Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« An American Tale | Slog Happy at Havana »

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Religion: Not All Bad!

posted by on March 11 at 17:06 PM

Sometimes, the stars align and religious people take positions that hippies like me agree with. Like the Vatican, which just listed “pollution” among its “new sins,” and a group of renegade (gulp) Southern Baptist leaders, who are backing a declaration calling for more action on climate change.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled anti-religion programming.

RSS icon Comments

1

I usually cringe at each new statement from the Vatican- but I also kinda liked the fact that the list included "accumulation of excessive wealth" as a sin.

Posted by yep | March 11, 2008 5:10 PM
2

Uh, yeah, and birth control too. Even though one of their other sins is "creating poverty", despite the fact that lack of access to birth control is a huge factor in the creation of poverty. So, yeah, I'm not buying it. Hitler loved dogs.

Posted by Fnarf | March 11, 2008 5:12 PM
3

This will be just like when they finally decided they cared about AIDS in africa. What happens is perfectly effective programs are forced to divert their scarce and thinly stretched resources on abstinence programs that dont work, just to appease their new "supporters" from the religious ranks. Thanks Billy Grahm Jr. et al, but we can do better work without your retarded beliefs impeding us.

Posted by longball | March 11, 2008 5:21 PM
4

other then the anti love and sex platforms I find christianity...especially catholiscism very progressive...well excluding the domenicons

Posted by linus | March 11, 2008 5:31 PM
5

Religion is stupid

Posted by monkey | March 11, 2008 5:37 PM
6

Yeah, They're against all the fun stuff . . . drugs, sex, nuking Iran. . . .

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 11, 2008 5:39 PM
7

Well, the world IS funny and people are strange and man is a creature of constant change.

Posted by bree | March 11, 2008 6:07 PM
8

#2: Creating poverty is a sin, but so is doing anything to fight it.

That's religion for you. If we weren't all damned, would we really need it?

Posted by Raphael | March 11, 2008 6:18 PM
9

Is there anyone who actually prefers the new sins? Avarice, gluttony, lust, etc. are wonderfully evocative. I'll take them over "bioethical violations" and "widening the gap between rich and poor" any day.

Posted by David Wright | March 11, 2008 6:55 PM
10

New shins? I like my current shins just fine! I don't have shin splints -- I've never even been running! Who asked for new shins?

Posted by Emily L. | March 11, 2008 7:26 PM
11

I sense a rift in the space-time continuum. Did someone mix diet Coke and regular Coke in the same glass again?

Posted by Colton | March 11, 2008 7:33 PM
12

The only reason the Catholic church considers accumulation of excessive wealth a sin is because they want wealthy people to give them some of that wealth. "You have too much money and will go to hell unless you give it to a righteous cause such as us!" Of course, some might argue that the church itself violates this sin.

Posted by Jeff | March 11, 2008 8:04 PM
13

religion good if bhuddist.

Dharma bums 'r' kool!

["love poor" not PC; ignore!]

Posted by unPC | March 11, 2008 8:21 PM
14

So, the whole pollution is a "new sin" thing is pretty much utter BS. A guy in the catholic church makes a speech telling catholics to go to confession, and he tries to make that relevant to people (e.g. you can confess your liberal guilt over not doing enough for the environment).

Posted by Mr. Joshua | March 11, 2008 8:25 PM
15

the catholic church used to list "usury" as a very high level of sin. you know, today they would call it "predatory lending." was that on the list? should be (again). anyway, i see the pendulum swinging away from sexual sins as a focus for religious types. it's a welcome relief.

Posted by ellarosa | March 11, 2008 9:02 PM
16

Self-pollution has been a deadly sin crying out to the holy ghost for vengeance forever, so maybe they just extended it and something got lost in translation.

Since the earth is only 6,309 years old, one can't very well appeal to 100,000 year long climate cycles to explain global warming now, can one?

Posted by kinaidos | March 11, 2008 10:02 PM
17

@16 - If you studied up you'd find the Vatican supports the concept of evolution, not the silly Bishop Usher timeline for Creation in 4004 BC.

Posted by parsonbrown | March 12, 2008 4:24 AM
18

Technically, this wasn't an official statement from the Vatican, like a Papal edict, but part of an interview with Archbishop Gianfranco Girott, a Vatican official, in which he suggested a social take on the Seven Deadly Sins, what he called "New Forms of Social Sin".

These were the seven concepts the Archbishop talked about in the interview:

Environmental pollution;
Genetic manipulation;
Accumulating excessive wealth;
Inflicting poverty;
Drug trafficking and consumption;
Morally debatable experiments;
Violation of fundamental rights of human nature.

Posted by Peter F | March 12, 2008 8:29 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).