Funny, cause Warmists reject the Pope because he doesn’t support abortion on demand, which was also mentioned in the same position paper in which Pope Francis yammered on about “climate change”. The same one which also told people they essentially needed to give up fossil fuels and go carbon neutral, otherwise they were immoral.
Why Catholic Americans are rejecting the Pope: They worship the free market now
…
Why are white Catholics rejecting the climate consensus even as they have become increasingly progressive on other hot-button issues like same-sex marriage? As this graph from evolutionary biologist Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education shows, it’s not a simple matter of Catholics rejecting science like Evangelicals. Rosenau plotted various religious groups’ support for environmental regulations against their support for evolution based on data from the Pew Research Center. In general, he found that “groups that support evolution also support environmental action.†Catholics, however, fall somewhere in the middle of the science and environmental regulation-supporting Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics and liberal Protestants, and the conservative Evangelical and Black churches that largely reject both evolution and climate change regulation.
A 2013 study from Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues offers some insight in the particular Catholic rejection of climate change. They found that religious individuals with a strong belief in a free-market ideology were likely to reject “scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications, such as climate science, but not necessarily of other scientific issues.â€
In other words, white Catholics don’t accept the scientific consensus on climate change because it clashes with their other god: the free market.
First, so many of Lewandosky’s papers have been debunked and delinked as the perfection of junk science. Second, is Warmist Patricia Miller at Salon telling us that climate change belief and free markets are incompatible? Of course she is. Members of the Cult of Climastrology are against free markets. Well, for Everyone Else except themselves, of course. Consider that the Pope has recruited Naomi Klein, a “ferocious critic of 21st-century capitalism”, to “shift the debate on climate change”. Klein is one of the few Warmists who actually tells the truth, namely that one of the goals is to create a far left economic system, doing away with capitalism and free markets.
Oh, and Patricia Miller is the author of “Good Catholics: The Battle Over Abortion in the Catholic Churchâ€, a book which is about the pro-choice movement towards the Catholic Church. So, she’s ignoring what the Pope has said on abortion.
When the current pope took over the Catholic church was awash in child molestation. The Church was on the verge of ruin.
What better way to deflect the entire focus from pervert priests to two of the hottest topics going.
1. Climate change.
2. Redistribution of wealth to the poor.
by doing these two things the pope has quite skillfully allowed the perversion of the priesthood to become a non story once again and the 1000’s of pervert priests around the country get to keep their jobs while the pope focuses on wealth redistribution.
In all honestly in an ideal world there is nothing wrong with every person on earth having the exact same amount of stuff and money and confort…..
However that only works in a lab…..and the pope as well as most Americans understand all to well the AGW is about redistribution of wealth and its almost comical that godless communist progressive would find such a staunch ally in one of the largest religious bodies on the planet.
When His Holiness was elected to the See of St Peter, we had all sorts of stories how, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he lived much more simply and inexpensively than most bishops. Latin America, being both a continent wracked with poverty and having a Church heavily influenced by Marxist liberation theology, gave us a Pope who has a strong distrust of capitalism.
And all of that would be fine, if there was ever any other economic system of which we knew which had lifted more than a tiny minority of people above the subsistence level. As Ronald Reagan once said, socialism only works in Heaven, where they don’t need it, and Hell, where they already have it.
Capitalism is based on the fact that human beings work for their own self-interest, and that’s a concept difficult for Catholic theologians; too bad that nothing else works! They’ve had Hugo Chavez “Bolivarian socialism” in Venezuela, and can’t even keep up with the demand for toilet paper, in a country which is a petroleum exporter! Greece had its form of European democratic socialism, which enabled the Greeks to live better than their production supported, until they finally ran out of Other People’s Money.
Unrestricted free market capitalism would also of course allow and in fact encourage child labor. Free market capitalism would also do away with all regulations such as the Pure Food and Drug Act. Workplace safety?? That to would disappear with free market capitalism.
And we would wind up with facism an unholy alliance where business and politicians work together to the detremint of the people. Right wingers always create the straw man of complete communism, they choose not to see how economies such as the “socialism” of Germany benefits all, even the poorest and the richest. Germany now offers free college and university to ALL, even non citizens. Can you imagine the USA doing this ?
john again pulls out his ignorance and displays it for all the world to see.
You mean kids shouldn’t be able to work? Kids shouldn’t be able to open lemonade stands like they can’t now? Or kids can’t work for parks and recreation in their home town? You really support that type of over-regulation? Tell us all john why a business would hire an unskilled child when they could hire at the very least an unskilled adult? Who is going to be stronger, be able to work longer and at a higher rate a child or an adult?
(If you remember,
Not at all. Most people including those in the free market want products that are safe or at the very least, with “known risks” (such as unpasteurized milk products.) Are you saying that people shouldn’t have the freedom to make their own choices john?
Furthermore, companies that make an unsafe product or have an unsafe work environment will pay the costs in litigation and insurance costs. It is therefore beneficial to have safe products in a safe environment.
As opposed to unions and politicians working against companies to the detriment of the company and the people?
john invents a new economic theory of “a free lunch.”
The cost in education at colleges (the education bubble) is directly related to the very regulations john supports. The regulations have started to price the average person out of college, but john thinks that is okay because he thinks Germany has “free college” for people.
The fact of the matter is that Germany’s tax rate is higher than that of the US and the tax wedge is over 50% greater than that of the US. Someone has to pay for what john thinks is “free.”
And for what?
Germany has a lower percentage of people attending college than the US.
Facts and logic to liberals are like garlic to vampires.
John wrote:
You mean that we should tax poorer people to send the children of wealthier people to college, so that they can make more money than the children of poorer people, and be their bosses? :)
Of course, nothing is free; it all has to be paid for somehow, and that means that taxes would have to be raised to cover the increased costs. But, since taxes fall on everybody, the people who couldn’t use the benefit, for whatever reason, would be paying more in taxes to put people through college so that they’d make more money than the people, and the children of people, who couldn’t use the benefit.
The history of uncontrolled capitalism is of cycles of booms and busts. Competition must be forced onto capitalism as the natural goal of every unrestrained corporation is monopoly.
Of course there is no such thing as pure capitalism (thankfully), and in the US it has long been a blended economy of regulated capitalism with elements of socialism.
Currently our economy is under the control of plutocrats and their minions (politicians) and serves the wealthy. Specific policies keep unemployment high and wages low.
What policies keep unemployment high and wages low?
What is really hurting employment at the lower end of the economic scale is automation. Automation has already seriously impacted manufacturing jobs, and now it’s moving down to the lower skilled ones as well.
Computers don’t fail to show up on time, and robots don’t take breaks or vacations; their “health care” is an internal maintenance department.
NAFTA and TPP. The Federal Reserve monetary policies, charged with regulating inflation and employment, manages inflation and ignores employment – when employment tightens and wages start to rise from competition for jobs, the Fed raises interest rates to help the donor class. Fiscal policy – during recessions we need to have more gov’t spending, not less. Anti-union policies – right to work for less.
Every move we make as a nation rewards the political donor class at the expense of working families.
Why do you assume that all the benefits of the skyrocketing productivity of the new “robotworld” should accrue to the 1%? Just because the 1% and their minions in government make the policies? Robots will not demand higher wages or more benefits so inflation will be passé.
Jeffrey asks:
I assume that profits accrue to the investors; that’s how the economy works. Are you suggesting that the guy who isn’t hired because McDonald’s installed automated ordering should somehow be the beneficiary of the increased (or not lessened) profit from that franchise?
Jeffrey wrote:
That’s standard Keynesian economics, but it ignores one major part: Dr Keynes also said that during good economic times, we should balance budgets and pay down the debt. The trouble is that we’ve had high government spending, via borrowing, in good times as well as bad ones, and have, in effect, inoculated the economy against stimulus spending, because we are continually stimulating the economy!
We had a huge debt following World War II, but 99% of that debt was owed to ourselves; we borrowed from within the United States, so debt repayment stayed in our economy. These days, we are borrowing so much from foreign banks and investors that when we make debt service payments, we are actually depressing our economy, by sending some of the benefits of our own production overseas.