Friday funny – a very PC prayer for our times

Dominic Lawson writes in the Daily Mail:

Pope Francis’s new encyclical is in stark contrast to the style of his predecessor. While Pope Benedict’s works were in Latin, entirely spiritual in tone, and written by the man himself (a great scholar), his Argentine successor has produced something impossible to render in a classical language.

In fitting with its theme — saving the planet from man’s depredations — it is, for much of its great length, indistinguishable from any number of United Nations environmental briefings. In fact it is acknowledged to be the work of a series of pontifical committees. 

To save you the trouble of ploughing through it, I offer a new take on the Lord’s Prayer, designed to encapsulate the Holy Father’s message:

Our Gaia, Who art in danger,

Sustainable be thy name,

Thy renewable energy resources come,

Thy Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s will be done

On Earth as it is in the upper atmosphere

Give us this day our daily organic ciabatta

Forgive us our carbon emissions

Though we can’t forgive those multinationals who emit against us

Lead us not into excessive plane travel

Deliver us from genetically modified crops

For thine is the moral high ground

The onshore wind farms and the subsidies

For as long as the taxes can be raised. Amen.

PC_prayer_scr

H/t The GWPF

Advertisements

149 thoughts on “Friday funny – a very PC prayer for our times

    • But in this case, it is free speech as the Almighty intended, without getting our collective heads cut off, or burned alive, or stoned to death. Besides, I think given our own propensity to laugh at ourselves and that we are made in the Almighty’s image, the Almighty laughs with us as heartily as anyone.

      • Pamela Gray
        Yes, free speech. Very important you remember that since if a topic comes up that you are touchy about you seem willing to cut off heads, burn alive or stone to death. You scream — Shut Up! Shut Up!.
        By the way i do Biblical Hebrew translation. According to the Old Testament God did create mankind in His image but it was God in His earthly form, His human form of Christ that created mankind in his image. In the old testament mankind is created in the image of Christ. It was Christ in the Garden in the swamp called Eden. This is why you get the line — HEBREWS 1,2 … “He has spoken to us by His Son………. and through whom He made the universe.” According to HEBREWS it is Christ who says, “Let there be enlightenment”. Hey, it was Christ who had vocal cords!
        So if you want to know the truth, the Old Testament ain’t that old. And it seems for the parts that i have translated, to have been written by Hebrew Christians shortly after the crucifixion. This was probably the holy text of the followers of Christ’s brother. It was forsaken after the sacking of Jerusalem, the Roman banned on all things Hebrew and the spreading of the Roman Christian church. The Roman Empire was quite successful, as they were for so many cultures, in wiping the real Hebrews off the face of the earth. Then the Jews came along and began worshiping with old Hebrew texts that none of them could read — text written by Hebrew Christians. Now that is hysterically funny.
        But, of course, you’d have to be crazy to believe all that I have just said, right? It is so funny to tell people a truth that they just can’t believe. Truly the truth is funnier than fiction.
        I should add that i am not mad at you (though you might think me “mad” — does that qualify as a pun?). I am a conservative atheist poet who has suffered abuse in every poetry reading I have attended, a lifetime of abuse, because liberals run and populate poetry readings. Free thought is not allowed. Therefore politically incorrect speak is banned. Talk about your consensus! So my skin is hardened. You seem a conservative — just practice conservative principles under all circumstances.
        Well, having totally convinced you I am a nut case, i sigh off laughing
        Eugene WR Gallun

        • Eugene WR Gallun says “But, of course, you’d have to be crazy to believe all that I have just said, right?”
          Or a Mormon whose beliefs on that particular topic are nearly identical.

      • Wow, Found poetry! — I sigh off laughing.
        Typing error for sign off. Maybe the best thing I never wrote.
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • Michael 2 — Wow! you mean the Mormons got something right!!!
        As a child I realized that I could make all people love me — but the world would be a better place if instead I made all people hate me. Talk about your self-sacrifice!
        Such is what you get from me after 6 16oz cans of Rolling Rock, the beer of my youth! I hope to die laughing — and drunk — let’s not forget the drunk part.
        Eugene WR Gallun
        The above is the type of stuff that poets write to create a fan base. Got to build the myth.

      • Well, while i am drunk, what the hell! Here is a poem it took me twenty years to write because I could not get a couple words right.
        BRING ON THE POET AT LAST
        .
        With a special knowledge the poet speaks
        Not of truth, or life, or even of things
        But of the voicing of dreams and he seeks
        To enthrall.
        ……….. Chains are what the poet brings
        Yet poems have no real matter or weight
        Like the booming thunder or warbling birds
        It is only the sounding they create
        That binds us.
        ………….Poetry is merely words
        But let us beg for poems, let us cry
        This world, so harsh, so final in its cast
        Speaks no hope, no recompense and we sigh
        Such sorrows.
        ………….Bring on the poet at last!
        With his words so empowered by their sound
        That we, in his enchanted spell, are bound
        Eugene WR Gallun
        Not my best but good enough.

        • Santa Baby says “All religion and ideology are just ideas made by Man.”
          Maybe, but in what way does that make it any less real than global warming, also made by Man?
          “Gods are usually an image of Man.”
          Sometimes. Many gods are in the images of animals.
          “Without Man none of them would exist.”
          That is an exceptionally faith-based statement you just made. Perfect for a religious person!
          The simple fact is that by any measure, a supreme being must exist. Highest jumper? Somewhere in the universe is a highest jumper. Fastest runner? Somewhere in the universe is a fastest runner. By any measure that I can think of and many that I cannot, somewhere is a “supreme being” and here you are saying they don’t exist. Wow, what faith you have!

    • >>Not funny!
      Jeeezzz, lighten up, dude. Do you think god does not have a sense of humour? If she hasn’t, its about time someone gave her a kick up the backside.
      We have had quite enough of ‘enraged’ co-religionists banning music, bells, poetry and cartoons, thank you very much. (See Muhummad’s ‘Dead Poets’ Society’.)

      • Silver ralph asks “Why do people believe in such an evil being?”
        This is your strawman argument, YOU answer it! Why do you believe in such an evil being? You introduced this meme so finish it.
        I suggest you include a definition of “evil” and its ultimate source of authority. You, perhaps?

      • >>This is your strawman argument, YOU answer it!
        >>Why do you believe in such an evil being?
        >>You introduced this meme so finish it.
        I know this will be hard for an American to understand, but the vast majority of Europe abandoned their belif in an invisible friend hundreds of years ago. My little sister had an imaginary friend when she was six or seven – its cute to see this in a child. But holding that belief into adulthood is a real worry – no wonder there are so many shrinks in the USA.
        Ralph

        • Silver Ralph, forgetting mom’s adage, says “the vast majority of Europe abandoned their belif in an invisible friend hundreds of years ago.”
          The adage being, “If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you?” and the answer is yes, particularly if you are a Democrat.
          I’ll assume that by “Europe” you meant “Europeans”. Europe has no opinion on anything. In fact, it doesn’t even know it exists.
          As to your special knowledge of what the vast majority of Europeans do or do not, I don’t care to debate it. I don’t know and I’m pretty sure you don’t know and I’m very sure it is irrelevant. I am not European. My ancestors left Europe for some pretty good reasons.
          “My little sister had an imaginary friend when she was six or seven”
          Do tell. You might as well make this blog page interesting!
          “its cute to see this in a child. But holding that belief into adulthood is a real worry – no wonder there are so many shrinks in the USA.”
          The question is, who needs to be “shrunk”? I suggest it is you; the possessor of the worry. A bit of shrinking will make that worry go away. As I do not worry about such things, I do not need shrinking.
          For greater precision in continuation; let us use imaginary distinctly from invisible. Seattle is invisible to me (I cannot see it) but very real. Ythyri is imaginary so far as I know. It is possible, even likely, for many imagined things to be real somewhere in the universe; so it is extremely arrogant to assert that something does not exist.
          My point about Seattle ought to be obvious but in case not: A thing is real if you can sense it when you are in a proximity to make such a thing possible. A thing is also real if you can communicate with it; but its reality to other people cannot be proven by you. For instance, on a short wave radio sometimes I talk to someone a thousand or more miles away. It is fun but somewhat unpredictable. Is the other person real? Probably. Invisible? From where I sit, definitely. From where HE sits, he is perfectly visible and *I* am invisible.
          If I tell someone that I spoke with Joe in Wisconsin last night, I have no way to prove it. That’s why hams trade “QSL” cards as evidence of something ephemeral. But if Joe doesn’t care that I prove it, he won’t send me a QSL card and that is the end of that.
          The application to God ought to be obvious, but in case not, I will tie these strings together. Just as I can communicate with Joe in Wisconsin a thousand miles away, but somewhat unpredictably (depends on whether he’s on frequency, the ionosphere is cooperative and so on and not busy with someone else), so too I can communicate with God, somewhat unpredictably and depending on a variety of factors some of which I control and many which I do not. Objectifying it is the QSL card, which in the case of God is he tells you something that is (1) unlikely and (2) immediately or soon thereafter happens. As this has happened to me several times, I know that God is real, not visible to me because he is not here, he can communicate and does so on rare occasions, and at such times the communications tend to be valuable, vital and immediately proven. But only to me. In other words, you have absolutely no hope of convincing me that something does not exist, a thing you cannot even define, when I know perfectly that he does exist. I make very few claims as to the properties of this invisible-yet-real-and-communicating being. Nor do I seek to persuade you; you are as religious as I am — you in your disbelief, me in my knowledge.
          Anyway, you do make a good point; the number of shrinks ought to correspond to the number of people that need shrinking. More than that is a waste and fewer than that leads to long queues. In a capitalistic system this number adjusts itself automatically by an invisible hand. Command economies tend to be inefficient in allocating the proper number of shrinks.

        • Silver Ralph, I would like you to answer my question of why you have defined God to be evil and who is the author of your definition of “evil” (or God for that matter).
          I have my ideas, which I will state as a focal point for you to agree or disagree and provide your own answer:
          Good is what pleases you, evil (bad) is what displeases you. You are the author of your working definitions of good and evil; and as such, your definitions may be unique in their particulars but overall conform to the dogmas of the church of atheism where such dogmas are preached.
          You have been told or learned from others one or more aspects of a word “God” and it displeases you. Since these displease you, they are therefore evil.
          This definition is a good one since God also uses it; good is what pleases him and evil is that which displeases him. You can choose any bus to ride but once aboard you must conform to the rules set by the bus driver. In this context no one is making you ride the bus. Many of those that ARE riding the bus chose it and you do not offer much in the way of an alternative.

      • Ralph,
        I know this will be hard for a European to understand, but many in America ran away from Europe, and rejected your insane political system, and chose a system which does perhaps believe in an invisible friend, when we say, “In God We Trust.”
        I would like to point out that in December 1914, at the very start of World War One, the English and German soldiers began singing Christmas Carols, At first they did so from either side of No Man’s Land, but eventually they came out and mingled and drank together and proved there didn’t need to be a war, because they got along. However the Oh-so-wise European leaders didn’t think this Christmas Spirit was a good idea, and they were in fact furious. They demanded the teenagers get back in their trenches and shoot each other. Four years of unholy slaughter followed. World War Two was just a logical outcome of World War One. The cold war was just a logical outcome of World War Two.
        I think Europeans would be far wiser, if, rather than losing faith in God, they lost faith in their insane leaders. It is the leaders who made them question God. God was with those teenaged soldiers, singing together in No Man’s Land, in December 1914.

      • Silver ralph — great!
        Maybe “Muhummad’s Dead Artists Society” — The initiation rite is a bullet in the head.
        Eugene WR Gallun

      • >>As to your special knowledge of what the vast majority of Europeans
        >>do or do not, I don’t care to debate it. I don’t know and I’m pretty sure
        >>you don’t know.
        I am sure I do know. Average UK church attendance is 800,000 which equates to about 2% of the available population. And if you go to church, as I do occasionaly to check, you will note the congregation to be exclusively retirees. And strangely enough, my visits to Sunday services in Greece, Spain, Belgium, Netherlands and Italy produced the same result – small groups of pensioners at the service or communion. Often in a small chapel, to they don’t look so lost. And one Italisn church had a wonderful sign saying ‘closed on Sundays’. I did enjoy that one.
        As to the religion in Europe article, very misleading my friend. We all go to church for births, deaths and marriages. I did too for my marriage. It was a choice between a 13th century castle-like church, or a pre-fab council office. What did you expect I would choose? The priest can witter on about the impossibilities of three gods being one for all he likes, but I was enjoying the architecture.
        I did ask the priest why god was called Elohim in the plural, but the fool had no answer. I also asked him why the Jewish god had the same name as Pharaoh Akhenaton’s god, but again the fool had no answer. But that is the trouble with religion and the religious – they profess a firm belief in something they know nothing about.
        Ralph

        • Silver Ralph says “I did ask the priest why god was called Elohim in the plural, but the fool had no answer. I also asked him why the Jewish god had the same name as Pharaoh Akhenaton’s god, but again the fool had no answer.”
          Ask a Mormon. Barry Bickmore has a blog and would likely explain both in some detail, as could I, but not here. You are correct that they created the Earth, and they went down to see what was happening in Babylon; when an omniscient god need not go anywhere, ever! Genesis is one of my best resources when I’m bored and entertaining myself challenging a born-again. Unlike you, I recognize that there is a God, just not the omni-omni God, at least for all or any practical purpose.

      • >>I would like you to answer my question of why you
        >>have defined God to be evil and who is the author
        >>of your definition of “evil” (or God for that matter).
        It depends on your version of god. But throughout the ages, god has been invoked in ways that are evil.
        Put it this way, you cannot have an omnipotent and omnipresent god that is good – if evil still exists on the earth. By definition, he or she must be evil. Any god that has the power to stop disease and wars, and who stands by and does nothing, is the very definition of evil. If a doctor had the power and time and resources to cure a patient, and refused to do so, he or she would be evil. Same with god. So you have to give up one of the ‘omnis’. Either henor she is not all powerful, or perhaps he or she is not always here.
        And so the personalised Christian form of god is a complete non-starter. A god who can help your grandma with her broken leg, or heal your son with his maths exam – but refuses to stop the war in Syria, or the Ebola outbreak, or the tsunamis and earthquakes – is either totally ineffectual or the height of evil. If god has time to deal with trivia, then why the hell does he or she not sort out the major blights facing humanity? Again, he or she is either not omnipresent, or not omnipotent.
        Likewise, the god who will send unbelievers to the fires of hell for not believing in the rubbish put before us, is again evil. If god wants people be aware of his or her presence, then they should drop into CNN news during prime-time. But we shall be waiting a long time for that one, I can assure you. But any priest that says The unbeliever will go to hell for saying the evidence is ‘worse than lacking’ is an evil being himself, in addition to his or her god being thouroughly evil.
        And for evidence of the naked threats that these priests and gods have made, please do read Leviticus, Deuteronomy and the Koran. And yes, these evil verses have been used by the evil priesthood, in the genocide of the Cathars, for instance. Leviticus says that if your child or father changes their religion you should kill them. Would you?
        And these naked threats are not consigned to yesteryear – unfortunately – as Charlie Hebdo, Tunisia, Egypt, Theo van Gough, Salman Rushdie, Bali, Moscow, NY, and London et all have proven. This evil is all very real still. In fact I would go as far as saying that the Koran is the most hate-filled, bloodthirsty and evil rant ever written by man, and should really be outlawed. And if you are inclined to disagree, then please read it cover to cover before commenting. Its not very big – no more than a short novel. I would recommend the Penguin classics Dawood translation, or the Pickthall translation, but that is harder to read.
        So yes, the god as envisioned by devout theists is most definitely evil, because he or she is a god made in the minds and image of the evil priesthood, who like nothing better thsn threatening anyone who is different. And what they have constructed, of course, is a means of social control. Nothing to do with god, but everything to do with making their blind followers bend to their will.
        R

        • Silver Ralph says “But throughout the ages, god has been invoked in ways that are evil.”
          I appreciate your lengthy response, but it depends entirely on a definition of good and evil created by that very God you say does not exist!
          It is difficult to escape the moral code even when you deny its author.
          The moral code you invoke is that of sin of omission. Failing to do something “good” that is in your power to do.
          But if you deny the author of that moral code, how is it that the moral code still exists?
          Anyway, you do invoke one of the difficulties of the common descriptions of the Christian God which is why I believe the description to be in error. I know there’s a God. No promise has ever been made that he will automatically heal your sickness and injuries. In fact, no earthly promise exists at all, so far as I know. He is mostly an observer as revealed quite clearly in Genesis onward — the EARTH brought forth life, and God saw that it was good. I have a doubt that he is as omnipotent as claimed, but it hardly matters. If the purpose of life is to see what life becomes then interference must be minimum.
          So what is he? To me he is like a gardener, planting seeds, seeing what comes up, keeping the best and transplanting them, crossbreeding, developing entirely new species. He may help on occasion particularly if your existence is important in some way to something he, not you, is doing.
          He really doesn’t care whether you think he is “evil” — he gave you the moral code to make that judgement in the first place!

      • >>Maybe “Muhummad’s Dead Artists Society”
        >>The initiation rite is a bullet in the head.
        Unfortunately, Muhummad founded many ‘dead societies’.
        The first was the ‘Dead Jews Society’, when Muhummad personally oversaw the beheading of 900 Jews of Medina.
        http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Genocide_of_Banu_Qurayza
        One of the many others Muhummad created was the ‘Dead Poets Society’. Too many satirical poets were taking the mickey out of the rustic and uneducated Muhummad and his stupid visions, so he ordered them to be murderd.
        http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2006/03/muhammads_dead_poets_society.html
        This is the ‘perfect man’ who Muslims try to imitate. Is it any wonder that there is so much evil and so many beheadings in our slowly disintegrating modern world.
        R

      • >>Unlike you, I recognize that there is a God,
        >>just not the omni-omni God, at least for all or
        >>any practical purpose.
        At least that is a logical stance to take.
        Even I as an Atheist could subscribe to a deity like that, although the evidence is somewhat lacking at present. (Area 51 aside…. 😉 ). An Arthur C Clarke 2001 deity is always a possibility in such a vast universe, likely to be teeming with life.
        R

        • Silver ralph says “although the evidence is somewhat lacking at present.”
          Is it? What would convince you? It is like a fish trying to persuade another fish of the existence of a thing called “water”. The other fish cannot be convinced having been immersed in water all its life. it has no conceptual framework. Humans tend to identify things by their boundaries, not by the substance within those boundaries.
          Anyway, the problem is not quite as intractable as all that. Star Wars did a pretty good job; pure invention of course but not far wrong — “the force”, it is a thing I can feel at some places and in some things. It isn’t “god”, it’s just something that I can sense and others sense it and, more importantly, in the same places. But I attribute God to it, or it to God as there’s no reason NOT to.
          More objective evidences exist as well, but they tend to be ephemeral. For instance, suppose you saw lightning last night and told me of it. Could you prove it? No. But was it real? Yes, for purposes of this discussion we will stipulate that it was real. But to anyone you tell, it is hearsay.
          So you seek an object, something I can hand to you that is proof or evidence of God. What could it possibly be? Whatever it might be, it would be everywhere and very common! Why would I have a proof that you lack? My point is that you already have whatever evidence is likely to exist.
          Now it does seem that from time to time God comes out of hiding and does something unexpected and miraculous. Or it might not be “God” but if not, then what? For instance, back in the 1980’s I was driving along the main highway near Pearl Harbor headed to Honolulu direction when a voice said, “Change lanes now.” Okay, so I changed lanes to the right (I’d been near the median on a six-lane highway). Moments later a car came at high speed in the lane I had just vacated, going the wrong direction. I’m a ham radio operator; cellphones didn’t exist in those days but autopatch did, so I called the police and reported this driver and they caught up with him a few miles west at Pearlridge shopping center. The fact of this report is a matter of record; why I was still alive to make the report is ephemeral. I know it with certainty; to you it is hearsay.
          The movie “Contact” deals with this topic with excellence.
          The Catholics, and most Christians for that matter, have what I consider a seriously defective understanding of the purpose of God. We are not “pets”, or kept animals; he has those already! Neither are we created beings “ex nihilo”.
          What does every living thing do? What is common to all life? Making more of its own kind. So what is God doing? He’s making more of his own kind. Some turn out well, some not so well. You cannot make them, you grow them; starting with himself as seed and pattern. I believe that life evolved on this planet, with god watching, at at a certain point of development was ready for some sort of endowment, probably language. Genesis hints at it; the importance of naming everything distinguishes Adam from everything that went before.
          Yeah, I read a lot of science fiction and that doubtless shapes some of my views. My thinking on God is a lot more real, and a lot less “transcendental” as compared to Catholic theology. But the real one has saved my life several times over and is pretty reliable. Many people would, and have, concluded that my God isn’t really a “god” — but those same people very likely then say such a thing as a benevolent omni-everything cannot exist. So why have a word for a thing that cannot exist?
          The word simply means “good”. It stems from Godan, which is “good”. In Icelandic I say “Gothan daginn” for “good day”. For this reason, god cannot be evil since good cannot be evil. The concept is absurd. There isn’t actually a word or name for “god”; the word is “good” adapted to this purpose.

      • Michael 2, I think Silver ralph may be speaking of suffering, not “evil’ as is commonly understood (as the evil in mankind.) God allows unlimited suffering on Earth. In Texas we just suffered devastating floods. 2 whole families were swept away, except one father and the dog survived. Can you imagine the rest of his life? His wife and two beautiful children are gone and he has to endure. And God watched that and allowed it like a gardener weeding his garden? Gross.

        • Tierney says “Michael 2, I think Silver ralph may be speaking of suffering”
          Yes, of course. This stems from a misconception that god’s purpose is to eliminate suffering.
          “And God watched that and allowed it like a gardener weeding his garden? Gross.”
          He isn’t even weeding the garden. You are, or I am, or it doesn’t get done. And that’s the problem — it isn’t getting done. World wars 1 and 2 were “weeding the garden” getting rid of evil one dictator at a time.
          You lack imagination. What is it to his eyes? That woman and children coming home and it is the man that continues to suffer mortal life on this Earth.
          Now then, I suspect that had the man been in regular contact with god, he would have been warned not to be in that vulnerable situation. No assurance I make since my purpose is not god’s purpose. I have been warned off flying when it turned out dangerous OR when it turned out I was needed someplace and not to be elsewhere. But it is entirely up to me to take that initiative.
          Presumably it would be trivial for god to have a perfect Earth where nothing suffers. But to what purpose? He already has servants and pets; cherubim and seraphim and the beasts around his throne. You are not a pet. You are free, to live, to die, to suffer, to experience everything you are willing to experience or which others feel like imposing upon you, for better or for worse.
          C.S. Lewis in his Perelandra trilogy deals with some of these concepts, in particular the suffering of humans.
          All life on Earth is doomed, sooner or later. Whether any life manages to leave this earth remains to be seen, but it is going to take enormous effort and sacrifice. God isn’t going to do it for you. If all life on earth fails, “oh well”, try again somewhere else! It isn’t for god’s benefit, it is for our benefit.
          I work with Boy Scouts. If I do anything for a Scout that he can do for himself, I have cheated him out of some development that may be vital, might even save his life in the future. I will show him how to do something; I may demonstrate a procedure, but he must do a thing for himself. He must start his fires, cook his food and tie his own knots. He must FAIL, again and again; so as to know that he can pick himself up after each failure and go on to the next, and see it as an adventure he wishes not to be cheated out of.
          But some failures can seem daunting; so in those cases I offer a nudge, a hint, provide a little something. So it is with god. Expect a hint but nothing more.

      • My favorite is the “Laudato Si Secret Decoder Ring” and the secret message: D-R-I-N-K M-O-R-E K-O-O-L A-I-D. 🙂
        A close second is his response to the Laudato Si line, “Because of us, thousands of species will no longer give glory to God by their very existence, nor convey their message to us.” The “message” from extinct super-shark Megalodon? “Get in my belly!”
        I also liked one of the comments: Laudato Si in 140 Characters or Less: “It’s hot. It’s getting hotter. Please stop using air conditioning. Thanks.”
        I’d say you can’t make this stuff up, but clearly the Pope (or his advisors) did!

    • Most of the Encyclical is not about carbon dioxide. It explores the role of mining and industrial waste, poor land clearing procedures, and the failure to evaluate human impact on nature, indigenous people, and the urban poor. One point is the observation that the neglect of the environment is a serious form of exploitation of the poor.
      There are barges of trash in the oceans that have no where to go. Slash and burn agriculture by large firms are causing soil erosion and driving smaller producers out of business. Then we have mercury pollution from poorly managed gold mines, etc.
      No resource is limitless. We have to manage carefully.

      • It seems it has adopted the Earth Summit rules/ Agenda 21 which were intended to replace the ten commandments.
        So for a Pope to be suckered by this eco babble which is Marxism dressed in green, shows he is not only infallible but also intellectually gullible.

      • Neglect of the environment exploits the poor? There might be a small grain of truth in that, but the essential truth is that poverty trashes the environment.

      • The pope is (oh, god my heart flutters!) CONCERNED ABOUT THE POOR!!! He then advocates policies that can only increase poverty and produce more generations of suffering.
        He is a useful idiot. He is being played and the man is to self-righteous to know it.
        Eugene WR Gallun

    • It would be a lot funnier if it were a joke – or even merely satire!
      Actually it is more akin to gallows humor. The Pope of Rome pandering to the most despicable collection of world dominance wannabes since the collapse of the Roman empire, the UN, in furtherance of the greatest hoax in recorded history.

    • Did you know the crucifix is a representation of the winter summer solstice and spring fall equinox lines from the round zodiac circle? The middle is the sun or “son” and the 12 deciples are the 12 zodiac signs. This crap is interesting if you look into it. Even the last supper portrait by Leodanardo depicts the zodiac signs within each person as he knew the true origin of religion. No one poses for dinner like this.

      • Read Robert Lomas’ books on Freemasonry. Those guys have kept the Cliff’s Notes for 300 years. ;- )

    • That is a 1482 pic?? wow Pietro must have been either a time traveller or a prophet. It is eerie! ( and somewhat funny although I can see the RC’s going ballistic).

  1. Superstition is superstition whether it be belief in the ability of humans to calm Gaia’s stormy seas through offerings of CO2 pumped into her soil, or be belief in an invisible magical sky god who strikes down human enemies whose only problem is that they believe in a different magical sky god.
    The cold hard fact or the beautiful mistake of evolution [depending on your optimism level] is that humans are not *for* anything. There is no ‘direction’ of either evolution or society or civilization. We are what we make ourselves to be. We buttered our bread, now we lay in it. This is why we humans should be vigilant among ourselves and be careful which philosophies we teach our children. Some philosophies are dangerous, and religion is one of the most cruel. Society can be destroyed rapidly by those who wield unreasoned power to enforce irrational policies.
    The Catholic Church has always told us that we humans are unclean and sinful by our very nature through a mythical ‘first’ human’s sin. The meme is precisely the same, it’s only the locus of the magical thinking that has changed. The seeds of insensible and illogical superstition were planted a long time ago and cultivated to the ripening fruit of unreasoned eco-worship through the Church and her Christian sisters who all share in the stifling of scientific inquiry and millennia wide extinguishing of inquisitive young minds exploring their uncreated world.
    Pope and eco-worship are a perfect fit… it’s only natural.

    • Dear Unknown – Off Topic
      I don’t believe in coincidences, which is only one reason why I believe in a supreme being, a creator. I also believe there is only one God who answers to bilions of names. Every human being on this planet, and all of his other creations throughout the Universe, are his children.
      I can’t prove God exists any more than you can prove he/she/it doesn’t. However, I think the Big Bang theory lends credence to my side. If I’m wrong, then my belief will be in vain. If you’re wrong, may God welcome you home anyway.
      I also believe in science when practiced correctly. Got my MS in Aerospace Engineering from PSU in ’71. Worked in industrial instrumentation for over 30 years. Belief in science and faith are not uncompatible any more than Newtonian physics and Quantnum physics are.
      Bill

      • Off topic.
        I am with you, Bill.
        Unknown, you might find this book interesting: “The Language of God” by Francis S. Collins. Collins led the project to map the human genome. Also read “The Reason for God” by Timothy Keller. Keller is not a scientist, but is able to address your objections to belief in God in a way that will help you to at least quit using your old, tired reasons for not believing and find some reasons that sound more believable.

      • >>If you’re wrong, may God welcome you home anyway.
        Note the implied threat there. God MAY welcome you, but we are not sure, he might also burn you in the fires of hell. Why do people believe in such an evil being?
        Ah, yes, because threat of violence works, as we have all seen with the political quiescence over Charlie Hebdo. And who better to weild that violence, than a supreme being ‘big brother’. Most people grow out of the ‘my big brother will hit you’ syndrome by the age of ten, but some never do.
        R

      • Silver ralph:
        I support the excellent – although off topic – comment from William Yarber which you misrepresent.
        Your accusations of “threat” and “violence” only exist as weird imaginings in your mind.
        Your insult to God is between you and Him, but you could apologise to William Yarber for your wicked distortions of his words (although your history indicates you won’t).
        Richard

      • Does my dog believe in god? Is she worried not to sin and go to hell? Sad we made this crap up fron early insane delusions of a “Sun” God. Pathetic.

        • Mark says “Sad we made this crap up fron early insane delusions of a Sun God.”
          We? I certainly didn’t do that so that leaves you. Why did you do that?

      • Does my dog believe in god? Is she worried not to sin and go to hell? Is the biome of bacteria in my colon praying to a higher order? Sad we made this crap up from early insane delusions of a “Sun” God. Pathetic.

        • mark asks “Does my dog believe in god?”
          Yes!
          “Is she worried not to sin and go to hell?”
          Absolutely, and probably doing a better job of it than most here.
          “Is the biome of bacteria in my colon praying to a higher order?”
          To be sure but it is hardly obvious by inspection. They observe that food comes along from time to time obviously from that higher order.

      • + 1 Billi . I am lukewarm but could not deny Gods existence. One can truly not be an atheist, only an Agnostic. Atheism seems like an unjustified combination of ignorance and misguided arrogance.

    • Hey, look, we have an Internet Atheist! Raring to go on his quest to convert the masses to his lack of faith, crying out to all the world: “There is no God, and unknown502756 is his prophet.
      Here’s something to consider – is not your own atheism itself a meme?

      • “Here’s something to consider – is not your own atheism itself a meme?”
        Indeed. the very act of unbelief is a belief in itself, and implies the ability to prove a negative.
        The only honest positions are religious belief and agnosticism.

      • Logic is not a belief. Logic is rationality, that bends, flexes and adapts, as more information is gathered and a greater understanding is devised. Logic is the basis of true science.
        In great contrast, faith says the less evidence there is, the truer something must be. Faith is the irrational standpoint of the Green, who believes in warming despite the overwhealming body of data that does not support that belief.
        USA is a truly crazy country and people. It is the only place where the religious rational-realists have turned science into a faith-based belief. But the theological faith-believers demand that science be based upon rationality, reason and logic. Que?? How did that happen?
        Hey, guys and gals – how on earth have you turned the entire Reformation and Enlightenment on its head? Did millions of people in the war of the Reformation die in vain? Is the modern world going to drift back into the Dark Ages of irrationality?? I know that America is a young country, but you really do need to shed the theological diapers.
        Ralph

        • Silver Ralph offers an excellent demonstration of the straw-man argument:
          “faith says the less evidence there is, the truer something must be.”
          No, you say that. It is more correct to say the less evidence exists, the more difficult it will be to decide one way or the other. Some will believe it true, some will believe it false.
          Faith, on the other hand, is belief in a thing based on some evidence. I have faith that Jerusalem exists even though I have never seen it.

        • Silver ralph says “Logic is not a belief. Logic is rationality, that bends, flexes and adapts,”
          Partly true. Logic is a method. It is not bendy, it does not flex and it most certainly does not adapt. Computers depend on that rigidity for their correct and predictable operation.

      • Well… I pondered responding to some posts… I suppose I’ll put my response here:
        I am not an Internet Atheist. I am a well read, well researched, philosophical individual who prefers printed paper to electronic screens.
        I spent much of my life reading the Catholic bible and praying as a Catholic in Catholic churches. Throughout much of my life I attended daily Mass, and carried my bible and my rosary beads everywhere. I know all the mysteries of the rosary, even the new decade. I studied the miracles of the children of Fatima, and prayed fervently that all humans would grow to love god as much as I did so they wouldn’t suffer in the hell fire shown to those children.
        I left the Church, because I discovered that the Church is wrong. The Catholic faith is as hollow as every other faith. The stories are entirely false, made up through the centuries in order to justify some human need or human emotion or human desire.
        I don’t think anyone can be externally convinced of the existence or non-existence of god, any and all of them. Most people are immersed in the idea of an invisible sky being world from birth, and most people deeply require community acceptance — and so never seriously doubt the god, or confess a hidden doubt for fear of being attacked — like I have been here by some posters.
        I don’t fear death, nor do wish for the end of time so that my god will restore what I *deserve*.
        There’s the secret word… deserve… that’s what is driving eco-worshipers and recognized religions alike.
        However, there is no *deserve* … my small piece of worldly pie will not be enlarged after death into the size that I deserve… and the people with overflowing plates will not be equalized, into a smaller deserved serving after death by a god…
        The equality is only that we are all soulless human beasts who all live and all die. That’s the real humility; to know that *I* am responsible for my actions because there is no god. Religion is the enabler of many, atheism is the cure.

        • Unknown says
          “I am not an Internet Atheist.”
          “*I* am responsible for my actions because there is no god. Religion is the enabler of many, atheism is the cure.”
          You seem to be confused.
          I love it when an atheist asserts a thing that cannot be proven. It shows GREAT FAITH.

        • unknown502756 says “*I* am responsible for my actions because there is no god.”
          Whereas I am responsible for my actions because there is a god.
          Without a god, right and wrong cease to have meaning; there is only what you do or do not. Responsible ceases to have meaning if there is no ultimate authority to “respond to”.

        • unknown502756 — Study Rosseau. There is always a god, but sometimes his name is Josef Stalin or Pol Pot or Chairman Mao, or even Barak Obama. Whoever you “list to” is your god.
          If you would be more precise in your definition, I would probably join in disbelieving that particular description. To say there is no god anywhere merely reveals your ignorance.

        • unknown502756 says “I left the Church, because I discovered that the Church is wrong.”
          No argument there!
          “The Catholic faith is as hollow as every other faith.”
          That seems unlikely. How is it possible to judge them all? Is faith in global warming included?
          “The stories are entirely false”
          It is unlikely they are entirely false. Jerusalem certainly exists, so did Babylon. Egyptians exist.
          “made up through the centuries in order to justify some human need or human emotion or human desire.”
          So you have set yourself up as “god” to know all this?
          “I don’t think anyone can be externally convinced of the existence or non-existence of god”
          Yes, quite plainly you “don’t think” this. You are omniscient — or maybe not. *I* am “externally convinced” by evidence of the existence of god (or many, or angels, or who knows what exactly; the word “god” is a proxy for whatever it is, but it most certainly exists).
          “Most people are immersed in the idea of an invisible sky being world”
          I have no information on what most people are immersed in and neither do you. The phrase “invisible sky being” is used only by atheists.

    • Agree 100%, it’s a perfect marriage. If inconvenient evidence is found that does not fit the dogma, a) attack the evidence and its messenger, b) if that doesn’t work then move the goal post and hope the faithful are too entrenched that they won’t begin to think.

    • Religion almost certainly arose out of science. In early societies, people who could do things which were beneficial to the community, and which the ordinary population could not understand, used that situation to elevate their own status. The obvious example is the Egyptian pharaohs being able to predict the Nile floods, and thus greatly improving the chances of a successful harvest.
      Of course the pharaohs were using science to achieve this, but to admit that would have taken all the mystique out of it. Not to mention that once they public knew it was possible for anyone to do the same, the pharaoh would lose his revered status. So, they built up a complex mythology around it instead.

    • Rubbish! This blog is getting as bad as the warmists -what a lot of idiots you sound ! The Church did not stifle science only the writers of science school text books tell you that. You should just try a bit of research or read
      The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West Paperback – August 10, 2010
      by Robert Royal .
      This is an eye opener after reading half educated journalists for years
      “Secular humanists and other “progressives” have been predicting the demise of religion for the past 250 years.”
      You are supposed to be balanced scientists on this blog. Do your homework!

    • @ Unknown, your quote “Most people are immersed in the idea of an invisible sky being world from birth”, “invisible sky being” I believe that is where you can be wrong. I personally do not attend any church or connect myself with any religion but there is a God, he/she/ it is all around us everywhere you are willing to look and SEE. I also do not stand on a corner and force my views on anyone.

      • Sorry it ended up in the wrong place. should have gone above a bit in reply to M2 and unknown’s thread.

      • Exactly. I compare it to one fish trying to explain “water” to another. Both have been immersed in it their entire lives. The task is impossible until one or both leave the water so as to know “not water”, without which knowledge there can be no understanding of “water”.

  2. Conflating Catholicism and environmentalism is a mistake. They’re two completely different religions.

  3. Where’s Hypatia when we need her? Or Hygieia? Gaia’s been located, lurking around St. Peter’s.
    ===============

  4. I would counter with Alan Caruba’s prayer. It is no more spiritual, but certainly more accurate:
    “The Earth is fine. Save yourself!”

  5. When I first saw this my first thought was it is over the top. It is not right to make fun of someone’s religion. Then I started thinking about CAGW. I realized all of Josh’s cartoons are about religion. So, (in the highly esteemed words of Rosana-rosanadana – never mind.

    • Of course it is “right” to make fun of someone’s religion. Believers call that “blasphemy” for a reason. No religion can stand against ridicule, so they forbid it. Ridicule is the greatest enemy of self-righteousness so we who don’t relinquish our minds to faith should wield it unmercifully.

      • “Ridicule is the greatest enemy of self-righteousness”
        Says you.
        Ridicule works on people for whom it is intended to work (socialists). It has no effect on libertarians and simply makes the person doing it look uneducated.

      • Michael 2:
        You rightly say that ridicule “has no effect on libertarians”.
        This lack of effect is because the ultra-right tend to lack a sense of humour.
        You also rightly point out that “libertarians” think ridicule of them “simply makes the person doing it look uneducated”. This is because those who are indoctrinated always think disagreement is lack of education (e.g. Winston how many fingers can you see?).
        Richard

        • richardscourtney says “This lack of effect is because the ultra-right tend to lack a sense of humour.”
          Maybe, but I was discussing libertarians. Your knowledge of the ultra-right exceeds mine.
          “This is because those who are indoctrinated always think disagreement is lack of education ”
          No. Ridicule comes in variations of “You are stupid”. It therefore reveals nothing about the education of the speaker. Assuming that a person would wish to seem educated, wasting the opportunity to do so just to write variations of “you are stupid” to me reveals a lack of education. It is not proof of lack, however, since some obviously educated individuals, professors at times, write variations of “you are stupid”.

        • CBLF says “well, it is true that some people can’t tell when they are being made fun of…”
          Naturally. Over a billion Chinese have no idea when you tell a Chinese joke.
          And the rest don’t care unless they are Democrats. That kind can be manipulated by ridicule.

      • carbon-based life form:
        Thankyou. As you say of the response by Michael 2 to my comment

        well, it is true that some people can’t tell when they are being made fun of…

        And it is emphasised by the response by Michael 2 to your having said it!
        Richard

    • Islam does seem to be about the only major religion whose followers get extremely angry about any humorous references to their faith. Why that is, is a very good question.

      • “Islam does seem to be about the only major religion whose followers get extremely angry about any humorous references to their faith. Why that is, is a very good question.”
        ************
        Because Islam is full of young angry men that want to beat up anyone that makes fun of them. Christianity is full of grannies that just put up with what their brave grandchildren hurl at them.

  6. That is far better than my own version from 2011:
    Our carbon, which art in the heavens,
    Damned be thy name,
    Thy power be gone,
    Emissions none,
    On earth as it is in heaven,
    Give us this day our daily rations,
    And forgive us our emissions.
    As we forgive those who emissions are greater,
    For their need is more,
    His name is Al Gore,
    For his is the kingdom, the power and the glory for ever and ever, Carbon.

  7. The pope has strayed into dangerous, filthy waters. The filth is composed of lies, greed, and corruption.

    • It’s the biggest global corporate. Should it act any differently to other global corporates?

      • Should it? Yes.
        Does it? Yes.
        But not too sure it’s the biggest global corporate. At least measured in money terms.

  8. IMHO, the Pope has apparently concluded that God is no longer omnipotent over his creation and has relinquished the future of mankind unto it’s own devices. This also suggests he has a belief that that this earthly existence is ‘all there is’, and nothing is more important than protecting the stage that mortality plays out on.
    To me it’s completely missed the target of Christ’s commandment which Mother Teresa built her life upon.

  9. Reminded me of this verse.
    Romans 1:25 who changed the truth of God into the lie, and worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen ( Literal Translation Of The Holy Bible 2000)

  10. If AGW climate scare is a religion, it should be banned in all public schools, school events, and all public buildings and properties.
    If AGW climate scare is a political party it’s officers must complete paperwork for the following certifications in the U.S.
    “The party must next submit an affidavit, signed by its officers under oath, stating that it does not either directly or indirectly advocate, teach, justify, aid or abet the overthrow of the government; an act of terrorism; or a program of sabotage, force and violence, sedition or treason against the government.”
    …..they are both a religion and a political party and therefore unlawful.

  11. The Pope writes about the earth and her resources being a “gift from God.” But nowhere in his encyclical does he thank God for the fossil fuels that come from the earth and are also a gift from God. Instead, he calls the use of fossil fuels evil. Even if you believe, as the Pope does, that fossil fuels should only be used in transition to renewable energy sources, how can you not recognize that such a transition would be impossible without fossil fuels. They make modern science and manufacturing possible. How can you not be thankful for such a gift, unless you prefer the dark ages?

  12. Dominc Lawson: ‘Pope Francis’s new encyclical is in stark contrast to the style of his predecessor. While Pope Benedict’s works were in Latin, entirely spiritual in tone,’
    Has DL actually read Laudato Si? Has he actually read any of Pope Benedict’s works? It doesn’t sound like he’s done either. How about this for starters:
    “Preservation of the environment, promotion of sustainable development and particular attention to climate change are matters of grave concern for the entire human family.”
    (Pope Benedict XVI, Letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople on the Occasion of the Seventh Symposium of the Religion, Science and the Environment Movement, September 1, 2007) – See more at: http://www.interfaithsustain.com/pope-benedict-xvi-on-the-environment/#sthash.7pHen0kf.dpuf
    DL: ‘and written by the man himself (a great scholar),
    How does DL know how much Pope Benedict wrote and how much was written for him?
    DL: ‘his Argentine successor has produced something impossible to render in a classical language.’
    DL should not be too hasty. An official Latin version will be available shortly.
    DL: ‘In fitting with its theme — saving the planet from man’s depredations — it is, for much of its great length, indistinguishable from any number of United Nations environmental briefings.’
    Again, I ask, Has DL actually read the Encyclical? I really doubt that anybody, no matter how anti-Catholic, could reach that conclusion having actually read the Encyclical. I’ve only read to para 216 out of 288 but already I can see how wide of the mark is that statement. It is littered with references to God and quotations from the Bible. How many UN environmental briefings do that?

    • Mark says “Sad that we even believe in a god”
      I am glad that you do for so do I. I do not understand being “sad” but your mileage obviously varies.

      • Spiritual belief is a mental illness. I have a theory it’s from eating grains and sugar. “Gut brain connection” 🙂 . Someone between seeing ghosts and schizophrenia.
        I just love those windmills. Someone needs to draw an extreme warmist being crucified on one.

        • mark says “Spiritual belief is a mental illness.”
          So that explains your sadness. I am very happy with my spiritual beliefs. Without it, I would be merely a machine like this computer I am using right now. It has no spiritual beliefs.
          “I just love those windmills. Someone needs to draw an extreme warmist being crucified on one.”
          Done! But I forget the link to the picture. It isn’t clear by inspection whether the person being crucified is a warmist.

  13. I would note that all of the previous Popes have ceased to
    exhale CO2 except this one.
    Yet this one says it is not a good thing.
    What’s Up With That???

  14. As a Christian I have read a little about Islam. My default positionis that all Muslims believe what their prophet wrote and all support Islamic law and support of Jihad is common. Muslims, like Obama, tend to blame all Christians for the Catholic response to the Islamic invasion of Spain etc. We are probably both wrong but as the comments here indicate, non Christians often blame all Christians for the acts of the Pope. And they tend to asign to all of us the doctrine of Rome.
    Any statement by the Pope not based on sound interpretation of scripture is an offense to true believers. That includes AGW, evolution, big bang and aliens. But like our Surpreme Court power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Pope’s position on AGW is as tortured as the Supreme’s on Obamacare.

  15. Shouldn’t it read:

    Forgive us not our carbon emissions
    As we forgive those other nations who emit against us

  16. Jeez, guys, could you please stop waffling on about religion, and instead say something about this brilliant cartoon?

    • It is a brilliant cartoon.
      What is “natural” (the tree stumps) sacrificed to what the elite pray the wind-thingies will bring. The only one left is on his knees.
      In prayer or subjugation? Time will tell.

  17. The Lord’s Prayer is so called because Jesus himself created it, as is well described in the New Testament.
    Perhaps (we do not know) He will be unhappy at anyone corrupting it in any way, whether for “humour” or not.
    There is something else in the Bible.
    It says, “..Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”

  18. 1) Free speech.
    You have a right to it. Why squander it on actions and words that axiomatically hurt the sensibilities of others, particularly for amusement? Seems predacious to me.
    2) Free speech
    Josh didn’t posture his religious adherent similar to a Muslim. Likely as a result of fear, so this free speech is free in that the consequences of his use of it is, at worst, some people may feel saddened.
    If he insulted a Muslim in prayer, he may pay for his free speech with his life.
    So… was this free speech? neh…it was scaredy-cat lame free speech.
    3) Free speech
    Is important to people who’s speech is so toxic that the principle of free speech is necessary to protect them. The concept of free speech isn’t needed if everyone agrees with what is said.
    4) Free speech
    As a valued principle does not protect one from proportionate ridicule in response. Everyone is entitled to free speech. Everyone should expect it.
    I happen to agree that the windmill is a 21st century object of veneration, like a cross. However, nothing in the green movement can compare with the sermon on the mount, which in may ways has served as the foundation to western philosophy and culture, worthy of our respect.
    A crucifix is a depiction of a cross with an executed corpse on it, whereas a cross is.. simply a cross. FYI

    • This debate boils down to a simple equation. The cartoon + Free speech is good when it prompts us to ponder = We are pondering = Good free speech.

      • I suppose “pondering” is the greatest human virtue for which we can abandon good manners, civility, the fragile emotions of many, and taste. So let us ponder since it so worthwhile. Hmmmm Pondering pondering…Here is something to ponder about: a hysterical woman with no principles, and no self restraint, viciously and sadistically enjoying the pain of other people to alleviate the pain of a daddy complex, and the absence of male potency. Since pondering is the ultimate human action…ponder that caricature.

    • “Why squander it on actions and words that axiomatically hurt the sensibilities of others…”
      Free speech that takes into account “the sensibilities of others” (which are entirely subjective) isn’t free speech. It isn’t even speech. It’s silence.
      Fortunately, most Catholics have a sense of humor, or so I believe. 🙂
      “So… was this free speech? neh…it was scaredy-cat lame free speech.”
      Um, so anything not written at peril of life or limb is “scaredy-cat lame free speech”? Like Paul Westhaver ‘s comment?
      BTW, I don’t recall the author boasting of being particularly brave or heroic or anything. Did I miss something?
      “Free speech is important to people who’s speech is so toxic that the principle of free speech is necessary to protect them.”
      It’s also important to people trying “to speak truth to power”. Kind of like our host here at WUWT.
      “The concept of free speech isn’t needed if everyone agrees with what is said.”
      Indeed. I’ll bet there wasn’t a lot of free speech in Jonestown:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
      Fortunately, most Catholics aren’t brainwashed cultists, or so I believe.
      “A crucifix is a depiction of a cross with an executed corpse on it, whereas a cross is.. simply a cross. FYI”
      Words of wisdom. I googled “photo of church with cross” and found a number of “simply crosses”
      coincidentally co-located with churches. 🙂

      • I doubt that green warriors really love windfarms. It’s just one of those necessary evils required to keep their politicians and cronies well fed. It pays the bills (on everyone else’s dime) Flying to climate conferences, is another necessary evil for green warriors.
        If they had their preference, there would simply be less other people. They want the freeway to themselves, hence the persistence of mass transit dreams (for others of course)..

  19. The Pope, President Obama, and “the majority of the American people” who supposedly still believe carbon is a pollutant and not the most important plant food on the planet, (1 in 4 Americans do not believe in global warming), continue to confuse naturally occurring climate change with human caused pollution. While some amount of pollution is inevitable and we should all do what we can to eliminate as much as possible, climate is, and will be for the foreseeable future, controlled by that big bright thing in the sky and our position going around it. The Pope, on the other hand, given the Catholic Churches’ somewhat ungracious history regarding the treatment of scientists, (Galileo comes readily to mind) would not be on my first list of references for atmospheric science authorities. Perhaps he would do well to remember Mark 12:17

  20. I thought that Lawson was a “climate denier”.
    Shouldn’t he therefore be excluded from access to the media.
    And Professor David Nutt is a “drug denier”.
    And Nigel Farage is an “EU denier”.
    All the deniers need to be removed from public discourse.
    And then we can begin the real debate.
    In which we all agree with each other’s vapid politically correct repetition of unquestioning untruths as explained each day by the officially sanctioned BBC.
    In the new Kafkaesque Britain with it’s 1200 page labyrinthine tax guide and it’s hand-out for rich solar park owners. Where we ban all cheap fun, and occasionally flood a small portion of the country by intentionally suspending maintenance of a drainage system for 20 years.
    Well for those who are not drowned in paperwork, or water, then drown your sorrows with the officially sanctioned drugs – alcohol and fags.
    Or have a ride on an officially sanctioned canoe in the officially sanctioned Olympic White Water theme park, powered by several megawatts of officially subsidized wind power.
    In a country with a 1.5 trillion debt and a new growth sector in pretend employment.
    Where you pretend to be employed whilst declaring zero income for the year in order to receive tax credit and housing benefit etc.
    Welcome to new bullshit Britain, where alternative opinions are not required.

  21. I’m glad you worked GMOs into it. The anti-GMO crowd are modern day eco-Luddites, with unapologetic hostility against true scientific progress. Their anger is fueled by pseudo-scientific innuendo and heavy confirmation bias toward poor studies, which are often fully refuted or strongly contradicted by more robust studies they ignore.

  22. Yet another version of who said what, when. Haven’t we (the world) had enough of this stuff?

  23. Hippie horse manure, I agree! (: Obviously the psychotic side effects of Cannabis are permanent.
    Sooooo…it turns out the Hippies were a secret Jesuit plot to bring down successful, open, free Protestant countries.

Comments are closed.