Comparative religion 101: Climate change and Islam

"Allah is God, Mohammed is His prophet and the Koran is the message." That commonly-used apothegm encapsulates the core belief of the Muslim religion. Well how about: "The Earth is God, Al Gore is its prophet and Global Warming is the message." I would say that this adage sums up the core belief of the climate change crowd.The analogy goes further. The adherents of the two aphorisms are animated by a religious fervor that is highlighted by an absolute faith in the truth of their saying's content. The followers in both instances are bent on world domination and conversion of all non-believers to their point of view. Their ultimate goal, in each case, is a totalitarian system in which those at the head of the system will determine all aspects of the lives of their followers. And finally, both systems deem their opponents-infidels in the former, skeptics in the latter-as unworthy, misguided, evil and deserving of no succor, mercy or salvation.

The main difference in the two movements is that the former has shown a deep propensity for violence whereas, thus far, the latter has not. But to those of us who doubt the truth of either, both movements treat us with disdain, condescension and disrespect.

What puzzles me is that no one outside the orb of these vicious, globally-oriented and mind-controlling movements has hit on the following seemingly obvious idea. We need to spark a confrontation between them, a situation in which each of the movements sees the other as their main opponent. If each could be convinced to devote their abundant energy toward attacking the other, perhaps both might deliver a fatal blow. How delicious that would be for the rest of us!


"Allah is God, Mohammed is His prophet and the Koran is the message." That commonly-used apothegm encapsulates the core belief of the Muslim religion. Well how about: "The Earth is God, Al Gore is its prophet and Global Warming is the message." I would say that this adage sums up the core belief of the climate change crowd.

The analogy goes further. The adherents of the two aphorisms are animated by a religious fervor that is highlighted by an absolute faith in the truth of their saying's content. The followers in both instances are bent on world domination and conversion of all non-believers to their point of view. Their ultimate goal, in each case, is a totalitarian system in which those at the head of the system will determine all aspects of the lives of their followers. And finally, both systems deem their opponents-infidels in the former, skeptics in the latter-as unworthy, misguided, evil and deserving of no succor, mercy or salvation.

The main difference in the two movements is that the former has shown a deep propensity for violence whereas, thus far, the latter has not. But to those of us who doubt the truth of either, both movements treat us with disdain, condescension and disrespect.

What puzzles me is that no one outside the orb of these vicious, globally-oriented and mind-controlling movements has hit on the following seemingly obvious idea. We need to spark a confrontation between them, a situation in which each of the movements sees the other as their main opponent. If each could be convinced to devote their abundant energy toward attacking the other, perhaps both might deliver a fatal blow. How delicious that would be for the rest of us!