Lancet article

[vz71]

Originally Posted by david house

I am puzzled by some of these responses. As I said the "Lancet" is a respected serious journal. They are not sensationalist and their remarks deserve a considered and well argued response, not just "they are wrong".
I read the Pope's remarks and do not agree with them. Of course not having sex with an infected person is the best protection, as is not having sex the best form of birth control. No-one argues with that, however that is NOT the debate.

Oh I beg to differ...

UNAIDS, the UN Population Fund, and WHO released an updated position statement on HIV prevention and condoms, which said that “the male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV”.

Is a far cry from the "Of course not having sex with an infected person is the best protection" that you seem to believe they support.

The Pope is correct. It appears the Lancet has an agenda secondary to preventing the disease. Else they would be in support of action that is 100% effective.

[david house]

Actually I have a good opinion of many Filipinos. I am married to one. Inspite of their poverty, their poor governance and the corrosive effect of the church they remain some of the happiest people I have met. I don't blame them for the culture that exists here, which is of endemic corruption at all levels and a complete lack of honesty. It is due to their history, the Spanish influence followed by that of the USA, and especially the power wielded by the RC church. With good leadership, and a separation of State and Church, they could easily become again the leaders in South East Asia. Right now they are well behind almost everyone, but especially Malaysia. Whenever I raise these issues with Filipinos I get a wonderfully positive response for no-one here ever questions the status quo in any of the media. I often see the scales falling from the eyes as people see an alternative viewpoint for the first time. They can see the truth, as they live with the realities. I feel you only live with the theories.
Yes, I have a problem with the RC church. I have no problem in accepting that individuals have the freedom to believe and do whatever they wish, provided it does not impact upon another. Where I take issue is when those beliefs form part of a political agenda, with attempts made to influence policies which are the rightful responsibility of elected governments. Governments elected to represent all of the people and to think for themselves. I don't like interest group politics of any type. I detest "lobbies" and want them removed from public life. That includes all of those whose causes I also support.
If the church wishes to preach a "pro-life", no condom, anti-abortion agenda to it's own membership then so be it. As soon as it takes that out to a wider audience I object, for it has no right to be heard. It is a church, not a political group.

[Cracker Mom]

Originally Posted by david house

Actually I have a good opinion of many Filipinos. I am married to one. Inspite of their poverty, their poor governance and the corrosive effect of the church they remain some of the happiest people I have met. I don't blame them for the culture that exists here, which is of endemic corruption at all levels and a complete lack of honesty. It is due to their history, the Spanish influence followed by that of the USA, and especially the power wielded by the RC church. With good leadership, and a separation of State and Church, they could easily become again the leaders in South East Asia. Right now they are well behind almost everyone, but especially Malaysia. Whenever I raise these issues with Filipinos I get a wonderfully positive response for no-one here ever questions the status quo in any of the media. I often see the scales falling from the eyes as people see an alternative viewpoint for the first time. They can see the truth, as they live with the realities. I feel you only live with the theories.
Yes, I have a problem with the RC church. I have no problem in accepting that individuals have the freedom to believe and do whatever they wish, provided it does not impact upon another. Where I take issue is when those beliefs form part of a political agenda, with attempts made to influence policies which are the rightful responsibility of elected governments. Governments elected to represent all of the people and to think for themselves. I don't like interest group politics of any type. I detest "lobbies" and want them removed from public life. That includes all of those whose causes I also support.
If the church wishes to preach a "pro-life", no condom, anti-abortion agenda to it's own membership then so be it. As soon as it takes that out to a wider audience I object, for it has no right to be heard. It is a church, not a political group.

I think Filipinos are remarkably tolerant to suffer foreigners in their midst who have such a patronizing view of their Church, morals, & culture.
Try that in a Muslim country.....

[vz71]

Originally Posted by david house

If the church wishes to preach a "pro-life", no condom, anti-abortion agenda to it's own membership then so be it. As soon as it takes that out to a wider audience I object, for it has no right to be heard.

Since when?

Why should any individuals suffer a censorship of their speech when their speech includes morality?

[david house]

When you speak of "their" church you maybe don't realise just how much effort some of the other churches are putting in here.The Mormons are making huge strides as are many others. I have no figures but the % membership of the RC church must be falling fast. I also meet many, many very disenchanted young people who are internet aware and as a consequence ready to challenge the established order imposed upon them by the authority figures that controlling parents and the RC church represent. Many of these youngsters proclaim a total rejection of any religious belief.
Of course I value the freedom to express my views but that comes from our democracy, not from the church. I would never defend the way that Islam stiffles debate, it is outragious. I would also not use it to try to support an argument for it is so clearly not right that we can agree that and move on.
So you feel I am patronising. That's your right. I feel the RC church is wholly wrong on many issues and a good idea gone bad. It seems to me that the basic message of loving one another has got drowned in a sea of conventions, doctrine and routines which have assumed such an importance that they have replaced a search for the truth. That search should go on throughout time and as knowledge increases so the way the message is applied needs to be revised. To rely upon outdated ritual might be comforting, but it is also highly dangerous.

[vz71]

Originally Posted by david house

Actually I have a good opinion of many Filipinos. I am married to one. Inspite of their poverty, their poor governance and the corrosive effect of the church they remain some of the happiest people I have met. I don't blame them for the culture that exists here, which is of endemic corruption at all levels and a complete lack of honesty. It is due to their history, the Spanish influence followed by that of the USA, and especially the power wielded by the RC church. With good leadership, and a separation of State and Church, they could easily become again the leaders in South East Asia. Right now they are well behind almost everyone, but especially Malaysia. Whenever I raise these issues with Filipinos I get a wonderfully positive response for no-one here ever questions the status quo in any of the media. I often see the scales falling from the eyes as people see an alternative viewpoint for the first time. They can see the truth, as they live with the realities. I feel you only live with the theories.
Yes, I have a problem with the RC church. I have no problem in accepting that individuals have the freedom to believe and do whatever they wish, provided it does not impact upon another. Where I take issue is when those beliefs form part of a political agenda, with attempts made to influence policies which are the rightful responsibility of elected governments. Governments elected to represent all of the people and to think for themselves. I don't like interest group politics of any type. I detest "lobbies" and want them removed from public life. That includes all of those whose causes I also support.
If the church wishes to preach a "pro-life", no condom, anti-abortion agenda to it's own membership then so be it. As soon as it takes that out to a wider audience I object, for it has no right to be heard. It is a church, not a political group.

I must have missed the answer to the question...
Why should any individuals suffer a censorship of their speech when their speech includes morality?

[Ruthie]

Mr. House, you have obviously absorbed the message of the "culture of death" very thoroughly.

They call using condoms "safe sex," when it is not. Condom use lowers the risk of catching STDs. Note the word "risk." A parachute lowers the risk of dying when jumping out of an airplane. The only way to be 100 per cent safe from that kind of injury or death is to refuse to jump out of airplanes. The only truly safe sex is abstinence, or fidelity to one partner. Condom use should be called "less risky sex," not "safe."

Calling it "safe" encourages promiscuity, allowing people to think they are not engaging in risky behavior.

And you seem to have the same low opinion of your fellow humans as other members of the culture of death. According to them, nobody (except, of course, the frigid, and religious fanatics) can resist the temptation to have as much sex as possible with as many partners as possible. Of course, with heavy promotion by the mass media of sex as the most desirable thing in the world reinforces that.

They say, "Sex sells." Madison Avenue rarely bothers to try any other method. (A sexpot M&M, for crying out loud!) The popular media reinforces the idea that men should have as many sexual partners as possible, and that a woman's value rests solely in her sexual desirability. And pornography is becoming more and more mainstream. Look at the exponential growth in eating disorders such as anorexia - fueled by the idea that one's body shape is the most important thing about oneself.

I meet more and more women who deeply regret being drawn into the "hookup culture." They are now realizing just how much damage they have done to themselves. (I'm one of them.) I've even met some men who have come to the same conclusion. Perhaps if someone had taught them that sex belongs only within a loving marriage, and why, they might have resisted.

The Catholic church does not bow down to popular culture. She still teaches what all Christian churches taught until the 1930s: virginity until marriage, the wrongness of birth control, and marriage as permanent. (Yes, I know that many individual Catholics disagree. That does not change the Church's teaching. She's not in a popularity contest.)

For a good article about birth control's effect on society, go here.

I doubt that I can change your mind - but I can hope.

God bless you abundantly,

Ruthie

[rpp]

Originally Posted by Ruthie

Mr. House, you have obviously absorbed the message of the "culture of death" very thoroughly.

They call using condoms "safe sex," when it is not. Condom use lowers the risk of catching STDs. Note the word "risk." A parachute lowers the risk of dying when jumping out of an airplane. The only way to be 100 per cent safe from that kind of injury or death is to refuse to jump out of airplanes. The only truly safe sex is abstinence, or fidelity to one partner. Condom use should be called "less risky sex," not "safe."

Calling it "safe" encourages promiscuity, allowing people to think they are not engaging in risky behavior.

And you seem to have the same low opinion of your fellow humans as other members of the culture of death. According to them, nobody (except, of course, the frigid, and religious fanatics) can resist the temptation to have as much sex as possible with as many partners as possible. Of course, with heavy promotion by the mass media of sex as the most desirable thing in the world reinforces that.

They say, "Sex sells." Madison Avenue rarely bothers to try any other method. (A sexpot M&M, for crying out loud!) The popular media reinforces the idea that men should have as many sexual partners as possible, and that a woman's value rests solely in her sexual desirability. And pornography is becoming more and more mainstream. Look at the exponential growth in eating disorders such as anorexia - fueled by the idea that one's body shape is the most important thing about oneself.

I meet more and more women who deeply regret being drawn into the "hookup culture." They are now realizing just how much damage they have done to themselves. (I'm one of them.) I've even met some men who have come to the same conclusion. Perhaps if someone had taught them that sex belongs only within a loving marriage, and why, they might have resisted.

The Catholic church does not bow down to popular culture. She still teaches what all Christian churches taught until the 1930s: virginity until marriage, the wrongness of birth control, and marriage as permanent. (Yes, I know that many individual Catholics disagree. That does not change the Church's teaching. She's not in a popularity contest.)

For a good article about birth control's effect on society, go here.

I doubt that I can change your mind - but I can hope.

God bless you abundantly,

Ruthie

Well said!

[david house]

Originally Posted by Ruthie

Mr. House, you have obviously absorbed the message of the "culture of death" very thoroughly.

They call using condoms "safe sex," when it is not. Condom use lowers the risk of catching STDs. Note the word "risk." A parachute lowers the risk of dying when jumping out of an airplane. The only way to be 100 per cent safe from that kind of injury or death is to refuse to jump out of airplanes. The only truly safe sex is abstinence, or fidelity to one partner. Condom use should be called "less risky sex," not "safe."

Calling it "safe" encourages promiscuity, allowing people to think they are not engaging in risky behavior.

And you seem to have the same low opinion of your fellow humans as other members of the culture of death. According to them, nobody (except, of course, the frigid, and religious fanatics) can resist the temptation to have as much sex as possible with as many partners as possible. Of course, with heavy promotion by the mass media of sex as the most desirable thing in the world reinforces that.

They say, "Sex sells." Madison Avenue rarely bothers to try any other method. (A sexpot M&M, for crying out loud!) The popular media reinforces the idea that men should have as many sexual partners as possible, and that a woman's value rests solely in her sexual desirability. And pornography is becoming more and more mainstream. Look at the exponential growth in eating disorders such as anorexia - fueled by the idea that one's body shape is the most important thing about oneself.

I meet more and more women who deeply regret being drawn into the "hookup culture." They are now realizing just how much damage they have done to themselves. (I'm one of them.) I've even met some men who have come to the same conclusion. Perhaps if someone had taught them that sex belongs only within a loving marriage, and why, they might have resisted.

The Catholic church does not bow down to popular culture. She still teaches what all Christian churches taught until the 1930s: virginity until marriage, the wrongness of birth control, and marriage as permanent. (Yes, I know that many individual Catholics disagree. That does not change the Church's teaching. She's not in a popularity contest.)

For a good article about birth control's effect on society, go here.

I doubt that I can change your mind - but I can hope.

God bless you abundantly,

Ruthie

I understand the points made very well and can accept that for some people such an approach may work. My argument is not about them, it is about the concept of seeking to change everybody to such a viewpoint when clearly so many do not accept it and then seeking to deny them access to condoms. By all means as a group live the way you wish to. Try to increase your numbers through your example but don't force your views on others who must be allowed the same freedoms.
I don't agree with your approach, but I will defend your right to hold it. However I do not believe, as a religious organisation, you should air those views in public. They should be wholly and exclusively for your membership. Those who wish to understand them can approach you to learn of them. To openly promote is to become involved in politics and politics requires a much deeper understanding of ALL aspects of life to enable informed decisions to be made than simply those connected with religious belief. You may argue that your religion is your life but for many others this is not true and their wishes and needs must be duly considered. This is the role of governments and not of religious groups, however well intended they feel they are. As you will appreciate I am a firm believer in a secular society in which religion is a wholly personal and private matter which stays away from public life completely. You make one of my points very well. Since the 1930s the knowledge of the human race has leapt forward and yet you seek to apply the same attitudes which existed then, paying no regard to what we have learned. I argue that you must go back to the basic message and re-interpret it in the light of what we now know. You see only a relaxation of "standards" and a vast increase in immorality. I see progress in many things which should enable a fresh, wise and constantly updated modern approach to the message being preached.

[rpp]

Originally Posted by david house

I understand the points made very well and can accept that for some people such an approach may work. My argument is not about them, it is about the concept of seeking to change everybody to such a viewpoint when clearly so many do not accept it and then seeking to deny them access to condoms. By all means as a group live the way you wish to. Try to increase your numbers through your example but don't force your views on others who must be allowed the same freedoms.
I don't agree with your approach, but I will defend your right to hold it. However I do not believe, as a religious organisation, you should air those views in public. They should be wholly and exclusively for your membership. Those who wish to understand them can approach you to learn of them. To openly promote is to become involved in politics and politics requires a much deeper understanding of ALL aspects of life to enable informed decisions to be made than simply those connected with religious belief. You may argue that your religion is your life but for many others this is not true and their wishes and needs must be duly considered. This is the role of governments and not of religious groups, however well intended they feel they are. As you will appreciate I am a firm believer in a secular society in which religion is a wholly personal and private matter which stays away from public life completely. You make one of my points very well. Since the 1930s the knowledge of the human race has leapt forward and yet you seek to apply the same attitudes which existed then, paying no regard to what we have learned. I argue that you must go back to the basic message and re-interpret it in the light of what we now know. You see only a relaxation of "standards" and a vast increase in immorality. I see progress in many things which should enable a fresh, wise and constantly updated modern approach to the message being preached.

You are opposed to airing scientific facts publicly?!?! Are you TRYING to kill people?

[david house]

You are opposed to airing scientific facts publicly?!?! Are you TRYING to kill people?

Are you OK? "What scientific facts" do you mean?

Of course real scientific facts must be debated and understood but their promotion must be by those who truly understand them, and not by those with an agenda which seeks to promote a pre-determined viewpoint.

As with the Bible it is possible to select a quotation to support many doubtful propostions, so it is with science. You can select one piece or research which in isolation appears to support your view.

However a true examination of scientific facts must mean a thorough review, by experts, of everything available. I am no expert, and I would guess nor is anyone else on this forum but I am prepared to believe those that form the majority viewpoint after a carefully considered debate. I will not latch onto a minority viewpoint just because it happens to support the views of my church!

[RedGecko]

Originally Posted by david house

Of course real scientific facts must be debated and understood but their promotion must be by those who truly understand them, and not by those with an agenda which seeks to promote a pre-determined viewpoint.

And yet, that agenda is what was advocated in the Lancet editorial. A pre-determined viewpoint, with no evidence offered in support.

[rpp]

Originally Posted by david house

You are opposed to airing scientific facts publicly?!?! Are you TRYING to kill people?

Are you OK? "What scientific facts" do you mean?

Of course real scientific facts must be debated and understood but their promotion must be by those who truly understand them, and not by those with an agenda which seeks to promote a pre-determined viewpoint.

As with the Bible it is possible to select a quotation to support many doubtful propostions, so it is with science. You can select one piece or research which in isolation appears to support your view.

However a true examination of scientific facts must mean a thorough review, by experts, of everything available. I am no expert, and I would guess nor is anyone else on this forum but I am prepared to believe those that form the majority viewpoint after a carefully considered debate. I will not latch onto a minority viewpoint just because it happens to support the views of my church!

Show me statistic that demonstrate the condom use saves lives. They do not exist. Just anectdotes. Yet if you look at Uganda and the Philippines, where condom use is deemphasized and abstinence promoted, the AIDS rate is declining dramatically (Uganda) or is way lower than pro-condom use "experts" expected (Philipines).

Seems to me that it is you who are promoting a view that your religionh supports.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032702825.html
http://www.ilsussidiario.net/articol...articolo=14614
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...UyOWYxNmEzN2E=
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...of-the-condom/

Just because you successfully shout down people who disagree with you does not mean you are right, just louder.

Try using facts rather than curryng to to base passions and purrient interests.

[Wowbagger]

The Lancet hasn't been respectable since that outrageous "study" of Iraqi civilian deaths they published back in '05, I'm afraid. I see no reason to treat them seriously, as they no longer rise above the level of the usual sensationalist news rag.

I have nothing else to contribute that hasn't already or won't soon be said, so I'll bow out with that.

[david house]

Show me statistic that demonstrate the condom use saves lives. They do not exist. Just anectdotes. Yet if you look at Uganda and the Philippines, where condom use is deemphasized and abstinence promoted, the AIDS rate is declining dramatically (Uganda) or is way lower than pro-condom use "experts" expected (Philipines

Are you serious?

There is an enormous problem with AIDS in the Philippines but due to the culture it is almost totally unreported and in many case unrecognised by the poor here who cannot consult doctors. Deaths which in other countries get reported as AIDS are spoken of here as being cause by "the devil" or other types of black magic. The official figures are way off the truth and it suits the church to rely on them.
This country has had an explosion of AIDS. Go ask any non catholic doctor here (there are a few) and they will soon confirm it for you. You should really stop believing everything you are told, as so much is propaganda designed to support a particular view. I live here!

As for the Lancet article being low on facts, I cannot see the relevance. It is taking as its position the widely accepted one in the medical profession. The article is not about having to prove that, as others have done it elsewhere. The article is about challenging the Pope's assertions and pointing out the consequences. By selection you produce support, but if you look at the wider bodies of opinion your stance falls.

It seems to me that the RC church has a moral position on the use of any form of "un-natural" birth control and then looks for evidence to support it in all circumstances, choosing to ignore anything which might prove otherwise. Science does not have a moral position, it looks for facts and if they are uncomfortable that is unfortunate, but it does not stop them being facts. We all have to weigh up all the evidence, and not look only at that part which makes us feel better. The experiences in Africa are part of the debate, but they are not all of the debate. I find them interesting but feel they need to be kept in context.