The Scene staff
Society is far too lenient on powerful people who make terrible decisions based on dogmatic beliefs.
This is especially true when there is tangible evidence that those decisions will be detrimental to the health and well-being of people.
Discussions on the theological leanings of Pope Francis were a sad reminder that even if he interprets the Bible liberally, he still is a Catholic who will characterize homosexuality and contraceptives as immoral.
Francis will likely follow in the footsteps of former Pope Benedict, who insisted that condoms not be distributed by Catholic humanitarian groups in sub-Saharan Africa, where HIV is rampant.
What was Benedict’s justification for that order? He believes that the best way to combat HIV is through abstinence education, based on his religious doctrine.
Benedict acted on this belief, despite proof that abstinence education is not effective in disease prevention.
In fact, empirical evidence compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that condom use dramatically use lowers the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.
To illustrate the severity of this matter, consider that 400,000 people were infected with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa in the year after Benedict’s decree.
That number certainly would have been lower if condoms had been made more readily available by Catholic humanitarian groups.
I understand that following a religious text is extremely important for many people, but at what point does rational, fact-based reason override beliefs?
This question is especially relevant when the stakes are so high.
Consider the rationale behind Benedict’s decision in light of Meghan McCorkell’s choice to kill her 2-year-old son. She claimed an evil spirit possessed the child, but a jury convicted her of first-degree murder.
Or Deanna Laney, who murdered her 8- and 6-year-old sons after claiming God told her to do it. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
I can’t see a rational person even briefly entertaining the idea that these two women were innocent. Yet Benedict isn’t challenged at all for following a similar illogical thought process.
I argue that there should be uniformity in how we judge decision-making, regardless of a person’s position or power.
In fact, I’d say it is imperative to hold the pope to a higher standard because of the sheer number of people his actions affect.
I’m not implying that the average person of faith would kill someone on a whim. But it’s irresponsible to stand idly by while extreme voices make huge decisions that affect society.
The United States is directly harmed by irrational actions motivated by fanaticism. When politicians cite religious reasons for their positions, including opposition to gay marriage, it’s nothing less than an excuse to maintain the status quo.
I hope for a future when people around the world, regardless of their religious orientations, stop taking politicians seriously when they cite dogmatic reasons for public policy.