His climate change statements were just what his "liberal" defenders needed to officially ignore that bit of homophobic hatred he shared with the world.

Because I am just that kind of person.

Moreso than history would warrant, but that's (just) my opinion.

no signs of moving forward. It's really terrible.

This was posted and discussed in two groups on DU, according to my search.

The one in GD got a lot of attention, but you may have overlooked it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026847011

Does the fact that he has this really objectionable position mean that his stance on climate change should be dismissed?

I am just saying that some of his stances are patently wrong, and we cannot dismiss the ones that we don't like while cheering the ones that we do like. I see too much praise given to him when he says something that liberals agree with and not enough condemnation of his opinions that are backward thinking. Maybe we should stop giving him so much attention for any of this views. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

As to this being posted already, so what? I did check this group, and it had not been discussed here yet even though this seems the perfect place for it.

The stances which are clearly wrong should not be dismissed at all. OTOH, his clearly good stances shouldn't be dismissed because some of his others are so objectionable, right?

I see praise when he does go and criticism when he does bad for the most part. But there are those that never seen any good and those that never see any bad. To be honest, I see more of the first than the second on DU.

Feel free to not give him attention for any of his views. I am really in support of his climate control encyclical and I'm glad it's getting a lot of support. I wish a US politician would take such a strong stand.

According to my search, this was posted in Religion but by someone I have on ignore. I don't know how much attention it got, but it got none from me.

My bad. I skimmed too quickly. Well, at least this time you got a chance to see it here.

I think that the people who see everything as bad are just making a statement that talk is cheap, but there is nothing really being done as follow up. They are looking for actions. And the ones who see only good are just being good Catholics (not that this is a good thing to me). Personally, I am heartened to hear the progressive opinions that he has come out with, although I have been disappointed by some of the sound bites after I have heard the "but".

People see everything about this pope as bad for a myriad of reasons, some of which are just as you state. Others, not so much.

I think there has been some action and I think this environmental statement is powerful. Also, it's pissing off the republicans, which is never a bad thing.

I never expect much of anything positive from the RCC and I don't think anything revolutionary is on the agenda. But I'll still support the good moves while not hesitating to condone the bad.

climate change with no mention of over-population.
No understanding that forbidding birth control is a big part of the problem.

but now you are just going too far! Blasphemy!

And then scold anyone who thinks it's actually an important topic and should be discussed.

of fossil fuel that is driving climate change is largely concentrated in areas that contribute very little to that overpopulation. The exception, of course, being China.

The two most populace countries on earth.
But let's not address overpopulation.

Sheesh, really?

only cares about birth control in Catholic countries?
You think this speech was only for Catholics to think about?

This is so weak, it's laughable.

I will thank you not to put words in my mouth.

My point is twofold.

1. Francis's view on birth control is irrelevant in both China and India; Catholic teaching did not contribute their overpopulation.

2. Solutions to that problem must come from within those cultures. The Chinese have at least recognized the problem, but have approached it with characteristic brutality.India's solution will have to be different.

is highly relevant to climate change. He was addressing the World, not just Catholics and ignored a basic cause of climate change.

So let's talk about "Catholic Countries" Do you think overpopulation has nothing to do with deforestation in Latin America? Or pollution in Mexico?

What you meant seems to be a worthless defense of Francis.

And a factor that we all must discuss?

So why in this important statement from the Wonderpope that's going to prove once and for all he's the savior of humanity was there not a mention of it?