How much of religious charity work is really fixing problems caused by religion in the first place?

[newcrasher]

I have been actively involved in my church for years, but recently realized I am atheist. We are disengaging from our church, but it is a long process.

Our kids are in a musical tonight, and there was a preview in the service today so I went to see them sing. I have been away for 6 months or so, so I was able to see my church with new eyes.

They are doing a lot of good work...really impactful work that is helping people. Indeed I have travelled to world with the church helping with some of this work. But as I was sitting there, an analogy came to mind...

(warning: Godwin ahead!)

Saying the church is doing good things is like saying the Nazi combat medics were doing good things. The individuals wouldn't have to pass out so many bandages if the organization wasn't so destructive.

My point is, even the medics were part of an evil organization. They are the proverbial lipstick on the pig.

If I look at the places religious people do the most "good" work, I think of inner cities, Central America, and Africa. And I realize that these places were ravaged by religious thought and religion-justified actions.

Hopefully someone who knows more about this will come along and show how I am right, or howi am full of bunk.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I honestly don't think religion causes those kind of problems. Religion is often a tool used by those in power, but the real damage has to do with power struggles and environmental factors unrelated to religion

[Little Nemo]

I think I'm going to need to hear more details about how religion ravaged the inner cities, Central America, and Africa before I can really offer any opinions.

It just seems sort of out-of-left-field. Like somebody saying "The 2012 Presidential election will be decided by the weather. Do you agree or disagree?"

It's not really a matter of me agreeing or disagreeing. It's more like I never considered the possible connection. And it's not intuitively obvious.

So could you fill in the points between A and Z so the rest of us can follow your line of reasoning?

[Oakminster]

Give me a fucking break. Yet another born again atheist blaming religion for all the ills of the world. Religion does not cause poverty. Religion does not cause unemployment, or housing bubbles, or the economy to tank.

[ITR champion]

I think I'm going to need to hear more details about how religion ravaged the inner cities, Central America, and Africa before I can really offer any opinions.
If you're familiar with the tenets of the New Atheist Catechism, it's not hard to guess what newcrasher has in mind. The most common claim in this regard is that the Catholic Church won't let its members use birth control and this is what causes AIDS to spread. Of course if we look at a map of AIDS infection rates worldwide:

http://gamapserver.who.int/mapLibrary/Files/Maps/HIVPrevalenceGlobal2006.png

We see that most Catholic countries have very low rates of AIDS infection, and that includes even the poor third-world countries--most of South America, for instance.

Another common claim is that Uganda recently introduced a bill that makes homosexual sex punishable by death (true) and that American evangelical groups are backing it (completely false). This seems to have arisen from the fact that many American churches are building schools, clinics, sanitation systems and other such work in Uganda, and apparently by being there they share responsibility for what the government does. (A classic proof of the old adage that no good deed goes unpunished.)

As for 'inner cities' I really don't have much idea what the claim is there. It's generally agreed that government policy starting from the 60's was a disaster for inner cities, regardless of political affiliation; where religion is supposed to come in I'm not sure.

[Der Trihs]

Religion does not cause poverty. Getting abortions outlawed and lying about condoms to produce a huge number of unwanted children does not increase the prosperity of a region. Nor do the religiously driven efforts to ignore the spread of AIDS. Nor do religious laws hampering women, who happen to be half the population. The religious practice of tithing and "prosperity theology" also encourage poverty.

[code_grey]

a better question is, how much of the liberal charity (a lot of it done through the State) is spent addressing problems caused by liberal thought and action?

For instance, if the liberal State is doing charitable work dealing with the explosion of STDs post 1960s - guess why did they explode in the first place and why do they continue to remain high?

Or if the liberal State is helping the "single mothers" with their poor little children, such as by giving them taxpayer money or by shaking down the "deadbeat dads" - why do you think there are so many single mothers in the first place? Is it not due to the liberal policy of promoting easy divorce and giving various forms of "help" for single mothers?

And then there are the poor homeless, the beloved of the liberals. Why do you think there are so many homeless lately? How many homeless were there in America back in 1900, in a country that was 1. much poorer than America of today and 2. had few "housing standards" and "slum destruction/revitalization programs"? Or how many homeless are there in modern China, the not-so-liberal country that is poorer than America ever was in all of its history?

And on it goes. The liberals are like the Nazi SS who herd people into a concentration camp and then go around handing out bandaids for the problems specifically caused by the very concentration camp they are running. Let the people out, and then there would be no need to make sure that the beatings are being administered fairly by the kapos, starvation diet is shared out equitably and overcrowding at the gas chamber is prevented through superior scheduling.

[Der Trihs]

For instance, if the liberal State is doing charitable work dealing with the explosion of STDs post 1960s - guess why did they explode in the first place and why do they continue to remain high?Because we admit they exist, instead of trying to pretend they don't?

Or if the liberal State is helping the "single mothers" with their poor little children, such as by giving them taxpayer money or by shaking down the "deadbeat dads" - why do you think there are so many single mothers in the first place? Is it not due to the liberal policy of promoting easy divorce and giving various forms of "help" for single mothers?"Illegitimacy" in America peaked in the 50s.

And then there are the poor homeless, the beloved of the liberals. Why do you think there are so many homeless lately? Because of right wing policies like dumping the mentally ill on the street out of the government run shelters/asylums under the theory that private industry would take up the slack. Something pioneered by Ronald Reagan here in California. And because of the constant shifting of the tax burden from the rich to everyone else, and the right wing mismanagement of the economy, slashing of public assistance of all kinds, right wing laws designed to punish the poor, and so on.


How many homeless were there in America back in 1900, in a country that was 1. much poorer than America of today and 2. had few "housing standards" and "slum destruction/revitalization programs"? Ever hear of "Hoovervilles" and shantytowns and hobos?

[Martin Hyde]

You would have to first come up with a comprehensive list of problems "caused by religion" and then come up with a comprehensive list of "targets of religious charities" and you might then be able to determine what portion of religious charity work is directly addressing problems caused by religion.

However, to really get it accurate you have to take it further than that. For example there are four major religions in the world: Christianity (2.2bn), Islam (1.5bn), Hinduism (~950m), and Buddhism (varies ~400m-1.5bn in estimates.)

Each religion is different in enough ways that it is worth looking then at the specific problems that say, Hinduism causes and then seeing what portion of Hindu charity work addresses those problems. Do the same then for Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism.

Of course, even that isn't very accurate. There are large enough differences between the different sects within all of those religions that you would then have to break it down further by major sects within each of the world's major religions.

As can now be seen even getting close to a factual answer on this is going to be very difficult, and I honestly doubt a holistic study has ever been done on this topic. One of the major reasons I suspect that is it would be very, very difficult to empirically link specific societal problems to actions or stances of a certain religion sect.

Take the AIDS epidemic in Africa and the Catholic Church's position on contraceptives. It is a much maligned position, and many people have blasted the Catholic Church for "killing Africans." However, to empirically even demonstrate that the Catholic Church is "responsible" for the AIDS epidemic would be a herculean task. Unfortunately of course most people who have tried have had a serious axe to grind against the Church and thus it is difficult to take any of their conclusions seriously. Then there of course is the point most would not argue that even if we ascribe blame for the AIDS epidemic in part to the Catholic Church, no one would probably say they are entirely to blame. So do we blame 5% of AIDS infections in Africa on the Catholic Church? 10%? 25%? 50%? 0.5%? That is a whole debate in and of itself, and once resolved that is but one small portion of getting to the answer to the question posited in the OP. Every single analysis is going to be a major debate such as that.

[code_grey]

"Illegitimacy" in America peaked in the 50s.


bullshit! The mothers of those "illegitimate" children went on to marry their fathers. They sure as hell did not marry the AFDC or the family law shakedown system.


Because of right wing policies like dumping the mentally ill on the street out of the government run shelters/asylums under the theory that private industry would take up the slack.


riight, because all the homeless are mentally ill. Ever heard of people living out of their cars because they cannot afford rent? Read all about it in NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/us/02cars.html?pagewanted=print . And sure enough, the State is already beginning to wage war against them by fining people who have no money even for rent.


Ever hear of "Hoovervilles" and shantytowns and hobos?

how many hobos were there? How many of them were females?

What's wrong with "shantytowns"? Would you rather live in
1. a shantytown, with a roof above your head and decent neighbors of the same social class as you are
2. a car, with continual threat of persecution by police
3. on the street, homeless shelter and NY subway, with continual threat from criminals, police and the elements

The options are sorted in the order reflecting my personal preference here.

In short, liberals lie and dumb people believe and parrot their lies. The "big lie" in action par excellence.

ETA: something else to keep in mind is that Hoovervilles occurred long after the Progressives passed the housing standards, although not quite up to the modern high standard. So yes, that too was caused by liberalism. Who was stopping these people from living 10 people per room in a building with running water? The liberal government and its police thugs were!

[John Mace]

"Illegitimacy" in America peaked in the 50s.

Where do you get these crazy ideas? The illegitimacy rate in 1950 was about 5%. It was approaching 40% in 2007. Link. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18_Fig_1.png)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The point about the RCC resisting attempts to stem the AIDS epidemic is a good one. I hadn't thought of that. There's no excuse for the Church to do that, and it does cause real suffering.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Where do you get these crazy ideas? The illegitimacy rate in 1950 was about 5%. It was approaching 40% in 2007. Link. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18_Fig_1.png)
He might have been think about teen pregnancy rates, which were higher in the 50's. That doesn't equate to out of wedlock births, though, they were usually just forced to get married.

[Martin Hyde]

Now, my opinion on the matter is that the major charitable initiatives that Christian institutions in my area are out to tackle are probably not societal problems I would blame on any religious group.

For example a big thing around here is canned food drives. Considering the vast range in economic and fiscal philosophies amongst people within any of the major Christian sects I just don't think you can blame Christianity for people needing food charity.

Homelessness is mostly a factor of mental illness and serious substance abuse in the United States. I can't really blame the Christians for those, either. Mental illness is present in all societies, and substance abuse as well. The poor treatment of people who are mentally ill and people with serious substance abuse problems isn't really something I can link to any major religious group's position on the issues.

In the 60s and 70s there was a revolution in the treatment of the mentally ill. It was seen by both people on the left and the right that for most people, community based mental health services were preferable to institutionalization. People on the left and people who were advocates of the mentally ill in general felt this way because of the draconian nature of psychiatric hospitals and it was felt by many that while some people did need that intensive level of care, most people did not. People on the right saw a way to stop spending massive amounts of money on state mental hospitals, which are extremely expensive to operate.

What actually happened is we closed a lot of state psychiatric hospitals, and have been slow to react to changes in our population. While we had a legitimate ability to close some of those hospitals as we moved to community mental health as a focus, there was still and is still a certain group of mentally ill that need to be in a psychiatric hospital. Unfortunately as the U.S. population has increased States have not reopened or built new psychiatric hospitals to keep up with the base line level of growth in the population of the mentally ill that anyone would expect to see just because of basic demographics. So even though we moved a huge portion of people out into the community, we still have massive overcrowding in psychiatric hospitals because we closed more than we should have and we haven't built new ones to keep up with population growth.

The persons who needed in a psychiatric hospital but could not get in, instead end up in psych wards in other hospitals (which are not really ideal) or they end up on the street. Most community mental health centers will not take people that are supposed to be in a psychiatric hospital because they are not equipped to deal with that in a dormitory style setting found in a residential group home. So that's one source of the homeless.

As part of the transition to community mental health, it became much more difficult to have someone committed to a psychiatric hospital at all, or for that matter forcibly placed into any form of treatment. Some portion of the mentally ill population will never voluntarily undergo treatment, and will live in the streets unless we have a system in place to essentially force them into treatment. So that's another source of the homeless.

On the community mental health side of it, most CMH facilities are operated by quasi-governmental private corporations, that usually have a pseudo-monopoly over a given region of a state. Most of the operating expenses of these companies are covered by State governments (who are acting as a funnel for Federal funds and also kicking in some portion of State money as well.) Unfortunately the funding is always dicey, and because of that CMH facilities are chronically overbooked, understaffed and underfunded, it is difficult to get more funding to open more residential group homes and even sometimes to fully staff existing ones, which results in fewer beds and worse treatment. So many homeless mentally ill who would be happy to live in a residential group home have trouble finding one, some of them might even be eligible for other forms of housing but unfortunately without the treatment aspects of a CMH group home they can't really keep it together enough to make unsupervised housing "work" for them. So that is another source of the homeless.

Finally with substance abuse, it wasn't until relatively recently that societal opinions have started to change, and it still has a ways to go. Many people feel that if you're an alcoholic or a drug addict you should receive no help from the public at all, that you've chosen to destroy your life with drugs and you should be left on the streets to rot, essentially. In spite of that there are treatment facilities and shelters that house people with addiction problems. Most of them are just general homeless shelters that also offer some AA/NA meetings and may have a few counselors on staff. It is easier to fund a homeless shelter with a few addiction counselors than it is to fund a shelter or facility that specializes in treatment/housing of addicts. (That is because of politics.)

Finally, with most of the facilities that do exist for addicts there is a requirement that you not use or be under the effects of drugs/alcohol while at the facility. Many, many serious addicts will never agree to those criteria for very long, and either never bother trying or get kicked out of the facility when they show up at the front door plastered one too many times. A few states have started building facilities where addicts are housed and given a small stipend and permitted to drink essentially whenever they want. They are not required to undergo treatment whatsoever (they are called "wet houses") the people running them essentially describe them as hospice level treatment for end-stage alcoholics who essentially have decided they will never get better and are happy to live in the wet house and drink until it kills them. I'm actually somewhat supportive of the wet house approach. I've seen many alcoholics in the homeless population who I think essentially cannot beat their addiction, it will kill them, and giving them a safe, warm place where they are allowed to drink and sleep you save the public huge amounts of money in emergency medical services, police services and et cetera. The wet houses I have read about house end stage alcoholics for about $18k a year, and I've heard that alcoholics living on the street sometimes cost up to $100,000 a year in services, so there is real savings and humanity in this approach, and I'd even like to see it extended to other drugs besides alcohol.

[Magiver]

If I look at the places religious people do the most "good" work, I think of inner cities, Central America, and Africa. And I realize that these places were ravaged by religious thought and religion-justified actions.
Central America, and Africa were ravaged by their own populous long before any outside religion hit the stage

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Ravaged by religion is ravaged by religion. What difference does it make which religion?

[code_grey]

incidentally, folks, why do you think the costs of medical care for the mentally ill are so surprisingly high nowadays, compared to measures like per capita income or typical salary? On the face of it, if the patient is consuming nothing but basic food and a cot and requires minimum oversight to prevent him from being attacked by other patients, just how expensive is it supposed to be? Just how many non-generic drugs and super-experienced RN's does this process require?

How much did basic care for mentally ill cost back before the liberals set up the whole "mental health" industry? E.g. how much would it cost if the government were to allow some bunch of wannabe-Mother-Theresa nuns to run a minimum services permanent shelter for them, paid for by private donations?

But, but, but - you aren't qualified, Mother Theresas! You haven't got the license! You haven't got the certification! You are not in compliance with government-mandated housing quality standards! You haven't got nothing and you are mouth breathing religious nuts, so off to the streets with these mentally ill. The liberal State will take care of them... maybe. Some day. Change we can believe in. In the meantime, let them rot on the streets so we can keep bitching about Ronald Reagan and his evil mental health policies.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Religious charities don't have the numbers, and blaming health care costs on "liberals" is moronic.

[code_grey]

Religious charities don't have the numbers, and blaming health care costs on "liberals" is moronic.

are conservatives imposing all those regulatory burdens on health care, housing etc? Are conservatives demanding expensive and often unattainable "compliance" from everyone and everything in these fields? Who is it that is sending the inspectors and the police thugs to keep people from trying to better their own lot or to help other people to the best of their limited financial abilities?

The movement that is doing it started out in early 20th century under the name "Progressive" and now goes by the name "Liberal".

And yeah, the concentration camp inmates "don't have the numbers" and blaming the SS guards for the inmates' starvation and disease is "moronic". So no need to release them. All heil the Liberal State. A more orderly and environmentally friendly crematorium is your inalienable human right which will be enforced with the full might of the law. Don't even think about running away, right wing nutjob.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Heh. "Regulatory burdens."

[John Mace]

He might have been think about teen pregnancy rates, which were higher in the 50's. That doesn't equate to out of wedlock births, though, they were usually just forced to get married.

Or they were already married, as the average age for women to get married was much younger in the 50s than it is today.

[Ají de Gallina]

Getting abortions outlawed and lying about condoms to produce a huge number of unwanted children does not increase the prosperity of a region. Nor do the religiously driven efforts to ignore the spread of AIDS. Nor do religious laws hampering women, who happen to be half the population. The religious practice of tithing and "prosperity theology" also encourage poverty.

(my bolding)
Do you have a cite for that or is it simply hatred?
Just to be sure so that you won't walk around the issue, you said that abortion laws and facts about condoms were produce fot the purpose of increasing the number of unwanted children.
You also said that religions are specifically trying to increase the AIDS problem.

[Llama Llogophile]

Just to be sure so that you won't walk around the issue, you said that abortion laws and facts about condoms were produce fot the purpose of increasing the number of unwanted children.

Addressing only the condom issue, here's an article from The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/21/condoms-birth-control-catholic-church-short-history) that gives a brief history of the Catholic church's position on condoms.


In 2007 Benedict himself inveighed against the "dangerous individualism" of Italian Catholics for not having enough children and, on a flight to Africa last year, he claimed – in defiance of virtually all informed medical opinion – that condom use could actually make the Aids epidemic worse by increasing sexual activity.

That doesn't imply "unwanted" children, but the church clearly sees condom use as depriving the world of more Catholic people. I don't think it's too big a leap to assert that this policy may have done harm in impoverished and/or overpopulated parts of the world.

You also said that religions are specifically trying to increase the AIDS problem.

He said "ignore the spread of AIDs". Not the same thing. And by putting out misinformation about condoms the Catholic church has most definitely contributed to the problem.

[code_grey]

Mach Tuck, has it occurred to you that either the Guardian or yourself are making an unwarranted conclusion based on a claim about another topic? If the Pope said that he wants more Catholic children in Italy, does it also necessarily mean he wants more children in Africa? Until he comes out and says so outright, this would remain speculation.

Consider a counter argument. The Vatican's long term well-being depends on getting the Italian Catholics to have one or two kids to keep future Italy, well, Italian, and also at least borderline Catholic. Not to mention that Catholic Italians might even donate some money to the Church and stuff :cool:. By contrast, pushing Africans to have five children instead of three would not make much of a difference for the Vatican as a political institution, and it can easily make things worse for the Catholic Church over there, e.g. if overpopulation starts causing religious wars. Or if all those extra Africans sneak into Italy and camp out on St Peter's footsteps. Neither can you get much money in donations from starving landless African peasants :p

ETA: 13th century pope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XXI is suspected of writing a book on family planning called "Treasure of the Poor". So it is certainly not inherently out of character for Catholic Church to be opposed to population growth, supportive of growth, indifferent to it or whatnot. The same, obviously, can be said about secular governments whose opinions may vary by time and place, depending on the circumstances.

[Llama Llogophile]

Mach Tuck, has it occurred to you that either the Guardian or yourself are making an unwarranted conclusion based on a claim about another topic? If the Pope said that he wants more Catholic children in Italy, does it also necessarily mean he wants more children in Africa? Until he comes out and says so outright, this would remain speculation.


Has it occurred to you that the pope is head of the Catholic church everywhere, and as such the Catholics in Africa - not just the ones in Italy - are obliged to do what he says?

Why are you bending over backward to give benefit of the doubt to the Catholic church on this matter? They have put out factually incorrect information, probably knowingly IMHO. That does harm in the world, regardless of whatever their true intentions may be.

[code_grey]

Has it occurred to you that the pope is head of the Catholic church everywhere, and as such the Catholics in Africa - not just the ones in Italy - are obliged to do what he says?


African Catholics are "obliged" not to use condoms since that is his teaching to everybody. They are not "obliged" to have more children to avoid being individualistic because that is his teaching aimed specifically at Italians. So that part of your post is not supported by the evidence you provided.

[Locrian]

For example a big thing around here is canned food drives. Considering the vast range in economic and fiscal philosophies amongst people within any of the major Christian sects I just don't think you can blame Christianity for people needing food charity.


Years ago, I worked for a company that asked for volunteers on various Saturdays to pick up food from canned good charities along with fresh fruit and salads for homeless food lines. By doing this, for a couple of hours, our bosses would buy us lunch the following week.

Thing is, there were NO religious charities involved. No priest, no sermons, no "readings". We didn't hold their necessities hostage while they listened to some religious drivel. Instead, needs were met. They ate, we ate, all were fed with true nourishment.

Since then, I've never given to a religious food drive simply for this reason.

[code_grey]

Thing is, there were NO religious charities involved. No priest, no sermons, no "readings". We didn't hold their necessities hostage while they listened to some religious drivel. Instead, needs were met. They ate, we ate, all were fed with true nourishment.

Since then, I've never given to a religious food drive simply for this reason.

interesting anecdote. Yeah, so? The main OP is about problems caused by religion and a subthread resulting from my hijack is about problems caused by liberalism. Does this have to do with either of these? Which problem have those preachy religious charities caused in your opinion beyond the problem of offending those aid recipients who just don't take kindly to sermons? Their food aid and sermons may have been a bandaid, but presumably not for a problem caused by any religion (at least, not based on the evidence provided).

[Locrian]

interesting anecdote. Yeah, so? The main OP is about problems caused by religion and a subthread resulting from my hijack is about problems caused by liberalism. Does this have to do with either of these? Which problem have those preachy religious charities caused in your opinion beyond the problem of offending those aid recipients who just don't take kindly to sermons? Their food aid and sermons may have been a bandaid, but presumably not for a problem caused by any religion (at least, not based on the evidence provided).

My point is that charity never needs religion. Not giving starving people food UNTIL they hear the word of the lord may be a small form of abuse to you, but bigger to me.

If I refused to give food to those in need before they took an E-Meter test would be the same as hearing a sermon first. Religion is not needed in charity of any kind, and it usually becomes a burden to the problem.

And I was disagreeing with Martin Hyde's post. The food drives I support only feed, not brainwash.

[Locrian]

African Catholics are "obliged" not to use condoms since that is his teaching to everybody. They are not "obliged" to have more children to avoid being individualistic because that is his teaching aimed specifically at Italians. So that part of your post is not supported by the evidence you provided.

Of course they are. The priests in African countries denouncing condoms and finding alleged "witches" in communities ARE the work of the Catholic Church as an entirety.

[Ají de Gallina]

Addressing only the condom issue, here's an article from The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/21/condoms-birth-control-catholic-church-short-history) that gives a brief history of the Catholic church's position on condoms.

Italy, like many European countries is having low or negative population growth, which has an impact on, among other thngs, pensions and social security. He was specific about Italy.
The Africa quote is not against real facts.


That doesn't imply "unwanted" children, but the church clearly sees condom use as depriving the world of more Catholic people. I don't think it's too big a leap to assert that this policy may have done harm in impoverished and/or overpopulated parts of the world.

May have done harm? Sure, like many other things.
You do realise that the RCC position on condoms is not "have sex with anoyone but without condoms" and that the number of people who decided not to use condoms while having sex with a girlfriend/boyfriend/one-night-stand7mistress, lover/prostitute because of religion is outstadingly close to zero?



He said "ignore the spread of AIDs". Not the same thing. And by putting out misinformation about condoms the Catholic church has most definitely contributed to the problem.

He said "religious driven efforts to ignore the spread of AIDS", which is an action to conceal or cover it.

Also what code_grey said.

[Llama Llogophile]

Italy, like many European countries is having low or negative population growth, which has an impact on, among other thngs, pensions and social security. He was specific about Italy.
The Africa quote is not against real facts.

According to the Guardian article, Benedict made his comments about the Italian birth rate in 2007. If so, he was trying to provide further rationale for a decades old policy.


May have done harm? Sure, like many other things.
You do realise that the RCC position on condoms is not "have sex with anoyone but without condoms" and that the number of people who decided not to use condoms while having sex with a girlfriend/boyfriend/one-night-stand7mistress, lover/prostitute because of religion is outstadingly close to zero?

As to part one of that sentence, yes I realize that's their inane policy which ignores the basic natural drives of humans and all other living things. I grew up Catholic, and one of the many reasons I left was because their dogma was so incredibly unrealistic. As to part two, cite?


Also what code_grey said.

Really? What THAT guy said?! Bwahahahahahaha!!!

I ask again: Why are you guys bending over so far to give the Catholic church benefit of the doubt on this? Neither you or Code Grey have addressed the second implication in the link I provided, which is that Benedict said condom use would increase the spread of AIDs through increased sexual activity, "in defiance of virtually all informed medical opinion".

Go ahead, defend that. Even if you buy into church doctrine about sex outside of marriage, defend Benedict on that one.

[code_grey]

I think that the issue of implications of RCC condom policy are complex enough to merit its own multiple threads worth of debating. I don't necessarily trust the Pope's view of the matter from the public health point of view (because, show me the data) but neither do I give much credence to the claims of the "medical opinion". If a gang of researchers paid by the UN and similar outfits is researching the outcomes of UN favorite policy, guess what conclusion they will come to. So about the specific facts of the matter I am agnostic; indeed I suspect that the answer will be non uniform for different places and situations. E.g. in place A pushing condoms will increase AIDS, in place B it will decrease it and in C it will make no difference.

In general, I think that liberals with their usual magical thinking naivette tend to automatically jump from "a condom reduces chances of HIV transmission during single act" to "promoting condoms among African peasants will reduce HIV rate". This implicit syllogism is simply baseless. Similarly, you cannot jump from "shooting guns at people kills some of them" to "if we send 10M American men to be shot at in WW2 American population will decrease". In practice American population boomed because the underlying process is a lot more complex than what you can arrive at by naive reasoning. Other fake and naive liberal syllogisms resulted in AFDC, rent controls, housing standards regulations (which yielded high rents and homelessness, as I talked upthread) and many other disasters.

As far as why people jump to Pope's defense, well, people don't like seeing other people persecuted for expressing opinions at variance with the Liberal consensus. While the real state of affairs vis-a-vis truth of competing claims is pretty murky, what stands out most strongly is that the Liberals want to make people who disagree with them to shut up. Or, even better, to start saying what Liberals want said. And you know how they say, first they came for the Pope, then who is going to be next.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

How is the Pope being "persecuted," and how are "liberals" trying to make people shut up?

[BlackKnight]

As for 'inner cities' I really don't have much idea what the claim is there.
I think religious support for the "War on Drugs" is a factor hurting inner cities. It's hardly the only factor, and I don't think it's the most important one by any stretch of the imagination, but maybe that's what the OP was getting at?

[ITR champion]

I ask again: Why are you guys bending over so far to give the Catholic church benefit of the doubt on this? Neither you or Code Grey have addressed the second implication in the link I provided, which is that Benedict said condom use would increase the spread of AIDs through increased sexual activity, "in defiance of virtually all informed medical opinion".

Go ahead, defend that. Even if you buy into church doctrine about sex outside of marriage, defend Benedict on that one.

I have already answered in post #5. In Catholic countries AIDS rates are very low, thus proving wrong your implication that Catholicism causes AIDS.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

They actively try to prevent efforts to stop the spread of AIDS.

[Llama Llogophile]

I have already answered in post #5. In Catholic countries AIDS rates are very low, thus proving wrong your implication that Catholicism causes AIDS.

What I did was supply a cite that says the pope rather ironically talks out of his ass on the subject of condoms.

Looking over the first few posts, it was YOU who brought up the idea of the Catholic church causing the spread of AIDs so you could try to shoot it down:

If you're familiar with the tenets of the New Atheist Catechism, it's not hard to guess what newcrasher has in mind. The most common claim in this regard is that the Catholic Church won't let its members use birth control and this is what causes AIDS to spread.

Then followed your cite, which was a WHO map that did not break down AIDS by religion in any way. However, WHO (and others with apparently left leaning "medical opinions" according to Code Grey) is on record supporting the use of condoms in stemming the spread of AIDs.

The pope claimed otherwise, which is called being "wrong" *. Taking that sort of position when one has influence over many many people has the potential for doing harm in the world. I really didn't think anyone would defend that, but here you are.



*Edit: I suspect the pope wasn't wrong in the sense that he was mistaken, because he probably knew what the prevailing scientific opinions were. More likely he was just not telling the truth, which is worse.

[NiceGuyJack]

Every Filipino president since Marcos has tried to implement some form of family planning policy in the Philippines. Plans have varied from distributing contraceptives, sex education and even surgical sterilization. The Catholic church has blocked these policies at every step.
Philippine population growth is out of control.
Poverty is rampant as is a lack of education.
I was looking for an article I read years ago, but I couldn't find it online. Anyway, the reporter was interviewing Filipinos regarding pregnancies and quite a few did not know that sex can cause pregnancies. If they got pregnant, it was a gift from God.
In 2010, the current president Aquino finally passed a Reproductive Health bill.
The bill covers family planning, sex education, distribution of contraceptives, and what they call "prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications."
Abortion remains illegal, but where complications from an illegal abortion happens, the mother can request help.
This bill was long overdue. The Catholic church had in effect been in charge of family planning, which meant no contraceptives and no sex education. An over populated poverty struck Philippines is the result.
I have to give a nod to President Aquino. He pushed this through even though the Catholic church threatened to excommunicate him. And rightfully so, the Philippines constitutionally has a separation of church and state, it was about time someone stood up to the hold the Catholic church has over the Philippine government.
With this new bill, hopefully the Philippines can finally do something to educate and thereby control the population growth rate to a manageable level.
I think this is a good example of how the charity work done by the Catholic church in the Philippines is because of the problems caused by the church.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_Health_bill)

[NiceGuyJack]

Correction.
I was under the impression the bill had been passed, but it seems it hasn't yet.
It is being debated and Aquino seems to have backed down a bit. I guess he took the excommunication threat seriously.

[Monty]

My point is that charity never needs religion. Not giving starving people food UNTIL they hear the word of the lord may be a small form of abuse to you, but bigger to me.

If I refused to give food to those in need before they took an E-Meter test would be the same as hearing a sermon first. Religion is not needed in charity of any kind, and it usually becomes a burden to the problem.

And I was disagreeing with Martin Hyde's post. The food drives I support only feed, not brainwash.

I have to ask you for a cite on this: what religions are actively withholding food from someone if that someone's not "hearing the word of the lord"?

[Locrian]

I have to ask you for a cite on this: what religions are actively withholding food from someone if that someone's not "hearing the word of the lord"?

What?? Go to any religious food drive/soup kitchen. Not once has food been served before sermon, at least in my experience in PA, NJ and CA. Sermon first, food later. Most of the time I've seen the food humans have gathered blessed before served. Show me a cite where this is deemed necessary. Didn't know that the nation's canneries needed a little more, ummm, sanitation from above.nAnd like others have pointed out, the RCC needs future members. Why not have a disclaimer of the holy before dishing out the necessities. "I needed food, but got the lord first" is probably why this happens a lot. (A Guess on the exact motive, but certainly not far fetched)

Anyway, I was just disputing an earlier post.

Either way, from what we've read on AIDS in this thread, the RCC is doing their best to 1) gather more future church (cult) members and 2) diminish the effects of birth control to either limit AIDS distribution or could care less, but that's expected of course. I'm anxious to read more of this debate.

[jinty]

And you know how they say, first they came for the Pope, then who is going to be next.
Who came for the Pope? I must have missed the news that he's been dragged away and thrown in a camp. When did that happen?

[Monty]

What?? Go to any religious food drive/soup kitchen. Not once has food been served before sermon, at least in my experience in PA, NJ and CA. Sermon first, food later. Most of the time I've seen the food humans have gathered blessed before served. Show me a cite where this is deemed necessary. Didn't know that the nation's canneries needed a little more, ummm, sanitation from above.nAnd like others have pointed out, the RCC needs future members. Why not have a disclaimer of the holy before dishing out the necessities. "I needed food, but got the lord first" is probably why this happens a lot. (A Guess on the exact motive, but certainly not far fetched)

Anyway, I was just disputing an earlier post.

Oh, you're just "extrapolating," then. I've seen plenty of soup kitchens where there's no religious message at all. I've seen that from Baptists, from Catholics, from Mormons, from Buddhists, and from Muslims. I've even seen those groups working together to feed the hungry with no religious message attached at all. Well, no religious message at all unless you consider merely having the name of the religion on the goods some kind of religious message.

Your remarks about why religious people say grace before a meal isn't exactly well-grounded in what the purpose of that exercise is either.

[kanicbird]

People with the Love of Christ are in all areas of live. I'm not necessarily talking about what we may call a christian. But God's Love working through them (much like the good Samaritan was not a jew, but had God's Love in His heart).

As such God's people are placed by God in among other things, evil organizations, such as Nazi, organized crime, governments, and religious structures. This BTW is the invisible church that some RC creeds mention, and IMHO the true and one church that Jesus founded (people with God's Love in their heart).

As such all organizations that are not of this invisible church are causing problems, including much of as you rightfully point out, the visible churches.

Or another way to look at it is it's the motivation of the heart that God uses. If the motivator is Love (which is God) then no matter what God will make it work for the good, no matter where you are or how badly you f' up. That's all that matters to Him, you following Love in your heart. Any other motivation is not of God and corrupt.

[ITR champion]

What?? Go to any religious food drive/soup kitchen.
Cite fail.

I work in a religious food bank. (The Culpeper Food Closet in the basement of St. Stephen's, Culpeper, Va.) I've distributed thousands of meals, and never has a sermon been given before any of them.

Let me remind you of what you accused Christians of: "Not giving starving people food UNTIL they hear the word of the lord" (post 29). So to prove that you were right, you'd have to (a) find a place that was actually dealing with starving people--a typical food in this country bank doesn't--and then give evidence that they provide no food until afer forcing people to listen to a sermon. If you can't do that, then we'll have to conclude that you were launching an extremely nasty false accusation at people who are working hard to alleviate hunger.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Do they preach during or after the meal? If so, then it's a distinction without a difference.

[ITR champion]

No.

[NiceGuyJack]

Am I the only one who cares for the Philippines?
Admittedly, it is one of the poorest countries in East Asia, but it was once the richest. Richer than Japan. In the '50's it was the richest country in Asia.
Marcos stole most of the money, but the Catholic church did their bit to ensure poverty and ignorance. Sad.

[ITR champion]

Looking over the first few posts, it was YOU who brought up the idea of the Catholic church causing the spread of AIDs so you could try to shoot it down
newcrasher began the thread by declaring that religion is "evil" and responsible for everything that goes wrong in Africa, Central America, and inner cities. Some folks asked him why, but he (surprise, surpirse) vanished from the thread rather than answering the question. I merely speculated that what he had in mind was this inexplicable idea that the Catholic Church is responsible for AIDS in Africa, despite the fact that the great majority of Africans are not Catholic.
Then followed your cite, which was a WHO map that did not break down AIDS by religion in any way. However, WHO (and others with apparently left leaning "medical opinions" according to Code Grey) is on record supporting the use of condoms in stemming the spread of AIDs.

The pope claimed otherwise, which is called being "wrong" *. Taking that sort of position when one has influence over many many people has the potential for doing harm in the world. I really didn't think anyone would defend that, but here you are.
The Pope's advice is that people ought not to have sex except with their spouse. If everyone followed that advice AIDS wouldn't spread by sexual contact and millions of people now dead or infected would now instead be healthy. If someone doesn't follow the Pope's advice that can hardly be blamed on the Pope.

AIDS spreads so rapidly in southern Africa mainly because of prosititution, gang rape, polygamy, and poor medical sanitation. Enormous resources have been spent pushing condoms in the region, but what progress has resulted? To stop the spread of AIDS we should look to comparable countries where AIDS isn't spreading. In most Latin American countries AIDS rates are very low, as the map I posted shows. Obviously these countries do not have wealth or high standards of sanitation or anything like that. What they do have is a traditional sexual morality that doesn't lead to the spread of AIDS.

[ITR champion]

the Catholic church did their bit to ensure poverty and ignorance.
What exactly are you referring to in this clause? Please be specific.

[Calculon]

newcrasher began the thread by declaring that religion is "evil" and responsible for everything that goes wrong in Africa, Central America, and inner cities. Some folks asked him why, but he (surprise, surpirse) vanished from the thread rather than answering the question. I merely speculated that what he had in mind was this inexplicable idea that the Catholic Church is responsible for AIDS in Africa, despite the fact that the great majority of Africans are not Catholic.

The Pope's advice is that people ought not to have sex except with their spouse. If everyone followed that advice AIDS wouldn't spread by sexual contact and millions of people now dead or infected would now instead be healthy. If someone doesn't follow the Pope's advice that can hardly be blamed on the Pope.

AIDS spreads so rapidly in southern Africa mainly because of prosititution, gang rape, polygamy, and poor medical sanitation. Enormous resources have been spent pushing condoms in the region, but what progress has resulted? To stop the spread of AIDS we should look to comparable countries where AIDS isn't spreading. In most Latin American countries AIDS rates are very low, as the map I posted shows. Obviously these countries do not have wealth or high standards of sanitation or anything like that. What they do have is a traditional sexual morality that doesn't lead to the spread of AIDS.

This is one of the things that convinces me that the "RCC spreads AIDS in Africa" thing is really just anti-Catholic bigotry. While it is true that the RCC is not a big fan of comdoms, it is also true that if people followed RCC teaching, (ie: no sex with anyone but your spouse) then AIDS infection rates would plummet. Also, it is not like a large number of Africans are even Catholic anyway, so why should they care about what the RCC teaches.

More to the point when people talk about why the rates of AIDS are so high in Africa, no-one seems to question conventional secualr attitudes to sex. There the usual position is whatever two consenting people want to do in private is fine. I think this attitude in of itself is probably more destructive than whatever the RCC teaches, because it encourages promiscuity which is one of the major factors for the spread of AIDS. It also implies that if a man does not want to wear a condom, and the woman agrees, then that is his right to do so. People can suggest that he might be better off with a condom, but so long as both sexual partners agree there is nothing immoral in hving sex without a condom. And a lot of men in Africa just don't want to wear condoms, not because of what the RCC tells them, but because they feel that sex feels better without them, and se AIDS continues to spread.

Secondly there is a question about what western influence and media are doing in Africa, especially relating to the AIDS problem. I was watching a documentary recently that was suggesting that western pornography, often shot without using condoms, was having a significant impact on the attitudes of Africans. That while much of Africa is in poverty, many Africans do still have access to western media through communal resources, and obviously pornography is part of this. So because Africans see westerners having sex without condoms that makes them want to have sex without condoms themselves.

People are simply not asking these types of questions as to what other influences might be leading to the spread of AIDS in Africa. The RCC is simply just a convenient scape-goat for a problem. I think has more to do with the influences of liberal western views of sexuality rather then the RCC. While we continue to simplistically blame the RCC instead of really thinking about the issues, then I think we too can be held responsible for AIDS in Africa.

Calculon.

[Ají de Gallina]

According to the Guardian article, Benedict made his comments about the Italian birth rate in 2007. If so, he was trying to provide further rationale for a decades old policy.

So, he didn't say what you implied.



As to part one of that sentence, yes I realize that's their inane policy which ignores the basic natural drives of humans and all other living things. I grew up Catholic, and one of the many reasons I left was because their dogma was so incredibly unrealistic. As to part two, cite?

Are all basic natural drives morally neutral?
Can you give me examples of what you consider basic natural drives?

Part two really needs a cite? You really think that a person who cares that much about official RCC policy about sex is going to, say, go to a brothel but he's gonna tell the prostitute "no condoms, honey, the Pope said so"?




Really? What THAT guy said?! Bwahahahahahaha!!!

I ask again: Why are you guys bending over so far to give the Catholic church benefit of the doubt on this? Neither you or Code Grey have addressed the second implication in the link I provided, which is that Benedict said condom use would increase the spread of AIDs through increased sexual activity, "in defiance of virtually all informed medical opinion".

Go ahead, defend that. Even if you buy into church doctrine about sex outside of marriage, defend Benedict on that one.

Link 1 (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227110/saint-peters-square-harvard-square/kathryn-jean-lopez)

Link 2 (http://old.nationalreview.com/books/sylva200404301423.asp)

Link 3 (PDF) (http://www.hvtn.org/media/ReassessingPrevention.pdf)

Link 4 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987155.ece)

They actively try to prevent efforts to stop the spread of AIDS.

You mean like shooting down the airplanes that carry the condoms?
Punching holes in them?
Giving prizes to people who get infected?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Like telling people they'll go to hell if they use them.

[Llama Llogophile]

So, he didn't say what you implied.

Are all basic natural drives morally neutral?
Can you give me examples of what you consider basic natural drives?

Part two really needs a cite? You really think that a person who cares that much about official RCC policy about sex is going to, say, go to a brothel but he's gonna tell the prostitute "no condoms, honey, the Pope said so"?

Link 1 (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227110/saint-peters-square-harvard-square/kathryn-jean-lopez)

Link 2 (http://old.nationalreview.com/books/sylva200404301423.asp)

Link 3 (PDF) (http://www.hvtn.org/media/ReassessingPrevention.pdf)

Link 4 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987155.ece)


Your cites don't help you that much, especially #4. Deal with it - the pope knowingly put out misinformation.

As to human drives, I'm unlikely to convince you that sex is a normal part of life. If you agree with the RCC it's terminally icky when performed outside of marriage, and presumably at all times when the lights are on.

We're here to fight ignorance. So by all means, let's all take advice on public health, epidemiology and human sexuality from the pope - an elderly virgin without a medical degree.

[Calculon]

Your cites don't help you that much, especially #4. Deal with it - the pope knowingly put out misinformation.

As to human drives, I'm unlikely to convince you that sex is a normal part of life. If you agree with the RCC it's terminally icky when performed outside of marriage, and presumably at all times when the lights are on.

We're here to fight ignorance. So by all means, let's all take advice on public health, epidemiology and human sexuality from the pope - an elderly virgin without a medical degree.

The thing is though, that your attitude on this is against the available evidence. The cites show that condom programs that the Pope is against does not actually lead to reductions in AIDS infection rates. The picture that the cites reveal is that the main problem in Africa is not so much rampant promiscuity, but long term concurrent relationships or serial polygamy. These relationships are not generally seen as "risky" even though they are, and so people are more reluctant to use condoms when having sex in these relationships. There is also the problem that people with condoms may just engage in in riskier behaviour, meaning that there is no effective reduction in infection rates.

What has been shown empirically to work is campains that encourage monogamy. For instance the "Zero grazing" campaign in Uganda has shown large, empirically measurable reductions in the rates of AIDS infections. Which is exactly what the RCC is saying. You can stick to your "common sense" assessments that monogamy campaigns do not work. Evidence from reality however shows that they can work, and that condom based campaigns, wherever they have been tried, do not significantly reduce AIDS infection rates.

I am also interested in what "misinformation" precisely the Pope has put out. Based on the available evidence it seems that he is right to assert that condoms alone will not stop AIDS in Africa.

Calculon.

[newcrasher]

newcrasher began the thread by declaring that religion is "evil" and responsible for everything that goes wrong in Africa, Central America, and inner cities. Some folks asked him why, but he (surprise, surpirse) vanished from the thread rather than answering the question.

Sorry, busy with life. Started a new job today and don't have Dope access.

[Llama Llogophile]

The thing is though, that your attitude on this is against the available evidence. The cites show that condom programs that the Pope is against does not actually lead to reductions in AIDS infection rates. The picture that the cites reveal is that the main problem in Africa is not so much rampant promiscuity, but long term concurrent relationships or serial polygamy. These relationships are not generally seen as "risky" even though they are, and so people are more reluctant to use condoms when having sex in these relationships. There is also the problem that people with condoms may just engage in in riskier behaviour, meaning that there is no effective reduction in infection rates.

What has been shown empirically to work is campains that encourage monogamy. For instance the "Zero grazing" campaign in Uganda has shown large, empirically measurable reductions in the rates of AIDS infections. Which is exactly what the RCC is saying. You can stick to your "common sense" assessments that monogamy campaigns do not work. Evidence from reality however shows that they can work, and that condom based campaigns, wherever they have been tried, do not significantly reduce AIDS infection rates.

I am also interested in what "misinformation" precisely the Pope has put out. Based on the available evidence it seems that he is right to assert that condoms alone will not stop AIDS in Africa.

Calculon.

My original cite (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/21/condoms-birth-control-catholic-church-short-history) stands. Here's paragraph six again:

In 2007 Benedict himself inveighed against the "dangerous individualism" of Italian Catholics for not having enough children and, on a flight to Africa last year, he claimed – in defiance of virtually all informed medical opinion – that condom use could actually make the Aids epidemic worse by increasing sexual activity.

Bolding mine. I'd just as soon listen to a TV psychic.

[Shodan]

The religious practice of tithing and "prosperity theology" also encourage poverty.It's always vaguely entertaining to you in action. You fulminate against religion because you claim it makes statements of belief that are not based on evidence, and must be taken on faith. Then you make statements of belief that are not based on evidence, and must be taken on faith.

Regards,
Shodan

[Naxos]

About 80%.

[Calculon]

My original cite (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/21/condoms-birth-control-catholic-church-short-history) stands. Here's paragraph six again:



Bolding mine. I'd just as soon listen to a TV psychic.

And if you think about it, it is not so far fetched. Commonly in situations where risk is mitigated by some factor, people will often counteract this by acting in more risky ways. Because they feel safer their tolerance of risk increases. This is seen everywhere, not just in the AIDS epidemic.

Looking at the data on what is going on in Africa, multiple sexual partners is a huge factor in the spread of AIDS. Some people limit the number of sexual partners they have for fear of catching AIDS. Groups that advocate condoms promote them as a "safe" solution to sex. Therefore people feel more at ease engaging in risky or promiscuous sexual behaviour because they think that the condoms protect them. And overall the increase in promiscuity may not be mitigated by the using of condoms.

There is also another side to this, in that it appears what is happening is that people are not getting AIDS through one night stands or prostitutes, a lot of people are getting AIDS through sex with people they are in reasonably committed, but not exclusive relationships with. This, more than things like prostitution are contributors to the AIDS pandemic. Groups promoting condoms tend to focus their use in "risky" sexual encounters, but that is not really where the problem is. Condoms, given current sexual practices in heavily affected countries, need almost 100% usage rate to be effective. I don't think that this is really realistic, especially given all of the issues of using condoms in committed relationships. It is easy to get a prostitute to accept that you want to wear a condom. It is much more difficult to convince your wife that you need to wear a condom, because if neither of you are sleeping around, then what's the point.

The studies show that in many countries a focus on condoms does not work in reducing AIDS infection rates. Continuing what we know already to be ineffective is in a real sense making the problem worse because while we are doing useless things the problem continues. It also takes effort away from doing truly effective things like efforts to encourage monogamy. In that sense I think that the Pope is correct in saying that a continued focus on condoms makes the problem worse.

I think you are going to have to do better than that if your charge of the Pope spreading "misinformation" is going to stick.

Calculon.

[tomndebb]

I realize that it is a favorite theme of one or two posters that all of AIDS in Africa is the direct result of Catholic rules about contraception. Unfortunately, their position is mostly nonsense. There are a few bishops in Africa who have echoed the silly positions of Cardinal Trujillo in the Vatican regarding condoms and HIV, however, that is not generally the position of the people actually working in the countries described, who tend to be rather more realistic. Everyone attacking the church likes to to quote Trujillo's idiotic claim that HIV will travel through tiny holes in condoms. The same sources appear to be pretty careful to avoid mentioning the remarks of Cardinal Barragán that a woman whose husband has contracted HIV should protect herself by using a condom or the remarks of Cardinals Daneels and Murphy-O’Connor that characterize condom use as a moral obligation or note that when the president of Uganda claimed that condoms had only a minor effect in reducing the HIV rates in his country, it was the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development that contradicted him, pointing out that condom use was an important part of the program.

Beyond that, of course, there is the "minor" problem with the scenario that few countries in Africa have a substantial Catholic population. The numbers vary widely from Zambia (supporting Catholic bashing position with a 16.5% HIV rate and a 62.5% Catholic population) to Sao Tome & Principe which has only a 1.5% (possibly underreported) HIV rate for a 70.3% Catholic population. Benin and Mali each have a 1.9% HIV prevalence, but Benin is over 27% Catholic and Mali is only 1% Christian, including all denominations. Uganda has a 4.1% HIV rate with almost 42% of the population Catholic while Burkina Faso has a 4.2% HIV rate while only 10% of the population is Catholic. The two hardest hit countries by HIV are Zwaziland (38.8%) and Botswana, (37.3%), yet Swaziland is only 20% Catholic and Botswana 5%. There is simply no correlation between the prevalence of Catholics and the prevalence of HIV, so the idea that Catholic prohibitions on condoms is a major source of HIV infections in Africa is nothing but projected prejudices unsupported by facts.

Then there is the matter of how closely any Cathoics, in or out of Africa, actually follow the dictates of Rome. There is no secret to the fact that a majority of American Catholics, (and large pluralities or majorities of Catholics in other countries), disagree with the Vatican stance on birth control and routinely reject it. How likely is it that Africans are more dutifully following church teachings on condoms when the church has failed in Africa to curb polygyny or the practice of waiting until a couple has produced a healthy child before they marry?

One may, of course, continue to condemn the position of the church, but it would be nice if posters, here, would stop propagating the baseless rumors that were started around the time of John Paul II's death that the church has successfully spread AIDS across the face of Africa.
This is supposed to be The Straight Dope message board, not The What Lurid, Fact Free Nonsense Can I Use To Promote My Prejudices? message board.

[Calculon]

As well I wanted to add that I am not Catholic, and all things considered I think that condoms are useful tool in limiting the spread of AIDS. I am concerned however that promoting condom use, while failing to address the sexual attitudes of Africans that are leading to the AIDS pandemic will simply not work. What has been shown to work is promoting monogamy. I am not saying we should not give out condoms, but that it is too simplistic to say that condoms are the answer.

Calculon.

[Ají de Gallina]

Like telling people they'll go to hell if they use them.

You mean the same way She does with murder, lying, theft, rape, etc.?


1) Your cites don't help you that much, especially #4. Deal with it - the pope knowingly put out misinformation.

2) As to human drives, I'm unlikely to convince you that sex is a normal part of life. If you agree with the RCC it's terminally icky when performed outside of marriage, and presumably at all times when the lights are on.

3) We're here to fight ignorance. So by all means, let's all take advice on public health, epidemiology and human sexuality from the pope - an elderly virgin without a medical degree.

(my numbers)
1) They help a lot because a series of experts say that condoms are not a primary part of the solution for AIDS in Africa. The Pope said pretty much the same saying that condoms will not (and have not, by the way) solved the problem in Africa.
How many more condoms are needed?

2) Since I didn't say sex isn't a basic natural drive maybe you're answering someone else's post. I'll repeat my actual questions and not the ones you wanted me to have asked: Are all basic natural drives morally neutral?
Can you give me examples of what you consider basic natural drives?
It's not icky, it's sinful. your ignorance as to the actual position of the RCC regarding sex is showing.

3) Of course. In medical / scientific issues let's take the words of medics and scientists, like those whose papers I linked. "Elderly virgin", you must feel so cool by saying it "look, I'm so edgy, i called the pope an elderly virgin". You can put that on a t-shirt if it makes you feel even cooler.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I am concerned however that promoting condom use, while failing to address the sexual attitudes of Africans that are leading to the AIDS pandemic will simply not work.
Will it help?
What has been shown to work is promoting monogamy.
When has this ever been shown to work?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You mean the same way She does with murder, lying, theft, rape, etc.?
Yep. And equating those things to having sex with a condom is stupid and evil and causes human suffering.

[Llama Llogophile]

(my numbers)
1) They help a lot because a series of experts say that condoms are not a primary part of the solution for AIDS in Africa. The Pope said pretty much the same saying that condoms will not (and have not, by the way) solved the problem in Africa.
How many more condoms are needed?

2) Since I didn't say sex isn't a basic natural drive maybe you're answering someone else's post. I'll repeat my actual questions and not the ones you wanted me to have asked: Are all basic natural drives morally neutral?
Can you give me examples of what you consider basic natural drives?
It's not icky, it's sinful. your ignorance as to the actual position of the RCC regarding sex is showing.

3) Of course. In medical / scientific issues let's take the words of medics and scientists, like those whose papers I linked. "Elderly virgin", you must feel so cool by saying it "look, I'm so edgy, i called the pope an elderly virgin". You can put that on a t-shirt if it makes you feel even cooler.

1. *shrug* We disagree. We've both given cites the other found unconvincing, and I'm satisfied with leaving it there. I don't see how I can answer your question as I disagree with the underlying premises.

2. Sex is a natural drive. Many, perhaps most things humans do involve moral decisions, and I can't tell you how bored I am at the prospect of this discussion going much further. Sex is only sinful if you subscribe to church dogma, but I've known more than a few Catholics who also thought it was icky.

3. Again, we've both given cites already. As to the rest... You have me confused with someone who values your opinion. Pit me if you'd like - it'll be my first.

[Calculon]

Will it help?
In cases where AIDS is being spread through particular risky activities, like having sex with prostitutes, then I think condoms can have a significant impact. That is not really what is happening in Africa though. There AIDS is being spread mostly through everyday sexual activity, and therefore I don't think condoms will ever be used enough to really combat the problem on their own.

When has this ever been shown to work?[/QUOTE]
If you actually read the cites that Ají de Gallina provided, the "zero grazing" campaign in Uganda, a community based program based around advocating monogamy, is widely credited as being a major factor in Uganda's low AIDS infection rate. The main question of course is how to translate this success in Uganda to other countries. Still it is simply wrong to assert that monogamy based programs cannot work or have never worked.

Calculon.

[Calculon]

1. *shrug* We disagree. We've both given cites the other found unconvincing, and I'm satisfied with leaving it there. I don't see how I can answer your question as I disagree with the underlying premises.

2. Sex is a natural drive. Many, perhaps most things humans do involve moral decisions, and I can't tell you how bored I am at the prospect of this discussion going much further. Sex is only sinful if you subscribe to church dogma, but I've known more than a few Catholics who also thought it was icky.

3. Again, we've both given cites already. As to the rest... You have me confused with someone who values your opinion. Pit me if you'd like - it'll be my first.

With your first point, looking back through the thread the only cite that I can see you producing is that Guardian article that is big on anti-Catholic rhetoric, but small on any concrete facts. Particularly it only has one or two sentences about what is going on in Africa. This is in comparison with Ají de Gallina named experts and studies, is woefully inadequate. Do you have any data that shows that condom distribution in Africa really is making a difference to AIDS infection rates, or is it just "common knowledge" that this should be the case.

Calculon.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

In cases where AIDS is being spread through particular risky activities, like having sex with prostitutes, then I think condoms can have a significant impact. That is not really what is happening in Africa though. There AIDS is being spread mostly through everyday sexual activity, and therefore I don't think condoms will ever be used enough to really combat the problem on their own.
My question was whether telling people NOT to use condoms will help stop the spread of AIDS.
If you actually read the cites that Ají de Gallina provided, the "zero grazing" campaign in Uganda, a community based program based around advocating monogamy, is widely credited as being a major factor in Uganda's low AIDS infection rate. The main question of course is how to translate this success in Uganda to other countries.
Uganda is a brutal theocracy. Got any other ideas other than rank terrorism?

[NiceGuyJack]

What exactly are you referring to in this clause? Please be specific.

See post #39 & 40

[Calculon]

My question was whether telling people NOT to use condoms will help stop the spread of AIDS.

Possibly, if it encourages people to act in a sexually safer way. The guy who sleeping with condoms is still at a greater risk than one that does not because he is worried about getting AIDS. It is not a zero sum game in the sense that promoting condoms also has effects on people's behaviour that can lead to increased AIDS infection rates.


Uganda is a brutal theocracy. Got any other ideas other than rank terrorism?
I hate to break it to you, but Africa is not a shining beacon of democracy. What country in Africa does live up to your ideals of a free state?
Besides there is no suggestion that the "zero grazing" campaign was only successful because of governmental tyranny. People in Africa don't want to get AIDS. I think the campaign worked because when faced with the choice of having lots of sex or staying safe from AIDS, many chose to stay safe from AIDS. As I said before condoms do have practical problems in many of these situations.

Do you have any evidence that rank terrorism was a central part of this campaign?

Calculon.

[Llama Llogophile]

With your first point, looking back through the thread the only cite that I can see you producing is that Guardian article that is big on anti-Catholic rhetoric, but small on any concrete facts. Particularly it only has one or two sentences about what is going on in Africa. This is in comparison with Ají de Gallina named experts and studies, is woefully inadequate. Do you have any data that shows that condom distribution in Africa really is making a difference to AIDS infection rates, or is it just "common knowledge" that this should be the case.

Calculon.

Again... sorry, but we just disagree. I've read those links, re-read #4 in particular. UN AIDS Prevention Unit guy disagrees with Harvard guy, and explains a number of factors which seem to add up to "it's not as simple as that". The biologist later on in the piece agrees with the Harvard study, but still says she wishes the church would change it's ban on condoms.

[Monty]

Uganda is a brutal theocracy.

I get that Uganda's government is brutal. What I don't get is how you consider it a theocracy.

[Ají de Gallina]

Yep. And equating those things to having sex with a condom is stupid and evil and causes human suffering.

Since I haven't done that maybe you're refering to someone else.
Unless by equating you mean something else, like saying that in the US theft and genocide are equal because both get you in the slammer.

1. *shrug* We disagree. We've both given cites the other found unconvincing, and I'm satisfied with leaving it there. I don't see how I can answer your question as I disagree with the underlying premises.

2. Sex is a natural drive. Many, perhaps most things humans do involve moral decisions, and I can't tell you how bored I am at the prospect of this discussion going much further. Sex is only sinful if you subscribe to church dogma, but I've known more than a few Catholics who also thought it was icky.

3. Again, we've both given cites already. As to the rest... You have me confused with someone who values your opinion. Pit me if you'd like - it'll be my first.

I think we can call it quits and get some hot dogs or ribs.

I get that Uganda's government is brutal. What I don't get is how you consider it a theocracy.

Maybe one of the ministers prayed once last year.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Since I haven't done that maybe you're refering to someone else.
I was referring to the Catholic Church.

[Ají de Gallina]

I was referring to the Catholic Church.

Since she hasn't done that maybe you're refering to something else.