The United Church of Christ on Monday passed a resolution that calls on clergy to lead educational and legislative efforts to combat climate change, urging its members to be "bold and courageous as we address the greatest moral challenge that the world has ever faced."
First we need to know what morality is. Doctor A presents the first scientific explanation based upon the physics of quantum entanglement. The article can be found in full on the FirstRateCrowd website under economic inequality and Donald Trump. Here is the conclusion:
Re: Brain Structure Drives The Consequent Effects Of Economic Inequality
A NEW THEORY OF QUANTUM ENTANGLED MORALITY—OR—WHY ARE REPUBLICANS MORE IMMORAL THAN DEMOCRATS?
As an overview, we have a very special and deeply intimate relationship with the quantum entanglement all around us that has developed evolutionary as a survival mechanism to deal with the universe. Certain actions such as pain and death can interfere with this relationship; these actions can diminished the relationship or severe it entirely. In fact, the more this relationship is interfered with by other human beings and subsequently diminished, the more these actions are deemed immoral.
So, why are Republicans more immoral than Democrats?
The answer is actually quite simple when viewed from the perspective of the new quantum entangled morality model. It is because the Republican agenda promotes income and economic inequality more so than does the Democrat’s agenda; the outcomes of these Republican inequalities are strongly associated with more pain and death to a greater number of people. Within the new model, these actions are the ones capable of not only diminishing human awareness of quantum entangled relationship, but as in the case of death, actually disconnecting it. Hence, Republicans exhibit a greater degree of immorality.
Not only do Republicans vote more often for legislation increasing income and economic inequality, they actively pursue this as a policy; although they do not use these words to describe their conduct. A case in point is their insistence on repealing the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. They know full well the increase in the number of individuals projected who will suffer in pain and die as a result of not having access to medical care should the repeal be enacted. Worse yet, all of this will be done in the name of a thinly veiled tax breaks for the rich.
Based upon a commentary in the Chicago Tribune on Tuesday Jun 20, 2017, regarding a story in the Washinton Post by David Himmelstein, Steffie Woolhandler on Jan 23, 2017, titled "Repealing Obamacare will kill more than 43,000 people a year ...,"we find the following excerpts helpful at putting the level of pain and death into perspective by the Republican proposed actions.
The story is in the data: The biggest and most definitive study of what happens to death rates when Medicaid coverage is expanded, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that for every 455 people who gained coverage across several states, one life was saved per year. Applying that figure to even a conservative estimate of 20 million losing coverage in the event of an ACA repeal yields an estimate of 43,956 deaths annually. The first problem is that Republicans don't have a clear replacement plan. Kessler, for instance, chides Sanders for assuming that repeal would leave many millions uninsured, because Kessler presumes that the Republicans would replace the ACA with reforms that preserve coverage. But while repeal seems highly likely (indeed, it's already underway using a legislative vehicle that requires only 50 Senate votes), replacement (which would require 60 votes) is much less certain. Moreover, even if a Republican replacement plan comes together, it's likely to take a big backward step from the gains made by the ACA, covering fewer people with much skimpier plans. No one knows with any certainty what the Republicans will do, or how many will die as a result. But Sanders' suggestion that 36,000 would die is certainly well within the ballpark of scientific consensus on the likely impact of repeal of the ACA, and the notion of certain replacement — and the hope that a GOP replacement would be a serviceable remedy — are each far from certain, and looking worse every day.
Democrats on the other hand actively promote their party’s supports for reducing economic and income inequality. That is to say, they cause less pain and death; this is a more moral agenda.
To say the Republicans have "lost their moral compass" is now more appropriate than ever. Like birds using an internal compass to migrate based upon the entangled relationship between electron spins in their eyes with the earth’s magnetic field, we humans have also developed evolutionary means by which we stay connected to the universe. This quantum entangled connectedness is the basis of what is moral or immoral for all humanity. The Republicans, through the elevated levels of pain and death brought on by their legislative agendas of inequality, have clearly lost sight of this internal process; or perhaps this moral mechanism was never fully developed in their brain structure to begin with. In either case, theirs is a broken compass as they continue drift, lost in a sea of immorality.
Even though not religious myself, to your post, a big "Amen". As it is said, let it be done. If the dems say they care about people, lets see all of them stand behind single payer--once and for all. If not, they are signing the very death warrant to their own party. No time to wait for stragglers.
We were warned about greed and serving mammon. The truth shall set you free but denying the reality of climate change is keeping us chained to a destructive fossil fuel economy that is rapidly destroying the inherent bounty of God's good green Earth for future generations.
To put it in religious terms and personifying evil, one could say that Satan laughs with glee at the sheer greed that destroys us. If there really were a personification of evil that many call the devil etc guess which side he would be on in the climate change debate?
Poisoning the water through fracking, poisoning the air with fossil fuels carbon and pollutants, horrendous spills like the Exxon Valdez and the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the cruelty of land spills in Nigeria and in South America and the suffering they cause to the indigenous, the mercury in our lakes and streams from burning coal, mountaintop removal and the dumping of rock tailings into rivers and streams... if there were a Satan you know he would be enjoying our destroying ourselves and poisoning the planet out of sheer greed!
I believe in God and our own free will but I personally do not hold to the idea of an evil force in conflict with the good. I believe in our free will and that it is up to us to choose to do good or to do evil. Sometimes it is not so clear cut a separation of moralities.
Try common sense then. Which is more logical? Which benefits humanity and not just a few wealthy people? Which generates millions of new jobs, cleans the environment and spurs on innovation and opportunities for millions of people?
Pick a side in this moral battle. Some choose science and some choose greed.
My guess is that God is on the side of science! It is about time that churches and religious groups pick the side of truth in the fight over climate change!
Serve God or mammon! Guess which side is the mammon side when it comes to fossil fuels?
A number of groups developed after the death of Jesus, but Ebionism was probably the one that most accurately continued the religion of Jesus. Prior to Constantine becoming emperor even more groups developed, but Constantine "latched onto" a group that would serve his imperialistic interests, and we then had Christianity--a cesspool of a religion, to use mild language. Protestantism conduced the development of capitalism, and since about 1930 corporations in the U.S. have played a major role in shaping Christianity--making it even MORE of a cesspool. The current clergy effort to fight climate change will fail, and our species will soon be no more, probably no later than 2040..
I don't know much about the Prince of Peace. But I know he hated the Moneychangers.
I'm on his side.