church against reduction of vat on condoms !!

scuby

why is the catholic church so against the reduction of vat on condoms ???

it is so ridicules to come out with a statement saying it will lead to an increase in under age sex etc and promiscuity..

have they not thought, about people may not being able to afford them ?
the rise in std's from not using them ?
in third world countries, the rise in aids, due to unprotected sex etc etc etc...

the way they are going they will alienate the church goers that are left.. they need to get with it and live in the real world..

and then there is the whole legal wrangle against the release of legal papers and documents about the governments investigation in child abuse..one arch-bishop trying to keep another quiet !!

They really need to cop on... it's 2008 !!!!! thats my rant, a little drunk... i'm going to hell :mad:

philologos

I can see where the Catholic Church are coming from. They want to encourage abstinence instead of using condoms, because when people say "ah I can chuck on a condom", it allows them to become more promiscuous, which in itself is wrong. Also, they want to encourage the role of marriage.

I however see no problem with using condoms as a temporary step, ultimately leading towards the emphasis on abstinence just as a means of ultimately ridding the AIDs issue in Africa.

Akrasia

Jakkass wrote: »

I can see where the Catholic Church are coming from. They want to encourage abstinence instead of using condoms, because when people say "ah I can chuck on a condom", it allows them to become more promiscuous, which in itself is wrong. Also, they want to encourage the role of marriage.

I however see no problem with using condoms as a temporary step, ultimately leading towards the emphasis on abstinence just as a means of ultimately ridding the AIDs issue in Africa.

The catholic church love big families because it means there are more catholics in the next generation. That's the main reason. They are against family planning.

philologos

Akrasia wrote: »

The catholic church love big families because it means there are more catholics in the next generation. That's the main reason. They are against family planning.

I can't speak for the Catholic Church, but I can speak of my personal beliefs, which are as in previous post.

lostexpectation

safety first

PDN

scuby wrote: »

why is the catholic church so against the reduction of vat on condoms ???

it is so ridicules to come out with a statement saying it will lead to an increase in under age sex etc and promiscuity..

have they not thought, about people may not being able to afford them ?
the rise in std's from not using them ?
in third world countries, the rise in aids, due to unprotected sex etc etc etc...

While personally I am all for abolishing VAT on condoms, in fairness to the Roman Catholic Church I should point out that the rate of VAT on condoms in Ireland is hardly going to affect anyone in third world countries (unless, of course, the good citizens of Malawi are coming to Dublin on shopping trips to buy their prophylactics).

panda100

It always really frustrates me the way people seem to blame the Catholic church and there stance on contraception on the aids epidemic in Africa.
Only 13% of Africans are Catholic so the other 87% are hardly going to care about what the pope says.

The catholic church really need a new PR sytem. Instead of saying 'rawh rawh dont do this ,dont do that' they should be promoting their very valid answer to the increase in STD's,teen pregnancys etc and that is abstinence. I think If we ever do get a public national sex education camapign that instead of just promoting condoms etc abstinence should also be promoted. I know everyones expereince in relationships is differnet but I have definatly found that abstaining from sex has made my relationships a lot more fuffilling then relationships where Ive had a more physical relationship.

JC 2K3

panda100 wrote: »

It always really frustrates me the way people seem to blame the Catholic church and there stance on contraception on the aids epidemic in Africa.
Only 13% of Africans are Catholic so the other 87% are hardly going to care about what the pope says.

I'm not going to check if your stats are correct, but anyway, there are about 900 million people in Africa.

900 million*13% = 117 million people

It's not only 13% when you're talking about such large numbers of people.

panda100 wrote: »

The catholic church really need a new PR sytem. Instead of saying 'rawh rawh dont do this ,dont do that' they should be promoting their very valid answer to the increase in STD's,teen pregnancys etc and that is abstinence.

Ireland isn't going to go back to strict Catholicism. That is not a practical solution at all.

panda100 wrote: »

I think If we ever do get a public national sex education camapign that instead of just promoting condoms etc abstinence should also be promoted.

Of course, but alongside, and not at the expense of the promotion of safe sex, and with no mention of Christianity or any religion. I wouldn't expect too many people to opt for it tbh.

Hivemind187

Abstinence. That program is working wonders in the US isnt it?

And, be fair, the poor in many African and South American nations have no TV, no books, no radios, no food, sometimes no water and you want to take THAT away from them as well?

I'm with Geldof on this one, with every bottle of milk sent over send a condom.

Hivemind187

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Abstinence. That program is working wonders in the US isnt it?

I read an article awhile back that said teen pregnancy rates were higher in the areas that had abstinence programs in school =/

hairyheretic

Teen pregnancy rates and STDs both, as I recall. Abstinence is great in principle, but in the real world, it simply doesn't work. Then when the kids that haven't been taught anything else do start having sex, they end up with more diseases and more pregnancies.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I'm not going to check if your stats are correct, but anyway, there are about 900 million people in Africa.

900 million*13% = 117 million people

It's not only 13% when you're talking about such large numbers of people.


Ireland isn't going to go back to strict Catholicism. That is not a practical solution at all.

Hang on here. Surely if these people are not using contraception purely because the Pope says so, they will also take the stance on pre-marital sex just as clearly? Why heed the Pope in one regard and not another? This just proves to me that they aren't all to concerned about what the Pope says anyway, and the Catholic Church is not responsible for the spread of AIDS. That's just logically looking through it. I don't think it's fair to criticise the Church as if these people were truly practicing abstinence up until marriage it certainly wouldn't cause an AIDS epidemic.

How do you know what Ireland will or will not do? I hope the people of Ireland come to Christianity in general regardless of denomination.

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

Hang on here. Surely if these people are not using contraception purely because the Pope says so, they will also take the stance on pre-marital sex just as clearly? Why heed the Pope in one regard and not another? This just proves to me that they aren't all to concerned about what the Pope says anyway, and the Catholic Church is not responsible for the spread of AIDS. That's just logically looking through it. I don't think it's fair to criticise the Church as if these people were truly practicing abstinence up until marriage it certainly wouldn't cause an AIDS epidemic.

Is it lonely up there on that pedestal?

Jakkass, even you have to admit that human beings have urges and those urges lead to sex. If you dont know (because maybe you are the no-sex-before-marriage type and are still a virgin). Sex feels good. It is physiologically beneficial to health both physical and mental, its fun, its relaxing and it is life affirming - all things that many African nations need badly.

Also, much of the trade that goes on in these places is subject to the whim of local tribal leaders. They make the decisions about what can and cannot be sold in villages or in many cases what can and cannot be used by the populace. If these individuals are in the pocket (do cassocks have pockets?) of the Catholic Church then they will prevent the distribution of jimmy-hats.

Its very easy to sit back and say its all their own fault for having sex, but not everyone is as high and mighty - many of the posters on this very forum, who are devout Christians may well find the abstinence protocol laughably naive as well.

With all due respect.
Hivemind.

MooseJam

abstinence didn't work too well for the Catholic clergy , a large number of them ended up abusing kids, though maybe it's wrong to blame abstinence and a large percentage of priests are pedophiles

philologos

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Is it lonely up there on that pedestal?

Jakkass, even you have to admit that human beings have urges and those urges lead to sex. If you dont know (because maybe you are the no-sex-before-marriage type and are still a virgin). Sex feels good. It is physiologically beneficial to health both physical and mental, its fun, its relaxing and it is life affirming - all things that many African nations need badly.

Also, much of the trade that goes on in these places is subject to the whim of local tribal leaders. They make the decisions about what can and cannot be sold in villages or in many cases what can and cannot be used by the populace. If these individuals are in the pocket (do cassocks have pockets?) of the Catholic Church then they will prevent the distribution of jimmy-hats.

Its very easy to sit back and say its all their own fault for having sex, but not everyone is as high and mighty - many of the posters on this very forum, who are devout Christians may well find the abstinence protocol laughably naive as well.

With all due respect.
Hivemind.

I couldn't care how lonely it is on that pedestal. I don't think the Pope deserves as much blame as the general public are giving him and the Catholic Church over the AIDS epidemic.

Yes humans have urges, urges that can be controlled and exercised in the correct situation. Not all things that feel good are necessarily good in the light of morality. I could feel good if I took a hit of heroin but that doesn't make it correct or right does it?

If the individuals were truly of the Church, they would be encouraging this also as it is truly beneficial. I believe that telling someone to put on a condom and just say that it is all okay isn't acceptable. Because you haven't tackled the root problem, which is the lust and the promiscuity about the whole thing.

Hivemind, I believe it's far far easier to blame Christianity for the problems in Africa. In a sense you are using the Catholic Church in particular as a scapegoat. (I don't usually defend the RC Church as much as this but in this point of view they are spot on)

daveyjoe

Well said Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

... it allows them to become more promiscuous, which in itself is wrong.

Please append 'according to my belief system' to these statements in future.

Jakkass wrote: »

Because you haven't tackled the root problem, which is the lust and the promiscuity about the hole thing.

Sex happens! Attacking the 'root problem' is not a practical solution and it's the reason that the mess is there in the first place.

BrianCalgary

daveyjoe wrote: »

Well said Hivemind187


Please append 'according to my belief system' to these statements in future.
[=QUOTE]

Leave the modding to the mods.:D

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

How do you know what Ireland will or will not do? I hope the people of Ireland come to Christianity in general regardless of denomination.

Ah come on now. Religion being a delusion is at least debatable, but this is just ridiculous.

Jakkass wrote: »

I could feel good if I took a hit of heroin but that doesn't make it correct or right does it?

There's nothing morally wrong about heroin use, or the use of any other drug. In fact, the government's stance on drugs is very similar to the Catholic Church's stance on sex; rather than promoting a safer way to indulge in activities that humans will inevitibly participate in, they take a Draconian and impractical approach - and it doesn't work!

Black Swan

scuby wrote: »

why is the catholic church so against the reduction of vat on condoms ???

"Be fruitful and multiply?"

amen

"Be fruitful and multiply?"

but it promotes the cycle method

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Ah come on now. Religion being a delusion is at least debatable, but this is just ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous. There is healthy growth in Christianity in Ireland (this is perhaps debatable, however all denominations have seen a rise), and throughout the world. It's a reasonable assertion.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

There's nothing morally wrong about heroin use, or the use of any other drug. In fact, the government's stance on drugs is very similar to the Catholic Church's stance on sex; rather than promoting a safer way to indulge in activities that humans will inevitibly participate in, they take a Draconian and impractical approach - and it doesn't work!

Nothing wrong perhaps in your morality. It divides families, ruins lives and destroys perfectly healthy people, as do most illegal substances. The governments stance is harsh on drugs and rightly so, our streets need to be rid of them.

The Catholic Church's stance (bear in mind I'm not even an adherent of the Catholic Church) on sex is reasonable and compatible with all strains of Christianity, within the correct boundaries. In marriage there is a lesser likelihood of one committing adultery or being promiscuous than in a relationship without marriage. The objective is merely to keep people safe from of hurt or abuse that can come in the course of a relationship. So I think they are providing a safer way, in terms of both the physical (STDs etc), and the mental (in terms of being more attached due to a sexual relationship).

I think humans can hold out till the correct situation. I don't think that is so unreasonable at all.

Mrs OBumble

MooseJam wrote: »

abstinence didn't work too well for the Catholic clergy , a large number of them ended up abusing kids, though maybe it's wrong to blame abstinence and a large percentage of priests are pedophiles

Would you care to share your source for this information?

(btw, it's spelt paedophiles.)

daveyjoe

JustMary wrote: »

Would you care to share your source for this information?

(btw, it's spelt paedophiles.)

Are you serious?
Don't even have to go into archive for this one (fresh from today's papers): http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0204/church.html

I don't know if it's fair to say that a 'large number' (what's a large number?) of priests are paedophiles but it is fair to say that the proportion of priests who have abused children is much higher than that of the total population.

Run_to_da_hills

MooseJam wrote: »

abstinence didn't work too well for the Catholic clergy , a large number of them ended up abusing kids, though maybe it's wrong to blame abstinence and a large percentage of priests are pedophiles

Abstinence is un Biblical. If the Catholic Church allowed marriage among their own clergy in the first place they wouldn't have the vast number of closet cases of child abuse coming out of the woodwork.

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous, One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity" 1 Timothy 3vs 2to4

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not ridiculous. There is healthy growth in Christianity in Ireland (this is perhaps debatable, however all denominations have seen a rise), and throughout the world. It's a reasonable assertion.

The worlds' population is also on the rise....

Jakkass wrote: »

It divides families, ruins lives and destroys perfectly healthy people, as do most illegal substances.

That's quite the assertion you're making there. Besides cocaine, heroin and perhaps a few other less common ones, illegal drugs don't ruin people's lives, and even in the case of both of those drugs, there's a strong argument that it is the legal status of the drugs, and not their effects, which is a much bigger factor in them destroying lives.

But that's a whole other topic....

robindch

bluewolf wrote: »

I read an article awhile back that said teen pregnancy rates were higher in the areas that had abstinence programs in school =/

The evidence is pretty convincing. Here's an article by one of the guys who did the research:

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2005/shelbyknox/special_pledges_1.html

To summarize, taking abstinence pledges delayed first sex by around 18 months, but at the greater risk of not using contraception when they do get around to it. Overall, the delay in sex is offset by the later failure, producing a rate of STD's and teen pregnancy that's the same as unpledged populations.

Interestingly, preaching abstinence only causes this delay for a limited age-group, and most interestingly of all, it only works when the pledging group is a small percentage of the overall population -- it doesn't work if the pledger is on his/her own, or if the population contains more than about 30% pledgers.

Preaching pledging clearly does not work.

Spyral

it is so ridicules to come out with a statement saying it will lead to an increase in under age sex etc and promiscuity..

have they not thought, about people may not being able to afford them ?
the rise in std's from not using them ?
in third world countries, the rise in aids, due to unprotected sex etc etc etc..

erm... why don't you look at the UK... they have a very pro-contraception pro-abortion situation and yet teen pregnancy are at a high. A normal person learns from his mistakes, a wise man learns from the mistakes of others. So learn from the uk...

the way they are going they will alienate the church goers that are left.. they need to get with it and live in the real world.

.

So they will alienate their own followers by reinforcing their actual teaching. That's like saying if man utd win games their supporters wont follow them.. why don't you get with the program ?

They really need to cop on... it's 2008 !!!!! thats my rant, a little drunk... i'm going to hell

exactly and in≈2000 years the church is pretty much the same on its core beliefs..

The catholic church really need a new PR sytem. Instead of saying 'rawh rawh dont do this ,dont do that' they should be promoting their very valid answer to the increase in STD's,teen pregnancys etc and that is abstinence. I think If we ever do get a public national sex education camapign that instead of just promoting condoms etc abstinence should also be promoted. I know everyones expereince in relationships is differnet but I have definatly found that abstaining from sex has made my relationships a lot more fuffilling then relationships where Ive had a more physical relationship.

the church generally is nice and non rawr but then no one listens to them so they get rarw and then even less people listen to them..

Teen pregnancy rates and STDs both, as I recall. Abstinence is great in principle, but in the real world, it simply doesn't work. Then when the kids that haven't been taught anything else do start having sex, they end up with more diseases and more pregnancies.

so not having sex doenst work, so you still get stds and pregnant by not havign sex ? That is what we call i) a miracle or ii)bull

abstinence does work if you follow it..

abstinence didn't work too well for the Catholic clergy , a large number of them ended up abusing kids, though maybe it's wrong to blame abstinence and a large percentage of priests are pedophiles

I don't know if it's fair to say that a 'large number' (what's a large number?) of priests are paedophiles but it is fair to say that the proportion of priests who have abused children is much higher than that of the total population.

large number... you mean ... the same number %-age wise of teachers and other professions that abuse kids you mean ?
You are way off here plus its irrelavant to the argument about condoms..

. If the Catholic Church allowed marriage among their own clergy in the first place they wouldn't have the vast number of closet cases of child abuse coming out of the woodwork

because being married child abusers ?

Abstinence is un Biblical

havent you heard of the eunichs speech in the bible? Nothing the RCC teaches is unbiblical.

Run_to_da_hills

Spyral wrote: »

Nothing the RCC teaches is unbiblical.

“And call no man your father on earth for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” Matthew 23:9

Overheal

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

“And call no man your father on earth for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” Matthew 23:9

did catholocism just skip over this bit or am I reading it right. I'm guessing thats why churches like the Protestant use the term Reverend?

Run_to_da_hills

Overheal wrote: »

did catholocism just skip over this bit or am I reading it right. I'm guessing thats why churches like the Protestant use the term Reverend?

Precisely, dose it ever dawn on them that they are the only denomination among the thousands of other Christian denominations that use this blasphemous title.

hairyheretic

Jakkass wrote: »

Nothing wrong perhaps in your morality. It divides families, ruins lives and destroys perfectly healthy people, as do most illegal substances. The governments stance is harsh on drugs and rightly so, our streets need to be rid of them.

The same could be said of legal drugs, alcohol being the prime example. A cynical individual might point out the ammount of money that is made from that drug, both to the supplier and the government, in the form of taxes, as at least part of the reason it isn't banned.

If I remember my history correctly, the reason that marijuana was banned in the US was down to pressure (and probably bribary) from the tobacco industry.

Jakkass wrote: »

In marriage there is a lesser likelihood of one committing adultery or being promiscuous than in a relationship without marriage.

Is that the case though? I would have thought it was more down to the person involved. If they are willing to cheat while in a relationship, then they're probably as likely to cheat while married.

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote: »

The worlds' population is also on the rise....

Yes but the rate of growth in Christianity outside of Europe is rather high. Particularly in the Far East and Africa.

JC 2K3 wrote:

That's quite the assertion you're making there. Besides cocaine, heroin and perhaps a few other less common ones, illegal drugs don't ruin people's lives, and even in the case of both of those drugs, there's a strong argument that it is the legal status of the drugs, and not their effects, which is a much bigger factor in them destroying lives.

But that's a whole other topic....

Not really. Medical figures would suggest that. I would also say cannabis is a harmful drug also given the amount of people who are admitted to mental hospitals due to abuse of it. In some cases cannabis can cause permanent brain damage.

hairyheretic wrote:

The same could be said of legal drugs, alcohol being the prime example. A cynical individual might point out the amount of money that is made from that drug, both to the supplier and the government, in the form of taxes, as at least part of the reason it isn't banned.

If I remember my history correctly, the reason that marijuana was banned in the US was down to pressure (and probably bribary) from the tobacco industry.

Hm, yes I agree that alcohol can be harmful, this is why drunkenness is forbidden in Christianity also.

As for the US decision, good move, lousy reason.

Zombrex

panda100 wrote: »

It always really frustrates me the way people seem to blame the Catholic church and there stance on contraception on the aids epidemic in Africa.
Only 13% of Africans are Catholic so the other 87% are hardly going to care about what the pope says.

That isn't why they are blamed, they are blamed because a lot of the aid agencies are Catholic based and a lot (not all) don't teach proper sexual health education with condom use to Africans (Catholic and non-Catholic) because of the Church's stance on condoms and pre-marital sex.

panda100 wrote: »

The catholic church really need a new PR sytem. Instead of saying 'rawh rawh dont do this ,dont do that' they should be promoting their very valid answer to the increase in STD's,teen pregnancys etc and that is abstinence.

Abstinence is a fairy tale. Teaching it doesn't work because most humans do not remain abstinent until marriage. Teaching it simply leads to misinformed uneducated (in terms of sexual health) people having sex, which is not good.

Mrs OBumble

daveyjoe wrote: »

Are you serious?
Don't even have to go into archive for this one (fresh from today's papers): http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0204/church.html

I don't know if it's fair to say that a 'large number' (what's a large number?) of priests are paedophiles but it is fair to say that the proportion of priests who have abused children is much higher than that of the total population.

Yes, quite serious.

That quote doesn't prove that a large number - or a large proportion - of priests are paedophiles (ie sexually attracted to children) or child sex-abusers (ie carry out sexual violation of children).

The Irish Times says that the current commission is examining 42 (or is it 41?) cases, which are representative of 102 in total.

Now I don't know how many priests were working in Ireland over the time that these cases occurred. Google isn't even giving me a robust-looking value for the number now (though a few pages made me think it's probably around 3000). So that suggests around 3%. (Assuming that all the 102 cases were guilty - some won't have been.)

(Actually, there's a point, is the commission looking at all of Ireland, or just Dublin?)

Anyways ... what none of us know, although psychologists probably have some population estimates, is what proportion of non-priests are child-sex-abusers. So it's just not possible to say that priests are worse than others on a proportional basis. And there are so many more non-priests than priests in society, that on a numbers basis non-priests must be worse.

Of course, the harm done by them is worse, because they represent an institution that is supposed to be trustworthy. (Families aren't supposed to be trustworthy ...?)

I'm not for one minute minimising the enormous damage done, or excusing any of the behaviour.

But remember that the vast majority of priests/brothers/nuns were not and are not sexually abusing children.

And also remember that when you quote figures, no matter what the topic, it's always polite to quote the source that you got them from.

Nevyn

That is the number of case which are good enough for the department of public proscution to proceed with not the nuumber of reported cases or the number of people who this happened to who have not come forward.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Abstinence is a fairy tale. Teaching it doesn't work because most humans do not remain abstinent until marriage. Teaching it simply leads to misinformed uneducated (in terms of sexual health) people having sex, which is not good.

It is possible to teach abstinence and sex ed at the same time you know. I think it's a bit daft to say that it leads to misinformed people.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

It is possible to teach abstinence and sex ed at the same time you know. I think it's a bit daft to say that it leads to misinformed people.

Indeed, and a great example of this is Uganda, the biggest success story in Africa when it comes to the fight against AIDS.

Uganda has followed the ABC approach:
Abstinence until marriage; secondly, advising those who are sexually active to Be faithful to a single partner or to reduce their number of partners; and finally, especially if you have more than one sexual partner, always use a Condom.

This approach has transformed the problem, and Uganda has seen a dramatic fall in rates of HIV/Aids transmission.

The problem is that Uganda rarely seems to get mentioned in discussions like this because two sets of extremists come from opposite sides. Basically the argument is either:
a) Condoms don't work in the fight against AIDS. Condoms are evil because the Pope says so. Anyway, condoms are ineffective against AIDS because the AIDS virus is smaller than the holes between the molecules in a condom (that last one, BTW, is nonsense and a total lie).
b) Abstinence doesn't work because shagging everyone you want when you want is a basic human freedom that is only denied by religious fascists who are really repressed paedophiles.

Of course both positions are nonsense and are propagated by those who are much more interested in scoring points and advancing their own moral agendas than out of any genuine concern for the plight of AIDS victims in Africa.

The ABC approach represents, in my opinion, the best answer to the AIDS crisis. There is, sadly, widespread aversion to condom use in Africa, but most of it is based on other factors rather than Catholic teaching (eg 'Would you wear an overcoat when you're in bed having sex?' - a South African proverb).

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

It is possible to teach abstinence and sex ed at the same time you know. I think it's a bit daft to say that it leads to misinformed people.

Of course you are quite right, and as PDN said the ABC approach can have dramatic effects. What I should have said is faith based abstinence only campaigns, particularly those funded by the Catholic groups, America churches and the Bush administration.

These are unfortunately undoing a lot of the good work done in countries like Uganda

http://www.avert.org/aidsuganda.htm

Abstinence-only policies

Uganda receives significant amounts of funding from America, and much of the PEPFAR money is being channelled through pro-abstinence and even anti-condom organisations which are faith-based, and which would like sexual abstinence to be the central pillar of the fight against HIV. This money is making a difference - some Ugandan teachers report being instructed by US contractors not to discuss condoms in schools because the new policy is "abstinence only".25

Small community-based organisations are increasingly shifting the emphasis of their prevention programmes to comply with PEPFAR's policies. This change is also being encouraged by evangelical churches within Uganda, and by the First Lady, Janet Museveni.26 Around the country dozens of billboards have sprung up promoting only abstinence to prevent HIV infection. Some of these billboards even carry negative messages about condoms to discourage their use.

"PEPFAR really shifted the empasis to A and B [Abstinence and Being faithful] just because of the amounts of money being put into these programmes"

- Sam Okware, senior Health Ministry official and architect of Uganda's ABC model. - 27

"There are some prominent people in government, and some outside, who with the help of conservative agents in the US are stigmatising AIDS, saying that only sinners use a condom. That is the message we are struggling with."

- Dr Jotham Musinguzi, director of the Population Secretariat at the Ministry of Finance. - 28

"Because of the US, our government now says Abstain and Be faithful only. So people stop trusting our advice. They think we were lying about how condoms can stop AIDS. Confusion is deadly."

- Dr Katamba, health co-ordinator of the Uganda Protestant Medical Bureau. - 29

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

b) Abstinence doesn't work because shagging everyone you want when you want is a basic human freedom that is only denied by religious fascists who are really repressed paedophiles.

Yes, because that is the alternative to abstinence till marriage :rolleyes::rolleyes:

grahamo

The ban on all birth control is a way for the catholic church to get catholics to outbreed other religions, leading to catholics being in the majority, leading to world domination for the vatican.

Zombrex

grahamo wrote: »

The ban on all birth control is a way for the catholic church to get catholics to outbreed other religions, leading to catholics being in the majority, leading to world domination for the vatican.

I thought that was the Crab People's plan?

djpbarry

PDN wrote: »

While personally I am all for abolishing VAT on condoms, in fairness to the Roman Catholic Church I should point out that the rate of VAT on condoms in Ireland is hardly going to affect anyone in third world countries

Granted, but AIDS is still a problem in Ireland too, albeit a less widespread one.

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe that telling someone to put on a condom and just say that it is all okay isn't acceptable.

It's more acceptable than telling someone to abstain from sex and everything will be ok.

Jakkass wrote: »

There is healthy growth in Christianity in Ireland

I doubt that very much, unless of course you are referring to the immigrant population.

Jakkass wrote: »

The governments stance is harsh on drugs and rightly so, our streets need to be rid of them.

I would say alcohol and tobacco cause far more problems in Ireland than any illegal substances.

Jakkass wrote: »

In marriage there is a lesser likelihood of one committing adultery or being promiscuous than in a relationship without marriage.

That is entirely dependent on the individual.

Spyral wrote: »

why don't you look at the UK... they have a very pro-contraception pro-abortion situation and yet teen pregnancy are at a high.

One could also argue that the Netherlands is "pro-contraception pro-abortion", yet they have a relatively low rate of teenage pregnancy, although I’m not sure this is relevant to this discussion.

Spyral wrote: »

exactly and in≈2000 years the church is pretty much the same on its core beliefs..

Ah, yes, it's greatest weakness.

Spyral wrote: »

the church generally is nice and non rawr but then no one listens to them so they get rarw and then even less people listen to them..

And why do you think nobody listens to them? (see previous point)^

Spyral wrote: »

abstinence does work if you follow it..

It didn't work for Mary (apparently).

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes but the rate of growth in Christianity outside of Europe is rather high. Particularly in the Far East and Africa.

Hmm. Strange that :rolleyes:.

Jakkass wrote: »

In some cases cannabis can cause permanent brain damage.

This statement means nothing. Paracetamol, a legal drug available without prescription, is by far the most common cause of acute liver failure in both the US and the UK. The point is, in large quantities, almost anything will have serious adverse physiological effects.

PDN wrote: »

This approach has transformed the problem, and Uganda has seen a dramatic fall in rates of HIV/Aids transmission.

It should also be pointed out that a large number of Ugandan women have also been availing of PMTCT services, which is likely to have had a dramatic effect. However, the dramatic decline in prevalence of the HIV virus in Uganda has been questioned, mainly because statistics have been distorted through the inaccurate extrapolation of data from small urban clinics to the entire population.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

It is possible to teach abstinence and sex ed at the same time you know. I think it's a bit daft to say that it leads to misinformed people.

I have a friend who's a fundamentalist christian who spent several years in one of America's plentiful "bible colleges" spending six years earning a master's degree which turned to ash in her hands when she returned to Ireland, where she found out that the college, like most of its colleagues, was unaccredited. Could have told her that myself.

Anyhow, while in the USA, she picked up that frightful metaphor about women being like a pressure-cooker, and men like a microwave. Anybody who's had heterosexual sex should be able to see what the inept metaphor is flailing towards. But my unfortunate. and virginal, friend thought that pressure-cooking referred to the pressure of a pregnancy and that microwaving referred to men wanting sex all the time.

Misinformed? Wildly. And she used to teach this stuff to American and Northern Irish kids. Frankly, it's embarrassing.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Basically the argument is either:
a) Condoms don't work in the fight against AIDS [...]
b) Abstinence doesn't work because shagging everyone you want when you want is a basic human freedom that is only denied by religious fascists who are really repressed paedophiles.

"either"? Painting your opponents as hate-filled, fanatical bigots doesn't do your own case much good, PDN. A more moderate position might win you more support.

Perhaps you'd like to retract this childish claim and replace it with something a bit closer to what people on my side of the fence actually say?

Hivemind187

Jakkass wrote: »

I couldn't care how lonely it is on that pedestal. I don't think the Pope deserves as much blame as the general public are giving him and the Catholic Church over the AIDS epidemic.

Actually, the majority of th blame lies with a certain German doctor in Angola (might be the wrong country) who developed Polio vaccine in chimps ... thus providing a pathway for Simian Immunodeficiency Virus to jump species into humans.

The difficulty CONTROLLING THE SPREAD of AIDS and HIV (not to mention dozens of other infections) however is a different matter and a large portion of the blame lands squarely at his holiness' feet.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes humans have urges, urges that can be controlled and exercised in the correct situation. Not all things that feel good are necessarily good in the light of morality. I could feel good if I took a hit of heroin but that doesn't make it correct or right does it?

I dont know, ask a junkie.

This is, of course, the usual tired BS peddled by those who can't bare to face facts - namely: using rhetoric and the subjective to fight something that is very real. Human beings have urges, they are known as instincts and it is amazing how the pius are always so quick to condemn them - however - have you considered that without them you wouldnt be here having this argument? Have you considered that without lust, their is no human race to worship your chosen deity? Have you considered that the so-called "sin" of lust is actually part of the so-called grand design? And that if god is made in mans image he suffers the same sins?

Your morality is utterly meaningless to a virus as is your God and your piety and your soul. The virus doesnt give a hang whether you were having consensual sex or were raped. It doesnt care if you are a man or a woman, a child or a red haired midget from Sligo. All it wants to do is multiply.

Jakkass wrote: »

If the individuals were truly of the Church, they would be encouraging this also as it is truly beneficial. I believe that telling someone to put on a condom and just say that it is all okay isn't acceptable. Because you haven't tackled the root problem, which is the lust and the promiscuity about the whole thing.

If it feels good it is immoral and therefore you get everything you deserve right Jakkass?

There are none so evil minded as those who have the agenda of piety and look down on us in the mud from their pedestal.

The condom is a barrier, a physical object designed to prevent unwanted pregnancy and protect against transmission of disease. It is not intended to be a religious icon nor is it intended to be a object of rebellion which for some reason the Catholic church doesnt seem to be able to understand. It is a device intended to prevent people from messing up their lives or killing themselves. Whether you like it or not, people will have sex regardless of how your god feels about the subject a rubber will protect them from getting a deadly and incurable disease. For all its missionary work (which wreaked havoc on dozens of cultures) you would think that saving lives would be the "christian" thing to do.

Reducing the spread of disease and the preventing of pregnancy to "lust and promiscuity" is contemptible. For your information, promiscuity was widespread during Victorian times and at ALL OTHER POINTS IN HISTORY BEFORE NOW. Our existence is evidence enough for this. Moreover, the reduction of the issue to "promoting promiscuity" is utterly daft as it suggests that it is the fault of the condom that pople are choosing to have sex more often - utterly ignoring things like drink, drugs, hormones and simple, old fashioned "fancying" someone.

Jakkass wrote: »

Hivemind, I believe it's far far easier to blame Christianity for the problems in Africa. In a sense you are using the Catholic Church in particular as a scapegoat. (I don't usually defend the RC Church as much as this but in this point of view they are spot on)

Ah no, as always you entirely missed my point. I am placing the portion of the blame due the catholic church right at its feet. The Roman Catholic Churches position on many things cause hardship in this world. For example:

Homosexuality
Abortion
Sex before marriage
Birth Control
Euthanasia

In fact, reading that list back, it seems that the Catholic church is utterly obsessed with sex. Not a new statement strangely enough.

BrianCalgary

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Actually, the majority of th blame lies with a certain German doctor in Angola (might be the wrong country) who developed Polio vaccine in chimps ... thus providing a pathway for Simian Immunodeficiency Virus to jump species into humans.

The difficulty CONTROLLING THE SPREAD of AIDS and HIV (not to mention dozens of other infections) however is a different matter and a large portion of the blame lands squarely at his holiness' feet..

ActuallyI dont see His Holiness having sex with multiple partners and passing infected needles to unsuspecting drug users.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

This is, of course, the usual tired BS peddled by those who can't bare to face facts - namely: using rhetoric and the subjective to fight something that is very real. Human beings have urges, they are known as instincts and it is amazing how the pius are always so quick to condemn them - however - have you considered that without them you wouldnt be here having this argument? Have you considered that without lust, their is no human race to worship your chosen deity? Have you considered that the so-called "sin" of lust is actually part of the so-called grand design? And that if god is made in mans image he suffers the same sins?..

watch the swearing. 1 Yellow card.

Their is a huge difference between lust and love. Try to understand this. I LOVE my wife, I DO NOT lust after her. This is quite insulting to all Christians.

Funny how you call Jakass pious and then hit with nonsense.

Love is part of the grand design, not lust.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Your morality is utterly meaningless to a virus as is your God and your piety and your soul. The virus doesnt give a hang whether you were having consensual sex or were raped. It doesnt care if you are a man or a woman, a child or a red haired midget from Sligo. All it wants to do is multiply..

You bet the virus doesn't care, so we have to.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

There are none so evil minded as those who have the agenda of piety and look down on us in the mud from their pedestal...

You mean like you are doing right now?

Hivemind187 wrote: »

The condom is a barrier, a physical object designed to prevent unwanted pregnancy and protect against transmission of disease. It is not intended to be a religious icon nor is it intended to be a object of rebellion which for some reason the Catholic church doesnt seem to be able to understand. It is a device intended to prevent people from messing up their lives or killing themselves. Whether you like it or not, people will have sex regardless of how your god feels about the subject a rubber will protect them from getting a deadly and incurable disease. For all its missionary work (which wreaked havoc on dozens of cultures) you would think that saving lives would be the "christian" thing to do..

Why not speak to the myriads of people who have been rescued from such lifestyles by missionaries.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Reducing the spread of disease and the preventing of pregnancy to "lust and promiscuity" is contemptible. For your information, promiscuity was widespread during Victorian times and at ALL OTHER POINTS IN HISTORY BEFORE NOW. Our existence is evidence enough for this. Moreover, the reduction of the issue to "promoting promiscuity" is utterly daft as it suggests that it is the fault of the condom that pople are choosing to have sex more often - utterly ignoring things like drink, drugs, hormones and simple, old fashioned "fancying" someone..

Our existence is not evidence of promiscuity at all. The existence of my three children and my three brothers and my wifes family of 7 kids is evidence of the strong love that was shared by the parents in question.

C'mon Hivemind, you certainly dont seem to.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Ah no, as always you entirely missed my point. I am placing the portion of the blame due the catholic church right at its feet. The Roman Catholic Churches position on many things cause hardship in this world. For example:

Homosexuality
Abortion
Sex before marriage
Birth Control
Euthanasia

In fact, reading that list back, it seems that the Catholic church is utterly obsessed with sex. Not a new statement strangely enough.

Whoo, this is rich. Imagine a world without abortions, or are you OK with killing poor defenseless children?

Sex before marriage - rescue many young people from the emotional scars of giving themselves to someone idiot who doesn't deserve the. Think of the children who would grow up in a stable household instead of being born to a single Mom.

Birth Control - I'm fine with it.

Euthanasia - Should we warn your granny that we're going to put her on an ice flow?

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Euthanasia - Should we warn your granny that we're going to put her on an ice flow?

It's been a while since euthanasia came up and memories may have faded, but the position that you lampoon is -- I believe -- held by nobody, so I'm perplexed as to why you seem to think it is.

Is it worth a separate thread to discuss the actual positions involved here?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

It's been a while since euthanasia came up and memories may have faded, but the position that you lampoon is -- I believe -- held by nobody, so I'm perplexed as to why you seem to think it is.

Is it worth a separate thread to discuss the actual positions involved here?

Hivemind's post certainly implies that the church's stand on Euthanasia is wrong. Therefore if the church's stance is the Euthanasia is bad, as a result hivemind must think that euthanasia is right.

I am not accusing any other poster of supporting a pro-euthanasia position.

robindch

...just read this bit. Hardly worth another post, but here we goes anyway...

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Our existence is not evidence of promiscuity at all. The existence of my three children and my three brothers and my wifes family of 7 kids is evidence of the strong love that was shared by the parents in question.

The existence of your three kids suggests that you and your wife are both fertile -- you're mildly lucky, since between 10% and 15% of couples are not fertile. The strength of love that one feels, however wonderful it is, does not affect fertility.

You're quite right to say that our existence is not evidence of promiscuity. But our genetic record certainly does suggest that a reasonably substantial degree of infidelity has always existed within humans, on both male and female sides. Interestingly, research suggests that this infidelity acts in certain very specific directions only, but that's a separate topic.

robindch

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Hivemind's post certainly implies that the church's stand on Euthanasia is wrong.

I wasn't responding to hivemind's post -- I was responding to yours in which you ridiculed a clearly ludicrous position that nobody takes.

If you're interested in understanding a more reasonable position on euthanasia, then it's probably best done in a separate thread.

But characterizing supporters of euthanasia as people who'd put their granny on an ice-floe is as inaccurate as it is unpleasant.

djpbarry

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Sex before marriage - rescue many young people from the emotional scars of giving themselves to someone idiot who doesn't deserve the.

What about those who do not wish to marry? Are they condemned to a life of celibacy?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Think of the children who would grow up in a stable household instead of being born to a single Mom.

A married couple is not necessarily a stable one, just as an unmarried couple is not necessarily an unstable one. Marriage is not the be-all and end-all for everyone, but that should not prevent them from having sex and/or children.