Pope in Africa talking out of his ass - seriously wtf????

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4109384,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4081276.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7947460.stm
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLH936617
http://buzz.yahoo.com/article/1:nbc...d2dba373b/Pope-in-Africa-Condoms-Increase-HIV
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...edict-XVI-condoms-make-Aids-crisis-worse.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids

That the Pope doesn't like condoms isn't anything new, but what he said this time during his Africa trip really has to be the bottom of the barrel:

(Emphasis mine)


So how does he come to this absurd conclusion, that condoms make the AIDS epidemic in Africa worse?

I understand - not support - the reason why the Church is against condoms, but seriously, that statement I cannot understand.

Obviously they think the best way to keep AIDS under control is to scare people away from being promiscuous with the possibility of getting it. If everybody's too scared to have sex with anybody else AIDS won't spread!

Only problem is that approach actually doesn't work very well in the real world.

If the real world were full of sensible people abstinence would work in the real world.

Yes, it was a poor statement to make. What the meaning is that even with condoms it probably promotes promiscuity which can lead to an elevation of HIV and other STDs.

The only sure way to not get HIV and STDs is either abstinence or a faithful relationship.

I think that is probably what he was trying to get at.

Of course if this was in the proper context, you'd see: "While medical workers advocate the use of condoms to help prevent the spread of AIDS, the Church insists on fidelity within heterosexual marriage, chastity and abstinence." From the Rueters link you posted.

The context is that the Church believes abstinence is the only sure way to stop HIV, which is true, or faithful relationships, which is also for the most part true.

Though it is a bit of a difficult position to take because not everyone will believe in faithful relationships nor monogamous ones. So I think the Church made a wrong call. I don't think they should endorse condoms because changing religious teachings to just fit the whims of society makes your religious teaching cheap for lack of a better word. Though instead of condemning condoms the Church should just take a neutral position and let the clergy in the field decide what to do. I think that'd be the best position.

So you would want the Churc be able say 'It's is okay to kill a Muslim, it is the way to Heaven!'.

Let me help you understand what Herr Ratzinger is on about:

1) The message a lot of young people are getting is "sleeping around is okay, just use condoms". This will result in more promiscuity, with contraceptive measures or without, than if they were told to each be faithful to a single partner.

2) The Roman Catholic leadership oppose all forms of contraception, by the way. Its not just that having condoms makes people free to fornicate without consequences, its that Rome actually regards procreation as the only legitimate reason for sex. They regard non-procreative sex as a sin, even within marriage.

3) Now the kicker: not all condoms actually protect against HIV. Sometimes they break. And some types of condom will actually let the virus particles right through! HIV is a large virus, but still tiny compared to a human sperm cell.

Is point 3 above really true? I dunno. But its the story that is going around.

Sure, Damar, whatever you what to believe because I can always point out about taking it out of context, but that seems like waste of time

Then he should clearly say what he means and not something like he did say.

In fact that is a huge problem with this pope - practically all the "crisis" producing statements he gave the public were him saying something in a way that differs (sometimes almost diametrically) from what he means.

Dude, they are "able to say" that - or anything else they choose.
But if they said that, they'd be contradicting their own teachings.

In that statement you seem to think the world growing more civilized and more rational should not affect the Church for any reason, and serious world problems to be 'whims of society'. If I'm wrong please correct me.

Because condoms break and everybody thinks everybody else used them anyways so...


Besides, Africa is the poster for failure of race to learn.
The countries in Africa have been given more assistance in this than is fucking believable. Black Africans=Fail.

This and the fact that when they were colonies, the starvation shit was nearly non-existent compared to now and if they are so damn equal then what the fuck are they starving as much as they are.

Seriously, they fuckin fail and by giving them as much food aid as we have, we have only lengthened there suffering.

Stop the food aid completly, send people to teach them to farm, and if that doesn't work, send guns. Lots of them.

The watch as several hundred million die in a year.

The land will once again be able to support them.

That's already happening - the guns and millions of deaths.
But the main reason postcolonial Africa is such a mess is actually ideology. Most of the "liberation movements" were lead by communist types, who are more interested in grabbing everything for themselves, and Staying In Power, than anything else. A country like Ethiopia is broken down, and dependent on aid, because they're ruled by a commie government that wants it that way - it makes the people easier to rule.

As a black African, I'll just say that you're a complete, total, uneducated yokel. The fact that you're type of thinking has come become typical of the inbred fundementalist Christ loving conservatards is, I suppose, not very surprising. The type of mind that can rationalize religion and the modern world into a seemingly solid yet utterly incoherent theistic belief system probably isn't too far away from the type of mind that centers around tribe vs tribe mentality. In essence, you're a cunt.

you know I have to admit, most of what he wrote is bullshit, but this one isn't that stupid.

teaching them how to farm would help them a lot more in the long run than just sending x amout of food every month

why did zimbabwe fail? it was mostly beacose the president whose name I don't remember now (well there is also the problem of a corrupt goverment that did nothing for the people), gave the land he stole to his supporters who had no idea about farming, teach them how to do it and the country would improve

ofcourse that means that the president needs to stop with his "zomg all white people are evil" bullshit and the UN needs to stop with the "just fix the symptoms not the problem" atitude

well in general the whole idea needs that certain goverments step down from power and someone who isn't a corrupt bastard gets into power

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSLI43220920090318

I think we can be pretty sure Mr. De Cock is an expert on the matter.

Uneducated. No.

But I love how libs and shit always want to call there enemies that for CALLING YOU OUT.

Oh and its more thousand of death, not enough to conter the cockroach-breeding that exascerbates the starvation problem.

Also, the fact that somebody correctly pointed out the communist thing is yet another stab to the Jews.

That's what Ian Smith was fighting(In name only, as we all know what happened later...) and he near the end he was negotiating and handing a good chunk of power over to moderates but no. Kissinger and his tarded crew had to keep fucking with everything, the South Africa was damn near forced into cutting off support. Oh and Ethiopa never experinced Colonialism and neither did Liberia... The Black Guy... do you live there, in Sub-Sahara africa?

Look, SA doesn't count as what I'm talking about, Mandela had the common sense to not let his supporter kill off the whites(The only reason they would have lost is the fact that the rest of the world would have pounced on them if THEY waged the necessary genocidal war in self-defense...It never came to this luckily) I am not talking about them.

That is just retarded.

It does.

The Western world has proven this.

Hmm, is it possible Arminias has returned to us?

...huh?

Unless you got the STD before your current relationship

Um... when did the Jews come into this?

Also:

Source/evidence please.

I second Cool Guy's statement.

I'm pretty sure that even a board as hideously racism-tolerant as SB does not allow the advocacy of genocide. Where's a mod when you need one?