Sex, Lies, and ... Religion?

by Gina L. Diorio

Few would argue that one of the most sacred responsibilities of churches and synagogues is teaching the difference between right and wrong and encouraging moral behavior. Yet, for some religious organizations, talk of morality has become unacceptable if it interferes with a “do what feels good” doctrine – regardless of the consequences of that doctrine.

Case in point: the approach several religious organizations are taking – or, perhaps more accurately, not taking – in addressing the immoral behaviors that often cause HIV/AIDS.

To set the stage – today marks the 20th anniversary of World Aids Day, a day when, as stated by the World AIDS Campaign, “individuals and organizations from around the world come together to bring attention to the global AIDS epidemic.”

According to Aids.gov, a website of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, over 33 million people worldwide are living with HIV/AIDS. In the United States alone, that number stands at over one million. And the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that about one in five people living with HIV in the US “is unaware of his or her infection and may be unknowingly transmitting the virus to others.”

While HIV can be transmitted from person to person in several ways, including through getting a blood transfusion from an infected person or sharing needles with a drug user who is HIV positive, one of the most common ways the virus travels is through having sex with a person who has HIV. And as the Mayo Clinic confirms, having unprotected sex with multiple partners is a risk factor for contracting HIV/AIDS. 

Additionally, according to the CDC, among infections in males that occurred in the United States in 2005, 71 percent occurred in homosexuals. Indeed, the CDC notes, “In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM).

It’s no secret that abstinence is the most effective method of preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS. Despite policy arguments against teaching abstinence, even the US Department of Health and Human Services’ AIDS.gov website admits the truth: “Abstaining from (not having) sex is the most effective way to prevent HIV transmission.”

It’s also no secret that according to the teachings of both Christianity and Judaism, both homosexuality and sex outside of marriage constitute immoral behaviors.

Yet, despite the facts – and in defiance of their own doctrines – some leaders within these religious traditions are now calling for a “nonjudgmental” approach towards risky behaviors that open the door to HIV/AIDS transmissions.

According to a CNSNews.com article by Pete Winn, “Religious leaders and AIDS activists” say “that labeling sex outside of marriage as sinful or having multiple partners as immoral behavior is ‘biased’ – something society has ‘moved beyond.’”

Indeed, Winn reports that the Rev. Michael Schuenemeyer, executive for health and wholeness advocacy for the United Church of Christ, “said the church should be ‘nonjudgmental’ when it comes to HIV/AIDS” and “called on churches and ‘faith perspectives’ not to engage in what he called ‘stigma’ and ‘discrimination’….”

Here is the transcript from CNSNews.com’s interview with Schuenemeyer:

CNSNews.com: Let me ask you this: Outside of medical accidents -- like blood transfusions or children born to HIV-positive mothers -- is it possible for an unmarried person to contract HIV without basically someone committing an immoral act?

Rev. Michael Schuenemeyer, United Church of Christ: I think your question exemplifies why we are struggling with stigma and discrimination in our culture, because it betrays a bias about what is moral and immoral. So, I think we’ need to take a public health approach; we need to be nonjudgmental when we speak to people and we need to make sure people have accurate information.

Stigma and discrimination keeps people from getting the information that they need. It’s often fear-based. And when people are faced with judgment they don’t get what they need to respond effectively. So I think we need to take much more of a public health approach for their concern.

It’s not about whether people are engaging in moral or immoral acts, that’s a personal judgment that is being made. It’s about realizing what behaviors cause transmission and preventing those behaviors.

CNSNews.com: Isn’t ‘having multiple partners’ one of the major causes or routes for acquiring HIV, and doesn’t your religion label that as promiscuity or immorality? Shouldn’t religions counsel against sexual immorality?

Rev. Schuenemeyer: (No response.)

Furthermore, Winn reports that Ruth Messinger, president of American Jewish World Service, “said labeling behavior as sinful was ‘an issue back in the history of HIV/AIDS in America’…” and she stated, “I think all secular groups, all service organizations, and all religious organizations have moved beyond that.”

Winn writes:

At a telephone news conference in advance of World AIDS Day, AIDS activist groups and representatives of various religious groups said that counseling teens and others to be abstinent and restricting sex to marriage just isn’t “realistic,” and called on churches and the incoming Obama administration to deal with HIV/AIDS in a “truthful” and “medically accurate way.

Religion aside (for this paragraph only…), the “medically accurate” truth is that the most effective way to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS is to not engage in the risky behaviors that are known to transmit the virus. 

But even more disturbing than policymakers’ ignoring the medical truth in order to cater to the “kids are going to do it” determinism – a faulty philosophy that has become common in recent years – is the willingness among religious leaders to reject the tenets of their own faith in order to cater to the moral relativism propagated by these same policymakers and activists – even when it means sacrificing the health and lives of countless others in the process.

Churches and synagogues are supposed to be moral compasses for people of faith. Instead, they have lost their own way.

But as disturbing as this is, it really comes as no surprise. Jesus himself said that the Pharisees of his day taught as doctrines the commandments of men (Matthew 15:9). And when His disciples cautioned Him that the Pharisees were offended by His words (15:12), Jesus replied, “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (15:14).

Religious leaders who argue that teaching morality is a thing of the past are substituting the “commandments of men” for Truth. If they are not willing to shoulder the unpopular burden of speaking the truth to their faith’s followers, then perhaps another line of work would be more conducive to their cowardice.

No doubt many will be offended by these words. But to them I simply say that this will be neither the first nor the last time that the Truth offends.

###

Gina L. Diorio is a full-time freelance writer. Please visit her website at www.LibertyWritingSolutions.com.