Pope

[Steven Punk]

Latest rumor is that the Pope is trying to get Michael Jackson to run a parish. Assurances have been given that they would promptly move him if anyone complains.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

maybe michael can go on a personal crusade (ike the pope)against birth control, then maybe michael can be responsible for another billion or so people, just like the pope. then maybe i'll think they're equal scum. as it is michael's bullshit just causes a few people misery, the pope is trying to ensure that billions and billions more get born into ignorant catholic poverty, whether the concept of procreation drives the earth into the ground or not. f*ck both of them, especially the pope.

al

[Clarkmeister]

The Pope made those people have sex?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

for having sex to the point where they do, that is their stupidity. but the pope's refusal to endorse birth control pisses me off much more than stupid people's tendency to have sex. even the stupidest people would probably use birth control if it weren't a "sin against god." people really are amazingly fertile for the most part, and it doesn't take much in the way of natural urges to make new people. condoms and birth control pills take care of that tho, but then they are a sin, just ask the pope.

[Taxman]

I may not agree with many catholic doctrines, but it seems a little extreme to blame overpopulation on the pope alone. Catholicism isn't the largest world religion and the most heavily catholic parts of the world are not the most densely populated.

[Clarkmeister]

There aren't any firms (charitable or otherwise) that "give away" birth control pills to millions of people. And condoms are available.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
And condoms are available

[/ QUOTE ]

But the fear of god is a great motivator not to use them. Especially when they are clinging to any kind of hope they can. Which is what many in 3rd world, starving countries that have high poverty rates. The pope shows up, says god bless, no contraception allowed or your excommunicated, have a nice day. In many of these countries, the pleasure of sex is about the only thing they really have left. The church has really missed the boat on this. So they use the old fear tactic to rail against contraception that greatly goes against the reality of how the world works.

Aren't they wonderful...

Then again, they never have really been up with the times.

b

[Clarkmeister]

I doubt the illiterate are too worried about what the pope says about condoms. Seriously. Other than for status and other cultural/economic reasons, they don't use them for the same reason millions of non-catholic intelligent men in America don't use them: They suck.

[daryn]

man sometimes you are just whacked out!

are you saying that people don't use birth control because the pope says so? i doubt it! most people don't use birth control because they are too lazy or stupid.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[Al_Capone_Junior]

well let's just ignore mexico city then.

and let's please not try to turn this around and somehow make good ol' john paul look like a population control enthusiast. i prefer to call a spade a spade.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

you're right man i am whacked the pope is a birth control enthusiast.

al

[daryn]

man, come on now. did i say anything like that? i hate this kind of piss poor arguing. the pope is clearly anti-birth control, but do you really think people are not using condoms because the pop says they're going to hell? i maintain that they are not using condoms because condoms suck as mentioned by clarkmeister. also some people are too lazy to get on the pill.

seems to me like the pope is just stating something he believes in, no? no need to sh!t on anyone's religion right?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

if the pope would actively endorse birth control, I suspect hundreds of millions more would use it than currently do. you can't sell condoms or the pill to those who believe it's a sin to use them. thus my feelings on the matter. and catholicism is not the only religion that causes more problems than it's worth, just the one of topic here.

al

[elwoodblues]

People living in poverty tend to have a lot of children...it is a sociological function that has existed for a long time. One thought is that impoverished people have many children for a variety of reasons including having more people around to help, and increasing the odds that one of your children will rise above the poverty and bring the rest of the family with.

I find it amuzing that people rail against the pope because of his position on birth control because people don't use birth control because they fear they will go to hell...yet, apparently, those same people are not fearful of going to hell for having extra-marital/pre-marital sex (another thing which the pope finds immoral).

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it amuzing that people rail against the pope because of his position on birth control because people don't use birth control because they fear they will go to hell...yet, apparently, those same people are not fearful of going to hell for having extra-marital/pre-marital sex (another thing which the pope finds immoral).


[/ QUOTE ]

how about the people who are married who want to use birth control? Only people engaging in premarital sex are concerned with birth control?

Even married people have sex for pleasure and not just to procreate.

b

[bernie]

I wouldnt underestimate the power of the church over populations in many places (lesser developed) around the world.

It's a very different dynamic in other countries. Even in some states in the US. Especially very poor contries. They don't exactly have the same thought process' as us. They dont have near the access to many of the things like we do. Nor are they as advanced in thinking as us. I'm not even sure how readily available condoms are in places where the vatican has a very visible presence. (primarily other countries where the church may be part of a supply line)

The illiterates are more likely to follow the pope than educated people. They are usually more easily to persuade. They are more prone to fear 'god' than more educated people. Ever notice how religions tend to go to the places that are more naive about the world? Ever wonder why evangelists dont generally go to the coasts but stay in the midwest? (Look to where the sodomy laws still exist for whatever stupid reason) Wonder why the church has a great presence in struggling countries? It's not all just to help out. They also have their own agenda there too.

I dont mind using condoms. It's easier to clean up without sleeping in a wet spot.

b

[bernie]

The pope doesnt just 'state' something he believes in. If he was able to, he'd force it. And in some places, im sure the pressure from the church is very prominent.

Ill [censored] on (organized) religion if i want. They didnt seem to mind when they did it to heretics. Persecuting people who dont believe the same way they do. In fact, many in the church, or with ties to them, still do this.

b

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Only people engaging in premarital sex are concerned with birth control?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. I guess I had an assumption that may or may not be true --- over population attributed by some to lack of use of birth control (because of fear of the pope) is also a result of extra-marital/pre-marital sex (which the pope also opposes).

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
if the pope would actively endorse birth control, I suspect hundreds of millions more would use it than currently do. you can't sell condoms or the pill to those who believe it's a sin to use them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I call bullhockey. First, your contention is that they are too poor to know the difference, so the pill is out. Not an option. Period. Second, as pointed out above a large part of the problem is with unmarried people. Third, you assume many of these poor don't want kids. That's a huge mistake, because many of them do. From the extra children in this country who are worth extra $ on the welfare check, to the children in other counries who are an extra body to help earn $ for the family.

Its about way more than the pope.

[bernie]

Also explore the rate of STD's in some lesser countries. Some forms of birthcontrol help prevent that. Birth conrtol is a much bigger issue than just population control and premarital sex. Which is another huge benefit that the church neglects relent on. They are so far removed from reality it's ridiculous.

On a side note, you know that there is a rise in STD's among priests and nuns? Put's a whole 'nother angle on it.

b

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Also explore the rate of STD's in some lesser countries. Some forms of birthcontrol help prevent that. Birth conrtol is a much bigger issue than just population control and premarital sex. Which is another huge benefit that the church neglects relent on. They are so far removed from reality it's ridiculous.

On a side note, you know that there is a rise in STD's among priests and nuns? Put's a whole 'nother angle on it.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

As you conveniently ignore, STDs wouldn't be a problem at all if these people really listened to the pope. No premarital sex and no extramarital sex = no STDs. But the fact that they don't listen to the pope shoots all sorts of holes in your and Al's rants that its the popes fault that they don't use birth control. But why let logic get in the way of a good hate-filled rant?

[elwoodblues]

I would suspect that the Pope's position would be that the rise in STDs is not a result of lack of birth control, but rather a rise in pre-marital/extra-marital sex. The Pope's position would be that you should followed ALL of the church's teaching and not just cherry-pick the ones that suit your whims.

[ QUOTE ]
you know that there is a rise in STD's among priests and nuns? Put's a whole 'nother angle on it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't put another angle on it for me at all. I'm pretty sure that the Pope would be against that as well.


On an unrelated note ---- there is a common misconception that priests take a vow of chastity. Not true. Priests take a vow of celibacy. The difference is that Chastity is refraining from sex, Celibacy is refraining from marriage. The definition of "celibacy" to mean refrain from sexual activity is a 20th century invention.

That DOESN'T MEAN that the church allows priests to have sex, but they aren't breaking their vows by doing so (according to the church, they would be sinning like anyone else who engages in pre-marital sex).

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I would suspect that the Pope's position would be that the rise in STDs is not a result of lack of birth control, but rather a rise in pre-marital/extra-marital sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, even married people get STDs.

[ QUOTE ]
The Pope's position would be that you should followed ALL of the church's teaching and not just cherry-pick the ones that suit your whims.


[/ QUOTE ]

this is true.

Celibacy:

From websters dictionary.

1. the state of not being married
2. abstention from sexual intercourse

for as long as i've known, and heard from my Uncle, who was a jesuit priest, the main purpose was sacrifice of sex and marriage because you are in essence, married to the church.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, even married people get STDs

[/ QUOTE ]

With the rarest of exceptions, not married people who haven't engaged in pre-marital/extra-marital sex.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I never contended they were too poor to know the difference. Studies have shown (in africa for instance) that if condoms and other forms of birth control were readily available, there would be a high demand for them. Poverty does not always equal complete stupidity. But I do not care much for the pope and the role he has played in this issue. I don't contend that the pope is solely respoonsible tho for overpopulation. Someone somewhere HAS to decide NOT to have children.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

telling it like it is might get people riled up! you know how the truth often stings! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

al

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
As you conveniently ignore, STDs wouldn't be a problem at all if these people really listened to the pope. No premarital sex and no extramarital sex = no STDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you cant get an STD if you're married? And they didnt exist before the church instituted the rite of marriage? Only marital sex is the cure-all of the spread? You do know the many ways, non sexually, how one can contract herpes, right? How did STDs even get started? Solely as a result of unmarried people having sex? That was the root cause? I dont think so. It doesnt shoot any holes in the argument at all. Unfortunately, the church does not recognize that there are other ways to help prevent the spread of STDs other than abstinence. BTW...the church also does not agree with sex education other than teaching abstinence. They would love to have people bury their heads in the sand on that one.

Unfortunately, premarital sex is not the cause of the downfall of the western world. Although, some credit can be given to the spread of disease, it is far from the only source of it. The church is far, far from infallable in their narrow views. Do you know the reason 'why' the church doesnt allow birthcontrol? Where that comes from? It certainly wasnt presented in any ancient text since their was no birth control back then. It's actually a very dated concept that they created. There is no reason the church couldnt accept birthcontrol.

It is the popes fault for ignoring scientific advancements that can benefit his followers instead choosing to stay in the dark ages. For the church, knowledge is power only if the church has it.

b

[Al_Capone_Junior]

the church neglegts many MANY important issues. Avoiding the facts of modern reality is much of what the church is really all about.

and then their priests are a bunch of molestors to boot.

f*ck religion. there, I just dissed on religion again.

al

[Clarkmeister]

Just because you don't like abstaining out of marriage, or the teaching of marital fidelity doesn't mean that neither are legitimate and moral approaches to take. Don't be angry that the pope doesn't agree with you. Do you really need the pope's agreement to validate your personal beliefs? Because thats what it seems like. The pope doesn't agree with many (most?) of my personal beliefs, but I don't hold it against the dude. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Arguing that premarital abstinance and marital fidelity wouldn't eliminate diseases from being sexually transmitted to each other is silly. Someone could get AIDS from a tainted blood transfusion, shall we blame the pope for that also?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone could get AIDS from a tainted blood transfusion, shall we blame the pope for that also?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nowadays, at least in the USA, the chances of getting AIDS from a tainted blood transfusion are close to nil. Such matters would not of course be the pope's fault tho if they were to occur.

al

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you don't like abstaining out of marriage, or the teaching of marital fidelity doesn't mean that neither are legitimate and moral approaches to take.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with marital fidelity. I also dont think premarital sex is immoral. Just because someone only has sex inside marriage, doesnt make them any better than one who doesnt. That's ludicrous.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't be angry that the pope doesn't agree with you. Do you really need the pope's agreement to validate your personal beliefs? Because thats what it seems like. The pope doesn't agree with many (most?) of my personal beliefs, but I don't hold it against the dude

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with the pope agreeing with me. I dont need his validation for anything. I'm pretty confident in my beliefs. Evidently you dont understand the history nor the agenda the church has both in the past and present. Ya oughtta study that a little sometime.

Personally, I think they ought to be disbanded and the vatican torn down. But not before the hidden stuff in the locked part of the vatican library is made public.

Aside from that, i think he ought to be more responsible for those who follow him. He and the vatican have proven otherwise, in a great many instances, gross irresponsibility and negligence.

[ QUOTE ]
Arguing that premarital abstinance and marital fidelity wouldn't eliminate diseases from being sexually transmitted to each other is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the churchs main take on it. That it would eventually eliminate it. Which is just as silly. Diseases would still exist. Just as they always have. But really, it's just another condition that they can foist on their masses for them to follow.

The pope has no reason to ban birthcontrol. None. Which would help many more problems than it will create.

b

[Rushmore]

Clark, your poker posts are excellent.

But please, leave the sociotheogeopolitical topics alone.

You really believe that Catholics in the Third World don't listen to what the Pope says?

I assure you, this is incorrect.

Further, it amazes me that nobody has pointed out an even more damaging fact: The Catholic church has been crusading FOREVER in Africa. I'd say discouraging the use of condoms in Africa is tantamount to genocide, to be honest. The church actually went so far as to say there was "no real proof" that condoms stop the spread of AIDS.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]


You really believe that Catholics in the Third World don't listen to what the Pope says?


[/ QUOTE ]

If they listened, AIDS wouldn't be spreading.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
sociotheogeopolitical

[/ QUOTE ]

What a great word!

You are right about the church saying there was no real proof condoms stopped the spread of aids. And I agree about stopping the use of condoms in africa to be genocide. What is it now, >50% infected in some places?

Your political views are right in line with mine. Now you can join our "club" the "Stonecutters." Homer's the chosen one, he has the birthmark on his ass.

al

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know the reason 'why' the church doesnt allow birthcontrol? Where that comes from? It certainly wasnt presented in any ancient text since their was no birth control back then. It's actually a very dated concept that they created. There is no reason the church couldnt accept birthcontrol.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take a stab at that one (assuming it wasn't just a rhetorical question).

The church's position is that sex has two equally important roles in a married couple's life. Sex is a mutual showing of love and affection. Sex is also for procreation. In order for sex to be good (not in the "oh baby that was so good" sense) a married couple should enter into sex with an openness to both a mutual showing of love and affection and procreation. The church's teaching is that the procreative nature of sex is a gift from God and birth control, by its very nature, closes down the openness to accepting that gift. Thus, they teach, that sex that isn't at least "open" to procreation is sinful because you are wilfully turning away a gift from God.

Personally, I think the church's position on Birth Control places too much emphasis on one prong of the test over the other (i.e. too much emphasis on procreation, not enough on mutual showing of love and affection.) However, I think the notion that sex has two roles (the mutual showing of love and affection and the procreative gift from God) puts sex on a much higher plane than most believe the Catholic church does. In other words, there is a common misperception that the church regards sex, in general, as "dirty" or "sinful." The truth is that the rationalle behind the church's teachings is not that sex is "dirty" but rather that it is on a much "higher" plane.

As to your comments about the proscription against Birth Control being a very dated concept --- I would suggest that the meta-ethic of accepting God's gifts well pre-dates birth control and that the church's position on birth control is just a specific implementation of that meta-ethic (the same could be said for the church's position on abortion as well.)

[ QUOTE ]
BTW...the church also does not agree with sex education other than teaching abstinence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you expect the church to teach how to have, what they consider to be, immoral sex? The church does teach sex education with regard to marital sex. With regard to pre-marital sex, their position is consistent.

I wouldn't expect a Vegetarian cookbook to have a recipe for Steak Tartar. Why would you expect the Church to teach something it considers to be sinful?

[ QUOTE ]
Only marital sex is the cure-all of the spread [of STDs]?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, of course not. But, if everyone followed that teaching STDs would become almost non-existent.

~elwood

[elwoodblues]

Your solution is to stop the spread of AIDS through a prohpylactic (pun intended) measure...the church's position is to stop the spread of AIDS at its root (through stopping pre-marital/extra-marital sex). If either position were followed, the spread of STDs would stop.

For what it's worth --- I think the church teaching that Condoms don't prevent AIDS was awful...I wish they had instead said that AIDS can be prevented through the use of condoms and it can also be prevented through both partners in a marriage following the church's teachings.

[Mike Gallo]

Someone could get AIDS from a tainted blood transfusion, shall we blame the pope for that also?

Or sharing the same needle with another intravenous drug fiend. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll take a stab at that one (assuming it wasn't just a rhetorical question).

The church's position is that sex has two equally important roles in a married couple's life. Sex is a mutual showing of love and affection. Sex is also for procreation. In order for sex to be good (not in the "oh baby that was so good" sense) a married couple should enter into sex with an openness to both a mutual showing of love and affection and procreation. The church's teaching is that the procreative nature of sex is a gift from God and birth control, by its very nature, closes down the openness to accepting that gift. Thus, they teach, that sex that isn't at least "open" to procreation is sinful because you are wilfully turning away a gift from God.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're close. The church sees it as for procreational purposes only. Any other reason is wasting the seed and is a sin. They do not endorse it for pleasure. Which may have be more relevant if the earth had a chance of humans going extinct.

[ QUOTE ]
Would you expect the church to teach how to have, what they consider to be, immoral sex? The church does teach sex education with regard to marital sex. With regard to pre-marital sex, their position is consistent.

I wouldn't expect a Vegetarian cookbook to have a recipe for Steak Tartar. Why would you expect the Church to teach something it considers to be sinful?


[/ QUOTE ]

Would you expect vegetarians to throw tons of money at publishers to stop the printing of Steak eater's cookbooks because they dont agree with eating meat? The church does this as far as lobbying against sex-ed. Suppression of information is a great trait of the church.

[ QUOTE ]
The church does teach sex education with regard to marital sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im sure the pamphlet doesnt even cover more than 1/4 page. Unless they include the 40 pages of how to have sex that are wrong and 'sinful'.

b

[bernie]

Sex as a higher plane, as you mentioned, has been explored by others outside the church. It has been presented in many books that jesus believed/practiced this also.

Though the church doesnt endorse this train of thought.

b

[bernie]

But of course, that's realistic, isn't it. Deny your basic animalistic sense of having sex. Just sit and starve and suffer. No pleasure at all. Please. What else do these people have? Not much.

Besides, AIDS would likely spread eventually. Just not at near as rapid of pace. I think drug use would find it's way there if it's not already. It's not just a sexual disease.

b

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
You're close. The church sees it as for procreational purposes only. Any other reason is wasting the seed and is a sin. They do not endorse it for pleasure. Which may have be more relevant if the earth had a chance of humans going extinct.


[/ QUOTE ]

That might be what the church has emphasized more, but their teaching is that sex has a two-fold purpose. A husband who rapes his wife (without a condom) would be engaged in sinful sex for a variety of reasons, one of which would be that the sex was not done in the context of a showing of mutual love and affection. I agree with you that it APPEARS that the church is only interested in the procreative nature of sex, however, the theology behind sex and marriage emphasized the dual nature.

[bernie]

Ill have to look into the Africa thing. I've heard a little about that. Someone else, i think, touched on it somewhere in this thread. The church preys on the weak. Both in mind and body.

[ QUOTE ]
The church actually went so far as to say there was "no real proof" that condoms stop the spread of AIDS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember multiple times that they've taken this stance on the issue. Especially in the 80s. But then again, this is the same place that is saying pedophiles can be near-cured through reconciliation with the victims by the abusers. They just need to talk it out. yeah, right.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you that it APPEARS that the church is only interested in the procreative nature of sex, however, the theology behind sex and marriage emphasized the dual nature

[/ QUOTE ]


The church doesnt preach that theology. It would be much different if they did. Especially since it has been presented that jesus may have practiced this. But they preach what serves their agenda better. Kind of like how they put the bible together in the first place.

side note: Y'know the Navy only 'allows' missionary position? I thought it was kinda funny when i first heard that. i mean, what's the point?

b

[elwoodblues]

I hate to bore people with theology, but here are some quotes from the catechism regarding sex that shed light on the topic:

[ QUOTE ]
Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.
...
Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator's generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." All human generations proceed from this union
...

Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man's belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift

...

The virtue of chastity blossoms in friendship. It shows the disciple how to follow and imitate him who has chosen us as his friends,134 who has given himself totally to us and allows us to participate in his divine estate. Chastity is a promise of immortality.

Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one's neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all. It leads to spiritual communion

...

Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament

...

Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death

...

the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude. Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure

...

The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity


[/ QUOTE ]

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The church doesnt preach that theology

[/ QUOTE ]
The catechism is their official teachings. I posted some quotes in a different reply.

[ QUOTE ]
the Navy only 'allows' missionary position

[/ QUOTE ]

don't ask...don't tell.

[bernie]

Now if they'd just allow mastubation. After all, that's sex with someone you love, isnt it? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

b

btw...Much of the same reasoning behind the use of contraception is the same for masturbation. Yet that doesnt really cover female masturbation. hmmm

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
But of course, that's realistic, isn't it. Deny your basic animalistic sense of having sex. Just sit and starve and suffer. No pleasure at all. Please. What else do these people have? Not much.

Besides, AIDS would likely spread eventually. Just not at near as rapid of pace. I think drug use would find it's way there if it's not already. It's not just a sexual disease.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty certain the pope is against recreational drug use as well.

Look, you and Al proposed that its the popes fault that there are so many children in these countries because the population listens to him and doesn't use condoms. But since AIDS and other diseases are rampant, its clear they don't listen to him. The debate ends right there.

Subsequent to that, you are debating the pope's teachings which is an entirely different debate. I doubt the pope would approve of almost any of my views. I just think its silly to blame him for overpopulation.

Overpopulation is not at all unique to catholic societies, it is, however, generally confined to extraordinarily poor ones (China, India, continental Africa). You would be more correct to blame exploitive US economic policy than you are to blame the pope.

[bernie]

Im not laying sole blame on him for the whole thing? Where did i do that? But he does have a big hand in it. I could say by your responses that you dont think he has any hand in it. Even in denying people the access to condoms through his preachings. But i dont think you believe that.

One reason i stated in another response about the nuns and priests having STDs was an echo of many who 'follow' religion think that, for some reason, using a condom is more damning than premarital sex. Why? The sex drive is much stronger than the church would like to think. So they can see this as being a little more forgiveable. But at least their 'seed' didnt go to waste. And yes, im sure not all 'guilty' of this are thinking this way literally, but subconciously, im sure it's there somewhere. Fear of god is a strong, sometimes very strong, thing in some parts of the world. Even some parts of the US. So they'll take the lesser of the offenses. Sex is a basic human function, using a condom isnt.

Denying/preaching against condoms to these places does nothing but harm these places in the longterm. It's irresponsible and a grave misuse of their influence. The church is greatly guilty of this on a wide scale. Among other things they do. They suck.

What does the church do when they see that disease and overpopulation appears and spreads? Nope, too bad. Ya shoulda listened to the church, you sinners. Too bad. Since you didnt listen, you deserve it. Or is that your interpretation of it?

Would these places be better off if the church promoted condom use? I think so.

But there's that question again. Why would the church preach against condoms/contraception in this day and age when there is no reason for to? When there are obviously so many benefits to using them.

The church does nothing out of the goodness of their heart. They always have an agenda. They always have.

b

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Stopping aids by asking people to use condoms, and getting them to do it, is highly practical. condoms are HIGHLY effective in stopping aids, particularly amoungst those who practice non-marital sex with multiple partners, and who effectively and correctly use condoms.

stopping aids by getting people NOT to have sex is ludicrously impractical.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

sharing needles is a MUCH more effective way to transmit HIV or hepatitis B, C, or sometimes D. All these are basically nearing totally impossible in today's medical world. Hepatitis B and C, as well as HIV are routinely tested for in pre-transfusion testing of donated blood units. Hepatitis D cannot be contracted unless you already have hepatitis B, so testing for B eliminates the possibility of D. Transmission of disease from blood transfusions is nearly impossible today in the US. I have worked in both hospitals and biotech labs, so this stuff is right up my alley.

al

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]

stopping aids by getting people NOT to have sex is ludicrously impractical.

al

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a religion. It is not a UN taskforce. Critisizing anyone for what they believe is silly. If the purpose of the pope was to stop AIDS, then critisize away. But its not, so why bother sticking a big pope hat on your straw man?

Once again, the purpose of the pope is not to prevent AIDS. It just so happens that his teachings would reduce the chances of faithful followers to a zero% infection rate from sex, but that's not why those teachings are in place.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a religion. It is not a UN taskforce. Critisizing anyone for what they believe is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

For many in religions, this would be the pot calling the kettle black. Whoops, my mistake. The church didnt criticize anyone, they just killed them off. (nowadays, they just persecute the sh*t out of free thinkers) In a stretch, it's kind of the same thing. If you dont believe and practice the way of the chruch, you have a greater chance of getting a disease and dying.

When the church, if it was 'socially' conscious, could easily help reduce this risk and concentrate on much bigger problems it has to deal with. Especially when they may be a prime source of a supply line to those people.

Wouldnt you call that 'forcing' one's view on a population when their are much better proven alternatives to use?

I dont care if it's religion or not. It's socially irresponsible. But that never stopped them before so why should it now.

Still waiting for the reasonable reason not to promote condoms. Even if only among married couples.

b

The church also has alot more pull in world matters than you may give them credit for. Yet they still dont have a clue.

I think if a religion has a big influence in

[JoeU]

[ QUOTE ]
The pope shows up, says god bless, no contraception allowed or your excommunicated, have a nice day.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure the pope has never said this. In fact, I'm pretty sure that with in the last 2000 years, no pope has ever said this. I can understand the whole "fear of god" thing, but I think daryn got it right when he said people are too lazy or too stupid in this country to use contraception, not because the pope said so.

Joe

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Still waiting for the reasonable reason not to promote condoms. Even if only among married couples.


[/ QUOTE ]

The reasonable reason is that promoting condoms goes against their very charter which is to promote their religious/moral beliefs. You might disagree with their religious/moral beliefs...who cares. The problem is that you think they should change their moral/religious beliefs because it is hard for people to follow them and when people only selectively follow them their can be devastating consequences.

If death penalty turned out to be a deterrent to crime (and thus actually save lives) would you argue that the church should change its moral position on capital punishment for pragmatic reasons? Their moral/religious beliefs run deeper than that.

[bernie]

It wasnt a direct quote.

If you had read the thread more, you'd notice this wasnt aimed at this country, but at more struggling 3rd world countries where the church has a heavy influence. Where they have a great influence in both their beliefs and supply line.

You do know that they worked very hard to stop planned parenthood from sending contraceptives to those countries, dont you?

b