Hello again, Babette,
Did you look at this earlier? I pointed it out. During the years of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior's presidency, the poverty rate is the highest in the nation. That is to say, during the control of the US government by a pro-Life, pro-Family, pro-Capitalist government.
Marriage has nothing to do with stopping poverty. What makes you think that? You've read Margaret Sanger, so you must know that her parents had eleven children, all in great poverty. Seems like marriage did nothing there. Charles Babbage, inventor of the computer, was married, but still, five out of eight of his children died from easily curable diseases.
How sad. There are millions of children starving to death, and your response... "Oh, ummmm, that's because they're not married." Do you even know if marriage may have been practiced by the regions most effected by poverty right now? Probably not. Do you know that the poverty of such regions that didn't practice monogamy was extremely limited? It can be seen with the way that some untouched aboriginal peoples' live, like the Bushmen of North Africa, or those in the Amazon.
"Sorry, kid, it sucks to starve. I know your parents have been begging for work, but I own stock in Nike, and you won't work as fast if jobs are rare. Besides, why would having a right to the land of your ancestors have anything to do with your right to work and eat? The only reason you're in poverty is because your parents did not got a marriage license signed by the Catholic Church." That's a brilliant attitude. 1.4 billion in poverty? 30,000 to 40,000 starving to death every single day? Those fools! If only they MARRIED their way out of poverty!
It's about time you stop pretending like you care about starving people. Either you make an honest attempt to understand the problems of starvation, or you're just a pawn for the Catholic Church. Global Warming? No way! God wouldn't allow that! Genocide? The Pope had to obey the lord! Concentration camps? It was god's idea! Covering up a child rape scandal? God would have wanted it that way! And mass starvation throughout the world following the Catholic Church's blessing of world conquest? Well, obviously, it's because those people won't get the ink and paper saying that they're married!
You know that regular sex causes "tears" in the vaginal lining? Even oral sex can cause or create microscopic cuts in the mucus membranes. The cause, like the Bubonic Plague, wasn't so much what people were doing -- it was what they didn't know. The difference was that nobody knew during the Bubonic Plague. With AIDS, the federal government knew, and intentionally withheld the knowledge from the public. Are you aware of this component of Ronald Reagan's legacy?
You haven't answer my questions about the economy. Would the poor rather starve to death or work? If they'd rather starve, then we know why so many starve. But if people think it's easier to work than to die from starvation, then why are so many without work? Why is it that millions beg for work? Why is it that so many demand work, that it is illegal to ask for work in the United States? ("Solicitation for Employment," is the criminal charge.) The situation is similar throughout much of Europe.
Now, either, (a) people thinking starving to death is an easy alternative to working, or (b) people are not allowed to work the lands and the fields because it would not be profitable to the owners. Either (a) the problem is human nature, or (b) the problem is Capitalism. And if the problem is human nature, then I'm not going to get any solutions from you. You're human just like the rest of 'em. That leaves only one option left, doesn't it?
The problem with your arguments is that you switch from poverty in developed countries to poverty in developing or third or fourth world countries. The causes of poverty are quite different depending on the location.
Also you can't compare the causes of deaths generations ago before we had antibiotics and immunisation. My grandparents lost a son to diphtheria - they were not poor but there was no immunisation. Few children die of diphtheria now - all these advances have come from science in developed, capitalist countries.
Breakdown of marriage causes poverty in developed countries. In developing countries it is corruption, lack of democracy, wars, lack of education, superstitious religions, misogynist religions like Islam etc.
[By Hilary White, apparently, though Babette didn't seem the value of informing me of this.]
Dr. Jacques Diouf, head of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, said that the agricultural technologies currently in use around the world were more than sufficient to feed the whole human population. He decried the Malthusian principles that say too many human beings are overloading the world's food production capability.
"On the earth, there is a sufficient number of financial means, effective technologies, natural and human resources to eliminate hunger in the world once and for all."
In their final document, the 300 assembled prelates of the African Synod issued a stern call for an end to the international population control programs that they repeatedly said had been stifling efforts to help the poor and sick in African countries.
Buti Joseph Tlhagale, Archbishop of Johannesburg, called the international population control movement a "ruthless" "second wave of colonization."
He warned that traditional African moral values are being "threatened by the new global ethic which aggressively seeks to persuade African governments and communities to accept new and different meanings of concepts of family, marriage and human sexuality."
Tlhagale added that the "cultures of Africa are under heavy strain from liberalism, secularism and from lobbyists who squat at the United Nations."
Hello again, Babette,
But the simple argument remains, which you haven't tried to answer: would people rather starve or work, and if work, why aren't there opportunities for them, when there is enough land and capital for them?
That's the thing. When there was no immunisation, people were not starving to death at a rate of ~40,000 a day. In fact, most rural, aboriginal communities had an insurance policy that guaranteed food and, essentially, abolished hunger. (See "The Economics of Under-developed Nations," edited by J.M. Keynes and Milton Friedman.)>"Few children die of diphtheria now - all these advances have come from science in developed, capitalist countries."
You mean physicians and scientists like Galileo, Dr. Servetus, and Darwin? You should know their histories: Servetus, condemned for studying anatomy, was burned alive at the stake by the orders of the Catholic Church. Galileo was imprisoned most of his life for studying the rate at which balls roll down inclines (a most dangerous science, indeed, but also the foundation of modern physics). And maybe you're not aware of the opposition to Darwin long ago, but it erupted in violent, Christian mobs who stormed buildings, hung non-believers, and burned property. Margaret Sanger, as a child, witnessed one of these mobs attacking Robert G. Ingersoll, who wanted to speak on tolerance, evolution, and Atheism.
The inventor of logic, and essential contributor to computer science, was Augustus De Morgan -- and he was thrown out of his university because he wouldn't take what was then known as "the religious test" (admission of belief in Christianity). You seem to love pecking away at that keyboard, Babette. Do you know that inventor of the scientific logic behind it was denied an education because of not being a Christian? Do you know that the first builder of it, Charles Babbage, was perpetually harassed by Christians? Do you know that the developer of the modern computer, who designed the core components of what you and I are using, was gay, and persecuted by Christian laws for being gay? Yes, "science in developed, capitalist countries." And it's amazing that we have any science at all, really. At any moment some scientist picks up something new, Christians grab him and burn him alive. Giordano Bruno, for instance, may have started the Renaissance, but it didn't stop some Italian wearing a tiara from burning him alive.
Pope Zachary II said, "if it shall be clearly established that he professes belief in another world and other people existing beneath the earth, or in another sun and moon there, thou art to hold a council, and deprive him of his sacerdotal rank, and expel him from the church." (See "The Age of Reason," by Paine.) Do you believe that Jupiter has its own moon, or that other solar systems have Suns? Then you're not a Catholic, and we actually agree. (You understand, the definition of Catholicism is obedience to the Pope, right?)
Poverty did not exist in the underdeveloped world until the introduction of marriage. You are aware of this, correct?
Or Christianity. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." -- 1 Timothy 2:12
Two letters ago you said you were glad that the British government invaded India, raped your homeland, and pillaged your people, even if all you got in return was a half-hearted attempt at abolishing the ancient, Indian institution of marriage. Why? Because it involved burning human beings alive. Africa does not have "pro-sex" moral values. These are foreign, alien elements to Africa, largely represented wholly in Archbishops who live by exploiting the African people.
In the book, "Kin, Community, and Property on Truk," Catholic missionaries enter a pro-sex environment, teach that sex is bad, and imprison who have not entered into "Catholic-ordained marriages" (many of them being plural marriages). Missionaries also come with guns, and the Catholic ones have this terribly awful habit: telling the Natives that they're representatives of the US government, and that they will kill or imprison anyone who disobeys. Again, the book itself has nothing to do with missionaries. It's a group of eight anthropologists in the middle of nowhere, ~1948, and whenever a missionary shows up, bad stuff happens. Mass imprisonment, killing, etc.. Likewise, the native community (on the island of Truk) were very open sexually. Native American tribes have also had this attribute. (See: "Canada: A Modern History," by Bartlet J. Brebner.)
As you can see, the first attempt to force "different meanings of concepts of family, marriage and human sexuality," as that Archbishop put it, started over a thousand years ago! And it was done by every generation of the Catholic Church, even today! Didn't the Catholic Church just say a week ago that condoms contributes to aids? Hey, would you mind getting your religion out of the 21st Century Europe and America's beliefs? Even the Catholics in the United States, if you tell them what the Catholic Church said, laugh. "The pope did not say that dinosaurs and mankind walked side-by-side!!" And, until the recent flood of press reports, they wouldn't have believed that the pope was an accomplice to child rape. But, now they know. All it takes is the investigation of these materials and the evidence is overwhelming.
Are you aware that missionaries in the United States massacred Native Americans because they revolted against slavery? Are you aware that upon entering Africa, they told the European settlers that Africans have no souls, because they cannot think or form consciousness? (See the philosophy of Rene Descartes.)
How hilarious. Some reformers talk about distributing condoms for free, and all of a sudden, "How dare you tell them about what the standard type of family is allowed to be!" Sounds like the only thing the Catholic Church has done its entire life!!!
Do you get why, now, I don't rely on a bunch of pro-Life websites for news? Because it's all lies? A pro-life website that complains about how other people are "forcing a sexuality onto others" because these other people are distributing condoms. If you don't believe in forcing a sexuality on others, then don't tell any gay couple they can't get married. This is just another one of the typical hypocrisies in your arguments.
Who cares, anyway, right? You don't mention starvation because you want to stop it. You mention it because "it is caused by the breakdown of marriage." Or, more specifically, a European form of marriage from 1800 to 1900. The earlier aspects of marriage, such as marrying your brother's wife, were treated as the instructions of god long ago, but not anymore. Likewise, divorce is now legitimate in Catholic circles under "annulment," and "Rhythm," also, is a violation of Thomas Aquinas' view of "contraception."
But who cares that the marriage taught by the Catholic Church from its formation to the year 1800 is now thrown to the garbage can? You don't care. Just obey, and do what they tell you. You're not expected to understand the history of the Catholic Church, how it prohibited books and artwork that were not religious, how it burned libraries of ancient philosophy, how it condemned the Jesuits itself as being the greatest rogues and terrorists in the world and conspirators against civil government, etc., etc.. You don't even know the history of your own Church, or if you do, like your religious masters, you intentionally never speak of it. Lynch mobs running around Paris, hanging gays and Protestants and Atheists while being supported by the Catholic Church, isn't very popular. Or, have you never heard of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre?
I could spend all day showing you the finer points of world food production and technological advancement. After all, you seemed to skip over the one part that seemed to confirm my point of view WORD-FOR-WORD: "the agricultural technologies currently in use around the world were more than sufficient to feed the whole human population." This has nothing to do with family or sexuality, but simply food production. That's what "AGRICULTURAL" means. The scientists who are fighting against poverty in the third world have not said "WE NEED MARRIAGE REFORM!" That doesn't enter anywhere in this article, and your view is as far from the world as Mars.
Also Note: The article doesn't mention Margaret Sanger. It's just some Archbishop describes contraception as a wave of "African Imperialism." Do you even know what Imperialism means? It means the seizing of the land, the taking of the force, and the creation of a forced Capitalism. That is to say, what the Catholic Church ordained for hundreds of years. The phrase Imperialism, itself, is bound up with Catholic ideology and completely inseparable from it. (I recommend the short essay, "The War Prayer," by Mark Twain.) The lands of the Americas were cut up by the pope between Spain and Portugal. "These people are your slaves, and these people are your slaves," sayeth the highest pope, and don't doubt it, because he speaks for god, right? But, apparently, now, the Catholic Church can moan about "Imperialism," after having a right hand in the rape of the underdeveloped world for more than a thousand years.
Why not talk about ACTUAL African Imperialism, that is still happening? Because you don't care, simply put. You just want to use the tragedy of African deaths as a prop to stop the indigenous people from recovering their lost sexuality. Are you aware that Nike factories in Africa, India, Vietnam, and China use sexual abuse as a disciplinary measure against the workers? Do you know, also, that these factories all came with Catholic missionaries, who tell these workers to be obedient and submit? And you know, of course, that these are often children and often slaves, and that these products end up in our department stores, and we pay for this Catholic-ordained system? You understand, THIS IS IMPERIALISM, and the distribution of contraception in the underdeveloped world IS CHARITY?
There is a strong difference. And you shouldn't listen to a murderer and a rapist in court when it comes to defining murder and rape. Likewise, Catholic Archbishops would do to be quiet about African Imperialism. Either that, or give back the land they took.
The British not only stopped Sati but gave India Parliamentary democracy and excellent railways on which my father worked. I know far more about India under the British than you, so I suggest you lay off this topic, you won't convince me. I have lived through it, yours is all theory. You remind me of the joke of the academics who said about a certain topic:
"Yes, it works in practice, but it doesn't work in theory".
As for unemployment, we in Australia have shortages of labor from time to time, especially skilled labor.
And many of the homeless are mentally ill. It was a mistake by the academics to say they should not be in hospitals. They wander the streets now and even when accommodation is provided, they leave and wander around.
As for you not looking a pro-life websites, they are the ones who tell the truth, that the fetus is a small baby, not some odd clump of cells. If other websites don't tell this fundamental truth about the origins of you and me, how can you trust them about anything else?