It's possible this was posted because of this bit further down the article...

Pastors who are not part of any overarching institutions have few limits to their rhetoric and interpretations of visions. So – as in Jere's case – this can mean they have the power to make life and death decisions.

But when harnessed correctly, faith and faith communities have a great potential for positive influence.

Who determines "correct" in this situation? The preacher-man who wants political power? Money? Wants one group to hurt or kill another?

The "religious" (in the USA and other countries) blamed AIDS on gay people and blocked efforts to attack the disease upon first discovery of the potential for epidemic. Catholics poo-poo condoms in favor of "chastity."

Consider the case of the spread of xianity in Uganda and the "kill gays" law, thanks to the efforts of the religion industry.

(Not criticizing your post, gcomeau. I agree completely.)

We aren't addressing the central issue (people being taught to think uncritically about what they are told by a religious authority figure) but merely hoping those people who hold that authority will use it responsibly. Given what we've seen throughout human history, what could possibly go wrong?

Nailed it!

How? Oh, perhaps through teaching that condoms are bad, that knowledge about how the body and diseases actually work is bad....


Religion is the reason this disease spread so far.

in HIV prevention and AIDS care. This is a good snapshot of one of those aspects, imo. And in each instance finding a wedge in the barrier has paid off. Promote allies in the health care effort.

The key to prevention is to meet folks "where they are at". Including the barriers - religious, cultural, economic, political, geographical. And bridge that to resources. Piece by piece if necessary.

parts of the world, particularly Africa.

It's good that there are organizations fighting hard to combat that.

I visited a project in Africa that was run by the catholic church. It was set up for women from rural areas that had contracted aids. Most of them had been completely ostracized by their villages and many had children. With no where to go, the risk of rapid death was staggering. Here they could not only live, but learned a trade and made some money. It was very inspiring.

Their pathological campaign against condom use has been a major factor in the spread of AIDS in Africa. That they come in for photos ops after people have already contracted an incurable disease shouldn't redeem them in anyone's eyes. Except, apparently, for you and a few other people on this board.

BTW, are you going to weigh in on the substantive objections to your post upthread? Or are you going to prove yet again that your calls for "dialogue" and "meaningful discussion" are just empty BS?

Religion, cultural influences, economics, politics, war and geography have all been impediments in HIV prevention and AIDS care.

Some aspects of addressing HIV transmission have improved in Africa. International organizations have stepped up support for local prevention and treatment programs. Local groups are in the mix. Work goes on.

(aside) It seems your issue isn't about AIDS, per se, but it's about religion. That's all well and good. So, how do you suggest religion in Africa addresses AIDS? The Catholics, Protestant evangelicals, Muslims and Animists in Africa aren't going to go away.

And neither is AIDS, unless all find a way to meet the thing. In the hierarchy of need, I'd suggest you set aside your religious concerns for the greater good.

a good start would be for Catholics and Protestant fundies to stop their pathological opposition to the use and distribution of condoms. Was that so hard to grasp the first time around? And why would my issue be with AIDS? It's a disease, and it does what it does. My issue is with people who choose to endanger the lives of other people, and justify it by saying that it's what their religion dictates. They're the ones who need to set aside their religious concerns for the greater good, not me, so point your damn finger where it belongs. Also, as noted, all of the charitable showboating in the world is a little late AFTER someone has contracted AIDS because of their fundamentalist lunacy, though it seems to make you feel all warm and fuzzy.

Some religious groups get it, as well. My focus was on those that have set aside their religious dictates, their religious concerns, for the greater good. And are working for change both within faith communities and the local society at large.

http://manerela.org/



And, I agree. AIDS is a disease. To address prevention and care, especially in Africa, it calls for allies involved across the social / religious / government / economic spectrum. I choose to support those allies - they, with the support of the international agencies, will be the ones to make effective advances.

Opposition to the use and distribution of condoms needs to stop. If it takes the involvement of religious communities I may have larger issues with, so be it. As long as they are truly advocates for realistic prevention and effective care they're welcome to the field, imo.

And believe me, there is nothing about AIDS that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. I've had it for 24 years.

was on those organizations, the Catholic church being foremost, that refuse to set aside their religious dictates or concerns and are part of the cause of the problem, rather than any part of the solution. The Catholic church is NOT and never will be an advocate for realistic prevention of AIDS, and we both know it, so how do they fit into your "welcome"?

And I never said that anything about the disease makes anyone feel warm and fuzzy, and you know that too. Apparently you need to lie about what I've said to try to make a point. What you seem to be just fine with is giving a religious organization credit for caring for terminally ill people, when some of them wouldn't have been sick in the first place if not for the specific beliefs, policies and actions of that organization.

There are others willing to step up. And they are stepping up. That was my point. It seems we have similar takes but are talking past each other.

Sorry if I misread your "warm and fuzzy" comment. I didn't mean, nor intend, to lie about anything you've said. And, to tell the truth, it's not about you at all. It's about me.