Lake Country Liberal

Victor…last year you wrote, or commented about, atheists being picked on. Though I have never seen this, I don’t doubt you one bit. However, since that time you have written or commented, like you have about our Pope, some very untrue and or disparaging remarks about our Pope and Christianity. Maybe you should stop wondering why some pick on atheists like you. More important, why don’t you act the way you would like to be treated.  Goes a long way.

I am not criticizing Benedict because he is a Catholic...I am criticizing him because for many people he is a moral leader, and he is providing false information that imperils lives.

But don't worry, Jim....I have the same respect for all religions.  That said, I differentiate between the respect I hold for people and the respect I hold for their belief systems.  I only ask the same.

Victor:  From the articles you cite:

"Central to these efforts are vast public information campaigns on how condoms can prevent AIDS." Meaning many people in Africa do not use condoms.  They are not educated on the use of condoms.  Yet, they continue to have sex - and not always within the scope of marriage.

To continue:  "But the Vatican's controversial policy on condoms continues to be tested on a continent where AIDS has killed more than 25 million people since the 1980s.

While medical workers advocate the use of condoms to help prevent the spread of AIDS, the Church insists on fidelity within heterosexual marriage, chastity and abstinence."

The Pope is advocating heterosexual marriage - sex between a married man and woman.  Of course the church also promotes chastity and abstinence.  Just imagine if Africans followed even one of the churche's teachings - AIDS and HIV would decrease substantially.  All the Pope is saying is that condom use, rather than address the problem, encourages the behavior that causes the problem in the first place.  Liberals like to address the after-effects of the actual problem, rather than the cause of the problem.  It's a very typical liberal response, which I don't fault you for.  

As for "immoral,"  wouldn't you say that murdering unborn babies is more "immoral" than promoting the use of condoms?  And for that very belief, I fail to see how our Pope is an "irresponsible moron" as you call him.

"The problem cannot be overcome by distributing condoms. It only increases the problem," the pontiff told reporters on board the plane headed for Africa.

I do not see what "murdering unborn babies" has to do with contraception.  Indeed, if sperm and egg have not met, does this not simply fall into the falsely interpreted command against masturbation, Genesis 38:8-10, the "spilling of seed" commandment?  Oh, before I forget, I saw a good joke..."though shall not spill thy seed into a gym sock and place it at the bottom of the laundry hamper."  I thought that was hysterical.

Now then...you quote the article at me like repeating Vatican policy is going to make me think it's right.  No.  It's not right.  People have sex.  People can spread disease through sex.  People can stem the spread of disease through sex with the use of condoms.  Advocating policy that works AGAINST, instead of WITH, human nature is idiotic...and moronic...and immoral.

Would the religulous minded anti-abortion people please tell me what happens to the "soul" of a fetus after it is aborted? Does it go to heaven? Go on. Please answer. What does your religiosity inform you on that account? Indulge me. Come on. Let's see what you can cook up.

Victor: You should be commended for only calling the Pope an idiot, he actually should be called a criminal. HIV/AIDS is a disease that is transmitted primarily by unprotected sex. It makes no difference if the couples are married or unmarried. The risk of transmission is the same. Being married by a priest/minister does not cure you of HIV if you are infected and having unprotected sex with your partner puts him/her as well as any children that may result in danger of acquiring AIDS. In countries where HIV/AIDS is prevalent, the only time that couples should be allowed to have unprotected sex, is after blood tests have been performed ruling out the presence of HIV/AIDS in either partner.  Having the Pope say that condom use does not help with AIDS is comparable to Charlton Heston say that having trigger locks on guns does not help in reducing accidental shootings.  

Breaking News! Papal pontifications mislead! In other news, the sun comes up in the east, grass is green and trees have bark.

Note, they even label him a pontiff...

pon⋅tif⋅i⋅cate

–noun

1. the office or term of office of a pontiff.

–verb (used without object)

2. to perform the office or duties of a pontiff.

3. to speak in a pompous and/or dogmatic manner: Did he pontificate about the responsibilities of a good citizen?

4. to serve as a bishop, esp. in a Pontifical Mass.

...item 3, Pompous and/or Dogmatic - gotta love it

Actually, Victor, I did not realize the last sentence of my comment was even there until it appeared once you posted it.  I meant to delete it - and did not even see it when I sent my comment in.  Sorry if it confused you and made you think I was quoting your stuff back at you, cuz I wasn't...

Anyhow, I see what the Pope is doing as addressing the root cause of a major problem.  It's akin to addressing drug abuse by starting at the head of the problem - the drug user.  A simple analogy for the "condom" so-called solution is to compare it to handing out free needles to drug users.  Rather than try to stop the problem of using illegal intravenous drugs, liberal politicians would rather hand out free needles so people don't get sick from dirty ones!  How goofy is that?  Why not try to stop the drug use?  And the Pope is right - why encourage people who have AIDS or HIV to have sex?  They could still infect anyone - even if they are using a condom - condoms do break.  It's like playing Russian roulette with other peoples lives.  If you are dying of AIDS - must you continue to sleep around or screw everything in sight, to put it bluntly?  No.  Totally reprehensible behavior - and the Pope is right to criticize such pro-sex " efforts that ignore the root cause.  So now in Africa, instead of flying over and dropping rice to feed the starving, we'll be dropping condoms....  Wow.  That should cure the problem....

@AMY:  First, I don't accept your sex/drug abuse analogy...anyone else have a problem with that?  Second, drug abuse treatment involves not just rehabilitative treatment but also public health actions to stem disease spread....aka, condoms and needle disbursement.  Finally, why should I accept sexual advice from an 80 year old celibate...what does he know about sex, anyway?

www.thenation.com/.../pollitt

There are many things to be said against condoms, and most people reading this have probably said them all. But at least they work. Not perfectly--they slip, they break, they require more forethought and finesse and cooperation and trust than is easy to bring to sex every single time, and, a major drawback in this fallen world, they place women's safety in the hands of men. But for birth control they are a whole lot better than the rhythm method or prayer or nothing, and for protection from sexually transmitted diseases they are all we have. This is not exactly a controversial statement; people have been using condoms as a barrier against disease as long as rubber has been around (indeed, before--as readers of James Boswell's journals know). You could ask a thousand doctors--ten thousand doctors--before you'd find one who said, Condoms? Don't bother.

But what do doctors know? Or the Centers for Disease Control, or the World Health Organization, or the American Foundation for AIDS Research (Amfar)? These days, the experts on condoms are politicians, preachers and priests, and the word from above is: Condoms don't work. That is what students are being taught in the abstinence-only sex ed favored by the religious right and funded by the Bush Administration--$117 million of your annual tax dollars at work. The theory is that even mentioning condoms, much less admitting that they dramatically reduce the chances of pregnancy or HIV infection, sends a "mixed message" about the value of total abstinence until marriage. How absurd--it's like saying that seat belts send a mixed message about the speed limit or vitamin pills send a mixed message about vegetables. Anti-condom propaganda can backfire, too: True, some kids may be scared away from sex although probably not until marriage; others, though, hear only a reason to throw caution to the winds. According to a 2002 Human Rights Watch report on abstinence-only sex ed in Texas, a condoms-don't-work ad campaign led sexually active teens to have unprotected sex: "My boyfriend says they don't work. He heard it on the radio." Why is the Bush Administration giving horny teenage boys an excuse to be sexually selfish? You might as well have high school teachers telling them using a condom during sex is like taking a shower in a raincoat.

Now it seems the Vatican is joining fundamentalist Protestants to spread the word against condoms around the globe. "To talk of condoms as 'safe sex' is a form of Russian roulette," said Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, head of the Vatican's office on the family. On the BBC Panorama program "Sex and the Holy City," Lopez Trujillo explained, "The AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom." That latex has holes or pores through which HIV (or sperm) can pass is a total canard. A National Institutes of Health panel that included anti-condom advocates examined the effectiveness of condoms from just about every perspective, including strength and porosity; according to its report, released in July 2001, latex condoms are impermeable to even the smallest pathogen. Among STDs, HIV is actually the one condoms work best against. "We're all a bit stunned by Lopez Trujillo's lack of respect for scientific consensus," Dr. Judith Auerbach of Amfar, who sat on the NIH panel, told me. "Where do his numbers come from?" Is Lopez Trujillo, who even suggests putting warnings on condoms like those on cigarettes, a loose cannon such as can be found in even the best regulated bureaucracies? According to "Sex and the Holy City," in Africa, where HIV infects millions--20 percent in Kenya, 40 percent in Botswana, 34 percent in Zimbabwe--Catholic clergy, who oppose condoms as they do all contraception, are actively promoting the myth that condoms don't prevent transmission of the virus and may even spread it. The Guardian quotes the archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki, as saying: "AIDS...has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms." Thus is a decade of painstaking work to mainstream and normalize condom use undone by the conscious promotion of an urban legend.

When the Nobel Prize for Peace was awarded to Shirin Ebadi, the first ever to a Muslim woman, an Iranian and a crusader for women's rights, not everyone was thrilled. What about Pope John Paul II, now celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of his election, and possibly near death? "This...was his year," wrote David Brooks in his New York Times column, a hymn of praise for the Pope as the defender of "the whole and the indivisible dignity of each person." A few pages over, Peter Steinfels said much the same in his religion column: "Is there any other leader who has so reshaped the political world for the better and done it peacefully?" More knowledgeable people than I can debate how much credit the Pope should get for the fall of Communism--I always thought it was Ronald Reagan with an unintentional assist from Gorbachev plus the internal collapse of the system itself. With the crucial exception of Poland, the countries in the old Soviet bloc aren't even Roman Catholic, or are so only partially. Whatever his contribution to that historic set of events, though, the Pope is on the wrong side of history now. Women's equality, sexual rights for all, the struggle of the individual against authoritarian religion and of course the global AIDS epidemic--the Pope has been a disaster on all these crucial issues of our new century. It's all very well for David Brooks to mock those who critique the Pope for his "unfashionable views on abortion," as if 78,000 women a year dying in illegal procedures around the world was just something to chat about over brie and chablis. But add it up: a priesthood as male as the Kuwaiti electorate--even altar girls may be banned soon, according to one recent news story--no divorce, no abortion, no contraception, no condom use even within a faithful marriage to prevent a deadly infection.

It's bad enough to argue that condoms are against God's will while millions die. But to maintain, falsely, that they are ineffective in order to discourage their use is truly immoral. If not insane.

Amy, oh my goodness..."The pope is right to criticize 'pro-sex' efforts"????

You do realize that sex has been around LOOOONG before marriage, right?  A simple fact that you cannot dispute:  PEOPLE LIKE SEX!  

People will have sex no matter how much education, religious indoctrination, fear of god, etc. you throw at them (see Bristol Palin).  The best we can do about preventing deadly diseases and unwanted pregnancies is to educate on the benefits of condoms and contraception.

Here's a question for you: if god only wanted sex to be used to make babies, why did he make it FEEL SO GOOD?

Considering the Catholic church's history of sexual abuse and cover-up, it may not be safe to assume the pope is celibate. The human sex drive is so powerful, priests can't even restrain themselves. Isn't it a bit ironic these are the same people who are preaching abstinence. As far as I'm concerned they've lost all moral authority.

The Pope is a dope.

Victor: All things on the earth are either mineral, vegetable or animal. Minerals and vegetables do not possess any desires or urges that we can detect.  Animals however do. All animals share some of the same basic instincts. Survival is one, breeding is another.  Some animals attempt to control the breeding instinct through thought control (man), others (generally the four legged variety) breed whenever the urge and opportunity presents itself.  This desire to breed is not a choice, yes you can restrict the desire, but unless you chemically alter the makeup of the animal, the primal instinct is always there. Using drugs, initially, is a choice. You can't compare the two, it's as simple as that.  At least by giving a clean needle to a user, they might still be alive to try to rehab them. I like your comment about taking advice from the Pope about sex. To say that condom use encourages the behavior that causes the problem is so funny. Nothing takes you out of the mood to make love than having to stop the foreplay, go find a condom, unwrap it put it on and then try to pick up where you left off.  It discourages the behavior rather encourage it.

Amy - Bristol Palin knows so much about abstinance only education. See how it worked for her with Levi in their hetrosexual loving relationship.

All of you liberal commentors totally miss the point.  Not surprising.  Throw out every example, call the Pope names (bet you'd never criticize the leader of the Nation of Islam,  Louis Farrahkan!)... and ignore what the Pope is really saying.  AIDS and HIV have been around in Africa for a long, long time.  People do not practice safe sex - most probably don't even know what it is.  Africa is a very poor, uneducated country in many regions.  People live hand to mouth, starving, without much direction in their lives.  Yet, they continue to have sex, produce lots of kids - who starve and continue the cycle.  Dumping a bunch of condoms in their laps and telling them to use them to stop AIDS is akin to plugging a dam with your finger.  It doesn't work and eventually the dam will collapse.  The church promotes heterosexual marriage, abstinence, and chastity.  The church also considers live sacred - even the unborn that the left wants to continue to kill for the sake of convenience.  Immoral?  What is immoral?  Telling people condoms won't do the trick - and isn't the solution?  Changing the behavior IS the solution.  Do any of you libs really think that people with AIDS should be having sex?  Aside from sexual fluids, what about salivia being exchanged during the sex act itself?  Will a condom prevent that?  No.  Yet, rather than address the problem - we put a band-aid on it in the form of a condom, pat ourselves on the back for job-well-done and congratulate ourselves on calling the Pope nasty names.

And Victor, the sex/drug analogy does work.  Both do not address the problem.  Both encourage the problem to continue, but try to stop the bad side effects of the problem.  Does handing out clean needles to junkies curb drug use in any way?  No.  Does handing out condoms to people who shouldn't be having sex in the first place stop the behavior?  No.  Both actually encourage people to  keep on doing what they are doing - no consequences involved!  Yippee!  Anything goes!

Ellen Cherry…your comment, “The best we can do about preventing deadly diseases and unwanted pregnancies is to educate on the benefits of condoms and contraception” is not entirely correct. The best way to prevent all this starts with family values. Yes, mistakes can happen and that’s where prevention comes in. Some have sex drives much greater than others. Most parents don’t know that about their kids until it may be too late. The Pope is educating through his knowledge and his religion and his love for God. Don’t have to agree, but he is not wrong in the eyes of loving and caring parents and Christians.

To all…Amy is correct when she says you liberals are missing the point. I see this all too often in all these blogs when something doesn’t go your way. However, from the outside looking in I see the dislike, hate, and name-calling to the Pope, and the lack of understanding, comes from the atheists who so happen to be mostly liberals. Most of this post, along with so many of the comments, are just a way to show your dislike for the Pope and Christians.  What the Pope said makes sense ONLY if you have an open mind and don’t put your religion, or lack of, first. Do Amy, I, or any Christian blogger on this site, write continuous blogs that bash atheists? No.

@AMY:  your analysis is one dimensional...and you don't address the public health aspects whatsoever.  BTW, Farrakhan is a charlatan.  Satisfied?

@JIM:  Again, I DON'T CARE that it's the Pope.  I am not "picking" on Catholics.  If James Dobson, or Al Sharpton, or even Gould or Hitchens or Dawkins or Dennett, or any other public religious/philosophical figure said such a thing, my article would have been, "______is an Idiot (fill in the blank).  And yes, I dislike and hate ignorance.  Is that wrong?  I thought Hitchens' support for the Iraq war and waterboarding was idiotic.  

Victor:  My analysis is not one dimensional.  You just don't like it because the point I make clearly demostrates you are wrong in saying the "Pope is an Idiot."  Simply because one doesn't promote the use of condoms does not make one an idiot.  Promoting not having sex when one has AIDS does not make one an idiot.  Promoting family values does not make one an idiot.  Promoting a nuclear family does not make one an idiot.  Promoting a belief in a power greater than oneself does not make one an idiot.  Promoting protecting the unborn from being killed does not make one an idiot.

What makes one an idiot is promoting phony solutions which do little or nothing to solve a problem, but simpy make one "feel good" for offering empty promises.  In other words, liberalism at its best.  

The Pope has a tendency to act foolishly from time to time. Reinstating a holocaust denying priest is foolish. Not promoting condoms is foolish. Who knows, he could be suffering from dementia.

The church continues to demonize an act that is central to the procreation of our species. How stupid is that. No wonder people are leaving the church.

The family values argument should really be preached to the pedophiles who are posing as servants of god. Besides, as far as I know every family has values. To suggest to those who refuse to accept antiquated dogma that they are somehow lacking in family values is a week argument at best.

Michael Steele, Republican National Chairman, just announced that he believes women should have a right to choose an abortion.  Does that mean he's anti family values? You will hear little condemnation from the right. But they have no problem referring to Obama as a baby killer because of his pro-choice position. The religious right is swimming in hypocrisy.

@AMY:  People may have sex while HIV positive because they don't know they are infected...let's assume those who knowingly infect others are a small, unbalanced minority...I mean, if you were infected, you'd take care, wouldn't you, by probably not having sex or, having developed a relationship with someone, tell them and use condoms?

How can disparaging condom use, in the face of high HIV rates within a population, be considered family values?

More naive ideology being applied to real world situations. Instead of dealing with a problem realistically. The self proclaimed morally superior decide everyone else is wrong because they are right and how are they right? They are right because if everyone would conform to their naive Christian ideal, then everything would be well in the world. It wouldn't but that's another argument and a tired one at best.

If only everyone in the world would...

Guess what...Everyone will not. We are a world and we are socially and culturally diverse and even your own neighbors don't see "everything" the way you see things and they never will. Stop choosing to be willingly and flagrantly ignorant based on social principles you choose to adhere to within the confines of the religion you have decided to conform. A (G)od is no more the solution than a devil or a demon is the problem.  These theistic anachronisms do nothing to contribute to solving a real problem, dealing with real lives, real people.

Righteousness seems to be confused with self righteousness. And much of these absolutist claims of religious conformity to solve real world problems does not even begin to address the enormity and severity of these real problems we face in "the real world". Too many it would seem, by obvious statements here and elsewhere, have distorted their own scripture and selectively interpret their scripture to reinforce their own self righteous demagoguery. This religious arrogance purports not only to follow the teachings of Jesus, but when faced with practicing the tenets of their faith, they arrogantly absolve themselves with the belief that if others only "believed" properly, their lives would be better and their hardships would not exist.

In the Christian Utopia, people would abstain from having sex until they were married and would remain in that single monogamous relationship until death do they part. Note to Christians: The world world isn't perfect. The Pope's statement about condoms and HIV/AIDS may adhere to the theological dogma within the hierarchy of church doctrine, but there is no perfect world and thus, no perfect solution which may be applied.

The messenger and the message.  The messenger attack meme – whatever. The message is, we have a real world problem that needs to be addressed in a responsible real world manner using real world techniques. The weak fall into the false attack stating others are simply attacking the messenger when it is they who refuse to address the message in a responsible manner. Applying naive ideals to a situation and then complaining when not every aspect can or will live up to specific codified ideals is easy and allows those with assumed moral high ground to preach to others without ever having to address the real problems we face.

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and harp to others that if only they were 'as good as you', that certain problems would not exist.  It's easy to sit by and define a theistic Utopian ideal and then complain because no one else is 'as good as you'. It's naive at best. Petty, Shallow and Arrogant only begin to describe the worst. This naive idealism that somehow if only everyone possessed a certain state of being that all would be well with the world is completely based in ideological fantasy, not reality.

  Basically, if you don't want to practice the biblical aspect of abstinance till marraige, then you shouldn't even try to wear a condom becuase it is a sin anyway.

 Love the logic. Obviously condoms are a gateway contraception, much like pot is a gateway drug.

Jacob,

You are not being extreme enough. :)

Condoms are obviously gateway "abortion".

Using that as the baseline for the absurdity...

Since masturbation is also a "sin", obviously this is in the same category since life was given no chance in being created. Is this the rule for men only, or is it true for women as well...and if so, why...the circumstances are 'a bit' different after all.

...and just think of the millions of women monthly guilty of murder because they failed to conceive.

Snarky Tagline:

"Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten; Please, think of the kittens!"

Another Snarky Tagline:

"You can be pretty sure you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people and things you do."

@JACOB:  I think I see your point regarding the "logic" here...don't use condoms because they might lead to sex.

Look up St. Jerome ... Augustine's mentor. This Catholic outrage has more to do with tradition against sex and the value of religious asceticism. Jerome's was only begrudgingly in favor for sex because procreation required it.  Augustine, the great theologian, made this part of the canon or Christian practice. Thus the the Pope hates condoms and would rather damn a 9 year to death because she was raped by her step-father and must die giving birth subsequently to give birth.

All anti-abortion, or no condom, sex Christian activities/believers are hypocrites anyway. Especially the men. If they believe the bible is true in this regard about sex, why don't they take Matt 19:12 advice??

"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."\

So Christians, you want birth control.

Snip your balls and go to heaven you hypocritical manwhores.

Victor:  You say in an earlier comment,  "I am not "picking" on Catholics."  Yet you have written several posts, many of which criticize those who aren't atheists like you.  "Atheist Quotes" is one such blog.   There are several very disrespectul and nasty comments directed at Catholics, and religion in general. There is also your post  "The Good News!  Americans are less religious!"  And judging from the comments - especially those from the self-proclaimed "ordained minister" ("minister" of what?  hate? foul language?  childish behavior? anti-God rhetoric?) MC, whose last comment is extremely foul, many libs do indeed despise religion and its followers.   Your claim rings false.  Too many people to this particular blog have chosen to show their extreme hatred towards Catholics.  Well, go for it.  It's a free world.  As long as you don't do a blog which criticizes Islam and Muslims, you will be OK and your leftie cheering section will continue to applaud...

Isn't it funny how lefties love it when they can mock family values, responsible behavior and just living a good life in general?  Throw in religion, and it becomes even more fun!  

More persecution complex knee-jerk response. No one is impressed by the holier-than-thou accusatory sniping to which you obviously feel an obligation to engage in regularly in order to satisfy to yourself and your peers that you are a 'good person'. Suddenly, everything one has never blogged about being against, one is somehow for? How pathetically narrow and small minded.

If you do not like the answers here, perhaps you should cease reading scary blogs. You know. The ones that challenge you to actually think. The ones that are outside of the filtered and preconceived notions you feel you must apply to any situation before you digest and regurgitate it to meet within the confines of the religion in which you have conformed.

Accusations of hatred are no longer going to work in order to manipulate and frame conversation and public discourse. When one can't discuss the facts, one accuses others of attacking the messenger. When one can not engage in real discussion of the topic at hand, they fall back into a comfortable little victim status to overwhelm the opposition with false moral outrage and guilt. Then, it slips over into the left right politics and they accuse people of attacking "family values" and "responsible behavior" or they simply accuse others of hatred. Who is attacking whom? No one here has told you not to believe what you believe, but you never seem to respect anyone's beliefs unless those beliefs match your own. No one wants to listen to you moan and groan and preach. It's obvious you feel you are better, and holier, and more moral, and more endowed with "values". We get it. We're just not buying what you have to sell. Compromising thought and reason for your style of faith is not something we agree with. Get over it.

The really sad thing is, knowing the realistic nature of human beings and the choice between pleasure and abstinence, proper 'safer" protection of sexual activity is responsible. Mass abstinence on any level is simply unrealistic to expect and exhorting that it is or should be is the only "moral and responsible action" is a new  height of holier-than-thou anti-intellectualism.  

Protecting individuals (who are members of families by default) is a value to the families and a family value. Protecting additional life from the potential spread of disease is responsible and has real world moral and ethical value beyond any naive Utopian religious dogma and doctrine.

I despise religion because of what it does to its followers. It turns otherwise intelligent men like Al into creationist cranks. It makes Catholics complicit of condemning a 9 year, raped by her step-father to death because the development of a fetus takes precedent over the life of a child. I despise religion because it turns it followers into slaves, subsuming rational thought for the superstitions and fear. I despise religion because it forces people to mutilate themselves. The eminent theologian, Origen took Matt 12:19 advice and emasculated himself. I despise religion because it seeks to control every aspect of my life. I despise religion because it takes away the pride and dignity of its followers and substitutes dogmatic rubbish instead.  

Yes, Amy you should be offended by my comment. You should be offended that the Catholic church would rather see a Brazilian 9-year old child DIE so it's prohibition against abortion  - which is not even addressed in the Bible (much less stem cells) remains consistent.

My criticism holds true for all religions.

ALL.

I think that abstinance only education is not realistic. Just ask Bristol Palin.

 Abstinance should be the goal for obvious reasons,  but eschewing contraception to meet some biblical "family value" in the face of the reality that even the "Bristol Palin's" of the world can screw up and get pregnant before marriage with the "Levi's" of the world is just absurd.

  People will have sex. People enjoy sex. People having sex for enjoyment will never end.

Victor:  Let's clear up at least one of the red herrings that have been tossed out to confuse the issue.  "Aside from sexual fluids, what about the exchange of saliva during the sex act itself? Will a condom prevent that? No."  According to the CDC, "HIV is most commonly transmitted through specific sexual behaviors (anal, vaginal, or oral sex) or needle sharing with an infected person. An HIV infected woman can pass the virus to her baby before or during childbirth or after birth through breastfeeding." "Contact with saliva, tears, or sweat has never been shownto result in transmission of HIV." From the Minnesota Aids Project - "Saliva - is NOT to be considered infectious."  These are only two sources of many that all say the idea of contracting HIV from saliva exchange is nothing more than a myth. But raising the question does achieve the goal of diverting attention from the original issue.

@AMY:  You're wrong, I don't condemn Catholics in particular...but I do think religion, ALL religion, is wishful thinking, at best, and genocidal totalitarianism, at worst.

Advocating "family values"?  Fine.  Advocating reinforcement of the pair bond, i.e., valuing marriage?  Great.  But, TIME AND PLACE.  Sub-Saharan Africa, where in places like Botswana the HIV infection rate approaches 30% of the adult population, is NOT the right place to argue against putting a latex sheath on the ol' John Thomas.

referee33:  There are sites out there that say currently there are no known cases where saliva, sweat, or tears has passed on HIV or AIDs to anyone.  They do not say that that will never happen or such a case may not occur..  Also, CDC and other AIDs-specific websites do discourage kissing during sex with infected people.  HIV and AID's can be passed from partners during kissing due to open sores in the mouth, bleeding gums, or other types of sores.  Are there people out there who don't kiss during sex?  Sure.  But I would venture to say that most do kiss, if they are actually making love and not just screwing for the hell of it.

Victor:  Do you really believe that the people of Botswana, where poverty, low education levels, and living-hand-to-mouth are common,  will find condom use to be really an important aspect of their lives that they will embrace?   Think they'll really say, oh, before we do this, let's put on a condom?  Yeah, right.  That is where the Pope is right on in his assessment.  Condoms won't solve the problem.

Rather than pass out condoms, try to educate.  Try to educate people that having sex when one has AIDS is a bad idea.  I would venture to say that many people living hopeless lives in Africa could care less whether they use a condom in order to protect a fellow human being from getting AIDS.  We all hear about people who were smokers for years, end up with emphysema and continue to smoke while hooked up to oxygen - simply because they know they are going to die anyhow and don't care.  Plus they want to enjoy their last puffs.  The attitude is kind of "what's the use?"  ALthough, at least the people suffering from emphesyma are only hurting themselves.  Those suffering from AID's that insist on still screwing around may be killing others, too.  They may also have a "what's the use" attitude.  And expecting people in a third world country to be gung-ho about using a condom doesn't seem too realistic.

Amy - Does the HIV virus target people who don't wear condoms becuase they don't care?

 Your last paragraph blames the victims and treats Africans with disrepect and hints of prejudice.

Jacob Pickard:  I am not a doctor.  I do not know how people originally acquire the HIV virus - do you? I guess all we know is  that homosexual sex, or heterosexual sex with an infected person, or intravenous needle use, can pass on the virus.  

I am in no way blaming the victims with HIV or AIDS.  My point is this:  in Africa, where poverty, hopelessness, starvation, and other ills are commonplace in many areas, how can anyone expect that people will embrace condom use when so many other major problems exist?  Such as just surviving from day-to-day.  Do you really think unprotected sex is a big concern?   Do you think people struggling to live  are going to worry about using a condom?    To be honest, I think many people in Africa don't know any better.  And any attempts to educate them may help, but in order to be effective, many other of the societal ills of Africa must be addressed, too.

Comprehensive World Website for HIV/AIDS

http://www.avert.org/

note: the website denotes that it is an international AIDS charity.

Quite complete and well laid out.

History and Science of HIV

http://www.avert.org/history-science.htm

Education section addressing Comprehensive vs. Abstinence

http://www.avert.org/educate.htm

Section on HIV/Aids in world regions. The site is well worth exploring for a better understanding of the multiplicity of problems and issues of HIV/Aids.

A recent blog by Victor Ponelis made that claim that " The Pope is an Idiot" because of a statement