Democrats/Vatican Make Their Merger Official

Congressional Democrats refuse to listen to Dr. Roy Spencer, because he is a Christian.

Instead, they invited the Pope to come speak about climate science.

ScreenHunter_95 Apr. 13 14.12

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to Democrats/Vatican Make Their Merger Official

  1. David, UK says:

    I suspect it is because he is sceptical of the alarmist position, not because he is a Christian.

    • David A says:

      actually before congress he was directly questioned *with an implied negative connotation) about his faith.

      • David, UK says:

        Yes, and again, probably because he is sceptical of the Alarmist position, not simply because he is a Christian. After all, Christianity on the Alarmist side (i.e. the pope et al) isn’t questioned at all.

  2. Jason Calley says:

    My wife was helping a local indigent man fill out some official paperwork. She came to a question that asked for his religion. “Should I just put in “Christian”?” she asked. He responded, “Christian?! Hell, no! I ain’t a Christian! I’m a BAPTIST!”

    Yes, that really happened…

  3. well, maybe the pope they invited had the same background and education…?:p

  4. gator69 says:

    Maybe a better investment of the Pope’s time, would be a day spent with Dr Spencer, or 15 minutes with Bjorn Lomborg…

  5. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    I asked my bank manager to tell me how a fuel injection system worked.

  6. Chip Bennett says:

    Congresscritters invited the *Pope* to speak? To congresscritters? Why aren’t the usual suspects caterwauling about “separation of church and state”?

    Oh, right: because the *Pope* and climate fraudsters share a common root with the congresscritters: socialism.

    • Snowleopard says:

      That, and also the pope’s bankers have bought most of the congresscritters.

      FWIW: They tried to raise me catholic, but I stopped drinking the kool aid in fourth grade.

  7. norilsk says:

    Just like Galileo.

    • Louis Hooffstetter says:

      Yep. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
      Dr. Roy Spencer and Galileo are now in the same boat.

      Dr. Roy should wear this as a badge of honor.

      • Disillusioned says:

        Let us not forget Copernicus, a century before Galileo, also in that boat.

        • Robert B says:

          Not even close. Read up.

        • Disillusioned says:

          Robert, why would you say they’re so dissimilar?

          Galileo went to Rome and demonstrated that Copernicus was correct about the theory Copernicus had come to a century earlier without a telescope. Galileo had made his own telescope and discovered moons on planets, and he confirmed Copernicus’ theory that the earth revolves around the sun.

          Both bucked the Ptolemaic geo-centric Church dogma of their day. Both were forbade by the Church to teach their theories. Like Copernicus a century earlier, Galileo was forced by the Church to publicly deny his beliefs that the earth revolved around the sun. Both died paupers and heretics. The Church finally accepted the theory that the earth revolves around the sun only after Galileo’s death. They were different men in different eras, but they came to the same conclusion – that Ptolemy was wrong.

        • Elaine Supkis says:

          Don’t forget Bruno who was before all of these guys and he was burned at the stake.

  8. Dave says:

    I noticed on the New York Times comment section some readers are capitalizing the word “Green”. I guess Green has taken the place of God in the environmentalist religion.

  9. omanuel says:

    It might have been a three-way merger, but Stalin died before the other two fell in love.

  10. They’d welcome the leaders of ISIS if they spoke of climate alarmism.

    • Dave says:

      That could be a good angle for ISIS. What they really want is for us to turn away from technology and fossil fuels. Of course like American Greens (such as Leonardo Di Caprio) they temporarily use technology because the ends justify the means.

  11. Robertv says:

    The Pope and Obama have the same past , community organizer.

  12. scizzorbill says:

    Ya mean the Pope isn’t a Christian? As noted above, Spencer isn’t an alarmist while the Pope has embraced the DemGreenAlarmistClimategeddon scam. This makes him politically correct.

  13. gator69 says:

    More proof that the Pope is indeed fallible.

  14. sean2829 says:

    One big difference between the pope and Dr. Spencer, the pope does exorcisms. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/11533635/Pope-Francis-effect-leads-to-exorcism-boom.html

    • gator69 says:

      How interesting! The Pope and Gatherin Schidt have something else in common. Watch as Dr Schidt exorcises Dr Spencer from Stossel’s set…

      https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gavin+schmidt+john+stossel

        • slimething says:

          Awesome video gator

        • gallopingcamel says:

          Roy Spencer is a rather tame debater so why are people like Gatherin Schidt so terrified of him?

          Come to think of it why is Gatherin the only one to even show up at the TV studio? That is not a hard question when you look at TV interviews of Hockey Team immortals such as Kevin Trenberth who come across as arrogant and clueless. They can’t handle debates with real scientists like Richard Lindzen or Murray Salby. Trenberth “Lawyered Up” just like Michael Mann, Kieth Briffa, Thomas Stocker and many others. That is probably the smartest thing he will ever do.

        • Snowleopard says:

          Good video. One point made cannot be emphasized enough. Making energy expensive correlates to making human life and labor cheap (ie. serfs and slaves).

          If one measures by taxes, the average western worker is paying more percentage in taxes than the average medieval serf, but currently has more freedom, mobility, and choice of occupation. If current trends continue, expensive energy and massive unemployment will mean many people trading freedom, mobility and choice for whatever employment they can find, if they don’t freeze to death first.

  15. KTM says:

    I hope he goes off script to talk about the horrors of abortion, and that homosexual marriage threatens families. I’d love to see some Democrat ranking member try to censor him, cut him off, or get in an angry argument with the Pope after they invited him.

  16. darrylb says:

    Steve ——–Ditto

    On a related subject my man Marco Rubio just announced his candidacy.
    I wanted him as prez and Ben Carson as VP.
    They might not be strong yet in foreign affairs, but they are bright enough to figure it out, and do the best of things.
    Anything is better than what we have. Obama and M. Mann are like two peas in a pod. They are so much more concerned about themselves than they are about the USA.

    • gator69 says:

      I just hope those who are against the Progressive movement do not choose to self immolate like the last election. We may not agree on which is the best candidate, but I hope we are smart enough to agree which is the worst. Obama could have been defeated.

      • gallopingcamel says:

        gator69,
        You need to get over that. Obama won twice proving that the American people get what they deserve.

        At least Jimmy Carter can wake up every morning knowing he is no longer the worst president since WWII.

        Now tell me how the clueless GOP establishment can field a candidate who can defeat Hillary. These are the people who gave us Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney.

        President Hillary does not scare me as I will be emigrating to Estapona (Spain) in 2017.

        • gator69 says:

          Hello my good friend! I was actually logging off when I saw your comment, and could not end my day without a heartfelt response. I am an American, and I did not get what I “deserve”. I hope this is the only time we ever disagree, it is certainly the first.

          I have worked my ass off my entire life, with a real job starting at the age of ten. I have risked life and limb, I have suffered under some of the worst supervision imaginable, and worked hard to become educated on all that is important in life. I have boxes full of commendations from every job I ever worked. Until Obama was elected, I did get what I “deserved”, ups and downs and life in general, which I was taught from an early age is “not fair’.

          But that all changed about two years ago, when Obama’s thugs destroyed my career through the Dodd-Frank Act. My nearest neighbor also did not get what he “deserved”, when that same act took away his home, for which he and his wife had worked their entire lives.

          I went back to school, and sold my talents in a totally new industry knowing the old world had been sold down the river by self immolating idiots, who through their stubborness made Obama’s reelection possible. Perfect candidates do not exist, but evil candidates do exist, and because some folks could not swallow their pride and admit their candidiate lost the primary, we got the evil 0ne, again.

          Let’s learn from our mistakes, and stop repeating them, else we are no different than the mentally ill Progressives who keep repeating failures, and yet believe they are geniuses.

          My saving grace is that while Bush was still in office, I read the writing on the wall and became debt free. My house is mine, my land is mine, and my freedoms are mine. Until they, God forbid, come and haul me away.

          I shouted from the rooftops, I converted many, and built bridges to those who thought we had no connections. But I am one man, and could not stop the tsunami of sore losers who handed our highest office back to America’s worst enemy.

          Did the German and Polish Jews get what they desrved under Hitler? I think not, and I think it is time that liberty loving Americans stop repeating the same mistakes that have historically led to sertvitude, and worse.

          We have to be smarter than the enemy, and then Americans like me will get what they “deserve”.

          I certainly wish you all the best wherever life leads you, but do not forget that there are many Americans who did everything they could to make this world a better place, and yet were still grievously wounded by “friendly fire”

          United we stand. Period.

          Please stay in touch, I value your voice in this insane world.

          All the best my galloping friend.

  17. John Smith says:

    Interesting and successful PR campaign by the Vatican
    using the environment and soft social issues to deflect criticism from the left
    liberals now praise the Church though actual doctrine has not changed
    now the left’s ire is directed at those awful right wing protestants
    so easy to distract liberals
    a ball of string might work too

  18. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    C’mon folks, the Pope is just respecting the Enviros for reviving the old “Selling Indulgences Scam” the Catholic Church invented centuries ago. What we’re Get Out of Purgatory Early Indulgnces is now just Selling Carbon Credits.

    Just one Grifter respected my another.

  19. I. Lou Minotti says:

    Jesus miraculously turned green at Rio + 20. It was a miracle! Papa is soon to beatified even before he takes a dirt nap!

    http://www.thepiratescove.us/2012/06/22/good-grief-in-rio-statue-of-jesus-bathed-in-green-light/

    • gator69 says:

      But Jones said, Suffering for little children, and forbid them food, hasten them unto dust: for of such is the kingdom of Gaia.
      -Mannspew 20:15

  20. I. Lou Minotti says:

    Does Il Papa read Real Science? He might learn something. In addition, his mitred illustriousness might want to read the following (or anything, for that matter) from Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. Of course it’s a ministry/website that does an excellent job of proving that science and the Bible are compatible, so he probably wouldn’t be interested.

    http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor/

  21. mat says:

    Honestly Tony,

    Have you though of losing the Steven G. crap, and taking up the handle “Martin Luther”?

    I mean you do question doctrine, and have been excommunicated because of it, have you not?

    The parallels are uncanny..

  22. Tab Numlock says:

    All of the mainline churches are Marxist now. Even the Baptists.

    • Tab Numlock says:

      In a way, they’ve come full circle. The early Christians were the Bolsheviks of their day, mainly Jewish arsonists intent on overthrowing Rome. They succeeded and a 1,000 year Dark Age ensued. If Alexander hadn’t built Greek cities all over the Middle East, Western Civ would have been snuffed out.

      • gator69 says:

        Did Christianity cause the Dark Ages?

        I refer to what Wikipedia describes as the “European Middle Ages (5th to 15th centuries AD). In my limited knowledge of history, I mark this period from the fall of Julian Augustus (363) to the beginning of the Italian Renaissance (1331) when scholars “scoured the libraries of Europe in search of works by such Latin authors as Cicero, Livy and Seneca” (Wikipedia). Julian failed at his attempt to restore Hellenistic culture, so maybe this marks the final victory of Christianity. While the Renaissance possibly marks the beginning of the end of a Christian “monopoly” on thought.

        Did Christianity usher in the dark ages? The term ‘dark ages’ has not been defined by the questioner but it commonly refers to the cultural and economic deterioration that occurred in Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. There are normally two aspects to what might be termed the ‘Christianity guilt thesis’; firstly that Christianity was a significant contributing factor to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire and secondly that the new religion was hostile to classical learning and did not foster and preserve enough of it as the empire collapsed.

        The first theory has an illustrious pedigree as it was promoted by Edward Gibbon in chapter 39 of his Magnus Opus ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’. Gibbon speculated that ‘the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire’. His view was that Christianity broke the ideological unity of the Empire and hindered the state’s ability to win support. Financial and human resources were diverted from vital material ends and discontent was fostered, thus undermining imperial legitimacy.

        As a broad general theory Gibbon’s view has very little going for it. In the first instance, any explanation which is proffered for the fall of the Roman Empire has to contend with the fact that the eastern half of the Roman Empire remained relatively strong and stable while the western half collapsed. The Eastern half was even more Christian than the Western half and yet, not only did it not collapse, it continued as the Byzantine Empire into the 15th century.

        Does Gibbon’s theory work at a lower level to show Christianity was a contributing factor? Here too it suffers from a lack of evidence. While Christianity ushered in something akin to a cultural revolution following the conversion of Constantine it is hard to see that this had a seriously deleterious effect on the empire. Christian religious institutions did require large financial resources; however these were replacing pagan religious institutions with large endowments (which were progressively confiscated). Therefore the rise of Christian organisations appears to have largely involved a religious to religious transfer of assets rather than a diversion from secular coffers.

        Similarly the manpower lost to the cloister appears to have been minimal – maybe something in the region of a few thousand individuals – hardly a massive dent to the Empire’s manpower. A handful of the aristocracy gave up their wealth and power for a life of Christian devotion – a figure which is insignificant compared to the numbers that chose to serve in the imperial bureaucracy.

        Did Christianity undermine the ideological unity of the Empire? No; in fact religion and the empire acted to foster unity with the Christian God cast as inspiring Roman Imperialism with a mission to conquer, convert and civilise the world. Emperors were seen as hand-picked by God, thus imbibing them with sacred status. Rejection of the Empire was only a fringe position among Christian thinkers.

        Did the Christian squabbling over doctrine undermine the Empire? Again there is little evidence for this. Certainly histories of the time are dominated by theological disputes, thereby giving an impression of religious frenzy and discord. This is because the sources for this period are largely Church histories. It would be like relying on the memoirs of Fred Phleps for a history of the early 21st century United States. In fact secular minded historians like Ammianus Marcellinus barely mention doctrinal disputes. Large scale rioting occurred on a few occasions but by and large conflict was confined to the bishops.

        To sum up Christianisation appears to have been effectively subsumed into the structures of the Empire and many historians argue that it acted as a stabilising influence. Gibbon’s theory has thereby been turned on its head.

        What about the second theory? Did the rise of Christianity cause a malaise in intellectual culture and usher in a scientific dark age.

        There was undeniably a decline in scientific knowledge in the Western Roman Empire as it and collapsed but the roots of this are deep and can be traced to the pagan Romans. After 200 BC there was a fruitful cultural contact between Greeks and the bilingual Roman upper classes. This introduced a version of the classical tradition into the Roman Empire but it was a thin popularised version which was translated into Latin. Bilingualism and the conditions which favoured scholarship then declined rapidly after AD180 as the empire entered the 3rd century crisis. The chaos of the 3rd century AD caused disruption to educational infrastructure and the division of the empire into two caused knowledge of Greek to decline in the west . Roman citizens who were gradually becoming Christian were therefore limited to pieces of the classical tradition which had been explained and summarised by Latin authors.

        Intellectual culture then declined dramatically in the west due to the collapse of central control in the west under the barbarian onslaught, the decline of literacy and loss of Greek, the reduction of trade, sharp falls in population density and the sheer amount of destruction. Western Empire was overrun by illiterate Germanic and Northern barbarians from the fourth to the eleventh century utterly destroying the Imperial infrastructure. Meanwhile the richer, more complete version of the classical tradition fell into the hands of the Muslims as they rapidly expanded across Asia and the Mediterranean. It was then translated into Arabic, further developed and moved across North Africa to Spain. As soon as Western Europe had recovered sufficiently its intellectuals travelled to Spain to translate the materials and bring them into medieval culture.

        But was there an anti-intellectual streak in early Christian culture which made it a haven of anti-scientific sentiment? Here the most commonly quoted example is Tertullian, who famously said ‘What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?’ in fiery opposition to the classical tradition. Ultimately however, this counter-cultural point of view was a minority position which lost out to those like Justin Martyr who sought common ground between classical philosophy and Christianity, and (more importantly) Augustine of Hippo. Augustine – while being ambivalent toward Greek learning – applied it vigorously to scripture in his writings and came up with the vastly influential ‘handmaiden formula’ whereby natural philosophy could be put to use in the interpretation of the bible (Of course we now all think that – in principle – science should be studied for its own sake, but this would have been alien to the classical world in which it was always subordinated to ethics and the wider philosophical enterprise). The handmaiden formula was employed throughout the Middle Ages to justify the investigation of nature.

        Ultimately the second theory fails because Christianity is the most important framework within which late-antique culture survived. Far from intellectual dullards, Christians appear to have been very interested in Greek philosophy, science and medicine which they preserved through a laborious process of hand-copying. These include the works of Euclid, Ptolemy, Plato, Aristotle, Galen, Simplicius and many more, including a staggering 15,000 pages of Greek commentary on Aristotle dating from the 2nd to 6th centuries AD. The medical works of Galen makes up a full fifth of the entire surviving classical Greek corpus – some two million words all copied out by hand and preserved over the centuries.

        Of course some might argue that the Christians should have preserved more works of ancient ‘scientists’- for example the lost works of Neokles of Kroton (who argued that toads has two livers – one poisonous and one healthful – and that the moon was inhabited by the Nemean Lion). To address this I have devised a ‘Dark Ages Boot Camp’ where the critics will be forced to don a monk’s habit and hand-copy Bill Bryson’s ‘A short History of nearly everything’ onto papyrus while extras dressed as barbarians smash up their stuff.

        To conclude then, the two Christianity guilt theories suffer from a lack of evidence. They persist purely due to their illustrious pedigree and the fact that people insist on making the past fit into a modern framework.

        http://www.quora.com/Did-Christianity-cause-the-Dark-Ages

        • gallopingcamel says:

          The Romans had great engineers and a powerful military yet the western empire was destroyed by barbarians. It is a stretch to blame Christians.

          Maybe there is a lesson here for the USA.

        • Snowleopard says:

          Constantine circa 300 CE melded/molded a growing dissident religion with the existing pagan sects into a unified state religion. I’m no fan of the result, but it seems this unification slowed, rather than accelerated the empire’s decline.

        • David A says:

          I do not disagree with the above arguments However it can be supported that the unification of the Church to the Political head of Rome was not healthy for the Church.

        • gator69 says:

          Agreed. And our founders felt the same way. Although it is a myth that there is a sepapration of church and state in our Constituion. Our founders said that the church shall not sponsor or mandate any religion, but they were indeed religious. Our first congress started their sessions with prayer, and every freshman was given a copy of the Bible, which was also the first book printed on the congressional printing press. The founders believed that without an understanding of Judeo-Christian values, one could not understand the framework of our Constitution.

          Every American should read the Federalist Papers. Our founders argued over every aspect of the Constitution, and the reasoning behind each clause can be found in them. They argued that only a moral society would be capable of working under the framework of what they had constructed. And so many myths about our founders and the Constitution can be put to rest if one only takes the time (and it does take time) to understand its authors and origins.

          Politicization of religion is always corrosive to the core of that religion. It is one of the main resaons I am not a member of any church. I grew up as a military brat, and my parents picked our church based upon the message of the pastor, and not the denomination. The rest of my family still attend weekly services and are very involved in church activities, sitting on boards and helping to make financial as well as congregational decisions. All of them complain about the politics within their churches.

          My mothers main church issue was a pastor who had been an engineer before ‘hearing the call’, and did not seem to understand that their small town congregation simply could not afford to support his lifestyle.

          For my brother, their problems started when they reached out to a poor black church who had lost their building due to poor stewardship of their money. My brother’s church was fairly well heeled, and they invited the black congregation to not only use their building, but become partners, and things went down quickly. At board meetings the blacks want to spend money only on their priorities, and all contracts for maintenance went only to black owned businesses, without any regard for competitive bidding or cost.

          Religion is supposed to be a personal relationship and not a political entity or social event. I have always been independent minded (to a fault sometimes) and I just cannot be part of any noisy hives.

        • Tab Numlock says:

          Most disturbing was an illiterate named Charlemagne who killed everyone in Europe who would not convert. Heaven help you if you lingered too long under a shade tree.

        • gator69 says:

          Christ taught his followers to love humanity, regardless of their ideology. Mohammad taught convert or die.

          Charlemagne was waging war against Germanic tribesmen that had repeatedly attacked the Frankish territories, raiding from their wild pagan lands. If he did indeed kill simply because they refused to convert, then he was not following Christ’s teachings, and was not a Christian.

          How many self proclaimed ‘climate expetrts’ do we see daily, who are not?

          Your confusion is a common mistake of those who are not properly educated on religion.

          Now go and sin no more.

        • gator69 says:

          And as a side note on illiterate Charlemagne…

          Charlemagne was illiterate for much of his life. He hired learned men to read out loud to him at dinner, dispensing with the usual medieval floorshow of jester, bard, and musicians. He studied three of the classic seven liberal arts: grammar, rhetoric, and mathematics. He learned to speak Latin and some Greek in addition to his native Frankish. By all accounts, Charlemagne’s efforts to learn to write were less successful. (According to his secretary and biographer, he practiced writing while in bed and hid his wax tablets under his pillows.)

          Though he never quite got the hang of reading and writing himself, Charlemagne was an enthusiastic promoter of literacy in others. Under his patronage, the court at Aachen took the first steps out of the Dark Ages into the Middle Ages, a little flutter of learning known as the Carolingian Renaissance. He gathered a group of the Anglo-Saxon and Irish clergy who had kept the flame of literacy alive in Europe after the fall of Rome. He reformed the palace school at Aachen and founded monastery schools throughout the empire with the intention of creating a literate clergy. He sponsored the creation of a new uniform script for copying texts, the development of textbooks for teaching Latin to non-Latin speakers, and thee collection of Latin manuscripts.

          http://www.historyinthemargins.com/2011/08/23/charlemagne-the-education-emperor/

  23. Climatism says:

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    In Australia, the Catholic church is condemned by the left (progressives). The curse of choice – pedophilia and more recently, any belief system opposed to Islam. St. James’ church in Brighton, Melbourne was recently torched in protest. The left rejoiced.
    However, all is forgiven when the Pope declares his faith upon the church of global warming.

    Progressives are confused. They struggle with their own individuality. Misanthropy drives their existence, thus mob mentality, groupthink and earth worship become far safer places.

    “When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.” Chesterton

  24. Eliza says:

    Well Rubio is in. I hope to @@@@@ that the Republicans DO NOT allow Romney even close to contemplating making a bid. He doesn’t stand a chance in hell. Rubio will EASILY win the 2016 election if allowed to and AGW will be oficilally terminated

    • gator69 says:

      Eliza, you must have missed my earlier post regarding eating our own. First let me put your mind at ease, Romney is not running.

      Now, it is this sort of infighting that lost the last election. Romney could have won, but instead of those who were against Obama collectively kicking his ass out of office, we had petty members of our side who endlessly attacked the nominee, and then later sat out, thus handing Obama another four years.

      As much as some folks on our ‘side’ did not like Romney, he was by far a better choice than the liar in chief who is doing his best to destroy our nation. If you argue otherwise you are a fool.

      There are issues with Rubio, and he is not my first or second pick. But if he is the nominee, I will gladly vote for him and keep my mouth shut til after the election, rather than see another communist in the White House. Our nation is on the brink, if not already gone, and those who allow America haters to take the Oval Office because of petty dislikes, are as much or more to blame for our current mess than the Progressives themselves.

      Support your guy. Wear his t-shirts, display his bumper stckers, parrot his talking points and rah rah rah! But enough self immolation, we cannot afford it while fighting the Borg.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s