It goes without saying that the current drive to restore the ecological balance to our environment is a good thing that has come none too soon. Surely there are few more worthy and urgent causes of the many that clamor for our limited attention in these tumultuous times. Human nature being what it is, unless some nasty, well-defined, and easily recognizable opposition materializes to hold attention and focus its activity, this energetic campaign may yet go the way of all fads. The ecology movement deserves all the support it can get. Hence this effort to show that the values and norms of a great religious tradition support and encourage a movement which affects the very survival of life on this planet. Unfortunately, we shall be somewhat deflected by a new pollution problem – a fall-out of silliness in the theological environment. The New York Times (May 1, 1970) reports an altogether as-pected theological conference on the subject. Most of the (Protestant) divines at the Claremont symposium were “with it,” from the crisp title (“Theology of Survival” – in an age when Portnoy's Complaint is elevated into a “Theology,” why not?) to the conventional self-flagellation. After all, having written the obituary for the Deity and debunked His best-seller, what is so terrible about theologians asserting that religion is responsible for our dirty planet, and that the solution requires another one of those “major modifications” of current religious values? Yet, some of the confessions were so extravagant that they deserve at least passing comment, particularly when they affect aspects of the Biblical tradition presumably shared by both Judaism and Christianity. The case for the ecological movement is obvious and beyond dispute. One point, of the many cogent ones made in the growing literature on the subject, is worth repeating here. Rene Dubos has reminded us that we still know precious little about pollution. Seventy percent of all the precipitate contaminants in urban air a…