Wednesday, 18 March 2009

Pope Benedict is a Dangerous Lunatic

In his first visit to Africa today, the Pope said these words:

“AIDS is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.”

It must be true because he’s infallible, right. Right?

This is a perfect illustration of so many things.

. . . the fact that so many of our religious “leaders” are more interested in maintaining their moral authority than helping people.

. . . that religion is far from innocuous and has the power to cause real and genuine harm in our world.

. . . why it’s so important to keep religion out of politics.

But most of all, it throws into sharp relief the fact that the Catholic church is nothing more than a dangerous relic of a bygone age. With this one unconscionable statement, the Pope has damned his faith and his followers to the trashcan of history.

This is just cause for every Catholic in the world to denounce their leader as a misanthropic lunatic and demand his resignation. If they fail to do this, then the necessary response from rational thinking people worldwide is clear.

We must declare that the Catholic Church is no longer worthy of any political or social influence.

We must declare that its priests and cardinals are never again to be considered authorities on any matters of morality or ethics.

We must call on our governments to withdraw funding from Catholic churches, schools and organisations.

And finally, we must demand that this pompous and sanctimonious dipshit known as the Pope Benedict XVI, who has proven himself to be dangerously out of touch with reality, should immediately and without further delay pull his ignorant fucking head in.


Sarah said...

Not to mention the fact that you can be excommunicated for helping a little girl to get a life saving medical procedure but not for raping her.

ZAROVE said...

Let me ge htis straight, religion is dangerous because one religion, Cahtolisism, teahces soemthign you dont like.

I also noted that you just assumed your view was right and didnt really engage in the Catholic position.

It seems that for all the high minded tlak of how rational and logical you lot are, and how irrational and even dangeorus peopel who disagree wiht you are, the bototm line is that you convince peopel with an emotion-laden rant that doens't even tell you why the Cahtolic Church teaches as it does.

It doens't even matter that the Pope is actulaly right, COndom use has not actuallystemmed the tide of AIDS in africa. The Cahtolic Churhc isn't a promenant force in the fight agaisnt AIDS, as much fo the ocntenent is either Protestant or Islamic. A good many Secular groups hand out condoms too. It does seem to only make matters worse.

Besides, do you reallyt hink its logical to blame the Pope for this? You act liek the Pope said they shoudl continue o have risky sex wiht prositutes or random women, but just dont wear condoms. Actually the Cahtlic posiiton is that no one shodl have sex outside of marriage, thus eliminatign the need for OCndoms.

But you dont even mention this, because you presume too much abut yourown way of thinking about hte topic.

Also, do stop sayign religion is dangeorus and promoting Humanism. Humanism, even "Secular Hum,anism", is a Religion too. Religion is just a worldview, not beelif in a god or transcendant reality. Its how you view the world.

Your just as religiosu as anyone else.

Matt said...

The Catholic church's policy against condom usage has caused unnecessary death and suffering for millions in the third world.

These people need genuine education, not useless religious dogma.

ZAROVE said...

Matt, the accusation that the Catholic teaching has caused death may legitimise in your mind your hatred of all things Christian, but its not true. In fact, everything you’ve said is obviously false, and clearly the result of Bigotry.

Let me explain first with your mischaracterization of motives.

You claim that the Popes one sentence you quoted proves that he doesn’t really care about people, and places the teachings of the Church above actually helping people. Well, does it really?

Even operating on the assumption that Condom use does help, you cannot logically arrive at this conclusion. If someone honestly thought that Condoms where making the problem worse, then speaking what the Pope did (Which was mild and buried in a much longer address) would be expected. In fact, not to criticise Condom use would be irresponsible given the belief.

In order to make this work, you’d have to accept that the Pope actually accepts that Condoms are effective in reducing the HIV thread, and simply doesn’t care. This makes your rant on it circular, because you assume the conclusion, that the Pope puts doctrine above really helping people, into the argument itself. If we don’t assume the Pope is malicious to begin with we cannot arrive at him being malicious in his stance. How is that Logical and reasonable if you?

The next problem is that the Catholic Churches teachings can’t possibly be responsible for the HIVB epidemic getting worse.

The Catholic position is that you should have only one sexual partner, either a husband or a wife, and to remain chaste with them alone for life. This works together with the proscription of condom use.

If the people are still contracting HIV from sexual liaisons outside of marriage, and transmitting them to others, how can this reasonably be blamed on Catholic Teaching?

Are we expected to believe an African Villager will refuse to wear a Condom because the Pope said so, only to visit a prostitute or take numerous lovers? How does that work?

Imagine it if you will.

Odynga the African Villager speaks.

He is a Devout Cahtolic.

Odynga if offered a Condom by a local NGO AID worker.

He replies “ I cannot use Condoms, they are a sin before God, condemned by Holy Mother Church and His Holiness the Pope. I cannot sin by their use.” Later in that day Odyanga goes off to visit a Prostitute for sex.

Apparently Holy Mother Church and the Pope are OK with that.

If not, if the Church would frown upon such activity, then your entire argument collapses. And it does collapse because the Catholic Church would consider that sinful. Why would someone honour the Catholic Churches teachings about condoms only to rape or commit adultery?

Your statement makes absolutely no sense.

Then consider that the Pope does have a point. Condom use is not 100% effective n representing disease spread, and some studies have shown that Condom use has e\lead to increase in HIV infections. At any rate there are groups hat disseminate Condoms, even Church groups, and even they say this hasn’t stemmed the tide.
The issue is far more complex than you seem to be giving it credit for.

Then again, your really only using this as a Vehicle to slam the Pope and Catholic Church, and by extension all of Christianity.

Never mind that all Christians aren’t Catholic, they will all be blamed for this because it is convenient for you.

Never mind that some Church groups actually give condoms away in Africa, doesn’t stop you a bit form saying this shows how Religion is Dangerous. (Except apparently Paganism, which you falsely thing of as Atheism in intent if not language despite the obvious appeal to outside forces and not just nature in general)

From the Popes one sentence, you even conclude, from one stance you disagree with, that this proves how Dangerous Religion is, even though by the same logic, even assuming that this is some horrible and obviously wrong doctrine, that is utterly despicable, its still just one doctrine form one Church. The same can be applied to Politics. You criticise the American Republican Party’s Economic principles, so I guess this means Economic models all together are horrible.

You can’t even condemn all of Catholic teaching base don one or two things you disagree with, but you do. that’s insane.

And even IF we stretched this to show the whole Catholic Church as reprehensible, you’d run into problems. Hitler’s Third Reich was terrible, does that prove all Political systems are bad?

Basically your thinking is irrational and illogical. You take the Catholic Churches opposition to condoms, in a single sentence form a much longer speech where its really understated, and transform this into evidence of how bad all of Christianity is and how it leads only to the ruination of life, sacrificing helping people in a real way for doctrine.

How can I take that seriously?

Then the standard “Religion should not be in politics” trifle. Well, this is insane. You want Humanist principles implementer din society and politics, yet somehow that’s OK. (Let me guess, its not a religion, right?) This is because you believe in them.

Well, wouldn’t a Christian honestly believe in Christianity? How do you separate his genuine belief in Christianity from how he’d function politically? Or would you rather forbid all Christians form ever holding public office who actually believed in the Faith?

Religion is a Philosophical framework which enables us to understand the world around us. Everyone has a Religion, and religion simply acts as a foundational framework in our mind telling us our relationship to it ad how to understand it.

That’s all it is at its core. Its not belief in God or the Supernatural, its simply belief about the world in General. That’s why Zen Buddhism is classed as a Religion, and until they threw a hissy fit why Humanism was, and still is in many circles. ( And in fact is a religion by definition.) Religion is foundational.

As a result, what your basically saying is that we shouldn’t allow how we see the world and understand it to work into politics. But that’s asking the impossible.

Incidentally, what if your wrong about the Condoms? What if they do make the problem worse? Wouldn’t it be better to engage in serious dialogue about the problem rather than just condemning others because they disagree? Is it really better to just attack them and accuse them of not really caring because they don’t agree?

Of course none of that matters. The real point of this is not a sincere outrage at the Catholic Church over its stance on Condoms. You didn’t read that sentence and come here steaming mad and arrive at all these conclusions based upon it. You had these conclusions already in mind.

You already hated Christianity, and already preached that we should separate Politic form religion, and already said it was dangerous, and already talked about how it prevented progress. Before this you talked about how Christians stole the Winter Solstice form Atheists, even though this is a fabrication.

You already hated Christianity, and simply used this as an excuse to rail against it. This is nothing more than you being a bigot and using this as a vehicle to propagate hatred and to legitimise it.

You don’t care about the people in Africa , you don’t really care about hat the Pope aid, you just use it as an excuse, nothing more.

This all boils down to you wanting to find a reason to preach hatred against Christianity. Ultimately that’s all I see in this.

You talk about how Rational Thinking people should use this as an opportunity to completely cut off the Catholic Church and denounce it as a moral authority and to never again allow it to have any moral authority, even if it did change its teachings to accommodate you.

This is just idiotic. Basically, for this one crime against your Humanism, they must be banished forever to the fringes.

Come off it, this is just an excuse as I said.

The whole “I’m a rational thinker because I am an Atheist” but also becomes tired. You fancy yourself a Rational thinker, but you are so far removed form reason its not even funny.

Rational thinkers do not make vain emotional pleas and issue rants that condemn entire groups base on a single disagreement, or call for the movement to be never again allowed any authority based on it.

Rational thinking people also do not condemn people as uncaring about others simply because they disagree, either, as if everyone with compassion agrees with you.

This isn’t rational thinking, its emotive thinking, its thinking rooted in a need to villinise another in order to build ones own moral authority on how bad the other group is. Its an attempt to depict another as evil in order to pose yourself as good in fighting it. Its an attempt at foisting your belief son others by getting them to hate another group.

Its rooted in passion and a need t control, its not, nor has it ever been, rational thinking. Its just bullying.

Matt said...


If someone honestly thought that availablity of condoms and education on how to use them correctly would make the problem worse, then they are reality-deniers of the highest order.

Correct use of condoms will reduce the likelihood of disease transmission by about 90%. That's just a fact, established in study after study.

Therefore, for condom use to make the situation worse, it would have to cause people to have over 10 times more sex than they do now.

What possible rational explanation could there be for that?

Pope Benedict is not uneducated. He must know this.

In spite of this fact, the Catholic church has been complicit in holding back availability of condoms and education on condom use, for no other reason than maintaining the dogma and authority of their church.

This has led to death and suffering. It's evil.

ZAROVE said...

This is what I mean by biased and jaundiced views.

Yes the Pope is educated,but I suspect your not form the above.

Educated peopel have argued that COndom distrubution is not the answer besides Cahtolics. Including pepel who actulaly work in Africa, some of whom are Atheists.

THe pat answer you use may be a cut-and-dry and black-and-white take on it from which you see yo view as the only correct vierw possible given the informaiton and anyoen else as reality-denying insanity, but the truth is that if you do a simple searhc on the internet you will see both reasoned Catholci respinces to this claim, and some non-Catholic, non-Christian critisism of this view, from workers in Africa, who deal in this.

By asserting this is the obvious truth to any raitonal, thinkign person who knwos the facts, you display the sort of shallow and arrogan thtinkign Ive been warnign you about, because you refuse to considr ehat anyoen else has ot say if it contradicts the way you view things.

The truth is, Rational, clear thinking peopel have put fourht arguments agaisnt this practice because htye say it only aggitates the problem, an dagain not all are Cahtolic, or even CHristian.

As tothe Cahtolci CHurhc,your again ascribing the worst posisble motive to them base don such narorw htinking. You assume that the Pope knows the turht that condom use owul be effective in fihting HIV but dilineraltye refuses ot use htem just to maintian the authority and dogma of his CHurch and htus places his docitrne above relalyhelpign people base don the idea that all educated peopel agree wiht your above statements, which I know for a fact isn't true.

So again, how can I take ytour claism seriosuly?

Especially given your predetermined hatred of CHristianity, and your rather loud, poitned critism thta includes removign all moral autbority form Cahtolsisim forever for this, even fi they didn change thei rminds?

Its obviosuly just an excuse to bash them, and you obviosuly haven't studied the Cahtolci posiiton and why they hodl it in any detail.

And that renders this entre arugment shallow.

I d not care if peopel disagree wiht the Catholic posiiton on this topic, but at leats know what the Cahtolic CHurches posiiton is before critisisng it.

And, critisie the poisition, not the Churhc or the Pope, because by insistign that he knows the truth and positing your opinion as that truth, and claimign he is malicious and only intereste din uphldign the CHurhces authority an dnot in helpign people (SOmethign he cudl actulaly uphold by simply teachign its OK to use COndoms in this situation so makes no sense) you show nothign but a willigness to disparage, and by followgnthat with a rant on why this shows how religion shoudknt mix wiht politics and how horrible and dangeorus religion is nand how the Cahtolic CHurhc shodul foever bloose its standing as a moral authority over this is just simply draconian posturing.

Matt said...


Do you have any links for your claim that

"Rational, clear thinking people have put forth arguments against this practice because they say it only agitates the problem, and again not all are Catholic, or even Christian."

I could not find one single such article by a non-Catholic.

And the Catholic ones are just propounding their dogma, not addressing the facts I mentioned above.

ZAROVE said...

Why do I suspect you haven't doe a search?

Tell you what, Ill be back later with the links, if you vcan explain to me why the Cahtolic positioin is Irrational.

But one caveat, you can't just tell me its irrational by operatign on your own assumptions, you have to show you actually understand their position.

Ill be back on monday or so.

ZAROVE said...

One thing, I noticed this abotu you Matt, you seem to evade the poitns I make. IE, you didn't addrss my problem with the thinkign thatthe spread of HIV can be blamed on the Cahtolic CHurch.

I had said, as an example, that if the African Vilalgers are refusign to wear condoms becuse the Pope said not to, why are they thenengaign in sexual practices also proscribed by the Pope?

You ignroed that, and ignored a good many other problems wiht your thinking.

So I ask if you even udnerstnd the position your critisisng. I highly doubt you do, or that you care, so long as you can ake critical points and pretend the Pope is asome sort of monster.

Matt said...

Come on, Zarove. The misquotes are getting out of hand.

I'm not saying African villagers are obeying the Pope. I'm saying that Catholic missionaries aren't making condoms available or educating people in how to use them.

And if they genuinely wanted to help, that's the best possible thing they could be doing.

ZAROVE said...

But, Matt, thats the whole point. If you whwere Catholic, you woudln't beleive that that was the best possible thign to do. And even if the Catholci CHurhc as alone in its beleif that COndom use is not goign to be helpful, this doens't mean they are not beign compassionate by actign in accordiance ot that beleif.

You are accusign the Pope of malice, claimign he has put docgirne above helpign others, and claiming that he knows COndom use is he omy way to combat HIV and that he doens't care. All fo this is absed on the faulty assumption that all raitonal people who look at the evidence agree with you and your position, somethign that is in and of itself a spurious assumption.

So do't come on Zarove me, your entiure claim is obviously false.

Worse,y ou go further and claim the enture Cahtolci CHurhc shoudl loose all mroal wuthority on this one issue alone, after makign an unsubstantiated claim abt malice, and then followed htis up with a claim that they shoudo never be given moral authority ever again even fi they change their minds.

You also used this as a spirngboard to claim Religion and Politics shoudl never mix and tlaked abotu how dangerus religio is.

SO no, Matt, this isn't really abotu you condemnign the CHurhc for not beign compassionate, this is you makign an excuse to margionalise Catholsiism and by it Christianity in general.

You say, if they Genuinely wanted to help they'd make OCndoms frely availabel and supply eucation on how to use them, but if they sincerley disagree wiht you, and do not think that this course of action woudl be benificial, but rather beleive that it woudl prive more hamrful, then how is it that you can say they'd make COndoms availale and teahc people hwo to use them if they genuinelyw anted to help?

Is beign genuine the same thign as Agreeing with Matt, as if no one can disagree with Matt and be genuone?

That is what your asking us to beleive.

You want us to beelive that it is compleltey impossible to disagree with your position and be rational, and that is a supreme arrogancy, especially given the rest of your rant.

Matt said...


I'm not accusing the Pope of malice, I'm accusing him of wilful stupidity.

There's no rational reason to believe distribution of condoms and education would be harmful.

ZAROVE said...


I'm not accusing the Pope of malice, I'm accusing him of wilful stupidity.


You did accuse him of willful Malice.

Qotign you doign that is easy.

". . . the fact that so many of our religious “leaders” are more interested in maintaining their moral authority than helping people."

Or this. Bighlight is mine, for emphaiss.

"This is just cause for every Catholic in the world to denounce their leader as a misanthropic lunatic and demand his resignation. If they fail to do this, then the necessary response from rational thinking people worldwide is clear."

You end in deridign his intelelgence , and pepper it with references ot himebign delusional, but tis clear he is also fille diwht l;amice if you are to be beleived.

Below is a final quote showignthis hostility, complete iwht unnessisary profanity.

"And finally, we must demand that this pompous and sanctimonious dipshit known as the Pope Benedict XVI, who has proven himself to be dangerously out of touch with reality, should immediately and without further delay pull his ignorant fucking head in."

No Matt, this is an accusaiton of hm beign malicious, n addition to being dilusional, both of which arne't supporte dby anythign but your own extremely baised view of the world.

There's no rational reason to believe distribution of condoms and education would be harmful.

That is, if you define "Raitonal" as "Adhering to Matts personal Humanistic vie of the world."

However, many Raitonal peopel feel that Copndom distribution acutlaly exasperates the problem, and this is not just liited ot Cahtolics. NGO's have made the conneciton between Condom distribution and an icnrease in HIV cases, because COndom use is not 100% effective and it does give them a false sense of protection.

QUiet frnakly, it gets old hearign how ther eis no rational reason to oppose COndom distirbution and education n their use from you, since this statement you give out as unqesitonable fact is acutlaly rooted in a presupposition that you have in mind.

But, even IF only Cahtolcis beleived this, they alone have done numeorus work to argue their case, and thyer case is reasonable. That said, they arne't the only ones makign the case.

As I shall show shortly.

But one htig is clear, you dont even udnerstan d the topic. You have no ability to even tell me what it is the Cahtolic Chruch has againt COndom use. You don't know, you just picked a side and slaped the lable "Raitonality" n it, and pretend anythign that disagrees wiht this is not rational.

Tjis is the dishoensty I note in you. Your willignness to claim that only your side is rational is also your unwillignness ot consider other views but the one you personally have chosen. Deridsing others is easy, Matt, but you have no case here.

ZAROVE said...

Incidentlaly, I can now show you others who agree withthe Pope who arn't part of the fold, if you'd like.

The names will be forgotten inside of six months so you can say all Raitonal peopel think COndom distirbution is effective, of coruse, and so you can contiue usign this as a rpetext to slaggkgn off n the Pope, but if ready Ill present my promised arugments.

ZAROVE said...

Ive givin yiu time, Matt, and now your sayign you shant respodn to me till Im rational, logical, and clear. Of ocurse, you think all Rational people woudl support condom distribution and edication on their use, because that stops HIV and the Pope is a craze dlunatic for opposing, and putws doctrine above helping people.

No one who is not a Catholic woudl agree, no one who exaiens the facts woudl either.

Ive givin you a few days to answer back, and you havent, so rather or not you ignore this, Ill supply one name. If you ask Ill give more reports an smore names.

Dr. Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard, agrees wirh the Pope.

Do yu need more?

Matt said...


The full response to this was a bit long, so I've written a post about it here.

ZAROVE said...

I've replied already.

Mathew, maybe, just maybe, you shoudl relaly think before you respond. I never said Green was himself a Christianm, and the whole point in me using him was that he was a Liberal who thinks COndiom use shoudl be encouraged.

However, the argument we ar ein is about rather or not the Pope is uttelry irraitonal, and a Reality-denier of the highest order for his views. It also inclides the pope caring more for Dogma than helpogn real people. Remember?

Since it is ultimatley about rather somene can be rational, look at the evidence, and still conclude COndom distribution will nto relaly help, citing Greens other views, views which I intended as actually benificial for my point, doens't relaly discredit my argument.

The whoel point of which was that a Non-Cahtolci who disagrees withthe Cahtolic CHurhces teachigns on many issues still nevertheless validated this singular point raised by the Pope.

I do wish you'd get that in your head before tryign to lash out as Cahtolci APologists...

By the way, Im not even Catholic.