Should we abolish the papacy?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

thaluikhain:

How do we stop the Pope dictating laws by proxy or spreading AIDS? That power is based on people believing him when he gives his opinion, or flat out lies. You can't stop him from talking, or others from listening.

For the first one we simply make laws making it CLEAR on what the seperation of church and state is and how leaders cannot JUST cite the pope as a reason for a law. Here Obama said it best:

image

As long as THAT is enshrined in law somewhere then theres not an issue.

As for the AIDS thing, we simply campaign and lobby for the people DOING these things to stop AND go to these countries to undo the harm he has done. You can tell catholics that contraception is bad. We should fight at all stages telling people who NEED contraception that it is bad then provide them with reasons to use it and access to it easily.

BiscuitTrouser:
For the first one we simply make laws making it CLEAR on what the seperation of church and state is and how leaders cannot JUST cite the pope as a reason for a law. Here Obama said it best:

As long as THAT is enshrined in law somewhere then theres not an issue.

I don't buy that. It's very easy to pretend you aren't just imposing your religion on someone. Just because you're following the Pope doesn't mean you have to say you are.

BiscuitTrouser:
As for the AIDS thing, we simply campaign and lobby for the people DOING these things to stop AND go to these countries to undo the harm he has done. You can tell catholics that contraception is bad. We should fight at all stages telling people who NEED contraception that it is bad then provide them with reasons to use it and access to it easily.

Simple, yes, but easy, no. Something like that would be very hard to pull off. Hell, aren't people trying that now, just their voices get drowned out?

thaluikhain:

BiscuitTrouser:
Well we cant abolish the papacy anymore than Britons can abolish the NFL as someone rightly pointed out.

However what we CAN and SHOULD do is remove Papacy power in government and make sure the pope doesnt get to dictate laws by proxy in ANY countries OR spread AIDS in Africa. We also need to boot out all the church of England priests in England. As long as catholics keep to making rules for other catholics i dont see an issue with the papacy. Also no more AIDS and pedo shuffling. But thats not a pope issue more than its a "Thats fucking illegal" issue. We should shut that activity down but not the group.

How do we stop the Pope dictating laws by proxy or spreading AIDS? That power is based on people believing him when he gives his opinion, or flat out lies. You can't stop him from talking, or others from listening.

Well, you could, but people get a little bit angry when assassination squads get involved in such affairs.

Heronblade:
Well, you could, but people get a little bit angry when assassination squads get involved in such affairs.

You have to get them to elect a new pope you like more afterwards.

...

Actually, offing a head of state so one you prefer gets the job is hardly unknown, but you're not exactly on the moral high ground.

thaluikhain:

I don't buy that. It's very easy to pretend you aren't just imposing your religion on someone. Just because you're following the Pope doesn't mean you have to say you are.

Simple, yes, but easy, no. Something like that would be very hard to pull off. Hell, aren't people trying that now, just their voices get drowned out?

True but then in congress/parliment or whatever when asked WHY we should make said law, even if you ARE following the pope secretly, you then need to offer real objective agreeable reasons to cover for it and convince others since you cant say "Because the pope said so". If no objective agreeable reasons can be made up to excuse following the pope the pope cant be followed. I have no issue with religious rules in law (Thou shalt not murder) because some religious laws, coincidentally, can be justified on a religiously objective basis. If what you want is one of those then you shouldnt have a problem convincing me without resorting to arguments that are pope related. If it isnt one of those no arguments will stand up or exist for it outside pope related arguments and since you cant use those by law theres no case for your point. Its self policing in that way.

Of course its difficult. This is not an easy issue. The only solution is to change the hearts and minds of catholics. The pope might claim to be infallible but if he is offered the option of "Sound like a weirdo that the majority of your followers disagree with" or "Change and make some excuses" the pope WILL pick the second one. He did for evolution. Pressure can be applied to make the same thing happen for preventing AIDS.

BiscuitTrouser:

As for the AIDS thing, we simply campaign and lobby for the people DOING these things to stop AND go to these countries to undo the harm he has done. You can tell catholics that contraception is bad. We should fight at all stages telling people who NEED contraception that it is bad then provide them with reasons to use it and access to it easily.

Ok, I haven't done this arguement in a while. Pope tells people with AIDS that condoms aren't foolproof, they really shouldn't be sleeping around at all. People like you say "nah, here's free condoms." Then you blame the Pope for AIDS. Please, do explain how you can feel superior from that position.

BiscuitTrouser:
True but then in congress/parliment or whatever when asked WHY we should make said law, even if you ARE following the pope secretly, you then need to offer real objective agreeable reasons to cover for it and convince others since you cant say "Because the pope said so". If no objective agreeable reasons can be made up to excuse following the pope the pope cant be followed. I have no issue with religious rules in law (Thou shalt not murder) because some religious laws, coincidentally, can be justified on a religiously objective basis. If what you want is one of those then you shouldnt have a problem convincing me without resorting to arguments that are pope related. If it isnt one of those no arguments will stand up or exist for it outside pope related arguments and since you cant use those by law theres no case for your point. Its self policing in that way.

I disagree. In theory that makes sense, yeah, but it's very easy to come up with a justification for those sorts of things...it doesn't have to be terribly convincing, it's just got to be good enough that your supporters don't call you out on it.

Who do we appoint to determine if a politician is lying?

BiscuitTrouser:
Of course its difficult. This is not an easy issue. The only solution is to change the hearts and minds of catholics. The pope might claim to be infallible but if he is offered the option of "Sound like a weirdo that the majority of your followers disagree with" or "Change and make some excuses" the pope WILL pick the second one. He did for evolution. Pressure can be applied to make the same thing happen for preventing AIDS.

Fair enough, I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

tstorm823:

Ok, I haven't done this arguement in a while. Pope tells people with AIDS that condoms aren't foolproof, they really shouldn't be sleeping around at all. People like you say "nah, here's free condoms." Then you blame the Pope for AIDS. Please, do explain how you can feel superior from that position.

Because my position is you really shouldnt be sleeping around at all but if you must heres some free condoms they are NOT a sin and its important that you stay AIDS free. I dont "Blame the pope for AIDS". HIV is a virus. It was created by evolution. Not the pope. I blame the pope for attempting to demonize the use of one useful tool to combat aids. I would say you should encourage all of them. Im fine with encouraging not sleeping around. Im not so fine with trying to discourage condoms and suggest to use one utterly instead of the other when you can encourage both. Which is possible via the phrase above: "you really shouldnt be sleeping around at all but if you must heres some free condoms". The popes words on condoms are more than "They are not fool proof".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids

If the catholic church JUST went and preached about how awesome not sleeping around was id support them 100%. Theres no need to attack the condom.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

Also the lies REALLY dont make it very convincing.

If youre going to discredit the condom at least make it obvious how and WHY it can fail so people can avoid it (eg inproper use or tearing) rather than just making stuff up.

@tstorm823
By pointing out that the Vatican's officials lie about HIV, AIDS and condoms.

"The AIDS virus is 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon," Cardinal Alfonso López-Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, said in a BBC interview on 12 October. "The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom."

Some Catholic officials manipulate people by saying that condoms encourage promiscuity, says José Santos, a physician at the Medicus Mundi organization. In Kenya, where one-third of people are Catholic and one-fifth are HIV-positive, Church representatives have publicly burned condoms. In Mozambique, where a recent survey showed that 25% of pregnant women are HIV-positive, Catholic priest Alberto Vera labeled the government campaign to promote condoms a "kind of subliminal racism."

To counter the Vatican's message, the WHO and the European Commission have been publicizing details of research studies refuting the claim. "Condoms are part of the solution," said Poul Nielson, Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid. "The condemnation of condoms is part of the problem."

- Nature Medicine
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v9/n12/full/nm1203-1443b.html

You don't help anybody by spreading a message of "don't be promiscuous, but if you are then condoms are useless so don't even bother".
These people kill with their lies.

Denholm Reynholm:

Realitycrash:

Denholm Reynholm:

The monarchy is a part of British history, why would we abolish it when it still serves a purpose and doesn't harm anyone?

Ahem.
More than a few would argue that keeping the monarchy so "well-fed and supplied" (to put it nicely) certainly harms people. I.e that money could go to people who actually deserve it. They (and I) would argue that giving abusrd amount of money and land to a selected few because they are a relic of a by-gone age is a tad absurd.

I don't think you quite understand how it works and what they contribute to our country, especially economically.

The land part was hilarious as well... Inheriting property isn't anything new... Neither is it mutually exclusive to Royalty.

As for spending money that could be better spent elsewhere... We're ALL guilty of that on these forums. World hunger could most probably be abolished if people actually cared enough to make it happen, but the majority of people don't care about things that don't affect them directly or indirectly.

Show me that they contribute more to the economy than any other state-representative with less pay would. Or show me that not having to pay for their absurdly expensive wedding would somehow diminish what they contribute to the state.

We are guilty of it, yes. Doesn't mean we should keep doing it.

thaluikhain:

BiscuitTrouser:
Well we cant abolish the papacy anymore than Britons can abolish the NFL as someone rightly pointed out.

However what we CAN and SHOULD do is remove Papacy power in government and make sure the pope doesnt get to dictate laws by proxy in ANY countries OR spread AIDS in Africa. We also need to boot out all the church of England priests in England. As long as catholics keep to making rules for other catholics i dont see an issue with the papacy. Also no more AIDS and pedo shuffling. But thats not a pope issue more than its a "Thats fucking illegal" issue. We should shut that activity down but not the group.

How do we stop the Pope dictating laws by proxy or spreading AIDS? That power is based on people believing him when he gives his opinion, or flat out lies. You can't stop him from talking, or others from listening.

One thing that I really think should be abolished is the ex cathedra dogmatism. It doesn't even make sense within Catholicism if you ask me, after all every pope is still a man, and a man is fallible. To assume infallibility when speaking from the position of the highest earthly Catholic authority would still come across as damn arrogant towards the Catholic god.

@Vegosiux

One thing that I really think should be abolished is the ex cathedra dogmatism. It doesn't even make sense within Catholicism if you ask me, after all every pope is still a man, an a man is fallible. To assume infallibility when speaking from the position of the highest earthly Catholic authority would still come across as damn arrogant towards the Catholic god.

To be fair, from what I understand the Pope is not deemed infallible in what he says, so the day-to-day drivel is not covered. As far as I remember, the Vatican has to invoke infallibility on specific issues and statements. It's actually rather rare.

Here:
"The Catholic Church does not teach that the pope is infallible in everything he says; official invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

I'd assume it's about the Christian god supposedly speaking through the Pope in those rare instances or something like that.

JimB:

funkyjiveturkey:
I personally believe the papacy should be abolished, and the majority of money put towards developing nations and charities.

By whom? Whom do you imagine has the authority and the right to dictate to people what form their religious beliefs are allowed to take and to dismantle an international organization dedicated to promoting a philosophy?

i seem to have phrased this wrong, and it's leading a few posters to assume things on my part.

HERE'S WHAT I MEAN: i'm not saying any particular power IS or HAS THE POWER to aboloish the papacy. this is a hypothetical, opinion-based thread. and i want input from EVERYBODY, people seem to think i'm saying the vatican applied to all christian sects instead of catholocism. i am WELL aware that it is a catholic institution.

but for Jim B here i must say. how does it promote the idea of helping your fellow man with some of the controversial issues some of the other posters are mentioning?

again, NOT trying to start any argument s or anything. but it seems to me that the philosophy is about helping your fellow man and working towards a better life and future (be it after life, or general life here on earth). things like prohibition of birth control that prevents disease and a fractured system of wealth distribution doesn't seem to be completely true to the doctrine in my opinion.

funkyjiveturkey:
How does it promote the idea of helping your fellow man with some of the controversial issues some of the other posters are mentioning?

Run that past me again? I can't figure out what you're trying to ask me here. What does "it" mean, what controversial issues are you talking about, and how do those issues interact with "it?"

As an aside, and I'm absolutely sure no one here was alive when it happened, but people were seriously concerned that when JFK was running for office that he would be bowing to the pope and allowing the pope to dictate U.S. policy.

You have to remember that many of the original colonies were established as royal colonies (with the exception of Maryland) and extended the English's thing about the Catholics. Couldn't hold office, had no vote, and so forth.

In fact at one point gangs of protestants road around KKK style and beat the crap out of Catholics and vandalized their shops all over the U.S. so you know, just a little aside.

And you want quick change? Ehhhh not going to happen. It's not just the catholic church, all large organizations tend to move ponderously. But the Catholic church is a major leader in relief aid to people so you know, good with the bad. Despite the absolutism of some posters I feel that yes, doing good works does kind of make up for other crap you do.

And though it may change glacially it is changing. You can't do much about that.

BiscuitTrouser:

If the catholic church JUST went and preached about how awesome not sleeping around was id support them 100%. Theres no need to attack the condom.

Of course there is. There's like 10% failure rate lifetime among people using consistent protection. And people saying "if you use these your whole life there's a 10% chance you'll give someone AIDs, here's a free crate of them" does not discourage people from sleepng around much.

Skeleon:

You don't help anybody by spreading a message of "don't be promiscuous, but if you are then condoms are useless so don't even bother".
These people kill with their lies.

Fine, I guess I'll go find that 10% statistic officially so that you can feel bad for killing with your free condoms.

http://www.thebody.com/content/art28493.html

tstorm823:

Of course there is. There's like 10% failure rate lifetime among people using consistent protection. And people saying "if you use these your whole life there's a 10% chance you'll give someone AIDs, here's a free crate of them" does not discourage people from sleepng around much.

Im gonna be blunt. Thats totally wrong.

You see theres a reason the abstinence only sex education states have the highest teen pregnancy rates. It doesnt work. it fails. Because telling people "Just dont ever the end we fixed the problem yay" doesnt work. Its never going to work. Its niave and seems to be more focused on saving souls than saving lives. I cant agree with that.

image

And hell lets show its not only pregnancy but STDs too

image

And so i dont spam the post with links the sources section of this wikipedia article links to scientific studies showing it doesnt work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education#Effectiveness

Educating and providing people with options lowers the pregnancy rate. Spreading downright fabrications (leaving aside your 10% statistic what was said about them having "tiny holes for the AIDS" was a total fabrication and you know it) is also plainly immoral unless its "lying for jesus" or something.

Also reading the article you linked:

"In many cases, specialists said, human error is the source of the failure, resulting in condoms slipping off, breaking, or not being put on early enough."

So it basically comes down to this. Do you wanna trust people to never have sex? Or do you wanna trust people to put a condom on correctly which we can actively remedy with education to raise the effectiveness. That statistic is not set in stone.

Also hilariously:

"The leading author on the report, Norman Hearst, a professor at the University of California-San Francisco, "makes a cogent argument that we should be talking about safer sex, not safe sex, with condoms," said Catherine A. Hankins, a chief scientific adviser to UNAIDS. "We need a combination of prevention, postponing sexual activities, reducing partners, and using condoms,""

The person who WROTE that report you linked agrees with me.

Realitycrash:

Denholm Reynholm:

Realitycrash:

Ahem.
More than a few would argue that keeping the monarchy so "well-fed and supplied" (to put it nicely) certainly harms people. I.e that money could go to people who actually deserve it. They (and I) would argue that giving abusrd amount of money and land to a selected few because they are a relic of a by-gone age is a tad absurd.

I don't think you quite understand how it works and what they contribute to our country, especially economically.

The land part was hilarious as well... Inheriting property isn't anything new... Neither is it mutually exclusive to Royalty.

As for spending money that could be better spent elsewhere... We're ALL guilty of that on these forums. World hunger could most probably be abolished if people actually cared enough to make it happen, but the majority of people don't care about things that don't affect them directly or indirectly.

Show me that they contribute more to the economy than any other state-representative with less pay would. Or show me that not having to pay for their absurdly expensive wedding would somehow diminish what they contribute to the state.

We are guilty of it, yes. Doesn't mean we should keep doing it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

You're an atheist, whether they should abolish the papacy is really none of your concern. It's their religion, they can do whatever they want, it's their choice. You have no rights to interfere with them, just as they have no right to interfere with you.

BiscuitTrouser:

So it basically comes down to this. Do you wanna trust people to never have sex? Or do you wanna trust people to put a condom on correctly which we can actively remedy with education to raise the effectiveness. That statistic is not set in stone.

Your stance is saying to people "you can't not bump uglies, may as well accept that."

tstorm823:

Your stance is saying to people "you can't not bump uglies, may as well accept that."

Dont tell me what my stance is. Especially when you get it wrong. Ive said it twice already so here it is again.

"you really shouldnt be sleeping around at all but if you must heres some free condoms"

Or to take your twisted strawman and correct it:

"You can not bump uglies, by all means try your best not to. But youre all fallible. And human. So if that plan goes out the window use this if you must to make it safER for everyone involved."

This is reality. I mean hell lets apply that logic elsewhere. "Just dont stab or rob people, now we dont need a police force!" and the parallel of my position which you mocked with your example would be "You cant not stab people, may as well accept that". This is not the position of someone in favor of a police force. People do things they are not meant to do. We live in a society that covers for that in all other particulars because its a very real and common outcome to a given situation. It seems foolish to assume it isnt elsewhere.

JimB:

funkyjiveturkey:
How does it promote the idea of helping your fellow man with some of the controversial issues some of the other posters are mentioning?

Run that past me again? I can't figure out what you're trying to ask me here. What does "it" mean, what controversial issues are you talking about, and how do those issues interact with "it?"

referring to the papacy of course. i noticed some of the other posters have mentioned things like sex scandals, preventing the use of condoms, and the wealth thing again. the vatican promotes philosophy, yes. and if you read past that i mentioned that i believe the philosophy teaches us to help our fellow man and be good people.

to those of you who've brought up the sex scandals i say yes, there have been quite a few of these of these incidences. sure they were a few bad eggs, i understand they do not represent anything being taught or necessarily condoned. but there has been evidence of the church covering up these incidences. if they have sinned they should be punished; excommunicated from the church and put in prison.

BiscuitTrouser:

"You can not bump uglies, by all means try your best not to. But youre all fallible. And human. So if that plan goes out the window use this if you must to make it safER for everyone involved."

This is reality. I mean hell lets apply that logic elsewhere. "Just dont stab or rob people, now we dont need a police force!" and the parallel of my position which you mocked with your example would be "You cant not stab people, may as well accept that". This is not the position of someone in favor of a police force. People do things they are not meant to do. We live in a society that covers for that in all other particulars because its a very real and common outcome to a given situation. It seems foolish to assume it isnt elsewhere.

Ok, but having a police force doesn't encourage people to stab or rob people. People don't think "man, it's fine if I stab someone because we have police to mitigate my poor decisions." People do think "man, it's fine if I sleep with someone even though I have AIDs because we have condoms to mitigate my poor decisions.

Sheaths make swords safer, but you don't give them to people just in case they get a sword because, if anything, you're encouraging that. Sterile syringes make heroine use safer, but you don't give them out just in case someone wants to shoot up. Condoms make sex with AIDs safer, but you don't give them out just in case they decide to sleep around.

tstorm823:
SNIP

Giving them condoms is probably going to be less effort than forcing everyone to wear a chastity belt.

funkyjiveturkey:

JimB:

funkyjiveturkey:
How does it promote the idea of helping your fellow man?

What does "it" mean?

Referring to the papacy, of course.

Ah. I wouldn't know. I'm not Catholic, nor any breed of religious, so all I know about Catholicism is horrific child abuse, rampant misogyny, and a direct hand in the AIDS epidemic in Africa. That is enough to disinterest me in conducting any further study, but not enough to make me pretend there is nothing more to learn.

tstorm823:
Fine, I guess I'll go find that 10% statistic officially so that you can feel bad for killing with your free condoms.

You have to be kidding. Reducing the lifetime risk exposure to a tenth (and no, that doesn't mean 10% will become HIV-infected) justifies lying and causing people to disregard one of the safest ways of protecting themselves? And you think I should feel bad?!

Not to mention that that failure rate includes all forms of failure, many of which can be reduced further with proper education, not willful deception. Additionally, advocates recommend monogamy and using condoms even in stable relationships to reduce risk further, so it's not like people are told to "have as much sex with as many people as you possibly can"; but the Vatican would prefer HIV-infected children over contraception, of course, so that fact is irrelevant to them.
No, this is unjustifiable. It actively undermines efforts to protect lives, it kills.

You know, I remember that you are a Catholic. But that's no reason to throw in with these lying, killing scum. Plenty of Catholics attack the Vatican for the things they pull, be they the AIDS-crisis in Africa, shuffling around and protecting of pedophiles etc.. You don't have to agree with them out of some warped sense of loyalty to your church.

BiscuitTrouser:
"you really shouldnt be sleeping around at all but if you must heres some free condoms".

Well you see the links you ponted to, these stuff are kind of old, later the pope told something like that comment, here take a look:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-benedict-xvi-condom-circumstances-fight-aids-article-1.454535

"the Pope said while the use of condoms may sometimes be justified, it's not the proper way to stem the spread of HIV or other STDs"

Yup. Annex the bastards and distribute their vast wealth to those who actually need it.

tstorm823:

Ok, but having a police force doesn't encourage people to stab or rob people. People don't think "man, it's fine if I stab someone because we have police to mitigate my poor decisions." People do think "man, it's fine if I sleep with someone even though I have AIDs because we have condoms to mitigate my poor decisions.

Sheaths make swords safer, but you don't give them to people just in case they get a sword because, if anything, you're encouraging that. Sterile syringes make heroine use safer, but you don't give them out just in case someone wants to shoot up. Condoms make sex with AIDs safer, but you don't give them out just in case they decide to sleep around.

The polce force example wasnt the best. One i read in the paper today however was pretty much dead on.

Are people encouraged to be stupid while drunk and take risks because they know a team of trained medics will patch them up with modern medicine should something go wrong? Almost the exact quote taken from the article in question is "An attitude people commonly assign to the current generation is: I dont need to worry about my health or my life choices because i know that our hospitals and ambulances will provide me with decent treatment in all particulars". Free Socialized healthcare doesnt seem encourage a lack of health. But thats where the parallel ends to be frank.

Youre still failing to see the point. Keeping condoms AWAY from these people means, in the event one of them DOES fuck up, its basically a 100% transmission rate. Its also a tool for men and women to use to protect themselves from partners who might have aids when they dont. It works both ways. The sword sheath example falls down because it cant be used by the victim to protect themselves as well as by the perp to reduce their harm to others. Its also why the needle example doesnt work very well either. Youre not hurting the needle. This is a one person activity. Not two where one party is potentially clueless on what is going to happen to them.

Look the author of the article YOU linked to support your argument thought it was possible and advisable to take the stance i do. Since you apparently trust that source trust it now. Theres a way, via talking to these people, to reinforce that the condom is a failsafe and a last resort because that stance seems to work in my nation with a FAR lower pregnancy rate than those who take your stance. You seem to assume we provide them with zero context what so ever and just say "You kids go nuts in there" when this is not the case. Its also useful to protect yourself from others if youre HIV negative and unsure of your partner.

@BiscuitTrouser

Keeping condoms AWAY from these people means, in the event one of them DOES fuck up, its basically a 100% transmission rate."

No, that isn't true, either. The transmission rates are nowhere near that high (and they also depend on the kind of sex; vaginal, anal, who is the infected person, the male or the female, the receiving or the penetrating, are there any concomittant diseases, how high is the viral count, are antiviral drugs involved etc.).

For instance:

"While transmission rates of HIV during vaginal intercourse are low under regular circumstances they are increased many fold if one of the partners suffers from a sexually transmitted infection resulting in genital ulcers."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiv

"The average rate of HIV transmission was 0.0082/coital act (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0039-0.0150) within approximately 2.5 months after seroconversion of the index partner; 0.0015/coital act within 6-15 months after seroconversion of the index partner (95% CI, 0.0002-0.0055); 0.0007/coital act (95% CI, 0.0005-0.0010) among HIV-prevalent index partners; and 0.0028/coital act (95% CI, 0.0015-0.0041) 6-25 months before the death of the index partner. In adjusted models, early- and late-stage infection, higher HIV load, genital ulcer disease, and younger age of the index partner were significantly associated with higher rates of transmission.
The rate of HIV transmission per coital act was highest during early-stage infection. This has implications for HIV prevention and for projecting the effects of antiretroviral treatment on HIV transmission."
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15809897

Of course, you still need to do what you can to lower the risk, and that means what is called the ABC-approach that more reasonable religious groups than the Vatican's officials employ: Abstinence, be faithful, use condoms. I would put more emphasis on the importance of condoms, but at least such people don't actively work to undermine the usage of the things with lies and deception. Talking about abstinence but not lying about condoms isn't mutually exclusive, after all.

Skeleon:

You have to be kidding. Reducing the lifetime risk exposure to a tenth (and no, that doesn't mean 10% will become HIV-infected) justifies lying and causing people to disregard one of the safest ways of protecting themselves? And you think I should feel bad?!

Not to mention that that failure rate includes all forms of failure, many of which can be reduced further with proper education, not willful deception. Additionally, advocates recommend monogamy and using condoms even in stable relationships to reduce risk further, so it's not like people are told to "have as much sex with as many people as you possibly can"; but the Vatican would prefer HIV-infected children over contraception, of course, so that fact is irrelevant to them.
No, this is unjustifiable. It actively undermines efforts to protect lives, it kills.

You say pointing out the flaws of condoms undermines efforts to protect lives, I say handing out free condoms undermines efforts to protect lives. You say that abstinence is encouraged alongside use of protection, but you don't give a man a donut and then tell them it's unhealthy and they really should eat their vegetables. Yes, that donut could save the man from starving later, but it sure as hell isn't going to last that long.

You know, I remember that you are a Catholic. But that's no reason to throw in with these lying, killing scum. Plenty of Catholics attack the Vatican for the things they pull, be they the AIDS-crisis in Africa, shuffling around and protecting of pedophiles etc.. You don't have to agree with them out of some warped sense of loyalty to your church.

Here's the thing. You think my position is based on a biased desire to defend my church, but I think your position is based on a biased desire to attack my church, because if these statements didn't come from the Vatican you would totally accept the reason behind them. If some random, non-religious third party said that distribution of free condoms is not the proper way to fight AIDs in Africa, you'd probably still disagree with them, but I'm positive you'd consider the point, but because it's the Catholic Church you immediately start flaming about their love for AIDs infected children.

You know what? I am baised. I am defending them out of loyalty, because I do understand the benefits of condom availability, but I'm not going to sit here idly while the former pope is blamed for AIDs because he took a perfectly reasonable position, and if one more person one this board thinks it through reasonably and decides to stop blaming the Vatican for giving people AIDs, then I've done my job.

You know what else? I'll defend them for shuffling around pedophiles too. Was it wrong? Was it a mistake of society changing consequences? Yes. But if you pretend for a moment that you were a dedicated, lifetime member of a group, and someone in the group (and consequently your friend and coworker) did something abhorable to a child, can you really say you'd throw them to the dogs? It's wrong and irresponsible to not report that person to the police, but they're basically family and nobody wants to call the cops on family. We know what they did was wrong, but with some basic human sympathy, you can understand the horror of the position they were in and the reason for their actions. (Just to be clear, I'm not defending the pedophiles, just those who protected them. There is no defending the actions of pedophiles.)

tstorm823:

You say pointing out the flaws of condoms undermines efforts to protect lives, I say handing out free condoms undermines efforts to protect lives. You say that abstinence is encouraged alongside use of protection, but you don't give a man a donut and then tell them it's unhealthy and they really should eat their vegetables. Yes, that donut could save the man from starving later, but it sure as hell isn't going to last that long.

i'm confused. are you saying that that condoms are the donut and abstinence are the vegetables? because it's the other way around. the abstinence is the donut that wont last long because it's been proven repeatedly to not work in areas where it is taught and encouraged as a form of birth control. condoms are compared to the vegetables in that they are better for your health and will ultimately keep people healthy and make them live longer. they arent detrimental to life saving efforts, they can only help.

tstorm823:

(Just to be clear, I'm not defending the pedophiles, just those who protected them. There is no defending the actions of pedophiles.)

uuhh.....what? that's a contradiction.

funkyjiveturkey:

i'm confused. are you saying that that condoms are the donut and abstinence are the vegetables? because it's the other way around. the abstinence is the donut that wont last long because it's been proven repeatedly to not work in areas where it is taught and encouraged as a form of birth control. condoms are compared to the vegetables in that they are better for your health and will ultimately keep people healthy and make them live longer. they arent detrimental to life saving efforts, they can only help.

Whoooosh!

Abstinence was vegetables.
Protected sex donuts.
Unprotected sex was starving to death.

tstorm823:
You say pointing out the flaws of condoms undermines efforts to protect lives,

There's a difference between pointing out the flaws in condoms, and saying that they don't work so don't bother using them. The latter is a lie, said for ideological reasons.

tstorm823:
SNIP

Even if you believe that lying about the uselessness of using condoms is somehow harmless on the basis that he also thinks people shouldn't have sex for enjoyment at all..... Benedict still went that extra mile and claimed that they "aggravate the problem". He fragrantly lied, and I don't find it hard to believe that he caused death by doing so.

People take this bigot at his word on an incredibly dangerous matter, and he used his influence to spread misinformation.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked