Richard Dawkins Slams Pope as 'Stupid' for Views on Condoms and Aids in Africa

[Moridin]

Richard Dawkins says Pope is 'stupid'

Richard Dawkins has described the Pope as "stupid" for claiming that the use of condoms could increase Africa's Aids problem.

Professor Dawkins, the prominent biologist and atheist, said that Benedict XVI would have blood on his hands if his beliefs were followed by Catholics around the continent. Speaking at a university in Spain, he said: "I wonder on what basis anyone can say condoms make Aids worse. The Pope is either stupid, ignorant or dim.

"If people take his words seriously he will be responsible for the deaths of thousands, perhaps millions of people."

Prof Dawkins, 67, was speaking at a press conference at the University of Valencia after having been awarded an honorary degree.

Whether correct or not, this seems like a very outspoken statement, even for Dawkins.

 

[rootX]

I am afraid the topic is not good (bit religious).. but, I got to love Dawkins here
(What Pope said, that just doesn't make sense)

 

[Moridin]

I am afraid the topic is not good (bit religious).. but, I got to love Dawkins here

In my opinion, this is more of a political statement than anything. I mean, imagine John McCain calling Obama "stupid". What a complete outcry it would become.

 

[NeoDevin]

According to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/the_pope_is_either_stupid_igno.php" , Dawkins was misquoted in the telegraph, and what he actually said was "The Pope is either stupid, ignorant or wicked."

 

[turbo]

In my opinion, this is more of a political statement than anything. I mean, imagine John McCain calling Obama "stupid". What a complete outcry it would become.

Any excuse to bash Obama!

It is extremely ignorant for an educated person (I'm assuming that the pope has *some* education) to claim that increasing the use of condoms will increase the incidence of AIDS. There is a local fundamentalist who writes to the local newspapers (and actually gets published from time to time) claiming that birth-control causes breast cancer. They both have their motivations and they are both lying to sway the ignorant.

If you want to compare the outrage at such blatant lying to the public's dismissal of unwarranted criticism of Obama by the hard right-wing propaganda machine, then you should be assured that 99% of the people in this country to not share your skewed perception. Even the people who don't agree with Obama's approach hope that it succeeds, because we all need it to work for our common good. Standing on the sidelines and yelling "stupid" with no constructive alternatives is a tactic that the GOP in Congress is using now, and it will come back to bite them in 2010 and 2012. the Green Party will be the "loyal opposition" soon if the GOP doesn't grow a pair and start espousing true conservatism. Yes, until the 2nd Reagan administration, I was a reliable Republican - since then I have been an Independent, and I ignore extremism from both parties and their surrogates.

 

[Pengwuino]

I find this quite funny because I very recently read an article in response to what I suppose was when the Pope said this. The article featured a professor at Harvard who headed a group that studied amongst other things, how the use of condoms effected the AIDS rates. Oddly enough he claimed that in countries that had well funded programs to supply condoms and that gave the most condoms out actually had the opposite effect of increasing the rates of AIDS. The logic behind the explanation was pretty decent, the population had sex more often, so much that the gain in having condoms available was overtaken by the increased sexual activity. So it might be a little more complex of an issue to say the least...

 

[rootX]

In my opinion, this is more of a political statement than anything. I mean, imagine John McCain calling Obama "stupid". What a complete outcry it would become.

Yes, I agree it is unprofessional to call anyone stupid or wicked (ignorant seems to be acceptable).

 

[mgb_phys]

Oddly enough he claimed that in countries that had well funded programs to supply condoms and that gave the most condoms out actually had the opposite effect of increasing the rates of AIDS.

Or perhaps the countries that gave out the most condoms had the biggest aids probem?
It's a bit like how hospital emergency rooms are so terribly dangerous - a much larger number of people die in them than any other type of hospital

 

[rootX]

Pope 'distorting condom science'
Pope Benedict XVI in Angola (21 March 2009)
The Pope said distributing condoms was not the answer to HIV/Aids

One of the world's most prestigious medical journals, the Lancet, has accused Pope Benedict XVI of distorting science in his remarks on condom use.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7967173.stm

Why the Pope opposes condoms

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7951839.stm

 

[Pythagorean]

Whether correct or not, this seems like a very outspoken statement, even for Dawkins.

What's your point?

 

[waht]

So pope wanted to ban the use of condoms in HIV rich population.

Great

The question is why do social norms dictate that people in high positions should not be allowed to make such a comment like Dawkin.

 

[mgb_phys]

So pope wanted to ban the use of condoms in HIV rich population.

Remember dead catholics still count, as long as they're baptised you still score a point.

 

[Moonbear]

Actually, the original reports said the Pope instructed that putting a Bible over the penis was a better way to prevent AIDS. I did think about that and realized it could work...if the person trying it slams the Bible closed hard enough after doing so.

But, it's not at all a surprise that Dawkins would call the Pope "stupid." He is well-known for ridiculing religion.

I'm going to go listen to a talk tomorrow morning by someone from Mozambique who has set up an HIV/AIDS education/prevention program there. He's the person I'm going to collaborate with building their anatomy program up. I'll be curious to hear if he has any comment on this, especially since the university he works for is a Catholic university. Though, the high rate of AIDS, particularly in African countries, predates education about AIDS and use of condoms.

 

[Hurkyl]

"I wonder on what basis anyone can say condoms make Aids worse.

If he really wondered, then why didn't he find out before making his statements? It sounds more like he just wanted an excuse to attack religion.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If he really wondered, then why didn't he find out before making his statements? It sounds more like he just wanted an excuse to attack religion.

Dawkins would attack religion even if condoms would increase the incidence of AIDS. The Pope would oppose condom use even if it would decrease the incidence of AIDS. Nothing new there.

I am curious about the issue raised, though. Essentially no rational person would disagree that

• Condom use prevents *some* percentage of AIDS transmission
• Condom availability increases sexual activity by *some* percentage

The former is obvious by physics: any barrier decreases the chance of an agent penetrating. The latter is obvious by economics: any decrease in 'price' for a standard* good increases the quantity consumed.

My understanding is that condom use reduces the chance of pregnancy by a large percentage (high 90s) and the transmission of (smaller) viruses by at least mid-90s. (Anyone with better numbers is welcome to share them! Be careful about what is reported, though: flat chance of transmission vs. reduction in transmission chance, for example.)

Anyone willing to find numbers and do a basic binomial model? I'm thinking something like 10% base transmission chance, 0.2% transmission chance with condom (subject to better numbers on condom failure, breakthrough, and manufacturing defects), and equating the risk between having sex t times with HIV-positive individual(s) with condoms and t*f times without condoms. If f is huge for t reasonable, condoms are very good at preventing the transmission of AIDS, despite changes in behavior; if f is close to 1 for t reasonable, condoms are ineffective or actively harmful** (increased sexual activity plays a large role); if f is around perhaps 1.5-4, it's not clear without actual statistics.

To be honest, I have no idea what the results would be: there are many factors, most of which are hard for me to guess, and their interplay is subtle in some cases.

Edit: It's worth noting that there are utilitarian arguments that would support condoms even if they (slightly) increased AIDS incidence. I hope that no one takes the outcome of this Fermi experiment as normative: I just think learning the facts has value of itself.

* I take it no one here will argue that sexual activity is a luxury good whose consumption is based on the prestige of its scarcity?
** Intuitively, condoms could not be harmful because that would work against the initial reason (decreased AIDS risk) for increased sexual activity. But this need not be the case: consider Jevons' paradox, originally applied to coal but quite applicable here.

 

[CRGreathouse]

It is extremely ignorant for an educated person (I'm assuming that the pope has *some* education) to claim that increasing the use of condoms will increase the incidence of AIDS.

Although I haven't made that claim, I think perhaps you would call me "extremely ignorant" as well for raising the possibility?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I am curious about the issue raised, though. Essentially no rational person would disagree that

• Condom use prevents *some* percentage of AIDS transmission
• Condom availability increases sexual activity by *some* percentage

I believe that the Catholic position on the issue implies that handing out condoms creates a sexually permissive atmosphere where not all persons will be using condoms all the time. And that's their big point, more people having more sex but not necessarily using condoms.

 

[signerror]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7967173.stm

Excellent find. From that article:

But the London-based Lancet said the Pope had "publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on this issue".

It said the male latex condom was the single most efficient way to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV/Aids.

"Whether the Pope's error was due to ignorance or a deliberate attempt to manipulate science to support Catholic ideology is unclear," said the journal.

But it said the comment still stood and urged the Vatican to issue a retraction.

"When any influential person, be it a religious or political figure, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record," it said.

"Anything less from Pope Benedict would be an immense disservice to the public and health advocates, including many thousands of Catholics, who work tirelessly to try and prevent the spread of HIV/Aids worldwide.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I believe that the Catholic position on the issue implies that handing out condoms creates a sexually permissive atmosphere where not all persons will be using condoms all the time. And that's their big point, more people having more sex but not necessarily using condoms.

I hadn't even considered that possibility (and don't think it's particularly likely).

But I did neglect network effect (in both directions). More people having sex with more partners increases the density of the infection graph (this does *not* automatically mean it would be riskier than the other case!) which may have effects beyond what I can easily predict (raising the risk more for those engaging in low-risk sexual activity than for those in high-risk activity?). And of course whichever method has higher AIDS transmission will get a feedback effect, but I don't think this changes the answer (since the question is about which is riskier for a society, not what the magnitude will be).

 

[russ_watters]

If he really wondered, then why didn't he find out before making his statements? It sounds more like he just wanted an excuse to attack religion.

Imo, while he is outspoken, aggressive and typically well informed, his attitude makes him a less than ideal ambassador for science. A guy like Bob Park is much, much better because he is far less emotional.

 

[russ_watters]

Any excuse to bash Obama!

That example does not contain an Obama bash. It works the same if you flip it around...unless it doesn't? Would Obama have gotten the same harsh treatment if he had called McCain stupid as vice versa? Would anyone on this forum have called-out the example if it was stated the other way around? Your comment almost seems to point to a double standard to me...

 

[arunma]

Unrelated question: why the heck was Dr. Dawkins being awarded an honorary degree? Does he even publish scientific papers anymore? I've tried looking up his recent publications, and all I find is a bunch of atheism books.

 

[siddharth]

Unrelated question: why the heck was Dr. Dawkins being awarded an honorary degree? Does he even publish scientific papers anymore? I've tried looking up his recent publications, and all I find is a bunch of atheism books.

Perhaps for his service in promoting the public understanding of science? He has written some excellent books on evolution as well, apart from his books on atheism.

A guy like Bob Park is much, much better because he is far less emotional.

Bob Parks can get very passionate too, especially when it comes to his opinions on manned space exploration :) I enjoy his What's New column. I think Carl Sagan was the paragon of the ideal science ambassador.

 

[humanino]

It took the church establishment more than 350 years to officially concede that the Earth rotates around the Sun (they did it in 1992). By the time they make an official statement that indeed they have hurt millions with this comment on condoms, AIDS will already be considered a disease of the past.

 

[Moridin]

Maybe I should make some clarifications and related comments:

1) I was not bashing Obama, in fact, I think that Obama is more agreeable than John McCain.
2. I was comparing the fact that an attack by a leading atheist on a leading religious leader creates far less outcry, if any, than similar political attacks, from say McCain against Obama or vice versa. Whether or not one agrees with the statement, this is what I found odd. Maybe the former is somehow more culturally acceptable than the latter.
3) I think the Catholic position is that sex for any other reason than reproduction between one married male and his wife is immoral, and they might see the use condom threatening this view.

 

[wolram]

Actually, the original reports said the Pope instructed that putting a Bible over the penis was a better way to prevent AIDS. I did think about that and realized it could work...if the person trying it slams the Bible closed hard enough after doing so.

that would work now all the medieval implements are not allowed

 

[turbo]

Although I haven't made that claim, I think perhaps you would call me "extremely ignorant" as well for raising the possibility?

Point taken! Let me say that it is extremely ignorant for anybody with great public attention (and therefore responsibility) to make that claim. For many people in the world, the Pope is the ultimate moral authority, and they believe that their deity speaks through him. "Just say no to sex" is not going to stop the ravages of HIV in Africa, but the Pope cannot possibly publicly support the use of condoms because condoms prevent procreation as well as HIV, and that is against church doctrine.

In some African societies, there is apparently a stigma attached with condom-use, and the Pope is not exactly helping to quell this. He's not a health-care professional nor a sociologist, and he is blithely undermining the work of professionals who give so much of themselves trying to stem the tide of HIV in Africa.

 

[Fra]

Richard Dawkins says Pope is 'stupid'

I must admit I misread the title as something more interesting.
I thought he said POPPER.

Who is this Pope anyway?

/Fredrik

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Somewhat related, I thought this was interesting.

RAY SUAREZ: Eva Mashua, married, 36 years old, agrees with Moleko's assessment.

Women don't feel like they have the power to say no. Do you think that's true?

EVA MASHUA: It is true. According to our culture, we were raised up like that. A man is always the head of the family.

RAY SUAREZ: Twenty-six-year-old Carrabo Carbella says this is the way of African men.

CARRABO CARBELLA: They don't believe in condoms, you know. They are living a true African. As I'm an African, I won't use a condom.

RAY SUAREZ: Even if it will save your life?

CARRABO CARBELLA: Yes, I won't. I say I won't. I'm safe. I was still having sex more and more and more. Even if I have AIDS, I will still have more.

RAY SUAREZ: And can women say no?

CARRABO CARBELLA: Woman?

RAY SUAREZ: Yes.

CARRABO CARBELLA: No.

RAY SUAREZ: They cannot say no?

CARRABO CARBELLA: No, they can't.

RAY SUAREZ: Health experts now say that government must not only tackle prevention, but also the unique sexual culture that's evolved from South Africa's history of segregation. Apartheid pulled a huge black male workforce away from their families.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june09/aids_sa_03-23.html

I don't know what motivates the Pope's comments, nor do I understand them, but there could be deeper cultural issues involved.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for Dawkins, from what I have seen, the reasoning used against religion shows that he fails to understand the essence of faith. If you don't understand faith, then it is impossible to understand religion.

 

[Focus]

As for Dawkins, from what I have seen, the reasoning used against religion shows that he fails to understand the essence of faith. If you don't understand faith, then it is impossible to understand religion.

I think Richard Dawkins is aweful. I mean don't get me wrong, he is a smart guy and I would agree with most of the things he says but I think he is driving more (religious) people away from science and I think that's very wrong. He is too aggressive and patronising. There are a lot of people that deserve that kind of treatment but a lot more are willing to open their minds to new ideas and I think he drives most of them away. He helps the religious right to create a false dichotomy between God and science.

 

[NeoDevin]

he fails to understand the essence of faith

He understands perfectly what faith is: Irrational belief unsupported by evidence. (If you don't agree with that, clarify what you think faith is)

He helps the religious right to create a false dichotomy between religion and science.

The dichotomy between reason and superstition is not a false one.

 

[Focus]

The dichotomy between reason and superstition is not a false one.

I ment God, I'll correct my error.

 

[Topher925]

I can think of many worse things to call the pope, I think "stupid" is rather polite compared to the words I would use to describe him. If I ever met Dawkins, I would buy that guy a beer.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He understands perfectly what faith is: Irrational belief unsupported by evidence.

...that cannot be disproven and that is often based on experience. Yes, faith is irrational by definition - that is a given, but the beginning of understanding, not the end.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal being - God - cannot be falsified.

 

[Focus]

The belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal being - God - cannot be falsified.

Omnipotence is a bit of a problem. Can an omnipotent being make a rock so heavy even he himself cannot lift it?

Omniscience contradicts free will, but that's not such a major problem. We all wish we have free will but it is an other matter to prove it.

Science cannot deal with the supernatural by definition, it is only when they claim naturalistic claims (such as the age of the universe, formation of stars etc.) when science can beyond resonable doubt prove they are false. The idea that there may be some sort of God that created everything is entirely plausable so long as what you claim to know about him, you back up with evidence.

I think a first step for people to make rational decisions about God and all else starts with understanding the universe around us. People tend to believe God did it (by this I mean the general God did it attitude) because the explanations of science seem infinitely more absurd to them. It is easy for us to ridicule people for not believing in evolution or big bang here because none of us really know how it feels to have limited knowledge in science. It seems absurd for us to think why people reject evidence, but the reality is, most of these people do not understand the science nor the evidence. They are just choosing the option that seems less absurd to them. This is why I don't really like Dawkins, he isn't actually educating people in science, he is just shoving atheism down their throats.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would actually like to see a source for that quote. Sounds like rubbish to me.

Whatever the reference, Catholics don't believe that a bible cures disease. Surely no one here is naive enough to think it true?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As a reality check, stop and ask yourself "How many medical doctors and workers are Christians?".

 

[Hurkyl]

By the time they make an official statement that indeed they have hurt millions with this comment on condoms, AIDS will already be considered a disease of the past.

I'm curious -- how much of this statement is based on knowledge of what the pope actually said and the rationale behind it and how much if it is simply hopping on the anti-Catholic bandwagon?

Point taken! Let me say that it is extremely ignorant for anybody with great public attention (and therefore responsibility) to make that claim.

What the heck does "public attention" or "responsibility" have to do with ignorance?

 

[turbo]

What the heck does "public attention" or "responsibility" have to do with ignorance?

A person of the Pope's prominence must accept the responsibility that comes with his power. For good or ill, he can support the work of others, or undermine them with a word. Remember how traders hung on every word of Greenspan's statements and parsed them over and over again, no matter how vague? Greenspan tried to walk a fine line because of his power and responsibility. In the eyes of the faithful Roman Catholics of the world, you can multiply that influence, probably by millions. It was irresponsible of the Pope to undermine the work of health-care professionals, sociologists, and other aid-workers as they try to stem the wave of HIV. It was irresponsible of him to put church doctrine (condoms=contraception=sin) ahead of the lives of people who are threatened with HIV or who may pass it on to others if they are not supplied with education and condoms.

 

[siddharth]

As for Dawkins, from what I have seen, the reasoning used against religion shows that he fails to understand the essence of faith

I think Richard Dawkins is aweful. I mean don't get me wrong, he is a smart guy and I would agree with most of the things he says but I think he is driving more (religious) people away from science and I think that's very wrong.

Since a lot of opinions are flying around, I'll add my own. I think Richard Dawkins popularity and his books are among the best things to happen. I think he's a fantastic person, who makes very good, and rational arguments.

This is why I don't really like Dawkins, he isn't actually educating people in science, he is just shoving atheism down their throats.

Right, but sometimes, that technique might work. There are plenty of others who have a much more gentle way of promoting science. Neil De Grasse Tyson, for example. However, imo, Dawkins is very effective (in terms of popularity and books sold), because he is able to offend people and directly challenge their beliefs.

 

[BobG]

Point taken! Let me say that it is extremely ignorant for anybody with great public attention (and therefore responsibility) to make that claim. For many people in the world, the Pope is the ultimate moral authority, and they believe that their deity speaks through him. "Just say no to sex" is not going to stop the ravages of HIV in Africa, but the Pope cannot possibly publicly support the use of condoms because condoms prevent procreation as well as HIV, and that is against church doctrine.

In some African societies, there is apparently a stigma attached with condom-use, and the Pope is not exactly helping to quell this. He's not a health-care professional nor a sociologist, and he is blithely undermining the work of professionals who give so much of themselves trying to stem the tide of HIV in Africa.

There's a slight logical flaw in this flow.

The Pope says abstinence and remaining faithful to your spouse is a better method of reducing HIV, but people are sure to disregard what he says. The Pope says using condoms are bad, but people will faithfully follow his advice about condoms.

Anything the Pope says is fairly significant, since about 17% of Africans are Catholic. I don't think the things he says causes major changes in the behavior of Africans in general - not even in Catholics.

In fact, sex education promoting condom use hasn't caused major changes in behavior, either.

That said, the Pope's comments are practically a "If 2 + 2 = 5, then ..." type of statement, if only applied to Africa. You can't make a very meaningful statement about condom use/HIV on the general population unless some kind of change in behavior takes place. His comments are worse if you expand the case to other non-African countries. Promoting the use of condoms at least has the potential to reduce HIV.

http://www.rho.org/html/hiv_aids_special_focus-condoms.htm . Sex education and promoting condom use can work. It's just a lot tougher to change behaviors than one might think. Condom use for professional sex workers in Cambodia is mandatory and effective in increasing condom use during professional sexual encounters, yet those same sex workers don't use condoms during romantic sexual encounters.

 

[Focus]

I think Richard Dawkins popularity and his books are among the best things to happen. I think he's a fantastic person, who makes very good, and rational arguments.

I agree but most of his arguments are clouded by needless ad hominems which make his arguments seem weaker than they actually are. Don't get me wrong I like watching the guy because he is amusing and clever.

Right, but sometimes, that technique might work. There are plenty of others who have a much more gentle way of promoting science. Neil De Grasse Tyson, for example. However, imo, Dawkins is very effective (in terms of popularity and books sold), because he is able to offend people and directly challenge their beliefs.

I don't think he is changing peoples beliefs, he seems to be mocking them for it, which I am all for. If you have a view then you should be able to defend it, no matter what it is. The problem I have is that he is dividing science and God. I think one of his best works was Break the Science Barier. There are a lot of people who are very ignorant of science and I think it is better to work on that rather than this God issue. Once people start to think like a scientist with reason and logic, they will start questioning their own beliefs.

 

[Moonbear]

Well, I attended the seminar today on HIV/AIDS in Mozambique, and it seems that none of the above is likely to be effective. AIDS arrived with the return of refugees after the civil wars there. It continues to spread along trade routes, where people have money to afford to buy sex. There are many women there with no means of supporting a family when the fathers have died or been killed, so prostitution is common, and they can be warned of the risks, but their only other choice is to allow their children to starve.

About 20% of the population is infected with HIV there. The average lifespan is about 40 yrs now, and it's disproportionately affecting the educated men because they are the ones who can afford prostitutes.

As for other reasons why education or condoms don't work there...a woman without children is considered worthless there, and would be thrown out by her husband.

Another problem they're running into is increased development of both HIV and TB drug resistant strains. The reason is the country will only allow a 30 day supply of medication be given out and then people have to return to a clinic to get a check up to get more medication. The two biggest at-risk groups for developing drug resistant strains are the truckers and gold mine workers. The truckers get sent all over the countries in Southern Africa and can't always get back within a month; sometimes they are on the road for 3 months before returning home. The same for gold mine workers who travel to South Africa for work and stay there for extended times before returning home. Their medication runs out before they can get back.

It seems they really are debating what to teach people there. They do teach the adults abstinence, fidelity, condoms, but only teach abstinence and fidelity to the younger children. There is a small age range where infection rates are low...after the children born with HIV infection have already died, and before teens become sexually active (about age 16 there). Education efforts are targetting that group to prevent them from getting infected. It seems that the stark reality is that you can promote abstinence, you can promote condom use, you can promote fidelity in sexual relationships, but none of them work because the people just won't comply.

 

[Hurkyl]

If he really wondered, then why didn't he find out before making his statements? It sounds more like he just wanted an excuse to attack religion.

I should withdraw this -- while the article in the OP portrays him as making a specious argument, it isn't really fair to condemn him without finding out what he actually said.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Since a lot of opinions are flying around, I'll add my own. I think Richard Dawkins popularity and his books are among the best things to happen. I think he's a fantastic person, who makes very good, and rational arguments.

Except for the fact that he seems to have no idea what he's talking about when it comes to religion. He is no more qualified to comment on religion than the Pope is to discuss String Theory.

Perpetuating hate and scorn based in ignorance is doing no one a favor. What he is doing helping to further divide a nation [if not the world] through misconception and fear. He is playing to the lowest common denominator.

Based on Moonbear's statement and the post that I made earlier about the young African man, the Pope may understand the situation far better than Dawkins does; which puts Dawkins right up there with Limbaugh.

Hmmmm, the Rush Limbaugh of science; sounds about right.

 

[arildno]

I should withdraw this -- while the article in the OP portrays him as making a specious argument, it isn't really fair to condemn him without finding out what he actually said.

Well, here it is, in his own words at richarddawkins.net:

I did not say the Pope is "stupid, ignorant or dim" – I hope I would never say anything so repetitive. My exact words were "stupid, ignorant or wicked."

Richard

Thus, he objected to having labeled the pope as "stupid, ignorant or dim".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Thus, he objected to having labeled the pope as "stupid, ignorant or dim".

Given that the Pope may be right when he says that condoms won't solve the problem, what does that make Dawkins; an idiot with a big mouth?

Yep, the Rush Limbaugh of Science. It works well.

 

[arildno]

Given that the Pope may be right when he says that condoms won't solve the problem,

Condom usage has significantly reduced the AIDS infection rates in high risk groups like gay men.

Why should it be any differently for other sexual sub-populations??