In 1994, Africa was 14.6% Catholic (according to the UN) I would presume that sub-saharan africa is probably upwards of 25% catholic, as the vast majority of northern africa is muslim or one of many indigenous religions. The Catholic religion is also growing extremely fast there (high birthrate and missionary work), so it would not surprise me if today sub-saharan africa was over 1/3 Catholic. The Catholic church is making HUGE inroads there. again, I don't have the exact figure broken down by region. edit - Sam, I'm not sure when the estimation was done to arrive at your figure (sources indicated 1990), but I believe it's a bit on the low side. Of course, that only strengthens your argument.
My question was how many are in the HIV infected areas, not how many are there. Put another way, how many Catholics in Africa are part of the HIV infected populace? If they aren't, then the answer to Sams question is, no. And one might also consider that the Catholic church serves as a caregiver to 1/3 of HIV patients in Africa.
Hayes, is this some asinine game where you ask me how many times the millions of Africans with AIDS go to church? You can google that yourself if you're interested. It is apparent from the information that I provided you that there is a significant population of Catholics in areas with signficant HIV epidemic, such as Uganda, the Congo, etc. Even for the people who don't identify themselves as Catholic, I'm sure they derive no benefit (and are possibly directly harmed) from a bunch of bishops running around saying that condoms are immoral.
Yawn. If the catholics are not predominately in the HIV affected areas, then what is the effect? You make a big brewhaha about their moral culpability, so certainly you should at least show there IS harm occuring, right tough guy? I don't see ANY 'apparent' information that you provided that shows that Catholics are part of the huge AIDS epidemic in Africa. You showed there are lots o Catholics there. But that's hardly the same, is it? On the contrary, Catholic mission take care of 1/3 of all HIV patients in Africa. Your supposition and inuendo is not fact, jackass.
Hayes, all you ever seem to do on this message board is ask people to provide information, yet you never are able to provide any of your own. And when you are faced with contravening information, you just dismiss it any way, never providing any counterexamples. Missile defense, WMD's, whatever. YOu just unilaterally pronounce that something is or isn't a valid concern, provide no backup, and call somebody a jackass. My question was a philosophical one to begin with, so you know what? If you will be kind as to give me a valid answer to the question, I retroactively declare my question a hypothetical in order to stave off any necessity for the Hayes street song and dance and will declare myself a jackass, so change the question to "IF", or if you want change the religion, or change HIV to overpopulation; I don't care. Just give me an answer, or be a douchebag and don't.
Anyone see the South Park where Stan is banished because he doesn't want to vote in the election between the giant douche and the crap sandwich? Not calling either one of you these things, but this sentence reminded me of the episode.
Sam, to answer your question, if they listened to the Pope about condoms, they would probably listen about abstinence and loyalty, correct?
I also believe Bush is not Catholic, I think he considerrs himself Christian, there is a difference. Catholics are also Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic.
No. Not unless they're perfect. But I will give you props for at least trying to answer the question.
But that is what the Pope is preaching. You can't blame the Pope for the spread of HIV when people might chose to listen to one thing he says, but ignore the other. I doubt the individuals are saying "Man I love ignoring the Pope on this whole abstinance thing, but he does say not to use condoms, so at least we are partially ok"
All right fine, but I'm not talking about it on assigning systemic blame or even assigning blame on an individual case level, what if the Pope/Bishop/Mullah/witch doctor knows that people are going to do "it" anyway in a heavy HIV area - is it still morally irresponsible for him/her to preach against condom use in general because of an assessment that they are evil - even if he/she has doubts about how much influence the message will have?
Sam, it's a religious belief. It's more to him that just what the world would call socially responsible. I don't share his belief on this...but if you feel like this is what God is requiring/asking of you...if you feel like this is what His scripture points to...then he would be disobedient to God to do otherwise. He's not gonna do that if he's faithful. I can't blame the Pope for people having unprotected sex. Particularly when he's asking them to be in monogamous relationships with their spouses. Take his full advice and I'm betting AIDS stops spreading so quickly. Just a hunch.
But if you feel that God is requiring you to do and say something that you know or reasonably will contribute to human misery & suffering, you should do it simply based on principle? I don't like the sound of that - especially for something that is so very arbitrary. That sounds an awful lot like jihad-type excuses for commiting murder in the name of allah. Let's drop the HIV example because it's too messy, and go with overpopulation. Let's say a bishop/holy man says that condoms and birth control are evil in an impoverished southern hemisphere nation that is drastically overpopulated and an explosively high birth rate - therefore we can get rid of the "evil fornicators" thing. Let's further say that the reason why he does is this is the sanctity of the sperm. IIRC the church line on busting one is that you HAVE to do it inside of the inner sanctum - no facials, no backdoor action, no playing with yourself, no nothing. This is the interpretation of what jesus wants by a bunch of old italian guys who theoretcially never have sex. Now is this enough "principle" to lean on? Perhaps this is a separate issue, but this just strikes me as so mind numbingly absurd - especially with regard to its potential ramifications, as to question the morality of people advocating positions based on it that have the potential to cause suffering.
You're telling the Pope not to follow what he discerns from Scripture. Not gonna happen. I realize you don't understand that, but it's not gonna happen. This is not a commandment to go out and kill...it's nowhere near Jihad, Sam. it's saying, be responsible...stick with your spouse and stop sleeping around. edit: let me add that i don't understand the prohibition of condoms from a Biblical perspective.
That's not what I'm talking about, the church says all artificial birth control is evil and a sin, even for married people. I don't mind the church being against fornication, fine, but being against something that is a public health benefit, simply becuase it is affiliated with sex? That's like declaring gynecologists sinful because they deal with naughty parts. Anyway, I'd like to see the "scriputural research" that says latex condoms, which weren't to be invented for about a thousand years, are off limits. Was this part of Jesus famous Durex sermon? Edit: just saw your last edit so disregard the last part.
Sam, you started in with the insults so don't go all moral high ground. I was curious how big an effect the Pope has vis-a-vis Africa as far as AIDS/HIV goes. If you don't know then why not just say it instead of getting your panties in a wad. And you're really wrong about 'what I usually do.' I quite often provide contravening articles and examples. I NEVER make a claim without a warrant, and you are - generally - a jackass. If you'd like a little more egg on your face, take your BMD example. Go back and look how much information I provided in that thread. Look at ANY of the threads I've posted in lately, North Korea, Bush will fail in Europe. In each I've posted at LEAST one article to further discussion. Try again. But to be fair my question to you is one of scope. IF the pope's declarations have caused deaths that could have been prevented, then at some level you'd think he'd be culpable.
but dont you think that if the pope/bishop/mullah/witch was asked if they'd prefer HIV or condoms they'd pick condoms? but if they say use condoms they are basically allowing it. and they can't say that.
