• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who's going first?

Who's going first?

  • The Pope

    Votes: 9 100.0%
  • Prince Rainier of Monaco

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Urethra Franklin said:
His death has been turned into another media circus. To mourn somebody you don't actually know, whether it be princess Di, Elvis, the pope or the Queen mother, is really quite an unbvelieveably self indulgent thing to do - and smacks of insincerity.

One hopes for a successor who'll ordain women, accept gay marriage and preach that condoms save lives - but sadly that's unlikely.

First, I’ll go look into why we have two threads under the same title, sorry about that.

Second, I agree that this as well as too many things become a media circus. Seems these days the media gets a hold of something and they’re like a dog with a cheap chew toy.

Lastly, I seriously doubt the church is going to wake up to any of the things you suggest anytime soon. The church has a long history of disregarding logic and facts. Many went to their deaths telling them the earth wasn’t flat and wasn’t the center of the universe. Just as many are dying now due to the church's refusal to view things logically.
 

Squawker

Professor
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,314
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First, I’ll go look into why we have two threads under the same title, sorry about that.
I renamed the same thread in the basement as, Who's going first #2 . When you get your e-mail notice, it should say what thread/area the reply is located in.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Squawker said:
I renamed the same thread in the basement as, Who's going first #2 . When you get your e-mail notice, it should say what thread/area the reply is located in.

Thanks, I started in on a mission to find it earlier this afternoon and got side tracked. When I get side tracked all is lost. I never did find it.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Urethra Franklin said:
My, this is too confusing; two threads called "who's going first"

Well, I repeat what I just said in the other one:

I agree 100% with Naughty Nurse.
The pope was an evil man heading an evil institiution. He perpetrated the inequality of women, and the hatred of gays, and has done more to spread poverty and HIV throughout the world than many other individuals.

His persistance to carry on to the end despite his obviously failing health was rather too martyr like; he even compared it to the way of the cross. How long before we have another plastic saint just like Mother Theresa?

His death has been turned into another media circus. To mourn somebody you don't actually know, whether it be princess Di, Elvis, the pope or the Queen mother, is really quite an unbvelieveably self indulgent thing to do - and smacks of insincerity.

One hopes for a successor who'll ordain women, accept gay marriage and preach that condoms save lives - but sadly that's unlikely.

You just saw the most socially liberal pope die. The chances that any changes will happen with the next pope are nill. the next pope, i can almost garuntee, will reflect the conservative nature of the church....say good bye to feeling for the plight of the worker by the pope.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Naughty Nurse said:
Right on, girlfriend!

And I see the Catholics have conveniently ignored the evidence that the Catholic Church is spreading lies about condoms, thereby contributing to many avoidable deaths.
I honestly don't follow the Catholic Church that closely. The only thing I've heard about them lately is either in regards to the Popes passing or the massive amount of priests who seemly have a fondness for little boys.

So, what lies has the church been spreading about condoms? This seriously is the first I ever heard of the church spreading lies about condoms.

 

Naughty Nurse

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Hi Pac, :2wave:


Take a look at post 18 in this thread.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
Naughty Nurse said:
Hi Pac, :2wave:


Take a look at post 18 in this thread.

Wholly cr*p! or should I say Holy cr*p? This is mainly why I don’t subscribe to any organized religious system. There’s a way to have faith without belonging to a faith. In this country we currently have the religious right trying to mislead our young people with mis-education programs that tell them, among other things, they can get HIV/AIDS by shaking hands with a homosexual. Not a homosexual with the condition- any homosexual. Because, apparently, 50% of all homosexuals have the condition. What a load of cr*p. Of course what would one expect from a group what once hanged witches and burned people at the stake who tried to tell them the world wasn’t flat?
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Pacridge said:
Wholly cr*p! or should I say Holy cr*p? This is mainly why I don’t subscribe to any organized religious system. There’s a way to have faith without belonging to a faith. In this country we currently have the religious right trying to mislead our young people with mis-education programs that tell them, among other things, they can get HIV/AIDS by shaking hands with a homosexual. Not a homosexual with the condition- any homosexual. Because, apparently, 50% of all homosexuals have the condition. What a load of cr*p. Of course what would one expect from a group what once hanged witches and burned people at the stake who tried to tell them the world wasn’t flat?

You think I do? That post was in response to something I said. I frankly left the catholic church because of those exact reasons, their hatred for homosexuals, etc, etc...but that still doesn't mean that a kind, gentle man did not just die. Some are rejoicing because they think that someone better will come in. The most socially liberal pope, who was one factor of many for ending communism in some countries, who mended the rift with the jews, that man is dead. In his place will likely be someone who would never do something like that because this pope was considered liberal by church standards...what are we likely to get next...probably a Dei person who have slowly taken power in the church. Dei people are part of a sect that is extremely conservative and that this pope didn't crack down on. In fact, many members of his cabinet so to speak were members
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
ShamMol said:
You think I do? That post was in response to something I said. I frankly left the catholic church because of those exact reasons, their hatred for homosexuals, etc, etc...but that still doesn't mean that a kind, gentle man did not just die. Some are rejoicing because they think that someone better will come in. The most socially liberal pope, who was one factor of many for ending communism in some countries, who mended the rift with the jews, that man is dead. In his place will likely be someone who would never do something like that because this pope was considered liberal by church standards...what are we likely to get next...probably a Dei person who have slowly taken power in the church. Dei people are part of a sect that is extremely conservative and that this pope didn't crack down on. In fact, many members of his cabinet so to speak were members
I'm a little lost on your post, my post wasn't directed at your post. I was quoting Nurses post. All I was saying was I didn't agree with the church's position on several things. I certainly don't think ill of Jean Paul II. I didn't prior to his death and certainly don't now that he has passed. I personally think he did a lot of good things. Turns out, as Nurses post points out, his belief system kept him from making some other changes . But he did do some fairly impressive stuff. For example forgiving the guy who shot him says a lot, IMO.

I do agree with you that the next Pope is likely to be far more conservative.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Pacridge said:
I'm a little lost on your post, my post wasn't directed at your post. I was quoting Nurses post. All I was saying was I didn't agree with the church's position on several things. I certainly don't think ill of Jean Paul II. I didn't prior to his death and certainly don't now that he has passed. I personally think he did a lot of good things. Turns out, as Nurses post points out, his belief system kept him from making some other changes . But he did do some fairly impressive stuff. For example forgiving the guy who shot him says a lot, IMO.

I do agree with you that the next Pope is likely to be far more conservative.

I know you weren't, i was just saying that her post 18 was in response to mine...nothing more, nothing less. I don't agree with the churchs standing on almost everything. My comments about the post were responding to the upmost joy that some people (not you) are using. I could never have forgiven the man, i would want him in jail for the rest of my life with the worst cell mate possible. His belief system, and that of the church's hierarchy, prevents any action on these topics except to recite dogma and teachings, but just because I don't like the church does not mean that i am not going to defend a great man. I just don't like people being happy that someone who has helped so much is dead. that was directed towards those two, and they know who they are (not you pacridge)...the next pope will be horrible for the church if he is conservative and will likely drive me farther away.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
ShamMol said:
I know you weren't, i was just saying that her post 18 was in response to mine...nothing more, nothing less. I don't agree with the churchs standing on almost everything. My comments about the post were responding to the upmost joy that some people (not you) are using. I could never have forgiven the man, i would want him in jail for the rest of my life with the worst cell mate possible. His belief system, and that of the church's hierarchy, prevents any action on these topics except to recite dogma and teachings, but just because I don't like the church does not mean that i am not going to defend a great man. I just don't like people being happy that someone who has helped so much is dead. that was directed towards those two, and they know who they are (not you pacridge)...the next pope will be horrible for the church if he is conservative and will likely drive me farther away.

First "Nurse" is a he not a she. Just for clarification.

I don’t agree with the jumping for joy attitude over his death either, don’t know what to tell you about that.

Prepare yourself. I would rather be surprised if the next Pope wasn’t more conservative.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Pacridge said:
First "Nurse" is a he not a she. Just for clarification.

I don’t agree with the jumping for joy attitude over his death either, don’t know what to tell you about that.

Prepare yourself. I would rather be surprised if the next Pope wasn’t more conservative.

Simple mistake, sorry.

I am prepared, but it is sad that common ground can not be found in the church.
 

Naughty Nurse

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
ShamMol said:
I know you weren't, i was just saying that her post 18 was in response to mine...nothing more, nothing less. I don't agree with the churchs standing on almost everything. My comments about the post were responding to the upmost joy that some people (not you) are using. I could never have forgiven the man, i would want him in jail for the rest of my life with the worst cell mate possible. His belief system, and that of the church's hierarchy, prevents any action on these topics except to recite dogma and teachings, but just because I don't like the church does not mean that i am not going to defend a great man. I just don't like people being happy that someone who has helped so much is dead. that was directed towards those two, and they know who they are (not you pacridge)...the next pope will be horrible for the church if he is conservative and will likely drive me farther away.

Shammol, it is not a case of "joy" that someone has died, although I suspect that after all his years of such physical suffering it may in fact be a happy release for him.

It is a question of taking a realistic look at the overall picture. I am aware that he did some good things, but he's currently being held up as some kind of saint. For me, and for many other people, the evil things he did outweigh the good things.

I also do not subscribe to the idea of saying only positive things about those who are dead. As a nurse most of my considerable experience has been in palliative and terminal care. I have seen literally hundreds of people die at close quarters. Death is part of teh natural cyucle of life, and a natural death doesn't make anybody a hero.

And thanks Pac - yes, I am a he!
 

Contrarian

Active member
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
335
Reaction score
5
Location
The Constitution State - Connecticut
I saw an interesting article on this subject by the very scholarly Thomas Cahill and wanted to share it with everyone:

The Price of Infallibility
By THOMAS CAHILL

With the news media awash in encomiums to the indisputable greatness of Pope John Paul II, isn't it time to ask to which tradition he belonged? Partisans unfamiliar with Christian history may judge this a strange question. Why, they may answer, he belonged to the Catholic tradition, of course. But there is no single Catholic tradition; there are rather Catholic traditions, which range from the voluntary poverty of St. Francis of Assisi to the boundless greed of the Avignon popes, from the genial tolerance for diversity of Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century to the egomaniacal self-importance of Pope Pius IX in the 19th century, from the secrecy and plotting of Opus Dei to the openness and humane service of the Community of Sant'Egidio. Over its 2,000-year history, Roman Catholicism has provided a fertile field for an immense variety of papal traditions.

Despite his choice of name, John Paul II shared little with his immediate predecessors. John Paul I lasted slightly more than a month, but in that time we were treated to a typical Italian of moderating tendencies, one who had even, before his election, congratulated the parents of the world's first test-tube baby - not a gesture that resonated with the church's fundamentalists, who still insist on holding the line against anything that smacks of tampering with nature, an intellectual construct far removed from what ordinary people mean by that word.

Paul VI, though painfully cautious, allowed the appointment of bishops (and especially archbishops and cardinals) who were the opposite of yes men, outspoken champions of the poor and oppressed and truly representative of the parts of the world they came from, like Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, who tried so hard at the end of his life to find common ground within a church rent by division. In contrast, Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston rebuked the dying Cardinal Bernardin for this effort because, as Cardinal Law insisted, the church knows the truth and is therefore exempt from anything as undignified as dialogue. Cardinal Law, who had to resign after revelations that he had repeatedly allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to remain in the ministry while failing to inform either law enforcement officials or parishioners, must stand as the characteristic representative of John Paul II, protective of the church but often dismissive of the moral requirement to protect and cherish human beings.

John Paul II has been almost the polar opposite of John XXIII, who dragged Catholicism to confront 20th-century realities after the regressive policies of Pius IX, who imposed the peculiar doctrine of papal infallibility on the First Vatican Council in 1870, and after the reign of terror inflicted by Pius X on Catholic theologians in the opening decades of the 20th century. Unfortunately, this pope was much closer to the traditions of Pius IX and Pius X than to his namesakes. Instead of mitigating the absurdities of Vatican I's novel declaration of papal infallibility, a declaration that stemmed almost wholly from Pius IX's paranoia about the evils ranged against him in the modern world, John Paul II tried to further it. In seeking to impose conformity of thought, he summoned prominent theologians like Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx and Leonardo Boff to star chamber inquiries and had his grand inquisitor, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, issue condemnations of their work.

But John Paul II's most lasting legacy to Catholicism will come from the episcopal appointments he made. In order to have been named a bishop, a priest must have been seen to be absolutely opposed to masturbation, premarital sex, birth control (including condoms used to prevent the spread of AIDS), abortion, divorce, homosexual relations, married priests, female priests and any hint of Marxism. It is nearly impossible to find men who subscribe wholeheartedly to this entire catalogue of certitudes; as a result the ranks of the episcopate are filled with mindless sycophants and intellectual incompetents. The good priests have been passed over; and not a few, in their growing frustration as the pontificate of John Paul II stretched on, left the priesthood to seek fulfillment elsewhere.

The situation is dire. Anyone can walk into a Catholic church on a Sunday and see pews, once filled to bursting, now sparsely populated with gray heads. And there is no other solution for the church but to begin again, as if it were the church of the catacombs, an oddball minority sect in a world of casual cruelty and unbending empire that gathered adherents because it was so unlike the surrounding society.

Back then, the church called itself by the Greek word ekklesia, the word the Athenians used for their wide open assembly, the world's first participatory democracy. (The Apostle Peter, to whom the Vatican awards the title of first pope, was one of many leaders in the primitive church, as far from an absolute monarch as could be, a man whose most salient characteristic was his frequent and humble confession that he was wrong.) In using ekklesia to describe their church, the early Christians meant to emphasize that their society within a society acted not out of political power but only out of the power of love, love for all as equal children of God. But they went much further than the Athenians, for they permitted no restrictions on participation: no citizens and noncitizens, no Greeks and non-Greeks, no patriarchs and submissive females. For, as St. Paul put it repeatedly, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; for all are one in Christ Jesus."

Sadly, John Paul II represented a different tradition, one of aggressive papalism. Whereas John XXIII endeavored simply to show the validity of church teaching rather than to issue condemnations, John Paul II was an enthusiastic condemner. Yes, he will surely be remembered as one of the few great political figures of our age, a man of physical and moral courage more responsible than any other for bringing down the oppressive, antihuman Communism of Eastern Europe. But he was not a great religious figure. How could he be? He may, in time to come, be credited with destroying his church.


Thomas Cahill is the author of "How the Irish Saved Civilization," "Pope John XXIII" and, most recently, "Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: Why the Greeks Matter."
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Naughty Nurse said:
Shammol, it is not a case of "joy" that someone has died, although I suspect that after all his years of such physical suffering it may in fact be a happy release for him.

It is a question of taking a realistic look at the overall picture. I am aware that he did some good things, but he's currently being held up as some kind of saint. For me, and for many other people, the evil things he did outweigh the good things.

I also do not subscribe to the idea of saying only positive things about those who are dead. As a nurse most of my considerable experience has been in palliative and terminal care. I have seen literally hundreds of people die at close quarters. Death is part of teh natural cyucle of life, and a natural death doesn't make anybody a hero.

And thanks Pac - yes, I am a he!

He didn't do anything evil though. Merely stating an opinion is not evil. I will not try and disagree that the opinions are bad, because they frankly are, but the fact that he holds them does not make him a bad person.

I do not suscribe to that belief either, I am just merely stating that he can't be at fault for people following what he says. I am not at fault for listening to political leaders, religious leaders-basically, I make my own decision, not the person giving opinions.
 

Naughty Nurse

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
ShamMol said:
He didn't do anything evil though. Merely stating an opinion is not evil. I will not try and disagree that the opinions are bad, because they frankly are, but the fact that he holds them does not make him a bad person.

I do not suscribe to that belief either, I am just merely stating that he can't be at fault for people following what he says. I am not at fault for listening to political leaders, religious leaders-basically, I make my own decision, not the person giving opinions.

But you, presumably, had a good education, and the fact that you are posting here indicates that you have access to information. The people in the third world that the Vatican is spreading its lies to about condoms etc do not have those advantages. The women in many countries who are being denied the opportunity to fulfill their potential because of the Catholic church's stance on women's roles likewise.

If the Pope had simply held his opinions I might have been able to agree with you. But the church actively spreads lies, misinformation and inequality. That is different.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,822
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Contrarian said:
I saw an interesting article on this subject by the very scholarly Thomas Cahill and wanted to share it with everyone:

The Price of Infallibility
By THOMAS CAHILL

....Back then, the church called itself by the Greek word ekklesia, the word the Athenians used for their wide open assembly, the world's first participatory democracy. (The Apostle Peter, to whom the Vatican awards the title of first pope, was one of many leaders in the primitive church, as far from an absolute monarch as could be, a man whose most salient characteristic was his frequent and humble confession that he was wrong.) In using ekklesia to describe their church, the early Christians meant to emphasize that their society within a society acted not out of political power but only out of the power of love, love for all as equal children of God. But they went much further than the Athenians, for they permitted no restrictions on participation: no citizens and noncitizens, no Greeks and non-Greeks, no patriarchs and submissive females. For, as St. Paul put it repeatedly, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; for all are one in Christ Jesus."....

Why is this so difficult. If most people can intellectually agree that this is good and right. Why can't we do it, dammit?

The damned human race. How do we cultivate this ethic? How and why do we go so wrong?

I don't expect an answer. I know there is none. I just have to say it. Like in Network......"I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" Like that. Then you close your window and go back to watching tv.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Naughty Nurse said:
But you, presumably, had a good education, and the fact that you are posting here indicates that you have access to information. The people in the third world that the Vatican is spreading its lies to about condoms etc do not have those advantages. The women in many countries who are being denied the opportunity to fulfill their potential because of the Catholic church's stance on women's roles likewise.

If the Pope had simply held his opinions I might have been able to agree with you. But the church actively spreads lies, misinformation and inequality. That is different.

You know what, I can make a concious decision without education and info. It is possible. The popes opinions can be followed or not followed-it is the choice of the people. The point still stands. The third world people are not lesser beings who can't make a consciencous choice, they are people who think about what is given to them, just like the entire world.
 

Naughty Nurse

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
1,972
Reaction score
12
Location
The UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
ShamMol said:
You know what, I can make a concious decision without education and info. It is possible. The popes opinions can be followed or not followed-it is the choice of the people. The point still stands. The third world people are not lesser beings who can't make a consciencous choice, they are people who think about what is given to them, just like the entire world.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, have you?

You do not know what it means to have no education and no access to a wide variety of information. The Catholic Church is going into the poorest parts of the world, where people are dying in vast numbers and taking advantage.

Really moral, huh? :doh
 
S

sebastiansdreams

Naughty Nurse said:
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, have you?

You do not know what it means to have no education and no access to a wide variety of information. The Catholic Church is going into the poorest parts of the world, where people are dying in vast numbers and taking advantage.

Really moral, huh? :doh
Now wait a moment. I have presented to you that I find there to be no excuse for the Church to presenting false information regarding condoms to third world countries. However, to say that the Church is taking advantage of them emplies that somehow the church is benifiting from the deaths of these people due to AIDS and I do not think that is a fair assessment.
You may dissagree with these lies, as do I. But you also must understand that the Church is not at all required to go and help these people in the slightest. I would argue that the men and women that abandon their lives elsewhere to go and serve for these people are gaining no real benifit other than a joyful fulfillment that comes with doing the Lord's work. They are not taking anything from the people in these countries and they are certainly not acting maliciously. I offer that no matter what they do, they are acting in what they believe to be the love of Christ. And this mis-information, while damaging and immoral, is pale in comparrison to the medecine, education, and hope that they have brought to these people. Please don't be so critical of people that sacrifice everything so that others may have something.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
sebastiansdreams said:
Now wait a moment. I have presented to you that I find there to be no excuse for the Church to presenting false information regarding condoms to third world countries. However, to say that the Church is taking advantage of them emplies that somehow the church is benifiting from the deaths of these people due to AIDS and I do not think that is a fair assessment.
You may dissagree with these lies, as do I. But you also must understand that the Church is not at all required to go and help these people in the slightest. I would argue that the men and women that abandon their lives elsewhere to go and serve for these people are gaining no real benifit other than a joyful fulfillment that comes with doing the Lord's work. They are not taking anything from the people in these countries and they are certainly not acting maliciously. I offer that no matter what they do, they are acting in what they believe to be the love of Christ. And this mis-information, while damaging and immoral, is pale in comparrison to the medecine, education, and hope that they have brought to these people. Please don't be so critical of people that sacrifice everything so that others may have something.

We all disagree with the lies, but the fact is that they aren't going in and forcing them. They have the choice-no education doesn't mean that they can't think.
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,352
Reaction score
2,436
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Naughty Nurse said:
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, have you?

You do not know what it means to have no education and no access to a wide variety of information. The Catholic Church is going into the poorest parts of the world, where people are dying in vast numbers and taking advantage.

Really moral, huh? :doh



Taking advantage how exactly?
And of what or who?
And for what sinister purpose?


Over 45 million Africans were infected by 2002 of which more than 30 million were still alive. A further 12 million children had already lost one or both of their parents. The effects over the last 15 years have been a catastrophe. Seven countries, all in southern Africa, now have prevalence rates higher than 20%: Botswana (38.8%), Lesotho (31%), Namibia (22.5%), South Africa (20.1%), Swaziland (33.4%), Zambia (21.5%) and Zimbabwe (33.7%).



* The most effective way to prevent sexual transmission of HIV is, in the words of the World Health Organisation, 'to abstain, or for two uninfected people to be faithful to one another'[2].

We want people to be fully aware of health risks so they can make their own choices. We want to encourage people to avoid HIV risks completely as far as possible, rather than just carry on as before with latex rubber, clean needles or bleach as partial protection. Part of teaching people the truth about AIDS is teaching them how to reduce risks. While Christians can then be accused of simply teaching people to `sin safely', we also have to recognise the need to save lives. The key is how advice is given, placing risk reduction in the context of relationships, commitment and empowering people to make their own choices about saying no, taking a long-term view and thinking through what is important to them.


Is that not what they were preaching? If people do not listen to one thing why would they listen to misinformation about condoms?

In too many cases African leaders have not confronted the problem of AIDS: The South African government has spent only $13 million on AIDS education and care programs in the last 5 years. At the same time it is spending $6.5 billion on three new submarines and other military hardware. Not a single African head of state attended the AIDS conference in Zambia, including the president of the host country. Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident, but an example of a pattern of deliberate neglect by these leaders.

*Lets not say anything about the Leaders of the government who should be leading the fight against AIDS*


Personally I have little use for religion myself but I cannot help but see
those religious people are out there trying to lend some assistance where it is sorely needed even though they are under constant savage criticism from the left.
 
S

sebastiansdreams

akyron said:
Taking advantage how exactly?
And of what or who?
And for what sinister purpose?


Over 45 million Africans were infected by 2002 of which more than 30 million were still alive. A further 12 million children had already lost one or both of their parents. The effects over the last 15 years have been a catastrophe. Seven countries, all in southern Africa, now have prevalence rates higher than 20%: Botswana (38.8%), Lesotho (31%), Namibia (22.5%), South Africa (20.1%), Swaziland (33.4%), Zambia (21.5%) and Zimbabwe (33.7%).



* The most effective way to prevent sexual transmission of HIV is, in the words of the World Health Organisation, 'to abstain, or for two uninfected people to be faithful to one another'[2].

We want people to be fully aware of health risks so they can make their own choices. We want to encourage people to avoid HIV risks completely as far as possible, rather than just carry on as before with latex rubber, clean needles or bleach as partial protection. Part of teaching people the truth about AIDS is teaching them how to reduce risks. While Christians can then be accused of simply teaching people to `sin safely', we also have to recognise the need to save lives. The key is how advice is given, placing risk reduction in the context of relationships, commitment and empowering people to make their own choices about saying no, taking a long-term view and thinking through what is important to them.


Is that not what they were preaching? If people do not listen to one thing why would they listen to misinformation about condoms?

In too many cases African leaders have not confronted the problem of AIDS: The South African government has spent only $13 million on AIDS education and care programs in the last 5 years. At the same time it is spending $6.5 billion on three new submarines and other military hardware. Not a single African head of state attended the AIDS conference in Zambia, including the president of the host country. Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident, but an example of a pattern of deliberate neglect by these leaders.

*Lets not say anything about the Leaders of the government who should be leading the fight against AIDS*


Personally I have little use for religion myself but I cannot help but see
those religious people are out there trying to lend some assistance where it is sorely needed even though they are under constant savage criticism from the left.
Hmm, does this mean there will be no debate on this point? Cause I was looking forward to is.
 
Top Bottom