Using these sources, I found enough incriminating evidence to charge Judeo-Christianity with crimes against biodiversity; however, in order to do so, I had to base my indictment on a gross oversimplification of Judeo-Christian theology. I also found myself wondering who should stand trial: the Pope, a parish priest, the rabbi at the corner temple, or perhaps some geriatric simpleton with a rosary in tow? "There are many conflicting Christian theologies Even if a dominion ethic is part of Christian culture it might not manifest itself as an association among cognitions within individuals, especially not among member of the general public, whose level of theoretical interest is low- (Eckberg 1996). In other words, the sheep flock together to receive heavenly fodder according to a simple recipe. Sheep leave the manna-barn satiated with expiated souls. Once they return to the pasture, their spiritual cud doesn't necessarily lead ruminants to ruminate on their place in nature. .
Thus, about midway through the research, I recognized problems with my polemical thesis. The thesis lead to a sophomoric concluding discussion: Judeo-Christianity can encourage, discourage, or have no effect on the conservation of biodiversity. Furthermore, the thesis remained dependant on a theological generalization that failed to account for the broad gamut of hermeneutical thought regarding the Judeo-Christian environmental ethic. I wanted to change course. In doing so, I fortuitously stumbled upon Hinchman's (2001) paper, Should Environmentalist reject the Enlightenment? Hinchman (2001) reveals the intellectual links between contemporary environmentalism and Enlightenment thought. According to Hinchman (2001), environmentalism, as we know it, is possible because of the creation of the public sphere during The Enlightenment. The public sphere encompasses the myriad intellectual spaces where discourse amongst the governed, and, between the governed and the governing are possible.