What's this got to do with the Pope?

[Adrian II]

I remember patrons blaming the last Pope for single-handedly causing the spread of Aids in Africa. This should be a good antidote for them


New York Times

May 11, 2005

AIDS Now Compels Africa to Challenge Widows' 'Cleansing'

By SHARON LaFRANIERE
MCHINJI, Malawi - In the hours after James Mbewe was laid to rest three years ago, in an unmarked grave not far from here, his 23-year-old wife, Fanny, neither mourned him nor accepted visits from sympathizers. Instead, she hid in his sister's hut, hoping that the rest of her in-laws would not find her.

But they hunted her down, she said, and insisted that if she refused to exorcise her dead husband's spirit, she would be blamed every time a villager died. So she put her two small children to bed and then forced herself to have sex with James's cousin.

"I cried, remembering my husband," she said. "When he was finished, I went outside and washed myself because I was very afraid. I was so worried I would contract AIDS and die and leave my children to suffer."

Here and in a number of nearby nations including Zambia and Kenya, a husband's funeral has long concluded with a final ritual: sex between the widow and one of her husband's relatives, to break the bond with his spirit and, it is said, save her and the rest of the village from insanity or disease. Widows have long tolerated it, and traditional leaders have endorsed it, as an unchallenged tradition of rural African life.

Now AIDS is changing that. Political and tribal leaders are starting to speak out publicly against so-called sexual cleansing, condemning it as one reason H.I.V. has spread to 25 million sub-Saharan Africans, killing 2.3 million last year alone. They are being prodded by leaders of the region's fledging women's rights movement, who contend that lack of control over their sex lives is a major reason 6 in 10 of those infected in sub-Saharan Africa are women.

But change is coming slowly, village by village, hut by hut. In a region where belief in witchcraft is widespread and many women are taught from childhood not to challenge tribal leaders or the prerogatives of men, the fear of flouting tradition often outweighs even the fear of AIDS.

"It is very difficult to end something that was done for so long," said Monica Nsofu, a nurse and AIDS organizer in the Monze district in southern Zambia, about 200 miles south of the capital, Lusaka. "We learned this when we were born. People ask, Why should we change?"

In Zambia, where one out of five adults is now infected with the virus, the National AIDS Council reported in 2000 that this practice was very common. Since then, President Levy Mwanawasa has declared that forcing new widows into sex or marriage with their husband's relatives should be discouraged, and the nation's tribal chiefs have decided not to enforce either tradition, their spokesman said.

Still, a recent survey by Women and Law in Southern Africa found that in at least one-third of the country's provinces, sexual "cleansing" of widows persists, said Joyce MacMillan, who heads the organization's Zambian chapter. In some areas, the practice extends to men.

Some Defy the Risk

Even some Zambian volunteers who work to curb the spread of AIDS are reluctant to disavow the tradition. Paulina Bubala, a leader of a group of H.I.V.-positive residents near Monze, counsels schoolchildren on the dangers of AIDS. But in an interview, she said she was ambivalent about whether new widows should purify themselves by having sex with male relatives.

Her husband died of what appeared to be AIDS-related symptoms in 1996. Soon after the funeral, both Ms. Bubala and her husband's second wife covered themselves in mud for three days. Then they each bathed, stripped naked with their dead husband's nephew and rubbed their bodies against his.

Weeks later, she said, the village headman told them this cleansing ritual would not suffice. Even the stools they sat on would be considered unclean, he warned, unless they had sex with the nephew.

"We felt humiliated," Ms. Bubala said, "but there was nothing we could do to resist, because we wanted to be clean in the land of the headman."

The nephew died last year. Ms. Bubala said the cause was hunger, not AIDS. Her husband's second wife now suffers symptoms of AIDS and rarely leaves her hut. Ms. Bubala herself discovered she was infected in 2000.

But even the risk of disease does not dent Ms. Bubala's belief in the need for the ritual's protective powers. "There is no way we are going to stop this practice," she said, "because we have seen a lot of men and women who have gone mad" after spouses died.

Ms. Nsofu, the nurse and AIDS organizer, argues that it is less important to convince women like Ms. Bubala than the headmen and tribal leaders who are the custodians of tradition and gatekeepers to change.

"We are telling them, 'If you continue this practice, you won't have any people left in your village,' " she said. She cites people, like herself, who have refused to be cleansed and yet seem perfectly sane. Sixteen years after her husband died, she argues, "I am still me." Ms. Nsofu said she suggested to tribal leaders that sexual cleansing most likely sprang not from fears about the vengeance of spirits, but from the lust of men who coveted their relatives' wives. She proposes substituting other rituals to protect against dead spirits, like chanting and jumping back and forth over the grave or over a cow.

Headman Is a Firm Believer

Like their counterparts in Zambia, Malawi's health authorities have spoken out against forcing widows into sex or marriage. But in the village of Ndanga, about 90 minutes from the nation's largest city, Blantyre, many remain unconvinced.

Evance Joseph Fundi, Ndanga's 40-year-old headman, is courteous, quiet-spoken and a firm believer in upholding the tradition. While some widows sleep with male relatives, he said, others ask him to summon one of the several appointed village cleansers. In the native language of Chewa, those men are known as fisis or hyenas because they are supposed to operate in stealth and at night.

Mr. Fundi said one of them died recently, probably of AIDS. Still, he said with a charming smile, "We can not abandon this because it has been for generations."

Since 1953, Amos Machika Schisoni has served as the principal village cleanser. He is uncertain of his age and it is not easily guessed at. His hair is grizzled but his arms are sinewy and his legs muscled. His hut of mud bricks, set about 50 yards from a graveyard, is even more isolated than most in a village of far-flung huts separated by towering weeds and linked by dirt paths.

What Tradition Dictates

He and the headman like to joke about the sexual demands placed upon a cleanser like Mr. Schisoni, who already has three wives. He said tradition dictates that he sleep with the widow, then with each of his own wives, and then again with the widow, all in one night. Mr. Schisoni said that the previous headman chose him for his sexual prowess after he had impregnated three wives in quick succession.

Now, Mr. Schisoni, said he continues his role out of duty more than pleasure. Uncleansed widows suffer swollen limbs and are not free to remarry, he said. "If we don't do it, the widow will develop the swelling syndrome, get diarrhea and die and her children will get sick and die," he said, sitting under an awning of drying tobacco leaves. "The women who do this do not die."

His wives support his work, he said, because they like the income: a chicken for each cleansing session. He insisted that he cannot wear a condom because "this will provoke some other unknown spirit." He is equally adamant in refusing an H.I.V. test. "I have never done it and I don't intend to do it," he said.

To protect himself, he said, he avoids widows who are clearly quite sick . Told that even widows who look perfectly healthy can transmit the virus, Mr. Schisoni shook his head. "I don't believe this," he said. At the traditional family council after James Mbewe was killed in a truck accident in August 2002, Fanny Mbewe's mother and brothers objected to a cleanser, saying the risk of AIDS was too great. But Ms. Mbewe's in-laws insisted, she said. If a villager so much as dreamed of her husband, they told her, the family would be blamed for allowing his spirit to haunt their community on the Malawi-Zambia border.

Her husband's cousin, to whom she refers only as Loimbani, showed up at her hut at 9 o'clock at night after the burial.

"I was hiding my private parts," she said in an interview in the office of Women's Voice, a Malawian human rights group. "You want to have a liking for a man to have sex, not to have someone force you. But I had no choice, knowing the whole village was against me."

Loimbani, she said, was blasé. "He said: 'Why are you running away? You know this is our culture. If I want, I could even make you my second wife."

He did not. He left her only with the fear that she will die of the virus and that her children, now 8 and 10, will become orphans. She said she is too fearful to take an H.I.V. test.

"I wish such things would change," she said.

[Fragony]

http://sgtstryker.com/wp-images/Emporer.jpg
http://sgtstryker.com/wp-images/Pope.jpg

Does that answer your question ~;)

[Steppe Merc]

I don't see your pictures, Frag.

But this is really messed up, and is why I did not agree with blaming the Pope for all the deaths in Africa caused by HIV. And it's kind of pathetic a government has to advise the tribal leaders, and can't actually tell them to stop doing this.

[Byzantine Prince]

The real problem is that these people don't exactly get wiped out. They don't die without having kids with the virus. They have sex a lot in Africa so it's very hard for the population not be grwoing in an insane rate. Hell if AIDS can't control it then what will!?!? ~:eek:

[PanzerJaeger]

They have sex a lot in Africa...

Im considering making that part of my sig..


This thread will most likely die with only these posts in it as all those who were so critical of JP will simply ignore it, as is so often the case.

[Redleg]

The real problem is that these people don't exactly get wiped out. They don't die without having kids with the virus. They have sex a lot in Africa so it's very hard for the population not be grwoing in an insane rate. Hell if AIDS can't control it then what will!?!? ~:eek:

So much wrong with this statement - So your now advocating AIDS as a method of population control. And some are scared of the far right on this board. I suggest with ideological views like this - some should be more scared of the socialist paradise you seem to advocate.

Lets see now - lets shoot workers who do not perform to the government's work quota and use AIDS as a method of population control.

Yep a real winner is amongst us in this forum.

[Goofball]

I remember patrons blaming the last Pope for single-handedly causing the spread of Aids in Africa. This should be a good antidote for them

Hmmm. I haven't gone back reviewed the thread in question, but that seems like a bit of a troll to me Adrian. I don't remember anybody blaming the Pope for "single-handedly" causing the spread of AIDS in Africa.

The fact is that Catholic dogma, which is more or less dictated by the Pope, forbids the use of condoms. And since the Pope consistently forbade the use of condoms, then there is no question that he was more of a hindrance than a help when it came to preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa (or anywhere, for that matter). Yes, I know the conservative response is "But he preached abstinence, which is the most perfect form of AIDS prevention," but the reality is that it is far easier to convince people to use condoms than it is to convince them not to have sex.

[Don Corleone]

That's like saying "If you're going to steal, make sure you do it from businesses, not indviduals. Oh, and we shouldn't say stealing is wrong, because then they might get embarrassed and go back to stealing from individuals". I personally believe condoms are fine, but they clearly don't.

If they truly believe it's wrong, aren't you demanding that they be hypocrites because you don't think human beings can restrain their sexual impulses?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hmmm. I haven't gone back reviewed the thread in question, but that seems like a bit of a troll to me Adrian. I don't remember anybody blaming the Pope for "single-handedly" causing the spread of AIDS in Africa.

The fact is that Catholic dogma, which is more or less dictated by the Pope, forbids the use of condoms. And since the Pope consistently forbade the use of condoms, then there is no question that he was more of a hindrance than a help when it came to preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa (or anywhere, for that matter). Yes, I know the conservative response is "But he preached abstinence, which is the most perfect form of AIDS prevention," but the reality is that it is far easier to convince people to use condoms than it is to convince them not to have sex.


i specifically remember some sayign that the pope had their blood on his hands and he actually killed millions

[Proletariat]

Yes, I know the conservative response is "But he preached abstinence, which is the most perfect form of AIDS prevention," but the reality is that it is far easier to convince people to use condoms than it is to convince them not to have sex.

Right, because the Pope is here to explain how to take the 'easier' route.

:dizzy2:

Why do you presume that on the Pope's agenda there should be medical hygiene? He's here to save souls, not the flesh. I'm not even Catholic, let alone Christian and I can see that.

You have placed an expectation on the Pope to be 'the greatest guy ever who will fix everything' and he isn't. He's just the head of a Church, here to advocate his faith.

[Byzantine Prince]

They have sex a lot in Africa...

Im considering making that part of my sig..

I'm still waiting to someone to sig my comment.

[JAG]

Adrian, you disappoint me. Just because me and others stated that the pope and catholic curches dogma was responsible for aiding the spread of aids and certainly not doing anything to stop it, we definitely did NOT say that it was the ONLY reason, far from it.

But just because it is one reason amongst others, it does not mean that it should be accepted, am I to believe Adrian that you therefore think that the Pope's position and the Catholic churches position is acceptable? If not, why post things such as this with the title you have? It makes little sense.

[Proletariat]

But just because it is one reason amongst others, it does not mean that it should be accepted, am I to believe Adrian that you therefore think that the Pope's position and the Catholic churches position is acceptable?

I sure think it is, but you're asking him.

[JAG]

I sure think it is, but you're asking him.

Ah good, at least you're an honest Christian and state you have no problems with the all powerful Christ's representatives you worship being responsible for millions of deaths.

Just don't cry over 3,000 people dieing when planes hit a building in September, or children gunned down by a madman in a school. Because they are crocodile tears.

[Don Corleone]

Dude, you gotta lay off the drama.

1) Proletariat already announced (IN THIS THREAD) she's not a Christian

2) Al Queda didn't preach that nobody should stop the hijackers (a passive role). They took an active role and actually flew the planes.

If the priests were over there shooting people for using condoms, you'd have a slam dunk on your hands. But you're really reaching on this one. Sorry man, cause like I said, I have plenty of issues with the Vatican, I just think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.

[Don Corleone]

By the way, apparently you don't have too many Protestant fundamentalists over in the UK. If you did, you'd recognize they, not you and fellow atheists are the Pope's (and the Catholics') most vitrolic opponents.

Many many baptists, and I believe all pentecostals, preach that the pope is the anti-Christ and any Catholic is in fact a devil worshiper and a pagan. No shit. When I was still a Catholic, in high school, I went to Kentucky (a poor region of it in the Appalachians, about 800 miles away from where I lived at the time) to build houses for Habitat for Humanity, the local minister said a prayer that we children would turn from our evil ways and finally reject Satan and truly accept Christ, not the false image of him we had.

Trust me, Christians are not a monolithic, all-supporting group.

[JAG]

1) Proletariat already announced (IN THIS THREAD) she's not a Christian

Doesn't mute my point.

And the Catholic church has in effect 'shot' people for attempting to use them, the articles I posted when the pope hismelf died, listed how Catholic bishops and priests in Africa were stating lies about condoms - how they did not stop AIDS and even actively helped spread it. For people, as the article shows, who trust dogma, tradition and spiritual leaders so much, that is pulling the trigger my friend.

[JAG]

By the way, apparently you don't have too many Protestant fundamentalists over in the UK. If you did, you'd recognize they, not you and fellow atheists are the Pope's (and the Catholics') most vitrolic opponents.

Many many baptists, and I believe all pentecostals, preach that the pope is the anti-Christ and any Catholic is in fact a devil worshiper and a pagan. No shit. When I was still a Catholic, in high school, I went to Kentucky (a poor region of it in the Appalachians, about 800 miles away from where I lived at the time) to build houses for Habitat for Humanity, the local minister said a prayer that we children would turn from our evil ways and finally reject Satan and truly accept Christ, not the false image of him we had.

Trust me, Christians are not a monolithic, all-supporting group.

We don't have as many evangelicals and christians, full stop, as you do over there - thankfully. Even if protestants oppose the pope, so what? They certainly seem to not care about his ultra conservative teachings like preaching that condoms lead to AIDS and never to use them, because you yourself, and others here, are huge apologists for it.

I also find it laughable that you think other christians of a different kind are more anti catholic than atheists hehe, that is a new one.

[Don Corleone]

Well, as far as I know, you don't advocate physical violence against 'the church of Lucifer'. Little known fact about the Klan..... they burned as many Catholic Churches as they did synagogues or African Methodist churches. My grandfather got shot in the chest with both barrels of a shotgun (and survived!) for being Irish Catholic. And this was in Boston! In 1932!

Edit: A fact I wish a lot of Irish-Americans, French-Americans and Italian-Americans would wake up and realize. When they talk about the white race, they ain't talking about you. (Sorry, private side rant. A distressing trend in my mind is the idea that somehow Irish & Italians & French are now welcomed by the Klan. Of course they are, they're desparate for members).

[JAG]

I do not advocate violence against christians, you are right. I leave my distaste for the religion in words and statements only. If protestants do preach violence against catholics though, it kinda proves a lot of my points about the whole christian religion, protestant, orthodox or catholic...

[Don Corleone]

See, chief, that's what I love about you, no matter how much you piss me off sometimes. You're never wrong! Even when you are, you're not! It just proves how right you are in the long run. Stay with that, it'll serve you well in your political career. ~:cheers:

[JAG]

Pft, political career? Nah. ~:cool:

And we are always right, whatever we choose is for the better and whatever we choose we choose for all. Your completely right at the same time as I am right, isn't that great? :balloon2:

[Steppe Merc]

Edit: A fact I wish a lot of Irish-Americans, French-Americans and Italian-Americans would wake up and realize. When they talk about the white race, they ain't talking about you. (Sorry, private side rant. A distressing trend in my mind is the idea that somehow Irish & Italians & French are now welcomed by the Klan. Of course they are, they're desparate for members).
I agree whole heartedly. And Slavic and Eastern Europeans as well, and of course Jews. I always thinks it's odd that they're called white supremecists, since they're (at least supposed to be) German (which includes Anglo-Saxon, Norse, etc.) supremisists (damn, that's hard to spell...) I guess they're so desperate for recruits, like you said.

And Jag, the whole point of Adrian's articale was to show that the Pope wasn't soley responsible, and that AIDs would still spread even without his preaching against condoms.

[Paul Peru]

Why do you presume that on the Pope's agenda there should be medical hygiene? He's here to save souls, not the flesh. I'm not even Catholic, let alone Christian and I can see that.
He did on occasion speak out against gratuitous flesh-destroying, though...


You have placed an expectation on the Pope to be 'the greatest guy ever who will fix everything' and he isn't. He's just the head of a Church, here to advocate his faith.
As long as he's free to do that, it should be OK for others to be free to say that they disagree. And it's not unheard of for the catholic church to change their views to bring them closer to decency and common sense. We just won't see it with the current pope.

[Don Corleone]

Again, PP, I'm going to pose the same challenge to you that I did to Goofball. Instead of assuming the Pope's just like to screw with people and ruin all their fun (they do this because of a grinch-like mentality), consider for a moment that they actually believe the reasoning they've offered.

Is your argument that they should be hypocrites and say it's okay because you don't think Africans are capable of controlling their sexual impulses or thinking for themselves? That's a pretty low opinion of humanity.

[Paul Peru]

Again, PP, I'm going to pose the same challenge to you that I did to Goofball. Instead of assuming the Pope's just like to screw with people and ruin all their fun (they do this because of a grinch-like mentality), consider for a moment that they actually believe the reasoning they've offered.

Is your argument that they should be hypocrites and say it's okay because you don't think Africans are capable of controlling their sexual impulses or thinking for themselves? That's a pretty low opinion of humanity.
This will be my final post in this thread, as I'm about to say the N-word, and thus disqualify and discredit myself entirely. ~:)
Here I go:
I think a lot of Nazis believed in what they were doing. I still think they were wrong, and that bringing them to trial was right.

As for the sexual impulses of Africans, I'd guess they were about the same as for people on other continents. Culture and tradition may promote promiscuity to a larger extent in some countries. If they abstained from sex, they'd be all right, yes. Most people tend not to though, independent of continent. American youths are very much into extended Clintonesque definitions these days, I hear.

But if the church had any decency and concern for the suffering of those people they'd say "Be faithful or abstinent, but if you can't then for St. Pete's sake use a condom!!" There are other cases where some evils have been graded as less than others. I can't imagine how using a condom is worse than bringing hiv home to your wife, or equivalent for that matter.

[Ja'chyra]

Doesn't the catholic church teach that sex should only be between a man and his wife?

If so condeming condoms doesn't encourage the spread of aids.

[Don Corleone]

Look, one more time, the Church doesn't view condoms as an AIDS issue. They view it as birth control and that's why they think it's wrong.

I'll be honest, you secular humanists are really driving forward, emboldened by your successes I suppose. You're now presuming to tell organized religions what they're allowed to consider moral and what they're not. If they don't agree with you, you'll accuse them of genocide for not backing your 'anything that feels good, at any price' attitudes.

Just do me a favor, before you decide that praying should be illegal, or belief in any form for that matter, give us all a heads up, would you? It can't be that far off, based on where you're at now...

[JAG]

And Jag, the whole point of Adrian's articale was to show that the Pope wasn't soley responsible, and that AIDs would still spread even without his preaching against condoms.

Would be good if you actually read my post.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Would be good if you actually read my post.

Even when we do you claim we are to stupid to understand your points. The Pope is in no way shape manner of form responsible for the spread of aids in Africa.Trying to say so pnly makes you look either silly or hows you have an unrasonable hate for the Pope and Catholics in general. Once more if they listened to him aids would practically dissappear but because they dont its his fault.

[JAG]

Even when we do you claim we are to stupid to understand your points. The Pope is in no way shape manner of form responsible for the spread of aids in Africa.Trying to say so pnly makes you look either silly or hows you have an unrasonable hate for the Pope and Catholics in general. Once more if they listened to him aids would practically dissappear but because they dont its his fault.

Sigh...

[Adrian II]

Well, I remember some posts around JP's death saying he was responsible for the millons of Aids dead in Africa.

Never mind. Isn't it surprising that a thread about some of the worst obscurantism in Africa is turned into yet another debate pro and contra the Pope? I believe this thread demonstrates that some of the Church's critics aren't interested in Africa or Aids at all, only in criticising the Church.

[Paul Peru]

I'll be honest, you secular humanists are really driving forward, emboldened by your successes I suppose.
Are we successful? :jumping:
oboyoboyoboy! :jumping: :jumping: :jumping: :jumping:
This is great!

Just do me a favor, before you decide that praying should be illegal, or belief in any form for that matter, give us all a heads up, would you? It can't be that far off, based on where you're at now...
I think the official policy in China is to frown upon some religions and persecute others by varying degrees. Now you know. ~:cheers:

[Paul Peru]

Well, I remember some posts around JP's death saying he was responsible for the millons of Aids dead in Africa.

Never mind. Isn't it surprising that a thread about some of the worst obscurantism in Africa is turned into yet another debate pro and contra the Pope? I believe this thread demonstrates that some of the Church's critics aren't interested in Africa or Aids at all, only in criticising the Church.
Maybe there is something about the title of the thread? :thinking:
Actually I haven't gotten around to leading the entire article yet :embarassed:

[JAG]

Well, I remember some posts around JP's death saying he was responsible for the millons of Aids dead in Africa.

Never mind. Isn't it surprising that a thread about some of the worst obscurantism in Africa is turned into yet another debate pro and contra the Pope? I believe this thread demonstrates that some of the Church's critics aren't interested in Africa or Aids at all, only in criticising the Church.

To be fair Adrian, you named the bloody thread the way you did, what do you expect people like me to reply with? You set the terms of the article in a 'pro and contra Pope' context, don't then be so disingenuous in stating how we don't care for Africa and those suffering of AIDS.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Look how many people in africa do you really belive didnt use condoms because of the Pope but still had sex outside of marriage regardless of what he says. If you going to listen only to those parts you choose how can you blame that on the Pope? I could blame you liberals more for encourging people that if you want sex with whoever its fine and dandy just use protection. Its the same thing If they dont listen to both parts of what you say they will be in trouble.

"But the liberals told me it was fine to have sex with anyone I pleased and now Ive got aids'

"But you didnt use protection"

"But still you told me I can have sex with anyone"

You have to obey the entire precept not half of it.

Once more if they are going to commit a big sin like having sex out of marriage do you really think they wont use a condom because its an almost negigible sin. Your not going to hell for using a condom. You will for screwing your neighbors wife.

[Goofball]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, people! I am grouping this post:


If they truly believe it's wrong, aren't you demanding that they be hypocrites because you don't think human beings can restrain their sexual impulses?

and this post:


Right, because the Pope is here to explain how to take the 'easier' route.

:dizzy2:

Why do you presume that on the Pope's agenda there should be medical hygiene? He's here to save souls, not the flesh. I'm not even Catholic, let alone Christian and I can see that.

You have placed an expectation on the Pope to be 'the greatest guy ever who will fix everything' and he isn't. He's just the head of a Church, here to advocate his faith.

and this post:


Again, PP, I'm going to pose the same challenge to you that I did to Goofball. Instead of assuming the Pope's just like to screw with people and ruin all their fun (they do this because of a grinch-like mentality), consider for a moment that they actually believe the reasoning they've offered.

together in my response, because they all make the same fundamental mistake. They all assume or accuse me of one of two things (or both things):

1) Thinking that it is the Pope's responsibility to make AIDS prevention part of his agenda;

and/or:

2) Thinking the Pope has hidden, dastardly motives for forbidding his flock from using condoms.

Neither of which is true.

As to point 1, I never said anywhere that I believe the Pope should make AIDS fighting his number one concern. As far as I'm concerned, the Pope is a spiritual leader, not a civic problem solver. His job is to minister to the souls of his flock. If he believes that peoples' souls are in danger if they use condoms, then he has the responsibility to tell them not to use them, even if it does cause danger to their earthly bodies. But the fact remains:

not using condoms = increased risk of AIDS.

As to point 2, I made no comment in my post as to what motivates the Pope to forbid the use of condoms, but you two seem to think I believe him to have less than pure motivation. Again, not true. As I said above, I am certain the Pope thought he was absolutely doing the best thing for the souls of his flock when he forbade the use of condoms, and it is his job to worry about souls, not bodies. But again:

not using condoms = increased risk of AIDS

So what I said in my initial post cannot be argued against:


there is no question that he was more of a hindrance than a help when it came to preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa

Now, on to Gawain's ridiculous statement:


Even when we do you claim we are to stupid to understand your points. The Pope is in no way shape manner of form responsible for the spread of aids in Africa.Trying to say so pnly makes you look either silly or hows you have an unrasonable hate for the Pope and Catholics in general. Once more if they listened to him aids would practically dissappear but because they dont its his fault.

Having sex is a natural human urge, and one that is often very hard to overcome. So, let me give you a scenario (and as weird as it may sound, coming from a long line of Catholics myself, not to mentioned being married to one, let me assure you that it is not that far-fetched):

Young David Mwenge :tongue2: and his girlfriend Lisa Mtibi :gorgeous: have been dating for many months and are in love:love: . Lisa is a devout Catholic and has so far been able to heed the advice of her priest, so she has not sinned by having sex with David. One night, however, she weakens and in the heat of the moment has sex with David. As they were about to start, David pulled out a condom. Lisa, already feeling advance guilt about committing one sin, tells him not to wear the condom, because that would be adding another sin to the pile. Because David has not been nearly so pure as Lisa has been up to this point in their lives, David gives Lisa AIDS.

At any rate, whether you believe that scenario could take place or not, the fact remains that preaching abstinence is not a solution to the prevention of AIDS. Since humankind came into existence, we have been driven by a powerful need to have sex. It is a fact that humans will continue to have sex with multiple partners before, during, and after marriage. At least if they use a condom they might not kill or be killed by that sex.

No, it is not the Pope's responsibility to teach people about safe sex, but because of his teachings, more people will die of AIDS than would have had he not been specifically preaching against one major method of preventing the spread of the disease.

Very simple.

[Goofball]

Once more if they are going to commit a big sin like having sex out of marriage do you really think they wont use a condom because its an almost negigible sin. Your not going to hell for using a condom. You will for screwing your neighbors wife.

Interesting that you bring that up, because I address it in the post I just wrote while you were writing that one.

I guess we disagree about the sillyness of the rationalizations people will use for their actions.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

not to mentioned being married to one, let me assure you that it is not that far-fetched):

Its not far fetched its sheer stupidity. She will commit a mortal sin and have sex but wont use a condom when its ony its a venial sin. If your souls going to hell what difference will using a condom make. Using a condom is like telling a lie. I dont know a single Catholic here who doesnt use condoms because they think its a sin. They dont use them because it spoils the experience. Im sure she was lying there all hot getting sex for the fiirst time and the man went to put on a condom and she thought of what the Pope said and told him no I dont want to sin anymore than I HAVE to.

Its like murdering someone but not robbing their watch because you dont want to get in anymore trouble than you already are.

[Goofball]

Its not far fetched its sheer stupidity. She will commit a mortal sin and have sex but wont use a condom when its ony its a venial sin.

Really? Far-fetched?

Hmmm...

I thought we were talking about a people who believe that women swell-up like blowfish and get cases of the screaming scoots and die if they don't have sex with their dead husbands' brothers.

But I guess you're right. My scenario was so far-fetched it could only take place in a really superstitious culture...

~;)

[Don Corleone]

Goof, that was a beautiful post. Well thought out, made some great points, and you certainly managed to remain true to your original statements.

But you never actually answered what I thought was a very basic question.

Hypothetically speaking, if the Pope truly believes it's wrong to use birth control, isn't it incumbent on him to teach that? Wouldn't it be hypocritical of him not to?

Now, as to your point that regardless of his intent, the result of his teachings means more AIDS.... I completely and utterly disagree. Gawain is completely right about this. If people were following his teachings, AIDS would exist in textbooks only right now.

Even with 100% condom usage, AIDS is not preventable if you engage in risky behavior, such as having multiple partners. What's more, even in places like San Francisco, where schools are legally required to make condoms available, and health department officials stream through every other day to talk about how important it is to use them, they still see their number of new cases rising, not falling. Why? Because the people engaging in this high risk sex don't want to use condoms. It cramps their style.

I imagine if you asked "ACT-UP", they'd say it's your fault and mine that AIDS is on the rise. If we would just give more tax money to the government, the NIH would have a cure by now and why should they have to cramp their style with condoms.

Condom use is NOT the panacea you all seem to think it is. In light of that, you still expect an organization with thousands of years of teaching on the subject to make a U-turn, because it MIGHT make a difference. Give me a freakin break. How much bending over do we have to do?

[Ser Clegane]

She will commit a mortal sin and have sex but wont use a condom when its ony its a venial sin. If your souls going to hell what difference will using a condom make.

Uhm ... what "mortal" sin for which her soul is "going to hell" did the fictional Lisa Mtibi commit?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Uhm ... what "mortal" sin for which her soul is "going to hell" did the fictional Lisa Mtibi commit?

Im not quite sure if its a mortal sin but intercourse outside of marriage is one I believe. I do know its a far worse sin than using a condom though. Again I dont know a single Catholic who ever said they wouldnt use a condom because the Pope says so.

[Goofball]

Goof, that was a beautiful post. Well thought out, made some great points, and you certainly managed to remain true to your original statements.

Thanks Don.

:bow:


But you never actually answered what I thought was a very basic question.

Hypothetically speaking, if the Pope truly believes it's wrong to use birth control, isn't it incumbent on him to teach that? Wouldn't it be hypocritical of him not to?

Actually, I did answer that question when I said:


His job is to minister to the souls of his flock. If he believes that peoples' souls are in danger if they use condoms, then he has the responsibility to tell them not to use them, even if it does cause danger to their earthly bodies.


Now, as to your point that regardless of his intent, the result of his teachings means more AIDS.... I completely and utterly disagree. Gawain is completely right about this. If people were following his teachings, AIDS would exist in textbooks only right now.

Well, I guess we have to disagree then, for the reasons I have already put forth.

But again, here is my point:

If the Pope's preaching against condom use has prevented even one HIV-infected man or woman from using condoms, then the Pope is inarguably (albeit indirectly) responsible for increasing the spread of the AIDS virus. Or, if you are uncomfortable with holding him responsible, how about this: The Pope has been a detriment to the fight against the spread of AIDS.


Isn't it surprising that a thread about some of the worst obscurantism in Africa is turned into yet another debate pro and contra the Pope? I believe this thread demonstrates that some of the Church's critics aren't interested in Africa or Aids at all, only in criticising the Church.

You're kidding, right?

You start a thread entitled "What's this got to do with the Pope?" that features an article discussing AIDS in Africa, then slam people for discussing the Pope and his impact on AIDS in Africa?

~:confused:

[Don Corleone]

Okay, Goof, you make a good point. Since the Pope preached abstinence, which you don't like but would have prevented AIDS, and against condom usage, which you do like and would have reduced the risk of AIDS, the Pope is responsible for an increase in the risk of AIDS. But you're responsible for it not being eliminated. Indirectly of course. Fair?

[Goofball]

Okay, Goof, you make a good point. Since the Pope preached abstinence, which you don't like but would have prevented AIDS, and against condom usage, which you do like and would have reduced the risk of AIDS, the Pope is responsible for an increase in the risk of AIDS. But you're responsible for it not being eliminated. Indirectly of course. Fair?

Not really. Actually, wrong on two levels:

Firstly, I am not advocating against abstinence as a form of AIDS prevention. I think it's a great way to prevent the spread of AIDS. I am just saying that abstinence should not be the only permitted/taught form of AIDS prevention.

Second, although I cut quite a dashing figure ~:pimp: and command attention (especially from the ladies) in any social setting, I have nowhere near the social influence the Pope has. My publicly preaching for or against something (which, by the way, I do not do) really has no impact whatsoever on anything. On the other hand, when the Pope so much as farts, Catholics the world over sit up and wait for the rest of the anticipated benediction...

[Steppe Merc]

Hypothetically speaking, if the Pope truly believes it's wrong to use birth control, isn't it incumbent on him to teach that? Wouldn't it be hypocritical of him not to?
I think it would be hypocritical, and it would certaintly be going against his principles. It doesn't make it necassarily good that he teaches that, but I think that if he believes something, he should stick by it.


Would be good if you actually read my post.
I did, thank you. My point stands.

I'm wondering, what faith are these people in this articale? Cause if they're Christians, than you'd think that Priests would try and help the women by preaching their thing about sex, and how it's bad. And if they aren't Christians, this shows that as Don was saying, that most people don't use condoms not because they aren't available, but because they don't want to. In addition, their refrences to people refusing to use condoms would imply that condoms were readily available, just not used.

[Byzantine Prince]

The only way to end AIDS is to kill whoever is diagnosed with it.

Those people are doomed anyways and if they live enough to rape someone(which is more common in Africa then people here think) or to just have sex or have a child they will keep the virus alive. Condoms will never be enough. There's genetic AIDS transmition as well and sexual.

[Steppe Merc]

It's not genetic. It's from the mixture of bodily fluids with mother and child.

And I disagree strongly. These people can still live a while, and shouldn't be put down like some rabid dog. They are still humans, despite what disease they have.

[Papewaio]

The only way to end AIDS is to kill whoever is diagnosed with it.

Those people are doomed anyways and if they live enough to rape someone(which is more common in Africa then people here think) or to just have sex or have a child they will keep the virus alive. Condoms will never be enough. There's genetic AIDS transmition as well and sexual.

BP AIDS is not genetically transmitted. I think you are confusing it with mother to birth of child transmission which is not 100%.

Killing people because they have a disease? Are you part Swedish or been reading books on Eugenics? ~:cool:

PS for those who don't know alot of the starting works in eugenics where in Sweden including stopping 'undesirables' from having children prior to the rise of Nazi Germany.

Also PS I am taking a dig at my ethnic orgin... I have a Swedish surname from my grandfather.

[Proletariat]

Ah good, at least you're an honest Christian and state you have no problems with the all powerful Christ's representatives you worship being responsible for millions of deaths.


Now I'm Christian? I see.

This is the closest I've come to being actually offended on this board. Now I not only worship Jesus but I also worship a German geriatric in a robe. Nice example of your reading comprehension, I suppose.



And the Catholic church has in effect 'shot' people for attempting to use them, the articles I posted when the pope hismelf died, listed how Catholic bishops and priests in Africa were stating lies about condoms - how they did not stop AIDS and even actively helped spread it. For people, as the article shows, who trust dogma, tradition and spiritual leaders so much, that is pulling the trigger my friend.


What on Earth does this, true or not, have to do with the Pope?

Oh yeah, you're from the side of the spectrum that blames Bush for Abu Graib.

Originally Posted by Proletariat
Why do you presume that on the Pope's agenda there should be medical hygiene? He's here to save souls, not the flesh. I'm not even Catholic, let alone Christian and I can see that.




He did on occasion speak out against gratuitous flesh-destroying, though...


In what capacity do you mean? Against genocide? Murder? Other things (like promiscuity) which are against the faith he's here to advocate?

Originally Posted by Proletariat
You have placed an expectation on the Pope to be 'the greatest guy ever who will fix everything' and he isn't. He's just the head of a Church, here to advocate his faith.



As long as he's free to do that, it should be OK for others to be free to say that they disagree. And it's not unheard of for the catholic church to change their views to bring them closer to decency and common sense. We just won't see it with the current pope.


Sure, disagree all you'd like, but that doesn't make the complaints against him apples to apples.

It's like getting mad at an AIDS charity for not helping to cure cancer. The Pope is not a doctor, a social reformer, or a even a law maker. He's here to get people to accept Jesus in order to get to Heaven (I presume, not totally intimate with Catholicism.)

Where's the outcry towards the Muslim leadership on this issue? Aren't there a few of them in Africa as well?

Oh yeah, it's so sexy and humanist and modern and vogue to trash White Western Christianity.

[Don Corleone]

BP AIDS is not genetically transmitted. I think you are confusing it with mother to birth of child transmission which is not 100%.

Killing people because they have a disease? Are you part Swedish or been reading books on Eugenics? ~:cool:

PS for those who don't know alot of the starting works in eugenics where in Sweden including stopping 'undesirables' from having children prior to the rise of Nazi Germany.

Also PS I am taking a dig at my ethnic orgin... I have a Swedish surname from my grandfather.

We all played games like that at the turn of the last century. My state here, North Carolina, certainly wasn't leading anyone in medical research in 1900. But they just came clean and admitted they sterilized 20K people between 1910 and 1959. And that's just 1 of 50, not known for being 'medically advanced'.

BP, I really truly hope you say these things for shock value to get a rise out of us. Sadly, I'm beginning to get to a point where I'm starting to take you at your word. :no:

[Byzantine Prince]

No I don't just say these thing to get a rise out of you. That would be trolling, something I am often wrongly accused of. I do actually beleave in what I say. You have my word on that.

The thing is, you don't understand what I'm saying is meant as the big picture. Consider how many people have yet to die of AIDS and think about how their lives would be saved if we stop this horrific desease. This desease is nature's way of making us bow down to it, and I think we can fight it by exerminating it completely.

[Don Corleone]

If you honestly believe that in your limited experiences, with your narrow little view of the world, you're qualified to make the decision that one person, let alone millions of people need to die in order to fit into your grand plan, you're sick. You have what's known as a sociopathological disorder. I know you won't, but I strongly advise you to seek professional help. If you let this progress, one day you will murder somebody, it's a question of when, not if. And I'm not saying that to get a rise.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If the Pope's preaching against condom use has prevented even one HIV-infected man or woman from using condoms, then the Pope is inarguably (albeit indirectly) responsible for increasing the spread of the AIDS virus.

Then like I said before if you liberals telling everyone that sex is healthy and you should get as much as you can or want has caused even one man or woman to get aids then you are responsible as much if not more than the Pope for its spread.

If they listen to you some will still get aids . If they listen to the Pope no one will get aids. At least not through intercourse. Its the liberal attitude towards sex that is far more responisble for its spread than anything the Pope said.

[Byzantine Prince]

I don't decide the future of millions, so why am I sick? My point of view is not narrowminded at all. I used to think like you, and now I'm beyond that and therefore beyond this world's petty morality that everything has to preserved at the cost of millions of lives that could be saved.

[Don Corleone]

This is what I'm talking about man. You haven't evolved, you shut a basic part of your psyche off. This "well, as long it serves me it's good, if it doesn't it's not" attitude is only the first warning sign.

Call me a peon, I'm happy to be one of Neitzche's 'underclass'. I'm proud that I still do have a sense of right and wrong and that I know I have no right to decide anyone's life/death fate. You casually suggest slaughtering millions of people who's only crime is getting ill, and then wonder why we all look at you bug eyed. You're sick. You're not left, you're not right, you're all about BP (or whatever your real name is) and it's only going to get worse.

Think about it. Even during the Middle Ages, they didn't go around murdering people with the plague, and those rulers certainly had your man Neitchze's 'will to power'. I'm glad you think you have all the answers and that murdering enough people will fix all the problems in the world, but if you really believe that, and you're not just saying that cause it sounds cool, you need serious help. Don't take my word for it. Ask anybody else who comes around here. Hell, on this matter, I'd take Jag's word on it. None of us have the right to arbitrarily go around slaughtering innocents because they don't fit into our plan.

[Byzantine Prince]

That's hillarious coming from a guy who calls himself the Godfather. ~:joker:

I would never hurt inocent people, I want to protect those innocents from the sick shit that are seeking to defile our society. That means the slaughter of those that brake certain laws like rape or murder is to be executed and we are not to take light of it. I think you as a consevative should agree with this.

[Don Corleone]

"I would never hurt innocent people".

Yet, in the past few days, because you consider yourself a 'superman', you've advocated:

-Shooting anyone in your socialist system that doesn't work hard enough
-Killing anybody who gets AIDS
-Killing anyone who starts dissent in your perfect society.

I asked you if you were just talking crap and you answered that no, you really believe this. I believe you. I don't think you're just puffing your chest out.

[JAG]

Hell, on this matter, I'd take Jag's word on it. None of us have the right to arbitrarily go around slaughtering innocents because they don't fit into our plan.

You already know I totally agree with you on this point. But I do think you are being a tad harsh on BP. Even if he firmly believes what he is stating is right, it doesn't mean he has a mental illness. For all the heated debates I have had with people who have extreme opposing views to mine, I don't think I stated they had illness'. I mean Capo's position on crime is the same as BP's I guess he has a mental problem too?

The problem with both of them, in my opinion, is that they have not witnessed someone dieing, or someone being killed because it is 'for the greater good'. If you asked them to witness it, to participate in it, they would change their minds. We only learn through experience and only know our true beliefs when we actively choose them and do the thing we propose. Until then, they are simply as concrete and important in our lives as a fluttering butterfly.

[Don Corleone]

He's not talking about crimimals. He's talking about rounding up anybody who's diagnosed as HIV postive and killing them, not out of revenge, or justice, but because it's expedient. Now clearly I don't think he's ever going to get into a position to inflict this viewpoint, but with this metric in mind "all that opposes must be eliminated, regardless the cost", what do you think he's going to do the first time his kid talks back to him?

[JAG]

Simply put - we don't know. All we know is that he is free to choose, at the point he chooses in the situation you mention, all this talk here goes out of the window. He has not experienced any of things he proclaims here, they are merely statements of opinion. When it comes to actively choosing in terms of the situation you describe, his proclamations here do mean nothing.

If however he was to have experienced violence a lot when he was young - not saying he has for one minute - and thought that was therefore the norm, you would expect this experience to effect his decision when he comes to choosing in the situation you describe. Not however statements or opinions held without action and experience.

[Byzantine Prince]

Don't get crazy on me godfather(lol). I mean you do realize that AIDS is transmitted through rape and through birth fluids most of the time I don't see most AIDS victims completely innocent. Also we hav eto save the lives of futre generations. Don't you understand this?

I don't get you? Why do you assume that I act violently toward other people because of my beliefs. What I think is nothing special. Hell you guys down there have laws for executing murderers and that's the only thing that I love about America. Africa is a special case though, because we can barely even feed them nevermind all the deseases. If you stopped the chain of AIDS you would be doing somthing that would hapen eventually anyways. People with AIDS die in about 5 years so are you sure that you can find a cure in 5 year? I doubt it and also don't use the "well they live longer" crap on me. The more they live the more the virus will be spread through rape.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I still think BP is Jag. But its sort of like Jeykle and Hyde. Jag wouldnt condone violence or killing in almost any circumastance where as BP is a cold blooded killer listening to him . Yet for the most part their like two peas in a pod. Hopefully Jag can teach the young grasshoper to be a bit more peaceful and show him the error of his ways.

[Byzantine Prince]

I still think BP is Jag. But its sort of like Jeykle and Hyde. Jag wouldnt condone violence or killing in almost any circumastance where as BP is a cold blooded killer listening to him . Yet for the most part their like two peas in a pod. Hopefully Jag can teach the young grasshoper to be a bit more peaceful and show him the error of his ways.
We're the same age too. ~D

Me and JAG are very different in terms of criminal law though. The problem with Africa is that there is no other way to prevent AIDS. You can't quarantine the people and you can't make them behave. How else, if you people have a better plan I'de like to hear it. Seriously, I'm not the kind of person who would enjoy killing people because they are undesirable.

[Proletariat]

Unbelieveable. But if I make a comment about Islam being a little out of line these days, I'm the racist.

[JAG]

I still think BP is Jag. But its sort of like Jeykle and Hyde. Jag wouldnt condone violence or killing in almost any circumastance where as BP is a cold blooded killer listening to him . Yet for the most part their like two peas in a pod. Hopefully Jag can teach the young grasshoper to be a bit more peaceful and show him the error of his ways.

lol! Gawain that really made me laugh ~:cheers:

I think we have similar beliefs in some things because essentially we both prescribe to an existentialist outlook on existence, it does form a lot of your thoughts on the world. That doesn't mean we are identical though, just because you and Redleg are Christian conservatives, it will form a basis of your opinions which will be like each other, but it does not mean you are identical.

As for the whole criminal justice stuff, it is funny seeing you, Gawain, state how someone needs to come round to my way of thinking, whatever next, you decrying evil capitalism and becoming a fellow comrade? ~;)

[JAG]

Unbelieveable. But if I make a comment about Islam being a little out of line these days, I'm the racist.

Not at all, you would be speaking sense, especially if you extrapolated it to all religion. Religion is more than 'a little out of line these days'!

[Proletariat]

So go ahead. Flip out on BP, JAG. -------------------------------------
Where's the outcry? Where's the feigned outrage? You should be in outrage fatigue by now! You're letting me down! Hurry!

[Kanamori]

"Hell you guys down there have laws for executing murderers and that's the only thing that I love about America. Africa is a special case though, because we can barely even feed them nevermind all the deseases. If you stopped the chain of AIDS you would be doing somthing that would hapen eventually anyways. People with AIDS die in about 5 years so are you sure that you can find a cure in 5 year?"

It is purposefully hastening the end of their lives, which is wrong in anycase.

[Byzantine Prince]

The difference is that I prescribe to the Nietzschean existentialism which is more fascist and JAG prescribes to the Sartrian existentialism which is flagrantly Marxist. Not that I don't like communism mind you. ~;)


So go ahead. Flip out on BP, JAG. He just said Africans are rapists by nature. Where's the outcry? Where's the feigned outrage? You should be in outrage fatigue by now! You're letting me down! Hurry!
I never said they all were. But if you read the statistics you'll see that that's the greatest spreader of AIDS. Rape that is. Rape of women and children and even infants. Are you telling me these people should be allowed to roam the land?

[Proletariat]

...

[Don Corleone]

I suppose I should make something clear. I'm not saying that I think BP has internal morality issues and problems with his super-ego because I'm trying to score debate points. Trust me, I have other ways of doing crap like that.

But BP, listen to yourself. Because I name my avatar on a chatboard after a movieland gangster, I must understand your position that Africans arbitrarily rape people, that's how they got AIDS, so let's just kill 'em all?

Un-freakin-believable.

There isn't anything I wouldn't do to end AIDS (short of murdering everyone with it) if I really truly believed it would help. The difference between Jag & Tachiazache's views on this versus mine is how are the means of capital best applied. But we share a common desire to help mankind and see it prosper.

I don't recognize any of that in you. I hope Jag's right and you're just pissing in the wind because you haven't had any life experiences or maybe you think it's cool to watch people get upset when you make comments about genocide as a means of disease control. Even if that's all it is, you just think it's all funny, you've got issues. Millions of people die horrible deaths every day because they went to the doctor and got a dirty needle, or their spouse didn't tell them they had been with somebody else, or a host of other innocent reasons. And you're laughing away, saying 'kill em all'.

No empathy=no humanity.

[Byzantine Prince]

This is the power of language. You can argue over semantics till the end of time Proletariat(lol, hillarious with that name). I don't really care. I am not a racist by a long shot. I beleave everyone can excel if in the right environment.

[KukriKhan]

Slow down, mate. You have mail.

[Byzantine Prince]

No empathy=no humanity.
"It is pleasant, when the sea is high and the winds are dashing the waves about, to watch from the shores the struggles of another" - Lucretius.

[JAG]

So go ahead. Flip out on BP, JAG. He just said Africans are rapists by nature. Where's the outcry? Where's the feigned outrage? You should be in outrage fatigue by now! You're letting me down! Hurry!

I apologise for letting you down, we wouldn't want that. Everyone here knows I disagree with BP in the most profound way on this point, but like others on this board - namely Capo - I am quite sick of stating it time and again, what is the point? There is also a number of points in terms of the 'Africans are rapists by nature' which I find wrong and to be honest I cannot be bothered to go over them all as it is patently obvious to everyone of the wrongs of the statement anyway.

[Byzantine Prince]

I made a mistake when I phrased that. I in know way think all Africans are naturally rapists. I meant rapists will rape anything they see if released. I did not specify that it would Africans doing this. I hate it when people misread or misinterpret what I write. Ooh maybe I should put it in 'Small things that get to you very easily' ~:) .

[Papewaio]

"It is pleasant, when the sea is high and the winds are dashing the waves about, to watch from the shores the struggles of another" - Lucretius.

=][= IMDHO =][=

Mercy is for the Weak.

Which can be interpreted only the strong can give mercy to the weak.
Mercy is for the Weak from the Strong.

"It is more pleasant, when the sea is high and the winds are dashing the waves about, to watch from the shores the struggles of another and then a Aussie Lifesaver save their lives."

It is most pleasurable to be the lifesaver."

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As for the whole criminal justice stuff, it is funny seeing you, Gawain, state how someone needs to come round to my way of thinking, whatever next, you decrying evil capitalism and becoming a fellow comrade?

It will be a cold day in hell b4 that ever happens ~D

I want him to become a pacifist like yourself. You maybe wrong almost all the time but at least your harmless and have a good heart. ~D

[Byzantine Prince]

Hehe, I have a heart... :heart:

I'm harmless to most people too. ~D

[Paul Peru]

In what capacity do you mean? Against genocide? Murder? Other things (like promiscuity) which are against the faith he's here to advocate?
Yes stuff like that, invasion of Iraq etc.
Murder is against his faith.
Infecting someone with HIV is murder, or very nearly morally equivalent.
You can prevent this by not having sex, or by using a condom.
Which is the greater sin? Using a condom or murder?
That's apples to horses of a different colour in my colouring book.
Catholic: "Father, I can prevent a murder by stealing someones gun. Should I do it?"
Priest: "Thou shalt not steal! No further comment."



Oh yeah, it's so sexy and humanist and modern and vogue to trash White Western Christianity.
Thank you! I'll trash Islam, Eastern Christianity, Hinduism, The baby-eating Lord's Ugandan Lunatic Front and anything else that's contrary to my values as soon as I see someone advocating it. I'd trash BP right now, if it hadn't been done already.

[Paul Peru]

Never mind. Isn't it surprising that a thread about some of the worst obscurantism in Africa is turned into yet another debate pro and contra the Pope? I believe this thread demonstrates that some of the Church's critics aren't interested in Africa or Aids at all, only in criticising the Church.
OK, now I've read it.
~:eek:
That's horrible!
It's exactly the same thing as the pope/condom issue, btw. People's faith keep them from doing the rational thing, and they get AIDS. One more set of beliefs causing similar effects just makes it more obvious how principally unsound this religion-business is.
I don't like it one bit.

[Steppe Merc]

So go ahead. Flip out on BP, JAG. -------------------------------------
Where's the outcry? Where's the feigned outrage? You should be in outrage fatigue by now! You're letting me down! Hurry!
Very well. I will do so, as I did in the thread about the cause of Terrorism. :bow:

Right, where to begin?
You can't blame people for diseases. BP, you're advocating purging people because they don't fit with your idea of what people should be. What's next, killing elderly because they take up too much food and money without enough contribution? Or killing little people, mentally incompetent, or other undesirables, who are suffering from some sort of undesirable symptom?


beleave everyone can excel if in the right environment.
And what makes you think Africa is such a bad place? I guess it isn't rhe right environment? Because they are lesser than you?
They at least have never advocated the destruction of millions of innocent people. And while some may be racists, they are no more racist in nature than anyone else. Their environment is unfortunate, but they aren't sub human.

Jag, Capo's totally different, man. I don't agree with him a lot, but a lot of times he's not entirely serious, and he never advocating the purging of undesirables. And while he's often extreme, he's a good person, and will likely "mellow out" if you will with age, his views becoming more in line with people with similar morals. We may not agree with him, but he's still a good person, and he never once advocated killing millions of innocents.

I'm with Don on this. Gawain, just to let you know as angry as I was about the whole factors of Terrorism thing, this is far more disturbing to me, and far more disgusting.

BP... I really can't understand you, nor do I want to. Not trying to be insulting here, but what if someone on this thread had AIDs, or their loved one had AIDs? How would they feel when they heard that you want them to die, to protect "innocents"? Who are you to say one group of people is better than another, or that just because someone has AIDs, they will automatically spread it to another? People can live with it, and not spread it if they are responsible.

Besides, you cannot destroy a disease like that. Someone will escape your purge, and possibly spread it. Or another disease will pop up. Should people with flus be killed to? What about those that have meningitis, or mono?

[Proletariat]

Yes stuff like that, invasion of Iraq etc.
Murder is against his faith.
Infecting someone with HIV is murder, or very nearly morally equivalent.
You can prevent this by not having sex, or by using a condom.
Which is the greater sin? Using a condom or murder?
That's apples to horses of a different colour in my colouring book.
Catholic: "Father, I can prevent a murder by stealing someones gun. Should I do it?"
Priest: "Thou shalt not steal! No further comment."


Well, from my understanding of the ten commandments, it's a black and white issue. You're sinning or you're not. Not much room for mitigating circumstances, which does seem pretty obtuse for a justice/moral system.
But I think you are being a slight bit intellectually dishonest if you believe someone at the pearly gates would be denied for stealing a murderer's gun.
Cheating on your wife or womanizing on the other hand...?

I think that's why Jesus revised them down to the Golden Rules.

"Love God."

"Do unto others as you'd have them do to you."

Why God hadn't thought of this during the Old Testament is another of many reasons why I can't take the religon seriously itself, but I still see no real culpability with the Pope.



Thank you! I'll trash Islam, Eastern Christianity, Hinduism, The baby-eating Lord's Ugandan Lunatic Front and anything else that's contrary to my values as soon as I see someone advocating it. I'd trash BP right now, if it hadn't been done already.

Well put.

[Paul Peru]

Well, from my understanding of the ten commandments, it's a black and white issue. You're sinning or you're not. Not much room for mitigating circumstances, which does seem pretty obtuse for a justice/moral system.
But I think you are being a slight bit intellectually dishonest if you believe someone at the pearly gates would be denied for stealing a murderer's gun.
Cheating on your wife or womanizing on the other hand...?
Well the "good thing" about catholicism is you can get forgiveness for almost everything.

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
Promiscuity has not always been a sin. http://libertyunites.tv/blog-1577.html
The seventh commandment only states that other people's wives are off limits. (the tenth tells you to keep away from their asses and manservants, I think)



I think that's why Jesus revised them down to the Golden Rules.

"Love God."

"Do unto others as you'd have them do to you."
I'd certainly have an hiv positive sexual partner use a condom unto me!

[Husar]

I'd certainly have an hiv positive sexual partner use a condom unto me!

I´d certainly have no sex at all if I knew about her HIV-infection, I just can´t trust such a little rubber-thingie to protect me from a highly dangerous virus that I can´t even see with my eyes.

I think the worst thing about HIV are people who infect others on purpose in many different ways, I wouldn´t mind introducing a cruel punishment for these people to make them stop this, because I consider it even worse than shooting someone. Just think about going to a disco and someone sticks a needle through your trousers and disappears, later you hear you´re HIV-positive, just because someone decided to destroy your life and kill you with just a little needle...

I think the africans will either have to practice some abstinence or, as sad as it may sound, the problem will solve itself. If you want to have real love and both partners love eachother, there is still the possibility of testing both for HIV, but from what I know, prostitution and the more modern ways of having sex(one-night stands etc.) seem to be the most likely to spread HIV.