| ||
| A vain attempt at decrazification. |
Pack Genius
| ||
The Catholic Church is continuing to spew ridiculous dogma regarding condom use on its unsuspecting believers. They grossly misinform by maintaining that condoms are not an effective barrier to HIV infection; apparently, infectious particles can magically get through tiny holes in the condoms. This rubbish flies in the face of every piece of evidence and every expert medical opinion on this planet. I’m well aware that evidence is seldom of any importance to religious people (or they wouldn’t be religious), but this despicable practice is unconscionable. In a Guardian (UK) article (found via Dikkii's Diatribe), the World Health Organisation is quoted as saying: "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million. …intact condoms... are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens including the smallest sexually transmitted virus... condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission of particles of similar size to those of the smallest STD viruses" The "They are wrong about that... this is an easily recognisable fact." Fuck you Cardinal. Seriously, just go fuck yourself. You wouldn’t know what a fact was if one beat you to death with a shovel. The Church’s anti-contraception policy is bad enough, but lying about it in order to rationalize that policy is an outright disgrace. Isn’t there some rule against lying contained somewhere within their book of fairy tales? Something about bearing false witness perhaps? The question becomes: why does the Church support such blatant dishonesty? Why the anti-contraception policy? The true answer exposes the insidious nature of religion for all to see. The Church is well aware that the only way to get more Catholics is to indoctrinate/brainwash children. Outlawing contraception means current Catholics will have more children, and the cycle of psychological child abuse can continue, producing more Catholics and so on. Screw reality; screw the facts; screw the evidence. The central tenet of religion is to ignore all three. Does anyone at all think that this policy is not evil in its purest form? | ||
| Post Comment |
| |||
| I'm still scratching my head as to why Ansell or someone doesn't sue the bejesus out of the church for this.
This is, as far as I can tell, seriously damaging, dishonest, defamatory, slanderous, fraudulent, life-threatening, commandment-breaking (false witness AND name in vain) shit. If I was Ansell, I would sue. Where's the government and why aren't they standing up for our Aussie companies overseas? If I was a shareholder, I'd be livid. | |||
| Posted by dikkii | |||
| |||
| Oh, man. I would love to see someone sue the Church over this. Why should they get special dispensation?
However, it could be a bit of a PR nightmare for any company with the guts to take up the challenge. Also, what law would they file suit under? Negligence? Wouldn't they then have a bit of trouble proving damages? My understanding of law is somewhat limited. What do you reckon Dikkii? | |||
| Posted by Adam | |||
| |||
| I'm guessing that you're quite right regarding the PR thing.
I think that in a sympathetic jurisdiction - of which Australia would be one - defo/libel would be the obvious one. What would be better, though would be for someone to catch AIDS and then to sue the church over it. I'm guessing that Negligence ought to cover this one rather nicely. Although a better remedy would be, perhaps, of a criminal nature rather than in tort. Something like attempted manslaughter, if such a charge exists. But I have to say, though, that my knowledge of legal matters is not the best. | |||
| Posted by dikkii | |||
| |||
| Hi all,
I agree with your anger on the Vatican and condoms. But not all Catholics agree with the Vatican view. I'm not Catholic but I tune in to the Catholic chatrooms sometimes and I notice that most of the Catholics there do not share the ``offical'' position on condeminhg the use of condoms. In the midst of the AIDS epidemic, which has already killed tens of millions and preys disproportionately on the poor, the condom acts as a contra mortem and its use is justified by the Catholic consistent ethic of life. At least, this is the view of many Catholics at the front lines of the global HIV battle. Catholic organizations mercifully provide around 25 percent of the care AIDS victims receive worldwide. Many of the clergy and laity involved in treating people with AIDS, who otherwise fully ascribe to the churchs teachings on sexual ethics and the sanctity of marriage, nevertheless endorse the use of condoms. They argue that the preservation of human life is paramount. This is the reality: a married woman living in Southern Africa is at higher risk of becoming infected with HIV than an unmarried woman. Extolling abstinence and fidelity, as the Catholic Church does, will not protect her; in all likelihood she is already monogamous. It is her husband who is likely to have HIV. Yet refusing a husbands sexual overtures risks ostracism, violence, and destitution for herself and her children. Given these realities, isnt opposing the use of condoms tantamount to condemning countless women to death? Catholic Bishop Kevin Dowling of South Africa has been imploring the Vatican to view condom use as curtailing the transmission of death rather than precluding the transmission of life. In South Africa, 5.3 million people are infected with HIV and 25 percent of all pregnant women test positive for the virus. Although it is true that condoms are not 100-percent effective in preventing HIV infection, they do reduce the risk of transmission significantly. Comparing condom use to a suicidal dare, as Cardinal Trujillo does, is scientifically inaccurate and socially irresponsible. A preponderance of medical research demonstrates that condoms help prevent the spread of HIV. Of course, never having sex will significantly reduce the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease. (It will not, though, completely eliminate the risk of contracting HIV, since the virus is also transmitted via blood products, birthing, and breastfeeding.) But the Vatican must be made aware that abstaining from sex is not a choice that many women living in the developing world have. | |||
| Posted by BryanP | |||
| |||
| Hi Bryan,
It's great to get your comments. Nice to hear we agree on this one. Also, I wouldn't have expected agreement from most Catholics on this issue. The problem seems to be these insane edicts originating from the upper echelons of the Vatican. The people in such positions appear to be entirely divorced from reality. It is heartening to hear of dissenters like Kevin Dowling. Let's hope many voices join with him and sanity will prevail. Thanks for the statistics, many of which I was completely unaware of. There are certainly some startling numbers and trends there. On a related subject, some of your comments appeared to indicate that you are generally in favour of abstinance education (correct me if I'm wrong), although not in this case? I disagree with the 'abstinance only' education policy, backed by most Christian sects, on similar grounds. This seems to be a big problem in the United States. Attempting to stop teenagers from having sex is tantamount to sticking ones head in the sand in denial of reality. The statistics overwhelmingly indicate that such policies do not work. They merely deny teens much needed information that could protect them from pregnancy and disease. Sex is a biological imperative. I cannot understand why religions persist with such infantile prudishness in facing the subject. Their archaic attitudes only endanger the health of populations, and lead to increases in teen pregnancy (consequently, the denial of abortion rights to such teens is rather ironic). This Catholic condom story is merely the crowning absurdity of religious sexual doctrine. | |||
| Posted by Adam | |||
| |||
| In addition, I just wanted to clarify something. In your comment you said:
"Although it is true that condoms are not 100-percent effective in preventing HIV infection, they do reduce the risk of transmission significantly." I understand that the figure usually given (90% effectiveness) is due to breakage and slippage of condoms, not due to the farcical reasons given by the Church (viruses magically get through holes in the condoms). | |||
| Posted by Adam | |||
| |||
| ONE of the Roman Catholic Church's most distinguished cardinals has publicly backed the use of condoms among married couples to prevent Aids transmission.
Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini said that in couples where one had HIV/Aids, which could pass to the partner, the use of condoms was "a lesser evil". | |||
| Posted by BryanP | |||
| |||
| Ummm. Let me think. The Cardinal upset you a tad? lol | |||
| Posted by Anonymous | |||
| |||
| Hey Bryan,
Whilst this Cardinal's attitude towards condom use is mildly progressive and admirable, I still find his comments to be somewhat absurd. He only seems to back condom use amongst married couples. Why? The simple reality is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in modern times will indulge in premarital sex. If these people are already committing a great sin, what difference does it make if they add the minor one of using a condom to protect themselves? Also, his statement that condom use is a "lesser evil" is just plain nutty. How is using a condom an evil at all? I find this outlook to be laughably silly. The related issue of overpopulation never seems to be addressed by the Church either. Much of the reason for the poverty of the third world is due to rampant population growth; growth that cannot be supported by the available resources. Condom use a 'lesser evil'? I think not. The great evil here is the Church and its anti-contraception policy; a policy inspired by ancient fantasies dogmatically clung to, regardless of the great problems we face in reality (diseases/overpopulation). Good on Cardinal Martini for at least entertaining the notion of flexibility though. Let's hope it's only his first step. Hey Anonymous, I always find peddlers of bullshit irritating, but I find Trujillo's comments infuriating. His statements are not only wrong, (as are all religious messages in my view), but grossly negligent and criminally misleading. We face some great problems on this planet, and assholes like the Cardinal (plus religions in general) are a great big anchor; actively subverting attempts at progress. | |||
| Posted by Adam | |||
| Entry 21 of 42 |
| Last Page | Next Page |