Ave Papa - we have a new Pope

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

The Wizard from Milan: Evil? No. Name one that's actually "evil" and not something that you're for or not for and he was not for/for. (I.e., your religious thoughts don't intervene.)

Originally Posted by Tessar

Know what would really save lives? If people would stop having sex with every person they get drunk with.

Simple as that.

Edit: Since this thread is about Pope Benedict XVI, I'd like to say you can NEVER be too conserative.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Meriadoc Brandybuck

Edit: Since this thread is about Pope Benedict XVI, I'd like to say you can NEVER be too conserative.

Agreed .

[Insidious Rex]

Yeah tell it to the grand inquisitor...

Got any witches to burn??

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But then what can you do. As a Catholic he has to be against such things. Its doctrine.

Do you think there's any possibility that it's not because it's doctrine, but rather because he thinks it's right? I mean, one would think that if a person disagrees with doctrine in major areas that they would quit the group in question. It seems to me that you think sometimes that people join a group and then review the doctrine without thinking about it, and then if they don't like it they just say, "oh rats, too late to quit!". Or that they join and don't even think about the doctrine. Perhaps they join BECAUSE they think the doctrine is right.

Even though the right thing to do would be to do whatever it takes to counter the spread of death bringing sexually transmitted disease.

IMO there are worse things than death. And teaching abstinance until marriage and faithfulness in marriage certainly counters the spread of STDs.

Life is about suffering and death according to christianity after all.

That's like saying LOTR is about Tom Bombadil, IMO.

In much the same way as as a catholic (or any kind of christian) you really shouldnt be imposing YOUR values on any secular situation like say... what to teach in public school... or who can marry... but eh nevermind that now.

And how about the other way around? Why is it only one way? (christians shouldn't impose on secular)

And btw, do you support making/keeping partial birth abortion legal?
If not, why should you impose your views on those that think it's just fine?
If so - God help you

And all that being said John Paul certainly DID do a lot of good and insprining things that made a difference for millions.

I'm glad you can see that I have huge problems with the Catholic church, but personally, I think John Paul was a good guy.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think John Paul was a good guy.

of course, he wore a white hat didn't he.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Do you think there's any possibility that it's not because it's doctrine, but rather because he thinks it's right?

its almost assuredly both. I mean you don’t get to be the pope cause you have doubts about god. But my point was that others shouldn’t come down on him simply because of his beliefs because if he is pope then those are the beliefs he HAS to have.

IMO there are worse things than death. And teaching abstinance until marriage and faithfulness in marriage certainly counters the spread of STDs.

sure isn’t working in Africa now is it. Simplistic thinking.

That's like saying LOTR is about Tom Bombadil, IMO.

um

And how about the other way around? Why is it only one way?

other way around? NO religion should be imposed on others that don’t believe in that religion. It’s a basic rule for all religions. Not just Christianity.

And btw, do you support making/keeping partial birth abortion legal?

in the event of the life of the mother only.

If not, why should you impose your views on those that think it's just fine?

because the fetus can feel true pain at that stage of development unlike when its just a collection of cells. And that, therefore, is NOT a situation where no harm is done to any party without their consent.

If so - God help you

…funny I feel the same way about people who think religion is an excuse to impose their way of thinking on others.

[Janny]

Most of Africa isn't Catholic. That's why it's not working - it doesn't apply to people who don't believe in the doctrine.

But, hey, where the people are predominately Catholic, Uganda say, it is actually working.

Or is that too simplistic thinking?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Janny

Most of Africa isn't Catholic. That's why it's not working - it doesn't apply to people who don't believe in the doctrine.

which was exactly my point but rian stated that just abstaining from sex and being faithful was the ticket for reduction in AIDS. Irrelevant of religion.

But, hey, where the people are predominately Catholic, Uganda say, it is actually working.

Or is that too simplistic thinking?

more like misleading thinking since Ugandas policies specifically promoted use of condoms in addition to abstinance and faithfullness in marriage. now according to Catholic doctrine thats a no no. So you cant really take credit there. And furthermore, recent studies have shown that it may in fact be the deaths of the infected that was the predominant factor in the drop in AIDS cases in that country. So yes Id definitely say your one track approach is pretty simplistic...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

which was exactly my point but rian stated that just abstaining from sex and being faithful was the ticket for reduction in AIDS. Irrelevant of religion.

I didn't say "just", but certainly if people abstain from sex until marriage and stay faithful in the marriage, then AIDS would drop drastically in even just one generation.

And furthermore, recent studies have shown that it may in fact be the deaths of the infected that was the predominant factor in the drop in AIDS cases in that country.

What, people aren't dying of AIDS as quickly in other countries?

I'd say you're right, Janny. There's some pretty cool things happening in Uganda now. Our church has ties to Uganda. We had a pastor over for dinner at our house last week, and talked with another pastor on Sunday. If I have time, I'll research some of the info and give it to you guys. He preached a great sermon on Sunday, too - I think it's on our church's webpage - I'll check.

[Janny]

You miss the point. Just abstaining from sex and being faithful is the ticket for reduction in AIDS. Irrelevant of religion.

Because people don't adhere to it doesn't make it the wrong way to do something. If people didn't use condoms (if... such an unfortunate choice) you wouldn't say 'Oh well. This clearly doesn't work.' I believe in the correctness of abstinence, not just the practicality, and I'm not going chuck it in either.

Either way - the Pope's role is guard the values of the Catholic religion. His is the voice that stands up for the notion that intercourse is sacred - and arguments get very boring when everyone represents a compromise.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

its almost assuredly both. I mean you don’t get to be the pope cause you have doubts about god. But my point was that others shouldn’t come down on him simply because of his beliefs because if he is pope then those are the beliefs he HAS to have.

And I imagine that if he didn't think those beliefs are right, then he wouldn't have gotten to the place where he would be candidate for pope!

You seem to think sometimes that "religious" people just find themselves in a religion, and then blindly follow it without thinking, and if they actually DO think and find they disagree with some of the doctrine, then they just give up because they don't think they can "get out". Now for some people, sadly, that's true, but not for everyone.

um

You said, "Life is about suffering and death according to christianity after all." I heartily disagree. Yes, there is suffering and death, but it's not what life is about according to Christianity, IMO. I think it's about joy and love and courage and triumph over adversity and beauty and hope and laughter and truth.

other way around? NO religion should be imposed on others that don’t believe in that religion. It’s a basic rule for all religions. Not just Christianity.

Yes, and secular humanism should be included in that list. I don't appreciate secular humanism being forced on me. I think each person in a community should get a vote.

in the event of the life of the mother only.

OK.

because the fetus can feel true pain at that stage of development unlike when its just a collection of cells. And that, therefore, is NOT a situation where no harm is done to any party without their consent.

OK, that's YOUR belief. So you don't go get one done (well, you can't because you're a guy - how about you don't encourage women you know to get it done), but don't force your beliefs on other people who think it's perfectly fine, right? I mean, let them choose. You support a woman's "right to choose", right? Why should you force your opinion on women who think it's just fine?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by rian

I didn't say "just", but certainly if people abstain from sex until marriage and stay faithful in the marriage, then AIDS would drop drastically in even just one generation.

Originally Posted by janny

You miss the point. Just abstaining from sex and being faithful is the ticket for reduction in AIDS. Irrelevant of religion

of course you seem to be discounting the fact, and it is fact, that in many of the war-ravaged countries of africa, the infected women did not have any choice in who they slept with. i hardly think the soldiers raging through towns nd villages stopped by a hut, popped their heads in and said "Do you mind awfully whilst we rape you? it's just we do have 5 minuites to spare", and once infected, the children in the future are infected, and colonialists were to blame in this also, not to mention those preaching not to use contraception etc etc

[Tessar]

You just refuted your own point.

Do you REALLY think someone who has the kind of moral standing that they're willing to rape someone is going to be listening to the Catholic Church about condomes and the like?

That kind of person is completely out of the picture.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

well, seeing as how i was not talking about one person, but many factors, and seeing as that is actually one of the points i was trying to make....

why do i even try?

[Tessar]

You just said that the spread of AIDs was partially caused by people saying not to use contraception. I'm saying that they are in no way to blame for the spread of AIDs.

[Spock]

Indeed, LCOU, you make your point very clear. Thanks.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I didn't say "just", but certainly if people abstain from sex until marriage and stay faithful in the marriage, then AIDS would drop drastically in even just one generation.

yes and it would drop even more if everyone just had themselves steralized. But some things are more practical then others...

What, people aren't dying of AIDS as quickly in other countries?

dont believe me? suit yourself:

Uganda's AIDS Decline Attributed to Deaths

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, February 24, 2005

BOSTON, Feb. 23 -- Abstinence and sexual fidelity have played virtually no role in the much-heralded decline of AIDS rates in the most closely studied region of Uganda, two researchers told a gathering of AIDS scientists here.

It is the deaths of previously infected people, not dramatic change in human behavior, that is the main engine behind the ebbing of the overall rate, or prevalence, of AIDS in southern Uganda over the last decade, they reported.

The findings, not yet published, contradict earlier evidence that attributed Uganda's success in AIDS prevention largely to campaigns promoting abstinence and faithfulness to sex partners. Much of the prevention work in the Bush administration's $15 billion global AIDS plan is built around those two themes, and Uganda is frequently cited as evidence that the strategy works.

If the report here stands up to scrutiny -- and, more important, is borne out by surveys elsewhere in Uganda -- it will deflate one of the few supposed triumphs to come out of AIDS-battered Africa in the last decade. The success of Uganda's ABC strategy -- the letters stand for "abstinence," "be faithful" and "(use) condoms" -- has been widely touted and is on the verge of being exported to neighboring countries with the help of American money.

"There is an urgent need to assess abstinence and monogamy in other parts of Uganda," said Maria J. Wawer, a physician at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health who presented the data at the 12th Conference on Retroviruses, the annual mid-winter AIDS meeting in the United States.

Ironically, she and her colleagues found that the one prevention technique whose use did increase between 1994 and 2003 was condoms -- the part of the ABC triad that has been relatively de-emphasized in the Bush plan.

"Abstinence and monogamy are very good behaviors," she said in a press briefing after her presentation. "On the other hand, the data support that in this setting, the behavior that seems to have been the easiest to increase over time is condom use."

President Bush and administration officials have repeatedly cited Uganda's experience in promoting their approach. "We can learn from the experience of other countries when it comes to a good program to prevent the spread of AIDS, like the nation of Uganda," Bush said last June in Philadelphia, adding that the ABC program is "a practical, balanced and moral message."

Wawer's findings come from a study of 10,000 people ages 15 to 49 who live in 44 villages near Uganda's border with Tanzania. Each year researchers have gone door to door collecting blood and urine samples and asking about health and behavior. About 85 percent of residents cooperate with the study, which over the years has grown to include AIDS treatment and prevention services as well as research.

Today, the Rakai Health Sciences Program -- which is run by Columbia, Johns Hopkins University and several Ugandan organizations -- has about 400 employees. They include physicians, counselors and AIDS prevention educators.

Uganda is one of the 15 "target countries" in the Bush AIDS program, formally known as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

In the Rakai district, the percentage of women infected with HIV fell from 20 percent in 1994 to 13 percent in 2003. For men, the rate of infection declined from 15 percent to 9 percent, a decline of roughly one-third.

Over that same period, however, the fraction of men reporting two or more sexual partners in the previous year rose from 28 percent to 35 percent. The fraction of young men ages 15 to 19 who were not sexually active fell from about 60 percent to just under 50 percent. For women that age, the proportion not having sex remained at about 30 percent through the decade.

The median age of first intercourse for men fell from 17.1 to 16.2 years, and for women from 15.9 to 15.5 years.

Condom use, however, changed markedly over the survey period. In 1994, only about 10 percent of the men said they consistently used condoms with non-marital partners, compared with 50 percent in 2003. For women of the same age, the rate of condom use in non-marital sex increased from 2 percent to 28 percent.

Earlier data indicating that young Ugandans were delaying first intercourse came from surveys of primary school students and national health studies in 1989, 1995 and 2000 that were conducted in different regions each time.

Because the Rakai survey has continued for years in the same place, it also provides an unusually precise measure of the rate of new infections, or incidence.

For women ages 15 to 24, incidence has risen slightly over the last decade, from just below 1.5 new infections per 100 women per year to just above that number. For men, incidence increased from about 0.7 infections to 1 per 100 men per year.

That means Rakai's declining HIV prevalence is not due to a falloff in new infections. Instead it appears to be explained by an increase in deaths. Between the 2002 and 2003 surveys, 125 people became newly infected, and 200 people with long-standing infections died.

"Death alone accounted for a 0.6-percent-point reduction in HIV prevalence that year," Wawer said.

Among her more troubling findings was that the percentage of men who had become infected in the previous year and also reported having two or more partners that year rose from about 48 percent to 68 percent. Newly infected people have unusually large amounts of AIDS virus in their blood and by some estimates are up to 10 times more likely to infect someone during intercourse.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Janny

You miss the point. Just abstaining from sex and being faithful is the ticket for reduction in AIDS. Irrelevant of religion.

and that is (once again) SIMPLISTIC THINKING because human beings WILL have sex and will cheat. Your perfect little world does not exist! Therefore, dont be so afraid of promoting use of the 'C' in your much vaunted ABC strategy. CONDOM USE. It saves lives. But if you are the Pope... you cant say it...

I believe in the correctness of abstinence, not just the practicality, and I'm not going chuck it in either.

no matter what? at all costs?

Either way - the Pope's role is guard the values of the Catholic religion. His is the voice that stands up for the notion that intercourse is sacred - and arguments get very boring when everyone represents a compromise.

Yes. And even when that comprimise represents the possible lives of millions. I believe thats what I said originally.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

OK, that's YOUR belief. So you don't go get one done (well, you can't because you're a guy - how about you don't encourage women you know to get it done), but don't force your beliefs on other people who think it's perfectly fine, right? I mean, let them choose. You support a woman's "right to choose", right? Why should you force your opinion on women who think it's just fine?

there is permanent provable harm involved in that situation. Where is the equivalent permanent harm in say… gay marriage rian?

[inked]

IR,

If I may interject,

A...I...D...S.../...H...I...V

is the permanent provable harm in all your argumentation against Janny and Rian in regard to the issues in the last two posts.

Lifestyle, in other words, non-chaste/non-monogamous sexual intercourse results in STDs for heterosexuals and homosexuals.