---

Posted by: Anonymous on

5:58 AM  

I'm reading his book, "Salt of the Earth" right now. It's a good read. This man was an excellent choice for pontiff.

(But what do you care? You want progressivism in a church whose central tenets you don't subsrcibe to? How do you explain yourself?)

---

Posted by: veggiedude on

9:04 AM  

Allowing condoms could save millions in Africa, and stop thousands upon thousands of children being born with AIDS. When suffering happens, it should concern me. My question to you is, why would such a Pope be allowed in the Kingdom of Heaven?

---

Posted by: Anonymous on

11:16 AM  

Condoms DON'T WORK. They break. They have a 90% effective rate, which means that 10% of folks who use it, carrying the AIDS virus, will also be infected.

There is a 100% effective solution, and that's abstinence outside of marriage. You may hate that answer, but it's true. It shows a lack of self-control on your part to promote such a faulty measure, and it shows you are soooo ignorant.

Besides, the Church doesn't force its views on anybody. It proposes. Your hands are not tied behind your back--do what you want. Further, the Vatican doesn't control condom distribution (poor solution that may be), the indivdual countries do.

Oh, yeah, you don't do yourself a favor by identifying Christianity with Hitler, who is a well-known BAD Christian. By that same logic, a well-known GOOD atheist is none other than Josef Stalin, responsible for the worst genocide in the world's history. I'm surprised you hold your head up so high.

---

Posted by: veggiedude on

12:26 PM  

"There is a 100% effective solution"

Nope. Abstinence sounds nice, but it doesn't work. ou don't think people have been telling africans to abstain? That policy is a failed policy. Sure, condoms is not 100% effective, there is no such thing as 100% effective, but it is a good solution and one endorced by the UN. Unfortunately, the UN views the Vatican stance as a hindrance to solving the problem.

---

Posted by: veggiedude on

12:30 PM  

So you think Stalin was a GOOD atheist. I wonder what constitutes a BAD one?

---

Posted by: Anonymous on

1:30 PM  

So, are you telling me that if you have sex with someone with AIDS you would feel comfortable doing so, with the protection of a condom? How about sex ten times? Isn't that like Russian Roullette (with a pistol that holds ten bullets, instead of one?)

I repeat, for your own lack of hearing, that condoms do not work, and abstinence is 100% effective. It was only since the promotion of condom usage that AIDS, Herpes, venereal diseases, and unwanted pregnancies went through the roof statistically. The UN is simply catering to the interests of special interest groups. Certainly, AIDS can be transmitted through sharing a needle, and there have been innocent children born from mothers who have AIDS. So I do not mean to belittle those who have the disease--by which, some of the largest specialized hospitals in treatment of this disease are ... CATHOLIC.

Hitler actually had a lot of kooky spiritual beliefs, supplementing his own make-up-your-own-Ten-Commandments beliefs, and when he gave that speech you cited, you somehow omit the fact that he was kotowing the Christian majority (which, some took, and some didn't). That qualifies him as a BAD Christian, if, he must be distinguished at all. Stalin, however, believed wholeheartedly that atheism was true (That's all you have to believe as an atheist--no moral boundaries here) and Stalin took it to the next logical step. After all, you've been complaining a whole lot about the voting habits of Christians--certainly you would rather all such Christians didn't exist--well, Stalin agreed with ya, and did something about that. A BAD atheist, therefore, is someone who says he doesn't believe in God, but then prays, "just in case."

---

Posted by: veggiedude on

3:19 PM  

Condom do work, to some degree, just as preaching abstinence works, to some degree. Do you really believe telling your kids not to have sex, and they will listen? Yea, right!

You have your own definition of atheist. You remind me of some who call themselves vegetarian, but eat fish! I would say the Dalai Lama is a pretty good atheist, and he does not pray to any god. So there.

---

Posted by: jockeystreet on

8:36 PM  

Can I interrupt? I heard somebody on NPR use the line the other day that two ideologically opposed groups lived in "different fact universes." I think that's what you have here; sadly,there's not much chance that any amount of rational back and forth is going to convince either side when each argument is premised on completely different "givens." I think neither is really THE answer, things rarely being that simple and all.

My purpose in commenting, though, is actually just to say that, while I think that there are plenty of reasons to fault the new pope (or the whole papal institution), trying to nail him with this Nazi shit doesn't cut it, isn't fair. Forced to join a nationalistic youth group at fourteen, forced to join an army, from which he later deserted, at sixteen? What does that have to do with anything? How does that reflect on his character in any negative way? Dietrich Bonhoeffer joined the Nazi party, for god's sake... because, even though he was a pacifist who hated the Nazis, he really had no choice. He used his role in the party to, in spite of a lifetime of pacifism, make an attempt on Hitler's life. Anyway, give this guy a break, lay off the stuff that shouldn't matter; but feel free to complain that he's anti-feminist, anti-gay, etc, etc, etc (but give credit, maybe, for his also being anti-factory farm?).

---

Posted by: Anonymous on

5:39 AM  

jockeystreet-- I respect your post. If I don't comment on it, it's because there's nothing to find fault in it.

VD, on the otherhand, is either trying to be funny (and failing miserably) or showing that he is in true need of a logic class. The head of a religion an atheist? LOL--not. His blurb about abstinence? He sounds like a McDonald's employee. "Do you really believe telling your kids not to have OUR TWO BEEF PATTIES SPECIAL SAUCE LETTUCE CHEESE..., and they will listen? Yea, right!"

VD--I have empathy for your cause, but you simply are out of your league when it comes to debating. I shed a tear for you.

---

Posted by: veggiedude on

7:41 AM  

jockeystreet: I was not disparaging the new Pope - merely bringing up an interesting fact. I would like you to explain how condoms would not prevent thousands upon thousands of kids born in Africa with AIDS. C'mon, condoms are pretty good at birth control.

Interesting someone would doubt the Dalai Lama is an atheist without at least doing some MINIMAL research. He is famous for saying "there is no creator", not only in front of crowds, but in his books as well. There is no God in buddhism. There is no need for one. It has nothing to do with morality.

The statement about the kids not having a McDonalds is irrevelant. It depends on who the kids are, and how they were raised. No vegetarian raised kid would consider having meat to eat. It would be no more appetizing than eating the Pope.

---

Posted by: jockeystreet on

6:24 PM  

Don't get me wrong-- I don't doubt the effectiveness of condoms. Not at all. That's not where I was going with that. In the debate over that issue, I definitely fall on the education/distribution side (while acknowledging that education isn't foolproof either-- I'm a fairly educated guy who did plenty of stupid, stupid things once upon a time). I find the abstinence-only, "condoms don't work" propaganda pushed by the current administration quite scary. If the the effect of telling people over and over again that condoms don't work would be that people would suddenly stop having sex, then, well, okay, I guess that would solve some problems. I fear, however, that, best intentions aside, the more likely effect will be that people will continue rutting (as they always have; conservatives have been trying to correct society's loose morals for a few thousand years now, no progress yet), but they'll just stop using those supposedly-ineffective condoms. So I'm with you here. It's not a foolproof method of birth control, it's not impenetrable armor vs stds, but it's a hell of a lot better than crossing your fingers and saying a quick prayer.

My point (not well made) about things being more complicated than either/or was more that, while I can't claim to know exactly what's in anybody else's mind, I wonder if the disagreement here isn't so much about what "works" better, but about what "is" better. I mean, let's, just for the sake of argument, pretend for a moment that condoms could be 100% effective. Dead on protection every single time. Would that end this argument? Would Anonymous stop advocating for abstinence? Or is there something more here (coming from both sides), something about the way things "should" be? If we were to imagine it the other way around and accept as "fact" that condoms were only 50% effective, would you, Veggie Dude, be an instant convert to the abstinence cause? Facts and figures get thrown in, yeah, but I wonder if in reality it's just a clash between different world views (world views that will automatically interpret facts and figures in their own favor), and if it would be better resolved by dealing with the underlying issues (which I think are not incompatible).

Just my thoughts, whatever they may be worth.

---

Posted by: Anonymous on

7:08 AM  

I'm still trying to figure this out, so please bear with me.

Common knowledge: Condoms are "not perfect" but are 90% effective. And so, instead of promoting abstinence, then you are giving teenagers a solution that has a 1-in-10 chance of breakage. For a relationship with someone who has AIDS, is a 1-in-10 chance of a death sentence. If the relationship is an active one, then the two would likely have sex at least ten times, which almost guarantees that the relationship would end with the spread of the AIDS virus.

And so, desperate times call for desperate measures. Forgive this slight tangent, but being a vegetarian board, I'm sure you understand. I suppose you're familiar with how Norway in WWII denied anybody having meat during its duration. And the health risks in that country, on a pure vegetarian diet, altered their disease rate dramatically. Heart risks, cancer, you name it, all went down dramatically. A truly counter-cultural thing, such as living on a meat-free diet, resulted in super-positive results for all involved.

Okay. Here's the thing: there are FAR MORE folks willing to do the counter-cultural abstinence thing, than the counter-cultural veggie thing. It is far easier to sustain abstinence over the long period, until marriage, where such love can be a true gift to your partner, a unique expression of that love, and fully free of any sexually transmitted diseases to boot. A full-scale vegetarian/vegan diet, also with the powers to curtail diseases, is, while easy once-you-get-into-it, is much harder to maintain, considering the onslaught of processed and convenient foods in the U.S. marketplace and public schools.

And yet, you would prefer the promotion of condoms, a death sentence for some, as a solution, rather the counter-cultural, but 100% effective one.

And while I admire jockeystreet's intentions on a what-if scenario (what if condoms were 100% effective--how would that change the debate)--the fact is the real world does not work like that. The real world looks at results, and the condom distribution has been a catastrophe for the very reasons I mentioned above. If a solution is only 90% effective, it will fail 1 in ten times. If it fails one in ten times, and a sexually active person, by definition, has intercourse more than ten times, then one in those ten times would result in a full penetration, which could lead to pregnancy, or a sexually transmitted disease. Sure, statistically speaking for them, it might not happen, but all it takes is one instance, and their lives will be forever changed and/or scarred.

So, in light of this, what gives? Where's your backbone?

---

Posted by: AravisArwen on

2:09 PM  

Abstinence is the most effective answer when one abstains. The question is, how do you make people abstain? Answer: You can't be sure they will. In which case the distribution of condoms is the common sense, second line of defense.

For what it's worth jockeystreet I get what you're saying, and I think you're right.

---

Posted by: veggiedude on

3:27 PM  

I concur. Now why can't the vatican be reasonable too?

---

Posted by: Anonymous on

5:42 PM  

The problem is, this is an either/or situation. When you give out condoms, you're not saying "abstain." You're giving a mixed message.

To paraphrase that great theologian and philosopher, Steven Wright, it's like naming your dog "Stay." "Come Stay! Come Stay!"

If properly taught and enforced by the media, kids will abstain (maybe not 100%, but in much higher numbers). AIDS will go way, way down.

BTW, if you were told that ten percent of a batch of strawberries was accidentally doused with too much pesticide, such that eating one you would contract cancer, would you purchase that batch and take your chances? If not, would you not complain to the store manager, because those who love strawberries would eat them anyway, regardless of the consequences? Where's your backbone?

Nick

---

Posted by: veggiedude on

7:40 PM  

Nancy Reagan's "Just say no" to drugs program says you are wrong. So does the excellent anti-smoking ads, which proliferate the airwaves. Do kids still smoke? In smaller numbers, yes, but no where the number you expect. The kind of society you propose only exist in countries that practice totalitarian laws, with no sex on TV, no sex in adverts, etc. etc, like Singapore or those in the middle east. I don't think Americans want that.

---

Posted by: Anonymous on

6:38 PM  

Anonymous, why don't you quit with the personal attacks and stick to the issues.

Anonymous B!

Post a Comment