.

same interpretation from his words - which are out of context.

This is the same Pope you are talking about....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/29/pope-francis-climate-change-encyclical-laudato-si_n_7471288.html

Do you support his position on climate change? Do you think he has talked about the role that technology plays and the need to step back from that in order to address the problem?

I didn't read the Encyclical yet but from what I know - yes.

Pope Francis Releases 'Laudato Si' Encyclical And Lays Out Moral Case For Addressing Climate Change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/29/pope-francis-climate-change-encyclical-laudato-si_n_7471288.html

I don't understand the second question you asked. The Pope is certainly allowed to have his opinion on what
affects our planet and nowhere did I ever get the idea that he is anti-science. He IS a scientist by his education.

Can you please direct me to the quotes where he says is against all technology?

I do not think the pope is anti-science at all. I think he recognizes that some areas of technology are important factors in global climate change and may need to be reigned in or stepped back.

I don't think he's against technology at all. I think he rightfully sees the role that some kinds of technology play in global climate change.

did your original post say that the Pope wants to "roll back progress"
and ask "is the world ready?"

You did not put your own remarks saying what you just posted to me,
thus I took it to mean that you agreed with your original comment and
link that you posted.

I often post things that I don't necessarily agree with, but I think I may have misread this article.

My take was that it was very supportive of the pope's remarks and particularly of his concerns about technology (read as me as fossil fuels, etc) being a big part of it.

It has been pointed out below that that may not have been the intent of the author.

And why are you posting rightwing bullshit here?

"There is a growing awareness that scientific and technological progress cannot be equated with the progress of humanity and history."

Except that it can in many many many ways, since without it we'd all still be dying in our 30's and most people would be slaves or serfs or servants doing tedious tasks 7 days a week. And before anyone brings up sweat shops, there are a lot of them in Catholic counties. Tech savvy 1st world countries, not so much.... tho' 1st world greed drives it. Of course greed is not a component of science.

And what does the Pope and his outfit have to offer that is as successful?

There is in fact evidence that some technological advances are at the roots of global climate change. There is also in fact evidence that some technological advance have been historically used in very inhumane ways.

Of course there is good and no one is suggesting that technology is all bad or should be abandoned.

Did you read the encyclical? What do yo think he has proposed that might be successful? Do you disagree that technology is one of the root problems?

then the subject line of the post was very misleading.

My take was that he was supportive, but I may have not really gotten his point.

'First Things' is a right wing religious journal. This piece for the Washington Post is similar to what the website is leading with at the moment, written by its editor:

an this article are very much supportive of the pope challenging technology, including the fossil fuel industry.

There may be a nefarious agenda among some, but the article is not consistent with your theory on what is happening.

("Asking First Things to stop criticizing inane straw men amounts to telling them to stop publishing at all, and if that happened, where could preening pseudo-intellectuals trying to spiritualize their right-wing ideology go to reinforce their epistemic closure?" http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/10/17/7-things-9-oclock-10-17/ )

No, the article is not supportive of the pope challenging technology; it's ignoring huge parts of his message, in the hope of reducing it to "the pope says give up technology, just like the silly pope in this novel who banned trams!".

Other analyses of the encyclical talk extensively of the pope concentrating of the effects of environmental damage on the poor; but this article doesn't mention the poor, poverty or economics at all. It says:

but still can't own up and admit it, so you resort to your tired old "I have a different opinion" schtick, as if that were evidence or argument for anything.

23. The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a complex system linked to many of the essential conditions for human life. A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it. It is true that there are other factors (such as volcanic activity, variations in the earth’s orbit and axis, the solar cycle), yet a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity. Concentrated in the atmosphere, these gases do not allow the warmth of the sun’s rays reflected by the earth to be dispersed in space. The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system. Another determining factor has been an increase in changed uses of the soil, principally deforestation for agricultural purposes.


24. Warming has effects on the carbon cycle. It creates a vicious circle which aggravates the situation even more, affecting the availability of essential resources like drinking water, energy and agricultural production in warmer regions, and leading to the extinction of part of the planet’s biodiversity. The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas, while the decomposition of frozen organic material can further increase the emission of carbon dioxide. Things are made worse by the loss of tropical forests which would otherwise help to mitigate climate change. Carbon dioxide pollution increases the acidification of the oceans and compromises the marine food chain. If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us. A rise in the sea level, for example, can create extremely serious situations, if we consider that a quarter of the world’s population lives on the coast or nearby, and that the majority of our megacities are situated in coastal areas.

25. Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades. Many of the poor live in areas particularly affected by phenomena related to warming, and their means of subsistence are largely dependent on natural reserves and ecosystemic services such as agriculture, fishing and forestry. They have no other financial activities or resources which can enable them to adapt to climate change or to face natural disasters, and their access to social services and protection is very limited. For example, changes in climate, to which animals and plants cannot adapt, lead them to migrate; this in turn affects the livelihood of the poor, who are then forced to leave their homes, with great uncertainty for their future and that of their children. There has been a tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee from the growing poverty caused by environmental degradation. They are not recognized by international conventions as refugees; they bear the loss of the lives they have left behind, without enjoying any legal protection whatsoever. Sadly, there is widespread indifference to such suffering, which is even now taking place throughout our world. Our lack of response to these tragedies involving our brothers and sisters points to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded.

26. Many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms, simply making efforts to reduce some of the negative impacts of climate change. However, many of these symptoms indicate that such effects will continue to worsen if we continue with current models of production and consumption. There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and developing sources of renewable energy. Worldwide there is minimal access to clean and renewable energy. There is still a need to develop adequate storage technologies. Some countries have made considerable progress, although it is far from constituting a significant proportion. Investments have also been made in means of production and transportation which consume less energy and require fewer raw materials, as well as in methods of construction and renovating buildings which improve their energy efficiency. But these good practices are still far from widespread.

I particularly draw your attention to the bit in section 23, a number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity.

The encyclical itself is on-line here.

But if he did, he must either agree with it or is willfully ignoring it. Either way, what does that say?

You didn't read it properly. In fact, that quite short paragraph is the only place it is mentioned.

Second, being against abortion is not "hate speech". If you believe, as the pope does, that a fetus is a human being, then abortion is murder.

Third, he is embracing science, but you are so filled with animosity against him that you refuse to see it. Francis, unlike every other pope before him, has quite respectable credentials as a scientist, with a masters in chemistry.

Fourth, the encyclical says nothing about single mothers or gay couples. Apparently, you did not read it.

I don't even care about the rest of what you said because you tipped your hand with that one.

Anti-abortion talk is hate speech against women, against minorities, and against the poor.

It. Is. Hate. Speech.

Were are here on a progressive liberal website and someone literally typed out "being against abortion is not "hate speech""

I shouldn't be too surprised because just the other day someone said "Being against gay marriage isn't bigotry"

And it was about the same person... Maybe we should accept that against all wishes the Pope is a right wing, conservative figure who happens to be right sometimes, but usually for the wrong reasons.

Could it be that you cannot defend your ridiculous claim that anti-abortion talk is "hate speech". Are you given to saying that everyone who disagrees with you on abortion is doing so out of hatred? If so, then I submit that you are the one filled with hatred, not the pope.

As a matter of fact, I happen to support abortion rights. But I do not automatically assume that those who disagree with me on this are acting from the basest of motives.

I also notice that you take one paragraph out of a 184 page document to whinge about.

Here you are chastising me for not reading and hounding on about one issue.

When you are actually the one who didn't really read my post, and are hounding on about one aspect of it...

My summary was that the pope blamed us for turning away from god and that was causing climate change, I even left out the bit about abortion in that because it was such a small paragraph. His abortion statement was more of a poison pill, tieing in his regular hate agenda into it, and showing that he's really making a political maneuver to make the church more relevant.

We're not talking about differing opinions, we're talking about people who hold their imaginary friend above the lives of women.



"there are women in this world who have inserted coat hangers into themselves in order to force/create an abortion… because.. men in government thought more about the words in the Bible than the rights of women and their bodies.

Illegal abortions caused the death of many many women, infertility, horrendous internal damage and infection and royally fucked with the emotional well being of so many woman."

Anti-abortion talk is hate speech. The beliefs the Pope forces on the world kill.

This isn't a matter of a difference of opinion "I'm not fond of avocados, but if you like them that's fine" this is a matter of women's lives. And if you hold the ridiculous belief that abortion is murder, then you don't value the lives of women. In this age there is no excuse to not know the effects of your beliefs, and the true depth of it.
You're defending hate speech, might want to examine which side of the issue's you're on. You'll find yourself defending his stance on child abuse next (Remember when he said it was natural to hit a child? as long as it's not the face to "preserve his dignity&quot

He thinks marriage equality is from the devil, that women should yield to men in positions of leadership, and that birth control is a sin. He would love to roll back all the progress we've made in those areas.

Glad you are finally seeing this man for what he is.

Advocating for the poor and the environment, pointing out the role technology is playing in destroying the environment instead of saving it. No sane person could avoid being pessimistic in the face of the largest extinction in the history of humanity, the refusal to stop pumping carbon into the atmosphere and the poisoning of our air and water. But the Pope is on the side of working to solve those problems in spite of the difficulty. I'm not a Catholic, and have seen previous popes as aligned with the right wing. This one, bey speaking on these topics, is a tremendous force for positive change. He's not anti-science, he's against the use of technology in ways that harms the environment.

The headline is a teaser, but the author is fully supportive of his stance on the environment.

He emphasizes the negative, pessimistic, dark foreboding aspects and then says there are no clear solutions. I believe the Pope has offered a number of clear solutions, from increased aid to the poor, sharing of profits, emphasizing the value of people and the environment over profit, and decreasing carbon emissions. I agree it is partly a spiritual issue, but it is also an economic, social and scientific issue.

He talks about the potential solutions, as well as the economic, social and scientific issues involved.

and always have been opposed to science and invention. This man despises LGBT people and says our rights come from Satan, he opposes all contraception and tells people it is a sin to use condoms to prevent HIV transmission.
1.3 Million a year die of AIDS in Africa. Do you feel that the 'we hate science' dogma is worth that price? Are condoms really the problem? What about all those dead people and the orphans they leave behind them?

When a bigoted misogynist starts talking about intense roll backs of progress, many people will not trust that bigoted misogynist. Just so you know.

Like the apocalypse?

Do you think it predicts a happy future or not?

Who cares? It's all fantasy anyway.


So... he was just speaking about Catholics.... I see.

You made a statement that indicated that the "end times" (apocalypse) was a pessimistic view of the future.

Or did I misunderstand you?

Or you misconstrued.

I can't ever tell which anymore.

Why would you possibly care what people who believe in the irrational nonsense that you have already (rightly I'd say) rejected?

And he had to throw in another slam against our LGBTQ allies of course. Why are some people so damn worried about what atheists post anonymously on the Internet, but yet praise every utterance from this homophobic, misogynistic man with a global megaphone?

W. T. F.

Women aren't wild animals we have to protect and preserve in a zoo.

Just when you thought frankie couldn't get any lower, he literally compares women to animals.

to the point before we started leaving religion.

Way behind on many social issues, but I do support his view of capitalism and his Franciscan view of the poor and I agree with his opinion on the worlds number one problem

New ‘Holy War:’ Pope’s anticapitalism values beating capitalist atheism
Pope Francis’s target is clear: economic inequality is the world’s No. 1 problem. Capitalism is at the center of all problems of inequality. And he speaks with a powerful moral authority — something totally missing from American political leaders who are ideologically guided by atheist Ayn Rand, patron saint of the GOP’s capitalism agenda in this moral war. Without moral grounding, the GOP is no match for Francis’ vision, his principled mandate, his long-game strategy to raise the world’s billions out of poverty, to eliminate inequality, to attack the myopic capitalism driving today’s economy, markets and political system.

Moreover, the pope has the resources: As commander-in-chief of the world’s largest army: 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide who are now motivated to defeat capitalism’s grip on inequality. His army includes 78 million Americans in 17,645 parishes, plus a huge officer corps of 213 cardinals, over 5,000 bishops, 450,000 priests and deacons worldwide, all sworn to carry out his vision. He needs no legislative approvals; popes have authority to act unilaterally, with speed, a dictator whose word is law, commanding allegiance, obedience and action.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-ways-pope-franciss-anticapitalism-will-save-the-world-2014-11-13

pissed off the republicans, so I give him some credit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141121555

And while you might think that is nit-picking it isn't. Atheism takes no position at all on economics or political philosophy.

justifies and bases her objectivism on her anti-theism. To her there were only 2 ideas that she thought were a threat to her political philosophy, socialism and religion, especially the RCC. You may want to read Anne Heller to learn more about the subject. I like to point this out, not because I'm against Atheism, but because I against the philosophy that has taken over the right wing, Objectivism. The more we tie her to their economics, the worst they look and the more they have to back track. The 2 articles I have just posted shows their fear of Libertarianism's evil marriage to the religious right. If we kick one leg out, the whole stool falls apart.

I catch hell here because I'm a non theist and not an anti-theist. That is pretty much the standard for Humanism and Ethical Culture.

If Rand despised the RCC, that's fine with me, but again atheism takes no position on the RCC, other than disagreeing with them about belief in their god.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

but can agree with it's altruism. That is the part I do agree with. I put humans needs and wants above gods needs and wants and I see that as the difference. If I can agree with the pope on the subject of the poor and the inhumanity of capitalism, I'll take it. I see the happiest countries as those in Western Europe that practice a more fair form of socialism, like Sanders does. Once we take care of human needs religion tends to mean less and less. As long as the mega rich form a team with with conservative churches, people will suffer. Breaking up that team will or can bring about social justice. So, I will support any church leader that fights the capitalist, I will support his or her battle against the powerful and still fight authoritarian church leaders on THOSE issues. There are religious people that support the division of church and state and I support that too. I'm for a more fair distribution wealth. Some religious people are for that and some atheist are for that and some religious and some atheist are against it. I support social justice.

Some of what he does I am very supportive of. Other things, though, are very disappointing.

On this particular issue, I think he is on the right track.

And, as you say, if he pisses off the republicans, he can't be all bad.

But this sentence is a gem:

humanity and history.

If some uses of scientific and technological progress can be shown not to have led to the progress of humanity and history, then the logical conclusion is that they can not be equated, even if other uses have led to progress.

Lost in translation? Possibly. Reading with an agenda can often lead to that.

Let's start with the weaponry that not only cuts short so many human lives but devastates the environment: atomic bombs, Agent Orange, napalm, depleted uranium, weaponized pathogens.....

Einstein once said that if he had foreseen the use to which his scientific discoveries would be put, he would have become a watchmaker.

Just more black and white thinking - technology good, religion bad.

:beatchest:

Scientific and technological progress is progress. Period.

To deny this is just being an anti-progress luddite. Like this Pope.

sightedness and ignorance of Earth, its ecosystems, and how our technology is implemented for our conveniences.

Let's put it this way, if, millions of years ago, trillions of small organisms didn't die repeatedly in shallow oceans and seas and decompose into oil, and forest and bogs didn't die and get buried to form coal beds, we wouldn't be at the technological level we are at today, nor would anthropogenic climate change be such a large issue. We used them because they were cheap and plentiful, still are, nowadays. The thing is, we can't really fault ourselves on this one, we have been burning trees for thousands of years without issue, why would coal or oil be any different?

It took scientists decades of research to determine what was wrong with the climate, and they confirmed and and reconfirmed it many times since. Its the population explosion of the industrial revolution, combined with wanton consumption of fossil fuels that lead us to where we are today.

The problem isn't spiritual, its technological and societal. We need to do 3 basic things, increase research and implementation of technology that can make renewable energy more efficient, increase urbanization and increase secular education to reduce habitat destruction.

I think the increase renewable implementation is a no brainer, the next two are different and more cultural than anything else, because they are the beginning of a cascade, rather than an end result. First, increasing urbanization, this is already being done, and basically we need to create policies to prefer it over sprawl and rural communities. The reason is simple, more urbanized populations consume less resources per capita than rural or suburban populations. Combine this with increased education, particularly comprehensive sex education for both boys and girls, combined with the rest, and you have the foundations for societies with lower birth rates and higher standards of living for all in them.

We don't need to roll back progress, we need to speed it up.

While we need to speed some progress up, other areas need to be slowed down. Fracking, development of certain kinds of weapons, inefficient transportation systems - for instance.