In what is becoming boringly repetitive, the Pope recently laid Global warming at the feet of Atheists (along with all the other evils previously attributed to us). Yes folks, if you don't believe in his invisible friend then it's your fault that rain forest is being destroyed and those little tiger cubs are being thrown into the garbage compacter. Of course this is a familiar line from Rome, "you can't be moral without God", or to translate the Latin more accurately "give your money to the RC church or burn in hell".
More self serving nonsense you are unlikely to find. Keep in mind that this invective is coming from an organisation that has plundered the known world for centuries to enrich itself and from a man residing in golden palaces surrounded by unimaginable luxury and opulence; as Terry Sanderson (president of the NSS) said in commentary on this "We have nothing to learn about environmentalism from this hypocrite."
In other news today, a bear is photographed taking a dump in the forest!
4 comments:
I've always been confused why the church has a partiarch, as whoever takes on the role seems incapable of representing the whole of the communion.
The collegiate underlings habitually spin the actions of the Papal office and have done so since the dark ages, so although the Pope as figurehead makes ideological pronouncements on this and that (eg contraception) according to scriptural study the day-to-day practice of parish priests is completely different.
My explanation is that the role of Pope is a hangover from those times when he exercised temporal power.
One of the titles of the Pope is supreme pontiff, which was a job originated under the Roman republic as the chief engineer of the city (pontiff means bridge-builder). As these different jobs were accumulated by the imperial family they gradually became divorced from reality and acquired a less practical meaning.
So while I see a job for a symbolic monarchic figurehead to embody the structure of the state and keep it unified, I think it is necessary to separate it from the political executive.
In other words the pope should take notes from our Queen and stay silent in public for fear of opening up a damaging cleavage between the people and the state - the spiritual or temporal nature of that state is completely comparable.
Wherever and whenever the head of state interferes in matters of government history provides innumerable examples that they start to be seen as irrelevant and lose support.
It's pretty much the same in any organisation - as successive PMs have gradually accumulated more power at the centre accountability has fallen (cf expenses) and so too has their popular legitimacy (cf turnout in elections).
The way I see it there is a direct relationship between perceptions of 'truth', its basis in factual reality and support for an institution.
Hi OP,
I agree, it's baffling why he continues to do it; the expression "flogging a dead horse" comes to mind. Although, imagine what Mandelson could do if he had 2,000 years to perfect the art of "spin" :)
The whole firm just looks to me like a quest to grab as much earthly power as humanly possible; which has now morphed into a desperate attempt to remain relevant.
Don't get me started on our Royals (not a fan of the concept)
Everything's conditional - I can live with the royals if they do their job properly (and it's defined properly), just like I can live with religion were they to stop preaching so much and start practicing what is believable.
Talking of Mandelson though, the art of spin has it's weaknesses because it is dependent on a compliant media. Mandy's methods are coming apart under the seams as the internet starts broadening its wings, even if the prime exponent of how it can be used is Dan Hannan.
If you take those two as equally offensive poles of the spectrum then I think there is a happy intermediate point which will eventually emerge from their slime. Hopefully we're both part of that process learning from their mistakes and inaccuracies!
OP, interestingly I posted a follow up to the recent Kansas Tee-shirt story which echo's your comment about this media, the internet is a truely levelling influence and becoming more so IMO.
Having said that though, there are some people suggesting it's making us all more polarised by allowing us to cluster more strongly around narrow interest groups; I'm not sure I totally agree, but it's an interesting topic, probably worthy of a post by a political blogger sometime :)
Post a Comment