NationStates Jolt Archive

Pope rejects condoms for Africa (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4081276.stm)

South African President Thabo Mbeki with Pope Benedict XVI in May
The Pope has already met South African President Thabo Mbeki
The spread of HIV and Aids in Africa should be tackled through fidelity and abstinence and not by condoms, Pope Benedict XVI has said.

Speaking to African bishops at the Vatican, the Pope described HIV/Aids in Africa as a "cruel epidemic".

But he told them: "The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids."

More than 60% of the world's 40m people with HIV live in sub-Saharan Africa.

In South Africa alone, 600-1,000 people are thought to die every day because of Aids.

Pope Benedict, who was elected to succeed John Paul II in April, has already signalled that he will maintain a strictly traditional line on issues including abortion and homosexuality.

Before being elected pope, Benedict served as head of the Vatican's doctrinal office.

These were his first public comments on the issue of Aids/HIV and contraception since taking office.


It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality
Pope Benedict

He was addressing bishops from South Africa, Botswana, Swaziland, Namibia and Lesotho, who had travelled to the Vatican for a routine papal audience.

Some Catholic clergymen have argued that the use of condoms to stem the spread of the disease would be a "lesser of two evils".

The Pope warned that contraception was one of a host of trends contributing to a "breakdown in sexual morality", and church teachings should not be ignored.

"It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality," he added.

The virus "seriously threatens the economic and social stability of the continent," the Pope said.

The UN estimates that without new initiatives and greater access to drugs, more than 80 million Africans may die from Aids by 2025 and HIV infections could reach 90 million, or 10% of the continent's population.

No wonder there are so many Africans with HIV/AIDS... look at the kind of help and influence they are getting from the church. With that kind of mentality, who needs genocide when Mother Nature can just do it herself... :rolleyes: church policy is so asinine. It's no wonder we're not as advanced as we could be.

Well maybe if they'd just stop fucking everything that moves and thinking that sex with young virgins causes aids, they wouldn't be in this predicament.

Edit: Also, since Mbeki thinks that HIV doesn't exist, what do they need condoms for? It's easy for you to blame the Church for all of Africa's woes, but their own governments are doing a much better job of shooting them in the foot than any whitey ever could.

The Church is responsible for a lot of backward thinking in the world today. I am sorry, but if HIV/AIDS is so prevailent there, how do you know that your husband isn't going to have it or your wife. I mean, they need to think realistically. People are going to have sex, it's the way we produce more of our kind, but with out some sort of protection from mother nature's meaner streak than people are going to die from things that could have been prevented.

Well maybe if they'd just stop fucking everything that moves and thinking that sex with young virgins causes aids, they wouldn't be in this predicament.

Edit: Also, since Mbeki thinks that HIV doesn't exist, what do they need condoms for? It's easy for you to blame the Church for all of Africa's woes, but their own governments are doing a much better job of shooting them in the foot than any whitey ever could.
See Nigeria and it's radical Islamic clerics for example...

Who needs to worry about overpopulation when ignorance can take care of that! :D (yes, that is incredibly insensitive...)

Well maybe if they'd just stop fucking everything that moves and thinking that sex with young virgins causes aids, they wouldn't be in this predicament.
Yes, and women should grow giant crab claws from their shoulders to stop men raping them.

Yes, and women should grow giant crab claws from their shoulders to stop men raping them.
Yay for taking evolution to the next phase!

Well maybe if they'd just stop fucking everything that moves and thinking that sex with young virgins causes aids, they wouldn't be in this predicament.

bordering troll

Onto the issue, the Catholic church reserves the right to have any opinion on contraception it wants. You think that if the Catholic church says stop wearing condoms every African man is going to follow blindly?

Condoms are only a preventative measure for not spreading aids, it can sprad if you wear a condom but I agree condoms significantly reduce catching HIV. Research is needed for actually curing HIV instead of mud throwing at religions for their beliefs.

Pope rejects condoms for Africa (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4081276.stm)


No wonder there are so many Africans with HIV/AIDS... look at the kind of help and influence they are getting from the church. With that kind of mentality, who needs genocide when Mother Nature can just do it herself... :rolleyes: The church is so retarded. It's no wonder we're not as advanced as we could be.
what were you expecting? hes an ex nazi. yes people can change. but thats kind of a hard thing to brush off your life. you know he looks nearly identical to the emperor?

*chuckle* (http://homepages.rub.de/Michael.Kusnierz/papa.jpg)

It's not like those condoms they get from the UN are any good to begin with. They f*** with a false sense of security.

In the western world today, you have to be kind of stupid to catch the AIDs, what with all of the info out there and all. This isn't well known in the 3rd world esp Africa. Ex:Someone with AIDs has sex with a baby and they'll be cured? Seriously, condoms are not the solution to the AIDs. It is education, and trying to teach those people in Africa that they should try to show a little self control, and also to get those clinics and stuff where you can catch the AIDs from getting a shot, to learn about hygene.

what were you expecting? hes an ex nazi. yes people can change. but thats kind of a hard thing to brush off your life. you know he looks nearly identical to the emperor?

http://homepages.rub.de/Michael.Kusnierz/papa.jpg

Did he actually join the party you troll?

Did he actually join the party you troll?
clearly me pointing out something i find amusing is trolling. i see no bridge here.

mmm. you meant the nazi referance. yes as did most people in germany. if you believe in something then die for it. dont submit to something that you feel is wrong in exchange for your life.

what were you expecting? hes an ex nazi.

He lived in nazi germany, as far as I know he wasn't part of or endorsed Hitler or his party.

Sounds like a major generalisation

[QUOTE=Yissing Scalies]what were you expecting? hes an ex nazi.[QUOTE]

He lived in nazi germany, as far as I know he wasn't part of or endorsed Hitler or his party.

Sounds like a major generalisation
if memory serves from somethign i read *goes to find link* he DID serve as a hitler's youth but was not particularly enthusastic about it.

if memory serves from somethign i read *goes to find link* he DID serve as a hitler's youth but was not particularly enthusastic about it.

Every boy was, its like being in the scouts. But they were filled with propaganda

No wonder there are so many Africans with HIV/AIDS... look at the kind of help and influence they are getting from the church. With that kind of mentality, who needs genocide when Mother Nature can just do it herself... :rolleyes: The church is so retarded. It's no wonder we're not as advanced as we could be.

Uganda: abstinence movement takes place, extremely low AIDS rate results.
Botswana: Country flooded with contraception, AIDS deaths continue the same.

And the "ex nazi" thing really annoys me… virtually all young Germans were in the Hitler Youth, should we call them Nazi as well?

Every boy was, its like being in the scouts. But they were filled with propaganda
*nod* my point was regardless of change that can be a nasty "tag" to remove

Every boy was, its like being in the scouts. But they were filled with propaganda

Exactly like being a Catholic from birth in other words. Fitting ;)

He most likely was a member of the Hitlerjugend. But indeed: almost every German boy was at that time. Not being one was being suspect.

*nod* my point was regardless of change that can be a nasty "tag" to remove

but he has nothing to do with the nazi party

Exactly like being a Catholic from birth in other words. Fitting ;)

He most likely was a member of the Hitlerjugend. But indeed: almost every German boy was at that time. Not being one was being suspect.

Firstly some of us choose to be Catholic you know ;)

secondly : agreed

Firstly some of us choose to be Catholic you know ;)

I know - that is why I said from birth ;) A child does not choose to get water splashed on him, does not choose to attend lectures on Jesus and the Bible and will believe most of what he is told. A way of thinking will be imprinted which he most likely will not lose, even if he leaves the faith later in life. Which is part of the reasons why the nazi's copied this and founded the Hitler Jugend.

If I'm not mistaken, all old school Catholics are against contraception. This is still taught in a lot of countries, although it's not nearly as widespread as it used to be. That's probably the reasoning behind the Pope's stance.

I don't think there is a one step simple solution to the problem of African AIDS. The problem will not be solved anytime soon partly due to the fact that most westerners(who happen to have most of the world's power and the resources to cause major change) don't really care. Africa is full of 3rd world countries with nothing to offer us so we would rather ignore it. If you're poor and black, we'd rather look the other way.

And the catholics have always been against condoms and will most likely always be against condoms. If you don't agree with that then don't be catholic. That's simple enough.

Of COURSE the pope rejects condoms.








Alter boys just don't feel the same when you're wearing one....

what were you expecting? hes an ex nazi. yes people can change. but thats kind of a hard thing to brush off your life. you know he looks nearly identical to the emperor?

http://homepages.rub.de/Michael.Kusnierz/papa.jpg


The Pope was forced into Hitler's Youth group at the age of 14. He was never a Nazi any more than those forced into the death camps were volunteer suicides.

Surprise!! The Catholic Church is going to follow it's own doctrine. To say that AIDS is spreading faster because the people are listening to the Church's teachings on condom use but not it's teachings on abstinance is ridiculous. If you know anything about the culture where AIDS is the biggest problem you would know that a man proves his masculinity by having sex with and impregnating as many women as possible. I saw a Discovery documentary of a clinic that tested several married couples for HIV/AIDS. One of the couples (she was pregnant with their 4th or 5th child) were found to have AIDS. He was upset because the other couples would tell everyone in their area that he had AIDS. He was put out that he was going to have to travel to where he wasn't known to find women. He estimated that he was the father of over 100 illegitimate children. He said he was unable to provide a list of who he might have infected as he didn't know most of the women's names. This kind of macho tradition is exactly what the Catholic Church is trying to teach is an improper way to live.

A child does not choose to get water splashed on him, does not choose to attend lectures on Jesus and the Bible and will believe most of what he is told. A way of thinking will be imprinted which he most likely will not lose, even if he leaves the faith later in life. Which is part of the reasons why the nazi's copied this and founded the Hitler Jugend.

You speak as though the Church is indocrinating children without consent. Well, I didn't choose to be baptized either, but I did choose to be confirmed. The Church can't make anybody stay Catholic, it's only those that want to.

As for this whole "imprinting" thing, you're missing the fact that the Church is secondary to the parents - if the parents don't bring the child to church and catechism, the Church isn't going have any influence whatsoever. Obviously. This oh-so-sinister "imprinting" on a child who will "believe most of what he is told" is ENTIRELY the parents' doing, NOT the Church's; therefore (as common sense would suggest) the Hitler Youth was a copy of parenthood, not of this 'evil indoctrination' by the Church. And pardon my French, but parents are entitled to raise their children under whatever ideology they damn well choose.

Surprise!! The Catholic Church is going to follow it's own doctrine. To say that AIDS is spreading faster because the people are listening to the Church's teachings on condom use but not it's teachings on abstinance is ridiculous. If you know anything about the culture where AIDS is the biggest problem you would know that a man proves his masculinity by having sex with and impregnating as many women as possible. I saw a Discovery documentary of a clinic that tested several married couples for HIV/AIDS. One of the couples (she was pregnant with their 4th or 5th child) were found to have AIDS. He was upset because the other couples would tell everyone in their area that he had AIDS. He was put out that he was going to have to travel to where he wasn't known to find women. He estimated that he was the father of over 100 illegitimate children. He said he was unable to provide a list of who he might have infected as he didn't know most of the women's names. This kind of macho tradition is exactly what the Catholic Church is trying to teach is an improper way to live.
I think I saw the same documentary. It was very good. I definitely agree that the culture of macho-ism among the men needs to be changed to curb the spread of AIDS although more organizations need to be promoting this to the people because the church can only influence its followers.

Of COURSE the pope rejects condoms.
.
.
.
Alter boys just don't feel the same when you're wearing one....

:eek: argh! I can't believe someone wrote this! Way to go! :D so delightfully distasteful...even if it trolling!

Just another of the many reasons I dumped the Catholic Church years ago.

This is nothing but irresponsiblility by the Pope. Over time, Catholic doctrine changes WITH the times, it's just that they're still centuries behind. Ugh!

:mad:

Here is an article on the Pope's and his family's association with and view of the Nazi Party.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/050419/137/2kugm.html

The Pope was forced into Hitler's Youth group at the age of 14. He was never a Nazi any more than those forced into the death camps were volunteer suicides.

Surprise!! The Catholic Church is going to follow it's own doctrine. To say that AIDS is spreading faster because the people are listening to the Church's teachings on condom use but not it's teachings on abstinance is ridiculous. If you know anything about the culture where AIDS is the biggest problem you would know that a man proves his masculinity by having sex with and impregnating as many women as possible. I saw a Discovery documentary of a clinic that tested several married couples for HIV/AIDS. One of the couples (she was pregnant with their 4th or 5th child) were found to have AIDS. He was upset because the other couples would tell everyone in their area that he had AIDS. He was put out that he was going to have to travel to where he wasn't known to find women. He estimated that he was the father of over 100 illegitimate children. He said he was unable to provide a list of who he might have infected as he didn't know most of the women's names. This kind of macho tradition is exactly what the Catholic Church is trying to teach is an improper way to live.

If they wanted to act truly responsible they could not only speak out against this behavior they COULD also promote condom usage as well

Just because there is more then one problem standing in their way does not mean they should ignore all but one

If they wanted to act truly responsible they could not only speak out against this behavior they COULD also promote condom usage as well

Just because there is more then one problem standing in their way does not mean they should ignore all but one As I said, contraception does not solve the problem. In Uganda, abstinence works… because they know about AIDS there. In Botswana, they tried contraception… and guess which country is far more successful? Not Botswana.

As I said, contraception does not solve the problem. In Uganda, abstinence works… because they know about AIDS there. In Botswana, they tried contraception… and guess which country is far more successful? Not Botswana.
You know because the ONLY variables in that equation is the birth control

:rolleyes:

As for this whole "imprinting" thing, you're missing the fact that the Church is secondary to the parents - if the parents don't bring the child to church and catechism, the Church isn't going have any influence whatsoever. Obviously. This oh-so-sinister "imprinting" on a child who will "believe most of what he is told" is ENTIRELY the parents' doing, NOT the Church's; therefore (as common sense would suggest) the Hitler Youth was a copy of parenthood, not of this 'evil indoctrination' by the Church. And pardon my French, but parents are entitled to raise their children under whatever ideology they damn well choose.

Shall we allow parents to discipline their children in any way they choose as well? Of course not. There is discipline and then there is abuse, and we can generally tell the difference.

The same goes for the difference between teaching an ideology and indoctrinating into it. Do parents, in our culture, have the right to indoctrinate their children? Unfortunately, yes, they do. It is unfortunate that we have such poor parents with so little faith in their own beliefs that they feel the need to indoctrinate their children. It is unfortunate that people are so unsure of their own ideology that they feel the only way to teach it is to guard their children from anything that might, just might, cause their children to think for themselves (and actually have a possibility of becoming faithful). I thank God that I didn't have such a parent - and that I was always encouraged to think and believe for myself.

Shall we allow parents to discipline their children in any way they choose as well? Of course not. There is discipline and then there is abuse, and we can generally tell the difference.

The same goes for the difference between teaching an ideology and indoctrinating into it. Do parents, in our culture, have the right to indoctrinate their children? Unfortunately, yes, they do. It is unfortunate that we have such poor parents with so little faith in their own beliefs that they feel the need to indoctrinate their children. It is unfortunate that people are so unsure of their own ideology that they feel the only way to teach it is to guard their children from anything that might, just might, cause their children to think for themselves (and actually have a possibility of becoming faithful). I thank God that I didn't have such a parent - and that I was always encouraged to think and believe for myself.
Your so called indoctrinating is what my parents did to me. I believe what they taught me, because I believe that it's the truth. I've had no trouble thinking for myself, and I've varied a little from their exact teaching. I haven't been brainwashed into believing something that I didn't want to. Children have no idea what religion they want, and I don't believe they can make the conscious decision until they're 15 or so. Most parents use their beliefs to guide their children in the way that they want.

Of COURSE the pope rejects condoms.

Alter boys just don't feel the same when you're wearing one....Leperous monkeyballs: Official Warning - Trolling.

:eek: argh! I can't believe someone wrote this! Way to go! :D so delightfully distasteful...even if it trolling!Borderline trolling.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Shall we allow parents to discipline their children in any way they choose as well? Of course not. There is discipline and then there is abuse, and we can generally tell the difference.

The same goes for the difference between teaching an ideology and indoctrinating into it. Do parents, in our culture, have the right to indoctrinate their children? Unfortunately, yes, they do. It is unfortunate that we have such poor parents with so little faith in their own beliefs that they feel the need to indoctrinate their children. It is unfortunate that people are so unsure of their own ideology that they feel the only way to teach it is to guard their children from anything that might, just might, cause their children to think for themselves (and actually have a possibility of becoming faithful). I thank God that I didn't have such a parent - and that I was always encouraged to think and believe for myself.

I can't believe I'm hearing this! How on earth can you equate a parent's value system with child abuse?!

Have you ever heard "family is the foundation of society?" It can't be unless something is passed down from parent to child - namely, a code of ethics and beliefs which allow the child to function in society. It's not because parents are insecure in their beliefs (a very nonsensical argument, btw - "here, kid, let me screw up your life because deep down I think I might be wrong and I think that maybe if I totally mess you up like me for the rest of your life it might make me feel a little better"), it's because they have a genetic drive to perpetuate their "line" - not only genes, but beliefs and traditions as well. Do you expect a child of seven to choose, with an informed conscience, the single correct ideology? Adults don't seem to be able to do that themselves, you know. As you get older your parents lose control over you, which is as it should be. But recommending open choice for children is sheer lunacy. I can guess that any child, given the choice, would choose the religion that hands out the most candy. Your logic is flawed, although I know you can't see it. Why? Because you've been indoctrinated. Just like me.

As I said, contraception does not solve the problem. In Uganda, abstinence works… because they know about AIDS there. In Botswana, they tried contraception… and guess which country is far more successful? Not Botswana.

Last I herad, Uganda uses both approaches. They instruct the people that abstinence is best in preventing HIV infection, but that condoms should be used if you are going to have sex.

Of course, as others pointed out, these are not the only differences. Some African countries are much more superstitious - shunning medical attention even when it is something like a vaccine. Medicine men go around injecting their own concoctions - without cleaning the needles in between "patients" - thus spreading many diseases even further.

Your so called indoctrinating is what my parents did to me.

Is it?

I believe what they taught me, because I believe that it's the truth.

Any parent would certainly hope that their children would come to agree with them.

I've had no trouble thinking for myself, and I've varied a little from their exact teaching.

Then it is unlikely that you were indoctrinated. Either that or you are deluded into thinking that decisions are your own, when they are not.

How much have you looked into dissenting opinions and other beliefs? How often have you and do you question your own beliefs?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Catholic Church only has control over what Catholics do. A Catholic doctrine is to abstain from sex… so you can't blame the Church's doctrine for spreading AIDS because if its doctrine is obeyed, AIDS does not result. Obviously its doctrine is not being followed… and it has no control over that, since it would be outside of its influence.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Catholic Church only has control over what Catholics do. A Catholic doctrine is to abstain from sex… so you can't blame the Church's doctrine for spreading AIDS because if its doctrine is obeyed, AIDS does not result. Obviously its doctrine is not being followed… and it has no control over that, since it would be outside of its influence.

Well put. Although Catholic doctrine is to refrain from extramarital sex, not all sex ;)

I can't believe I'm hearing this! How on earth can you equate a parent's value system with child abuse?!

*looks at her post*

I didn't do any such thing. I suppose you should try reading it again.

I equated indoctrination with child abuse - and that is exactly what it is, no matter what the particular value system might be.

Have you ever heard "family is the foundation of society?" It can't be unless something is passed down from parent to child - namely, a code of ethics and beliefs which allow the child to function in society.

And this has what to do with indoctrination?

It's not because parents are insecure in their beliefs (a very nonsensical argument, btw - "here, kid, let me screw up your life because deep down I think I might be wrong and I think that maybe if I totally mess you up for the rest of your life it might make me feel a little better"),

It is rather nonsensical, and yet it is exactly the reason that so many do it. People are so insecure in their own faith that they feel others have to believe them. They are so afraid of challenge themselves that they "protect" their children from it. They are so utterly convinced that their children cannot possibly ever make the right decision that they hide the very fact that there is a decision to be made. Rather sad, no?

Do you expect a child of seven to choose, with an informed conscience, the single correct ideology?

I don't expect anyone to choose the "single correct ideology". In fact, I am quite convinced that no one can possibly do so. Forming your ideology is an ongoing process.

But recommending open choice for children is sheer lunacy. I can guess that any child, given the choice, would choose the religion that hands out the most candy.

Sheer lunacy, eh? So we should force our children into hell by the rules of our own religion by never allowing them to develop true faith? Interesting viewpoint, but I can't say I agree.

Faith can only occur by choice - indoctrination won't do it.

Meanwhile, I had choice - and did not choose the religion that handed out the most candy. What religion is that btw? *shrug*

Your logic is flawed, although I know you can't see it. Why? Because you've been indoctrinated. Just like me.

Cute.

How exactly is the logic flawed? I feel that a person can only have faith for themself. Your parents' faith cannot supplant your own. No matter how strong or weak the faith of your parents (or your children) is, it is your own faith that matters in your own salvation. How is that flawed?

Pope rejects condoms for Africa (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4081276.stm)


No wonder there are so many Africans with HIV/AIDS... look at the kind of help and influence they are getting from the church. With that kind of mentality, who needs genocide when Mother Nature can just do it herself... :rolleyes: The church is so retarded. It's no wonder we're not as advanced as we could be.

I hope you weren't planning on going to Heaven. The Pope is infallible on issues of the faith. He preached abstaining from pre-marital and extra-marital sex as the correct way to reduce HIV. That is what Roman Catholics believe. What's so retarded about that?
Heathens and pagans seldom take the time to listen and rarely agree with the teachings and beliefs of the church.

I was born in South Africa, and moved away just before Apartheid ended because it was looking as though South Africa would turn into another Zimbabwe, but thats beside the point. My point is that I have no problem with the Catholic Church trying to guide the people of Africa with their beliefs of abstinance and self control, but I REALLY don't believe the Pope should be saying anything about condoms. People in Africa are going to have sex regardless of what the Pope says, so by undermining Africa's attempts at solving the problem, the Church will just cause more problems. The only way to fight AIDs at present is to 1) Educate the population, however thats not as easy to do in a developing nation and 2) give the population the means to have safer sex, because they're probably going to have sex anyway. I appologize to anyone who is a firm believer in the Bibles teaching about sex, but really, no one should be telling a nation that is dieing from a horrible disease that there method of controlling the disease is "not allowed".

The Catholic dogma is a bastion of conservatism, much like the older law in the Old Testament provided a way to keep the Israelites from getting so close to sin that they actually fell in.

People just don't understand the why sometimes, and other people crave boundaries, particularly children. Some want to see how close they can get without getting hurt, but others appeciate someone setting a standard that they can use as a benchmark.

The Catholics spread doctrine as a guideline to help maximize mankind's chance for happiness- do you think that people who get pregnant out of wedlock or divorced therefore or get an STD are happy?

Abstain from anything that might cause you unhappiness and retard your ability to reach your goals and dreams and allow for the greatest growth. It's a simple theory, just like I don't work on electricity to avoid electrocution. The Pope and his edicts make sense, unless of course you want to be miserable...

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1Cute.

How exactly is the logic flawed? I feel that a person can only have faith for themselves. How is that flawed?[/QUOTE]

First of all, you need to define "indoctrination." That would clear a lot up.
If indoctrination means the parent telling the child "this is wrong. This is right." I agree with the definition.

Obviously faith must be personal. It is shaped by personal experiences and reasoning.

What I find flawed is your suggestion that parents have no right to imprint a value system in a child. Someone is going to. Whether that shaping force comes from the parents and family, or the state, or the wider society/media/etc, every person is told to believe things unsupported by personal experience. It's not something that's debatable, and I think you'd agree. But to say that a parent shouldn't be the imprinting force... I can't think there's a better source than a parent, personally.

"Indoctrination" is a fact of childhood. The question is where the imprinting is coming from.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Catholic Church only has control over what Catholics do. A Catholic doctrine is to abstain from sex… so you can't blame the Church's doctrine for spreading AIDS because if its doctrine is obeyed, AIDS does not result. Obviously its doctrine is not being followed… and it has no control over that, since it would be outside of its influence.
1 Aids DOES still result (there are more ways to spread aids then just sexual intercourse)
2 It is naive to think that something as big of the church only has influence over itself

So....let me get this straight. Because Africans don't follow the Church's teachings of abstinence, and the Church doesn't hand out condemns against their teachings....it is the Church's fault?

This seems a tad, oh I don't know.....fricken ridiculous. And I am not some pyscho Catholic groupie, I'm Jewish. But if the Pope wants to stick by his moral teachings, as a moral leader, that is his right.

If the Africans don't like it so much, they can get a different religion. I fail to see why an organization should be forced to hand out an item, at its own cost, that goes against its teachings.

We don't make gay organizations hand out Pro-Hetero/Anti-Homo fliers. We don't make black organizations give donations to the Ku Klux Klan. We don't require Jews (ME) to speak about Nazis in fluffy bunny rabbit tones.

Why the hell should we expect a Christian Church, whose teachings are against premarital sex, to accept it as a way of the times? Is no one supposed to have a firm moral stance anymore?

So....let me get this straight. Because Africans don't follow the Church's teachings of abstinence, and the Church doesn't hand out condemns against their teachings....it is the Church's fault?

This seems a tad, oh I don't know.....fricken ridiculous. And I am not some pyscho Catholic groupie, I'm Jewish. But if the Pope wants to stick by his moral teachings, as a moral leader, that is his right.

If the Africans don't like it so much, they can get a different religion. I fail to see why an organization should be forced to hand out an item, at its own cost, that goes against its teachings.

We don't make gay organizations hand out Pro-Hetero/Anti-Homo fliers. We don't make black organizations give donations to the Ku Klux Klan. We don't require Jews (ME) to speak about Nazis in fluffy bunny rabbit tones.

Why the hell should we expect a Christian Church, whose teachings are against premarital sex, to accept it as a way of the times? Is no one supposed to have a firm moral stance anymore?
Oh most of us are not saying they have to … we ARE commenting on how stupid it is compared to our morals (you know caring for your fellow man and all)

Is it?



Any parent would certainly hope that their children would come to agree with them.



Then it is unlikely that you were indoctrinated. Either that or you are deluded into thinking that decisions are your own, when they are not.

How much have you looked into dissenting opinions and other beliefs? How often have you and do you question your own beliefs?
Aparently I have no idea what you mean by indoctrination. I thought we were talking about parents instructing children in the way of their religion until the child was old enough to make it's own decision on religion. Aparently you're talking about this, but with torture or something involved that would scare the child into believing the religion.

I question my beliefs, but I look to the Bible for the answers to these questions. I believe that it's the infallible word of God, and that I should live by it. Do I always live by it? No, because I'm not perfect. I also look into others' beliefs, but I'm not going to change to another set of beliefs, because I believe in my religion as it is. Why would I want to change religions?

2 It is naive to think that something as big of the church only has influence over itself
The Catholic Church does only have control over itself. It doesn't even have control over all of the Church. I'm not Catholic, and I don't listen to what they say. There's your proof.

The Catholic Church does only have control over itself. It doesn't even have control over all of the Church. I'm not Catholic, and I don't listen to what they say. There's your proof.
I said influence not control … their very existence has influenced the whole outcome of history

They may not control you but it does influence you

First of all, you need to define "indoctrination." That would clear a lot up.

Indoctrination is presenting your own views as infallible and the only possible worldview, blocking the very idea that there might be another way to look at it - especially to children.

A parent who was indoctrinating their child would say "This is what we believe and that is all there is to it. Everyone else is simply wrong and you will go to hell if you don't believe it." (Indoctrination often goes by the carrot-stick mentality).

A parent who is teaching their child will tell their child what they believe and why. They will instruct their child in this belief, but, and here is the kicker, will not blot out all dissent. If the child hears something different, the parent will not say "Well, they are simply wrong and going to hell," but will explain that different people look at things differently. As the child matures and explores the world, the parent will try to guide that child, but will not force their viewpoint, understanding if the child feels differently about something. (Obviously, the rules of the household will still be made by the parent, and the child will be expected to follow them - whether or not he agrees with them).

If indoctrination means the parent telling the child "this is wrong. This is right." I agree with the definition.

That's fine when you are talking about simple things. "It is wrong to steal from Bobby." "It is right to be nice to little Suzy when she skins her knee."

However, it does not work on the more complex issues. Truth is, none of us completely know what is right and wrong on those issues - and it is up to each of us to decide separately.

Obviously faith must be personal. It is shaped by personal experiences and reasoning.

Something which a parent intent on indoctrination avoids allowing.

"Indoctrination" is a fact of childhood. The question is where the imprinting is coming from.

I find it so very sad that you believe this.

You utterly underestimate human beings.

Oh most of us are not saying they have to … we ARE commenting on how stupid it is compared to our morals (you know caring for your fellow man and all)
Christians are taught to care for their fellow man, but not for the fellow man's sins. I'm not supposed to condone something that's being done in sin, I'm supposed to try to instruct you that what you're doing is wrong. If you don't believe it, that's your deal.

Christians are taught to care for their fellow man, but not for the fellow man's sins. I'm not supposed to condone something that's being done in sin, I'm supposed to try to instruct you that what you're doing is wrong. If you don't believe it, that's your deal.
But in my opinion if I was trying to preach that message I would care enough about my fellow man to let him know what he was doing was wrong but still have enough leftover care to make sure that failing following my message he also had access to some tools to keep him more safe and healthy

But in my opinion if I was trying to preach that message I would care enough about my fellow man to let him know what he was doing was wrong but still have enough leftover care to make sure that failing following my message he also had access to some tools to keep him more safe and healthy
So if you knew someone with a vodka problem, who obviously couldn't quit cold-turkey, you'd give him beer? It's probably safer, because it wouldn't be near as easy to reach deadly levels of BAC. It's still not taking care of the issue. You would have to give him access to rehabilitation and keep him from drinking.

Aparently I have no idea what you mean by indoctrination. I thought we were talking about parents instructing children in the way of their religion until the child was old enough to make it's own decision on religion. Aparently you're talking about this, but with torture or something involved that would scare the child into believing the religion.

Torture isn't necessary. All it takes is presenting your own views as infallible and keeping the child from even considering anything else. In other words, it is not letting the child think for herself.

I also look into others' beliefs, but I'm not going to change to another set of beliefs, because I believe in my religion as it is. Why would I want to change religions?

Everyone should always be changing religions, to a point. Otherwise, you are claiming infallibility in your own religion - which I believe is a bit prideful. After all, are any of us humans really infallible?

There might be truth in those other religions, or simply other viewpoints on your own. How can you claim to question your religion and then so obviously point out that you absolutely will not?

Leperous monkeyballs: Official Warning - Trolling.

Borderline trolling.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

From the TOS:

Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs. Intent is difficult to prove over the internet, so mods will work under their best assumptions.

Note that posts of opinions you disagree with does not automatically equate with trolling. Disagreements are expected, as long as they are done in a civil manner. Max Barry has made it clear that he welcomes all opinions in civil debate, even those that are highly unpopular or minority-held. Make your case without the invective, if you want to avoid banishment as a Troll.

Trolling is also is used to refer to making obviously silly topics that people nonetheless will reply to, despite all common sense. Don't feed the trolls.




Since when are jokes in bad taste deemed to be "made with the aim of angering people."? Especially given that by the incredible LACK of reaction most people here were smart enough to figure that out?



Indeed, reading some of the deliberately antagonistic political generalizations espoused around here (democrats=america-hating traitors vs republicans being evil, self-centered crooks) - which are actually directed at the other posters rather just some guy with the biggest hat collection in Rome - frankly I think what I said was relatively innocuous.

So if you knew someone with a vodka problem, who obviously couldn't quit cold-turkey, you'd give him beer? It's probably safer, because it wouldn't be near as easy to reach deadly levels of BAC. It's still not taking care of the issue. You would have to give him access to rehabilitation and keep him from drinking.
The problem with the analogy is I am not offering them a lesser form of the same thing (also not talking about in a sexual addiction situation which your analogy gets CLOSER to)

What I would be offering them on top of my beliefs would be something to HELP them if they do not take my message seriously … I would do more then just say “too bad” if they decided not to follow my message

Torture isn't necessary. All it takes is presenting your own views as infallible and keeping the child from even considering anything else. In other words, it is not letting the child think for herself.



Everyone should always be changing religions, to a point. Otherwise, you are claiming infallibility in your own religion - which I believe is a bit prideful. After all, are any of us humans really infallible?

There might be truth in those other religions, or simply other viewpoints on your own. How can you claim to question your religion and then so obviously point out that you absolutely will not?
Changing religions? I think it was Alexander Hamilton who said (not in these exact words) that if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything. Why would you change religions with the wind? That defeats the whole purpose of religion.

I don't question my religion, because I feel that there's no need to. Call it ignorance, call it stupidity, but I call it faith. I question certain aspects of what I believe (the correctness of homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, other issues such as these) and then I go to the book that my faith is based on to find the answers to these questions. I'm at no point denying that my religion is wrong.

Since when are jokes in bad taste deemed to be "made with the aim of angering people."? Especially given that by the incredible LACK of reaction most people here were smart enough to figure that out?



Indeed, reading some of the deliberately antagonistic political generalizations espoused around here (democrats=america-hating traitors vs republicans being evil, self-centered crooks) - which are actually directed at the other posters rather just some guy with the biggest hat collection in Rome - frankly I think what I said was relatively innocuous.
Even though I think the joke was distasteful, you do have a point. Congratulations on knowing the rules.

I hope you weren't planning on going to Heaven. The Pope is infallible on issues of the faith. He preached abstaining from pre-marital and extra-marital sex as the correct way to reduce HIV. That is what Roman Catholics believe. What's so retarded about that?
Heathens and pagans seldom take the time to listen and rarely agree with the teachings and beliefs of the church.

A lot of people are labled as 'infallible on issues of the faith'. The head of virtually every religion, for example. They can't all be right. However, if you believe that the Pope happens to be the one telling the truth, who am I to judge?

Oh, and by the way: Retardation is the opposite of acceleration, that is, it means 'slowing down'. Saying something is retarded means, in scientific terms, that it's slowed down and/or stopped moving. Is the church retarded? I don't know, I'm not sure how often their policies change. It is, however, retard/ing/, or attempting to. It's slowing down the spread of technology (in the form of condoms), for good reasons or bad.

Why did I post this? Because I've got nothing better to do.

Why did I post this? Because I've got nothing better to do.
I was beginning to wonder it's point, but thanks for clearing it up.

Even though I think the joke was distasteful, you do have a point. Congratulations on knowing the rules.


The joke was MEANT to be distasteful.

But getting singled out for supposedly trolling in a thread that originates with a post that calls the church "so retarded" while also titling the thread with a dismissive "(and how is this news?)" seems like a grossly inconsistent application of the rules.


Or is this one of those places on the web where veterans get exemptions and new players get shit on by the nmoderators?

The joke was MEANT to be distasteful.

But getting singled out for supposedly trolling in a thread that originates with a post that calls the church "so retarded" while also titling the thread with a dismissive "(and how is this news?)" seems like a grossly inconsistent application of the rules.


Or is this one of those places on the web where veterans get exemptions and new players get shit on by the nmoderators?
I don't think it's one of "those" places, but I don't know. I don't spend a terribly large amount of time on the forums, but only lately have I seen people actually getting warned for trolling. That could just be the posts that I look at or something.

...also titling the thread with a dismissive "(and how is this news?)"...

To be fair... it isn't, really, primarily because it's official Catholic doctrine. If the Pope had said 'Oh, yeah, condoms, they're a good idea', that would be news.

Or is this one of those places on the web where veterans get exemptions and new players get shit on by the nmoderators?

Not that I've noticed. Certainly there have been people with thousands of posts getting warned, banned or deleted, even in the relatively short time I've been paying attention to the forums.

Changing religions? I think it was Alexander Hamilton who said (not in these exact words) that if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything. Why would you change religions with the wind? That defeats the whole purpose of religion.

Who said anything about changing religions with the wind? No one should accept a religion on anothers' word and no one should change their religion on a whim. However, unless you are going to claim infallibility, you know that you have some things wrong. You should be constantly working to find these things out - and correct them.

I don't question my religion, because I feel that there's no need to.

Then, as C.S. Lewis would say, you are wrong. One who does not question has no faith.

Call it ignorance, call it stupidity, but I call it faith.

Faith can only be obtained through questioning.

I question certain aspects of what I believe (the correctness of homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, other issues such as these) and then I go to the book that my faith is based on to find the answers to these questions. I'm at no point denying that my religion is wrong.

Only to the book? Not to God?

?

Condoms are only a preventative measure for not spreading aids, it can sprad if you wear a condom but I agree condoms significantly reduce catching HIV. Research is needed for actually curing HIV instead of mud throwing at religions for their beliefs.

Ahh but the fact that a cure will take time is the reason why the Religions deserve mud throwing.

A lot of people are labled as 'infallible on issues of the faith'. The head of virtually every religion, for example. They can't all be right. However, if you believe that the Pope happens to be the one telling the truth, who am I to judge?

In truth, even in Catholic doctrine, the Pope is not infallible. Only with certain rites and rituals does he become infallible about a specific issue - at a specific time. *shrug*

There's one thing I feel I need to point out here:

The Pope speaks on behalf of the Catholic Church, not on behalf of all Catholics.

That's a huge difference. The Pope speaks and acts on behalf of a institutionalised church, his teachings don't necessarily represent the views or beliefs of his followers.
He can teach abstinence and condemn contraception all he wants, I know that the people at the basis of the church, the people who work in Africa and the people who work in social fields in the Western world don't feel that they need to react on every statement from Rome.

Example? I went to a school run by a Catholic convent, and I was told in school how contraception works, what methods there are to prevent pregnancy, what methods to prevent infection with any veneral disease, I was taught about AIDS until I was almost able to identify the virus on a microscope, I was told exaclty what AIDS does, how you can get infected (and - SURPRISE - you don't need to have sex with anybody to chatch an infection with AIDS), and why it is still incurable, but treatable.
I'll bet my right hand that no matter what the Pope says, there are Catholics all over Africa, giving medical attention to AIDS patients and instructing them on how to make sure they won't infect anybody else. And if they're lucky and smart enough to cover that from the eyes of the church, they might even provide people with condoms.

I know that the sisters of the convent that ran my school do that daily.

To be fair... it isn't, really, primarily because it's official Catholic doctrine. If the Pope had said 'Oh, yeah, condoms, they're a good idea', that would be news.


The point being that in the context of getting warned for trolling, I can see no consistency.

The original post in this thread accuses the church of "With that kind of mentality, who needs genocide when Mother Nature can just do it herself... The church is so retarded. ", a clear attack on the church (and by extension all members therof) as a whole.

The very first response to the thread is definitely a racial slur:
"Well maybe if they'd just stop fucking everything that moves and thinking that sex with young virgins causes aids, they wouldn't be in this predicament.
" I'm sure any members of African descent here appreciated that comment.


And a couple more down starts the debate on whether the pope was a Nazi or not with: "what were you expecting? hes an ex nazi"



And then later on in the thread I get the one and only official warning, for a joke that questions the sexual orientation of the pope.


All I can glean from this is that either

a) there are no consistent rules

or

b) suggesting humerously that someone is 'gay' is somehow deemed to be worse than directly calling them retarded, accusing them of promoting genocide, or a Nazi.


I'm just curious which it is.

Since when are jokes in bad taste deemed to be "made with the aim of angering people."? Especially given that by the incredible LACK of reaction most people here were smart enough to figure that out?

Indeed, reading some of the deliberately antagonistic political generalizations espoused around here (democrats=america-hating traitors vs republicans being evil, self-centered crooks) - which are actually directed at the other posters rather just some guy with the biggest hat collection in Rome - frankly I think what I said was relatively innocuous.If you want to appeal the decision against you or to report rulebreaking by other players, then post in "Moderation" with a link to the incident in question. Rulebreaking by other players does not excuse rulebreaking by you.

But getting singled out for supposedly trolling in a thread that originates with a post that calls the church "so retarded" while also titling the thread with a dismissive "(and how is this news?)" seems like a grossly inconsistent application of the rules.Your post was clearly over-the-line in my opinion. Everything else in here is closer to the borderline and I need to confer with another Moderator before taking action.

Further discussion on NationStates rules enforcement belongs in "Moderation"; it will not continue here.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I hope you weren't planning on going to Heaven. The Pope is infallible on issues of the faith.


Is he? Hmmmm his only answer to the pedophile Priests was to say the Press made it out to be worst then it was.

JPII answer to Cardinal Law having covered up the pedophile priests was to move him to the Vatican and give him control of *damn I just blanked on the name*


He preached abstaining from pre-marital and extra-marital sex as the correct way to reduce HIV. That is what Roman Catholics believe. What's so retarded about that?

Not all Roman Catholics believe him. In fact the Vatican has major issues. South American has a greatly expanding Muslim base. I can see the US splitting away from the Vatican and setting up their own thing just like the UK in about 10-20 years.


Heathens and pagans seldom take the time to listen and rarely agree with the teachings and beliefs of the church.
They listen all the time. They just thing the old boys club is wrong on many things.

Does this papal sugestion of abstenence extend to the Catholic clergy too?


Typical damn catholic chruch. Not knowing enough of certain areas of life.
And they wonder why there numbers are dropping??!! grr

Is he? Hmmmm his only answer to the pedophile Priests was to say the Press made it out to be worst then it was.


Yeah a few of those times they also put those priests back in circulation (check St. Joseph Minnesota’s father “tom” where he committed acts in the 1970’s and managed to be placed in a parish in charge of a large church again as well as an elementary school … and yes he re committed his acts with three of us)

I personally don’t think the press made a big enough fuss over it

The Catholic Church is the oldest Christian religion. All other Christian religions are off-shoots. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are 3 branches in the worship and belief in the same God. As with Judaism and Islam, Catholicism has been based on ancient divine doctrine, that often clashes with today's permissive society. Catholics are not going to change their centuries old, basic laws and directives based on the fluctuating morals, standards, problems, or fads of society. Though these teachings may seem obsolete now, in a century or 2 they may be totally in tune with society's temperment. That's why it isn't called "The Church of What's Happening Now".

The Catholic Church is the oldest Christian religion. All other Christian religions are off-shoots. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are 3 branches in the worship and belief in the same God. As with Judaism and Islam, Catholicism has been based on ancient divine doctrine, that often clashes with today's permissive society. Catholics are not going to change their centuries old, basic laws and directives based on the fluctuating morals, standards, problems, or fads of society. Though these teachings may seem obsolete now, in a century or 2 they may be totally in tune with society's temperment. That's why it isn't called "The Church of What's Happening Now".
Not only does it clash with today’s society but reality as well

Just because it is old and has not changed much (but that can be argued as well) does not make it correct

Yeah a few of those times they also put those priests back in circulation (check St. Joseph Minnesota’s father “tom” where he committed acts in the 1970’s and managed to be placed in a parish in charge of a large church again as well as an elementary school … and yes he re committed his acts with three of us)

I personally don’t think the press made a big enough fuss over it

Not to make excuses for the Church, but back then child molestation and rape was often a source of embarrassment for the victim and was usually hushed up and covered up. Last year I found out that the Methodist minister in my hometown when I was in high school, has been molesting boys in his churches for over 30 years. The Methodist church found out about it and that is when he was transferred to my town. They had him receive psychiatric counseling and turned him loose on the boys in our town. I don't know if he molested any of my friends...if he did, they probably would have kept quiet. But for 35 years the Methodist church has been moving him from town to town as accusations start to arise.

This isn't a problem exclusively in the Catholic Church. It is only in recent years that people have started to get over the stigma of molestation and rape and make their attackers accountable for their actions.

Not to make excuses for the Church, but back then child molestation and rape was often a source of embarrassment for the victim and was usually hushed up and covered up. Last year I found out that the Methodist minister in my hometown when I was in high school, has been molesting boys in his churches for over 30 years. The Methodist church found out about it and that is when he was transferred to my town. They had him receive psychiatric counseling and turned him loose on the boys in our town. I don't know if he molested any of my friends...if he did, they probably would have kept quiet. But for 35 years the Methodist church has been moving him from town to town as accusations start to arise.

This isn't a problem exclusively in the Catholic Church. It is only in recent years that people have started to get over the stigma of molestation and rape and make their attackers accountable for their actions.
Defiantly I was not trying to make it sound like they are the only ones … they just seem to have the organization that overall was the most involved in covering it up. But any organization without full checks and balances defiantly has that potential for abuse … I just hate to see kids hurt because some people had a problem as well as people in positions of power too scared of their reputation to do the right thing

The problem is, the Catholic chruch won't go away anytime soon. It sometimes looks like it's speading up its own decline, but it's unrealistic to think it would become meaningless in the near future or that it would change its doctrine. It's very hard to get more conservative than the Catholic church, after all John Paul II revoked the excommunication of Gallileo Gallilei for promoting the heliocentric idea of the world only in the late 1990.

What's important I think is teaching people how to think for themselves and provide them with all the information necessary.
As somebody stated before, there really is the belief in South Africa that you can cure AIDS by having sex with a virign. I don't really want to imagine how many children are raped because of that idea and infected with AIDS in the bargain.
It won't help just handing them a condom, you have to make them understand what AIDS is, how exactly the virus is being transmitted and what it effectively does to your body. Nothing short of that is going to stop AIDS from spreading.
If they then want to avoid infection with condoms or abstinence should be up to them, I think.

AIDS is no longer spreading as fast in the Western world as it did in the 80s, thanks to information and even more information. You really can't accuse us Westerners of being very abstinent, but we learned to use condoms in time.
Either way is going to work. But each individual should be allowed to decide upon that way for him/herself.

The problem is, the Catholic chruch won't go away anytime soon. It sometimes looks like it's speading up its own decline, but it's unrealistic to think it would become meaningless in the near future or that it would change its doctrine. It's very hard to get more conservative than the Catholic church, after all John Paul II revoked the excommunication of Gallileo Gallilei for promoting the heliocentric idea of the world only in the late 1990.

What's important I think is teaching people how to think for themselves and provide them with all the information necessary.
As somebody stated before, there really is the belief in South Africa that you can cure AIDS by having sex with a virign. I don't really want to imagine how many children are raped because of that idea and infected with AIDS in the bargain.
It won't help just handing them a condom, you have to make them understand what AIDS is, how exactly the virus is being transmitted and what it effectively does to your body. Nothing short of that is going to stop AIDS from spreading.
If they then want to avoid infection with condoms or abstinence should be up to them, I think.

AIDS is no longer spreading as fast in the Western world as it did in the 80s, thanks to information and even more information. You really can't accuse us Westerners of being very abstinent, but we learned to use condoms in time.
Either way is going to work. But each individual should be allowed to decide upon that way for him/herself.

Agreed … giving them information and options to safety is probably the best way (or at least the way where you will slow down the spread of AIDS) if slowing down AIDS is actually your primary concern

Its all good and fine for them to have their abstinence belief but personally slowing down the spread of AIDS would be my first and foremost concern which means information and options

On the other hand, neither condoms nor abstinence is going to do any good if people are getting infected blood transfusions (I don't really know how well-equiped many of the hospitals in Africa are), using infected needles, either in hospital or else while doing drugs in the street, and continuing to eat bush meat.

All of them carry AIDS as well, but both the media and the Pope seem to ignore those facts conveniently.
Really, the only way to fight this disease is through information...

Every boy was, its like being in the scouts. But they were filled with propaganda

So . . . just like the scouts then. :p

You speak as though the Church is indocrinating children without consent.

Any religion a person has been in since birth has by definition indoctrinated them without consent. By attending services as a child you WERE indoctrinated by the church's teachings and you were not old enough to give consent.

Any religion a person has been in since birth has by definition indoctrinated them without consent. By attending services as a child you WERE indoctrinated by the church's teachings and you were not old enough to give consent.

At that age, your consent actually is irrelevant. Your parents are authorised to decide that for you...

So . . . just like the scouts then. :p

indeed

At that age, your consent actually is irrelevant. Your parents are authorised to decide that for you...

This does not change the fact that it IS in fact indoctrination without your consent.

Yeah a few of those times they also put those priests back in circulation (check St. Joseph Minnesota’s father “tom” where he committed acts in the 1970’s and managed to be placed in a parish in charge of a large church again as well as an elementary school … and yes he re committed his acts with three of us)

I personally don’t think the press made a big enough fuss over it

Damn!

As to the press, yea Iraq kind of got it sidelined.

I am hearing stories about it all over the world. I did a business trip to Europe and the French mentioned a couple cases of it.

A co-worker's husband is Irish. He is property back in Ireland and makes several trips. He came home from one a mood bastard. After 2-3 days she final said all right what the hell is wrong. He said he learned his lifelong friend was abducted, tortured and raped by the local Priest. The end result. They moved him to Canada. That was 32 years ago.

My mother-in-law takes care of elderly types. She knows these 2 ladies that are in their 90's. Typical RC heavies, attend mass several times, confess several times. When they scandel broke, they gave the benefit of the doubt. Now, they still go but they refuse communion
and refuses confession. As one told her "Why should I have to confess to them when they won't?"

Ah well. It's really disappointing. My old Priest and I know the local Bishop. They are taking it hard as the Bishop once told me, "It really gets hard when you get the looks of wonder if you did it as well."

The joke was MEANT to be distasteful.

But getting singled out for supposedly trolling in a thread that originates with a post that calls the church "so retarded" while also titling the thread with a dismissive "(and how is this news?)" seems like a grossly inconsistent application of the rules.


Or is this one of those places on the web where veterans get exemptions and new players get shit on by the nmoderators?
All right! You win a cookie! Good job on calling me out on the title! :p

Mind you, I didn't call the people it, I called the church that, and as it stands, the church, in lower case, while referring to the Catholic Church is still referring to an inanimate object by not using the case and not directly saying the religion with whom the church is associated with.

And yes, vets with good records get examples by not being douches. This is the first time a mod (see an earlier post) has made a call on my head.

But mind you, I have seen titles much worse than the one I came up with.

In the past, I had posted news pieces that weren;t considered news because they contained rather common knowledge, which is why I added the second and after thoughts in brackets. The use of brackets is for this purpose.

And yes, I use retarded because it's policies are so incredibly archaic that they're back peddling faster than the world is going to hell in a hand basket.

You know...condoms don't encourage pre and extra marital sex; they also allow MARRIED couples (yeah, imagine that! What a concept!) to physically express their love without having to keep count of the children (after all, in this day and age, who really wants 10 children or more?)

Oh and LMB, they allow some of the wording I used because of the nature of the paragraph I wrote. It's considered opinion and if it doesn't cross the line into flaming or whatever (mod decision), then they let it go. If you hang around a while, people have said much worse about liberals, conservatives, pro-lifers, pro-choicers, homosexuals etc...

I hope you weren't planning on going to Heaven. The Pope is infallible on issues of the faith. He preached abstaining from pre-marital and extra-marital sex as the correct way to reduce HIV. That is what Roman Catholics believe. What's so retarded about that?
Heathens and pagans seldom take the time to listen and rarely agree with the teachings and beliefs of the church.

I am not, as I don't believe in Heaven or Hell (though I believe in an afterlife). The Pope is NOT infalliable! The guy is just an douche with a fancy robe and a ceremonial purpose. Yes he means a lot to the millions of Catholics around the world who look up to him, but let's face it, he is just another human being subject to the same fallacies that the rest of us are.

Even if a woman in Africa wants to abstain, what about that perverted rapist waiting down the road... Is he going to feel the same way? No; he's thinking with his penis, and that he wants to get laid and this woman is the best thing available to satisfy his unhealthy insatiable sexual desires. (Yes, this is crude, but, rapists and other molesters and such are crude).

'Heathens' and 'Pagans' are no more special than the Catholics or anyone else. THey too listen to someone, except that someone isn't the Pope; it is either a teacher who is imparting unbias knowledge unto them, or an informative documentary, or a parent.

No, believing in abstaining isn't retarded; it;s denying the effectiveness of contraceptives is retarded and saying that they won't reduce the risk thereof is dumb.

And yes, the Africans are just one example. What about the rest of the people that also follow Catholic doctrine?

Even if a woman in Africa wants to abstain, what about that perverted rapist waiting down the road... Is he going to feel the same way? No; he's thinking with his penis, and that he wants to get laid and this woman is the best thing available to satisfy his unhealthy insatiable sexual desires. (Yes, this is crude, but, rapists and other molesters and such are crude). Sorry to single out this one paragraph, but I've heard it before.
Since when did rapists use contraceptives? Since when did rapists care about the women they were raping?

Sorry to single out this one paragraph, but I've heard it before.
Since when did rapists use contraceptives? Since when did rapists care about the women they were raping?

Well, if he finally learned that he might infect himself by having unprotected sex with another woman, he might actually give it some thought.
And if he doesn't and infects the woman, she might want to have her husband use a condom so as not to give it to him.. .and so on and so forth.

This does not change the fact that it IS in fact indoctrination without your consent.

So is education... everything you learn from a very young age on can be classified as indoctrination. After all, you have no means to verfiy the truth of what your parents/teachers/priest tell you

Sorry to single out this one paragraph, but I've heard it before.
Since when did rapists use contraceptives? Since when did rapists care about the women they were raping?
And I asked because the Catholic Church also forbids emergency contraceptives...

And I asked because the Catholic Church also forbids emergency contraceptives...
Not to mention things such as the pill ... depo shot ... diaphrams ... the patch
All could be worn by a woman why being raped

It's a matter of principle. It's hard to make the decision that its okay to go against what you've been saying all because you need to make an exception. Suddenly, more exceptions will pop up, life saving exceptions, and what can be done? Once you take a stand, stand by a principle, or idea you believe is right, you have to stay by it. Making an exception here would undermine a lot, despite its benefits.

This arguement is pointless, because, like negotiating with terrorists, no matter how many lives can be saved if you give in, you just *can't*, because that would open the doors to a flood of problems. The Church will not give in because it cannot give in without crumbling its resolve and unshakeable reasoning in other issues.

It will never happen. There is more at stake than lives, as cynical as that sounds.

Sorry to single out this one paragraph, but I've heard it before.
Since when did rapists use contraceptives? Since when did rapists care about the women they were raping?

The woman they are raping might be infected. More so in the western world if a rapist uses a condom and gloves forensic evidence is a lot harder to find

b) suggesting humerously that someone is 'gay' is somehow deemed to be worse than directly calling them retarded, accusing them of promoting genocide, or a Nazi.

While I won't comment on your whole point (Cog might kick me then =), I do want to point out that you did not suggest someone was gay, you suggested they were a pedophile. There is a difference.

This does not change the fact that it IS in fact indoctrination without your consent.

Not necessarily. One can take a child to church services at a young age without indoctrinating them or having them indoctrinated. It all comes down to actually being a good parent. Admittedly, many people - sometimes I even think most parents - are not.

So is education... everything you learn from a very young age on can be classified as indoctrination. After all, you have no means to verfiy the truth of what your parents/teachers/priest tell you

Such an underestimation of the curiosity of children. You should have that means as long as you could possibly begin to use it, if your parents want to pretend to be responsible.

I have a few points I'd like to make.

Firstly, on the idea of indoctrination: I would strongly argue for minimizing a kid's experience to religion until they are old enough to decide for themselves (early teens, or preferably mid teens) so that they can decide for themselves.

Secondly, on the disdain for Catholics by mainstream types and vice-versa: how about we all disagree nicely?

And finally, on the actual point: education is the most effective tool, but when you are dealing with godsdamned AIDS you want every tool you can get ahold of.

Dempublicents1, you are such an idealist thats its really not even funny. Yes it would be perfect if every parent did not only want but was also able to show there children every possible religion and culture and then ask them "So son, what do you think is closes to the truth, and rember that you dont actually have to chose anyone of them you can just make up your own ideas and gods too" and it would be perfect to also have children smart enough to acutually desifer all the bullshit they have been fed at a young ageand decide what is right for them however just think about it, all people want to spread there own ideas. I dont know how old you are, or even if you are a parent or what not but you are going to bring in your ideas about acceptance and all that, is that not also brain washing? As well to deny you where brainwashed like the rest of us is to be just as blind as believing all the doctorine fed to you by a paster or your parents. From my understanding your proposition is for parents just not to teach there kids any of there own values at all.

Thou shalt not bag it, bitches! :p

On a different note.....

2 entries found for indoctrination.
in•doc•tri•nate Audio pronunciation of "indoctrination" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-dktr-nt)
tr.v. in•doc•tri•nat•ed, in•doc•tri•nat•ing, in•doc•tri•nates

1. To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
2. To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents.


Every child ever raised by a parent, gone to any school, fell into any clique, or personally and independently studied and accepted any idea has been indoctrinated. It is just a word. It has no nefarious distinction or purpose. It is what families, organizations, nations, cultures, and civilizations do and have done for centuries. Get over it!

While I won't comment on your whole point (Cog might kick me then =), I do want to point out that you did not suggest someone was gay, you suggested they were a pedophile. There is a difference.

Given the Catholic Church's track record of recent, hardly an unfounded accusation.

Also, it was not trolling/flaming or flamebait given the comment/joke was directed at the Pope and not Catholics in general.

I think Cog is a Catholic, pretty sure I've seen him post that else where. Perhaps that had more to do with it than anything IMNSHO!

Dempublicents1, you are such an idealist thats its really not even funny. Yes it would be perfect if every parent did not only want but was also able to show there children every possible religion and culture and then ask them "So son, what do you think is closes to the truth, and rember that you dont actually have to chose anyone of them you can just make up your own ideas and gods too" and it would be perfect to also have children smart enough to acutually desifer all the bullshit they have been fed at a young ageand decide what is right for them however just think about it, all people want to spread there own ideas. I dont know how old you are, or even if you are a parent or what not but you are going to bring in your ideas about acceptance and all that, is that not also brain washing? As well to deny you where brainwashed like the rest of us is to be just as blind as believing all the doctorine fed to you by a paster or your parents. From my understanding your proposition is for parents just not to teach there kids any of there own values at all.

Teaching a child to think for themself is brainwashing? Interesting point you have there - but it doesn't make much logical sense.

Meanwhile, I know I wasn't brainwashed. When I began to disagree with my parents or my pastor, I was encouraged to seek my own path, rather than told to shut up and follow. I, unlike many "religious" people, have faith in God, not in my pastor or any other human being.

As for your last sentence, nice strawman you built there - but I never said anything like that. In fact, I have said exactly the opposite.

Thou shalt not bag it, bitches! :p

On a different note.....

Every child ever raised by a parent, gone to any school, fell into any clique, or personally and independently studied and accepted any idea has been indoctrinated. It is just a word. It has no nefarious distinction or purpose. It is what families, organizations, nations, cultures, and civilizations do and have done for centuries. Get over it!

It was rather obvious that it was more the 2nd definition that was being discussed - and that is the definition most often used.

Meanwhile, the English language does not rely soley on denotative definitions. Connotation can play a huge role in things.