This really annoys me.

[Best First]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/christmasappe ... 65,00.html

"Oh, we will help you, but only if you subscribe to our twisted version of morality, if not, then **** you, your life isn't as important as my dogmatic social agenda"

c***s.

[Brendocon]

Is giving people clean needles encouraging their habit?

Acknowledging it, yes. Taking steps to make the practise safer for them, yes. Encouraging it? Hrm.

"We don't want you to do it, but if you're going to, for [composite word including 'f*ck']'s sake use this instead." Not really encouragement, is it?

I love the attitude of "if you don't want to get AIDS, prescribe to our morality!" It's a quality argument and always will be.

Puts me in mind of "if you don't want to go to hell, prescribe to our religion!" although slightly more grounded in scientific fact, admittedly...

[saysadie]

FFS.

if you're going to, for ****'s sake use this instead.

Yes! It's much, much preferable/realistic than pushing abstinence, that's for sure. The policy is ******.

This just... pisses me right off.

[Legion]

what a load of crock...

and this...

But Mrs Museveni has said condom distribution pushes young people into sex and recently equated condom use with theft and murder in an interview with the BBC World Service.

Is ********... "Oh no, i've been given some condoms... oh no! now i'm going to have to go out and have sex!"
They already are, that's the ******* problem (no pun intended)! They're going to do it anyway, so give them some protection!! Bugger me, it's not that difficult a concept is it?! Sheeesh.

As for how using a condom is equilivent to theft and murder... i have no idea what she's on, but it must be some good ****.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

once more Religon kills millions...

and in other news the Pope says being Gay is wrong - welcome to the 21st century

[saysadie]

They're going to do it anyway, so give them some protection

That's it exactly. But it isn't about the people, you see... it's about pushing their own standards of morality while making it seem it is about the people!

Makes me sick. People are wholly welcome to have their own beliefs/way of doing things, but when some do stuff like this... it just leaves me at a loss for words. Of the non-expletive variety anyway.

[Professor Smooth]

Any of you UK peeps have a couch I can crash on? I need out of here before the Iron Curtain comes up.

[Metal Vendetta]

Any of you UK peeps have a couch I can crash on? I need out of here before the Iron Curtain comes up.

You housetrained?

[Professor Smooth]

Any of you UK peeps have a couch I can crash on? I need out of here before the Iron Curtain comes up.

You housetrained?

Indeed. 20 years without a single accident. And that includes Guinness-fueled evenings on the town.

[Bouncelot]

The problem isn't with abstinance programs per se. Abstinance is clearly the best way of stopping AIDS from spreading - after all, if you don't have sex, you ain't gonna catch AIDS or spread it if you already have it. The problem is that getting people to opt for abstinance is very difficult, and hence pushing condoms (which are less effective) is a necessary addition to the program - something which Bush doesn't seem to get. I don't think it's a case of religious belief - Bush isn't a Catholic, after all and they're the only religious group who (at least officially) are against condoms.

Of course, with either approach you also need to dispel myths about AIDS. For example, in many parts of Africa there is a myth that having sex with a virgin will cure you of AIDS. Myths like that need to be tackled under any program, and should probably be at least as high a priority as abstinance or condoms.

[Eline]

When will they realise that you cannot stop people from having sex?

[Denyer]

http://www.websnark.com/archives/2005/1 ... _ever.html

Why didn't anyone tell me that the TLW campaign pretty much belongs to a Christian merchandising company named Lifeway? It's a beautiful racket. Studies demonstrate that a chastity pledge tends to last about eighteen months (so much for [REDACTED] and [OMITTED]) before you get yourself some backsliding. So, introduce your product range -- True Love Waits rings, necklaces, books, CDs, and other "inspirational" tat -- into the Christian marketplace, and put some viral marketing into play. Make your logos and your rituals freely reproducible; provide some engaging activities for youth leaders to bring into their high school groups. Make it very easy to inject those rituals into the course of a normal church service, particularly ones which, you know, if you really want to, because you could use a silver ring, of course, but you could use a TLW branded ring to remind the kids of the pledge they'll be taking. The one you wrote.

The one they can take more than once. With a new ring each time, if you like?

One you can pick up at your local Christian bookstore?

This bothers me. (It's not just TLW, either. There's Silver Ring Thing, but that's more of an event-driven operation.) TLW is the Kleenex of youth sexual purity in the United States right now, and it's rigged. Coincidentally enough, you can start a teenager on this path right now, which'll get them into senior year of high school or the first year of college. At that point, you can start in on the Waterbrook Press series of Battle books for your age group and gender -- Every Young Woman's Battle or Every Young Man's. Problem with porn? Or all-consuming crushes on more than one person? There's books and music and CDs and events for all that, too.

And then, you know, eighteen months to three years? Do as well as you can, then fall over, because you're meant to fall over. That's not what you should do, and of course it's your fault (you wouldn't keep up on this path if you didn't keep right with the Lord, right? Dude, you need to keep an eye on that). But you will.

And then the adult stuff -- Every Man or Woman's Battle -- will be there for you. In the Armed Forces? There's Every Soldier's Battle.

Of course.

Of course.

Did you know that Lifeway own several Christian bookstores?

Do you know how angry I am right now that there's an industry devoted to drawing money out of people who set themselves up for failure in their romantic and/or sexual relationships, whether through an addiction model or through the notion of any sort of fulfilling extramarital bond (notwithstanding your girlfriends, of course, because you don't want them like that) or just getting overwhelmed by hormones and hewing to the letter of the law to stay sane? That it exists to trap you, with cheap rings as a teenager and manipulative workshops as an adult, when you fall over every eighteen to thirty-six months once you've been suckered into this paradigm?

And that it works in the name of God?

You know I keep an eye on Jack Chick, and I watch TBN, and I read Left Behind. I do this stuff for more than one reason. I take the power this stuff holds out of myself, and I look at it, and I dismember it.

I remember the time a well-meaning friend tried to send me into the arms of Exodus International. He wasn't the first, but he was the most persuasive. He was misguided. He was wrong. I knew better, and thank God I was strong enough to do that much; all it took was one phone call and I could see this road ahead of me. (The book you want here is Stranger At the Gate by Mel White. It's nothing new.)

You send yourself to the workshops, you read the books, you lag one step behind the fiscal trail; in one year or three or five or ten, you stop being able to put things in the little boxes, and you fall apart. And there's the machine.

There's the machine, which tells you it can put you all back together again. For a price.

For a price.

Do you know how angry I am that they've found a way to do this for everyone else, too?

[Scraplet]

Bush isn't a Catholic, after all and they're the only religious group who (at least officially) are against condoms.
.

No. Bush appears to be of this strange sect of christianity who pick and choose their morality to suit themselves from the Judeo-Christian Library of Conditional Life-Choices. They usually pick the most convenient interpretation as well.......

Most of the world was doing OK until the christian missionarys arrived. Its 2005 and their job of f***** it all up is still not done, apparently.

[sprunkner]

"In reality, people have sex ... much as conservative evangelists in the US might prefer that they didn't," said Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on international development.


Hear hear.

As someone who didn't have sex until marriage... let me tell you, it's F***IN' HARD! And for people who don't subscribe to a religion or philosophy of no premarital sex, there's no reason not to. Had we not been Mormon, my wife and I would have had sex before we were married. We love each other. We loved each other then. That's what people who love (or are, at least, attracted) do. I can see that, and apparently I'm speaking from the abstinent side.

This idea that people will somehow stop having sex has never worked. England in the Middle Ages was quite thoroughly Catholic, and yet bastard children popped up all the time. This abstinence thing is another example of the scary, Uber-Christian propoganda of this monstrous Republican government. I need to move.

[Metal Vendetta]

On the abortion thing...are they seriously suggesting it's better to have an HIV+ baby in the middle of a pandemic-stricken continent with little or no medical facility?

[Professor Smooth]

On the abortion thing...are they seriously suggesting it's better to have an HIV+ baby in the middle of a pandemic-stricken continent with little or no medical facility?

Yes. They believe that, even if the baby is born with no chance to live to maturity and guaranteed to have a disease that it will never be treated for, it's still better than not being born at all.

I can see their point, and I disagree with it completely.

[Best First]

also, as soon as you introduce the issue of drug use... abstinence loses its 100% effective boast.

get married to someone who was a user and shared the wrong needle, make sin free whoopee, get AIDs.

Still at least they are not also ragging on clean needles. what? oh.

The thing that maddens me is that this is all so obvious, how can people look at this from such a warped perspective?

[Optimus Prime Rib]

also, as soon as you introduce the issue of drug use... abstinence loses its 100% effective boast.

get married to someone who was a user and shared the wrong needle, make sin free whoopee, get AIDs.

Still at least they are not also ragging on clean needles. what? oh.

The thing that maddens me is that this is all so obvious, how can people look at this from such a warped perspective?

which is why most states require a blood test before getting a marriage license.

[Professor Smooth]

The thing that maddens me is that this is all so obvious, how can people look at this from such a warped perspective?

They can't see the forest for the trees. When you've spent generations in extended families that believe absolutely that what the invisible man in the sky told Jesus to tell people to tell you, that is a LOT of stuff to work through.

Not to mention it's becoming increasingly obvious that people in power are not mentally sound.

[Bouncelot]

No. Bush appears to be of this strange sect of christianity who pick and choose their morality to suit themselves from the Judeo-Christian Library of Conditional Life-Choices. They usually pick the most convenient interpretation as well.......

About a year ago, I got a chance to read a book about Bush's attempts to get his morality into policy. After extensive reviewing of the evidence, it got to the conclusion that Bush's morality was more his gut feeling than anything worked out from his Christian faith (assuming, of course, that he is actually a Christian).

Most of the world was doing OK until the christian missionarys arrived. Its 2005 and their job of f***** it all up is still not done, apparently.

That's as lopsided as Bush. The spread of Christianity has, overall, had positive consequences. Just because one (admittedly powerful) extremist group (i.e. Bush and co) are doing the world a disservice doesn't mean that all Christians are.

As someone who didn't have sex until marriage... let me tell you, it's F***IN' HARD! And for people who don't subscribe to a religion or philosophy of no premarital sex, there's no reason not to. Had we not been Mormon, my wife and I would have had sex before we were married. We love each other. We loved each other then. That's what people who love (or are, at least, attracted) do. I can see that, and apparently I'm speaking from the abstinent side.

As someone who intends to never have sex until marriage, I'd agree with you that it cnn be very hard. I know a few Christian friends who have failed in that respect. I also know a lot who, as far as I know, have succeeded. But it certainly is possible. The problem with the abstinence message (which, incidentally, everybody agrees should be part of the solution to the African AIDS crisis) is that it requires people to commit to something that can be difficult and which requires a fair degree of self-control.

Yes. They believe that, even if the baby is born with no chance to live to maturity and guaranteed to have a disease that it will never be treated for, it's still better than not being born at all.

I can see their point, and I disagree with it completely.

You missed their other point - that it's as much murder to deliberately kill a child before he or she is born as it is to deliberately kill him or her after he or she is born. And I disagree with your disagreement, anyway. It's better to have a life of some sort than to not have one at all.

[Professor Smooth]

Yes. They believe that, even if the baby is born with no chance to live to maturity and guaranteed to have a disease that it will never be treated for, it's still better than not being born at all.

I can see their point, and I disagree with it completely.

You missed their other point - that it's as much murder to deliberately kill a child before he or she is born as it is to deliberately kill him or her after he or she is born. And I disagree with your disagreement, anyway. It's better to have a life of some sort than to not have one at all.

No. I did not miss that point. I said that they (and, apparently, you) believe that it's better that a child be born into total misery than not be born at all. I also said that I disagree with it. The child will, in all probability, not be murdered after it's born. It will, however, suffer its entire life and die after causing more misery for its parents.

I'm not a fan of suffering.

I'm a big fan of voluntary euthenasia.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

bottom line

religon is stupid

stupid = no condoms in AIDS striken Africa

religon = AIDS

[Scraplet]

Most of the world was doing OK until the christian missionarys arrived. Its 2005 and their job of f***** it all up is still not done, apparently.

That's as lopsided as Bush.

My (admitidly not well made!) point was that the countries that are currently being subjected to this kind of conditional philanthropy are the same type of countries whos traditional cultures and way of life was most harmed by missionaries telling them how to live their lives in centuaries past.

I don't think thats lopsided. I think that pretty much how it is. This is the modern version of missionary work. "Do it my way or you'll go to hell!"

The spread of Christianity has, overall, had positive consequences. Just because one (admittedly powerful) extremist group (i.e. Bush and co) are doing the world a disservice doesn't mean that all Christians are.

I can't make a value judgement as to whether christianity is more benefical to a country than a religon it replaced (though my gut feeling is that many parts of the world would have been better-off without it). However, I find the notion of one group imposing their religion on another group morally wrong. I'm not saying that all christians are responsible for this, I'm just pointing out that its disgusting that it still happens.

[Bouncelot]

No. I did not miss that point. I said that they (and, apparently, you) believe that it's better that a child be born into total misery than not be born at all. I also said that I disagree with it. The child will, in all probability, not be murdered after it's born. It will, however, suffer its entire life and die after causing more misery for its parents.

I'm not a fan of suffering.

I'm a big fan of voluntary euthenasia.

And, apparently, of involuntary euthanasia. What's your response to the "abortion is murder" argument?

bottom line

religon is stupid

stupid = no condoms in AIDS striken Africa

religon = AIDS

Um, the vast majority of religious groups are in favour of condoms for the prevention of AIDS. Blame Bush, not religion.

My (admitidly not well made!) point was that the countries that are currently being subjected to this kind of conditional philanthropy are the same type of countries whos traditional cultures and way of life was most harmed by missionaries telling them how to live their lives in centuaries past.

I don't think thats lopsided. I think that pretty much how it is. This is the modern version of missionary work. "Do it my way or you'll go to hell!"

Missionaries have made far less impact on traditional ways of life than the export of capitalism. The spread of Christianity in Africa over the last century has been predominantly the result of Africans spreading it themselves.

I can't make a value judgement as to whether christianity is more benefical to a country than a religon it replaced (though my gut feeling is that many parts of the world would have been better-off without it). However, I find the notion of one group imposing their religion on another group morally wrong. I'm not saying that all christians are responsible for this, I'm just pointing out that its disgusting that it still happens.

You're the one apparently blaming the world's woes on Christian missionaries. The missionaries were the only westerners who ever spoke up against abuses of colonial power. The African religions that were there before Christianity (at least in those parts of Africa which haven't had Christian communities since before most of Europe) are still there, though people are converting from them to either Christianity or Islam in droves without coercion - not that Christianity has spread through coercion.

As for blaming Christianity for being worse than the pre-existing religions, what gives you that gut feeling? Do you know anything about the differences between Christianity and any of the religions people had before converting to Christianity?

[Scraplet]

Missionaries have made far less impact on traditional ways of life than the export of capitalism.

Theres an awful lot of history here.....but lets have a go!

The missionaries were wrapped up in the attitude that said "these savages need taming" and in many ways, spearheaded colonialism. Christianity alone has not caused all the problems of sub-saharan Africa, but the attitude that has caused all the problems is based in the Missionaries objectives.

David Livingstone spoke of "the white man's burden" to evangelise and civilise the African people. We know he never bothered to ask the Africans what they thought of this, or whether they were quite happy already. You'd think that over the last 150 years the lesson had been learned and no-one would be that arrogant anymore, wouldn't you?

People like him paved the way for the economic exploitation that continues to today.

The spread of Christianity in Africa over the last century has been predominantly the result of Africans spreading it themselves.

Fair enough. I'm quite prepared to beleive that. Start the ball rolling......

You're the one apparently blaming the world's woes on Christian missionaries.

Not the world woes, I clearly didn't say that. Just pointing out that a lot of poor b*stards in history suffered cos they were forcibly converted by zelots who considered any belief system or culture other than theirs to be worthless.

The missionaries were the only westerners who ever spoke up against abuses of colonial power.

Such as? British missionaries were supporters of colonialism - they were the colonists!!. They encouraged it and their whole structure was based on "the good Western civilized world being brought to the Pagans." They were usually confronting reasonably stable cultures that had, in some cases, thousands of years of history prior to J.C. even being born! Then they screwed them up in a matter of years.

I mean, whatever problems it had, what kind of a zealot walks into a country like India, a nation that gave the world the Vedas at a time when Europeans were still trying to make mud huts, and dismisses it all as the work of Pagan savages!!!

As for blaming Christianity for being worse than the pre-existing religions, what gives you that gut feeling? Do you know anything about the differences between Christianity and any of the religions people had before converting to Christianity?

I don't blame Christianity for being worse than anything, and I don't proffess to be an expert on any perticular religon. Thats why I said I won't make a value judgement on which religon is best.

My personal opinion is that all religons are hocum. However, I would defend anyones right to practice any religon they want. I also recognise that religon forms the cornerstone of many cultures. If you remove or weaken a cornerstone the structure collapses.

This is a lesson the world should have learned from the religous colonists of the last few hundred years.

But apparantly, they would prefer to use the current mess to further their evangelical ends by offering 'charity' with their own morality-soaked strings attached. And they believe they are the Rightious!

It's still Livingstone's "white man's burden" all over, isn't it???

Why can't christians look back at history and say "actually, we really ***** that up didn't we? Lets not do that again"

[Bouncelot]

Missionaries have made far less impact on traditional ways of life than the export of capitalism.

Theres an awful lot of history here.....but lets have a go!

The missionaries were wrapped up in the attitude that said "these savages need taming" and in many ways, spearheaded colonialism. Christianity alone has not caused all the problems of sub-saharan Africa, but the attitude that has caused all the problems is based in the Missionaries objectives.

David Livingstone spoke of "the white man's burden" to evangelise and civilise the African people. We know he never bothered to ask the Africans what they thought of this, or whether they were quite happy already. You'd think that over the last 150 years the lesson had been learned and no-one would be that arrogant anymore, wouldn't you?

People like him paved the way for the economic exploitation that continues to today.

While some missionaries came from that point of view, they pretty much all wanted to help the people who they were reaching out to. Missionaries were responsible for the bulk of the positive impacts of the colonial era - things like education and healthcare. Their attitude was miles away from that of the colonial power - who, essentially, wanted to take the wealth of the colonies and send it back to their mother country. Basically, the missionaries were trying to help rather than to exploit. Sure, they got it wrong a lot of the time, but they were certainly not the malign influence that actually did the exploiting, and continues exploiting to this day. That was, and still is, capitalism.

You're the one apparently blaming the world's woes on Christian missionaries.

Not the world woes, I clearly didn't say that. Just pointing out that a lot of poor b*stards in history suffered cos they were forcibly converted by zelots who considered any belief system or culture other than theirs to be worthless.

Who said that people were forcibly converted? The only place where that kind of thing happened in substantial numbers was in Latin America, where the population continued a lot of their old worship under the guise of revering the saints (which, incidentally, was a few centuries before what we now think of as the colonial era). Conversions to Christianity elsewhere have been voluntary, not forced. And, of course, it's always possible that those converted were actually better off than they had been before.

The missionaries were the only westerners who ever spoke up against abuses of colonial power.

Such as? British missionaries were supporters of colonialism - they were the colonists!!. They encouraged it and their whole structure was based on "the good Western civilized world being brought to the Pagans." They were usually confronting reasonably stable cultures that had, in some cases, thousands of years of history prior to J.C. even being born! Then they screwed them up in a matter of years.

Every single example of a westerner speaking up against colonial abuses of the natives was a missionary. For a few examples, go here

[quote[I mean, whatever problems it had, what kind of a zealot walks into a country like India, a nation that gave the world the Vedas at a time when Europeans were still trying to make mud huts, and dismisses it all as the work of Pagan savages!!![/quote]

Maybe somebody who sees the caste system as an oppressive class system designed to put people in their place. The caste system, which is the predominant feature of Indian society is, in my opinion, evil. Although neither missionaries nor colonial government abolished it, they did remove some of its worse atrocities.

As for blaming Christianity for being worse than the pre-existing religions, what gives you that gut feeling? Do you know anything about the differences between Christianity and any of the religions people had before converting to Christianity?

I don't blame Christianity for being worse than anything, and I don't proffess to be an expert on any perticular religon. Thats why I said I won't make a value judgement on which religon is best.

My personal opinion is that all religons are hocum. However, I would defend anyones right to practice any religon they want. I also recognise that religon forms the cornerstone of many cultures. If you remove or weaken a cornerstone the structure collapses.

There's a contradiction in what you're saying there. On the one hand, you want people to be able to choose their religion, on the other you don't want people to change from the religion that has traditionally held sway over their society. What Christian Missionaries past and present have done is to offer the choice of changing your religion. Yes, in the colonial era they tended to include too much western culture in with what they preached. But that was because they only knew Christianity in a western culture. Today missionaries are far more aware of what is part of their culture and what is actually Christianity.

This is a lesson the world should have learned from the religous colonists of the last few hundred years.

That it's a bad thing to give people the opportunity to change their religion? Culture is a changeable thing anyway. Societies where the missionaries made little or no impact have usually had some major shifts in their culture due to the economic relalities of the last couple of hundred years. If you want traditional cultures to continue, then you have to oppose the global trading system as well. And Christians have learnt a lot about avoiding any kind of cultural imperialism in their missionary and evangelistic activities. Yes, there are still cases where we get it wrong, but on the whole we're tending to get the balance right.

But apparantly, they would prefer to use the current mess to further their evangelical ends by offering 'charity' with their own morality-soaked strings attached. And they believe they are the Rightious!

It's still Livingstone's "white man's burden" all over, isn't it???

In Bush's case - he's choosing to fund programs which fit with his personal morality (though there is the question of whether the US President is entitiled to do so). To ask him to fund a program which he disagrees with on moral grounds could be seen an impositition on his religious beliefs. Imposing religious belief works both ways, you know.
(eek - I'm defending Bush - scary),

Christians in general, though, do not put strings on their charitable projects. Anybody who wants to recieve help can do so. That's the way it has always tended to be, and the way it works today. Help with strings attached is an aberration, not the norm.

Why can't christians look back at history and say "actually, we really ***** that up didn't we? Lets not do that again"

What, precisely, are you saying we shouldn't be doing again? Spreading the gospel? Sorry, but that's been part of Christianity since the beginning and if someone really believes the Christian gospel, then it's inevitable that they want to see others become Christians too. Not spreading it in ways that look like cultural imperialism? By and large we've learnt that one. Bush and cronies are not representative of Christianity as a whole.

[Professor Smooth]

The caste system, which is the predominant feature of Indian society is, in my opinion, evil.

And with that one little word, your argument becomes worthless. Evil? Please.

[Bouncelot]

The caste system, which is the predominant feature of Indian society is, in my opinion, evil.

And with that one little work, your argument becomes worthless. Evil? Please.

It's the most extensive system of institutionalised discrimination in history. There are castes who are forced to clean up other castes excrement. The "untouchable" castes are effectively considered less than human by higher castes. Do you really think that the system is good?

[BB Shockwave]

The caste system, which is the predominant feature of Indian society is, in my opinion, evil.

And with that one little work, your argument becomes worthless. Evil? Please.

Maybe "unjust" is a better word. But ever imagined what living as a phariah might be like? You think it's a good system? I'd be the first to criticise democracy's flaws, but please, even dictatures are better then the caste system. Only way out of it is that maybe you get lucky and be reborn into a higher cast... Yeah, right.

[Professor Smooth]

The caste system, which is the predominant feature of Indian society is, in my opinion, evil.

And with that one little work, your argument becomes worthless. Evil? Please.

Maybe "unjust" is a better word. But ever imagined what living as a phariah might be like? You think it's a good system? I'd be the first to criticise democracy's flaws, but please, even dictatures are better then the caste system. Only way out of it is that maybe you get lucky and be reborn into a higher cast... Yeah, right.

Let me see if I've got your argument correctly. If there is a government or social order that you believe works better than another one, the first system is considered "evil?"

That about the size of it, then?