Religious and Political Syncretism

OH, LORD, PLEASE DON’T LET ME BE MISUNDERSTOOD.

Who can blame Evo Morales, the commie leader of Bolivia, for mistakenly believing that the Pope would relish a crucifix in the shape of a communist hammer and sickle? Perhaps a dried llama fetus would have been better appreciated, so that the Pope could have made a Bolivian-style sacrifice to “Mother Earth” (aka Pachamama).

Update: Francis likes it, despite his apparent puzzlement.

The official Bolivian “explanation” for the symbolism of this bizarre crucifix was worthy of Obama!

Bolivia’s communications minister, Marianela Paco, told Bolivian radio: “The sickle evokes the peasant, the hammer the carpenter, representing humble workers, God’s people,” adding there was “no other” motive behind the gift.

Maybe Bernie Sanders would appreciate this gift more than the Pope apparently did.

Turn that design into pins and pendants, and Bernie could raise a lot of money at his presidential campaign rallies.

Finally, a symbol of Christianity that the newly-religious progressives can embrace. 

That is, unless they’ve already discovered the “Rainbow Crucifix” or  the “Rainbow Madonna”.

One wonders if such offensive symbols would be forbidden in national cemeteries. Progressives really should be careful what they wish for.

Speaking of the Pope, he recently lectured the world about global warming and the need for a global authority to combat it. (Which would be what? World-wide communism?)

Pope Francis wrote (correction: Obama’s minions wrote for him, h/t cynic):

Humanity is called to take note of the need for changes in lifestyle and changes in methods of production and consumption to combat this warming, or at least the human causes that produce and accentuate it,” he wrote in the draft. “Numerous scientific studies indicate that the greater part of the global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases … given off above all because of human activity.”

Hmm. We all know that CO2 is blamed for global “climate change” and that among the biggest sources of CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels. You know, like jet fuel.

Currently Pope Francis is on a 3-country junket to South America. The Pope, as you know, resides in Rome, Italy.

Rome to South America. There and back again is, roughly speaking, about 12,500 miles. Without doing a big scientific study, we can say with some certainty that the Pope’s round trip flight will release a hell of a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

There are many carbon footprint models out there for calculating the approximate amount of CO2 for which Pope Francis’s trip is responsible. He usually flies Alitalia internationally, but he goes on a dedicated plane. One model deduces that a typical plane generates 53.3 pounds of CO2 per mile flown, so approximately 300 tons of CO2, plus or minus, for the Pope’s flight.

Suffice it to say that it’s more than would be generated had someone practiced what he preaches. Is that too harsh? Well, so is politicizing the Catholic faith.

The Pope’s not the only one lecturing citizens of the world on environmental sins. Note the use of the word sin. Environmentalism is the new religion.

The New York Times, among the many redoubts where newly religious progressives hone their swords of indoctrination, recently informed us of our “biggest carbon sin“:

For many people reading this, air travel is their most serious environmental sin. One round-trip flight from New York to Europe or to San Francisco creates a warming effect equivalent to 2 or 3 tons of carbon dioxide per person.

Surely the environmental footprint of the Pope’s trip is much greater per person, given that the plane was probably not full. He plans yet another trip to our hemisphere in September.

And so we’re told by the newspaper of record that air travel is the environmental equivalent of  a mortal sin. Why then, do progressives commit so many of these serious environmental sins while they travel the world lecturing us about OUR “environmental sins” and the dangers of “global warming”?

The mote and the beam.

#####