Essay by Eric Worrall
“… The climate crisis demands new ways of thinking … and religion is fundamental to achieving that. …”
Why religion is fundamental to addressing climate change
Published: February 25, 2025 12.25am AEDT
Hanane Benadi
Research Officer, Religion and Global Society, London School of Economics and Political Science…
Building a global response to the climate crisis requires us to learn about the many ways people make sense of climate change and learn to live with its consequences. And for most of the world’s population, a purely scientific framing is unhelpful.
…
With my team from the LSE Religion and Global Society research unit, I ran a climate change and religion workshop in Cairo with Muslim and Christian female and male faith leaders. Many of the 30 participants explained they felt frustrated that the climate science lens dominates.
One member of a faith-based organisation told me during an interview after the workshop that: “We are often approached by western organisations and research institutions to collaborate. However, when we ask about the nature of these collaborations, it is often reduced to our logo and a couple of statements that tell people that they should care about climate change.”
…
As Russian author Leo Tolstoy once wrote, “Science is meaningless because it has no answer to the only questions that matter to us: ‘What should we do and how shall we live?‘” The climate crisis demands new ways of thinking, new ways of perceiving reality, and religion is fundamental to achieving that.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/why-religion-is-fundamental-to-addressing-climate-change-248074
One thing I really like about the US Christians is their tolerance. Providing someone lives a decent life, there is room in the USA for everyone to find their own path.
But this advancing nexus between climate and religion in my opinion represents a descent back into Dark Ages thinking, in which oppressive religious figures dictated every aspect of people’s lives.
In a free society you can question religion, and you can question science. But when science becomes an apocalyptic end of world religion, questioning is heresy and blasphemy. And we’ve all seen what happens to people who question, when religious leaders assume the mantle of scientific authority.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Climate science aspires to the legitimacy of religion.
I would say climate religion aspires to the legitimacy of science.
Neil’s First Precept of Religion: If you let me have my religion (or lack of it), I’ll let you have yours.
In my more frequent online circles we have an abbreviation; “IL.” It means “I Love not having to type the punchline.”
That suggests a sort of hierarchy of truth, or of its pursuit. Science is the apex of understanding the cosmos, and religion stands beside it to try and explain what science cannot. Climate science struggles beneath the two simultaneously trying to be both.
Priceless!
The Holy Orthodox Church of Anthropogenic Climate Change
The Holy Order of Climate Zealotry (HOACZ).
Try Again
The Holy Order of Anthropogenic Climate Zealotry (HOACZ)
Come up with an expression that reduces to HOAX.
But when science becomes an apocalyptic end of world religion, questioning is heresy and blasphemy. And we’ve all seen what happens to people who question, when religious leaders assume the mantle of scientific authority.
We’ve all seen what happens when people question climate, when politicians assume the mantle of scientific authority.
The religion is settled.
Unsettling, I should say.
The Green New Deal.
Those who forget or choose to ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat…
Anyone recall The New Deal? 1933-1938. Seems an excessive US debt was the ultimate cause of its demise. It did not bootstrap the economy.
I believe the new deal failed because it assumed that Government money could solve economic problems better than private money. It is a conceit of Democrat politics that survives to this day.
Failures and successes. The Public Works programs were effective in avoiding general social unrest. We also got infrastructure that pays benefits to this day. We also learned the limits of Federal powers that were previously untested. Stacking the Court is still a warning today. The FDA was created in 1938. Social Security in 1935. These suffer from near a century of capture and political interference but still manage to mostly work.
Granted. A lot of infrastructure was built. But when those projects individually ended, the workers became again unemployed. That being the good side, it did not reboot the economy and incurred massive debt.
World War II saved the consequences of Public Works. This enters the field of “what if”. WW-II disrupted everything. From TVA and rural electrification and Western dams would we have gone forward with Ike’s highway program?
The “New Deal” was of necessity not utility.
“World War II saved the consequences of Public Works…”, this part may be true (highly likely IMO but not definitively so).
“The “New Deal” was of necessity not utility.”…this part is definitely false…the New Deal was awful for the US. Here’s a summary of a book I haven’t read but now definitely intend to. The summary (not the book) is from Thomas Sowell, one of the 20th/21st century’s most prolific and important thinkers if you ask me.
In any case the myth of the necessity and benefits of the New Deal are still as pervasive today as the climate scam.
As to how highway’s etc. would have been built without Ike’s highway program…well how do we build them today? Other than maybe the Interstate program as far as I know highways and city roads are built with local (state & city) taxes on gas (yeah I know its a scam but that’s the story) and we have Toll roads that supposedly pay for themselves.
Push comes to shove there was nothing necessary about Roosevelt’s New Deal & it has led to far more harm than good.
Many “State” highways are built with massive amounts of Federal money and a small amount of State money. (To the extent that the Federal and State Governments actually have any money.)
Wrong on so many points.
The public works projects were over 2 years before the US entered WWII.
Social Security never worked, it just managed to hide it’s dysfunction by spending money it didn’t have.
It was never a fiscally sound program because the amount it collected was never enough to fund current and future payments.
As a result, in just a couple of years the SS trust fund is going to go bust, and SS will only be able pay out based on what it takes in each month. Which means around a 30 to 35% drop in monthly payments for everyone.
If you thought the problems of the 30’s were bad, just wait till the government has to tell Grandma that her monthly payments are going to be cut by 1/3rd.
The Republicans tried to fix this problem many times, but every time the did, the Democrats and the media (I repeat myself) would start screaming about how evil Republicans were trying to take away the Social Security.
And the usual myrmidons would rush to the polls to dutifully vote those evil Republicans out of office.
Back in the 70’s and 80’s, small changes could have saved Social Security. A group I belonged to was pushing a plan under which every month that SS was out of balance, the retirement age would be raised by one month. It’s been 50 years since we pushed that plan, by now SS retirement would have risen to 70 instead of 65 (67 because of the changes under Carter).
Instead, the Democrats preferred to demagogue the issue, and the Republicans eventually learned that if they wanted to stay in office, don’t do or say anything about the obvious and growing problem.
I retired from working for a municipal government job after paying into it for 32 years. What I paid into it was invested and gained value.
Social Security doesn’t depend on investments. It depends on the current generation paying into it to pay the previous generations.
Socialism at it’s “best”?
It was originally a Trust where the money workers paid in was kept, possibly earning interest, then paid out on retirement.
It was also supposed to be a retirement supplement.
Neither are true now and the program is so broken it is the grandchildren paying in that supports the elderly.
The saddest part of your statement, when viewed in light of the recent DOGE revelations regarding the utter misuse of ‘government ‘ money, is those funds were in fact ‘private’, paid via the blood, sweat, and tears of the constituency as mandatory taxation. Who is to say, should most those taxes have remained in private hands , that they would have been more wisely utilized. Who knows how long the graft and misuse of our taxes has been going on?
Regards,
MCR
It ended in part because the US entered a fairly serious depression in 1937-38. The UK’s GDP in 1938 was greater than it’s 1929 GDP, but the US 1938 GDP was less than the 1929 GDP.
If FDR had done nothing, it would have been another minor recession. As usual, by trying to fix the problem, government made it worse.
You mean like taking the money from the midwestern and west coast banks to ensure the government was funded, pushing an east coast-European downslide into a global depression.
FDR took the US off the gold standard when, by EO, he made illegal to possess gold.
In California, they used Canadian currency.
The great depression started in 1929.
If one defines ‘religion’ as a set of closely held beliefs for which one has no evidence, then CAGW would certainly qualify as such. There’s nothing new here, as socialism in all its forms has effectively qualified as a religion going back to the 19th century. What’s always dangerous is when a State adopts a religion as official dogma and uses its coercive power to enforce allegiance to same.
Socialism is not a religion per se, it is a disproven economic and political system. But people are inherently religious, and socialist states used a lot old religious practices to keep population in control.
At least you, unlike most people who use the word in a derogatory way, have attempted to provide a definition. But it’s far too wide. However, one interesting result of the definition is that it excludes Christianity. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus Christ existed and there’s plenty of evidence that he rose from the dead. Then there’s all the more modern evidence such as the eucharistic miracles and the miracles at Lourdes. But just to look for evidence in the material sense excludes the full use of reason. It’s called scientism. Scientism holds to the belief that nothing is true unless it can be proved by material evidence. Which sort of makes scientism a religion according to some folks definition of religion.
Give it your best shot.
Faith + Knowledge = Truth
The money aspects of the climate crusades will be harder to erase. It is not just government funding but also almost every publisher and editor taking money for the messaging story (ad) hits.
The Klimate Kanuckleheads really have no self-awareness, do they?
Cup my ear and I can hear the screech of alarmist fingernails as they slide backwards over the cliff
I am not that observant a Christian, but cautions about false prophets seem relevant. Millenarians of any variety should be dealt with with extreme caution, whether purportedly Christian, Muslim, or Environmentalist.
I am a Christian.
Christians are not the only ones in history that have done things “In the Name God” without bothering to find out just what it was God wants done.
As a Christian, our “directive” is to preach the good news of Jesus Christ and what He accomplished. If a person hears and believes, rejoicing in heaven! If they don’t, move on to the next person.
And for those that do believe, help them grow up into Christ and allow yourself to be helped.
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1Timothy 2:3-5 KJV)
(MODS! I promise. No more preaching here from me.)
If a person hears and believes, rejoicing in heaven! If they don’t, move on to the next person.
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. (KJV)
Jesus offers us an invitation. He leaves us free to accept it or reject it. He doesn’t force himself upon anyone. But there are consequences following from the choice we make.
“There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
“Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’
“Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’ ”
— Luke 16:19–31
Hmmm…. Did not Jesus rise from the dead and in so doing many repented?
According to the King James bible, that is. I was not a witness and so make no claims.
Belief is personal reality. Please do not construed this as anything but a curiosity.
Christians cannot be singing that the Lord has the whole world in his hands one minute and then turn round and blame humans for affecting the climate. In fact, to do that is blasphemy, not to mention the arrogance and false pride in the power of humans.
Agree completely..
If you believe that God created the Earth to support Humankind, then He created all the coal, gas, oil, and nuclear substances within the Earth, for our use when we are able to.
We go against His wishes if we do not use that which He has provided for for us.
Your argument has big holes in it (as usual). God also gave us free choice with consequences. It’s why people do good and bad stuff that hurts or helps us. Not everything God gave us is good. It is up to us to sort what is and what isn’t gonna help us. A blanket God gave us stuff so we it will be fine to use it, is for the brain dead to justify anything they do. I’ll remind you that God gave us thermometers so we can measure the temperature of the planet. According to your theory he must want us to stop burning fossil fuels.
Simon, this might make your head explode, but you just summarized the main points of what Prof Jordan Petersen wrote as his “Twelve Rules For Life” book.
(he didn’t mention thermometers per se coming from the divine being, but since anything to with temperatures seems to be a kind of chaplet for the climate catastrophist religion, I understand why you mentioned that)
No time for Petersen (arrogant SOB) so no my head is fine.
The understanding of a toddler.
If you say so…. but I’d argue anyone who thinks just coz it is “there” God must have wanted us to use it, is closer to the toddler.
Humans have made MASSIVE advances from the use of fossil fuels.
Without using them, we remain at third world standard.
The current economic and societal decay in the UK, and EU is because they refuse to use them properly.
The only consequences from using fossil fuels and nuclear correctly is a MASSIVE increase in human prosperity.
There is nothing wrong with the temperature of the planet, tad on the cool side compared to last 10,000 years.. so WTH are you talking about .
Fossil fuels allow us to cope with that cool climate, and with the places where it gets a bit warmer.
Fossil fuels also have nothing to do with causing “the climate”.
Your argument is one big empty hole. !!
Colluuuusion clown appears. You believe in unicorns.
Too many believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient and everything happens according to God’s will, right down to the leaf falling from the tree.
I do not believe that. However, if it is true, then there is nothing we have done to cause the climate changing and nothing we can do to control the weather.
There’s quite an interesting exchange of views following this comment. I would suggest that the phrase “the Lord has the whole world in his hands” simply means that God is responsible for creation and at any time he can bring to an end what he has created. It doesn’t mean that humans have no influence on what has been created.
My belief is there is a power in the universe greater than me. I named that power God.
If this endows the Creator with ultimate powers and wisdom and vision, that is beyond my abilities to confirm.
Would a God micromanage everything right down to the leaf falling from a tree?
Assume for discussion He (or She) could.
Would that not be like stacking a deck of cards prior to every round of solitaire?
After billions of years, it might become boring.
So, in my belief, this Cosmic Manager starts something, then leaves it alone. Turns off the all knowing and allows himself to be surprised. The universe is large, Billions of surprises make billions of years interesting.
So, in my belief, this Cosmic Overlord, peeks in on us occasionally and gives us a nudge where needed. Maybe it is a person (Mohammed?) or maybe it is inspiration (Jeanne d’Arc). Maybe it is just a beautiful sunrise or a rainbow. Or a Mozart.
Obviously such a God grants humans the freedom to foul things up, to hurt or kill, or to achieve greatness.
So yes, humans have an ability to influence our reality.
The question is, at some point in the future will God step in and give us another nudge?
What is the difference between religion and science? Only the approach. Both seek to know/understand the unknown.
The Conversation cannot be DOGED soon enough.
or, “The Monologue” as someone here recently more correctly named that site.
Religion requires a “deity” or set of “deities” for its adherents to worship. What constitutes the “deity” in climate science?
Gaia, the Holy Mother Earth. To sin against her is suffer the wrath of burning skies and boiling seas.
Gaia.
It could also be some form of apotheosis.
I love agapanthus.
(gotta watch out for brown snakes in these gardens though. Brownies love hiding agapanthus gardens)
Buddhism is undeniably a religion, but it doesn’t have a deity. Likewise, the Humanists are a religion, but they don’t believe in a deity.
Here is a list of Buddhist deities – Wikipedia
Atheists and Humanists place themselves in the role of their deity.
TEWS – Those are lesser magical beings, but not God.
There is a distinct difference between the limited gods of some eastern religions like Buddhism or Hinduism and the conception of an all-powerful creator of everything from nothing like the God in Judaism and Christianity.
For example, in Hesiods Theogony, Zeus was born in the third generation of the world after the creation of the world, and he had to fight a war against the Titans to become the supreme god. He is powerful, but not God. The Buddhists substitute the self for God. I wish reality were that simple. Yes, they have magical being they call gods, but their importance is questionable. My uncle was a Humanist. His religion placed humans at the center of everything and had no God at all. Seemed like a pointless religion.
I don’t equate any of the pagan “deities” with the One True God of the Universe as revealed in Judaism and Christianity, I was simply answering an assertion.
Not everybody accepts that Buddhism is a religion – for the very reason you give. But let Humpty Dumpty make a suggestion:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
Wow, simply asking a question got me (so far) 4 DOWN Votes….how tolerant.
Lucky you didn’t say – “Jehova”
Yes, that seems to be a feature of WUWT. I often wonder what makes people have that kind of reaction to a question. A closed mind, perhaps?
It happens. On the bright side you know your post was read.
Well….. The climate religion only has demons.. with CO2 being the Anti-Christ.
After O2 my favorite molecule is CO2 and I’m headed to hell for it!
“Religion requires a “deity” or set of “deities” for its adherents to worship. What constitutes the “deity” in climate science?”
Mann?
Mann explained that his 2024 hurricane prediction was not really wrong because the climate is now so sickly it cannot do what it should.
I thought CO2 is the deity which must be held at max of350ppm or is it the holy cow one can never seek to tell people there religion beliefs?
The holy cow better not flatulate.
Climate models?
IPCC?
Climate “scientists”? Nah, they’re just the high priests/priestesses
Religion does not require a deity or group of deities. Religion only requires faith and worship (aka rituals). Most do have deities, and most of the deities are personifications of elements of nature not well understood.
TIP
VP Vance has indicated the need for more babies in the U.S. Because there is no climate crisis, the Research Officer of Religion and Global Society is wasting her time with those workshops. The warring in eastern Europe has killed many men. She should be encouraging the young ladies of the Russian Federation and European countries to come to the U.S. and raise a pack of snotty nosed kids like my mother and grandmother did.
The readership of WUWT, I sense, is mostly past the childbearing years. Promoting more children in the UsofA should be high priority.
Eastern European women, just as most other European women, for example German, are so emancipated that they do not want to have a child before they are at least 35, and even then often decide that one would suffice. They care about carriers, having fun, living for themselves, but not about building happy families when they are young. If you want a woman interested in being a wife and mother, you need to search for one in more traditional societies.
Fabians founded the London School of Economics. The Fabian stained glass window featured society founder’s following as worshipful acolytes of the society. It is a religion, based on the false idology of communism. Fabians work to infiltrate and subsume establishment institutions. Think of this article as an endorsement of Fabians by Fabians, and it isn’t all that hard to understand.
Fabians also went on to found the Labour party. Blair and Starmer are members.
Lenin has been claimed to support being both sides of the debate — by infiltrating and taking over both parties to a political dispute, either way, communists won.
The lesson to take is that a particular viewpoint or political position appears to be in decline, one must look with skepticism at the winners: at least some of them are probably corrupted, too.
Not sure if your image was inadvertently cropped, there is significantly more to the window:
.jpg)
Of particular note is the motto: “Remold it nearer to the hearts desire” (It referring to the Earth, as pictured as being heated red hot on an anvil ready to be re-forged to their desires). Also of significance it the coat of arms of the Fabians, which is unironically a literal wolf in sheep’s clothing.
In addition the the British Labor Party, they are also the foundation of Labor parties in it’s colonial countries, such as Australia. Orwell’s 1984 is a warning about the theoretical consequences of 100 years of Fabian Socialist (Communist) policies being enacted. 1984 is 100 years after the founding of the Fabian Society.
The image is deliberately cropped to illustrate my point regarding the Society’s acolytes worshipping Fabian principles. Haven’t found the list they are kneeling before in text. Still looking.
To your point – the image of the red-hot earth being broken on a forge – is what I remember whenever I see or hear of anyone talking about global boiling, or the world on fire. To my skeptical mind, such announcements are self-identification as Fabian communists.
Fabians are not builders, but wreckers. Nihilism is the ethic. Starmer is exemplifying this principle, but being on “both sides” might illuminate how the Johnson/Sunak governments showed some Fabian tendencies; understated and underhanded anti-Brexit, or Returnist, principles being just one of them.
Story tip
We prove Gravitational constant G is proportional to R[t], Einstein’s radius in his 4D model of the Universe as the 3D surface of a 4D sphere with radius R[t] meters.
The climate crisis demands new ways of thinking, new ways of perceiving reality,
Or mental gymnastics.
A marriage between climate science & religion(*) could go HORRIBLY wrong or ‘more wrong’ than either is causing the world today as the parent blog notes about the Dark Ages.
However, an ‘attempted’ marriage or ‘nexus’ could be a good thing for finally dismantling the climate hysteria…the primary religions (Catholic and Muslim) bear no truck for other beliefs taking precedence. Now I can’t speak much for Muslim beliefs but the history of the Catholic church in regards to ‘settled science’ has clearly been to subsume the latter in to their religion. That is to say when Newton, Galileo (the most famously recognized example), Einstein and others ‘upended’ the beliefs of the church, while there may have been a brief period of push back, the church ‘subsumed’ the science in to their belief about how great & amazing God is (e.g. look at how amazing God is that he snapped his fingers and just KNEW what would come billions of years later).
Now what Pope would want to subsume the supposed ‘settled science’ of doom & gloom preached by the climate crazies? That is SOOO first Testament & the Catholic church at least is well in to the 2nd Testament and how awesome & forgiving God is, the ‘love thy neighbor as you’d love yourself’ thing. Not ‘call out your neighbor for driving their car on a Sunday’ and ‘burn the witches’ proclamations.
While a Pope may try such a turn about, the common Catholic (I was brought up Catholic) being told ‘God is angry with you for your regular Sunday Bar-b-Que so just stop it. NOW!’ will laugh and go along their merry way. And if the Pope’s proclamations got bad enough it would likely lead to the next great Schism. Potentially ‘fun’ to watch (in a purely intellectual way) but I likely won’t be alive to see it.
(*)To be careful with any religious readers, to clarify I’m an Atheist so find religion ‘unnecessary’ but it’s not without its benefits for people that live their faith but otherwise allow for ‘live & let live’. Unfortunately there’s a WHOLE lot of religions for which the latter isn’t true and its those that I despise with a passion.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve found that believing in Man-Caused Climate Change requires more faith than most other religions.
Ah, the clarity of THAT thought is inspiring.
“Climate Change” is a Hoax, not a religion.
Not exclusive. All religions are made up by people. While early primitive ones evolved organically from superstitions, practically all modern ones are created with a clear plan and sense or purpose by a ruling minority to control majority. So, they are all made up hoaxes.
NO ONE expects the Climate Inquisition!
With all respect to Leo Tolstoy, he was well off with his inheritance and peasants working for him to provide his living. Had he have to work to put food on the table for himself and his family, he would quickly discover many questions that really matter to us, hoi polloi, as well as probably find reasons to appreciate Science that through constant learning helps us to increase productivity of our labor.
If religious people consider climate occurrences to be God’s will, how many are willing to make major lifestyle changes to test their theories? The reraklity is that mos wonj’t because they will argue that what will be , will be and why give up comforts and conveniences to test a theory that’s beyond their control
Story Tip ?
The Climate Agenda really is just one great big green/leftist, money-laundering/corruption SCAM..
We have seen DOGE uncover the scam and money laundering in the USA
Now The European Commission has been found to be funding green NGOs to push the EU climate agenda.
The European Commission Faces Its Biggest Scandal in 20 Years | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
Eric, my take is a little different than yours. This is yet another example of the fact that the CAGW crowd have no proper evidence scientific or otherwise that added CO2 can cause catastrophic global warming. They have nothing to back up their bumper sticker campaign. Turning to the church is a desperate act. It is a response to the fact that finally the average guy is having doubts, the bumper stickers aren’t as effective as they once were. A lot of average people still look to the church for guidance, this is the CAGW clown’s desperate attempt to keep the average guy. I rarely look to the church for spiritual guidance and damn sure would not look to them for climate guidance. My church has become a political cesspool pool, I left them long ago.
“One thing I really like about the US Christians is their tolerance.”
Ok that is funny right there……
How many US Christians have you met Simon? Most people in the USA I’ve met take freedom very seriously, Christian or not.
Oh please. I’ve met a few American Christians and the word tolerance is not a word I would use. In fact intolerant would be closer. But to be fair most people infected by any religion tend to think they have the truth in their hands and that they know best for how others should live their lives.
“But to be fair most people infected by any religion tend to think they have the truth in their hands and that they know best for how others should live their lives.”
You mean your climate religion ??
Says the man who thinks coz God gave us oil we have to burn it. Don’t lecture me on religion choir boy. Your God also gave us typhoid, cancer and haemorrhoids, but I don’t see people queuing up to get those.
That is a fair observation Simon.
Let’s all just make sure we apply it consistently.
I’ve met more than a few.
On the other hand I have met many, many who adhere to the Christian principles and treat others as they would want to be treated.
Anyway getting back on point before I was distracted…. In my experience Evangelical Christians tend to take the bible more literally, which often leads to them being more rigid about issues. Homosexuality being a good example. If you are saying they value freedom, then that is a different issue to tolerance.
The colluuuusion clown believes Joe Biden didn’t have a form of dementia.
Nope never said that. Clearly he does which is why he had to go. You really do take your level of dishonesty from your dictator messiah don’t you.
lol you forgot Nazi.
you are colluuuusion clown indeed.
So you admit you lied. That’s pretty low, even for a fascist supporter.
Keep it polite please everyone
Stay on point, Hitler…geez you are duped