Is religious tolerance a bad idea?

[ponderingturtle]

That is indeed the question. My guess is that the answer is darned close to 0.

Does it matter if it is non catholic, but abstenice only as all of those are largely for religious reasons?

This is an anti religion thread not anti catholic, so the catholic church is just one example of the bad effects that religion has.

And if you add in the US budget deficit and its effect on interest rates, then it really proves the case.

The OP was about the Catholic Church and its contraception policy.

No the op was that religion does many evil things that should not be tolerated. The US for religious reasons does the same thing as the catholic church, so why would only one get counted

In my humble opinion, there is a strong element of "I don't like them so I will blame them for everything" in the OP.

Nothing wrong with spreading ignoreance and miss-information in your book I see.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I keep bringin up skin pigments, this is the third time.

Knowning about pigmentation does not disprove the idea that god damned all darker skinned people and marked them as evil, that is just the physical explanation of how the physical effect is achieved.

Knowing about skin pigmentation does not disprove that it is the mark of cain

 

[IllegalArgument]

How would people classify soviet or chinese communism?

There is no god-heaven-nirvana in communism but it certainly was used to justify the killing of millions of people.

As for Elliot's comment about population growth and religion.

The Chinese had to impliment "one child" policy to crub their population group and they certainly don't go to church.

 

[Meadmaker]

This is an anti religion thread not anti catholic, so the catholic church is just one example of the bad effects that religion has.

The "case in point" from the OP was the Catholic Church and the AIDS epidemic in Africa. I suppose there are plenty of other "cases in point" that could be used as an example of religions and bad things. From the title of the thread, I actually expected a thread about Muslim extremists.

Instead, the only example of a case of something we should not tolerate was the Catholic Church somehow suppressing information about AIDS prevention.

There are many, many, things done in the name of religion that cause all sorts of human suffering, and I don't think we should tolerate those. However, in my humble opinion, preaching against birth control isn't one of them. It is at worst silly. The teaching is widely ignored anyway. It doesn't cause AIDS.

Nothing wrong with spreading ignoreance and miss-information in your book I see.

There's plenty of ignorance and misinformation to go around. Some of it is even spread by atheists.

Could you cite an example of misinformation the Catholic Church spreads, in relation to AIDS? I know they say that God doesn't like promiscuous people, homosexuals, or contraceptives, but since I don't have a direct line to God, I don't know that I could call that misinformation. It is at worst unconfirmed speculation.

They also say that promiscuity and homosexuality contribute to AIDS. That isn't misinformation at all. They also say that condoms are not perfect protection against AIDS. No misinformation there. They, and the US government, say that the only perfect protection against STDs is abstinence. That might not be realistic, but it isn't misinformation.

As for ignorance, you can accuse the Catholic Church of not giving people information, but then again, there are lots and lots of people who are not giving African people information about AIDS. I myself haven't spoken to any Africans about the subject, or contributed any money to anyone who does. I doubt that McDonalds has given out any AIDS information in Africa, either. Their food may cause lots of African deaths, but not due to AIDS. I think McDonalds and Pope Benedict are equally culpable when it comes to African AIDS.

 

[tkingdoll]

McDonalds send missionaries to Africa?

 

[Tanstaafl]

How would people classify soviet or chinese communism?

There is no god-heaven-nirvana in communism but it certainly was used to justify the killing of millions of people.

There are many non-religious reasons for killing people. I don't think that's relevant to the thread. This is specifically about the dangerous effects of religion, that is where it is the religious ideas themselves that are used to justify violent and/or repressive acts. The fact that non-religious ideas can also do this does not excuse religion.

But I guess you could make the point that eliminating religion would not eliminate such things as genocide, and I would agree with that.

 

[Tanstaafl]

I think McDonalds and Pope Benedict are equally culpable when it comes to African AIDS.

I'm sorry, I think that is just too ridiculous to even bother refuting.

 

[IllegalArgument]

There are many non-religious reasons for killing people. I don't think that's relevant to the thread. This is specifically about the dangerous effects of religion, that is where it is the religious ideas themselves that are used to justify violent and/or repressive acts. The fact that non-religious ideas can also do this does not excuse religion.

But I guess you could make the point that eliminating religion would not eliminate such things as genocide, and I would agree with that.

That's exactly the point I was making.

I'm not interested in execusing religion, I just want to make sure people don't assume religion is the only source of "evil".

 

[scotth]

I think that if we could get a solid majority of the population to learn to think critically in every aspect of their lives, it would be amazing how far we would come in wiping out many of the evils of this world.

Religion is one of many things that deserves to be squarely in the cross hairs. Religion is the most likely thing to convince someone that it is in their own self interest to commit any type of suicide attack. And don't just look at Muslims. Martyrdom has a long history with Christians as well. That idea has fallen far enough from favor in the more progressive areas that many there don't even realize it is part of their tradition any more. But plenty still believe even today.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That's exactly the point I was making.

I'm not interested in execusing religion, I just want to make sure people don't assume religion is the only source of "evil".

Certainly not. It's also no use saying that religion does a lot of good to, in addition to the evil. The comunnity, compassion, charity, and other nifty c-words people associate with religion can happen without imaginary beings and pompus priests telling people what to do. Religion has nothing unique to offer.

 

[ceo_esq]

Well, our resources are inequitably consumed primarily by the wealthiest populations, not the neediest ...

Right. That's certainly part of it. Yet this suggests that the real problem isn't that we can't feed or clothe the world's current population; just that we don't.

More older people and fewer younger people is an arguement for a more secure and better regulated health care and social security system not an arguement in favor of religion.

No one's using it as an argument in favor of religion, but the solution to precipitously dropping birth rates in those countries is not (at least not entirely) better government regulation of healthcare or social security. Either mass immigration (with whatever downside that entails) or having more babies is going to be required at some point, I should think.

How many people have suffered and died as a direct result of religious beliefs, either their own, or those of the person inflicting the suffering?

It's very difficult to say, but my best guess is that, albeit substantial, it's a smaller number than the number of people whose suffering has been mitigated or whose deaths have been avoided as the result of religious beliefs, at least in the West.

Firstly, calling it an "epistle" is deeply insulting.

I'm not sure why this should necessarily be deeply insulting, given that an epistle (per OED) is simply "A communication made to an absent person in writing; a letter. Chiefly ... applied to letters written in ancient times, esp. to those which rank as literary productions, or ... to those of a public character, or addressed to a body of persons." It does not seem unreasonable to describe Randi's weekly Commentaries as epistles. Then again, people determined to take umbrage generally manage to achieve that result one way or another.

 

[Meadmaker]

McDonalds send missionaries to Africa?

No, they send business people to Africa, and sell hamburgers. However, they don't provide education on condom use. Neither does Pope Benedict.

 

[Tanstaafl]

No, they send business people to Africa, and sell hamburgers. However, they don't provide education on condom use. Neither does Pope Benedict.

The Catholic church actively discourages people from using condoms, despite knowing that they are effective in slowing the spread of AIDS.

 

[Meadmaker]

The Catholic church actively discourages people from using condoms, despite knowing that they are effective in slowing the spread of AIDS.

To blame the church for an AIDS death, you would have to find someone who:

Died of AIDS.
Contracted AIDS from sex with an infected partner.
Refrained from using a condom because of the church's teaching on condoms.

In other words, they were either engaging in promiscous sex, or possibly monogamous sex, but with a promiscuous partner. However, despite engaging in promiscuous sex, they would have to adhere to the teachings of the church on condom use. If they didn't use a condom because they, or their partner, didn't like them, that's a different story altogether. And of course, the infected partner had to catch AIDS from someone, which would have involved him not using a condom during that sex, either.

So, first, we have to find someone who follows church teachings on contraception. Whether in North America, or Africa, such people are rare. Very few Catholics actually go along with church teaching on contraception. However, not only that, but you have to find someone who is engaging in some sort of sexual practice that would result in AIDS transmission, with a person who has AIDS, and who would have used a condom, except for the fact that the Pope said he wasn't supposed to.

How many such people are there, these swinging dudes and dudettes who are obedient to the Pope, not on matters of sexual behavior in general, but just when it comes to contraception?

Balanced against this, you might find that church teaching might influence some people who, even though they use condoms, might remain monogamous, or at least have fewer sex partners in an attempt to be a bit more spiritual in the use of their bodies. If you are going to blame the Pope for AIDS deaths, I think he should get some credit for AIDS prevention among those who are influenced toward chastity or monogamy through the teachings of the church.

In my humble opinion, it seems very likely that the number of AIDS deaths prevented by Catholic teaching on monogamy and related sexual matters is greater, by a long shot, than the number of AIDS deaths caused by the few people who engage in disease-causing sexual activities, but will refuse contraception because of religious teachings.

 

[Tanstaafl]

It seems to me that your claim was equal culpability between McDonalds and the pope. I presume you meant that the pope is not to blame at all.

The pope does actively attempt to discourage people from using condoms, independent of whether the sex involved is within marriage. Granted, his efforts probably have a limited effect, particularly given a dearth of information, limited funds, maybe limited availability of condoms, etc. And we certainly can't pin any particular AIDS death on the pope.

But he is nonetheless actively discouraging people from using condoms.

McDonalds is doing nothing at all.

You really consider those equal?

 

[Meadmaker]

It seems to me that your claim was equal culpability between McDonalds and the pope. I presume you meant that the pope is not to blame at all.

The pope does actively attempt to discourage people from using condoms, independent of whether the sex involved is within marriage. Granted, his efforts probably have a limited effect, particularly given a dearth of information, limited funds, maybe limited availability of condoms, etc. And we certainly can't pin any particular AIDS death on the pope.

But he is nonetheless actively discouraging people from using condoms.

McDonalds is doing nothing at all.

You really consider those equal?

Pretty much, yeah. If he were encouraging people to go to orgies and not use condoms, you might have a point. However, if people follow the Pope's teaching, they won't get AIDS. If they follow only some of the Pope's teachings, I find it hard to believe that the part they keep would be the part about not using condoms.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

So, Meadmaker, telling people they will burn in hell forever if they use a condom doesn't equal discouraging condom use to you?

 

[Meadmaker]

So, Meadmaker, telling people they will burn in hell forever if they use a condom doesn't equal discouraging condom use to you?

I know it is difficult, ID, but please try to read what people write instead of putting words in their mouths.

Here's what I said. I'll type slow.

If you follow Catholic teaching, you won't get AIDS. If you only follow some of Catholic teaching, I think it is inconceivable that there are any measurable number of people who choose to engage in promiscuous sex, thus making them high risks for AIDS acquisition, but who would refrain from using a condom because of church teaching.


On the other hand, I do think that some people, influenced by the church, will refrain from promiscuous sex, thus reducing the spread of AIDS.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I know it is difficult, ID, but please try to read what people write instead of putting words in their mouths.

Here's what I said. I'll type slow.

If you follow Catholic teaching, you won't get AIDS. If you only follow some of Catholic teaching, I think it is inconceivable that there are any measurable number of people who choose to engage in promiscuous sex, thus making them high risks for AIDS acquisition, but who would refrain from using a condom because of church teaching.


On the other hand, I do think that some people, influenced by the church, will refrain from promiscuous sex, thus reducing the spread of AIDS.

Your above quoted post is irrelevant to my question.


Does, or does not, the Catholic Chruch condem condoms and the people who use them?

 

[slingblade]

If one followed all the teachings of Catholicism, one would not get AIDS, because one would: be a virgin; not be promiscuous; not need to use condoms because one was virginally monogamous and had sex only with one's partner; and married one's partner before engaging in sex...is that basically the argument?

Doesn't this assume that marriage either guarantees one's partner is AIDS-free, or that marriage cures AIDS I guess, or that both people know their own AIDS status before marriage, or that one partner isn't lying, or that only sex spreads AIDS, or that if you've been pure all your life, you can't possibly have gotten AIDS, say by transfusion, or birth, or some other vector, and....

Doesn't this position assume a lot?