No, he is not your new editor. You are blessed.

Greetings, denizens of the Filipino Freethinkers. I have added this new post to announce that a handful of our fellow members have been appointed by admin to be blog editors.

There hasn’t been an official announcement yet – Red’s been pretty busy lately- but I’ve been given the green light to go public with this news.

Aside from me, there are seven more members who have been promoted to editor – I had originally intended to announce their names in this post, but I figured it be best if they made the announcement for themselves. As editors, our responsibility will include the management of any new posts that are being submitted to the blog’s front page for proofreading.

Just so you don’t get the wrong idea and think we’re some sort of thought police, I should clarify that the role of an editor (at least to my understanding) isn’t to stifle or to censor your works. The Filipino Freethinkers blog stands for the free exchanging of ideas after all, and to be frank, a lot of our you guys submit some truly interesting posts.

Regardless of their style, theme, or topic, and whether we agree or disagree with them, your articles share the common thread that they invoke critical thinking. They challenge us to rethink our own perspectives, and force us (intellectually speaking) to always be on our toes, never giving in to complacency or conformism.

But let’s face it – ever so occasionally, in the heat of the passion of creating our next article, even the best of us mistakes. It’s nothing serious; perhaps a misplaced pronoun or two, or a dangling participle, or an abruptly cut off sentence, or maybe even a couple of misplaced commas or apostrophes.

And like a small blemish or wayward scratch, these seemingly small grammatical slips add up, and may distract some readers from the real gem that lies underneath them. And that is where the editors come in.

We’re not here to take anything away from the article. Quite the contrary, our job is to pick away at these blemishes and grime, adding a mirror polish to an already good read so it can be better appreciated by our visitors.

We may be ruthless grammar nazis, but we are your ruthless grammar nazis

Our job is to ensure that the author’s message is sent to the readers as clearly and as coherently as possible. To this end, we will try our damned best to clean up said articles without altering their content, or the writing style its author worked so hard to use as a voice.

The second (and quite admittedly, the more enjoyable) aspect of our job as editors is comment monitoring. Basically, we will also handle any spam troll or inappropriate comments found in the blog, and will deal with it accordingly.

Once again, this job isn’t something the editors can handle alone, and we encourage all readers to report any said spam or trolling to us (in my case, via PM at the forums). Please remember to enclose the name of said offender so we can more effectively zero in on comment, and to purge it with extreme prejudice.

Suffer not the troll to post!

As for the specifics, troll spams are basically posts that have nothing to do with the post, and are posted usually to advertise a product (porn sites, electronics shops, penis enlargement drugs, etc.).

Inappropriate comments are, if I were to use the FFF rules as a basis, include threats of violence, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic posts with the intention of offending other members.

Being a freethinker’s site, we welcome debates, but also understand that given the nature of our discussions, things can and will become heated in a very short amount of time. You’re welcome to attack the enemy’s argument – stab at its lack of structure, bludgeon its poor logic, or eviscerate its premise for its sheer insanity. Demand evidence and supporting data. That’s what critical thinking is all about after all.
On the other hand resorting to racial, sexual or cultural slurs or threats of violence is hitting below the belt. Anybody who resorts to these to attack their opponent will prompt us to call upon the Space Marine illustrated above to politely (but firmly) banhammer the living snot out of the poor sod.

That said, we will try to be fair with our moderation, and so long as you play by the rules, regardless of how disagreeable your assertion may be (and so long as you keep it civil), you have nothing to worry about.

Whenever I visit the CBCP website I often find inspiration that would stimulate me to write an article for Filipino Freethinkers. Their infallible wisdom on matters of which they supposedly have no experience (e.g., sex, marriage, contraceptives, pregnancy and childbirth) never ceases to amaze me. This time, however, I wasn’t only inspired but also rather intrigued when I saw an old news article discussing the views of theology professor Robert John Russell on evolution in relation to atheism, and I couldn’t believe they actually posted it on their site.

Here are some excerpts:

He said if people want to “attack evolution they should do it in an intelligent way, not in an embarrassing way” by putting forth arguments that the scientific community addressed years ago.

Intelligent design, which accepts that life has evolved over eons but asserts that it is so complex that its development must have been guided by a supreme being or intelligent agent, or any other kind of interventionist theology “is really unethical” from a pastoral point of view, he said.

Proponents of intelligent design and creationism offer “a kind of fool’s gold” claiming they are the only ones who can keep God’s role in explaining the origins of life since “those nasty atheists have co-opted it” with the theory of evolution, he said.

While the Catholic Church claims that evolution doesn’t contradict the Bible, a quick look at the details of such claim exposes that what they are referring to may actually be intelligent design:

Citing various addresses from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before and after his election as Pope, the Austrian cardinal explained that “there are many proofs in favor of evolution.”

Nevertheless, he stressed, “though this theory enriches our knowledge of life, it doesn’t respond to the great philosophical question: Where does everything come from and how did this everything take a path until coming to be man?”

Therefore, Cardinal Schönborn contended, the key is discovering “that a preceding idea exists, that man is not the fruit of chaos, but that he ‘has been thought of,’ ‘wanted’ and ‘loved’” by the Creator.

Going back to the CBCP news article on Russell, we see how he effectively criticizes intelligent design:

Unfortunately, he said, intelligent design and creationist proponents are not addressing the real problem evolution poses, which is how to explain the existence of suffering, disease, death and extinction before the historical event of the creation and fall of man.

The fall represents the first act of disobedience of Adam and Eve whereby humankind lost its primal innocence and happiness and entered into its present condition of sin and suffering.

But evolution demonstrates that suffering and death are not the consequence of the fall, but were part of life “far before humanity came onto the scene and is in fact a part of how we got here,” he said.

How to account for the problem of why God would allow all his creatures to suffer is “the really hard challenge of evolution,” he said.

That seems to be a very solid argument against the existence of a loving creator put forth in a very clear and concise manner, and the fact that it can be found in the CBCP website makes it all the more interesting. Russell continues:

One response is that pain and suffering are a consequence of freedom, he said.

But while the father of a child lets her be free to run, fall and scrape her knee, if she were to pick up a gun and start playing with it, “I’d take that gun away,” he said.

How then does the heavenly Father allow the extent and horrendousness of suffering seen throughout the world and in history? he asked.

At this point one would expect Russell to say that the concept of a heavenly Father is simply irreconcilable with evolution, but then he surprises us:

The brutality Darwin witnesses in his studies of nature along with the tragic death of his 11-year-old daughter were two major circumstances that drove the Anglican scientist to abandon his faith in God, Russell said.

“But this doesn’t mean that his theories are atheistic,” he emphasized.

Almost everyone sees the same cruel world Darwin saw, but he “was tempted and his faith was challenged like mine is and yours is” in the face of seemingly inexplicable evil, he said.

“But we all have the same choice: to see (life) as meaningful or meaningless,” said Russell.

How could Russell, who was able to eloquently frame the problem of evil and suffering by posing implicative questions, propose that it still all boils down to our ‘choice’? Well it may be because he is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ and the founder and director of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences that he cannot state outright his position, much less his apparent skepticism, on the Christian teaching of an all-powerful and loving god. More importantly, Russell only said that we have the choice “to see life as meaningful or meaningless”; he didn’t really indicate that such meaning was dependent on the existence of God.

RSVP on Facebook

Date: Sunday, August 22, 2010
Time: 1:00pm – 4:00pm
Location: Starbucks (near cinemas) at Shangrila EDSA Plaza Mall

Discussion topics aren’t set in stone. They’re like the ten commandments that way!

1.  ”Don’t Be a Dick”
2. Culture wars
3. ???
4. Profit!

* Newbies are welcome.
* Discuss anything with fellow freethinkers.
* Look for the FF sign (or the group of smart, sexy people).
* There is no required age, religion, philosophy, or IQ level.
* Discussions are informal yet intelligent (most of the time).
* You don’t have to talk; you can just sit in and listen.
* You don’t have to buy anything from Starbucks.

Even if you can’t make it for the scheduled meetup you can always catch us for the post-meetup dinner and drinks at the Krocodile Grill in Shangrila Mall.

Many thanks to Ms. M for the generous treat and the books, and to the rest of the FF Davao guys for the fun weekend.

It was great meeting you all!

Books

And More Books

Singing

And More Singing

Food

And More Food

Sharing

And More Sharing

Catching Some Fresh Sea Air

Raiding our host’s Farm For The Coconuts And The Vinegar

Even More Food, Italian This Time

Even back when I was still a very spiritual person I already had some reservations regarding prayer. Well I did sometimes pray to ask God for things, but deep inside I somehow figured that if God is good and he already knows what’s good – what’s best - for me, I’d rather tell him, “Your will be done” and use prayer as an expression of my overflowing gratitude for all the blessings.

I remember this episode in House, MD where Dr. Cameron was explaining to Dr. House the purpose of prayer:

Cameron: “Do you know why people pray to God?”
House: “I thought you didn’t believe in God.”
Cameron: “I don’t.”
House: “Well, then you better be making a very good point.”
Cameron: “Do you think they pray to Him and praise Him because they want Him to know how great He is? God already knows that.”
House: “Are you comparing me to God? I mean, that’s great, but just so you know, I’ve never made a tree.”
Cameron: “I thank you because it means something to me. To be grateful for what I receive.”
House: “You are the most naive atheist I’ve ever met…. People pray so that God won’t crush them like bugs. I’m not gonna crush you.”

Much as I am generally able to relate more with House’s cynicism than Cameron’s naiveté, as far as prayer goes I’m with Cameron. I guess gratitude comes naturally to some people, and the English poet Dante Gabriel Rossetti even remarked that “the worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank”. It just doesn’t seem very satisfying to thank Blind Luck or Pure Chance for a desirable turn of events; people need to thank someone who willed these events into happening.

This sense of prayerful gratitude is often harmless and nothing more than foolish at worst, but the problem is that the same people who have a strong desire to give thanks to a sentient Being also tend to believe that they can actually influence the will of this Being. And this attitude reeks of arrogance, as explained by fellow freethinker Garrick Bercero in his comments on another post:

I do not deny that most Christians believe that they are being humble in passively accepting the will of a higher power…What I am talking about is that the belief that some people have access to this will is arrogant.

Prayer is inherently arrogant because this is what it says: God built every single galaxy among trillions in the universe… and Christians have a hotline to this God and he cares about what they think and he wants to know their thoughts on what else he can do for them.

Now this arrogance is sometimes compounded with self-absorption when one is being showered with trivial “blessings” while conveniently turning a blind eye to the great miseries existing elsewhere. But what is even more arrogant is the propensity of these grateful believers to assert that all these sufferings are just part of God’s grand design. And if they are divinely justified, that leaves less reason for humans to be dissatisfied with the undesirable states of affairs happening all around the world and somehow eases the pressure to try do something about them.

On a personal level, one of the salient differences between those who believe in an intervening god and those who don’t has something to do with purpose. For the believer, everything that happens – including the unpleasant things – has a purpose set by God. This brings about a cozy sense of security because our lives are in God’s hands and in the end everything will fall into its rightful place. But for the nonbeliever, purpose comes after the fact; we make a purpose for whatever happens to us so that whenever we lose, we do not lose the lesson. More importantly, we take it as our responsibility to fulfill that purpose.

I remember Poch Suzara’s rants about how the Philippines, being the only Christian nation in Asia, has become the Sick Man of Asia because its people, instead of taking responsibility for the betterment of their lives, keep waiting for a Sky Daddy to do it for them. And I couldn’t agree more. According to Gallup, “a population’s religiosity level is strongly related to its average standard of living”. Let us take a look at the list of the most religious and least religious countries in the world:

The poll indicates that “8 of the 11 countries in which almost all residents (at least 98%) say religion is important in their daily lives are poorer nations in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.

“On the opposite end of the spectrum, the 10 least religious countries studied include several with the world’s highest living standards, including Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Hong Kong, and Japan. (Several other countries on this list are former Soviet republics, places where the state suppressed religious expression for decades.)”

In fairness, religion never really promised earthly wealth (or did it?); it assures one, rather, of an afterlife where everything will be all right – forever. Such concept of eternity easily renders insignificant a couple of decades of life on earth. And for such, many people live on prayer, expecting everything to happen according to God’s plan.

I admire the theists who live by the words “Nasa tao ang gawa, nasa Diyos ang awa” (roughly “God is merciful but man has to do his job”). At least they do not look onto God as a sky daddy or fairy godmother. Up to this point they are no different from the nonbelievers. However, they still expect God to be a protector. And this often leads to a certain level of carelessness because one may get overconfident in the “knowledge” that God will always protect him.

When driving, for instance, a devout Catholic may tend to focus more on the prayer he is reciting for protection while his right hand releases the wheel and reaches out to touch the rosary hanging from the rearview mirror and his eyes leaves the road for a few seconds to glance reverently at the crucifix. But the most convenient part of this “divine protection” is the insurance that if he gets into an accident and dies, it is still part of God’s plan, and he will go to heaven.

Now compare that to the nonbeliever who takes his safety as his own responsibility and keeps both eyes on the road and both hands on the wheel and sets precautions for mechanical failure and reckless drivers. When one lives on the assumption that this life is all there is, he tends to take a little more care of it. After all, it seems the sensible thing to do when one doesn’t have much of a prayer to protect him.

Hi, I just thought that the ending was not enough. After some of the reactions, I thought I’d create a new one from my left over material and finish the job.

Episode 6

Episode 7

Episode 8

Episode 9

Episode 10

All images used were taken from Apple Computer, Get A Mac ads. All editting was done by Me

Assess Authority — Assert Autonomy

Bash Bigotry

Challenge Convention

Doubt Dogma

Examine Everything — Educate Everyone

Fight Fundamentalism — Forfeit Faith

Guide the Gullible

Help Humanity

Improve Intelligence — Investigate Inconsistencies

Justify Judgments

Keep Knowing

Love Learning

Mistrust Mysticism

Negate Norms

Outgrow Obedience

Prevent Persecution — Prosecute the Pope

Question Quackery

Resist Rationalization — Resort to Reason

Support Science — Secularize Society

Trash Theocracy

Understand the Universe

Verify Vigilantly — Venerate Veracity

Withstand Worship — Weed out Wishful Thinking

eXpunge eXtremism

Yield Youth

Zero Zealotry

I’ve been posting on several discussion forums for a couple of years now, some of them have to do with atheism and non-belief, some are just regular hobby related forums (basketball, PC gaming, etc.). Every once in a while some believer will come barging in to the threads and start preaching their religion. As many of you would already know, any mention of atheism leads believers to talk about the Theory of Evolution.

One of my pet peeves is how Creationists claim that Evolution is not scientific; that it is somehow “evil” and that it goes against Christian teachings. In fact, they go about spreading lies and misinformation about it to such a degree that most people don’t understand what evolution really is anymore. It’s a sad fact that  less than half of Americans accept the fact of Evolution. Interestingly, according to this survey, a little over 60% of Pinoys accept evolution as fact. Perhaps it’s because Catholicism does not deny it. However, this may change soon as many American missionaries are more aggressively bringing their Fundamentalist brand of Christianity to our shores.

Here are some of the most common misconceptions being spread about Evolution:

Myth #1: Evolution teaches us that our ancestors were chimps! If you believe in Evolution, you believe your great great grandparents were chimps!

Answer: Wrong. We evolved from the same distant ancestor as chimps, not chimps directly. And in the broadest sense, we are related to chimps (We share more than 95% of our DNA with them). Monkeys are “cousins” of the Human species. But does that mean that WE are chimps ourselves? Of course not. We are human, our parents and grandparents are human, and so on and so forth for thousands of years back.

Myth #2: Evolution is EVIL-ution! Evolution preaches “survival of the fittest”, therefore it’s every man for himself!

Answer: Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory. It explains how living things adapt to their environment. It does not make claims about morality, nor does it tell us what we should do with our lives. It explains how things are, not what it should be. Claiming that Evolution is wrong because it “teaches us to kill or be killed” is akin to saying that Gravity is wrong because it causes people to get hurt or killed from falling.

Myth #3: Evolution is “just a theory”.

Answer: In scientific terms, a “Theory” is not the same as the layman’s meaning of theory. What this myth is trying to say is that Evolution is just a” Hypothesis”. A Hypothesis is akin to an educated guess. For a Hypothesis to be promoted to a Scientific Theory, it must pass stringent scientific scrutiny, and must be well supported by evidence. Evolution has a mountainload of evidence supporting it, from across several scientific fields (Geology, Biology, Chemistry, Paleontology, etc). All it takes to destroy the Theory of Evolution is one single solid piece of evidence that goes against it. In the more than 150 years since Charles Darwin first published his book “Origin of Species”, none have come up.

Myth #4: Students are entitled to learn Creation as an alternative theory to Evolution. We must teach the controversy!

Answer: The first thing we must address here is that there is NO controversy (at least in the scientific world). Some scientists may disagree on some details, but there is no denying that Evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. 99.9% of scientists accept it as fact. Besides, if that is the stance they want to take, then we should teach other creation myths from other religions too. I’m willing to bet these Christian Fundamentalists will NOT allow that.

Secondly, Creation does NOT belong in the Science Class, simply because it is NOT science. Creationists are free to teach Creation in Religion Class where it belongs. It is an oft repeated lie that prayer is banned in public schools in the U.S. Students can pray all they want. What’s not allowed is school-sponsored prayer.

Myth #5: Evolution cannot explain how life began, therefore God must have done it!

Answer: Firstly, Evolution does not deal with how life began. That’s like blaming the washing machine for not keeping the lawn trimmed. Secondly, scientists already have a rough idea of how Abiogenesis occurred (nothing final and concrete, admittedly). Thirdly, just because we don’t know yet, doesn’t mean we will never know. And lastly, just because we don’t know how, doesn’t mean God did it. It only means we don’t know yet.

Myth #6: You cannot prove to me that God did not create us. Show me the proof!

Answer: It is almost impossible to prove a negative. As an exercise, please prove to me that fairies/Santa Claus/invisible magic dragons do not exist. You can’t, can you? Also, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Creationists are the ones making the extraordinary claim, therefore, they must be the ones to provide solid proof. So far they have shown ZERO evidence.

And finally,

Myth #7: Evolution is the Atheist’s Religion!

Firstly, atheists HAVE NO RELIGION, that’s why we’re called atheists.

Secondly, just because you accept the fact of evolution doesn’t mean you’re an atheist. Plenty of believers have no trouble reconciling their beliefs with the fact of Evolution. Take Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins as examples of devoutly religious people who accept evolution. Evolution does NOT invalidate belief in a god in general. It only refutes the literal interpretation of Genesis in the Bible (or of any creation story of any religion).

Want to help save someone’s life without any pain on your part, cost, or even an ounce of effort? Just by signing your name and ticking a box may allow another human being a new lease on life thanks to your decision. Too good to be true? Not so. Interested to learn more? then read on…

Every year, thousands of people die from the lack of suitable organ replacements. The under-supply has even led to more unsavory, underground practices in the black-market trade for organs. A few years ago, there was an expose on a ring of human organ harvesters operating in third world countries preying on those desperate enough to sell a kidney while still alive. But such is the unfortunate result of sheer desperation. When it comes to survival, people may be driven to desperate deeds.

My father couldn’t have kidney transplant and had to endure the painful hemo-dialysis treatments until the day he died. Every other day, he had to endure having a thick needles being inserted into his fore-arm. These needles are many times thicker than a regular hypodermic needle for the volume of blood needed to circulate in and out a dialysis machine. This is the almost daily torture being endured by many patients suffering from kidney failure throughout the country. Many other families share the same problems or worse. Though some organs may be obtained through a living donor, most others like a heart may only be obtained from a deceased donor.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. Common sense tells us that there are more people dying every day with a few good organs intact than there are patients who actually need organ transplants. Its a simple numbers game. After those people die, those viable organs are no longer of any use to the owner but they are just left to decompose instead of being donated to a needy patient in need of a lifeline. Such is the cruel irony of wasted potential. Who would appreciate your gift more? a needy patient… or worms? Unless you’re into the practice of ancient Egyptian burial rites and prefer to have your internal organs all nicely pickled in their own little canopic jars awaiting physical rebirth, then there is nothing stopping you from making the right choice.

When you die, you no longer need your body parts so if there is a worthwhile cause that may benefit from it, why hesitate? And who better to understand this fact than people who have no superstitious baggage about needing their bodies intact for some magical resurrection in the future. And you have no worries about your “immortal soul” feeling some sort of pain feedback when your physical body is “desecrated” (in any case, your body will be quite literally violated anyway during the embalming process. Having watched the entire procedure done to the body of a loved one, I can tell you in all honesty that no matter how respectful the morticians do it, it is still not a “gentle” process having to work through the rather cumbersome rigor mortis.). And that is why I whole-heartedly implore atheists, skeptics, freethinkers and everyone else everywhere to participate in the local organ donation program. So stop watching horror movies like “The Eye” or worse…. “Repo! the Genetic Opera” that’ll give you the heebie-jeebies about organ transplants and start signing up!

Now here’s the tricky part – you can’t tell people that it’s OK to donate your body to a worthwhile cause after you’re dead. Ghostly apparitions and “messages from beyond” aside, you have to let people know ahead of time that its OK with you… while you’re still alive. I know its an awkward conversation to discuss with your family but think of the life you’re possibly saving. That’s why Operation HOPE (Human Organ Preservation Effort), an advocacy campaign launch by the National Kidney Institute is helping raise awareness to the general public. Hopefully, this will encourage people to talk about it and lessen the social taboos regarding conversation about death.

Without your family knowing that you support the program, chances are, when the times comes, your family would be in too much grief or would be hesitant to give away parts of their loved one’s body without specific permission from you, the original owner. You make a last-will-and-testament to tell people what you want them to do with the possessions you’ve left behind, but what about your most intimate possession… your own body? This is where the Organ Donation Card comes in…

We already have the RA 7170, the Organ Donation Act of 199l that formalizes one’s intent to donate one’s organs via an organ donor card. So how does this work?

1. You talk to your immediate family (or the people who can act as your legal guardian during emergencies) about it and even encourage them to participate as well. You will need witnesses to confirm your intent to join the program. These are the people who will inform the doctors that you are an organ donor when the time comes.
2. If you have a driver’s license, don’t forget to check the organ donation tick-box at the back. If not, you can get an organ donation card, sign your name and two other witnesses, preferably immediate family members. Indicate which parts you wish to donate or you can opt to donate everything. (Unfortunately, there is no check-box for opting to donate your schlong. So no matter how proud you are of yours and are hoping to give some poor schmuck some measure of joy by being the proud owner of a penile implant, tough luck there is no demand for dong donations…yet )
3. In the absence of a national organ donation registry (which hopefully they will establish in the future), carry this card in your wallet or in any place easily accessible.

It’s that simple. Just prepare the card and don’t give it any more thought. After you pass away, your death may yet give the gift of life to someone else. In a way, it’s a win-win situation. Just like an expectant mother who takes better care of her body because two lives are depending on it, think of it as an additional incentive to live healthier because your body may outlast even you

————————–

For more information, visit these links:

Want to find out who else are proud supporters of Operation HOPE? Chances are, your favorite celebrities are already one of them:  Why are all these stars asking you to carry this card?

FAQ’s on Operation Hope:

• Everything you need to know about organ donation
• DOH sets up RP-wide organ donor register

The National Kidney Institute’s Operation Hope website

Want to help save a life while you’re still alive? Consider donating blood too.

Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae "On the Regulation of Birth" in 1968

A few days ago the CBCP issued a statement exhorting the proposed bills on sex education and reproductive health, saying that “the foundation of the moral society is a central religious truth” and that “to disregard moral and religious truths…is to be defenseless to the onslaught of corruption.”

At first I thought about refuting those claims by challenging the following:

1. the credibility of the CBCP as guardian of morality considering the scandals within the clergy’s own ranks
2. the unspoken assumption that the pope from whom the church gets its dogma is a true recipient and infallible interpreter of divine revelation
3. the unspoken assumption that their particular brand of deity/Lawgiver exists

But then I realized that others have already done that so I moved on to another part of the CBCP statement and found the following assertions:

a. The failures (sic) rates of contraceptives against sexually transmitted diseases are high.

b. Oral contraceptive pills are classified as Group I carcinogenic, i.e., “there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity.”

c. With its very liberal sex education programs and its aggressive attitude in pushing contraceptives and condoms for safe sex, the United States still has the highest teen birth rate, 93.0 per 1000, and one of the highest rates of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI) among teens in the industrialized world.

Again I considered countering these assertions or at least putting them into proper perspective but I figured that my fellow freethinkers could do a better job and so I started a thread in the FF forum and I am very greatful for their insights.

The debate on contraception has become convoluted with all these talks of morality, STDs, and poverty that we’ve digressed from the real issue: More than 40 years ago a pope wrote in an encyclical deemed infallible that ‎”an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.”

Now unless someone comes up with a sophisticated interpretation, I guess the bottom line here is that sex must be kept open for procreation. Lest we muddle the issue with arguments on contraceptive pills that have an abortifacient effect no matter how improbable, let us narrow it down by using condoms as a concrete example, particularly the use of condoms between married couples versus natural family planning. Since the CBCP condemns the former but approves the latter, one is compelled to ask if it isn’t against Humanae Vitae to have sex during the wife’s infertile period considering they are using this “divine gift while depriving it…of its meaning and purpose”. I couldn’t have said it better than fellow freethinker Igme:

What is the difference between ejaculating sperm in latex and ejaculating it in a uterus in its monthly off switch? The intent is the same!

In both cases, the intent is to enjoy the divine gift of sex while depriving it of its procreational purpose. Again, it would be interesting to hear those elaborate arguments that would tell me I’m interpreting Humanae Vitae literally (and incorrectly), because it seems that those statements about condoms being ineffective in preventing the spread of STDs and contraceptives promoting immorality are all just rationalizations to protect the claim that a pope is infallible once he speaks ex-cathedra, which was the case when he wrote the encyclical.

Once we strip off these rationalizations, the real issue becomes clear. Condoms vs. rhythm. Both make sex possible while denying God’s procreational design. So why ban the former but not the latter? I think the answer on condoms is simple: it’s forbidden in Humanae Vitae. However, I’m not so sure why the Church allows rhythm, but I hope my assumption is wrong that they’re simply concerned they might start losing followers once they took away too much of a married couple’s carnal pleasures.