However, even if we were all to agree to that goal, the current Christian approaches are allowing far too many bodies and souls to be taken by HIV. The souls taken are those who have willfully chosen to engage in behavior which endangers others. The bodies lost are the innocents who have been infected by their mothers in the womb or their cheating husbands. They may be recipients of blood transfusions or other medical procedures. Their souls may be safe, but they have been cheated out of living out their lives and of continuing to make positive contributions in the lives of others.

The life of a Mother Teresa may be cut short before she has a chance to show the true meaning of grace and to touch the lives of many. The potential effects of evil are manifold. The loss of one body can lead to the loss of many souls.

When considering appropriate responses to an issue such as the spread of HIV, there are several critical questions which must be asked. Are the root causes of this situation taken under consideration? Will the response do anything to stop the spread of this disease? Should there be any difference in the treatment of those who are infected by conscious decisions to engage in risky behavior as distinguished from the truly innocent? For Christians, will the action proposed ultimately serve to save souls?

Insofar as the saving of souls is concerned, some of us fail to consider how the presentation of our faith will be perceived by the unconverted. It is possible to have an ethical position promulgated which has the potential of mass appeal without compromising any fundamental principles. Any pronouncements on an issue as critical as HIV must take into consideration the current cultural climate.
Blundering along with zeal alone risks merely offending someone who may have little real exposure to sincere faith. To a person who has only been exposed to religion by the cultural elite, expressions of passionate faith may appear to be silly at best. The opportunity to reach a recalcitrant mind with a truly moral perspective is thus at risk of being lost [as is the opportunity to save a lost soul].

It is also true that a ‘value-neutral’ approach is ultimately doomed to fail. Doors may be opened with a ‘non-judgmental’ approach, but the root causes are not addressed. Popular opinion notwithstanding, HIV is a consequence of moral decisions. Yet, there is significant cadre of Christians who are loathe to even suggest a moral cause and effect.

The assertion is then made that “God does not punish with sickness or disease.”  Now, if we agree that the Almighty is infinite and we, as individuals are finite, how can anyone make such a definitive assertion of the intent and method of Deity? This fallacy will be explored later; it is abused by advocates of several perspectives on this as well as many other issues.

The authors lay out their objectives: an emphasis on prevention for those not yet infected and “non-judgmental care, respect, support and assistance” for those who are. They are “committed to transform public attitudes and policies.” These ‘attitudes’ which are to be transformed are “the sins of intolerance and bigotry.” We are admonished to remember that “AIDS is not a ‘gay disease.”  Yet, there is no attempt to discuss the behavioral factors which contribute its spread.

The policies [government?] which need such ‘transformation’ are alluded to in the assertion that “economic disparity and poverty are major contributing factors in the AIDS pandemic and barriers to prevention and treatment.” Not included in this advocacy for “prevention” and “education” is any assessment in how the behaviors which transmit the disease may be “major contributing factors.”

Nowhere in ANIN’s missive is the suggestion that any effective “education” might need to include what those who are infected may have in common and what could be learned from this. We are instead expected to take the leap that “intolerance and bigotry” and “economic disparity” should be the focus of our efforts in the struggle against AIDS.

Are we to suppose that even they actually believe this to be true? Do they really mean to imply that the original outbreak of HIV/AIDS and/or its continuation was caused by people who consider the behaviors which transmit the disease to be morally abhorrent? Also, there are places where HIV/AIDS are virtually unknown which have essentially medieval socio-economic structures [viz. a great deal of ‘economic disparity and poverty.’] The social mores in these traditional societies are as equally ‘backward’ in comparison to ours as are their economic situations. How are we to assess that?

“Sensitive issues” should be, “addressed [italics mine]” such as, “abstinence and monogamy as well as safer [italics mine] sex practices including using a condom.”  Also to be ‘addressed’ is needle sharing by intravenous drug users and, “caring for all types of people.” (Webster 2) Ms. Webster does allow that, “[i]t is not who you are, but what risk behaviors you engage in” (Webster 2) which risk infection. She offers that this aspect of her recommended “education program” would be “challenging... to put it mildly.” 

The author considers that a “church setting” would be a “very meaningful” place for “teens and children to learn about HIV/AIDS.” In addition to “medical facts” children could be engaged in discussion of “church teachings regarding caring for persons who are ill and for families in need.” She goes on to admonish her co-religionists to avoid discrimination against HIV-positive volunteers and employees  “Infection control procedures” are listed if a situation arises to necessitate the handling of bodily fluids [such as “First Aid situations.”]

Advice on “compassionate counseling” is offered for the families of the dead and dying. Practical matters such as day care for those who are incapacitated by the illness are outlined. Of course, for a leftist, no ‘compassionate’ treatment on this subject would be complete without the recommendation to advocate on behalf of increased government involvement in the above-described policies.

His parents were practicing Christians and, after much struggle, convinced him to come back home with them. They insisted that he go to church and attend other Christian events and services with them. Upon reflection, he noted that when spiritual guidance and/or intervention was needed, it came, miraculously. His father upset him greatly upon suggesting that he might not be saved. “He told me that great men and women of the Bible have sinned, but that they didn’t continue to live in sin as I had.”

He was reminded of how, when David was confronted with the sins he had committed with Bathsheba, he repented. Shortly afterward Johnny opened his Bible randomly and came to Psal. 51. There, he found that a “broken spirit” is what God wanted. He took from that he would have to give up everything he had previously had built his life upon, “the homosexuality, the parties, everything!”  He came to the insight that his former “’life’ [his quotes] had become my god, that it was an idol.”

Mr. Chatham was eventually re-united with his family and embraced the spiritual aspect which joined him to a greater family. He considered himself subject to divine intervention the entire time and assessed his life and impending death as ultimately leading to “victory.”

His early adult life was defined by living the isolated, myopic ‘lifestyle’ which revolves around sexual pleasure as the beginning and end of existence. Faced with an early death which was precipitated by that lifestyle, he found himself forced to take a look at the meaning of his life from a larger perspective. Eventually, he came to realize that what people did, even as consenting adults, had consequences outside himself. Further, he was not alone, he never was; he, like each one of us is bound by willful, transcendent, spiritual power.

A spiritual experience such as this is by its nature personal. It cannot be adequately explained to someone who has no similar point of reference. It would be easy enough for a person who has not experienced direct divine contact to dismiss such an experience as either the ravings of a religious fanatic or that of a psychotic experiencing a schizophrenic episode.

Thus, beautiful and moving as a testimonial of this kind is, the effect would be limited. There may be those who are wavering in their conviction that there is nothing more to life than what appears. I’m sure the story was told partly to reach those people before it is too late; before they would have to learn what Mr. Chatham did the hard way.

To exploit a tragedy such as this to advance one’s political agenda is equally heinous. The ‘gay’ community have successfully changed the root of the debate from a question of morality into a human rights issue. Most religious organizations have shied away from holding people accountable for spreading this disease.

Consequently, we are faced with the bitter irony of having those who are engaging in self-indulgent, risky behavior being treated as victims and/or heroes. Meanwhile, the faithful act as if it is they who should be ashamed for considering such behavior to be morally abhorrent. Instead, they meekly join the secular humanist elite in entreating people to engage in ‘safe sex’.

Modern clergy have all but abandoned these disciplines to the secular community. Indeed, when a cleric expresses an opinion about most anything outside of theology, the external reaction is almost universal derision (unless the opinion is politically correct). Historically, clergy bears some responsibility for this phenomenon. Conflict between religious positions and scientific inquiry have not always been settled reasonably.

There should be no conflict between scientific findings and religious interpretation. The arts and sciences are studied in divinity schools and seminaries. This should be expanded in these institutions of religious education. Every graduate should be so well-educated in the these fields [medicine, astrophysics, political ideology, economics, etc.] that their expertise would be indisputable to even the secular community.

That being done, religious leaders should then engage the secular humanists from a scientific and political as well as a moral and theological perspective with respect to HIV. The idea that counseling people to have ‘safe sex’ to inhibit the spread of this disease, for example, should be attacked by well-informed clergy firstly on scientific grounds.

Our public servants in Washington go on to cite several studies which should prove this to us all. As long as the subjects used condoms “consistently”, the infected person did not transmit the disease to the uninfected sexual partner.  Several common doubts and concerns about the effectiveness of latex protection are labeled “myths” and are debunked, one by one. “Condoms don’t work”, they break, the retrovirus “can pass through” the latex.

Failure is caused by inconsistent and/or incorrect use. Tests show the breakage rate to be “less than 2 percent.”  Whether or not the pores in latex are larger than HIV is not directly addressed, but “studies” are cited showing “that intact latex condoms provide a highly effective barrier to sperm and micro-organisms, including HIV and the much smaller hepatitis B virus. 

U.S. representative Tom Coburn, (R) OK. is quoted in the Sept. 23 1999 Washington Times  [Rebecca Wyatt, "Activists attack safe sex as myth"] saying that the “’media and the CDC have not printed warnings about the high communicability of some STDs because the idea that truly safe sex is just a myth is unpopular.’”  In the same news article, the Family Research Council [FRC] asserts that condoms are useless against HPV [human papilloma virus]” (the virus which leads to genital warts and cervical cancer). Abstinence is recommended as a “’better solution.’” 

Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt is quoted responding that abstinence is “’the only 100 percent safe method to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancy.’”  However, she felt compelled to add that “’the abstinence-only sex education message... is not in the best interest of adolescents or adults.’” She did not say why. Ms. Feldt went on to chide the FRC for “promoting ‘ignorance’ and clamed FRC supporters ‘want to impose their own personal religious and moral agenda on all people.’”

Further examination of the medical studies gives a hint as to who is ‘promoting ignorance’ and who ‘wants to impose their own... agenda’ upon whom. Stanley Monteith, M.D. is a columnist and radio talk show host with a medical background. In A Nation Deceived and Betrayed: AIDS Update, he questions the science and the moral implications of the pronouncements of the CDC. He alleges that the study which the CDC refers to is not cited completely. Viral-sized particles do pass through the latex. The amount is decreased significantly, “but when dealing with one of the deadliest diseases known to mankind, the presence of any infectious viral-sized particles penetrating an intact condom is unacceptable.”

Another clinical source cited by the CDC stated that “’condoms may reduce [the] risk of HIV infection by approximately 69%.’” The author goes on to state that a “31% failure rate is hardly ‘highly effective.’”  Further studies used by the CDC to bolster their claims of protection are analyzed by the good doctor who concludes that, “[a]lthough condoms obviously offer a measure of protection to the uninfected, a 1% a year failure rate [as indicated in an African study of heterosexuals] is unacceptable when dealing with a disease that is 95-100% fatal.” 

Interestingly, Dr. Monteith concludes on a moral/social note: condom “instruction and... distribution” purport the notion that “sexual experimentation and sexual activity before marriage are socially acceptable.” He is explicit in stating that “condoms are not an acceptable safe alternative [to abstinence] in the age of AIDS.”  He then explains in quantified clinical detail why this is so.

It goes on and on like this. The amount of data which is apparently deliberately misinterpreted and distorted by the CDC is too vast and would be too great a digression for the purposes of this paper. What this shows is that science can sometimes take a very long and painstaking approach to prove a point that any sincere follower of a life and love centered-religion already knows.

Unfortunately, as we have seen, it is necessary for even those who study the ethics of a particular religion to delve deeply into the intricacies of other fields in order to get a clear picture. Those who have an agenda which is antithetical to the goals of spirituality and objective truth will stop at nothing. They will ignore truth; they will perpetrate falsehood.

What can Christians do in the face of this? Science must not be abandoned to the secular humanists. Their perspective is no more rational nor based upon reason than those who embrace religion. I would contend that the humanist perspective is less rational; they deny objective truth in favor of moral relativism, wherein each one of us carries with our own rules, our own truth, our own reality. The clinical definition of that perspective is schizophrenia.

Is AIDS or any other human suffering God’s punishment? The Almighty by definition is infinite. We, as individuals are finite. Who are we to say what is the ultimate will of the infinite? Anyone who presumes to make pronouncements as to the will of the Almighty, whosoever dares to appoint themselves to be the voice of God is committing blasphemy.

The simple fact is that if it were not for the widespread intimate sexual contact with multiple partners, there would be no HIV/AIDS ‘pandemic.’ This cannot be denied. U.S. Rep. Coburn had said “’STDs are a symptom of the illness that truly plagues us. Many people don’t have the integrity and courage to say that there are consequences to actions.’” 

Finally, theological support could be introduced to drive the point home. Natural Law could be easily invoked. For Christians, scripture could then be cited to show that the principles involved are ultimately of a divine nature. Thus, the wisdom of studying and following the precepts of scripture can be emphasized.

In our earliest stages of development, our prehistoric ancestors must have noticed that those who had the proclivity to hop from bed to bed also tended to become afflicted with horrible diseases. Although they may have had but a rudimentary understanding of medicine, they were intelligent enough to discern that these diseases were somehow communicable. Furthermore, these individuals were rightly considered to be a threat to the community and were dealt with accordingly.

Instinctively, they knew that there was a divine principle involved. Consequently, cultural/religious taboos developed. This historical sociological and religious support must also be cited by clergy to reinforce the concept that our forbears were wiser than we are today on this issue. They had to be; they didn’t have the margin for error that we enjoy today with our current size of population and level of technology.