Global church network pushes 'climate justice' narrative during Holy Week: 'Moral imperative'
FIRST ON FOX: One of the world's leading liberal ecumenical Christian organizations published a post during Holy Week promoting climate change activism, sparking criticism from some experts who spoke to Fox News Digital.
"Training shows climate justice a moral imperative for churches," a post on the World Council of Churches website said on Monday as the billions of Christians worldwide began observing Holy Week and commemorating the seven days leading up to Easter.
The post stated: "Exploring how churches can do more for climate justice, the World Council of Churches (WCC), in cooperation with the National Council of Churches in Bangladesh, organized a climate litigation training in Dhaka, Bangladesh, on 11 April."
In a Thursday post on X, WCC again spoke about climate change saying, "Climate crisis isn't siloed—neither should our solutions be. At a joint seminar in India, experts push for a nexus approach to land, water & food justice."
Flashback: Biden Proclaimed Trans Day Of Visibility In 2024 That Coincided With Easter Sunday
"Amidst the poly-crises the world is experiencing now, the role of churches and other faith actors in terms of our contributions to climate justice is more important than ever," WCC general secretary Rev. Prof. Dr. Jerry Pillay said in Bangladesh. "Our moral voice is necessary for the urgently needed system changes."
Read On The Fox News App
Last week, WCC announced that it has "debuted its new resource on legal tools for climate justice, the focus was on hope for children—a hope strongly backed by knowledge on how churches can hold financial actors accountable for their role in perpetuating the climate crisis."
Fox News Digital reached out to WCC for comment.
Dan Turner, founder and executive director of Power The Future, likened the climate change push to Christianity's "long history of a battle against paganism."
"It is unsurprising that neo-pagans hide behind climate change to pollute religion and push their agenda," Turner said. "The most Christian countries have the cleanest air and water, and the greatest respect for the Earth."
Easter And Passover Foods That Americans Most Like And Dislike, According To New Data
Gabriella Hoffman, Independent Women's Forum Center for Energy & Conservation Director, told Fox News Digital that it is not "uncommon" for religious institutions to preach the "biblical" teaching of "stewardship of the land" but that climate justice "strays from this teaching by encouraging its adherents to reject positive human interactions with nature."
"They believe nature supersedes the needs of people. Both interests can be balanced and not at odds with each other," Hoffman said.
Steve Cortes, founder of the League of American Workers and a Senior Advisor for Catholic Vote, told Fox News Digital, "During Holy Week, the church should be focused on reflecting on Christ's sacrifice on the cross, instead of advancing climate hysteria. The church should be spreading the Gospel, not advance divisive legal battles that amplify fear over faith."
The WCC, which claims 352 member church bodies from more than 120 countries, representing over 580 million Christians worldwide, has a long history of political activism on behalf of liberal causes.
The organization has "established several highly biased and politicized subgroups," according to NGO Monitor, some of which have been linked to anti-Israel efforts and BDS activities.
Last year, the WCC issued a statement in support of the International Criminal Court's controversial decision to issue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in response to the fallout from the October 7th terror attack.
Shortly after that attack, the WCC issued a statement calling for "underscor[ing] the necessity of addressing the root causes of the current conflict, which are deeply intertwined with decades of occupation, prolonged sieges on Gaza, and the systematic violation of fundamental human rights."Original article source: Global church network pushes 'climate justice' narrative during Holy Week: 'Moral imperative'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
32 minutes ago
- Business Insider
World Bank restores funding to Uganda despite controversial anti-gay law
The World Bank has restored funding to Uganda nearly two years after suspending new financing in response to the country's Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA). The World Bank has resumed funding to Uganda after a two-year suspension instigated by the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA). The Bank justified resumption through effective mitigation measures within ongoing Ugandan projects to limit potential adverse impacts. While Uganda's AHA remains unchanged, the decision signals shifting geopolitical dynamics by international financial institutions. The World bank in 2023, suspended funding to Uganda after the country's parliament passed the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), saying the law contradicted its values. The legislation sparked international condemnation for imposing severe penalties on LGBTQ+ individuals, including life imprisonment and, in some cases, the death penalty. According to Reuters, the World Bank said it had developed a working relationship with Ugandan authorities to implement strong measures aimed at mitigating potential harm resulting from the law. " We have now determined the mitigation measures rolled out over the last several months in all ongoing projects in Uganda to be satisfactory," " Consequently, the Bank has prepared three new projects in sectors with significant development needs – social protection, education, and forced displacement/refugees, which have been approved by the Board." said a Bank spokesperson, who requested anonymity. The decision to resume funding signals a shift in the Bank's engagement strategy with Uganda and raises broader questions about how global institutions navigate the tension between promoting human rights and maintaining development partnerships. While there has been no indication of changes to Uganda's legal position on LGBTQ+ rights, the World Bank's renewed support may reflect wider geopolitical and economic considerations in the region. How the world reacted to Uganda's Anti-Gay Law Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), signed into law in May 2023, imposed sweeping criminal penalties for same-sex relationships, including life imprisonment and, in cases of so-called 'aggravated homosexuality,' the death penalty. The law drew swift and widespread condemnation from Western governments, human rights organizations, and international institutions, and was widely regarded as one of the harshest anti-LGBTQ+ laws in the world. Beyond the World Bank's suspension of funding, several Western governments issued strong rebukes and implemented measures affecting Uganda's international standing. The United States led the diplomatic response, with the Biden administration describing the law as 'a tragic violation of universal human rights.' In turn, Washington imposed travel restrictions on Ugandan officials believed to be involved in the legislation and initiated a review of its financial assistance to the country. The European Union also condemned the law, emphasizing its incompatibility with international human rights norms and warning that it would reassess its relationship with Uganda. Similarly, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called the legislation 'shocking' and 'discriminatory,' urging its immediate repeal. Outside of official government action, Western-based human rights organizations, NGOs, and civil society groups amplified the global outcry. Advocacy campaigns were launched to pressure the Ugandan government, while some multinational corporations voiced concern about the law's potential impact on employees and business operations in the country. Despite this international backlash, Ugandan officials have welcomed the recent restoration of World Bank funding, portraying it as an endorsement of the country's sovereignty and development agenda.
USA Today
35 minutes ago
- USA Today
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. | Opinion The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that way of thinking? Show Caption Hide Caption Trump rescinds Biden-era emergency abortion care guidance The Trump administration rescinded guidance clarifying that hospitals in abortion-ban states must treat pregnant patients during medical emergencies. unbranded - Newsworthy Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? Having a baby in America is dangerous. Republicans aren't helping. The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. None of this is surprising from Republicans. It's just sad. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ask women if burka is genuinely their choice, says Reform UK's Richard Tice
Women who wear burkas should be asked if it is 'genuinely their choice', Reform UK's deputy leader has said amid a row over calls to ban the garment. Richard Tice said the issue should be subject to a 'national debate' as he entered the count for a Holyrood by-election on Thursday night. His comments followed the sudden resignation of Reform's chairman Zia Yusuf, who had described a call from the party's newest MP to ban the burka as 'dumb'. Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Friday, Mr Tice said: 'I think it is right that we should have a debate about whether or not the burka is appropriate for a nation that's founded in Christianity, where women are equal citizens and should not be viewed as second class citizens.' Asked whether he supported a ban, he said he was 'pretty concerned' about whether the burka was a 'repressive item of clothing', adding: 'Let's ask women who wear the burka, is that genuinely their choice?' Wearing face-covering clothes is currently banned in seven European countries – France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Austria and Bulgaria – while other countries have enacted partial bans. On Wednesday, Reform's newest MP Sarah Pochin asked Sir Keir Starmer during Prime Minister's Questions whether he would support such a ban. A day later, Mr Yusuf said on social media that it had been 'dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn't do'. Shortly after that, he announced that he was quitting as Reform's chairman, saying that working to get the party elected was no longer 'a good use of my time'. Party leader Nigel Farage said he had had only 10 minutes' notice that Mr Yusuf was going to resign, adding he was 'genuinely sorry' that his chairman had decided to stand down. Mr Yusuf's resignation was accompanied by that of Nathaniel Fried, who was announced earlier this week as the head of a party team examining spending at Reform-controlled Kent County Council. Mr Fried said that as Mr Yusuf had 'got me in' it was 'appropriate for me to leave with him'. The resignations came as Reform UK hoped to win or come a close second in a by-election for the Holyrood seat of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. In the end, the party came third with 7,088 votes, 869 votes behind the SNP and 1,471 behind the winning Labour candidate.
