George Pell on climate change

I probably upset a few Hillsong devotees with my post expressing concern at an article on their website about depression. To show I’m not just picking on Hillsong, I’ll upset a fresh set of people by noting a quite extraordinary comment in a speech that His Eminence Cardinal George Pell, Catholic Archbishop of Sydney.

Some of the hysteric and extreme claims about global warming are also a symptom of pagan emptiness, of Western fear when confronted by the immense and basically uncontrollable forces of nature. Belief in a benign God who is master of the universe has a steadying psychological effect, although it is no guarantee of Utopia, no guarantee that the continuing climate and geographic changes will be benign.

In the past pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

I find it hard to read this as anything other than directly equating people who are calling for carbon dioxide emissions with pagans, and fear about global warming as being due to a lack of belief in one God.

No insult to pagans or paganism, but I don’t see why I and the many others who believe in the need for a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions should be automatically lumped in the pagan camp (or pagans in the global warming camp either for that matter).

The speech predominantly explored Pell’s views on Islam and the Koran, which I will make the topic of a separate post. The full speech is on the website of the Sydney Archdiocese.

Please like & share:

59 Comments

  1. MarkL: I don’t particularly care where you comment, but some of your comments at Tim Blair’s site are relevant to your presence on Andrew B’s blog. That your idea of humour differs from mine is not at issue, but I suspect few here would agree with you that visiting “left-wing” sites to cause deliberate disruption is “self-deprecating”. Ditto for your online descriptions of women – whose politics differ from yours – as “ugly lesbians” and “rug-munchers”. So I presume that you are not genuinely interested in debating issues here. Looks to me more like you came along to try to knock John Tracey off the thread.

    Andrew B has made it clear that the purpose of his blog is to provide a venue for open debate, and that he expects that none of us impede that. Whether or not you are following the literal specifics of Andrew’s rules is debatable, but I don’t think you come near to their sense.

  2. I fell off the thread years ago.

    I tried not to float too far off topic for obvious reasons, though I guess I am about to. (sorry, I shall seek penance – that should satisfy the speaker as to relevence.)

    However, I don’t mind at all the convesation with Mark L. It wasn’t very productive, but that’s good too. I enjoy writing here because I get to test my own ideas up against a whole range of other people and opinions who I woudn’t run into in my daily life. Whether it is well documented or a cheap one liner, I get feed back from others in their own words. I hope my feed back can contribute to others considerations too.

    A.B. is a politician and I suspect he keeps this site going (apart from accolades in web awards) for similar reasons. But I do not have to appear as an intelligent fence-sitter as a Democrat senator must, I can test my own sacred cows against others without fear of controversy. – and amend my own if necessary, which does happen – but don’t tell anyone.

    I have learnt heaps from all the ignorant fools who cannot see the absolute truth of what I say, to A.B. and you all. thank you.

    bring it on! (if the senator doesn’t mind)
    this is just a phase I am going through, don’t know how long it will last (I can see the horizon) but as long as it is stays fun I invite challenges, I issue enough. I will try to stay on topic.

  3. So since it has been over 24 hours since the question of virgin birth was raised, without a refutal of my biblical analysis, I can assume that the contrary position has conceded and we now have concensus on that matter.

    Now I would like to draw the chamber’s attention to the role of the catholic church and it’s figureheads in the wider society. This is relevent to Geoff’s comment on post 48 too. Pell is a media star, like a rock star, gold medalist or a rescued miner. He has a national and itnernational profile that many politicians and rock stars can only pray for. He is part of the public’s identification with what the Roman church stands for and I believe he feels his contributions and media strategies are in line with doing just that.

    Just as the wiggling bhums and thits on mainstream videoclips provide misguided images of sexuality, Pell contributes to the eclectic mix of confused Australian sexuality.

    Even though their are not as many Christians as there used to be, the church, in particular the Church of england has many ceremonial (and other) links with Parliament and the bible or the so called judeo-christian ethic is often cited as what dictates our moral norms. The Queen is not only our monarch she is also head of the church of England as was it’s founder the notorious Henry the 8th. This stuff is relevent also to the debate about whether migrants should accept our way of life and moral values. I wonder what might determine such national values.

    The role of the catholic church in Australias history and politics is profound, though withering. It’s power has been through it’s rigid upholding of traditional morality. Personal guilt plays a big part here in maintaining a political, philosophical and lifestyle hegemony, reinforced by public figures such as Pell and indeed the plethora of protestent pastors who perpetually persist with their preaching of pie in the sky (sorry).

    My concern is that christianity, Roman, English or other protestant teams, has been upheld as a moral and cultural reference point for what it means to be an Australian. The trouble is, this “christianity” has nothing to do with the message of Jesus, a tribal desert Hebrew 2000 years ago or his ancient bloodline through David and the tribe of Judah, traditional owners of Palastine, amongst other tribal groups, hebrew and otherwises.

    Today’s Christianity was first created by the Roman Emporer Constantine hundreds of years after J.C. and a period of Roman annhialation of Hebrew religious and political structure in Palastine by the very same Roman empire.

    All this hoo-har about morality that comes from christians, in particular Papists is just a technique of mass mind control to replace indigenous spiritualities, cultures and political structures in populations conquered by the Roman military, and to provide the same purpose to transmigrated cultural groups into colonised areas. The Church of England and modern protestentism have learnt a few of those tricks too.(as indeed have Islamist states, but I won’t go there except to say there is a big difference between Roman Catholocism, – the universal church structure and Islam’s internationalism.)

  4. Arguing with climate change deniers is like rolling with a pig in mud – you get covered in mud and the pig enjoys it.

  5. JT – I am becasue I feel. Virgin birht is obviiously not meant to be literal. I’m no Xtian fanatic.

  6. MarkL, I went to the site that you referenced re Muslim girls being killed by family members because they tried to be western. I do not agree with honor killings and nor do Muslim women.

    from Muslim Women’s League

    “Women from other faith groups may also be subject to similar attitudes from within their own communities in those countries. Clearly, the prevailing view that devalues and belittles women is derived from sociocultural factors that are justified by a distorted and erroneous interpretation of religion, especially of Islam”

    http://www.mwlusa.org/publications/positionpapers/hk.html

    How come you ask the views and opinions of others on subjects here but when asked to provide yours, you say that your opinion is irrelevant and completely side-step the question?

    I might also say that (and the suject you raised is completely off topic anyway), I do not agree with the Catholic church’s view of women and the subservient role that Catholic women have in that religion.

    Are you trying to bait re #51 from The Feral Abacus?

  7. ken,
    you could be excommunicated for such statements in post 55 (if you were a Roman adherent) In times gone by you may have been burnt as a witch or impailed in public as a heritic.

    I believe most christians, including catholics do not believe in the virgin birth, yet the church figureheads preach it as absolute truth.

    Same with transubstantiation, I don’t think many catholics believe they are really eating anything other than wafer or drinking wine. Yet the church preaches and demands a hard line absolute faith that these elements are the real transubstantiated bodily organs and vital juices of the man Jesus.

    It is this process of spiritual repression and denial that is the problem. Despite the congragations being, in real terms “unbelievers”, they line up habitually to attend mass and pledge their adherence to these illusions publically including teaching such illusions to children as absolute truth.

    If the core of our spiritual belief is a lie that no one is game enough to challenge, that is indeed a sick and hypocritical religious position.

    An anthropological analysis of spirituality and sexuality. (I may have put this link up before, can’t remember but it is very relevent to this thread). http://byggesbottomley.blogspot.com/

  8. Well I guess they have to believe something. Irrespectvie we do as humans appeart o have some need to believe in hazy notions of “spirituality” of some sort or another. I like the ohter word – I trhought it was a facny power station.

  9. Deborah

    The question I asked was out of interest in your response. While you did not answer the question asked (which concerned matters ideological rather than religious: What do you think of an ideology which requires this to be regarded as normal and acceptable behaviour?), that’s fine. Your answer was honest in and of itself.

    I amswered your question seriously as I thought it asked in a serious manner. I asked one in return as I was interested in your answer. What I asked has nothing to do with FeralA’s comments at #51. I did not answer the he and John questions asked about my personal religious beliefs or the lack thereof because it was a bait-and-switch.

    MarkL
    Canberra

Comments are closed.