# The Pope blames atheists for global warming.



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

> The Pope blames atheists for global warming. Pope Benedict is claiming atheists are responsible for the destruction of the environment. The Pope made the claims in a recent speech given at the Vatican. The claim is a puzzling attack on atheism that frankly makes little sense.
> Excerpt from the Pope's speech:
> “Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where his existence is denied? If the human creature's relationship with the Creator weakens, matter is reduced to egoistic possession, man becomes the ‘final authority,’ and the objective of existence is reduced to a feverish race to possess the most possible.”


Pope blames atheists for global warming



> For those of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the earth is, for all intents and purposes, disposable, nothing but a waiting room for eternity. As such the waiting room can be plundered in any fashion. .....
> 
> *The fact that the Pope would bear false witness should surprise no one.*


----------



## Whiskey (Dec 18, 2006)

If we eliminate all those who believe in a god (hypothetical of course), we could end global warming . . . . for sure.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

At least he is creative, blaming something other than "carbon" or farting cows in the pampas, or some other nonsense, especially since we have experienced a pronounced cooling this summer, with sub-par temperatures and a chill in the breeze today...


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> At least he is creative, blaming something other than "carbon" or farting cows in the pampas, or some other nonsense, especially since we have experienced a pronounced cooling this summer, with sub-par temperatures and a chill in the breeze today...


Come on Evan, one summer can't reject decades of data compilation looking back centuries that prove otherwise.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Adrian. said:


> Come on Evan, one summer can't reject decades of data compilation looking back centuries that prove otherwise.


All well and good but we're talking about the pope here so "data" doesn't enter the equation. You'd think that after the condom fiasco the dismal old degenerate (edit: the pope, not EP) would just learn to keep his mouth shut.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

The more you consider this statement, the stranger it seems. The most ardent environmentalists are usually part of the same group that eschews religion, while the typical (stereotypical?) industro-pillage the earth-capitalist usually demonstrates no small degree of piety. This strain most visibly surfaced with Carnegie and Rockefeller, in which American -style protestantism was equated with the pursuit of money, at the very least it put you in God's good graces, which invariably meant a complete disregard for the earth. Or to put this in the simpler, media propagated form: Republican=anti-environment=religious wacko.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

That's rich... coming from the leader of a religion that teaches people to "be fruitful and multiply" and that earth was created for humans to use. Religions that teach that that there is an eternal afterlife are promulgating dangerous nonsense that reduced people's motivation to solve the real problems of the real world. Religions that teach that humans are some how a special creation are the most dangerous of this lot.

If more people understood that we live in a universe that cares not one whit for our continued existence, and that our extinction wouldn't make an iota of difference, they might take more of a personal interest in saving themselves, and, by necessity, the planet upon which we all depend. Fantasies about an omniscient omnipotent benevolent sky-daddy that is looking out for us are not just foolish, they're downright dangerous.

Cheers


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

bryanc said:


> If more people understood that we live in a universe that cares not one whit for our continued existence, and that our extinction wouldn't make an iota of difference, they might take more of a personal interest in saving themselves, and, by necessity, the planet upon which we all depend.


Very well put. Too bad most people just don't get that the human species is utterly insignificant in the context of the universe or of this planet.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

"For those of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the earth is, for all intents and purposes, disposable, nothing but a waiting room for eternity. As such the waiting room can be plundered in any fashion. ....."

That is the furthest thing from Christian teachings on how Christians should view the world and the bibles teachings on it. The idea of being a good stuart of what is given to you comes to mind. I have never, ever, heard a sermon or any preacher speak how we can just use and use, I have heard just the opposite on how we should treat the earth we live on.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

wonderings said:


> That is the furthest thing from Christian teachings on how Christians should view the world and the bibles teachings on it. The idea of being a good stuart of what is given to you comes to mind. I have never, ever, heard a sermon or any preacher speak how we can just use and use, I have heard just the opposite on how we should treat the earth we live on.


There is a huge noise warp between what is spoken from the pulpit on a Sunday morning and what reaches the ears and guides the hands of the congregation from Monday to Saturday.

M


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

I think global warming is from all the hot air out of the Vatican lately, the Catholic Church has bigger problems to deal with then worrying itself about global warming.

Laterz


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

bryanc said:


> That's rich... coming from the leader of a religion that teaches people to "be fruitful and multiply" and that earth was created for humans to use. Religions that teach that that there is an eternal afterlife are promulgating dangerous nonsense that reduced people's motivation to solve the real problems of the real world. Religions that teach that humans are some how a special creation are the most dangerous of this lot.
> 
> If more people understood that we live in a universe that cares not one whit for our continued existence, and that our extinction wouldn't make an iota of difference, they might take more of a personal interest in saving themselves, and, by necessity, the planet upon which we all depend. Fantasies about an omniscient omnipotent benevolent sky-daddy that is looking out for us are not just foolish, they're downright dangerous.
> 
> Cheers


So good and "spot on" I just had to repeat it! :clap::clap::clap:


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Is this even a legitimate statement by the Pope - or is it another one of those faux news items, like when Micro$lop alledgedly purchased the Vatican?


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

EvanPitts said:


> At least he is creative, blaming something other than "carbon" or farting cows in the pampas, or some other nonsense, especially since we have experienced a pronounced cooling this summer, with sub-par temperatures and a chill in the breeze today...


Wow, science and logic isn't your strong point is it?


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

I thought I read in the bible that the earth was man's to use as he pleased, rule over all beasties and use as a crash pad whenever he needed?

Damn book is so hard to interpret.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> I thought I read in the bible that the earth was man's to use as he pleased, rule over all beasties and use as a crash pad whenever he needed?
> 
> Damn book is so hard to interpret.


With the caveat that one was not supposed to covet everything, rob other people, and a host of other sins. Of course, we are supposed to honour and respect the Sabbath by closing the stores one day a week - so it looks like we are pretty much breaking every rule and regulation that the Bible has...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

hayesk said:


> Wow, science and logic isn't your strong point is it?


My point is that the whole "global warming" thing is entirely bogus. There is no "carbon" floating around is giant chunks, and the current up trend is simply within regular bounds. We have taken on a mantra that is simply dumb, since there is not even one shred of real proof that links anything to "global warming", outside of it being part of a natural cycle. Our observations are biased, in that we have a fixation on the temperatures that have been recorded in the past century and a half and think that is "normal" - even though real evidence entirely demonstrates that we have had a much warmer world in the past.

It's a faux problem that is used to distract us from the very real problem of pollution - which no one is even bothering with. It's all about coming up with some hokum like "Carbon" so we can set up fake commodities and trading in "carbon credits" - with is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme that distracts anythin pro-active when it comes to eliminating waste and pollution.

The pope blaming atheists is about as reasonable and scientific as all of the rest of the supposed causes of "global warming".


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> At least he is creative, blaming something other than "carbon" or farting cows in the pampas, or some other nonsense, especially since we have experienced a pronounced cooling this summer, with sub-par temperatures and a chill in the breeze today...


Except its not really global warming that scientists are freaking out about. While the Earth on average is warming, some parts are getting colder some parts are getting warmer, it is the idea of significant global climate change, where you would see the climate changing quickly and dramatically, turning farmlands into deserts, increasing globabl natural disasters etc... 

Its not about the temperature, but the change in climate, and people often point, it was cold today, so there isn't global warming. That is probably the reason why the environmentalist have changed the argument to climate change.

I am not arguing the merits, or the facts of global warming, climate change or any of such. Unfortunately, we are not technically advanced enough to know for sure of a cause and effect of our action, or whether we cause anything at all. The flip side to that is, why are we polluting our own habitats so much?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> If more people understood that we live in a universe that cares not one whit for our continued existence, and that our extinction wouldn't make an iota of difference, they might take more of a personal interest in saving themselves, and, by necessity, the planet upon which we all depend.
> Cheers


Agree with the first half except "and, by necessity, the planet upon which we all depend." The planet doesn't need saving. The planet will do just fine even if we are here and continue our polluting ways. It has endured much worse than us and would shake off our effects like a mild case of the flu. But George Carlin says it best:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

ertman said:


> Except its not really global warming that scientists are freaking out about. While the Earth on average is warming, some parts are getting colder some parts are getting warmer, it is the idea of significant global climate change, where you would see the climate changing quickly and dramatically, turning farmlands into deserts, increasing globabl natural disasters etc...


But it is nothing new at all. Iraq used to be packed with lush farmland and agricultural riches. It was where agriculture was invented. Now look at it, a dusty old hole that would be entirely ignored if it wasn't for oil. Same with Israel, that only three thousand years ago was the land of milk and honey. Now it is the land of drip irrigation and withered olive trees with some goats mixed in. In Roman times, Libya was the breadbasket of the empire, with miles and miles of grain fields stretching to the horizon.

However, there have been epochs where the world was much warmer, with dinosaurs and forests on Ellesmere Island, vast peat bogs on Antarctica, etc. It's just the way it is, and there is nothing that our puny little thoughts or triffling technology can handle. If one thinks our technology is somehow "advanced", then why does much of the world still not have clean and safe water - something that is the most basic need of life?



> That is probably the reason why the environmentalist have changed the argument to climate change.


Environmentalists were duped by Big Oil and Big Industry - because the main problem the world faces is pollution, not some minor fluctuation in temperature. The world could go up 25 degrees on average, and still we would have civilization and life - just in different places and perhaps different players. On the other hand, the world can not sustain life or civilization if it becomes polluted with deadly toxins, and if fresh water becomes a rarity. The world can not sustain life or civilization is the air remains toxic, and if acid rains from the skies, denuding vegetation, and having the forces of erosion wipe all of the soil from the lands.

Clinging onto the apocalypse of Global Warming is simply leading to one colossal failure of effort. What we need to do is get back on track, and stop worrying about the thermometer. We need to have clean water, and to respect lakes, rivers and wet lands. We need to have clean air. We need to stop waste, and to curb excessive consumerism and luxury, especially when it is obtained at great costs to people and the environment. We need to find sustainable ways of life, of implementing smarter schemes to provide power. It doesn't mean that everyone has to have giant windmills - we need to use the technologies we already have in order to do more with less waste. The piles of garbage and oceans filled with toxins will be the reasons our civilization is eliminated in the end - not some minor blip in the climate, especially when that blip is no where outside of the regular limits that history provides to us.



> Unfortunately, we are not technically advanced enough to know for sure of a cause and effect of our action, or whether we cause anything at all. The flip side to that is, why are we polluting our own habitats so much?


I think we are advanced enough to know, because anyone knows that if you poison a well, you can not drink the water. Whether humans are affecting the climate is nonsense because we can not do anything about it. We can't simply shut down the sun, nor can we air condition the Pacific Ocean.

However, we are entirely advanced enough to engage in those things that would entirely curb pollution. We know how to build sewage treatment plants. We know how to install scrubbers in industry. We know how to recycle and reuse. We know how to save energy and how to insulate buildings.

What we don't know is how to eliminate waste. We don't know how to get extra years out of a computer, because it is all about adding new, trivial features... The US alone throws away 100 million cell phones per year - entirely riddled with toxins and waste, all because Big Industry scores fat profits from selling junk, and because consumers can't get a handle on what they will waste money on . I can't even imagine how big a like of 100 million cell phones is - but it must be big. Stuff like that is a far larger problem than all of the Carbon that Al Gore goes on about.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

screature said:


> Agree with the first half except "and, by necessity, the planet upon which we all depend." The planet doesn't need saving. The planet will do just fine even if we are here and continue our polluting ways. It has endured much worse than us and would shake off our effects like a mild case of the flu. But George Carlin says it best:


Funny. I also find it even more humorous that people read into Mr. Carlin's humor way too much instead of taking it how it should be taken: as _comedy_. This planet will be eliminated by the human race long before it "heals itself." (If I had to guess.) Natural disasters, as George Carlin puts it, is a part of nature, and not even remotely comparable to the damage the human race does, which, obviously, is _not_ nature by any stretch of the imagination. The only way this planet is "healing itself" is if the entire human race is wiped entirely clean off the surface. As long as we're here, polluting and wreaking havoc, this planet isn't getting any better any time soon, if ever.

Making an argument based on, or in help with, a comedy strip. Classy.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Lars said:


> This planet will be eliminated by the human race long before it "heals itself." (If I had to guess.) Natural disasters, as George Carlin puts it, is a part of nature, and not even remotely comparable to the damage the human race does


Actually, I have to agree with George on this one. When I say we need to look after the planet upon which we all depend, it's not because I think human activity is realistically going to cause the extinction of life on earth, but because human activity can alter the ecosystem, and even the climate sufficiently that it will no longer support human beings (or, at the very least, not in the number and lifestyles we're currently living).

Compared to ice ages, meteors, tectonic activity, etc. human impacts on earth are minimal. But, from our own selfish point of view (i.e. from the perspective that we want to keep breathing, eating, drinking and reproducing), we've got to change the way we manage our resources. Controlling carbon output is part of that... (and for EvanPitts, it's not about carbon as in chunks of graphite or diamond, it's about carbon as in methane, carbon dioxide, organochlorines, and other carbon compounds)... Where Evan has it right is in that we need to start reducing our consumption and living sustainably. Wether he and the other climate-change-deniers care about CO2 in the atmosphere or not, we're all in agreement about what needs to be done, so let's get on with it.

Cheers


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lars said:


> Funny. I also find it even more humorous that people read into Mr. Carlin's humor way too much instead of taking it how it should be taken: as _comedy_. This planet will be eliminated by the human race long before it "heals itself." (If I had to guess.) Natural disasters, as George Carlin puts it, is a part of nature, and not even remotely comparable to the damage the human race does, which, obviously, is _not_ nature by any stretch of the imagination. The only way this planet is "healing itself" is if the entire human race is wiped entirely clean off the surface. As long as we're here, polluting and wreaking havoc, this planet isn't getting any better any time soon, if ever.
> 
> Making an argument based on, or in help with, a comedy strip. Classy.


Hmmm, you apparently have not listened to much George Carlin, or even have an inkling of his brilliance. He was a brilliant man whose social commentary equals and betters that of many faint hearted sociologists. To think that his humour was only meant to be funny is to be ignorant of his intentions and his intellect. He is *exactly* right in his analysis here, we will wipe ourselves out long before the planet is past the point of being able to recover from the damage that we may have done. To think otherwise is simply to be unaware of the cataclysmic history of the earth and the incredible resilience, tenacity and diversity of life on this planet. It is a great presumption and conceit on humanity's part to think that we have the *power * to "destroy" the earth when millennia of cataclysmic disasters have not.

The argument I am making is far from being based on George Carlin's standup (not a comedy strip BTW), however he does sum it up brilliantly and in a very entertaining way. Which iIMHO is pretty damn classy. 

In case you may have mistaken my original statement to somehow be denouncing the validity of climate change, I am not in the least. The climate is changing without doubt and always has been and always will be. That is not the point, I was merely addressing one specific aspect bryanc's post, which we are actually in full agreement on as it turns out.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

My point in starting this thread was NOT to engage in yet another senseless debate over the reality of the data on climate change, but rather to point out that one of the worlds largest corporations, namely Vatican Megacorp (one of the largest land owners in New York city amongst other places) is being led by an individual who doesn't mind portraying himself as having less intelligence that the average spatula as if his position on condoms vis-a-vis Africa wasn't proof enough.

If you need further proof, check out this link: Never mind pillow talk, couples told by Roman Catholic church to PRAY before sex | Mail Online. To paraphrase FARK.com apparently screaming 'oh god, oh god...' at the moment of climax is not sufficient....

When will these people realise that they are just a (bad) joke?


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

rgray said:


> When will these people realise that they are just a (bad) joke?


Probably never.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

rgray said:


> My point in starting this thread was NOT to engage in yet another senseless debate over the reality of the data on climate change...


Indeed... Thread derailing over...


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Lars said:


> This planet will be eliminated by the human race long before it "heals itself." (If I had to guess.) Natural disasters, as George Carlin puts it, is a part of nature, and not even remotely comparable to the damage the human race does, which, obviously, is _not_ nature by any stretch of the imagination.


That's just nuts, because nature, when it wants to, can dish out epic amounts of destructuion far beyond anything humans could cook up.

A single volcano going tango-uniform can wipe out thousands, if not millions of people, can dramatically change the climate, like the "years without a summer" following eruptions at Tamboro, Krakatoa, and most recently, Pinatubo.

A single storm, like Katrina, which wasn't even a strong hurricane, can destroy swaths of civilization in a day or so, stuff that will take decades to rebuild. I wouldn't want to imagine a real hurricane, like the one that wiped out parts of Jamaica in the late 1600's.

Tornados are capable of sucking away millions or tens of millions of dollars of property in seconds flat.

Earthquakes can destroy lives, cities, and even civilizations, and have so historically.

Nature also has germs in it's arsenal, with the tiniest of them destroying millions of lives every year, inventing even more insidious ones to replace the small handful we have taken care of.

Nature can cleanse itself, as witnessed by trees that have regrown in areas around Sudbury, and of lakes that were once dead that now have life once acid rain was taken care of. Old "civilizations" are converted into dust, to be used by nature somewhere else. Floods cleanse by destrying everything in the path that nature wants to get rid of.

Our efforts are rather paltry, and even the biggest engineering venture, the system of levees along the Mississipi were circumvented by nature. All we can do is try to find some way of living with nature, because we can not defeat it. It's just like Carlin said, all of the stuff we do, all of the pollution, is just something for nature to reuse and recycle, because no matter how much we pollute, the world will exist, while the pollution will just exterminate us.



> Making an argument based on, or in help with, a comedy strip. Classy.


Making an argument based on some need for Carbon Trading and Carbon Markets is just plain crass, and attains the pinnacle of pathos and tragedy as it shows that people are easily suckered into fake Ponzi Schemes, and look for the easy way out instead of dealing with tough decisions, and placing curbs on our own sins.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MazterCBlazter said:


> The Catholic Church is irresponsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, wiping out Ancient European and other cultures. Also guilty of planting the seeds of mass hysteria, mental illness, fanaticism, overpopulation, environmental destruction, and global insanity among its endless trail of tears and crime. This organization needs a good kick in the ass, preferably the termination of it's perverted existence. The Pope is just the Grand Poobah of the Pedophiles.


You forgot to mention the World Trade Center attack, swine flu and the Roswell coverup. Oh and what the heck, the vatican killed the electric car too. :clap::clap::clap:

Cheers
MacGuiver

PS. Love your red outfit!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bryanc said:


> (and for EvanPitts, it's not about carbon as in chunks of graphite or diamond, it's about carbon as in methane, carbon dioxide, organochlorines, and other carbon compounds)...


This is the falacy of the Al Gore Utopia, where they have Carbon Trading. Stuff like CO2, Methane, CFCs - none of that is carbon, but it is pollution. My point is that we need to deal woth pollution, because hiding behind profit driven motives that "trade" in "Carbon" removes the need or impulse for us to deal with pollution. The fact is, Carbon Trading Markets are simply a shill for apathy, lethargy, and gangsterism based on reaping fat, short term profits whhile acting to put the brakes on real progress, progress that would lead to the creation of new businesses and new wealth that can't be controlled by the corporate giants for short term profit-driven desires.

We did tackle the use of CFCs - tackled it entirely because we didn't hide behind the facade of false markets and pleasant sounding names, but because we said it was pollution, and that we needed to curb and eliminate it.

If we want to eliminate CO2 as a pollutant, then we need to have swamps and wetlands, because that is where nature converts CO2 into useful things - it is the ultimate solar industry. We don't need fake markets, faux trading, commoditized Carbon, or useless Accords that no one ends up signing or honouring.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> But it is nothing new at all. Iraq used to be packed with lush farmland .....


Taken what I was saying out of context.... a couple thousand years does not equal a decade.




EvanPitts said:


> Environmentalists were duped by Big Oil and Big Industry -......


Again context and not really what I am talking about.... 




EvanPitts said:


> I think we are advanced enough to know, because anyone knows that if you poison a well, you can not drink the water. .....


I am not sure if it is me failing to communicate effectively or, you not quite get what I am saying.



Anyways... I do understand what your are saying regarding carbon trading etc... and for the most part I agree with it. Action vs schemes. But, alas, this is not what this thread was about.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> This is the falacy of the Al Gore Utopia, where they have Carbon Trading. Stuff like CO2, Methane, CFCs - none of that is carbon


This is where you're confused. All of these are carbon compounds, and this is what is being referred to when discussing "carbon trading."

I'm not advocating the carbon trading market, but it is one creative approach to using the free market, rather than legislation to deal with the problem.

How would you suggest we get people to ride bikes instead of driving cars, or use solar/wind power instead of coal? The only alternative I can see to a carbon market is top-down legislation, which takes political will and doesn't always work as well as one might hope. If there's a free-market approach that monetizes the dumping of pollutants into the atmosphere, and it becomes sufficiently costly, societies' behavior may well change without requiring the heavy hand of the law.



> If we want to eliminate CO2 as a pollutant, then we need to have swamps and wetlands, because that is where nature converts CO2 into useful things - it is the ultimate solar industry. We don't need fake markets, faux trading, commoditized Carbon, or useless Accords that no one ends up signing or honouring.


Fortunately, essentially everything you suggest as appropriate action WRT global pollution are also necessary and appropriate actions WRT global climate change. As I have suggested previously, in the same way I embrace Ducks Unlimited for their laudable actions to protect wetlands (despite what I consider to be seriously flawed motivation) I'm surprised you (as someone concerned for the environment) haven't embraced the actions those who are fighting climate change are proposing (and taking). You may not be worried about climate change, but all of these actions are good for reducing pollution in general.

Cheers


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

It would be nice if the Pope was just fantastically ill-worded and was ACTUALLY trying to push his own flock back TOWARDS environmentalism, trying to make it part of the "Christian mission" that it really and truly should be.

It would be nice if that was what was really going on there.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

chas_m said:


> It would be nice if the Pope was just fantastically ill-worded and was ACTUALLY trying to push his own flock back TOWARDS environmentalism, trying to make it part of the "Christian mission" that it really and truly should be.
> 
> It would be nice if that was what was really going on there.


It might be "nice" but it isn't. He just comes off as the village idiot.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

rgray said:


> He just comes off as the village idiot.


Given that, in order to get into that kind of position, a guy has to be extremely good at politics, cagey-as-hell, and a consummate manipulator, and given that this was a prepared speech, you have to know that these words were chosen carefully.

So what do you suppose the old creep is trying to accomplish? Is it paranoid to think that he's trying to lay the groundwork for a larger blame-the-atheists-for-the-environmental-catastrophe campaign?

Remember that the evil-minded old SOB has extraordinary influence with *millions* of people.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Remember that the evil-minded old SOB has extraordinary influence with *millions* of people.


That's the scary thing! Those minions, erm, millions, of people follow him because he is "the pope". You could put that stupid hat on a cabbage, call it "the pope" and the same 'millions' would follow it too....


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

rgray said:


> That's the scary thing! Those minions, erm, millions, of people follow him because he is "the pope". You could put that stupid hat on a cabbage, call it "the pope" and the same 'millions' would follow it too....


Yeah, but it wouldn't say such stupid stuff all the time, so a cabbage would be an improvement.

Cheers


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> The Catholic Church is irresponsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, wiping out Ancient European and other cultures.


So you are saying the Catholic Church invented COOL! beejacon



> Also guilty of planting the seeds of mass hysteria, mental illness, fanaticism, overpopulation, environmental destruction, and global insanity among its endless trail of tears and crime.


Of course that doesn't jibe with the actual facts. The nations that engage in massive overpopulation are not Catholic or Christian nations at all - there are more people in China than there are in all of the Churches put together, with India not far behind, followed by overcrowded Indonesia.

I have never seen a Church policy that ever encouraged hysteria, mental illness, or environmental destruction. There has never been a sermon that commanded the followers to go out and set up toxic waste dumps, or to spew unlimited qualtities of pollution in the quest for short term profits and decadent lifestyles of excess and perversion.



> The Pope is just the Grand Poobah of the Pedophiles.


Though no one likes pedophiles, the Church has never condoned it. It is a statement that is equal to saying that all Police are scum because a handful of them were on the payroll of organized crime, or that Firemen are scum because a handful of them were arsonists.

I would agree that the Church as an organization really did a bad PR job, and tried to cloak over what is a criminal act, making it appear that the Church somehow condoned the situation, rather than just manhandling it incorrectly. But that is incidents that occured independently of the Church, none of it was ever a part of the teachings of the Church.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bryanc said:


> This is where you're confused. All of these are carbon compounds, and this is what is being referred to when discussing "carbon trading."


My point is that it is entirely bogus. If we are to have "carbon trading" based on any compound that happens to contain or use carbon - we will have to buy Carbon Credits so we can breathe, or eat. It comes down to this - the word "Carbon", as used, is entirely bogus because it makes no sense to base policies and markets on something ubiquitious and required for life. It is the commoditization of common sense. The word is a sop, demonstrating that people are prepared to end the fight against pollution and waste in some ignoble quest to regulate "Carbon", and all of the organic compunds that exist.



> I'm not advocating the carbon trading market, but it is one creative approach to using the free market, rather than legislation to deal with the problem.


My approach is much simpler: some corporation engages in waste and polluting the environment, the corporations face massive fines, and the executives have all of their property and money confiscated. Thus, corporations would naturally engage in environment friendly approaches unless they want to wear skivvies and eat grass and weeds out of a ditch the rest of their life.

Carbon Trading is a scam - it makes zero sense because it accomplishes nothing. No pollution will be curbed, no new technologies will emerge, no air will be cleaner, no water will be purer. Carbon Trading is a failure that is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme but with no actual goal in the end.

The way I look at it, corporations can make a decision: either become green and reduce waste and pollution, and be free of crazy regulations; or they can remain profit driven and face regulations beyond belief, and personal financial ruin in the process.



> How would you suggest we get people to ride bikes instead of driving cars, or use solar/wind power instead of coal?


That's easy - move workplaces back to where people live, and they can simply walk to work. No need for cars or bikes, and walking will do wonders for a corpulent society.

As for power - we move towards more efficiency, by banning power squandering Pentium processors, for instance, and encouraging energy stingy designs. Same with all of the other wasted energy. Most energy is actually wasted in trasnporting things from place to place, with no real reason - rather than in making electricity.

There are tons of ways of scoring savings, much of which can be yielded in fairly simple social engineering where people can do more of the things they need to do right in their neighbourhood, in easy walking distance, rather than wasteful two hour each way commuting with one person in each vehicle, and without the half hour trip to buy a can of paint.



> The only alternative I can see to a carbon market is top-down legislation, which takes political will and doesn't always work as well as one might hope.


It won't work at all - since the Carbon Market is nothing more than a sorry attempt at short-term profiteering and corporate gangsterism. Only through the reduction of pollution, progressive technology, and more sensible lifestyles can we make gains.



> If there's a free-market approach that monetizes the dumping of pollutants into the atmosphere, and it becomes sufficiently costly, societies' behavior may well change without requiring the heavy hand of the law.


Doing that goes against the whole Carbon Market idea, since Carbon Credits are about Carbon, not about pollution or anything like that. It allows the elites to engage in endlessly wasteful lifestyles because buying Carbon Credits is nothing more than a corporate tax write off. Only through massive fines will they "get it". Plus, it will clobber any chance of actually implementing new technology, or of having new business score profits off of green technology - simply because the giant conglomerates can squash them like an elephant can squash a wee spider.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Remember that the evil-minded old SOB has extraordinary influence with *millions* of people.


Luckily, most of them aren't in America.

American Catholics pay, at best, lip service to what the Pope says. Note the sales of contraceptive devices, the popularity of meat on Fridays, the declining resistance to gay marriage and the acceptance of pro-choice Catholics.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sure a lot of poopin' on the pope here.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

This thread went off the rails as if it was owned by Canadian National Railways. With all of the bigotry and abundance of misinformation, I think the Klan would even pronouce it as ridiculous.

Catholics do not reject the teachings of the Church. The Church has never convened a Council in order to debate the use of condoms. The decision of the Church in rejecting the use of condoms is that it does not condone casual sex, that sex is only to be between two married people for the purposes of procreation. It is entirely logical that given these circumstances, the use of condoms would be stupid because it would entirely impede the purpose. It is the same teaching that disallows the marriage of homosexuals, since marriage would be entirely illogical since homosexuals can not procreate, and hence, should not be engaging in sexual acts. To make a change to the policy would require the convening of a Church Council, which I would not expect any time soon.

Their is no main stream religion that promulgates the use of condoms, or includes such things within the corpus of their teachings. The Catholic Church does not condone the persecution of homosexuals, and has never excommunicated someone over it. There are no major faiths that accept and establish homosexual marriage. Other religions have engaged in condoning various profane acts of sin, with exterminations - as evidenced by the lack of condemnation of Al Qaida from the Islamic world. This does not indicate that the religion or faith itself is somehow imperfect, but rather, has become inhabited by sinners that pervert the word of God for their own political ends and self-aggrandizement.

In the case of the OP, I do not even think it is a real statement, as it has not been reported anywhere. The Pope is someone that gets press. He once quoted an obscure Byzantine era writer, and that was reported everywhere, ad nauseum - so I would expect that an outrageous statement like that atheists are contributing to global warming would also be reported ad nauseum.

There is a point behind it, because though God gave dominion of the world to man, He also imposed a series of further regulations, simply because man was stupid and couldn't get along with simplicity. Like our corpus of law, Ten Commandments became into endless lists of regulations, beattitudes, parables and whatever. But one does not have to be Catholic or whatever to see the real truth behind the matter - that Global Warming, if it is occurring, is being rapidly perverted by the fre market gangsters who see nothing wrong in reaping massive short term profits through commoditizing Carbon, as well as essentials like water and air, and living their perverted and opulent lifestyles, eating their diamond encrusted, gold plated meals while the vast majority of humanity remains severly impovershed and without even the most basic of needs.

Not even the most profane act of a Church in it's most sinfilled hour can ever approach the evils of a hard capitalist engaged in a Ponzi Scheme ripoff - because the Church will always offer a glass of water, while the Capitalist will make you pay through the nose...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> Catholics do not reject the teachings of the Church.


This is not consistent with my experience. I know a lot of Catholics (as defined by being people who self-identify as Catholics, check the 'Catholic' box on the census form, and occasionally go to Catholic churches), and every single one of them favors the use of birth control, favors gay-marriage, and thinks the pope is an idiot.

In fact, at one of these people has admitted to me that she's really an atheist, but she recognizes the social benefits of going to church, and her job depends on her being recognized as a church-going Catholic.

I think it's like many modern secular Jews... various flavors of xtianity have effectively become ethnicities, rather than belief systems. So many people who call themselves Catholic are doing so not because they accept the teachings of the church, but because that's how they were raised, and they feel a familial obligation to the tradition.

Cheers


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

bryanc said:


> This is not consistent with my experience. I know a lot of Catholics (as defined by being people who self-identify as Catholics, check the 'Catholic' box on the census form, and occasionally go to Catholic churches), and every single one of them favors the use of birth control, favors gay-marriage, and thinks the pope is an idiot.


Seems to me then, that Catholic Yanks should go Henry VIII on the pope. Make their head of state the head or _their_ catholic church. Then, as with the church of England they could make changes to the doctrines, most certainly in a progressive fashion, as they see fit (abolishing clerical celibacy being one). This would have the added benefit of ending the syphoning of money off to Rome.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

chasMac said:


> Seems to me then, that Catholic Yanks should go Henry VIII on the pope.


Certainly the disconnect between the church and the people it is trying to bamboozle... er... appeal to is growing ever wider, so this idea has some merit.

Obviously I'd hope more people would just get over their need for an imaginary friend and face reality, but anything that weakens retrograde institutions like the Catholic church is progress in my books.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

chasMac said:


> Seems to me then, that Catholic Yanks should go Henry VIII on the pope. Make their head of state the head or _their_ catholic church. Then, as with the church of England they could make changes to the doctrines, most certainly in a progressive fashion, as they see fit (abolishing clerical celibacy being one). This would have the added benefit of ending the syphoning of money off to Rome.


No need to start a new Church. They should just embrace the fact they are really Protestants and join one of the 33,000 available congregations. Surely one will fit their personal interpretation of God. We have lots of faux Priests and Nuns that should do the same.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

MacGuiver said:


> No need to start a new Church. They should just embrace the fact they are really Protestants and join one of the 33,000 available congregations. Surely one will fit their personal interpretation of God. We have lots of faux Priests and Nuns that should do the same.


But it wouldn't be starting a new church. The church of England is essentially Catholicism done right (according to its adherents). A 'Church of America' would, broadly speaking, entail a change in management.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SINC said:


> Sure a lot of poopin' on the pope here.


Anti-catholicism is the last form of bigotry that's still socially acceptable.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> . Surely one will fit their personal interpretation of God.


Snake Handlers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

chasMac said:


> But it wouldn't be starting a new church. The church of England is essentially Catholicism done right (according to its adherents). A 'Church of America' would, broadly speaking, entail a change in management.


Yeah but isn't every Protestant church claiming to be Catholicism done right? Catholicism was THE christian church right back to its first Pope Peter until the Reformation. They'd just be creating another protestant church so why not pick the one that fits your theology?

Also who would become their pope and what would they do when they don't agree with him? They'd just create another 1000 Catholic hybrid protestant churches to join the ranks of the 33000 and growing protestant churches.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bryanc said:


> This is not consistent with my experience. I know a lot of Catholics (as defined by being people who self-identify as Catholics, check the 'Catholic' box on the census form, and occasionally go to Catholic churches), and every single one of them favors the use of birth control, favors gay-marriage, and thinks the pope is an idiot.


So just because they lie, and do not actually believe in the faith that they pretend to follow, that some how that validates the heresies they engage in, or that it supports the bigoted remarks made within this thread?

I for one could care less what box someone checks off on a census form, since churches are filled with all kinds of sinners. It does not mean that the Church itself is an institution of sin anf filth, but rather, that people love to be pretentious and lie about such things for their own self-aggrandizement. Coming from a Catholic background, I have seen all kinds of filth and sin on the go, with people engaged in the desecration of the church, or of their personal wars waged against others, or how they defile the Lord that they pretend to beleive in, because all of that, in heaps, still does not defile the message of universal love and compassion that is the guild to The City.

It is nothing more than bigotry to accuse any faith of those things that do not actually exist, or to pervert a system of teaching simply to use it to mock those that choose to believe to have faith, because that is nothing more than spouting hatred, and does nothing when it comes to the true issues.

The fact is that the teachings of the Church stand upon the tenet that sexual intercourse is for the express and only purpose of procreation between a married couple, and therefore, homosexual marriage is abberant simply because the couple can not procreate. It also goes without saying that two people who are married, and are only to procreate d not need condoms or birth control, becaused they should be abstaining. Furthermore it is true that AIDS and other STDs can not be spread if people aren't having casual sex with hoards of other people, so the use of condoms is illogical because if a couple remains faithful to each other and are free of STDs or AIDS, the disease that does not exist can not be curbed by the use of condoms, since it does not exist.

Many people do not carry such beliefs in such tenets, and though the Church teaches one thing, the Church has never excommunicated anyone for using a condom or taking the pill, nor have they ever excomminucated someone because they got drunk and slept around with a bar fly.

It also goes without saying that the value of such a thread loses value when there is no actual proof that the Pope actually said what the OP indicated; and if the Pope did speak such words, that atheists are responsible for global warming - then much of this thread is off topic because it has wandered off into the bigoted wilderness of Klannishness, with falsehoods, misunderstandings, and ignorant statements about a faith, rather than any logical argument or counter-argument about the actual topic at hand. In other words, the rhetoric spouted here that has the sole purpose of demonstrating a worship of atheism is better off spouted in the forums of people like Daniel Carver of the KKK.

The point of the teachings of the Church is clear, that God granted man dominion of the world, and that in the pursuit of sin, has man disrespected the patrimony of God and brought the world to ruin. Not only that, man perpetrates the great lie of "global warming", expressed in the enabling of greed and lust with false "carbon markets", in order to avoid that which must be done, which is to live a moral lifestyle free of the excesses of compulsive consumption and endless waste. We have to stop victimizing the poor for the purpose of aggrandizement, to allow the freedom of all humans to live a lifestyle free of gangsterism and oppression, and to stop pushing the world to ruin.

I do not think these things stem from the Church, but are universal, and can entirely be accepted by atheists, agnostics, nihilists, as well as men of all faiths. It is useless to create political policies based on the guess that hte world may or may not be warming, and that we can commoditize misery and ruin to reap short term profits with the false idols of consumerism and capitalist greed.

The sooner we ditch the lark of "Carbon" and "Global Warming", and begin the real work: of abating pollution, of assisting the poor in their struggle for a better life, to live a sustainable lifestyle, to curb waste, to punish excess greed, opulence and gangsterism - only then do we acknowledge that we are the rightful inheritors of the patrimony of creation. And none of that requires a belief in God, or of following the tenets of a specific faith, or to engage in endless hatred and bigoty, but rather, it requires men of all faiths (or lack thereof) to open their eyes and see the truth, and to strive towards a better world that does not defile man or nature.



> So many people who call themselves Catholic are doing so not because they accept the teachings of the church, but because that's how they were raised, and they feel a familial obligation to the tradition.


So what does that have to do with anything? You choose to follow the faith of atheism that puts a great emphasis into believing nothing - that is your choice, but what does it matter? The pope makes a statement (allegedly), which we weigh in the mix of things. I could also say that someone like Ignatieff, if he was to make a statement on "global warming", would be equally full of bunk because his church, the Liberal Party, is full of sinners who are power hungry sinners who defiled the nation through a myriad of profane acts, so why should we listen to a pretender and wannabe who coudln't even be bothered to spend his life in Canada as a Canadian? 

It's the same thing, so instead of turning a thread into a pile of bunk that the KKK might be disgusted to spout off about; turn it into something that is contructive, with solid arguments based on facts, rather than saying that some heretic you know sins within the Church that she doesn't believe in simply to have some freinds and aggrandize herself.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah but isn't every Protestant church claiming to be Catholicism done right? Catholicism was THE christian church right back to its first Pope Peter until the Reformation. They'd just be creating another protestant church so why not pick the one that fits your theology?


The various Protestant denominations most certainly consider their interpretation of Christianity to be the true path (this is stating the obvious). However, they do not consider themselves to be a flavour of Catholicism by any stretch. C of E is different - it is sometimes described as reformed Catholic. Their claim to apostolic succession hints at this, as does its episcopal structure.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

chasMac said:


> The various Protestant denominations most certainly consider their interpretation of Christianity to be the true path (this is stating the obvious). However, they do not consider themselves to be a flavour of Catholicism by any stretch. C of E is different - it is sometimes described as reformed Catholic. Their claim to apostolic succession hints at this, as does its episcopal structure.


However you slice it, they'll just be another Protestant sect. There would still be a Catholic Church in America faithful to Rome. They'd be just as far ahead to join the Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopal churches that have many similarities to Catholicism yet have a buffet of moral truth to choose from.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> ...saying that some heretic you know sins within the Church that she doesn't believe in simply to have some freinds and aggrandize herself.


Although it's rather hard to follow your convoluted, hyperbolic and paranoid rambling, I think you entirely missed my point.

My point is that there are a potentially significant number of people who call themselves 'Catholics' who are clearly not following the teachings of that church. That being the case, it follows that the pope does not represent as large a constituency as is widely perceived. 

That is all.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> However you slice it, they'll just be another Protestant sect. There would still be a Catholic Church in America faithful to Rome. They'd be just as far ahead to join the Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopal churches that have many similarities to Catholicism yet have a buffet of moral truth to choose from.


_Buffet of moral truth_. Not sure what it means but it's the best line of the thread.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Meh... Catholicism... tptptptp 

That's my point of view or opinion, whatever you want to call it. I was born, my parents had me baptized as a Catholic... so I'm Catholic... I don't practice it. "I" consider myself Agnostic. 

Last time I set foot in a Catholic confessional was before my Dad's funeral and that was out of respect for my Mother who wanted me to and for my Dad. My sister had never been and was scared to death over how she should explain she was a "single adult female" if you get my meaning. I told her not to even mention that. 

My confession... an admission I'm not perfect and as fallible as any human and then I asked the Priest some hard questions. The answers I got were such drivel... if I wasn't sure of my position before, I sure was by then! When I consider that I'm not sitting under 21 children, I'm separated, used birth control always... yada, yada, yada... by Catholic rules I'm one nasty person. It's time for that church to grow up!

And that boys and girls is my catechism for the day!


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

The only 2 religions I can identify with in this day and age and world at all is Buddhism and/or Paganism. 

I would somehow officially cut my ties with the Catholic church if I knew how and if it doesn't cost a million dollars and choose one of those, but I sway between the two. Paganism has a strong pull I think because it's related to Earth and Nature... I've always had an acute sense of the state of the planet and nature. OK... so I'm crazy. I don't know how else to explain it.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah but isn't every Protestant church claiming to be Catholicism done right? Catholicism was THE christian church right back to its first Pope Peter until the Reformation.


Many Protestants reject Catholicism outright (including it's claims to be the original church), and question the veracity of Papal history.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bsenka said:


> Many Protestants reject Catholicism outright (including it's claims to be the original church), and question the veracity of Papal history.


If it was not the Catholic Church, which one? What Protestant church has a history beyond Luther putting his postulates on the Wittenburg door on October 31, 1517?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Dreambird said:


> The only 2 religions I can identify with in this day and age and world at all is Buddhism and/or Paganism.
> 
> I would somehow officially cut my ties with the Catholic church if I knew how and if it doesn't cost a million dollars and choose one of those, but I sway between the two. Paganism has a strong pull I think because it's related to Earth and Nature... I've always had an acute sense of the state of the planet and nature. OK... so I'm crazy. I don't know how else to explain it.


Dreambird it won't cost you a penny. In fact you've already cut your ties with the Catholic Church, just complete the deal, show some cahonies and come out of the closet and tell the world your not Catholic and never darken a church door again. Its that simple. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> Dreambird it won't cost you a penny. In fact you've already cut your ties with the Catholic Church, just complete the deal, show some cahonies and come out of the closet and tell the world your not Catholic and never darken a church door again. Its that simple.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Really? OK... there's one thing peculiar to Calgary and I don't even know if it's still an issue but I will test my "cajones" on the city's Tax Dept.

Some years back they declared that when you pay your property taxes and the school taxes associated with that, if you were Catholic, you MUST direct your school taxes toward the Catholic or "separate" system of schools here. Didn't matter if you practiced or not, if it stated anywhere on a document from birth, whatever... case closed. It's always stuck in my craw... I shall tell them I have renounced Catholicism and wish my portion of school taxes to be directed to the public system....


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Dreambird said:


> I shall tell them I have renounced Catholicism and wish my portion of school taxes to be directed to the public system....


Good on ya! I've always thought the fact that one religion is allowed to have a separate school system is something that someone ought to be fighting at the level of the supreme court as a Charter issue, but that's certainly not going to be me.

Ironically, most of my friends in high school and university went through the Catholic school system, and they were far more likely to be atheists than the people I knew who went to public schools. Sort of like the comparison between Britain and the US; the former has a state religion and the latter constitutionally prohibits a state religion, and yet the former has one of the lowest levels of religious adherence in the developed world, and the latter has among the highest.

Cheers


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

MacGuiver said:


> If it was not the Catholic Church, which one?


The Catholic Church was started by the Romans hundreds of years after Christ. It's not the original Church.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I guess that, in a way, we're talking about original gods. What an ancient question that is. Authentic gods vs. false gods. We're still wrestling over first dibs on that one.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Max said:


> .......Authentic gods.


Authentic <-> gods ????????????????? 

No such thing !!!!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

rgray said:


> Authentic <-> gods ?????????????????
> 
> No such thing !!!!


Oh yeah... we're debating _that_ too. Thanks for reminding me! It's all up for grabs.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Dreambird said:


> Really? OK... there's one thing peculiar to Calgary and I don't even know if it's still an issue but I will test my "cajones" on the city's Tax Dept.
> 
> Some years back they declared that when you pay your property taxes and the school taxes associated with that, if you were Catholic, you MUST direct your school taxes toward the Catholic or "separate" system of schools here. Didn't matter if you practiced or not, if it stated anywhere on a document from birth, whatever... case closed. It's always stuck in my craw... I shall tell them I have renounced Catholicism and wish my portion of school taxes to be directed to the public system....


Thats a good start. But thats not where you'll need the cajones. Complaining to a civil servant about your taxes is the easy part. Tell your family of your spiritual leanings and stop the hypocrisy of dropping into Mass at Christmas and Easter (or whatever occasions you feel pressured to attend). Stop pretending to be one of the congregation and be true to yourself.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bsenka said:


> The Catholic Church was started by the Romans hundreds of years after Christ. It's not the original Church.


So who was the first Roman Catholic pope and what became of the true followers of Christ? Who was there leader? Did they have a name or is their historical documentation of this church beyond the Romans starting Catholicism hundreds of years later as you claim?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

MacGuiver,

There is no historical evidence for Catholicism or any Popes at all prior to 325. Constantine created it.

Prior to that "The Church" was never a monolithic denomination, more akin to non-denominational churches today.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

With reference to the OP - this thread is bunk because there is no actual record of the Pope ever blaming "atheists" for global warming. A search of the Internet reveals many dubious ramblings about such a speech, with the usual crackpot suspects like blogs that have no sources, or fringe religious groups that have an axe to grind, and even the deep fringes of lunacy like Bill O'Reilly. Not one "major" source has a story about it, not in any of the regular media, not on CNN, or the NYT, the Globe & Mail, or whatever - not one official source in any nation, in any language.

A search through all of the Papal Speeches also does not reveal such statements - even though the Church has made many statements about Global Warming and the need for people of all faiths to work towards the common goal of protecting humanity from it's own destruction. Not once did the Pope "blame atheists" - except for certain bloggers who make unverifiable claims - unverifiable because they never happened. It's like people that believe the wild claims of the Westboro Baptist Church because "it was on the Internet".

Of course, perusing the blogs that do make the claim, one runs across many "interesting" claims, like the New World Order conspiracy, and the claims that Bush paid Bin Laden to destroy the WTC because the Bush family wanted to build a house in Manhattan, and the usual anti-Zionist tripe interspersed with the tripe about Palestinians being devil worshipping trash that should be exterminated along with Zionists.

It's all about a bogus claim made about a speech that never occured, and that was never covered by any media beyond some uncensored feedback on such sources as The Huffington Post.

If one took the time to read the real statements that the Pope did make on Global Warming, like his speech to the Roman Curia, and his speech to the Buddhists, among other official statements, I think one would be hard to dispute what he actually says - that unfettered greed is endangering the most vulnerable of people because global warming endangers their way of life and the places they live, and that people of all faiths need to coordinate efforts in order to repair the wrongs done by humans.

This is nothing more than a case of House Hippos.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Max said:


> _Buffet of moral truth_. Not sure what it means but it's the best line of the thread.


It's simple, he's just saying that people feel that they can pick and choose whatever they want to believe in, while rejecting whatever they choose, to fit their needs...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Well, if he didn't say it, I can hardly fault him for it.



EvanPitts said:


> If one took the time to read the real statements that the Pope did make on Global Warming, like his speech to the Roman Curia, and his speech to the Buddhists, among other official statements, I think one would be hard to dispute what he actually says - that unfettered greed is endangering the most vulnerable of people because global warming endangers their way of life and the places they live...


So, as a practicing Catholic, how does the pope's apparent acceptance of, and concern about Global Warming, impact your attitude towards this issue?

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> It's simple, he's just saying that people feel that they can pick and choose whatever they want to believe in, while rejecting whatever they choose, to fit their needs...


Must be nice... I have never enjoyed any freedom regarding what I believe, having always been compelled to believe what facts and logic dictate.

Cheers


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Well, if he didn't say it, I can hardly fault him for it.


I have though it was weird that it was a topic of discussion - while no one had it on the news. Considering that the Pope's message during the summer to Italians was to "slow down and stop killing each other on the way to vacation" was all over the news, I'd expect him dishing out something to Atheists would net him even more news.

Once I saw that the top 50 hits on Google was a smattering of the usual suspects, like unedited feedback on The Huffington Post, Bill O'Reilly, various Militia sites, various sites that cover "the truths" like Zionism and that Hitler's brain is connected to a computer in Tehran and is in charge of Hamas... I had suspicions! beejacon



> So, as a practicing Catholic, how does the pope's apparent acceptance of, and concern about Global Warming, impact your attitude towards this issue?


I am not a practicing Catholic, as I had my ax to grind many years ago when I saw so many people, within my school and my parish, act in perverted and sin filled ways, all in the "name of God", who they defiled. To me, it seemed like no one cared, that the pews were inhabited with people that were a sham, while the true faithful were discouraged and simply stopped showing up out of disgust. However, I never rejected the Catechism of the Church, nor have I rejected the Church as an institution, though I can not say that I abide by every doctrine, nor do I agree with every policy, nor do I think of myself as an example of Catholic piety.

As a Catholic, I have absolutely no problem with the Pope's statements, as I entirely agree with them. My problem with the whole "Global Warming" mania is that it is a fad, a fad that preaches a disaster scenario while doing nothing of substance to ameliorate the situation. I also do not think that Global Warming is a paramount problem.

The paramount problem is waste. We simply waste too much, whether it is the mound of cell phones trashed every year, or energy that is frittered away, or that we "design" cities that force people into endless commuting. We waste too much food and have poor distribution methods that see Canadians have an ample supply of bananas harvested in nations where the vast majority of people can't afford shelter. We have a government that sees fit to slaughter thousands of pigs in order to prop up a market, while millions go without a shred of protein during the day. Waste leads to poverty, and we pilfer from the poor in order that we can live an unsustainable lifestyle where we simply exist to create waste.

This is something the Pope has addressed, that it is morally incorrect for humanity to exploit the most vulnerable in order to engage in the endless cycle of waste. He calls for people of all faiths to work together to find solutions to the problems that will, if not solved, will end in our decimation as a people. I think that if one reads the actual statements made by the Church, it would be hard to disagree on any point, especially when the statement isn't just for Catholics, but for all people of all faiths or beliefs.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Must be nice... I have never enjoyed any freedom regarding what I believe, having always been compelled to believe what facts and logic dictate.


I could have worded it differently - because the intent was that the choosing is within a specified faith or system of doctrine, rather than in a personally held belief system. For instance, for a person to be Muslim, they really do need to believe in Allah as the only God, and that Mohammed is his Prophet. You can't pick and choose that, if you want to be Muslim.

A lot of people like to pick and choose. People seem to make some kind of issue about, say, the marriage of priests - which really, is not an issue. The job simply states that if you want to be a priest, you have to be celibate - that's the rule. It's like say, in your job, you have to wear gloves in order to handle chemicals - that's the rule, and if you detest gloves, don't take the job. Of course, the problem is not that priests are celibate, but rather, the administration of the Church did a bad job in policing themselves, and did some rather bad PR stuff when they tried to stuff it all under the rug, rather than doing what many people within the Church have long thought was right, that priests that diddle be defrocked, excommunicated, and turned over to civil authorities for criminal prosecution; rather than being sent to another parish.

But that goes beyond the thread entirely. I just think it was a bad thing that people carried a football without even Googling, so see that it was nothing but bunk. Then they used the bunk to defile the leader of the world's biggest faith, and to defile the followers of that faith, because bigotry directed at Catholics seems to be the rage in some circles.

When it comes down to it - no one knows for certain if we are having Global Warming, though some people have put forth cases. Beyond that, the problem isn't "Carbon", and can't be solved by the commoditization of "Carbon" - but through the elimination of waste and excess. What worth is it if we sequester Carbon in the ground, while a billion people go without clean water, and those with clean water simply dump poo in it.

Facts and logic dictates that we reject "Global Warming" as a mantra, but rather, strive to reduce waste and excess. Our biggest problem is not that the Pacific Ocean is slightly warmer than a few years ago - it is that we create and dump garbage at an exponential rate, and have done nothing at all to curb it. We will long be dead from poisoning the environment and living unhealthy lifestyles based on excess long before Carbon Dioxide makes even the smallest impact.

Melting glaciers are the least of our problems, when a billion people have unclean water, and a billion people don't have food, and when millions are slaughtered in useless wars, and we poison ourselves on plastics and trash, all for some elites to score some fleeting profits while perverting the world.

Even if Carbon Dioxide did not add to any notion of Global Warming, we still sin by wasting our patrimony, sin by making victims out of the innocent that do not have the opportunity to participate in the great industries of waste. We live a lifestyle of unfettered excess, living the great dreams of limitless materialism, while billions of people pay the price of our sins.

Driving a car to Wasaga Beach to spend a weekend isn't going to kill us off - it is the design of cities that see to fat developers profits, while ensuring that the bad designs make long commutes to work a requirement. Never once have we told an industry or business that Toronto is full - look elsewhere. Never once do we have a codex of policy that would ensure that we engage in telecommuting where possible, or of tax breaks for car pooling, or tax breaks for companies that set up shop in places that have high unempoyment, nor do we have a policy where we have effective transit.

Not only that, we have many people who feel "entitled". Yes, entitlements like having "the right" to jump on a smog belching plane to fly to Cuba for a week because "it's cold", just to loaf around on a beach and engage in unbridled and limitless drinking and eating. For many people, it's not a treat to go on a trip - it is a yearly entitlement. We do this while making victims all around. For the oil, we support brutal dictators that have no boundary on their sins, so long as we get cheap fuel for the jets. And in turn, that pollution goes a long way to destroying the environment, which we don't care about because we live in our comfortable, air conditioned homes while some poor slob in Bengal gets to live in constant flooding.

Not that we need to go back to the caves to live - but we do have to do those things that moderate our lusts and greed. Perhaps is people held off for an extra year before dumping their cell phones, or made due with a slightly older model of computer, or shut some unused lights off at night, or attempted to live a more rational lifestyle, with less commuting or at least doing some carpooling.

No Carbon Market can fix any of this. Carbon Markets are nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme that commoditizes suffering. The faster we stop being fixated in Global Warming and trying to "fix it"; and the faster we get back to the agenda of curbing and eliminating waste, of reusing, of social engineering, the faster Global Warming will no longer be a problem.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> I am not a practicing Catholic ... However, I never rejected the Catechism of the Church, nor have I rejected the Church as an institution ... As a Catholic, I have absolutely no problem with the Pope's statements


Um, okay... not quite sure where you stand vis a vis the whole Catholic thing, but I don't really care one way or the other.



> My problem with the whole "Global Warming" mania is that it is a fad, a fad that preaches a disaster scenario while doing nothing of substance to ameliorate the situation.


I certainly agree that we have other pressing problems, but we can agree to disagree regarding the importance of global warming as an issue.



> We simply waste too much, whether it is the mound of cell phones trashed every year, or energy that is frittered away, or that we "design" cities that force people into endless commuting. We waste too much food and have poor distribution methods that see Canadians have an ample supply of bananas harvested in nations where the vast majority of people can't afford shelter. We have a government that sees fit to slaughter thousands of pigs in order to prop up a market, while millions go without a shred of protein during the day. Waste leads to poverty, and we pilfer from the poor in order that we can live an unsustainable lifestyle where we simply exist to create waste.


Here we are in violent agreement. One point I keep trying to get across to you is that the solutions promoted by people worried about climate change are largely the same as those promoted by people trying to reduce waste. We're on the same side, even if for different reasons.



> The faster we stop being fixated in Global Warming and trying to "fix it"; and the faster we get back to the agenda of curbing and eliminating waste, of reusing, of social engineering, the faster Global Warming will no longer be a problem.


All of the proposals I've seen that address Global Warming, including carbon trading, will have the effect of reducing waste, increasing recycling, and adjusting social and economic systems in such a way as to reduce consumption of resources. What carbon trading has going for it is that it utilizes the efficiency of the market place, as opposed to depending on the slow, heavy and clumsy hand of legislation. This is why I'm so puzzled that you oppose it.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> With reference to the OP - this thread is bunk because there is no actual record of the Pope ever blaming "atheists" for global warming.


I just followed the link in the OP and found this translation of the whole speech on "catholic.net". I have no idea how reputable a source this is, but I see no reason to doubt this is what he said.


----------

