I must have missed the answer to the question…
Why should any individuals suffer a censorship of their speech when their speech includes morality?
- Status
Why should any individuals suffer a censorship of their speech when their speech includes morality?
R
Ruthie
Guest
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
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
R
rpp
Guest
Well said!
D
david_house
Guest
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.
R
rpp
Guest
You are opposed to airing scientific facts publicly?!?! Are you TRYING to kill people?
D
david_house
Guest
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!
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!
R
RedGecko
Guest
And yet, that agenda is what was advocated in the Lancet editorial. A pre-determined viewpoint, with no evidence offered in support.
R
rpp
Guest
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.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html
ilsussidiario.net/articolo.aspx?articolo=14614
article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTNlNDc1MmMwNDM0OTEzMjQ4NDc0ZGUyOWYxNmEzN2E=
washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/23/cult-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.
W
Wowbagger
Guest
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.
I have nothing else to contribute that hasn’t already or won’t soon be said, so I’ll bow out with that.
D
david_house
Guest
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.
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.
R
rpp
Guest
Again, I ask you to provide support for your assertions.
Your assertions are wrong. Period. If you dispute this, then post links supporting you view. Thius far, you have made assertions and provided nor support for your view. If you expect people to take you seriously, then you need to support your assertion. Until you do, you do not give anyone any reason to believe anything you saw. And since I have provided support for my assertions, you give people every reason NOT to believe you.
Provide a link that contradicts this using something other than speculation: nytimes.com/2003/04/20/world/low-rate-of-aids-virus-in-philippines-is-a-puzzle.html?sec=health&&fta=y
D
david_house
Guest
You suggest all I offer are “assertions” and that I need to prove these. I respectfully disagree. I am not a scientist and cannot myself prove anything but I read plenty and I hope I employ common sense.
I suggest you start here:- http://www.condoms4life.org/facts/CondomsAndAIDS.htm. The article seems to come from members of your own faith! Read too some of the other articles listed.
There are several referencies to reputable organisations working in this area, to which you can link to determine the basis for their conclusions.
I find the arguments in these articles persuasive. Truth is sometimes found via a feeling rather than with direct evidence, a fact you must surely support as the whole basis of a religious believe must have an element of this within it.
I find it reassuring that there are some within the RC world who are open minded and prepared to stand up and fight for the protection that most people accept that condoms give. Here in the Philippines such an acceptance is urgently required and is actually currently part of the political programme. Opposed by the church of course, who managed to bring down the previous President when he tried to introduce a similar law. The person behind that, now dead, was Cardinal Sin. Never was someone more aptly named.
I suggest you start here:- http://www.condoms4life.org/facts/CondomsAndAIDS.htm. The article seems to come from members of your own faith! Read too some of the other articles listed.
There are several referencies to reputable organisations working in this area, to which you can link to determine the basis for their conclusions.
I find the arguments in these articles persuasive. Truth is sometimes found via a feeling rather than with direct evidence, a fact you must surely support as the whole basis of a religious believe must have an element of this within it.
I find it reassuring that there are some within the RC world who are open minded and prepared to stand up and fight for the protection that most people accept that condoms give. Here in the Philippines such an acceptance is urgently required and is actually currently part of the political programme. Opposed by the church of course, who managed to bring down the previous President when he tried to introduce a similar law. The person behind that, now dead, was Cardinal Sin. Never was someone more aptly named.
H
Highwayhound
Guest
Such as you are airing your views here on a PUBLIC forum. Perhaps you could keep your views exclusively for your membership? :ehh:
Scientifically speaking how does a condom prevent the spread of HPV?
I will await the answers.
God bless
D
david_house
Guest
Such as you are airing your views here on a PUBLIC forum. Perhaps you could keep your views exclusively for your membership?
As my views are all my own I don’t make any claims for anyone else, although there are many that I agree with.
I would be very happy NOT to be responding here. It would mean that your views were not being promoted in the public media, which is what I object to, and there would be no need.
All I have done is refer you to an article in a respected journal and then respond to the resulting posts. If the Pope had not made his remarks, or made them only to his followers, then this debate would not be happening.
Scientifically speaking how does a condom prevent the spread of HPV?
As I have said many times I am not a scientist so cannot answer such a question. However I have provided links to sources which do, have convinced me, and to which I refer you again. Please read them and if you don’t understand, or wish to debate their conclusions, please direct your questions directly to them. I do not speak for anyone, I only feel convinced by the obvious nature of the arguments.
As my views are all my own I don’t make any claims for anyone else, although there are many that I agree with.
I would be very happy NOT to be responding here. It would mean that your views were not being promoted in the public media, which is what I object to, and there would be no need.
All I have done is refer you to an article in a respected journal and then respond to the resulting posts. If the Pope had not made his remarks, or made them only to his followers, then this debate would not be happening.
Scientifically speaking how does a condom prevent the spread of HPV?
As I have said many times I am not a scientist so cannot answer such a question. However I have provided links to sources which do, have convinced me, and to which I refer you again. Please read them and if you don’t understand, or wish to debate their conclusions, please direct your questions directly to them. I do not speak for anyone, I only feel convinced by the obvious nature of the arguments.
- Status