Obama is popular and practical

"I also believe we can't ignore the fact that abstinence and fidelity, although the ideal, may not always be the reality, that we're dealing with flesh-and-blood men and women and not abstractions, and that if condoms and potentially things like microbicides can prevent millions of deaths, then they should be made more widely available," Obama said. "That's my belief."

link

He said men and women often are "contracting HIV because sex was no longer part of a sacred covenant, but a mechanical physical act." He said government programs cannot solve that problem, but churches can make a real difference by providing people with a moral framework to make better choices.

Obama is making the same arguments that all folks who wish to dish out condoms
make. Ideal vs. Practical.

"abstinence and fidelity, although the ideal,
may not always be the reality"

Right. But somehow the word 'ideal' makes
it sound unattainable. If the language would shift to abstinence and fidelity
being right, but not always the reality, we could communicate better. These
folks shun claims of right and wrong. But the church is only interested in right
and wrong.

So abortion folks and condom folks say... be practical. And
there's a lot to be said for that. If one is not Catholic, or of a denomination
that understands right from wrong, then they should be allowed to be practical.
The Pope reiterated in Turkey that the Church does not impose but only proposes.

Yet if the Church proposes, and the individual agrees, then that
individual votes and is active for the cause of right vs. wrong. The Church is
interested in what is practical in real terms, not the short term. Salvation
first, temporal second. But both at the same time.

No abortion, no
condoms, abstence and fidelity right this very instant cures AIDS right now..
this very instant. Very practical. In fact, the solution. All it takes is a
change of mind.

The Obama thinkers would say, have mercy on those who
can not understand. Practically save their lives now. However these are not
helpless people crying out for food. These are people doing things to kill
themselves.

Why exactly should the church feel compelled to stop them? In addition, how could it?

One of the main tenents of moral behavior is that one can never do a wrong thing to attain a right goal. The Church can not advocate a wrong thing by its very nature.

So how can we move ahead together?

Let the Church propose the right thing, as it does. Let Bush, and all
others that have found some actionable authority push that same purpose if they
are able. This makes the right thing a more and more real lived experience. And
it promotes Salvation to those that give such a thing worth and striving.

And for others who follow some different path? Then those others should
be able to help each other simply live while doing wrong. That is not something
that improves the situation, but it does save lives. I would not stand in the
way, as long as I am not asked to promote the agenda.

He said men and women often are "contracting HIV because sex was no longer part of a sacred covenant, but a mechanical physical act." He said government programs cannot solve that problem, but churches can make a real difference by providing people with a moral framework to make better choices.

Exactly almost. The Church's solution is 'the' solution, and as much as
government supported by voters support the same goal, then the solution is
promoted in the right way. And if Churches provide people with this moral
framework, further accepted by voters and political will, then they are making
real measurable progress. So it is not that government cannot solve the problem,
if churches through convinced voters change society's norms. That's what
represenative government is about. After all, we are the government.

Let groups that are not the church,
and not the government, take care of people who are not doing right. As best
they can. And for always fewer and fewer we hope.