The Religion of "Global Warming"

For those who do not understand the blind loyalty of people who follow Al Gore and his "Global Warming' crusade, you must understand that to them it is nothing short of a religious belief. That's right, "Global Warming" is a religion who's god is "Mother Earth". To really explain what it is I mean, I need to first define the term religion. Then I can show you how "Global Warming" fills all the needed requirements of a religion. To begin with, not all religions refer to God or gods, they do not all base their systems upon morals or some belief in an afterlife. Also, not all religious followers can properly explain exactly what it is they believe. The groups, practices and systems that we identify as religions are so diverse that it is no easy task to bring them all under one simple definition. Of course, this difficulty has not stopped people from attempting to define religion. The definitions are quite wide-ranging, with some religions emphasizing a personal indwelling kind of relationship, while others emphasize the social, more outward type of awareness of their personal being as it relates to their surroundings. Then there are those who emphasize their beliefs as handed down through the generations and others the structures preserved from past generations. We see religions based upon their functions whether they be private or public. Some dwell upon the mundane and others the transcendent, then we have religions that focus their concentration upon the truths as defined by their leaders or writings, and finally I would also add that there are those who focus upon illusions that can be mustered up through meditation or drugs. In many cases, a person's definition of religion is actually a definition of his or her own religion. As you can see there are many facets of religion that, if a person is not already grounded firmly in their belief, they could easily be lured into a different faith then they grew up with. However, the one common theme among all types of religion is faith. You must ultimately have faith that what you believe is true, even though you cannot ultimately prove it, and faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. For the most part humans are hot wired with a religious component to our souls, even agnostics and atheists have faith in what they believe. Another way to explain this would be to say we have all been created with an addiction gene. Until we find the one true God, our Creator and Father, we will go from one addiction to another never feeling as fulfilled or satisfied as we would like to. Like other false religions, those who follow the religion of “Global Warming” put their faith in the idea that something exists that they can not ultimately prove exists. When you look at the lack of provable evidence for “Global Warming” and see that this lack of proof does not blunt the faith of those following it, you will come to the conclusion that it is a religion. "Global Warming" cannot be proved, but those who follow it don't care to even consider the overwhelming evidence that proves it does not exist. I don't care what's in the 'Union of Concerned Scientists” report, they haven't gone through the proper steps to prove their belief. There is not an hypothesis they can prove. Therefore, there is no proving "Global Warming" in a scientific way. Global Warming believers must rely upon faith, just as Christians rely on faith that there is a heaven. Now, like many religions, “Global Warming” has its basic principles. One of those principles is that there is a sin component involved. Like its close relative the “Environmental Wacko” religion, it follows many of the same rules against sinning, because they worship the same god, “Mother earth”. Thou shall recycle. Thou shall not allow second hand smoke. Thou shall not cut down redwood trees, develop mosquito infested wetlands, or engage in any number of activities in ones daily life that would be "sinful". Corect behavior must be followed religiously. “Global Warming” sins include using fossil fuels, driving SUV's, burning wood , using too many electric appliances, drilling for oil, those are just a few of the sins that can be committed against “Mother Earth” in the “Global Warming” religion. Like Christianity “Global Warming” relies feverishly on one thing to keep everybody in line, and that is the apocalypse, the last days, the day when hellfire and damnation will fall upon all of us who have sinned. For those who put their faith in Christianity, they believe there will one day be an apocalyptic final end to everything. The "Global Warming” followers also have their belief in an end times. To them the apocalypse is the destruction of the world due to the use of fossil fuels that will ultimately destroy the planet through extreme warming. We are told by their prophet of doom, Al Gore, that the world is doomed and that we have only a certain amount of years left. A cursory look at the many stories we are fed about our ultimate demise, due to “Global Warming”, will help prove this is a religion based upon faith and not facts. If it were based upon scientifically proven theories, there would not be 20 different stories in 25 different days over what's happening with "Global Warming", and how long it's going to take to wipe us out. All this makes "Global Warming" a religion who's length and breadth of influence is as great as any major religion on this planet. Just look what they do to anyone who dares to tell the truth or even demand a debate about the facts. Now, unlike the theologians of Christianity, Al Gore refuses to debate anyone who disagrees with him. This refusal puts the religion of “Global Warming” in the same category as cults like that of Jim Jones, who's "Peoples Temple" religion demanded unquestionable faith and demanded that all his followers drink the kool-aid with out question.

Clarification of my error in "Obama's UnGodly Youth Corp"

To everyone who might have a problem with the statement in my article, that all religious activity is barred under this legislation


I'll begin by admitting my error the way I worded my claim. I offer no excuse accept to say I should have used the phrase, "Could be interpreted by a court that non volunteer religious related activities are banned".

In my preparation for writing the article, I looked at the probable intent of the law, which is meant to limit the volunteer services to completely secular endeavors - in keeping with the authors understanding of the constitutional requirement for religious neutrality. Remember Courts are constantly ruling upon "original Intent" when they interpret a law.

I also should have pointed out the original language before it was changed to give the reader an understanding of the authors original intent, which was to exclude all religious activity regardless of when it was done. In court, a judge will look at original intent of the legislation like Justice Black claimed he did in his landmark case. In this case the original intent was to ban all religious activity regardless of when it took place. The original text of 125 contained the phrase, "A participant in", which was dropped from the later text.

Now, in looking to original intent, Justice Black claimed that while it was not written in the constitution, Thomas Jefferson's letter proves what the intent originally was. That is how we got the "Separation of Church and State" clause we are bound by. Remember also that Thomas Jefferson was not present when the Constitution was written so he would not be a good candidate to get any intent from. The activist courts have gone out of their way to find any reason to claim the intent of a law is what they want it to be.

These activist judges have shown time and time again that they will use non Constitutional literature to base their opinions on such intent, as Black did. We only have to look at the current members of the Supreme Court who admit they look to foreign laws to base their opinions upon. Where in the constitution does it say we should look to foreign laws to interpret what the founding Fathers wrote in the constitution?

Another problem with the Bill is it is against the EEOC rules to limit religious freedom in the workplace. Courts have upheld the rights for free religious expression even in the workplace as long as they do not interfere with anyone's ability to properly carry out their task. Here is what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), say on religious freedom at the workplace.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964
(“Title VII”)
prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer. This means that:

* Employers may not treat employees more or less favorably because of their religion.
* Employees cannot be required to participate -- or refrain from participating – in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
* Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
* Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees.
* Employers may not retaliate against employees for asserting rights under Title VII.3

Now, we know that liberals often claim that proselytizing at work is not allowed. However, while the law is constantly changing with every new court challenge, it is currently permissible to a point. An employee does have a right to engage in religious conduct to the extent that it is not an undue hardship on the employer. Harassing another employee is likely to be an undue hardship. Recall, however, that harassment is a fairly high - but not impossible - standard. So, while the line between permissible proselytizing and workplace harassment is blurry, important factors that bear on the analysis include,

* the pervasiveness of the proselytizing
* its impact on coworkers (e.g., harassing them) and work performance (including profitability)and
* the capacity and willingness of the employer to take steps to accommodate the aggrieved parties, such as by moving the proselytizing employee and the offended employee to different work stations.

The Supreme Court, and lower courts have routinely upheld the language of the EEOC regulations on Freedom of religion in the workplace. The language in the legislation that Obama signed into law is not only unconstitutional, but it goes against the very laws put forth by the EEOC.

What this Bill represents is the over-reaching of an administration that wants to get it all done in the first 3 months, so we end up with an 86 page, shoddily written document that leaves way too much open for interpretation. It is my belief that this legislation is unconstitutional in the way it is written, and will face a court challenge in the future. If history is any indicator we can expect different judges to rule differently.

Another thing to take into consideration, is that Obama only needs one extra judge on the Supreme Court to tip the balance of the court in his favor. So like I said I did error in my assertion about the extent of this Bill's control, but it is already unconstitutional the way it is written, and only one bad ruling away from being what I warned about.

Remember to think about what my "original intent" was, and you can find that by reading the second paragraph of this comment. Again I apologize for my error in the wording of my statement.

Obama's Ungodly Youth Corp

What is it about socialists, that makes them despise religion? It seems that whenever a Socialists wins an election that gives them the ultimate power in a country, the first thing they try to do is remove religion as a force in that society. Oh it's not done in a way that the people realize it is happening. No, it's more covert and insidious in the way it is brought about. Usually it's done right under the noses of the very people who claim their ruler would never do such a thing. In America, religious persecution by the government has been brewing for a few generations.


The shot over the bow of religion was fired by Hugo Black, a former Ku Klux Klan member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR. In 1947 when Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion for Everson vs. Board of Education., he reinterpreted the meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution by taking completely out of context a phrase used by President Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. By using the phrase “separation of church and state,” in his opinion, Justice Black limited the religious liberty of all Americans. Now after 62 years of constant government attack, Obama and Congress are about to take their godless agenda forward by disallowing college students the right to worship as they please.


Americans have been told that this is just a simple expansion of the national service programs. However, if the he truth is to be told, Obama plans to build a million youth movement, who's members will be denied their right to religious freedom. Sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy a Democrat from NY, the Bill, HR 1388, was passed by the House of Representatives where both Republicans and Democrats voted 321-105 in favor. The Bill moved to the Senate where it passed by a vote of 79 to 19 with one present vote, and on April 21st Obama signed it into law.


The “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act” known or GIVE, is also known as the, “The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national service laws." This Bill will for all intents and purpose combine JFK's Peace Corps and WJC's AmeriCorps with Obamas new “Youth Brigades”. The idea is to create a volunteer movement among the junior high, high school, and College aged youth of America. This movement will be a precursor of his larger plan for a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the U.S. military. Obama’s plan begins with his requirement that anyone receiving school loans or who volunteer to serve at least three months as part of the brigade.


This all sounds fairley innocuous until you read the part of the bill that forbids any student in the program to participate in religious activities. The exact wording from section 132A of HR 1388 is as follows. ”Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization. “ In layman's terms that means, All members of the Corp are not allowed to no attend church services of any kind and never are they to witness about their faith to others.


My biggest frustration in seeing this the law come about, is how the Republicans did not even attempted to stop or change this religiously poisonous Bill. So with a stroke of his pen, Obama has told God to leave our children alone. Hitler did a similar thing when he told the church to worry about God and that he would take care of the people. Now we could argue about whether Obama is a communist or if he is a fascist, personally I do not see too much difference between the two philosophy's. Eventually both destroy the will of men, because politically, both ideologies strive for an omnipotent, totalitarian, bureaucratic state. They also attempt to replace God with the state by contending that that man exists for the State. Economically, communism abolishes private property, while fascism maintains it, but nationalizes the most important industries and the principal banks. (sound familiar?) When it come to religion, communism attempts to destroy all forms of religion. Fascism on the other hand could care less about most religions, but will ands must destroy Christianity, because it is the only religion who's devout followers have proved through the years they will not reject their God.


That has been the greatest obstacle for those who have constantly tried to move America from capitalism to socialism. The fathers of this great nation based the constitution upon the values derived from Christianity. They started a tradition where they began all official government business with prayers to a Christian God. The children were raised to know and believe in the Christian God. For many years, the Bible was the only reading material in most of the schools of early America. Eventually, thanks to Hugo Black, the Bible, Christian literature, prayer and even the name of Christ have been banned from the schools our children attend. Now, our children will be told they cannot even go to church as long as they are taking government money to go to school, or if they volunteer for Obama's “Youth Brigade”.

Ephesus; The Loveless Church

The first church Christ mentions to John in the book of Revelations is Ephesus, which means darling. With over 300,000 people, Ephesus was the largest city and the Capital of the Asian Province. Founded by Paul around 50 AD it was also the location of the third ecumenical council in 431 AD. With an important seaport it boasted of being the home of the Greek goddess Diana, known to the Romans as Artemis the moon goddess, and to the Asiatic as the nursing mother of gods, men, animals, and plants. The Temple of Artemis was one of the seven ancient wonders of the world whose goddess was commercialized as a trinket god supplying great wealth to the local silversmiths. Paul’s preaching interfered with the commerce of this idol and aroused violent opposition from the merchants (Acts 19:23-25).


At the time when Paul founded this church hardly anyone there knew of the true Gods temple. Now, two thousand years later, no one knows of Artemis. This ancient wonder was burnt and rebuilt and finally destroyed, and the world is better for that destruction. Meanwhile the true temple is majestically nearing completion with new members being added to the Lambs Book of life every day. Christ recognized the Ephesians tireless perseverance in bearing up under trial for His name’s sake, and how they opposed false apostles like the heretical Nicolaitians; (Rev 2:2-3; Rev 2:5). However, he reproved them for having left their first love, (Rev 2:4) and admonished them to remember where they had fallen from, (Rev 2:5). They are warned to repent and return to their first works or else He will come and remove the candlestick out of its place, (Rev 2:5). As a reward to all those who overcome and persevere, the fruit from the tree of life is offered. Those who allegorize the churches to represent the different ages match Ephesus with the early church age roughly from 33 AD to 70 AD, marking the fall of Jerusalem.

Politics and Religion

Most people would agree that politics and religion are the two most likely topics that divide even the best of friends. Websters dictionary says that politics is the political opinions or sympathies of a person, while it says that religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. I don’t see the difference between the two.

When I watch elected officials on the floor of the US Senate or House, I am reminded of an old friend of mine who pastors a church in Columbus, Georgia. He will flail his arms all around as he preaches his views on the Holy Scriptures. If your in agreement with their opinion, you could easily get engrossed as you listen to them share their deep-seated and fervent beliefs in such an animated way. Continue reading

Politics and Religion

Most people would agree that politics and religion are the two most likely topics that could divide even the best of friends. Webster’s dictionary says that politics is the political opinions or sympathies of a person, while it says that religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. I don't see the difference between
the two. When I watch Al Gore espousing his views on politics, I am reminded of an old friend of mine who pastors a church in Columbus Georgia. He used to flail his arms all around as he preached his views on the Holy criptures. One could get lost listening to either of these two men share their deep- seated, fervent beliefs in such an animated way.
During the last election we all watched with anticipation as our chosen candidate addressed the issues. Like a congregation sitting in the pews of a church, the crowds longed to hear something that would touch that part of their soul that yearned for truth. These yearnings differ from crowd to crowd depending upon the candidate on the stage. In a similar way every church crowd is a bit different in the things they want to hear. An interesting dichotomy about the makeup of these crowds is the way their loyalties can change once the discussion goes from religion to politics or from politics to religion. Nothing will put a damper on a good conversation quicker than bringing up one of these topics in the wrong venue.

I remember the day I attended a rally supporting the troops shortly after the Americans entered Baghdad. I was standing next to a rather large fellow who held up his sign and waved his flag with pride. We had a grand old time talking about our common political views. Then I asked him what church he went to and soon we found ourselves disagreeing on almost every facet of religion. We did not talk much after that although we were cordial to each other. Then there was the time I had a long discussion with a gentleman at my church who agreed with me on almost every topic raised onthe Scriptures. However, the moment our conversation moved to politics all similarity between our thinking changed. We could not find common ground on anything political. To this day the guy will nod my way when he sees me but we never again have had such a long conversation.

Experiences like these and others have led us to make up little unspoken rules of etiquette. The number one rule is usually no politics and no religion at parties and gatherings. Actually, that is the only rule that matters. So when we get in political groups we are told no talking religion, and when we get around religious groups we are told no talking politics. For most people that seems to work just fine, and so everyone in their groups are happy and content. At least that's what they think. Inevitably there are always going to be the few who refuse to conform to the rules. They find it difficult to separate their faith in God from their political beliefs, just as the founding Fathers of this country could not. It was in large part their religious beliefs that led them to fight for freedom from King George.

To tell a person to leave their religious beliefs at the door with the hat rack is not only an insult to their intelligence but also an affront to their freedom of expression. I for one always have, and always will, base my political opinion on what I believe religiously. Like the founding Fathers I cannot separate the two. Even if I never mention religion in an article I write, my religious belief will always factor into my opinion pieces. I believe people are deceiving themselves if they think they can remove their religious beliefs from their opinions on politics. For those of who say they have no religious beliefs, I would advise them to step back and look at the things which are important to them. They will find that where their heart is so to is their faith, and it is that faith that ultimately guides their beliefs.

Finally, if anyone should take umbrage with my using the name of God or Christ to drive home a point in political discussions, I say take it up with the founding Fathers. They used God's name in the Preamble of the Constitution, and throughout the Federalist Papers. You will find no greater political document that states a faith in God than the Constitution of the United States of America. If the Constitution can be both a political document and a document of faith in God, then how pray tell, could I do any less than to take God into consideration when I make a political point?

Politics and Religion

by OneVike

Most people people would agree that politics and religion are the two most likely topics that could divide even the best of friends. Webster’s dictionary says that politics is the political opinions or sympathies of a person, while it says that religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.  Personally, accept for what is being expounded upon, I see absolutely no difference between the two.  Many would even consider ones political belief to be a religious belief.  

After all, have you ever watched the way Al Gore espouses his views on politics or global warming?  Now, as a rule I do not like watching Al Gore speak, but when I do see him speaking, I am reminded of an old friend of mine who pastors a church in Columbus Georgia.  Whenever Brother Larry expounds upon the Scriptures and shares his opinion of their meaning, he will flail his arms all around in gestures that are sometimes comical.  Depending upon your political or religious preference, you could easily get lost listening to either of these two men share their deep-seated, fervent beliefs in such an animated way.

Well, during the last election we all watched with anticipation as our chosen candidate addressed the issues. Like a congregation sitting in the pews of a church, the crowds longed to hear something that would touch that part of their soul that yearned for truth. These yearnings differ from crowd to crowd depending upon the candidate on the stage. In a similar way every church crowd is a bit different in the things they want to hear. An interesting dichotomy about the makeup of these crowds is the way their loyalties can change once the discussion goes from religion to politics or from politics to religion. Nothing will put a damper on a good conversation quicker than bringing up one of these topics in the wrong venue.

I remember the day I attended a rally supporting the troops shortly after the Americans entered Baghdad. I was standing next to a rather large fellow who held up his sign and waved his flag with pride. We had a grand old time talking about our common political views. Then I asked him what church he went to and soon we found ourselves disagreeing on almost every facet of religion. We did not talk much after that although we were cordial to each other. Then there was the time I had a long discussion with a gentleman at my church who agreed with me on almost every topic raised onthe Scriptures. However, the moment our conversation moved to politics all similarity between our thinking changed. We could not find common ground on anything political. To this day the guy will nod my way when he sees me but we never again have had such a long conversation.

Experiences like these and others have led us to make up little unspoken rules of etiquette. The number one rule is usually no politics and no religion at parties and gatherings. Actually, that is the only rule that matters. So when we get in political groups we are told no talking religion, and when we get around religious groups we are told no talking politics. For most people that seems to work just fine, and so everyone in their groups are happy and content. At least that's what they think. Inevitably there are always going to be the few who refuse to conform to the rules. They find it difficult to separate their faith in God from their political beliefs, just as the founding Fathers of this country could not. It was in large part their religious beliefs that led them to fight for freedom from King George.

To tell a person to leave their religious beliefs at the door with the hat rack is not only an insult to their intelligence but also an affront to their freedom of expression. I for one always have, and always will, base my political opinion on what I believe religiously. Like the founding Fathers I cannot separate the two. Even if I never mention religion in an article I write, my religious belief will always factor into my opinion pieces. I believe people are deceiving themselves if they think they can remove their religious beliefs from their opinions on politics. For those of who say they have no religious beliefs, I would advise them to step back and look at the things which are important to them. They will find that where their heart is so to is their faith, and it is that faith that ultimately guides their beliefs.

Finally, if anyone should take umbrage with my using the name of God or Christ to drive home a point in political discussions, I say take it up with the founding Fathers. They used God's name in the Preamble of the Constitution, and throughout the Federalist Papers. You will find no greater political document that states a faith in God than the Constitution of the United States of America. If the Constitution can be both a political document and a document of faith in God, then how pray tell, could I do any less than to take God into consideration when I make a political point?

Delusions of Evolution

It is with out a doubt that a majority of Americans believe “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1. Unfortunately, most who believe these words cannot answer the questions raised by the thousands of fossils that archeologist's have dug up and claim are millions of years old. We are told that such methods as Radiocarbon tests to find the levels of Carbon-14 remaining in fossils, U-Pb dating of volcanic materials to determine how long ago lava cooled, helioseismic dating to get a helium diffusion age in the field of astrophysics, and many more scientific fields and the methods they use can baffle the minds of even the most educated believers of God. Depending on what poll you read, this vast amount of technology has convinced 30% to 40% of believers that God must have used evolution in His creative process.

However, what if I told you that many scientists, archaeologists, biochemists, physicists, micro biologists, and astronomers disagree with most of the findings and conclusions by today's evolutionist experts? Some of these men even go so far as to challenge the very idea that the universe is billions of years old. It is important to remember that the age of the universe is directly related to the science used to convince people of the age of planet earth.


Other then a few probes and the space station we cannot physically investigate anything but earth and maybe some small samples from the moon and what asteroids have hit the earth. All the evidence we have for the age of the universe is tied directly to their theory of the earth's age. So if the earth is proven to be young, then the evidence for an old universe crumbles. Then along with the age of the universe crumbling, so does the possibility of evolution. Now that is where these many learned men come in to the picture. These scientists have presented so much evidence that points to intelligent design, that they have put into question the very methods used by evolutionists.


Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalezand his collaborators have created the concept of the Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ). The GHZ defines the region of the Milky Way Galaxy that is most habitable to complex life. His concept involves a number of situations that must exist for life to occur. When taken into account we see that we are not only unique but special in our planets ability to sustain life and to discover what is in the universe. Gonzalez's investigation has proven that Carl Sagan was wrong when he said there are millions of other earths full of life like ours.


What Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys, has done is taken those who base their theories of age on helioseismic testing to task. After repeatedly ran experiments that measure how rapidly nuclear-decay-generated helium escapes from tiny radioactive crystals in granite-like rock. The data shows that most of the helium generated by nuclear decay would have escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian2 age of the rock, and there would be very little helium in the crystals today. But the crystals still retain large amounts of helium, amounts these experiments show are entirely consistent with an age of only thousands of years.

Then we have biochemist Michael Behe, author of “Darwin's Black Box” who points out that molecular machines, such as the bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex. Like a mouse trap that can not function without all the parts available to work at the same time, so to do the machines at the molecular level of cells. This irreducible complexity discounts minute changes that needs to be done for evolution to work.


Add to them such scientists as nuclear physicist Robert Gentry, geophysicist John R. Baumgardner, and many other highly educated scientists and professors from a vast array of fields that have evidence the earth is either not millions of years old or that evolution is a bad theory at best? All these men have another thing in common besides their work that proves a God created us and everything we see. They have all at one time or another been persecuted and attacked for there stance by secular academia and the media.

Now it is very understandable that they would get heated debates about there findings, but to be targeted and threatened with the loss of their very livelihood, reminds one of what the church did to Galileo for daring to say the earth revolves around the sun. Like the many scientists and experts who come out against the idea that global warming is caused by man, these men should be hailed as heroes. If, for no other reason then they dare to question the modern day evolutionists I call, “The Flat Earthers”.