Politicians tell Pope Francis to ‘stick with his job'

[Steve James]

Hmm, I wonder how this will turn out.

Leading figures on the American right are launching a series of pre-emptive attacks on the pope before this week’s encyclical, hoping to prevent a mass conversion of the climate change deniers who have powered the corps of the conservative movement for more than a decade.

The prospect that the pope, from his perch at the pinnacle of the Catholic church, will exhort humanity to act on climate change as a moral imperative is a direct threat to a core belief of US conservatives. And conservatives – anxious to hang on to their flock – are lashing out.

“The pope ought to stay with his job, and we’ll stay with ours,” James Inhofe, the granddaddy of climate change deniers in the US Congress and chairman of the Senate environment and public works committee, said last week, after picking up an award at a climate sceptics’ conference.

Rick Santorum, a devout Catholic and a long-shot contender for the Republican nomination, told a Philadelphia radio station: “The church has gotten it wrong a few times on science, and I think we probably are better off leaving science to the scientists and focusing on what we’re good at, which is theology and morality.”

A majority of Republicans in Congress deny the existence of climate change and oppose regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Among the ultra-conservative Tea Party set, climate change scepticism reaches epidemic proportions, about 80% of those on the far right, according to the Pew research centre. Only one of the nearly 20 Republicans running for president will acknowledge the danger of climate change, another long-shot contender, Lindsey Graham.

The fossil fuel industry, including the American Petroleum Institute lobby group and Peabody Coal, has cast fossil fuels as a route out of poverty in the developing world. Ultra-conservative and climate change denial thinktanks, such as the Heartland Institute, which has been funded by the oil industry, have argued that climate change was the cure for drought and famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s.

“In the US for the past 10 years we have allowed climate change to become an ideological political issue instead of being the moral issue that it is,” said the Rev Mitchell Hescox, leader of the Evangelical Environmental Network. “The idea that climate change is a liberal issue has just permeated the thought of those in the conservative movement, and those in the denier campaign have taken advantage of that to continue to drive home the message that climate change is not a moral issue,” added Hescox, who identifies himself as a conservative.

But it gets much harder to dismiss climate change as a fringe concern of liberals such as Al Gore, and environmental regulations as a sneaky first step to sweeping regulations and a government takeover of private lives, once the pope becomes involved.

“If I were a Catholic climate denier, I would be worried about the pope,” said Patrick Regan, who teaches the politics of climate change at Notre Dame University. “And if I had a vested interest in not changing climate policy, the pope would be a threat to my political stance.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ar-BBl5n5E

[yeniseri]

then those politicians should get the fork out of their religious BS law passing ignorant following crappers trying to use it to bamboozle the people! If I were Catholic then I would surely follow the example of Pope Francis as he presents a "balanced" and accurate vision of that the exanple of Jesus was!

[Steve James]

yeah, sure there are people who'll say "don't listen to him, he's the Pope" when it comes to some issues, but they'll say he's God's messenger whenever he agrees with them. But, the anti-climate change arguments --in American politics-- is almost totally based on economics. Iow, people say it isn't happening simply because doing something about it will cost somebody something. Usually it's related to whether or not this or that form of manmade condition or effect (whether cutting down forests, or saving species, or reducing fishing, or carbon taxes, or drilling in particular places, or reducing carbon dioxide emissions) has had any effect on the climate. There's competing science because, just as in the case of tobacco and alcohol, there are scientists who are paid to find out how harmless these effects have been. So, there's uncertainty about the cause, and disagreement about the solution.

However, the Pope seems to want to make it a moral issue. There's far more Biblical scripture concerning taking care of the Earth. There's "Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads" from Revelation. Though, the part in Genesis where the Earth and everything is given to mankind can be ambivalent. Does that mean use it up and throw it away 'cause it's yours. Or, does it mean, take care of it because it was my gift to you? No matter, People will treat the planet no better than they'll treat people, and they'll often care for stray animals in their town better than their homeless. That, otoh, is a moral issue. Anyway, I tend to believe that it's easy to agree with the Pope, then go out and keep doing the same thing. Oh well.

[Steve James]

Unrelated, sort of ... Ironic because the drought probably isn't a result of climate change. Afa peeps in the suburbs complaining, they should hear what the people are saying at the water's source. Nope, when it comes to necessary natural resources, equality is a myth. It's easy to be sympathetic to the people with the acres of lawns, but if it's a choice between water going to people or the grass, well, that should be an easy moral question to answer. However, those people pay more taxes, so their logic is people should get what they pay for. And if it comes down to the last drop, it's the people with the most money who should get it. Right?

RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIF. — Drought or no drought, Steve Yuhas resents the idea that it is somehow shameful to be a water hog. If you can pay for it, he argues, you should get your water.

People “should not be forced to live on property with brown lawns, golf on brown courses or apologize for wanting their gardens to be beautiful,” Yuhas fumed recently on social media. “We pay significant property taxes based on where we live,” he added in an interview. “And, no, we’re not all equal when it comes to water.”

Yuhas lives in the ultra-wealthy enclave of Rancho Santa Fe, a bucolic Southern California hamlet of ranches, gated communities and country clubs that guzzles five times more water per capita than the statewide average. In April, after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) called for a 25 percent reduction in water use, consumption in Rancho Santa Fe went up by 9 percent.

But a moment of truth is at hand for Yuhas and his neighbors, and all of California will be watching: On July 1, for the first time in its 92-year history, Rancho Santa Fe will be subject to water rationing.

“It’s no longer a ‘You can only water on these days’ ” situation, said Jessica Parks, spokeswoman for the Santa Fe Irrigation District, which provides water service to Rancho Santa Fe and other parts of San Diego County. “It’s now more of a ‘This is the amount of water you get within this billing period. And if you go over that, there will be high penalties.’ ”

So far, the community’s 3,100 residents have not felt the wrath of the water police. Authorities have issued only three citations for violations of a first round of rather mild water restrictions announced last fall. In a place where the median income is $189,000, where PGA legend Phil Mickelson once requested a separate water meter for his chipping greens, where financier Ralph Whitworth last month paid the Rolling Stones $2 million to play at a local bar, the fine, at $100, was less than intimidating.

All that is about to change, however. Under the new rules, each household will be assigned an essential allotment for basic indoor needs. Any additional usage — sprinklers, fountains, swimming pools — must be slashed by nearly half for the district to meet state-mandated targets.

Aerial view overlooking landscaping on April 4, 2015 in Rancho Santa Fe, California. Gov. Jerry Brown has demanded a 25 percent cut in urban water useage due to a severe drought affecting much of California and the West. © Sandy Huffaker/Getty Images Aerial view overlooking landscaping on April 4, 2015 in Rancho Santa Fe, California. Gov. Jerry Brown has demanded a 25 percent cut in urban water useage due to a severe drought affecting much of California and…
Residents who exceed their allotment could see their already sky-high water bills triple. And for ultra-wealthy customers undeterred by financial penalties, the district reserves the right to install flow restrictors — quarter-size disks that make it difficult to, say, shower and do a load of laundry at the same time.

In extreme cases, the district could shut off the tap altogether.

[California’s largest lake is slipping away amid epic drought]

The restrictions are among the toughest in the state, and residents of Rancho Santa Fe are feeling aggrieved.

“I think we’re being overly penalized, and we’re certainly being overly scrutinized by the world,” said Gay Butler, an interior designer out for a trail ride on her show horse, Bear. She said her water bill averages about $800 a month.

“It angers me because people aren’t looking at the overall picture,” Butler said. “What are we supposed to do, just have dirt around our house on four acres?”

Rancho Santa Fe residents are hardly the only Californians facing a water crackdown. On Friday, the state said it would impose sharp cutbacks on senior water rights dating back to the Gold Rush for the first time in four decades, a move that primarily hits farmers. And starting this month, all of California’s 400-plus water districts are under orders to reduce flow by at least 8 percent from 2013 levels.

[Photos: What losing 63 trillions gallon of water looks like]

Top water users such as Rancho Santa Fe are required to cut consumption by 36 percent. Other areas in the 36-percent crosshairs include much of the Central Valley, a farming region that runs up the middle of the state, and Orange County, a ritzy Republican stronghold between San Diego and Los Angeles.

“I call it the war on suburbia,” said Brett Barbre, who lives in the Orange County community of Yorba City, another exceptionally wealthy Zip code.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/rich-c ... ar-BBl6vyY

[vadaga]

i have always thought that white pebble/stone lawns made more sense for low-water areas myself. they have a sort of Zen garden thing going on, especially if you get a couple of cool looking cacti or palm trees going in there as well. Saw a lot of these in oceanside/island communities in Texas...

[edededed]

As globally known people of religion go - I really like Pope Francis. Kind, humble, and intelligent, too - can't really ask for much more. He gives Christianity a good name.

These rich guys in the US, though - they seem to have made a new, unique variation of Christianity, that they follow. They should give it a new name - "American New Christianity" or something like that, to better differentiate it.

[Andy_S]

If these right-wing nutjobs don't pipe down, perhaps the head Papist will declare a jiha...erm, crusade....against the lot of 'em,

Though I fear the US military would wipe the deck with the Papal Guard - not to mention the Italian Armed Forces - before breakfast.

[Steve James]

Did you hear about the politician who said the California drought was God's punishment for allowing gay marriages? Big joke that, as if that's America's greatest sin.

[Ron Panunto]

This is probably the first time in history that the Catholic church came out on the side of science instead of ignorance.

[Bill]

To respond to Ron I'll re-post this.....


The idea that the Catholic Church opposes science could not be more wrong....

In the Church's view, science and faith are complementary to each other and mutually beneficial.

In 1988, Pope John Paul II addressed a letter to the Director of the Vatican Astronomical Observatory, noting, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish."

As Nobel Laureate Joseph Murray notes, "Is the Church inimical to science? Growing up as a Catholic and a scientist — I don't see it. One truth is revealed truth, the other is scientific truth. If you really believe that creation is good If the Catholic Church were opposed to science, we would expect to find no or very few Catholic scientists, no sponsorship of scientific research by Catholic institutions, and an explicit distrust of reason in general and scientific reasoning in particular taught in official Catholic teaching. In fact, we find none of these things.

Historically, Catholics are numbered among the most important scientists of all time, including Rene Descartes, who discovered analytic geometry and the laws of refraction; Blaise Pascal, inventor of the adding machine, hydraulic press, and the mathematical theory of probabilities; Augustinian priest Gregor Mendel, who founded modern genetics; Louis Pasteur, founder of microbiology and creator of the first vaccine for rabies and anthrax; and cleric Nicolaus Copernicus, who first developed scientifically the view that the earth rotated around the sun. Jesuit priests in particular have a long history of scientific achievement; they contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter's surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn's rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon affected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics — all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents.

The scientist credited with proposing in the 1930s what came to be known as the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe was Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest. Alexander Fleming, the inventor of penicillin, shared his faith. More recently, Catholics constitute a good number of Nobel Laureates in Physics, Medicine, and Physiology, including Erwin Schrodinger, John Eccles, and Alexis Carrel. How can the achievements of so many Catholics in science be reconciled with the idea that the Catholic Church opposes scientific knowledge and progress?

One might try to explain such distinguished Catholic scientists as rare individuals who dared to rebel against the institutional Church, which opposes science. However, the Catholic Church as an institution funds, sponsors, and supports scientific research in the Pontifical Academy of Science and in the departments of science found in every Catholic university across the world, including those governed by Roman Catholic bishops, such as The Catholic University of America. This financial and institutional support of science by the Church began at the very birth of science in seventeenth-century Europe and continues today. Even Church buildings themselves were not only used for religious purposes but designed in part to foster scientific knowledge. As Thomas Woods notes:

Cathedrals in Bologna, Florence, Paris, and Rome were designed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to function as world-class solar observatories. Nowhere in the world were there more precise instruments for the study of the sun. Each such cathedral contained holes through which sunlight could enter and time lines (or meridian lines) on the floor. It was by observing the path traced out by the sunlight on these lines that researchers could obtain accurate measurements of time and predict equinoxes.
In the words of J. L. Heilbron of the University of California, Berkeley, the "Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and probably, all other institutions." This financial and social support extended also to other branches of scientific inquiry., there can be no harm in studying science. The more we learn about creation — the way it emerged — it just adds to the glory of God. Personally, I've never seen a conflict."

[grzegorz]

This is probably the first time in history that the Catholic church came out on the side of science instead of ignorance.

You might be surprised to know that most, if not all, Catholics believe in evolution.

[edededed]

I don't quite understand - but what is with the "Catholic" right-wing politicians speaking out against evolution (and, essentially, the Pope) in the US? Are they just a sub-branch of Catholics (I dunno, the richest and the whitest?) or something? I also thought that Catholics were a bit more, well, reasonable than the average...

[Bill]

Ed
The U.S. is a mainly Protestant country. The conservative politicians who rally against evolution tend to be Protestants, not Catholics.

[edededed]

Yeah - I know (I was a Protestant before). But Rick Santorum (and others, I think?) are supposedly "devout Catholics" - but seem to be more like the typical conservative US politicians than Catholic, I'm just wondering if that is an aberration, or a group tendency?

[Steve James]

When science began in the West, it was illegal to be irreligious. All western scientists were believers or claimed to be. That doesn't mean or imply they weren't. However, when their experiments led to conclusions that contradicted church dogma, they had to make a choices. The church, otoh, also wanted to protect its power and prevent confusion. At that time, there was only the Orthodox church and Roman Catholicism.

Scientists could be religious, but average people were uneducated and not scientists. Scientific theories conflicted with their understanding and religious beliefs, not necessarily with the thoughts of educated clergy. There was no scientific establishment that could oppose the church. And the church could control the people -and even the king- with threats of hellfire and God's wrath.

Afa today, it's true that there are more Protestants, and more fundamentalists, but the rejection of certain scientific ideas is still done to retain control. Yeah, there are some people who will still argue that the earth is 6000 years old, but the vast majority of American Protestants don't. That's why in some states there are attempts to make Bible study part of science class. It must be noted that this is not true in Italy, Ireland, Spain or Poland, the most Catholic of countries, or in England, Germany, Switzerland or any other European country.

It happens here because, as already stated, American Christianity is its own thing. And,btw, that's been noted for centuries. It's that other form of American exceptionalism: I.e., "only in America."