Pope Francis issues top 10 tips for happiness – including don’t try to convert other people

[SecularMotion]

Turn off the TV, calm down and stop trying to convert people to your religion. These are among the top 10 pieces of advice issued by Pope Francis this week as part of his recipe for a happy, more fulfilled life.

Speaking in a very frank interview published in the Argentine weekly “Viva”, the Pope drew on his personal experiences to come up with his own lifestyle guide with a humble, anti-consumerist twist.

The highlights include a call to families to “turn off the TV when they sit down to eat because, even though television is useful for keeping up with the news, having it on during mealtime doesn't let you communicate with each other”, according to a Catholic News Service translation of the interview.

And Francis said people will also be much happier when they stop trying too hard to bring others round to their way of thinking – including on religion. He said the church grows “by attraction, not proselytising”, and added that the best way to get through to anyone was with “dialogue, starting with his or her own identity”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/pope-francis-issues-top-10-tips-for-happiness--including-dont-try-to-convert-other-people-9639488.html

[hrmjustin]

1. They should be able to see your faith by how you lead your life.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. An excellent de-conversion tool, I do believe.

[hrmjustin]

6. For many yes. Many religious people have turned off people to religion by their actions.

[cbayer]

10. This makes no sense. How is this an excellent de-conversion tool.

I guess if you totally reject what he is saying here, then you can proceed with trying to deconvert?

[AtheistCrusader]

12. He said..

"They should be able to see your faith by how you lead your life."

He took it the opposite of what I meant, which is actually true enough, when believers are living 'badly' by some metric. he made a great point there.

But what I meant was, people like me, living my life by example, and in many cases, surprising believers. A lot of people assume some level of religiosity in me, due to my unwaveringly principled lifestyle, and, of my cousins/relatives, longest-enduring marriage. For some reason that often gets associated with religious faith.

I demonstrate that neither is required at all, on a daily basis. As we have discussed (And I presume you agree, not being a believer yourself) it is possible to live a perfectly moral and upstanding life without religious influence. Demonstrating that can change the assumptions, and in some cases, start to de-convert people who assumed religion was the only way.

Not always though. I still see a lot of 'if you're living your life for your partner, your marriage is in trouble, live for god and the marriage will follow' type of nonsense in my FB feed, but... Some individuals have really started questioning their assumptions after discovering that I am an atheist.

[cbayer]

16. That's very interesting.

I never assume that a person is religious or not religious based on their actions and attitude. I know that there are good people and bad people and some are religious and some aren't'.

But assuming that good people are religious is just as faulty as assuming that bad people are religious. People should be assessed and judged on how they behave and how they treat others, not on some superficial label like theist or atheist.

I am often accused of being anti-antheist here. That is simply not true. There are some people that I intensely dislike, but it's not because they are atheists. It is just convenient to say that is the reason, rather than look at one's own behavior.

You know that I find the whole de-conversion thing as offensive as the conversion thing. I think you are out of line, but I don't expect that to change anything about you or what you are trying to do. I do think that some people say exactly what you are saying and it is their hope to convert.

You all balance each other out in the long wrong, I guess. But I am going with Francis here - live and let live. Saving people is way over everyone's pay grade.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Well, as I've mentioned before

keeping religion out of politics is middle ground enough for me. I wouldn't be active in this sphere of civil discourse, if not for that. But since it is, and it impacts me, then I consider helping people who are willing, away from these beliefs, as one of many solutions to the problem.

Not so much to save them, but to 'save' me, per saving my rights.

[cbayer]

24. Keeping religion out of politics is something we both agree on, I believe.

Trying to make believers into non-believers is something we do not.

You can convince people that religion should stay out of politics without trying to convince them to abandon their beliefs. Leave their beliefs alone. The victory lies in having them aligned with your secular mission not in having them deconvert.

That's where the saving part comes in. Why can't you just accept that some people are believers but are still on your side?

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Why can't you accept that some people incorporate new information and

in doing so, walk away from old ideas, and that's not a bad thing?

[cbayer]

28. People do that and find religion sometimes too.

The problem is in thinking that the only right road is the one you are leading them to.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. I don't lead them anywhere.

I can't. It would be counter productive. Surest way to reinforce an idea, is coercion against the idea.

They lead themselves. I just supply info.
Some find their way to a form of faith they find more agreeable.

[cbayer]

33. So is it ok with you if people try to show others that there is a different way of seeing things,

and that way includes belief in god?

If those people lead themselves to a faith based religion while others just supply info, do you find that as reasonable as what you do?

Or does it only work it they follow your path?

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Sure, I believe in the first amendment.

[cbayer]

38. Does the first amendment include proselytizing?

If so, then I expect that you will not complain about others doing this in the future.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Outside the court established boundaries of the state, yes.

Speech is speech. I'm also free to say I don't like it. But no, I don't work to prohibit it.

[cbayer]

41. Ok then, as long as you are ok with proselytizing to convert or deconvert.

As for me, although I recognize that it is everyone's right to do this, I still find it objectionable, whether it's a Jehovah's Witness or you.

Live and let live. Give people credit. They will find or abandon god as suits them. The bottom line is that you are no smarter than they are.

[TexasProgresive]

2. Yes! Let's not proselytise.

Please don't push your religion or non-religion on others.

[Starboard Tack]

7. +100

[cbayer]

3. Cool. Couldn't agree more.

Live and let live is #1. Great advice. He says to stop proselytizing and respect others beliefs.

But my favorite is:

Stop being negative. “Needing to talk badly about others indicates low self-esteem. That means, 'I feel so low that instead of picking myself up I have to cut others down,'” the Pope said. “Letting go of negative things quickly is healthy.”

One we could all benefit from, including me for sure.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Dunno. Those Westboro Baptist Church motherfuckers sort of deserve it...

[cbayer]

25. Sort of deserve what?

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Speak ill of.

Since they spread so much misery and hate.

Some people earn their detestability.

[cbayer]

30. Meh, one of the most significant buddhist truths I learned was

that talking bad about other people was a waste of time and really only hurt you in the end.

What is the point?

Shining a bright light on their bad acts is great and I support that.

But just talking trash about them? Or anyone?

It's hard to resist, I know. I have to actively struggle against it myself.

[Goblinmonger]

31. ..........

Oh, and "learned"

[Starboard Tack]

76. Yep, you might want to pay attention. None of us are beyond learning.

Even those who profess to be teachers.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. I have had occasion to direct the exhaust ports of a 1600cc V-Twin in their direction.

I was worth every drop of gas.


Noise ordinances are more of a .... guideline.

[cbayer]

34. You tried to poison them with carbon dioxide? Or am I reading this wrong?

I don't even know what a 1500cc V-twin is, but it just sound juvenile to me.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. It's a bike with a bigger engine than my car.

Also a form of political speech.

[cbayer]

37. So you went to Oklahoma to fart in the face of Westboro with your motorcycle?

Frankly, I wouldn't waste my time going anywhere they go, let alone engaging in some kind of activity that is just, well, juvenile.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. The noise of the engines drowns out their BS.

They like to chant offensive things. Yes, it's fully juvenile, but it's for a good cause. BACA is Bikers against Child Abuse.
(I did not go to Oaklahoma, that was just an example.)

[okasha]

88. The Westboro Baptist Church is loud and offensive.

Given that the membership is restricted to the family of the late Fred and one other family, the harm it's done has also been pretty restricted.

They're a hate group. A very small, non-influential hate group. As far as I know, they've never influenced legislation or done more than stage obnoxious demonstrations, most of which have been met by counter-demonstrators. They wouldn't make my personal top-ten anti-LGBT bigots list.

[AtheistCrusader]

101. They are certainly ineffective.

Highly obnoxious, but ineffective, agreed there.

[Starboard Tack]

5. Excellent post! Thanks SM.

I'll take those 10 tips over the 10 commandments any day. What a breath of fresh air this guy is, and not just for Catholics but for everyone. What a role model for other heads of state.

[SecularMotion]

9. I agree. If all heads of state spoke in meaningless platitudes

without ever taking action, the world might be a better and more peaceful place.

[cbayer]

11. I know you probably meant this sarcastically, but I do think it has merit.

If there were those who believed in peace and justice and social responsibility at the helms of many of our ships of state, I do believe the world would be a better and more peaceful place.

Better to take no action and to promote peace then to take action that engages in war.

[Starboard Tack]

14. "Meaningless platitutdes"? This is your OP

There is nothing meaningless about anything Francis is saying here. Maybe you'd care to point out something you object to or find without merit.
It would be wonderful to have you engage in the conversation, especially as you posted such a positive OP.

[trotsky]

8. What a laugh!

#1 is a complete joke - the RCC to this day INSISTS on meddling in everyone's affairs - not just Catholics!

His outright hypocrisy on #1 unfortunately diminishes any useful advice found in the rest of his list.

#5 - Not everyone's holy or special day is Sunday.

#7 - Overpopulation is one of the biggest hurdles we face for sustainability and care for our environment. How can we take seriously an organization and its leader whose policies ENCOURAGE reproduction?

#8 - I hope he sits down with his entire hierarchy and drives that point home.

#9 - isn't realistic at all. If we meet someone whose religion teaches them to be homophobic, should we NOT engage them to try and change their minds? Taken generically, this request would pretty much kill democracy and politics too.

But the pope fan club will lap it up anyway.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Yep, want to get serious about climate change? Reduce population growth.

Anything that gets in the way of that is pretty much directly shitting up the entire planet.

[Starboard Tack]

15. Really? You think climate change is about population growth.

Let's see how China is doing on that one. Single child policy. Biggest polluter. Not working too well.
Climate change is about greed and stupidity, not birth control.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. I do, because studies show it to be true.

http://www.livescience.com/9701-save-planet-kids.html

Fewer offspring is better for the planet than conservation.

[Starboard Tack]

43. Everything is relative.

Of course fewer offspring would be better for the planet. Fewer humans would be better. We are the ones who are destroying the planet. But let's get our priorities straight. And our facts.
I currently live between two heavily catholic countries, Mexico and Italy. Mexico has a population growth of less than 1%. It's birth rate has declined since 1976 from 5.7 per woman to 2.2 in 2006 and continues to drop. Italy has a negative population growth, despite a huge influx of immigrants.

The fact that the RCC advocates not using birth control and opposes abortion has little influence on reality. I'm not saying this isn't a valid issue to address when discussing the policies and influence of the RCC, but let's get our priorities straight.

If you want to address over population, talk to India and China.

I'd be happy to discuss environmental issues with you and saving the planet, but this is not the forum. Fell free to come on over to Frugal and Energy Efficient Living or Environment & Energy.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Did you even look at the study?

Christian 78% population.
"In Wyoming, rates increased from 43 births per 1,000 girls ages 15 to 19 in 2005 to 47 births in 2006, according the 2009 KIDS COUNT Data Book released Tuesday."

"Teen pregnancy had been on a sharp decline since the 1990s, said Laura Beavers, author of the 2009 data book, but there appears to be a reversal of this "long-term trend." This is the first time in 10 years the rate has increased nationally."

County, Teen birth rates per 1,000 girls ages 15 to 19 in 2006

United States, 42
Wyoming, 47

"Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

Combine that with the first study I referenced, and you will see why fewer people is the biggest bang for the buck, conservation-wise.
Every effort in the US to counter family planning, is massively increasing our carbon footprint. 20 tons per year per person.

[Starboard Tack]

54. I don't get it

You're blaming opposition to family planning in fucking Wyoming for climate change? And you're laying this on the RCC?
No, I didn't read the study. How many girls aged 15 to 19 are in Wyoming? 100?
Of course you need comprehensive sex education in the US. Fight for it. Get it. But global warming? Jeez!

Nothing is closer to my heart than climate change and preserving what's left of this planet.

Dump the SUV's and the ATV's and the Hummers. Start fucking car pooling. Drive 4 bangers that get 50+MPG. Quit buying garbage at fucking Walmart. Work from home and quit commuting. Get solar panels and insulate your homes. Adopt unwanted kids instead of creating them in labs.
When you've done all that, then talk to the RCC about changing its dogma.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. AHAHAHAHAHA

Dump the SUV's and the ATV's and the Hummers.
Never owned one.

Start fucking car pooling.
Done. Have been for over a decade.

Drive 4 bangers that get 50+MPG.
My car gets better than that, to say nothing of my single-cylinder bike.

Quit buying garbage at fucking Walmart.
Haven't for years.

Work from home and quit commuting.
I do as often as I can.

Get solar panels and insulate your homes.
Done and done, and I forego luxuries like AC at home. I could easily afford to install it, I choose not to.

Adopt unwanted kids instead of creating them in labs.
Done, though not exactly by choice.

When you've done all that, then talk to the RCC about changing its dogma.
You keep picking terrible analogies and examples.

But thanks for your permission to keep on keeping on.

[Starboard Tack]

59. Good stuff! Congrats! You're my kinda person. I was talking to America there, not you personally

But you're setting a good example. Now, all you need to do is work on the anger.
I love your energy, but the anger comes through strongly. Maybe you're OK with it, but I think it's holding you back. Just a feeling I have.

[Warren Stupidity]

77. It really is a shame that this one is not sitting on the IPCC.

They are all apparently idiots who don't know how to solve this simple problem.

[pinto]

44. Fossil fuels use is the biggie -

http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-sources

What are the main sources of carbon dioxide emissions?



Fossil fuel combustion/use

The largest human source of carbon dioxide emissions is from the combustion of fossil fuels. This produces 87% of human carbon dioxide emissions. Burning these fuels releases energy which is most commonly turned into heat, electricity or power for transportation. Some examples of where they are used are in power plants, cars, planes and industrial facilities. In 2011, fossil fuel use created 33.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.

[Brettongarcia]

66. So what in turn creates the consumption of fossil fuels? In part, more people. They need more energy

So the ultimate cause of global warming is really ... overpopulation.

[Brettongarcia]

46. China partially abandoned the single child policy, under pressure from Christians, Catholics

And the Churches were also very effective they claimed, in getting lots of converts in China. And in discouraging birth control and abortion.

In fact a few years ago, the churches were claiming that China and similar countries showed the biggest growth in Christianity, in the world.

Some Catholic countries like Italy are experiencing a drop in birth rates. But that turns out to be 1) typical of higher industrialization (and availability of contraception?). And 2) thanks to ... simply ignoring their religion.

So religion remains a factor. And it is only by ignoring it, that things are taken care of.

[hrmjustin]

49. What happened if you had a second child in China?

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Usually significant fines, if you didn't fall into an exception category.

[hrmjustin]

51. Did they force abortions?

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#Overview

It's a mess. Horrible social policy, with predictable population distortions.

[hrmjustin]

53. You are right that it is a mess.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Yeah, I think when you have a policy that you can have another kid if your first kid is a cripple or

a girl...


You have just jumped a whole row of sharks at once.

[Starboard Tack]

57. Nonsense. Do you just make this shit up?

86% of Italians declare themselves to be Catholic. I talk to them every day. Not many attend church, but they are still catholic, and the overwhelming majority, including the non-catholics support this Pope. The most common response I get when I ask folk what they think of him is "Era ora!" "it was time!".

Contraception is available in every catholic country I've ever been to. This is not a religious issue any more. The handful of Catholics in China are not responsible for any increase in the birth rate. Such a suggestion is ludicrous.
According to a survey published in 2010, there are now approximately 52 million Christians in China, including 40 million Protestants and 12 million Catholics. If those Catholics are like Catholics elsewhere, they are using birth control and if not, they risk heavy fines under China's one child policy.

[Brettongarcia]

68. Nonsense. Can you do serious research? Deductive reasoning?

There has been a gradual relaxation of the one child policy in China. Allowing for a second child. While I am told that in the countryside, there is less monitoring.

Yes, birth rates are declining in some Catholic countries (not all!). But that is precisely because ... people ignored their religion. Even in catholic countries that are told to eschew birth control.

Religion was the problem - and ignoring religion was the solution. For overpopulation, first of all.

[Starboard Tack]

69. I'm beginning to think thou dost bloviate a tad. You are the one who needs to do some research.

Using contraceptives is not ignoring one's religion. It is about making personal choices without regard to what others, including the RCC, has to say about it. Using contraception does not mean abandoning one's belief in a deity. It means they think Vatican policy is wrong on some things. Do you agree with everything Obama does and says? I doubt any Democrat does, but it doesn't stop them from believing in the general ideals of the Party, or supporting its leader.

Catholics for Choice stated in 1998 that 96% of U.S. Catholic women had used contraceptives at some point in their lives and that 72% of Catholics believed that one could be a good Catholic without obeying the Church's teaching on birth control. According to a nationwide poll of 2,242 U.S. adults surveyed online in September 2005 by Harris Interactive (they stated that the magnitude of errors cannot be estimated due to sampling errors, non-response,etc.), 90% of Catholics supported the use of birth control/contraceptives.

There is no ban on contraception in Hinduism, nor is there in Islam. So, religion is not the problem for population growth. It is more likely poverty and ignorance.

Please explain how religion is or was the problem for population growth in China? There are about 12 million catholics in China. If they all gave birth annually it wouldn't even be a blip on the radar.

[Brettongarcia]

73. For catholic Italians, using contraception means ignoring much of their avowed Catholic religion

I'm thinking you need to reason more deductively. Religion was logically not a problem for pop growth ... until 1) the population of the world began exploding. Then 2) when modern technology made contraception more available; so alternatives were available. But 3) then there was a big problem from Catholicism: the Church said we can't use contraception. Especially from about the time of Vatican II, c. 1964. Then religion became a problem; causing overpopulation.

Why was India big, even before? India of course, is a very, very ancient civilization; and had thousands of years to grow a huge population. Nor did its religion prohibit having children. To be sure, there were gurus, solitary mendicant priests, ascetics, who eschewed "lust," sex, and families. Here for once, the people should have listened to their gurus. (Though for that matter, the Indian population growth rate might be slowing slightly. Thanks in part to in fact, some contraception.)

In any case, here I am referring mostly to our modern situation. Which has been influenced by modern Catholicism.

I've explained to you several times why religion, even Christianity, would be an influence in China.

I'm tired of explaining it. Look at a few of my posts all around you. Again.

YOu often claim that "real," or personal religion or belief, ignores religious institutions, and therefore gets around all the horrors associated with organized religion; including wars, and overpopulation. And so indeed, perhaps that religion is less intrusive. Still, 1) there is still a huge number of traditional followers, still following the old, fatal scripts. And 2) I am arguing here and elsewhere, that any blanket support of "religion," will often be read to implying all of it in general. And will therefore inadvertently strengthens these fundamentalists.

Finally 3) I am also arguing here on DU, that even your own type of liberal, personal religion or belief, allegedly non-"intrusive," ends up causing many, many problems for others. I have earlier noted problems even with modern liberal "spirituality" especially.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. uh, yes of course it is.

China's policy awful as it is, has been effective in reducing population growth. Population growth is one of the major drivers of climate change. Do you really not understand that?

Of course China, with the world's largest population is the largest polluter, but certainly not on a per capita basis - that would be the USA.

Achieving a zero or near zero growth rate is essential to mitigating the climate catastrophe.

[Starboard Tack]

62. So, are you blaming China's growth rate on Catholicism? All 12 million of them, out of 1.4 billion.

China's population increased by 400 million since adopting its one child policy. Of course, it would have risen by 600 million had it not. Italy, a country where 86% of the population has a negative population growth, despite huge immigration. Mexico is approaching zero growth. India and China are still the major contributors to population growth and pollution.

America is the largest polluter per capita, correct. So, get your fucking act together and quit polluting. It isn't because of a handful of girls in Wyoming who couldn't get an abortion that caused the mess, regardless of how fucked up that is.

Population growth is a minor factor in climate change compared to out of control consumerism and American hubris.

Go through everything you own and figure out how much shit you have that you don't need and never needed. Start counting how much energy you waste on a daily basis doing shit you don't need to. Then calculate your carbon foot print.

Blame starts in the mirror.

[Brettongarcia]

67. LOGIC: Why do we want more energy? Mostly because we have more population; they need more

Granted, the other factor is Greed; we should lower per capita consumption.

But? Overpopulation is finally a very, very major factor in most of the world's problems.

And it's easily solved. A strong (nonviolent) reduction in population, would solve everything.

Furthermore, simple birth control would do it. If every couple on earth say (simplifying) that wanted a child, had just one child, or none, the population of the earth could be halved in say 50 years. Then more, later.

By the way, the desire to have more and more kids might itself be considered say, reproductive Greed, and Lust, and Vanity; classic sins in many theologies and monasteries. The "root of all sins" in fact.

Figure out how you don't need so many children.

Look in the mirror.

...

Regarding China: the figures cited by Catholics are quite a bit higher than the one you quote. In any case, the limited number of Chinese Catholics would not be much to blame for relaxing birth control: the culprit would be the Vatican. The Vatican's direct pressure on the Chinese Admin.. For "religious freedom" - read as the minimalizing of birth control for all peoples, Catholic or not. ( For this and other reasons by the way, religious inferring with the affairs of other nations, the Vatican's Secretary of State has been a controversial figure; and there has been a recent turnover or two.)

[Starboard Tack]

71. I'm sorry, but your ignorance of some basic facts is mind boggling.

Are you seriously suggesting that over population in third world countries is responsible for climate change. Those who tend to have large families are poor subsistence farmers. They don't shop at Walmart and they don't drive Hummers.
Poverty and hunger and disease are their problems not carbon footprints.
If the US consumed half of what they consume today, then both the US and China would cut their carbon footprints enormously.

I don't know where you get your information from, but I'm thinking most comes right off the top of your head.

BTW, I advocate for birth control. It just isn't a major factor in climate change.

If you want to continue this exchange, then you need to start providing links to back up your nonsense. Otherwise, enjoy the rest of your day!

[Brettongarcia]

83. I've worked professonally on environmental issues. There is much you are not thinking about

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=144732

[Starboard Tack]

85. Your reasoning appears to be both simplistic and biased against religion.

I find it extremely hard to believe that you have worked "professionally on environmental issues", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Nobody disputes the fact that over population is a significant factor of climate change. However, it only becomes majorly significant when tied to consumption of fossil fuels and carbon emissions. Obviously, this is a huge factor in both India and China, plus other areas of the far east. None of these areas are Catholic, which appears to be your focal point and obsession, when it comes to ascribing blame.

Please share with us some of your "professional work regarding this subject". That way, we shall have an opportunity to scrutinize its validity in the area you claim to be an expert in. I, for one, am always eager to learn something new.

[Brettongarcia]

86. Listen carefully: the controllable factor in Global Warming, is Overpopulation

I've explained to you that overpopulation is a major root problem; which you denied, or failed to see. As you noted, mostly it only becomes significant when it uses fossil fuels (but not entirely; clearing trees etc., are also linked to population). But for now and in the near future, fossil fuels are what we have. Transition to other energy sources will likely be slow.

Controlling fossil fuel consumption will help, but is problematic in many ways. So what is the solution? I've suggested publically and privately, that the timely and extremely controllable factor is ... population. We use more fuel, in part because we have more people. While cutting the population to 1/4 or so, by birth control, would be relatively easy. It is extremely simple, and well within current technology, to cut overpopulation. As I've explained above.

You've mentioned China and India over and over. I've explained over and over, that these examples are not so relevant, and are not my concern; not even India and China. Not before 1950. Overpopulation only become critical, only in modern times; after about 1950 or so. Since as you should know, the global number was still low, overall. And the curve for population growth only becomes explosive, at a certain critical point. After which it becomes essentially exponential. Or "explosive" is indeed perhaps the best term. That point was only recently reached.

My concern is primarily in the modern period therefore: as I've already explained to you once or twice already. China and India long had overpopulation hundreds of years ago; but it was not globally significant. Since the rest of the world was still not nearly as densely populated.

That is, until now.

The current, modern period therefore is the critical one. Say, c. 1950 or so on. And? Right in the center of that crucial period, where even a small influence would be critical, is ... the Roman Catholic church. Which essentially all but banned contraception, from about 1964 or so.

Sorry I can't reveal more details of my career, without violating internet anonymity. I have worked on many things as a nonspecialist advisor; my field of PhD study relates to many such areas. In this case, I have been one of the major voices speaking publically - and especially to the Church hierarchy - about the population factor being the critical, controllable factor to global warming. I have spoken about and to the Church especially. Because in our critical modern moment, the Roman Catholic Church has been the most destructive single element in preventing contraception.

Fortunately, some countries like Italy for once ignored the church, ignored their formal religion. And began to solve this problem in at least, their country. Still, South America, and many other regions, remain a major problem.

And at the center of the problem? Is the Roman Catholic Church. With its ban on contraception. Which in fact recently became a major SCOTUS case: in the matter of Hobby Lobby. The next major case, apparently with an active suit against the government on this very issue, would probably be the conservative Catholic radio and TV network, EWRN and EWTN.

That is the main reason I focus on the Catholic Church. I believe history has shown the church to be an immensely destructive force worldwide in the past (in say, the Crusades; and the Thirty years War, to name just a very few examples).

And this time? It's trying to destroy the whole planet. The very cause that the Church supports most evidently in modern times, is the very cause that is most critical in causing Global Warming.

[Starboard Tack]

87. OK, BG, You think the Catholic Church is trying to destroy the planet.

You get funnier by the moment. Happily, I don't think anyone takes you seriously. Even the usual suspects appear to give you a wide berth on this one.
Sorry you can't back up anything you say with links or reveal your supposed credentials. I'm sure you are a very important person who influences public policy, especially when you speak "publically".

I have been one of the major voices speaking publically - and especially to the Church hierarchy - about the population factor being the critical, controllable factor to global warming. I have spoken about and to the Church especially. Because in our critical modern moment, the Roman Catholic Church has been the most destructive single element in preventing contraception.

I hesitate to ask where you managed to earn a PhD. Wouldn't want you to reveal any state secrets.

I'm beginning to think you might be just winding us all up. Otherwise, I suggest you look up the word "delusional".

[okasha]

89. That's a new one.

According to BG, he's a "liberal theologian," a former employee of Jackie Kennedy, an expert in literary criticism, has multiple graduate degrees (never mind that he can't observe spelling or capitalization conventions, much less write a coherent paragraph), has done social work with minorities for most of his life, and until he was called on it, was presenting himself as a professional psychologist. Now, he's worked "professionally on environmental issues."

Oh, and he also alerted on one of my posts for "calling him a Miocene." He didn't even recognize the term.

Large, large steaming piles of organic fertilizer.

[Brettongarcia]

91. Punningly converting an adjective to a noun is an unrecognizable grammatical transformation to you?

Thank you for calling me "Miocene." In any case, I did not consistently make the error you ascribe to me. Here's my definitive statement. Which did not refer to "a" Miocene, but used it conventionally, as an adjective:

"By the way? Calling someone "Miocene" is a gross and foolish insult. Simply using it, condemns the speaker. With her own language. It is simple name-calling. Not logic or reason. "

Okasha? Never in my life have I seen a person more clearly condemning herself. By her very insults directed at others. "

Your comment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=136136

My measured response: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=136140

[Warren Stupidity]

70. Where the fuck did I do that?

I never mentioned Catholicism. You don't even try to have honest discourse. You just make shit up. "Population growth is a minor factor in climate change". No really it isn't. It is the driving variable, along with the development of what was formerly referred to as the "third world". You have no clue what you are talking about, or you are, as usual, just representing the Ministry of Arguments.

[Starboard Tack]

72. You jumped into a discussion about Catholicism and population growth and climate change.

I didn't say you mentioned Catholicism. If you want to join in, go read the other posts first.
Show some stats to back up your "driving variable" hypothesis. Let's see the carbon footprints of those swarming masses of peasant farmers in the third world. Consumerism and capitalism are the driving forces of climate change.

Here are the maps
This is by total emissions


And this is per capita emissions


Study them and be enlightened.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. You made yet another ridiculous assertion and

I challenged it and now you are off on some tangential deflection gambit. Population growth is one of the key drivers of climate change. You couldn't be more wrong.

[Starboard Tack]

75. Stick to subjects you know something about.

Obviously, climate change is not one of them. Neither is religion, apparently.

[Warren Stupidity]

78. google is not your friend on this issue.

But keep at it. Keep claiming that population growth is not a driving factor in climate change. It is amusing.

[Starboard Tack]

79. We are discussing religion here, specifically Catholicism

Assertions have been made that the RCC stand on birth control is leading to a population explosion (in China of all places, LOL) that is destroying our planet by creating or being a major driving force in climate change.

This is an attempt to place the blame for climate change at the feet of St. Peter. And I say "Bullshit!"

Now, I never said that over population of our planet is not a contributing factor to global warming. It is, we all know that. It is a huge factor. However, to imagine that those who subscribe to Catholicism are the principle culprits for climate change is ludicrous.

First of all, most Catholics use birth control, regardless of Vatican policy. That is a fact, borne out by population growth figures in Catholic countries.
Secondly, the premise that population growth accelerates climate change is predicated on zero to little change in per capita consumption of resources and emission of co2.
The industrial era is responsible for climate change. This is indisputable. Now, everyone wants to enjoy the benefits of that industrialization, and why not. This does not mean we should manufacture and consume junk at such a rate that we destroy the very habitat we depend upon.
For a North American to stand there and try to ascribe the blame for climate change on over population is beyond hypocritical. You consume far more per capita than anyone else on planet Earth. Get that under control before you start to point fingers. Look at the maps. Do the research and start educating yourself. As you say, Google is not your friend.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. You made an assertion of fact that was wrong. I corrected it. Deal with it.

[Brettongarcia]

90. Starboard: note 1) problems already in partially Catholic N&S America; and Catholic-targeted China

2) Some of the others particularly become PROJECTED hot spots; given Chinese growth rates especially.

3) Per Capita is all but irrelevant; it is total numbers that are important of course, in global summaries.

You are a quite rude and poorly informed person.

[okasha]

92. ZOMG!!!!

It's all those immigrant children driving up the carbon use!

It's the lions and tigers! It's--

Uh, oh. It's actually wealthy nations that already practice widespread birth control. How embarassing.

[Brettongarcia]

93. Pop growth remains high in the US. As US levels of energy consumption travel to populous countries

like China, effects of high energy consumption levels increase exponentially.

[rug]

20. The party line from the Pope Hate Club.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. There's a club?

Where do I sign up?

[Brettongarcia]

48. George Washington's troops celebrated "Pope Burning Day"

George himself finally outlawed burning the pope in effigy once a year, in the American army. But it was hard to eradicate; most of America was run by Protestants. Who had come to America to escape in part, persecution from Catholicism. Much of America hated Catholics.

Why? Much of the 17th century was occupied by wars motivated in part, by antagonism by the church, against Protestants. The Church declared Protestants to be illegal heretics. And it helped motivate many wars against Protestant countries and princes. See say, a quick history of the "The 30 Years War," 1618-1648. Or consider the Spanish Armada. When the Spanish Armada sailed against England in 1588, it was claimed by Catholic Spain, that it was to end religious freedom, Protestantism, in England. Spain wanted to end the Church of England.

Because of this? Essentially the first 30 or more Presidents of the US, were Protestants; Kennedy c. 1960 was the first Catholic.

America was largely founded by and on, a Pope-hating club.

Though it turned out fairly well, after all.

[rug]

58. Ask trotsky. They might meet next to the pope fan club.

[Brettongarcia]

64. He'd be in good company: our first 34 presidents, and the revolutionary army that savedAmerica

To be sure, Washington and others moderated the very heavily anti-Catholic sentiment of American's founders, and Guy Fawkes day, "Pope Day." Our founders formally instituted "Freedom of Religion" in fact.

Today, political correctness doesn't want to see this. But pro-Protestant ideas, and heavily anti-Catholic sentiments, were among of the major ideas that founded America.

And they were deeply ingrained in our founders, and the people of America: there wouldn't be a Catholic president from 1776-1960. Not until fully 184 years had passed, after the foundation of America.

In a sense, the USA itself has been an anti-Pope club.

[rug]

82. You must be in awe of the Know Nothing Party then.

[Brettongarcia]

84. A name that denigrates that group, with a racial/religious/elitist slur

The name was allegedly used by the members of "The Native American Party." Headed by - note, ex president - Fillmore. Various parties accepted this name. Ill advisedly; since it had negative polysemic resonances.

But they indeed though, were a case in point: an American president, heading an influential political party in America. Deliberately and explicitly seeking to limit (in this case, Irish) Catholicism in America. Note clearly however, that I regard them as excessive. Though they illustrate the trend in traditional American life.

These Americans opposed Catholicism. And they and others like them were somewhat successful: for about 184 years, from the beginning of our nation to the election of Jack Kennedy, there were no Catholic presidents elected; not in the United States of America.

The US, William Penn, had earlier made some attempts at establishing religious freedom. However, that was mostly for Protestants; there were still limitations its seems, on Catholics, even in Pennsylvania (as I recall).

America was largely founded by Protestants - who largely hated Catholics. Since Catholics had pursued, tortured, and killed Protestants, as "heretics," for two hundred years. From almost the moment the Pope declared Martin Luther an evil heretic.

[rug]

94. Do you think it's even possible to denigrate The Know Nothing Paty?

Do you actually approve of a group calling itself "The Native American Party" when it counted as its members only those white people descended from Europeans?

Your monomania about religion in general, and Catholicism in particular, is taking you into some truly repugnant positions.

[Brettongarcia]

95. Rug? 1) This is the "RELIGION SECTION" of DU. 2) The OP topic is the POPE.

Last edited Sun Aug 3, 2014, 04:09 AM - Edit history (1)

3) The topic is the Pope, in effect confessing past sins in the Catholic Church. Telling Catholics not to try to convert people any more.

Talking about religion and the pope therefore, even in a critical way, seems appropriate here, particularly.

Then too, religion was once often named in polls as the most important influence in people's live, in general. So it is an important topic to hit. One that furthermore, is almost always neglected in public schools; because of its controversial nature. Religion is not covered well in religious settings either; there it is presented far too partially, by advocates. So in effect, the larger and more accurate view of the subject of Religion is therefore almost impossible to find in American public life. Multiplying the need for commentary on Religion in forums like this one.

Normally by the way, I do not focus exclusively on criticizing any particular belief; but more on religion in general. Of course though, if there are problems with religion in general, there will also be problems with particular religions, individually. Some of the excesses of individual religions moreover, are well known. So we need to add known criticisms of individual faiths, into the present mix; to get the final, overall picture of religion in general.

Much of the rhetoric directed at specific religions - by rival religions, note - is excessive to be sure. As I noted with The Native American Party, I do not fully approve of its actions and rhetoric. However, if we are going to look at the Pope, it's worth noting that Protestant tradition has a vast array of negative comments to bring to bear. Some of which might after all, be sustained. (Or if you don't like what the Protestant church said? Then after all you yourself are finding errors in part of religion: in Protestants).

As for my "obsession" with religion? Is that Rug speaking? How many posts do you have in the Religion section?

Your use of the term "obsession" however is fortunate; Pope Francis recently used the term himself. To refer to the "obsession" among Catholics with opposing abortion; with opposing birth control. Here for once, a Pope did something right. With luck, we may see the Pope start to correct this earlier Vatican II over-focus on preventing contraception. The current special session and "debate" called by the pope for later this year, 2014, might (or might not) help correct the Church on this crucial issue.

Already in fact, the Pope himself has suggested, as one of his very first words, that Catholics should now turn away from emphasizing the "obsession" on abortion. Pope Francis suggesting that we turn to "other issues"; like helping the poor. So ironically, and fortunately, the Pope himself seems to agree, surprisingly, with parts of what I have said here. In fact, the Pope's call here for Catholics to cease their more aggressive efforts to "convert" (read: criticize, control, kill) other religions, was motivated in part by awareness of the very abuses I am trying to raise here. (Trying to raise here, even in the face of extreme levels of verbal abuse from kind and loving DU religion defenders.)

In fact, all I'm really doing here, in a sense, is just adding the background information to what the Pope is saying.

But in any case of course, the huge dangers of overpopulation specifically, its Malthusian consequences, have long been known to the educated elite. But I'm showing that the solution urgently requires general action, now. So now it is timely to bring what has long been known to scholars, to the unwashed and rude public; in forums like this one.

Today, everyone needs to be aware of the link between 1) religion, and overpopulation. Then, between 2) overpopulation, and excessive consumption of fossil and other fuels. And 3) their causal relation finally, to Global Warming.

When it comes to creating pollution, population is the key - and most controllable - multiplying factor. And right in the middle of that, is the Roman Catholic Church. Particularly, today.

[rug]

96. Yes, and it is not NativistUnderground.

[Brettongarcia]

98. Here we should not discriminate against any particular religion: we should criticize ALL religions

Including our local favorites.

But that's a problem: prior to today, everyone picked mainly on Muslims; since it's all too easy to criticize 1) Islam. Which doesn't really have many local representatives.

That was unbalanced. And it was all too easy after all. To balance things out, we'd need about 2) a thousand times more criticism of Catholicism. Then 4) Protestantism. Then 5) DU Liberal spirituality, say.

Our brief intro here, to the neglected darker side of specifically Catholicism, would be just the briefest intro to THAT larger and urgent subject.

However, there's no need to write much more here. Since there's plenty of classic Protestant literature criticizing Catholicism - and record of Protestants even literally fighting actual battles with the Church. There's probably not much point in pursing this gap MUCH further for the moment. Anyone who is interested, though, can find whole libraries full of information. Far beyond "Chick Publications."

Just check out standard secular Histories. Particularly histories of say, the entire 17th century. And its religious literature. Which records not just a Catholic/Protestant war of violent words; but then actual physical wars. Catholic against Protestant; Protestant against Catholic. And many others. (Not to discriminate, after all).

Or say, just take a look at the quite recent history of Northen Ireland, till about 1990 or so. Where the 'licks and the prod's were still fighting an active guerilla campaign against each other.

[skepticscott]

18. So we can assume that

the RCC will immediately cease all missionary activities everywhere in the world? As well as all efforts to change civil laws in sovereign nations to conform to Catholic doctrine?

Yeah, right.

More empty pap from the wonderpope.

[trotsky]

19. Oh but it sure sounds good, doesn't it?

"Do as I say, not as I do!" No wonder some people love this.

[Brettongarcia]

47. Here a Pope says: don't impinge on others' beliefs; but act on your belief. But that will impinge.

It's being argued around here, that one's "faith" should not, really effect or impose on others. That one's personal religion is just opinion, and shouldn't bother anyone else.

But that's not the idea of religion that was given to us in the Bible; or in most churches. Mostly there, we heard that a religion that is only in your mind, but that does not influence your BEHAVIOR, your "deeds," is an irrelevant religion. As the Pope suggests.

Some here seem to find that a new idea. But it's actually one of the main traditions in the Bible, and in Christianity. One that has some interesting implications. Especially this one: if your personal beliefs often do effect your daily actions, say? Then your beliefs might influence your politics. Or the way you validate or reject others. So that? Suddenly your religious belief ... is effecting others. Even impinging on them. So for example? You believe that the embryo is a human person; and so you pass laws making it illegal. Thus effecting the lives of others. By your religiously-inspired acts.

But that's just institutional religion, it is said; individual liberal beliefs don't do this. Yet can even liberal Christians with their personal beliefs, really evade this inevitable real-world impinging? Just by ... never enacting in real life, any of their beliefs? Doesn't that seem unlikely? Is it really possible to have a deeply-held inner belief ... that never effects your daily acts? And through that, the lives of others outside yourself? And often possibly, in a negative way?

So not only does mainstream religion often 1) explicitly insist that you take your faith, and use it to influence real events in the physical world; 2) in many ways some kind of effect appears to be inevitable.

So your religion will almost inevitably effect others. And yet however, when you begin to influence others on the basis of your religion ... you almost inevitably begin imposing some of your religious strictures on them. And often that will not be good. So for example, you might have a personal leaning not to be around say, Protestants. When a protestant applies for a job in your business....?

So we might thank the Pope for telling Catholics not to "impose" on others. But just telling them to let religion effect their "behavior" means that some imposition is inevitable.

[pinto]

42. I like these comments. And feel it may be possible to differentiate between Francis as an individual

and the RCC bureaucracy as an entrenched institution. Yeah, he heads that bureaucracy. Yet it is also deeply rooted in Vatican politics and procedures. I've said before I feel it is a hidebound, dated entity. Still feel that way.

The 10 tips made international news, though. Are they merely symbolic? I don't know. Symbolism often resonates. There's a value in that I don't discount.

[cbayer]

63. They are absolutely smitten with him over here in Italy.

They see him as a savior, both believers and non-believers. No one seems to feel that he is perfect or truly infallible, but they want the RCC to shape up and behave and they see him as making that possible.

Of course, my sample size is quite small, but I think it's fairly representative.

There is nothing wrong with symbolism, imo. I share with you the idea that it can be valuable and should not be discounted.

[MellowDem]

60. The church grows almost exclusively through childhood indoctrination...

Not "attraction". What a dishonest guy. Here's a thought. Don't indoctrinate children. It's wrong.

[Brettongarcia]

65. There's a theory that religion is a Santa-type lie for children. One day, we're supposed to see it

They made up the story of an invisible guy watching us from the North Pole/Heaven. Just to make sure we behaved, when no one was around to see.

The theory is that one day we're supposed to figure it out. Initiates know this - but they don't tell anyone. If you're not smart enough to figure it out, you're dumb enough to be dangerous to yourselves and others. So no one tells.

That's the White Lie theory of Christianity. Absolutely, it works in the case of say, Santa. A myth related to St. Nicholas, and Christianity in point of fact.

No one tells though. We don't want the children to know there's really nobody up there watching them. We don't tell: to make sure the children don't do anything bad when the parents aren't home. Or the police aren't around.

[skepticscott]

97. The difference is

that children are allowed to move beyond their belief in Santa Claus. Some time before they're 10 years old, usually, they start to ask those awkward questions (how does Santa get into apartments without fireplaces?), and they eventually get it. They figure out that it's just mom and dad leaving the presents and eating the cookies on the mantle, and the parents smile, knowing that the day would come, and tell them to not give it away to their younger siblings just yet. Children aren't punished or made to feel like they're inviting Santa's wrath or eternal damnation by abandoning their belief in him.

On the other hand, children who exercise the same rationality with regard to the religious beliefs they've been indoctrinated with are rarely, if ever, allowed to freely abandon them. Instead the indoctrination is reinforced.

[Brettongarcia]

99. Good point. Or today, adults who "believe" in Jesus, are systematically discouraged from disbelief

By thousands, millions of brain-washing, sly, rationalizing "sermons," homilies, apologetics.

Anytime say, someone begins today to suspect that those religious promises of giant physical miracles were not quite true, our churches, our preachers pull out of their back pocket, 2,000 years worth of polished and pre-packaged excuse sermons. A thousand highly polished and practiced arguments are taught to seminarians; to overwhelm any rational objections a churchgoer might have to the illogicality of Christianity.

Are adults still physically forced to follow religion? Today we have "freedom of religion" in America; it's hard to force adults to do follow it. But our various churches are of course trying, to pass laws that in effect do that. And meanwhile, in the main, the churches' main method of controlling adults, is to promise them huge wonders. And to also intimidate people into going to church; where the people can be systematically brainwashed. By thousands of endlessly repeated, hypnotic phrases. And thousands of sly sermons, homilies; sophistical, trick arguments.

Today's church is far more subtle in its methods of control. Actual physical force is not as common ... as psychological mindcontrol; Manipulative rhetoric; brainwashing; mental "programming."

But today, critical scholars and rational atheists and scientists, are starting to clearly see through it all.

[rug]

100. The fact that BG agrees with you should give you pause about what you typed.

[Brettongarcia]

102. I'm trying to remember if I have EVER seen anyone agree with Rug. Or even converse with him.

It's surprisingly rare.

[Jim__]

103. I've agreed with rug on numerous occasions.

[Thinkingabout]

81. I am wondering if the real point isn't if you believe one way or the other it does not

Give one the right to force their beliefs on another, it does not matter who is doing the attempted conversion.