Pope in the UK: Atheists Like Nazis

[Haggis_McMutton]

The threads not going at all the way they'd hoped; so they're trolling it for an a emotional response?

BINGO! Hold your cards we have a BINGO!

Yeah, because abstinence has worked so well in any society since the dawn of fucking time.
You cant prevent copulation. Pull your head out of your ass. The pope knows as much about preventing people fucking as you do promoting racial harmony.

"Racial Harmony?" That's easy. You start out with a Bb Seventh Chord and ... oh sorry that's the Barbershopper in me.

Did you know, one of the reasons why the Middle East loves to call us the "Great Satan" was that they thought Jazz was sinfull?

I'm afraid I'm not the one with the head up their ass. The notion that condoms would work if only done right has not been supported by facts.

Why does Arabia call You the "Great Satan" ??

Oh I dunno........300 years of gunboat diplomacy backing up manifest destiny perhaps?

And on the whole condom thing:

From this link :http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/4025/1/Do-Condoms-Work-The-Truth-About-Condom-Effectiveness.html
Studies have shown that if a latex condom is used correctly and consistently (every time you have sex), they are a highly effective barrier against infection. This has been demonstrated most clearly by studies of "discordant" couples in Europe. A "discordant" couple is one in which one partner in infected with HIV and the other one is not. In a study of 123 couples in which condoms were used consistently, none of the infected partners became infected.

Oh......hold on......I think a few others may have looked into this 20th century plague.
Here's a few more research studies on condom effectiveness against S.T.D.'s including Aids and HIV.

Ahmed S, Lutalo T, Wawer M, Serwadda D, Sewankambo NK, Nalugoda F, et al. HIV incidence and sexually transmitted disease prevalence associated with condom use: a population study in Rakai, Uganda. AIDS. 2001 Nov 9;15(16):2171-9.

Alfonsi GA, Shlay J. The effectiveness of condoms for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. Curr Wom Health Reviews. 2005;1:151-9.

Bleeker MCG, Hogewoning CJA, Voorhorst FJ, et al. Condom use promotes regression of human papillomavirus-associated penile lesions in male sexual partners of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Int J Cancer 2003;107:804–10.

Carey RF, Lytle CD, Cyr WH. Implications of laboratory tests of condom integrity. Sex Transm Dis 1999;26:216-220.

Carey RF, Herman WA, Retta SM, et al. Effectiveness of latex condoms as a barrier to human immunodeficiency virus-sized particles under conditions of simulated use. Sex Transm Dis 1992;19:230-4.

Casper C, Wald A. Condom use and the prevention of genital herpes acquisition. Herpes 2002; 9:10-4.

Conant MA, Spicer DW, Smith CD. Herpes simplex virus transmission: condom studies. Sex Transm Dis 1984;11:94-5.

Crosby R, DiClemente RJ, Holtgrave DR, Wingood GM. Design, measurement, and analytical considerations for testing hypotheses relative to condom effectiveness against non-viral STIs. Sex Transm Inf 2002;78:228-31.

Devine OJ, Aral SO. The impact of inaccurate reporting of condom use and imperfect diagnosis of sexually transmitted disease infection in studies of condom effectiveness: a simulation-based assessment. Sex Transm Dis 2004;31:588-95.

Gallo MF, Steiner MJ, Warner L, et al. Self-Reported Condom Use is Associated With Reduced Risk of Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Trichomoniasis. Sex Transm Dis 2007;34:829-833.

Hogenwoning CJA, Bleeker MCG, van den Brule AJC, et al. Condom use promotes regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and clearance of human papillomavirus: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Cancer 2003;107:811–6.

Holmes KK, Levine R, Weaver M. Effectiveness of condom in preventing sexually transmitted infections. Bull WHO 2004; 84:454-461

Lytle CD, Routson LB, Seaborn GB, et al. An in vitro evaluation of condoms as barriers to a small virus. Sex Transm Dis 1997;24:161-164.

Manhart LE, Koutsky LA. Do condoms prevent genital HPV infection, external genital warts, or cervical neoplasia? A meta-analysis. Sex Transm Dis 2002; 29:725-35.

Niccolai L., Rowhani-Rahbar A, Jenkins H, et al. Condom effectiveness for prevention of Chlamydia trachomatis infection. Sex Transm Inf 2005;81:323-5.

Paz-Bailey G, Koumans EH, Sternberg M, Pierce A, Papp J, Unger ER, Sawyer M, Black CM, Markowitz LE. The effect of correct and consistent condom use on chlamydial and gonococcal infection among urban adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159(6):536-42.

Pinkerton SD, Abramson PR. Effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission. Soc Sci Med 1997;44:1303-1312.

Rietmeijer CA, Krebs JW, Feorina PM, et al. Condoms as physical and chemical barriers against human immunodeficiency virus. JAMA 1988;259:1851-1853.

Saifuddin A, Lutaloa T, Wawerb M, et al. HIV Incidence and Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevalence Associated with Condom Use: A Population Study in Rakai, Uganda. AIDS 2001;15:2171-2179.

Van de Perre P, Jacobs D, Sprecher-Goldberger S. The latex condom, an efficient barrier against sexual transmission of AIDS-related viruses. AIDS 1987; 1:49-52.

Wald A, Langenberg AG, Link K, Izu AE, Ashley R, Warren T, Tyring S, Douglas JM Jr, Corey L. Effect of condoms on reducing the transmission of herpes simplex virus type 2 from men to women. JAMA. 2001 Jun 27;285(24):3100-6.

Wald A, Langerberg AGM, Krantz E, et al. The relationship between condom use and herpes simplex virus acquisition. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:707–13. Warner L, Clay-

Warner J, Boles J, Williamson J. Assessing condom use practices. Implications for evaluating method and user effectiveness. Sex Transm Dis 1998; 25:273-7.

Warner L, Newman DR, Austin HD, et al. Condom effectiveness for reducing transmission of gonorrhea and chlamydia: the importance of assessing partner infection status. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:242-51.

Warner L, Macaluso M, Austin HD, et al. Application of the case-crossover design to reduce unmeasured confounding in studies of condom effectiveness. Am J Epidemiol 2005;161:765-73.

Warner L, Stone KM, Macaluso M, et al. A systematic review of design factors assessed in epidemiologic studies of condom effectiveness for preventing gonorrhea and chlamydia. Sex Transm Dis 2006;33:36-51.

Weller SC, Davis-Beaty K. Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2001, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD003255. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003255

Winer R, Hughes JP, Feng Q, et al. Consistent condom use from time of first vaginal intercourse and the risk of genital human papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med 2006: 354;2645-2654.


Now hold on there Rockets! Non of this research has been done by a Washington Post reporter, or even a representative of Fox News!

Go wash your hair, Tzor. It smells like shit.

And save your trolling superpowers for topics that at least have a defensible position.


Johnny Rockets

*Cough* *Cough*

Also, hugely suspicious new guy, chill. Flapping your arms while excitedly shouting "WE'RE WINNING, WE'RE WINNING" isn't good debating and it isn't good trolling either.

Btw, a tip: you can use the preview button to stop from having posts edited 6 times.

[john9blue]

So you're saying that modern Nazis are OK?

i disagree with nazi ideas... is that what you're asking? what do you mean by ok? lol

it's amazing that i have to say shit like "i disagree with the nazis" because a few idiots on this forum like demonizing me because i present ideas contrary to theirs in a clear and coherent manner.

[Haggis_McMutton]

So you're saying that modern Nazis are OK?

i disagree with nazi ideas... is that what you're asking? what do you mean by ok? lol

Well, you're saying past actions of the church "don't count".

So, does it apply to nazis as well? When is an organization's past sufficiently old for it to "not count"?

At least i think that's what he meant.

[john9blue]

what changes has the nazi ideology undergone in the past 60 years? maybe i just haven't been keeping up with the times and nazis could be swell guys now...

[PLAYER57832]

Is "john thinks history is dumb" a meme now or what? i never said anything like that. all i said was that i will not accept people using the crimes of christians from centuries ago as a way to justify or compare to the crimes of muslims today or nazis a few decades ago. i swear people will hear what they want to hear, even if you never said anything like it...

No, you said that history doesn't matter, is irrevant. I can go back and find the quote if you like.

And those crimes were brought up because you made the statement that Christians have not commited such atrocities. Actually, you did not even have to go that far. Just try asking Native Americans.

I certainly did not say that justifies what happens today, not at all. However, you were trying to paint Islam as a far more violant religion than Christianity and were ignoring reality to make your case.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

That is a long and impressive list of citations, but none of them actually refute the article that I could see. It makes me wonder if anybody actually read it. Green isn’t a merely a Washington Post journalist, he’s a senior research scientist at Harvard. The article doesn’t say that condoms won’t work in preventing the spread of AIDS, and cites how well it works in other countries. Green does state though that the spread of the disease in Africa is happening via a different dynamic than in other places. What monogamous European couples do doesn’t necessarily correspond to polygamous African ones; it’s a false generalization. Green seems to know that even if Johnny and the rest of you are a little shaky on that point of scientific method, but we’d expect that with his credentials.

He does say that that abstinence has shown to be effective in parts of Africa. He cites the “homegrown” Ugandan program that advocates it and has lead to a lower infection rate and other nations are following. All he was saying was “Hey maybe there is something to this abstinence thing” and he immediately gets stripped, in this forum, of his credibility as a research scientist at a highly respected school apparently because he’s saying something that isn’t popular.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

Also, hugely suspicious new guy, chill. Flapping your arms while excitedly shouting "WE'RE WINNING, WE'RE WINNING" isn't good debating and it isn't good trolling either.

Btw, a tip: you can use the preview button to stop from having posts edited 6 times.

You guys are serious about this suspicious new guy thing aren’t you? Ve’ll be vatchink you, New Guy. It sounds ominous and maybe even a little threatening. Why in particular should new guys not have an opinion? I’ve been in several forums but this is the first in which I was singled out as “hugely suspicious”. What specifically is suspicious about me?

Anyway I wasn’t claiming victory, I was pointing out some “suspicious” activity on the other side of the argument.

[john9blue]

No, you said that history doesn't matter, is irrevant. I can go back and find the quote if you like.

And those crimes were brought up because you made the statement that Christians have not commited such atrocities. Actually, you did not even have to go that far. Just try asking Native Americans.

I certainly did not say that justifies what happens today, not at all. However, you were trying to paint Islam as a far more violant religion than Christianity and were ignoring reality to make your case.

find these quotes so i can bring them into context

[Haggis_McMutton]

That is a long and impressive list of citations, but none of them actually refute the article that I could see. It makes me wonder if anybody actually read it. Green isn’t a merely a Washington Post journalist, he’s a senior research scientist at Harvard. The article doesn’t say that condoms won’t work in preventing the spread of AIDS, and cites how well it works in other countries. Green does state though that the spread of the disease in Africa is happening via a different dynamic than in other places. What monogamous European couples do doesn’t necessarily correspond to polygamous African ones; it’s a false generalization. Green seems to know that even if Johnny and the rest of you are a little shaky on that point of scientific method, but we’d expect that with his credentials.

He does say that that abstinence has shown to be effective in parts of Africa. He cites the “homegrown” Ugandan program that advocates it and has lead to a lower infection rate and other nations are following. All he was saying was “Hey maybe there is something to this abstinence thing” and he immediately gets stripped, in this forum, of his credibility as a research scientist at a highly respected school apparently because he’s saying something that isn’t popular.

Ok, I mostly quoted that post because seeing tzor joining you in the victory chant when he completely avoided that response was pretty funny.

I don't actually know enough about this topic to debate it, however are you seriously claiming that condoms would do more harm than good? Seriously?

You guys are serious about this suspicious new guy thing aren’t you? Ve’ll be vatchink you, New Guy. It sounds ominous and maybe even a little threatening. Why in particular should new guys not have an opinion? I’ve been in several forums but this is the first in which I was singled out as “hugely suspicious”. What specifically is suspicious about me?

Anyway I wasn’t claiming victory, I was pointing out some “suspicious” activity on the other side of the argument

You have joined a casual gaming site and went straight to the off-topics forum where you jump in at the deep end. Statistically speaking people who do that over here tend to be multies.

But if you're not( or if you've got a good way of doing it and they don't catch you) people will stop being bothered about it soon enough(getting rid of the new recruit thing also helps).

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

I don't actually know enough about this topic to debate it, however are you seriously claiming that condoms would do more harm than good? Seriously?

No but I'm not against condom use either. What the article says is that abstinence based programs like the one in Uganda seem to work better than condom promotion in that part of the world. He cites the fact that most infection, in Africa, occurs within long term sexual relationships instead of the sex trade like in South East Asia where condom usage had a big effect. The overall message tends to be that different cultures may take different approaches. Abstinence programs and looking at the risky behaviors themselves seems to work in Africa. If abstinence programs are working better than condom distribution in that part of the world then it's just flag waving for a personal cause to suggest that the catholics are doing harm by promoting abstinence. The author even says that he's taking a professional risk by publishing the article because he might be seen in academia as anti-condom. If you read the article though you'll see that he isn't. He's just not anti-Catholic either.

You have joined a casual gaming site and went straight to the off-topics forum where you jump in at the deep end. Statistically speaking people who do that over here tend to be multies.

But if you're not( or if you've got a good way of doing it and they don't catch you) people will stop being bothered about it soon enough(getting rid of the new recruit thing also helps).

That's funny, I would have thought I'd have to actually win a game to be accused of cheating. I don't know that I'd use the term "deep end" to describe the threads I've visited though.

[Snorri1234]

Yeah, man! Forget all those world leaders! Forget the Dalai Lama! They're all old geezers.

Yes f*ck the pope and f*ck the Dalai Lama.

"a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society,"

Yeah that sure sounds like a Nazi tyranny that I know....

The Pope believes that the wide distribution of condoms would only lead to greater sexual activity which in turn would only aggrivate the problem.

Well shit seems like the pope is wrong once again! How suprising!

JR, please justify your use of Godwin's Law on the Catholic Church... without regurgitating the words of your favorite talking head or your usual hateful rhetoric. I await your response.

Best quote ever.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

More flag waving? Color me surprised.

"a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society,"

Yeah that sure sounds like a Nazi tyranny that I know....

The Nazi party with its heavy use of quasi-pagan pomp and reliance upon ideas from Neitzsche and Social Darwinism was definitely anti-Christian in the traditional sense. Early on the Nazi’s suppressed and infiltrated churches that didn’t fall in line in much the same way they did for anyone who didn’t fall in line.

[nietzsche]

Your missing something here:

The Poop's message was aimed to the gullible who still believe in him. It is supposed to be a stupid message. It's supposed to be illogical. You don't to say smart things to those who still believe, they might start thinking.

[Snorri1234]

More flag waving? Color me surprised.

"a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society,"

Yeah that sure sounds like a Nazi tyranny that I know....

The Nazi party with its heavy use of quasi-pagan pomp and reliance upon ideas from Neitzsche and Social Darwinism was definitely anti-Christian in the traditional sense. Early on the Nazi’s suppressed and infiltrated churches that didn’t fall in line in much the same way they did for anyone who didn’t fall in line.

Yeah dude, being somewhat against traditional christianity sure is the same as being anti-religion.

The Nazi-party was certainly totalitarian. They didn't want churches that disagreed with the state, but they hella used and abused religious iconography, religious reasoning and the churches they had to sell their platform. Religion was important in Nazi-Germany, and the Catholic Church sure did nothing to stop them. (the individual priests and churches that worked against the nazis deserve praise though.)

It's pretty hilarious when people bring up Nazis though. Not only because "at least we're not worse than Nazis" is a bizarre defense, but because communists are such a better target. Communism is at least atheist in it's core.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

The Nazi-party was certainly totalitarian. They didn't want churches that disagreed with the state, but they hella used and abused religious iconography, religious reasoning and the churches they had to sell their platform. Religion was important in Nazi-Germany, and the Catholic Church sure did nothing to stop them. (the individual priests and churches that worked against the nazis deserve praise though.)

You're assuming two things, first that I'm a "dude", and second that I'm in the least bit on the defensive. They used and abused lots of things, German myth, pagan heritage, Heidegger’s philosophies, Nietzsche's Übermensch and Social Darwinism how can you assume they were vaguely for or against any of them in their power grab? They were completely willing to use any means possible to gain and maintain power, but equally willing to cast away any institution that outlived its usefulness. They signed a non-aggression pact with Stalin and almost hand delivered a copy of it to Stalingrad. They signed another one with the pope and had no qualms at all about gassing nuns and priests along with everyone else. Protestant Churches were organized as Reich’s churches under Reichsbishop Ludwig Müller with Hitler seen a “lord” of the churches. Those that rejected what they saw a “Hitler Worship” were set aside as confessing churches. The Nazi’s were pretty good at setting groups aside like that. Anyway this doesn’t appear to me that it’s vaguely against as much as actively exerting control over religion. The Nazi’s wouldn’t do that would they?

Well shit seems like the pope is wrong once again! How suprising!

What the article says is that abstinence based programs like the one in Uganda seem to work better than condom promotion in that part of the world. He cites the fact that most infection, in Africa, occurs within long term sexual relationships instead of the sex trade like in South East Asia where condom usage had a big effect.

No, he’s right again, didn’t you read the article? The evidence indicates that abstinence programs work better than handing out condoms in that part of the world.

Your missing something here:

The Poop's message was aimed to the gullible who still believe in him. It is supposed to be a stupid message. It's supposed to be illogical. You don't to say smart things to those who still believe, they might start thinking.

Those that don't agree with you are gullible and unthinking? interesting.

But honestly as interesting as this conversation is what does it have to do with the positive response the pope got in England, and the relatively poor showing of the anti-catholic protesters? I can only imagine that Dawkins and Hitchens were a little disappointed by that.

[Snorri1234]

We are convinced that the people need and require faith. We have therefore undertaken to fight against the atheistic movement.

Anyone wanna bet who said that?

[notyou2]

Lucifer?

[notyou2]

Beelzebub?

[tzor]

No but I'm not against condom use either. What the article says is that abstinence based programs like the one in Uganda seem to work better than condom promotion in that part of the world. He cites the fact that most infection, in Africa, occurs within long term sexual relationships instead of the sex trade like in South East Asia where condom usage had a big effect. The overall message tends to be that different cultures may take different approaches. Abstinence programs and looking at the risky behaviors themselves seems to work in Africa. If abstinence programs are working better than condom distribution in that part of the world then it's just flag waving for a personal cause to suggest that the catholics are doing harm by promoting abstinence. The author even says that he's taking a professional risk by publishing the article because he might be seen in academia as anti-condom. If you read the article though you'll see that he isn't. He's just not anti-Catholic either.

You know, I know a lot of people love to make assumptions about what I think and believe, but I completely agree.

[Snorri1234]

The Nazi-party was certainly totalitarian. They didn't want churches that disagreed with the state, but they hella used and abused religious iconography, religious reasoning and the churches they had to sell their platform. Religion was important in Nazi-Germany, and the Catholic Church sure did nothing to stop them. (the individual priests and churches that worked against the nazis deserve praise though.)

You're assuming two things, first that I'm a "dude", and second that I'm in the least bit on the defensive. They used and abused lots of things, German myth, pagan heritage, Heidegger’s philosophies, Nietzsche's Übermensch and Social Darwinism how can you assume they were vaguely for or against any of them in their power grab?

Because I see no reason to doubt Hitler was being honest when he spoke? The fact that it was crazy bullshit does not mean he didn't believe it.

Well shit seems like the pope is wrong once again! How suprising!

What the article says is that abstinence based programs like the one in Uganda seem to work better than condom promotion in that part of the world. He cites the fact that most infection, in Africa, occurs within long term sexual relationships instead of the sex trade like in South East Asia where condom usage had a big effect.

No, he’s right again, didn’t you read the article? The evidence indicates that abstinence programs work better than handing out condoms in that part of the world.

Disregarding the flimsiness of the evidence, that wasn't what I was talking about. Wide-spread distribution of condoms simply does not increase sexual activity that much and it certainly doesn't make the problem worse.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

They were completely willing to use any means possible to gain and maintain power, but equally willing to cast away any institution that outlived its usefulness.

We are convinced that the people need and require faith. We have therefore undertaken to fight against the atheistic movement.

Anyone wanna bet who said that?

Because I see no reason to doubt Hitler was being honest when he spoke? The fact that it was crazy bullshit does not mean he didn't believe it.

So Hitler’s an icon of truth now? Grasping for any excuse to denounce your opposition as crazy, I see. I think I'd pick someone other than one of history's most famour liars; it's up to you what evidence you bring though. Anyway are you in the habit of dogmatically sticking to points that have already been successfully refuted? Frankly it’s a little painful to watch, but feel free.

Disregarding the flimsiness of the evidence, that wasn't what I was talking about. Wide-spread distribution of condoms simply does not increase sexual activity that much and it certainly doesn't make the problem worse.

Lol, You still haven’t read the article have you?

[Johnny Rockets]

Holy Christ, you're thick as a post.


On Uganda Abstinance:
Abstinence is often dismissed as a potential prevention method. Condom promotion and "safe-sex" initiatives have long been thought to be the answer to stopping the spread of HIV: Instead of encouraging people to curb their libidos, these initiatives have tried to provide "safer" ways of exercising them. However, in many African nations condoms aren’t looked upon kindly: there are a variety of urban legends that circulate in some regions that condoms are either ethnic cleansing tools or actually spread HIV themselves. (During the Cold War, the Soviet KGB spread "disinformation" that the United States created the AIDS virus to kill off Africans.)

So the Catholics support and help fund this educational approach and are having success in seeing a drop in infection rates. (This partially would never have anything to do with the surviving population realizing that promiscuous behavior KILLS you. )

They throw their position and influence, educate the population and have a measure of success.

Great. Glad to Hear it.

So they educate the population to abstain and be monogamous. Something that goes against their culture and basic human nature instead of fighting the urban legends and the propaganda.

Don't tell me it would not be easier to dispel the myths of condoms then it is to keep people from having sex. It's bullshit. Abstinance was barely effective for teenage pregnancy, and it will have a finite success vesus aids. What worked for teenage pregnancy and STD's?
Education on birth control. Primarily Condoms.


If they would haveput as much effort in flogging abstinence into proper education, information and accessibility about condoms EVEN AT THE SAME TIME!!! how many more lives do you think would be saved?

You rant about all the success this half measure has been getting, but in the end the close mindedness of the Church and it's refusal to TRULY help the people still bloodies it's hands with inaction.

Glad to see that they are at least doing the minimal. Thanks Bennie.
The Catholic Church should be promoting, educating, and distributing condoms in Africa.
That's the point. Save the lives, then save the souls.

Johnny Rockets

[PLAYER57832]

No, you said that history doesn't matter, is irrevant. I can go back and find the quote if you like.

And those crimes were brought up because you made the statement that Christians have not commited such atrocities. Actually, you did not even have to go that far. Just try asking Native Americans.

I certainly did not say that justifies what happens today, not at all. However, you were trying to paint Islam as a far more violant religion than Christianity and were ignoring reality to make your case.

find these quotes so i can bring them into context

You made a claim along the lines of "find me a case where Christians treat Muslims in that way".. we did, we found several.

You dismissed them as irrelevant.

SECONDLY, even your argument, that "those acts don't justify today's violance" entirely misses the point of history. Its not that those acts mean its OK for Muslims today to strap on bombs, BUT, if you live in a world where the primary contact with Christians, for hundreds, even thousands of years was violance, then you are not going to be pre-disposed to see Christians in a favorable light. In fact, you are likely to see them as pretty nasty creatures. AND, when you add in the US/European history of political and economic travesties...

You cannot simply sit back and say "hey, yeah, I know your life is terrible, and maybe my grandparents contributed, but you have no right to blame ME for that". I am not saying they can ignore problems they cause us, either, but as the old saying goes. Someone has to be willing to take the high road. Christ taught us that we are the ones to do that. We are not supposed to be basing our behavior upon how others act, but on how Christ acted. Christ saved his anger for Jews (that is those of HIS religion). To others, he showed either compassion or avoidance.

OH, AND .. here in the US, in much of the world, Muslims ARE taking the high road, also. Everyone moderate is. We moderates, in ALL religions need to step up and keep the extremists from being the "voice" of any religion.

[Johnny Rockets]

JR

[Snorri1234]

They were completely willing to use any means possible to gain and maintain power, but equally willing to cast away any institution that outlived its usefulness.

We are convinced that the people need and require faith. We have therefore undertaken to fight against the atheistic movement.

Anyone wanna bet who said that?

Because I see no reason to doubt Hitler was being honest when he spoke? The fact that it was crazy bullshit does not mean he didn't believe it.

So Hitler’s an icon of truth now? Grasping for any excuse to denounce your opposition as crazy, I see. I think I'd pick someone other than one of history's most famour liars; it's up to you what evidence you bring though. Anyway are you in the habit of dogmatically sticking to points that have already been successfully refuted? Frankly it’s a little painful to watch, but feel free.

Uh...you're the one who has to show that Hitler was lying when he talked about his religious beliefs. This same line of "argument" could be used to claim Hitler didn't actually hate the jews but was just playing on his people's own racism.

Disregarding the flimsiness of the evidence, that wasn't what I was talking about. Wide-spread distribution of condoms simply does not increase sexual activity that much and it certainly doesn't make the problem worse.

Lol, You still haven’t read the article have you?

You still haven't read the thread have you?