The Archbishop's words would make sense, except for the fact that God drove Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden to punish them for their transgressions. Is there any indication, in the Bible, that God wants us to protect the area BEYOND the Garden of Eden? Or are we first obligated to atone for our sins? Then, we shall be permitted to return to the Garden and all will be right again. Thus, first atone for sins. Then worry about preserving the Garden of Eden.

After half a lifetime disagreeing with 12 years of Catholic schooling, it's certainly startling to agree with the Pontiff so completely. I could never understand why Catholics -- or others with strong religious beliefs -- weren't more environmentally conscious, what with protecting god's creations and all.

Population control will eventually have to be addressed if Rome is serious about this.

I am very angry with people such as the falsely so-called Easterbunny, who think that we Catholics have nothing to say of any value on anything.  True, we have been fuck-ups generally (oops, am I supposed to put make-up on words like that?), and there is no reason why the world community ought to listen to a "spokesperson" for the Catholic Church on any issue.  (But what about me?  I am a Catholic: why am I not a valid "spokesperson" for the Catholic Church?)  Nevertheless, as Christine Gardner suggests, our tradition is Earth-loving and life-loving, and whenever we get our act together, we can actually open our mouths and say something not too bad.

And really, it does not matter that anybody listens, except we ourselves.

As for WiscIdea, who remains entrapped in his anti-religious cage, and who wrongly assumes that Catholics are biblical fundamentalists, he can think what he likes.  But nobody has any reason to trust him as a source on Catholicism, and on Catholic thinking about the world.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

But, to use a phrase I'm not very fond of, 9/11 changed my views. I shifted from curiosity and tolerance to fear and loathing. The hypocrisy displayed by the most vocal of religious authorities is appalling. They spew hate at the same time they tell us religion is essential for maintaining a moral society.

I tried very hard to embrace some form of religion. At times I wished the myths were true. At times I wished there was a God who truly cared for His Creation. But evidence suggests otherwise.

Caniscandida... if you wish to release me from my anti-religious cage, you must do more than chastise me for asking questions. You must do more than chastise me for asking religious people how they resolve the conflicting advice in their religious texts. I think these are fair and reasonable questions. If individuals are going to condemn people for personal decisions that affect no one else, if individuals are going to justify murder by referring to a bit of ancient text, if individuals are going to reject what they can see right here with their very own eyes and believe something that was written down thousands of years ago instead, they have some explaining to do... or they should not be surprise if other people don't accept their views and don't change their behvior accordingly.

Give me an absolutely clear example of how religion can serve as a respectable Way of Knowing. What can religion provide, that no other source of knowledge can provide? What can religion provide to the human species that balances the use of religion to kill so many people for no good reason what-so-ever?

Younger son: "Daddy, what is the difference between potential and reality?"

Dad: "I will show you son."

Dad turns to his wife and asks: "Would you sleep with Robert Redford for 1 million dollars?"

Wife: "Yes, of course. I would never pass up that opportunity."

Dad then asks his daughter if she would sleep with Brad Pitt for 1 million dollars.

Daughter: "Wow! Oh my God! That is my fantasy!"

Dad turns to his elder son and asks: "Would you sleep with Tom Cruise for 1 million dollars?"

Elder son: "Yeah, why not. Imagine what I could do with 1 million dollars. Wouldn't hesitate."

Dad then turns to his younger son and says: "You see son, potentially we're sitting on 3 million dollars. But in reality, we're just living with two sluts and a poofter."

I am very angry with people such as the falsely so-called Easterbunny, who think that we Catholics have nothing to say of any value on anything.  True, we have been fuck-ups generally

I guess there's not much more to say.

But I'll say it anyway. Catholocism is a dangerous cult. How many people have died of AIDS because of stupid fucking dogma that says you can't use condoms if you're a member of the cult?
And they start the brainwashing with small children. I was brought up within this cult, but luckily for me I escaped in my teens. I had to unlearn a huge amount of crap that I had been taught by adults I had trusted.

Wow, a thread that touches on population as a topic in environmental impact, and also the role of religion on the same impacts.  Where to start, oh, where?

I came up with a simple empirical formula a while back

Consumers X Consumption = Impacts

that expresses the combined role of population and consumption on the environment.  So population has an essential role.  We ignore it out of concern for being charged with being crypto-eugenics stooges, or simply fear of being politically or socially  incorrect.  But it is a real issue and must be addressed.  

Religion is mythology elevated to the level of institutionally accepted lies.  It is a veneer to try and enforce morality, but over time the morality slips away and only the empty veneer of religion remains.  Religion is responsible for a host of crimes--e.g., "[G]od is on our side...."  

Yeah, I was once in a cage, actually OF religion, but I eventually saw the bars.  I then thought I only needed another cage, thinking perhaps others would not actually be cages.  I looked at cage after cage, but discovered the duplicity, hypocrisy, hatred, arrogance, and xenophobia of all of them.  I am now out of all cages, and can think far more clearly and independently.  

We would all be much much better served to abandon all religions as the crippling modern mythology that they are, and realize we've been duped.  God cain't help us, 'cause god don't exist.  

Just "Imagine"  --  John Lennon

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!

Love displaces work, gets us to spend less (on ourselves), and reduces the wanting of more material things.  Love of the earth fills us with wonder of its beauty and richness of all that it does and could provide in sight, sound, comfort, and delight.

Religion is best served with love.  When religion is without love it is as Godless as hell and the difference can not be found by the objective soul.

When we free ourselves to true love we open ourselves to less work, less spending, and less want.

Loss of love can be too much of nothing and that can make a man feel ill at ease.  Freedom can be just another word for nothing left to lose and freedom ain't nothing it it ain't free, might also be such a loss of love or of faith.  In any case digging deeper into work, spending more, or wanting more is not going to be as meaningful as finding hope, love, and faith.

Environmentalism is about that, yes it is.

Like all institutions, the Catholic Church has a history full of wonderful and horrible things. The same is true for capitalism, socialism, nationalism, etc.  Although I'm not Catholic, I grew up among Catholics and was inspired by many of them.  This was the time of Pope John XXIII, a time of exciting developments. Intellecutally and culturally, there is much about Catholicism that appeals to me.

On the other hand, I know that Catholicism and other religions have wounded many people. And I know from history that Catholicism has persecuted people with beliefs like mine.

So I have mixed feelings about Catholicism, more so than for any other religion.

What I think is an illusion is the idea that there is any religion or belief system that is without stain.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Of course SEX CONROL has never been very easy to achieve -- even for priests and nuns.  A little pill or some molded latex are much easier. . .and "fun".

Even if GW said one true thing out of 99 lies (use your imagination -- it could happen), I must still acknowledge that one truth.  I hope my mind would not be so clouded by anger that I would reject the one true thing he ever said.  Whatever my feelings about the Church, working less, wanting less, and spending less is good advice.  

"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi

"Do we want to solve environmental problems? If so, we have to work with allies, even though we may not agree with all their values."

Sir, you are correct. Instead of my little sarcastic dig, I should have posted the following question...

Is the upper leadership of the Catholic Church truly prepare to admit past sins and sincerely work to reduce the damage the human species is doing to the planet? Or is this just another example of corporate greenwashing?

It is apparent that a variety of traditional institutions see the writing on the wall. Or, if nothing else, recognize that the peasants are expressing some interest in the pitchforks lying about and might be prepared to storm the castles. It is wonderful that the Catholic Church is ready to motivate its followers to save Earth... as long as it is not simply a facade to appease the rabble.

As long as we are discussing the moral leadership of a religious institution... and if you can read through to the end of the post, you will see the connection to the Archbishop's recent remarks... it is sad that the leadership of the Catholic Church in the United States did not condemn George W. Bush and his fellow Republicans (and their pre-emptive war) as much as they condemned Kerry and other pro-choice candidates. Apparently, according to some Archbishops, dropping daisy cutters on children is not quite as sinful as abortion.

If the Catholic Church wishes to be trusted -- if they wish us to believe they are sincere -- they should display some consistency in their efforts to reduce human suffering. And they might also want to get their stories straight. That the Pope wants his followers to care for Creation is no indication that the Archbishops in North America, South America, and Africa will get on board and support local politcal leaders who are willing to help the Pope achieve his goals.

How to get contraception use commonly discussed and supported and not seen as a taboo is going to be a big challenge for environmentalists and human rights workers in the future. Hopefully future popes will back down from their anti-contraception stance. Its inevitable that they will have to.

I still await your explanation of how one sorts the good from the bad when looking to a religious text for knowledge. If there is an answer to my question, I'm confident that you can provide it.

I thought is might help to provide a specific example currently in the news...

http://www.counterpunch.org/susskind05172007.html

The article describes an "inspired" honor killing -- by stoning -- of a young woman. There is a video available at CNN.com. It is graphic, but everyone should watch it.

When millions of people look to a text for inspiration, how do we determine what God's actual advice is? If religion is a respectable Way of Knowing, how does one Know we should love one another vs. Know we should stone young women to death for sake of honor?

Anyways, by proxy, it makes it difficult to care about these people's lives, when they act this way, and seems extra absurd to go in chasing Saddam, when the culture is based on violence.

Umm, well F@#k those people.

And to a grandeur point that you were trying to make: things like this were done in the name of Jesus, some people's savior, for hundreds of years, so umm... F@#k those people too, even if I am offending people's ancestors.

A religious leader said something reasonable, something courageous, something - dare I say it? - far in advance of mainstream environmentalism:

voluntary simplicity, or "working less, wanting less, spending less," thus reducing the impact each person has on the environment

One question - how would you like to be treated?  If you are in the midst of change, would you want to be given encouragement or be kicked in the teeth?

We sure haven't figure out yet how to be good allies, how to work with people of different beliefs.

BTW - a more direct link to the report is: Nuncio says by living simply Catholics can help protect the earth

Bart
Energy Bulletin

I agree with you basic statement regarding allies, but have certain concerns.

I admit that it might not have been appropriate to post my sarcastic dig and, furthermore, apologize for diverting the discussion from your intended topic -- though I stand by my comments and would like someone, somewhere, to address the basic issue I raise and continue to raise.

So.... is this just "corporate greenwashing" or a real improvement?

[I] would like someone, somewhere, to address the basic issue I raise and continue to raise.

Population. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the problem has been partly solved as amc89 noted above - many modern Catholics simply ignore the taboo on birth control. I suspect that in the long-term there will be a face-saving workaround.  Right now, a better front on which to engage in debate is the addiction of industrialized nations to a rising birth rate. France and other European countries give money and privileges to encourage women to have more children. We don't have a good model for economic health in nations with declining birth rates.

Religion in general. I think there are two issues. One, is your personal beliefs. That's a big question, hard to deal with here. The second issue is tolerance for other belief systems. That's a useful thing to discuss - we can actually come up with some answers about it.

Greenwash. In the case of the Catholic Church, I don't see what they would be getting out of preaching simplicity - not much big money behind doing more with less, is there? I think the Pope and many in the Church are deeply concerned about the environment and social justice. But like all institutions, the Catholic Church also will do what it can to preserve its power. And like all of us, the Church is limited by its traditions and worldview.

So we are going to see a combination of sincerity and opportunism. As the man says:  "Hypocrisy is the homage which vice pays to virtue."

In a way, greenwashing is a step in the right direction.  See for example, the amazing story about how press magnate Ruppert Murdoch is going green.  The writer remarks:

the obsession of some campaigners in exposing "greenwash" may be misplaced. Yes, companies will seek to improve their image, but in doing so they have to achieve a real transformation, and also make themselves ever more open to consumer pressure.

"Hypocrisy is the obesience vice gives to virtue," as the saying goes.

The 5% Project

Thanks to Bart for his reasonable approach.  Frankly, I do not know what the Pope is up to, but Bart is right, he deserves encouragement on this matter.

I doubt the Pope is trying to "greenwash" the Church.  But he has been making great efforts to engage non-religious Europeans, and to persuade them that they would be wrong to dismiss what Catholics have to say out-of-hand.  And this may very well be one of those efforts, since he no doubt realizes that many of those same people take green matters very seriously.

At the same time, it remains a problem that historically in the modern period, the Church's hierarchy has regularly supported the upper classes and the exploiters, and kept the poor "in their place."  And I am afraid that this pope's opposition to liberation theology, which has been clear for a couple of decades and now on this trip to Brazil has re-emerged, looks inevitably like a continuation of that sorry history.

It should be clear that I join Catholicism's non-Catholic critics in this thread, in deploring pretty much everything that they deplore.  In particular, the opposition to the use of condoms to protect against HIV/AIDS is an out-and-out evil.  (Cf. by the way what Nicholas Kristof today has to say about George W. Bush's "abstinence only" policy in his foreign aid to African countries for combatting HIV/AIDS: many condoms are in fact being distributed, but don't tell the White House.  Same thing with Catholic charitable organizations there on-the-ground.)

Also, I do not know why the Vatican has been allowed to send an observer to the UN, nor do I know what good it does.  But does it matter?  That is not a position of any influence.

Also, I was only moderately impressed by the NYTimes Magazine's cover story on Benedict, back in April.  And the recent Newsweek's article on him seemed written in a way that was hostile to progressive Catholics.  It does not help that the very conservative priest George Weigel, Benedict's principal American cheerleader, is writing regularly for that magazine.  And the excerpt from Benedict's new book on Christology struck me as rather unoriginal, and stylistically dull.  Yes indeed, "style" rules!

To WiscIdea: Of course I want you to keep asking questions, but you have a way of doing so with a hostile rhetoric which is rather off-putting.

While I am the last person in the world who would raise a finger to defend Islam, it should be known that honor-killing and female genital mutilation are not originally Muslim customs.  Nevertheless it does not tell us anything encouraging about that "religion of peace" that so many Muslims practise and tolerate those customs.

The Muslim attitude toward the Qur'an is not at all the same as the Christian attitude toward the Bible -- though fundamentalist Christians do indeed treat the Bible in some ways similarly.

But you should understand that your continued curiosity about the Bible, as though Christianity were perfectly contained therein, I find quite misdirected.  There is a huge schism between fundamentalist Christians, whom I consider bibliolaters, i.e. idolaters whose idol is a book written millennia ago, and the classic Christianity of the ancient Mediterranean, represented today by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and a few other groups.

Your question on where to look for a "source of knowledge" outside of science -- and I recognize that as derived from something I wrote -- is an excellent one.  It is very complicated, however, and this is not the appropriate place to try to answer it.  You should have an answer, though, and perhaps I shall be able to find an opportunity to give you one.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

The survival of the church is the issue.  Global warming destruction of history would also destroy the church.  This goes way way past the idea of greenwashing.  And it speaks to the most import behavior change required for our salvation here on Earth.  Spend less.

Someday Islam will also prioritize the need for carbon energy mitigation.  They are certainly more vulnerable, though perhaps temporarily blinded by the Saud oil share for the Wahhabis.

Global warming is bigger than religion.

Want to save the world?

Don't throw a rock concert.

Ride a bike, sit by a stream and write in your journal.

And Jesus would have said things like that.  Jesus did not think at all highly of religion.  No wonder that when he died on the cross, that great symbol of religious distinction, the curtain on the door of the Temple's sanctuary, was rent in two.

On the other hand, "survival of the church" is not the issue.  Or, it should not be.  If that is what the Pope and his allies are trying to secure, they are fools.  Sure, they have a moral duty to do what they can to preserve what their conscience tells them is good for humanity.  But really, they must understand that if it must pass away, well, God will manage, and so will the creatures that God loves, in God's inscrutable fashion.

Will the destruction of history, as a result of global warming, also destroy the Church?  Very possibly.  The Church is already looking more and more feeble, in many ways.  The Neo-Fundamentalism of the Southern Churches of the Anglican Communion is a very frightening sign: If that is how some sort of phenomenon falsely referred to as Christianity is to persist, from which reason and conscience are banished, then what the hell good is that?

Yesterday, Thursday the 17th of May, was traditionally the Feast of the Ascension of Jesus Christ into Heaven, being the fortieth day after Easter, according to the fascinating little account at the beginning of the biblical Book of the Acts of the Apostles.  And so it was still celebrated here in the Archdiocese of New York, though in most places in the world the feast has been "removed" to this coming Sunday.

Our parish church happens to be named "Ascension Church," so it was our titular feast day.  And the principal Mass, which started at 7 PM, EST, featured music from the three main congregations that meet there: the classical/Renaissance/Baroque choir; the jazz combo; and the wonderful, boisterous Caribbean percussion group, with electric strings.  And pretty much everything was said in either Spanish or English, or both in succession.  It was a very happy event.  Unclear whether the Pope would have approved; he seems to want everybody to do Gregorian chant -- which I like, actually, but not always.

But the story behind the feast is one of the weirdest in Christian mythology: For forty days after his Resurrection, Jesus has been hanging out with his disciples, having meaningful conversations with them; but then, on that fortieth day, he leaves them, rising up from the Earth, and ascending into Heaven, where he was received in a cloud.  "And  while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel [i.e. angels]: Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus which is taken from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."  (Acts of the Apostles 1.10-11.)

Fortunately we Catholics are not fundamentalists, so we are not bound to accept the literal meaning of this tale as truth.

Nevertheless, it might be of interest to those heroic historians of science, and the abuses which it has suffered at the hands of us religionists, such as WiscIdea, to put into their files an unfortunate abuse of this episode in the early 17th century.  "Ye men of Galilee" is, in Latin, "O viri Galilaei," which can also be interpreted as "O men of [the one called] Galilaeus," i.e. Galileo.  So the anecdote goes that certain churchmen mocked the supporters of the shamefully arrested and silenced Galileo, father of modern science, most famously of astronomy, with the abusively re-interpreted verse, "O men of Galileo, why do you stand there looking into heaven?"

It will take a very very strong and honest pope to apologize for all that nonsense.  John Paul II already "pardoned" Galileo.  But I rather doubt that Benedict XVI is the man to do the next honorable thing, and pronounce a true apology.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Religious blackmail over sex, harnessing the most powerful force in the universe.  The reproductive urge of life itself.

Tyranny over the fundamental wisdom of motherhood.  To expand the power base of one religious/cultural movement over another.  Using a contest of the over-population of humanity.

Only reproductive rights for women can cancel the hold that these cultish power brokers have to make hell appear right here on earth.  Fear of that hell keeps the collection plate full.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

1 hour, 5 minutes ago

Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders are urging President George W. Bush and Congress to take action against global warming, declaring that the changing climate is a "moral and spiritual issue."

In an open letter to be published on Tuesday, more than 20 religious groups urged U.S. leaders to limit greenhouse gas emissions and invest in renewable energy sources.

"Global warming is real, it is human-induced and we have the responsibility to act," says the letter, which will run in Roll Call and the Politico, two Capitol Hill newspapers.

"We are mobilizing a religious force that will persuade our legislators to take immediate action to curb greenhouse gases," it says.

The letter is signed by top officials of the National Council of Churches, the Islamic Society of North America and the political arm of the Reform branch of Judaism.

Top officials from several mainline Christian denominations, including the Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church, African Methodist Episcopal Church and Alliance of Baptists also signed the letter, along with leaders of regional organizations and individual churches.

Rev. Joel Hunter, a board member of the National Association of Evangelicals, also signed the letter, though that group has not officially taken a stance on global warming due to opposition from some of its more conservative members.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070521/us_nm/climate_religio ...