Climate Change is an Ancient Story

Please Share Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on StumbleUponDigg thisEmail this to someonePrint this page

By Michael Derfler

Those familiar with rabbinic thought about the Tower of Babel know that the threat of climate change is an ancient story. According to one explanation, the leaders of the generation rallied the people around the threat of impending climate disaster. They claimed the Flood that destroyed civilization was a natural phenomenon that occurs in cycles.[1] The way to save society was with a massive building project that somehow would protect them.

However, the same leaders knew that this was not the truth.[2] They knew that the Flood was God’s response to the generation’s moral failure – violent theft was commonplace.[3] Accordingly, the leaders should have taught people the importance of respecting one another, especially those who are different.

Instead, they brought everyone together under one language and one plan of action that focused on something bigger than any individual or group identity – a monumental threat to human existence. They built a new society based on the broadest collective identity possible – we are all human. They gathered the population into a central location. They centralized control and demanded uniformity.[4] (Compare The Federalist Papers 10: “There are two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other by giving every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, the same interests.”)

A healthy society is built on relationships between people who are different. Different locations, languages, and goals foster different perspectives on life. These leaders rebuilt society not on respect for difference, but on uniformity: uniformity of location, language, and purpose. This is symbolized by their choice of building material – bricks. Bricks are all alike; stones are varied. While they succeeded in creating a peaceful society,[5] it was not healthy – the individual was totally devalued.[6]

With full knowledge that their plan was against God’s will, why did they believe this was the best course? Knowing that God wants diversity, why did they create uniformity? The clear answer is they did not believe that diverse people (and peoples) could live in harmony. Their starting point was the assumed moral incompetence of the majority of society.

Humanity’s assumed moral incompetence is also axiomatic for the Left.[7] (A liberal is different from a leftist. In contrast with leftists, liberals are not inclined to discount individual rights or to emplace an unaccountable group of people in power over the majority of people. Liberal does not mean communist, authoritarian, coercive, or anything similar. However, leftists call themselves liberals in order to trick real liberals into joining them.) When leftists use the terms “climate denier,” “Islamaphobe,” and the like, they are saying that people who have a different perspective are immoral and must conform to leftist views. When leftists say that crime, poverty, and war are caused by climate change,[8] they are denying humanity’s ability to live up to its primary responsibility – to act morally.

With this foundation, leftists must devise a roundabout strategy to stop violence. The creation of a global external threat to …read more

Source:: Israpundit

Please Share Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on StumbleUponDigg thisEmail this to someonePrint this page