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)