Thursday, August 4, 2011

Pope Approves Use Of Condoms In fFght Against Aids

After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the pontiff will end the Catholic Church's absolute ban on the use of condoms. 

He will say that it is acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention is to "reduce the risk of infection" from Aids.
While he will restate the Catholic Church's staunch objections to contraception because it believes it interferes with the creation of life, he will argue that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death can be a responsible act – even outside marriage.
Asked whether "the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms," he replies: "It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution.
"In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality."
He will stress that abstinence is the best policy in fighting the disease, but accept that in some circumstances it is better for a condom to be used if it protects human life.

"There may be justified individual cases, for example when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be ... a first bit of responsibility, to redevelop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes.

"But it is not the proper way to deal with the horror of HIV infection."
The groundbreaking announcement will come in a book to be published by the Vatican next week based on the first face-to-face interview given by a Pope.

In the interview, he admits he was stunned by the sex abuse scandal that has engulfed the Catholic Church and raises the possibility of the circumstances under which he would consider resigning.
Most significant, however, are his comments on condoms, which represents the first official relaxation in the Church's attitude on the issue after growing calls from cardinals for the Vatican to adopt a more humane approach to stopping the spread of HIV.

Although the Pope's ruling is aimed specifically to stop people infecting their partners, particularly in Africa where the disease is most prevalent,
it will inevitably be seized upon by liberal Catholics in Britain who oppose the Church's long-standing stance against contraception.

High-profile Catholics including Cherie Blair have stated publicly that they use birth control.
The move by Pope Benedict is particularly surprising because he caused controversy last year by suggesting condom use could actually worsen the problem of Aids in Africa.

He described the epidemic in the continent as "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".

Prove Thy Innocence

Altogether the instant reaction to the Norway incident, without any pursuance of proof or evidence, was that Muslim terror must be responsible for the attack. Once again, it has been proven that not all terrorists are Muslims

Prove your innocence — if you are a Muslim, because the media and the police believe Muslims are guilty by default.

Terror intimidates Muslims more than anyone else on earth. After any terrorist activity, inside their houses, Muslims try to put fingers into their ears so as not to hear the phrase: “another act of Muslim terror”. Outside, in non-Muslim countries, they avoid eye-contact with others to avoid giving possible explanations that “it need not be an act of Muslim terror” or “I was not a part of it”. For any terror attack anywhere, Muslims everywhere have to hang their heads in shame.

Muslims are the first suspects in almost all cases of violence the world over. The media usually has ‘credible sources’ and bigot analysts to hatch theories against Muslims and the police has ‘informers’ and matrix of terror links with names of Muslim youths inscribed as terrorists-in-line. Thus investigation, forensic analysis and fact finding all have become irrelevant. The new logic of both the media and the police is to blame Muslims first, and investigate later.

Moments after the horrific Norway bomb blast that killed seven people on July 22, followed by the massacre of 85 teenagers, speculations started regarding the possible culprits. Renowned media group, the BBC — considered objective — started speculating on the following night that the Islamist group al Qaeda could be behind the attacks, although the next morning they had to change their tone in front of the evidence. As The Sun labelled the attacks as “Norway’s 9/11”, The Guardian was not behind in their suspicion and analysis of jihadists’ role in the bloody episode.

The American media’s reaction was not different either. Fox News’ ‘O’Reilly Factor’ not only suspected the Norway killing spree as another incident of Islamic terror, the guest host — Laura Ingraham — even attempted to link it with the atrocious 9/11 that happened in the US a decade ago by reminding the audience about the Ground Zero mosque to be built in Manhattan. No doubt she would succeed in her effort to multiply the right-wing American hatred against the Muslims and Islam.

Blaming the jihadists, the Wall Street Journal reported, “Norway is targeted for being true to western norms.” Meanwhile, on The Washington Post’s website, Jennifer Rubin wrote, “This is a sobering reminder for those who think it is too expensive to wage a war against jihadists.” Altogether the instant reaction to the incident, without any pursuance of proof or evidence, was that Muslim terror must be responsible for the attack.

However, within a day the whole story had to be changed, as the right-wing Christian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, with a background of hating Muslims and liberals, claimed responsibility for the attacks, exposing media bigotry to malign Islam’s image. Once again, it has been proven that not all terrorists are Muslims.

The same thing happens everywhere. Minutes after the Mumbai blasts on July 13, the Indian TV channels propagated the theory that Indian Mujahedeen (IM), deemed to be an Indian Muslim extremist group, could be behind the blast, although security agencies and the police took hours before adopting the hypothesis — solely on the basis of spurious previous trends. Based on their guesswork, the Mumbai police, as usual, detained several Muslims for questioning. One of those detained — Faiz Usmani — died while in police custody on July 17, sparking allegations of police brutality.

It has been more than a week, yet the investigating agencies have found no evidence to support their claims against the IM nor those detained. The tameness of the media and police administration reflects that — Muslims have been harassed, some Muslims have been detained, and one of them got killed (all without any evidence). So what? Does it really matter? The Muslims are presumed guilty, by the unwritten rule, until proven innocent.

This trend is not new. In the past, although there have been occasions in which Muslim groups have been found linked with terrorist activities, extremist Hindutva terrorists have also been proven to have carried out half a dozen attacks in India, such as bomb blasts in Samjhauta Express, Makkah Masjid, Ajmer Sharif in (2007), and Malegaon (2008) — the list goes on. When the right-wing Hindutva groups are known to have established links with the Indian military and intelligence agencies to carry out terrorist activities, yet raising fingers against them is an anathema.

The level of hypocrisy in the attitude of the police and the media is conspicuous. If a Muslim commits an act of terror, it is a terror plot but if a non-Muslim does, it is just an ‘act of violence’. If a Muslim is suspected in a terror act, he is an Islamic terrorist while a proven non-Muslim figure behind terror activities is merely ‘an accused’.

If this is how people’s sentiments against Muslims are aroused, how can the 1.5 billion Muslims live in peace with others and what message are we giving to the younger and future generations?