HIV/AIDS in Africa is mainly spread via promiscuity. Of course, those who don't wish to view the negatives of promiscuity upon all humanity point almost solely to the lack of condom distribution and promotion and use. Condom use can reduce transmission, but it does not remove all the negatives associated with promiscuity. The lack of self-restraint spreads into all walks of life via greed, violence, sexual depravity that are all forms of selfishness.

Rather than focusing also upon the problem of promiscuity, those who wish to continue in that behavior and to deny that people have the ability to overcome temptation will rather only emphasize condom use and AIDS treatment.

AIDS treatment is not free. In the industrialized nations, it is very expensive since patented medicines make up the bulk of the treatment. They have been cheaper in India for instance, because generics were developed and made available in contravention of patent-protection law. The patent holders have been working out deals with India as a compromise so the patent holders may continue enriching themselves at the direct expense of the sick.

Poorer nations have approached the problem differently one from the next. Some nations have put most of their energies into education followed by condom use and inexpensive medical treatments. South Africa, however, took a different approach that was struck down by South Africa's highest court.

Science is not the end-all-be-all; however, it is evil to deny mundane cause and effect. I know the spirit heals. I know it does so directly proportionate with faith and worthiness. I know that this is both an individual and collective phenomenon. However, even though I realize this, I would not tell anyone that HIV and AIDS are not directly linked. I would not tell anyone that people are coming down with AIDS by other than HIV infection. Doing so is evil.

If anyone wishes to discuss the generalized and particular evils that contribute to the spread of HIV, that is right and proper; however, to do so while at the same time misleading souls into believing that AIDS does not follow from HIV infection is either woefully ignorant or criminally responsible or both.

South African High Court Rules Against AIDS Denialitsts
by James Murtagh Page 1 of 1 page(s)

Victory for the rule of law and the scientific governance of medicines. South Africa has been devastated by the Twin Epidemics of Aids and Ignorance.

South Africa- Yesterday, June 13, the South African High Court handed down a landmark judgment in a court action against AIDS denialist Matthias Rath and the Government of South Africa. Global health advocates have hailed this decision as a landmark against the twin epidemics of AIDs and Ignorance that has swept South Africa. It is hoped this decision will be the end of the pseudoscience known as "AIDs Denialism"- that is, the idea that somehow HIV is not the cause of AIDs. This theory has been promoted by the South African President Thabo Mbeki, as an excuse to avoid providing anti-retroviral treatments to his citizens.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Civil government is, by its nature, often amoral; even frustratingly so.

      It took me a long while to recognize any justice in the proposition that state use of violence increased civil incidence by legitimizing it; even capital punishment for murder.

      Statistical analysis of violence in states which do and those which do not use the death penalty is alleged to indicate that effective restraint of a population is a function of restraint of government. Fulfilling the desire for a stable society then becomes a function of restraint - even compassion !

      I won't comment on the morality of promiscuity except to note it's a risky business for the participants. If one's idea of 'sin' is linked to behavior yielding undesirable results it certainly qualifies.

      What is distressing is the idea that sermonizing against it should become preferred policy over results-oriented tactics. That has been the dysfunctional U.S. stance for some time : which results in many deaths which should be seen as preventable.

      Is that, if not murder, a culpability in slaughter ?

      It seems Pharisees, too, we shall have with us.

    • Hello again John, opit,

      I wanted to comment directly concerning your statement, "What is distressing is the idea that sermonizing against it [homosexuality] should become preferred policy over results-oriented tactics."

      The problem is with inconsistent sermonizing. The problem is with the supposed high standard in some things and low standard in others. What I mean is that on one hand you have the state saying not to be promiscuous while on the other you have it using sex to breakdown people: Abu Ghraib and all the other dark places used by the U.S. and God only knows (literally) how many other nation-states. You have the state, as you correctly pointed out, using the death penalty while the major advocates of the death penalty are often the same ones who chant the loudest against abortion and who chant the loudest for war.

      The problem is inconsistency. The youth are befuddled at an extremely tender age now. It gets worse with each succeeding generation.

      What we need is consistency (the removal of hypocrisy).

      Frankly, the synthetic hormones the greedy corporatist pump into the food, especially milk and beef, is causing precocity. Girls are having their first periods at nine and ten. When you and I were little, they weren't starting often until 16. That's a huge difference. Of course, all the sexual advertising and gratuitous sex on TV and in movies, etc., isn't helping either.

      What do the rabid capitalists think: All for the buck, now. Who cares about posterity? Let them fend for themselves. I want mine now while the getting is still possible because we capitalist are devouring everything (Satanic by definition).

      If we get rid of the garbage in our food; if we have real compassion and love for the kids and clean up the selfish, preying culture; if we give them and ourselves a non-hypocritical message (a la Jesus Christ), it would remove what's ailing the planet. That would be real results. There would be no selfishness, greed, violence, or sexual depravity. Everyone would then know God because you can't get to unselfishness any other way. That's what Jesus meant when he said that he is the only way. His path, the unselfish path, is the only way. He's right.

      If all we do is cave into the lowest standard and pass out condoms, we won't remove the lust for feeding the self over what is good and best for all. Caving into the sexual appetite is practice for caving into other things as well. One can start by caving into violence or greed or sex. They each eventually lead to caving into all forms of evil. The natural abhorrence is conditioned away. Then all the pain and suffering of all the compounded errors sets in. Then people don't even believe they can get out of the hole they've dug with the help of so many others who wanted company in sin. Then the excuses come forth that it's not within human nature to overcome. That I say is a load of dung unfit for fertilizer. Humans can overcome. They can change. They can do a root overhaul. It's radical, and it's right.

    • "Caving" would indicate a prior commitment to abstinence. That is not a fact in evidence.

      We are talking a basic instinct here : a primal drive.

      Haranguing gets the respect it deserves : not much. Outcome : death.

      That is, I know, the 'wage of sin'. How are we dealing with 'Good News' in this situation, a commitment to overcoming the harshness of Judgment, a sin itself when taken up by man ?

      Or did you somehow think you were dealing with errant Christians instead of people with a plethora of competing beliefs ? Note the kicker. If all we do is pass out condoms...

      That's paternalistic. Can't you see it taking away their choice ?

      Urging is one thing. Enforcing is another.

    • Hello opit,

      "'Caving' would indicate a prior commitment to abstinence." I meant caving into other than heterosexual, monogamous, sex. I realize many people don't think much anymore of heterosexual, monogamous marriage until death of the flesh. However, the kind of loyalty involved in keeping one's self only to one spouse for life is a bond similar to all proper bonds. Violate it, and it is easy to violate all solemn bonds. It is easy to be dishonest in all sorts of things. Then we have locked doors, weapons, adversarial courts, and on and on. Of course it doesn't have to start with being dishonest in marriage. Dishonesty outside marriage can creep into dishonesty in marriage. Again, it's a matter of consistency. It's a matter of doing away with hypocrisy. I hope that clears it up.

      As for instinct and primal drive, no one seems to be alive who knows and can tell us exactly what it's like to grow up without having heard of sex. We really don't know how powerful the urge is without cultural stimulus. Of course, once it gets going, it's addictive in many ways. There are also all sorts of peer pressures that enter into to it. There are forces at work that have never been properly described.

      I understand what you're saying about haranguing, but it wouldn't come off as haranguing if so many people weren't so down right disingenuous in facing all the issues together rather than just the ones they want to sort of face. Humanity is never going to solve its problems piecemeal. It's all or nothing. Selfishness is the plague.

      If there were no selfishness, there really wouldn't be any rapes or child abuse of any form. There really wouldn't be any locks. No one would be so selfish as to take what he or she should not. Each would be invited to partake of what there is and each would take only so much such that all would have a proper share as needs befit. With that attitude, the bounty would pour in. There would be no so-called externalities. All would be good.

      As for dealing with the Good News or Gospel, the Good News is for those who will accept the spirit I'm describing. The Good News isn't for those who reject it. They don't hear anything good in it. They don't hear good in what Jesus said. They reject it.

      As for harshness of judgment, it is a sin when taken up by man. I agree. I'm not condemning anyone. I'm warning. I'm not coercing others. I'm not waging wars of violence to get others to do as I tell them or else. I'm not cursing anyone. I want God to bless everyone with the truth that is unselfishness. I'm looking for people to change the whole rotten system from top to bottom and side to side, from greed-based to giving and sharing based.

      To Hell with usury. To Hell with money. To Hell with taxes. Who would need money and private profit if we all had only the community spirit a barn raising all the time and where we all own all the barns together, so to speak? No one would need money for anything.

      That's why I've called for the return of the Commons. We can't have a real Commons though were people are going to be engaging in harmful behaviors that will throw the whole thing out of whack and right back toward what we ought to have been leaving behind.

      I am under no illusions about how few errant Christians there are even now. It's way out of favor with the masses. They are sick of the apostates who have been running things since only a couple of generations after Jesus left the Earth. They don't see the alternative of getting back to the real Christian spirit. They haven't been exposed enough to that idea. It's been covered over on purpose by the church leaders and those who hate the churches.

      The problem is that the real word has not been out there. It's not out there because people don't realize that all that's holding it back are their hearts, their conditioning, their fear not to be conformists to the current popular culture, etc.

      "Note the kicker. If all we do is pass out condoms...
      That's paternalistic. Can't you see it taking away their choice?"

      You mean that if I don't give someone a condom I'm denying him his choice? I'm not stopping anyone from manufacturing condoms, obtaining them, or using them. I'm not coercing. If I don't supply someone with his nuclear weapon, am I denying him his choice? No, I'm not. I'm opposed to nuclear weapons and all weapons. I'm not going to have any to give away. I don't support weapons makers, but I don't go bombing them to stop making them either. It wouldn't be the Golden Rule. It would be the exact wrong example. If I were to hand out condoms, I'd be saying "go do it, just wear it." However, I don't want to encourage "go do it" for the reasons I've stated above about sending the wrong message. I don't want to echo the popular culture because the popular culture is spewing selfishness, which is not good for children or adults.

      The idea behind handing out condoms is that people can't control themselves. Well, then why are we protesting the occupation of Iraq. The neocons just can't help themselves. They can't control themselves. We might as well be silent. However, I agree with Ezekiel. "But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand." — Ezekiel 33:6

      The sword represents the consequences of error, all error, including sexual. If I know and say nothing, I'm responsible.

      I don't come to that conclusion because I'm afraid of the consequences for myself. I come to the conclusion because we are all responsible for each other. When a man abuses his children and tells me it's none of my business, he's wrong. We're all relatives. He's my relative abusing my relatives. What kind of love of enemy or stranger can I have if I turn my back and pretend it's none of my business?

      Can I go do violence on him to get him to stop? Many would think so, but that's not the way. The way is to reach his heart with the information about why he's the way he is (he's been abused and is acting out on others what was done to him in one way or another) and how it can be if he changes. That's what Jesus did for thousands, but they were much more receptive in his day.

      The day is getting late though, and the hour is coming for great darkness before the brightest light returns.

    • I'm not so sure it's just the food. [At any rate, do those changes show up in the Third World ?] I don't hear of municipal water systems testing for and filtering agricultural chemicals and pharceuticals : even if such were possible.

      Groundwater contamination throughout the Mississippi River basin by CAFOs ( intensive stock feeding operations ) has been covered by Grist, BlueBloggin, Berry Street Beacon and a slew of others.

      Your 'cave' comment is a false justification for controlling other people's access to birth control and medical safety technology. I don't agree with the Roman Catholics on their paternalism and see a clear difference between choices I make for myself according to my own beliefs and imposing them on others of far different and diverse opinions. I have no mandate that 'my brother' needs coercion because he was designed too badly to think for himself.

    • Hello opit,

      Of course it's more than just the food. The chemical and genetic-engineering invasion is everywhere. Just look at what Monsanto and the other corporations have done. They managed to reverse the trend of the late 1960s and early to mid 1970s. We were really on a roll to clean up the planet and to stop the evil production of chemicals being released before proven safe. The idiot Republicans and the Democrats who went along with it decided that wouldn't be good for big business. So look at what we have now: Global warning, huge suicide rates of small farmers in India who were duped by the greedy scum, etc. It's all connected. I don't look at these things disjointedly at all.

      "Your 'cave' comment is a false justification for controlling other people's access to birth control and medical safety technology." Absolutely it is not. I'm talking about people developing the conscience and self-control not to participate in what spreads evil. That's all. It's a matter of choice that comes out from one's heart. I'm not in the system. I'm not running for office. I'm not advocating for any secular laws. I don't understand why you don't see that. Look, if people don't partake, they don't need a prophylactic. Why have sex if not to procreate? That's what sex is designed to do. People want to feed their lusts without the consequences. That's not a good philosophy of life because first they stuff themselves and then search for the antidote. However, it is the very act of devouring in excess that is raping and killing the planet. That's connecting all the dots. To look at it differently is to be engaging in the act of disjointed reasoning, which isn't reasoning at all in the end. It's all broken up. What I want is wholeness: Wholesomeness; health (the real kind that Jesus brought). Technology is only as good as the spirit behind it.

      As for the Roman Catholics, they have been dead wrong for century upon century. They are still dead wrong. The Pope doesn't rebuke George W. Bush. He smiles and holds his hand on a walk through the private garden. It's sick. The Pope doesn't remind me of Jesus. The Holy Spirit is to remind us of Jesus's words: What Jesus called for and is still calling for and will always be calling for. I don't defend the Roman Catholics in their errors. Just do a search on the phrase "Roman Catholics" using the WordPress search on this site. Make sure you click the box for a phrase search. You'll see that I rebuke the Roman Catholic system. The Pope and the Roman Catholic church has been nothing but an extension of the woefully violent, coercive, greedy Roman Empire. They are apologists for Caesar (the huge liar and usurper, Constantine I).

      We are in agreement that neither of us feels a mandate to coerce his brother. Why then are you for coercive, mundane, secular laws mandating things? Don't you see the hypocrisy in your supporting the state making determinations as to who has what rights?

      I'm not of that house. That house is fatally flawed at its roots. It will fall, as it always has. Coercion is not the Golden Rule or New Commandment: The real law. The people clamoring for Barack Obama for instance are totally misplacing their hopes and aspirations. Obama doesn't discuss things to get at root causes and root solutions. He avoids such discussions at all cost. The system is a mess by the direct design of the greedy, violent, depraved ones. The unselfish (who want to live in a giving and sharing world), the ones of total pacifism (who want, among other things, total disarmament), and the ones who are striving for purity of spirit (who rightly reject homosexuality and the other sexual-disease states) are not the problem but part of the solution.

    • Hello opit,

      "...did you somehow think you were dealing with errant Christians instead of people with a plethora of competing beliefs?"

      Well, I am dealing with both errant Christians and people with a plethora of competing beliefs; however, I'm looking for the lost sheep — proselytizing; evangelizing. I'm looking for people to return and convert. I'm looking for souls who will come together to bring forth the Christian Commons to feed the lambs and sheep (children of God).

      Isn't that the right thing to be working on?



    • You might note, Tom, that sometimes I use leading questions rather than assertion...allowing one to be defensive when uncertain.. a subtle tactic from a sometimes brusque soul.

      Looking at the thread I'm wondering if I posted my original comment for the wrong article !

      Regardless, I had been reading information that made me believe 'religious' doctrine was subverting international public policy by influencing U.S. sponsoring of U.N. programs. In the case of Africa, this included insistence on 'abstinence' coaching as a disease-control measure in the face of clear evidence that it was worse than useless : counterproductive in fact, and a diversion of resources that could have been used to save lives.

      I haven't been chasing down that line of thought in particular, it was just something I kept running into in my wanderings.

      Medical ethics are tricky enough without arm-twisting providers' consciences with demands not in the best physical interests of the needy : not that I am under the illusion that there are not many such considerations.

      But seriously, I trust you more to be aware of the nature of transmitting "Good News" and act on that basis than most ( otherwise, I doubt I'd have been so 'verbose' here ).

    • Hello John (opit),

      To my way of thinking, your question didn't come across as discourteous in anyway.

      When I closed with the question, "Isn't that the right thing to be working on?" (working on the Christian Commons Project), I was speaking in shorthand too. I was suggesting that I can't deal with a plethora of competing beliefs and bring other than the lost sheep back into the fold. I was asking you if you agree.

      People either get it or they don't. I can't force them to change. I can't bring unchanged wolves back into the fold of the sheep. They were never part of it to begin with. Wolves can transform in earnest however. Sheep can go from sheep to wolf and back again. Wolves and sheep can lie down together. It's the ravening part that causes the problems.

      Would the wolf starve before killing one of the flock to devour it to extend the wolf's stay on this fleshly plane? If the wolf were raise in the right spirit, the answer is yes it would self-sacrifice its flesh to do the unselfish thing. Its spirit would be of the enlightened type. Its soul would rise.

      You are absolutely right that there have been many self-styled conservative-Republican Christians pushing for abstinence-only programs in Africa. I too have often run into the false-liberal view criticizing those "conservatives" for it. I'm calling it false-liberal because real liberalism is as Isaiah means it, which is as Jesus shows it. Jesus is not what is termed a liberal Democrat, not even close.

      Nothing along the entire spectrum on which conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats reside will provide the answer. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are on another spectrum entirely.

      Just as with the wolf above, abstinence isn't going to work where the spirit is wrong. The spirit of those conservative Republicans is wrong. It remains ravening. They are coercive. They are militant. They are capitalistic. They are inconsistent. Abstinence is right. It has competition for the hearts and minds and souls of people though. Sex is marketed. It is revved up by ravening souls. It's way over sold. I don't mean by capitalism only, although that capitalistic spirit is close kin with all the other manifest forms of the ravening spirit in general.

      If I were to go to Africa and hand out free condoms while telling people condoms help prevent the spread of AIDS, would I be doing anything that runs contrary to the ultimate solution for all that ails humanity? I would be saying to souls to go ahead and have illicit sex, just be sure to rely on technology rather than overcoming your sexual lust, rather than getting and maintaining self-control over your sexuality.

      This is a message of devouring as much as you want so long as humanity has devised a Band-Aid. It does nothing to get at the root cause, which root cause is the root cause of all the problems that face humanity.

      Overcoming runaway sexual lust is conducive to overcoming runaway appetites of all kinds if put in the fullest context so people will see the connections. It won't come by way of 30-second sound bites.

      Humanity must overcome greed and violence and all harmful behaviors. That's what Jesus calls for. The Good News is that if we do that, God opens the floodgates of Heaven and the real bounty comes pouring out.

      This is a truly holistic view. It is spirit over matter. It won't happen though where there is hypocrisy and doubt on the collective level. That's why the Good News also contains the truth that the righteous will be separated from the unrighteous in the end. Those who refuse to put the good of the whole first, as Jesus does and as Jesus defines the terms "good" and "whole," will be cut off as a consequence of their bad choice. It is survival of the fittest that transcends matter as commonly thought of by the mainstream.

      What I'm calling for is getting at the root cause of it all once and for all. It will happen. It isn't for me to say though how many souls will go one way or the other, toward or away from God's real nature.

      I appreciate that you think I am sincere. I believe you too are desirous for ultimate truth. We both know that there are those who simply say, don't ask the "tough" questions as their way of avoiding truth.

      Jesus does call for us to be perfect, as he defined it.

      This life is a sieve. The materialists, mammon worshippers, and those whose religion is scientism don't get it.

      As for you having been verbose here, that's not my impression.

      Bless you, John,