Friday's rant

[the spoofer]

Nonsense. When you indoctrinate children from a young age to blindly believe the kind of things that religions teach you're inevitably going to have a much more inhumane society than you otherwise would. I'm not saying religion is the only way that can happen, but it's the only one that enjoys such a privileged position.[/quote]
As I pointed out already - The current flag of convenience.[/quote]
G'wan outta that OS, countries such as Uganda have a huge dependency on the church as they (like Ireland of old) run many hospitals and schools- that is a position of privilege. But there are pro's and cons to a state been semi-dependent on the church- Pro's= education etc. Cons= Aids epidemic etc.

Largely though, you'd have to accept that most of the people involved are victims of circumstance![/quote]

We have an increasing HIV issue in this country that has nothing to do with religion. It has all to do with people behaving irresponsibly, notably homosexual men and drug abusers.

[Peg Leg]

Well they're idiots for not using/practicing safely. In Uganda it has more to do with the unavailability of condemned contraception than drugs.

[TheBear]

Well they're idiots for not using/practicing safely. In Uganda it has more to do with the unavailability of condemned contraception than drugs.

Yes, but if they also stuck to the rule banning extra-marital sex, there wouldn't be the same problem.

People can't pick and choose which rules to follow and which to ignore, and then blame the Church when the combination they pick doesn't work out.

[Peg Leg]

Well they're idiots for not using/practicing safely. In Uganda it has more to do with the unavailability of condemned contraception than drugs.

Yes, but if they also stuck to the rule banning extra-marital sex, there wouldn't be the same problem.

People can't pick and choose which rules to follow and which to ignore, and then blame the Church when the combination they pick doesn't work out.

I was replying to spoofers comment RE: Ireland's aids problem, whose victims are mainly mainly homosexuals and users.

[honeyec]

I was replying to spoofers comment RE: Ireland's aids problem, whose victims are mainly mainly homosexuals and users.

Historically, perhaps, but heterosexual infection rates have been catching up steadily for some time. Calling it a gay and junkie problem is horrifically inaccurate.

[Peg Leg]

I was replying to spoofers comment RE: Ireland's aids problem, whose victims are mainly mainly homosexuals and users.

Historically, perhaps, but heterosexual infection rates have been catching up steadily for some time. Calling it a gay and junkie problem is horrifically inaccurate.

I was replying to spoofers comment RE: Ireland's aids problem, whose ORIGINAL POST CLAIMED THAT THE victims are mainly homosexuals and users.
Also, no one referred to it as a Gay & Junkie problem, although it is a problem for many homosexuals and users!

[Peg Leg]

Look at what you've done spoofer!!!!!

[the spoofer]

I was replying to spoofers comment RE: Ireland's aids problem, whose victims are mainly mainly homosexuals and users.

Historically, perhaps, but heterosexual infection rates have been catching up steadily for some time. Calling it a gay and junkie problem is horrifically inaccurate.

If we are going to be accurate then why aren't we fully accurate. The reason for the increase in Hetero infection rates is the influx of migrants, mainly from sub Saharan Africa. HIV rates amongst non drug abusing Irish born Heterosexual men and women are low but its not PC to say so. Anyway, what this got to do with what the Church did in Tuam?

[fourthirtythree]

I was replying to spoofers comment RE: Ireland's aids problem, whose victims are mainly mainly homosexuals and users.

Historically, perhaps, but heterosexual infection rates have been catching up steadily for some time. Calling it a gay and junkie problem is horrifically inaccurate.

http://www.dublinaidsalliance.ie/index. ... statistics

5.2% (18 people) junkies. Hardly a junkie epidemic anyway.
46% from gay male sex
38% heterosexual sexual transmission (of whom 57% come from countries with generalised epidemics)
The majority of cases are of people not born in Ireland.

While testing is not as much of a priority as it has been late presenting among gay people is quite low, only 8% of those testing positive have developed AIDS.

Definitely something to watch out for but Hepatitis is much bigger.

[the spoofer]

I was replying to spoofers comment RE: Ireland's aids problem, whose victims are mainly mainly homosexuals and users.

Historically, perhaps, but heterosexual infection rates have been catching up steadily for some time. Calling it a gay and junkie problem is horrifically inaccurate.

http://www.dublinaidsalliance.ie/index. ... statistics

5.2% (18 people) junkies. Hardly a junkie epidemic anyway.
46% from gay male sex
38% heterosexual sexual transmission (of whom 57% come from countries with generalised epidemics)
The majority of cases are of people not born in Ireland.

While testing is not as much of a priority as it has been late presenting among gay people is quite low, only 8% of those testing positive have developed AIDS.

Definitely something to watch out for but Hepatitis is much bigger.

Thats an interesting report. Homosexual infection has increased from 19% in 2003 (76) to 46% in 2013 (159).

By my reckoning, Irish Hetero non drug using infections in 2013 stood at about 28/29 cases or 8%.

[fourthirtythree]

is it not 43% of the 38% i.e. around 55 out of the 344 people that are heterosexual Irish or not from a high risk country? From my vague memory of the 80s that seems to be a bit higher than the rate then which was overwhelmingly intravenous drug users and gay men?

For comparison Hepatitis C runs at over a thousand notifications of new cases a year.

[sid]

We have an increasing HIV issue in this country that has nothing to do with religion.

Point being?

Yes, but if they also stuck to the rule banning extra-marital sex, there wouldn't be the same problem.

People can't pick and choose which rules to follow and which to ignore, and then blame the Church when the combination they pick doesn't work out.

Well that's not a very accurate representation of what's happening, considering firstly that the RCC deliberately spreads misinformation (to say the least) about condoms in order to scare people into not using them, and secondly that if condoms aren't available then people aren't voluntarily following any of the RCC's despicable "rules" anyway.

[the spoofer]

We have an increasing HIV issue in this country that has nothing to do with religion.

Point being?

Yes, but if they also stuck to the rule banning extra-marital sex, there wouldn't be the same problem.

People can't pick and choose which rules to follow and which to ignore, and then blame the Church when the combination they pick doesn't work out.

Well that's not a very accurate representation of what's happening, considering firstly that the RCC deliberately spreads misinformation (to say the least) about condoms in order to scare people into not using them, and secondly that if condoms aren't available then people aren't voluntarily following any of the RCC's despicable "rules" anyway.

My post was referencing Peg Legs post regarding Aids/Religion/Uganda. Just pointing out that in post Christian Ireland, HIV infection is largely the preserve of those that would not be regarded as been strongly influenced by Irish Catholicism.

[Oldschool]

Blaming religion is lazy.
Right now religion is copping the blame for what happened in Tuam and elsewhere.
However scratch the surface a little.
Who for example decided, in their wisdom, that women pledged to a celibate life were the ideal candidates to take in pregnant mothers and then basically take on the responsibility of looking after the babies.
At the time society decided to DUMP the problem on somebody else. The nuns of course, sat down, discussed the issue, had a vote and hey presto problem solved.

Then we have the HIV issues and Hepatitus C issues. On the one hand there is choice. People chose to (and still do) have unprotected sex.
It's called Russian roulette not religion. We should be sympathetic but we shouldn't justify it or blame religion because people need to be made aware of the problems/risks.
On the other hand women and haemophiliac were give blood products which were infected with HIV and/or Hepatitus C - Now thats what I call Horrific.
As regards privelege; What a rediculous justification - Get in your time machine and go fix it and I'll guarantee something else will replace religion, then get back in your time machine and change that too and so on so forth. It's there now, deal with and don't use it as a handy fix all for our or your problems.
The bottom line is that the lord helps those that help themselves. It's up to society to properly address it's problems not blame them on the self appointed representatives of some all powerful deity, who obviously doesn't exist BTW

What religion should we blame the bombing of Horoshima and Nagasaki on one wonders?

[Peg Leg]

Blaming religion is lazy.
Right now religion is copping the blame for what happened in Tuam and elsewhere.
However scratch the surface a little.
Who for example decided, in their wisdom, that women pledged to a celibate life were the ideal candidates to take in pregnant mothers and then basically take on the responsibility of looking after the babies. It was a publicly tendered work
At the time society decided to DUMP the problem on somebody else. The nuns of course, sat down, discussed the issue, had a vote and hey presto problem solved. At the time it would have been considered a service

Then we have the HIV issues and Hepatitus C issues. On the one hand there is choice. People chose to (and still do) have unprotected sex.
It's called Russian roulette not religion. We should be sympathetic but we shouldn't justify it or blame religion because people need to be made aware of the problems/risks. In countries where the governments are overly dependent on church aid for their citizens well being, the laws of the land tend to be skewed in favour of said religion(See: Sharia and 1980's Ireland), in some cases contraception is illegal
On the other hand women and haemophiliac were give blood products which were infected with HIV and/or Hepatitus C - Now thats what I call Horrific.
As regards privelege; What a rediculous justification - Get in your time machine and go fix it and I'll guarantee something else will replace religion, then get back in your time machine and change that too and so on so forth. It's there now, deal with and don't use it as a handy fix all for our or your problems. There's no justification in stating that Religion holds a position of influence, it is effectively a political dynasty unanswerable to its followers (there is no point in denying that the various forms of christianity did not play a decisive role in the worlds geo-political landscape for many centuries). Although I agree with the sentiment, it would be replaced by another form of influence, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an influence.
The bottom line is that the lord helps those that help themselves. It's up to society to properly address it's problems not blame them on the self appointed representatives of some all powerful deity, who obviously doesn't exist BTW

What religion should we blame the bombing of Horoshima and Nagasaki on one wonders?Catholicism obviously!

[paddyor]

However scratch the surface a little.
Who for example decided, in their wisdom, that women pledged to a celibate life were the ideal candidates to take in pregnant mothers and then basically take on the responsibility of looking after the babies.
At the time society decided to DUMP the problem on somebody else. The nuns of course, sat down, discussed the issue, had a vote and hey presto problem solved.

That's lazy. The church actively campaigned for a special role between mother and baby most notably their opposition to the mother and baby scheme. What's more the "problem" wasn't as harmful or sinful as they lead us to believe

[sid]

Blaming religion is lazy.
Right now religion is copping the blame for what happened in Tuam and elsewhere.
However scratch the surface a little.
Who for example decided, in their wisdom, that women pledged to a celibate life were the ideal candidates to take in pregnant mothers and then basically take on the responsibility of looking after the babies.
At the time society decided to DUMP the problem on somebody else. The nuns of course, sat down, discussed the issue, had a vote and hey presto problem solved.

We can trace all of this back to the influence that the RCC had on Irish society at the time. People would rather give up their own daughter than live with the shame of having her pregnant outside of marriage because the RCC said it was "sinful" FFS.

Then we have the HIV issues and Hepatitus C issues. On the one hand there is choice. People chose to (and still do) have unprotected sex.
It's called Russian roulette not religion. We should be sympathetic but we shouldn't justify it or blame religion because people need to be made aware of the problems/risks.

Of course people need to be made aware of the problems and risks, and if the RCC would just say "abstinence is the best way to avoid STIs; condoms are against our religion but they're also effective" I'd have no problem, but they won't do that because they want to shove their morals down people's throats. Of course religion isn't entirely to blame for the problem itself, but the RCC isn't helping because its priority is stopping people from having sex, not actually solving the issue.

As regards privelege; What a rediculous justification - Get in your time machine and go fix it and I'll guarantee something else will replace religion, then get back in your time machine and change that too and so on so forth.

Well whatever those things are, I'd wager they'll all have some very similar characteristics to religion as we know it.

It's up to society to properly address it's problems not blame them on the self appointed representatives of some all powerful deity

I beg to differ; in cases where those representatives are clearly at fault then yes, we should blame them. You're right; we do still have to fix the problem, but that doesn't mean religion should get off scot-free either.

I'm not saying religion is at fault for everything - the WWII example you've given is a good one demonstrating that. But there are lots of awful things which it is responsible for, and it shouldn't get a free pass for any of those things.

[ronk]

You can trace anything back to anywhere if you go through enough degrees of separation.

This was a messy solution to a problem that was different back then. Some people suffered and some were rescued from really bad situations. It was definitely very badly handled, by the Irish people, by the governments and by the church.

Then the welfare state was meant as a last/late resort. They went out of their way to make some resources require a bit of desperation. Now women in that situation would jump up the queue for public housing or have an abortion.

We have a different set of problems, lesser problems.

[Peg Leg]

Absolutely Ronk, chicken and egg. At the end of the day it was Irish people who sent their daughters to these homes.

[honeyec]

Absolutely Ronk, chicken and egg. At the end of the day it was Irish people who sent their daughters to these homes.

I'm really beginning to think you're being deliberately obtuse about this, Peg Leg. Why they sent their daughters to these homes is the salient point here.