Let's overthrow all the corrupt African governments and let the Church run things

[Hababi]

Seriously, there's plenty of African bishops and cardinals, you could divide up governing responsibilities between them and corruption would be cut by 95%.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0601/p06s02-woaf.html


"KAMPALA, UGANDA – Uganda - a small, poor country still best known for its infamous former dictator, Idi Amin - isn't used to being first in much. But in the 1990s, it became the first African country to substantially bring down its AIDS rate.

It has since become a darling of international donors, especially in the health sector. So no one was surprised when, in 2003, Uganda became one of the first countries to receive a multimillion-dollar grant from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.

But three years later, the phrase "Global Fund" has become synonymous with graft in Uganda. A government inquiry recently revealed that tens of millions of dollars of the country's Global Fund grants have gone missing, much of it plundered by high-ranking public officials. Through months of hearings, which began in September and concluded just a few weeks ago, a disgusted Ugandan public heard how monies meant for lifesaving AIDS drugs were spent on personal phone bills, lavish "Christmas packages," and fancy four-wheel drive vehicles.

Along with increasing an already high level of cynicism here, the scandal highlights the corrosive nature of corruption in Africa and demonstrates the difficulties donors face in giving recipient governments the autonomy needed to spend aid money efficiently while also making sure the funds are used appropriately.

Problems with Global Fund monies have surfaced recently in other countries as well. Kenya was warned by Fund officials in March to report the whereabouts of $10 million that was unaccounted for or see its grants yanked. Some Fund grants in Nigeria were recently suspended for mismanagement.

Aside from Uganda, graft in connection with Global Fund monies has not been substantiated in any of these countries. Still, the questions raised reflect a growing emphasis in international circles on combating corruption around the world, especially in Africa. A survey quoted by the African Development Bank last month put the cost of graft on the continent at $148 billion per year.

And as the West tries harder than ever before to end poverty in Africa - the Group of Eight industrialized countries (G-8) last year agreed to double aid to the continent to $50 billion annually - the Global Fund scandal in Uganda also calls into question the fashionable idea that all that's needed to promote development in poor countries is more money.

"In hindsight, maybe we were a bit naive," says Victor Bampoe, the Fund's portfolio manager for East Africa. "But I struggle to see how we would have done things differently."

The Global Fund, a Geneva-based public-private partnership set up in 2002, was to be a new transparent, efficient aid model that would avoid the politics and delays that have long hamstrung development efforts. The idea was that the Fund would be strictly a financing mechanism; decisions about how to spend the money would be decided by local players.

"There is increasing recognition that aid has to be more than putting a bunch of white doctors on a plane and telling them to hand out pills," says Bernard Rivers of AIDSPAN, a Global Fund watchdog group. But, he added, "There is a tension between efficiency and accountability."

The Global Fund is the largest single financing agency in the world to combat the three diseases. It has raised more than $5 billion from donor governments and private philanthropies, and funded programs in 131 countries.

By last August, Uganda had already received more than $45 million of the $201 million that was earmarked for the country over the course of two years when a whistle-blower cried foul. After ordering an outside audit, Fund officials suspended Uganda's grants, citing "serious mismanagement." They were restored several months later, after the government commissioned an inquiry. It also agreed to changes in how the money was being disbursed and overseen, starting with the dissolution of the office responsible for doling out the funds, the Project Management Unit, which one Fund official likened to "a piggy bank" for those with the right connections.

Judge James Ogoola, who headed the probe, called it "no less than an audit on our country's moral standing." He found that hundreds of millions of shillings had been spent on "sensitization workshops" and generous "hardship allowances" for everyone from secretaries on up. A number of organizations that received Fund money had no physical addresses, let alone any experience in the health field. Officials in the Ministry of Health also testified that they had "borrowed" Global Fund money to campaign for a referendum to change the constitution to allow President Yoweri Museveni to run for a third term.

Local AIDS groups were particularly outraged when it was revealed in April that some $22,000 had been taken from the Global Fund basket to pay the hospital bills of a former government minister.

"Uganda has received a lot of money for AIDS - probably more than people can imagine in Africa," says Rubaramira Ruranga, a well-known AIDS activist. Mr. Ruranga faulted donors and the Ugandan government for fostering a system that tolerates, if not encourages, corruption. "AIDS in this country has become an industry," he says.

Global Fund officials say that the Ugandan government has cooperated with Geneva to put in better oversight mechanisms, such as hiring an outside company to serve as a "caretaker management firm." They say that, in general, the Fund had tightened "checks and balances" everywhere. "This is an opportunity to dust ourselves off and move forward," says Mr. Bampoe.

Last week, a newly reelected Museveni announced that the three ministers implicated in the scandal would be dropped from his new cabinet. A spokesman said the President was "responding to the public mood." Charles Mubbale, a director of the Ugandan chapter of Transparency International, says it is unlikely the ministers will face any official censure in the end. The Daily Monitor, a local newspaper, called the entire inquiry an "elegant diversion" to placate donors.

Mr. Mubbale says a deeper problem is the pervasive cynicism among Africans that comes from often seeing graft rewarded rather than punished. "The hard-working person who doesn't steal ... they say he's stupid and lazy," says Mubbale. "It's become an attitude of, well, let's just wait our turn."

Really, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, etc. would be better off if the church ran their affairs, at least for a while. Give the church 20 years and those countries are thriving, non corrupt places.

[JohnXDoe]

Islamic churches, too? Because much of Africa is Islamic. This is sounding not so good...

And the church isn't capable of running crap, really. What works in one African nation will not work in all.

[Hababi]

Islamic churches, too? Because much of Africa is Islamic. This is sounding not so good...


Well forget the Islamic part, everything north of Uganda, basically. Just everything south of that.

[Smokey D]

The problem being, of course, the Church has demonstrated itself not to be one of the most saintly organisations around when it comes to corruption. Also, Africa is currently divided between Catholics and Anglicans.

Theocracies are inherently a bad idea in the same way dictatorships are a bad idea. There is no legal recourse to removing bad leaders from power.

I'd not necessarily be opposed to the various Churches taking over the social needs bit of government, though. Stuff like hospitals, welfare and clinics. The only problem being, most Churches are against all forms of contraception, even as Africa is in the grip of a population crisis and rife with AIDS.

[coheneran]

Seriously, there's plenty of African bishops and cardinals, you could divide up governing responsibilities between them and corruption would be cut by 95%.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0601/p06s02-woaf.html



Really, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, etc. would be better off if the church ran their affairs, at least for a while. Give the church 20 years and those countries are thriving, non corrupt places.

You're right. If the Church did a good job of Spain in the 1400s, they won't have a problem now. I mean, the Catholic Church is known for their uncorruptibillity and their hardline approach to safe sex and paedophilia.:rolleyes:

[JohnXDoe]

It's a noble idea, but the church has had it's hands in everything for many centuries, and so far as governing they are most likely no better then something honest and secular. And I think whether it be Christian or otherwise we would eventually be looking at fanatical theocracies. Eventually. It's not worth the risk, being that the results of a few early successes may not even be sustainable.

Certainly a desperate idea for a desperate continent. Would it really help or solve anything in the bigger and broader scheme of things? Or is it simply throwing our hands in the air, giving up, and leaving it to the church?

[Hababi]

The problem being, of course, the Church has demonstrated itself not to be one of the most saintly organisations around when it comes to corruption.


The Church today, regardless of what it was 500 years ago, is one of the least corrupted bodies in the world.


Also, Africa is currently divided between Catholics and Anglicans.


Yeah but the Anglican church isn't a power in and of itself like the Catholic church. And the differences are very narrow and pedantic. Still, in Anglican regions, there could be Anglican representatives.


I'd not necessarily be opposed to the various Churches taking over the social needs bit of government, though. Stuff like hospitals, welfare and clinics. The only problem being, most Churches are against all forms of contraception, even as Africa is in the grip of a population crisis and rife with AIDS.


The bigger problem is that you operate at the mercy of thugs like Robert Mugabe. And, the aid that comes into the country, that is not directly handed out by the church, will be embezzeled. There's no way the dictators will let the church operate as it would need to to run the social programs.

[Hababi]

It's a noble idea, but the church has had it's hands in everything for many centuries, and so far as governing they are most likely no better then something honest and secular. And I think whether it be Christian or otherwise we would eventually be looking at fanatical theocracies.


Christianity has long outgrown radicalism; I really don't think there'd be any likelyhood of some radical regime that Dan Brown would imagine would ever gain any authority.


It's not worth the risk


What are you risking, really? :p I mean, it's not like things would get worse.


Certainly a desperate idea for a desperate continent. Would it really help or solve anything in the bigger and broader scheme of things? Or is it simply throwing our hands in the air, giving up, and leaving it to the church?


Eh call it pragmatism. You can't convince guys like Mugabe and Mswarti to govern sensibly, and if you just overthrow them and leave the country to itself, some other strongman will just take control. So, if you want to accomplish change, you need to actually involve some other organization in the governing of the countries. The church is certainly a whole lot less corrupt and more effective than the UN.

[PerpetualBurn]

Christianity has long outgrown radicalism

Lol

[coheneran]

Lol

I know, I know. Didn't we have a thread a few weeks ago about a Christian fundamentalist terrorist? And hey-ho, what about those crazy Lebanese Christians?

[Iskandar]

I have a better idea: Let's encourage the people of African nations to overthrow all the corrupt African governments and assist them in establishing modern, secular democracies.

[JohnXDoe]

.Eh call it pragmatism. You can't convince guys like Mugabe and Mswarti to govern sensibly, and if you just overthrow them and leave the country to itself, some other strongman will just take control. So, if you want to accomplish change, you need to actually involve some other organization in the governing of the countries. The church is certainly a whole lot less corrupt and more effective than the UN.
Perhaps. But with the situation being so volitale, who will protect the church? Who will defend the countries? Is the church in this day and age going to mount and run an army? What of defense? Are we to defend them from their neighbors? The church shouldn't run a country unless it can defend said country. Otherwise it has no basis for being involved whatsoever, IMO. It will most certainly fall under the sway of other less desirable elements. Which will bring corruption anew.

[coheneran]

Well, one of the main reasons our governments are having as little as possible to do with African politics is because the African poor make it possible for our countries' populations to exist as bourgeoisie. We could get rid of African poverty in a year if we wanted to, but we're too comfortable living as we live, and as long as we live like this, Africans can't.

[Kragen]

Seriously, there's plenty of African bishops and cardinals, you could divide up governing responsibilities between them and corruption would be cut by 95%.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0601/p06s02-woaf.html



Really, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, etc. would be better off if the church ran their affairs, at least for a while. Give the church 20 years and those countries are thriving, non corrupt places.

When you have stupidity to worry about - corruption doesnt seem like such a problem anymore.

[PerpetualBurn]

corruption would be cut by 95%.

Can someone post the equation for percentage corruption?

[thedeadwalk!]

Isn't it the Church that's telling them to not use condoms which is hugely contributing to the AIDS epidemic?

[rockdude4ever]

I think the AIDS epidemic is being caused more by Africans performing illicit acts that spread the disease instead of because the Church is telling them not to use condoms.

[thedeadwalk!]

Illicit acts performed without a condom.

[dislocated214]

I have a better idea: Let's encourage the people of African nations to overthrow all the corrupt African governments and assist them in establishing modern, secular democracies.
123

[Reaganista]

hey swap church with US government and I agree

[Der Übermensch]

The Church might be good for a good deal of solutions in Africa, but it would be disasterous for combating AIDS... considering that the church pretty much warned AGAINST condom use because it HELPS SPREAD AIDS, I am inclined to think they would make the AIDS epidemic worse...

[PepsiMetal]

Why would you let a religion run a government? That's pretty stupid.

Maybe if countries like US donated more money to Africa instead of Israel, it would be easy for that continent to start developing. And maybe a US invasion to kill those militant groups would have been a better idea than to go to Middle East countries.

[Reaganista]

lol donating money to corrupt dictators would be a great idea

[PepsiMetal]

Where in my post did you read "corrupt dictators" or are you trying to say whole africa is composed of corrupt dictators? Cause both are false.

[Reaganista]

Where in my post did you read "corrupt dictators"
Africa
there it is

[Hababi]

Where in my post did you read "corrupt dictators" or are you trying to say whole africa is composed of corrupt dictators? Cause both are false.


:confused: Did you read the article? Nobody is saying that every African leader is corrupt, but FAR too many are, as the article illustrates. And, those non corrupt politicians that are around are basically emasculated by the saturated climate of gratuitous corruption ubiqitous in most African countries.


hey swap church with US government and I agree


Haha I'm mystified how a someone so south on the political compass could be so pro interventionist.

If it wasn't for Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, I'd probably agree. Unfortinately, it's not really plausible, in terms fo manpower, with our current overseas committments.


Perhaps. But with the situation being so volitale, who will protect the church?


Well, the Swiss guard protects the Vatican, maybe they could extend themselves a little (and ain't no one gonna mess with the Swiss guard). All the countries that haven't helped us with Iraq could lend a hand with a real humanitarian effort for a change instead of giving token donations to Robert Mugabe.

[Reaganista]

Haha I'm mystified how a someone so south on the political compass could be so pro interventionist.

I think everybody deserves freedom
and I'm not all that south

[PepsiMetal]

:confused: Did you read the article? Nobody is saying that every African leader is corrupt, but FAR too many are, as the article illustrates. And, those non corrupt politicians that are around are basically emasculated by the saturated climate of gratuitous corruption ubiqitous in most African countries.

My post was a direct reply to Tway's it has nothing to do with your article.

there it is

Ok, I'll break the truth to you. Not all africans' countries have corrupt dictators as government.

And regardless of that, didn't USA go to iraq to destroy a corrupt dictator? It's clear that it was much more necessary to do that in Africa as people in Iraq at least had food whereas in Africa, they usually don't even have water.

[Hababi]

I'll break the truth to you. Not all africans' countries have corrupt dictators as government.


No, not all of the heads of state are corrupt, though most are. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf and maybe 3 or 4 others aren't personally corrupt, but many, many underneath them are, and that's one of the points--in those circumstances where the president isn't a corrupt strongman, many and in some cases most of those underneath him/her are. One of Sirleaf's vice presidents is a former official of Charles Taylor's regime, who personally murdered people for the guy. This is what they're forced to deal with, and it's why they don't succeed.

[Reaganista]

Ok, I'll break the truth to you. Not all africans' countries have corrupt dictators as government.

eh close enough

[PepsiMetal]

No, not all of the heads of state are corrupt, though most are. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf and maybe 3 or 4 others aren't personally corrupt, but many, many underneath them are, and that's one of the points--in those circumstances where the president isn't a corrupt strongman, many and in some cases most of those underneath him/her are. One of Sirleaf's vice presidents is a former official of Charles Taylor's regime, who personally murdered people for the guy. This is what they're forced to deal with, and it's why they don't succeed.

And regardless of that, didn't USA go to iraq to destroy a corrupt dictator? It's clear that it was much more necessary to do that in Africa as people in Iraq at least had food whereas in Africa, they usually don't even have water.

char limit

[griftadan]

yeah religion is never corruptable

[ATC]

I support, to some degree, more church intervention in Africa. My dad has business dealings in Kenya and a common belief is that the church is the only thing thats incorruptible. In a country rife with shootings and robbings and violent distrust, that a religious organization can be thought of as trustworthy is good enough for me to think that greater intervention is a good thing. On the other hand, their stance on AIDS and other things is very alarming and enough to nullify the trust a large section of the population have in them. The only thing that can be done to make things better there is to have an effective infrastructure and government in place so corruption does not look like the logical choice. It's a sad thing that so many casinos exist with incredible security forces while people get shot for less than ten dollars nearby. Corruption safeguards that system and that is what we have to dismantle and if intervention is necessary, then so be it.

I dont understand how Iraq is comparable to Africa. No one suggested violent overthrow of regimes, just a redirection of the resources we channel there.

[coheneran]

I have a better idea: Let's stop living like the spoiled rich bourgeoisie we are, and then Africa will get better. The reason Africa is in so much deep horsecrap is because we need a working class to exploit. There used to be English/American people just as poor as the African Nike workers, but their quality of life went up, and they stopped being factory workers, because globalisation made it possible for us to exploit working classes abroad.

[ATC]

Except we're not exploiting the African working class. That job's being done quite admirably by the African ruling class.

[Damrod]

Not really. Sure, there will be people that are abused by the African upper class, but I would guess that there are more than enough corporations (Western ones that is, with Nike being an example) that exploit the workforce there.

The Church might be good for a good deal of solutions in Africa, but it would be disasterous for combating AIDS... considering that the church pretty much warned AGAINST condom use because it HELPS SPREAD AIDS, I am inclined to think they would make the AIDS epidemic worse...

What I though of as well BTW

[Britney Diva]

'Exploit' is probably the wrong word to use, considering they give jobs to people who otherwise wouldn't have one. Actually it's probably the right word, but you need to recognise that corporations in Africa is actually a good thing, as perverse as that seems.

But ATC is right, it's no coincidence that Africa has plummeted below Asia and Latin America as the poorest continent in the few decades as a direct effect of their governments' refusal to liberalise in tandem with Asian and Latin American countries.

[Damrod]

Yeah, they provide jobs, which is a good thing. But they can still barely live from what they earn, which is the perverse thing. But that is a very multi-layered problem that includes a lot of factors -> general globilisation.

The problem is that everytime you have a revolution there kicking a corrupt government out, a new one is established. First they seem good and fair, but after a while you hear that gov. forces hunt down people and so on. Somewhat of a vicious circle.

As well as a low level of education. I will not forget this documentary on TV where they interviewed people from Africa (from villages ion the landside) about AIDS, and this one man said "I heard about that on the Radio, but I think it's only something they want to scare us with. I don't believe that there is something like such a disease"...

[Britney Diva]

Yeah, they provide jobs, which is a good thing. But they can still barely live from what they earn, which is the perverse thing.
Yeah, well I agree that the corporations don't do it because they're kind people but people often seem to miss the point that people would starve a lot quicker without them. Prosperity takes time and continued investment to grow and that's why third world countries are forced to bend over backwards to accomodate companies like Nike etc.

The problem is that everytime you have a revolution there kicking a corrupt government out, a new one is established. First they seem good and fair, but after a while you hear that gov. forces hunt down people and so on. Somewhat of a vicious circle.
Yeah, I think it's difficult to judge some new governments by their actions immediately after they're set up. Some of the most liberal democracies in the world were consolidated with ruthless violence.

As well as a low level of education. I will not forget this d0cumentary on TV where they interviewed people from Africa (from villages ion the landside) about AIDS, and this one man said "I heard about that on the Radio, but I think it's only something they want to scare us with. I don't believe that there is something like such a disease"...
Either that or George Bush started it. Senior and Junior, it was a family project.

[Amit]

I have a better idea: Let's encourage the people of African nations to overthrow all the corrupt African governments and assist them in establishing modern, secular democracies.

This I like.

[deathscreamingsheep]

Thing is with Africa's history I hardly see different people's within their own nations working to get a democracy, they're more likely in most cases to simply replace the existing dictator with yet another nutter.

[Amit]

Thing is with Africa's history I hardly see different people's within their own nations working to get a democracy, they're more likely in most cases to simply replace the existing dictator with yet another nutter.

You've got to be kidding me.

[deathscreamingsheep]

Well if you consider all the civil wars that have happened there.

[deathscreamingsheep]

I think I generally agree with what Med says in this instance, I'm for giving aid through the church but I'm against giving the church direct secular power over African states.

[Hababi]

As well as a low level of education. I will not forget this d0cumentary on TV where they interviewed people from Africa (from villages ion the landside) about AIDS, and this one man said "I heard about that on the Radio, but I think it's only something they want to scare us with. I don't believe that there is something like such a disease"...


It doesn't help that some leaders, such as current South Africa president Thabo Mbeke, have at times denied that there is such a thing as AIDS.

[Matt?]

This I like.
bay of pigs?

If africa became one giant theocracy it'd be more trouble than good.

[Hababi]

Mbeki hasn't ever gone that far, has he? I know that he has in the past said that HIV isn't the cause of the disease but rather that it's somehow caused by something else (he's linked it very heavily to poverty in the past, without ever really mentioning any possible scientific explanation). Either way, saying things like that isn't just irresponsible but completely ignorant as well.


I might be confusing quotes, so you may be correct, but yeah, either way that just makes things, much worse than the Church opposing giving condoms. And there was that Nobel peace prize winner who said all sorts of zany things about AIDS. Far too many of their leaders are making things worse through either ignorance or unbridled stupidity.

[Reaganista]

all sorts of zany things about AIDS
hahahaha

[Smokey D]

The Church today, regardless of what it was 500 years ago, is one of the least corrupted bodies in the world.

Compared to how it was 500 years ago, maybe. Compared to how uncorrupt it should be to run a continent with problems as big as Africa's? No.

Yeah but the Anglican church isn't a power in and of itself like the Catholic church. And the differences are very narrow and pedantic.

You're wrong on both counts.

Still, in Anglican regions, there could be Anglican representatives.

Religion isn't about democracy. It's about universal truth.


The bigger problem is that you operate at the mercy of thugs like Robert Mugabe. And, the aid that comes into the country, that is not directly handed out by the church, will be embezzeled. There's no way the dictators will let the church operate as it would need to to run the social programs.

It's a huge problem. But your answer isn't going to help the situation.

[what]

I think the biggest problem is the west forcing it's culture and it's traditions on Afirca, which will never work. All the problems in Africa - civil wars, massacres, AIDS, other illnesses, corruption, are consequences of forcing and forcing massively (US) Western culture to Africa.

[Britney Diva]

You mean European.

[Damrod]

I think the biggest problem is the west forcing it's culture and it's traditions on Afirca, which will never work. All the problems in Africa - civil wars, massacres, AIDS, other illnesses, corruption, are consequences of forcing and forcing massively (US) Western culture to Africa.

Didn't we have this exact post earlier in this thread? :confused:

I think it's not just US or European today, but the Western world in general. Speaking of the past though, the colonization of Africa through the European nations like England, Portugal and others, Europe was pretty much the major influence

[Atomic Rain]

what makes you think that the church is incorruptable?

Power corrupts all, BDR.

[Iskandar]

what makes you think that the church is incorruptable?

Power corrupts all, BDR.
Especially in a theocracy.

[Ghoul Hunter]

hey swap church with US government and I agree
I seriously agree with this.

[Hababi]

Compared to how it was 500 years ago, maybe. Compared to how uncorrupt it should be to run a continent with problems as big as Africa's? No.

I just don't see the corruption that you do. If you're going to talk about the sex scandal, that's old news. It's already been taken care of, it was overblown by the media, it never touched Africa, and the church itself was in no way to blame--a few gay priests were.

The Church by and large is one of the least corrupt institutions around today. And, in Africa, as someone else said, the Church is seen as the only uncorruptable force.



You're wrong on both counts.


Well on the first one, how many members does the Anglican church have? And on the second one, being a Christian, I should know a great deal about this ;) The Anglican church is basically the British version of the Roman Catholic church. The doctrinal differences are even less apparent than between Catholics and Baptists. In the end, they share roughly 95% of the same beliefs.


Religion isn't about democracy. It's about universal truth.


In the last 100 years, the Church has been a major democratizing force. See: eastern Europe.

[Britney Diva]

I just don't see the corruption that you do. If you're going to talk about the sex scandal, that's old news. It's already been taken care of, it was overblown by the media, it never touched Africa, and the church itself was in no way to blame--a few gay priests were.
Massive cover ups? Re-assigning accused paedophile priests to new dioceses?

The Anglican church is basically the British version of the Roman Catholic church.
This statement became untrue in the 1549.

[PerpetualBurn]

I should know a great deal about this

Best use of the word "should" ever.

[-1up!-]

In the last 100 years, the Church has been a major democratizing force. See: eastern Europe.

I'd place a bet that the neighbor, western Europe, has a lot more to do with democratizing than Church itself.

I'm actually worried about one of the biggest Christian strongholds, Poland, still having major issues with antisemitism.

[Atomic Rain]

In the last 100 years, the Church has been a major democratizing force. See: eastern Europe.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I was under the impression eastern europe was largely atheist?

[Iskandar]

I'm actually worried about one of the biggest Christian strongholds, Poland, still having major issues with antisemitism.
Which is odd given its long tradition of (generally) being a haven for persecuted Jews.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I was under the impression eastern europe was largely atheist?
Officially it was, but there were many people who still practiced.

[coheneran]

I'm actually worried about one of the biggest Christian strongholds, Poland, still having major issues with antisemitism.

Poland is moderately Nazi right now. They won't let gays organise or have Pride marches, activists are, as a rule, repressed, there's widespread xenophobia and anti-semitism, the Catholic (read: woman-hater) lobby had succeeded in banning all abortions (or maybe just severely restricting, I'm not sure) and womb-rights are pretty much being trampled on. I know quite a few Polish guys around here though, but they are pretty ace dudes.

[Iskandar]

Poland is moderately Nazi right now. They won't let gays organise or have Pride marches, activists are, as a rule, repressed, there's widespread xenophobia and anti-semitism, the Catholic (read: woman-hater) lobby had succeeded in banning all abortions (or maybe just severely restricting, I'm not sure) and womb-rights are pretty much being trampled on. I know quite a few Polish guys around here though, but they are pretty ace dudes.
They're not fascist, just extremely conservative and devout Catholics.

[Atomic Rain]

They're not fascist, just extremely conservative and devout Catholics.

the two can have more in common than not.

[Hababi]

Massive cover ups? Re-assigning accused paedophile priests to new dioceses?


Meh. There were like two guys who did that, and to my knowledge, both have been reprimanded by the Church for doing so. It still wasn't really corruption, just poor judgement.


I'd place a bet that the neighbor, western Europe, has a lot more to do with democratizing than Church itself.


They had a role, sure, but Pope John Paul II was extremely significant in the fight for democracy there. This is just my supposition, but I think that if it wasn't for him, they would be more like Belarus today.


I'm actually worried about one of the biggest Christian strongholds, Poland, still having major issues with antisemitism.


I've never heard/read anything concerning that :\


Poland is moderately Nazi right now.


"Moderately Nazi" is really a silly statement. "Moderate national socialist?" There's no such thing as a moderate extremist. You can't be a "moderate Stalinist." You're either a Stalinist or not. Actually from what I read, they're leaning more toward free markets. They're center right. Turning to my trusty graphs, Poland realistically is mapped like this:
http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/6586/idealogiespoland7zo.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

THe problem is that from where you're coming from, they're "extreme," because people have a tendency of considering anyone outside their spot on the graph to be extreme. Basically, draw a circle with a two inch diameter and people tend to consider people outside of that to be 'extreme.'

If what you're saying about abortion is correct, I'll have to learn Polish. Krakow here I come! (yeah, have to learn how to spell it, first).

[-1up!-]

While there are many examples of Polish support and help for the Jews during World War II and the Holocaust, there are also numerous examples of anti-Semitic incidents, and the Jewish population was certain of the indifference towards their fate from the Christian Poles. The Polish Institute for National Memory identified twenty-four pogroms against Jews during World War II, the largest occurring at the village of Jedwabne in 1941 (see massacre in Jedwabne).

After the end of World War II the remaining anti-Jewish sentiments were skillfully used at certain moments by communist party or individual politicians in order to achieve their assumed political goals, which pinnacled in the March 1968 events. These sentiments started to diminish only with the collapse of the communist rule in Poland in 1989, which has resulted in a re-examination of events between Jewish and Christian Poles, with a number of incidents, like the massacre at Jedwabne, being discussed openly for the first time. Violent anti-semitism in Poland in 21st century is marginal[39] compared to elsewhere, but there are very few Jews remaining in Poland. Still, according to recent (June 7, 2005) results of research by B'nai Briths Anti-Defamation League, Poland remains among the European countries (with others being Italy, Spain and Germany) with the largest percentages of people holding anti-Semitic views.


Poland is actively trying to address concerns about anti-semitism. In 2004, the Polish government approved a National Action Program against racism, including anti-semitism. Additionally the Polish Catholic Church has widely distributed materials promoting the need for respect and cooperation with Judaism.
There. The number of major/violent incidents, as stated, is marginal compared to other countries. In 2004 there was only 1 in Poland, while there were 96 in France, 84 in the UK, 52 in Canada (that surprised me) and 50 in Russia, according to The Steven Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism, Tel Aviv University. http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2004/graph-7.jpg

A logical mind will argue that the low number of Jews in Poland (wasn't it about 90% of Polish Jews who died in WWII? Plus the ones who migrated/escaped from the country...) So... with so few potential victims, no wonder the number is low.

[Atomic Rain]

If what you're saying about abortion is correct, I'll have to learn Polish. Krakow here I come! (yeah, have to learn how to spell it, first).

then your god would punish you for running away from the problem of abortion instead of staying home to fight it ;)

If you truly believed it was wrong to abort foetuses you'd campaign all day in america until progress was made and then start to co-ordinate a worldwide effort

Is that the plan?

[Iskandar]

If what you're saying about abortion is correct, I'll have to learn Polish. Krakow here I come! (yeah, have to learn how to spell it, first).
Good luck. Polish is a Slavic language containing many phonemes completely alien to speakers of English, and is famed for its daunting orthography.

... but you could try.

/is of Polish heritage

And yes, they're a capitalist democracy, same as any run-of-the-mill Western nation.

[Futue te Ipsum]

The church is certainly a whole lot less corrupt and more effective than the UN.That's because its power is laughable.

[Hababi]

If you truly believed it was wrong to abort foetuses you'd campaign all day in america until progress was made and then start to co-ordinate a worldwide effort


There's only so much one can normally do. Do you spend all day campaigning for an intervention into the genocide in Darfur? No. Does that mean you don't believe the genocide was wrong? No. Or how about the human rights situation in North Korea? You think that's wrong, right? But you don't spend all day campaigning against it. So you must not truly believe it ;)


Good luck. Polish is a Slavic language containing many phonemes completely alien to speakers of English, and is famed for its daunting orthography.

... but you could try.

/is of Polish heritage


Hey I'm primarily Polish, Czech and Austrian, as close as third generation. So I have a slight leg up there :p :cool:

[Iskandar]

Hey I'm primarily Polish, Czech and Austrian, as close as third generation. So I have a slight leg up there :p :cool:
Oh man. Polish is a language unto itself. It's different even from Czech and German, the languages of its neighbours. I can't stress enough how weird it is. :) I have direct heritage and even a father who speaks a bit but that doesn't help much.

I do think you'd enjoy it there though. It's one of the most devoutly Christian nations in the world.

[Atomic Rain]

There's only so much one can normally do. Do you spend all day campaigning for an intervention into the genocide in Darfur? No. Does that mean you don't believe the genocide was wrong? No. Or how about the human rights situation in North Korea? You think that's wrong, right? But you don't spend all day campaigning against it. So you must not truly believe it ;)


I don't believe i go to hell if i don't campaign about it ;)

[Futue te Ipsum]

I don't believe i go to hell if i don't campaign about it ;)God sends most people to hell. It's his way of showing everybody that he's a loving god who is in no way an egotistical bigot who tortures people for being gay, atheistic or both.

Well, some people I've spoken to believe that : /

[Hababi]

I don't believe i go to hell if i don't campaign about it


Neither do I :p

[Britney Diva]

Meh. There were like two guys who did that, and to my knowledge, both have been reprimanded by the Church for doing so. It still wasn't really corruption, just poor judgement.
Try dozens, if not hundreds, placing tens of thousands of kids in danger.

[Hababi]

Try dozens, if not hundreds, placing tens of thousands of kids in danger.


Are you talking about priests or cardinals? To my knowledge, there was maybe one or two higher ups who knowingly shuffled around pedophile priests. As for the number of pedophile priests, I don't think it's in the hundreds. Probably more like 30-50. Out of the entire population of Catholic priests in America, that number is quite understandable. Perverts happen.

[Britney Diva]

Uhh, you know that most of the Catholic Church's operations are outside of America, right? And no, I wouldn't say 35 paedophile priests is particularly understandable, nor would I say any higher-ups shuffling them about or covering it up is.

[Hababi]

Uhh, you know that most of the Catholic Church's operations are outside of America, right? And no, I wouldn't say 35 paedophile priests is particularly understandable, nor would I say any higher-ups shuffling them about or covering it up is.


Well it's not like I'm excusing it :p It represents a minute fraction of the overall Roman Catholic church; it'd be like impugning all of mx because of Chad's idiocy.

[Britney Diva]

No, I hold you responsible for that :cool:

But I'm not impugning the entire Church, merely demonstrating that its recent history includes many examples of corruption in its very highest ranks.

[coheneran]

Well it's not like I'm excusing it :p It represents a minute fraction of the overall Roman Catholic church; it'd be like impugning all of mx because of Chad's idiocy.

Well, if Chad got banned, MX is fine, but if Chad just got "shuffled around", what the hell's the difference? 35 paedophile priests should be kicked out and sent to therapy, not get reassigned. If they found out a teacher was a paedophile, that dude would be fired so quick that even I can't find a euphemism fast enough.

[Smokey D]

I just don't see the corruption that you do. If you're going to talk about the sex scandal, that's old news. It's already been taken care of, it was overblown by the media, it never touched Africa, and the church itself was in no way to blame--a few gay priests were.

The pedophile priest issue, support for the IRA and its terror campaign (especially in American Irish dioceses), massive corruption in South and Central America with respect to clerical conservatives. Amongst other crimes.

The Church by and large is one of the least corrupt institutions around today. And, in Africa, as someone else said, the Church is seen as the only uncorruptable force.

Least corrupt doesn't mean it's uncorrupt enough to run a continent. And the Church most certainly isn't uncorruptable.


Well on the first one, how many members does the Anglican church have?

77 million, the second largest single denomination in the world.

And on the second one, being a Christian, I should know a great deal about this ;) The Anglican church is basically the British version of the Roman Catholic church. The doctrinal differences are even less apparent than between Catholics and Baptists. In the end, they share roughly 95% of the same beliefs.

Err, except Anglicans and Baptists share a Reformed theology based on Calvinist precepts of sola fide and predestination. High Anglican churches cosmetically resemble Catholic ones, but the similarities end there.

In the last 100 years, the Church has been a major democratizing force. See: eastern Europe.

Until the pontificate of John Paul II, the Church was quite content to remain unconcerned with democracy, and was heavily involved in clerical conservative movements closely alllied with Fascists throughout Europe and South America from the 1900 til 1978. Even during the more liberalised period of the last 25 years, certain dioscese remained deeply in the pocket of the oligarchial regimes of South America.

[Hababi]

The pedophile priest issue, support for the IRA and its terror campaign (especially in American Irish dioceses), massive corruption in South and Central America with respect to clerical conservatives. Amongst other crimes.

I think a lot of those are overblown--the pedophile priest issue wasn't near as bad as the media made it out to be, any explicit support of the IRA was by renegade priests, and I'm unfamiliar with the South America claims.



Least corrupt doesn't mean it's uncorrupt enough to run a continent. And the Church most certainly isn't uncorruptable.


Well who's uncorrupt enough to run a continent, theoretically? No significant body lacks corruption, altogether. The Church is much less corrupt than the UN and the AU.


Err, except Anglicans and Baptists share a Reformed theology based on Calvinist precepts of sola fide and predestination. High Anglican churches cosmetically resemble Catholic ones, but the similarities end there.


Realistically though, 90% of the dogma is the same. Issues like predestination are like differences on trade policy in American politics--relatively minor. To me, it's like comparing Chuck Hagel and Jeff Sessions. Just as both the Catholic and Anglican church are Christian denominations, Hagel and Sessions are both Republicans. Hagel and Sessions differ on immigration and international affairs, but overall, they largely share the same viewpoints, when it comes to abortion, marriage, etc. So, while they have their differences, they're perfectly able to get along and work together.





Until the pontificate of John Paul II, the Church was quite content to remain unconcerned with democracy, and was heavily involved in clerical conservative movements closely alllied with Fascists throughout Europe and South America from the 1900 til 1978. Even during the more liberalised period of the last 25 years, certain dioscese remained deeply in the pocket of the oligarchial regimes of South America.

I think saying they were heavily involved is a bit much. Yeah, they didn't involve themselves in fights for democracy as they have done since John Paul came to power. But then, in the early 20th century, Communism hadn't infested the Church's native lands. Democracy wasn't a real force (it's not as if they opposed democracy), and guys like Franco didn't work against the Church. I think it was pragmatism, if anything.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Colluding with Franco and Hitler can't just be waved away as 'pragmatism'.

[!aaa!]

Seeing as the Christian religion is built upon such shaky ground these days following the discovery of contradictory gospels and modern development, Is this any basis for a government? I think not. I mean, everything could be fine in Uganda for a time, but religion is fluid, ever-changing, contradicts itself and can't be the basis on which you run a nation.

I say a revolution of the people of Africa against any current hierarchy because, put simply, the African status quo is not working out for their benefit to say the least.

[Hababi]

Colluding with Franco and Hitler can't just be waved away as 'pragmatism'.


They never colluded with Hitler and, in fact, Hitler opposed the church. Hitler was anti Christian.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Seeing as the Christian religion is built upon such shaky ground these days following the discovery of contradictory gospels and modern development, Is this any basis for a government?'Shaky ground' such as this isn't really a problem for many christians, particularly BDR's whackjobs of choice, the Catholic church.

[Atomic Rain]

They never colluded with Hitler and, in fact, Hitler opposed the church. Hitler was anti Christian.
if hitler was genuinely anti-christian he'd've shut it down once he was in full power.

Just because he was, I suppose, a bit of a pagan, doesn't mean he was "against" it.

However, there's no doubt hitler was not a christian man, despite using christianity to his advantage to justify some of his atrocities.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

They never colluded with Hitler and, in fact, Hitler opposed the church. Hitler was anti Christian.Of course Hitler opposed the Church but that doesn't mean they didn't collude with him. And even if you don't want to admit that they did, you can't deny that they consistently refused to condemn the actions of the Nazis or offer any sort of opposition.

if hitler was genuinely anti-christian he'd've shut it down once he was in full power.

Just because he was, I suppose, a bit of a pagan, doesn't mean he was "against" it.

However, there's no doubt hitler was not a christian man, despite using christianity to his advantage to justify some of his atrocities.

Hitler was genuinely anti-Christian. He didn't shut the Church down because it wasn't politically advantageous. But that didn't matter because the Church rarely opposed him and he was able to seize their property and shut down their youth groups.

[Hababi]

And even if you don't want to admit that they did, you can't deny that they consistently refused to condemn the actions of the Nazis or offer any sort of opposition.


Pope Pious issued several proclamations in response to Nazi atrocities. He didn't do all he could have or should have, but he was also trying to maintain the Church's policy of staying out of wars, which had been in place through WW1.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

But, of course, that was a policy of complete cowardice, not pragmatism. He only really condemned the Nazis until after the War.

Also, as regards the supposed lack of Catholic involvement in the war - why were Catholics then permitted to serve? And so few refused the call-up? And why were church bells rung after German victories?

The Austrian bishops welcomed the Nazi take-over. Pius passed up a number of opportunities to help Jews. It seems odd for someone so obsessed with moral rectitude that you're so willing to gloss over this conduct.

[Hababi]

The Austrian bishops welcomed the Nazi take-over. Pius passed up a number of opportunities to help Jews. It seems odd for someone so obsessed with moral rectitude that you're so willing to gloss over this conduct.


It's not so much that I'm glossing over it; he didn't do all he could've done, true, and he should've done more. But there were a number of reasons why he didn't:

1) the position of the church, geographically. They were in the heart of Axis territory. Realistically, he probably feared that if he came out strong and hard for the allies, the Vatican would disappear off the map. And, that wasn't an unreasonable fear.
2) He likely observed that drawing the church so directly into a world war could hark back to the days of the Crusades. The Catholic church worked hard to get away from that imperial image, and involving itself in the biggest war in history, explicitly and devotedly on one side, could've been seen as taking a big step backwards.

There were other reasons, too. So, he still didn't do all that he should've done, but there were logical reasons behind it. It's something the Church might've already apologized for, but it's also something they've moved beyond since the beginning of Pope John Paul's papacy. The Church today is a much different church than it was in the days of Pious, and fights much more readily and openly for democracy around the world.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Seeing as the church are playing a significant part in the spread of aids in Africa, I'm not entirely convinced that they would do even a half decent job.

[Hababi]

Seeing as the church are playing a significant part in the spread of aids in Africa, I'm not entirely convinced that they would do even a half decent job.


It's silly to blame them for the spread of AIDS. The people responsible were those that had sex, and the ones that aided it (no pun intended) were the African leaders who denied the existence of AIDS, or that it was caused by sex. The Church is trying very hard to combat the spread of AIDS, but they're doing it oin their terms, and their terms are educating people to not have promiscuous sex.

[Britney Diva]

Well you don't have to blame them, you just have to admit their attitude is far from responsible.

[Hababi]

Well you don't have to blame them, you just have to admit their attitude is far from responsible.


If the church would support dispersing condoms, then it'd be facilitating promiscuous sex. They'd be compromising their morals to combat an evil. I might be inclined to give in and disperse the condoms, but at the same time, I can understand where they're coming from, and I don't think that it's necessarily a wrong position, especially so long as they're doing more than the UN to combat AIDS, which they are.

[Britney Diva]

Actually, given that the UN promotes safe sex and education, I'd say it's automatically doing more.

[Hababi]

Actually, given that the UN promotes safe sex and education,


Yeah they've been real succesful ;)

From what I've seen, the UN's attempts have been poorly managed and mediocre at best.

[Britney Diva]

As opposed to outdated and unrealistic? :p

[Hababi]

tsk tsk heathen :p

No but seriously, abstinence is better, anyway. Condoms encourage sexual promiscuity, and don't prevent all STD's from spreading.

[Iskandar]

tsk tsk heathen :p

No but seriously, abstinence is better, anyway. Condoms encourage sexual promiscuity, and don't prevent all STD's from spreading.
History says that humans will have promiscuous sex anyway. We've never been all that faithful to the whole married-monogamy ideal.

Condoms are our friend.

[SubtleDagger]

The thread would make more sense if the title had "into the ground" at the end.

[Smokey D]

I think a lot of those are overblown--the pedophile priest issue wasn't near as bad as the media made it out to be

But still demonstrative of Church corruption.

any explicit support of the IRA was by renegade priests

Explicit is only marginally worse than implicit, and there are plenty of renegade priests in Africa.

and I'm unfamiliar with the South America claims.

Not to be trite, but isn't it a better idea to fully educate yourself on a subject before you go and make suggestions as bold as this one? Watch Romero for a slight inkling of the assumed complicity of the Church in South American oligarchies.

Well who's uncorrupt enough to run a continent, theoretically? No significant body lacks corruption, altogether. The Church is much less corrupt than the UN and the AU.

No one is uncorrupt enough to run a country, which is why no one should try to run a continent. Further, one should make all attempts to minimise corruption and promote democracy, not swap one corrupt regime for another. In this hypothetical situation of yours, to whom do you suppose the government would be answerable? The Vatican? Canterbury? Why not make it accountable who vest in it any legitimate sovereignty it might have?


Realistically though, 90% of the dogma is the same. Issues like predestination are like differences on trade policy in American politics--relatively minor. To me, it's like comparing Chuck Hagel and Jeff Sessions. Just as both the Catholic and Anglican church are Christian denominations, Hagel and Sessions are both Republicans. Hagel and Sessions differ on immigration and international affairs, but overall, they largely share the same viewpoints, when it comes to abortion, marriage, etc. So, while they have their differences, they're perfectly able to get along and work together.

Actually, aside from believing Jesus Christ is the one and only Saviour of man and the Son of one God, their doctrines are completely different. I would hope they'd be able to settle their differences in order to help solve Africa's problems, but they have demonstrated an inability to give dogma a back seat to necessity so far, and I don't know why this would change in inter-episcopal affairs.

What does interest me is that the priests who have provided effective leadership in Africa are actually members of the Liberation theological movement, and therefore closely associated with African socialism, which I know you find to be anathema.


I think saying they were heavily involved is a bit much. Yeah, they didn't involve themselves in fights for democracy as they have done since John Paul came to power. But then, in the early 20th century, Communism hadn't infested the Church's native lands. Democracy wasn't a real force (it's not as if they opposed democracy), and guys like Franco didn't work against the Church. I think it was pragmatism, if anything.

If you don't think they were heavily involved, you're either willfully ignorant, or simply uneducated. And the democratisation of Europe has witnessed a decline in Church attendence. As for Christianity's native lands, I think you'll find Church attendence to be rather low in Israel-Palestine.

And the Falange regime was by definition a clerical conservative one, and had the full backing of the local Church.

They never colluded with Hitler and, in fact, Hitler opposed the church. Hitler was anti Christian.

Admittedly the Catholic Church was more successful at resisting Hitler than German Protestant Churches, but neither did enough to bring an end to the Nazi regime. And seeing as you just waved away practical solutions in the name of absolute morality, don't give me that **** about 'pragmatism'.

[Atomic Rain]

Yeah they've been real succesful ;)

From what I've seen, the UN's attempts have been poorly managed and mediocre at best.

UN Man: "Use protection! I mean really."

Preist: "If you use protection, your soul will burn for eternity in a thousand holy fires while the devil uses his trident upon you in a most unpleasant way..."

African : ":s Sure thing, father"

[Amit]

UN Man: "Use protection! I mean really."

Preist: "If you use protection, your soul will burn for eternity in a thousand holy fires while the devil uses his trident upon you in a most unpleasant way..."

African : ":s Sure thing, father"

:lol:

[PerpetualBurn]

Condoms encourage sexual promiscuity, and don't prevent all STD's from spreading.

Wait...so you think that AIDS is spread through baked goods and that condoms don't prevent the transfer of STDs? You must be some kind of super-genius.

[Hababi]

But still demonstrative of Church corruption.

A negligible amount. Dwarfed by oil for food, etc.



Explicit is only marginally worse than implicit, and there are plenty of renegade priests in Africa.


I don't know that I'd say plenty. The church can't keep them all in line, especially in undeveloped regions like Africa and, to a lesser extent, South America, but still does a good job.


In this hypothetical situation of yours, to whom do you suppose the government would be answerable? The Vatican? Canterbury? Why not make it accountable who vest in it any legitimate sovereignty it might have?


To the Vatican, of course. Pope Benedict is as uncorruptable as a human being can get.



Actually, aside from believing Jesus Christ is the one and only Saviour of man and the Son of one God, their doctrines are completely different. I would hope they'd be able to settle their differences in order to help solve Africa's problems, but they have demonstrated an inability to give dogma a back seat to necessity so far, and I don't know why this would change in inter-episcopal affairs.

In times prior to Pope John Paul II, but since his papacy (another advancement), they've done a great deal to smoothe Catholic/protestant relations. There's also some other similarities--belief in the Holy Trinity, Biblical authority, original sin, opposition to abortion and gay marriage, etc.


What does interest me is that the priests who have provided effective leadership in Africa are actually members of the Liberation theological movement, and therefore closely associated with African socialism, which I know you find to be anathema.


It depends the degree. John Paul II was to the left, politically, though only to a moderate degree. Benedict is slightly less left but still in that quadrant. Some tenements of liberalism--helping the poor, the sick, the elderly etc. are derived directly from the Bible. Others (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) run directly opposite of it. It's quite easy to be fiscally liberal and Christian, it's intellectually impossible to be a social communist and Christian.



And the democratisation of Europe has witnessed a decline in Church attendence.

That's the natural cycle. Society rises on the virtue of Christianity (see: Weber), establishes itself, then descends into moral degeneracy as it takes its advancements for granted, and ultimately falls. Then it must rediscover Christian principles again.



Admittedly the Catholic Church was more successful at resisting Hitler than German Protestant Churches, but neither did enough to bring an end to the Nazi regime. And seeing as you just waved away practical solutions in the name of absolute morality, don't give me that **** about 'pragmatism'.

:lol: Well that's why I don't agree with the decisions. But I can see the logic in them.

[Iskandar]

To the Vatican, of course. Pope Benedict is as uncorruptable as a human being can get.
No, he really is a fallible human being like everyone else.

[Smokey D]

A negligible amount. Dwarfed by oil for food, etc.


But far too much to give unqualified control of a continent to an unelected, unaccountable body.

I don't know that I'd say plenty. The church can't keep them all in line, especially in undeveloped regions like Africa and, to a lesser extent, South America, but still does a good job.

Enough to make it a dangerous proposition.

To the Vatican, of course. Pope Benedict is as uncorruptable as a human being can get.

So are Kofi Annan and Nelson Mandela. What's your point?

In times prior to Pope John Paul II, but since his papacy (another advancement), they've done a great deal to smoothe Catholic/protestant relations. There's also some other similarities--belief in the Holy Trinity, Biblical authority, original sin, opposition to abortion and gay marriage, etc.

Large enough differences on the origins and nature of salvation to ensure the Vatican refuses to accept Anglican ordinations as valid, which is a fairly important issue when nations like Nigeria (the largest in Africa) are predominantly Anglican.

It depends the degree. John Paul II was to the left, politically, though only to a moderate degree.

No he wasn't. Just because he was charitable doesn't mean he's left wing in any way.

Benedict is slightly less left but still in that quadrant. Some tenements of liberalism--helping the poor, the sick, the elderly etc. are derived directly from the Bible. Others (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) run directly opposite of it. It's quite easy to be fiscally liberal and Christian, it's intellectually impossible to be a social communist and Christian.

Fiscally liberal entails small government, classical liberalism. What pray is a 'social communist'? If you just mean someone who strongly associates with the social positions of the modern Left, don't be an ***. A) that's not communist, and b) communists can be against abortion (though probably not gay marriage, since they wouldn't recognise state authority as meaningful anyway).

Remember that under Stalin, abortions again became restricted in the USSR and divorce was made incredibly more difficult.

That's the natural cycle. Society rises on the virtue of Christianity (see: Weber), establishes itself, then descends into moral degeneracy as it takes its advancements for granted, and ultimately falls. Then it must rediscover Christian principles again.

That fails utterly to explain the success of pagan China and India, the Islamic caliphates and the general weakness of Christian Europe throughout the medieval period -- a failing it did not shed until it un-Christianised itself in the form of the Enlightenment of the 16th-18th Centuries. The idea that Christianity alone (or any religion, for that matter) makes a nation weak or strong is fundementally flawed, and to conceive of it in terms of a natural phenomenon utterly retarded.

Well that's why I don't agree with the decisions. But I can see the logic in them.

Stop justifying supporters of fascism.



My main criticisim to this ridiculous idea is that if we were hypothetically able to overthrow all corrupt governments in Africa and install uncorrupt theocracies answerable to the Vatican (an absurd proposition, given the Church's history when given temporal authority, and the reluctance of the modern Church to resume such control), why would we not instead install uncorrupt, accountable democracies? Both are about as difficult as each other, but only the former would result in a favourable government.

[Reaganista]

Africa needs more Maoists.

[Mr. Ron]

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm I just noticed the title of this thread.....all I can say is woah.

[Steerpike]

Christianity has long outgrown radicalism;

I know I'm late, but...

This is how much pure cocaine (http://www.antwilliams.demon.co.uk/Webice/24.Blizzard-closing-in.jpg) you would need to believe that statement.

I'm very strongly opposed to any form of theocracy because history has consistently proven that you cannot trust fundies with power.

[Mr. Ron]

I know I'm late, but...

This is how much pure cocaine (http://www.antwilliams.demon.co.uk/Webice/24.Blizzard-closing-in.jpg) you would need to believe that statement.

I'm very strongly opposed to any form of theocracy because history has consistently proven that you cannot trust fundies with power.
Lmao.

[Amit]

Hahahah.

[Zesty Mordant]

I dunno, but it seems that a lot of the conflicts pertaining to Africa's many dictatorships are often organized along strong ethnic divisions. I think by merely replacing strict political power (government) with religious power kinda underscores a good chunk of the problem's roots.

And besides, didn't Rwanda demonstrate how corruptible the Church can be in Sub-Sarahan Africa?:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42755-2001Jun8
http://www.guardian.co.uk/rwanda/story/0,,1308922,00.html

[Steerpike]

Sister Maria Kisito, who received 12 years, and her Mother Superior, Sister Gertrude, who received 15 years, were convicted of aiding in the slaughter of some 7,000 people who sought refuge at their convent in southern Rwanda. Prosecutors argued that they called in Hutu militiamen to drive people out of the convent knowing they would be killed, and later provided gasoline that militiamen used to set fire to a garage in which about 500 Tutsis had taken refuge.

Their defense lawyers argued that they were innocent bystanders who believed the violence had ended and that the refugees would not be harmed on leaving the convent.

So let's hypothetically say that the defense was right. Those two weren't worthless excuses of human beings who willingly and knowingly aided genocide. They were just horrifyingly stupid. Not much of an improvement.

Either way, not too good for the Vatican to have to explain. Then again, as the spokesman for the UN states in the second article in regards to that particular case...

"He is the first Catholic priest to be charged here but it is about his own individual acts, not the church. We have to be very careful about that."

This is true. But this does show that just because you're a man of the cloth does not automatically make you a saint, nor does it prevent you from being a monster.

Throughout history, organized religion has had numerous fanatics, fundamentalists, zealots, and outright lunatics committing crimes and atrocities of all sorts in the name of their dogma.

To me, religion is not inherently good or evil. It depends on who's using it. A friend of mine is devoutly Christian, and expresses it through particpating in and giving to charity.

On the opposite side of the coin, three words: abortion clinic bombings.

Religion is nothing more than a tool. The good-hearted use it to encourage the good deeds they already supported. The psychotic use it justify their crimes.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

That's the natural cycle. Society rises on the virtue of Christianity (see: Weber), establishes itself, then descends into moral degeneracy as it takes its advancements for granted, and ultimately falls. Then it must rediscover Christian principles again.Is this particular prophecy as well thought out and clearly evident as your pronouncement that gays ruin civilisation?
Religion is nothing more than a tool.Why?

[Iskandar]

Why?
It is because people use it as a means to an end. That isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Mr. Ron]

Maybe if christians pray reeeeaaaaalllyyy hard, then Jesus will come and make piles of fish and bread for the Africans. That'd be sweet.

[Steerpike]

Why?

Because an organization founded on principles that run the spectrum from "Love thy neighbor" to "Execute anybody who works on a holy day" has the potential to be either good or bad. It depends entirely on who is interpreting the scripture.

To use Christianity as an example again, the Bible says a lot of things. Some of them good. Others... not so much.

But many of the rules you'll find in the Bible were written at a time when they were relevant to health and society. Times have dramatically changed since then. Most good people will tell you that you can't just pick and choose those old rules anymore, and must instead rely on the lessons which are timeless, such as "Don't kill people."

But a person who is selfish, bigoted, and amoral will use religion as a vehicle for his douchebaggery. He will ignore the Old Testament rule that a woman must sacrifice doves or turtles to purify herself after her period ends for the month, but in the same breath will insist you take literally the old rule of "No butt sex" and also that it actually means "God hates fags."

It's not the fault of the church at large they have to deal with people in the latter example. I feel sorry for people like my above-mentioned charitable friend that he has to share the pews with gay-bashing, misogynist fundamentalists. But the fact is that for every devout good person in any given religion, there are at least two worthless pricks who are only using the scripture to justify their deplorable actions.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

so. There are good and bad religious people, but that doesn't absolve religion of responsibility for their actions. Religion is certainly the prime motivation behind some actions.

[Steerpike]

I'm merely pointing out that the concept itself is not inherently good or bad. It's the people. I'm not railing against an abstract concept, but rather the people who take part in it.

The church does need to take responsibility when these lunatics come up, but I'm not asking the innocent members of the church to apologize for the abortion clinic bombers.

[Hababi]

No, he really is a fallible human being like everyone else.


I didn't say he was perfect. I said he was as uncorruptable as a man can get.


But far too much to give unqualified control of a continent to an unelected, unaccountable body.


They're somewhat democratic--they choose the Pope, who then appoints the bishops and cardinals, who, in turn, choose the next Pope.


Enough to make it a dangerous proposition.


But by that standard, no one should ever try to help any country or region. We shouldn't have helped Iraq or Haiti, Australia shouldn't have helped the Solomon Islands, etc.




So are Kofi Annan and Nelson Mandela. What's your point?


Kofi Annan's son is embroiled in the oil for food scandal, and while Annan may not have personally taken part in the scandal, he has some culpability in the affair.




Large enough differences on the origins and nature of salvation to ensure the Vatican refuses to accept Anglican ordinations as valid, which is a fairly important issue when nations like Nigeria (the largest in Africa) are predominantly Anglican.


Yeah but they're progressing toward harmony and if they would undertake such a mission, in all likelyhood it'd be fast tracked.



No he wasn't. Just because he was charitable doesn't mean he's left wing in any way.


Well, I think most political comentators would disagree with you. As would the political compass site, which has him (accurately) placed in the upper north quadrant, fairly close to the center. Pope John Paul II certainly was no laissez faire promulgator. http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.php



Fiscally liberal entails small government, classical liberalism. What pray is a 'social communist'?


Pro gay marriage, pro abortion, anti traditional family.


If you just mean someone who strongly associates with the social positions of the modern Left, don't be an ***. A) that's not communist, and b) communists can be against abortion (though probably not gay marriage, since they wouldn't recognise state authority as meaningful anyway).


Every communist country ranges from allowing abortion on demand (one of the few freedoms they allow and in fact encourage) to forced abortions. Abortion is a communist godsend.


Remember that under Stalin, abortions again became restricted in the USSR and divorce was made incredibly more difficult.


Subsequent leaders reversed that.


That fails utterly to explain the success of pagan China and India,


Well, I'm talking about the west.



The idea that Christianity alone (or any religion, for that matter) makes a nation weak or strong is fundementally flawed, and to conceive of it in terms of a natural phenomenon utterly retarded.


In nations where it has manifested itself as a force, it does.



My main criticisim to this ridiculous idea is that if we were hypothetically able to overthrow all corrupt governments in Africa and install uncorrupt theocracies answerable to the Vatican (an absurd proposition, given the Church's history when given temporal authority, and the reluctance of the modern Church to resume such control), why would we not instead install uncorrupt, accountable democracies? Both are about as difficult as each other, but only the former would result in a favourable government.

Where are you going to find the leaders? When corruption runs as high as 95%, where are you going to find non corrupt leaders to run a non corrupt government? As it currently stands, it's functionally impossible.

[Hababi]

but in the same breath will insist you take literally the old rule of "No butt sex"


That's not just an old rule. It's mentioned in 1 Corinthians and Romans, too. Homosexuality is an abomination to God.

[Steerpike]

That's not just an old rule. It's mentioned in 1 Corinthians and Romans, too. Homosexuality is an abomination to God.

It's an obsolete idea based on perceptions of health and the need for Jewish population increases in the ancient world.

It's outdated, misinterpreted, and complete and utter bullshit. If you follow that rule, than in order to avoid being a hypocrite, you also have ot abide by the rules that it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery, execute your neighbor for working on a Sunday, and beat your child to death for talking back to you.

[Mr. Ron]

That being said, christians are hypocrites by default I guess....

[Steerpike]

That being said, christians are hypocrites by default I guess....

Not necessarily. I know plenty of Christians who see the stories of the Old Testament as allegory. They don't take a single word of that whole book literally. They know the devil's in the details.

[Mr. Ron]

Not necessarily. I know plenty of Christians who see the stories of the Old Testament as allegory. They don't take a single word of that whole book literally. They know the devil's in the details.
True.

[Hababi]

There are good and bad religious people, but that doesn't absolve religion of responsibility for their actions.


I don't understand blaming this abstraction of "religion" for anything. Do you blame "love" for crimes of passion? Or government for the atrocities it committed, and so on?


It's outdated, misinterpreted, and complete and utter bull****. If you follow that rule, than in order to avoid being a hypocrite, you also have ot abide by the rules that it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery, execute your neighbor for working on a Sunday, and beat your child to death for talking back to you.


You ignored that it was reinforced, directly, in the New Testament, on two different occasions. Clearly stated as an abomination to God. Homosexuality is; nothing changes about homosexuality. It is a sin, always has been, always will be. It's bad behavior, as bad as alchohol abuse, cutting yourself, or any other negative behavior. It's as sexually deviant as zoophilia. And, worst of all, homosexuality is the gateway to pedophilia. Gays and pedophiles work in tandem to destroy the moral fabric of society.

[Mr. Ron]

I don't understand blaming this abstraction of "religion" for anything. Do you blame "love" for crimes of passion? Or government for the atrocities it committed, and so on?



You ignored that it was reinforced, directly, in the New Testament, on two different occasions. Clearly stated as an abomination to God. Homosexuality is; nothing changes about homosexuality. It is a sin, always has been, always will be. It's bad behavior, as bad as alchohol abuse, cutting yourself, or any other negative behavior. It's as sexually deviant as zoophilia. And, worst of all, homosexuality is the gateway to pedophilia. Gays and pedophiles work in tandem to destroy the moral fabric of society.
Woah woah woah. Two men having sex is no where near self mutilation and alcoholism! Come on....

And the boldened statement made me rofl.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Gays and pedophiles work in tandem to destroy the moral fabric of societydont forget the jews

[Hababi]

Not necessarily. I know plenty of Christians who see the stories of the Old Testament as allegory. They don't take a single word of that whole book literally. They know the devil's in the details.


You can not be a Christian and not believe in the Bible as the word of God.

[Hababi]

Woah woah woah. Two men having sex is no where near self mutilation and alcoholism! Come on....


It's just as bad. Homosexuality is a cancer on society.

[Mr. Ron]

It's just as bad. Homosexuality is a cancer on society.
Ok.....two men that have been together for 20 years, live together, have good paying jobs and serve their community are a cancer on society just because they don't find women to be attractive? Geez.

[Mr. Ron]

You can not be a Christian and not believe in the Bible as the word of God.
Better start slaughtering children then. Your god seems to think it's ok, I mean he's done it multiple times.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

You can not be a Christian and not believe in the Bible as the word of God.despite blatant contradictions and historical innacuracies?

It's just as bad. Homosexuality is a cancer on society.yeah like jews

[Steerpike]

You ignored that it was reinforced, directly, in the New Testament, on two different occasions.

Hmm... New Testament. Wasn't that an era in which slavery was still condoned?

Homosexuality is; nothing changes about homosexuality. It is a sin, always has been, always will be.

So is having graven images, but I don't see you firebombing Times Square. Hypocrite.

It's bad behavior, as bad as alchohol abuse, cutting yourself, or any other negative behavior.

It's not a choice. Contrary to whatever your cute little book tells you. Science has once more reared it's atheist head to prove to you how wrong you are.

It's as sexually deviant as zoophilia.

No one bought that tired cliche the first time.

And, worst of all, homosexuality is the gateway to pedophilia.

Again, science called. They told you you're wrong again.

Gays and pedophiles work in tandem to destroy the moral fabric of society.

I don't know who failed to tell you this, but the Fab Five did not found the Illuminati.

[Hababi]

Ok.....two men that have been together for 20 years, live together, have good paying jobs and serve their community are a cancer on society just because they don't find women to be attractive? Geez.


#1 That's rarely the case. There's essentially no such thing as monogomy in the gay world. They're promiscuous by nature, as they're hedonists, due to the fact that their sexual identity is based on rejecting the normality of natural design and function and engrossing themselves in the deviant realm.
#2 Even in those rare situations where that is the case, they're deviants. They're living a deviant lifestyle, one that is not healthy for society. They should be seeking help for their mental problems, not being uplifted for their deviancy.


Better start slaughtering children then. Your god seems to think it's ok, I mean he's done it multiple times.


That's not part of Christ's covenant. Homosexuality being an abomination is.


despite blatant contradictions and historical innacuracies?


No such thing.


Hmm... New Testament. Wasn't that an era in which slavery was still condoned?


The New Testament is clearly implicitly against slavery, which is why the anti slavery movement grew out of the Christian church. Your secularist hero, Thomas Jefferson, was too busy raping his slaves.


It's not a choice.


It's a choice the same as becomming an active alchoholic or raping a child is. THey could seek help, they choose to embrace the deviancy.


Again, science called. They told you you're wrong again.


Too bad medical journals have published articles detailing the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. And too bad prominent gay groups have longstanding connections to NAMBLA. They want to rape children.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

That's not part of Christ's covenant. Homosexuality being an abomination is.Christ himself makes no mention of homosexuality.
No such thing.man you're ignorant.
It's a choice the same as becomming an active alchoholic or raping a child is. THey could seek help, they choose to embrace the deviancy.homosexuality is not an addiction or disorder you clown
They want to rape children.even worse, the jews want to drink the blood of christian children

[Hababi]

Christ himself makes no mention of homosexuality.


He never encountered it. He tends to lecture on things when He comes across them. But I think that he did, and parlayed that to His apostles, which is why it's explicitly stated twice, when the circumstance was correct to do so. His apostles were given the message by Him to spread His teachings. That's one of them.


man you're ignorant.


man you're anti Christian.


homosexuality is not an addiction or disorder you clown


It's in the same category as pedophilia, zoophilia, and every other sexual deviancy. And, it's directly interconnected with pedophilia.

[Steerpike]

#1 That's rarely the case. There's essentially no such thing as monogomy in the gay world.

There's no such thing as monogamy in the human world. We were all genetically programmed to be randy little ****ers. Because promiscuity helps the growth of the species. Natural selection and all that.

They should be seeking help for their mental problems, not being uplifted for their deviancy.

Again, science says you're wrong. They have more authority on the subject than you do. It's not a disease, it's not a mental defficiency. You're just making excuses for the fact that you don't like watching boys kiss.

That's not part of Christ's covenant. Homosexuality being an abomination is.

So Jesus preached hatred and bigotry, too?

The New Testament is clearly implicitly against slavery, which is why the anti slavery movement grew out of the Christian church. Your secularist hero, Thomas Jefferson, was too busy raping his slaves.

I thought abolition grew out of black people saying "We don't want to pick your ****ing cotton anymore."

It's a choice the same as becomming an active alchoholic or raping a child is. THey could seek help, they choose to embrace the deviancy.

Science says no. They came to this decision through empirical observation. You came to this decision not on testing, but on blind faith.

Too bad medical journals have published articles detailing the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. And too bad prominent gay groups have longstanding connections to NAMBLA. They want to rape children.

Two things.

First of all, you're making **** up.

Second, modern medical research shows absolutely no scientifically sound connection between homosexuality and pedophillia.

[Mr. Ron]

#1 That's rarely the case. There's essentially no such thing as monogomy in the gay world. They're promiscuous by nature, as they're hedonists, due to the fact that their sexual identity is based on rejecting the normality of natural design and function and engrossing themselves in the deviant realm.
#2 Even in those rare situations where that is the case, they're deviants. They're living a deviant lifestyle, one that is not healthy for society. They should be seeking help for their mental problems, not being uplifted for their deviancy.



That's not part of Christ's covenant. Homosexuality being an abomination is.



No such thing.



The New Testament is clearly implicitly against slavery, which is why the anti slavery movement grew out of the Christian church. Your secularist hero, Thomas Jefferson, was too busy raping his slaves.



It's a choice the same as becomming an active alchoholic or raping a child is. THey could seek help, they choose to embrace the deviancy.



Too bad medical journals have published articles detailing the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. And too bad prominent gay groups have longstanding connections to NAMBLA. They want to rape children.

I actually know three different gay couples that have been together for 20 years plus. They told me that monogamy was pretty prevelant in the gay culture years back , but now that society AS A WHOLE has become more promiscuous, they don't last as long. Plus, how can you blame them for rejecting the norm when they can't help it in the first place?

Also, straight people hardly have room to criticize. Marriage is largely a joke now and cheating is through the roof.


Not part of Jesus's covenant? Maybe you should take a gander at the old testement. Where GOD himself (whom I think might be a little more important than jesus) himself destroyed cities, rained down plagues, condoned slavery and the submission of women and the killing of children.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

He never encountered it. He tends to lecture on things when He comes across them. But I think that he did, and parlayed that to His apostles, which is why it's explicitly stated twice, when the circumstance was correct to do so. His apostles were given the message by Him to spread His teachings. That's one of them.
um but there's no way that you can prove that.
man you're anti Christian.
could you please show me the evidence for

-- the Exodus
-- the survey that supposedly took place when Jesus was born

for starters

oh and explain all the contradictions in the infancy narratives.

[Hababi]

There's no such thing as monogamy in the human world. We were all genetically programmed to be randy little ****ers. Because promiscuity helps the growth of the species. Natural selection and all that.

No, promiscuity leads to STD's and stillbirths. It hurts society. We were designed to be monogomous, it's why it's healthiest. Just like we were designed to be heterosexual. Homosexuals are vastly more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Gay marriages are open marriages. It's not about a loving committment for them, it's about forcing Christian America to approve of their perversion, it's about destroying society as we know it.



Again, science says you're wrong. They have more authority on the subject than you do. It's not a disease, it's not a mental defficiency.


As I said, it's in the same camps as any other sexual perversion.


So Jesus preached hatred and bigotry, too?


It's neither hatred nor bigotry. I hate homosexuality; I don't hate homosexuals. I dislike those that push the gay agenda, and if they ever come to power in America, I will leave the country. I won't live in Sodom.


I thought abolition grew out of black people saying "We don't want to pick your ****ing cotton anymore."


No.


Science says no.


If you're going to use genetic predisposition to eliminate freedom of choice, then every single human action under the sun is not the individuals choice, but rather their genetic coding. Rape. Murder. Liking Britney Spears' music. You're eliminating freedom of choice and equating man with robots, slaves to their genetic predispositions.



Second, modern medical research shows absolutely no scientifically sound connection between homosexuality and pedophillia.

Bill Watkins and Arnon Bentovim, "The Sexual Abuse of Male Children and Adolescents: A Review of Current Research," Journal of Child Psychiatry 33 (1992); in Byrgen Finkelman, Sexual Abuse (New York: Garland Publishing, 1995), p. 300.

Says you're wrong. So does lots of other research.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA03I35#WA03I35



Not part of Jesus's covenant? Maybe you should take a gander at the old testement. Where GOD himself (whom I think might be a little more important than jesus) himself destroyed cities, rained down plagues, condoned slavery and the submission of women and the killing of children.


San Francisco's lucky He doesn't still take such action.

[Hababi]

um but there's no way that you can prove that.


He commissioned His apostles to spread His teachings. Thus, their teachings are His teachings. Homosexuality is against Christianity.

And I'm not going to debate Biblical inerrance with you in this thread. That's why we have an official Christianity thread. But I've already done so and disproven all your claims.

In the end, here's what it comes down to: your social movement is against Christianity, and Christians. It wants to subert the traditional moral code in America. It considers the majority of Americans to be hateful bigots. It wants to stifle their opinions and force them to accept sexual deviancy. That's the truth.

[Mr. Ron]

No, promiscuity leads to STD's and stillbirths. It hurts society. We were designed to be monogomous, it's why it's healthiest. Just like we were designed to be heterosexual. Homosexuals are vastly more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Gay marriages are open marriages. It's not about a loving committment for them, it's about forcing Christian America to approve of their perversion, it's about destroying society as we know it.




As I said, it's in the same camps as any other sexual perversion.



It's neither hatred nor bigotry. I hate homosexuality; I don't hate homosexuals. I dislike those that push the gay agenda, and if they ever come to power in America, I will leave the country. I won't live in Sodom.



No.



If you're going to use genetic predisposition to eliminate freedom of choice, then every single human action under the sun is not the individuals choice, but rather their genetic coding. Rape. Murder. Liking Britney Spears' music. You're eliminating freedom of choice and equating man with robots, slaves to their genetic predispositions.




Bill Watkins and Arnon Bentovim, "The Sexual Abuse of Male Children and Adolescents: A Review of Current Research," Journal of Child Psychiatry 33 (1992); in Byrgen Finkelman, Sexual Abuse (New York: Garland Publishing, 1995), p. 300.

Says you're wrong. So does lots of other research.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA03I35#WA03I35




San Francisco's lucky He doesn't still take such action.

Oh, so you're in favor of divine judgement killing people?

Your god is a wrathful one.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

In the end, here's what it comes down to: your social movement is against Christianity, and Christians. It wants to subert the traditional moral code in America. It considers the majority of Americans to be hateful bigots. It wants to stifle their opinions and force them to accept sexual deviancy. That's the truth.Well, um, every social movement would like to see their 'moral code' to be accepted universally. It would be quite odd if they didn't. Sorry to deflate your mini-polemic.

And I'm not going to debate Biblical inerrance with you in this thread. That's why we have an official Christianity thread. But I've already done so and disproven all your claims.We didn't exactly go very far. And I'm aware how futile it is to argue with a clown such as yourself. You're an old hand at apologetics of every sort, but an unconvinving and dim one. And no, you didn't entirely dispose of my claims.

And, anyway, you never outlined why gays destroyed the Roman empire. Apart from tired cancerous metpahors, you were incapable of presenting a clear theory, and in doing so showed what a real bigot you are. Only a complete dogma-bound idiot would claim such a thing.

[Hababi]

Oh, so you're in favor of divine judgement killing people?


No. But I am in favor of the independent nation of homotopia.

[Reaganista]

man you're anti Christian.
I don't see how telling christians things about a book they haven't bothered to read makes someone anti-christian

[Steerpike]

No, promiscuity leads to STD's and stillbirths. It hurts society. We were designed to be monogomous, it's why it's healthiest. Just like we were designed to be heterosexual. Homosexuals are vastly more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

Wrong again. Biologists have proven that among mammals, monogamy is a myth.

Gay marriages are open marriages.

This is proof that you haven't lifted a finger to do any real research.

It's not about a loving committment for them, it's about forcing Christian America to approve of their perversion, it's about destroying society as we know it.

Jesus, how much pot do you have to smoke to become this bloody paranoid? You sound like one of those looney conspiracy theorists.

As I said, it's in the same camps as any other sexual perversion.

Again, no research on your part.

It's neither hatred nor bigotry. I hate homosexuality; I don't hate homosexuals. I dislike those that push the gay agenda, and if they ever come to power in America, I will leave the country. I won't live in Sodom.

So you're claiming to love the sinner and not sin. You're certainly not acting like it.

If you're going to use genetic predisposition to eliminate freedom of choice, then every single human action under the sun is not the individuals choice, but rather their genetic coding. Rape. Murder. Liking Britney Spears' music. You're eliminating freedom of choice and equating man with robots, slaves to their genetic predispositions.

No, that's you putting a lot of words in my mouth to justify you're on-going crap.


Bill Watkins and Arnon Bentovim, "The Sexual Abuse of Male Children and Adolescents: A Review of Current Research," Journal of Child Psychiatry 33 (1992); in Byrgen Finkelman, Sexual Abuse (New York: Garland Publishing, 1995), p. 300.

Says you're wrong. So does lots of other research.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA03I35#WA03I35

So you can use Google. Have you actually looked to any sources that aren't a decade out of date?

You list all these names, but I seriously doubt you actually are keeping up with the scienitific and medical journals. Let's see if I can track it down. There was a Johns Hopkins researcher, one of the world's experts on pedophilia, who stated very certainly that there is no inherent link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Also, warning bells go off in my head when I see an organization called "Family Resource Council" with a slogan that says "Defending Family, Faith, and Freedom." There's clearly a bias there.

[Hababi]

Well, um, every social movement would like to see their 'moral code' to be accepted universally. It would be quite odd if they didn't. Sorry to deflate your mini-polemic.


Most aren't obtuse enough to mask their desires under a code of "open mindedness" and "tolerance." Those are codewords for "love gays, hate Christians."

[Amit]

Guys, there's no point in arguing with Steve. He's had his *** handed back to him in this forum more times than I can keep track of.

All you're doing is arguing with a troll. And that's just pure spam.

Just remember that he's wrong.

It's as simple as that.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Yeah, I know.

Ann Kewlter. lol.

Where does he go to college, again?

[Steerpike]

Guys, there's no point in arguing with Steve. He's had his *** handed back to him in this forum more times than I can keep track of.

All you're doing is arguing with a troll. And that's just pure spam.

Just remember that he's wrong.

It's as simple as that.

Yes, I know it's pointless. But it's an exercise in patience which I really could use.

However, patience is losing to my short attention span.

[Amit]

He goes to like Pittsburgh or something.

[Hababi]

Actually, most people who make such stupid claims have never read the Bible, and rely on propaganda from anti Christian websites.



Wrong again. Biologists have proven that among mammals, monogamy is a myth.


Then why is promiscuity disporportionately high amongst gays? Why do they have websites setting up places to serve as meeting places for sex? Their relationships are strictly carnal and hedonist.


So you can use Google. Have you actually looked