Saturday, June 20, 2015







Pope's Environmental Encyclical 

Calls for World Government

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Pope Francis has finally released his long anticipated encyclical on the environment to both worldwide acclaim and condemnation. Environmentalists praise it as a death knell for fossil fuels and the herald of a new age of green ethics. Climate realists call it an emotional screed — an unfortunate and unprecedented public relations boost for irrational global warming alarmism and politicized, atheistic UN climate policies. Joseph Kurtz, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told The Guardian that the encyclical sums up "our marching orders for advocacy," while Republican presidential contenders Jeb Bush and Rick Santorum, both Catholic, have come out strongly against the pope on climate change.
Despite its appeal to save Mother Earth with drastic lifestyle changes in industrialized nations, the encyclical Laudato Si, on the "Care for Our Common Home," holds few surprises. After all, the Italian news outlet L'Espresso published a leaked copy in Italian on June 16, two days before the planned official release. An incensed Vatican asked major media to postpone commentary, emphasizing that the unauthorized version was just a draft. But the preemption made significant headlines, and it turns out there were no significant differences.
The encylical is an inflated version of the joint statement issued in April after the Vatican's conference on climate change. (The latter weighed in at fewer than 5,000 words, while the Pope needed more than 40,000 to say his piece. The documents also differ in their judgments on population control. Whereas the UN-inspired joint statement called for "reaching a level and sustainable population," the encyclical admits that "demographic growth is fully compatible" with prosperity.)
Otherwise, the two documents ignore all scientific evidence to the contrary and present identical arguments: Humans are destroying the earth, and radical environmentalism is a moral imperative. However, while the joint statement bears the seal of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the encyclical comes from the pen of the pope himself and therefore holds even more sway among media and policy makers. It also issues an even stronger call for "ecological conversion." Francis's litany of "sins" against the environment include "excessive anthropocentrism" at the expense of nature, deforestation and wetland destruction for the purpose of agricultural cultivation, and human-caused global warming from greedy fossil fuel consumption. Ironically, increased use of air-conditioning is particularly corrupt (see paragraph 55). Wealthy nations, says Francis, owe a "social debt" to the poor and impoverished people of the world, a debt which can be paid by increased funding and "better distribution of wealth."
But will they pay? So far, the pope complains, weak political leaders have proven themselves incapable of mobilizing public opinion or influencing industrial economies. This propagandized caricature of Earth-on-the-brink, plundered by greedy capitalists, leads up to the encyclical's biggest anticlimax — an appeal for world government. Admittedly, that seems an unconventional stance for the pope. But Vatican spokesmen have repeatedly confirmed Francis's desire to influence UN climate talks scheduled to begin this November. The encyclical has already won high praise from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
It is small wonder, considering the pope's vapid assertion: "The establishment of a legal framework which can set clear boundaries and ensure the protection of ecosystems has become indispensable." Francis claims that "it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions." Lest anyone believe that his envisioned world government would be solely concerned with the environment, Francis quotes his predecessor, Benedict XVI:
To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority.
Is it possible that these popes are proposing a world government with total control of currency, the food supply, military forces, private property and immigration, along with a court system to uphold its decrees? This plan disturbingly parallels the UN's Sustainable Development Goals enumerated in its Agenda 21 program, formulated at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The John Birch Society describes Agenda 21 as a plan "for the global control and restriction over your daily life, including your private property, individual rights, and civil liberties — all in the apparent name of the environment and so-called social justice."
Indeed, world government as the only alternative to eco-catastrophe is an ongoing theme of the UN's environmental programs. "Throughout the last two years, in preparation for the encyclical rollout, the Vatican has relied solely upon global warming alarmists in its rush to judgment to meet the UN 2015 Sustainable Development Goals' timetable," said Elizabeth Yore, child's rights attorney for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. She maintains that alarmists "exploit discredited climate change science to justify their extremist population reduction policies." Yore traveled to Rome in April as part of a Heartland Institute delegation to educate the pope about real climate science.
Also with the delegation was E. Calvin Beisner, spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. "Sad to say, despite Pope Francis's best intentions, the policies he recommends to mitigate global warming would make it far more difficult to overcome poverty," warns Beisner. "Pope Francis should champion economic development as a solution both to poverty and to environmental degradation."
Not that environmental degradation is quite as bad as the encyclical claims. Not by a long shot. Of the "numerous hypothetical disastrous consequences of climate change," notes Richard Keen, "none of these projected catastrophic consequences are anywhere to be found on the real Earth." Keen is meterology professor emeritus of the University of Colorado-Boulder. Also speaking for The Heartland Institute, he observed that there has been "no warming whatsoever" during the past 18 years and that measures to mitigate supposed global warming "would be flawed policies that will fail to solve a non-existent problem."
Related articles:




Former Christianity Today Editor Praises 

Tony Campolo’s Call for 

‘Full Acceptance’ of Homosexuals

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

TONY CAMPOLO AND FORMER CHRISTIANITY TODAY EDITOR COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF HOMOSEXUAL CHRISTIANITY(Friday Church News Notes, June 26, 2015,, 866-295-4143) - More “evangelicals” recently came out in support of the heresy of homosexual Christianity. Influential teacher and author Tony Campolo issued a news release saying, “I am finally ready to call for the full acceptance of Christian gay couples into the Church.” Though this has been framed by many as a major change of stance, Campolo has long been wishy-washy on the issue of homosexuality, and like the good emerging church leader he is, he is adept at the miracle of facing two ways. For many years he has stated that homosexuality is a birth condition and not a “volitional” matter. When I interviewed Campolo in 2008 at the New Baptist Covenant Celebration in Atlanta, he was wearing a rainbow scarf in support of homosexual rights. Campolo’s wife, Peggy, is a national leader of the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists (AWAB), which urges Baptist congregations to receive homosexuals into full membership privileges. At the New Baptist Covenant Celebration, I interviewed an AWAB council member named Kathy Stayton who said that she rejects the first three chapters of Genesis as literal history, does not believe that marriage is a divinely-ordained institution or that homosexual acts, even outside of “committed relationships,” are sinful. The AWAB booth distributed an article by Peggy Campolo entitled “Some Answers to the Most Common Questions about God’s GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered] Children” from the Summer 2000 edition of The InSpiriter. Agreeing with Campolo’s recent statement was David Neff, retired editor of Christianity Today, who said on Facebook, “God bless Tony Campolo. He is acting in good faith and is, I think, on the right track.” Neff told Christianity Today: “I think the ethically responsible thing for gay and lesbian Christians to do is to form lasting, covenanted partnerships. I also believe that the church should help them in those partnerships in the same way the church should fortify traditional marriages” (“Does Campolo Announcement Signal Move,”Christian Newswire, Jun. 12. 2015). (The current senior editor of Christianity Today, Mark Galli, quickly reaffirmed the magazine’s official stance against same-sex “marriage,” though in typical New Evangelical fashion, Galli also stated that they won’t condemn or distance themselves from those who differ.) Neff’s position is impossible to reconcile with two clear teachings of Scripture. First, any sexual relationship outside of holy matrimony is sinful and under God’s judgment (Heb. 13:4). Second, holy matrimony is restricted to a covenant between one man and one woman (Gen. 2:18-24). This was affirmed by the Lord Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6. “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). The issue of homosexuality is revealing the apostasy of a large number of “evangelicals.” 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

PHILADELPHIA — A former editor of a prominent Christian publication is praising Tony Campolo after he announced this week that he has decided to endorse and speak out for the inclusion of open homosexuals in the Body of Christ—a move that is generating concern among Christians nationwide.
“God bless Tony Campolo,” wrote retired Christianity Today editor David Neff on Facebook this week. “He is acting in good faith and is, I think, on the right track.”
As previously reported, Campolo, who serves as one of the leaders at Mount Carmel Baptist Church in West Philadelphia—a part of the National Baptist Convention USA and American Baptist Churches USA—made the announcement on Monday.
“It has taken countless hours of prayer, study, conversation and emotional turmoil to bring me to the place where I am finally ready to call for the full acceptance of Christian gay couples into the Church,” he wrote in a statement posted to his website.
Campolo’s wife, Peggy, is a homosexual activist and believes that the Church should be accepting of same-sex “marriage.” He explained that his wife is one of the reasons why he has decided to endorse acceptance of homosexuals in Christianity.
“One reason I am changing my position on this issue is that, through Peggy, I have come to know so many gay Christian couples whose relationships work in much the same way as our own,” he said. “Our friendships with these couples have helped me understand how important it is for the exclusion and disapproval of their unions by the Christian community to end. We in the Church should actively support such families.”
After Neff applauded Campolo for his statement, Christianity Today reached out to him to obtain further clarification.
“I think the ethically responsible thing for gay and lesbian Christians to do is to form lasting, covenanted partnerships,” Neff replied in an email to Mark Galli, the current editor and former Presbyterian minister. “I also believe that the Church should help them in those partnerships in the same way the Church should fortify traditional marriages.”
Galli said that he is disappointed in Neff’s words.
“At CT, we’re saddened that David has come to this conclusion,” he wrote in an editorial on Tuesday. “Saddened because we firmly believe that the Bible teaches that God intends the most intimate of covenant relationships to be enjoyed exclusively by a man and a woman.”
Mark Tooley, the president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, also commented on Neff in The Stream.
“Neff in recent years has inclined leftward, especially in his former role on the executive board of the National Association of Evangelicals,” he wrote, stating that Neff has backed “ostensible ‘compromise’ abortion language from Democrats to ease passage of Obamacare” and endorsed “Jim Wallis’s ‘Circle of Protection’ around federal entitlement programs,” among other items.
Tooley noted that the former Christianity Today editor, however, did sign a statement in support of biblical marriage in 2009.
“Neff’s and Campolo’s full embrace of same-sex behavior indicates that theological and ethical orthodoxy may become increasingly difficult and rare for religionists on the political Left,” he said. “As they quit the historic consensus on the Christian teaching now under most assault, they likely will be joined by a growing cadre of post-Evangelicals who prefer cultural accommodation to traditional Evangelical counter cultural witness.”