…and this is a 
The Pope has become an environmentalist, and he has figured out who is causing all our ecological difficulties: the atheists.
Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where his existence is denied? If the human creature's relationship with the Creator weakens, matter is reduced to egoistic possession, man becomes the 'final authority,' and the objective of existence is reduced to a feverish race to possess the most possible.
Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, has a pithy reply.
This is rich coming from the leader of an organisation that has plundered the world to enrich itself. As he sits in his golden palaces, surrounded by unimaginable luxury and material wealth, he lectures the rest of us about restraint and greed. We have nothing to learn about environmentalism from this hypocrite.
I think I'd have a few questions for this pope. Like, "What about over-population, Ratzi dear? What's the devout Catholic plan for dealing with that rather serious environmental issue?" and "Hey, have you noticed all those hell-holes of destruction in Africa? How does catholicism help people achieve economic and individual autonomy, huh?"
Environment
Comments
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
August 30, 2009 11:46 AM
That's right. There's nothing worse for the environment than latex condoms. [/snark]
Fuck Nazinger!
Posted by: Rorschach | August 30, 2009 11:47 AM
Ratzi begging the question :
Ehm, no it's not true.
That was easy.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 30, 2009 11:48 AM
To be fair to the Pope atheist books tell their followers to:
"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it"
Wait a minute.....
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | August 30, 2009 11:48 AM
Yow!
This is an astonishing twisting of verifiable reality, even for a pope. Where do you start?!
Well, how about with Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
Who came up with that line, then?
Posted by: Porco Dio | August 30, 2009 11:48 AM
Fuck the Pope...
i didn't have any part in it at all...
ermmm..., just like the fucking pope didn't either!
Posted by: Bob Harmount | August 30, 2009 11:50 AM
Penn tells it like it is. See:
http://www.atheistmedia.com/2009/08/penn-and-teller-bullshit-vatican.html
Posted by: Karey | August 30, 2009 11:51 AM
What the hell? Environmentalism tends to correlate more with secular humanist types, and super liberal hippy type christians instead of strict denomination followers. Its the bible thumpers who tell us god gave us dominion over the earth to do as we want, therefore we can pillage it all we like.
"Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where his existence is denied?"
No sir, its not true. Next!
Posted by: Luke | August 30, 2009 11:53 AM
There is empirical evidence refuting his assertion that the non religious are less environmentally minded:
Greeley, A. (1993). Religion and attitudes toward the environment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 19-28
Actually religion has a paradoxical effect on environmentalism. Although church attendance seems to correlate with pro environmental behavior and attitudes, religious attitudes such as biblical literalism correlate negatively with it.
Sherkat and Ellison (2007) concluded that Conservative Protestants and biblical inerrantists are significantly less apt to report political or private environmental behaviors, and the religious conservatives are significantly less willing than other respondents to make personal sacrifices for nature.
Posted by: davem | August 30, 2009 11:55 AM
man becomes the 'final authority,'
This coming from someone who is supposedly the final authority of God on earth.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 30, 2009 11:56 AM
Pope Benny is right. Look at Ratzi's humble abode, the Vatican, a hovel lodged in the Rome slums. Arch-atheist PZ Myers is ensconced in his summer palace in the elite, gated community of Morris, Minnesota. Ratzi has to shuffle along in Prada shoes, red shoes at that, while PZ wanders around pantless.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 30, 2009 11:58 AM
Matthew Seagall was also trying to blame (scientific) materialism, naturalism, etc. for the environmental problems some time ago. The biggest problem with this line of reasoning is that one of the world's biggest polluters (if not the biggest) is the very religious United States.
In any case, greed, consumerism and short-term thinking adequately explain the situation.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 30, 2009 11:58 AM
The Pope has been living up to his reactionary status. The Pope as head of a corporation is giving lip service to recognizing ecological dificulties with no solutions. The idea of stewardship is great but says nothing on the how. It would be a nice change if the Prince of the Church would stand for the reduction of population growth.
Posted by: llewelly | August 30, 2009 11:58 AM
The Pope and the truth have always had an antagonistic relationship. His job requires it.
Posted by: davem | August 30, 2009 12:02 PM
I wouldn't mind being a pope, with all that wealth and power and pontificating, and a cool hat. Do you have to go to a pope college or something?
Posted by: Amplexus | August 30, 2009 12:04 PM
It's just amazing that the pope gets a reputation for being intelligent.
He might possibly be smart, but he's also obviously an ideological bully
Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 12:04 PM
Ratzi is just projecting. It is Christians with the Bible as their justification who claim "dominion" over the Earth and think everything in it was put there by God for humans to use up.
I mean, who cares, Jesus is coming, right? "You know not the hour."
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 30, 2009 12:05 PM
What the...? Atheists want to destroy the environment even though it's the only one we've got? What reason on Earth do the Christians have for caring about the environment when it is they who believe in a separate existential environment that resembles fluffy clouds. The current Pope would be a ridiculously funny man if he wasn't so damn influential.
Posted by: Invigilator
|
August 30, 2009 12:05 PM
When I was younger, I used to feel that all the good the Catholic Church had done was counterbalanced by its de facto support for overpopulation in some of the most overpopulated nations on Earth (the Philippines, for example).
Now, I just think, "All the good? What good?"
Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 12:07 PM
llewelly brought on my chortles of glee:
Pithy remark of the day!
Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 12:10 PM
@18
Mysteriously misplaced, just like all those proofs of god's existence the Vatican was keeping in their secret vault. (Not to mention the gospels written in the apostles' own hand, the keys to the kingdom, and the true vero icon.
Posted by: Valdyr | August 30, 2009 12:10 PM
I'm reminded of that Onion article from years and years ago satirically presenting the Pope (then still John Paul II) as the "world's greatest comedian" for his statements about world affairs, with glowing (fake) praise from famous comedic actors.
Posted by: MartinDH | August 30, 2009 12:11 PM
Re: Penn & Teller's "Bullshit: Vatican"
Has Bill "Pompous Windbag" Donahue chimed in on it yet? I'm feeling a bit down and need some LULZ.
--
Martin
Posted by: DuckPhup | August 30, 2009 12:12 PM
"Pithy remark of the day!"
Are you typing with a lisp... or should that be taken as written?
Posted by: Hank Fox | August 30, 2009 12:13 PM
The pope is an evil little sock puppet for a 2,000-year-old world-spanning dreadnought of merciless exploitation of children, adults, indigenous peoples and the natural world.
There's no way to adequately describe what a stinking pile of poop his words are.
Posted by: Davey | August 30, 2009 12:15 PM
I wonder if the pape considers the Iraq War to be a considerate use of creation since Bush was a big religionist. Ecology is always the first, last and biggest victim of war.
Posted by: debunk | August 30, 2009 12:19 PM
The top 7 environmentally sustainable countries (based on their 2005 ESI scores)
1. Finland
2. Norway
3. Uruguay
4. Sweden
5. Iceland
6. Canada
7. Switzerland
I guess those are the most religious countries in the world then, right, Ratzinger?
Posted by: freelunch | August 30, 2009 12:24 PM
So, the Pope is ignorant of Americans who claim to be Christian who think we don't have to do anything to maintain the environment. James Watt, enemy of the environment was made Secretary of Interior by a president elected by religionists.
Posted by: not a gator | August 30, 2009 12:25 PM
@23
Oy vey. That was clever--but I'm still groaning.
Posted by: Opisthokont | August 30, 2009 12:30 PM
Anyone complaining that Dawkins et al. do not take theology seriously should note well that we have clear evidence here of a very highly placed figure in theological circles making stupid, insulting, and demonstrably untrue statements about atheism. Something in some book about motes and beams comes to mind here....
Posted by: george.w | August 30, 2009 12:46 PM
Let's examine the biblical approach to environmental protection, shall we? In Joshua 17, the people of Joseph had been "richly blessed", by which they meant they had more children than their land could support. They complained to Joshua that they didn't have enough land and what did he tell them?
Go up into the hills, kill the Perizzites and Rephaites, take their land, and clear the forest for your crops. When Joseph's people complained that the hill people had Chariots and other weapons of mass destruction, Joseph said; "You are numerous, you should be able to prevail".
There are couple lessons here, which have not been lost on the religious and powerful. One is that if another nation has something you want, you can kill them and take it. Another is that natural resources are there for you to plunder.
Posted by: KI | August 30, 2009 12:49 PM
At the conference in Brazil a few years ago, the Vatican representative said that plants and animals were nice, but only humans had immortal souls, therefore only humans are worth caring about.
Lying, stupid hypocritical, thieving, immoral, slavedriving, lowest-form-of-life on the planet. Why aren't these shits in prison for crimes against humanity and the planet? Why are they allowed to be seen in public? Why are we supposed to "respect" the assholes who empower and enable these parasites?
Posted by: littlejohn | August 30, 2009 1:01 PM
Reminds me of James Watt, Interior secretary under Saint Ronald Reagan(TM). This is the guy who was in charge of our national forests, among other things.
He said, and I'm paraphrasing here, Why worry about things like trees? Jesus is coming soon, so it won't matter.
Perfect choice for protecting our natural resources, Ronnie.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
August 30, 2009 1:02 PM
I thought earlier this year you said it was riches that were causing all the problems Ratzi, you vile, hypocritical, murderous piece of shit.
Don't be naive, Opisthokont. What the critics mean is that Dawkins et al. aren't taking their nuanced (attenuated, and frankly made-up) theology seriously. Everybody knows that Catholics and their idiotic half-literalist theology are but a small minority of Christians, the majority of whom ascribe to the theology described by Eagleton's rich tapestry of nebulous and vague statements that may or may not be about God. So worthy of rich consideration!
Posted by: Sara | August 30, 2009 1:03 PM
Your critique, dear sir, has given the pope's words just the amount of intelligent consideration they deserve!
What bloody hypocrisy (not surprising at all, though).
And who's been yammering about the universe being *created* so that the man could use it? (It's always only the man, never woman). Who's been quoting Genesis at people dared disagree?
Also, fun stuff. The pope likes whales now, but is still against depenalization of homosexuality in which it is still penalized. Nice to know the pope's got himself some priorities. There should be a flowchart.
Posted by: PlaydoPlato | August 30, 2009 1:03 PM
KI @ #31
Sir, I admire the politically correct restraint you use in referencing a member of the RCC, aka, the World's Largest Organizied Association of Child Rapists. However, you're among friends here, so please feel free to tell us how you really feel about those bastards.
Posted by: KI | August 30, 2009 1:08 PM
@35
I thought I was! (Place winking or smiley emoticon here).
Posted by: Merkin Muffley
|
August 30, 2009 1:11 PM
In my limited experience, the least environmentally correct is the "drill baby, drill", expect the end times in our lifetime crowd. `They have no reason to protect the environment since Jesus Christ will only destroy it during the rapture.
Posted by: Bad | August 30, 2009 1:17 PM
I wonder how much fuel that bullet-proof Popemobile burns. Probably more than my "atheist car", especially when you consider they need to transport it all over the world just for him. Perhaps he should consider using a rental.
Posted by: Nemo | August 30, 2009 1:20 PM
Tom DeLay and others have used religion to argue against the reality of global warming. In this case, it's not an End Times thing, but the idea that nature belongs to God, and nothing Man can do can seriously impact it. Nuts.
Posted by: Richard Eis | August 30, 2009 1:31 PM
The pope is a twat.
Posted by: Andyo
|
August 30, 2009 1:37 PM
I, still technically being catholic, have been thinking if I should do a formal apostasy... in Argentina there was recently a campaign to do just that en masse ("Apostasía Colectiva"). But then, I think the rather shallow fact that they can claim my number as one more catholic in the world, is overshadowed by the schadenfreude I feel of it being known as a religion with a high percentage of heretics and troublemakers such as those annoying gays and children and womens rights activists within it.
They made it hard to fully renounce their religion, now they can suck on it.
Posted by: jimi 45 | August 30, 2009 1:42 PM
Luke writes, "Actually religion has a paradoxical effect on environmentalism."
He then cites specific types of/approaches to religion to support this claim.
The effect on environmental attitudes depends upon the type of/approach to religion.
The spectrum of lived religion doesn't begin or end with fundamentalism, literalism, or, for that matter, theism.
Posted by: Discombobulated | August 30, 2009 1:55 PM
Bill is frothing at the mouth:
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1664
Hmmm:
So, will Showtime/P&T be getting paid for the DVDs of these mailings? Or did Bill Donohue just admit in writing that he was about to willingly and knowingly commit copyright infringement?
Posted by: Discombobulated | August 30, 2009 1:59 PM
Oops. Crossposted in wrong thread :( Too much Catholic hilarity today, methinks.
Posted by: WTFWJD | August 30, 2009 2:14 PM
Joey Rats, capo of a worldwide syndicate that services and protects child molesters and rapists, suddenly worries about consequences?
Posted by: MadScientist | August 30, 2009 2:14 PM
"Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where his existence is denied?"
Yes, it is not true. Stupid pope; he should read non-fiction rather than the mountains of brain-rotting crap in his library.
I see the pope had to sneak in the "evil humans wanting things" story - please give all your things to the catholic church instead and pick up your reward in heaven.
Hey, any bets on how long before Mooney censures Terry Sanderson for being 'uncivil'?
Posted by: Asclepias | August 30, 2009 2:16 PM
So THAT'S why I have so much trouble tryiong to get the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to do what's right for the environment instead of the oil companies! They're all atheists!
No, come to think of it, they're all dyed-in-the-wool Christian Republicans! Further proof that Ratyzinger has no idea what he's talking about. Of course, the odd thing is that we seem to give the fundies far and away more air time than they deserve and nowhere near enough to the people who actually have a clue. (On an unrelated note, there was a letter to the editor in the paper this morning by a guy claiming that the founding fathers did not even discuss separation of church and state.)
Posted by: Zen Druid | August 30, 2009 2:24 PM
[sermon]
Diderot wrote something about strangling priests. I'm good with that.
Or, we could hope for a new wave of Visigoths to sack the Vatican, pillaging as they go, and raping -- yeah, raping -- those surreal old perverts in the frilly frocks and stupid hats.
Or, remind the people of Istanbul that the stolen treasures of their heritage are mere ornaments in the evil dragon's hoard.
Or, plant the bug in the collective Zionist imagination that a certain district of Rome is the real Promised Land(TM).
But, as was mentioned in Bullshit:Vatican, the way to get their attention is through their money: sue their asses off.
There was this recent comprehensive survey showing religious affiliations within the US prison population [citation needed], and I find the disproportionate number of Papists very intriguing. It's clear to me that the Mafiosi modeled their tactics after those of the Holy See.
Pederasty is a favored modus for mentoring new priests, right? Widespread systematic abuse is the sacred prerogative of the Christian Brothers of Ireland [citation needed], right?
Seeing all this flagrant disregard for humanity in general, what chance does anything else on Earth have to be cherished and protected?
[/sermon]
Posted by: strangebrew | August 30, 2009 2:31 PM
Was it not one of Benny Baby's minions that decided quite stridently that Atheists et al...were not human ....in fact they were sub-human?
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3846,Atheists-not-fully-human-says-Cardinal-Cormac-Murphy-OConnor,BBC-Radio
If that is so and this clown Cormac-Murphy-OConnor spouting Roman Catholic inanity is one of Bennie's legion of chuckle monsters..which he is...then benny seems a tad confused by accusing Man...which he actually is himself apparently as it happens... with Atheism and Atheists which by RC own definition are sub-human...in other words non man.
Benny is a tad confused methinks...
Or tis the religious trait of dragging the goal posts across the field to another location...cos it suits the latest bilge they utter?....no wonder the church is in such disarray...someone keeps changing the rules of engagement because they cannot decide on what to lie about!
Posted by: Interrobang | August 30, 2009 2:40 PM
The pope is a twat.
My genitalia is insulted, sir. It is nothing whatsoever like the Pope, and frankly, twats are more fun than that old poop in the Vatican.
Posted by: Numad | August 30, 2009 2:52 PM
There's a pattern to be found here.
It's just like his attempt to dress up the Vatican's anti-contraception position in the sheep's clothing of the fight against AIDS, despite the true motivations for it having been made clear for decades. This is a carrion bird pope.
He's not progressive, but he can steal progressive language.
Posted by: Zen Druid | August 30, 2009 2:52 PM
[homily]
What was it that prompted those old Roman bishops to choose the dead-radical-on-a-stick as their icon, anyway?
[/homily]
Posted by: cag | August 30, 2009 2:59 PM
It is my unverified opinion that the profession with the most atheists, apart from science, is probably the clergy, so Ratboy, the head spokesperson for superstition, may indirectly have a point. As in any group of individuals, one can expect that around one percent are sociopaths, so where better to be a sociopath than in the church. After all, the church is based on lies and who lies better than a sociopath (answer: theistic clergy).
The vile have once more raised the bile (translation for those whose first language is not English "Those bastards in the Vatican (and other religions spokespersons) make me throw up.")
Posted by: Richard Eis | August 30, 2009 3:17 PM
-My genitalia is insulted, sir. It is nothing whatsoever like the Pope, and frankly, twats are more fun than that old poop in the Vatican.-
My apologies to your genitalia. Unfortunately there are no words strong enough to describe my absolute loathing of this creature and everything he stands for. So I went for clean and simple.
Posted by: Killjoy | August 30, 2009 3:22 PM
Now, let's look at Ratty's speech in context:
"Experiencing the shared responsibility for creation (Cf. 51), the Church is not only committed to the promotion of the defense of the earth, of water and of air, given by the Creator to everyone, but above all is committed to protect man from the destruction of himself. In fact, "when 'human ecology' is respected in society, environmental ecology also benefits" (ibid). Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where is existence is denied? If the human creature's relationship with the Creator weakens, matter is reduced to egoistic possession, man becomes the "final authority," and the objective of existence is reduced to a feverish race to possess the most possible.
Creation, matter structured in an intelligent manner by God, is entrusted to man's responsibility, who is able to interpret and refashion it actively, without regarding himself as the absolute owner. Man is called to exercise responsible government to protect it, to obtain benefits and cultivate it, finding the necessary resources for a dignified existence for all."
(Yes, that was copypasted, the typos showed up on Catholic.net too.)
Since these guys tend to treat God and good as synonymous, I'm not sure if the intent of this was to directly call out atheists or even make a backhanded snipe. It just seems a side effect of their fucked-up way of framing the world. In this case, expect some apologist to argue that "marginalizing God or denying his existence" is 'supposed' to mean something like denying how precious the environment is, or whatever else the Pope was thinking while huffing the gold paint fumes at the Vatican.
Not that big a deal, really; others have said worse about us. If there's something in that speech that worries me, it's stuff like "The earth is a precious gift of the Creator, who has designed its intrinsic order," and "Creation, matter structured in an intelligent manner by God". If there's a pope dumb enough to reverse Catholic doctrine on teaching evolution, it's Jose el Raton.
Posted by: XD | August 30, 2009 3:29 PM
I'd love to hear the opinion of a Catholic Scienceblogger. Shame there isn't one, eh?
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | August 30, 2009 3:37 PM
Some priests take vows: stability,
Obedience, and chastity,
Some take a vow of poverty,
And then, there is The Pope.
Some give up almost every thing
That modern life can surely bring
But look upon that Papal Ring
With lust, or greed, or hope.
They gladly take authority,
Relieving folks like you or me
From any need to think, you see,
Then listen to our sins.
To hear some girl or boy confess
How lust has made their life a mess
Brings fullness to a priestly dress
The minute it begins
"I've coveted my neighbor's ass,
When, such a lovely little lass,
She dressed right by the window glass--
It's quite a frequent bother!"
If it were not for fear of God
And Satan's massive cattle prod
I swear a priest would shoot his wad
With every "Bless me, Father..."
And now the Pope, on throne of gold,
Decides to blame, so we are told,
His enemy from days of old--
The folks who don't believe--
For lust for power, ego, greed,
For taking more that what they need
Rejecting his ascetic creed
And giving earth the heave.
He has the gall to preach restraint
And act the part of slighted saint;
I have to tell myself, "how quaint!
He acts as if we care!"
Surrounded by his gold and jewels,
Pontificating papal rules
To sycophants and silly fools...
Humanity, beware!
Perhaps restraint is what you want if
You are going to say this, Pontiff--
Seems a bit too nonchalant, ef-
fusing thoughts like these,
Ensconced in your luxurious palace,
Sipping from your golden chalice
It frankly, Ratzi, feels like malice:
Authority? Oh, please.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/08/atheists-over-consuming-says-man-on.html
Posted by: Mobius | August 30, 2009 3:56 PM
No, it is not true.
Posted by: Yubal
|
August 30, 2009 4:00 PM
#1
Fuck Nazinger!"
What a pathetic little worldview you expose here....
Insulting, prejudiced, hateful...playing the "nazi-card" again?
Uh! How creative! Is that all you can do?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 30, 2009 4:09 PM
Dear Brother Cuttlefish,
You make me very happy.
I pray Jesus will redeem your rhyming soul.
Smoggy
Posted by: Numad | August 30, 2009 4:15 PM
"Insulting, prejudiced, hateful...playing the "nazi-card" again?"
If the luxury shoe fits.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 30, 2009 4:22 PM
Wrong answer, Your Holey-ness!
When you get large numbers of people together who think a) the Earth and in fact all creation was designed just for them, b) God will always be there for us and would never let our Earth become unlivable, that optionally, c) Jesus could come back and bring about the Rapture any day now, and most of all, d) that believing something regardless of, or contrary to, the evidence makes you a good person, and these people take over the majority of the most powerful countries in the world while colonizing many of the less-powerful ones?
The results are predictable. The Earth is an endless resource, global warming is a myth, it was all put here just for us, and we'll all be divided into the Saved and the Damned within the next few decades so it really doesn't matter how hard we fuck this planet up. This is what happens when you take Christianity to its logical conclusion, and since being environmentally responsible takes real effort, it's not difficult to take the idea this far.
Cuttlefish rules, as usual.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 30, 2009 4:30 PM
Ohh, my EYES!Posted by: Susannah | August 30, 2009 4:37 PM
Having just watched the Penn & Teller episode, an idea for a T-shirt comes to mind. I'm not capable of creating it, so I'll throw it out there.
A photo of Vatican City, with nary a green thing in sight, overprinted with a slogan like, "Go Green", or "Save Our Forests". Or maybe, "They paved paradise".
I'm not a cartoonist, either, so I'm sure someone can improve on that idea.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 30, 2009 4:51 PM
Isn't it strange how so many Jesus & Mo's (r) Irony Meters [tm] get broken by Catholic Church statements?
Posted by: yatkinchate | August 30, 2009 4:56 PM
And while we are at it, we should not forget the disgusting case of the Ghoul of Calcutta, and arch flunky or Rome, Agnes Boiaxhu aka Mother Teresa, who raised millions and millions from crooks all over the world but did nt as much as a buy an asprin for the few trophy poor she hpused in her hospice, while all the while availing of the five star medical treatment for herself and her gang of flunkies called the Missionaries of Charity. What a humongous hoax!
Posted by: Heidi | August 30, 2009 5:02 PM
Somebody better tell YEC Sylvia Allen to call off the uranium mining.
Arizona state Senator Sylvia Allen (R) voices support for opening up uranium mining in the state. Sen. Allen responds to statements by environmentalists by assuring them that the "Earth is 6,000 years old ..." Twice.
Posted by: fern | August 30, 2009 5:03 PM
Boy, you atheists are sure an angry bunch.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 30, 2009 5:07 PM
DOGGEREL IN DEFENSE OF GENITALIA
(with apologies to real poets)
Don’t call the Pope a ‘cunt’ or ‘twat’ or ‘prick’,
Or liken him to an engorged meatstick,
For God above created your equipment,
And packed it full of nerves for your enjoyment.
So do not name your parts like they’re an insult,
You should revere the overwhelming gestalt
That comes when heart and mind and brain and blood
Combine with them in sweet orgasmic flood.
Such bliss Pope Ben is proud he’s never felt,
(Thought he approves a flogging with a belt),
He’d rather live with loins all desiccated,
And rule that sexual love is denigrated,
As just a tool for endless procreation,
While many priests indulge in fornication,
With little boys and girls who in them trust.
I’d rather praise the parts that light my lust,
And tell Pope Ben the truth; that he's a 'wanker',
an 'Aids-Abettor', 'hypocrite', 'God's Banker',
A 'paunchy, pederast-protecting liar',
For him, I pray, there is a lake of fire.
Posted by: Numad | August 30, 2009 5:11 PM
"Boy, you atheists are sure an angry bunch.
Have a nice day."
Without that second sentence, that would have been a very efficient Poe.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | August 30, 2009 5:12 PM
Dear Sister Fern,
I am not an atheist. I am a born-again, spirit-filled, bible-believing Christian.
So go fuck yourself!
Yours in Christian love
Smoggy
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 30, 2009 5:15 PM
“Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where his existence is denied?"
I bet I consume a lot less electricity and gas than the Pope.
Time to calculate your carbon footprint, Ratfuck.
Posted by: Pharyngulette | August 30, 2009 5:18 PM
Re: Cuttlefish@57
Oooh, you've come over all Tom Lehrer! I love "want it/Pontiff" and wish I could use it in daily conversation.
Thank you for your concise and clever-as-always commentary.
Posted by: Pharyngulette | August 30, 2009 5:21 PM
Um, want it= want if, of course
Posted by: mediajackal | August 30, 2009 5:32 PM
Cuttlefish, I want to have your baby. I'll change sexes, if necessary.
Posted by: Todd Ferguson | August 30, 2009 5:35 PM
At Davey, #25,
Actually, to give credit where it is due, the Catholic Church and pope's official position was/is opposition to the Iraq war. Many Conservative American Catholics saw it differently (they are almost exclusively neo-cons now), but in fact they often see things differently. The position of the previous pope was more socialist than many conservative American Catholics would care to admit, for example.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 30, 2009 5:47 PM
The funny thing for me in this is I'm pretty sure at some point or other--either in conversation or in a blog posting or an email or who knows what--in commenting on one of Benny da Rat's previous, charming little demonising eruptions of 'look what dem eeeevil secular humanists have done and gone now', I'm pretty sure I said words to the effect of:
'Well, remember, this is Ratzinger... He'd probably blame global warming on atheists if he thought he could get away with it...'
...and I'd meant it as a humourous exaggeration... Y'know... slight hyperbole... Meant for satiric effect..
Anyway, well, the thing is, now, I really can't think of one.
(Clears throat, takes deep breath, looks thoughtful...)
I mean, well, this is Ratzinger... he'd probably blame... umm...
(/'Kay. Yeah. Really got nothin' this time.)
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 30, 2009 6:08 PM
Boy, you atheists are sure an angry bunch.
boy, you creationists are sure a vacuous bunch.
...get in the feckin' SACK!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 30, 2009 6:11 PM
Congratulations and thanks to both Cuttlefish and Smoggy on their excellent versifications.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | August 30, 2009 6:11 PM
Opinions are like assholes - the Vatican's got a lot of each!
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 30, 2009 6:12 PM
I'd love to hear the opinion of a Catholic Scienceblogger. Shame there isn't one, eh?
Ken Miller often makes blog-like proclamations, though I'm unaware if he's set up a formal blog at this point or not.
It wouldn't surprise me if he's commented on similar statements before.
Posted by: strange gods before me | August 30, 2009 6:14 PM
Isn't Isis a Catholic?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 30, 2009 6:17 PM
*Clap clap clap* Bravo!Posted by: a lurker | August 30, 2009 6:17 PM
XD @ #56: IIRC, Isis at "Isis the Scientist" is a catholic scienceblogger.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 30, 2009 6:40 PM
... his golden palaces, surrounded by unimaginable luxury and material wealth...
In point of fact, there is a strong case to be made that the Vatican is not the hoarder of centobillions that many make it out to be.
Many of the Holy See's assets (cathedrals, artwork, etc) are what financiers call "highly illiquid". Even if appraisers could somehow put a price tag on the Sistine Chapel ceiling and some billionaire found to buy it, the ensuing loss of prestige and drop in collection-plate income would make that sale a losing proposition.
While we are not obligated to take at face value the purported opening of the books by order of the Pope (John 23? Paul 6?) back in the '60s, there have been multiple instances (the 45M lire deficit revealed in 1876; the yanking-around by Mussolini on the payoffs due under the Lateran Pacts; the Vatican Bank scandal of the 1980s; etc) in which it seems likely that the Church would have covered over its public embarrassments if it had only had the wherewithal to do so.
However, there remains evidence of major skulduggery which cries out for trenchant investigation.
Posted by: F | August 30, 2009 7:03 PM
Now this really pisses me off...
Posted by: Jon Strong | August 30, 2009 7:10 PM
I'm going to preface this by saying I'm an avid reader and an active atheist, just so the horde realizes it's devouring one of their own..
In Kenya, the African country I'm most familiar with, a large portion of the population relies on religiously-affiliated mission hospitals. Often the quality of care is better than anything the government or NGOs can provide. Likewise, in many areas religious schooling is a much better alternative to public schools that often lack desks, textbooks, and other essentials. Those are the facts on the ground.
That said, offering a better alternative to the often dismal government services is no great feat. Religously-affiliated schools and hospitals have a huge number of problems as well -- crap family planning services, unaffordable tuition, etc etc -- but if we're going to be objective we should at least acknowledge these services do help Africans.
Posted by: strange gods before me | August 30, 2009 7:11 PM
Pierce, that may be true, but they did plunder the world to surround themselves with absurd luxury. Besides their earlier imperialism, they've taken in a lot of money in donations that could have been used to help people but were instead spent on gold and ivory decor.
They may have spent their money unwisely, like a lot of greedy fucks.
Posted by: bilbo | August 30, 2009 7:39 PM
I don't agree with the Pope whatsoever on his quote, but the quote has been cherry-picked. When you read the entire speech, the vast, vast majority is about people of all persuasions coming together in the name of science and environmental protection.
You're overreaching here, and choosing one negative quote in a sea of beneficial ones. We're much better than that.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny
|
August 30, 2009 7:41 PM
Ratzi goes waaaaaaay back. Read this and weep:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/81feb/murphy.htm
Remaining commentary omitted because I'm apoplectic.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 30, 2009 7:45 PM
When you read the entire speech, the vast, vast majority is about people of all persuasions coming together in the name of science and environmental protection.
*yawn*
translation:
"It doesn't matter what edicts the Pope makes, so long as he couches them with: 'Can't we all just get along'?"
We're much better than that.
who's "WE", kimosabe?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
August 30, 2009 7:59 PM
Jon Strong,
Nobody denies that religious efforts are often beneficial. However, there is a saying in the US military, "one aw-shit wipes out a thousand atta-boys." Shakespeare said something similar, "The evil men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones."
In the Penn & Teller show posted in another thread there's an American reporter who's covered the Vatican for many years. He made a comment that rather struck me, something to the effect that Pope John Paul II was conservative but Pope Benedict is even more so. A reactionary Pope is not going to have many fans at this website.
Posted by: bilbo | August 30, 2009 8:54 PM
Did I say I agreed with the Pope? Absolutely not. I simply pointed out that the NSS blatantly ignored all of the points most would take as a positive coming from the Pope and chose to cherry-pick a quote and go harshly off, quite bitterly, I might add.
I also failed to see where he said we were responsible for global warming specifically, but hey, this post is all about hatred against the Pope, right? I don't think using our brains matters anymore.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 30, 2009 8:57 PM
Bilbo, we don't give a shit about your rancid opinions. Maybe if you weren't so rancid in your appearances here...
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 30, 2009 8:59 PM
I simply pointed out that the NSS blatantly ignored all of the points most would take as a positive coming from the Pope and chose to cherry-pick a quote and go harshly off, quite bitterly, I might add.
if the pope has a speech entitled "Brotherly Love", where he talks MOSTLY about cooperation between nations and cultures, but in the middle of the speech says: "Except for those nasty Jews, that are responsible for why everything has gone to shit", do you think it's "cherry picking" for someone to concentrate on such an egregious statement?
seriously, your rationale needs work.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 30, 2009 9:01 PM
I don't think using our brains matters anymore.
again, I have to say...
Who's "we", kimosabe?
Posted by: Jeff S | August 30, 2009 9:22 PM
Why is anyone suprised a religious leader is saying things that aren't true?
Posted by: Lynna | August 30, 2009 10:50 PM
I enjoyed the entire poem, Cuttlefish, but this last stanza was especially fine. Malice rhymed with chalice ... LOL
Posted by: Lynna | August 30, 2009 11:09 PM
Smoggy @69 (how did you arrange to be #69? -- wait, I know this one! God himself, or maybe Jesus the Son gave Smoggy his just desserts).
Huzzah! And also a shout-out to the other female poster up-thread who thought that calling the Head Rat a "twat" was an insult to her refined pleasure equipment.
The Pope's not a "pussy" by my account
'cause he couldn't lubricate without
a gallon of lard -- just like, no doubt
the pederast priests, those nasty beasts
who need to grease the flock -- well at least
those lambs young enough to be Boy Scouts.
Posted by: Inky | August 30, 2009 11:52 PM
Actually, one of the reasons I *LEFT* the church was because they DIDN'T give a SHIT about the environment. They go off to retreats in quiet mountain fields, have beautiful natural backgrounds on their pamphlets and sing along powerpoint slides
and
they don't recycle their pamphlets
they drink out of mountains of styrofoam cups every Sunday
they never talked about environmental issues
they didn't care when I tried
I will add that I have been to a couple of churches here in Denver that *did* have recycle bins. But MOST DO NOT.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 30, 2009 11:56 PM
Some blog traffic being generated over this post over here :
http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2009/08/the_pope_and_pz_myers_two_ways.php
Posted by: Armand K. | August 31, 2009 12:37 AM
Well, this pope certainly has an obsession with the environment. Last year, in his Christmas speech, he made an oh-so-divinely-inspired parallel between preserving the Amazonian rainforest and preserving the society by weeding out homosexuality:
I'd say, since homosexuality is the result of unbalanced human ecology, and we bloody atheists cause environmental problems, it folows that atheists are the leading cause of homosexuality.
Well... That actually makes sense... to someone who endorses studies saying condoms are innefective in preventing AIDS and pregnancy because some of the samples proved to be leaky in some test 20+ years ago and ISO quality standards accepted no more than 0,4% faulty condoms per lot.
Did I miss something?
//Rant over
Posted by: DLC | August 31, 2009 12:47 AM
Uh, right... No ethics or morals can exist without some un-human supernatural authority. Gotcha.
So, when you, Witch-Doctor in Chief of the RCC, say "abortion is evil" we are not bound by your authority, as you are not an un-human supernatural authority.
Smoggy Batzrubble @(appropriately) 69:
you should have gotten some of the Song of Solomon in there.
You know, a little something about breasts as bunches of grapes, or being moved in your bowels . . .
Posted by: PeterKarim | August 31, 2009 1:35 AM
Oh I did not know there were many atheists in Europe... in 1350 when the Black Death plague peaked and killed 25% of the world's population.
Since clearly according to the pope atheism then, like now, is the only explanation.
Posted by: MadScientist | August 31, 2009 4:39 AM
@bilbo #89: No, PZ is not cherry-picking. Pope Ratzi has nothing good to say about atheists - he continually spouts the most offensive bullshit he can imagine and tries to pass it off as the truth (no doubt divinely revealed by god). Whatever else he may say to give people the warm and fuzzies, that worthless asshole is pretty much telling people to hate atheists - blame them for the world's ills. Criticizing him for being a moron is not cherry picking.
Posted by: Fil | August 31, 2009 5:30 AM
Kiss my arse Ratzinger.
Posted by: Alan Clark | August 31, 2009 6:23 AM
"What about over-population, Ratzi dear? What's the devout Catholic plan for dealing with that rather serious environmental issue?"
If every Catholic became a priest/monk/nun that would go a long way to solving the population problem!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 31, 2009 6:37 AM
Alan Clark,
Are you THE Alan Clarke that was banned here? If not, you should really use a different name since that name has a bad reputation here.
Posted by: Alan Clark | August 31, 2009 6:55 AM
Feynmaniac, no, I am a different person. The clue is in the spelling. I am atheist, and my comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek!
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 31, 2009 8:11 AM
I don't think using our brains matters anymore. - bilbo
Ah. That would be why you have shown no evidence of using yours in any of your contributions to this blog.
Posted by: Q.E.D | August 31, 2009 9:15 AM
[re-posted from Penn & Teller comments but fits here]
It defies reason that the Pope and the Catholic church claim any authority on ethical matters. Let's recap shall we?
Catholicism is a cannibalistic cult where the faithful ritualistically feed on the magically summoned flesh and bloof of their lord and savior. (1) According to the Cannibal Cult's Holy Book,their God positively encourages slavery and genocide. (2)(3) In keeping with the genocide theme, the Cannibal Cult signed a treaty with Adolph Hitler's Germany which is still in force today. (4) The Cannibal Cult calls its leader the Pope. The Pope is a bigot who oppresses and stigmatizes homosexuals. (5) The Cannibal Cult's clerics have routinely molested and raped children. (6) The Pope attempted to cover up these criminal acts of child-abuse when he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (7) This is the same outfit that brought us the Inquisition and fantastically creative forms of torture for "heretics". The Pope also encourages the spread of Aids throughout the developing world amongst people of colour by preaching against the use of condoms and lying about their effectiveness. (8)
(1) See, Catholic Catechism; Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours (1133) and Fourth Council of the Lateran
(2) Leviticus 25: 44-46
(3) Samuel 15:2-3
(4) Reichskonkordat, 10 September 1933
(5) homosexuality "is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil. . ." - Cardinal Ratzinger
(6) Ryan Report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/irish-catholic-schools-child-abuse-claims
(7) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection
(8) AIDS is "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". - Pope Benedicte XVI
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids
see also, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo's statements
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3845011.stm
Q.E.D
Posted by: Pete Murphy | August 31, 2009 9:22 AM
Rampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. I'm not talking about the obvious environmental and resource issues. I'm talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty in America.
I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled "Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America." To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.
This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management. Our policies that encourage high rates of population growth are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.
But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.
The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight third world countries - India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China - as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050.
If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit either of my web sites at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com or PeteMurphy.wordpress.com where you can read the preface, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It's also available at Amazon.com.)
Pete Murphy
Author, "Five Short Blasts"
Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 31, 2009 10:18 AM
AJ Milne @77:
Next, Pope Benny'll blame the nasty atheists for Catholic priests raping children. It'll make about as much sense as blaming us for ecological destruction.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
August 31, 2009 10:31 AM
@Alyson Miers, re: Catholic priests raping children
The best part about the Penn & Teller episode on the Catholic Church was how they pointed out that Ratzinger himself had authored the document directing church leaders to silence childhood victims of priestly rape and molestation until several years after adulthood. Ratzi is truly the most evil Pope of them all.
Posted by: Sam | August 31, 2009 10:52 AM
"Hey, have you noticed all those hell-holes of destruction in Africa? How does catholicism help people achieve economic and individual autonomy, huh?""
http://crs.org/africa/
Just one of the many Catholic agencies working in Africa.
So, what are the atheist plans to help people achieve economic and individual autonomy Africa? How many atheist-sponsored hospitals are providing free health care in Africa?
Posted by: steve | August 31, 2009 10:57 AM
It is not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where is existence is denied.
There, fixed it.
Posted by: steve | August 31, 2009 11:12 AM
Yes indeed, on one hand promoting religious genocide by opposition to rational family planning and safe sex measures followed by hypocritical back patting when you attempt to alleviate problems that you are the cause of.
Why am I reminded of Spanish RCC clergy baptizing Mayan/Aztec children and then handing them off to the conquistadors to bash their heads in against the nearest rock.
It's all about the number of souls.
Posted by: Q.E.D | August 31, 2009 11:16 AM
Sam wrote:
"How many atheist-sponsored hospitals are providing free health care in Africa?"
Short Answer: Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders). Not an explicitly Atheist organization but it is secular. It gives care to all people in refugee camps, war zones and famine struck countries. Unlike many Religious charities, Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) gives aid without strings and without proselytizing. You can learn more about them here:
http://www.msf.org.uk/
Remember to give generously; I do.
Q.E.D
Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 31, 2009 11:29 AM
"Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where his existence is denied..."
Last I heard it was conservative Christians in the US that said taking care of the Earth didn't matter because in the Bible it says to exploit its resources. And, many Christians also believe National Rapture Day is on the way so they have no compunction about wasting resources they think won't be needed for that much longer anyways.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 31, 2009 11:39 AM
Sam seems to be one of those apologists that hides behind the TV commercial charities as a shining example of how religion *must* be good because there are so many charities. Nevermind the fact that part of the intent behind providing the charity in the first place is to convert people to their religion. Far be it from me to decry people working hard to help the sick or feed the poor, but let's be honest: Those people are there because they believe that those poor people won't get into Heaven without being converted. It would be far more noble to take care of those people for the sake of doing so, not so you too can get into Heaven.
Also, as Q.E.D. pointed out, secular and atheist charities exist. But people like Sam don't want to accept that, and if they acknowledge it, it's usually to counter by saying "well you guys don't do nearly as much as we do because we have so many believers." Which, while true, is disingenuous considering how all religions have treated atheists and atheism over the centuries. At the very least, atheist charities don't need to be told they need to care for others under threat of the afterlife to actually care for others.
Posted by: Jamie | August 31, 2009 1:54 PM
When I was reading this, you know what comes to mind (and seems to have come to the minds of many others)? Those religious zealots that believe the world is going to end soon (either with the rapture or some other catastrophe in 2012) that feel like they don't need to take care of our world since it'll be obliterated. Or even those people that WANT the world to end, and are trying to cause some global destruction. (Wasn't there an older blog entry that mentioned the guy paying to get oil and actively start a war in the Middle East so that WWIII can break out?)
Posted by: Laurel Kornfeld | August 31, 2009 2:09 PM
One of the most harmful sentences in the Bible is "be fruitful and multiply and have dominion over the Earth and subdue it." The problem is not a Catholic one. Not only fundamentalists in all three Western religions, but even so-called political liberals have been brainwashed to believe that everyone has to have children and that if you don't have kids, you have no stake in the future and no right to be part of the decision-making process. In the so-called liberal northeast, it is shocking how many people have experienced discrimination, ostracism, and exclusion just because they make a conscious choice not to have kids. One would think humanity is in danger of extinction due to underpopulation by the way these people think and act. Politicans who don't have kids are looked at as having a disadvantage in their races even if they have used the extra time they have to be active in a wide variety of community service projects. Once and for all, we need to do away with this ideal that everyone has to have children and that those who do not are somehow being "irresponsible" and selfish (yes, these arguments have been made, even among educated middle and upper middle income suburban types where the political environment is dominated by PTO parents who think the whole universe revolves around kids.
Posted by: Johan Normark | August 31, 2009 2:12 PM
We need to burn more witches (aka atheists) instead of fossil fuels. That will solve the energy and environmental crisis.
Posted by: shonny | August 31, 2009 3:39 PM
Oh. you forgot all the pedophilia and sodomy that the job also allows you. And if you're a real pervert (catlicking version), you might also get to shag a few nuns, - those that officially isn't getting any.
As to requirements for the job, try HitlerJugend or any other similarly arranged religious organizations.
Posted by: Qwerty | August 31, 2009 3:50 PM
I was raised a Catholic and it is expected that a good Catholic (ala Bill Donohue) will have his body interred. There is this belief that your soul will someday be reunited with your flesh (bwa ha ha).
I am going to be a selfish environmentalist and asked to be cremated upon by death.
Fuck the poop - oops - pope.
Posted by: Sandra Knight | December 6, 2009 12:28 PM
We witness the immense struggle of wildlife to survive in an increasingly hostile, modern world, invaded and destroyed by the human species
The Human race is guilty of conservational, ecological and environmental crimes. What we are doing to all other species is murder! It is ecocide!
In less than 100 years of so called civilisation using technology, we have managed to destroy what took more than 3 billion years to evolve. Entire species are being wiped out. We kill everything we touch,have run out of space, land, soil, air, water and landfill sites. The only thing we haven't run out of, unfortunately, is people. 7 billion and rising fast !
The main culprit of this ecological disaster is religion, Christianity being the worst, as it keeps the prolific uteruses busy, spitting children out at a fast rate. And when they can't procreate naturally, in-vitro fertilisation is there, readily available, speeding up the breeding process, revving it up to turbo breeding.
http://helpingthem.co.uk/index.php/topic,114.0.html