Blacks & AIDS Newsweek Cover Story

[PerroLoco]

This is very sobering

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12665721/site/newsweek/


This is only a partial aspect of the article, but I beg to differ with this particular reasoning:

"Decades into the epidemic, scientists have made enormous strides in unlocking the disease at the molecular level. Understanding why HIV has taken hold of black America and how to prevent its spread has proved to be no less daunting a challenge. The root of the problem is poverty and the neglect that comes with it—inadequate health care and a dearth of information about safe sex. IV drug use, sexually transmitted diseases and high-risk sex (marked by multiple partners and no protection) have fueled transmission; homophobia and religious leaders steeped in moralistic doctrine have suppressed honest conversations about how to stop it. All the while, much of black leadership has been slow in responding, only recently mobilizing to protect its community. "



The blame doesn't lie with any third parties who did not participate in the sexual act as part of the transmission.

[DoggyStyle82]

Interesting passage from the article



Nowhere is the need for change greater than in the black church. "It is the center of turning this crisis around," says Pernessa Seele, founder of the Balm in Gilead, which began mobilizing clergy in Harlem in 1989 and now works with 15,000 churches nationwide. The challenge is getting church leaders to acknowledge sexuality, not preach against it. "Too many pastors are still stuck on theological doctrine. They have not been able to see the suffering," says Seele. Progress is being made little by little. The Rev. Doris Green, of the AIDS Foundation of Chicago, has been pounding on pulpits for years. Some churches have shut their doors; others have braved the challenge. One even "did a condom demonstration in the church with a dildo!" says Green. "That blessed my heart."



Doesn't the church promote safe sex every Sunday?



"But some of the reluctance also comes from a combination of denial and disgust. For taking on AIDS means openly talking about things that many people, particularly those who are culturally conservative, find exceedingly distasteful or discomforting. Sex, drugs and men having sex with men are "taboo subjects" to many blacks, observes Jatrice Martel Gaiter, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, D.C. "I think the black middle class has almost totally rejected this issue—as if they are excluded from it, or embarrassed by these people," she adds. Tracie Gardner, the director of policy, Women's Initiative to Stop HIV-NY (WISH-NY) at the Legal Action Center, agrees. Many blacks in leadership positions would prefer that "somebody else ... over there" deal with AIDS, she says. For politicians worried about constituents' reactions, embracing the AIDS battle can seem fraught with peril—especially today, when political hay is to be made by standing up for so-called traditional values and morality. Many politicians "don't want to touch the issue" because they fear people will think they are "pro-gay-rights," says Rep. Artur Davis, Democrat of Alabama.

Gaiter finds such attitudes not just troubling but profoundly immoral. Religious leaders, in her view, have a responsibility "to preach about this from the pulpit, to write about it, to have an AIDS ministry." But more often than not, she believes, the black church is silent. In an age when prostitutes—at least in certain areas of Washington—are paid twice as much for sex without a condom as with, and unsafe sex is rampant among teens, Gaiters argues that reticence can kill."

[AXEAM]

So it's the Church's fault that some people choose to engage in unwise and unsafe behavior....and the part about an aids ministry..please...what next a child molestration ministry.

[DoggyStyle82]

Originally posted by AXEAM
So it's the Church's fault that some people choose to engage in unwise and unsafe behavior....and the part about an aids ministry..please...what next a child molestration ministry.

Bruh, that is what amazes me!!! How can you blame the church for not doing anything when if you were doing what the Church said, you would not be afflicted. Why should the Church be teaching you a "safe" way to do what is against God's will?


The one dude named Alijah.....what woman/women is sexing him? What can the "Church" do about his behavior or those that consort with him? About crack whores and their patrons? About prisoners who have sex with each other? About adulterous husbands? Down low brothers? I think that the Church teaches and preaches and warns against all of these behaviors.

What the advocates in these articles really want is an acceptance of and de-marginalzation of homosexuality by the Church.

The focus needs to be on preventing the self-destructive, self indulgent behavior of Black Males and Black people in general. Prison seems to be the nexus of this epidemic. Women should not have a relationship of any kind with any man without an up to date aids test. Its that crucial. Prisons should test every prison at the beginning of his sentence and upon release. Condoms should be given out upon request. A condition of their release should be full disclosure forms that they have informed their partners that they have had sexual experiences with men.

I know that I would not date a woman who was a recent partner of an imprisoned man, Trojan or not.

[Wolfman]

Originally posted by AXEAM
So it's the Church's fault that some people choose to engage in unwise and unsafe behavior....and the part about an aids ministry..please...what next a child molestration ministry.

I think that what the article is talking about is the climate of denial and hatred against certain sins that is preached that can actually get in the way of some people coming to true repentance by confession and amendment of life, like the situation of Jesus coming on the scene of the woman caught in adultery and dealing with the evidently hypocritical stance of those comdemning her, and telling her she is forgiven and to leave her life of sin.

[mulattogyrl]

I'm really not understanding. So are you all saying that none of you had sex until you were married? Isn't that God's law? And that people get AIDS as punishment? I hope you're not saying it's still the 'gay man's' disease, because it is not. Clearly in the article they explained this. Is it the fault of the faithful wife if her husband gives her the illness? Should she be shunned from a church because she did follow the laws of the Bible and have sex with her husband? I hope we can see the bigger picture here and realize that it's not the fault of the church that people go astray, but the church has the power to turn these people's lives around with information and accpetance.

[33girl]

Originally posted by Wolfman
I think that what the article is talking about is the climate of denial and hatred against certain sins that is preached that can actually get in the way of some people coming to true repentance by confession and amendment of life

Pardon my crash, but I honestly don't think that is a "black church" issue at all, and I don't think it's right for the article to paint it as one.

[Wolfman]

Originally posted by 33girl
Pardon my crash, but I honestly don't think that is a "black church" issue at all, and I don't think it's right for the article to paint it as one.

There's a grain of truth in what you say:it isn't a "black church issue" b/c it's not being dealt with in a real pastoral way in many black churches, while beneath the surface all kinds of things are going on in churches. There's a real disconnect here in many places. People's lives and souls are at risk. There was a case in my area where one of the top African American pastors died of AIDS and he infected his wife who died, and a couple of mistresses. People just want to put their head in the sand and act if this someone else's problem, while this problem is spiraling out of control.

[33girl]

I meant that the attitude spoken of is just as prevalent in churches that are mostly white as well. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[Wolfman]

Originally posted by 33girl
I meant that the attitude spoken of is just as prevalent in churches that are mostly white as well. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Je comprends! Merci!But the stats tell a different story:the "white church" is not faced with a burgeoning pandemic that is right under its nose, and is the one institution that can have a real and lasting impact.

[mulattogyrl]

Originally posted by Wolfman
There's a grain of truth in what you say:it isn't a "black church issue" b/c it's not being dealt with in a real pastoral way in many black churches, while beneath the surface all kinds of things are going on in churches. There's a real disconnect here in many places. People's lives and souls are at risk. There was a case in my area where one of the top African American pastors died of AIDS and he infected his wife who died, and a couple of mistresses. People just want to put their head in the sand and act if this someone else's problem, while this problem is spiraling out of control.

Very well said.

[DoggyStyle82]

Originally posted by mulattogyrl
I'm really not understanding. So are you all saying that none of you had sex until you were married? Isn't that God's law? And that people get AIDS as punishment? I hope you're not saying it's still the 'gay man's' disease, because it is not. Clearly in the article they explained this. Is it the fault of the faithful wife if her husband gives her the illness? Should she be shunned from a church because she did follow the laws of the Bible and have sex with her husband? I hope we can see the bigger picture here and realize that it's not the fault of the church that people go astray, but the church has the power to turn these people's lives around with information and accpetance.

Where did this interpretation come from?

I know what I said was in no way akin to your thoughts. The premise of both articles was faulty. What the "Church" teaches would prevent AIDS in every scenario that they discussed except for the innocent wife of a down low husband. The Church's job is not to teach people to safely fornicate or to mainstream homosexuality..

The "church" as I know has aids ministries and the 3 gay men in my church choir were never shunned when they got sick. They were prayed for and ministered to and visited in the hospital. This was in the early '90's.

I. nor AXEAM was pointing fingers or assessing blame on gays. Whether we fornicate or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the "Church" is responsible for the irresponsible lifestyle and choices of people who are not adhering to their teachings in the first place. everything that the "Church" teaches, prevents AIDS.

[DoggyStyle82]

Originally posted by Wolfman
There's a grain of truth in what you say:it isn't a "black church issue" b/c it's not being dealt with in a real pastoral way in many black churches, while beneath the surface all kinds of things are going on in churches. There's a real disconnect here in many places. People's lives and souls are at risk. There was a case in my area where one of the top African American pastors died of AIDS and he infected his wife who died, and a couple of mistresses. People just want to put their head in the sand and act if this someone else's problem, while this problem is spiraling out of control.

The "white" church played no role in stemming aids in the community where it was most prevalent, which was white, gay males.

Even the most ardent anti-gay pastors have AIDS ministries in their churches. My current church does not condemn the sufferers, but they don't condone the behavior of how it was acquired, be it straight fornication, drug use, down low, or homosexuality. The Black Church cannot be repsonsible for everything beyond its original mission. That is why all of our black institutions suffer from. The responsibility to be everything to everybody for every issue. The original intent of the orginization loses focus, gets lost or watered down, or overwhelmed. The bigger a church gets, the less Gospel they preach and the more wayward the congregation. No others communities organizations get called on to do more beyond their original intent than Black organizations. All of this hyper-criticism obscures the facts of these problems and where there origins lie and how to effectively deal with them. we are no longer in the MLK era where information was meted out by the Church out of neccessity as the one resource that we all shared.

[mulattogyrl]

Originally posted by DoggyStyle82
Where did this interpretation come from?

I know what I said was in no way akin to your thoughts. The premise of both articles was faulty. What the "Church" teaches would prevent AIDS in every scenario that they discussed except for the innocent wife of a down low husband. The Church's job is not to teach people to safely fornicate or to mainstream homosexuality..

The "church" as I know has aids ministries and the 3 gay men in my church choir were never shunned when they got sick. They were prayed for and ministered to and visited in the hospital. This was in the early '90's.

I. nor AXEAM was pointing fingers or assessing blame on gays. Whether we fornicate or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the "Church" is responsible for the irresponsible lifestyle and choices of people who are not adhering to their teachings in the first place. everything that the "Church" teaches, prevents AIDS.

I agree with you that the church is not responsible for teaching 'safer' sex, but whether or not any of us have sex is the issue, and I'm not just talking about fornication. I'm just trying to point out that if you (not you specifically, everyone) have sex, you're taking a chance with your life, period. The reason I think some people want the black church to address this issue is because the black church can reach so many people, not because a group of people want the church to accept homosexuality, because it's not a 'homosexual' disease anymore. That's all I'm trying to say. Of course this could be the agenda of some people, but that wasn't what I got from the article.

[Wolfman]

Originally posted by DoggyStyle82
The "white" church played no role in stemming aids in the community where it was most prevalent, which was white, gay males.

Even the most ardent anti-gay pastors have AIDS ministries in their churches. My current church does not condemn the sufferers, but they don't condone the behavior of how it was acquired, be it straight fornication, drug use, down low, or homosexuality. The Black Church cannot be repsonsible for everything beyond its original mission. That is why all of our black institutions suffer from. The responsibility to be everything to everybody for every issue. The original intent of the orginization loses focus, gets lost or watered down, or overwhelmed. The bigger a church gets, the less Gospel they preach and the more wayward the congregation. No others communities organizations get called on to do more beyond their original intent than Black organizations. All of this hyper-criticism obscures the facts of these problems and where there origins lie and how to effectively deal with them. we are no longer in the MLK era where information was meted out by the Church out of neccessity as the one resource that we all shared.

Brother, that is a stupefying assertion, akin to Jesus saying that the sick, the poor and the demon possessed wasn't his business. His job was to get to the cross as quick as possible. But once we realize that His mission was to destroy the work of the enemy, which held sway over all the nation (and the world) and not just a certain sphere, then we see the wholistic mission of the Kingdon of God. When we look at the church as some sort of sociocultural or political institution then we denude it, and transform it into what human beings want it to be for our own purposes. This is similar to what the slave owners said when they and their supporting pastors asserted that the church was to save the slave's souls so that we could use them as chattel, obeying God.Our ancestors knew this was a lie, revealed to them from God, and stood in the truth of God.