Yeah, I meant the organization itself. Not all christians, obviously. I had the Catholic Charities in mind

(August 30, 2015 at 3:12 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: K.

(That's too short for a post ._.)

Fair enough, glad we could hash it out and come to an understanding. 

And yeah, I hate the no short response rule lol.

(August 29, 2015 at 6:02 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Vic... I don't think the Church ever said that condoms kill people... :/

They may have said that condoms are not 100% at preventing AIDS and that abstinence is a safer option (which is true), but not that they are some sort of poison that will kill the person who wears it lol.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/condom...board-ads/

Quote:DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania, March 31, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A project promoting chastity instead of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS in Tanzania has caught the attention of authorities. Three billboard signs, bearing a photo of a grinning skeleton on a red background with the caption, "Faithful Condom User" in English and Swahili, were erected by an African affiliate of Human Life International (HLI) and local authorities are "going ballistic".

The caption is a send-up of the so-called "ABC" slogan commonly applied by the international aid organisations: "Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms". With the minimum of ten percent failure rate for latex condoms, even when "correctly" used, and the 100 per cent fatality rate of AIDS, many experts have denounced the condom doctrine as a death trap.

Nevertheless, critics have called the ABC slogan, devised to appease the critics of condom promotion, disingenuous and racist, saying it implies that the goals of chastity are unrealistic for Africans.

HLI says that one large billboard was placed near a main road in the capital city of Dar es Salaam while two smaller versions were put up elsewhere in the city. Fr. Tom Euteneuer writes, "While we presumed that this message and graphic would be controversial, we didn’t expect the international condom lobby to go utterly ballistic over it!"

Clearly, that billboard conveys the message that using a condom is deadly. The group that put it up, Human Life International, is a Catholic apostolate. If the Pope does not want that message out, can he not speak up? How should atheists interpret his silence?

(August 30, 2015 at 3:48 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(August 29, 2015 at 6:02 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Vic... I don't think the Church ever said that condoms kill people... :/

They may have said that condoms are not 100% at preventing AIDS and that abstinence is a safer option (which is true), but not that they are some sort of poison that will kill the person who wears it lol.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/condom...board-ads/

Quote:DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania, March 31, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A project promoting chastity instead of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS in Tanzania has caught the attention of authorities. Three billboard signs, bearing a photo of a grinning skeleton on a red background with the caption, "Faithful Condom User" in English and Swahili, were erected by an African affiliate of Human Life International (HLI) and local authorities are "going ballistic".

 The caption is a send-up of the so-called "ABC" slogan commonly applied by the international aid organisations: "Abstain, Be faithful, use Condoms". With the minimum of ten percent failure rate for latex condoms, even when "correctly" used, and the 100 per cent fatality rate of AIDS, many experts have denounced the condom doctrine as a death trap.

 Nevertheless, critics have called the ABC slogan, devised to appease the critics of condom promotion, disingenuous and racist, saying it implies that the goals of chastity are unrealistic for Africans.

 HLI says that one large billboard was placed near a main road in the capital city of Dar es Salaam while two smaller versions were put up elsewhere in the city. Fr. Tom Euteneuer writes, "While we presumed that this message and graphic would be controversial, we didn’t expect the international condom lobby to go utterly ballistic over it!"

Clearly, that billboard conveys the message that using a condom is deadly. The group that put it up, Human Life International, is a Catholic apostolate. If the Pope does not want that message out, can he not speak up? How should atheists interpret his silence?

Taking into account what I've heard many Church leaders say about condoms and aids, my impression from this billboard is that they believe a person can still get aids while wearing a condom and it is not safe to rely on it when it's the only thing between you and a deadly virus. In that context, yes, they think it's "deadly."

Whether people see this and believe that wearing a condom will kill them as though it were some sort of poison, and so they think it's actually better to have sex with an aids infected person without one on, I do not know.

The implication is perfectly clear. There is no mention of "People can still get AIDS wearing a sleeve". This is clearly drawing an equation between condom use and death, and the reasoning behind the ad's copy/graphics doesn't matter one bit. They are telling people that condom use is fatal, using pictures.

And at any rate, the fact that the church spreads misinformation about condom use makes it complicit in those deaths. The fact that they do not point out that condom use drastically reduces the likelihood of HIV transmission means that they are an obstacle to the betterment of those people. Whether your church's officials "believe" a person can still get AIDS while wearing a condom doesn't address the fact that used properly, condoms save lives. Do you need me to link you to studies on that?

Your church is putting ideology in front of human lives. It cares more about enforcing its stand on contraception than it does about real, living people. I find that reprehensible.

Goddammit Parkers. You said it much better >:c

(August 30, 2015 at 4:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Taking into account what I've heard many Church leaders say about condoms and aids, my impression from this billboard is that they believe a person can still get aids while wearing a condom and it is not safe to rely on it when it's the only thing between you and a deadly virus. In that context, yes, they think it's "deadly."

But one of the reasons why I have much more respect for Doctors without borders than I have for any missionary. They at least know what they're talking about and help with no strings attached. At great personal risk, as the most recent example of the Ebola outbreak showed once again.

(August 30, 2015 at 4:08 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: The implication is perfectly clear. There is no mention of "People can still get AIDS wearing a sleeve". This is clearly drawing an equation between condom use and death, and the reasoning behind the ad's copy/graphics doesn't matter one bit. They are telling people that condom use is fatal, using pictures.

And at any rate, the fact that the church spreads misinformation about condom use makes it complicit in those deaths. The fact that they do not point out that condom use drastically reduces the likelihood of HIV transmission means that they are an obstacle to the betterment of those people. Whether your church's officials "believe" a person can still get AIDS while wearing a condom doesn't address the fact that used properly, condoms save lives. Do you need me to link you to studies on that?

Your church is putting ideology in front of human lives.  It cares more about enforcing its stand on contraception than it does about real, living people.  I find that reprehensible.

Like I have already addressed with Vic. I don't expect people to approve of the Church's way of dealing with condom use in AIDS, or to agree with them on what the best way is to end the spread of it. My problem is how some articles, as well as with how a couple individuals here, have portrayed the Church and blown things out of proportion to villainize the Church. At this point I would be repeating my last 5 or so posts if I explained again lol.

Well, shoot. After reading 20 pages, I skip to the end to find the discussion has moved on.

I'm going to contribute my thoughts on the matter anyway.

After consideration of the matter, I would suggest that a human right is a practice, habit, or action that you are entitled to engage in simply by virtue of your being human. As an entitlement, you are morally deserving of the right simply by virtue of being human.

Inalienable simply means that you always possess this right, whether or not you are being prevented from exercising it, or simply choose not to do so.

Human rights by my definition must be universal, which means that there must be no circumstances in which the entitlement does not apply, with the proviso that as an entitlement, you are deserving of the entitled right, or compensation if it is violated. This is justice. Since no social contract can ensure the universality of a human right, the social contract cannot form the foundation of human rights.

In order for human rights to be universal, justice for the violation of those rights must be transcendent. The enforcement of justice must exist for all time.

A god could perform this role, but the Christian god does not. The basis of reward or punishment of the Christian god is one of mercy, not justice. God forgives; he does not mete out irrepressible justice.

There is a religious framework that does provide an adequate foundation for eternal justice, and that system is karmic law. It is inflexibly just, universal, and the rights it confers are inalienable.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter.

(July 16, 2015 at 10:00 pm)Jenny A Wrote: But since humans and/or nature takes them away with impunity, they are certainly not inalienable. 

Man proposes; nature disposes.