Respect me or I’ll say the devil wears a condom
Careful when talking to the Vatican. Don’t forget those 2.1 billion people who call themselves Christian – they expect respect you know.
The World Health Organisation’s head of HIV/Aids called on the Vatican yesterday to speed up a decision on the limited use of condoms in pandemic-hit countries. Kevin De Cock welcomed the news that condoms could be sanctioned for married Catholic couples where one partner has HIV. “We’re very pleased to hear this,” he said. “But our concern is that these deep theological decisions take account of the biological consequences of infection. Could we please have this debate in a hurry. Lives are at risk and time is short.”
Maybe he was being sarcastic instead of respectful. One can hope so. ‘Deep theological decisions’ indeed – what’s so deep about them, and for that matter, what’s even theological about them? Nothing. They’re just nasty human prejudices dressed up as what god wants, in the usual manner. Deep shmeep.
Faith-based organisations play a huge role in forming opinion and fighting the pandemic. In Africa, they deliver 40%-50% of care. “I think the involvement of the faith-based community in Aids is extremely important,” he said. “As with any other group that has its own special beliefs and ideas and philosophies, we have to accept that that is so and remember that there is far more that unites us than divides us in the struggle against Aids.”
No, he probably wasn’t being sarcastic then, not when he slipped the ‘faith-based community’ in there to replace the more neutral and comprehensible ‘religious people.’ Sarky people don’t do that – they refuse, and if people try to make them they lash out and swear dreadful oaths. They also don’t usually talk anodyne fluffy burble about own special beliefs and ideas and philosophies, because they know too well what a lot of ground that covers, including the stark staring mad, so they don’t invoke it in that sentimental way.
It’s not the WHO guy with the unhappy name’s fault though, it’s the horrible situation we’re all stuck in where people who believe wrong things demand fulsome honeyed respect from people who don’t, on pain of making millions more people die of AIDS because the condom is excommunicated. We have to grovel and suck up to them or they’ll carry right on killing lots of us. There’s a deep theological decision for you.
“Newsflash.
In a stunning reversal, Pope Inertius the 627930456th has announced that condom use is herewith sanctioned for married couples in Africa, if one of the partners is infected with AIDS. The 22 surviving inhabitants of that blighted continent have greeted the Pope’s message with new hope.
In other news, tomorrow at three o’ clock the sun is set to swell and go red giant, and the ensuing conflagration is thought to wipe out life on earth.”
(as for the unfortunate name – Cock, Kok, de Cock and so forth are quite common in the Netherlands and Flanders. I’m not sure if it originally meant “rooster” or “cook”.)
The Vatican’s role in promoting AIDS is peanuts when compared with its role in promoting population explosion (though the latter seems to be a no-go area for most liberals, for fear of ‘offending’ the sacrosanct citizens of third-world countries). If you are interested: Dr Stephen Mumford has written some of the best stuff on the Vatican’s sordid involvement in fostering exponential population growth. See (inter alia) here:
http://www.population-security.org/29-APP3.html
BTW:
The Vatican’s anti-contraception dogma is a kind of survival-friendly meme rather than a reflection of ‘nasty human prejudices’. Or if it’s a prejudice, it’s one that ‘works’. All numerically successful religions are naturally hostile to non-reproductive sex because they would be replaced by other religions if they weren’t (religions have nothing against sex as such, provided the spermatozoon hits the target as often as possible). Hence the tragic ‘race to the bottom’: the religion that successfully browbeats men and women into having as many children as possible is the winner. Remember that if you were one of those selfish little bits of germ plasm floating round in a female human vector, you would be praying: oh Heavenly Father pleeze pleeze convert my mom into being a devout observant RC who will have ten children and pleeze pleeze don’t convert her into being a Dutch-cap wearing Protestant bitch who will probably have no kids at all …
I understand your indignation with the Catholic Church but I think your censorious tone is uncalled for. A dispassionate, non-judgmental approach would be a more appropriate way of dealing with these bastards. [smiley face]
And what does it tell us about those numerically successful religions that they gotta keep breeding new followers because they can’t seem to recruit enough? Then again, it might not be just religion’s fault. In the old days so many kids died in the cradle or on the way to it that you had to keep crankin”em out just to make sure there was someone to feed you if you lived to 45. The religions just fell in behind this, maybe. I don’t know much about history so someone who does can fill in the rest.
Any religion that tried to tell me I couldn’t use whatever protective equipment I felt needful has already lost one recruit. How stucking fupid can you get? OB’s censorious or is it censurious tone is welcome and needed. It might turn some folks away but others will be curious and learn something.
Anyone’s need for respect from me ends where my nose [or any other part] begins.
I don’t know how the Vatican can speed up its decision on this issue when it has to deal with such pressing matters as deciding whether or not to do the limbo.
“The Vatican’s role in promoting AIDS is peanuts when compared with its role in promoting population explosion”
Oh really. So the Vatican’s role in causing the deaths of millions of people, emphatically including children and monogamous spouses (wives mostly), leaving millions more children orphaned and destitute, is peanuts?
And that’s why a censorious tone is uncalled for?
I know you make a point of saying revolting things, Cathal, but that one’s a real standout.
“the religion that successfully browbeats men and women into having as many children as possible is the winner.”
I keep telling you, and you never so much as acknowledge the point, but just keep repeating your own: it’s not that simple: fewer but hardier offspring often constitute a better reproductive strategy than masses of weak impoverished ignorant ones.
In short, you’re starting to do the hit and run thing, Cathal. If you’re going to comment this often, you shouldn’t ignore replies and just deposit your own free-standing assertions. That makes for a bad and stupid discussion, and I don’t like it; I end up banning people who persist in doing that. My own special law.
Ophelia,
(a) I can’t spend all day blogging and (b) I was of course being ironical when I mentioned your ‘censorious tone’. You are obviously in such a bad mood that you can’t even recognise comments that support your own views.
My point was that very little attention is being paid to the population explosion tragedy, which in the long term could result in billions of deaths by pestilence and starvation. Millions are indeed peanuts when compared with billions.
I’m also aware of your point as to different reproductive strategies — but there I think it’s ships that pass in the night rather than disagreement. In numerical terms the dumb-dumb religions do tend to be the winners, unfortunately. There are over a billion Muslims, rapidly expanding in numbers. Quality is a different matter, of course.
It is true that I may have occasionally not got round to replying to all criticisms, but then you do add one or two new contributions each day, so it’s hard to keep up. I’ve got a day job too, you know.
Population explosion
Doesn’t anybody (apart from me, of course) check their facts when they post on this site? I’ve cited in the following extensively from the Sceptical Environmentalist: mainly because it’s handy and has all the info I need for this and its statements are nicely referenced to source data.
The population explosion is not caused by people breeding like rabbits, rather that they have stopped dying like flies. The UN estimates that women in the developing world will achieve an equilibrium birthrate of 2.1 in 2045-2050. But the current rate in developing countries – at 3.1 children per woman, is already less that of of the US or Australia – those bastions of Catholicism (not) – in the early 1950s. In fact, over the next 50 years 60% of the population growth comes from just 12 countries, with (Hindu/Muslim) India at the top, followed by (Muslim) Pakistan and (atheist/Confucian/Buddhist) China in 3rd place. Not much role for the Vatican there! You really are obsessed with the Catholic Church, aren’t you? And no, I’m not Catholic.
By faith-based organisations Mr. De Cock of course meant (mainly) Christian. There is a simple solution to your concerns. Get the care to Aids victims provided by atheist NGOs. But wait, there aren’t any. Atheists obviously don’t care about Aids victims in actuality, because they don’t do anything for them in actuality.
I was at my local Church this evening and reading the Notice Sheets. we are collecting new toys to give to children at Christmas where the parent is in prison. We do that because Christians are enjoined to visit prisoners. There was also a piece from the link missionar in Mozambique, working with the local people. We recently attended an evening service to celebrate Harvest for the Hungry. Basically boxes of gifts for children – girls and boys, sometimes from orphanages – to show that they are not forgotten. Our local minister, and someone else from church were taking time off to drive over (in this year to Romania and Bulgaria) to deliver them. Where are the atheist charities? You have a good go at religion and religious people, but at least they actually try to do good for real people in the here and now instead of just sitting around moaning about other people.
I sometimes think atheists and humanists don’t actually give a damn for other people, because they sure as heck don’t do anything.
Jeffrey,
‘ …they sure as heck don’t do anything.’
Patent nonsense. There may be no ‘Atheist Aid’, but that is because no secular person giving of their time and resources would expect to be identified as such.
Congratulations on your good works, don’t assume the rest of us put in our time.
‘rest of us don’t put in our time.’
Indignation getting in the way of text checking there.
‘Deep theological decisions’ – please.
This brought to mind some words of Nietzsche:
‘Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial’.
“Oh really. So the Vatican’s role in causing the deaths of millions of people, emphatically including children and monogamous spouses (wives mostly), leaving millions more children orphaned and destitute, is peanuts?”
Is there any evidence that ther Vatican has such a role? Does anyone really think it likely that if the worlds Catholic poor became atheist poor they would stop recking their helth having children, for example? Or might they still gamble on having a large family to support them in old age?
I think we attribute too much power to institutions, sometimes. Why do we imagine that the Favela is swayed by the Pope’s pronouncements on condoms but immune to his admonitions about murder and drug trafficking?
“Why do we imagine that the Favela is swayed by the Pope’s pronouncements on condoms but immune to his admonitions about murder and drug trafficking?”
Well just for one thing, because men don’t want to wear condoms, and refuse whenever they have the power (and are unscrupulous enough) to do so. It’s a power thing. Men have the power to refuse, women don’t have the power to refuse men who refuse (broadly speaking – obviously there are exceptions). The fig leaf of piety makes it all the easier for men to refuse and all the harder for women to insist or even to ask. In other words the pope’s pronouncements on condoms go with the grain of male desires as opposed to against it in the case of murder and drug trafficking. The pope is simply telling men to do what they want to do. An easy row to hoe.
You really are obsessed with the Catholic Church, aren’t you?
I’m obsessed with Islam, actually — it’s just that when the subject under discussion is condoms and related matters (AIDS, population growth), the Vatican does tend to raise its ugly head.
But when push comes to shove, it’s secularists + Christianity v. the hooded hordes of Islam. Christianity (at least in its current variants) is compatible with civilised life. Islam isn’t.
Just to clarify matters.
The pope is simply telling men to do what they want to do.
New to me. So men are interested only in postmarital sex, in fidelity, in living with the same woman until death doth them part?
One of Christianity’s great achievements has been to get men to do just what they DON’T want to do — marry, settle down, bring home the bacon, live the boring and humdrum lives without which the human race would have long died out or degenerated into feral primates.
Two minutes’ thought and you wouldn’t have written what you did.
And dont’t tell me I’m quoting you out of context.
“Two minutes’ thought and you wouldn’t have written what you did.”
Yes I would. And despite command I will tell you you’re misreading what I said. The pope is telling men to do what they want to do about condoms.
So you’re saying that in places without Christianity men don’t marry? I think that might be not quite right.
So you’re saying that in places without Christianity men don’t marry? I think that might be not quite right.
OK, two seconds’ thought. You’re right. I’m wrong. Replace ‘Christianity’ by ‘many monotheistic religions’ … gotta fine-tune that too … OK I mean Xianity as opposed to late Roman empire, vomitariums, dumping infants on sidewalk, … OK doesn’t quite work .. Xianity as opposed to easy divorce legislation and state support for unmarried mothers … 50% fatherless families, broken homes (sorry, I mean patchwork families), tatooed criminal sluts with their wannabe criminal brood …. but what about those closeknit Islamic families where they bash the girls about and try a bit of honour killing .. must work that out .. etc…. etc
Thinking cap still on ….
Cackle.
Yeah, it’s complicated!
Anyway, I certainly agree that the Vatican doesn’t always tell men to do what they want to do. But the fact that men don’t want to wear them really is a huge issue when it comes to AIDS, so I think the Vatican really is adding extra weight on very much the wrong side.
“In other words the pope’s pronouncements on condoms go with the grain of male desires as opposed to against it”
That’s my point. When the Vatican’s exhortations contradict desire they are ignored, so it is highly unlikely that the Pope has anything to do with the problem of overpopulation or any such. If he changed policy, the men would still want to have unprotected sex and they still would.
The only social situations in which it would be fair to blam Rome would be those where the whole raft of expectations were met for ideological reasons. But nobody would object to married men who had unprotected sex with their life partner after taking full account of her needs and health and who then dedicated his life to non-violently working for and nurturing his family while eschewing commercial values etc etc …
“When the Vatican’s exhortations contradict desire they are ignored, so it is highly unlikely that the Pope has anything to do with the problem of overpopulation or any such.”
I don’t think so. The pope gives the gloss of righteousness or holiness to a purely selfish desire, which in many circumstances will make it much easier for the desire to prevail. There’s a big difference between ‘No, honey, I’m not going to wear a rubber because I don’t want to’ and ‘No, honey, I’m not going to wear a rubber because God says I mustn’t.’
“But nobody would object to married men who had unprotected sex with their life partner after taking full account of her needs and health and who then dedicated his life to non-violently working for and nurturing his family while eschewing commercial values etc etc …”
What do you mean? Nobody would object “to married men who had unprotected sex with their life partner after taking full account of her needs and health” in what sense? You mean – married men who’ve had sex with other women but think deeply about their wives’ health then go ahead and have unprotected sex anyway? Well I damn well would. The only married men who can combine unprotected marital sex with taking full account of their wives’ health are men who are strictly monogamous, but that can’t be what you mean, because that would be too obvious to say. But if you’re saying nobody would object to non-monogamous married men who risk the lives of their wives and children by having unprotected sex if they dedicate their lives to good works – I beg to differ.
Catholic Christians, like other Christians are not supposed to be able to pick and choose. Adultery is prohibited. If men were monogamous and kept to their marriage vows, they would not be able to give Aids to their wives ( I mean lots of wifes, as I man is only supposed to have 1 wife). So condoms are irrelevant. If they can’t keep the Ten Commandments and their marriage vows I don’t suppose they are paying much attention to the Pope, anyway.
Don,
Don’t praise me for my good works. Any I do are trivial. I am humbled by all those who do them, from Prison visting to hospital visiting and caring at hospices or for lepers or Aids sufferers. I am sure atheists give to charities. But where are the atheist charities/NGOs working in Mozambique or Mission Aviation Fellowship (sort of Flying Doctor service in Africa that’s quite popular in many churches)?
If you look at Richard Dawkins’ own site for links to charities, what do you find? A charity dedicated to reason or rationality. In fact, so modest is Prof Dawkins, he’s named it after himself. No caring about common humanity in a practical way for Prof Dawkins!
OB
Your comment on reproductive strategies sounded awfully eugenicist. I know you despise eugenicists, but the implication of fewer =hardier = better could be read as eugenicist. And in the past, more children was a sign of strength, wealth. For example, in the West, larger families are associated with earlier marriage, which is associated with independent ability to be a householder (see Christopher Dyer: Making a Living in the Middle Ages, or John Hatcher; Modelling the Middle Ages. I know that both draw mainly on English experience. But broadly similar trends and habits can be seen across Western Europe (ex the Spains, where I am not familiar with marriage customs during the Reconquest centuries0. This was a factor in the astonishing growth of American population in the eightennth century. The wealth available from farming across a wide spectrum of social classes permitted early marriage, which, in Christian socieies, facilitated larger families. And until well into the nineteenth century in England, large families were associated with the upper and middle classes. So I think your point is wrong.
“So condoms are irrelevant.”
No they’re not. They prevent the spread of the disease. Irrelevant is the last thing they are.
Jeffrey, you don’t know that I despise eugenicists.
“the implication of fewer =hardier = better could be read as eugenicist.”
No it couldn’t, not unless you confuse descriptive and normative. I was talking about is, not ought. Reproductive strategy doesn’t actually mean conscious strategy.
OB
If I read WTM correctly, I think you do despise eugenicists, er don’t you?
“No caring about common humanity in a practical way for Prof Dawkins!”
You know…that’s really irritating. Really profoundly irritating. Dawkins is an educator (as well as a scientist); that’s what he does; he’s good at it, and he works hard at it. Education is a good thing for common humanity; an excellent thing; perhaps the best thing. Granted it’s not much good to people on the edge of starvation, but that doesn’t mean that everyone in the world should stop doing everything except famine-relief. Dawkins does what he’s good at, and what he’s good at does in fact have very useful ameliorative helpful effects for common humanity. He would not be more useful if he joined a church and spent all his time collecting jumble in order to send fifty pounds to Oxfam.
Jeffrey, I’ve already told you in reply to your email that judging by your comments you didn’t read WTM correctly. There’s not a word in WTM about despising eugenicists. I don’t know what you made of my reply to your comments, since you never answered, but I’m afraid they were all wide of the mark.
Oh yes – I still have my reply, and I see I had to point out an is-ought confusion there too, also about what you call ‘Darwinists’. You asked me “If they are Darwinists as scientists, how can they be anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics?”
Really: look into the is-ought distinction, the facts-values distinction; it would be a big help.
Saying that, as spouses should be faithful to one another, and that therefore condoms are irrelevant, sounds terribly harsh to me. People shouldn’t drive like maniacs – should we therefore oppose the introduction of seat belts? Smoking is a health risk – should we therefore deny lung cancer treatment to smokers?
People are flawed. They do stupid things, and they will probably continue to do so until the end of days. Even if I were to believe that monogamous, long-term relationships are morally preferable to messing around (which I do not), if using a silly piece of rubber can negate the harmful consequences of messing around, isn’t there an ethical imperative to allow and stimulate people to use said piece of rubber?
Jeffrey:
“Nobody said atheists and secularists don’t support charities.”
You did.
“Where are the atheist charities? You have a good go at religion and religious people, but at least they actually try to do good for real people in the here and now instead of just sitting around moaning about other people.
I sometimes think atheists and humanists don’t actually give a damn for other people, because they sure as heck don’t do anything.
| jeffrey Mushens | 2006-11-27 – 01:17:57 |”
I asked “where are the atheist charities?’ All the charities referred to by commenters were founded by Christians. Where are the similar charities founded by atheists/atheism?
I do not suppose that atheists do not support charities like Oxfam and Shelter and Amnesty. But they certainly don’t start them.
What do you mean? Nobody would object “to married men who had unprotected sex with their life partner after taking full account of her needs and health” in what sense? […]. The only married men who can combine unprotected marital sex with taking full account of their wives’ health are men who are strictly monogamous, but that can’t be what you mean, because that would be too obvious to say.”
Obvious or not, that is what I meant. I was pointing out that Rome’s position on condoms is not made irrespective of other attitudes, it is explicitly combined with other prescribed behaviours such as I outlined. That is why it is absurd to blame the Vatican for those men who have unprotected sex with their wives without taking due account of her health in terms of childbirth risks or transmission of disease or other health problems. men who have unptotected sex with their wives (or anybody else) without taking full account of the woman’s emotuional and health needs are not obeying Catholic doctrine.
John M, I refer you to Merlijn’s comment above:
“if using a silly piece of rubber can negate the harmful consequences of messing around, isn’t there an ethical imperative to allow and stimulate people to use said piece of rubber?”
Even if condom use did promote adultery, it would be a small price to pay for saving lives.
Jeffrey, for heaven’s sake – you said what I quoted you as saying. I even provided the date and time to make it easy for you to check! It’s a bit much to deny it when it’s still right there on the page for all of us to look at. You said “I sometimes think atheists and humanists don’t actually give a damn for other people, because they sure as heck don’t do anything.”
Feel free to take it back if you want to, but don’t pretend you didn’t say it.
John M,
Thank you for the clarification.
“That is why it is absurd to blame the Vatican for those men who have unprotected sex with their wives…men who have unptotected sex with their wives (or anybody else) without taking full account of the woman’s emotuional and health needs are not obeying Catholic doctrine.”
Yes but then what? It remains a fact that some (in fact many) men do have unprotected sex with their wives after having had sex with other women, including prostitutes, who are highly likely to be HIV-positive; what then? Why is it absurd to blame the Vatican for telling the men not to wear a condom in those circumstances?
Presumably people who steal cars with innocent bystanders in them are also disobeying Catholic doctrine; does it follow that the Vatican ought to tell the car-thieves to drive as recklessly as possible?
OB
Of course I don’t deny that I wrote. “I sometimes think atheists and humanists don’t actually give a damn for other people, because they sure as heck don’t do anything.” They don’t found overseas NGOs. Oxfam, Christian Aid, the Hospice movement, Salvation Army, Dr Barnardos – all founded by Christians, not atheists. So some atheists support these charities. It’s better than nothing, but if atheists really did care about common humanity we’d see more of the kind of work carried out by Christian charities by atheists.
Jeffrey, you just did deny it, twice.
I am strongly tempted to block your IP now. Disagreement is good, but this kind of thing is mere gutter-crawling, and does not enrich the discussion. To put it mildly.
OB
I apologise for insulting all atheists. I do not intend or ever have intended gutter crawling. I would like some balance in reporting though.
What do you mean you apologize? What sense does that make? You keep repeating your nonsensical ‘point’ (ignoring Don’s cogent replies) about atheists not caring about common humanity, and then for dessert you apologize for doing so?
“Atheists obviously don’t care about Aids victims in actuality, because they don’t do anything for them in actuality…I sometimes think atheists and humanists don’t actually give a damn for other people, because they sure as heck don’t do anything…if atheists really did care about common humanity we’d see more of the kind of work carried out by Christian charities by atheists.”
You would like some ‘balance’ in reporting? What on earth does that mean? Does this look like a newspaper to you? I’m not a reporter. And what do you mean ‘balance’ anyway? More agreement with your views? Is that what you would like? Well that’s too bad, isn’t it; this isn’t your site, so you don’t get to place orders.
OB
I apologise means I’m sorry I wrote what I wrote.