Accuracy of religious document against condoms (7)
--------------------------------------------------
In response to Dr Balint Gabor Sandor's plea:
The original reason why I wanted to start this debate was that many
people's sexual behaviour is influenced by religious teachings, or at
least their perceptions of religious teachings. Some kind of dialogue
might save some lives.
Anyway, it seems most people agree with you, judging by the poor re-
sponse. If this is because people think the argument has already been
won, sadly that is not so: a great deal of preaching and written mate-
rials are devoted to attacking the condom, and some of it is successful
- people don't use condoms; however, they continue to have sex.
My question is this: what are the foundations for such an anti-condom
stance, in terms of health education and theology? Health education: it
seems to follow the now-discredited fear-based approach; it gives inac-
curate information (e.g. "a woman can only get pregnant on a few days
each month", not true) and misses out important information (e.g. good
condom promotion reduces No. of sexual partners and raises the age of
first sex).
Theology: The Christian tradition (and Islam more so) recognises that
humans are not perfect, and will not always follow God's Plan A, so
there are many instances of God allowing a Plan B, e.g. lifelong mar-
riage is the ideal, but divorce is allowed. Is there a trace of the un-
Christian belief that disease is God's punishment (Jesus clearly taught
against this), and reluctance to prevent the "punishment" (by promoting
condoms) once someone has "sinned" (had sex outside marriage)?
If there are parallels between health education and evangelism, an
evangelist will try many different techniques to save someone's soul;
shouldn't a health educator also try different techniques (including
condoms) to save someone's body?
Andrew Hobbs
c/o Project Concern International (Zambia)
Box 32320
Lusaka, Zambia
Tel: +260-1-221314 / 229326-7
Fax: +260-1-225741
mailto:andhobbs@zamnet.zm