All Religion is Bad.

[articulett]

Remember, threats of hell haven't exactly kept priests in control of their own sex lives... this scientific ignorance spread with the notion that pushing abstinence makes people abstain has been proven false. It doesn't work. The church is against birth control and abortion. Most females who contract the disease were not consenting participants in the sex act and the babies born with AIDS did not consent either. When ignorance and lies and dancing around science and the truth and proffering superstition leads to vast amounts of human suffering--I think it's time to shed the inhibitions about sharing frank facts about AIDS...how it is spread... who is vulnerable and what people can do to protect themselves and their unborn offspring.

Religion is responsible for the huge expense and absolute failure of abstinence programs in America. The CDC and WHO knows what works--information, education, and condoms-- not religion. Fear of hell might keep people from buying a condom or trusting a condom but it won't stop the primal instinct that made their ancestors successful progenitors of the populace of today. Pretending to care or pretending it's no big deal is just hollow when yet another baby soon to be orphaned is born with AIDS. All the rhetoric and idealism and semantics doesn't ease the real suffering of human beings due to ignorance, superstitions, lies, fear of hell, and someone claiming to know what god wants.

And what do you suppose a teen girl who is pregnant is likely to do to support her impending child and/or her recently orphaned brothers and sisters. She'll prostitute herself... and feel awful doing it... but there aren't a lot of choices--and it's better to sell it for something than to have people take it. And the cycle continues. If people just trained the sex workers and those who visit sex workers to use condoms every time so it was as de riguer as it is at Nevada Brothels, then what a huge difference it could make. But instead there is shame, and misinformation, and lies, and threats of hell and promises that god will take care of everything if you just follow his rules. Moreover, many of these women couldn't enjoy sex even with a sensitive partner because of FGM (which increases the risk of HIV infection as well).

Sure, lots of educated Catholics don't take the Pope seriously...wealthier and educated people don't fear hell... don't "need" heaven to make up for a hellish life... and don't need the church to feed them in exchange for their allegiance. AIDs has such a stigma in Africa that people don't get tested and don't admit to having it and don't talk about it--and I do blame religion for that. Science has some answers. Religion never has.

 

[Herzblut]

The quote I made was directly followed by the linked source in which the further qualification was given.

No, it wasn't.

Why be contrary purely for the sake of being objectionable?

Stop speculating about my motives. You have no access to my mind.

After saying that Christophe Pierre made a statement last year discouraging young people from using condoms,

You said this. And why?

Do you believe that his comment is true? No. His argument is false and can be dismissed.

How do you know this is his complete and unique argument? Because this was in the 90 seconds tiny bit that BBC left over from his one-hour interview? Please demonstrate that his statement was part of a vatican "misinformation campaign", as you said. Does anybody issue campaigns in blatantly snipped BBC interviews? Why did he and others protest against the broadcast when the BBC had allegely expressed his opinions in a correct way, as you seem to imply? Again: please quantify the damage he has allegedly caused.

That is what the failure rates mean.

Oh. You mean the Pearl Index in surveys of 100 woman-years of exposure.

Do you really think a failure rate of 10% means that every time you have sex there is a 10% chance of failure? Wow.

Sure, when surveyed people have had sex only once a year. If they have had sex three times a week, the chance is ..eh.. can you help out?

With regards to the perfect use strawman - this is a moot point you keep clinging to - even with a 10%-15% yearly failure rate, due to the specific spread of HIV through general population by multiple sexual partners and societal and physical realities, it is an incredibly important part of the fight against HIV/AIDS.

How incredibly important? For instance, what proportion of the population has to consistently and correctly all-time apply condoms for all/marital/high-risk sex in order to reduce the country's prevalence rate from - say - 10% to 8%? The failure rate is irrelevant here, you say?

Abstinence only programs have been shown in scientific studies to have no effect on HIV/AIDS rates both in the developing and developed world.

Your refererence is valid only for the USA. Which other countries have executed such a weird program, just fmi?

of course. But it's rather naive to assume that they won't happen.

It's equally naive to assume consistent condom use will always happen.

However I can show you plenty of "abstinence only" programs which are carried out contrary to scientific knowledge.

Really? Show me some.

This is the crux of the matter - should the response to HIV/AIDS be governed by scientific knowldege or by dogma?

By effectiveness.

Herzblut

 

[ceo_esq]

If you believe that every catholic who disagrees with the vatican with regards to contraception is "not a true Catholic" then I think you'd find more "not true Catholics" than "true Catholics"

Possibly. But I didn't suggest anything along those lines. The particular group in question disagrees with the Vatican on abortion and a host of other things as well, has been characterized by the U.S. bishops as not a Catholic organization, is under formal interdict in at least one U.S. diocese, is funded essentially by non-Catholic support, and curiously appears to have no known membership to speak of. What Jews for Jesus is to Judaism, CFFC seems in some ways to be to Catholicism. I frankly don't know where one ought properly to draw the line between what is and is not a Catholic group; I merely question whether the line should really be drawn in such a way as to include CFFC within the former category. It seems so antithetical to the intuitive notion of a "Catholic group", so hostile to the Church, and so suspiciously like a front for non-Catholic and even anti-Catholic concerns, that one cannot help but wonder whether the term "Catholic group" can serve any useful conceptual purpose at all if it is so broad as to encompass CFFC.

 

[andyandy]

How do you know this is his complete and unique argument? Because this was in the 90 seconds tiny bit that BBC left over from his one-hour interview? Please demonstrate that his statement was part of a vatican "misinformation campaign", as you said. Does anybody issue campaigns in blatantly snipped BBC interviews? Why did he and others protest against the broadcast when the BBC had allegely expressed his opinions in a correct way, as you seem to imply? Again: please quantify the damage he has allegedly caused.

why does it have to be his complete and unique argument? What he said is categorically wrong. This is the relevant point. The Catholic Church followed up that with a report on sex and condom use which again misrepresented scientific evidence for dogmatic purposes. It was authored by..... Trujillo!

The Vatican has published a document which says condoms have holes in them, allowing HIV - the virus that causes AIDS - to pass through.
The document, called Family Values versus Safe Sex, is a detailed and passionately argued defence of the Church's position on condoms.

Its author, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, serves as the President of the Pontifical Council for the Family and is known for his hard line stance against contraception.

It goes so far as to suggest that condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV/AIDS.

The document claims that so-called safe sex using condoms is like playing "Russian Roulette."

"Leading people to think they are fully protected..." the document says, "is to lead many to their death."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3845011.stm

You can see the deeply misleading way in which the report was constructed by looking at the deconstruction of his "evidence." This is not scientific. This is starting with a conclusion "contraception is bad" and then looking around to find "evidence" to support that notion. Please read this source then still defend Trujillo as someone who was simply misinterpreted. Please read that and argue that this report does not constitute a disinformation campaign.

You ask to quantify damage in a wholly disingenuous manner - He is a person in a position of authority who made comments and then published a report which wholly misrepresented scientific evidence. That is damage enough. A person with significant moral authority who indulges in such actions inevitably spreads misinformation as a result - which serves to undermine successful integrated approaches to HIV/AIDS. You seem to wish to argue that this can not be proved because there is no connect between misinformation espoused by Trujillo and the undermining of an integrated approach. This is baffling.

Sure, when surveyed people have had sex only once a year. If they have had sex three times a week, the chance is ..eh.. can you help out?

The "failure rate" is not calculated in such an ad hoc manner. If the failure rate is calibrated relative to a norm of say 200 episodes of sex a year then having sex once a year does not mean that you still have the same 5% chance of failure as someone who has sex 200 times. This is basic school maths stuff.

How incredibly important? For instance, what proportion of the population has to consistently and correctly all-time apply condoms for all/marital/high-risk sex in order to reduce the country's prevalence rate from - say - 10% to 8%? The failure rate is irrelevant here, you say?

The WHO report that using condoms correctly reduce the rate of HIV infections by 90%. What is your obsession with a perfect strawman? Please repeat - condoms are not perfect. They serve as part of an integrated approach. All the overwhelming scientific evidence supports this.

Your reference is valid only for the USA. Which other countries have executed such a weird program, just fmi?

study referenced within the article

This review complements a systematic review of abstinence based programmes in developing countries, which found only one trial of an abstinence only programme. This trial did not find significant effects on sexual behaviour.8

O'Reilly KR, Medley A, Dennison J, Sweat MD. Systematic review of the impact of abstinence-only programmes on risk behavior in developing countries (1990-2005). Toronto, Canada: International AIDS Conference, 2006.

and more studies just published

Is there a role for abstinence only programmes for HIV prevention in high income countries?
A robust systematic review finds no evidence that such programmes reduce risky sexual behaviours, incidence of sexually transmitted infections, or pregnancy

The systematic review in this week's BMJ by Underhill and colleagues brings valuable insights to a highly contentious issue: whether abstinence only (as opposed to abstinence plus) programmes can stop, delay, or decrease sexual activity and prevent HIV infection.1 This question is important because 38 million people are currently infected with HIV but, despite 25 years of research, we still have no vaccines to prevent HIV infection. Furthermore, HIV prevention has become a politically charged issue because funds from the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) can be used for abstinence only programmes, but cannot be used for other safer sex strategies, needle exchange, or instructions for using condoms. Is this an effective use of public funds?2

A previous review of abstinence only programmes in the developing world, presented at the 2006 international AIDS meeting,3 found little evidence that they were effective in changing sexual behaviour and preventing

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.39245.446586.BEv1#REF8

and with regards to a condom/non condom comparative....

A reexamination of HIV seroconversion studies suggests that condoms are 90 to 95% effective when used consistently, i.e. consistent condom users are 10 to 20 times less likely to become infected when exposed to the virus than are inconsistent or non-users. Similar results are obtained utilising model-based estimation techniques, which indicate that condoms decrease the per-contact probability of male to female transmission of HIV by about 95%. Though imperfect, condoms provide substantial protection against HIV infection. Condom promotion therefore remains an important international priority in the fight against AIDS.

http://www.salud.gob.mx/conasida/preven/condon/pinker01.htm

It's equally naive to assume consistent condom use will always happen.

stop with this strawman! How many time? Condom use is not perfect. It will not stop all HIV/AIDS cases from ever happening - it is however recognised by rational individuals supported as it is by overwhelming scientific evidence as providing an essential part of an integrated approach.

By effectiveness.

ok - the most effective approach is an integrated approach.

 

[Kahalachan]

I think what I say in my signature sums it up.

Religion isn't entirely bad. It's just used the wrong way.

If kept personal, if it never overrides reality but only deals with metaphysics, if it retreats in the face of rational understanding and evidence, if it's understood to be an expression of creativity and not fact, I can't fault religion at all.

 

[andyandy]

Possibly. But I didn't suggest anything along those lines. The particular group in question disagrees with the Vatican on abortion and a host of other things as well, has been characterized by the U.S. bishops as not a Catholic organization, is under formal interdict in at least one U.S. diocese, is funded essentially by non-Catholic support, and curiously appears to have no known membership to speak of. What Jews for Jesus is to Judaism, CFFC seems in some ways to be to Catholicism. I frankly don't know where one ought properly to draw the line between what is and is not a Catholic group; I merely question whether the line should really be drawn in such a way as to include CFFC within the former category. It seems so antithetical to the intuitive notion of a "Catholic group", so hostile to the Church, and so suspiciously like a front for non-Catholic and even anti-Catholic concerns, that one cannot help but wonder whether the term "Catholic group" can serve any useful conceptual purpose at all if it is so broad as to encompass CFFC.

ok - i wasn't aware of the history of the group. I'm personally an advocate of the self-descriptor notion of religious labels, though this does get woolly around the edges

 

[quixotecoyote]

ok - i wasn't aware of the history of the group. I'm personally an advocate of the self-descriptor notion of religious labels, though this does get woolly around the edges

That works well for most religions, but when you run into groups like the Catholic Church or the CoS, you can delineate much more clearly because there's a central organization that sets membership rules.

 

[Herzblut]

why does it have to be his complete and unique argument?

Right, andy. Whatever you say.

What he said is categorically wrong.

No, it isn't. Just because the crappy BBC blokes poked around this "hole in condomns" affair, it doesn't make it any significant. Fallacy of bad reason, it's called. As a matter of fact, even correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV transmission by only 85% relative to risk when unprotected (Wikipedia:Condom). I wonder what might be the typical, actual risk reduction for - say - Southafrican men. What do you think? It is in general not invalid to create awareness about this risk, is it?

Please read this source then still defend Trujillo as someone who was simply misinterpreted.

That's no valid source. I prefer to read the Trujillo report, not its BBC cartoon.

Please read that and argue that this report does not constitute a disinformation campaign.

A single "reflection" is by no means a campaign.

You ask to quantify damage in a wholly disingenuous manner -

This is grotesque. I am asking for data supporting your far-reaching judgments. And you blame me instead while not being able to find such data. Insane.

He is a person in a position of authority who made comments and then published a report which wholly misrepresented scientific evidence. That is damage enough.

Not at all. Accusing somebody to cause harm based just upon what he said is unacceptable.

You seem to wish to argue that ..

Stop reading my mind! You are totally incapable of doing so.

The WHO report that using condoms correctly reduce the rate of HIV infections by 90%.

I don't understand what you say here. The infection rate of a population is reduced by 90% by doing what?

Herzblut

 

[Herzblut]

However I can show you plenty of "abstinence only" programs which are carried out contrary to scientific knowledge.

Really? Show me some.

study referenced within the article

This review complements a systematic review of abstinence based programmes in developing countries,
Awesome finding, andy!
which found only one trial of an abstinence only programme. This trial did not find significant effects on sexual behaviour.
Oops..

O'Reilly KR, Medley A, Dennison J, Sweat MD. Systematic review of the impact of abstinence-only programmes on risk behavior in developing countries (1990-2005). Toronto, Canada: International AIDS Conference, 2006.

and more studies just published
Don't give up, andy! There must be plenty of "abstinence only" programs!

As with previous reviews, our analysis is based on findings of trials that enrolled US youths, despite a systematic search for methodologically rigorous evaluations of abstinence only programmes from all high income countries. That we did not find trials outside the United States might indicate that such evaluations are inaccessible by existing search methods or that abstinence only programmes are not popular HIV prevention strategies in other high income countries. The second possibility seems likely, given the sensitivity of our search and previous reviews suggesting that abstinence based approaches are rare outside the United States.
Oh...

Well, andy, I appreciate your work, but didn't you brag a little here? Hmm?

Herzblut

 

[andyandy]

No, it isn't. Just because the crappy BBC blokes poked around this "hole in condomns" affair, it doesn't make it any significant. Fallacy of bad reason, it's called. As a matter of fact, even correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV transmission by only 85% relative to risk when unprotected (Wikipedia:Condom). I wonder what might be the typical, actual risk reduction for - say - Southafrican men. What do you think? It is in general not invalid to create awareness about this risk, is it?

You dispute that Trujillo published the Family Values versus Safe Sex report? You dispute that Trujillo actually misrepresented scientific information?

A single "reflection" is by no means a campaign.

A published report is not a reflection.

Not at all. Accusing somebody to cause harm based just upon what he said is unacceptable.

Why? If I am in a position of authority and tell people to stop wearing seatbelts because they are immoral, can you say that my actions are not harmful? How about if I spread misinformation as to the effectiveness of seatbelts through misrepresenting scientific information?

I don't understand what you say here. The infection rate of a population is reduced by 90% by doing what?

Using condoms correctly. This has been explained a number of times.

 

[andyandy]

This is what I said

Originally Posted by andyandy
However I can show you plenty of "abstinence only" programs which are carried out contrary to scientific knowledge.

Don't give up, andy! There must be plenty of "abstinence only" programs!

ok.

Review methods Two reviewers independently applied inclusion criteria and extracted data, resolving disagreements by consensus and referral to a third reviewer. Randomised and quasirandomised controlled trials of abstinence only programmes in any high income country were included. Programmes aimed to prevent HIV only or both pregnancy and HIV. Trials evaluated biological outcomes (incidence of HIV, sexually transmitted infection, pregnancy) or behavioural outcomes (incidence or frequency of unprotected vaginal, anal, or oral sex; incidence or frequency of any vaginal, anal, or oral sex; number of partners; condom use; sexual initiation).

Results The search identified 13 trials enrolling about 15 940 US youths. All outcomes were self reported. Compared with various controls, no programme affected incidence of unprotected vaginal sex, number of partners, condom use, or sexual initiation. One trial observed adverse effects at short term follow-up (sexually transmitted infections, frequency of sex) and long term follow-up (sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy) compared with usual care, but findings were offset by trials with non-significant results. Another trial observed a protective effect on incidence of vaginal sex compared with usual care, but this was limited to short term follow-up and countered by trials with non-significant findings. Heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis.

Conclusion Programmes that exclusively encourage abstinence from sex do not seem to affect the risk of HIV infection in high income countries, as measured by self reported biological and behavioural outcomes.

here are 13 trials straight off.

Here's 100 from which those 13 were taken.

Several million children ages 9 to 18 have participated in the more than 100 federal abstinence programs since the efforts began in 1999. Waxman's staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs apiece.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html


100 programs.

More for the developing world?

The systematic review in this week's BMJ by Underhill and colleagues brings valuable insights to a highly contentious issue: whether abstinence only (as opposed to abstinence plus) programmes can stop, delay, or decrease sexual activity and prevent HIV infection.1 This question is important because 38 million people are currently infected with HIV but, despite 25 years of research, we still have no vaccines to prevent HIV infection. Furthermore, HIV prevention has become a politically charged issue because funds from the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) can be used for abstinence only programmes, but cannot be used for other safer sex strategies, needle exchange, or instructions for using condoms. Is this an effective use of public funds?2

A previous review of abstinence only programmes in the developing world, presented at the 2006 international AIDS meeting,3 found little evidence that they were effective in changing sexual behaviour and preventing

and more

What are abstinence-only HIV/AIDS programs?
Abstinence-only programs (also known as abstinence-until-marriage programs) teach young people that abstaining from sex until marriage is the only way to prevent sexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). These programs withhold or distort information about any other HIV-prevention strategy besides abstinence, including safer sex and the use of condoms. They ignore the risk of HIV transmission within marital relationships and fail to provide information so that couples can protect themselves.
Where are abstinence-only programs being sent?
Abstinence-only programs are the main youth HIV-prevention strategy under U.S. President George W. Bush’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). While these programs could be sent to any country where the U.S. funds HIV-prevention, to date the U.S. has recommended sixteen “focus countries” to which most PEPFAR money will go. These are Botswana, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guyana, Haiti, India, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam, and Zambia.

How much is the U.S. spending on these programs?
The legislation authorizing PEPFAR, the United States AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act (2003), requires that at least 33 percent of all spending on HIV-prevention go to “abstinence-until-marriage” programs. The act authorizes the expenditure of U.S. $15 billion over five years, of which 20 percent (U.S. $3 billion) can be spent on prevention. If one-third of this prevention budget goes to abstinence-until-marriage programs, that would equal U.S. $1 billion spent on these programs over five years.

http://hrw.org/campaigns/aids/2005/uganda/facts.htm

How many examples do you want? Obviously more than 100 is not sufficient, so I wonder what you consider plenty.

 

[Herzblut]

You dispute that Trujillo published the Family Values versus Safe Sex report? You dispute that Trujillo actually misrepresented scientific information?

Answer my questions:
- doesn't high-risk sex with condoms carry a significant danger of HIV infection for the individual?
- is it illegimate to point out this risk?

A published report is not a reflection.

FAMILY VALUES VERSUS SAFE SEX
A Reflection by His Eminence,
ALFONSO CARDINAL LÓPEZ TRUJILLO

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...31201_family-values-safe-sex-trujillo_en.html

Why? If I am in a position of authority and tell people to stop wearing seatbelts because they are immoral, can you say that my actions are not harmful?

Why? Nobody would take you serious.

Using condoms correctly. This has been explained a number of times.

You don't understand the difference between simple figures per individual and effective social strategies for policymakers. And how to get from one to the other.

Herzblut

 

[andyandy]

I will also provide details with regards to country specific abstience programs. Perhaps this will be sufficient?

A third part of the PIASCY initiative is to target children and young adults who are not receiving HIV/AIDS information in the classroom.

snip

At one rally held in Arua in October 2004, during a session linking HIV/AIDS and good governance, the speaker stressed the achievements of the Movement system in fighting HIV/AIDS and warned that should there be a change in government, there may be an escalation of Uganda’s AIDS epidemic.122 Youth were informed that the president’s pursuit of a third term stemmed from popular demand. According to a summation of discussions held among young people at the rally, youth in attendance recommended, “The youth of West Nile Region join other citizens of Uganda in calling for…an open term limit for the Office of the President.”123

At the same rally, various speakers informed participants that “condoms are becoming extremely unsafe, that is why emphasis is shifting to Abstaining and Be Faithful,” and “using a condom with a person with these [sexually transmitted] diseases is like using a parachute which opens only 75% of the time.”124 Participants were also told that “sex should only be in marriage,” and that “there is an 80% chance of death during labour if one conceives below the age of 18.”125

As with other PIASCY programs, providing misleading information on the efficacy of condoms, promoting marriage as a foolproof HIV prevention strategy, and proving false information on maternal mortality denies young Ugandans their human right to accurate health information. Equally troubling is the apparent political motive of these rallies and their promotion of the movement system and the president’s strategy for a third term in office.

Faith-based organizations promoting abstinence

Aside from programs provided under PIASCY, a number of nongovernmental and faith-based organizations in Uganda are increasingly receiving support from the U.S. and Ugandan governments to promote abstinence to youth. Many of these faith-based organizations are represented by individuals or churches linked to fundamentalism, a rapidly growing brand of Christianity in Uganda particularly attractive among young people.

Approximately 60 percent of Ugandans are Christian; while the Catholic church the largest denomination, it has been estimated that 25 percent of Ugandans identify with fundamentalist churches.128 The U.S. global AIDS strategy notes that “faith-based and community-based groups . . . have established excellent prevention programs in the [area] of abstinence promotion” and that “FBOs [faith-based organizations] are in a strong position to help young people see the benefits of abstinence until marriage and support them in choosing to postpone sexual activity.”129 In December 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush issued an executive order establishing a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the U.S. Agency for International Development, the purpose of which was to remove any obstacles to community and faith-based organizations’ participation in USAID programs and promote their involvement “to the greatest extent possible.”130

snip


Uganda Youth Forum

Perhaps the best known abstinence advocate in Uganda is Janet Museveni, the wife of President Museveni. Mrs. Museveni has been an outspoken advocate for virginity for many years and has described abstinence as the perfect blending of Christian teachings and traditional African values. In 1991 Mrs. Museveni founded the National Youth Forum, an organization whose principal activity is to organize retreats in which boys and girls sign commitment cards to remain “sexually pure” until their marriage day. According to the Youth Forum, more than 70,000 youth have signed these cards since 1992.132

Coupled with Mrs. Museveni’s pro-abstinence stance is her anti-condom advocacy. On numerous occasions, the first lady has publicly lashed out against organizations that support condom use for young people, arguing that these organizations promote sex among children. She has claimed that condoms are not safe in preventing HIV and STIs and that she supports an exclusive message of abstinence and faithfulness for Ugandans. As an HIV prevention strategy, she has called for a national census to determine the percentage of children and young adults who are virgins, the percentage who have practiced “secondary abstinence” (abstinence among those who have already been sexually active), and the percentage that are sexually active.133

snip

Makerere Community Church

Another leading advocate of abstinence-only programs in Uganda and an author of the Uganda AIDS Commission’s draft “AB” policy is the founder and pastor of Makerere Community Church, Martin Ssempa. Known for his charismatic brand of fundamentalist Christianity, Pastor Ssempa has, on various occasions, spoken out against homosexuality, condoms, Islam, and women’s human rights. The community church’s student drop-in center on the campus of Makerere University, known as the White House, provides counseling, meetings, musical entertainment, and a “deliverance room” where students ostensibly possessed by Satan can “exorcise their demons.”143

Speaking at an abstinence rally in December 2004, Pastor Ssempa reportedly stated, “We are promoting abstinence because Uganda is under attack from an agenda driven by homosexuals and Western experts.”144 Ssempa has compared his fight against the Islamic faith in Uganda to the United States’ invasion of Iraq.145 In late 2004, he called for re-baptizing the vice-President of Uganda whom he alleged to have made a covenant with a witchdoctor.146

snip

Family Life Network

The Family Life Network is a private non-profit organization that since 2002 has provided “values-based” sex education to some 130,000 students in 400 Ugandan schools. One of the main activities of the Network is to encourage students to sign “True Love Waits” cards, in which they pledge abstinence until marriage. Since the network began working in secondary schools in 2002, 72,000 students have signed these cards.

In an interview with Human Rights Watch, the executive director of the Family Life Network, Stephen Langa, stated that the four goals of the Network were to “bring back faith in the marriage institution,” to “show the dangers of sexual involvement,” to “warn children on the dangers of globalization, such as pornography,” and to “ask children to make a commitment to abstinence.” These interventions, Langa said, were rooted in the notion that AIDS is a “moral disease” and that “as long as we use technological means to treat moral issues, we will lose many lives.”148 The Network’s goal was “not just to prevent HIV,” Langa said, but “to have responsible citizens. People who know hard work, people who plan. People who are going to make good marriages and good families.”


snip

The Family Life Network is funded by both local and foreign donors, as well as individuals. According to Langa, the Network received 76 million Ugandan shillings (U.S.$38,000) from the Geneva-based Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to provide educational and behavior change activities. The Global Fund is a multilateral public-private partnership that takes contributions from wealthy nations and channels them through government-led “country coordinating mechanisms” in recipient countries such as Uganda. The Network has reportedly received no money from the United States through PEPFAR but, according to Langa, are “exploring possibilities to receive funding from the U.S.”150 Langa is also an author of the Uganda AIDS Commission’s draft “AB” policy.

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/uganda0305/5.htm#_Toc98378375

 

[andyandy]

Answer my questions:
- doesn't high-risk sex with condoms carry a significant danger of HIV infection for the individual?
- is it illegimate to point out this risk?

This is such a weasly question. By high risk if you mean not using condoms correctly then this is of course of greater risk than if you use condoms correctly. But this is still part of your perfect strawman. No one claims that condoms are perfect - and people should absolutely be aware of the need to use them correctly - which should be done through sex ed. But Trujillo made scientifically innaccuate statements. He was not "just pointing out" that one must use condoms correctly, he was saying that even if you use condoms correctly, the HIV virus could pass through the latex holes. This is simply wrong.

FAMILY VALUES VERSUS SAFE SEX
A Reflection by His Eminence,
ALFONSO CARDINAL LÓPEZ TRUJILLO

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...31201_family-values-safe-sex-trujillo_en.html

ok, it was titled "reflection" - it is still a published document by the president of the Pontifical Council for the Family.

Why? Nobody would take you serious.

*sigh* If one speaks as a moral religious authority then unfortunately people do take you seriously. That is the problem.

You don't understand the difference between simple figures per individual and effective social strategies for policymakers. And how to get from one to the other.

Show me the effective social strategies for policymakers that do not involve an integrated approach. Why do you wish to ignore the WHO, UN, MSF and other organisations who do understand effective social strategies and all disagree that abstinence only programs are effective?

I really don't see the point of continuing to this "debate" - you wish to dismiss every single scientific study or NGO report on the matter, you pretend that Trujillo was misrepresented in his views, you cling to a perfect use strawman even though no one is arguing for it, and you fail to offer anything to support your position despite overwhelming evidence that integrated approaches are the best method for tackling HIV/AIDS.

If you believe that a person in a position of high religious moral authority and by extension societial and political influence can wilfully misrepresent scientific studies with regards to contraception in order to validate a long held anti-contraceptive agenda. And that this will have no effect at all upon undermining integrated HIV/AIDS programs, and that as such, such an individual should accept no responsibility whatsoever for his actions then so be it.

 

[Herzblut]

here are 13 trials straight off.

Here's 100 from which those 13 were taken.

100 programs.

Yeah, yeah, US school programs. Given.

More for the developing world?
...
I will also provide details with regards to country specific abstience programs. Perhaps this will be sufficient?

Sorry? PEPFAR contains abstinence-only elements but it isn't merely abstinence-only. And in Uganda "emphasis is shifting to Abstaining and Be Faithful" which has nothing to do with abstinence-only neither.

Herzblut

 

[RandFan]

You make an empirical claim. Provide evidence by e.g. demonstrating that amongst all people practicing high-risk sex the prevalence/infection rate shows a bias towards Catholics. (Because of the alleged additional negative "moral influence of the church" that does not act upon non-Catholics.)

That the Catholic Church is considering changing a long standing practice of forbidding condoms is clear enough.

Point, what point?

That the Catholic Church realizes that there is a problem with their stance on condom use. If there was not there would be no reconsideration.

 

[qayak]

And in Uganda "emphasis is shifting to Abstaining and Be Faithful" which has nothing to do with abstinence-only neither.

Incorrect. Abstinence is for people before they are married, and Be Faithful is for those who are married.

"A" programs and "A and B" programs are exactly the same when it comes to premarital sex.

Herzblut, Andyandy pwns you. Give up before he takes a switch to your backside!

 

[RandFan]

In theory, yes, but that's not a relevant distinction. I never specified anything about the anti-automobile campaigners; feel free to assume that those who heed them believe they have all the moral authority you'd like. It doesn't affect any part of my argument.

It is a relevant distinction. The automobile is a false analogy for the reason I cite. That you don't specify anything about the campaigners is immaterial. If we assumed that the campaigners had the ability to make prohibition of driving and seat belt use a sin punishable by eternal damnation to those who bought the codswolop we would significantly change the dynamics.

I don't know what one does in those circumstances. But it seems to me that whatever one does then, one is acting against the express and vigorous counsels of the Church and that one's actions cannot therefore reasonably rest on the conscience of the Church.

• We know that people break rules in an inconsistent manner.
• We know that people who plan to follow the church's prohibition of fidelity or chastity DON'T take precautions and keep a condom in their wallet in the event they succumb to temptation.

Yes, but you are trying to do so by suggesting things like "It assumes that there is something besides the objective methods of modern medicine and health care", which I already pointed out has nothing to do with the term as I used and applied it. As I used it, there is a holistic way of critiquing a sales contract or a piece of tax reform legislation. Nothing to do with medicine or science at all.

The term is meaningless in that it assumes that other methods are not comprehensive or that they don't take the whole into account. To use the word is at best to say nothing and at worst to mislead.

 

[qayak]

That the Catholic Church is considering changing a long standing practice of forbidding condoms is clear enough.

That the Catholic Church realizes that there is a problem with their stance on condom use. If there was not there would be no reconsideration.

Randfan,

The catholic church is not changing.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06050502.html

(Dated: May 5, 2006) In an interview with Columbia’s Radio Cadena Nacional, Cardinal Trujillo said the Vatican “maintains unmodified the teaching on condoms” and said Pope Benedict XVI has not called for any studies on altering the prohibition against condom use.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry qayak,

Your last post reminded me that I had missed one of your posts.

Don't hold your breath. Cardinal Lopez Trujillo is now saying they were misquoted and there is no study being done and none was called for by the pope.

“There is a need to control births in order to avoid creating insoluble problems that could arise if we were to renounce our responsibilities to future generations. Increases in the life span and advances in medical care have made it unthinkable to sustain indefinitely a birthrate that notably exceeds the level of two children per couple. In other words, this is the requirement to guarantee the future of humanity.”

“Our planet is threatened by a multitude of interactive processes: the depletion of natural resources, climatic changes, population growth from 2.5 billion to over 6 billion people in just 50 years, rapidly growing disparities in quality of life, destabilization in the ecological
economy.”

Both of the above statements were made by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which is the official science academy of the vatican. Why then does the vatican not heed the advice given. Why does it fight all efforts to address the issues identified by its own advisors, including the UN, state governments, the EU, etc.

Why is the vatican so stoneage in it's thinking?