And if you want to see all that is wrong with organised religion...

[cestlavie]

Just read here from The Times today.

This in a region where 22 million people today have AIDS and where 2 million of these are children who've often caught it from their mothers. Where the average age expectancy is just 47 years old, when without AIDS it would have been over 60.

This is a region where there are almost 12 million children orphaned by AIDS. Where in some counties (like Zambia) up to 20% of children under fourteen year have lost both their parents to the disease. Where almost 2 million babies and infants under four are orphans as a result of the disease.

But whilst every major international organisation advocates the use of condoms to reduce the spread of the disease. And whilst, for example, the WHO said that "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90 per cent.

The Catholic Church and Pope Benedict, however, not only continue to reiterate that not only is the use of condoms banned by the Vatican but that AIDS ?cannot be overcome by distributing condoms ? it only increases the problem?. Thereby merrily condemning potentially millions more of God fearing Catholics across the continent (and their children) to an early death, suffering, penury and orphanhood. May God in his mercy be praised.

Oh btw that doesn't mean i think the pope is being misunderstood or helpful...innappropriate more like.

Just a thought.
Often it sounds like everyone forgets condoms are not 100 percent reliable. They split, one of the main reasons women seek to use morning after pill.They are sometimes used incorrectly ( young inexperienced person, drunk?).Even with correct use they're about 94 percent effective in preventing pregnancy ( so same for STD).
How many people when faced with temptation of casual sex, without possession of a condom, would resist knowing it's a matter of his life and death ( educated that he WILL be infected after just one contact, it's not a matter of taking risk).The same person with a condom in his pocket, brainwashed by the charitable western countries that he can sleep with as many people as he wants as long as he uses the rubber, would have no argument to put up a fight with his urges. And then a tragedy, the condom failed to protect him. Morality WOULD 100 percent.
Also, so a married couple must NEVER have sex without a condom ?You must under no circumstances trust your spouse to make love without one? How do you make children, IVF with intensive testing of both wannabe parents? Impossible.So, no more children, Africa would die off without help of Aids.What a dilemma.
I'm thinking loud. Don't jump on me now with hateful comments ( lots of them here).But you're welcome to debate in a civilised manner.

Condoms are what, 96% safe? So a 96% reduction would be pretty amazing for HIV infections really.

It's not just the pope btw; its pathetic that the way we have developed allows drugs to be witheld for profit rather than given to those in need. Agin, humanity takes a (gift from God / wonderful invention- delete as required ) and effs it up.

And the monogamous couple thing doesn't work... because the reduction in risk of having unprotected sex with a long term partner if they used protection is massive anyway. It becomoes a riska ssessment rather than a no-choice scenario.

Regarding the onlyhearing one side of it thing... I vaguely remember a discussion somewhere (Uni? might even have been here) about how that's what happens when culture meets reigion; in some cultures that are heavily affected by HIV relative male promiscuity (and presumably female, though IIRC there's a homosexual element in there somewhere... sorry, bit fuzzy) is an accepted norm; presumably if that were counterbalanced by the ability to practice safer sex, the infection rates would have echoed UK ones, as we are an example of a country where there is relative promiscuity but condom availability.

I suppose long term there's a lesson here about what happens when one sells / forces a faith outside the environment it has evolved to fit.

I think the problem comes when religions stop saying "This is the ideal, it would be good if you try to live your life this way" and switch to "You're all damned if you don't live your life this way".

So, yes chastity outside of lifelong monogamous relationships is morally "good", but the reality is that for most people it's not going to happen. So by all means encourage and teach chastity and faithfulness. But tell people "If you can't manage that, or don't know if your partner has managed that, then a condom massively improves your chances of not transmitting STDs including HIV". And then allow them to make decisions based on their own knowledge and understanding both of the scientific and the moral issues.

The Catholic Church seems to get blamed for a lot of things that aren't really their fault.

The problems in Africa are extremely complex and the Pope announcing that condomns are OK to use would not by any means solve the AIDS crisis in Africa.

Absolutely agree MumInScotland, what a wonderful pope you would make.Or at least a sex ed teacher

Catholicism (and most religions) has a lot to answer for. Before AIDS, it was bad enough that Catholics weren't allowed birth control, but now - people are DYING because of this ban.

Abstinence, as an alternative to using condoms, belongs in the realms of fantasy.

It's not just hetrosexual relationships that are a problem though. What happens when a religion tells it's adherants that homosexuality is an absolute wrong?

Consider then, what a homosexual person of that religion or culture does? Do they have access to condoms? If they are unmarried then buying condoms implies they intend to engage in sexual activity, something which may be ostracised in cultures that believe in monogamy and no sex outside marriage.

Do they have access to the information about how to prevent HIV via homosexual contact if it is not acknowledged that homosexuality exists? Do they even consider what they are doing is sexual behaviour? After all, sex is what you do with a woman within marriage to get her pregnant.

If the mindset is (and I'm directly quoting one of my students here) "There's no such thing as a gay muslim", then the results can be seen in the AIDS statistics across the world.

People who shun religion in almost all cases advocate promiscuity, no rules re sex life culture. They are responsible for the immeasurable misery of abortions, fatherless or indeed parentless children, poverty ( single mothers) and lots lots more heartache.And if you think handing out lifetime supply of condoms in the bounty pack will solve these problem, you're indeed deluded yourself. Condoms were never before easier to obtain, children were never before subjected to so much sex ed at school and sex was never so taboo free as it is now. Why then the unwanted pregnancy rates are hitting the roof, std infection rates are causing panic etc Condoms are unreliable and people are unreliable like never before because they are completely discouraged to excercise self restraint taught traditionally by religions you hate so much.
Religion has been guilty of many crimes in the past ( or indeed present ) but let's face it religion hating liberals have sooo much to answer for as well, and I'm talking serious crimes.
Let's not forget one more thing. Do you not realise, you people who hate religion with passion, that a lot of who you are ,the fact that, as much as you're misguided in my opinion,you do care about what happens to other people, was shaped by your christian ancestry. Without religion you would still be bloodthirsty Romans, just savages. And do you think christianity would have survived had it not assume some organized forms ?
By the way, I don't hate you liberals.

But you will probably hate me.
I never heard a true Christian speak out with foul, hate and rage filled language like , sadly, many , not all, mumsnetters who profess to be really nice caring people. You have your believes what's good what's bad so do religious people. The difference is you seem so hateful to people with different views,feeling so superior and you come across as so ugly with your foul language . I really would hate to live in the world you would like to create. How good I know there is another one still when people talk in a civilised manner even when they strongly disagree.

And don't stoop to childish horrible name calling especially towards Catholics. Proud of yourselves ?

I don't think most people without religion are any less moral than those who do follow a religion TBH. And there are some pretty immoral people within churches etc too.

Most people are decent, some are not.

I'm not saying, by no means, that people with no religion are generally immoral. But most have,these days anyway, liberal views towards sex and they are blind to the consequences of such views in wider society.
Immoral people within any church are clearly NOT following the religion they profess. They're imposters .Nothing to do with that church itself.

Well, I'm liberal towards sex, and I'm a Christian! I don't have a problem with sex outside of marriage, and I don't have a problem with homosexuality. I think it is generally better for children to be brought up by 2 parents who love and support each other, but I don't think they should have to stay together if that doesn't work for them.

I don't think my views are that different from most non-Christians really.

By the way, I'm what people call a lapsed Catholic. Still consider myself a Christian but do not belong to any church. Full of questions, confused and searching, that's the most accurate description. But I know I strongly dislike the world of hate so prevalent on mumsnet propagated by posters who would never think themselves as hateful as they rage about causes they believe just. But you really really often come across such unpleasant people . It's the language.

UQD, yes it was, and yes she was. And she doesn't want anyone else commenting on her blog about how cross she was or how bad she was on the News - Jon Snow has already told her off!

Whitecoffenosugar, I honestly do not understand what you are trying to say? Are you upset because some people think the catholic church isn't so great? Fair enough and I think lots of people on here, even the ones who aren't catholic or religious (like me for example) have made the point that the Catholic Church has the right to tell it's followers what they believe to be God's way.

Are you upset because you think that the pope's advice towards African people, the vast majority of whom are not in fact Catholic, is acceptable and okay, that's another issue.

"People who shun religion in almost all cases advocate promiscuity, no rules re sex life culture." - in the case of AIDS in Africa, I think you're missing the point a little. Lots of African people are religious in one form or another, )probably not Catholic in most cases). Promiscuity there is not so much as a result of shunning religion but about being in a society with entirely different cultural and social and economic norms to what is considered within "normal boundaries" for the Western world.

Personally, i don't agree with the OPs assessment that the Catholic Church's comments on condoms are a huge problem - if you're Catholic, it seems a fair point to not use them if you're buying into everything else. But to simply dismiss everything beyond that as being anti-religion seems a bit simplistic to me.

MumInScotland, I'm a communist but I don't believe in anything that Marx,Lenin and all the rest taught, in fact my views are compeletly different to what communists believed throughout history and absolutely most still consider true.I'm still a communist

OhBling
No.
I'm only upset by very abusive language and really low name calling. That's it. The rest is just my views, your views. Whatever.

Sorry, but the most hate I'm seeing here is your attitude whitecoffee. You can't just say "People who shun religion in almost all cases advocate promiscuity, no rules re sex life culture. They are responsible for immeasurable misery", and then complain that MNers show hate towards religion. You're showing hate to people without religion, that's every bit as bad as what you're complaining about.

Many people on MN follow a religion, many don't. Most on both sides manage to have polite conversations about the issues which religion raises. Most have a code of morals which is not all about hedonism but about concern and respect for others.

Regarding your last sentence, OhBling. What are you talking about ? The whole thread was started....what is wrong with organized religion.

if your obeying catholic rules - as a catholic - who listens to the pope - then you shouldn't be raping babies, having extra marital sex etc. and the effect should be neutralised.

if your a catholic, listen to the pope, but fuck anything that moves..listen to a witch doctor or two..rape a couple of babies to cure yourself...then i can't see what your objection to condoms would be tbh.

"People who shun religion in almost all cases advocate promiscuity" are you serious coffee? You truly belive that people like me who arent religious advocate promiscuity.

Are you sure you really mean that to advocate is generally accepted to mean to lobby for or encourage.

You mix with some very odd non-religious types if they are lobbying for promiscuity.

Yes, but it was in the context of the Pope making what she believed to be unhelpful comments about condoms and AIDS in Africa.

MUmInScotland, I expressed opinion and it turned into an ongoing argument. At no point I expressed hate towards anyone.If you think so, you're wrong ,I promise. I don't hate you even if I disagree you should call yourself Christian. I don't hate you. I disagree. Some people sound like they are ready to kill.THat's hate. I don't wish you any ill whatsoever. How do I hate you ?