I think you misunderstood me and I don't think I made myself clear enough to be honest. I hate the pope because of everything being the pope means - I don't personally hate Frances although I can see how you would think that. However I do see his position and meaning in a similar way as I see Hitler's - the point I was actually trying to make. I am not talking about Frances' beliefs or background, I am talking about the pope. I said I agreed with what he said, this is not the issue - my point is that he will have to do more than make somewhat obvious points to earn respect as long as he is the head of a cult so vile as Catholicism. You seem to confuse belief with religion - belief is a personal, abstract way of thinking and religion is the organised worship of a superhuman controller, usually via a totalitarian organization. I am ok with belief, but not religion. I'm sorry but there is nothing ambiguous about Catholicism - hypocritical, yes, but not ambiguous. It is and always has been a clear doctrine with one underlying message: obey. It is based on trained ignorance and control and has been largley the use of ruling classes to create the most docile population possible - and this is what the pope represents. He is the descendent of the apostles and should lead the church. I wasn't suggesting the vatican controls all Catholics but that Catholicism is an organisation with a doctrine based completely on control, and that it is a key organization in continuing the existence of systems of social domination. Any inspiration you might find in culture might have to do with beliefs, but usually little to do with Catholocism - and again I'm not suggesting that all Catholic influence should be eradicated - but that Catholocism and it's core messages and methods of organization is something I am, as you say, vehemently against. Once again, I'm not suggesting that Catholics are mindlessly subservient to Frances but that Catholicism breeds subserviance to authority, whether heavenly or earthly. I'm not suggesting it's an inherently evil organisation because of it's past but rather because it is built on a set of horrific degrading and often plain evil beliefs - the vast majority of which are completely unsubstantiated. It continues itself and other power structures by playing on emotion and has been responsible for inconcievable terror and death for centuries. I think what you are talking about when you say religion should be peaceful and progressive is belief or spirituality, not organised religion. If you truly believe organised religion is peaceful and has a place in civillised society then we clearly have a massive difference of opinion.

You made an awful lot of strawmen in that post so I hope I have clarified the points I was actually making.

I wouldn't attempt to define all organised religion completely, suffice to say most follow a doctrine that explicitly (The Old Testment for example) or implicitly (The New) carries the message that "You are not good enough, you are owned, childish and must be recieve help from above - your worth depends upon your ability to serve your eternal lord and master - who can punish and reward you as he sees fit" This is the basic message with a few variations but all are based on the idea that humans must look above for guidance and truth - rather than inwards or around them. Spiritually this seems damaging and like I said degrading, which it is, but it's popularity and widespread application makes perfect sense when you consider how useful such beliefs are to ruling classes. They create people who inherently value themselves at the bottom of a cosmic heirarchy - a valuing which can then easily be cultivated in others. Also, it provides an excellent route to channel the dissatisfaction people will feel at their control into a system that helps continue it (i.e. pray for help - which literally requires kneeling before your God, or "having faith" - which usually means following God without question or looking forward to your heavenly reward for your behaviour) Escape can be found in meaningless fantasy and people can ease the pain of their smallness in the universe - meanwhile the real rulers above them consolidate and expand their power. I could go on but this is generally what I mean by religion breeding subservience - rather than the church commanding it's followers which as you quite rightly say is not so much the case now, though still present and a problem of course.

Like I said, I agree with what Francis said - but him making an obvious point about climate change does little to earn him respect when he is the leader of the Catholic church. I'm not saying we shouldn't listen to him but we should not be looking to him for guidance either.

Progress cannot come by filing the more obviously horrific edges of his doctrine (Kill gay people, women are inferior etc etc) but by making real steps remove it, the ones like it and their underlying concepts, from society - which seems in some ways to be happening as atheism is on a steady rise. There is still a long way to go but it's a journey worth embarking on. At the end, if we value ourselves as able to exist, be good and just without celestial fathership then who knows what over sytems of authority we could empower ourselves against?