Condoms 'infected with HIV' - Catholic Church leader in Mozambique

[Swede]

This is insanity.

A CATHOLIC leader has claimed condoms are infected with HIV deliberately.

Maputo Archbishop Francisco Chimoio, the head of the Catholic Church in Mozambique, claimed some anti-retroviral drugs were also infected "in order to finish quickly the African people".

The Catholic Church formally opposes any use of condoms, advising fidelity within marriage or sexual abstinence.



http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2007450000,00.html

[Pawel K]

1. These people are fucking evil

I wish heaven and hell did exist so that these assholes would fry for eternity.

[Deep13]

2. Oh, that old chestnut?

"The Church" has been spreading this lie in various incarnations for decades.

[YOY]

5. I was Catholic for 27 of my 33 years on this planet

I've never heard this "old chestnut" once.

I've heard that "they don't work 10% of the time". That was a big steaming pile of poop. They work pretty damn good for me and all past GFs as well as my wife and I.

[Deep13]

19. I'm guessing you did not live in Africa. nt

[YOY]

94. No, but as a former HIV educator I thought I'd heard every one.

That's a completely new one. No need for snark. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fridays Child]

4. He is a liar and, effectively, a murderer--an extremely cruel murderer.

He should be disciplined by the church. I wonder what Ratzinger thinks of this tactic.

[mr_hat]

6. Licked by Divine on the assembly line, no doubt.

[theredpen]

12. Those cost extra

[neweurope]

7. Wish we had another source for that. The "Sun" isn't all

that reliable. If this is true however that man must be punished... it makes him a murderer, pure and simple.

----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Swede]

14. I first saw in on Digg,which led me to the Sun.

Every google search led back to the Sun,so yeah,maybe it ain't so.

[neweurope]

18. Maybe not... but how telling that we consider it might be so.

-----------------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[neweurope]

102. Don't know if anybody else has mentioned it - BBC

reports, too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7014335.stm


--------------------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Deja Q]

8. FYI, HIV does not last very long outside the human body.

I know someone else posted that article, but I wanted to reiterate part of my response to that other thread about HIV not lasting long...

The accusation should be thrown out and a counter-accusation made the guy is trying fraud people he claims were frauding him.

[rodeodance]

9. my gawd. Hang him up by his balls.

[jgraz]

10. Religion: the deadliest virus ever invented

:grr:

[theredpen]

11. Religiophobia: stops a thinking mind

It's so much easier to blame a concept than a person.

[jgraz]

17. The idea that religion is viral has been part of cognitive science for years

Now do you want to show me how religion isn't deadly? Good luck with that.

[theredpen]

26. Burden of Proof

Now do you want to show me how religion isn't deadly? Good luck with that.

The burden of proof is on you, not me. Oh, and before you go on a rant, check your facts.

[jgraz]

30. I'm sorry, did a THEIST just try to school me on the Burden of Proof?

:rofl:

[Richard Steele]

47. Man, the things you see in the internets! May I join you?

:rofl: :rofl:

[theredpen]

48. Apparently. Is this an atheist schooling me on a substantive response? n/t

[Richard Steele]

50. Clearly, NO ONE is schooling you on ANYTHING.

nm

[theredpen]

53. Well, certainly not you, Dick. n/t

[Richard Steele]

88. We're not on a first name basis. Please refrain from being so disrespectful. nm

[theredpen]

92. My apologies, Mr. Steele

[CT_Progressive]

117. The Inquisition.

Your move.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

84. My how Christian of you

Do you pray to JEEBUS with that mouth?

[Deep13]

20. The misinformation is spread because a religious institution...

...is afraid that they will lose control over people's power of creation. When people are free to make their own decisions, they really don't need the church anymore. Indeed, it becomes and impediment. A cursory review of history by a thinking mind shows that what you call religiophobia is very well founded. This is not simply a question of one bad man doing a very bad thing. Religious superstition is the very root cause of the problem. This is no isolated incident either. Religion has constantly stood in the way of human progress for thousands of years. Church officials once opposed innoculation for small pox because it interfered with god's will. The Amish still eschew lightning rods for that reason. Muslim clerks in the 1990's opposed efforts to vaccinate children against polio. The Catholic church endorsed Mussolini and provided liberal assistance to Hitler including providing him with baptism records to help him locate Jews for extermination. In the 1990s, Mother Theresa flew to Ireland to campaign against a measure to amend the state constitution in order to allow abused women to divorce their husbands. In America whole Diocese are going bankrupt paying damages for a plague of rape of children at the hands of priests.

Any objective reading of the facts shows that religion has long ago used up any benefit of the doubt it may have had.

[theredpen]

25. Um, no.

I'm not really going to get into yet another DU "debate" where I'm rebutting simpleminded stereotypes and myths.

The Catholic church endorsed Mussolini provided liberal assistance to Hitler including providing him with baptism records to help him locate Jews for extermination.

What do you mean "endorsed"? Oh never mind... your post is a compilation of inaccuracies. How would baptism records help you find Jews? This is a myth.

It's pretty easy to win an argument if you can just make stuff up out of whole cloth.

[Richard Steele]

33. Uh, YES. End of story. You can have your own opinion, but not your own FACTS. nm

[theredpen]

45. Um, no.

"Recognize" and "endorse" are not the same thing.

Consider that the Vatican was on Mussolini's home turf. The Catholic leaders had a responsibility not to make Italy's Catholics unwitting participants in a potentially lethal rebellion against the legal government of a fascist regime. Many Catholic Priests and Nuns died in WWII because they refused to cooperate with the Nazis and other Axis powers, but it wouldn't be irresponsible to drag their parishioners with them.

It's easy to talk tough on the Internet in a free country decades later.

[Richard Steele]

49. Oh please- spare me your hair-splitting apologetics.

The Church was hardly a babe in the woods when it
came to GENOCIDE, now was it? They knew the deal.
And so do you.

[theredpen]

What are you talking about?

...or is being vague part of this "schooling" thing you seem to be so big on?

[Richard Steele]

57. If you don't know, you're cleary unqualified to discuss this subject.

Try reading a History book sometime.

[jgraz]

59. Um, you should make it clear that the Old Testament doesn't count as "history"

Just so there's no confusion. ;)

[Richard Steele]

69. I honestly don't think ANYTHING I "make clear"...

...is going to eliminate the CONFUSION here, knowhutImean?

[theredpen]

62. Is that an argument?

"Try reading a history book sometime"

Proof by assertion — is this the kind of "rational argument" I'm supposed to be "schooled" in?

[Richard Steele]

70. No, it's FRIENDLY ADVICE. Different.

And something else you would do well to research, apparently.

[jgraz]

35. What does he mean by "endorsed"??

Oh, I don't know....maybe something like this?



Or this?



Or perhaps this?




It's also pretty easy to win an argument if you actually know what you're talking about. You should try it sometime.

[theredpen]

42. Do you recognize George W. Bush as President?

Does that mean you "endorse" him?

Nice pictures.

[jgraz]

56. No, in fact I don't

And if I were to give him a salute, my hand would be in a very different configuration.

The Church's complicity with Naziism is well documented. Yet another remedial history course you should consider taking.

[theredpen]

63. Are you just making this stuff up?

The Church's complicity with Naziism is well documented. Yet another remedial history course you should consider taking.

Really? Well documented. Well, doesn't that beat all. Perhaps you'd like to read http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html">this documentation from the Jewish Virtual Library — a source unlikely to be anti-Semitic and pro-Catholic.

The Catholic Church's crime in WWII was not doing as much as it could, and that has been acknowledged. Any claims that the Church was "complicit" with Nazism are simply myths. Catholic Priests and Nuns were not murdered at Auschwitz for their "complicity."

[jgraz]

76. Sounds like you're saying those pictures were faked

Or maybe you're saying that THIS isn't actual complicity, it's just "not doing enough".



Maybe you'd be OK with it if he had just blessed fewer Nazis, or not held the fascist salute so high.

[theredpen]

80. What does this picture show?

Who is in that picture? Is it even a Catholic? Also, the cleric's arm is not straight. He is waving no saluting. Provide some context.

[jgraz]

83. Oh my god, you are truly amazing

You wade into a discussion about Catholicism and you don't even know how to recognize a Catholic priest?? I'm going to go talk to the grown-ups now. YOu have a real nice day. :hi:


'Waving" :rofl: :rofl:

[theredpen]

90. The Nazi's had their own state Church and the clerics dressed like Catholic clergy

You knew that, right?

[Richard Steele]

86. Wow. Denial really isn't just a river in Egypt. You make me sad.

[theredpen]

91. And ignorance is not a point of view, Dick.

[theredpen]

115. Pictures without context

Here are some photos that are really popular on Free Republic:

What are we looking at here? Why, it's the Gores (Tipper and Al) with Fred Phelps and his wife. Fred Phelps is the head of Westboro Baptist Church, known for its public demonstrations spreading the message "God Hates Fags."

These photos obvious prove that the Gores knew the Phelps' socially at some point, but do they imply that Al Gore supports Fred's "God Hates Fags" agenda? I'm certain that he doesn't, but hey, in the world of proof by out-of-context photos, I guess that case could be made.

If you have more than just out-of-context photos to support your claims, cite your references, otherwise STFU.

[Deep13]

82. You're kidding, right?

Maybe it is simple-mindedness to look at plain fact and draw logical conclusions. Such thinking reveals the most accurate explanations. Would that the world's theologians give up their logical gymnastics in their efforts to prove impossibilities and become simple-minded.

If a Jew claims to be a Catholic in order to escape the holocaust, it can be refuted with baptism records. Duh. Also, in central Europe in the 1930s it is a good bet that anyone who is not a Christian is a Jew.

The Pope officially recognized and supported Mussolini's government.

Christopher Hitchens in his book God Is Not Great detail these few examples in depth far better than I can here.

[theredpen]

95. Baptism records

Baptism records were spotting in Germany in that era. Frequently, the only "baptismal" record that was kept was a note scribbled in a family Bible. The idea that authoritative baptismal records could be provided by the Churches in Germany in the 1930's is ludicrous. I don't know where you got this "Baptism records" claim, but it's just not true.

Perhaps you got it from Hitchens. I'm sure he goes into a lot of things in great detail — I stopped paying attention to him when he decided to go into great detail about Saddam Hussein's WMD's and why the Iraq war was such a fantastic idea. The guy isn't the most credible source when it comes to geopolitical analysis.

[Deep13]

96. This book is pretty well documented.

I don't have it in front of me, but I will check the footnotes when I get home for a source.

[theredpen]

98. Thanks, I'd be interested to learn more detail about what Hitchens says. n/t

[Rage for Order]

27. If only we could somehow rid the world of this scourge

The Soviet Union practically wiped out religion and that worked out great:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Union#Loss_of_life

The Soviet Union was an officially atheistic state. The stated goal was control, suppression, and, ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs. Atheism was propagated through schools, communist organizations, and the media. The Society of the Godless was created. All religious movements were either prosecuted or controlled by the state and KGB.

Somewhere between 80 to 90% of the general population were Russian Orthodox. Tens of thousands of churches were closed. Laymen, priests and Bishops were executed. Religious activities could and were prosecuted under article 58. Untold millions lost their lives for their religious convictions.

The persecution of religion under the Soviet Union has been the largest in history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#Religion

Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937-38.

Many religions popular in the ethnic regions of the Soviet Union including the Roman Catholic Church, Uniats, Baptists, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. underwent ordeals similar to the Orthodox churches in other parts: thousands of monks were persecuted, and hundreds of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, sacred monuments, monasteries and other religious buildings were razed.


Stalin must have been a very religious man, because he was very deadly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Union#Genocide

The deaths of millions of people in Ukraine during the Holodomor famine of 1932—1933 was, according to many historians, caused intentionally by confiscating all food and blocking the migration of starving population by the Soviet government. The number of Golodomor victims was estimated by Robert Conquest as 5 million <12> Overall number of peasants who died in 1930-1937 from hunger and repressions during collectivization (including Kavkaz and Kazakhstan) was at least 14.5 million

And then there's this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Union#Loss_of_life

Soviet political repression was a de facto and de jure system of prosecution of people who were or perceived to be enemies of the Soviet system. Its theoretical basis were the theory of Marxism about the class struggle and the resulting notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Its legal basis was formalized into the Article 58 in the code of RSFSR and similar articles for other Soviet republics. Aggravation of class struggle under socialism was proclaimed. An extensive network of civilian informants - either volunteers, or those forcibly recruited - was used to collect intelligence for the government and report cases of suspected dissent.

The term "repression", "terror", and other strong words were normal working terms, since the dictatorship of the proletariat was supposed to suppress the resistance of other social classes which Marxism considered antagonistic to the class of proletariat. The entire "ruling classes" have been exterminated, including "rich people", and a significant part of intelligentsia and peasantry labeled as kulaks. The numerous victims of extrajudicial punishment were called the enemies of the people. The punishment by the state included summary executions, torture, sending innocent people to Gulag, involunatry settlement, and stripping of citizen's rights. Usually, all members of a family, including children, were punished simultaneously as "traitor of Motherland family members". The repressions have been conducted by Cheka, OGPU and NKVD in several consecutive waves known as Red Terror, Collectivisation, Great Purge, Doctor's Plot, and others. The secret police forces conducted massacres of prisoners at numerous occasions. The repressions against "ruling classes" and general population were practiced in Soviet republics and at the territories "liberated" by Soviet Army during World War II, including Baltic States, Eastern Europe, China, and North Korea.

State repression led to uprisings, which were brutally suppressed by military force, like the Tambov rebellion, Kronstadt rebellion, or Vorkuta Uprising. During Tambov rebellion, Soviet military forces widely used chemical weapons against civilians. Most prominent citizens of villages were often taken as hostages and executed if the resistance fighters did not surrender.

After Stalin died, various religions continued to be outlawed, but life was grand!:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Union#Loss_of_life

After Stalin's death, the suppression of dissent was dramatically reduced and took new forms. The internal critics of the system were convicted for anti-Soviet agitation or as "social parasites". Others were labeled as mentally ill, having sluggishly progressing schizophrenia and incarcerated in "Psikhushkas", i.e. mental hospitals used by the Soviet authorities as prisons. A few notable dissidents were sent to internal or external exile, as Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Vladimir Bukovsky, and Andrei Sakharov.

Censorship in the Soviet Union was pervasive and strictly enforced. This gave rise to Samizdat, a clandestine copying and distribution of government-suppressed literature.

Free and fair elections existed only in theory, as a part of the Soviet democracy. All candidates had been selected by local Communist party or affiliated organizations, at least before the June 1987 elections.

Personal property was allowed, with certain limitations. All real property belonged to the state. Unauthorized possession of foreign currency was forbidden and prosecuted as criminal offense.

Freedoms of assembly and association did not exist. Workers were not allowed to organize free trade unions. All existing trade unions were organized and controlled by the state<14>. All political youth organizations, such as Pioneer movement and Komsomol served to enforce the policies of the Communist Party.

Emigration and any travel abroad were not allowed without an explicit permission from the government. People who were not allowed to leave the country are known as "refuseniks".

Passport system in the Soviet Union restricted migration of citizens within the country through "propiska" (residential permit/registration system) and use of internal passports. For a long period of the Soviet history peasants did not have internal passports and could not move into towns without permission.

Many former inmates received "wolf ticket" and were allowed to live only at 101 km away from city borders.

Travel to closed cities and to the regions near USSR state borders was strongly restricted.



You're right jgraz - if only we could get rid of damn religion!

[spoony]

77. Excellent!

[Deep13]

103. Stalin was evil. The system he created was evil.

Let me make one thing absolutely clear. No atheist or other religious skeptic supports the oppression of religious people. I am trying to change people's minds through argument and evidence. I will never support violating our Constitution and using the state to coerce any conversion. Religious people should be left alone unless they commit an actual crime. I am willing to accept a live-and-let-live policy even though no major religion will ever grant me the same consideration.

Evil people do evil things. The one thing this demonstrates is that ones religion or lack thereof has nothing to do with morality. Just as the Inquisition did horrible things, so did Stalin and his followers. The difference here is that Stalin's atheism did not cause him to be evil. I must point out that your argument demonstrates that Stalinism is evil. It does not demonstrate that religion is any better. (I'm assuming he was an atheist, but he did attend seminary school with the intention of becoming a priest.) He did colaberate with the Russian church when it suited his purposes.

To a large degree, communism was a reaction to the church-supported imperial Russian government that kept its people in peonage well into the 19th century. That is not a justification, of course, but it may explain why the Soviets were so willing to embrace a totalitarian substitue for a religious theocracy. In other words, Stalin may have been an atheist, but he was no skeptic. Except for the lack of a belief in divinity, Stalinism duplicates much of how a theocracy holds onto power. People were required to accept on faith that communism was right and dissent resulted in punishment. It should also be noted that Stalinism is dead. I wonder if the lack of a divine command to obey contributed to its demise.

Most atheists, like most theists, are basically good people. The problem comes when theists start to take the directives of their holy books and priests seriously. American Christianity is pretty passive today except for a few violent exceptions, but we must not forget how they acted when they were strong. To this day, El Salvador prohibits aborting ectopic pregnancies which pose an immediate threat to the life of the mother because of religious insistence. As an atheist, I have no trouble condemning the treatment of Christians and Jews by Stalin and his successors. I hated the campaign of extermination that Christian Serbians ran against Bosnian Muslims in the 1990s. My heart sank when I heard that the Taliban had blown-up a pair of hellenistic giant Buddahs. I hate that so much is lost to history because of purges against classical teaching by early Christians. I hate that so many Muslim women are oppressed. I hate that NAZIs murdered Jews and dissenting priests. I hate it when people say we should kill every Muslim because of Sept. 11.

[theredpen]

112. Taking those holy books seriously...

The problem comes when theists start to take the directives of their holy books and priests seriously.

Yeah, like when Jesus says, "Love one another as you love yourselves." That could cause all sorts of problems. :eyes:

[Deep13]

113. How can anyone do that?

Who turns over his paycheck to his neighbors? Who treats himself and his neighbors as well as he treats his own family? Wouldn't that be a kind of dereliction of duty? Should I really abandon my wife and children (if I had any) to go fish for men as Peter did?

I was under the impression that since we are all sinners and nothing without Christ. St. Paul hits on this again and again. Does that mean we are supposed to degrade our neighbors as we debase ourselves?

Besides, "your neighbor" means other Jews. Paul may have been a Christian, but Jesus--assuming he even existed at all--was merely trying to reform the Jewish religion. Besides, the Christ of whom Paul writes is not a real person. He writes of an idealized son-of-God who resides in heaven. Paul does not mention any of the details of JC's life and does not ever mention the crucifixion. (I'm sure you'll correct me if I am remembering wrong, but that is my recollection.) By the way, the Gospels contradict each other and known historical facts in the details of JC's life. It is clear that they were written after the "fact" in order to put a face on Paul's son-of-God.

All ethical systems advise people to treat each other well. What religion does is reinforce in group/out group dynamics. The OT itself is a perfect example of this. The whole thing is an exercise in us-vs.-them thinking. It's moral examples are monstrous and too numerous to even begin to detail here. By requiring people to believe in it, religion requires them to accept the atrocious as good and moral.

[theredpen]

114. Uh...

Who turns over his paycheck to his neighbors?

Is that your idea of love?

I was under the impression that since we are all sinners and nothing without Christ.

There are other impressions that you could be under instead; one of them is that God is predisposed to be favorable to anyone who is on His side, even if they don't believe in Him. It's pretty clear to me that the atheists on DU are every bit as dedicated to peace (and just wars, if necessary) and social justice as are the Christians and other believers. Why would a loving God deny such good people His blessing (if, in fact, He exists and has blessings to bestow, of course).

St. Paul hits on this again and again. Does that mean we are supposed to degrade our neighbors as we debase ourselves?

I'm a subscriber to the theory that Paul was self-hating closeted homosexual, so it's really not a good idea to use Paul as an example of how to love oneself. Even if you disagree with that theory, then you have to recognize that out of all of the New Testament writings, it is most important to interpret Paul's writings in the context of the time they were written.

By the way, the Gospels contradict each other and known historical facts in the details of JC's life. It is clear that they were written after the "fact" in order to put a face on Paul's son-of-God.

Oh, totally. Beyond the obvious biographical contradictions are theological ones as well. In order for Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah, he had to be a descendant of Kind David, so it was important that Joseph be his father. Later, when converting Greeks and Hellenized Jews, it was more important that Jesus be the son of a god, like Apollo, so the virgin birth and the resurrection story were tacked on. Early versions of the Gospels don't mention the virgin birth or the resurrection and if Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, then He couldn't have been the Jewish Messiah.

This is all very interesting, but why does it matter?

What religion does is reinforce in group/out group dynamics.

Religion can do that. Certainly many "Christians" embrace this dynamic, but they didn't get that from Jesus. Jesus was very inclusive — He was inclusive to a degree that was revolutionary and still is. Using "soundbite theology" and quoting single verses, you can make it appear that there is an exclusivity, but that position doesn't hold water in the context of the entire work.

The OT itself is a perfect example of this. The whole thing is an exercise in us-vs.-them thinking.

Well, Judaism is a tribal religion. You are mistaken that the whole thing is us-versus-them. There are some notable occasions in which the Hebrew God shows favor to non-Israelites in recognition of some display of decency or piety on their part.

[Rage for Order]

116. That's my point Deep

You said:

"Evil people do evil things. The one thing this demonstrates is that ones religion or lack thereof has nothing to do with morality. Just as the Inquisition did horrible things, so did Stalin and his followers."

The poster I replied to called religion "the deadliest virus ever invented". My point is that absence of religion has never equated to any less suffering or death. The poster said religion is deadly, while I believe the people who actually do the killing are deadly. There are as many different justifications for killing as there are people in the world.

You also said: "...ones religion or lack thereof has nothing to do with morality". And I agree.

[Rage for Order]

29. There's also this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_re_as/myanmar;_ylt=AtQfUPmyx3rOinPZLoeQ1eCs0NUE

YANGON, Myanmar - Soldiers with automatic rifles fired into crowds of anti-government demonstrators Thursday, killing at least nine people in the bloodiest day in more than a month of protests demanding an end to military rule.

Bloody sandals lay scattered on some streets as protesters fled shouting "Give us freedom, give us freedom!"

On the second day of a brutal crackdown, truckloads of troops in riot gear also raided Buddhist monasteries on the outskirts of Yangon, beating and arresting dozens of monks, witnesses and Western diplomats said. Japan protested the killing of a Japanese photographer.

Daily demonstrations by tens of thousands have grown into the stiffest challenge to the ruling junta in two decades, a crisis that began Aug. 19 with rallies against a fuel price hike then escalated dramatically when monks began joining the protests.



Those damned religious monks are stirring up trouble and are going to cause the government to have to kill lots of people. More of that deadly religion! Bastards!

[jgraz]

31. Your logic is irrefutable

Mostly because you actually have to USE logic before someone can refute it.

[Rage for Order]

34. Your point being...?

My point is that death and destruction is no more related to religion than it is to the rest of humankind as a whole. People come up with innumerable justifications for killing other people; religion is only one of many. Religion isn't the problem, the murderous assholes who kill people are.

[jgraz]

37. Yep, murderous assholes will kill no matter what

But say you want normally good people to slaughter their neighbors. For that you need religion.

[Rage for Order]

38. Not really

Famine or disease will do as well, as will the threat of your neighbors slaughtering you and/or your family or taking everything you own.

[jgraz]

40. Famine, disease, and unprovoked attacks are actual substantive things

But again, if you want truly senseless killing, you have to do it because THEIR fantasy about a magical sky daddy is slightly different from yours.

[Rage for Order]

41. That's where our opinions diverge

I view all killings as truly senseless unless the person doing the killing is in immediate danger from the person being killed.

[theredpen]

43. Oh, Really?

But say you want normally good people to slaughter their neighbors. For that you need religion.

Really? OK. Prove it.

Find one — one — example of people killing other people (i.e. not in-group) in an instance where religion was the motivating factor. Tribal conflict, political factions, territory, resources or other economic gain must not be a factor in this example.

If your claim is even remotely accurate, you should be able to find at least one example where religion is the sole factor in the conflict. Happy hunting.

My recommendation is that you return to spewing cliches, stereotypes and unfounded claims — oh, and be smug about it. The smugness really helps a lot.

[jgraz]

52. Oh my. I truly think you grew up on a different planet from the rest of us.

Have you heard of a thing called The Crusades? You might want to look that one up.

And BTW, I'm already on to the ridiculous sophistry of your "sole reason" criteria. That would be like me asking you to point out a conflict where NO ONE was using religion as a justification. Both are equally absurd.

However, anyone with the barest knowledge of history can come up with an almost unlimited number of conflicts where the major motivation was religion -- especially when it comes to convincing the general populace to sacrifice their sons to the cause. You can look those up yourself; I won't insult the intelligence of the rest of the readers by listing them for you.

[theredpen]

61. I agree: Planet Earth

Have you heard of a thing called The Crusades?

At first, he Crusades were a military mobilization to in response to Arab incursions into Europe, i.e. a territorial and tribal dispute. Later they became entirely political in nature. Not a single one of the many Crusades was launched for purely religious reasons — religion was just used as propaganda. If you believe that the Crusades had something to do with religion then you must also believe that we have troops in Iraq because Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons.

That would be like me asking you to point out a conflict where NO ONE was using religion as a justification.

What were the religious underpinnings of:

• The American Revolution
• The War of 1812
• The American Civil War
• The Mexico-America war
• The Spanish-American War
• WWI
• WWII
• The Korean War
• The Vietnam War
• The Iraq War

Certainly, there were plenty of people who claimed that God was on their side but religion was not cited as a factor in any of those conflicts.

However, anyone with the barest knowledge of history can come up with an almost unlimited number of conflicts where the major motivation was religion.

Would you be one of those people with "the barest knowledge of history" because I came up with 10 completely secular conflicts and you haven't come up with one completely religious one.

[Occulus]

66. Well, YOU'RE flat wrong: here's what Britannica Online has to say about the Crusades

I'll trust a decades-old encyclopedia before I trust you.

military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by Western Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. Their objectives were to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land, to conquer pagan areas, and to recapture formerly Christian territories; they were seen by many of their participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins. Between 1095, when the First Crusade was launched, and 1291, when the Latin Christians were finally expelled from their kingdom in Syria, there were numerous expeditions to the Holy Land, to Spain, and even to the Baltic; the Crusades continued for several centuries after 1291, usually as military campaigns intended to halt or slow the advance of Muslim power or to conquer pagan areas. Crusading declined rapidly during the 16th century with the advent of the Protestant Reformation and the decline of papal authority.

Wow. I don't think it's more possible to be more wrong on a position than you are.

[theredpen]

68. The encyclopdeia agrees with me.

military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by Western Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion.

Tribal and territorial.

Not religious.

they were seen by many of their participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins.

Right. And our military efforts in Iraq are seen by many as a means to spread freedom and democracy and fight terrorism. Nothing to do with oil, right? As I said, propaganda to generate popular support.

The religious divisions were a side-effect of the ethnic divisions. As a matter of fact, Crusading activity that when into Eastern Europe ended up pitting Roman Catholics against Eastern Orthodox Catholics.

What you've quoted supports my contention that the Crusades were a conflict about territory wages between two competing tribes. You're so committed to this myth that you can't even parse your own citations. Religion wasn't any more a factor than language or skin color; the Crusades wouldn't have occurred had the residents of the Arabian peninsula stayed on it.

[Occulus]

109. Where I come from, that post is called "cherrypicking"

because you cheerfully ignored everything there that didn't agree with you.

Welcome to my ignore list. You're being intentionally obtuse and I simply don't have the patience for it.

[theredpen]

110. Ironically, I was accusing you of the same thing

I didn't say that the Church wasn't involved in the Crusades, I said that the basis of the Crusades was territorial conflict. That citation — every bit of it — supports my claim.

[jgraz]

71. Wow, you're looking for an education in rhetoric, history and theology tonight

I made an intentionally absurd statement, yet you still insist that you're able to address it. Yet, once you claim to have addressed it, you admit that "there were plenty of people who claimed that God was on their side", completely destroying what you just said before.

The task was constructed to be impossible, as you so aptly demonstrated. However, there are a few on your list that are such obvious violation of even your more stringent criteria that they must be addressed:

• The American Civil War: Religion was used both as a justification for keeping slaves and for their emancipation.


• WW1: You're kidding, right? The core of the European powerkeg was Bosnia Herzegovina and their religious tensions


• Korea & Vietnam: Have you ever heard the phrase "godless communism"?


• Iraq: Too ridiculous to even bother

Keep trying, though. You're bound to have a fact right one of these days. Hell, random chance will help if nothing else.

[theredpen]

79. This is interesting

The American Civil War: Religion was used both as a justification for keeping slaves and for their emancipation.

That's nice, but the American Civil war was fought to preserve the Union, not end Slavery. Slavery was a bit issue in the war, but it was purely economic and political. Religious arguments for and against slavery had nothing to do with that war.

# The core of the European powerkeg was Bosnia Herzegovina and their religious tensions

The "religious tensions" in the Balkans had nothing to do with the outbreak of WWI. France, England, Germany, and the United States were not sucked into a religious war, nor did one break out. The conflict was ethnic.

Korea & Vietnam: Have you ever heard the phrase "godless communism"?

Are you seriously suggesting that Korea and Vietnam were fought to keep Southeast Asia from becoming atheist?

Iraq: Too ridiculous to even bother

More proof by assertion. If this is such an easy one, why don't you get into it? The reason we are in Iraq is oil. Last I checked, oil was not a religion (even in Texas).

I really have no idea what you think you're demonstrating. I asked for someone to provide a single example of a purely religious war, and none has been provided. I provided a list of 10 purely secular wars and all you've done is point out that many of the people who fought these wars were religious. This is not at all the same thing as claiming that religion was a factor in the conflict.

[jgraz]

85. Changing the rules again, eh?

You really should try just losing one argument at a time.

[theredpen]

93. No.

I made one request. It hasn't changed. It has been met, either.

[Deep13]

105. There's no doubt that religious people do humanitarian things.

Anyone with a conscience in their position would have done the same. This does not prove the existence of God or that religion encourages good behavior.

It is a good thing they were Buddhist and not Evangelical Christian. Then St. Paul's requirement that we must respect our government as an agent of God may have prevented their intervention.

[Rage for Order]

118. I'm not so sure, Deep

"Anyone with a conscience in their position would have done the same."

It's been nearly 20 years since the last uprising in Burma. The Buddhist monks initiated this latest uprising with their peaceful protest. Why hasn't any other group in Burma been willing to stand up and speak out during that time? We see a similar situation in China: the only group that is unafraid to speak out and openly defy the government are the followers of the Falun Gong movement. And what of Rev. Martin Luther King? Or Gandhi? This isn't to say that only religious people have convictions or a conscience, but it does seem that, in totalitarian countries particularly, these types of things often begin with a religious movement.

[LanternWaste]

89. I would think the deadliest virus created...

I would think the deadliest virus created by mankind would be governments, but that's just me...

[theredpen]

97. Do the math

Add up all the mass murder ostensibly done in the name of religion and you will come no where near the body count belonging just to Mao Tse-Tung. Then add Stalin and Tojo. The deadliest "memes" in human history are authoritarianism (includes fascism, Maoism and Stalinism) and imperialism. Authoritarianism as practiced in China and the Soviet Union was an explicitly secular operation. Imperialism has been pursued under a religious banner, but that's just window dressing — it about power and wealth.

[Avalux]

13. Impossible. Virus can't live outside the body for more than a couple of minutes.

Also impossible the drugs could be contaminated. That man should be stripped of his title and thrown in jail. :grr:

[JackBeck]

104. Not true.

Hepatitis A can live in water for up to 100 days. And Hepatitis C can live outside of the body for up to 4 days.

[Avalux]

108. I meant HIV - didn't specify though. It's very weak compared to Hep viruses.

:hi:

[JackBeck]

111. Thanks for the clarification.

:hi:

[theredpen]

15. Various African leaders seem compelled to spread myths about HIV and AIDS

I can't understand why. The most common one is that AIDS is not pathogenic, or that HIV isn't the pathogen. (There is non-HIV AIDS, but HIV does cause AIDS).

In a way, this guy is downright progressive for Mozambique, since he's admitting that HIV causes AIDS. President MBeki of South Africa has the temerity to question whether HIV causes AIDS while so many of his people are dying from it.

[Deep13]

22. You have GOT to be kidding.

Other people in his neighborhood lie, so this monstrous deception is not that bad. And the Church accuses atheists of moral relativism!

[theredpen]

24. I was kidding.

You're a genius.

[DemGa]

16. What sickness has emanated from that institution

for so very long...

[LittleClarkie]

21. It ain't gonna be pretty when he goes to meet his maker

Eesh.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

23. Teaching abstinence only IMHO is probably doing a good enough job at causing genocide. eom

[Rage for Order]

28. Where do people come up with this stuff?

If it was the official position of the Catholic church we'd hear about many more people than this one guy saying this. This kind of stuff is akin to those who claimed the US gov't bombed the levees during Katrina, or filled both of the Twin Towers with explosives over a period of a couple of weeks and synchronized them (and nobody noticed any of this) in order to create a controlled demolition that would cause the buildings to collapse into their footprints. Some people just aren't all there.

[Deep13]

106. "...we'd hear about many more people than this one guy saying this..."

Yes, the U.S. media coverage of the so-called third world is pretty extensive. That condom are evil is the official position of the RC church. They have been spreading the lie for years that the AIDS virus can pass through them. This is only the most recent example of that lie.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Horse with no Name]

36. completely impossible

Since HIV doesn't live on inanimate objects such as condoms.
You have to have body fluid-body fluid contact.

[jgraz]

39. Remember, this is a guy who believes in transubstantiation

Thinking that HIV lives in condoms is the least of his problems.

[theredpen]

44. Why is believing in transubstantiation a problem? n/t

[BlooInBloo]

46. Why *indeed*?

[KAZ]

51. It's all a bunch of TX bullshit.. Nothing good ever came...

... from there. Must be a Montezuma kind of thing.

My apologies to the DU faithful from TX.. Just a little snark.

[BlooInBloo]

55. Hm. I know plenty of good things that come from TX. to each his or her own.

[Richard Steele]

54. Because it's childish nonsense that doesn't actually exist?

A silly fairy tale told to people who don't
grasp the concept of "metaphor" even when
Jesus himself used one?

Just a guess.

[theredpen]

64. What do you mean it doesn't actually exist?

I saw a Priest perform Epiklesis just last Sunday. What I imagining things?

[Richard Steele]

87. Are you actually saying you didn't understand that simple sentence?

[theredpen]

99. No, I'm saying that you're wrong.

You said that "it doesn't actually exist." Transubstantiation exists. Seen it done hundreds of times, at least. Go visit a Catholic Church next Sunday and you can watch the Priest perform Epiklesis yourself. I don't understand how you can say something doesn't exist when it happens right in front of you.

[Richard Steele]

100. Clearly, speaking with you serves no useful purpose, so I'll stop. You have a nice day. nm

[theredpen]

101. Clearly I'm... what?

That's it? You make a claim that something exists and when I point out that it happens every Sunday, you just throw up your hands any leave? Are you seriously incapable of dealing with a counter-argument?

If I tell you that the world is round, I'm fully prepared to support my claim, even though the roundness of the Earth is a well established fact that people usually don't require convincing. You act as though your statements about Transubstantiation are equally established facts, but you aren't able to support them with an argument. Maybe that's because you don't really have one.

[jgraz]

60. It demonstrates a propensity to accept ridiculous notions

in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[theredpen]

65. What evidence to the contrary of what claim? n/t

[jgraz]

72. Aw jeez, if you can't keep up, nobody's going to want to play with you

I'm gonna catch some zzz's. Maybe you'll have figured it out by morning.

[theredpen]

81. If you have a point, make it.

Do you actually have any specifics are do you actually believe that a bunch of handwaving and going "you know" constitutes a valid argument? You're making creationists look good.

[Bozita]

58. Religion gone wild!

I don't want to see the video.

[Truthiness Inspector]

67. This is John Kerry's fault

His wife was born in Mozambique.

:crazy:

[WildEyedLiberal]

73. LOL

:thumbsup:

It's all a part of the Skull and Bones plan to wipe out the Third World!

[DemBones DemBones]

74. An AFRICAN Catholic archbishop -- if YOU were

African, would you trust white Europeans as a group?

If you were African-American, would you trust white Europeans or Americans as groups?

More than a few black Americans believe that the government engineered the virus to kill off a lot of black people, here and in Africa, and that the CIA brought cocaine into black neighborhoods.

Don't be too sure none of this is true. Governments have experimented on their own people before and genocide has been a reality all too often.

[Prophet 451]

75. Laugh or cry?

I can't decide whether to laugh at the absurdity of the statement or cry at teh deaths it will cause.

[Junkdrawer]

107. Overpopulation is KILLING the planet, and the Catholic Church...

feels justified is spreading false rumors to slow birth control.

Just fucking great.