I was interested in the strand connecting issues related to environment, Copenhagen, and belonging. I thought I would share a resource and then information on a new column for which we would invite submissions.

The resource, not about environment and Copenhagen, etc., is a new double issue of the Journal of Religion, Disability, and Health, focused on stories of communion and people with disabilities, and the ways that those stories, and some theological and theoretical reflections from this area, also look at issues of community building and belonging wiht people with intellectual and developmental disabilites. It is a powerful collection, says me, a totally prejudiced editor, but it is getting some nice response.

Second, back to Copenhagen, the Religion and Spirituality Division of the AAIDD has a newsletter in which we have just started inviting a column for short articles connecting spirituality, environment, and disability. Here is the first one, written by Joyce Martin, who coordinates an Environmental initiative within AAIDD.


The Intersection of Religion and Environmental Health
By Joyce M. Martin*

Religious belief – and the spirituality through which that belief is expressed– is inherently personal, and yet, the way in which we interact with our fellow human beings and the physical environment around us provides insight into what we believe about religion and, to a lesser degree, what we believe about the environment.

It is then only logical to assume that religion also influences how we -- individually and collectively -- view our role in protecting our fellow humans’ health from environmental hazards. Much we do as a supportive community for those with intellectual and developmental disabilities implies that for those in AAIDD there is a belief in the interconnectedness of members of the human race and an understanding that life is a spectrum of human and nonhuman life that deserves respect.

The role of religion and spirituality within the mission of AAIDD has interested some members for a long time. More recently, understanding of the forces of environment on individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) is a new, and to some, a strange arena for the organization.
In July 2003, AAIDD brought together a group of concerned environmental and disability experts and self-advocates to find answers to a crucial question: how do we reduce the unnecessary occurrence of intellectual and developmental disabilities caused by environmental toxicants and pollutants?
Researchers have some answers to this question but do not know everything about how air-, water-, and food-borne chemicals and toxicants contribute to the occurrence of intellectual and developmental disabilities. It does appear that many occurrences are not solely caused by genetics but must involve an environmental component.

Environmental toxicants in relation to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities is a serious public concern for several reasons. Scientific evidence shows that learning, developmental, or behavioral disabilities appear to be on the rise in the United States. This rise in disabilities is paralleled by the increase in the number of chemicals being manufactured and used today. Since the petrochemical industry began around World War II, approximately 80,000 new synthetic chemicals have been approved for use and of the 15,000 most commonly found chemicals today, the vast majority have not been tested individually for human health impacts, and none have been tested in combination.

It is known that environmental factors, including chemicals and nutrition significantly affect brain development. However, while the impacts of lead, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), alcohol, and smoking on IDD have been addressed, there is very little information on most chemicals. Further, most industrial chemicals to which people are regularly exposed from consumer products or as environmental contaminants have not undergone neurodevelopmental testing.
In past years, individuals of faith may not have been aware of the cost of environmental exposures to the population in general, and, the increased harm to the vulnerable group of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Once you know, what is the appropriate action to take? Where do religion and environmental health intersect?

To reply or comment, email JMartin@aaidd.org
* Director, Environmental Health Policy
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (aaidd)
501-3rd St NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC
(t) 202-387-1968 or 800-424-3688
(f) 202-387

Editorial Comment and Invitation: (bill.gaventa@umdnj.edu)
We would love to have other articles for the newsletter on the intersection of religion, concern for the environment, and disability. Religion and environment issues is an area receiving increasing attention, but I don’t think there has been a lot written that also includes disability as a concern. There would seem to be all kinds of themes: creation, stewardship, sustaining of life, diversity, gifts, etc. We would welcome others to continue this as a regular column.

Recently, I have been thinking about how, anytime people choose to get together, regardless of the politics of the gathering, it is a beautiful thing. I watched pieces of the Olympic torch run on the news. Some were dancing, some wept--immigrants celebrating their new sense of belonging. While on the one hand I know the Olympics is political and controversial, applying a certain ideological lens would have sullied the beauty of these people connecting and celebrating.

I suppose it is possible to construe all belonging as political acts. But this is a cerebral/logical distinction; a categorization of experience. It takes us outside of the moment of belonging and asks questions about that to which we belong. And while there must always be space for this, I am afraid that too often these sorts of critiques nullify and de-legitimize the beauty of the lived experience of unity and belonging and wholeness. We can always question the purpose of a congregation. We can always question the power dynamics or ethical concomitants of a moment of connection.

Ideology, I think, is ultimately anathema to life and to belonging--both because it is formal, structured, and functions as an imperative, and more so, because it can unravel the sacred in an instant. The sense of togetherness, of unity, can instantly dissolve (whether personally or vicariously) and be replaced by feelings of censure, shame. embarrassment or anger. It is easy to say that some sorts of togetherness should be unraveled. It is harder to celebrate the togetherness, to honour and cultivate it, while at the same time leaving space for the critique.

If we are to promote a greater sense of unity and belonging in a diverse world, I think we will need to find a way to bracket our tendency to exercise political or personal judgment. Judgment always emerges from a particular perspective, a particular rule about how we are supposed to be, and who we are supposed to be with. We need to find more than one vocabulary, and we need to be circumspect in the application of any discourse that has the power to dissolve the unity of connection.

We have much to learn from those who face tremendous challenges and barriers each and every day. We should be inspired by their passion, hope, resiliency, resolve and commitment - to change starts with the power of ONE! How do we embrace diversity? what/how do we teach our children? who is in our circle?
Our life's work has a place in the interrelationship of human imagination, social innovation and diversity. We must challenge ourselves and figure out as individuals where we fit in.