🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3667286D.1E308A39@clark.net>,
  klaatu@clark.net wrote:
> a_jabberwock@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <36658C29.3241B509@earthlink.net>,
> >   Chris <lightpony@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> All he needs is this much education: "This is your best protection against a
> disease which absolutely will kill you if you get it. It also can prevent
> pregnancy, and another mouth for you to feed."

In that case, it's so simple, even you could do it. So why hasen't it worked,
especially in Africa and Asia?

> If he doesn't have someone feeding him delusions like "you will burn in hell
> if you use the condom", rationality might commonly win out over the urge to
> get laid without the condom.

You are really ignorant about the RCC, aren't you? Ever heard of pennance?
Even the Pope will tell you that you can sin and still be saved.

> condoms are much more important to prevent the spread of HIV, much moreso than
> or contraception. His Eminence should certainly know this.

Condoms alone will absolutly not prevent the spread of AIDs, they fail far too
often. Faithful marriage will do far more to stop it.

> Possibly because people in developed countries have other sources of
> instruction besides priests preaching hellfire and damnation. And as a rule,
> science is a lot more convincing than some madman screeching about some
> imagined afterlife.

The Pope is far less a screeching madman than you. And science is not
convincing to most of the third world citizens, the are uneducated.

> They're only a jet-flight away you know. BTW how about the massive
> near-epidemic of antibiotic-resistant tuberculosis coming across the border
> from Mexico?

Most are not "only a jet flight away", and the tuberculosis problem is hardly
"massive", more of your "chicken little".

> You cannot possibly attribute a species-jumping virus originating in swine to
> political causes! How so?

Because it was bred in the trenches of Europe, trenches born of politics. You
need to learn more about disease, conditions cause epidemics, and such
epidemics don't ussually sustain themselves in populations with clean water
and good sanitation.

> Only through the greatest efforts of the greatest numbers can disaster be
> averted, it has always been so and will always be so.

It has never been so. The greatest disasters cannot be avoided, as the
dinosaurs attest to, the other ones run their course. They can be managed to
minimize the impact, but they are a natural cycle, and will abate naturally.
Otherwise the earth would be long dead.

> > Your lack of precision does not affect my credability, sorry.
>
> Dodging questions with such remarks, however, definitely affects your
> credibility.

Except I was not dodging anything, I was taking exception to the "chicken
little" magnitude of exaggeration that was being employed. Your credability is
the one that is affected if you rail so against accuracy in statistics.

> They absolutely will _not_ in this scenario, mostly because the year 2050 is
> the year when Census projects that the voting majority will have a Hispanic
> surname and will have grown up speaking spanish in the home. they will not
> close the borders, they will throw them wide open!

That is a pure crock, if the hispanic community reached a majority, they would
treat the poor the same way that they treat the poor today. You do not see any
hispanic community "throwing open" the doors to doom anywhere. In fact, in
hispanic countries, you are far more likely to see big walls with guns
behind them seperating those that have from those that have not than you do
here. Get a clue.

> You really aren't taking evrything into consideration, are you?

More than you it seems.

> Time alone, it would seem, will lay this argument to rest.

No, there has always been, and will always be "doom and gloomers" and
"chicken littles", such as yourself, screaming and wringing their hands and
claiming the end is just around the corner.

> More to the point, it came from Rome, which eventually became merged with the
> Church.

And Rome got a lot of it from Greece, ect... The fact remains that the Church
made us what we are today.

> We'd have all of that if everyone followed the Wiccan Rede too, or the simple
> Golden rule for that matter, or even the first law of the doctor: "First, do
> no harm".

Possably, possably not, but that does not change the good that comes from the
RCC.

> Hey, if the Pope can help eliminate population growth in even a _part_ of the
> world, it's a step in the right direction.

The church does what it can, remember Mother Teresa?

> > a) there will not be 1.9 billion in the US by 2050, this is simply a
"chicken
> > little" scare tactic. There may be half a billion people, but not more.

> What sources will you cite to back this up?

P25-1130 Population Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race, and
Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2050, published by the US census, and available on
the web.

Their projection is 400 million in 2050, read it and weep.

> In your arguments, you unilaterally support the Catholic Church. thus, you
> support them, thus you support their beliefs and practices, thus you support
> the results of those practices, thus you support overpopulation and ecological
> destruction.

No, I support their right to determine their own policy, that is not
unilateral support by any means. Really what I am doing is just disagreeing
with your unsound logic and your overly pessimistic assertions and doom and
gloom mentality.

> Sorry, dimbulb, Separation of Church and State requires that no religious
> function may be performed in any activity which is mandated by the State.
> First Amendment you know.

First, seperation of church and state is not what the first amendment says,
second free speech rights protect even religious speech, third, many things
happen outside of a house or church that are not mandated by the state, you
know.

> > Its the poor and uneducated, across the board, Chris. The Catholics in this
> > country maintain low birth rates,
>
> Roughly the same as many Protestants.

> Many of those poor ignorant people would try to exercise more birth control if
> the Pope told them it ws good for their souls, I bet.

In the first place, the Pope has a core set of beliefs that he would not
violate on your whim, in the second place, there is no indication that the
Pope would be able to change the practices and lifestyle of these people.

> > Bad government, poor managment, ignorance and poverty. You can do a lot more
> > good fighting these than you can fighting the Pope.
>
> At last, you give some good advice.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own