Should we be allow to celebrate Christmas

BigRob, if there is one thing I know about you, is that, in spite of what I see as a lot of "misguided" ideas, you are a honest person, and I didn't doubt that you had that information from a reliable link. So I wasn't "testing" you, I was really curious to read about this issue. And I believe the link you provided was as reliable as any (in spite of the obvious bias, obviously!)

Now, I believe that very few Catholics really follow the rules of the Church. .especially in Africa, which is a lot more influenced by EUROPEAN Catholicism, than the more "bigoted" form of Catholicism that seems to have spread in America.

I also believe that, many of the inhabitants of those countries are VERY simplistic (please do not read contempt into that, it's just that members of my family (my older sister, first, then my niece) in Congo, Zaire, and Ivory Coast for most of the last 50 years, and they do know the culture there. . .and it is STILL very primitive. So I don't think that it is necessarely Catholicism dogmas that would prevent people from using condoms, but rather ignorance, lack of care, and ECONOMICS! Even $.05 for a "subsidized" condom would be a stretch for many indigenous people there, and I wouldn't be surprise if (IF they even go to the extent of buying condoms) they might reuse them several times! They may also prefer to use some of the "local" remedies and amulettes to "protect" themselves!

But one thing is pretty sure. . . I believe this study only covers age 15 to 45. . and I would bet that a great majority of people with Aids are CHILDREN, babies born of HIV infected mothers. I'd love to see a study that talks about that. In fact, I think I'll go look for one, and I may post it if I can find it.
What President did more to help aid's victims than all others combined...?
 
Werbung:
I like him very much. I dont know that giving all that money was the right thing to do, I dont guess it ever actually went to HIV research like they always promise, but like you said, his heart was in the right place!

Well. . .obviously it wasn't Kennedy!
GW BUSH came to the presidency just at the opportune time. . .when the stigma of AIDS was diminishing, at the same time as AIDS evolved from a deadly, contagious disease, to a "manageable" life long (still contagious, but with contagion avoidable) disease.

There would have been NO EXCUSE to not bring all the attention of this "rich" country to help these people who know were no longer condemn to die when contracting HIV, but could live close to normal life!
 
Well. . .obviously it wasn't Kennedy!
GW BUSH came to the presidency just at the opportune time. . .when the stigma of AIDS was diminishing, at the same time as AIDS evolved from a deadly, contagious disease, to a "manageable" life long (still contagious, but with contagion avoidable) disease.

There would have been NO EXCUSE to not bring all the attention of this "rich" country to help these people who know were no longer condemn to die when contracting HIV, but could live close to normal life!
I think it was a bigger problem under Clinton. By the time Bush came along we knew exactly what caused it and how best to prevent spreading it. The money for research was probably more needed under clinton than Bush
 
Well. . .obviously it wasn't Kennedy!
GW BUSH came to the presidency just at the opportune time. . .when the stigma of AIDS was diminishing, at the same time as AIDS evolved from a deadly, contagious disease, to a "manageable" life long (still contagious, but with contagion avoidable) disease.

There would have been NO EXCUSE to not bring all the attention of this "rich" country to help these people who know were no longer condemn to die when contracting HIV, but could live close to normal life!
You can't even give him that..THIS RICH COUNTRY?
 
well , we are getting of the subject, I think the Stats produce show that the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the sopread of aids. Lack of Education, which the Church provides, seems to be the main reason.
As to which American President, if any, was responsible, I doubt you willlget much evidence on this
 
You can't even give him that..THIS RICH COUNTRY?

Sorry, but I worked with people with AIDS in 1995/96, when every week we had a couple of our clients dying of AIDS.

This is a subject that is very close to me. I lost some very sweet people because of this dirty illness.
And I KNOW what was being done in the 1990's it took YEARS before it became "politically correct" to care about people with AIDS because of the stigma that illness had of being a "gay disease," although only about half of my clients were gays, the other half were women, tricked by bisexual men, a young women, who used to be a beautiful young model. . .the picture of the "whole American girl," who had contracted AIDS through sharing needles. She died in the Spring of 1996, and I was with her until 10 minutes before her death. . .her family didn't even want to see her for the last year of her life. A talented musician, a Black man, who died surrounded by his cats in the house of a friend, because hospice didn't want to take his cats, and he didn't want to leave them. A child, who didn't even know he had contracted AIDS at the moment of his birth, a victim, like his mother, of his father's lies. A wealthy middle age man, who reconciled with his estranged mother who had never forgiven him for being gay. .until he was on his death bed. A middle age man, who had contracted AIDS through sharing needle, and who had asked a young girl (she was just 18) to marry him. She had said yes, because she wanted to give him happiness in the last two or three years of his life. . .but it was just at the time when AIDS evolved from a deadly disease to a manageable, lifelong disease. The young woman had generously given 2 to 3 years of her young life to help this man who was dying. . .but he wasn't dying. ..and the 2 years turned into 10 years. ..and she couldn't leave him, although she wanted a child, and she had found the love of her life. . .because she had vowed to stay with him until he died. . . but he wasn't dying!

Do you know that, in the early 1990's, the AIDS conference had to be moved from Boston to Amsterdam, . . .because the US would not allow people with HIV to obtain even a visitor's visa? Do you know how much Clinton did to help remove some of the stigma of HIV. ..do you know that one of the biggest break through to begin lifting that stigma was the movie "Philadelphia? That same year, his first year in office, President Clinton had established the White House Office of National AIDS Policy

Bush did a lot. . .because the time was RIGHT. Because public opinion had shifted, because people began to understand that HIV was not JUST a curse for gay people, but for all people, including children. Then, when we passed that mountain of bigotry and fear, the time was right to put in the BIG money and he announced the creation of the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. President Obama has continued this program which has grown and done a lot of good, not only here but everywhere in the world. Even Bill Gates gave $60 millions to the cause.

As in EVERY epidemics, there were "stairs" to climb, before something visible, something big could be done, like the PEPFAR. What matters is that, WHEN the time is right, the people with the power to do something to help do not turn their back. Clinton didn't turn his back, Bush didn't turn his back and took the mission a little further, a little higher, and Obama has picked up the charge.

No, I am not putting down on what George Bush did for AIDS. In fact, it might be one of the most (maybe the only) really positive program he started. But it is important to understand that NO ONE just picked up that mission from "nowhere." That it has been building up for three decades, and that it continues across presidencies, across party.

By the way, there is an excellent, concise, but very informative time line if you want to know the WHOLE history.

http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/
 
well , we are getting of the subject, I think the Stats produce show that the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the sopread of aids. Lack of Education, which the Church provides, seems to be the main reason.
As to which American President, if any, was responsible, I doubt you willlget much evidence on this
Aus22..There is a lot of evidence..just can't believe much of it..
 
The US originally positioned AIDS as a gay plague to justify its lack of investment in finding a cure
The government position was supported by some religious people. Actually, Dawkins, you and I are partly responsible for aids. According to Jerry Falwell: "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
 
The government position was supported by some religious people. Actually, Dawkins, you and I are partly responsible for aids. According to Jerry Falwell: "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

Yep. . .another way the bigoted side of religious dogmas can affect society negatively!
 
Werbung:
I wonder why god made so many homosexuals

Mind you I wonder why he had so many atheists

Or churchmen. Those loving guys who have burned people at the stake, sexually abused children, supported the nazi party, imprisoned scientists for telling the truth etc

Actually considering all the things god allegedly doesn't like it makes you wonder why he made so many of them and then had to make neutralising agents like aids

God is pretty stupid if you ask me

His followers certainly are

Hey, maybe that is it

Maybe all the revisions of the bible that science has necessitated will end up with god as a bit of an idiot and a nasty streak who can only be appreciated by those in his image


That certainly makes a lot more sense than the god is loving and all powerful nonsense
 
Back
Top