Firstly, the facts. An estimated 22 million people in the continent are known to have HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. And of the 2.1 million worldwide deaths from the disease in 2007, over two-thirds occured in sub-Saharan Africa. Plagued with a host of other problems, like population explosion, ethnic conflicts, economic mismanagement, rampant corruption, and frequent malaria epidemics, AIDS can ruin whatever there is left in the weak African economy. Governments are grappling to spread awareness about the disease and promote safe sex, and then suddenly like an angel, the Pope comes and says condoms aren’t good. Abstinence. Abstinence is the key. And oh yes, we’re going to preach that to the Africans.

Perhaps the Pope forgot to do his homework. This is Africa, not Europe. Here, people still believe that having intercourse with a virgin or an animal (yes; I’m sorry but I had to write this) can cure one of AIDS. Perhaps he is ignorant of the many ills that plague Africa, and are factors in the spread of this disease. Or perhaps, like all Catholics, he has a sheer disdain for modern medical science, and maybe even a disdain for the people of Africa. After all, he is the great Pope. He heads a class of super-rich and super-influential people who condemn assisted childbirth (oh let the mother die, caesarean section is evil), preach against contraception (because hey, children are God’s gift and you can’t obstruct that), and that all sex is evil (except maybe for them).

And so, if the Pope says that abstinence is the way to prevent AIDS, it doesn’t come as a surprise. He could even go ahead and suggest that the solution to all problems in Africa is the Bible. Because it is easy to say that when you live in a palace in Rome, with all pleasures that you entail as the first citizen of the Vatican. No, O great Pope of the world. Abstinence is not the solution to the problem of AIDS, not in Africa, not anywhere else. It might be a solution to breaking marriages, but not to AIDS. The solution is education and enlightenment in the modern sense of the word. Not age-old and outdated dogma that the most devout Christians across the world have started to question.

Safe sex is the way to combat AIDS. Sue the medical community for saying that.

(For more information about AIDS, visit this Wikipedia page)

The atheism movement is spreading to all parts of the world, and has even reached the blogosphere, as I found out here. And I’d admit that the tenets of those faiths which talk about God as a real entity among a myriad of other fundamentals, are very hard to grasp if you’ve been exposed to science in any definitive way. How can we, in the 21st century, believe that there is a man up in the sky who can see everything and who knows everything and who can hear everyone? Yet, a majority still do believe this, and unfortunately, many also believe that if a person calls this person by a different name, he deserves to die.

So now what about Hinduism, with not one, but innumerable Gods? How can I defend my polytheistic faith when I criticize monotheists? Firstly, I do not criticize any religion. Faith is one’s personal domain, and I have neither right nor intention to question that. Getting back to Hinduism, I might sound chauvinistic, but Hinduism is the religion with probably the most freedom in modern times. Yes, in the middle ages, there was a lot of dogma, what with the Brāhmans controlling all aspects of social and personal life, and often exploiting the weaker castes. But with the advent of modern times, that flavour has faded away, atleast in places where there has been a dawn of the modern times.

One of the fundamental tenets of Hinduism is that God is in everything, and everyone. Thus, a person can worship God in any form he likes, be it material or person. In a way, it automatically justifies all other religions, rather than calling their followers infidels who are deserving of hell. And then, there are the innumerable Gods and Goddesses. They are nothing else but a representation of different aspects of humanity. If you worship the Goddess Saraswati, you’re effectively worshiping the pursuit of knowledge. And if you worship the Goddess Durga, you’re simply venerating strength, to fight against evil.

Many (not all, definitely not all) modern Hindus understand that their scriptures do not relate actual facts and happenings, but are guidelines for living an ideal life. I remember my mother, a pious woman herself, told me when I was a kid that the Rām and the Krishn I so loved watching on TV didn’t really exist as Gods in any part of history, but were mortals from whom many drew inspiration. Perhaps, if others, both in Hinduism and outside of it, were to have a similar midset, there’d be harmony, and not bloodshed, in the name of religion. I’m religious. Not an atheist, not a fanatic, and definitely not a Scientologist. The defence rests hence.