference to UNCED


  1. Push to have environmental education placed higher on the UNESCO agenda.


  1. Promote the concept that a major international prize in sustainable development be initiated.


  1. Build sustainable development concepts into all the international linkage programmes of those universities present and signatories to the Halifax Declaration drawing upon the key principles found in the EMDI model, insofar as these are appropriate. Develop new programmes in sustainable development between the universities at the conference.

A longer-term strategy will need to be prepared — presumably the proposed international council might be responsible for this and it would build on the UNCED lessons.


If the university is to provide leadership in sustainable development, must it not first set its own house in order?  Can universities provide leadership in debate on the social and ethical dimensions of sustainable development at a time when many question the university’s role in the development of ethics and ethical positions?   And yet if the university does not provide such leadership and does not produce graduates who genuinely live the principles of sustainable development, who will, and what hope is there for us?” Howard Clark, President, Dalhousie University


These ideas were put forward by persons attending the conference and are not ranked, nor were they formally ratified by the conference.

  1. Within each university, activities could include:
  1. identifying a unit focal point on campus to be responsible for developing a sustainable development strategy for the university;
  2. completing an initial sustainable development strategy for the university by the sustainable development unit within two months of establishment;
  3. a meeting between the president and senior management of the university to explain the Halifax UASD Conference;
  4. organizing at least one public panel presentation on the challenge and content of sustainable development and how this relates to UNCED;
  5. a commitment to encourage faculty to review curricula to see how sustainable development concepts might be integrated into their courses. Some form of support seminar may be necessary for this idea to work;
  6. sponsoring prizes in sustainable development linked to UNCED. These might be for students, faculty, and administration;
  7. examining all university linkage projects to explore how sustainable development elements might be infused;
  8. conducting an environmental audit of the university;
  9. participation in a Sustainable Development Day linked to UNCED in June, 1992. Universities around the world could ideally agree on the same date;
  10. examining the university in the context of the Green Plan (or comparable documents in other countries);
  11. examining existing research programs to see how they might contribute more to sustainable development imperatives;
  12. endorsing the Talloires declaration;
  13. the distribution of the Nova Scotia Round Table on Environment and Economy and the Tufts University papers dealing with education and curriculum development (or comparable documents) to students and faculty for comment and response;
  14. designing new and collaborative environment and sustainable development research projects involving faculty and students;
  15. meetings with faculty, students, and the Board of Governors to respond to the challenge of how the university will deal with the sustainable development;
  16. increasing the number of fellowships for students from developing countries to study in Canada;
  17. encouraging innovative educational technologies for communicating environmental issues;
  18. developing more partnerships with business and industry for sustainable development;
  19. developing more partnerships with NGOs in order to learn about their work with sustainable development and also as a means of contributing to it. Some examples, using the Red Cross and Red Crescent as a model, might include:
  • exploring cooperation with national and international Red Cross or Red Crescent societies and then linking university research to support the societies’ field operations for sustainable development,
  • exploring methods of twinning university projects with Red Cross or Red Crescent societies’ projects to see how they can reinforce each other,
  • helping reinforce South/South cooperative projects with the Red Cross/Crescent. This is a Red Cross priority approach and is frequently put into practice,
  • linking some centers of excellence with Red Cross/Crescent centres of strength, e.g. the Bangladesh cyclone centers and early warning systems; Finnish Red Cross blood bank and research; several disaster preparedness centres which are linked to sustainable development, such as in Ethiopia,
  • supporting research, advocacy, and training into- the ever-growing plight of refugees, working with the Red Cross/Crescent or UNHCR,
  • encouraging faculty to be available for front-line environment project work with the Red Cross for which advice is frequently needed,
  • cooperating with the Red Cross in such fields as women and sustainable development and bringing the handicapped more fully into society,
  • cooperating with the Red Cross/Crescent to provide training for sustainable development to persons willing to work as Red Cross/Crescent volunteers.
  1. publicizing the student winners of the Globe ’92 Environmental Audit Competition and supporting annual event among Canadian universities;
  2. encouraging university libraries to purchase more documents written or published in the South;
  3. examining the realignment of existing academic units to address sustainable development while at the same time not compartmentalizing the theme;
  4. building more South/North research projects as a means of learning about sustainable development from both perspectives;
  5. enabling and encouraging more South/South cooperation in linkage projects;
  6. developing teaching teams to serve as models for interdisciplinary research;
  7. fostering two-way exchanges of personnel to promote capacity building for sustainable development;
  8. establishing chairs in sustainable development and sponsoring links between universities for sharing speakers in this field;
  9. designing continuing education programs with respect to environmental issues for NGOs, public service units, and businesses;
  10. designing an environmental literacy program that would be widely available and encouraged;
  11. meeting with local town and city councils to see how they might cooperate in support of sustainable development;
  12. developing forums for awareness and information exchange, education, and public debate;
  13. designing interdisciplinary seminars which examine a sample of university linkages from the point of view of sustainable development;
  14. encouraging leading issue research programs and teaching orientations that foster inter-disciplinary work;
  15. supporting a network on universities and sustainable development within the region;
  16. encouraging outward bound sustainable development projects that reach across the university and into the regions where the university is situated;
  17. establishing a prestigious prize to encourage far-reaching analysis and thought on sustainable development;
  18. funding scholarships in sustainable development;
  19. forming think-tanks, with people drawn from government, industry, and academe to examine the interaction of sustainable development with particular disciplines;
  20. examining appropriate technology and recognize that to be “appropriate” technology must be environmentally sound, economically viable, and relevant in the social context;
  21. assessing community needs for environmental information, assessment, and technology transfer and seeing how university programs might respond;
  22. examining the Environmental Management Development in Indonesia Project model for its application to linkages;
  23. developing fund raising methods for sustainable development to determine the applicability of innovative approaches, such as debt-for-nature swaps, developed by organizations like Conservation International;
  24. reviewing all linkage programs to see how sustainable development elements can be injected;
  25. adjusting the university reward system to account for community service and outreach as a balance for other criteria for tenure and promotion;
  26. examining how indigenous knowledge might be given greater weight in curricula;
  27. giving a series of talks in school on sustainable development and UNCED;
  28. specifying multi-disciplinary research as an area which requires extensive support;
  29. building more multi-disciplinary teams to tackle environmental concepts and issues;
  30. accessing state-of-the art curriculum on sustainable development and circulating it;
  31. building twinning relationships with institutions in twinned cities;
  32. encouraging urban issues as areas for teaching and research while at the same time not neglecting the rural;
  33. including alumni in efforts to address sustainable development;
  34. involving chambers of commerce in the university’s efforts to address sustainable development;
  35. working with faculty and students to develop sustainable development strategies, policies, and action plans;
  36. tasking key faculty members to feed sustainable development through the university system;
  37. involving government, business, and NGOs in the university’s efforts to address sustainable development;
  38. involving students in the university’s linkage projects both at home and in the host country;
  39. listing sustainable development expertise on campus such as was done at the University of Manitoba;
  40. developing a strategic plan for sustainable development within the university;
  41. preparing a manual on “Sustainable Development in Universities”; other publications could include “How Universities can work with NGOs in Contributing to Sustainable Development;
  42. preparing a mission statement which articulates a commitment to the environment and general environmental principles;
  43. preparing an advisory paper to encourage and guide graduate students on how they might link their thesis subjects to the goals of UNCED;
  1. Within the Region, university activities could include:
  1.  encouraging universities which were not at the conference to participate in the process and to endorse the Halifax Declaration;
  2. having the presidents and the sustainable development unit representatives of universities in the region meet with the provincial Minister of the Environment to discuss mutual goals;
  3. establishing a network among universities in order to share information about the “Greening” of the universities: this could be linked to the national university network.
  1. On a National Level, university activities could include:
  1. the establishment of a sustainable development advisory group within bodies representative of a national community of universities to review progress at the national level;
  2. working with the national delegation for UNCED preparatory to the conference;
  3. reviewing key public policy documents on sustainable development;
  4. supporting national citizen participation programs;
  5. approaching national media services to identify practical ways the universities can contribute to national programs on sustainable development;
  6. seeking to have universities play a more central role in strategic planning and decision making with respect to capacity building;
  7. encouraging governments to identify strategic plans for capacity building;
  8. circulating to students through the national university association the Youth Declaration on Environment and Development;
  9. establishing a national university network to be linked to the national university association;
  1. At the International Level, university activities could include:
  1. providing support for the president of the IAU, in cooperation with UNU, to represent the international university community at UNCED;
  2. establishing an international council for sustainable development linked to the IAU; IAU to draft a proposed mandate in cooperation with UNU and Halifax Conference organizers;
  3. pushing to have environmental education placed higher on the UNESCO agenda;
  4. promoting a “Brundtland” prize or some distinguished international prize in sustainable development;
  5. building into all the international linkage programs of those universities present and signatories to the “Halifax Declaration”, a sustainable development component and drawing upon the key principles found in the EMDI model insofar as they are appropriate;
  6. circulating the “Halifax Declaration” and “Plan of Action” as widely as possible, in different languages, to university organizations at the national, regional and international levels, appropriate NGOs including youth organizations, relevant UN. bodies, and the mass media;
  7. increasing interaction between the university community and those UN organizations concerned with sustainable development such as UNU, UNESCO, and UNEP;
  8. encouraging international agencies to use their requirements for information and policy development to build up local capacity in the universities;
  9. encouraging government to assign a percentage of external aid funding for basic education and training in sustainable development;
  10. for the countries represented at the UASD Conference, Zimbabwe, Brazil, Indonesia and Canada, forming a partnership for cooperation for sustainable development;
  11. accepting the offer of the Brazilian rectors to attend the pre-UNCED Academic Scientific Parallel Conference and have the Brazilian rectors also put forward the view of the universities, in addition to the IAU presentation.

There is virtually no university that I know of where a person can enroll in a Master’s degree in environmental engineering, policy or science and acquire a comprehensive, holistic view of environmental management.  Generally these programmes are not only limited in perspective, but they are entirely oriented with controlling and remediating environmental problems as opposed to anticipating and preventing them.  Furthermore, many members of faculty consider the programmes to be non-rigorous or soft science because they are interdisciplinary—in some cases, they’re considered simply faddish.  An additional feature of most programmes is that they’re almost always supported by soft money.  Why?  Because they’re interdisciplinary or multi-disciplinary and therefore are not considered to be part of the central mission of the universities.” Anthony Cortese, Dean of Environmental Programs, Tufts University

“Education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of countries to address environment and development issues.  While basic education provides the underpinning for any environmental and development education, the latter needs to be recognized as an essential part of learning, including basic learning.  It is indispensable for achieving ethical awareness and promoting behavior consistent with the sustainable use of natural resources and sustainable development.  To be effective, it should deal with the dynamics of the physical /biological environment and human development, be integrated in all disciplines and employ all formal and non-formal methods and adequate communication.” Report of the Secretary General of UNCED; A/Conf.151/PC/100/Add.6, p.2, 4/16 Jan. 1992

Universities have to become leaders in putting their own houses in order.  How many university presidents in Canada today have already committed themselves to an environmental audit of their university operations?  How many university administrators apply the principles of green architecture to building construction?  How many universities have effective senior managers with the term ‘environment’ in their title?  How many universities have a five-year green plan, a strategic plan for five years or longer, in which a whole series of measures of sustainable development can be looked at in an integrated and careful fashion, and where students and NGOs are involved in the development of that plan?”  Robert Page, Dean, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary

Agenda 21 in Action

Regardless of where you live UN Agenda 21 is being implemented by your local council without your knowledge. Time to Stand, say NO!! and mean it.

The Chicken Man, Andrew Wordes, in his own words 2012


What’s not Sustainable? Private Property

“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference in Vancouver Canada

This is one of those stories that often never makes it to the Front Page of any newspaper or website. It’s a story about Property Rights and Eminent domain. It’s the story of one man who tried to fight back; and sadly it’s the story of a man who lost it all in the process. It’s also a story that can happen to anyone who is reading this article.

The story begins back in 2009 when Andrew Wordes, otherwise known as the Roswell Chicken Man, began his fight to raise chickens on his property. In February 2009, the city of Roswell, GA started to cite Andrew Wordes for raising livestock in his backyard. Wordes, who had started raising chickens on his .97-acre homestead in 2005, decided to fight back. And guess what he won.

But sadly, that’s when the real trouble started:

You see, the story actually has very little to do with chickens. While the city of Roswell, and cities just like it across America, would like people to believe it’s a story about chickens, the real story is about the rights of property owners.

When taking a look at a map that was published back in 2003, as part of Roswell’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan for city improvements, one thing becomes painfully obvious; The city had already planned to take Wordes’ property.

The Map showed that the city had major plans for his property. In fact, his property sat right in the middle of a planned city park. His property was being targeted for “city improvements”, and this fight had nothing to do with chickens. The chickens were really just the catalyst for the city to unlawfully seize his land.

After initially winning his fight in municipal court, the City of Roswell made Wordes life a living hell.

The Harassment Campaign Against Andrew Wordes

On Dec. 14, 2009, the city council approved a new ordinance banning roosters and using lot size to limit how many chickens a resident could keep. Wordes claimed that the harassment started immediately after the meeting, when Roswell police ticketed him for no insurance and a number of other moving violations.

  • In September of 2010, Roswell prosecuted Wordes under the new ordinance claiming he had too many birds for his lot size. The judge found him not guilty since he had the chickens before the ordinance became law.
  • In September of 2010, he was convicted of grading sediment on his land without a permit and having inoperable vehicles in his yard.  He was sentenced to community service.
  • In November of 2010, code enforcement served Wordes with a  nuisance citation.
  • After winning twice in court against the city, the county then got involved and actually cited him for “not properly stacking his firewood.”
  • In 2011, the 84 year-old women who held Mr. Wordes mortgage was harassed by the city into selling Wordes mortgage for forty cents on the dollar. The city then began the foreclosure process.
  • While in the process of trying to save his home, Andrew Wordes was arrested by Roswell Police on the day that he was to bring paperwork that would’ve delayed his bankruptcy and the foreclosure on his home.
  • Wordes was jailed for violating his probation after the city claimed he only served 122 of the 150 hours of community service that he had been ordered to serve.  He then served 99 days in jail.

After his release, he placed a sign on his property that read “Trespassers will be construed as a bodily threat” and then waited for authorities to arrive and remove him.

On Monday at 10:45 a.m. Marshalls arrived at the home. After a two-hour standoff, Wordes advised the Marshall that they needed to immediately leave the property.  That’s when the explosion happened. After years of battling for his right to keep his land, Wordes finally had enough.

On a website dedicated to Andrew Wordes, one of his friends wrote:

We all lost a little something today. Andrew was a man of faith, with a strong love for God. He was a staunch Constitutionalist with a passion for our freedoms and liberties.

You pushed Mr. Wordes to this point. You marched around Roswell bashing Andrew, annihilating his character, marking him as crazy and filing lawsuits whenever you could, bankrupting him and denying him rights given to property owners in the United States.

Andrew fought the good fight, not just for himself but for others because he knew it could happen to anyone. And it is. Eminent domain is being abused all over our country, just look it up. Communities are plagued with repeated abuses of the use of eminent domain. It’s tragic and your neighborhood could be next. Andrew fought to his last breath, for himself, for me, for you. In his mind, he went on his terms. Right out of Atlas Shrugged. Andrew is at peace now but it’s not over.

The sad truth about this story is its not an isolated incident.   When any government (talking city or county now) finds financial motivations, and they are able to initiate those directives at gunpoint of it’s local law enforcement, it’s important to keep powers in check so that they cannot be abused.

From the Federal Government seizing property because of “environmental regulations”, to local municipalities who use code enforcement agents codes to intimidate people into giving up their land, we have a huge problem in this country. Our property rights are being shredded before our eyes, and it’s only a matter of time before this story becomes an everyday occurrence, and the causes need to be addressed.  Remember, in the U.S, every town, every county, and every State makes many of it’s own laws, so circumstances vary from place to place.  It’s important to get plugged in to where you live and be sure that your local governments are above reproach with their handling of the citizens they intend to serve.

Regardless of where you live UN Agenda 21 is being implemented by your local council without your knowledge. Time to Stand, say NO!! and mean it.