Yeah, so today I'm feeling on;
Mm. I've been using that non-committal filler pretty often; if you talk to me on MSN, you'd realize.
I decided to have a Totally Productive Hour at the computer tonight, just to show that I can (although now that I'm on my familiar perch in front of the computer, I'm starting to doubt that). I need to send a comprehensive email about SYF to my CCA, and then post about Serious Things (the kind of serious which do not have to do with how much my life sucks, yes).
Firstly, I put http://gayrights.change org/ in my daily Morning Coffee (which, for your information, is a really cool Firefox application which lets you open your regular websites with one click) and I've been getting really regular updates about what's happening. I found this video on it:
It's quite funny, but not as masterfully done as it could have been. Cute premise, though.
As a side note, if I put in this much conscientious effort with my Chinese and French reading, I will be impossibly fluent at them /:
I also found a video promoting awareness of HIV/AIDs (made by Medecines Sans Frontieres, no less!), and it's - strikingly sad.
Then of course, just in case some of you still do not know, the Pope, in keeping with tradition, recently made some incredibly irresponsible and simply ridiculous comments related to the fight against HIV/AIDs right now. I'm linking you the article from change.org, but there's an article on it in the newspapers (Today, I think) too (so, you know, it's not just the pro-gay rights website being all biased and misleading).
http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/pope_benedict_xvi_is_a_global_health_nightmare
I find the title of the article sardonic, but well, that's just me. I don't think it is hyped up; I think it is utterly gobsmacking (to use the vernacular expression) that the Pope, an internationally recognized public authority figure with an incredible amount of influence over (probably) tens of millions of people, at the least, actually says things like "AIDS is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems." (underline mine)
Okay, firstly, AIDS is one problem. Singular.
Then, more importantly, condoms aggravate the problem of AIDS?
To quote the article:
"No. Clueless religious leaders who preach religion and call it science aggravate the problems of HIV/AIDS. Pope Benedict XVI's statement is dangerous, and puts the Catholic Church so out of touch with the reality of HIV/AIDS, they might as well be operating on a different planet." According to another one of its articles (and I've also read about it in Newsweek earlier, so yes, it is a credible source), Washington, D.C. now has a higher rate of HIV/AIDs than the whole of West Africa combined. HIV/AIDs is no longer a developing country's disease, nor is it (or has it ever been) a homosexual problem, and condoms are our first line of defence against it!
"This Pope deserves to [be isolated] on the global scene. The Catholic Church has become one of the most irresponsible institutions on the international scene under his watch, siding with countries like Sudan and Iran when it comes to imprisoning or executing LGBT people, and now flagrantly saying that condoms spread HIV." Yeah. Sudan and Iran are countries topping the list of human rights offenders, not just towards LGBT people, mind (the Darfur crisis, anyone?).
Objectively speaking, if the Pope had meant it in the sense that because the idea of contraception/protection devices acts as a safety barrier in the minds of people, hence granting them the freedom of being able to copulate like rabbits whenever and wherever they want, without needing to be properly committed to the institution of marriage, and that increases the rate of casual sex (or at least, pre-marital sex), which in turn causally increases the risks of contracting sexually transmitted diseases like HIV/AIDs - then, yes, I agree, because that is logic. Pure logic, not a sociological conclusion borne by research.
But to say that simply, the usage of condoms increases the spread of HIV/AIDs is simply irresponsible, because theoretically speaking, all HIV/AIDs cases caused by unprotected sex can be prevented through the use of protection. Yet already, people aren't using them! It is our first line - indeed, our only line of defence against the spread of any sexually transmitted disease (besides abstinence, yes), and to further aggravate the problem by advocating the non-usage of condoms is simply ridiculously irresponsible. Who knows how many people will die of AIDs because the Pope says we shouldn't use condoms, that condoms do not help in preventing the transmission of AIDs?
Obviously, this doesn't just apply to AIDs; this issue just brought the utter disconnect of the Roman Catholic Church to the 21st century into sharper focus. I understand that what the Church advocates, abstinence before marriage is perhaps admirable by conservative Christian standards, and I suppose I can agree with the show of determination support of their value systems, but regardless of ideology, whether you support abstinence or not, are you willing to bite the bullet and persist in your sanction of the usage of condoms (and protection in general) despite the fact that millions will die because of it? If you think it is wrong to have sex before marriage, and hence people shouldn't do it, and those people who do deserves whatever consequences they suffer (namely, shortened lifespan, general discomfort, etc.), isn't it more humane to protect themselves from their own 'mistakes'? You may be right to say, Oh, they deserve to contract HIV/AIDs, but between being right, and allowing someone to have a healthy, happy life, I know what I'd choose.
And - again, while writing the sentence above, I realize that my arguments are not as solid as they could be. The hardest thing is knowing that the Pope is right in saying what he is saying because of who he is and what he believes in, and the outrage I feel is born entirely from the fact that I do not share his religious beliefs. If God deem premarital sex a sin, and God is the Supreme Moral Being and all that, then as Christians, it is only right to enforce that, is it not? If the people want to be 'saved', they must be willing to pay the price of abstinence for it. How can they expect to be protected when what they are doing is something deemed wrong? Therein lies the fundamental difference between secularism and religiosity; believers (should) reside on an entirely different plane from non-believers, their entire world paradigm is different, and - I think that's the tragedy of it. Therein lies the clash between religions, the clash between the secular public and the religious right. If your side proclaims to be the guardians of Absolute Truth, why should you have to accommodate other cultures? Why shouldn't you let your religion interfere with your public life if that is what makes up a fundamental part of you?
I don't actually know where I am going with this. I've known this since our second last Philo lesson, I think. Secularism and religion are fundamentally incompatible - if you take an absolutist, philosophical approach, because a humanist perspective will place the commonality of the human nature and human emotions first, before ideology, which will give us a shot at mutual understanding and tolerance, but at the same time, it will also degrade the integrity of the two ideologies.
Oh, what to do D:
Thinking about religion scares me.
44 minutes of my Productive Computer Time is gone /:
I foresee my email to the CCA will take fairly long to write, so I have to stop here.
Obviously, I've gotten my Homework Groove back :D
I'VE MISSED YOU O: Haha.
I decided to have a Totally Productive Hour at the computer tonight, just to show that I can (although now that I'm on my familiar perch in front of the computer, I'm starting to doubt that). I need to send a comprehensive email about SYF to my CCA, and then post about Serious Things (the kind of serious which do not have to do with how much my life sucks, yes).
Firstly, I put http://gayrights.change org/ in my daily Morning Coffee (which, for your information, is a really cool Firefox application which lets you open your regular websites with one click) and I've been getting really regular updates about what's happening. I found this video on it:
Click to viewIt's quite funny, but not as masterfully done as it could have been. Cute premise, though.
As a side note, if I put in this much conscientious effort with my Chinese and French reading, I will be impossibly fluent at them /:
I also found a video promoting awareness of HIV/AIDs (made by Medecines Sans Frontieres, no less!), and it's - strikingly sad.
Then of course, just in case some of you still do not know, the Pope, in keeping with tradition, recently made some incredibly irresponsible and simply ridiculous comments related to the fight against HIV/AIDs right now. I'm linking you the article from change.org, but there's an article on it in the newspapers (Today, I think) too (so, you know, it's not just the pro-gay rights website being all biased and misleading).
http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/pope_benedict_xvi_is_a_global_health_nightmare
I find the title of the article sardonic, but well, that's just me. I don't think it is hyped up; I think it is utterly gobsmacking (to use the vernacular expression) that the Pope, an internationally recognized public authority figure with an incredible amount of influence over (probably) tens of millions of people, at the least, actually says things like "AIDS is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems." (underline mine)
Okay, firstly, AIDS is one problem. Singular.
Then, more importantly, condoms aggravate the problem of AIDS?
To quote the article:
"No. Clueless religious leaders who preach religion and call it science aggravate the problems of HIV/AIDS. Pope Benedict XVI's statement is dangerous, and puts the Catholic Church so out of touch with the reality of HIV/AIDS, they might as well be operating on a different planet." According to another one of its articles (and I've also read about it in Newsweek earlier, so yes, it is a credible source), Washington, D.C. now has a higher rate of HIV/AIDs than the whole of West Africa combined. HIV/AIDs is no longer a developing country's disease, nor is it (or has it ever been) a homosexual problem, and condoms are our first line of defence against it!
"This Pope deserves to [be isolated] on the global scene. The Catholic Church has become one of the most irresponsible institutions on the international scene under his watch, siding with countries like Sudan and Iran when it comes to imprisoning or executing LGBT people, and now flagrantly saying that condoms spread HIV." Yeah. Sudan and Iran are countries topping the list of human rights offenders, not just towards LGBT people, mind (the Darfur crisis, anyone?).
Objectively speaking, if the Pope had meant it in the sense that because the idea of contraception/protection devices acts as a safety barrier in the minds of people, hence granting them the freedom of being able to copulate like rabbits whenever and wherever they want, without needing to be properly committed to the institution of marriage, and that increases the rate of casual sex (or at least, pre-marital sex), which in turn causally increases the risks of contracting sexually transmitted diseases like HIV/AIDs - then, yes, I agree, because that is logic. Pure logic, not a sociological conclusion borne by research.
But to say that simply, the usage of condoms increases the spread of HIV/AIDs is simply irresponsible, because theoretically speaking, all HIV/AIDs cases caused by unprotected sex can be prevented through the use of protection. Yet already, people aren't using them! It is our first line - indeed, our only line of defence against the spread of any sexually transmitted disease (besides abstinence, yes), and to further aggravate the problem by advocating the non-usage of condoms is simply ridiculously irresponsible. Who knows how many people will die of AIDs because the Pope says we shouldn't use condoms, that condoms do not help in preventing the transmission of AIDs?
Obviously, this doesn't just apply to AIDs; this issue just brought the utter disconnect of the Roman Catholic Church to the 21st century into sharper focus. I understand that what the Church advocates, abstinence before marriage is perhaps admirable by conservative Christian standards, and I suppose I can agree with the show of determination support of their value systems, but regardless of ideology, whether you support abstinence or not, are you willing to bite the bullet and persist in your sanction of the usage of condoms (and protection in general) despite the fact that millions will die because of it? If you think it is wrong to have sex before marriage, and hence people shouldn't do it, and those people who do deserves whatever consequences they suffer (namely, shortened lifespan, general discomfort, etc.), isn't it more humane to protect themselves from their own 'mistakes'? You may be right to say, Oh, they deserve to contract HIV/AIDs, but between being right, and allowing someone to have a healthy, happy life, I know what I'd choose.
And - again, while writing the sentence above, I realize that my arguments are not as solid as they could be. The hardest thing is knowing that the Pope is right in saying what he is saying because of who he is and what he believes in, and the outrage I feel is born entirely from the fact that I do not share his religious beliefs. If God deem premarital sex a sin, and God is the Supreme Moral Being and all that, then as Christians, it is only right to enforce that, is it not? If the people want to be 'saved', they must be willing to pay the price of abstinence for it. How can they expect to be protected when what they are doing is something deemed wrong? Therein lies the fundamental difference between secularism and religiosity; believers (should) reside on an entirely different plane from non-believers, their entire world paradigm is different, and - I think that's the tragedy of it. Therein lies the clash between religions, the clash between the secular public and the religious right. If your side proclaims to be the guardians of Absolute Truth, why should you have to accommodate other cultures? Why shouldn't you let your religion interfere with your public life if that is what makes up a fundamental part of you?
I don't actually know where I am going with this. I've known this since our second last Philo lesson, I think. Secularism and religion are fundamentally incompatible - if you take an absolutist, philosophical approach, because a humanist perspective will place the commonality of the human nature and human emotions first, before ideology, which will give us a shot at mutual understanding and tolerance, but at the same time, it will also degrade the integrity of the two ideologies.
Oh, what to do D:
Thinking about religion scares me.
44 minutes of my Productive Computer Time is gone /:
I foresee my email to the CCA will take fairly long to write, so I have to stop here.
Obviously, I've gotten my Homework Groove back :D
I'VE MISSED YOU O: Haha.