Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
fucking go for it, i say. lynch the cunt while you're at it
i'd follow the hitch into battle so i'm right up for helping them slap some cuffs on that kohl-eyed cover up merchant.
smash the pope.
Neither do I care for ol' Popey. But I for one, would like to see this happen.
the end is more important than the means
he's kinda like the opposite of what Douglas Adams was, huh?
but i was mostly meaning to do with the representation of atheism.
surely if the Pope is going to be arrested for 'Crimes against Humanity' you'd have a better case if you examined his anti-condom propoganda is Aids-ridden Africa? He, and the Catholic Church, must've killed and orphaned a LOT of people with the 'condoms don't even work, don't use them' shite they spout.
they have lied about the efficacy of condoms and blocked or attempted to block them being handed out by aid agencies. Look into it, it's fucking evil.
Maybe you should look into yourself, and I mean that in a non shitty way. Various aethist STI experts agreed with the Vatican's comments on condom use in Africa.
Pope Benedict XVI
In 1988 a debate within the Catholic Church over the use of condoms to prevent AIDS sparked an intervention from Rome. The Church in 1968 had already stated in Humanae Vitae that chemical and barrier methods of contraception went against Church teachings. The debate was over the different issue of whether or not condoms could be used, not as contraceptives, but as a means of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. In 1987, the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a document suggesting that education on the use of condoms could be an acceptable part of an anti-AIDS program.
In response, Cardinal Ratzinger stated that such an approach "would result in at least the facilitation of evil" – not merely its toleration. For the full text of the letter, see: On "The Many Faces of AIDS" (See also Karol Wojtyla's Love and Responsibility). Critics argue that Ratzinger's approach would lead to increases in the frequency of HIV/AIDS infections, while many Catholics dispute this and emphasize the value of faithful relationships or chastity, as it is scientifically impossible to contract the disorder without having sex with an infected person, unless via some other means such as a blood transfusion or sharing a needle.
In 2005, the Pope listed several ways to combat the spread of HIV, including chastity, fidelity in marriage and anti-poverty efforts; he also rejected the use of condoms
In March 2009, the Pope was sharply criticized after he stated that “if there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behaviour], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it" and reiterated his view that "the solution must have two elements: firstly, bringing out the human dimension of sexuality, that is to say a spiritual and human renewal that would bring with it a new way of behaving towards others, and secondly, true friendship offered above all to those who are suffering, a willingness to make sacrifices and to practise self-denial, to be alongside the suffering.” In that same month, an admittedly liberal senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Mr. Edward C. Green, penned an article entitled "The Pope May Be Right" in which he stated that while "in theory, condom promotions ought to work everywhere...that's not what the research in Africa shows." The writer also indicated that strategies that worked in Africa were "Strategies that break up these multiple and concurrent sexual networks -- or, in plain language, faithful mutual monogamy or at least reduction in numbers of partners, especially concurrent ones."
Which, as your c&p suggests, wasn't met with complete disagreement by the non-Christian world. What you posted above is still misleading in that the Vatican's current approach to condoms is not the same as it was throughout the 1980/90s.
Can't be arsed to argue really, 'cos I've no love for the Vatican either.
they know full well people are gonna shag either way
actually i don't care. i don't really want to argue about this. you no doubt mean well but you have a habit of trying to defend things that shouldn't be defended. the catholic church, the pope, they're pure scum. burn the catholic church to the ground and stuff yeah
Vikram hasn't defended the Vatican at all, not in this exchange at least. He's said he doesn't believe a certain course of action is relevant or applicable to this situation. Lawyers and courts will probably agree with him.
How much do you know about the liberation theology movement in South America? Read up on it and the Catholic Church's response to it and then tell me what a wonderful bunch they are.
Basically some Catholic Priests decided that living fairly affluent lives in some of the world's poorest community's was immoral and that they would live among the poor as the poor themselves lived - foregoing their big houses and fancy robes and whatnot.
Pope's reaction? Excommunicated them. Nice. Just what Jesus would have done. He hated poor people.
surely they can find something to charge the cunt with, even if it's not strictly a crime against humanity
because it's not akin to genocide? ok thanks for clearing that up
'unless it's a crime against humanity, no they can't find anything to charge him with'
weird and shocking stuff related to this:
- I agreed with lots of things Peter Hitchens was saying on the tv the other night
- a policeman threatened me with unlawful arrest last night after. I think I'll make a thread about it.