• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is religious tolerance a bad idea?

slingblade said:
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?
Click to expand...

Obviously, it's possible to follow the church teaching, and still get AIDS from an infected spouse. But, how often does that really happen?

Of course, it's possible to use a condom every time you have sex, and still get AIDS from an infected partner.

Here's a question I would like to see answered, by someone with knowledge on the subject. I don't know the answer, and I don't know if anyone knows the answer.

Suppose a 25 year old woman marries a 25 year old HIV positive man. They are both aware that he is HIV positive, so every time they have sex, they use a condom. They avoid particularly risky activities, but they have a normal sex life. They have sex as frequently as an average couple, always using a condom.

What is the probability that the woman will be HIV negative when she dies?
 
Meadmaker said:
Suppose a 25 year old woman marries a 25 year old HIV positive man. They are both aware that he is HIV positive, so every time they have sex, they use a condom. They avoid particularly risky activities, but they have a normal sex life. They have sex as frequently as an average couple, always using a condom.

What is the probability that the woman will be HIV negative when she dies?
Click to expand...

Quite low. Not zero by any means. But certainly more likely than not, she could remain HIV negative.

From this page: http://www.thebody.com/cdc/factcond.html

The protection that proper use of latex condoms provides against HIV transmission is most evident from studies of couples in which one member is infected with HIV and the other is not, i.e., "discordant couples." In a study of discordant couples in Europe, among 123 couples who reported consistent condom use, none of the uninfected partners became infected. In contrast, among the 122 couples who used condoms inconsistently, 12 of the uninfected partners became infected.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.
 
Thanks, Scott. I, too, did some searching, and found similar results. Most of the pages referred to studies, but didn't post the numbers from the results. Most said "highly effective", and similar words. However, unlike the study you posted, they all said that there was a non-zero transmission rate, even in the case of proper use. The most specific site said there was about a 1% chance per year that a non-infected woman would become infected if she and her husband consistenly used condoms correctly. (If anyone is curious about the numbers, I can try to find and link to the studies. I was just doing quick googling and browsing, so I didn't save the links.)

Ok, so let's consider the implications for the subject of this part of this thread, which is whether the Catholic Church teaching causes AIDS. In order to make that claim, you would have to say that the incidence of AIDS increases as a result of Catholic Church doctrine.

In the case of non-monogamous people, who the church would call fornicators, you have to assume that someone is willing to fornicate, but not willing to violate church rules on contraception while fornicating. In the case of married people, you have to assume that people are willing to risk the life of the non-infected partner rather than risk the wrath of God by using a condom. Since most people ignore the church teaching on condom use even when there is no health risk, that doesn't strike me as overly likely.

Furthermore, the church doesn't actually teach that married people should avoid condom use in that case. No Papal announcement on the subject has been made, and the cardinals who have spoken on the subject are divided. Most of the ones against condom use do not cite the church ban on birth control as justification, actually. Instead, they cite that there is a risk of disease transmission even with condom use.

Finally, if you are being fair tot he Pope, you would also have to factor in the possibility that some people, influenced by church teaching, modify their behavior in such a way as to reduce the risk of AIDS transmission. In other words, to be fair, you would have to give the Pope credit for preventing some cases of AIDS and weigh that against the small number of cases where AIDS might be transmitted as a consequence of adherence to Catholic doctrine.

In short, Catholic doctrine may be responsible for sexual frustration and feelings of guilt, but it doesn't kill people.
 
Meadmaker said:
In short, Catholic doctrine may be responsible for sexual frustration and feelings of guilt, but it doesn't kill people.
Click to expand...

Except the women who die in childbirth after having too many children, or the children who die of malnutrition because their parents had too many of them and can't afford to feed them all. It doesn't happen very much in so-called First World nations anymore...but then, First World Catholics tend to ignore the whole "no contraception" thing anyway. It certainly used to happen here. Not so long ago my family tree sounded like rabbits: "Mary Margaret had fifteen children: eight survived."

The "Rhythm Method" just doesn't work. That's what you get for getting sex tips from professional celibates.
 
Cello Man said:
I don't advocate extreme mindless bigotry such as running mini-vans with Jesus-fish stickers off the road
Click to expand...

That would probably not be a wise choice of action given they're still the vast majority of the population even in the bluest of states.
 
Meadmaker said:
Ah, yes. The Catholic Church teaches chastity outside of marriage, lifelong monogamy, heterosexuality, and no use of contraceptives. People follow this teaching, and, as a consequence, are dying of AIDS.
Click to expand...

Brutal evolution in action, which is odd, given it doesn't exist.
 
Actually, the pope does teach about condom use. He teaches not to.
 
Meadmaker said:
Thanks, Scott. I, too, did some searching, and found similar results. Most of the pages referred to studies, but didn't post the numbers from the results. Most said "highly effective", and similar words. However, unlike the study you posted, they all said that there was a non-zero transmission rate, even in the case of proper use. The most specific site said there was about a 1% chance per year that a non-infected woman would become infected if she and her husband consistenly used condoms correctly. (If anyone is curious about the numbers, I can try to find and link to the studies. I was just doing quick googling and browsing, so I didn't save the links.)

Ok, so let's consider the implications for the subject of this part of this thread, which is whether the Catholic Church teaching causes AIDS. In order to make that claim, you would have to say that the incidence of AIDS increases as a result of Catholic Church doctrine.

In the case of non-monogamous people, who the church would call fornicators, you have to assume that someone is willing to fornicate, but not willing to violate church rules on contraception while fornicating. In the case of married people, you have to assume that people are willing to risk the life of the non-infected partner rather than risk the wrath of God by using a condom. Since most people ignore the church teaching on condom use even when there is no health risk, that doesn't strike me as overly likely.
.
Click to expand...

Sure but they have to be aware that condoms help and have them available, and when you add bush and the catholic church supporting keeping both out reach for the person, they become alot more culpable.
 
Meadmaker, besides all the refutation of your general point that on condoms and the church....

Here is a quote from an interview with Sam Harris that cuts to the heart of it, "They preach about the sinfulness of condom use, in countries like Sudan, where millions of people die every year from AIDS. And, this really has a negative effect. This decreases the likelihood that condoms will be used in those villages." He was speaking of Christian missionaries in general and not specifically the Catholic church.
 
ceo_esq said:
Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church only pretends to be teaching people about "AIDS awareness"? Because nothing leads me to believe it's a pretense.
Click to expand...

Sure it is, if it was not they would give them the information and let them decide on the action instead of not telling them about how condoms can be effective
 
scotth said:
Meadmaker, besides all the refutation of your general point that on condoms and the church....

Here is a quote from an interview with Sam Harris that cuts to the heart of it, "They preach about the sinfulness of condom use, in countries like Sudan, where millions of people die every year from AIDS. And, this really has a negative effect. This decreases the likelihood that condoms will be used in those villages." He was speaking of Christian missionaries in general and not specifically the Catholic church.
Click to expand...

Well if Sam says it, it must be true.

But, why would non-Catholic missionaries be preaching about the sinfulness of condom use?
 
Meadmaker said:
Well if Sam says it, it must be true.

But, why would non-Catholic missionaries be preaching about the sinfulness of condom use?
Click to expand...

First we would need to know which non-Catholic missionaries are preaching about the sinfulness of condom use.

Without that information, it's all guess work.
 
These could very well be Catholic missionaries at this point. However, it was part of a larger statement that was not so constrained.

Since Sam did not associate his statement specifically with Catholics, I thought it fair to state so.
 
scotth said:
These could very well be Catholic missionaries at this point. However, it was part of a larger statement that was not so constrained.

Since Sam did not associate his statement specifically with Catholics, I thought it fair to state so.
Click to expand...

I agree, there are probably plenty of reasons for non-Cathlolic missionaries to be against condom use. I just figured it would be easier to figure out the specifics if we knew the denomination.
 
It seems much more likely to me that the Christian missionaries, including Catholic ones, were teaching "Condoms won't protect you against AIDS nearly as well as chastity will protect you against AIDS."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom