= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CronoDAS comments on Positive Thinking - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (278)
Would you count people who contracted HIV because their religion forbid condom use?
CronoDAS:
Can you think of any such scenario that doesn't involve other actions forbidden by the same religion?
(The only thing I can think of would be spouses of patients who contracted HIV via transfusion and who would have used condoms if it hadn't been for the religious prohibition. But how many of those have there been?)
However, there are people who've contracted HIV because condoms were forbidden, and personally didn't do anything contravening the religion's rules.
Catholics are not generally considered fundamentalists. ETA: now that I've read more of the thread, it seems that you're using "fundamentalist" to mean people who don't care about the effects of their beliefs. Is there a difference between that and being a consistent deontologist?
NancyLebovitz:
What concrete scenarios do you have in mind?
Spouse of someone with HIV. Raped by someone with HIV. Born to someone with HIV.
Yes:
1) a totally innocent married woman who has kept herself "pure" with only her husband... and contracts HIV because he is unfaithful
2) a woman who is raped by an HIV positive person (religious or otherwise)
3) a man who kept himself "pure" for marriage, only to discover that his now-wife hadn't "kept herself for her husband" and contracted HIV during her own pre-marital sex
4) a person who converted to the religion later in life... and had unprotected sex before they converted
5) some poor young thing who contracts it during unprotected oral sex because they're told that "it's not really sex" and therefore not considered "impure" by their religion's standards
6) a person who shares needles with somebody else... no prohibition against opiates in the bible mate
...I'm sure I could go on.
Argument from personal incredulity is generally not a strong stance to take.
It seems like you misunderstood my question. I asked about examples of HIV transmission scenarios that: (1) would be prevented by the use of condoms, and (2) don't involve any actions (by any of the parties involved) that are also prohibited by all the major religions that prohibit condom use. I don't see a single item on your list that meets both conditions.
I'm not sure how useful it is to search for sexual transmission scenarios within a reference class populated entirely by the chaste.
(Actually, the Shi'a practice of nikah mut‘ah seems to qualify, but that's rather obscure by the standards of this discussion.)
Well, originally I suggested one scenario that would seemingly fall under this. I'm genuinely curious if someone can think of any others. Your suggestion of the Shiite temporary marriages is a good one, though based on some casual googling I just did, it appears that condoms are permitted by this particular religion.
Actually I disagree. scenarios 1 through 5 are all about sexual acts that do not involve condom-use, but through which an otherwise "innocent" person could contract HIV.
Scenario 6 involves a person who contracts HIV and could then go on to spread said infection to his/her otherwise innocent partner due to the restrictions on condom use, but yes, does not directly describe the infection due to forbidden condom usage. I should have mentioned Mr 6's wife instead - at which it too becomes relevant.
AFAICT, they are all relevant to the current question.
As to part 2: The fact that some of the acts involve other people who are not following the "purity laws" of the religion makes no difference - in each scenario, the person getting infected has followed all the laws correctly. That's the point.
Forbidding condom use does not necessarily protect the people that follow the rules.
Surely the 'any actions (by any of the parties involved)' isn't relevant for casting blame/responsibility here? Christianity recognises, or rather emphasises, that people do constantly fall short of the values, and encourages repentence and continuing to follow the same rules.
I don't know whether churches would advise a repentent person who had cheated or had sex before marriage to then be celibate within their marriage. But if they tell them to keep having sex without protection then that specific action can be blamed for the results. A system of behaviour that relies on being universalised to make any sense is flawed. One encouraged by a religion that is fully aware that people constantly fall short of its commandments could be regarded as culpable.
Only if they tell them to keep having sex without protection even if you have an STD. Or, perhaps, forbid testing for STDs.
It wasn't my intention to make or imply any value judgments and blame assignments in this context. I just asked if someone can think of a scenario that meets these conditions, as a mere question of fact and logic.
Oh, fair enough: I was reading back to the 'how many people were killed by Christian fundamentalists' question... Sorry!
On your question, am I missing something obvious or would widows/widowers be a real and all-too-likely possibility?
What exact scenario with widows/widowers do you have in mind?
As in somebody gets AIDS from their first partner (who gets it from whatever, depending on how far back we count as 'parties involved': perhaps a cheating grandparent or if that still counts then transfusion etc.)
Yes, you're right, that would be another possibility.
Only if you let me count the people who contracted HIV because they disregarded religious prohibitions against homosexuality on other side of the equation.
I would like to see those numbers.
(Though I don't expect it to make much relative difference either way, it would probably also be a good idea to include lynchings of homosexuals, if only to preempt the obvious complaint.)
Here are some numbers. Note the incidence among children and women, for whom the predicate "disregarded religious prohibitions against homosexuality" evaluates to false in, I'd expect, nearly all cases.
Upvoted for data.
(You know there are female homosexuals, right?)
Only vaguely relatedly: in my callower youth, I enjoyed asking biblically inspired homophobes what grounds they had for sanctioning lesbians, since the go-to verses (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13... also Romans 1:27, though that's less relevant for Jews) were so clearly targeting behavior among men. The sheer bewilderment in their responses was oddly enjoyable.
I count a lesbian couple with one child among my best friends.
I remain doubtful that there is a large incidence of female HIV positives who would not have been positive had they adhered to religious strictures against homosexuality. The HIV-homosexuality links is (according to this page) specific to the US, not to the rest of the world. There is a base rate fallacy at work.
Sure, but I'm guessing that Morendil was alluding to the lack of explicit prohibitions on female-female sexual acts in holy texts among the Abrahamic religions. This does not, of course, stop them from being considered a sin and the practitioners punished accordingly.
All three of them had a "sex == penetration with penis" mindset which made even acknowledging lesbians an "outside the box" problem.
The Christian bible, at least, does not have any explicit prohibition against female homosexual acts, just warnings against sexual immorality without female-female acts given as a specific example (Romans 1:26-27 would probably be the closest). I believe the same holds for Judaism and the Torah, with the Talmud and other rabbinical rulings against it (though nowhere near the same degree as male homosexuality -- no death sentences). AIUI, The Quran is in a similar position to the Bible -- 4:15 can readily be read to condemn female homosexual acts, but the words are somewhat generic so it can also be read instead as condemning other female sexual immorality. Hadith is practically silent -- it condemns "effeminate men" and "masculine women", as well as those who wear clothing traditionally used for the other sex, but again no explicit prohibition. There is a large body of Islamic jurisprudence however, and although the mentions of female-female sex are still rare, it is clear that it is forbidden under Sharia as it has been interpreted most places.
Sure, I doubt those are above the double digits.
A straight reading of the question clearly indicates no.