Primetime Pope and the Maverick Mother
Farzana Versey October 7, 2003
#72 Posted by ijaz_gul on October 19, 2003 12:18:51 pm
Church and Politics seperated in Christianity long time ago. The roman Catholic Church by its spirit to reach out to the least makes it univesal. It does not behave like a nation state despite maintaining a diplomatic corps.
With the type of bravado used by George Bush, millions of Christians living amonst Muslim majorities would have faced communal discrimmination if Bush was to be believed by his word. Credit goes to the Catholic Church for condemning the war on Iraq and making it clear to the Muslim brethren that the conflict was not amongst religions. Imagine what would have happened if it was otherwise.
Forgiveness is a virtue of Christian faith. Even as Jesus Christ hung on the cross of calvary to die, he said of his detracters ``Lord forgive them for they do not know what they do``. So if Mother Tresa prayed for dictaters, it was a prayer in the true sense of Christianity. After all Christ came for the sinners and to relive them of their yoke of sin and suffering.
Another virtue of the Christian faith is that the clergy and all christians do not seek appreciation for what they do in this world. It is written that those who do, have already earned their wages. They should rather look for the reward in the next world. So by any Christian sense, Vatican would be mad seeking popularity for the Pope through Times Magazine or a Nobel Peace Prize.
The entire comment appears out of focus. Dammit, people like her and Edie are at least doing good. Why should we despise them and be over critical.
With the type of bravado used by George Bush, millions of Christians living amonst Muslim majorities would have faced communal discrimmination if Bush was to be believed by his word. Credit goes to the Catholic Church for condemning the war on Iraq and making it clear to the Muslim brethren that the conflict was not amongst religions. Imagine what would have happened if it was otherwise.
Forgiveness is a virtue of Christian faith. Even as Jesus Christ hung on the cross of calvary to die, he said of his detracters ``Lord forgive them for they do not know what they do``. So if Mother Tresa prayed for dictaters, it was a prayer in the true sense of Christianity. After all Christ came for the sinners and to relive them of their yoke of sin and suffering.
Another virtue of the Christian faith is that the clergy and all christians do not seek appreciation for what they do in this world. It is written that those who do, have already earned their wages. They should rather look for the reward in the next world. So by any Christian sense, Vatican would be mad seeking popularity for the Pope through Times Magazine or a Nobel Peace Prize.
The entire comment appears out of focus. Dammit, people like her and Edie are at least doing good. Why should we despise them and be over critical.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#71 Posted by cosmic_citizen on October 16, 2003 7:34:25 am
I guess this board is dead by now...
but check this.. if you want to hear some criticism of the Mother...
Mother Teresa harmed Kolkata`s image
but check this.. if you want to hear some criticism of the Mother...
Mother Teresa harmed Kolkata`s image
#70 Posted by FarzanaVersey on October 12, 2003 11:15:59 am
sadna (#65):
The first time I wrote on the subject was in 1990 and was unaware that there was a ``bandwagon on Mother Teresa``. However, I have had my say and am glad you have yours. Re. feminists and prostitution, I have held back commenting on free enterprise that Greer talks about, but having worked in the red light sector among those people and their children and seen the consequences of some of the `rehabilitation`, I do equate it with an ``airless`` room. And it was not ``paid-for-with-patriachal-lucre-never-done-a-days-honest-work leisure variety feminism``. Sometimes one does not think of money or even `isms` -- you do it because you want to.
Anyway, thanks for sparing the time to express yourself.
The first time I wrote on the subject was in 1990 and was unaware that there was a ``bandwagon on Mother Teresa``. However, I have had my say and am glad you have yours. Re. feminists and prostitution, I have held back commenting on free enterprise that Greer talks about, but having worked in the red light sector among those people and their children and seen the consequences of some of the `rehabilitation`, I do equate it with an ``airless`` room. And it was not ``paid-for-with-patriachal-lucre-never-done-a-days-honest-work leisure variety feminism``. Sometimes one does not think of money or even `isms` -- you do it because you want to.
Anyway, thanks for sparing the time to express yourself.
#69 Posted by nb on October 12, 2003 8:09:12 am
Gorabandar,unfortunately, many people did tell their parents at the time but nothing could be done because many priests told parents kids were just making up stories.They told their therapists as teenagers and adults and many of these cases have been in the open for many years now. I don`t know why anyone would defend child abusers. No one`s saying all priests do it,far from that.
This isn`t the right time to discuss homosexuality,but this is not about gay people. I know nothing about MA so I`m not going to comment.Condoms have a very high rate of success when worn correctly.When people tell me the condoms tore and I ask them when and how they use it,the answers are something of a revelation.Of course,life would be a lot easier if everyone,not just gay people, would just stop having sex but I have been unable to convince anyone of this so far.People can be sooo unreasonable.So consumer reports are biased but the opinions of right wing doctors and scientists are fair?It is absolutely right though that diseases caused by contact,not by transmission of body fluids can still be transmitted,I`ll grant you that. a lot of what you said applies to heterosexuals,not homosexuals,so its probably completely irrelevant.Its easier to blame gay people for everything,isn`t it?
I`ve said already why Catholic priests don`t mess much with underage girls.First of all,young Catholic girls spend much more time with nuns at school-there are very few girls schools with male priests in close proximity to girls.They might see a priest for confession,but that`s probably the only time they see a priest alone,its different for older women who`d have more access to priests. Anyone with unquestioned power is likely to use it to abuse kids they have access to,why would the Church be any different?They`re not all saints, remember?
You seem to be saying that no priest ever abused kids. The Anglican Church of Australia has publicly admitted that they didn`t do more to help victims because they were afraid of the legal ramifications.Interestingly,looking at reports,there seem to be more Anglican priests abusing girls than Catholic priests. Several priests have admitted to having abused children.What is the reason for your inablility to accept it?Is this a sensitive topic for some reason?
Your syntax leads me to fear you are Tipu again......
This isn`t the right time to discuss homosexuality,but this is not about gay people. I know nothing about MA so I`m not going to comment.Condoms have a very high rate of success when worn correctly.When people tell me the condoms tore and I ask them when and how they use it,the answers are something of a revelation.Of course,life would be a lot easier if everyone,not just gay people, would just stop having sex but I have been unable to convince anyone of this so far.People can be sooo unreasonable.So consumer reports are biased but the opinions of right wing doctors and scientists are fair?It is absolutely right though that diseases caused by contact,not by transmission of body fluids can still be transmitted,I`ll grant you that. a lot of what you said applies to heterosexuals,not homosexuals,so its probably completely irrelevant.Its easier to blame gay people for everything,isn`t it?
I`ve said already why Catholic priests don`t mess much with underage girls.First of all,young Catholic girls spend much more time with nuns at school-there are very few girls schools with male priests in close proximity to girls.They might see a priest for confession,but that`s probably the only time they see a priest alone,its different for older women who`d have more access to priests. Anyone with unquestioned power is likely to use it to abuse kids they have access to,why would the Church be any different?They`re not all saints, remember?
You seem to be saying that no priest ever abused kids. The Anglican Church of Australia has publicly admitted that they didn`t do more to help victims because they were afraid of the legal ramifications.Interestingly,looking at reports,there seem to be more Anglican priests abusing girls than Catholic priests. Several priests have admitted to having abused children.What is the reason for your inablility to accept it?Is this a sensitive topic for some reason?
Your syntax leads me to fear you are Tipu again......
#68 Posted by gorabandar on October 11, 2003 4:55:54 pm
Some people believe in the tooth fairy too. But when it comes to the FAILURE RATE of CONDOMS I don`t belief there can be a more NON-BIASED authority than CONSUMER REPORTS !!!!
http://sqzm14.ust.hk/condom-ratings-95.HTML
Again keep in mind these FAILURE RATES are FOR PREGNANCY which is DIFFERENT THAN AIDS because a condom HAS to WORK 100% to prevent HIV but ONLY DURING a WOMEN`S FERTILITY period to prevent pregnancy.
Of course people ARE FREE to play RUSSIAN ROULETTE !!!
#67 Posted by arjun_m on October 11, 2003 2:55:21 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#66 Posted by sadna on October 11, 2003 2:44:06 pm
Ms Versey:
Had to join the bandwagon on Mother Teresa, did you? Some of the things you say cannot be allowed to pass by without reply though it takes more time than I have to spare.
First it seems you don`t believe in saints, then you fault Mother Teresa for not BEING a saint ! Its Indian tradition to expect imperfections/dualities even in the best role models, even gods. Whats so wrong with Mother Teresa being unsaintly while still providing inspiration to many Indians including Hindus?
Mother Teresa did good to more people and exhibited less venality in her lifetime than many public figures in S. Asia can claim. When people insist in using religious dogma to kill people, why is it more worthy of outrage to insist on using it to help people?
I remember asking a Catholic friend many years ago, whether Mother Teresa would finally be declared a saint in 100 - 200 years ? My friend said it maynot happen, because Mother Teresa had performed no miracles. To be declared a saint, Mother Teresa would have cause at least one miracle before her death and at least one more after her death.
Well, its now clear, the Pope decided not to wait and chose to rush the paper work. So what? Its not relevant to talk of others who have also dedicated themselves to social work. Sanctifying and making divinities out of influential Catholics is solely a Catholic Christian tradition for which Catholics set the rules, not nonCatholics.
``“They (Mother’s nuns) don’t see prostitutes as poor women who are enjoying free enterprise in the world’s most ancient profession, but as sinners. The punishment for these women is to teach them embroidery.”
IMO, this blatant piece of fiction from Ms Greer is a much worse condemnation of prostitutes than any Christian paradigm used by Mother Teresa to offer these poor women a way out. Ms Greer (and her acolytes) want us to believe that the prostitutes of Calcutta enjoy being pimped by criminals who appropriate their earnings, that these women enjoy becoming HIV positive or syphilitic, that they enjoy watching their fatherless children growing up to criminal adulthood in unhygenic surroundings.
We are to take Ms Greers(or Ms Versey`s) authority for it that the rooms where these women practise `free enterprise` with strangers many times a day are airy and healthy unlike those over at Mother Teresa`s establishment. That having sex with absolute strangers to hold off starvation is more consistent with their womanly dignity and creative impulses and its a punishment to learn embroidery as an alternate skill for free enterprise and personal creativity. What if those women had been `punished` in medical or trade school instead, would those classrooms would be declared unacceptably airless too.
Its amazing that such crass dishonesty passes muster for `feminism`. Is it paid-for-with-patriachal-lucre-never-done-a-days-honest-work leisure variety feminism, do you think? And it is so full of its own moral damnations, it definitely `lacks humbleness`.I cannot believe the author is mindlessing quoting Greer selling our unfortunate sisters in Calcutta down the road.
If she were asked for hard figures to prove that the prostitutes who were helped by Mother Teresa entered prostitution by their own free will, no doubt Ms Greer would say the use of facts and figures to prove veracity is a male patriarchal paradigm.
The truth could be that feminists believe that the SOLE sign of liberation/empowerment of a woman is her willingness to offer herself as a sexual commodity in the market-driven world as opposed to her unliberated sister forced by the patriarchy to be an unwilling commodity.
If so, no surprise that Ms Greer considers our unfortunate Calcutta sisters as the liberated and unsung foot soldiers of the feminist movement, while she would no doubt consider women earning money stitching shoes in SE Asia as `exploited by the male patriarchy`.
This may also explain why, when searching for the number of Afghan women and girls forced out of jobs, colleges and schools after the Taliban took over, it was difficult to find ANY hard figures or numbers at all. Most reports by `feminists` on the horrible situation preferred to dwell more on how women could no longer visit beauty parlors or paint their fingernails.
One expects more nuanced views from Indian women, alas.
Had to join the bandwagon on Mother Teresa, did you? Some of the things you say cannot be allowed to pass by without reply though it takes more time than I have to spare.
First it seems you don`t believe in saints, then you fault Mother Teresa for not BEING a saint ! Its Indian tradition to expect imperfections/dualities even in the best role models, even gods. Whats so wrong with Mother Teresa being unsaintly while still providing inspiration to many Indians including Hindus?
Mother Teresa did good to more people and exhibited less venality in her lifetime than many public figures in S. Asia can claim. When people insist in using religious dogma to kill people, why is it more worthy of outrage to insist on using it to help people?
I remember asking a Catholic friend many years ago, whether Mother Teresa would finally be declared a saint in 100 - 200 years ? My friend said it maynot happen, because Mother Teresa had performed no miracles. To be declared a saint, Mother Teresa would have cause at least one miracle before her death and at least one more after her death.
Well, its now clear, the Pope decided not to wait and chose to rush the paper work. So what? Its not relevant to talk of others who have also dedicated themselves to social work. Sanctifying and making divinities out of influential Catholics is solely a Catholic Christian tradition for which Catholics set the rules, not nonCatholics.
``“They (Mother’s nuns) don’t see prostitutes as poor women who are enjoying free enterprise in the world’s most ancient profession, but as sinners. The punishment for these women is to teach them embroidery.”
IMO, this blatant piece of fiction from Ms Greer is a much worse condemnation of prostitutes than any Christian paradigm used by Mother Teresa to offer these poor women a way out. Ms Greer (and her acolytes) want us to believe that the prostitutes of Calcutta enjoy being pimped by criminals who appropriate their earnings, that these women enjoy becoming HIV positive or syphilitic, that they enjoy watching their fatherless children growing up to criminal adulthood in unhygenic surroundings.
We are to take Ms Greers(or Ms Versey`s) authority for it that the rooms where these women practise `free enterprise` with strangers many times a day are airy and healthy unlike those over at Mother Teresa`s establishment. That having sex with absolute strangers to hold off starvation is more consistent with their womanly dignity and creative impulses and its a punishment to learn embroidery as an alternate skill for free enterprise and personal creativity. What if those women had been `punished` in medical or trade school instead, would those classrooms would be declared unacceptably airless too.
Its amazing that such crass dishonesty passes muster for `feminism`. Is it paid-for-with-patriachal-lucre-never-done-a-days-honest-work leisure variety feminism, do you think? And it is so full of its own moral damnations, it definitely `lacks humbleness`.I cannot believe the author is mindlessing quoting Greer selling our unfortunate sisters in Calcutta down the road.
If she were asked for hard figures to prove that the prostitutes who were helped by Mother Teresa entered prostitution by their own free will, no doubt Ms Greer would say the use of facts and figures to prove veracity is a male patriarchal paradigm.
The truth could be that feminists believe that the SOLE sign of liberation/empowerment of a woman is her willingness to offer herself as a sexual commodity in the market-driven world as opposed to her unliberated sister forced by the patriarchy to be an unwilling commodity.
If so, no surprise that Ms Greer considers our unfortunate Calcutta sisters as the liberated and unsung foot soldiers of the feminist movement, while she would no doubt consider women earning money stitching shoes in SE Asia as `exploited by the male patriarchy`.
This may also explain why, when searching for the number of Afghan women and girls forced out of jobs, colleges and schools after the Taliban took over, it was difficult to find ANY hard figures or numbers at all. Most reports by `feminists` on the horrible situation preferred to dwell more on how women could no longer visit beauty parlors or paint their fingernails.
One expects more nuanced views from Indian women, alas.
#65 Posted by gorabandar on October 11, 2003 2:44:06 pm
You didn`t notice but the sources were[**Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York and Center for Disease Control, Atlanta. The Alan Guttmacher Institute is the information wing of Planned Parenthood, which is the world`s number one abortion lobbist ( not too many ``bible thumpers there``,and the CDC a respected institution.
As a matter of course in dealing with these matters I NEVER quote any ``conservative``, or ``religious`` sources. The most obvious reson....individuals like your self who would not accept them even if the sources are valid and correct.
As a matter of course in dealing with these matters I NEVER quote any ``conservative``, or ``religious`` sources. The most obvious reson....individuals like your self who would not accept them even if the sources are valid and correct.
#64 Posted by sigalph235 on October 11, 2003 1:10:25 am
Re gorabander 62
True that a large part of the scandal is homosexual priest related. Also true that Mass. has two incredibly outrageous gay representatives. That does not take away from the crux of the coverup in the Roman Catholic Church.
Abuses are far more likely to happen in totalitarian setups than in more decentralized ones. The RC Church, especially after the enthroning of JPII, has become more and more authoriatarian with little accountabilty for priests and bishops. Unlike almost any other church in America, the RC Church`s system of appointment to priesthood and bishoprics has absolutely no reference to the wishes of the congregations. Priests are appointed by bishops and bishops by the Pope without any need to consult the laity. Forget about elections or ratification by the congregation. And these priests and prelates serve as long their respective ecclesiastical superiors want them to. Add to that the historic secrecy of the Roman church, and you get a fertile ground for abuse and mischief. This is an ecclesiastical counterpart to the Eastern European totalitarian dictatorships that feared any reference to the people`s wishes. In more ways than one, this Church, in its official capacity, is quite opposite of the fundamental precepts of American governance.
You bet the celibacy stuff contributes to this. It is unnatural, un-Biblical, and weird. The Bible is pretty plain and direct about saying that a bishop (never mind a priest) ought to be a man who is `husband of one wife and given to hospitality` (1 Timothy 3). But even in going against this explicit commandment of the Bible, the Church of Rome is selective. For while it forbids it priests and bishops the right to a conjugal life-mate in the West, it explicitly allows its priets in the Ukraine (the Unitiate Church), Greece (the Greek Cathloic Church) and Lebanon (the Maronite Church) to get married and have kids.
True that a large part of the scandal is homosexual priest related. Also true that Mass. has two incredibly outrageous gay representatives. That does not take away from the crux of the coverup in the Roman Catholic Church.
Abuses are far more likely to happen in totalitarian setups than in more decentralized ones. The RC Church, especially after the enthroning of JPII, has become more and more authoriatarian with little accountabilty for priests and bishops. Unlike almost any other church in America, the RC Church`s system of appointment to priesthood and bishoprics has absolutely no reference to the wishes of the congregations. Priests are appointed by bishops and bishops by the Pope without any need to consult the laity. Forget about elections or ratification by the congregation. And these priests and prelates serve as long their respective ecclesiastical superiors want them to. Add to that the historic secrecy of the Roman church, and you get a fertile ground for abuse and mischief. This is an ecclesiastical counterpart to the Eastern European totalitarian dictatorships that feared any reference to the people`s wishes. In more ways than one, this Church, in its official capacity, is quite opposite of the fundamental precepts of American governance.
You bet the celibacy stuff contributes to this. It is unnatural, un-Biblical, and weird. The Bible is pretty plain and direct about saying that a bishop (never mind a priest) ought to be a man who is `husband of one wife and given to hospitality` (1 Timothy 3). But even in going against this explicit commandment of the Bible, the Church of Rome is selective. For while it forbids it priests and bishops the right to a conjugal life-mate in the West, it explicitly allows its priets in the Ukraine (the Unitiate Church), Greece (the Greek Cathloic Church) and Lebanon (the Maronite Church) to get married and have kids.
#63 Posted by arjun_m on October 10, 2003 10:01:16 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#62 Posted by gorabandar on October 10, 2003 5:32:31 pm
NB- Today the Vatican put the ``Scandal`` in perspective. Lots of exageration !!!! Boston is the epicenter of the problem which... yes IS a homosexual problem. Try as they might the press can`t find too many priests messing with underage girls.
Those of us familiar with the state of Massachusettes in general and Boston in particular are not surprised by this. Let`s not forget Congressional Representatives from Massachusettes Barney Frank(his boyfriend ran a homosexual prostitution business from his office.) and Gerry studds( censured for molesting a 15 yo congressional page) They were both handily re-elected by the citizentry. Ted Kennedy etc.... Yes something is wrong in that State for sure.
I had to laugh every time the media(especially during the last few days of ARNOLD`s campaign for Calif governor, talked about his ``groping`` and ``abusing`` women. Why they only added to his final voting totals.
As to the attraction of ``Movie Stars`` to ``democratic voters``, I know I don`t have to elaborate for tose of you from the sub-continent.
So what am i saying....First there is a double standard for sure....Monica on her hands and knees the Voters and the press love it. A literal handful of corrupt priests and the Media acts so pius.....
As to the ``Greedy`` victims.`` Without even discussing how many are real and how many opportunistic liars..... to watch the so called victims hold out for more money when really they should have informed the authorities 30 years ago when these incidents happened.
Maybe greedy is too strong a word.....maybe i should have used stupid and selfish.
However while I do respect the priesthood and those in the vocation generally, i cannot say the same for certain members of the hierarchy who thankfully are coming to the end of their miserable run.
Those of us familiar with the state of Massachusettes in general and Boston in particular are not surprised by this. Let`s not forget Congressional Representatives from Massachusettes Barney Frank(his boyfriend ran a homosexual prostitution business from his office.) and Gerry studds( censured for molesting a 15 yo congressional page) They were both handily re-elected by the citizentry. Ted Kennedy etc.... Yes something is wrong in that State for sure.
I had to laugh every time the media(especially during the last few days of ARNOLD`s campaign for Calif governor, talked about his ``groping`` and ``abusing`` women. Why they only added to his final voting totals.
As to the attraction of ``Movie Stars`` to ``democratic voters``, I know I don`t have to elaborate for tose of you from the sub-continent.
So what am i saying....First there is a double standard for sure....Monica on her hands and knees the Voters and the press love it. A literal handful of corrupt priests and the Media acts so pius.....
As to the ``Greedy`` victims.`` Without even discussing how many are real and how many opportunistic liars..... to watch the so called victims hold out for more money when really they should have informed the authorities 30 years ago when these incidents happened.
Maybe greedy is too strong a word.....maybe i should have used stupid and selfish.
However while I do respect the priesthood and those in the vocation generally, i cannot say the same for certain members of the hierarchy who thankfully are coming to the end of their miserable run.
#61 Posted by gorabandar on October 10, 2003 5:02:13 pm
Some more scientific info for you about condoms:
Doctors speak out about condom failures!
Many leading health experts have warned against depending on condoms for protection against AIDS and other STDs. Here’s a sampling of their comments:
``You just can’t tell people it’s all right to do whatever you want as long as you wear a condom. It (AIDS) is just too dangerous a disease to say that.``
Quote from: ¾ Dr. Harold Jaffee, chief of epidemiology, National Centers for Disease Control
``Simply put, condoms fail. And condoms fail at a rate unacceptable for me as a physician to endorse them as a strategy to be promoted as meaningful AIDS protection.``
Quote from: ¾ Dr. Robert Renfield, chief of retro-viral research, Walter Reed Army Institute
``Relying on condoms for ‘protection’ can mean lifelong disease, suffering, and even death for you or for someone you love.``
Quote from: ¾ Dr. Andre Lafrance, Canadian physician and researcher
``Saying that the use of condoms is ‘safe sex’ is in fact playing Russian roulette. A lot of people will die in this dangerous game.``
Quote from: ¾ Dr. Teresa Crenshaw, member of the U.S. Presidential AIDS Commission and past president of the American Association of Sex Educators
Holes in Condoms . . .
STDs are very tiny organisms, minuscule in size compared to sperm. These super-small viruses can get through a hole in a condom much more easily than sperm can. For example, HIV (the AIDS-causing virus) is so small that two million of the disease-causing agents could crowd on the period at the end of a sentence.
In 1993 the University of Texas analyzed the results of 11 different studies that had tracked the effectiveness of condoms to prevent transmission of the AIDS virus. The average condom failure rate in the 11 studies for preventing transmission of the AIDS virus was 31%.
One reason condoms fail in preventing the transfer of AIDS is that latex condoms have tiny intrinsic holes called ``voids.`` Sperm is larger than the holes, but the AIDS virus is 50 times smaller than these tiny holes which makes it easy for the virus to pass through [Source: Dr. C. M. Roland, editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology]. To give you an idea of how easy it would be for the virus to pass through these holes, just imagine a ping pong ball going through a basketball hoop.
Girls Still Get Pregnant!
Did you know that you can use a condom and still get pregnant? A variety of studies have found that condoms have an ``annual failure rate`` of 10% to 36% when it comes to preventing pregnancy.
Can you imagine the consequences for a couple when their condom fails? It happens all the time! One of the studies found that among teenagers, the condom failure rate regarding pregnancy was 36%! On average, that means that one out of every three teenage couples using condoms will become pregnant each year.
Are You ready to catch a sexually transmitted diseases?
Condoms provide considerably less protection against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than they do against pregnancy.
That`s because a girl can get pregnant only at ovulation time (that`s two to three days each month) but STDs can pass from partner to partner at any time of the month.
STDs are frequently passed through ``skin to skin`` contact even when condoms are used. This can happen because the bacterial or viral germs that cause many serious STDs (such as human papillomavirus, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis) do not infect just one place on your body. They may infect anywhere in the male or female genital areas.
So, even if the virus or bacteria isn`t passed through tears or holes in the condom itself, you can still get diseases because condoms don`t cover or protect all areas of the genital region. That means condoms don`t prevent many of the STD infections that take place during sexual contact.
(Editors note: STD is A.K.A. - VD or venereal disease. The first person to email me the root meaning/derivation of the word ``venereal`` wins a FREE copy of the video by Pam Stenzel called Sex Has A Price Tag. Send me your mailing address if you submit an answer so I can send you the video if you win.)
**Facts to Remember . . .
The United States` Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 56 million Americans have an incurable STD. That means 1 in 5 Americans are infected!
12 million people get a new STD each year!
33,000 people get a new STD every day and 22,000 of them are 15 to 24 years old!
25% of High School students will be infected with an STD before graduation!
[**Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York and Center for Disease Control, Atlanta]
Doctors speak out about condom failures!
Many leading health experts have warned against depending on condoms for protection against AIDS and other STDs. Here’s a sampling of their comments:
``You just can’t tell people it’s all right to do whatever you want as long as you wear a condom. It (AIDS) is just too dangerous a disease to say that.``
Quote from: ¾ Dr. Harold Jaffee, chief of epidemiology, National Centers for Disease Control
``Simply put, condoms fail. And condoms fail at a rate unacceptable for me as a physician to endorse them as a strategy to be promoted as meaningful AIDS protection.``
Quote from: ¾ Dr. Robert Renfield, chief of retro-viral research, Walter Reed Army Institute
``Relying on condoms for ‘protection’ can mean lifelong disease, suffering, and even death for you or for someone you love.``
Quote from: ¾ Dr. Andre Lafrance, Canadian physician and researcher
``Saying that the use of condoms is ‘safe sex’ is in fact playing Russian roulette. A lot of people will die in this dangerous game.``
Quote from: ¾ Dr. Teresa Crenshaw, member of the U.S. Presidential AIDS Commission and past president of the American Association of Sex Educators
Holes in Condoms . . .
STDs are very tiny organisms, minuscule in size compared to sperm. These super-small viruses can get through a hole in a condom much more easily than sperm can. For example, HIV (the AIDS-causing virus) is so small that two million of the disease-causing agents could crowd on the period at the end of a sentence.
In 1993 the University of Texas analyzed the results of 11 different studies that had tracked the effectiveness of condoms to prevent transmission of the AIDS virus. The average condom failure rate in the 11 studies for preventing transmission of the AIDS virus was 31%.
One reason condoms fail in preventing the transfer of AIDS is that latex condoms have tiny intrinsic holes called ``voids.`` Sperm is larger than the holes, but the AIDS virus is 50 times smaller than these tiny holes which makes it easy for the virus to pass through [Source: Dr. C. M. Roland, editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology]. To give you an idea of how easy it would be for the virus to pass through these holes, just imagine a ping pong ball going through a basketball hoop.
Girls Still Get Pregnant!
Did you know that you can use a condom and still get pregnant? A variety of studies have found that condoms have an ``annual failure rate`` of 10% to 36% when it comes to preventing pregnancy.
Can you imagine the consequences for a couple when their condom fails? It happens all the time! One of the studies found that among teenagers, the condom failure rate regarding pregnancy was 36%! On average, that means that one out of every three teenage couples using condoms will become pregnant each year.
Are You ready to catch a sexually transmitted diseases?
Condoms provide considerably less protection against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than they do against pregnancy.
That`s because a girl can get pregnant only at ovulation time (that`s two to three days each month) but STDs can pass from partner to partner at any time of the month.
STDs are frequently passed through ``skin to skin`` contact even when condoms are used. This can happen because the bacterial or viral germs that cause many serious STDs (such as human papillomavirus, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis) do not infect just one place on your body. They may infect anywhere in the male or female genital areas.
So, even if the virus or bacteria isn`t passed through tears or holes in the condom itself, you can still get diseases because condoms don`t cover or protect all areas of the genital region. That means condoms don`t prevent many of the STD infections that take place during sexual contact.
(Editors note: STD is A.K.A. - VD or venereal disease. The first person to email me the root meaning/derivation of the word ``venereal`` wins a FREE copy of the video by Pam Stenzel called Sex Has A Price Tag. Send me your mailing address if you submit an answer so I can send you the video if you win.)
**Facts to Remember . . .
The United States` Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 56 million Americans have an incurable STD. That means 1 in 5 Americans are infected!
12 million people get a new STD each year!
33,000 people get a new STD every day and 22,000 of them are 15 to 24 years old!
25% of High School students will be infected with an STD before graduation!
[**Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York and Center for Disease Control, Atlanta]
#60 Posted by freethinker on October 10, 2003 4:23:59 pm
The prime time show has been captured by Mohtramah Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian lawyer, judge, lecturer, writer and a human rights activist. She has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. She has outclassed the likes of Pope John Paul II and the former Czech President Vaclav Havel both of whom appeared to be strong candidates. Shirin however came out of the blue and bypassed both of them.
Mohtramah Ebadi was Iran`s first female judge and served as president of the city court of Tehran from 1975 to 1979. She was forced to quit as a judge in 1979 by Ayatullah Khomeini`s Islamic Revolutionary government. Her recognition by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee has been passionately hailed by the women, particularly the Muslim women around the world.
Samira Trad, a human rights activist in Beirut said, ``..the Nobel committee has made a good judgment. It is good for a woman from our area.`` According to Rana Husseni, a Jordanian human rights activist, it is ``a great achievement. I think this will promote women`s causes worldwide including Arab, and women`s issues.``
Mohtramah Ebadi said, ``I`m a Muslim, so you can be a Muslim and support democracy. It is very good for human rights in Iran, especially for children`s rights in Iran. I hope I can be useful.``
Sure she has been useful. It`s a refreshing reflection on a Muslim country which has been called a part of the axis of evil. Mohtramah Ebadi is an angel of peace.
The hardliners and fundamentalists will lash back on the award from many different perspectives but let us relish the happy moment as long as it endures. Excuse me if I have gloated a little bit but how often people from our part of the world receive such important recognition.
Mohammad Gill
Mohtramah Ebadi was Iran`s first female judge and served as president of the city court of Tehran from 1975 to 1979. She was forced to quit as a judge in 1979 by Ayatullah Khomeini`s Islamic Revolutionary government. Her recognition by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee has been passionately hailed by the women, particularly the Muslim women around the world.
Samira Trad, a human rights activist in Beirut said, ``..the Nobel committee has made a good judgment. It is good for a woman from our area.`` According to Rana Husseni, a Jordanian human rights activist, it is ``a great achievement. I think this will promote women`s causes worldwide including Arab, and women`s issues.``
Mohtramah Ebadi said, ``I`m a Muslim, so you can be a Muslim and support democracy. It is very good for human rights in Iran, especially for children`s rights in Iran. I hope I can be useful.``
Sure she has been useful. It`s a refreshing reflection on a Muslim country which has been called a part of the axis of evil. Mohtramah Ebadi is an angel of peace.
The hardliners and fundamentalists will lash back on the award from many different perspectives but let us relish the happy moment as long as it endures. Excuse me if I have gloated a little bit but how often people from our part of the world receive such important recognition.
Mohammad Gill
#59 Posted by arjun_m on October 10, 2003 11:00:13 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#58 Posted by dost_mittar on October 10, 2003 8:40:45 am
Dear Farzana:
Looks like you were more persuasive than me with the Nobel committee!
Sorry for misreading you on Pope going to Iraq.
I too dont believe anythig is sacred for discussion (should have put a smiley there in my post!).
[Isn’t it strange that those who accuse me of being provocative are now trying to get on the Ram-Indo/Pak-Kashmir case because it gets the greatest responses? Ah, you have tasted blood…I do hope your ‘fan club’ turns out to be more interesting than mine.]
I did not `accuse` you of provocation. Although I did refer to your previous article as provocative, it was as a praise and not as a criticism. As far as myself, my first substantive article on chowk itself had the provocative title of ``Gandhi, Godse and Gita``, so I dont consider provocation in writing as bad.
No, thanks, but I dont want `those` kind of fans. I dont have the skills to handle them and I would be screaming for help!
Regards,
dm
Looks like you were more persuasive than me with the Nobel committee!
Sorry for misreading you on Pope going to Iraq.
I too dont believe anythig is sacred for discussion (should have put a smiley there in my post!).
[Isn’t it strange that those who accuse me of being provocative are now trying to get on the Ram-Indo/Pak-Kashmir case because it gets the greatest responses? Ah, you have tasted blood…I do hope your ‘fan club’ turns out to be more interesting than mine.]
I did not `accuse` you of provocation. Although I did refer to your previous article as provocative, it was as a praise and not as a criticism. As far as myself, my first substantive article on chowk itself had the provocative title of ``Gandhi, Godse and Gita``, so I dont consider provocation in writing as bad.
No, thanks, but I dont want `those` kind of fans. I dont have the skills to handle them and I would be screaming for help!
Regards,
dm
#57 Posted by gorabandar on October 10, 2003 8:26:07 am
A little science for you from the CDC:http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure
Men who have sex with men 368,971
Recipient of blood transfusion, blood components, 8,971
Now what about Africa where the AIDS rates are almost equal....Well another Dogma the Catholic Church tries to shove down people`s throats is one spouse for a lifetime. This not only insures that children are properly raised but that sexually transmitted diseases are not spread. Of course again the Church can only advise
A simple example for you and let me say this gently....You put your hand on a hot stove and it gets burned !!!! :)
Men who have sex with men 368,971
Recipient of blood transfusion, blood components, 8,971
Now what about Africa where the AIDS rates are almost equal....Well another Dogma the Catholic Church tries to shove down people`s throats is one spouse for a lifetime. This not only insures that children are properly raised but that sexually transmitted diseases are not spread. Of course again the Church can only advise
A simple example for you and let me say this gently....You put your hand on a hot stove and it gets burned !!!! :)
#56 Posted by nb on October 10, 2003 7:16:24 am
I`m almost at a loss for words to find that I actually agree with Farzana for once!
Sigalph, what is the problem with Farzana looking at things from the point of view of a feminist?I went to a Catholic School and we were taught to see her as the ideal woman, the Catholic alternative to being Savitri..this is why I can`t agree with the concept of post-feminism, feminism itself hasn`t gone very far and certainly not in South Asia.You`re basically saying she`s too holy for us to see from that view,why?Dilli durast.
I hadn`t heard of women being told to douche ther vagainas post rape. It`s scary to think of all the rapists that have got away with lack of evidence because of the Church.
It was interesting that when Graham Staines and his two little boys were so brutally murdered, the Aussie press thought it was sad,but said, what was he doing there anyway?Interestingly, it`s not been long since a missionary died in similar circumstances in PNG-and because his attackers said he was messing with tribal custom. My point is, while the Indian press was so upset about it-and lets` face it,in our part of the world,tragedies occur every second, the local media actually asked the same questions a lot of Indians got into trouble for asking. Something else-his 17 year old daughter wants to become a doctor in India to serve the poor. Given of course, that India has a hopeless shortage of doctors and we need whites to look after us,this seems perfectly appropriate.
Pedophilia is not a homosexual problem. There have been plenty of priests who also have abused young girls.Remember, though that traditionally, there are altar boys and choir boys in the church-not a lot of girls.You say why can`t they just keep their penises out of anuses(ani?)?This is not the time and place to go into it,but if you are gay,it is just as hard as it is for straight people to keep their bits out of vaginas-we all know how successful men are with that.We`re talking about kids-consenting adults are a different story. When a Catholic priest was accused of pedophilia a few years ago in India,Catholics in India cried victimisation. Why is it ok for Americans and Australians to talk about having been abused by priests but Indians can`t?
Gorabandar, I also found your bit about victims being greedy and lying almost obscene. Do you think all the thousands are lying?I don`t myself think all of them are necessarily telling the truth,but the only ones being paid are those whose stories have been backed up.People who have been sexually abused as children are often pretty much stuffed for life.For people like me,who often work with them and hear them talk about not being supported and believed,hear them weep for their lost childhoods,it is sad to see that things haven`t changed that much.What makes them greedy?Many of them have probably never been able to work and live off Social Security. There are few public health systems that can pay for long term counselling, so they also need to have the money to get them the care they need privately.
None of this is Catholic-bashing. I don`t doubt that there are Hindu priests who do the same-but because our society is different and we don`t leave kids with priests for hours on end for instruction,it is probablymainly younger priests that are at risk from older ones. If we don`t admit that these things happen,we will miss the signs when it matters-statistically it is impossible that of all the people on this board, none has been abused..one child abused is too many.
Sigalph, what is the problem with Farzana looking at things from the point of view of a feminist?I went to a Catholic School and we were taught to see her as the ideal woman, the Catholic alternative to being Savitri..this is why I can`t agree with the concept of post-feminism, feminism itself hasn`t gone very far and certainly not in South Asia.You`re basically saying she`s too holy for us to see from that view,why?Dilli durast.
I hadn`t heard of women being told to douche ther vagainas post rape. It`s scary to think of all the rapists that have got away with lack of evidence because of the Church.
It was interesting that when Graham Staines and his two little boys were so brutally murdered, the Aussie press thought it was sad,but said, what was he doing there anyway?Interestingly, it`s not been long since a missionary died in similar circumstances in PNG-and because his attackers said he was messing with tribal custom. My point is, while the Indian press was so upset about it-and lets` face it,in our part of the world,tragedies occur every second, the local media actually asked the same questions a lot of Indians got into trouble for asking. Something else-his 17 year old daughter wants to become a doctor in India to serve the poor. Given of course, that India has a hopeless shortage of doctors and we need whites to look after us,this seems perfectly appropriate.
Pedophilia is not a homosexual problem. There have been plenty of priests who also have abused young girls.Remember, though that traditionally, there are altar boys and choir boys in the church-not a lot of girls.You say why can`t they just keep their penises out of anuses(ani?)?This is not the time and place to go into it,but if you are gay,it is just as hard as it is for straight people to keep their bits out of vaginas-we all know how successful men are with that.We`re talking about kids-consenting adults are a different story. When a Catholic priest was accused of pedophilia a few years ago in India,Catholics in India cried victimisation. Why is it ok for Americans and Australians to talk about having been abused by priests but Indians can`t?
Gorabandar, I also found your bit about victims being greedy and lying almost obscene. Do you think all the thousands are lying?I don`t myself think all of them are necessarily telling the truth,but the only ones being paid are those whose stories have been backed up.People who have been sexually abused as children are often pretty much stuffed for life.For people like me,who often work with them and hear them talk about not being supported and believed,hear them weep for their lost childhoods,it is sad to see that things haven`t changed that much.What makes them greedy?Many of them have probably never been able to work and live off Social Security. There are few public health systems that can pay for long term counselling, so they also need to have the money to get them the care they need privately.
None of this is Catholic-bashing. I don`t doubt that there are Hindu priests who do the same-but because our society is different and we don`t leave kids with priests for hours on end for instruction,it is probablymainly younger priests that are at risk from older ones. If we don`t admit that these things happen,we will miss the signs when it matters-statistically it is impossible that of all the people on this board, none has been abused..one child abused is too many.
#55 Posted by arjun_m on October 10, 2003 7:16:24 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#54 Posted by FarzanaVersey on October 10, 2003 1:57:24 am
Correction to my post #51 to dost-mittarjee:
``I do not want to be any Pied piper…`` should read ``I do not want to follow any pied piper``.
``I do not want to be any Pied piper…`` should read ``I do not want to follow any pied piper``.
#53 Posted by FarzanaVersey on October 10, 2003 1:52:59 am
Dear Anil (#31):
If you are still looking in…Interesting post and thanks for your kind words.
[The institutionalization of religion, whether in the form of prophet, or by a prophet, or non-prophet gods, is indeed creation of men, funnily women become more ardent followers in religions. Therefore, if you can bring enough followers then you could join them too, because you will be able to create an institution.]
Women begin to see religion as a substitute for many things, especially rituals. It is a social outlet, for one. Invariably women dress up to visit places of worship – the famed temple saris in TN are an example, so also the Sunday mass clothes, or in some Muslim societies, like the Ismailis, they truss up in their best chiffons for the chaand raat. Women also feel sustained by these as they are an extension of their personalities as the archetypes they are supposed to live up to – as nurturing, forgiving souls. Some religions therefore give much importance to goddesses, making women a rapt ‘consumer’ market.
Re. Rajneesh, I think he created a counter-religion, which ironically got to become more fervent than many regular religions. I think what you call the “retro search” resulted in entrenching itself to such an extent that questioning of others led to blind belief of his doctrine. I made several friends among the Oshoites, but it was after my published questioning of them…they can be as closed as any regular institutionalised religion, sometimes even more so.
[We, in plural societies, must accept them to exist on the fringes, but when they become mainstream, a form of fascism is born, which no plural society would ever tolerate.]
This begs the question as to how they come into being in plural societies at all. At some point the subject of identity rears its head and, surrounded by so many different spectrums, some people feel lost or afraid of being smothered. This in no way condones the fascism that may arise, but every belief system is inherently fascist because it does not really leave room for any contrarian thought.
Regards,
Farzana
If you are still looking in…Interesting post and thanks for your kind words.
[The institutionalization of religion, whether in the form of prophet, or by a prophet, or non-prophet gods, is indeed creation of men, funnily women become more ardent followers in religions. Therefore, if you can bring enough followers then you could join them too, because you will be able to create an institution.]
Women begin to see religion as a substitute for many things, especially rituals. It is a social outlet, for one. Invariably women dress up to visit places of worship – the famed temple saris in TN are an example, so also the Sunday mass clothes, or in some Muslim societies, like the Ismailis, they truss up in their best chiffons for the chaand raat. Women also feel sustained by these as they are an extension of their personalities as the archetypes they are supposed to live up to – as nurturing, forgiving souls. Some religions therefore give much importance to goddesses, making women a rapt ‘consumer’ market.
Re. Rajneesh, I think he created a counter-religion, which ironically got to become more fervent than many regular religions. I think what you call the “retro search” resulted in entrenching itself to such an extent that questioning of others led to blind belief of his doctrine. I made several friends among the Oshoites, but it was after my published questioning of them…they can be as closed as any regular institutionalised religion, sometimes even more so.
[We, in plural societies, must accept them to exist on the fringes, but when they become mainstream, a form of fascism is born, which no plural society would ever tolerate.]
This begs the question as to how they come into being in plural societies at all. At some point the subject of identity rears its head and, surrounded by so many different spectrums, some people feel lost or afraid of being smothered. This in no way condones the fascism that may arise, but every belief system is inherently fascist because it does not really leave room for any contrarian thought.
Regards,
Farzana
#52 Posted by FarzanaVersey on October 10, 2003 1:51:55 am
Layman:
Thanks, but may I be just me? And I am not sceptical; I see this as idealism, for only when you are optimistic about the future will you take a realistic appraisal of the present.
Stuka:
I think your post has been more than adequately answered by others. I can only add that some sects in Islam, that have spiritual heads like the Aga Khan and the Syedna, are not considered Muslim enough or Muslim at all.
Maharana:
[newspapers and magazines in India have disproportionately high number of christains in the editorial staff. These people ensured that the murder of a foreigner gets front page coverage for long time. The same day that staines murder took place, ten labourers were killed in communal tension in Himachal, which did not get any coverage. So in essence, justice was ensured for a foreigner (glad that he got it), but a citizen of india, i guess he`s a piece of trash…Could you throw some light on journalist culture in indian scenario related to the problems you have m,entioned?]
I do not agree that there are more Christians in the Indian media; most Indians and people of the subcontinent are obsessed with the foreigner in any field. Re. journalist culture, I would say that commercial interests rule supreme. If you see a particular publication playing footsie with a political party, it is not always because it believes in that ideology but due to pressure from the business/advertising community which indirectly gets things done through the political party in question.
Sometimes, however, a Staines case gets more prominence because the Western media has made inroads and we have to see that ‘they’ know we are doing something about ‘their’ people. A foreign woman is raped and killed and the papers follow up that case; several poor women in villages and cities too suffer a similar fate and at best get a cursory mention.
dost-mittarjee:
I did not say the Pope should go to Iraq…quite the contrary. Re.your views, they are yours and mine are mine. As far as I am concerned, nothing is sacred. I do not want to be any Pied piper…and I always stand by what I say. You won’t catch me doing a volte face…yeah, this I consider to be sacred – the ability to be oneself irrespective of the consequences.
I am glad you read the article. Though your statement, “Scanning through the responses, you must be missing your ususual ``fan club``, so let me try to be a tame substitute” was an unnecessary prefix. I have been through much of ‘fan clubism’ – good and bad – long before Chowk was born. Isn’t it strange that those who accuse me of being provocative are now trying to get on the Ram-Indo/Pak-Kashmir case because it gets the greatest responses? Ah, you have tasted blood…I do hope your ‘fan club’ turns out to be more interesting than mine. Regarding being a tame substitute with your response, why do you even have to try? Do not be what you are not.
Regards,
F
Thanks, but may I be just me? And I am not sceptical; I see this as idealism, for only when you are optimistic about the future will you take a realistic appraisal of the present.
Stuka:
I think your post has been more than adequately answered by others. I can only add that some sects in Islam, that have spiritual heads like the Aga Khan and the Syedna, are not considered Muslim enough or Muslim at all.
Maharana:
[newspapers and magazines in India have disproportionately high number of christains in the editorial staff. These people ensured that the murder of a foreigner gets front page coverage for long time. The same day that staines murder took place, ten labourers were killed in communal tension in Himachal, which did not get any coverage. So in essence, justice was ensured for a foreigner (glad that he got it), but a citizen of india, i guess he`s a piece of trash…Could you throw some light on journalist culture in indian scenario related to the problems you have m,entioned?]
I do not agree that there are more Christians in the Indian media; most Indians and people of the subcontinent are obsessed with the foreigner in any field. Re. journalist culture, I would say that commercial interests rule supreme. If you see a particular publication playing footsie with a political party, it is not always because it believes in that ideology but due to pressure from the business/advertising community which indirectly gets things done through the political party in question.
Sometimes, however, a Staines case gets more prominence because the Western media has made inroads and we have to see that ‘they’ know we are doing something about ‘their’ people. A foreign woman is raped and killed and the papers follow up that case; several poor women in villages and cities too suffer a similar fate and at best get a cursory mention.
dost-mittarjee:
I did not say the Pope should go to Iraq…quite the contrary. Re.your views, they are yours and mine are mine. As far as I am concerned, nothing is sacred. I do not want to be any Pied piper…and I always stand by what I say. You won’t catch me doing a volte face…yeah, this I consider to be sacred – the ability to be oneself irrespective of the consequences.
I am glad you read the article. Though your statement, “Scanning through the responses, you must be missing your ususual ``fan club``, so let me try to be a tame substitute” was an unnecessary prefix. I have been through much of ‘fan clubism’ – good and bad – long before Chowk was born. Isn’t it strange that those who accuse me of being provocative are now trying to get on the Ram-Indo/Pak-Kashmir case because it gets the greatest responses? Ah, you have tasted blood…I do hope your ‘fan club’ turns out to be more interesting than mine. Regarding being a tame substitute with your response, why do you even have to try? Do not be what you are not.
Regards,
F
#51 Posted by gorabandar on October 9, 2003 4:13:18 pm
Regarding ``Catholic Dogma`` being shoved down your throats. First of all the Church is correct regarding the condom. The condom has a failure rate of at least 15% that is why abortion is so prevalent in the US over one million per year. If it fails so often regardng pregnancy then what about AIDS? This is a behavior issue. The liberal press says have all the anal sex you want but use condom and play russian roulette. Many do and die. What kind of will power does it take to keep one`s sex organ out out another`s anus?
Regarding the Church being against ``Contraception.`` The Church believes that the sex act should be open for producing children, however the Church is against ``ARTIFICIAL`` contraception. Here the Roman Catholic Church has a natural famlily program ...The Billings Ovulation Method which is almost 100%. Look it up online,,,be informed.
Don`t follow blindly a rabid liberal propaganda press bases on the MTV culture.
If the Church really had the power and wanted to force it`s Dogma on Pakistanis and indians then it would ``Enfore`` it;s Dogma of ``Thou Shall Not Kill.: and shut down the zillions of roadside sonogram/abortion mills where zillions of women go to abort THEIR FEMALE CHILDREN because those societies just value males. But the Church can only advise. Perhaps one day these societies will wise up.
But those societies will face in the future massive unrest (worse than now) when millions of males unable to marry in those societies start to act up and out.
Regarding the Church being against ``Contraception.`` The Church believes that the sex act should be open for producing children, however the Church is against ``ARTIFICIAL`` contraception. Here the Roman Catholic Church has a natural famlily program ...The Billings Ovulation Method which is almost 100%. Look it up online,,,be informed.
Don`t follow blindly a rabid liberal propaganda press bases on the MTV culture.
If the Church really had the power and wanted to force it`s Dogma on Pakistanis and indians then it would ``Enfore`` it;s Dogma of ``Thou Shall Not Kill.: and shut down the zillions of roadside sonogram/abortion mills where zillions of women go to abort THEIR FEMALE CHILDREN because those societies just value males. But the Church can only advise. Perhaps one day these societies will wise up.
But those societies will face in the future massive unrest (worse than now) when millions of males unable to marry in those societies start to act up and out.
#50 Posted by nooralain on October 9, 2003 2:25:59 pm
wilderflower....
i had already surmised that actually. thanks for pointing it out though. . .
a lover of wilde?!
i had already surmised that actually. thanks for pointing it out though. . .
a lover of wilde?!
#49 Posted by WilderFlower on October 9, 2003 11:51:25 am
PM:
Dude!!! ``My belle``?!? Let`s put it this way for you, buddy boy.. we wouldn`t have needed to fly to Vermount (or Holland) to have our union sanctified in the eyes of the law!
LOL!
Noor, honey, I think PM`s just made a pass at you. It`s that ol convoluted way of his that Saminasha keeps talkin `bout.
--WildeLover
Dude!!! ``My belle``?!? Let`s put it this way for you, buddy boy.. we wouldn`t have needed to fly to Vermount (or Holland) to have our union sanctified in the eyes of the law!
LOL!
Noor, honey, I think PM`s just made a pass at you. It`s that ol convoluted way of his that Saminasha keeps talkin `bout.
--WildeLover
#48 Posted by nooralain on October 9, 2003 10:40:59 am
PM. .
i agree with you about true love overcoming ideological differences. : )
i agree with you about true love overcoming ideological differences. : )
#47 Posted by nooralain on October 9, 2003 10:40:59 am
me? `job-hunting`? and you`re taking resume`s for what?!
#46 Posted by arjun_m on October 9, 2003 7:10:32 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#45 Posted by arjun_m on October 9, 2003 7:10:32 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#44 Posted by PM on October 9, 2003 7:10:32 am
re. #43 WilderFlower
Damn, that could`ve been --was going to be, in fact-- my post!
Was it your belle`s parents or she herself who insisted that all progeny be baptized?
Nooralian:
You write: ``and that`s [papal infallibility] what i still believe the problem is.`` Speaking strictly from my own experience, in retrospect, such theological differences were the excuse, not the reason, for ending an already deromanticised relationship. I think true love (or whatever the skeptics might want to call it) easily overcomes such ideological differnces. Always!
rgds,
PM
Damn, that could`ve been --was going to be, in fact-- my post!
Was it your belle`s parents or she herself who insisted that all progeny be baptized?
Nooralian:
You write: ``and that`s [papal infallibility] what i still believe the problem is.`` Speaking strictly from my own experience, in retrospect, such theological differences were the excuse, not the reason, for ending an already deromanticised relationship. I think true love (or whatever the skeptics might want to call it) easily overcomes such ideological differnces. Always!
rgds,
PM
#43 Posted by WilderFlower on October 9, 2003 4:56:26 am
re. Nooralian:
Sorry to repeat this personal stuff, but it`s already out there, so..
and that`s what i still believe the problem is. and why in part i did not want a future child (if that was a possibility) to be baptised in the catholic church, and why i ended up not pursuing a relationship leading to marriage with a catholic. : )
Damn! that could`ve been a chapter right out of my autobio. Just thought I`d let you know so you don`t feel tooo cheated bylife. :-)
Sorry to repeat this personal stuff, but it`s already out there, so..
and that`s what i still believe the problem is. and why in part i did not want a future child (if that was a possibility) to be baptised in the catholic church, and why i ended up not pursuing a relationship leading to marriage with a catholic. : )
Damn! that could`ve been a chapter right out of my autobio. Just thought I`d let you know so you don`t feel tooo cheated bylife. :-)
#42 Posted by dost_mittar on October 9, 2003 4:56:13 am
Dear Farzana:
Ain`t nothin` sacred no more?
Scanning through the responses, you must be missing your ususual ``fan club``, so let me try to be a tame substitute.
I disagree with you on both counts.
I think that the Pope does deserve a Nobel. For his indomitable will and showing the primacy of mind over matter, if for nothing else. He seems to be doing a first rate job of what he is supposed to do, i.e., spread the Message as well as the message of love and peace. Asking him to go to Iraq would be to reduce him to the status of a global activist a la Arundhati Roy (and she didn`t go to Iraq either!). He may or may not be infallible but since when has infalllibility become a criterion for a Nobel? I think that giving him a Nobel for peace would bring back some of the tarnish lost by giving the prize to the likes of Kissinger and Arafat.
Same goes for Mother Teresa. I do not believe in miracles and the one being touted in Bengal is most probably a hoax. But what about the other 465 saints annointed by this Pope: Did they meet the test of a genuine miracle? If not, why should Mother Teresa be singled out for special consideration? Mother Teresa became a symbol of love, sacrifice and service to the destitute and hope for the hopeless. Giving her the status of a saint would merely recognize that symbol.
Ain`t nothin` sacred no more?
Scanning through the responses, you must be missing your ususual ``fan club``, so let me try to be a tame substitute.
I disagree with you on both counts.
I think that the Pope does deserve a Nobel. For his indomitable will and showing the primacy of mind over matter, if for nothing else. He seems to be doing a first rate job of what he is supposed to do, i.e., spread the Message as well as the message of love and peace. Asking him to go to Iraq would be to reduce him to the status of a global activist a la Arundhati Roy (and she didn`t go to Iraq either!). He may or may not be infallible but since when has infalllibility become a criterion for a Nobel? I think that giving him a Nobel for peace would bring back some of the tarnish lost by giving the prize to the likes of Kissinger and Arafat.
Same goes for Mother Teresa. I do not believe in miracles and the one being touted in Bengal is most probably a hoax. But what about the other 465 saints annointed by this Pope: Did they meet the test of a genuine miracle? If not, why should Mother Teresa be singled out for special consideration? Mother Teresa became a symbol of love, sacrifice and service to the destitute and hope for the hopeless. Giving her the status of a saint would merely recognize that symbol.
#41 Posted by PM on October 8, 2003 9:07:34 pm
Arjun_M, re. #39:
Et tu?? Damn, pretty soon they`ll have to call the lions out here! :-)
Et tu?? Damn, pretty soon they`ll have to call the lions out here! :-)
#40 Posted by PM on October 8, 2003 8:42:13 pm
correction: However, whatt you fail to realize is that the papacy, in the late 1800s, nicely took care of the objection that the pope, -- not 1900s, of course.
Nooralain,
For some reason I thought you were a guy! :-) had an Islmaili boy from Gilgit in a class with that name. No kidding!
Anyway, sorry to hear of your misfortune on the amorous front. If you`re still `job-hunting`, I`m taking resumes this week. :-)
Nooralain,
For some reason I thought you were a guy! :-) had an Islmaili boy from Gilgit in a class with that name. No kidding!
Anyway, sorry to hear of your misfortune on the amorous front. If you`re still `job-hunting`, I`m taking resumes this week. :-)
#39 Posted by arjun_m on October 8, 2003 7:12:12 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#38 Posted by sigalph235 on October 8, 2003 6:17:05 pm
Re Nooralain 34
Just for perspective this is th Article 19 of Faith of the Anglican Communion, the most global of the reformed catholic churches
``...so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith``.
Just for perspective this is th Article 19 of Faith of the Anglican Communion, the most global of the reformed catholic churches
``...so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith``.
#37 Posted by nooralain on October 8, 2003 5:50:23 pm
PM:
yes...the doctrine of papal infallibility...that`s what i couldn`t recall! thank you!
and that`s what i still believe the problem is. and why in part i did not want a future child (if that was a possibility) to be baptised in the catholic church, and why i ended up not pursuing a relationship leading to marriage with a catholic. : ) . . .besides the fact that the family was against him marrying a non-catholic.
all water under the bridge now. : )
yes...the doctrine of papal infallibility...that`s what i couldn`t recall! thank you!
and that`s what i still believe the problem is. and why in part i did not want a future child (if that was a possibility) to be baptised in the catholic church, and why i ended up not pursuing a relationship leading to marriage with a catholic. : ) . . .besides the fact that the family was against him marrying a non-catholic.
all water under the bridge now. : )
#36 Posted by PM on October 8, 2003 5:10:36 pm
Nooralain:
Didn`t know you were a Christian!
I completely agree with your line of reasoning and sentiment.
However, waht you fail to realize is that the papcy, in the late 1900s, nicely took care of the objection that the pope, even though he is merely a vicar of JC (though exalted much like any of the ``origianl`` imams), is after all a mere human and not infallibale.
How? Well, they simply made him infallible-- at least ``in matters of faith and morals.`` No, really! It`s called the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
;-)
Didn`t know you were a Christian!
I completely agree with your line of reasoning and sentiment.
However, waht you fail to realize is that the papcy, in the late 1900s, nicely took care of the objection that the pope, even though he is merely a vicar of JC (though exalted much like any of the ``origianl`` imams), is after all a mere human and not infallibale.
How? Well, they simply made him infallible-- at least ``in matters of faith and morals.`` No, really! It`s called the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
;-)
#35 Posted by PM on October 8, 2003 5:10:36 pm
re. #33 stuka, who in response to Arjun, who wrote:
``..My grandparents on my mothers side always told me not to question the popes authority...or his holiness....``
responded ``But they probably never implied divinity did they?
stuke, divinity may or may not have been explicit. It`s all the actions, observances, attitudes (deference) associations etc taht go with the idea that really matter, and that, yes, I do believe, in many Catholic families of yore, suggest an air of dicinity.
I have often argued that though the Muslims claim that Mohammed was not Divine, (and kinda deride Christains for deifying JC), they MAY AS WELL make him God, for all the less than conscious ways in which he is exalted. To cite just one example... Come to Pakistan and you will scarcelyt find a middle-class Muslim household without inscriptions of ``(Ya) Allah`` and ``(Ya) Muhammed``-- same print, same filigree, same affect and effect-- side by side. And yes, this does say something about the actual psychology of followers a religion that clearly demarcates the spheres of rab and abd -- God and Man.
``..My grandparents on my mothers side always told me not to question the popes authority...or his holiness....``
responded ``But they probably never implied divinity did they?
stuke, divinity may or may not have been explicit. It`s all the actions, observances, attitudes (deference) associations etc taht go with the idea that really matter, and that, yes, I do believe, in many Catholic families of yore, suggest an air of dicinity.
I have often argued that though the Muslims claim that Mohammed was not Divine, (and kinda deride Christains for deifying JC), they MAY AS WELL make him God, for all the less than conscious ways in which he is exalted. To cite just one example... Come to Pakistan and you will scarcelyt find a middle-class Muslim household without inscriptions of ``(Ya) Allah`` and ``(Ya) Muhammed``-- same print, same filigree, same affect and effect-- side by side. And yes, this does say something about the actual psychology of followers a religion that clearly demarcates the spheres of rab and abd -- God and Man.
#34 Posted by nooralain on October 8, 2003 3:47:08 pm
stuka,
i`ll try to make my explanation as brief as possible given that i have to be at work in a few minutes.
as arjun said (and i cannot believe that for once i am agreeing with him), the pope in the roman catholic church is considered to be the vicar of christ. . .this does put a lot of power in his hands, and it does imply divinity to a certain extent. the pope is not infallible.
in the orthodox church, from which rome split. councils were held where important decisions were made regarding the faith. there are archbishops and bishops and metropolitans in the orthodox church, but none of these people can do anything alone, without representation by the priests and the laity. as christians we are all representatives of christ, and encouraged to be christ-like. the sole power, and decision-making is not meant to be in the hands of one person. . .it wasn`t like that in the beginnings of the church, and one of the obstacles preventing the reunification of the church is that the pope wishes to remain the `top dog` for lack of a better word. the pope is not the head of the church, be it catholic or a reunified church. christ is the head of the church. the pope cannot be JC jr. literally or figuratively, because he is not infallible.
i don`t want to digress from farzana`s article too much, and i do have to go, but perhaps we can discuss this at another time? i don`t know if any of this made much sense because it is rushed. . .
i`ll try to make my explanation as brief as possible given that i have to be at work in a few minutes.
as arjun said (and i cannot believe that for once i am agreeing with him), the pope in the roman catholic church is considered to be the vicar of christ. . .this does put a lot of power in his hands, and it does imply divinity to a certain extent. the pope is not infallible.
in the orthodox church, from which rome split. councils were held where important decisions were made regarding the faith. there are archbishops and bishops and metropolitans in the orthodox church, but none of these people can do anything alone, without representation by the priests and the laity. as christians we are all representatives of christ, and encouraged to be christ-like. the sole power, and decision-making is not meant to be in the hands of one person. . .it wasn`t like that in the beginnings of the church, and one of the obstacles preventing the reunification of the church is that the pope wishes to remain the `top dog` for lack of a better word. the pope is not the head of the church, be it catholic or a reunified church. christ is the head of the church. the pope cannot be JC jr. literally or figuratively, because he is not infallible.
i don`t want to digress from farzana`s article too much, and i do have to go, but perhaps we can discuss this at another time? i don`t know if any of this made much sense because it is rushed. . .
#33 Posted by cosmic_citizen on October 8, 2003 1:25:40 pm
#31 by anil on October 8, 2003 11:44am PT
Very rational and thought provoking....
Very rational and thought provoking....
#32 Posted by stuka on October 8, 2003 1:09:53 pm
Arjun:
``..My grandparents on my mothers side always told me not to question the popes authority...or his holiness....``
But they probably never implied divinity did they?
``standard catholic dogma...``
which had its origins in the Latin expression of the Roman church. The funny thing is that the same Rome was fedding Christians to the lions at the time when Christianity was still propagated in the Aramaic tongue.
``..My grandparents on my mothers side always told me not to question the popes authority...or his holiness....``
But they probably never implied divinity did they?
``standard catholic dogma...``
which had its origins in the Latin expression of the Roman church. The funny thing is that the same Rome was fedding Christians to the lions at the time when Christianity was still propagated in the Aramaic tongue.
#31 Posted by anil on October 8, 2003 11:44:29 am
Dear Farzana (#18):
Your response intrigued me.
Actually, one of the Shankaracharya`s came and stayed at my home in California a few years ago. I did not find him engaging or charismatic, and felt that his title was attracting the followers. Then the other part of the paradigm that followers make a leader failed, he was not charismatic to build any followers own his own, unlike Gandhi who indeed built his own followers. I gave up this logic follower-leader logic to analyze hi, Instead accepted that he was product of corrupted institution. The institutionalization of religion, whether in the form of prophet, or by a prophet, or non-prophet gods, is indeed creation of men, funnily women become more ardent followers in religions. Therefore, if you can bring enough followers then you could join them too, because you will be able to create an institution. Raju Guide, in R.K. Narayanan`s novel on which the movie Guide was based, is a good example. Afterall, Bhagvan Rajneesh thought himself as a recently created god. He too created an institution.
Prophets, Imams, gods and godesses, popes and saints create and perpetuate institutions based on beliefs. Institutions need them too, and hence this hoopla of sainthood for Mother Teressa. So many of her followers will be pushed toward greater beliefs. How far you go before you stop questioning makes the follower of that last thought and that last writing. For instance, you may not wish to stop questioning Prophet Muhammad and thus choose to believe him, and be a proud muslim, as his proud followers are called. While another may not wish to question Gita and believe in it and may be proud to call himself Krishna`s follower. This logic extends to Jesus`s follower in the same fashion. Therefore, by inference, the followers think in retrograde to search their beliefs. This retro search for the belief, is truly root cause of institutionalized religions becoming corrupt and later susceptible to attacks, forced changes, and probably reform and diffusion of thought into something new. I guess one can say that is why your thought as a muslim may be so much different than Osama bin Ladin`s, and my thought as a hindu may be very different than Hindutvas.
Be it crusades of Christians, be it warriors carrying sword of Islam or modern day version of other weapons, be it brahminism in Hinduism, or be it monasteries and monks with power to self-immolate; all these come as a result of mind corrupted to an extent that it accepts nothing but their belief system. Religious hands are corrupt. Religions have used institutionalization to build more power of deliverance to convert in one way or the other. Very sadly, the same institutions are also used to deliver the believers to more so called fundamental (or retro) part of their belief systems, and make them hardened who quite like hardened criminals are quite numb to any other thought and become willing fodder. Like it or not, madarssas are modern example of such deliverance. Deobandis or Talibans or Bajrang Dals or Born Agains are results of such indoctrination.
We, in plural societies, must accept them to exist on the fringes, but when they become mainstream, a form of fascism is born, which no plural society would ever tolerate.
I always read your articles and find them very thought provoking. Keep on writing.
Thank you.
ANIL
Your response intrigued me.
Actually, one of the Shankaracharya`s came and stayed at my home in California a few years ago. I did not find him engaging or charismatic, and felt that his title was attracting the followers. Then the other part of the paradigm that followers make a leader failed, he was not charismatic to build any followers own his own, unlike Gandhi who indeed built his own followers. I gave up this logic follower-leader logic to analyze hi, Instead accepted that he was product of corrupted institution. The institutionalization of religion, whether in the form of prophet, or by a prophet, or non-prophet gods, is indeed creation of men, funnily women become more ardent followers in religions. Therefore, if you can bring enough followers then you could join them too, because you will be able to create an institution. Raju Guide, in R.K. Narayanan`s novel on which the movie Guide was based, is a good example. Afterall, Bhagvan Rajneesh thought himself as a recently created god. He too created an institution.
Prophets, Imams, gods and godesses, popes and saints create and perpetuate institutions based on beliefs. Institutions need them too, and hence this hoopla of sainthood for Mother Teressa. So many of her followers will be pushed toward greater beliefs. How far you go before you stop questioning makes the follower of that last thought and that last writing. For instance, you may not wish to stop questioning Prophet Muhammad and thus choose to believe him, and be a proud muslim, as his proud followers are called. While another may not wish to question Gita and believe in it and may be proud to call himself Krishna`s follower. This logic extends to Jesus`s follower in the same fashion. Therefore, by inference, the followers think in retrograde to search their beliefs. This retro search for the belief, is truly root cause of institutionalized religions becoming corrupt and later susceptible to attacks, forced changes, and probably reform and diffusion of thought into something new. I guess one can say that is why your thought as a muslim may be so much different than Osama bin Ladin`s, and my thought as a hindu may be very different than Hindutvas.
Be it crusades of Christians, be it warriors carrying sword of Islam or modern day version of other weapons, be it brahminism in Hinduism, or be it monasteries and monks with power to self-immolate; all these come as a result of mind corrupted to an extent that it accepts nothing but their belief system. Religious hands are corrupt. Religions have used institutionalization to build more power of deliverance to convert in one way or the other. Very sadly, the same institutions are also used to deliver the believers to more so called fundamental (or retro) part of their belief systems, and make them hardened who quite like hardened criminals are quite numb to any other thought and become willing fodder. Like it or not, madarssas are modern example of such deliverance. Deobandis or Talibans or Bajrang Dals or Born Agains are results of such indoctrination.
We, in plural societies, must accept them to exist on the fringes, but when they become mainstream, a form of fascism is born, which no plural society would ever tolerate.
I always read your articles and find them very thought provoking. Keep on writing.
Thank you.
ANIL
#30 Posted by arjun_m on October 8, 2003 11:44:28 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#29 Posted by cosmic_citizen on October 8, 2003 9:47:09 am
TEMPORAL....
{{
the senior citizen has to pass a mandatory road test if s/he wants to retain their driving permit beyond a certain age...
}}
wanted to share that it is not so atleast in Germany... Permenant Driving License... cancelled only if something goes wrong.. or person dies!
#21.. true to a certain extent...
It is unfair to say that the Missionaries have done nothing for the society... they do a lot of social service... take medicine to the remote places.... serve the most deprived... and so on and so forth...
and our Governaments dont do it(I mean the whole of it...).. and our religious societies (except for a few) dont usually bother about doing such work... and even if they did.. given the population and geography.. there will still be room for the missionaries.....
but one thing is true above all.... `Nothing Comes free in this world`... and `Kuch pane ke liye.. kuch khona padta hain....`
I think it will be worth mentioning here that the Christian missionaries get a lot of money (quite obvious) and spend a lot of it on conversions (perhaps more than social service)..... there are many who have turned from pauper to paster... (forgive my arrogance but it is a fact I have observed first hand).... there are fixed rates for converting people of different castes... the remuneration depends on attendance in the congregations...
the tactics used by them to convert people are a different story... may some other time.. when it is relevent...
... Mother Teresa comes from same class of missionaries.... and as always there is criticism...
... miracles we dont know.. but good work has been done for sure... and for that she surely deserves respect...
{{
the senior citizen has to pass a mandatory road test if s/he wants to retain their driving permit beyond a certain age...
}}
wanted to share that it is not so atleast in Germany... Permenant Driving License... cancelled only if something goes wrong.. or person dies!
#21.. true to a certain extent...
It is unfair to say that the Missionaries have done nothing for the society... they do a lot of social service... take medicine to the remote places.... serve the most deprived... and so on and so forth...
and our Governaments dont do it(I mean the whole of it...).. and our religious societies (except for a few) dont usually bother about doing such work... and even if they did.. given the population and geography.. there will still be room for the missionaries.....
but one thing is true above all.... `Nothing Comes free in this world`... and `Kuch pane ke liye.. kuch khona padta hain....`
I think it will be worth mentioning here that the Christian missionaries get a lot of money (quite obvious) and spend a lot of it on conversions (perhaps more than social service)..... there are many who have turned from pauper to paster... (forgive my arrogance but it is a fact I have observed first hand).... there are fixed rates for converting people of different castes... the remuneration depends on attendance in the congregations...
the tactics used by them to convert people are a different story... may some other time.. when it is relevent...
... Mother Teresa comes from same class of missionaries.... and as always there is criticism...
... miracles we dont know.. but good work has been done for sure... and for that she surely deserves respect...
#28 Posted by stuka on October 8, 2003 9:30:47 am
Arjun_M
``Actually the pope is considered the vicar of Christ....JC Jr if you will.. ``
My problem with your statement is that it implies divinity of the Ppe, which is not the case. I am okay with the bit on ``Vicar of Christ`` but not JC Jr.
Nooalain
`Furthermore, Catholicism considers the Pope as God`s human representative on Earth. . .`
which is precisely the problem with catholicism, if this is the case. ``
Why? Every prophet of all the Semite religions have considered themselves to be God`s representatives, messengers..whatever you want to call them. Why single out the Pope if you are okay with Moses, Abraham, Mohammad and the like?
``Actually the pope is considered the vicar of Christ....JC Jr if you will.. ``
My problem with your statement is that it implies divinity of the Ppe, which is not the case. I am okay with the bit on ``Vicar of Christ`` but not JC Jr.
Nooalain
`Furthermore, Catholicism considers the Pope as God`s human representative on Earth. . .`
which is precisely the problem with catholicism, if this is the case. ``
Why? Every prophet of all the Semite religions have considered themselves to be God`s representatives, messengers..whatever you want to call them. Why single out the Pope if you are okay with Moses, Abraham, Mohammad and the like?
#27 Posted by nooralain on October 8, 2003 9:16:25 am
`Furthermore, Catholicism considers the Pope as God`s human representative on Earth. . .`
which is precisely the problem with catholicism, if this is the case.
which is precisely the problem with catholicism, if this is the case.
#26 Posted by arjun_m on October 8, 2003 8:41:45 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#25 Posted by arjun_m on October 8, 2003 8:41:45 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#24 Posted by Maharana on October 8, 2003 8:09:10 am
Farzana,
Good article.
I don`t know why you expect nobel committee or Time magazine committee to be perfect standards. Remember, that there are many people belonging to different faiths doing social service without bringing religion into it. They are hardly recognized by us too. West I can understand, but wy us?
Nobel winners like desmond tutu and teresa are examples when contrasted with Gandhi, of Nobel`s standards.
On the issue of dara singh and his death sentence, there was an interesting article, i forget by whom. It mentioned that large number of newspapers and magazines in India have disproportionately high number of christains in the editorial staff. These people ensured that the murder of a foreigner gets front page coverage for long time. The same day that staines murder took place, ten labourers were killed in communal tension in Himachal, which did not get any coverage. So in essence, justice was ensured for a foreigner (glad that he got it), but a citizen of india, i guess he`s a piece of trash.
We the people of india have given importance to the popes and mother teresa`s at the expense of local do gooders. There are enough homeless and poor people in the mighty west including US, but mother T`s mission would not be interested in such things.
Could you throw some light on journalist culture in indian scenario related to the problems you have m,entioned?
Adios
Good article.
I don`t know why you expect nobel committee or Time magazine committee to be perfect standards. Remember, that there are many people belonging to different faiths doing social service without bringing religion into it. They are hardly recognized by us too. West I can understand, but wy us?
Nobel winners like desmond tutu and teresa are examples when contrasted with Gandhi, of Nobel`s standards.
On the issue of dara singh and his death sentence, there was an interesting article, i forget by whom. It mentioned that large number of newspapers and magazines in India have disproportionately high number of christains in the editorial staff. These people ensured that the murder of a foreigner gets front page coverage for long time. The same day that staines murder took place, ten labourers were killed in communal tension in Himachal, which did not get any coverage. So in essence, justice was ensured for a foreigner (glad that he got it), but a citizen of india, i guess he`s a piece of trash.
We the people of india have given importance to the popes and mother teresa`s at the expense of local do gooders. There are enough homeless and poor people in the mighty west including US, but mother T`s mission would not be interested in such things.
Could you throw some light on journalist culture in indian scenario related to the problems you have m,entioned?
Adios
#23 Posted by temporal on October 8, 2003 7:58:59 am
…a digression…
His Holiness is a good man…heading a religious cartel…a CEO…that said…should not there be a retirement age for people in a position of influence and authority?…the same yardstick there exists for other normal human beings…55, 65, 75 years and then sent packing for a ride into the sunset?…
…or some other universally agreed criteria as:
--walking unaided 100 yards in ten minutes
--speaking lucidly (without a prompt) on a subject pulled out of a pugree for five minutes
--solving simple addition/subtraction (without a calculator) questions in less than ten minutes
...just like here, (TO) the human fraility is recognised and for their protections as well as that of other innocent victims...the senior citizen has to pass a mandatory road test if s/he wants to retain their driving permit beyond a certain age...
..t
His Holiness is a good man…heading a religious cartel…a CEO…that said…should not there be a retirement age for people in a position of influence and authority?…the same yardstick there exists for other normal human beings…55, 65, 75 years and then sent packing for a ride into the sunset?…
…or some other universally agreed criteria as:
--walking unaided 100 yards in ten minutes
--speaking lucidly (without a prompt) on a subject pulled out of a pugree for five minutes
--solving simple addition/subtraction (without a calculator) questions in less than ten minutes
...just like here, (TO) the human fraility is recognised and for their protections as well as that of other innocent victims...the senior citizen has to pass a mandatory road test if s/he wants to retain their driving permit beyond a certain age...
..t
#22 Posted by stuka on October 8, 2003 7:23:51 am
Farzana:
``But the Pope and the Prophet cannot be put in the same bracket. An apt comparison would be Christ and the Prophet. ``
Theologically not an apt comparison from a Christian perspective. As far as I know Mohammad was a prophet, ergo a human being. In a theological sense, Christ is the product of immaculate conception, the son of God and a part of the trinity that comprises GOD itself.
Your comparison is apt only WITHIN the environs of Islam which considers Jesus Christ as a Prophet along the lines of Moses and Mohammad. However, Christian theology considers Christ himself as divine. Furthermore, Catholicism considers the Pope as God`s human representative on Earth, therefore comparing the Pope to Mohammad would be apt from their perspective.
The point is that how a religion is viewed within and without, even with the best of intentions, leads to dissonance.
``But the Pope and the Prophet cannot be put in the same bracket. An apt comparison would be Christ and the Prophet. ``
Theologically not an apt comparison from a Christian perspective. As far as I know Mohammad was a prophet, ergo a human being. In a theological sense, Christ is the product of immaculate conception, the son of God and a part of the trinity that comprises GOD itself.
Your comparison is apt only WITHIN the environs of Islam which considers Jesus Christ as a Prophet along the lines of Moses and Mohammad. However, Christian theology considers Christ himself as divine. Furthermore, Catholicism considers the Pope as God`s human representative on Earth, therefore comparing the Pope to Mohammad would be apt from their perspective.
The point is that how a religion is viewed within and without, even with the best of intentions, leads to dissonance.
#21 Posted by puyu on October 8, 2003 7:11:09 am
Is this confluence of opinions because of confluence of interests?
Well, I think its unfair!
There are not enough christians around in chowk to protest.
Just think what would have happened if it were abt hindu/muslim leaders.
Well, I think its unfair!
There are not enough christians around in chowk to protest.
Just think what would have happened if it were abt hindu/muslim leaders.
#20 Posted by Layman on October 8, 2003 6:43:33 am
Good article Farzana. You consistently show that you are a good writer, and have a slightly skeptical worldview. You may not want to be the next Hutchins or Shourie, but you definitely are/can be the next Arundhati Roy.
#19 Posted by RationalFaith on October 8, 2003 6:43:32 am
Mother Teresa served the poor and the sick. Did she do it to tom-tom her piety? It is possible. The one thing most people of any religion can say with certainty is that she did good; that she spread more love than misery. Is that something most people of any religion can say about most holimen and prophets of other religions?
cipram # 16
``First u dive-get knowledge and then indulge in debate,I don``t know much about hindusim so I never discuss it.i know only ``satti`,i hate it.in childhood i saw hindu movies sacrificing young girls to prevent natural flood havoc.is it justified?.``
I will ask you a serious question and hope you will answer it.
Did you see these movies in Pakistan? Were these `Hindu movies` made in India?
cipram # 16
``First u dive-get knowledge and then indulge in debate,I don``t know much about hindusim so I never discuss it.i know only ``satti`,i hate it.in childhood i saw hindu movies sacrificing young girls to prevent natural flood havoc.is it justified?.``
I will ask you a serious question and hope you will answer it.
Did you see these movies in Pakistan? Were these `Hindu movies` made in India?
#18 Posted by FarzanaVersey on October 8, 2003 2:15:16 am
Those who believe they are not supposed to like anything I write found this one quite palatable…and they froze over this discovery. Can’t even tell them to chill :) Is there a rule that says you are not supposed to agree with me on every single issue? Next time anyone tells me about my biases, I shall remember…
And thanks PM and urbashi; cipram, the issue is not merely condemnation. That can be done in two sentences.
bharatvaasi and puyu:
I do not wish to be the female version of Christopher Hitchens or aspire to be in the same league as Shourie…I am quite happy to be where I am – in my cocoon, ivory tower or down viper street…
gorabandar:
[Regarding Mother Teresa....to all those she administered to, feed, educated, nurtured, mentored and saved...she is a Saint. As to rice paddy?? Tum pagal
!!!!]
So, my mother is my saint. The paddy field reference was because the vision appeared to Monica Besra there…I did display it prominently in the teaser because I am writing an article not an academic treatise.
Urstruly:
[gorabandar: would that explain why in America only catholic preists are pedophiles?]
Is Michael Jackson a Catholic priest?
temporal:
[... ‘goodness’ and ‘badness’ are all momentary lapses?...
where?]
Since they are momentary and lapses, I cannot remember :) perhaps they have transformed into ‘betterness’ and ‘worseness’…who knows?
Anil:
[``I have never thought of people of god as being perfect; their very holiness is imperfect. It makes them blind to everything else. Besides, it is high time we demanded from our various religions and their wardens some degree of accountability. ``
Amazing insight. Don`t you think that you want to exclude Islam. Otherwise, by definition you include Prophet Muhammad, or you want to include him too.... My little and dangerous knowledge of all religions and more specifically Islam, tells me that it is sacriligious, and punishable by stoning to death, or by burning on stake.... I do not know how the Jews (probably cruification) and the Buddhists (may be self immolation) deal with such cases. I am assuming Dara Singh is a Hindu.]
Now, if one is critical of the mother-in-law, must it follow that the mother too ought to be seen in the same light?! Of course, this statement spells trouble, so let me clarify. I would not wish to exclude any religion. But the Pope and the Prophet cannot be put in the same bracket. An apt comparison would be Christ and the Prophet. It is a fact that we are afraid of taking on holy cows, and it is only natural that what we believe to be sacrosanct shall remain untouched. When Azharuddin got into trouble for signing his name (which happens to be the Prophet’s name) on a pair of shoes, I had objected to such narrow-mindedness. I have not yet been stoned to death…Also, I do not recall any article of mine, here or elsewhere, in which I have blindly supported Islam. My motives are clear: I speak for the community, primarily in my backyard, and sometimes if the effect of its misunderstood global face affects us.
If I take on the Pope, I apply the same standards to imams and shankaracharyas as well. The idea is not to question people’s right to have their beliefs, but to raise queries about the object of their beliefs, especially If they are found wanting. I may have full faith in a gemstone (as indeed I do!), but its flaws do not cause widespread damage. With people in power, religious or otherwise, the consequences can be stupendous.
sigalph235:
[As for the article`s comments on soon to be St. Teresa of Calcutta, well they seem to be a desperate feminist attempt to put a gloss of human fraility on a woman many consider as close to Godliness as mortals can ever get. The ludicrousness of the `sinner` terminology shows how much the author is ignorant of basic Christian doctrine which finds every human to be a sinner (that includes a nun, a prostitute, a banker, anybody else). Another salvo in a last ditch set of attempts to belittle the woman whose very life, humility, and piety was an affront to the moral relativity preached by the radical feminist Left-Liberal movement and the moral superiority preached by Muslim- and Hindu radicals.]
Feminism does not believe in the concept of sin, nor does any modern ideology. That does not make them any less ‘moral’ (I prefer the term ‘ethical’). If everyone is a sinner, then so should Mother T be and even the Pope. Why is one being sainted then? Piety is the business of those who are in that vocation; they are not doing anything out of the ordinary in that respect…as for humility, you will find hundreds of ordinary people doing tremendous work and not tom-tomming their achievements nor are they being put on pedestals. It can at least be said for ‘radical feminists’ that they did not create saints among their lot, and most have been torn to shreds by their own compatriots. This in itself reveals the strength of upholding a part of modern civilisation.
And thanks PM and urbashi; cipram, the issue is not merely condemnation. That can be done in two sentences.
bharatvaasi and puyu:
I do not wish to be the female version of Christopher Hitchens or aspire to be in the same league as Shourie…I am quite happy to be where I am – in my cocoon, ivory tower or down viper street…
gorabandar:
[Regarding Mother Teresa....to all those she administered to, feed, educated, nurtured, mentored and saved...she is a Saint. As to rice paddy?? Tum pagal
!!!!]
So, my mother is my saint. The paddy field reference was because the vision appeared to Monica Besra there…I did display it prominently in the teaser because I am writing an article not an academic treatise.
Urstruly:
[gorabandar: would that explain why in America only catholic preists are pedophiles?]
Is Michael Jackson a Catholic priest?
temporal:
[... ‘goodness’ and ‘badness’ are all momentary lapses?...
where?]
Since they are momentary and lapses, I cannot remember :) perhaps they have transformed into ‘betterness’ and ‘worseness’…who knows?
Anil:
[``I have never thought of people of god as being perfect; their very holiness is imperfect. It makes them blind to everything else. Besides, it is high time we demanded from our various religions and their wardens some degree of accountability. ``
Amazing insight. Don`t you think that you want to exclude Islam. Otherwise, by definition you include Prophet Muhammad, or you want to include him too.... My little and dangerous knowledge of all religions and more specifically Islam, tells me that it is sacriligious, and punishable by stoning to death, or by burning on stake.... I do not know how the Jews (probably cruification) and the Buddhists (may be self immolation) deal with such cases. I am assuming Dara Singh is a Hindu.]
Now, if one is critical of the mother-in-law, must it follow that the mother too ought to be seen in the same light?! Of course, this statement spells trouble, so let me clarify. I would not wish to exclude any religion. But the Pope and the Prophet cannot be put in the same bracket. An apt comparison would be Christ and the Prophet. It is a fact that we are afraid of taking on holy cows, and it is only natural that what we believe to be sacrosanct shall remain untouched. When Azharuddin got into trouble for signing his name (which happens to be the Prophet’s name) on a pair of shoes, I had objected to such narrow-mindedness. I have not yet been stoned to death…Also, I do not recall any article of mine, here or elsewhere, in which I have blindly supported Islam. My motives are clear: I speak for the community, primarily in my backyard, and sometimes if the effect of its misunderstood global face affects us.
If I take on the Pope, I apply the same standards to imams and shankaracharyas as well. The idea is not to question people’s right to have their beliefs, but to raise queries about the object of their beliefs, especially If they are found wanting. I may have full faith in a gemstone (as indeed I do!), but its flaws do not cause widespread damage. With people in power, religious or otherwise, the consequences can be stupendous.
sigalph235:
[As for the article`s comments on soon to be St. Teresa of Calcutta, well they seem to be a desperate feminist attempt to put a gloss of human fraility on a woman many consider as close to Godliness as mortals can ever get. The ludicrousness of the `sinner` terminology shows how much the author is ignorant of basic Christian doctrine which finds every human to be a sinner (that includes a nun, a prostitute, a banker, anybody else). Another salvo in a last ditch set of attempts to belittle the woman whose very life, humility, and piety was an affront to the moral relativity preached by the radical feminist Left-Liberal movement and the moral superiority preached by Muslim- and Hindu radicals.]
Feminism does not believe in the concept of sin, nor does any modern ideology. That does not make them any less ‘moral’ (I prefer the term ‘ethical’). If everyone is a sinner, then so should Mother T be and even the Pope. Why is one being sainted then? Piety is the business of those who are in that vocation; they are not doing anything out of the ordinary in that respect…as for humility, you will find hundreds of ordinary people doing tremendous work and not tom-tomming their achievements nor are they being put on pedestals. It can at least be said for ‘radical feminists’ that they did not create saints among their lot, and most have been torn to shreds by their own compatriots. This in itself reveals the strength of upholding a part of modern civilisation.
#17 Posted by sigalph235 on October 7, 2003 11:18:17 pm
re gora 15
I did not say `government`, I said `cartel` about the Roman Church. Obviously your claims are contested by all the reformed and the Orhtodox Churches (and please none of that stuff about Peter being Pope # 1 etc etc). But I doubt this is the place to have an intra-Christian debate. Suffice to say I know plenty of people who are Catholics but not Roman Catholics. Your own credibility would be enhanced if you do not patronizingly assume that others know nothing of Christianity, the R Church, SAudi policies, or get the info from the so-called Zionist media.
On an aside, one of the major blunders of the current Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope) is that he welcomed the mosque in Rome while the Saudis (and many other Muslim countries)continue with their anti-Christian perserve bigotry day in and day out.
I did not say `government`, I said `cartel` about the Roman Church. Obviously your claims are contested by all the reformed and the Orhtodox Churches (and please none of that stuff about Peter being Pope # 1 etc etc). But I doubt this is the place to have an intra-Christian debate. Suffice to say I know plenty of people who are Catholics but not Roman Catholics. Your own credibility would be enhanced if you do not patronizingly assume that others know nothing of Christianity, the R Church, SAudi policies, or get the info from the so-called Zionist media.
On an aside, one of the major blunders of the current Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope) is that he welcomed the mosque in Rome while the Saudis (and many other Muslim countries)continue with their anti-Christian perserve bigotry day in and day out.
#16 Posted by cipram on October 7, 2003 9:31:15 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#15 Posted by arjun_m on October 7, 2003 7:39:53 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#14 Posted by hamidm2 on October 7, 2003 7:39:53 pm
.......... nothing is sacred - not edward said, not the man with the white dunce hat and silly robes, not even mother teresa ............. i like that ............ now if we could only topple those other clowns with clay feet - abraham, jesus, moses, muhammad and imran khan ..................
#13 Posted by gorabandar on October 7, 2003 7:39:53 pm
A few corrections: Yes the Papacy is the oldest continuing government in the world. RE: ``Roman Church`s tradition of blocking intra-Christian communion``....The Roman Church IS the Church founded by Christ THE Christian Church and the present Pope has made the re-unification of Christianity one of His main goals . RE: squelching any internal dissent to the centralized clerical dictatorship of his Curia. Interesting choice of words. The role of the papacy and it`s centralized government is to maintain orthodoxy. There certainly is wide dissent especially in Europe and the United States where the clamoring for homosexual ``marriage`` and the brutal killing of unborn children through abortion define the culture. The Church will not...indeed can not ever change it`s position on these matters. Call this DICTATORSHIP if you will but there are no Vatican police that will knock on your door to set you right. Unlike Islam ( of course depends on the countries) people are not forced to be Catholic they choose to be ( or not to be).
Curious how the Pope had no trouble having a huge Mosque in Rome....Indeed even kissed the Koran.When will the royal whoremongers of Saudi Arabia return the favor or at least allow Christians to wear a crucifix. Don`t hold your breath.
I would suggest using the internet as an educational resource and learning a little about th e``Roman Church and it`s history rather than rely on the Zionist controlled media pap(fiction)about the Inquisition and the Crusades.
Curious how the Pope had no trouble having a huge Mosque in Rome....Indeed even kissed the Koran.When will the royal whoremongers of Saudi Arabia return the favor or at least allow Christians to wear a crucifix. Don`t hold your breath.
I would suggest using the internet as an educational resource and learning a little about th e``Roman Church and it`s history rather than rely on the Zionist controlled media pap(fiction)about the Inquisition and the Crusades.
#12 Posted by sigalph235 on October 7, 2003 5:24:10 pm
The Pope presides over the oldest, most entrenched, and perhaps the corruptest cartel in the world. That does not take away from his own personal contributions to good. Unlike any other Roman pontiff he was able to say a few, if hesitating, words in favor of pluralism and religious liberty. In the dark days of Communist brutality he remained a psychological and practical symbol of resistance to the Commies. To this day, he is the one man who has courage enough to come to America and publicly say that he is for undocumented aliens and against the killing of the unborn (both extremely unpopular positions in the USA).
Yet, he is the pontiff. He continues in the Roman Church`s tradition of blocking intra-Christian communion and of squelching any internal dissent to the centralized clerical dictatorship of his Curia.
As for the article`s comments on soon to be St. Teresa of Calcutta, well they seem to be a desperate feminist attempt to put a gloss of human fraility on a woman many consider as close to Godliness as mortals can ever get. The ludicrousness of the `sinner` terminology shows how much the author is ignorant of basic Christian doctrine which finds every human to be a sinner (that includes a nun, a prostitute, a banker, anybody else). Another salvo in a last ditch set of attempts to belittle the woman whose very life, humility, and piety was an affront to the moral relativity preached by the radical feminist Left-Liberal movement and the moral superiority preached by Muslim- and Hindu radicals.
Yet, he is the pontiff. He continues in the Roman Church`s tradition of blocking intra-Christian communion and of squelching any internal dissent to the centralized clerical dictatorship of his Curia.
As for the article`s comments on soon to be St. Teresa of Calcutta, well they seem to be a desperate feminist attempt to put a gloss of human fraility on a woman many consider as close to Godliness as mortals can ever get. The ludicrousness of the `sinner` terminology shows how much the author is ignorant of basic Christian doctrine which finds every human to be a sinner (that includes a nun, a prostitute, a banker, anybody else). Another salvo in a last ditch set of attempts to belittle the woman whose very life, humility, and piety was an affront to the moral relativity preached by the radical feminist Left-Liberal movement and the moral superiority preached by Muslim- and Hindu radicals.
#11 Posted by anil on October 7, 2003 3:37:34 pm
Dear Farzana:
``I have never thought of people of god as being perfect; their very holiness is imperfect. It makes them blind to everything else. Besides, it is high time we demanded from our various religions and their wardens some degree of accountability. ``
Amazing insight. Don`t you think that you want to exclude Islam. Otherwise, by definition you include Prophet Muhammad, or you want to include him too.... My little and dangerous knowledge of all religions and more specifically Islam, tells me that it is sacriligious, and punishable by stoning to death, or by burning on stake.... I do not know how the Jews (probably cruification) and the Buddhists (may be self immolation) deal with such cases. I am assuming Dara Singh is a Hindu.
ANIL
``I have never thought of people of god as being perfect; their very holiness is imperfect. It makes them blind to everything else. Besides, it is high time we demanded from our various religions and their wardens some degree of accountability. ``
Amazing insight. Don`t you think that you want to exclude Islam. Otherwise, by definition you include Prophet Muhammad, or you want to include him too.... My little and dangerous knowledge of all religions and more specifically Islam, tells me that it is sacriligious, and punishable by stoning to death, or by burning on stake.... I do not know how the Jews (probably cruification) and the Buddhists (may be self immolation) deal with such cases. I am assuming Dara Singh is a Hindu.
ANIL
#10 Posted by PM on October 7, 2003 1:38:58 pm
FV,
Well written critique! Haven`t read the second half, but liked what i saw in the first.
Worth repeating: ``I have never thought of people of god as being perfect; their very holiness is imperfect. It makes them blind to everything else. Besides, it is high time we demanded from our various religions and their wardens some degree of accountability.``
gorabandar:
re. pedophile numbers in the church.
You parenthesize the word molested, point out their (the `victims``) greedy motivation, and yet, couldn`t resist playing jury, judge and executioneer of the ``offendors``. What`s up with that? Has everyone here forgotten the Satanic Rites Child Abuse hoaxes of the 80`s and the now heavily discredited Repressed Memory Syndrome that the abuse industry came out with a decade or so ago?
Since the 1980s, self-help authors have claimed that you don`t even have to remember a sexual event to know it occurred. ``If you think you were abused and your life shows the symptoms, then you were,`` wrote Ellen Bass in The Courage to Heal. The symptoms of past molestation listed in such books range from asthma to neglect of one`s teeth.
For a non-hysterical assessment of hte landscape and a look at the numbers, read review in abcnews, hardly the bastion of the Left.
excerpt
Indeed, say some psychologists, there may be no such thing as a ``typical`` pedophile, if there is such a thing as a pedophile at all. Qualities by which social scientists and the police have marked him, such as his purported shyness or childhood sexual trauma, do not bear out with statistical significance. More important, sexual contact with a child does not a pedophile make. ``The majority of reported acts of sexual abuse of children are not committed by pedophiles,`` but by men in relationships with adult women and men, said John Money, of Johns Hopkins, a preeminent expert on sexual abnormalities. They are men like Charles Jaynes, who wrote in his journal about a fast crush on a ``beautiful boy`` with ``a lovely tan and crystal-blue eyes`` and in whose car police found literature from the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) but who had an adult girlfriend and was rumored to be lovers with Sicari, who also had a girlfriend.
In other words, there may be nothing fundamental about a person that makes him a ``pedophile.`` So-called pedophiles do not have some genetic, or incurable, disease. Men who desire children can change their behavior to conform with the norms of a society that reviles it. Pedophilia can be renounced; in the medical language we now use to describe this sexual proclivity, it can be ``cured.`` Indeed, contrary to politicians` claims, the recidivism rates of child sex offenders are among the lowest in the criminal population. Analyses of thousands of subjects in hundreds of studies in the United States and Canada have found that about 13 percent of sex offenders are rearrested, compared with 74 percent of all prisoners. With treatment, the numbers are even better. The state of Vermont, for example, reported in 1995 that its reoffense rates after treatment were only 7 percent for pedophiles, 3 percent for incest perpetrators, and 3 percent for those who had committed ``hands-off`` crimes such as exhibitionism.
--end excerpt
Well written critique! Haven`t read the second half, but liked what i saw in the first.
Worth repeating: ``I have never thought of people of god as being perfect; their very holiness is imperfect. It makes them blind to everything else. Besides, it is high time we demanded from our various religions and their wardens some degree of accountability.``
gorabandar:
re. pedophile numbers in the church.
You parenthesize the word molested, point out their (the `victims``) greedy motivation, and yet, couldn`t resist playing jury, judge and executioneer of the ``offendors``. What`s up with that? Has everyone here forgotten the Satanic Rites Child Abuse hoaxes of the 80`s and the now heavily discredited Repressed Memory Syndrome that the abuse industry came out with a decade or so ago?
Since the 1980s, self-help authors have claimed that you don`t even have to remember a sexual event to know it occurred. ``If you think you were abused and your life shows the symptoms, then you were,`` wrote Ellen Bass in The Courage to Heal. The symptoms of past molestation listed in such books range from asthma to neglect of one`s teeth.
For a non-hysterical assessment of hte landscape and a look at the numbers, read review in abcnews, hardly the bastion of the Left.
excerpt
Indeed, say some psychologists, there may be no such thing as a ``typical`` pedophile, if there is such a thing as a pedophile at all. Qualities by which social scientists and the police have marked him, such as his purported shyness or childhood sexual trauma, do not bear out with statistical significance. More important, sexual contact with a child does not a pedophile make. ``The majority of reported acts of sexual abuse of children are not committed by pedophiles,`` but by men in relationships with adult women and men, said John Money, of Johns Hopkins, a preeminent expert on sexual abnormalities. They are men like Charles Jaynes, who wrote in his journal about a fast crush on a ``beautiful boy`` with ``a lovely tan and crystal-blue eyes`` and in whose car police found literature from the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) but who had an adult girlfriend and was rumored to be lovers with Sicari, who also had a girlfriend.
In other words, there may be nothing fundamental about a person that makes him a ``pedophile.`` So-called pedophiles do not have some genetic, or incurable, disease. Men who desire children can change their behavior to conform with the norms of a society that reviles it. Pedophilia can be renounced; in the medical language we now use to describe this sexual proclivity, it can be ``cured.`` Indeed, contrary to politicians` claims, the recidivism rates of child sex offenders are among the lowest in the criminal population. Analyses of thousands of subjects in hundreds of studies in the United States and Canada have found that about 13 percent of sex offenders are rearrested, compared with 74 percent of all prisoners. With treatment, the numbers are even better. The state of Vermont, for example, reported in 1995 that its reoffense rates after treatment were only 7 percent for pedophiles, 3 percent for incest perpetrators, and 3 percent for those who had committed ``hands-off`` crimes such as exhibitionism.
--end excerpt
#9 Posted by puyu on October 7, 2003 10:07:08 am
I like the way you break the idols just as I liked Arun Shourie at the job.
And you go overboard in your attempts just as Shourie does.
I am not suggesting that you are in the same league as Mr.Shourie.
Put yourself in the place of a leper or a prostitute.
And youd feel a lot better being treated as a human (even with the sinner label) rather than as a wretched outcaste .
Rest of it (the saint ,nobel part) I couldnt agree more
And you go overboard in your attempts just as Shourie does.
I am not suggesting that you are in the same league as Mr.Shourie.
Put yourself in the place of a leper or a prostitute.
And youd feel a lot better being treated as a human (even with the sinner label) rather than as a wretched outcaste .
Rest of it (the saint ,nobel part) I couldnt agree more
#8 Posted by arjun_m on October 7, 2003 9:32:31 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#7 Posted by gorabandar on October 7, 2003 9:32:31 am
There are approximately 50,000 Catholic priests in the United States. Of that number a very small fraction, in fact statisically less than the general population have sexually ``molested`` young people. It is the press that regards this as a pedophilia problem, when in fact it is a homosexual problem. Since homosexuality is an exalted , praiseworthy status in the United States the press has a blind eye to real exploration of the truth.
I for one don`t know which is worse, the greedy ``molested`` victims coming forward after several decades to claim large sums of money or the stupid church officials handing the large sums over.
The clerical offenders including those in the Episcopacy deserve their day in court and then be properly jailed.
I for one don`t know which is worse, the greedy ``molested`` victims coming forward after several decades to claim large sums of money or the stupid church officials handing the large sums over.
The clerical offenders including those in the Episcopacy deserve their day in court and then be properly jailed.
#6 Posted by urbashi on October 7, 2003 9:32:31 am
Great to find myself agreeing with Farzana about Mother Teresa (and largely about Lata too in her previous article)! She certainly was an achiever - but a saint? And as for the so-called ``miracle``, there have been enough scientific proofs that it was no miracle.
While I do admire and respect the Pope for many reasons (the years of indoctrination in a Catholic school - the ``convent`` education so much prized in matrimonial advertisements! - are bound to surface!) I also agree that he doesn`t deserve the Nobel Prize for his efforts in Iraq. And I don`t think he`s as open-minded as Farzana seems to have been led to believe. I constantly interact with Roman Catholic priests and nuns and base my ideas on their comments.
While I do admire and respect the Pope for many reasons (the years of indoctrination in a Catholic school - the ``convent`` education so much prized in matrimonial advertisements! - are bound to surface!) I also agree that he doesn`t deserve the Nobel Prize for his efforts in Iraq. And I don`t think he`s as open-minded as Farzana seems to have been led to believe. I constantly interact with Roman Catholic priests and nuns and base my ideas on their comments.
#5 Posted by temporal on October 7, 2003 8:49:02 am
ferz:
... ‘goodness’ and ‘badness’ are all momentary lapses?...
where?
...t
... ‘goodness’ and ‘badness’ are all momentary lapses?...
where?
...t
#4 Posted by Urstruly on October 7, 2003 8:19:44 am
gorabandar:
would that explain why in America only catholic preists are pedophiles?
Liked your psuedonym. Hamidm is it you?
would that explain why in America only catholic preists are pedophiles?
Liked your psuedonym. Hamidm is it you?
#3 Posted by gorabandar on October 7, 2003 8:12:19 am
The Pope was the only world leader who daily, tirelessly, diplomatically, prayerfully begged the political rulers of the world to prevent the destruction of Iraq up to the second American bombs fell. In fact the Vatican called for an end to the brutal economic sanctions imposed by the American owned UN that killed thousands of Iraqi children after the Kuwait crisis.
Regarding Mother Teresa....to all those she administered to, feed, educated, nurtured, mentored and saved...she is a Saint. As to rice paddy?? Tum pagal !!!!
Regarding Mother Teresa....to all those she administered to, feed, educated, nurtured, mentored and saved...she is a Saint. As to rice paddy?? Tum pagal !!!!
#2 Posted by bharatvaasi on October 7, 2003 7:14:58 am
Maybe you should have taken a stronger stand here -re: Theresa the sainted ``white`` mother here. The article is a bit limp....
Farzana memsahib, a word or two here. There is no female version of Chris Hitchens. Thisis the first step to replacing him. You need to be a bit more strident, and obnox here. But you are getting there.
#1 Posted by harimau on October 7, 2003 7:14:57 am
Marketing takes many forms.
The Roman Catholic Church has decided that the best way to appeal to people of the Third World is to give them their own saints.
Along the same lines, an Adivasi (member of some Tribal group) from India has now been named a Cardinal.
The one prince of the Church I like is Cardinal (Jaime) Sin of the Philippines... I like his name. You don`t get better than Cardinal Sin. Unless it is.... no, I won`t say it; it is too politically incorrect.
The Roman Catholic Church has decided that the best way to appeal to people of the Third World is to give them their own saints.
Along the same lines, an Adivasi (member of some Tribal group) from India has now been named a Cardinal.
The one prince of the Church I like is Cardinal (Jaime) Sin of the Philippines... I like his name. You don`t get better than Cardinal Sin. Unless it is.... no, I won`t say it; it is too politically incorrect.
