it really is up to us to carry a torch of love tolerance and vision to our little people ... they are the saviours of the earth, given the chance.

green religion, "be the change you wish to see in the world" ...

be well and fulfilled ... ~the salubrious one

But maybe it will be empowering. Let us just not forget to not neglect rationality, that there are already too many people on this planet, that praying and human-centered thinking just do not work, and that no supernatural power will get us out of this mess.

Karsten PolluteLessDotCom

Why are people so ready to attack others for trying to do good for the earth? The article talks about how the Pope is urging young people to action for the planet. He does this not by saying, "Pray for the earth, everyone, and everything will be fine," but by saying that "one must make courageous choices that can recreate a strong alliance between mankind and the earth."

And the problem with that is...?

Some commenters above just sound like schoolyard bullies who want to keep new kids from coming into their precious little "clique". How is saying that religious people should keep out of environmental circle (which, btw, should include everyone who lives on this planet) going to help save our planet? Should we not be encouraging anyone and everyone to action?

And on the issue of abortion/overpopulation. I am pro-choice myself, though I do not believe that we should be giving out abortions like lollipops. Yes, the Catholic Church can be radical and even irrational on such issues. But to suggest that abortion is the only solution to overpopulation is no less radical or irrational. What happened to people being responsible and just using good ol' birth control?

The point of view of the Catholic Church is that life is valuable and should be treated as such - whether it be human life, animal life, plant life, etc.

Being environmentally active is great, but so is having an open mind.

Poor women in Africa, being uneducated and impoverished are more vulnerable to the prosthelyzing, as were the natives of South America when the Church arrived on their shores. The planet's woes are primarily the result of population pressures, making the Church's stance against contraception just a tad contradictory and its new-found concern for the planet somewhat self-nullifying.

Interestingly enough, a recent genetic study has found that the European invaders had systematically murdered the males leaving mostly women. The Church failed to protect them but was apparently quite successful at indoctrinating those who survived.

About 50% of the pregnancies in the US (where contraception is affordable and ubiquitous) are unplanned. Imagine how hard it must be for a young woman in Africa to dodge unplanned pregnancies.

"...to suggest that abortion is the only solution to overpopulation is no less radical..."

That's called a strawman argument. Nobody said that abortion is the "only" solution. There were about 40 million abortions performed globally last year. If the Catholic Church had the power to eliminate all abortions for the last 40 years, the world population would have passed through 10 billion already. Thank God most people ignore the Pope's admonitions.

"Why are people so ready to attack others for trying to do good for the earth?"

The comments are critical of the Church's outdated stance against contraception and abortion. Nobody is attacking anyone "trying to do good for the Earth," making this yet another strawman argument.

"...courageous choices that can recreate a strong alliance between mankind and the earth.
And the problem with that is...?"

Nobody appears to have a problem with that statement either, making this your third strawman.

"Some commenters above just sound like schoolyard bullies who want to keep new kids from coming into their precious little "clique."

As with your other strawman arguments, this "precious little clique" you allude to is also fictional, making most of your post one long string of half-truths, which when you think about it, is what most sermons are.

While channel surfing from one televangelist to another one day, I wondered if these half-crazed nut jobs really believed what they were saying, and if the audience really believed what they were hearing. I had an epiphany. Deception, particularly self-deception, is the backbone of all religions. One's susceptibility to self-deception (or possibly one's ability or willingness to self-deceive) is a necessary condition for religiosity.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

I'm glad if the comments were only "critical of the Church's outdated stance against contraception and abortion," as you say. But I believe the comment above me stated, "The people who are willing to believe the most outlandish concepts are now interested in participating in the environmental debate. Great, just what we needed: Words of non-reason." Such comments only seem to be rooted in the disagreement with the concept of religion and the belief that anyone who follows such concept is an irrational fool.

You are free to believe what you believe, and I'm only asking for a bit more respect in treatment of other people's beliefs.

Discriminating against an entire group just based on a few of its aspects or your limited perception of them sounds like nothing other than prejudice, something rational-minded people should not be practicing. Let's try to keep away from the ways of close-minded conservatives and focus on the main goal of protecting this planet.

"Nobody said that abortion is the "only" solution."

First, let me say that I can understand how it might seem hypocritical to some that the Church is against birth control/abortion but is promoting environmentalism. But saying just because of that single fact that "religion can never be green" is basically saying that the problem of overpopulation is more of a threat to the planet than any other issues and therefore cannot be canceled out by any amount of eco-conscious efforts. And if that is so, the only solution to overpopulation is either birth control or abortion (or total abstinence, as is required of Catholic nuns and priests... hah, ironic). So, by the transitive property, all that is akin to saying that abortion is the only solution.

But I want to note admist all this that I know that nobody is trying to say that abortion is the only solution. I was just trying to point out how it is a bit radical to suggest that the Church can "never be green" or that it needs not "[participate] in the environmental debate" just because of its stance against contraception/abortion.

Just as the Catholic Church is not perfect, no environmentalist is perfect. We all have our eco-sins. That of the Church is the fact that it does not recognize the problem of overpopulation. We shouldn't let that single fact prompt us to say all its other efforts are hypocritical. We should promote any progress, not condemn it.

To quote George Monbiot regarding the issue of overpopulation, "Even if there were no environmental pressures caused by population growth, we should still support the measures required to tackle it: universal sex education, universal access to contraceptives, better schooling and opportunities for poor women. Stabilising or even reducing the human population would ameliorate almost all environmental impacts. But to suggest, as many of my correspondents do, that population growth is largely responsible for the ecological crisis is to blame the poor for the excesses of the rich."

P.S. Please, refrain from thinking that those televangelists represent the anyone who is religious (which is what you seemed to imply in saying, "One's susceptibility to self-deception... is a necessary condition for religiosity," unless I am making yet another "straw man argument.") I seriously hope that your view of all religions don't stem from watching televangelists, although if it was, I guess I can now better understand your negative stance on religions. But honestly, please realize that televangelists are jokes and considered by many Christians to be so.

Just thought I'd note since the guy tends to be controversial.

Quite the Monty Python fan here, thanks for the entertainment.