one more reason why religion is evil
by Zhou (Chew) Hong Jie
The human papillomavirus (HPV) is the main cause of almost all cervical cancer cases. This makes the HPV vaccination programme in England a boon for human progress. It is currently offered to English girls aged 12 to 13.
The moral conscience (innate in all of us, caused by evolution via natural selection) in any decent and intelligent human being compels us to do the right thing by ensuring that the young girls among us participate in the programme.
It is no wonder that the majority of English schools applaud the programme as attributive to the fight against sexually transmitted disease.
Except two dozen odd christian FAITH schools which opted out. Many of these are probably private evangelical and fundamentalist institutions which are not part of the minimally religious Church of England schools.
Schools deny girls cervical cancer jabs on religious grounds
Some engaged in deceptive language by claiming that the programme is “not in keeping with the school ethos”. It is more honest to just say “christian principles”, whatever their twisted understanding of christianity is. Others are more blatantly self-righteous, trumpeting that their “pupils follow strict christian principles, marry within their own community and do not practise sex outside marriage”.
One local doctor was puzzled as to “how immunisation against cancer can be rejected.”
He should go to church more often, especially the evangelical garden variety where kabuki-faced crackpots preach out-dated piffle from an ancient text which critical scholarship has long incinerated to be a hodge podge collection of premodern near-eastern myths and fables.
There is a pinch of smug religious arrogance for such schools to reject vaccination because they do not believe a need for it. I remember how during my army stint when I refused the free military-issued condoms when there was training overseas just to show a “christian testimony”. Bah – more like to show off my avowed “chastity”. There is always this aspergic-autistic view of reality among the so-called “bible-believing” christians that such displays of moral condescension testify to the “glory of god”.
Anyhow, the religious argument these schools use are retarded at worst and flimsy at best. They are assuming every girl in their kooky community is an avowed virgin. They are assuming every girl in their loony subculture do not get horny once in a while. They are assuming too much for their teenagers who belong to a demographic adept at keeping up appearances in front of paranoid adults. I know – I was a teenager once.
It takes religion to make otherwise good and intelligent people to do evil things and make retarded decisions.
*******
You claim to be rational yet are plainly irrational.
If HPV causes cervical cancer and the only way a person can become infected with HPV is through having sex – note that so-called “protected safe sex” using condom etc does not work – then you must advocate abstinence and monogamy as advocated by us religious through the institution of Marriage.
[...] – Roger Eldridge’s comment on one more reason why religion is evil [...]
If as you claim (without a reference) “There is evidence that nations which try to force abstinence-no condom policies on their societies end up having more unwanted pregnancies and sexually related problems” all one can say is that the nations you point to (if evidence of where abstinence in its rational sense was promoted actually exist) are incompetent at doing what they intended and not fit to claim they are protecting their society.
A vaccination is by definition an injection of chemicals into a person’s body who is otherwise healthy. It is the opposite of what medical treatment is supposed to be for, i.e. to treat someone who requires treatment because they are unwell.
De facto a vaccination is presumed to be of potential harm to the healthy body it enters. It countermands the Hippocratic oath, Primum non nocere, First do no harm meaning only respond to an illness.
An injection of chemicals into a girl’s bloodstream is in legal parlance, presumed to be harmful and therefore carries a very high threshold of compelling positive evidence to overcome the presumption.
This threshold has not been overcome as the actual evidence is very negative and there is the rational alternative of abstinence which meets the maxim of primum non nocere anyone with a brain and who cares for their children’s health must put their ideological opinions to themselves and opt for the latter.