Ongoing religious scandals

robindch

PDN wrote: »

If they listened to the Pope then they obviously wouldn't be engaging in such activity. [...] As for repression, there are millions of Africans who chose to belong to the Catholic Church. I don't agree with their beliefs - but I support their right to practice them of their own free will. Where's the repression in that?

Do you support their right to be lied to by somebody who claims perfect knowledge?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Do you support their right to be lied to by somebody who claims perfect knowledge?

Of course not. Which lie are you referring to?

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

Apparently neither, since if they were listening to the Pope in the first place very few of them would contract AIDS.

Well, yes, assuming that these people would just suddenly stop having sex... but you know what I really mean. Don't you?

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, yes, assuming that these people would just suddenly stop having sex... but you know what I really mean. Don't you?

I don't think you know what you mean, to be honest.

I personally believe AB&C is the best approach to AIDS.

However, Min claimed that the Pope preaces A&B, while Dawkins preaches C.

Your response was that African Catholics who contract AIDS (most of whom do so by ignoring AB&C) are listening to the Pope more than Dawkins. They aren't. They're ignoring both Dawkins and the Pope.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

I don't think you know what you mean, to be honest.

I personally believe AB&C is the best approach to AIDS.

However, Min claimed that the Pope preaces A&B, while Dawkins preaches C.

Your response was that African Catholics who contract AIDS (most of whom do so by ignoring AB&C) are listening to the Pope more than Dawkins. They aren't. They're ignoring both Dawkins and the Pope.

Ok, but my point was that when the White Knight of Nonce makes pronouncements about the ineffectiveness of condoms (his statement was sufficiently ambiguous to hide its true meaning, either way) his worshippers believe that he is speaking on behalf of God. You know him, I'm sure. It is not too far an assumption for me to say that the WKN's statement must have been relayed on every pulpit, in every Catholic church, across the Sub-Saharan region. Aid agencies are doing their upmost to distribute condoms, while Gods footsoldiers are equalling their efforts, but only to yank them away from their flock.

Of course A&B are more effective than C, but people want to have sex, sometimes with more than one partner. Get over that fact, and join me in telling the White Knight to drop his misleading statements about condoms.

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Aid agencies are doing their upmost to distribute condoms, while Gods footsoldiers are equalling their efforts, but only to yank them away from their flock.

So I'm not one of God's footsoldiers because I distribute condoms in Africa.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Which lie are you referring to?

I'm referring to the pope's lies about condoms and his insistence that his way is the only way to resolve the AIDS crisis.

Do you think that other christian denominations who adopt a more realistic stance should point out that the pope and his organization are being dishonest?

PDN wrote: »

So I'm not one of God's footsoldiers because I distribute condoms in Africa.

It's a wonder then that he hasn't tried to smite you!

I wonder why...

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

So I'm not one of God's footsoldiers because I distribute condoms in Africa.

Hey, it's their tall claim!

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I'm referring to the pope's lies about condoms and his insistence that his way is the only way to resolve the AIDS crisis.

Well, the Pope doesn't claim to have perfect knowledge - but let's examine the second half of your statement.

I'm not aware of the Pope insisting that his way is the only way to resolve the AIDS crisis. You have a link?

Dades

I get what you're saying, PDN, and consider you the enemy of my enemy.

Min

mewso wrote: »

Not the old abstinence crock. You know thats like saying if you didn't abstain then it's your own fault. Most of us live in the real world. You know the one where people actually do have sex. So how best to avoid contracting diseases under those kind of circumstances is the practical approach.

Abstinence lead to the average age of first time sex to rise in Uganda, this is the important thing about abstinence, some say it doesn't work but it works to delay the first time for sex.
It gives women and men the option to say no when in one's culture it might be normal to have sex at a young age.
In the real world there should not be a need to rush into sexual intercourse, in the real world in places like Africa where they are much poorer than here and poorer healthcare systems they need to take into account what is shown to work.
Being faithful to one partner is number one, if you don't have a partner then abstinence is number two and lastly if you can't do either one or two then condoms.
Uganda in the real world lowered it levels when condom use was 13% by going heavy on being faithful and abstinence, when Dawkins says the church is responsible for countless number of HIV or AIDS deaths he is not talking from a scientific viewpoint.

A year ago on the Washington Post, Harvard professor Edward C Green, a world leading expert on the HIV epidemic had this to say after the Pope was criticised for his stance on condoms and how they were making the HIV/AIDS crisis worse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

When Pope Benedict XVI commented this month that condom distribution isn't helping, and may be worsening, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, he set off a firestorm of protest. Most non-Catholic commentary has been highly critical of the pope. A cartoon in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reprinted in The Post, showed the pope somewhat ghoulishly praising a throng of sick and dying Africans: "Blessed are the sick, for they have not used condoms."
Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Well, the Pope doesn't claim to have perfect knowledge - but let's examine the second half of your statement.

In respect of morals, the pope -- like most christians, I'd imagine -- understands himself to have access to perfect "teachings".

PDN wrote: »

I'm not aware of the Pope insisting that his way is the only way to resolve the AIDS crisis. You have a link?

Are you suggesting that the pope knows of some way to resolve the crisis, but isn't telling us?

mewso

Min wrote: »

Abstinence lead to the average age of first time sex to rise in Uganda, this is the important thing about abstinence, some say it doesn't work but it works to delay the first time for sex.
It gives women and men the option to say no when in one's culture it might be normal to have sex at a young age.
In the real world there should not be a need to rush into sexual intercourse, in the real world in places like Africa where they are much poorer than here and poorer healthcare systems they need to take into account what is shown to work.
Being faithful to one partner is number one, if you don't have a partner then abstinence is number two and lastly if you can't do either one or two then condoms.
Uganda in the real world lowered it levels when condom use was 13% by going heavy on being faithful and abstinence, when Dawkins says the church is responsible for countless number of HIV or AIDS deaths he is not talking from a scientific viewpoint.

A year ago on the Washington Post, Harvard professor Edward C Green, a world leading expert on the HIV epidemic had this to say after the Pope was criticised for his stance on condoms and how they were making the HIV/AIDS crisis worse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

I have no issue with abstinence as a way of avoiding the spread of disease. It's a no brainer. My point is if someone is going to have casual sex then they need to be told that if they insist on doing so then use condoms. The Pope saying they don't protect you from contracting Aids is not going to help. In your one-liner on Dawkins you state that Dawkins is preaching C. I'd like to see that quote where he is preaching anything for starters and secondly preaching C for all cases of sexual activity. If he has done so I would be dissappointed.

Min

mewso wrote: »

I have no issue with abstinence as a way of avoiding the spread of disease. It's a no brainer. My point is if someone is going to have casual sex then they need to be told that if they insist on doing so then use condoms. The Pope saying they don't protect you from contracting Aids is not going to help. In your one-liner on Dawkins you state that Dawkins is preaching C. I'd like to see that quote where he is preaching anything for starters and secondly preaching C for all cases of sexual activity. If he has done so I would be dissappointed.

Dawkins: "I wonder on what basis anyone can say condoms make Aids worse. The Pope is either stupid, ignorant or dim.

"If people take his words seriously he will be responsible for the deaths of thousands, perhaps millions of people."

---

So you have a liberal Harvard Professor who studied epidemics and what works in Africa saying "Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him." as in supports the Pope.

Then you have a scientist who deals with evolution in a name calling incident saying the Pope is either stupid, ignorant or dim and is responsible for maybe millions of deaths.

When it comes to evolution I would take Dawkins over Green, when it comes to epidemics and HIV I would take Green over Dawkins.

As Green said "We liberals who work in the fields of global HIV/AIDS and family planning take terrible professional risks if we side with the pope on a divisive topic such as this."

Sometimes the truth or the scientific evidence is not popular and in this case Dawkins dismisses science for his own fairytale.....

robindch

Min wrote: »

Then you have a scientist who deals with evolution in a name calling incident saying the Pope is either stupid, ignorant or dim and is responsible for maybe millions of deaths.

On a point of order, it's not a name-calling incident if it happens to be true.

Min

robindch wrote: »

On a point of order, it's not a name-calling incident if it happens to be true.

But the expert on HIV and AIDS epidemics says it is not true, therefore it is a name calling incident and the expert on evolution is wrong.

mewso

Min wrote: »

Dawkins: "I wonder on what basis anyone can say condoms make Aids worse. The Pope is either stupid, ignorant or dim.

"If people take his words seriously he will be responsible for the deaths of thousands, perhaps millions of people."

Not in any way preaching C as an Aids prevention technique. He is expressing an opinion and speculating on the possible consequences of people believing the Pope's claim that using condoms increases the threat of contracting Aids. Nothing whatsoever to do with what method is better or more effective than the other.

robindch

Min wrote: »

But the expert on HIV and AIDS epidemics says it is not true, therefore it is a name calling incident and the expert on evolution is wrong.

A "liberal Harvard Professor" says that something is true, therefore it is true?

There may be people out there who disagree with that generalization.

Min

mewso wrote: »

Not in any way preaching C as an Aids prevention technique. He is expressing an opinion and speculating on the possible consequences of people believing the Pope's claim that using condoms increases the threat of contracting Aids. Nothing whatsoever to do with what method is better or more effective than the other.

We all know what the Pope preaches, Dawkins wrongly said that could lead to millions of deaths.
The expert on the subject says the empirical evidence supports the Pope's position.

Professor Dawkins, the prominent biologist and atheist, said that Benedict XVI would have blood on his hands if his beliefs were followed by Catholics around the continent

How stupid, ignorant and dim can Dawkins be?

The Pope preaches no sex before marriage and fidelity within marriage.

The very things which are shown to be the most effective....but AIDS victims are there to be used against the Pope when he is preaching what works.....

btw the church cares for 26% of all HIV and AIDS victims in the world.
What does Dawkins do? Just judge others?

Min

robindch wrote: »

A "liberal Harvard Professor" says that something is true, therefore it is true?

There may be people out there who disagree with that generalization.

I am saying what Edward Green described himself as being.

I read an interview he gave and before his study into Uganda he believed that condoms were the primary weapon against HIV.
He got interested in Uganda as the level fell sharply to the lowest in the region and wondered how this could be when condom use was only at 13% when the rates of infection were falling dramatically.

He is a world leading expert in the area and it is clear as he says that for someone like him it is a "terrible professional risk" to side with the Pope when it comes to the spread of HIV in Africa.
As he says "Surely it's time to start providing more evidence-based AIDS prevention in Africa"

The evidence shows where the emphasis has been on condoms in Africa, the levels of infection remained high.

Flamed Diving

*sigh*

I just wrote a substantial post only for boards to ****ing gobble it up with a service error. Anyway, I shall post the Green article, in its full context. It should be clear that he is a) outlining the technical error that people were making in assuming that the policy condom use in Africa has been working but also, b) showing that the "failure" is not because condoms don't work, since they clearly do, in regions beyond the reach of the WKN's icy claw. Anyone with half a brain can see what Green is saying here, it's written in plain English. But I believe he is being a little naive, in taking the WKN's words so literally, and without context. One must read the WKN's words and ask themselves, "Does he wish for condom use to be dropped?". We know this is the WKN's wish, and not Green's. Therefore, Min, your attempt to align Professor Green with the WKN is highly disingenuous.

Observe:

The Pope May Be Right
By Edward C. Green
Sunday, March 29, 2009

When Pope Benedict XVI commented this month that condom distribution isn't helping, and may be worsening, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, he set off a firestorm of protest. Most non-Catholic commentary has been highly critical of the pope. A cartoon in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reprinted in The Post, showed the pope somewhat ghoulishly praising a throng of sick and dying Africans: "Blessed are the sick, for they have not used condoms."

Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him.

We liberals who work in the fields of global HIV/AIDS and family planning take terrible professional risks if we side with the pope on a divisive topic such as this. The condom has become a symbol of freedom and -- along with contraception -- female emancipation, so those who question condom orthodoxy are accused of being against these causes. My comments are only about the question of condoms working to stem the spread of AIDS in Africa's generalized epidemics -- nowhere else.

In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study. (The authors eventually managed to publish their findings in the quarterly Studies in Family Planning.) Since then, major articles in other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa. In a 2008 article in Science called "Reassessing HIV Prevention" 10 AIDS experts concluded that "consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa."

Let me quickly add that condom promotion has worked in countries such as Thailand and Cambodia, where most HIV is transmitted through commercial sex and where it has been possible to enforce a 100 percent condom use policy in brothels (but not outside of them). In theory, condom promotions ought to work everywhere. And intuitively, some condom use ought to be better than no use. But that's not what the research in Africa shows.

Why not?

One reason is "risk compensation." That is, when people think they're made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex.

Another factor is that people seldom use condoms in steady relationships because doing so would imply a lack of trust. (And if condom use rates go up, it's possible we are seeing an increase of casual or commercial sex.) However, it's those ongoing relationships that drive Africa's worst epidemics. In these, most HIV infections are found in general populations, not in high-risk groups such as sex workers, gay men or persons who inject drugs. And in significant proportions of African populations, people have two or more regular sex partners who overlap in time. In Botswana, which has one of the world's highest HIV rates, 43 percent of men and 17 percent of women surveyed had two or more regular sex partners in the previous year.

These ongoing multiple concurrent sex partnerships resemble a giant, invisible web of relationships through which HIV/AIDS spreads. A study in Malawi showed that even though the average number of sexual partners was only slightly over two, fully two-thirds of this population was interconnected through such networks of overlapping, ongoing relationships.

So what has worked in Africa? Strategies that break up these multiple and concurrent sexual networks -- or, in plain language, faithful mutual monogamy or at least reduction in numbers of partners, especially concurrent ones. "Closed" or faithful polygamy can work as well.

In Uganda's early, largely home-grown AIDS program, which began in 1986, the focus was on "Sticking to One Partner" or "Zero Grazing" (which meant remaining faithful within a polygamous marriage) and "Loving Faithfully." These simple messages worked. More recently, the two countries with the highest HIV infection rates, Swaziland and Botswana, have both launched campaigns that discourage people from having multiple and concurrent sexual partners.

Don't misunderstand me; I am not anti-condom. All people should have full access to condoms, and condoms should always be a backup strategy for those who will not or cannot remain in a mutually faithful relationship. This was a key point in a 2004 "consensus statement" published and endorsed by some 150 global AIDS experts, including representatives the United Nations, World Health Organization and World Bank. These experts also affirmed that for sexually active adults, the first priority should be to promote mutual fidelity. Moreover, liberals and conservatives agree that condoms cannot address challenges that remain critical in Africa such as cross-generational sex, gender inequality and an end to domestic violence, rape and sexual coercion.

Surely it's time to start providing more evidence-based AIDS prevention in Africa.

The writer is a senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P85z3OMCGvI

Mark Hamill

Min wrote: »

A year ago on the Washington Post, Harvard professor Edward C Green, a world leading expert on the HIV epidemic had this to say after the Pope was criticised for his stance on condoms and how they were making the HIV/AIDS crisis worse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

From the article you linked:

10 AIDS experts concluded that "consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa."

And

One reason is "risk compensation." That is, when people think they're made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex.

Another factor is that people seldom use condoms in steady relationships because doing so would imply a lack of trust. (And if condom use rates go up, it's possible we are seeing an increase of casual or commercial sex.) However, it's those ongoing relationships that drive Africa's worst epidemics.

I think if you read the article you yourself linked to you would see the problem with condoms in Africa. The problem is not that they dont work. The problem is that people arent using them. While this is partially caused by cultural aspects (using condoms might be seen as a lack of trust) its also caused by mis-education of condoms use and how they work and what they can prevent. This is not helped when the pope lies about the effectiveness of condoms in order to propagate his power base in Africa.
To know this and still claim that condoms dont work in africa and should not be promoted, would be like campaiging for the removal of seatbelts because people who dont wear them get injured or killed in car crashes.

Min

Mark Hamill wrote: »

From the article you linked:

And


I think if you read the article you yourself linked to you would see the problem with condoms in Africa. The problem is not that they dont work. The problem is that people arent using them. While this is partially caused by cultural aspects (using condoms might be seen as a lack of trust) its also caused by mis-education of condoms use and how they work and what they can prevent. This is not helped when the pope lies about the effectiveness of condoms in order to propagate his power base in Africa.
To know this and still claim that condoms dont work in africa and should not be promoted, would be like campaiging for the removal of seatbelts because people who dont wear them get injured or killed in car crashes.

So, condoms would still lead to infection as there is always a risk when you have sex with someone who has HIV even with condoms.
17% who use condoms for contraception end up pregnant, one can deduce from that the spread of a disease where the size of the disease particle is much smaller than a sperm that the risk over time by having sex with someone with HIV is actually quite high.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBody5RPo2o

Flamed Diving

Min wrote: »

So, condoms could still lead to infection as there is always a risk when you have sex with someone who has HIV even with condoms. 17% who use condoms for contraception end up pregnant, one can deduce from that the spread of a disease where the size of the disease particle is much smaller than a sperm that the risk over time by having sex with someone with HIV is actually quite high.

FYP.

1) Note how he has abandoned Prof Green.
2) Note how his statistics have no reference.

mewso

Min wrote: »

We all know what the Pope preaches, Dawkins wrongly said that could lead to millions of deaths.
The expert on the subject says the empirical evidence supports the Pope's position.


How stupid, ignorant and dim can Dawkins be?

The Pope preaches no sex before marriage and fidelity within marriage.

The very things which are shown to be the most effective....but AIDS victims are there to be used against the Pope when he is preaching what works.....

btw the church cares for 26% of all HIV and AIDS victims in the world.
What does Dawkins do? Just judge others?

You said he was preaching C. I asked for proof that he was. You gave me none. Don't bother replying to a question if you don't intend to answer it.

sonicthebadger*

It has always been my understanding that the most effective method of dealing with the AIDS problem has been the ABC approach, this is not the Pope's teaching. Min says that A&B are the most important parts and there is no disagreement there, the Pope is correct when he says that A&B are the best way to avoid AIDS. However, I see the situation as a large grey area with 100% HIV infection on the left and 0% on the right the aim must always be to move to the right closer to 0% infection. A&B might get a population plenty close to 0% but C will get them a bit closer. Therefore it is wrong wrong wrong wrong to tell people not to use condoms. Nobody is "preaching" the CAB method, certainly not anyone who looks at the reality of the situation. Quite frankly, unless Min can provide us with evidence that Dawkins has been saying CAB is the way forward I'll not entertain any belief in that accusation.

Min

Flamed Diving wrote: »

FYP.

1) Note how he has abandoned Prof Green.
2) Note how his statistics have no reference.

I haven't abandoned Professor Green. The article is pro what the Pope preaches:

In Uganda's early, largely home-grown AIDS program, which began in 1986, the focus was on "Sticking to One Partner" or "Zero Grazing" (which meant remaining faithful within a polygamous marriage) and "Loving Faithfully." These simple messages worked. More recently, the two countries with the highest HIV infection rates, Swaziland and Botswana, have both launched campaigns that discourage people from having multiple and concurrent sexual partners.

"Of 100 women whose partner uses a condom for one year, 3 to 36 will become pregnant."
--United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. "Contraception: Comparing the Options."

"The officials note that condoms have been widely rejected as a method of birth control because they frequently fail, and say the devices may be no better -- in fact, may be worse -- at curtailing AIDS. They warn that sexually active men and women should not assume that they are protected simply because they use prophylactics ... The safe-sex message just isn't true. You're still playing a kind of Russian roulette. Instead of having six bullets in the chamber, you have one."
--Bruce Voeller, M.D., researcher with the Mariposa Research Foundation, quoted in Lindsey Gruson. "Condoms: Experts Fear False Sense of Security." The New York Times, August 18, 1987.

"In the Oxford/Family Planning Association contraceptive study, 4% of highly motivated couples relying on condoms experienced an unplanned pregnancy within one year, while more generally representative data from the National Survey of Family Growth in the United States show that between 6% and 22% of couples relying on condoms experienced an unplanned pregnancy within a year, the rate depending on the woman's age and whether the couples wished to delay pregnancy or to prevent it. Much of the health education material about HIV infection has failed to stress the limitations of the condom."
--M.P. Vessy and L. Villard Mackintosh. "Condoms and AIDS Prevention." The Lancet, March 7, 1987, page 568.

"I think these results certainly tell us right off that one condom is not the same as the next. Koop and AIDS groups and others promoting condoms have been very careless about that point ... The Lifestyles Conture, Trojan Ribbed Natural, Trojan Ribbed and Contracept Plus all showed evidence of virus leakage. One in 10 condoms tested leaked in each brand, except for the Contracept Plus, which leaked [HIV] virus 10 of the 25 times it was tested."
--Dr. Cecil Fox, quoted in Allan Parachini. "Condom Study Finding Wide Differences Among Brands." Los Angeles Times, June 29, 1988.

Min

mewso wrote: »

You said he was preaching C. I asked for proof that he was. You gave me none. Don't bother replying to a question if you don't intend to answer it.

He is preaching C by saying the Pope is wrong, the claim the Pope is wrong is not backed up by evidence, therefore Dawkins is putting C first or he wouldn't say the Pope's beliefs will lead to possibly millions of deaths when we all know where the Pope stands when it comes to sex and where sex should be performed.