Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Friday October 06 2017, @12:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the eco-pope dept.

More than 40 Catholic institutions are to announce the largest ever faith-based divestment from fossil fuels, on the anniversary of the death of St Francis of Assisi.

The sum involved has not been disclosed but the volume of divesting groups is four times higher than a previous church record, and adds to a global divestment movement, led by investors worth $5.5tn.

[...] Assisi's mayor, Stefania Proietti – a former climate mitigation professor – told the Guardian: "When we pay attention to the environment, we pay attention to poor people, who are the first victims of climate change.

"When we invest in fossil fuels, we stray very far from social justice. But when we disinvest and invest in renewable and energy efficiency instead, we can mitigate climate change, create a sustainable new economic deal and, most importantly, help the poor."

Are they putting their money where their mouth is, or making a smart economic bet?

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 07 2017, @03:42AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 07 2017, @03:42AM (#578469)

    Full of errors.

    One of my favorites is calling Jesus a carpenter.
    In the original Greek, he was described as a "tekton"[1] which translates as "hand worker" [] AKA day laborer or handyman.

    [1] From the days when I watched TeeVee, surfing channels and hit on TV preacher Gene Scott.
    Quite a speaker.

    -- OriginalOwner_ []

  • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Monday October 09 2017, @05:04PM

    by meustrus (4961) <reversethis-{moc.liamg} {ta} {surtsuem}> on Monday October 09 2017, @05:04PM (#579314)

    It's also filled with phrasing that was more correct at the time than it is now. The English language has changed, and some words actually mean something very different than they did when the King James translation was written. That's why there is more than one modernized version of the King James translation today. But even then, any translation is doomed to be colored by the interpretations of the translator. Study bibles try to mitigate this by annotating difficult translations with other potential translations.

    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?