Author Options:

Rant numero # 2 Answered

Well after seeing the same commercial like 3 times in a row (don't ask, my cable company is dumb as hell) I got a little fed up. These commercials about donating money to save the animals, save the african children that happened because lack of control. Face it people, these people only want your money, why do you think there's so many different commercials and ads from so many different companies/organizations? We'll start with the money thing. They tell you it only costs a dollar a day or some silmilar bullcrap so you can save ONE child. Here's the catch, they usually tell you that 40 cents of each dollar or the such will be sent to africa/said child right? Well that 60 cents they keep probably can be safely said that it adds up to a profit, yes? Sad.... If I want to help a child out in africa, I'll put $20 or however much of their money (Go to a exchange building people!) in an envelope and mail it down to them africans, I'm not going to pay someone 60% of the total donation just to take it down there. That's BS, why are people so screwed up? But hey, some people are probably thinking, why would we help africans right? That's BS eh? Well yes and no. While helping out your fellow humans, it's about the nicest thing you can do and I expect you to do it, there is a point. There is a whole nation, and we're supposed to just lift them off the ground and feed them, clothe them and give them money. Why are there so many people that there isn't enough food, shelter, or said clothing in the first place? Lack of self control obviously and they need to realise that you can't just have 10 kids these days and it's all cool, due to the cost of things these days (or at least that's what the government wants you to think). It wasn't me that made the african make so many kids, why should I donate? There are many looks and points of views that can be taken and I guess it's the fact that everyone looks at things differently in some way that these organizations take advantage of that. I could be wrong, but hell, who wants to argue me?



lack of self control is not the issue, Africa is far less populated than North America, and has more natural resources by far. The issue is that local governments are horrendously corrupt and tyrannically self-serving, and the major industries are owned by foreign companies that remove all profit from the country, rather than feeding it back into their economy. Africa is one of the rest of the world's cash cows. as long as its milked by foreign nations, and not by its own people, its people will suffer. i'm certain you don't mail $20 to africa a month, because you have no method of identifying the poor. (not to mention that most people don't care enough to try) the charities doing work there spend significant amounts of money setting up the infrastructure to find the needy, and make sure the money stays helping them, rather than going to the governments... if you want a charity where more than 40% of the money goes to the needy, try "catholic relief services" more than 94% of the cash goes to the needy... I know I'm gonna get flack for mentioning a Catholic charity, but 94% !!! thats amazing.

At least the catholics can do something huh? (Note I don't capitalize "catholics" they don't deserve capitalization)

And why not ? =o)
Despite the priest of the church of my village was a pedophile, they're are not all so bad ...

I'd say it's because of the hypocrisy, the unwillingness to try and help because they're bound by ridiculous domga, etc.

"unwillingness to try and help because they're bound by ridiculous Dogma, etc." would you consider it wrong for a vegan charity not to give meat to homeless people? would it be wrong for a Hindi charity to leave beef stew off the menu? why, then, is it wrong for a Catholic charity to not distribute condoms. Sex is a choice, not a requirement, just as beef is a choice. also, please elaborate of the "Hypocrisy".

How about the bit where Catholic priests tell their congregations that condoms cannot stop HIV because the virus can get through the rubber, and that condoms frequently tear anyway.

Balance that against the Eighth Commandment (or the Ninth Commandment if you're not Catholic).

If I remember correctly, this was a single incident that you're referring to... I also mentioned this in an earlier post... yes, there are some members of the church who misunderstand science, and some who misuse an understanding of science to sway people, however, this is not an act of the church, but an abuse of power by an individual. All large groups have members who act against the tenets of the group. There are Calvinists who believe that the poor are poor because God hates them, and therefore Usury is acceptable, and giving to charities is wrong (it fights the will of god). There are Muslims who believe that bombing schools will bring them to paradise. These are not actions of a religion, but of individuals. There is NO ONE (including the POPE) in the Catholic Church who cannot speak lies in its name. (the papal infallibility has severe restrictions on when it applies) Should I bring up England's treatment of Ireland in the 1800s and claim that it proves that being British is an atrocity? Should I claim that all British citizens wish to hold the Indian Government in an Opium induced stupor and harvest Africa for slaves? Would you like everything stated by Dr Harold Shipman or Fred and Rosemary West to be held against Briton as a whole? The Catholic church has never stated that condoms don't work, there are "catholic" extremists who make that sort of claim, but they are a minute minority. The Catholic church opposes contraception for two reasons, neither of them related to the effectiveness of measures taken. Firstly, the Catholic church opposes any casual attitude towards sex. Sex is considered an act with a dual purpose: it strengthens the bonds of marriage, and it produces children. Psychological studies have confirmed that sex forms a psychological bond between the participants, and the more times that bond is formed and broken, the weaker it becomes, leading, in part, to a higher rate of failure for marriages in more promiscuous couples. Secondly, the Catholic Church proscribes to the traditional interpretation of "the Sin of Onan", which was the accepted interpretation for all of Christendom until the early 1900s. There was a council formed by the other Christian denominations where they re-interpreted the passage based on pressure from their followers to accept contraception. The Catholic church maintains the original translation which places emphasis on the sin of onan being "coitus interuptus".

The Catholic church has never stated that condoms don't work, there are "catholic" extremists who make that sort of claim, but they are a minute minority.

The claims that condoms don't stop HIV came directly from the Vatican.

You've already mentioned Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, claiming that condoms can't even stop sperm, never mind the HIV virus, but his claims are not based on condom failure - he says the polymer network of the rubber stretches out into an open net that lets the virus and sperm through.

The archbishop of Mozambique is still telling people condoms are being used to deliberately spread HIV.

The Muslims who believe suicide bombings earn them a place in paradise are taught that by their Imams. I've heard these people speak, and they were quite clear on the point.

The Irish mess was driven and fuelled by organised religion, not by British Politics, it was China where we as a national policy started a war to continue sales of opium (that's how we got Hong Kong - we stole it to use as a base to trade in opium), not India (we just grew it in India...).

African slavery was continued by most European countries, not just the UK, and slavery is still approved of by the Islamic religion in Chad, Mauritania, Niger, Mali and Sudan.

The examples of the Wests and Shipman were not driven by religion, just sex and greed, and were never condoned by any religion, unlike my examples above.

(I don't have any figures to hand about condom failure, but I have discussed it with members of the medical profession, and the consensus is that the failure of a condom to prevent infection or pregnancy is usually down to a failure in the education of the users - not knowing that you must withdraw soon after ejaculation, or that the condom must be fully unrolled, or that the use of non-water-based lubricants dramatically weakens the rubber, as does the presence of nicotine on the fingers when putting it on. It is also not very clever to put one on if you have long manicured nails - the sharp nails can split the condom, and the solvents still evaporating from recently-painted or glues nails also weaken the rubber.)

The simple fact is that the Catholic Church has lied, and continues to lie, about the effectiveness of condoms.

Oh, and according to this Christian website, "swingers" (openly promiscuous couples) are eight times less likely to get divorced than couples in a monogamous relationship.

Cardinal Trujillo is not stating that condoms stretch, he is simply making reference to two studies from the early nineties, that I, although I believe them to be likely incorrect, cannot find contrary evidence to. His statement there is not the church's official opinion, but his own, which he has severely restricted since that time. If you'll notice, the Vatican link provided by NachoMahma states the UCLA study's findings as a reason for more research and caution, rather than a flat truth. the archbishop of Mozambique is simply crazier than a loon, but so are many people in power in Africa. The two studies in question were UCLA's and The Mombasa Center's. Both state that a well made condom is extremely effective at preventing aids. however, many condoms on the market have extremely lax quality control. These defective condoms either contain minuscule holes to begin with, or develop them during normal stress caused by intercourse. These are possible issues with "new" condoms. Also, it is generally accepted that older condoms (that have been stored incorrectly) are much more likely to fail. Mineral animal, and vegetable oil can break them down, and they are much less safe for anal intercourse, as the stresses placed on the condom are much greater. It strikes me that the agreed upon risk factors for condom failure noted above are all extremely likely to be in play in Africa. Even disregarding the dubious study results, how are people living off aid packages going to properly store condoms and gain access to water based lubricants in addition to the insufficient lubrication already present on the condom? also, I still want to see a copy of "sex and the holy city". Are you quoting the Guardian's article or did you see it? Finally, where is the contrary evidence to the UCLA study? I can't find it listed anywhere. All I keep seeing is that the "consensus" view is that they work. Pardon me if this sounds accusatory, but in the 1100s the "consensus" view was that the earth was flat, despite the Greeks having shown it to be spherical more than a millennium before. I really want to see some numbers on this, as the "holes in condoms" argument has always seemed unlikely.

Cardinal Trujillo is not stating that condoms stretch...

Then what does this statement mean?

...the AIDS virus is 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom...

Granted the HIV virus is small, but it is far larger that the inter-molecular pores of a condom. Only gases like hydrogen and helium can easily pass through a condom.

Stop avoiding the issue of this sub-thread: the Catholic religion in general, it's official representatives, up to and including Papal advisers (I don't know about the current Pope himself, but he used to run the Inquisition and is an open anti-evolutionist, so I don't hold out much hope), has and does lie about the role of condoms in the prevention or transmission of HIV.

I'll re-join the thread when you have acknowledged the facts so that we can move on.

his statement, as far as I understand the more extended explanation of his sources given on the Vatican site, it that condoms often rupture on a tiny level during normal intercourse... this is not referring to "intermolecular pores", but to minuscule failures that may be caused by inconsistent thickness in the latex... as I've been stating, I do not necessarily hold with this theory, but there are real university studies that back it. as opposed to my comments, you appear to derive all of your anti-Catholic bile from a single source, the much touted "Sex in the Holy City" documentary. Try actually reading the information referenced, and finding auxiliary sources. Hell, just Google it. I have been researching constantly as I post. You, on the other hand, appear to simply be towing the Beebs line, without giving the issue serious thought. At the very least, I would not call the statements made by the Cardinal lies, because he sites (as far as I can tell) undisputed scientific, third-party studies. All you've cited is an article advertising a documentary containing a snippet of a sound-byte... THAT IS NOT AN INFORMED ARGUMENT. Find me the contradicting studies. Find me the facts that the Cardinal has access to that make his statements false. I may not be ready to fully support the idea that condoms are as commonly faulty as the UCLA study suggests, but I want proof of false statements before someone calls LIAR. You seem to want to Scream it from the rooftops, before even considering that, at the worst, this is an issue of the Cardinal putting too much faith in a (possibly) incorrect study. At the best, he may be right. Come back to this argument when you are willing to come armed with knowledge and facts, rather than blind hatred.

I have never seen the documentary, nor read the book. I have Catholic and ex-catholic friends.

Please, don't think I have it in for Catholicism in particular - I find the notion of any form of organised religion offensive.

For instance -

A friend was in a "bad place", emotionally, and was taken in by the local Baptists. The minister's family invited her round to their home for meals, they offered her counselling, she became a committed Baptist.

Some time later, she became romantically involved with a Catholic man whose wife had left him (all her fault). The Baptists were OK with that until they got engaged and tried to set a date for the wedding. They declared that she could not get married at the Baptist Church because her boyfriend was catholic, and therefore not a Christian. They dropped her like a hot potato, just because she had the temerity to find love outside their congregation.

They went to the boyfriend's Priest. Around this time, the boyfriend's wife divorced him, because she wanted to marry her new man. As soon as his priest found this out, he refused to marry them because, he said, the boyfriend had automatically excommunicated himself by allowing his wife to divorce him (the priest hadn't cared when they were just separated), and said he was no longer welcome in a catholic church. Besides, said the priest, you can't marry a Baptist, they're not actually Christians.

I have a strong religious upbringing. I have had close experience of several denominations (christian and otherwise) for almost four decades now, and their attitudes towards things outside their church.

I have never seen any good come of a religion. Individuals with a personal faith, yes, but never the organised version of religion.

As soon as somebody tries to tell somebody else how they should express their belief, faith becomes religion and loses all pretence to a relationship to whichever god you are talking about.

Your responses indicate a definite "left foot" leaning, and your evasiveness smacks of a Jesuit influence. I assume, then that you are going to continue avoiding the facts, and this conversation has lost all purpose.

Ego terminus.

so, an off topic anecdote against religion as a whole, and an insult at the end? how is this in anyway anything more than an Ad-Hominem attack to get you out of your Straw Man argument without addressing the issue? That aside, I'm sorry for your friend, but the priest either wildly misrepresented his situation or the friend misunderstood. The first issue at hand would have been rather there was a sacramental marriage between the man and his "ex" wife. If so, a divorce is not enough to allow a priest to witness a new union. There has to be cause for annulment... The Catholic church believes in marriage till death, rather than marriage till contract breach, which comes as a shock to many people, even though they have a mandatory (in most cases) pre-marriage counseling period of 6 months to help the individuals involved to understand the commitment they're making. The bit about not being able to marry a baptist is all wrong. It is harder to have a "mixed religion" marriage in the Catholic church, but not impossible. The issue in this example is that divorce simply is not enough, without proof for annulment, the man cannot remarry in the church and as a catholic should have known that. I don't blame the church, but the man who lead your friend on, knowing fully that in his religion he was still married. "I have never seen any good come of a religion." - Catholic Relief Services, Mother Teresa, all of the homeless shelters and soup lines that are run by churches... I think what you meant was, "I have seen bad things done in religion's name". Yes, bad things are sometimes done in the name of religion, but that does not necessarily reflect on the religion itself. When it comes to personal beliefs versus organized religion, the biggest issue at hand is humility. Why do we believe that as individuals we, and only we alone, can understand the higher forces of the universe? If there is a God, and if he cares what we do, it is illogical to assume that he spoke his words to you and you alone (unless he physically spoke to you). Therefore, at least one class of religion must be based in accuracy. Is it not also an ego trip to believe that one can go back to the origins of the religion and interpret it personally, getting everything perfectly? In any event, your mind was closed to religion before this discussion ever occurred, and you seem to have made no effort to open it enough for even a single google of the facts mentioned. ta

also, The quote you've mentioned by the Cardinal I believe was made in reference to a very famous photograph that was taken as part of the UCLA study that shows the view one of the ruptures with a spermatozoa and an HIV virus for scale... the hole is approximately the same size as the sperm's head, and MUCH larger than the virus. You will commonly see it distributed with anti-condom propaganda, commonly with the caption, "Will it fit?". Just to gain some context.

> His statement there is not the church's official opinion, but his own, ... . Hmmmmm. It's posted on The Vatican web site and I didn't notice any only-the-author's-opinion disclaimers. It sure _looks_ official to me.

also, to note the swingers statement, swingers are not what I'm referring to. A monogamous bond does not exist in those couples. I'm referring to individuals who are promiscuous before marriage, but plan to settle down to monogamy. I should have clarified that I was referring to its impact on monogamy, rather than just marriage.

I also wanted to ask about Alfonso Cardinal López Trujillo's statements regarding condom failure. I have seen these claims and their disputes commonly from both religious and non religious circles, and I've always wondered where the numbers come from. It appears that there was a UCLA study in 1992 regarding condom failure that found holes of "significant" size in 29 brands of condom, including somewhere around 20% of Trojans. on the WHO site, condoms are listed as 90% effective against aids in real world use, however they state that there is a 10-14% real world failure rate for condoms in pregnancy control (no sources cited). Wouldn't that make the efficacy rate 86-90%, rather than 90%? however, the Planned Parenthood (a group i find unpleasant to say the least) website, claims a 70% efficacy (no sources cited). in addition, all real world testing i have found mentioned is US based, where the common nature of circumcision may show a significant decrease in transmission (up to 67% by one study). Also, why do all figures inevitably come with the warning "these numbers apply to heterosexual intercourse only"? Where are the consensus figures? Where are the canonical studies? Why is one side relying on a single study, and the other giving such wildly contradictory figures? Why isn't more research and less propaganda by both sides easily Googled? Does anyone have a copy of the BBC's "Sex and the Holy City", that I could borrow? All I've seen are articles citing "The Guardian"s story that appears to be more of a press release for the upcoming documentary than a full account of the interview. I really want a full transcript of the interview.

> Also, why do all figures inevitably come with the warning "these numbers apply to heterosexual intercourse only"?
. Because most of the studies are done with hetero couples, would be my first guess. It's hard enough to get approval to do valid studies about anything connected with sex; throw gay into the equation and ppl tend to go ballistic. If it involves teens (a high risk group), you may as well forget it. One can get approval/funding, but there's LOTS of resistance.

. Wow! I like the way you write. I'm not a religious person, but one of my pet peeves is ppl confusing Religion and things done in the name of Religion. I've even met ppl that claim to be atheistic because of such abuses - as if that has anything to do with whether or not a God exists.
> the more times that bond is formed and broken, the weaker it becomes
. Does that mean that every time someone has sex with their spouse, they are less attracted/bonded to them? Or am I reading it wrong?

by "broken", I'm referring to separation, such as a break-up or divorce... this is one reason why rape is so traumatizing.

. I have to agree with ya on this one, G. I don't necessarily agree with the policy, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect any person or group to support something they think is wrong. Whether or not I think it is wrong doesn't really matter. . Vendigroth, as I've stated before, I'm no fan of the Catholic church (or any other church), but to expect perfection of any human endeavor is only setting yourself up for disappointment. In any group of ppl, there will be a certain percentage of bad apples. In a group as large as the Catholic church even a very small %age means a lot of bad apples. This small %age does NOT represent all Catholics. In my experience, the ratio of good apples to bad apples amongst Catholics is pretty much the same as for any other group.

Yes indeed; Minor overreaction on my part, my appologies.

Awe now come on, you watch/read some of David Icke (Google/youtube him up man) then try flagging this comment.

According to Wikipedia (about David Icke) :
In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the Illuminati are a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie.

Is this man a really serious reference to you ??

Hmm, well like he says, YOU don't have to believe him. And how come when he has shows, tonnes of people show up.

And how come when he has shows, tonnes of people show up.

If this is a question, then my answer is :
- Maybe because "tonnes" of peoples like "sensational" stories ...

They are stories, they're information that he's been researching and gathering data about for 15 years or something like that, that's a long time to be devoted to what you believe in. What if it turns out he was right?

Last time I saw Icke on TV (he's British, unfortunately), he said that he had been ill and was wrong about the reptile bit. I heard recently though that he's on about them again. None of this is researched, though - it all came to him from a medium and navel-gazing. He also claims to be able to channel Christ directly and to be the son of God.

Where the hell do you get your infromation (yes your infromation). From what I've watched (a lot) he doesn't even believe in religions, it was thought up by man. So now why would he say he is son of god?

I keep a weather eye on prominent loons or religious types with dodgy views (YECs etc)

The man is as mad as a box of frogs - the "son of God" thing isn't new (google), it was 1991when he held a press conference to tell the world he channelled "the Christ spirit", and said he was the son of God on a national chat-show later the same year.

(More google)

Oh goodness me - he's gone back to the reptile thing. I know he disowned it as an illness, because I watched the interview when he said it, but now he's on it again.

Note to self - there's always money in a mad conspiracy theory.

He goes out and talks to people though, the only time he makes money is when he has these press conferences that you have to pay to see. We all have different opinions of people, but I'm just saying from what I've heard him say, I agree with it, but yes, I probably haven't heard all of what he has to say.

Er, check his website, OK?

Read some of his articles - the reptilian agenda, shape-shifting Bush, mind-control chips. Good grief, he even uses Bob Dylan lyrics as evidence of a global conspiracy...

This is kind of an interesting discussion:
On one hand, he considered a loonytune and on the other He goes out and talks to people

Just thought I would make note of the, it's blue, no it's a supernova kind of discourse. LOL

LOL, I don't see how "he talks to people" is an argument that shows he's right. I mean, I'm talking to you - that doesn't mean I'm right, does it?

No, wait, scratch that line of argument...

as does holding a press conference that people are charged to see. Wins my
- vote LOL

Well, I'm Catholic, and that was wrong. You shouldn't generalize whole groups of people.

So then pointing to a group or a nation and saying "Those guys are all catholics!" that's okay right?

. That's way out of bounds. Flag on the play.

You sound like an angry school teacher I probably once knew (and forgot about) trying to scowl that poor kid because he threw a pebble at someone. Read my above post to "John Doe" and take me seriously here. Let me have my opinion.

. If you want me to take you seriously, referencing Icke is counter-productive. ;) There's a conspiracy under every rock, according to him. Didn't have to look him up - read some of his paranoid ramblings several years ago. . You are more than welcome to your opinion(s), but, IMNSHO, denigrating any group of ppl is a violation of this site's "be nice" policy. Not that I'm above a snipe every now and then, but I aim at individuals (and their acts), not groups (and their beliefs). Why don't we just blame all the Jews for killing Jesus, all the Germans for killing the Jews, and all the cranky old white guys (that's me) for slavery? Sorry, but I'm not one to damn the children for the sins of the parents.

That's true, but it's rather I think religion is a sin (reply to lower piece of your reply) But if you'd watch some of his shows, his presentations, like he says, he's not asking the audience to believe him one bit, but just to lend an ear. What he talks about makes a lot of sense. 20+ camera's going out when princess diana or whoever was "in a crash" years ago, all at the exact same time. With the government we have, coincidence eh?

> "catholic relief services" more than 94% of the cash goes to the needy . Even if you consider that a lot of their admin costs are hidden, that's fantastic. . > I know I'm gonna get flack for mentioning a Catholic charity . OK. I'll bite. Why would you catch flack for that? I'm not a big fan of the Catholic church, but from what I've seen and heard, CRS does some very good things.

CRS is a great charity, the reason i expect flack is the sort of comment Kiteman (sorry to drag you in man, I love your instructables) made above...

The idea that the Catholic church is evil because it does not support programs that directly contradict its doctrines is widespread. It is also often common for me to get the "child molester" line of comments when I mention my religion online.

sorry if this is long winded, but I just want to respond to the condom comment for a moment...

Firstly, Catholic charities won't disseminate condoms because the Catholic church is against contraception ( just as it denounces recreational sex). That should be straight-forward enough.

Secondly, even if you don't believe the "research" stating that latex condoms often contain tiny holes in the latex that are small enough to stop sperm, but not HIV virii (i personally find said "research" tentative at best), the real world failure rate (including misuse) of condoms for pregnancy prevention is 14% per year. that means that 14 out of 100 regular exclusive condom using couples will end up with a pregnancy on their hands in any given year. The odds of getting pregnant from a single unprotected encounter are 11%, so we can assume that for each pregnancy, there were at least 9 condom failures. that means that in that pool of 100 couples, if one partner of each couple is HIV positive, there are at lease 127 exposures to HIV a year.

Furthermore, these numbers only apply to heterosexual couples. In homosexual couples, the failure rates are much higher...

I, personally, think that handing the HIV positive population a condom and saying "happy hunting" is not sufficient. The ONLY way to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa is to educate the populace (raping virgins DOES NOT cure HIV) and teach abstinence (or at least limitation of lifestyle to a minimum of partners) to those afflicted with the condition.

anywho, that was MY rant...

once again, sorry Kiteman, i still love you (just not in that way).

. Well, for once, your title means exactly what it says. Here's a friendly suggestion: try learning a little bit about the subject before posting. I won't bother to point out all the errors in your post; schoppe, chooseusername, and Kiteman have already done a pretty good job.

This is what rants are about. People learning from me and my perspective on things and other's correcting me if I'm wrong, whats the matter in that?

Nothing is the matter with that, if you don't mind ending up with the short end of the stick many times. If you investigate first though, you might not get you blood pressure raised up so high about some things. :-)

True true, but that takes the fun out of things.

Ok, just keep it in mind as you age, it will some day be necessary to avoid "blood pressure" increases LOL