A Few Bible Stories, updated

I recently wrote an essay entitled, “A Few Bible
Stories”, which I emailed it to my friends and
posted on my blog. I've been bothered ever since
about something I wrote in it, and I really
haven't been completely sure why it bothered me.
The offending lines?

“Is homosexuality a sin? Yes, it is.”

At first I thought the problem was that I was
uncomfortable making solemn declarations:
“homosexuality is a sin”, and that's probably part
of it. I thought that maybe I should have said
something along the line of “The Bible tells us
that it is.” I was also a bit concerned that I
might offend homosexuals and those who know and
love them, or that I might turn off people who are
not convinced that homosexuality is a sin, so that
they might miss the essential part of the message,
which is that discrimination is wrong. These are
also valid concerns. But these still didn't tell
me why I was so bothered by it.

I took a 40 mile ride on my bicycle today, and I
thought about this while I was riding. And I
think I know what really bothers me about what I
wrote:


The question is utterly irrelevant.

And so is the answer, regardless of what the
answer might be.


It doesn't matter if homosexuality is a sin.
There's probably some of you that think it is a
sin, and there's probably some of you that think
it isn't. It doesn't matter if it is or not.
It's completely irrelevant. Here's a question
that is relevant:

Is a homosexual a human being?

And the answer is: Yes, a homosexual is a human
being.

It really doesn't matter if you think
homosexuality is a sin or not. It doesn't matter
if God thinks homosexuality is a sin. What
matters is that this is a human being, and we
don't discriminate against our fellow human
beings.

For those of you who are Christians, you know that
Jesus said:

“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

When asked, “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus told a
story that made it clear that everybody is our
neighbor. That means that we must love everyone
as we love ourselves. Everyone includes
homosexuals.

And for those of you who are not Christians, think
about this: If the person whom you dislike most
were starving to death, would you feed him? Think
about it: if you give this person food, he will
live. If you withhold the food, he will die. Are
you able to watch a person starve to death because
you won't give him food? I doubt that very many
of us could do this; we recognize a person's
humanity, whether we like them or not. Then how
can we justify treating this person differently
under any circumstances?

So there it is: it doesn't matter if
homosexuality is a sin, any more than it matters
if the person in question is a homosexual, a
heterosexual, a black, a Jew, male or female, or
anything else. A person is a person, and we must
love them all the same, and we must treat them all
the same. We cannot justify doing otherwise.

Universal Health Care: better health care for less money.

I have recently been involved in an online
discussion of Universal Health Care. It has been
my observation that misinformation on this topic
is widespread. Many people have misconceptions of
the quality and expense of Universal Health Care,
probably largely because of misinformation spread
by those who are opposed to it, usually those who
profit from the current system, or those who
consider it to be "socialism" or "communism"
without considering what that really means. I've
taken the time to gather the facts regarding the
quality and expense of Universal Health Care, and
will present them here. One of the myths of
Universal Health Care is that it is expensive, and
if the United States were to adopt a Universal
Health Care plan, it would bankrupt the country.
Here are some examples of that misconception from
the recent discussions I've been involved in:

"......if universal health care is passed it will
bankrupt the country just as it has in France and
several of the European countries...."

"The hew and cry for universal health care is just
another form of entitelment which would invarably
be a huge, hemorging Government money pit."

Another common misconception is that Universal
Health Care means poor quality health care. Here's
an example:

"If universal health care is so good, why do so
many people in Canada, Mexico and the rest of the
world come here for medical services?"

The fact is that Universal Health Care does not
bankrupt nations. The United States spends more
per person on Health Care than any other developed
nation. Nations with Universal Health Care systems
spend less money per person than the U.S. spends.
Here are the statistics on Health Care
expenditures in dollars per capita, arranged from
highest to lowest. Obviously, spending more money
would be a bad thing, spending less money would be
a good thing, all other factors being equal.

Per capita health care expenditures: 

United States           5635 
Norway                  3807 
Switzerland             3781 
Luxembourg              3190 
Iceland                 3115 
Canada                  3003 
Germany                 2996 
Netherlands             2976 
France                  2903 
Belgium                 2827 
Denmark                 2763 
Australia               2699 
Sweden                  2594 
Ireland                 2386 
Austria                 2280 
Italy                   2258 
United Kingdon          2231 
Japan                   2139 
Finland                 2118 
Greece                  2011 
New Zealand             1886 
Spain                   1835 
Portugal                1797 
Czech Republic          1298 
Hungary                 1115 
Korea                   1074 
Slovak Republic          777 
Poland                   677 
Mexico                   583 
Turkey                   462 

Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/530538806724


The U.S. spends more per person than any other
developed nation! But for our money, we get the
best quality health care in the world, right?
Wrong. The two most common measures of a nations
health are infant morality rate and life
expectancy at birth. Here's the numbers for
infant mortality, in number of deaths per 1000
live births:

Infant Mortality Rate (Deaths per 1000 live
births) 

United States         6.43 
Taiwan                6.29 
Cuba                  6.22 
Korea, South          6.16 
Faroe Islands         6.12 
Italy                 5.83 
Isle of Man           5.82 
Aruba                 5.79 
New Zealand           5.76 
San Marino            5.63 
Greece                5.43 
Monaco                5.35 
Ireland               5.31 
Jersey                5.16 
European Union        5.10 
United Kingdom        5.08 
Gibraltar             5.06 
Portugal              4.98 
Netherlands           4.96 
Luxembourg            4.74 
Canada                4.69 
Guernsey              4.65 
Liechtenstein         4.64 
Australia             4.63 
Belgium               4.62 
Austria               4.60 
Denmark               4.51 
Slovenia              4.40 
Spain                 4.37 
Macau                 4.35 
Switzerland           4.34 
France                4.21 
Germany               4.12 
Andorra               4.04 
Czech Republic        3.89 
Malta                 3.86 
Norway                3.67 
Finland               3.55 
Iceland               3.29 
Japan                 3.24 
Hong Kong             2.95 
Sweden                2.76 
Singapore             2.29 

Source:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ranko
rder/2091rank.html


For the sake of brevity, I have not included the
entire chart of 226 nations in the CIA's database,
only the U.S. and those nations that have lower
infant mortality rate. You'd probably expect
Russia, China, and East Timor to have higher
infant mortality rates than the United States, and
they do, but why does the U.S. fall behind 42
other nations, many of which are social
democracies with Universal Health Care systems?

The other common measure of a nation's health is
life expectancy at birth. Here are the numbers for
life expectancy:

Life Expectancy at Birth, Years: 

1   Andorra                           83.51 
2   Macau                             82.19 
3   San Marino                        81.71 
4   Singapore                         81.71 
5   Hong Kong                         81.59 
6   Japan                             81.25 
7   Sweden                            80.51 
8   Switzerland                       80.51 
9   Australia                         80.50 
10   Guernsey                         80.42 
11   Iceland                          80.31 
12   Canada                           80.22 
13   Cayman Islands                   80.07 
14   Italy                            79.81 
15   Gibraltar                        79.80 
16   France                           79.73 
17   Monaco                           79.69 
18   Liechtenstein                    79.68 
19   Spain                            79.65 
20   Norway                           79.54 
21   Israel                           79.46 
22   Jersey                           79.38 
23   Faroe Islands                    79.35 
24   Aruba                            79.28 
25   Greece                           79.24 
26   Martinique                       79.18 
27   Austria                          79.07 
28   Virgin Islands                   79.05 
29   Malta                            79.01 
30   Netherlands                      78.96 
31   Luxembourg                       78.89 
32   Montserrat                       78.85 
33   New Zealand                      78.81 
34   Germany                          78.80 
35   Belgium                          78.77 
36   Saint Pierre and Miquelon        78.61 
37   Guam                             78.58 
38   United Kingdom                   78.54 
39   Finland                          78.50 
40   Isle of Man                      78.49 
41   Jordan                           78.40 
42   Puerto Rico                      78.40 
43   European Union                   78.30 
44   Guadeloupe                       78.06 
45   Bosnia and Herzegovina           78.00 
46   Bermuda                          77.96 
47   Saint Helena                     77.93 
48   United States                    77.85 

Source:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ranko
rder/2102rank.html


Again, for brevity I have not included the entire
list of 226 nations, only the U.S. and those
nations that have greater life expectancy than the
U.S. In life expectancy, the U.S. ranks 48th in
the world, and again the list of nations that rank
higher than the U.S. includes many social
democracies with Universal Health Care systems.

With its per capita cost of health care greater
than any other nation in the world, with health
care expenditures 1.5 times higher than the next
nation on the list, you'd expect the U.S. to have
the best health care in the world. Yet the U.S.
ranks 43rd in infant mortality rate, and 48th in
life expectancy at birth. Clearly there is
something wrong with the health care system in the
U.S., and seeing that many of those nations who
spend less money on health care, have lower infant
mortality rates, and have longer life expectancies
do have a Universal Health Care system, it would
appear that the U.S. should change to a Universal
Health Care system. Spend less money, get better
health care, it's a win/win situation.

And now you can respond with the facts when you
hear someone repeating misinformation about
Universal Health Care systems.

A Few Bible Stories

I'd like to tell you a few stories from the Bible.
You may think you know the Bible pretty well, and
you've surely heard these stories before, but you
probably haven't heard them quite like this.

There was a great multitude before Jesus, and they
had nothing to eat. Jesus called his disciples
and said to them, “I have compassion on the
multitude, for they have been with me for three
days, and have had nothing to eat. If I send them
away without feeding them, they will surely faint
on their way home.” And the disciples asked
Jesus, “But how can we feed them? We are in a
desert place, and where will we get enough bread?”
Jesus asked them, “How many loaves of bread do
you have?”, and the disciples said they had seven
loaves. He commanded the multitude to sit on the
ground, and he gave thanks, broke the loaves, and
gave them to his disciples to set before the
multitude. Jesus then took the few small fish
that they had, blessed them, and told the
disciples to set them also before the multitude,
which they did. Jesus then spoke to the crowd,
“You may all eat these loaves and fishes, except
any among you who are homosexuals; I will not feed
you.”

That doesn't sound quite right, does it? It
doesn't, because we know Jesus would never do
anything like that. OK, here's another Bible
story:

Jesus was walking into Jericho one day, and a
blind man sat by the side of the road begging.
Hearing the noise of the crowd, the blind man
asked what was happening, and was told that Jesus
of Nazareth was passing by. He called out,
“Jesus, son of David, have mercy on me.” The
crowd told him to keep quiet, saying that he
should not disturb Jesus. But the blind man
called out again, “Jesus, son of David, have mercy
on me.” Jesus stopped, and commanded that the man
be brought to him. When the blind man was brought
to Jesus, he asked him, “What would you like me to
do?” The blind man replied, “Lord, please restore
my sight.” Jesus said to him, “But you are a
homosexual, and I will not heal you.” And Jesus
walked on, leaving the blind man at the side of
the road.

Hmmm, that's not right either, is it? Let's try
one more story:

Early in the morning, Jesus walked down from the
Mount of Olives to the temple. A crowd gathered
before him, and he sat down and began to teach
them. A group of scribes and Pharisees brought in
two men, and brought them before Jesus, saying,
“Teacher, these men are homosexuals; indeed, we
caught them in the act, laying together as with a
woman. The law of Moses commands us to stone
them. What do you say?” And Jesus said to them,
“By all means, stone them.” Then he walked away.

That one doesn't sound quite right either, does
it? Why don't these stories sound right? Because
we know that Jesus would never have done anything
like that. Jesus fed all of the multitude, and
denied food to no one. Likewise, Jesus healed all
who asked to be healed. And when a woman who had
committed adultery was brought before him, he told
them, “He among you who is without sin, let him
cast the first stone.” When the crowd dispersed,
Jesus asked the woman, “Where are they? Does no
man condemn you?” She replied, “No, Lord, no man
condemns me.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I
condemn you. Go your way, and sin no more.”

A friend of mine, a Christian man, recently told
me that he did not support full rights for
homosexuals. He said he felt he should be able to
refuse to rent to homosexuals, for example. And
there have been groups of Christians lobbying for
laws denying homosexuals the same rights as the
rest of us.

I disagree with them. Jesus did not discriminate
against anyone. He fed everyone, he healed all
who asked, he refused to condemn the adulteress.
If they really had brought two homosexual men
before Jesus, would he have told the crowd to go
ahead and stone them? Of course not.

Is homosexuality a sin? Yes, it is. In the Old
Testament, the punishment for homosexuality is the
same as for adultery: stoning. But Jesus did not
have the adulteress stoned, and he would not have
had a homosexual stoned. He would have told the
crowd, “He among you who is without sin, let him
cast the first stone.”

Jesus loves everyone, and commands us to do the
same: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
“Love your enemies, and pray for those that
persecute you.” Discrimination against any
person, or against any group of persons, is wrong
and cannot be Biblically justified. Although we
may disapprove of their behavior, we must love
them as all others, and we may not treat them
differently than anyone else.

Glaciers, Part Two: Ice Age Floods, or: My God is an awesome God.

A few days ago I mentioned attending a
presentation on glaciers, and how any discussion
of glaciers must necessarily mention that
glaciers worldwide are rapidly disappearing due to
global warming. There's another related topic
that usually comes up in any discussion of
glaciers: the Ice Age Floods.

There are a number of geological features of
eastern Washington State whose formation is an
amazing story. About 65 miles from where I live
is an enormous waterfall. It's three and a half
miles wide, and four hundred feet high, making
Niagara Falls look like a mere trickle in
comparison. Why haven't you ever heard of this
waterfall? Because Dry Falls is just that: a dry
waterfall; having been dry since the end of the
last Ice Age.

Throughout Eastern Washington, in the area known
as the Channeled Scablands, you'll find coulees
and canyons carved hundreds of feet deep into the
basalt formations. One would guess that they were
cut by running water, but there's no water there
now. What happened? And the landscape is
littered with rocks that are clearly out of place
among all this basalt. How did they get there?

A geologist named J. Harlen Bretz found the
answers to these questions, and revealed them in a
series of papers he published starting in 1923.

During the last Ice Age, a lobe of the Cordilleran
ice sheet blocked the Clark Fork River near the
border of what is now the northern panhandle of
Idaho and the state of Montana, forming Glacial
Lake Missoula. At its maximum, Lake Missoula was
2000 feet deep, and contained over 500 cubic miles
of water – more than Lake Erie and Lake Ontario
combined. At the site of today's city of
Missoula, Montana, the water would have been
nearly 1000 feet deep. From time to time,
however, the water worked its way through the ice
dam, breaking free and spilling the contents of
Lake Missoula over a period of perhaps less than
two days. The leading edge of the ensuing flood
was over 200 feet high, perhaps nearly 10 times
that height, and tore through the landscape at 60
miles per hour. As this flood poured through
eastern Washington, it carved the coulees of the
Channeled Scablands and the great Dry Falls. And
the out-of-place rocks you'll find scattered
throughout eastern Washington, known as
“erratics”, were carried to their current resting
places in the flood in chunks of ice. Some of
these erratics are as big as a house.

This enormous flood didn't just happen once,
though. After the ice dam broke and Lake Missoula
was drained, the glacier once again found its way
into the path of the Clark Fork River, reforming
Glacial Lake Missoula and starting the whole
process over again. It has been determined that
the lake formed, broke through the ice dam, and
flooded eastern Washington at least 40 times,
possibly as many as 100 times.

So how do we know all this stuff? Besides the
obvious, like the Channeled Scablands and Dry
Falls, there's much more. In the area where
Glacial Lake Missoula formed, you can see the
giant “ripples” left as the water flowed out. And
you can see the high-water marks of the lake,
hundreds of feet above the valley floor. Analysis
of the minerals in the “erratics” rocks have
determined where some of them came from, many
miles away. But what I think is one of the
coolest pieces of evidence is the sediment layers
geologists have found. In several places in the
northwest, there are sediment layers that are much
thicker than the normally very thin layers
deposited by annual runoff, and contain much
coarser materials. These are the sediments left
behind by the great floods. Between the
flood-deposited layers, however, are the much
thinner layers left by annual runoff. By counting
the annual runoff layers between the flood layers,
geologists can determine how many years passed
between successive floods. And so we know that
these massive floods occurred every 50 years or so
on average, and continued for at least 2000 years.

By now, you're probably wondering why the
alternative title, “My God is an awesome God”?

I am not a Creationist, or a “young earth”
believer. I do believe that God created the
Earth, the Universe, and everything in it, but I
also believe the scientific explanations of how He
did it. I have no problem with this and I see no
contradictions in this belief. God created it,
science tells us how He did it.

To me, the notion that God simply waved His hand
on the third day and created the land, complete
with the Channeled Scablands, Dry Falls, and all
the other evidence of the Ice Age Floods, suggests
a God with limited imagination. But to cause an
Ice Age, to have a glacier block off a river and
make an enormous lake, to have the ice dam break
and turn loose a massive wall of water, hundreds
of feet high, that roared across the state of
Washington, and then to repeat this again and
again, 40 or more times over a period of several
thousand years, now there's a God with real
imagination! My God is not only the Creator, he's
an engineer, he's an artist. He dreams up
incredible ways of forming the landscape, then He
takes his time, carrying out His plans over a
period of thousands of years. What's more, He
leaves behind traces of His handiwork, little
clues that allow us to solve the mysteries of His
creation. My God is an AWESOME God, and science
shows us just how awesome He is!

Nukes in Iran?

My preference would be that nobody had nuclear weapons. However, that seems to be unlikely to happen any time in the near future.

Iran currently has about 180 centrifuges. About 16,000 would be required to make the enriched uranium for a bomb, and Iran expects to have about 3,500 centrifuges a year from now. So it will clearly be some time before Iran could make a nuclear weapon. At the moment, as one reporter pointed out, their nuclear capabilities don't extend beyond making glow in the dark Mickey Mouse watches.

The U.S. has shown its willingness to attack defenseless nations, having attacked approximately 40 nations since the end of World War II. Most recently, the U.S. attacked Iran's next door neighbor, Iraq, who Bush lumped with Iran in the "Axis of Evil". The U.S. has not, however, attacked the third "Axis of Evil" nation, North Korea. North Korea does have nuclear weapons. If I were the leader of Iran, or any nation that has anything the U.S. might like to control, I would be working as hard as possible to obtain nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them to the U.S., as this seems to be the only way to avoid attack. Or I would do as several nations have done, and start making friendly with China. Or both.

If the U.S. is worried about nuclear proliferation, it should start by refusing to proliferate nuclear technology to other countries, such as India, and should start disarming itself of its own nuclear weapons. The U.S. should stop developing new nuclear "bunker busters" and other nuclear weapons. It would also help if the Bush regime hadn't stated they intended to develop the capability to construct 125 new nuclear weapons per year. In addition, organizations who have members like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice, and George H.W. Bush should refrain from publishing articles stating that the U.S. could launch a first strike nuclear attack on Russia and China and suffer little or no damage in retaliation.

There are also rumors that Saudi Arabia is developing nuclear weapons, and like Iran, who can blame them?

If the U.S. wants to prevent other nations from developing nuclear weapons, it should stop making it clear to other nations that they will need them to avoid being attacked.

Glaciers, Part One: Global Warming

A few evenings ago I attended a presentation on
glaciers at the local museum. If you know
anything at all about glaciers, you're probably
aware that glaciers all over the world are melting
and disappearing at an alarming rate. Of course,
this subject came up at the presentation, and of
course, there was mention of human-caused global
warming as the cause of the disappearance of the
glaciers. One gentleman immediately started in on
“the scientists don't know what they're talking
about, volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide gas than
the activities of people”, and so on.

My mother was with me at this glaciers
presentation, and she mentioned that she knew the
man from church. My mother is a Catholic, and in
the past, I had observed that a lot of Catholics
weren't aware of the positions their church had
taken on a number of issues. As an example,
before the last Presidential election many
Catholics said, “You can't vote for Kerry, he's
for abortion.” Apparently many of them were
unaware that the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops and even Cardinal Ratzinger, now
Pope Benedict XVI, had spoken on the issue, saying
that Catholics should not be one-issue voters and
could vote for a candidate who supported abortion
rights if they felt strongly enough about the
candidate's positions on other issues. And large
numbers of Catholics were unaware that Pope John
Paul II sent an emissary to George W. Bush to
speak against the Iraq war, or that Cardinal
Ratzinger also spoke out against the war, saying,
“There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a
war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact
that, given the new weapons that make possible
destructions that go beyond the combatant groups,
today we should be asking ourselves if it is still
licit to admit the very existence of a 'just
war.'”

It occurred to me that if the leaders of the
Catholic Church had made statements on global
warming, this gentleman was probably unaware of
them. So I decided to see what if anything the
Catholic leaders had said on global warming, and
possibly to mail the gentleman some information.

I found a number of statements on global warming
from Catholic Church leaders. The Holy See (the
office of the Pope) has even chimed in on this
issue. In a document entitled, “Intervention by
the Holy See At the Ninth Conference of the
Parties (COP-9) To The United Nations Framework
Convention On Climate Change (UNFCCC)”, we find
these statements:

“Climate Change stands at the crossroads of
environmental, scientific, technological, ethical,
political and economic concerns of the human
family. As such, UNFCCC implementation directly
impacts the future sustainable development
patterns of all States and of all peoples. Climate
is the overriding context for the consideration of
many other social and economic problems that the
world faces today.

“Both scientifically and politically, it has been
recognized that human activity is a significant
factor in climate change. Further, human actions
can play a crucial role in the mitigation of and
adaptation to climate change. The consequent
ethical responsibilities are not limited only,
however, to single acts of individuals, but apply
equally at the level of technical, economic and
social structures and at the government level.
There is, therefore, an ethical obligation
incumbent on all individuals and societies,
particularly certain sectors of society, to assure
that all activity is oriented towards the common
good, with special care and consideration for the
poor.

“While the human person is part of the ecosystem,
the person is distinct. We alone are free to make
choices, even sacrifices, to plan for the future -
for future generations - and to take steps to
implement them. We, therefore, bear the
responsibility for the choices that we make today
and must assure that the common patrimony of
humanity is improved and not destroyed.”

OK, it's written in “Popese”, but it's pretty
clear where the Pope stands. Global warming is
real, human beings are causing it, and we have a
moral responsibility to do something about it.
What about the Bishops? What do they think?

In 2001, the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops released a statement entitled, “Global
Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and
the Common Good.” Here are some passages from
that statement:

“As people of faith, we are convinced that 'the
earth is the Lord's and all it holds' (Ps 24:1).
Our Creator has given us the gift of creation: the
air we breathe, the water that sustains life, the
fruits of the land that nourish us, and the entire
web of life without which human life cannot
flourish. All of this God created and found 'very
good.' We believe our response to global climate
change should be a sign of our respect for God's
creation.

“As Catholic bishops, we make no independent
judgment on the plausibility of 'global warming.'
Rather, we accept the consensus findings of so
many scientists and the conclusions of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
as a basis for continued research and prudent
action.

“Human behavior and activity are, according to the
most recent findings of the international
scientific bodies charged with assessing climate
change, contributing to a warming of the earth's
climate. Although debate continues about the
extent and impact of this warming, it could be
quite serious. Consequently, it seems prudent not
only to continue to research and monitor this
phenomenon, but to take steps now to mitigate
possible negative effects in the future.

“In facing climate change, what we already know
requires a response; it cannot be easily
dismissed. Significant levels of scientific
consensus - even in a situation with less than
full certainty, where the consequences of not
acting are serious - justifies, indeed can
obligate, our taking action intended to avert
potential dangers. In other words, if enough
evidence indicates that the present course of
action could jeopardize humankind's well-being,
prudence dictates taking mitigating or
preventative action.

“The common good calls us to extend our concern to
future generations. Climate change poses the
question 'What does our generation owe to
generations yet unborn?' ... we simply cannot
leave this problem for the children of tomorrow.
As stewards of their heritage, we have an
obligation to respect their dignity and to pass on
their natural inheritance, so that their lives are
protected and, if possible, made better than our
own.

“As people of religious faith, we bishops believe
that the atmosphere that supports life on earth is
a God-given gift, one we must respect and protect.
It unites us as one human family. If we harm the
atmosphere, we dishonor our Creator and the gift
of creation. The values of our faith call us to
humility, sacrifice, and a respect for life and
the natural gifts God has provided.”

As far back as 2001, the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops was convinced that global warming
was real, that human beings were responsible for
it, and that we are obligated to take action to
prevent it. The Office of the Pope issued a
similar statement in 2003. The evidence has only
grown since then.

If you are a Catholic, were you aware of the
position of the Church on global warming? If you
have until now dismissed global warming, perhaps
it's time you do some studying and learn why the
Bishops and the Holy See are convinced that action
is required on global warming. If you are a
member of another faith, do you know where your
church stands on this issue?

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same
God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and
intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” -
Galileo