SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the mixing-religion-with-climate-change dept.
The Telegraph reports that as the Vatican forges an alliance with the UN to tackle climate change, skeptics accuse Pope Francis of being deeply ill-informed about global warming. The Pope discussed climate change with Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General, who then opened a one-day Vatican conference called "The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development". Organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, SDSN and Religions for Peace, the goal of the conference is to help strengthen the global consensus on the importance of climate change in the context of sustainable development.
But a group of British and American skeptics say the Pope is being fed “mistaken” advice from the UN and that he should stick to speaking out on matters of morality and theology rather than getting involved in the climate change debate. "The Pope has great moral authority but he’s not an authority on climate science. He’s a learned man but the IPCC has got it wrong,” says Jim Lakely of the Heartland Institute, a conservative American pressure group partly funded by billionaire industrialists who question climate change. "The Pope would make a grave mistake if he put his moral authority behind scientists saying that climate change is a threat to the world. Many scientists have concluded that human activity is a minor player. The Earth has been warming since the end of the last Ice Age.”
It was the first time the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago and has been described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism," has traveled to Rome to try to influence a pope. "The sideshow envisioned by these organizations will not detract from the deep concern that Pope Francis has for the truth and how it relates to the environment," says Dr. Bernard Brady, Professor and Chair of the Theology Department at the University of St. Thomas. "Pope Francis will probably follow his predecessor, Benedict XVI, recognizing the interrelatedness of climate change with other moral issues and calling for persons, organizations, communities, nations, and indeed the global community, to reconsider established patterns of behavior."
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday April 30 2015, @07:09PM
Seriously, who's surprised at all here?
These people are fighting a PR war against the scientific truth, and part of me has to respect how close they are to winning, but that's going to necessitate fighting everyone who happens to acknowledge the facts as they are. Their backers rely on the American religious right as a political wedge for their interests, but they don't actually care about religion. There's nothing about this event that should be astounding.
PS: Dear poster who thinks they're going to be "clever" by pretending the scientific truth being denied by a PR war is the lack of warming, please don't. It's not clever.
PPS: Also you're wrong, and bad at skepticism.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by melikamp on Thursday April 30 2015, @07:28PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @07:55PM
So this was what it took for you to finally deign to attest him any ethical credibility? Not, like, all those other things that were said before this? As a atheist who's over the age of 17 and have better things to think about than the next change I get to sneer at religious figures, I actually find him quite agreeable, considering the past alternatives.
But please, tip harder, bitter one.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by melikamp on Thursday April 30 2015, @09:00PM
Like what? Please elaborate. I am talking about my personal opinion, first of all, and yeah, everything I heard from him so far was kind of meh. Now here is the issue where lots of money and power is involved, and given his conflict of interest he is really proving to be a vertebrate. And you know what? I still think he is a greedy parasite and a menace overall, just like every (historical) Pope before him, but this is exactly the kind of thing that goes to partially exonerate him as a person.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @05:38AM
Well, some of these apply:
http://theboeskool.com/2013/11/24/10-things-pope-francis-has-done-that-make-me-consider-being-catholic/ [theboeskool.com]
See particularly the one where he f'ed up the cardinal who spent stupid amounts of money on frivolous things.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/12/22/pope-vatican-critique/20752295/ [usatoday.com]
He shit on the "Vatican bureaucracy" here. (autoplaying video)
Sure, maybe he's not completely 'with it', but he's the most seemingly 'with it' pope ever, and the most seemingly 'with it' person over the age of 60 I've ever heard of.
In addition, there's the bits and pieces easily searchable about how he's declared the big bang theory (as in science, not TV) and the theory of evolution to not be contradictory to Catholic faith, as well as the (basically unheard of in any Christian religion) notion that, hey, maybe even atheists who are basically good people who die could still go to heaven, because it's not what dogma people label themselves as, but how they live their lives, that matter. Did I mention he's seemingly more okay with gay marriage than anyone else in the church? He's basically a matter of degrees away from being your model humanist, at least, in every way that matters.
Maybe it's a big lizardman conspiracy and he's really just got an amazing PR team telling him what to do right, but I like to take people at face value as much as possible, and this guy appears to either practice what he preaches, or managed to pay off HuffPo [huffingtonpost.com] for positive articles that buck Catholic traditions in positive ways in spite of fierce resistance. Your opinion is yours, as mine is mine, and neither are likely to change, but I'll let you decide which you think is more likely.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday April 30 2015, @09:15PM
As far as I can tell, you're trying to engage in an ad hominem without having much clue who your target is other than "he's the pope".
The guy was born in a slum, worked his way up from nothing working as a janitor and a bouncer, so it's safe to say he knows a great deal about poverty. After he became Bishop of Buenos Aires, he put a lot of the Catholic Church's resources into charitable work in the slums, and used his power and influence to help those who had opposed the military junta in Argentina and issue a public apology for the Church's role in that government. And he walks the walk in a lot of other ways: He lives fairly modestly, simplified his vestments considerably, and doesn't like the pomp and ceremony (this is also all very consistent with how he lived prior to being pope). He also has a well-known habit of calling up ordinary people who've contacted him to see what he can do to help. And he's also been very clear about the Catholic Church doing on a global scale what he did in Argentina, namely focusing on relieving the problems of the poor.
So while it's possible that he's been corrupted by his power and access to wealth and is just really good at hiding it, there's no sign of that.
And I should also point out that the parts of the 2000-year-old book that he's focused on throughout his career are the parts that aren't obsolete at all, namely that the world would be a much better place if we were all decent to each other for a change. This is annoying the heck out of numerous American priests who are confused about what to talk about if they can't spend all their time hating birth control and gay people.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Thursday April 30 2015, @11:38PM
Two things: I don't really need to know much of anything else, as long as his very office is parasitic (which it is, and you don't seem to be denying it). But besides, I can of course find specific areas where he falls flat on his face, as far as ethics go, and I do so below.
What does it have to do with his qualifications as an authority on morals right now? How about we discuss things he's done after he became the Pope?
He lives in his own city state, surrounded by henchmen and gold, just like the high priest of old, the same one who was instrumental in the persecution of Jesus, at least according to the Pope's own holy text. His very office makes him the king of hypocrites. "Simplified" robes?... Please.
Let me address both sentences here. By opposing artificial contraception (basing it on a 4000 year old superstition, no less), he unleashes untold suffering on millions of poor people around the globe. Calling up a few poor people is not going to make up for that. Is that a clear enough sign of corruption?
While annoying CCA is a symptom of doing the right thing, once again, his way is just less ugly than the ways of the past, which does not make it OK overall. I fully admit that Bible has a few good parts: the ones we can use even today to guide the ethical thinking. But they are extremely rare, with most of the text ranging from inaccessible to WTF. Yet Francis is fully endorsing the entire Bible, OT and NT, as a source of spiritual enlightenment, and no compassionate person can do so today. If Francis was the holy man you obviously want him to be, he would simple not accept the papacy. As far as CC goes, it's all rot from bishop and up: they know exactly what they are doing, they know it's all a big cash game, but they keep doing it anyway.
I don't want to list all the immoral things CC does purposefully, as it would take too much time, but just one more thing needs to be mentioned. The money flow is not transparent; in fact, it's kept secret quite on purpose. That alone should be enough to convince anyone it's not a charity but a scam. To anyone with basic critical thinking skills it should be apparent that Francis, as much as the CC itself, is utterly unfit for a role of a spiritual leader. Remember how Jesus said (according to Matthew) that Jews should do what the scribes and the Pharisees tell them, even though their actions are rotten? Well, not only Francis' actions are an incredible affront to the NT morals, he doesn't even say the right things! His stances on abortion, ordination of women, celibacy of clergy, contraception, and homosexuality (to name a few issues) are crazy and no one is better off by implementing them. And again, I trust he is a smart man, so he must know all of this, but he decided to continue on this path anyway. He is a fraud and he knows it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Friday May 01 2015, @12:02PM
The Pope's power over Catholics has lots of reality based limitations. If Francis tried all that-- ordination of women and all the other things you listed, he'd likely be facing a revolt. He has done well just to refocus the church on charity and against greed. No one can argue against that. Benedict XVI was a much worse Pope, just played caretaker and changed nothing. John Paul II was okay, faced the Soviet Union.
Greed is a big problem today, maybe even bigger than Climate Change if greed is at the root of why we continue excessive CO2 emissions. Greed has badly corrupted US politics, and would seem to be the driving reason for the oil industry's propaganda drive to deny that Climate Change is real or a problem or our fault.
Maybe there shouldn't be a pope. Or a patriarch of Constantinople. But the followers want that. They wouldn't grovel and constantly proclaim "Jesus is Lord" if they did not want to serve a benevolent dictatorship, be told what to think and do. I find that refrain of Jesus is Lord and Master and Great and the Center of the World, etc. really tiresome and pathetic, but it's not going away any time soon.
(Score: 1) by deadstick on Friday May 01 2015, @10:42PM
He wouldn't be facing a revolt: he'd have a tragic accident.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 30 2015, @08:10PM
Or maybe writing propaganda that obscures the truth is ok when it's your side that's doing it?
My view on this is that the Pope probably doesn't have a stake in taking one side or another of the debate. He also has some people who can understand the science. So as arguments from authority go, it's a pretty decent one.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Thursday April 30 2015, @09:05PM
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday April 30 2015, @10:24PM
Maybe you want to come in again. "I was only told to say there's trouble with the climate! I didn't expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition!" (que!)
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Friday May 01 2015, @12:17PM
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Thursday April 30 2015, @08:46PM
As far as I'm concerned, the Pope isn't an authority on either science or morality. I won't change my mind just because he happens to agree with me in this case.
This is a non-story. The Pope doesn't know any more about climate science that the average guy (maybe more than the average US congressman). And he's not in a position to actually do anything about climate change, beyond installing solar panels on the Vatican, so who gives a fuck what he thinks about it?
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday April 30 2015, @09:02PM
I made this argument before. And someone was pretty quick to answer that rhetorical question.
Catholics. Catholics give a fuck what the thinks.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by M. Baranczak on Thursday April 30 2015, @09:43PM
That seems like the obvious answer - but I really don't think that they do. Catholics are happy to invoke the Pope's authority when his opinions match theirs - otherwise, they ignore him. Can you think of any time in recent history when the Pope actually changed something important?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @05:23AM
PS: Dear poster who thinks they're going to be "clever" by pretending the scientific truth being denied by a PR war is the lack of warming, please don't. It's not clever.
PPS: Also you're wrong, and bad at skepticism.
What a load of horse-crap. Not that I'm in favor of climate science denial, but it irks me when self-proclaimed skeptics claim intellectual superiority along such dishonest rhetoric.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday May 01 2015, @01:31PM
They are wrong. And they are bad at skepticism if they call themselves a skeptic with this shit.
Scientific evidence is the kind that is plentiful here. Real skeptics are sick of their shit.
Whatever you've got going on in your head where you think the poor idiots ignoring hundreds of well sourced, well written, well reviewed papers to regurgitate blog posts on the internet are so put upon for being called out as idiots: stop it. They don't need defending.