In the ongoing battle against superstition it helps from time to time to point out the greatest offenders. I'm not exactly sure how the Neville Chamberlain Atheists approach this issue but for me it's very clear. Stupid, superstitious, idiots like Jerry Falwell need to be exposed and opposed. The fact that they are Christian fundamentalists is a bonus.
Here's the latest from Falwells' sermon last week (THE MYTH OF GLOBAL WARMING).
In recent years, since Al Gore invented the internet and helped invent global warming, our world has been in turmoil. The internet turned out to be “a very good thing” and, when used properly, is a great asset to humanity.Didn't he forget gays? Was that a delberate oversight?
The endless hysteria and alarmism over alleged global warming has increasingly become a national and international nuisance and loses credibility with every passing day. The entire myth has little to do with science and much to do with politics.
Its greatest proponents are the United Nations (no friends of America), liberal politicians, radical environmentalists, liberal clergymen, Hollywood and pseudo-scientists.
It should be expected that liberal clergymen and theologians would join in concert with Hollywood and liberal politicians on every radical and hurtful issue that arises. But, sadly, some evangelical pastors and leaders have recently jumped aboard this brand new bandwagon. This bandwagon is not abortion, school prayer or gay marriage… rather, it’s a cause that former VP Al Gore is championing in his film, “An Inconvenient Truth” (better named “a Convenient Untruth”: namely global warming.Whew! That's a relief. He managed to slip gays into the next paragraph. For a minute I thought he was losing it.
What does the Bible say about a global warming catastrophe that will melt the glaciers, raise the sea levels to horrific destructive heights and eliminate the four seasons beyond any recognizable difference.I'm not sure what this means. Does it mean that the coming rise in sea level will be God's fault because He did it once before?
Psalm 24:1-2, “The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. 2 For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.”
Genesis 8:22, “While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.”
7 comments :
The creationists I saw in Ottawa last Friday were making dismissive comments about global warming AND ozone depletion as well. What is it with these clowns, and issues that one would think were extraneous to there main concern of saving souls? Even if you grant them YEC for theological reasons, why should AGW also get dragged in to the scope of their scorn? Except, of course, for their hostility to all things perceived as "liberal".
A literal reading of Psalm 24:2 tells us that the continents are floating on the ocean.
This is what Falwell quotes in order to demonstrate the Bible's scientific accuracy.
Oh come on you athiests can't you see that the creationists are actually on your side but are just having some fun and pullling your legs.Can't you take a joke
I'm actually more troubled by many religions beliefs in a coming catastrophe than in their anti-science activities. When it is embraced by fundies it is a factor in such things as promoting GW denial (since an actual catastrophe will shore up their beliefs) and belief in AGW denial (since it is an act of their gods, not humans). It can be expressed in everything from possibly active promotion to at least resistance (refusing funding anti-GW efforts) and passivity.
This is one of the part of the global superstition network :-) that should be attacked most, since it can be dangerous and at the same time goes against even the moderate religious rationality and wishes. (What should be attacked first is of course the parts that outright harms other people first hand, for example HIV denial and activities against contraceptives and vaccinations.)
"the United Nations (no friends of America)"
Coming from another culture it isn't easy to grasp the american fondness for bipartisan agreements instead of multinational ones. The former is of course at times more realistic, flexible and guaranteed to be decentralized, but the later has its uses and it is possible to avoid centralization. And it is rather rich to complain that a nation that isn't interested in global agreements should not face the consequences.
Torbjörn Larsson syas,
Coming from another culture it isn't easy to grasp the american fondness for bipartisan agreements ...
It's a form of doublespeak. The US Senate is like a mini-United Nations except that there are only 100 countries. When Americans say "bipartisan" what they really mean is that they want a solid majority of Senators (or Representatives) to agree on something. They call this "bipartisan" because every member of Congress is connected to one of the two partisan election-machine unions and so getting a solid majority requires some people from each of the unions.
American laws are extremely weird. You pretty much have to be a member of one of the unions (they're called Democrats and Republicans) in order to get elected.
This is what Americans mean when they talk about "democracy." In other nations it's called something different when you have laws that restrict people from getting elected unless they belong to the ruling parties. :-)
Use their silly book against them: Genesis 2:15 says to "to watch over and care for" the bounty of the earth and its creatures - and Revelation 11:18: "God will destroy those who destroy the earth." Good thing for Falwell that god doesn't exist.
"It's a form of doublespeak."
Hmm. I see what you mean, it was a very apt example.
Post a Comment