…and this is a 
Evil Catholic propaganda
Category: Religion
Posted on: September 27, 2007 1:30 PM, by PZ Myers
What a charming representative for Christianity! A Catholic archbishop is claiming that condoms and retroviral drugs have been intentionally spiked with HIV. That's getting down and dirty with best evangelical strategy: lie, smear, and promote evil ignorance.
Archbishop Chimoio told our reporter that abstention, not condoms, was the best way to fight HIV/Aids.
"Condoms are not sure because I know that there are two countries in Europe, they are making condoms with the virus on purpose," he alleged, refusing to name the countries.
"They want to finish with the African people. This is the programme. They want to colonise until up to now. If we are not careful we will finish in one century's time."
Please, Archbishop Chimoio, tell me of these amazing human societies where abstinence actually works.
I wonder if those mysterious unnamed countries are also where Ruloff's mysterious unnamed researchers live.
He said he knew researchers, whom he would not name, who had studied cellular mechanisms and made findings "riddled with metaphysical implications" and suggestive of an intelligent designer. But they are afraid to report them, he said.
Liars for Jesus all begin to sound alike after a while, don't they?
Oh, well. Ruloff is only trying to keep people stupid. Chimoio is trying to kill them.
Comments
He said he knew researchers, whom he would not name, who had studied cellular mechanisms and made findings "riddled with metaphysical implications" and suggestive of an intelligent designer. But they are afraid to report them, he said.
You got to love it when Christian are afraid to report the truth because because they might get ridiculed. Yes, they believe their God died to give them the truth, but exposing themselves to ridicule, that's too much to ask.
Posted by: Bob L | September 27, 2007 1:36 PM
Poor Mozambique!
That is like the stories that used to go around in England when condoms first came out that holes were punched in one in ten to make them unsafe.
Posted by: Sailor | September 27, 2007 1:38 PM
Oh boy, Aetiology's AIDS trolls will turn this into the longest and most hysterical thread ever.
Posted by: Greco | September 27, 2007 1:39 PM
Is prayer a good prophylactic?
Posted by: Gregg | September 27, 2007 1:39 PM
I don't know about prayer, but all god's chillun got rhythm.
But seriously folks...this is sick, sick sick. And sickening.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 27, 2007 1:42 PM
ERV made an interesting point, in her usual restrained manner:
Ouch.
Posted by: Bob O'H | September 27, 2007 1:44 PM
Look on the bright side: he acknowledges HIV causes AIDS. Just kidding, there is no bright side.
Anyway, I am now going to click on the link in the BBC article to the chorus of writers raising their voices in condemnation and disavowal of this foolish man and his religion.
Wait...
Posted by: Pete | September 27, 2007 1:44 PM
there are two countries in Europe, they are making condoms with the virus on purpose
OK, one is Vatican City (wow, where do they fit a rubber factory... oh, of course, it's a miracle); which is the other?
Posted by: bullfighter | September 27, 2007 1:49 PM
Posted by: Janine | September 27, 2007 1:56 PM
I wonder if the Archbishop sold himself a few indulgences before vomiting forth such lies.
Posted by: mark | September 27, 2007 2:02 PM
Playing the fear card, exploiting people's ignorance.
Really shameful.
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 27, 2007 2:05 PM
How callous do you have to be in order to try to mislead people into death just to satisfy your own sexual morals? Scumbag.
On Ruloff:
The scores of scientiests so humble as to willingly turn down what must be more or less guaranteed nobel prizes never cease to amaze me.
Posted by: Hank | September 27, 2007 2:06 PM
Oh Cthuhu!!! I'm speechless and this is a written forum.
Spiking condoms with HIV wouldn't even work. This is a fragile virus that won't survive long outside the human body. IIRC, HIV lasts for 4 hours or some such outside the body, max..
I don't know how Africans can claim the white Euros are out to kill them. They are doing a great job all by themselves what with Mbeki and the S. African AIDS denialists, their HIV epidemics in one place or another, and their wars and out of control TB and malaria.
I doubt that the Vatican will say anything to contradict his nonsense. But I'm sure a lot of the leadership is privately cringing and holding their heads in their hands.
To anyone reasonable and educated, his statements are just bizarre and reprehensible.
Posted by: raven | September 27, 2007 2:07 PM
This man follows the teachings and is in contact with a perfectly moral, omnipotent god?
Hmm, I dunno about you guys, but somethings fishy here...
Posted by: Michael | September 27, 2007 2:07 PM
Seriously. If this guy believes there is evidence that someone is intentionally passing HIV, it is his duty as a Christian and a human to provide details and work like mad to get a real investigation started. If he refuses to share his "information" then he should be excommunicated for allowing an atrocity to continue. Not that I believe him for a second, but for sake of argument, if he's right then he's also an accessory to a crime through obstruction.
Just sayin'
Posted by: dcwp | September 27, 2007 2:09 PM
That's... pretty disgusting, actually. Same kind of thinking that goes into the campaign against the HPV vaccine in the US - "it is better for people to die horribly than to have sex". Actively harmful, rather than just delusional.
Posted by: Micah | September 27, 2007 2:10 PM
raven: You are aware of the fact that you are speaking about an entire continent? Cut back on the generalizations please.
Posted by: Hank | September 27, 2007 2:11 PM
If he's going to talk about colonization, maybe he should start thinking about how his own religion got to Mozambique.
Posted by: Alex | September 27, 2007 2:12 PM
I have to say a little more because the Archbishop's comments are the type that get people killed.
HIV can be beat back. We will probably never eliminate it but it can be made rare enough to not seriously impact a society's morbidity and mortality.
It takes education in basic biology and safe sex. Condoms help but are no panacea. Antiretroviral treatment helps a lot. People who have their viral loads knocked down a few logs are a lot less infectious to their contacts. Needle exchange programs work wonders. Clean up the blood supply.
The USA did it. It used to be that Thailand and Uganda were making progress but I don't know the latest from those two countries.
Posted by: raven | September 27, 2007 2:15 PM
Remember, kids, "moderate" religiosity like Catholicism is completely harmless, even helpful, and never ever hurts anybody anywhere.
Posted by: Joshua | September 27, 2007 2:16 PM
Yet another christian who seems to be 8th commandment (catholic version) challenged. He probably has Walt Ruloff as a friend on his MySpace page.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | September 27, 2007 2:18 PM
The Catholic Church, helping AIDS since 1981.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 27, 2007 2:19 PM
What I don't get is why the Archbishop felt the need to lie about this, of all subjects. What the Hell?
Anyway, there's an easy way around the problem: Buy Japanese condoms. Done. Or maybe the Good Archbishop knows something about them, too.
"Don't use those condoms, young fella. It'd be a pity if sumtin bad was to happen to you."
Not just a lie, but a really stupid lie. I tell you, some journalist will call the guy on this, and he'll have to relent. What was the point of telling this really dumb lie? It's only going to lead to tears.
As I've read before, The stupid, it burns.
Posted by: MikeM | September 27, 2007 2:20 PM
Why, it works in every human society. If you get pregnant, you didn't use it, did you?
It's a wonderful way to skewer the statistics on the success of sex education programs. If one class teaches how to use birth control and then 40% have sex, 20% don't use it, and 5% get pregnant, that 5% pregnancy rate counts against the birth-control class.
If another class teaches abstinence only, no birth control information given, and 40% have sex, and 15% get pregnant, then that 15% pregnancy rate does not count against the success of the abstinence-only program -- because those kids weren't abstinent.
Posted by: Sastra | September 27, 2007 2:21 PM
The good Bishop must have been doing some reading.
"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" Romans 3.7
Posted by: wildcardjack | September 27, 2007 2:22 PM
I heard this kind of stuff all the time when I was living in Uganda. Fortunately, for every letter to the editor decrying homosexuality as an evil 'Western' custom, or the polio vaccine as a method of spreading HIV, there would be a rational letter in response.
Generally, the level of discourse I witnessed there was elevated beyond anything the religiots here have ever attained.
That being said, churches in Africa are among some of the most potent forces for economic and social regression.
Way to go, Jesus! Fuck them Africans over!
Posted by: Brownian | September 27, 2007 2:22 PM
What a piece of work this nutter is. Isn't lying one of the deadly sins his religion condemns?
Posted by: Phil | September 27, 2007 2:24 PM
Micah, I'm against mandatory HPV vaccination (I'm in Texas), but not because I think "sex is icky" (quite fond of it, and generally think mankind benefits from it, to a degree). I'm against it because 1) Rick Perry is a tool of the pharmaceutical company that tried to push it (that's no way to do public health policy) and 2) HPV doesn't rise to the level of MMR, DTP, etc. in terms of risk/benefit. Most women resolve their HPV infections with no permanent side effects. And HPV is (as is HIV) quite easy to avoid. Informed consent is one thing. Mandatory inoculation, on the other hand, is something a free society should limit to situations wherein public health is adversely threatened. HPV ain't it. Oh, and I have a son, not a daughter, so nyah! (just kidding)
Posted by: Charles Soto | September 27, 2007 2:25 PM
With delusional fuckups like Chimoio and Mbeki, and the endless litany of ruthless tinpot dictators like Mugabe and Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, Africa doesn't need neocolonialists to "finish Africa".
Posted by: Umilik | September 27, 2007 2:26 PM
Yes, we are cringing and beating our palms against our heads. The archbishop is way off base. On the other hand one has to wonder that, if the cynical PZ can get snickered by his own opponents, the gormless arch could also have been (best scene interpretation). Even the very clever Christof von Schönbourne is not above having the wool pulled over his eyes by the ID crowd and their ilk.
And yes, the man is responsible for the deaths resulting from his stupidity. This is one of the times I think atheists wish there were a hell!
Yes, abstinence is the best way to prevent HIV, it is also the cheapest. On the other hand it is not the most realistic, while HIV is so very, very real.
(Full disclosure - South African in South Africa - with his hands in his hair about Tshabalal-Mtsimang etc., etc. etc. etc.) Yikes!
Posted by: MartB | September 27, 2007 2:29 PM
Why would we want to colonize Africa? It's where we evolved - which means that it's chock full of diseases and parasites that can affect us.
The Africans can keep it.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 27, 2007 2:30 PM
Evil Catholic Propaganda?
You're being triply redundant.
Posted by: Warren | September 27, 2007 2:31 PM
Chimoio. This is/was the location of a terrorist training camp during the Rhodesian Bush War. Chimoio was run my Joshua Nkomo who, after being told that he wasn't doing enough to kill Rhodesians had his terrorist group ZIPRA shot down a Rhodesian airliner the "Hunyani" VPWAS after leaving Kariba.
Leading to the well known "Green Leader" raid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p1NRLFso6Q actual bombing run audio.
After being known as a terror training area, why should I be suprised by this? Most of southern Africa is convinced that AIDS is not a problem.
Posted by: firemancarl | September 27, 2007 2:33 PM
raven (#13) wrote:
I'm not so sure there is much, if any, cringing, or holding anything other than young boy's--let's not go there....
A few years back some nitwit in the crutch said condoms are ineffective against HIV because the virus was so small it'd swim through the holes in a condom. I vaguely recall he was a bishop in Africa? (And I don't think he was ever asked why condoms can hold water or air, whose molecules are much much much smaller than any virus.) Anyways, a (high-ranking?) nitwit at the Vatican agreed, both that condoms are useless against HIV/AIDS, and with the "reasoning".
(Apologies for the lack of references, but the source where I recall reading the story--The Guardian--seems to be down at the moment, and I've got dinner--homemade cream of wild mushroom and onion soup with wine and cheese, since you ask--about ready, and...)
Posted by: blf | September 27, 2007 2:36 PM
delurking
Charles Soto wrote
Informed consent is one thing. Mandatory inoculation, on the other hand, is something a free society should limit to situations wherein public health is adversely threatened. HPV ain't it.
You make a good point; unlike other pathogens that are serious public health issues for broad swaths of the population, HPV is a bit less virulent and the route of infection makes it less of a broad threat. So mandatory innoculation seems a bit overreaching. The problem is that the best time to innoculate people is when they are minors. Thus the state does have a legitmate interest. One of the reasons why many vaccines are required for attendance in public schools is precisely because there is always a cadre of parents who do not act in their children's best interests and since they are minors, it is (in a legal sense) assumed that children cannot make informed consent. Thus the state ought to have some say in these kinds of issues. I will admit that mandatory HPV vaccination is in a gray area, but irrespective of Perry being beholden to big pharma, there is a legitimacy to the effort.
re-lurking
Posted by: shiftlessbum | September 27, 2007 2:39 PM
They are also trying to prosyletize to our prisoners. What a waste.
http://www.draggedfromthebottom.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Bill C. | September 27, 2007 2:41 PM
What's worse is that they are spiking condoms with Teh Gay as well so not only will you end up being Teh Gay and having Teh AIDZ but you will be forced to have sex with Africans as part of the white hegemony destined to colonise the world piece by AIDZ/Gay ridden piece. Of course proper heterosekshul white christian people, like for example senators with a wide stance, won't get Teh Gay or Teh AIDZ and thus the blacks, gays and shaggers of the world will die. Hallelujahgobble.
Thens we starts on the womens. We have a REEEEEAAAAL good model for them: Kinder Kirche Kuche.
Louis
P.S. It's actually really hard tocomeout with a parody. These loons are unparodiably extreme to start with.
Posted by: Louis | September 27, 2007 2:42 PM
Economists have actually shown that particular patterns of abstinence can INCREASE the rates of STD transmission.
I'm not expert in viruses, but I was under the impression that the AIDS virus cannot live outside a host for very long at all: can it even remain potent after spending months lying around on a condom?
Posted by: Bad | September 27, 2007 2:45 PM
Wrong.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 27, 2007 2:45 PM
The problem is that the best time to innoculate people is when they are minors. Thus the state does have a legitmate interest.
Wrong.
Okay, I'll bite, why?
Posted by: G | September 27, 2007 2:54 PM
Charles Soto said....
"HPV doesn't rise to the level of MMR, DTP, etc. in terms of risk/benefit."
Is there a proven medical risk with the current anti-HPV vaccine ? It would want to be fairly obvious to outweigh the benefit of preventing a large number of cervical carcinomas.
Posted by: MartinC | September 27, 2007 2:54 PM
No. HIV is very fragile. IIRC, it can last 4 hours max outside the body.
That is why the modes of transmission require exchange of bodily fluids.
Clearly the Archbishop isn't going to let facts get in his way while Just Making Things Up.
Posted by: raven | September 27, 2007 3:01 PM
PZ - they're ANTI-retrovirals, not retrovirals...that would kind of defeat the purpose, no? Just saying...
Charles Soto - HPV is easy to avoid, is it? Interesting that the CDC statistics for 2003-2004 show that 50% of sexually active women between the ages of 20-24 were infected (the highest prevalence group), and 97% of sexually active women will have been infected by the time they turn 50. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5633a5.htm?s_cid=mm5633a5_e
HPV is also one of the few STDs that can be transmitted even if condoms are used. Yes, most infections are easily resolved - the asymptomatic nature of most infections is what allows HPV to be passed on so easily. And remember, the ones that don't get resolved can cause cancer - deadly, difficult to treat, cancer. I am still not sure where I stand on the ethics of how this vaccine has been promoted by the pharmaceutical industry, or whether it should be mandatory, but don't downplay the severity of the risks, please. Reducing the overall prevalence of this virus in the public is a worthy goal.
Myths about Africans being purposely infected with HIV by Europeans or Amercians have cropped up pretty frequently over the course of the epidemic (the CIA caused AIDS, polio vaccines caused AIDS, etc.), as have stories about the ineffectiveness of condoms. I agree that the only way to counter these stories is with education, which means overcoming some pretty substantial stigma and discrimination attached to AIDS in most of Africa. Helen Epstein's book "The Invisible Cure" is a great read and offers some good insights into why there is still so much stigma around AIDS in Africa, where such a huge percentage of the population is infected with HIV (no, I don't have any vested interest in this book!). The association of HIV infection and condom use with immoral behaviour is one of them, and of course religious groups (some more than others, to be fair) bear a big chunk of the blame for this. Having an Archbishop actively spewing lies about AIDS is pretty much par for the course, so far as I am concerned.
Posted by: lawyer/scientist | September 27, 2007 3:30 PM
MartinC, I chose poor words. by "risk/benefit" I should have said "cost/benefit" (or "not-necessarily-health-risks-risks/benefit"). There are definitely costs (as in $120/dose), but more fundamentally, I'm concerned about the mandatory nature of this. Public policy isn't something to be ventured lightly. I agree that it's more effective to vaccinate children than adults. Thus, I'd support a big publicity campaign. But it doesn't rise to the level of public health threat. I'd rather see mandatory flu vaccination. That kills millions more...
Posted by: charles Soto | September 27, 2007 3:40 PM
Oh and yes, the HPV vaccines approved for use in the US are quite safe and effective:
http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine-hcp.htm
And this bishop guy is a tool. just setting the record straight...
Posted by: Charles Soto | September 27, 2007 3:42 PM
Up to now my attitude to religious leaders has been mostly "Live and let live", but this crosses a dangerous line. To insinuate that well-meaning people are deliberately infecting condoms is evil scaremongering of the worst order. I am incensed at this; obviously the religious fraternity will stop at nothing to peddle their disgusting lies. The more stories like this I hear the more militant is my stance. I would never criticise any individual who peacefully follows whatever misguided belief they need to bring comfort to their lives, but all the big organised religions of the world need to be torn down and scattered to the winds before we can ever hope to have peace in this world.
"Civilisation will not attain perfection until the last stone of the last church falls on the last priest." - Emile Zola
Posted by: Elwood Herring | September 27, 2007 3:43 PM
So, the man has crossed the line from stupid, superstitious git, to dangerous death-cult leader.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 27, 2007 3:47 PM
lawyer/scientist, HPV is quite easy to avoid. That a significant number don't doesn't negate this - that's more of teh stoopid in effect.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#reducerisk
The same is true of HIV, for that matter. It's easy to avoid. Public policy protecting blood supplies, handing of medical instruments, etc. work wonders. Not to mention the effectiveness of condoms. Or are you saying that condoms don't work? Are you an evil catholic?
Yes, eliminating HPV would be great. But I'd prefer to fight other battles first...
Posted by: Charles Soto | September 27, 2007 3:49 PM
Earlier (#34), I said, without citing any sources:
After a quick search, here's a followup story from the BBC in 2004, Condoms at carnival, reporting:
Based on this previous set of lies from the Vatican itself, I am extremely doubtful anyone there sees anything wrong or immoral with the new absurd claim. Instead of cringing at the statement(s?), I presume the Vatican is cheering the bishop on. And might even issue(? fabricate? conflate?) some more "research" to "prove" the "plot"?
Posted by: blf | September 27, 2007 3:55 PM
Well, we have a vaccine for it now. We can win now...why not use it?
Posted by: stogoe | September 27, 2007 4:02 PM
Chimoio isn't trying to kill the folks (genocide), he's trying to reduce them to an infantile class. When AIDS rates spike, if we see continued high levels of reproduction, the population will/has become a vast collection of juvenile orphans.
What society would be better to enslave? Ahh, Christian morality! The worst of Roman society, without the bennies.
Posted by: frog | September 27, 2007 4:08 PM
As terrible as the archbishops comment was, it could be worse. In the USA, Catholics listen to the priests and smile and nod, then just ignore them when they feel like it. Same in Europe, especially Italy.
Unlike the archbishop, I can reference my assertion. The family size of Catholics in the USA is almost identical to the national average. You aren't going to tell me they use the rhythm and get pregnant method? BS!
Why shouldn't they ignore the priests. What do celibate men know about marriage and raising families. And who pays for the kids needs anyway?
I don't know what the situation is like in S. America and relevantly, Africa. It wouldn't surprise me if the Africans take the priests a little more seriously. But not that seriously or else they wouldn't have horrendous AIDS epidemics.
Posted by: raven | September 27, 2007 4:13 PM
Not to worry, I'm sure the archbishop's boss, the Pope, will slap him down and immediately set the record straight.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 27, 2007 4:21 PM
Raven: It wouldn't surprise me if the Africans take the priests a little more seriously. But not that seriously or else they wouldn't have horrendous AIDS epidemics.
Not true. They might be taking the priests very seriously, but transmission levels of sexually transmitted diseases are not primarily a function of levels of sex, but of the structure of sex links.
For example, American Jews have, on average, many more sexual partners than American Blacks, but AIDS (and other STD's) are much higher among Blacks than Jews (don't know about the intersection of the two groups). A major difference is in the structure of sexual contacts. Among the large number of Jews, the median number of partners and the average number of partners is close - in other words, everyone has a few partners. Among Blacks, you see a different pattern with a few people having many partners, and a large number of people having very few.
The latter makes the number of links between any individual and an infected individual much shorter than in a fairly homogeneous network, where every node in the network is similar to every other node.
In Africa, the infection rate among married women with very few partners (mostly monogamous) is very high for that same reason. They sleep with their husbands. Their husbands sleep with a neighbors wife, and that neighbor is a trucker who picked up HIV from a prostitute. If everyone in the village were ignoring the priests and sleeping with a couple of local folks, but no one in the village was sleeping with prostitutes on road trips, there were no local "sluts" or "players", the HIV infection rate would be lower than in the mainly monogamous village life with access to prostitutes, sluts or players.
Posted by: frog | September 27, 2007 4:25 PM
I have always held and still do that the RCC is far far worse than moderate Protestantism. It simply has no humbleness.
Likewise Africa is a very important battleground for the RCC as better than half their members are from there and South America. The church is all but dead in Europe and not taken seriously in America. They need money and members from somewhere.
Posted by: Uber | September 27, 2007 4:26 PM
Charles Soto "I'd rather see mandatory flu vaccination. That kills millions more..."
Is there a problem getting people to take the flu vaccine? Seems to me the demand perenially exceeds the supply.
Posted by: SteveM | September 27, 2007 4:27 PM
Yes, eliminating HPV would be great. But I'd prefer to fight other battles first...
Hm, yes, Charles. Spoken like someone at zero risk of contracting cervical cancer... (Penile cancer, which you also get from HPV, isn't as common.) Three pap smears in six months makes me wish they'd had the vaccine 20 years ago, and I always use condoms. Condoms aren't all that effective against HPV, and most people don't know they have it.
FWIW, in my jurisdiction, mandatory HPV vaccination (for both boys and girls, I think) makes a lot of sense, and is a compelling state interest, since the state winds up paying for people's cervical/penile cancer treatment later on, hereabouts.
Posted by: Interrobang | September 27, 2007 4:37 PM
This is why we cannot stay silent when a religinut speaks. It may save lives!
Posted by: Bill McElree | September 27, 2007 4:37 PM
"HPV is quite easy to avoid. That a significant number don't doesn't negate this. ... The same is true of HIV, for that matter. It's easy to avoid. Public policy protecting blood supplies, handing of medical instruments, etc. work wonders. Not to mention the effectiveness of condoms. Or are you saying that condoms don't work?"
Hmm. Except for that, unlike HIV, there is no reliable test to tell if males have HPV, so unless it's of the genital wart variety, it's IMPOSSIBLE to know if your partner has it (the virus can persist undiagnosed for years - married couples with no infidelity can still have cases of HPV). And, HPV is spread through skin contact, whereas HIV is spread through bodily fluids. Therefore condoms - while they do REDUCE risk - are not as effective in preventing HPV, because condoms don't cover all of the skin of the genital area. So, unless you believe in the abstinence-only crowd (or just think that 97% of women are dumb and/or sluts), it actually isn't particularly easy to avoid, even if you use condoms every time, are in a monogamous relationship, and/or have had very few partners.
Again, this says nothing about vaccine policy, but at least get the facts right. (Or, alternatively, don't state your opinion as if it is fact)
http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/common-questions.htm
Posted by: kellbelle1020 | September 27, 2007 4:40 PM
Found one!
It's a joke people.
Posted by: Hank | September 27, 2007 4:49 PM
On the question of how seriously the locals might take this particular dimwit, The Guardian's report says:
So it seems this guy has done something useful in the past (good for him!) and earned some respect. To what extent the esteem in which he's apparently held will add weight to his inanity remains unknown.
Posted by: blf | September 27, 2007 4:56 PM
OK, I guess I'm attracted to burning stupid like a moth to a flame. I had to visit the forum, but I didn't need to see much after reading this gem by "John":
Apparently, John learned all his science from comic books. All he needed to know he learned from Dr. Bruce Banner!
Posted by: Alison | September 27, 2007 5:15 PM
I guess some of that radiation mutated me while I wasn't looking. Wrong thread!
Posted by: Alison | September 27, 2007 5:16 PM
Hank, if Linux exists then how come there are WINDOWS + MAC OS X?
Posted by: Brownian | September 27, 2007 5:38 PM
That, of course, is part of the problem. For an authoritarian hierarchy complete with a peerless autocrat, the Roman Catholic Church is remarkably timid about confronting nonsense and mischief in its own ranks. The Vatican has on occasion roused itself to drop the hammer on the likes of Charles Curran (denying him the authority to teach as a theologian in a Catholic-sponsored university) or Hans Küng (who dared question papal infallibility), but it dithered forever in the case of Bernard Law, the cardinal who covered up dozens of cases of child abuse in the Boston diocese. Sometimes the ability to look the other way is a miraculous phenomenon.
Posted by: Zeno | September 27, 2007 5:41 PM
lol, where do you think the evangelicals learnt such behaviour from!
Posted by: J Green | September 27, 2007 5:53 PM
Just a thought. I wonder what ERV has to say about this. I suspect the bishop is gonna get it both barrels from her!
Posted by: Firemancarl | September 27, 2007 6:06 PM
The ignorance of this archbishop is astounding. But then I am too often astounded by how many people of influence can be so ignorant. As usual when ignorant people of influence make such idiotic pronouncements, people die. The HIV infection rate of Mozambique is about the same as the rate of persons who follow Catholic faith. What would be interesting is look at non-Catholic vs. Catholic infection rates today, and what those rates are five years from now. It would either sadly show how many actually follow this fool, or if a real anti-AIDS campaign went forward how many don't.
Posted by: Ken Mareld | September 27, 2007 6:10 PM
"the Roman Catholic Church is remarkably timid about confronting nonsense and mischief in its own ranks"
Because the leaders realize that if they confront nonsense and mischief in others within the ranks, their nonsense and mischief is likely to be confronted too! And then no one could promote nonsense and mischief! We can't have that!
That's the beauty of an authoritarian hierarchy complete with a peerless autocrat - the elite class is immune to the standards the populace is held to.
Posted by: kellbelle1020 | September 27, 2007 6:18 PM
While the claim is silly, there are actual European policies that do indirectly kill Africans, like arms trade to embargoed countries and rigged trade rules... and which Europeans does this "moral leader" choose to point his finger at? People handing out free condoms. Way to go, asshole.
Posted by: windy | September 27, 2007 6:22 PM
This is based on the idea that all humans are rational actors whose actions will be based on rational self-interest. And sex doesn't work that way.
Yes, you can avoid HPV by being abstinent and/or reducing sex partner count, but people do neither in real life.
They never have.
Today, we actually talk about it instead of pretending it doesn't happen. But that doesn't mean that non-abstinent, multi-partner sexuality is a new thing....
I'd rather vaccinate than not. Granted that the law of unintended consequences may crop up, vaccination for HPV can significantly reduce health risks, and that risk reduction represents enough of a benefit to merit widespread adoption.
Posted by: Matt | September 27, 2007 6:26 PM
It's the same old shit; it's just coming out of a different asshole this time.
And if scientists had evidence of the existence of a god, they would PUBLISH IT. Scientists publish everything. They tell everyone. They don't keep Nobel-prize worthy findings secret.
Posted by: Willo the Wisp | September 27, 2007 6:26 PM
For example, American Jews have, on average, many more sexual partners than American Blacks,
I am being so thoroughly ripped off! I didn't mind not getting my share of the "all Jews are rich" money, and I don't miss missing out on the cabal's control of political events, but this is too much! I want my foreskin back!
Posted by: Mooser | September 27, 2007 6:46 PM
Bullshit like this is why I left the Church.
Every time these jerks tell a lie, I imagine priests in Hell screaming as gibbering demons dance around them. There are not the human concepts to explain why they are screaming.
It's really fun being an apostate and not yet being an atheist - it means I can comfort myself with the fact that there is still a Hell for these people.
Posted by: Justin Moretti | September 27, 2007 7:09 PM
Joshua @20,
"moderate" religiosity like Catholicism is completely harmless
Wherever did you get the notion that catholicism is moderate? It is a batshit-insane whackjob cult, as bad as Scientology if not worse. The difference is that RCism is a seriously old B-IWJ cult, so much so that a great many of its adherents don't take it very seriously any more, asking for nothing more than a few aesthetically pleasing rituals and some comforting stories. That most catholics are moderate and harmless does not imply that catholicism is the same.
Elwood @46:
"Civilisation will not attain perfection until the last stone of the last church falls on the last priest." - Emile Zola
Zola was wrong. Many church buildings are supremely beautiful architectural achievements, and I would hope we shall preserve for centuries (or even millennia, if possible). I agree with the broad terms of what Zola was trying to say, but an earlier countryman of his, Jean Meslier, said it so much better:
"I would wish that the last king be strangled with the guts of the last priest."
Meslier's words take on a special poignancy when one considers that he was himself a priest.
Brownian @64:
Sheer brilliance. The rest of us should pretty much just give up and go home at this point.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | September 27, 2007 7:23 PM
So its wrong to put your cock in a condom, but ok to put it in an altar boy.
Say three Hail Marys and don't do it again.
Posted by: lunartalks | September 27, 2007 7:32 PM
I hopethis was tongue in cheek as if it wasn't your moral compass may be as off as the RCC.
Posted by: Uber | September 27, 2007 7:38 PM
After working in AIDs prevention since 1983, when I was loosing co-workers and friends monthly, (the infection rate doubled every six months at first). I believe the HIV deniers, whether religious or not, should be prosecuted for hate crimes and for homicide by neglect. I know it's a free speech issue but so is shouting "fire" in a crowded mall when you know that will cause injury or death. Why can"t the good bishop just go join his sky fairy and stop taking other people with him!!!
Posted by: yoyo | September 27, 2007 7:54 PM
Mooser,
On average I said. If you're uglier than average, that's not the cabal's fault, is it? You can't blame the Rothschilds for keeping their pretty young daughters away from you in that case -- they do have to select for breeding!
Just google some sociology papers on STD's. They also found that Jewish girls are really more likely to be into oral sex than Black girls (goes for both genders) - or at least say so to pollsters. You're probably also losing out on that one too.
It's mostly age of first marriage. Jews tend to marry near 30, and marriage has a tendency to damper the number of partners. Modern Christianity, especially evangelical, also is more sex negative than non-orthodox Judaism, which (surprisingly) does tend to dampen number of partners also, while at the same time increasing the risk of STDs and unwanted pregnancy. The first boyfriend may be a couple of years later, but he'll probably get the girl pregnant, marry her, give her an STD and then leave her with three kids eight years later.
Maybe you just lack gratitude to the cabal? You could be that guy... and not everything responds to antibiotics.
Posted by: frog | September 27, 2007 8:20 PM
And I meant Christianity's sex negativity has a tendency to dampen number of partners while increasing the odds of STDs and pregnancy.
Just check out the literature on abstinence-only sex education. It kinda works... depending on what the goal is. It's a really winner for Chlamydia, for example.
God must just love genital warts, almost as much as beetles.
Posted by: frog | September 27, 2007 8:24 PM
Mrs. Tilton @75
If you take the comment at face value then I agree with you. I would never condone destroying beautiful historic buildings - but we all know that Zola wasn't actually suggesting such a thing. The point of the quote as I read it, is that the whole institution of organised religion must be utterly annihilated in the minds