Photo Source: Wikimedia Commons
The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
There is immense tension between nature and mankind. It is increasingly difficult to maintain the delicate balance of appreciating the world’s natural wonders and harnessing their power. In 1908, Congress voted to approve Hetch Hetchy, a dam in Yellowstone National Park, which prompted a national controversy over the validity of aestheticism as a human need. An effort emerged to cherish what could not be produced by mankind, and with it, a national debate on conservationism inspired by biblical scripture. Though many thinkers have put forth ideologies within the conservationist argument that are saturated with religious precepts, John Muir was the first to propose a theology of nature, deeply spiritual and distinctly enhanced by Christian precepts.
The Hetch Hetchy Dam proposal resulted from a prolonged struggle to access pure water in the greater San Francisco area, as the faults in the previous water system became blatantly evident after the devastating earthquake in 1906. San Francisco applied to Congress for a license to transform an area within the Yosemite National Park, known as Hetch Hetchy, into a reservoir. In 1908, the Roosevelt administration approved San Francisco’s request. This prompted various groups to author letters and telegrams to Congress advocating for and protesting against the Hetch Hetchy Dam. In one letter, the Society for The Preservation of National Parks admitted that San Francisco needed water, but argued that the Sierra is capable of supporting the water demand without building a dam at Hetch Hetchy. In another, the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society echoed this notion referencing “official representatives of San Francisco” who “confessed before the Senate Public Lands Committee that the city could get such a water supply anywhere along the Sierra if it would pay for it.” The Massachusetts State Federation of Women’s Clubs similarly stated “San Francisco has other sources of abundant water supply, some even more available than Hetch Hetchy,” but did not identify these water sources. These various groups did not dismiss the need for clean water, but rather deemed it a disgrace to sacrifice a national landmark to fulfill such a need.
The most prominent conservationist, John Muir, creates a theology of nature in his piece The Yosemite. He presents a conservationist argument distinctly enhanced by Christian precepts. He employs reverential capitalization of words, which is specifically reserved for divine beings; he consistently capitalizes “Nature” to present it as a holy entity. However, he fails to thoroughly employ this technique and does not capitalize possessive adjectives, perhaps not wanting to entirely conflate the environment and the Holy Trinity out of cautious respect for devout Christians. He humanizes the valley, vitalizing it with the Holy Spirit, claiming “walls seem to glow with life.” He explicitly establishes the Hetch Hetchy Valley as a site of worship, identifying it as among the “most precious mountain temples.” The phrase “mountain temples” does not resemble terminology for modern religious worship sites such as “churches” or “synagogues.” However, it does reference the Temple in Jerusalem, also translated as “The Holy Temple,” a term which subsumes the two Ancient Israelite temples which respectively served as central places for worship and sacrifice. The holy Hetch Hetchy Valley “draw[s] her lovers into close and confiding communion with her.” The gendering with the possessive adjective “her” separates nature from God and Jesus Christ; although their divine essence does not conform to gender, they are identified with the absolutely masculine terms “Father” and “Son.” The Holy Communion is celebrated differently among faiths, but consistently represents the bread as a symbol for Jesus Christ, whether it be His spiritual presence or His physical body. Although Muir endows divine powers to nature, he is careful not to diminish the significance of true religion. He delicately correlates nature with Christian faith, but establishes minor differences to maintain respect and consideration.
Muir infuses the valley with aesthetics by characterizing it as a “garden.” He alludes to God’s Garden of Eden, first described in the Book of Genesis. The garden is equated with Paradise. Muir subtly references the Tree of Life from the Bible, stating, “The first forest reservation, including only one tree, was likewise despoiled.” The Tree of Life was planted in the Garden of Eden by God and was intended as the food source for Adam and Eve, the first humans. If they ate from the Tree of Life, they would remain immortal. However, Eve committed the first sin under the instruction of Satan: she betrayed God’s command by eating forbidden fruit. This ruined Paradise and punished all humans with the burden of sin. Muir presents the proponents of the dam as Satan by claiming that their statements are “devised for the destruction of the first garden.” Muir’s Eden metaphor not only appears as an aesthetic substitute, but also provides a depth of meaning by comparing the destruction of Hetch Hetchy Valley with the fall of Paradise and collapse of humanity. He proposes that any government intervention on the natural world would prompt eternal damnation.
Muir proposes aesthetics are necessary for survival, stating “everybody needs beauty as well as bread.” The “bread” is not solely a metaphor for food, but also for the Eucharist, which is consecrated bread that embodies Christ. Muir conflates beauty with the sacraments, rites that strengthen a Christian’s relationship with the church and God Himself. His phrase, “Nature may heal,” alludes to the powers of Christ. Muir presents the Hetch Hetchy Valley as both a sanctified place and a place to be sanctified in. The valley reflects both religious rites and religious sites of worship.
Moreover, Muir does not refrain from harsh criticism, referring to dam proponents as “temple destroyers, devotees of ravaging commercialism.” He condemns their devotion, directed toward “the Almighty Dollar,” and urges them instead to “lift their eyes to the God of the mountains.” His rhetoric emanates from Judeo-Christian thought but is not precisely biblical. The word “almighty” exclusively references God in The Bible, appearing first in Genesis. However, the phrase “the God of the mountains” is lexically perplexing. The definite article appears to allude to a monotheistic religion, but the modifier “of the mountains” seems to designate a specific God among many. Unlike his previous statements which were directly related to the Bible, he now seems to employ a generalized concept of religion and respect for a higher authority. Muir’s address culminates into a final ironic statement: “Dam Hetch Hetchy! As well dam for water-tanks the people’s cathedrals and churches, for no holier temple has ever been consecrated by the heart of man.” He establishes the valley as the holiest site on Earth, which dismisses the importance of Christian thought that sustained his argument.
As the president of The Society for The Preservation of National Parks, John Muir wrote a letter to Congress that scorned human intrusion of a natural beauty and alluded to religious doctrines as an argument from morality. The society claimed the valley was “fashioned by the hand of the Creator,” an allusion to God’s creation of the Heavens and the Earth. This conservationist society believed any human influence on this “majestic wonder” was an “assault,” alluding to the biblical attempts to harness earth’s valuables, “People assault the flinty rock with their hands and lay bare the roots of the mountains. They tunnel through the rock, their eyes see all its treasures” (English Standard Version, Job 28:9-10). The letter echoes statements from Muir’s The Yosemite and characterizes the contentious debate as a “universal battle between good and evil.” The letter digresses from religious scripture to depict the valley as “a worthy object of national pride.” These claims integrate the religious understandings of creation and natural order with nonsectarian nationalism.
There were many direct and indirect allusions to God throughout letters to Congress. Shockingly, the only group officially affiliated with a church, the Catholic fraternal organization The Knights of Columbus, endorsed the construction because it was a humanitarian effort. With a religious mission heavily focused on charity, they felt that “misguided nature lovers” artificially catapulted an aesthetic desire beyond the needs of human life. The Knights evaluated the community needs and identified “the primary object that we as San Franciscans have is to obtain sufficient pure drinking water for our citizens.” Their statements suggest that, if God created mankind in his image, and if water is a human need, then it is within humanity’s best interest to manipulate natural resources for human life. To counter the aesthetic arguments proposed by conservationists, the Knights theorized that a reservoir would “not depreciate the beauty” but rather “enhance its natural grandeur.” They further deemed arguments against the reservoir as “subterfuge.” In Proverbs, it is clearly stated that God particularly despises the sins “a lying tongue” and “a false witness.” The Knights characterize the conservationists as sinners, just as Muir identified the dam proponents as the devil.
Unfortunately, globalization efforts drastically mitigate nature’s relationship with humans. However, conservation efforts fail to adapt to the evolving standard of decency in a progressive society. It is difficult to establish a stable synergy. These fiercely contrasting views collided when Congress voted to convert Hetch Hetchy, an area of the Yosemite National Park, into a water reservoir for San Francisco communities. A famous conservationist, John Muir, employed religious arguments to demonstrate that mankind should not destroy God’s beautiful world, while others argued that the dam construction was a humanitarian effort for the benefit of God’s creatures. Muir’s rhetoric served to prompt spiritual and moral introspection; he compared his opponents to Satan and sinners that would trigger the fall of mankind. Proponents of the dam, however, assessed their human needs and agency in a natural world which both has preexisted and will survive any human lifetime. Muir argued that it is not within the scope of mankind’s power to construct on—and thus, destroy—a natural wonder. However, opponents argued that the human need for water is beyond the importance of aestheticism, and it is against God’s will to withhold resources from suffering communities. All these arguments attempt to contextualize the role of humans in God’s world, a world which will survive any human.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.