Pope: condoms not just for gay prostitutes

When the Pope recently decided that condom use was okay when preventing the spread of AIDS, many people were suspicious of the example he used – gay prostitutes. Did that mean it was only okay when there was already zero possibility of pregnancy? Was this the Catholic Church snubbing women yet again?

The Vatican has released a clarification today that condoms can be used to prevent AIDS by all genders and sexual orientations:

The pope’s comments in the book implied that he was referring primarily to homosexual sex, when condoms aren’t being used as a form of contraception. Questions arose immediately about the pope’s intent, though, because the Italian translation of the book used the feminine for prostitute, whereas the original German used the masculine.

Lombardi told reporters Tuesday that he asked the pope whether he intended to refer only to male prostitutes. Benedict replied that it really didn’t matter, the important thing was the person in question took into consideration the life of the other, Lombardi said.

“I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine,” Lombardi said. “He told me ‘no.’ The problem is this … It’s the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship.”

“This is if you’re a man, a woman, or a transsexual. We’re at the same point. The point is it’s a first step of taking responsibility, of avoiding passing a grave risk onto another,” Lombardi said.

[…]In the book, the pope was not justifying or condoning gay sex, condoms as a means of artificial contraception or heterosexual sex outside of a marriage. He reaffirms the Vatican opposition to homosexual acts and artificial contraception and reaffirms the inviolability of marriage between man and woman.

But by broadening the condom comments to also apply to women, the pope is saying that condom use is a lesser evil than passing HIV onto a partner even when pregnancy is possible.

“We’re not just talking about an encounter between two men, which has little to do with procreation. We’re now introducing relationships that could lead to childbirth,” Martin said.

The Catholic Church hasn’t quite joined us in the 21st century, but making it to the 20th century is a good first step. This decision will save countless of lives, even if it is just a publicity ploy to distract people from their child molestation scandal.

…Sooooo, can someone explain to me how the concepts of the “infallibility of the Church” and “papal infallibility” meshes with “changing your mind”?

Pope okays condom usage?!

I thought this was going to be a link to the Onion, but it’s real:

After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the pontiff will end the Catholic Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms. He will say that it is acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention is to “reduce the risk of infection” from Aids.

While he will restate the Catholic Church’s staunch objections to contraception because it believes it interferes with the creation of life, he will argue that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death can be a responsible act – even outside marriage.

Asked whether “the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms,” he replies: “It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution.

“In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality.”

He will stress that abstinence is the best policy in fighting the disease, but accept that in some circumstances it is better for a condom to be used if it protects human life.

Okay, so he still has a antiquated and judgemental view of human sexuality… hell, he is the Pope after all. But this is a huge step in the right direction. The Catholic Church is finally saying that the well-being of humans that are currently alive is more important that the potential human you’re stopping with a bit of rubber.

The theological logic is certainly screwy, like usual – it’s only okay because living gives you the potential to stop sinning later, not because living is more important than wasted sperm. But for right now, I don’t care. This will have a profound effect in AIDS ridden countries in Africa and potentially save many, many lives. Not to mention this basically greenlights all Catholic couples to use condoms. I can see the logic now – “Well, we’re primarily using them to stop AIDS, damn that no-baby side effect!”

Though the cynic in me thinks this is just a PR move to get people distracted from the whole child-molesting scandal. Sorry Pope, haven’t quite forgotten about that.

THIS is what religious oppression looks like

To all the Christians who have persecution complexes due to people simply disagreeing with them, despite being the privileged majority religion in their country… Maybe this will put religious oppression in perspective for you:

[Asia] Bibi has been held in prison since June last year. The court heard she had been working as a farmhand in fields with other women, when she was asked to fetch drinking water.

Some of the other women – all Muslims – refused to drink the water as it had been brought by a Christian and was therefore “unclean”, according to Mrs Bibi’s evidence, sparking a row. The incident was forgotten until a few days later when Mrs Bibi said she was set upon by a mob. The police were called and took her to a police station for her own safety.

Shahzad Kamran, of the Sharing Life Ministry Pakistan, said: “The police were under pressure from this Muslim mob, including clerics, asking for Asia to be killed because she had spoken ill of the Prophet Mohammed.

“So after the police saved her life they then registered a blasphemy case against her.” He added that she had been held in isolation for more than a year before being sentenced to death on Monday. “The trial was clear,” he said. “She was innocent and did not say those words.”

While most blasphemy cases are successfully appealed in Pakistan, Bibi is still likely to be further harassed or even killed during the trial.

Situations like this are absolutely horrifying and really highlight the immature attitudes of some privileged Christians, like the one in my earlier post. Those “militant New Atheists” simply disagree with you and vocalize their disagreement. Notice how we’re not throwing you in jail or murdering you. Whining about how you’re a martyr because your feelings are hurt trivializes the deaths of millions of people who have been and continue to be killed in the name of religion.

Some religious people are so anti-blasphemy…until they realize their beliefs are blasphemous to someone else. How the tables do turn when you’re not in a position of privilege.

Looking at your vagina, or criticising religion?

Which offends religious people the most?

This is a toughie. Why don’t we look at the faux controversy coming from Dartmouth College. Mayuka Kowaguchi created “The Orchid Project” for her sexual health peer-advising group on campus. What was this horrifying project? Small hand mirrors were distributed to women on campus, with an accompanying note describing female anatomy and the statement that the project was “to shift [women’s] perspective from the expectations and limitations of belief patterns, societal cultural or religious conditioning.”

Cue the religious hysterics:

If these mirrors were truly meant to encourage the consideration of issues surrounding body-awareness, then, I believe, those who consider themselves to be members of Dartmouth communities of faith — which do not support acting on this knowledge in a sexual fashion — would not have been offended.

[…]This is one of many occasions where I have found the liberal body at Dartmouth to completely violate those principles that it purports to advance: respect and freedom. Regardless of the offensiveness of the message, if the Orchid Project’s main goal was to encourage consideration, what possessed them of the idea that a direct attack on all faiths was the way to do that?

[…]The body of believers at Dartmouth and the body of non-believers would often mutually benefit from sitting down and “considering” the issues surrounding sexuality. Respectful discussion will only bred further respect and discussion, but blatant attacks on an entire outlook on life, will only bred further animosity, ignorance and offense.”

Oh boo hoo! Someone dared to suggest that my religious beliefs are wrong! Don’t they know that criticizing belief patterns and societal culture are okay, but irrational religious beliefs are untouchable? Who missed the political correctness memo?! Help, help, I’m being oppressed!

I can’t even conceive how someone can read that initial statement to mean that all religious beliefs are completely wrong, unless they’re trying to play the victim. And then turn around and presume to speak for every religious person at Dartmouth. And then go and condemn “acting on this knowledge in a sexual fashion,” thus proving the initial point that some religious beliefs can lead to sex-negative beliefs.

If you think a simple suggestion that you’re incorrect is a “blatant attack,” then what the hell is “respectful discussion”? Bashfully going “Shucks, whatever you want to believe must be right! I sure won’t ever present a viewpoint that disagrees with you! Because your beliefs cannot be criticized, even if it means my beliefs must be silenced”?

Fuck that. I’ll respect your beliefs once they’re deserving of respect – that is to say, when they’re not based on some ancient book about a invisible sky daddy and his zombie self-child that was scribbled together by some misogynistic dudes in a desert – or whatever particular illogical mythology you prefer to subscribe to. Feel free to keep believing, but don’t assume that gives you immunity from criticism. Pleasantries and political correctness only allows insane ideas to flourish.

Why are so many people starting to criticize Christianity? It’s not a mass conspiracy – it’s because you’re wrong.

So back to my original question: I guess that’s a vote for “criticising religion.” Meh, I’ll go look at my own vagina too, just in case.

(Via Jezebel)

Awww, I missed the Scientologists!

Their exhibit “Psychiatry: An Industry of Death” was rotating in Seattle. And when I say rotating, I mean it was temporarily in an old Hollywood Video Store. And when I say exhibit, I mean insane propaganda filled screed. Of course, I guess it’s easy to be anti-psychiatry when you believe the alien Xenu came to Earth millions of years ago to drop hydrogen bombs into volcanoes and we’re now all infected with the ghosts of his victims. To them, real psychological disorders probably seem normal in comparison.

Anyway, it closed for good last night. I’m secretly thankful, because I know the masochistic blogger in me would have felt compelled to check it out. Now I can just giggle about it without the inevitable facepalming.

Want to make some easy cash?

Christine O’Donnell’s campaign is offering $1,000 to anyone who can show that separation of church and state is in the Constitution.

Wait, what’s that? They want that exact phrase, even though the concept is well understood through case law? Whoops, how silly of me to think a Teabagger running for office would have a better understanding of the Constitution than a five year old.

Apologies to all five year olds.

Firebrands, Comfrontationalists, Accommodationists, oh my!

These labels have been flung around the atheist blogosphere lately. Jerry Coyne seems to be one of the people most outspoken about “accommodationists,” those that think science and religion can happily get along. Coyne thinks science and religion are inherently incompatible – a view I happen to agree with – and explained it nicely in a piece for USA Today.

The opponents of accommodationists have been labeled “confrontationalists.” PZ Myers wrote up an excellent piece on why he’s a confrontationalist after a panel discussion at the Secular Humanism conference. Apparently the whole accommodationist vs. confrontationalist idea was interesting enough for the New York Times to do a piece on it. It’s the whole firebrands vs. diplomats thing all over again – I guess the media love seeing drama within movements. So why am I beating a dead horse?

Because I hate labels, especially crappy labels.

They’re not just crappy because typing accommodationist and confrontationalist over and over makes my hands cramp up – they’re simply horrible at describing what they’re trying to convey. We’re really dealing with two totally different topics: 1) The relationship between science and religion, and 2) Strategies for engaging people.

I would argue the way people think about science and religion falls (mostly) into a binary. There’s the camp that thinks science and religion are compatible, comprised of people like Chris Mooney, Eugenie Scott, Francis Collins, and Chris Stedman. They’re the people you’ll hear talking about “non-overlapping magesteria” and listing successful scientists who are also religious. Then there’s a camp that thinks science and religion are incompatible, comprised of people like Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, Hemant Mehta, and myself. We’d argue that religious belief is inherently unscientific, and simultaneously being religious and a scientist involves a bit of compartmentalization in your brain.

Notice how religious belief or lack thereof doesn’t necessarily put you in one category or another. You have atheists who believe science and religion are compatible, and atheists who don’t. And I’m sure there are religious people out there who think religion and science are incompatible – the type of theists who make whole museums devoted to poo-pooing science.

The problem starts when we try to merge this viewpoint with different ways people engage others, like labeling the other side as “confrontationalists.” We try to lump this binary with the idea of firebrands and diplomats. But I’m going to argue that it is not a binary, but rather a spectrum. And it’s not just a spectrum in that some people are more aggressive than others – some people can also span wide parts of the spectrum. To illustrate, here I compare myself with some bloggers I enjoy (mainly chosen since I feel the most familiar with their strategies, and didn’t want to misrepresent others):


Notice how I didn’t simply rank people along the spectrum with a single point. That’s because I think there’s a serious aspect people miss when trying to employ this false dichotomy: those who can engage people differently depending on the situation.

I generally hate labels, so I’m hesitant to add “Situationalists” to the growing list, but it describes some people the best. PZ is pretty much always a firebrand, but bloggers like Hemant and Greta can be more or less aggressive depending on the situation.

It also describes me best. When I was president of my student group at a conservative college in a religious area, I needed to be much more diplomatic. I could have run out guns blazing, but the club would have never gotten off the ground. Because I chose a more diplomatic route, we became as well respected as we’re going to get in our community. That’s what was needed in that situation – becoming established, and letting people know that atheists aren’t all monsters.

But here on my blog, I have a much different approach. I’m more of a firebrand. I’m not representing an organization, so I’m more able to speak my mind and “rally the troops.” Or as Rebecca Watson lovingly called me during our panel podcast last week, I’m “a dick with a purpose.”

I don’t think my range is broad just because I’m young and new to the movement – I can think of other student leaders who rank on either extreme of that spectrum. Lucy Gubbins of the University of Oregon’s Alliance of Happy Atheists is very much a diplomat, and JT Eberhard of the Missouri State University Pastafarians is very much a firebrand.

And I think they both are amazing – being a situationalist is not necessarily better. People should do what they’re good at. If you’re good at playing Bad Cop, there’s a Good Cop out there too. We just have to remember there are people like me who don’t neatly fit on either side.

Then why are we labeling all people who think science and religion are incompatible as confrontationalists? We have people like Hemant who clearly fall into that group, but are about as friendly and diplomatic as you can get. If I had to guess, it’s because most people who think science and religion are compatible also happen to be diplomats. The term “accommodationist” is the mish-mash of those two ideas – you don’t just think science and religion are compatible, but you want to use that idea as a way to reach people in a friendly matter.

So, can we nix the confrontationalists label? It seems to serve no other purpose than to paint those who think science and religion are incompatible in a negative, hostile light. Hey, maybe the reason why the arguments of accommodationists seem so wishy washy is because they don’t have enough firebrands on their side.

…Or maybe it’s just because they’re wrong. But that’s a whole other post.

How one Christian responded to the "It Gets Better" project

Did you come here hoping this was one of those times a Christian defies negative stereotypes and welcomes gays with open arms?

Well, sorry to disappoint you.

A couple days ago I mentioned Dan Savage’s wonderful It Gets Better project, which aims to reach suicidal gay teens via YouTube since many can’t get help anywhere else. I can hardly watch the videos without getting choked up. But here’s a video this Christian decided to upload as a response, named the Lot Project:

A partial transcript for those who are too enraged to watch to completion:

“Billy Lucus, who hanged himself, obviously because he was gay, and unable to endure the guilt that the words of others prompted in him. This was indeed a tragedy, but not anywhere near the tragedy that Billy will discover in eternity when he faces the wrath of God upon rebellious and unrepentant sinners. Then, he will realize that his sin could not be atoned for by his own death, and he will realize that people like Dan Savage who encourage sin are deceivers. He will see them for what they are, the blind leading the blind. And he will realize that he has fallen into that ditch that the blind leading the blind inevitably fall into: that’s eternal destruction and misery. Sadly, it’s too late for Billy. For those who are viewing this video, however, their remains the opportunity of turning from sin to the obedience of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Now, before someone jumps in here screaming about how I’m a horrible person for assuming all Christians are this hateful, delusional, and ignorant – save your breath. I know. Plenty of Christians are wonderful people, pro-gay rights, and even gay themselves. This by no means represents every single Christian on the planet.

But you know what? If you want us to think those good, loving, caring Christians outnumber the awful ones, maybe you should put forth just a *tad* bit more effort in making that obvious, since this version of Christianity seems pretty common to me.

And no, hollering that this man isn’t a “true” Christian doesn’t help your argument.

One way to deal with crazy campus preachers

This is what Purdue’s campus looked like last Monday:Crazy campus preachers are fairly typical in the fall. One, it’s still warm, which is conducive to standing around outside yelling at people. But two, they hope to prey on the confused and lonely freshman. Because, according to this group, going to college is the work of the devil:

“Satan has a job to do…and you are it! The tremendous emphasis put on education these days is demonic. Satan knows his time is running out. Resounding throughout the halls of Aristotle are the voices of demons imposing their curriculum from hell. They insist ‘Memorize and regurgitate. Better this world. Self-esteem. Defy God! Exalt Babylon!”

“Deny God! Exalt Babylon!”? Shit, they found the Biology Department’s curriculum!

But my godless alma mater, the Society of Non-Theists, has a light-hearted way of dealing with our standard street preachers: our annual Pastafarian Preaching on Talk Like a Pirate Day.

Mike has a great summary here, describing the overall positive reaction of the event. Our Pastafarian Preaching is a silly satire of all the hateful preachers who come to campus, so it really does put a smile on people’s faces. And they even made the day of this little pirate fan:
Great job, Purdue Non-Theists!

Kick off the War on Christmas with a cheesey Christian movie!

This is unintentional comedy gold:

I smell a a drinking game. Take a sip every time a stereotype or debunked fallacious claim appears. A very small sip – we don’t want people getting alcohol poisoning.

I love this winning commentary from Steven Humphrey over at Slog:

In case you haven’t noticed, atheists like me RUIN EVERYTHING for EVERYBODY. However, I will not ruin this. What follows is one of the most hilarious, anus-tingling Christian movie trailers ever, in which a small Alaskan town’s Christmas is totally ruined by fat, evil atheist Fat Daniel Baldwin. As it so happens, Fat Atheist Daniel Baldwin is so jealous of hunky Christ Warrior Ted McGinley (who apparently competed with Baldwin for the affections of his own Mom… WHAT???), he’ll do anything to ruin Christmas—even change a town banner to “Seasons Greetings” and man-handle an adorable child dressed as an angel. YOU FUCKING HORRIBLE BASTARD!!! C is for CHRIST, and C is for CHRISTMAS, you fascist, atheist MONSTER!!!!

Amen. …Wait.