Scottish Christians believe it is better for wome n to die of cancer than have underage sex

[DominiConnor]

www.theherald.co.uk/news/68912.html

So, apparently, gangs of Christians are lobbying against cancer prevention just in case it encourage girls to have under age sex.
Being male, I lack the insight to confirm whether being innoculated against cancer makes girls want to have sex ?
Doesn't seem probable, but obviously it is better that women die of cancer than possibly (in the minds of Chrisitan leaders) have sex.

I'm a Scottish Christian and feel very strongly that more research should go into cancer research is needed and that under age sex is a major problem that all countries need less of.

If one group of people within society have the opinion that you are talking about in your thread then write about and name that particular group, please don;t lump all Scottish Christian's together.

Quite the contrary, DC. I find Expats "attacks" on you entertaining. You do make sweeping generalisations on a wide variety of subjects. She is right about that.

No body's an expert on everything... not even you.

Yes, thank you DC, I am aware of how people get HIV. But from the Church's pov the logic is that abstinence prevents HIV. You can see how from the standpoint of a church heirarchy often out of touch with reality this would make sense, along with a belief that 'the sins of the fathers are visited on the children'.

This isn't a dig at Catholicism. The Anglican church is just as prone to ill-judged, dangerous nonsense. Interestingly most RCs I know ignore the prohibition on contraception, and very few Anglicans buy the rubbish spouted by the bishops on sexuality, so when we refer to 'the Church' objecting to anything we ususally mean a minority of men at the top.

I totally agree that under-age sex is something we should be concerned about, but teenagers don't give a stuff about their health. Churches, the media and anyone else who is bothered should instead be concerning themselves about why young people have such low self-esteem that they can only feel good about themselves if they are having sex, and what it is about our society that encourages this.

It has also occured to me that if the jab were to protect boys/men from cancer the church/media would be far less concerned, and I think it says a lot about how female sexuality is viewed.

I'm sorry I misinterpreted your view nearly3.

I suppose I see the point of an organised religion is that you support most of what your organisation does.

Being a Trekkie, I suppose I see the Catholic position on health matters as mostly a matter of evolution in action. If you do dumb stuff that gets your kids to die, or causes you to catch AIDS, your dumb genes don't get passed on.
Not saying this is good, but is the silver lining on that cloud.

But they do cause harm to rational people, not just the superstitious. There are Catholics in positions of political and administrative power in the NHS. I accept that some are able to set aside the bronze age misogny of their faith and act well.
But as we saw with Ruth Kelly when she was education ministe, religion can make otherwise quite bright people do really bad things, and in her case, as so often with Catholic organisations it was kids who suffered.

Are you aware of this charity
www.christianaid.org.uk

I thought most people had heard of Christian Aid.
They are apparently smart enough to work out that (un) fair trade is a big issue in sorting out the basic issues in poor countries.
They are right that the EU farm policy is responsible for suffering on a scale that makes most wars look like spilt milk.
They are bang on the money that Christian gangs, especially American ones have amplified the AIDS epidemic causing many needless deaths, orphaings etc. And yes it does show that Christian are capable of working out that their policies are often worse than those who actively wish millions of black people to die.
What CA don't mention is their silence when other Christians came up with brain dead "abstinence" strategies. But all organisations prefer to focus on "lessons learned". Except of course evangelicals.

But...
I wonder if anyone who works there isn't a Guardian reader? They don't like free trade, and their text shows pretty clearly they don't understand it.
To be fair, it takes a lot for someone who is innumerate and spends their spare time reading confused bronze age fairy stories to grasp economics. Also there is a cultural problem in that part of the Christian delusional framework is that there is some underlying order that well meaning poeple can grasp. Wish that were true, but it ain't.
Thus "free trade" attacks the basic socialist/christian view of the world that freedom means poor/weak people get shafted.

I was talking about Christian Aid as opposed to Fair Trade.

DC, the point of most organised religion is to keep itself going. So plenty of people will cheerfully ignore injustices carried out by their church if they personally are getting something from attending.

Can't say that Ruth Kelly's faith bothered me particularly, more her interference in family life. But then most of her colleagues want the same thing.

To You All... DC aint half winding everyone up & no doubt sitting back having a good laugh!!!

DC... You are Bigoted and Sexist! My only hope for you is that you are married to an athiest, European (outwith Scotland/England/Ireland/Wales), male. hahahah! Not that I want to genarilise, of course. Tosser!!!