Sorry, this involves epistemology, morality, and ethics..
it may belong elsewhere.
From time to time, Christian-Scientist parents are put
on trial around here for negligent manslaughter,
because their faith told them their child did not
need medical treatements that easily and obviously
could have saved suffering, and the life of the child.
There have been convictions.
Now we have the Pope saying to billions that condoms
actually increase the deaths from AIDS, in the face of
clear case data showing protection per sex act,
and clear social (en masse) data showing a lack of
inceitement to increased sexual activity.
To wit:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090317/ap_on_re_af/af_pope_africa
Yet we do not put the Pope on trial for negligent
mass-murder or for fraud.
What are the factors that make us prosecute the family that
prays for a divine appendix cure, but leave the Pope alone?
Prejudicial epistemics seems to be at the heart of
issues many people have with religion, especially when
it seems forcefully and normatively asserted outside a faith.
It is hard to believe in someone
who effectively wishes death upon masses.
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
