Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    RE: .0 Please define homophobia. Does that mean fear of gay people
    or disapproval of gay sex?
    
    		Alfred

    Re: .1
    
    See 91.364

        The following is information on RAIN:  Regional AIDS Interfaith 
        Network that is extracted from an article in the current (May/June) 
        issue of _Creation Spirituality_.
        
            RAIN seeks to empower congregations to live their faith through 
        the provision of services for persons living with AIDS and HIV, 
        their families and friends.  It was started in 1989 by a grant from 
        the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in Arkansas, Louisiana, 
        Oklahoma, and Texas to test a model for religious congregations to 
        get involved in working with persons with AIDS.
        
            RAIN Care Teams are composed of volunteers from many religious 
        denominations who, in the service of their client-friends with 
        AIDS, come to share their feelings, dreams, and fears.  In their 
        ministry to persons with AIDS they "wake up" to the pain of 
        homophobia, the injustices in health care delivery, the addiction 
        and denial present in family systems, and the power of the immune 
        systems we all neglect.  Their experiences become the leaven for 
        their entire congregations.
        
            Christian Care Teams describe their work as bringing them close 
        to Christ:  as they eat with persons that society tells them are 
        unclean, touch and hug those whom others refuse to touch.  An 
        Episcopal Care Team member said, "I've always worked in the church 
        and loved it, and I've gotten credit for it also.  This is the 
        first lay ministry I've done that seems to have some risk involved.  
        It feels right somehow."
        
            Persons living with AIDS (PWA's) are all forced by their 
        diagnosis to make the dark journey of fear, pain, and doubts;  they 
        often share this "Via Negativa" with the team members.  As they go 
        through the grief stages, the team walks with them in compassion.  
        Some PWA clients discover unexpected benefits in their new and 
        simpler lives which take on a mystical or spiritual quality.  They 
        become teachers to the team members as they share a suffering so 
        different from their own.
        
            As patients waste away physically, many become clearer 
        spiritually.  Some team members comment on the Christ light in the 
        patients and their suffering.  A week before he died, Stephen asked 
        Care Team members and friends to help him plan his funeral and a 
        party after the funeral.  At the party, a man from the team said, 
        "I think I was closer to Stephen than I've ever been to anyone 
        except my wife and family.  We talked about death, about 
        immortality, about sexuality;  we shared our feelings."
        
            The teams are developing ritual expressions of their outrage at 
        the suffering the PWA's endure and of the healing they see taking 
        place.  RAIN has co-sponsored an Interfaith AIDS march, a spiritual 
        retreat for all HIV positive persons in the Arkansas region, and 
        healing services for PWA's.  At one service, a Jewish Care Team 
        member read from the Hebrew Scripture;  a Methodist read from the 
        Christian Scripture;  a Catholic deacon read the Gospel;  an 
        African American PWA preached the sermon;  an Episcopal bishop 
        celebrated and six denominations joined in the laying on of hands.
        
            Stephen's mother was present for that service and afterwards 
        stated, "AIDS is a terrible disease -- but if AIDS can bring all 
        the faiths together in one service, I will feel my son didn't 
        suffer and die in vain."
        
            This ecumenical, interfaith aspect of RAIN is very significant.  
        It breaks down barriers separating clergy and denominations.  At a 
        typical board meeting, there are clergy from Baptist, Methodist, 
        Episcopal, Presbyterian, Jewish, and Roman Catholic congregations, 
        all listening to each other and sharing their most honest feelings 
        about how RAIN is affecting their dominations and members, and how 
        to continue to fund it without making it a captive to religious 
        bureaucracy.
        
            As the numbers of persons with AIDS continue to grow, and since 
        there is no cure other than educations and prevention, it seems 
        that the RAIN model of education and Care Teams is one for many 
        congregations to look at.  For those who see AIDS as a sign of the 
        weakening immune system of our planet, compassionate Care Teams can 
        be seen as immune system builders.  "Love heals those who give it 
        and those who receive it," seems to best describe this ministry 
        program.
        
            Information packets are available from RAIN, 509 South Scott 
        Street, Little Rock, AK  72202, (501) 375-5908.
        

    Re -1,
    
    Could it be that AIDS is offering us the opportunity to form a spiritual
    solidarity amongst all people and all religions?   I wonder.... 
    
    God's grace works in mysterious, wonderous ways.
    
    Karen

    .5,
    
    I hear you, sensitive soul.
    
    Karen

I, too, hear you.  I will not rush in to defend God or tell you that
you are wrong.

And, no, I do not believe you are demonic by what you have written.

AIDS is not a punishment in my opinion, just as the typhoon and its after
effects on the people of Bangladesh is not a punishment.  I know that some
who bear the name Christian do believe that AIDS is a divine punishment.
I do not.

Allow me to share some information about me with you.

I am a quadriplegic.  At the age of two years, I was diagnosed with a fatal
disease.  Some believe I have been cursed.  Some believe that I am possessed
by Satan.  Some believe God is punishing me.  I know people believe these
things about me because they have told me as much.

I have no clue as to why God has not completely healed me.  And, I wouldn't
wish my life on anybody.  I dislike my circumstances intensely.  At the same
time, I am as certain as Job was about his circumstances that my condition
and life is not sent to me as a punishment from God.

I do not have AIDS.  But, I know and love several people who do.  I point no
accusatory finger at any person with AIDS or any person who is HIV+.

Peace,
Richard

    please see the processing topic, note 9.*
    
    and I beg you to forgive us.
    
    Bonnie

I'm feeling angry and resentful.  Someone I know recently died.  All the
"official" notices indicated that he died after enduring a long battle
with cancer.

I'm angry and resentful because the underlying cause of the cancer was
omitted.  It is a profound indictment against our judgmental society that
people feel it necessary to conceal the cause of someone's death.  It also
implies a sense of shame is attached to certain causes of death.

Worst of all, it is turning a blind eye to a problem that needs to be faced
squarely.

Richard

    RE: .10
    
                     Isn't it sad that those who are prejudiced against
    Gays, now feel that because AIDS (HIV) attacked Gays first, that they
    now have a reason to hate them even more?  Your right Richard, what a
    sad commentary on our "gentle" society.
    
    
    Dave

| Isn't it sad that those who are prejudiced against
| Gays, now feel that because AIDS (HIV) attacked Gays first, that they
| now have a reason to hate them even more?  


	Dave, didn't you know? AIDS is a gay disease! Yeah! Ask any of them.
They'll tell you that! :'-(  



Glen-who-wishes-it-weren't-like-that!

*sigh*

Peace and ((hugs)) to them that needs 'em.

Jim

    A sad commentary indeed... 8^(
    
    Peace and hugs to you br'er Richard and your departed friend; and 
    with Jim, I ask God to extend the same to all "them that needs 'em".
                                
    Karen

    pariah,
    
    Not p*ssed off here.  Our society today is dangerously riddled with 
    moral contradictions on all fronts, imho.
    
    Karen

| Not p*ssed off here.  Our society today is dangerously riddled with
| moral contradictions on all fronts, imho.

	Karen, regardless of anyone's morals, it would still be wrong for
people to look down upon another group who is sick (regardless of the person
[even Sadaam Huissain] or illness) and not really try to find a cure.



Glen

    Glen,
    
    > ...regardless of anyone's morals, it would still be wrong for
    people to look down upon another group who is sick...and not really
    try to find a cure. <
    
    Yes indeed Glen.  I believe it is largely the moral contradictions,
    or shall we say moral differences of opinion, that keep us from being 
    wholly committed to finding a cure.  Just my opinion.  I'd be
    interested in hearing how others may feel.
    
    Karen

    RE: .12 on....Glen & Karen
    
                    I believe its time to stop pointing fingers and allow 
    our society to "heal" from these prejudices.  There is an interesting 
    statement from Karen...RE: "Moral contradictions".  Lord, how many
    times are we going to "shoot ourselves in the foot" before we relize
    that *LOVE*, Gods love and the love he gives us, is the primary law?
    
                    Yeah, Glen, I could say "ITS ALL YOUR FAULT!"...but is
    it?  And even if it is (I don't personally think so) what do we do now?
    Do we go on and "fix" the problem or do we just stay where we are and
    continue to condem large segments of our society because we think that
    *WE* have the only *right* answer.  Well, Christians now have a chance
    to put that love into practice.....and we'll see.
    
    
    Dave

    Re: .13 & .14
    
    Jim & Karen,
    
    	Your hugs are gratefully accepted.
    
    Richard

    Dave .19,
    
    If my notes came across as "pointing fingers" at someone that was not
    my intention.  When I speak about moral contradictions, I can look into
    my own life and see them there.  I think most people harbor these
    contradictions, primarily sourced by fears, fears of the unknown and of
    differences they see among their brothers and sisters.
    
    I agree Dave 110%, that God's love is the primary law.  It is not an
    easy process as we've seen to just "allow society to heal from its
    prejudices."  Each one of us is a strand in the web of society, so it 
    takes a concerted effort for each one of us to heal our own prejudices 
    and fears and as you recommend to show love and compassion to each other.
    
    But I think that one of the biggest problems lies in that we still
    really don't see our neighbor as ourselves.  If we truly did then would
    1 out of 8 children in America go to bed hungry each night?  Would
    thousands continue to die an oftentimes lonely and slow death from
    AIDS?  
    
    I also think a large part of the problem is that we don't accept those
    aspects in ourselves that need healing.  We continue to deny and run
    away from them, because it is *very* difficult to face the pain squarely,
    to deal with the suffering in our own selves.  So we find ways to mask it,
    through compulsive behaviors involving drugs, alcohol, sex, power, etc. 
    And we find ways to deny or condemn it in various segments of society,
    because "out there" we see reflections all the time of our own pain in
    the lives of other people.  And in order to extend ourselves to genuinely 
    help heal and comfort others, we have to not only accept them and their 
    pain, but eventually accept our own.
    
    This is one of the ways I see Divine Grace working in the world. 
    Everything I see points back to healing through compassion, love and
    forgiveness, through seeing our neighbors as ourselves, just as Jesus
    taught time and time again.
    
    Karen

    RE: .21   Karen,
    
    
                       Oh no!  I was not saying your were pointing fingers
    but that the "moral contradictions" you were talking about were in a
    sense "pointing fingers".  sorry for the misunderstanding.  I was
    agreeing with you Karen. :-)
    
    
    Dave

To become a volunteer with S-CAP (Southern Colorado AIDS Project) call
719-578-9092 and ask for an application.  After filling out an application,
there will be an interview, and all volunteers must attend AIDS 101, which
is a two hour presentation.  AIDS 101 covers the nature of the virus,
medical intervention, safe sex, physical and psychological support, and
family dynamics.

Weekly time requirements are three hours per week for buddies, three hours
per week for phone volunteers, and one hour per week for clerical support.

According to S-CAP Director Alan Cook, approximately 50 percent of the
volunteers are gay, but the majority of HIV-positive people and people
living with AIDS in El Paso County are straight.

Peace,
Richard

    In Cicero, Ind., vandals again desecrated the grave of Ryan White, the
    young AIDS victim (sic) who gained worldwide recognition by fighting
    discrimination against those with the disease.  White's 6-foot 8-inch
    gravestone was toppled Friday night or Saturday morning.  It was the
    fourth time his grave had been vandalized.  White, a hemophiliac who
    contracted AIDS from blood transfusions, fought a legal battle for five
    years against school officials who barred him, saying he posed a risk
    to other students.
    
                     - San Jose Mercury News, July 9, 1991

    -1,
    
    *Very* sad indeed.  I can taste Christ's tears.
    
    with aching heart,
    
    karen

re.24

	I find it appalling that someone commit such an act.

	I also find it appalling that anyone would equate this to crucifying
Christ.


Ace

    RE: .26
    
    
                Why else did Christ die for, but young men like this poor
    soul?   
    
    
    Dave

Matthew 25:34-40 (NRSV)
    Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are
    blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the 
    foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was
    thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you
    welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you
    took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."  Then the
    righteous will answer him, "Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry
    and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when 
    was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave
    you clothing?  And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and
    visited you?"  And the king will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as
    you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,
    you did it to me." 

    Dave, Richard, (.27 & .28)
    
    Yes.
    
    I often wonder how this world might change if people did not limit
    themselves to beholding Jesus's birth, life and death simply within 
    its historical context, but rather as an eternal, on-going, living 
    experience.  I know that realization literally changed my life...for 
    the better!  And I know that's what Christ's greatest 'hope' is 
    for us.
    
    Karen
    

 
RE.28

	This scripture refers to the Gentile (v32) unbelievers who are merciful
to the believers and treat them kindly during the great tribulation and obey
the "eternal gospel" which will be preached during that time (Rev 14:6-7). This
judgement is illustrated in Matthew 13:47-50. The goats (the unbelievers who
were not kind to the suffering beleivers in Christ) will be cast into eternal
fire (Matthew 25:41). The sheep (the merciful Gentiles) will receive the reward
of entering into the 1000 year reign of Christ and be under His ruling kingdom
on the the earth.

	This has nothing to do with living humans with a poor humanity, 
desecrating graves.

Ace

re Note 217.30 by LEDS::LOPEZ:

> 	This scripture refers to the Gentile (v32) unbelievers who are merciful
> to the believers and treat them kindly during the great tribulation and obey
> the "eternal gospel" which will be preached during that time (Rev 14:6-7). This
> judgement is illustrated in Matthew 13:47-50. The goats (the unbelievers who
> were not kind to the suffering beleivers in Christ) will be cast into eternal
> fire (Matthew 25:41). The sheep (the merciful Gentiles) will receive the reward
> of entering into the 1000 year reign of Christ and be under His ruling kingdom
> on the the earth.
> 
> 	This has nothing to do with living humans with a poor humanity, 
> desecrating graves.
  
        I see nothing in this Scripture which limits it to applying
        to some future time (obviously, this final sorting takes
        place in the future, but you seem to be implying that it only
        applies to good acts performed in the future).  Besides, our
        God does not change -- if this is how God responds to those
        who help or ignore "the least of my brethren" at ANY time, it
        is how God will regard such dealings for all time.  It is
        certainly unreasonable to suggest that God will disregard
        such acts totally in the present age.

        But the passage in no way limits or applies itself to the Rev
        14:6-7 time-frame.

        Bob

 
>       But the passage in no way limits or applies itself to the Rev
>        14:6-7 time-frame.

	From the same chapter...

	Matthew 25:31-32

	"But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with
Him, then He shall sit on His throne of glory and all the nations shall be
gathered before Him, and He shall separate them from one another, as the 
shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.."

	The time is very clear, the people are nations, etc.

	Principles in scripture can be applied but should be done so carefully.
Applying the Lord's dealing with Israel, the Church, or the Gentiles 
indiscriminately to each other is a gross mistake. Moreso, to equate the
incident in .24 with the crucifixion of Christ may have emotional leverage but
it is way off the truth as revealed in God's Word. That is the point.

Ace

Have we perhaps gotten off track a bit?

Richard, thank you for entering .24, it gives me much to pray for.  The 
incidents described are acts of fear, ignorance, and hate.  

Your title "How long will we continue to crucify Christ?" reminds me that each 
one of us crucified Christ.  We are all responsible.  Every time we act out 
of fear, ignorance, shame, hate, everything that Love is not, then we crucify 
Christ.

Thank you for this sad reminder.

Peace,

Jim

re Note 217.32 by LEDS2::LOPEZ:

>                            -< Emotion but not Truth >-

        Ace,

        If the Lord treats people so harshly that simply fail to give
        a drink to a poor thirsty soul, think how much harsher the
        Lord's judgment will be on those who teach that this is NOT
        how the Lord would judge in such cases!

        Bob

re.34

	Bob,

	The Lord will judge exactly, precisely, and righteously all matters
including this one. His judgements are righteous as they are according to 
Himself, and not according to our human opinions. It is a serious matter to 
mis-represent God or His character, therefore we must seek Him according to 
His written Word, and must not handle His Word loosely. I mean this for me most
of all...

Regards,
Ace  

	

	

                        * For Internal Use Only *

    Stories from CLARInet may not be redistributed to non-Digital
    employees.

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Subject: Mother Teresa: Don't treat AIDS patients as lepers
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 11:01:44 PST

	NEW DELHI, India (UPI) -- Mother Teresa, Calcutta's ``saint of the
gutters,'' pleaded for global compassion toward AIDS victims Friday,
saying it was unjust to treat them like lepers.
	AIDS patients need love and help and it was unfair to isolate them,
the winner of the 1979 Nobel Peace Prizet told the Rotary Club in New
Delhi.
	The Albanian-born Roman Catholic nun reminded her audience that
attitudes toward patients of even leprosy have undergone a radical
change and said it was time that myths about AIDS also were eliminated.
	Mother Teresa, 82, urged people to pray for those who suffer in the
world.
	``Prayer will generate faith and with faith will flow the stream of
love, which in turn will culminate in service to mankind,'' she said.
	According to Indian government and World Heath Organization studies,
India is threatened by a major epidemic of HIV, the virus that causes
AIDS.
	The Indian government, however, has been slow to promote programs for
prevention and screening of AIDS or arrange medical care for patients
with full-blown AIDS.
	The highest incidence of HIV in India has been reported in the port
cities of Bombay and Madras, which have strong links with the Middle
East and Southeast Asia respectively.

READING:  I John 4:15-18

	Our fear of AIDS can cut us off from doing ministry.  We hear
the word "AIDS" and we become frightened and irrational.  Our fear
blocks us from trying to understand, so naturally our fear prevents us
from trying to reach out.

	It is important to examine what our fear is base on.  If we
can understand the fear, then we can begin to diffuse its power.

	The first step in overcoming our fear is to know the facts:
the AIDS virus is transmitted through blood and sexual secretions.  It
is not spread in restaurants, swimming pools, hot tubs, or on toilet
seats.

	The second step in overcoming our fear is to put our remaining
insecurity in the perspective of the many uncertainties we face each day.
After all, every new day is filled with risk, yet somehow we manage to
cope.

	How do we handle our fears in general?  Can we apply these same
abilities and realization to our fears of AIDS?

PRAYER:  God of all times and all places, help us surrender our
misconceptions and overcome our fear, so that true ministry for Christ
may begin.  Amen.

READING:  Romans 8:31-39

	To minister to people living with AIDS is to minister to
stigmatized, isolated, and lonely people.  It is common knowledge
that men, women, and children with AIDS have been denied surgery,
dental work, and routine health care; within the larger church,
they at times have been shut off from counseling, communion, last
rites, and church funeral or memorial services.  People living
with AIDS also are being discriminated against in the areas of
employment, insurance benefits, education, and housing.

	Try to imagine yourself as a person living with AIDS who
is reading the Bible.  What does the passage from Romans says to
you about God's love?  If God can love unconditionally, shouldn't
we try to do the same?

PRAYER:  God our Companion, we thank you that nothing can separate
us from your love in Christ Jesus, our Savior.  Amen.

READING: Luke 9:1-2

	The ministry of Jesus among outcasts reveals the boundless love
and grace of God in solidarity with the broken and isolated.  The Gospels
include abundant stories of Jesus' compassionate concern for the sick and
of his mighty acts on their behalf.  The result:  "Great multitudes
gathered to hear and to be healed of their infirmities." (Luke 5:15)

	Jesus reached out to heal those who were denounced and despised
by the public, those whom the public feared because of the possibility
of contagion.  Jesus ministered gently and tenderly to those whom
society had forgotten.  Jesus offered new hope to those who believed
themselves no longer worthy of love.  He touched the untouchable, ate
with the friendless, conversed with the forsaken.  Jesus also commissioned
the 12 disciples and the 70 disciples for ministries of healing.

	Just as Jesus commissioned the 12 (Luke 9:1-6) and the 70 (Luke
10:9) to heal, Jesus commissions us as well.  What could you be doing to
provide ministry and care to persons living with AIDS, their caregivers,
and their loved ones?

PRAYER:  Great Healer of the body and the soul, help us bring healing
to others however and wherever we can.  Amen.
    

"He was born blind so that God's power might be displayed in curing him"
(John 9:1-11)

The the passage from John, Jesus saw a man blind from his birth.  His disciples
asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents. that he was born
blind?"

"It is not that this man or his parents sinned," Jesus answered.  "He was born
blind so that God's power might be displayed in curing him"

It is clear from this exchange that Jesus' disciples shared the common belief
that suffering is always attributed to sin, in this case, either the sin of
the parents or of the person himself.  Jesus denied that this is always true,
and he shifted the attention from the cause to the purpose.  Jesus said,
"Here is an opportunity for God to act."

One of the cruelest, yet most common, statements made about people with AIDS
is, "They brought it on themselves."  This can at times be true, but people
drink, smoke, eat and work themselves to death in staggering numbers also,
and we don't forsake them.

Jesus calls us to shift our attention from cause to purpose.  In the face
of the AIDS crises, Jesus, in the spirit of John 9, would ask, "What is our
opportunity to act? not, "Who is to blame?"

PRAYER: Steadfast and loving God, help us to accept people as they are. Amen
    

    In Christian theology, suffering and death are consequences of original
    sin, namely the disobedience of Adam and Eve to the command of God. 

    Consistent with that view is the observation of Jesus that blindness is
    not the consequence of personal sin but of the nature of man to suffer
    and die.

    There may be cases of people deliberately blinding themselves.  I don't
    know of any.

    There may also be cases of people engaged in behavior that had the
    direct effect of blinding someone with a reckless disregard for the
    risk of blindness which a rational person would have avoided.  In this
    first and second case, one can assign moral responsibility for the
    offense.  This is what one means by "blame".

    There are also many, many cases where blindness is the result of
    accident or disease.  One doesn't assign moral responsibility for this
    third case. Such a person is said to be blind without "blame".

    Moral responsibility for the consequences of actions which one takes
    (ie "blame") is part of AIDS as much as it is for any other act of
    will with unintended consequences.
    
    God's mercy is abundant.

	Richard, your last few notes were really great. Thanks for putting it
into words. :-)



Glen

    
    Yes, Richard.  Thanks for posting those notes.  The church at large
    needs to learn how to minister better to people with AIDS who I
    believe are being treated more like modern day lepers.  The church
    can make a difference.  We must be educated and accepting of a 
    person hurting and in need.  We don't have to agree with a lifestyle.
    We just need to have compassion as Jesus would have.
    
    Jill

    
    
    Jill:
    
    There is no "lifestyle" associated with getting AIDS.  I know people
    who have AIDS who slept with multiple partners.  I know people with
    AIDS who were faithful to their partner, but their partner wasn't
    faithful to them.  I know people with AIDS who were exposed to HIV
    through blood transfusions.  I know people with AIDS, babies, who were
    exposed to HIV via their mother.  I know people with AIDS who were/are
    drug addicts.  There is no lifestyle involved.  It's a virus, no more,
    no less.
    
       GJD

There is a lifestyle associated with AIDS.  It is not 100%
that to have AIDS you must have this lifestyle.  But it is
certainly over 90%.  This lifestyle includes one or more
of the following

	- intraveneous drug user
	- active homosexual

  (these 2 categories still account for over 80% of the reported
  cases in the U.S.  Last I read it was 86% but it continues to
  decline.)

	- sexually active with multiple partners

The truth of the matter is that you are much more likely to get
struck by lightning than to get AIDS if you and your partner
have had and continue to have a monogomous relationship.  This
is the lifestyle associated with not getting AIDS.

You pick your lifestyle and the consequences (or lack thereof)
will tend to follow.

Collis

    I'm not sure if the word "lifestyle" applies here anyway.  There is
    probably a "lifestyle" associated with every infectious disease but it
    isn't meaningful to discuss them this way.
    
    All new cases of AIDS can be divided into two groups:
    
    Most of the cases: the infected person engaged in high risk behaviors
    (ie IV drug use, sexual intercourse with a person with whom he or she
    should be be conscious of the risk of transmission of AIDS) 
    
    Fewer and fewer of the cases: the infected person didn't engage in high
    risk behaviors (ie he or she inherited the disease or obtained it from
    a blood bank or had sexual intercourse with a person with whom he or
    she was not conscious of the risk of transmission of AIDS, such a
    person typically is a spouse)
    
    The Christian response to AIDS should be like any other disease:
    spiritual in the form of prayer, and practical in the form of
    alleviation of suffering to the extent that is possible.
    
    AIDS is linked to behavior, not to attitude.

I agree with you, Patrick, that we are to love and support
all people certainly including those with AIDS.

However, the misinformation that I seeing pushed demands a
response.  AIDS is a disease that is caught through tainted
blood (which includes IV drug-use) and sexual activity with
someone infected.  To suggest that these behaviors are not
indicative of a lifestyle is absurd.  We're not talking about
the common cold here.  We're talking about a disease that,
although very deadly, is *very* hard (some would say impossible)
to pass on without engaging in a very few activities.  Put
someone else's infected blood into your body.  Engage in
sex with someone who is infected without proper protection
(which I would argue does not truly exist).  People who are
celibate and never get anyone else's blood on themselves are
essentially risk-free.  At least, I don't know of any documented
cases that have shown otherwise.

This epidemic is one of the most containable and controllable
that we know.  The fact that we don't contain and/or control
it is a testimony to our choices, not to the disease which dies
very easily outside of the body.

Collis

| <<< Note 217.45 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON "Roll away with a half sashay" >>>


| - active homosexual
| - sexually active with multiple partners

	Collis, me thinks someone who has multiple partners is what should be
stated. An active homosexual doesn't equal AIDS. In other words, any two
noninfected homosexuals can have sex, even unsafe sex and not ever get AIDS as
long as they aren't sleeping around. Unsafe sex does not = AIDS, having sex
with someone who is infected does. 




Glen

I stand by what I wrote; it is accurate as written.

Perhaps you do not wish to acknowledge the fact that 
those engaging in homosexual sexual activity have a
much higher incidence of AIDS than those engaging in
heterosexual activity.

It's interesting that I included both, but you only
wish to deny the one with a higher incidence of infection.

Collis

    
    
    Right, uh-huh.
    
    The baby that died in my friends arms a couple of years ago was a
    homosexual, intervenous drug user.  Sure, uh-huh.
    
    ****************
    
    It is interesting, though Collis, that you used the phrase "in this
    country" (or something like it).  You are aware, of course, that about
    95% of those persons with AIDS on the continent of Africa are NOT
    gay, right?  
    
       GJD

The remarks our good friend Collis made in 217.45 are accurate, as far as
I can tell.

They're also clinical, detached and judgmental.

Richard

| I stand by what I wrote; it is accurate as written.

	Collis, world wide heterosexuals are the group most infected. It is
just in this country (and I think one other, but I could be wrong) that AIDS
has hit the homosexual community the hardest. So for you to say:


	Perhaps you do not wish to acknowledge the fact that those engaging in
	homosexual sexual activity have a much higher incidence of AIDS than 
	those engaging in heterosexual activity.


	It has NOTHING to do with me not wanting to acknowledge anything, it
has to do with stating all the facts. AIDS doesn't care if you're gay,
straight, white, black, whatever. If you have unprotected sex with an infected
person you run a high risk of contracting the HIV virus. You can have any type 
of sex you want with an uninfected person and you will NOT contract the HIV 
virus. So when you say:


                           - intraveneous drug user
                           - active homosexual

	  (these 2 categories still account for over 80% of the reported
	   cases in the U.S.  

	You aren't including ALL of the facts. By what you have said I got the
impression that if someone has homosexual sex they have a good chance of
contracting AIDS. Is this what you meant? If so, it is false. Anyone can engage
in homosexual sex and not get AIDS IF their partner is HIV-.  So, was that what
you meant?


| It's interesting that I included both, but you only wish to deny the one with 
| a higher incidence of infection.

	Deny? No. Correctly catagorize, yes. Let's deal with ALL the facts.
When you said:



	- sexually active with multiple partners




	You hit the nail on the head. This is one sure fire way that one could
contract the HIV virus. It don't matter who you are.....




Glen

Well,

I'd have to quibble there.  I believe that the catagory of "sexually active 
with multiple partners" includes those "active homosexuals" who are at risk.
The catagory of "active homosexual" is unnecessary, or perhaps as equally 
necessary as including "active heterosexuals".  

>The truth of the matter is that you are much more likely to get
>struck by lightning than to get AIDS if you and your partner
>have had and continue to have a monogomous relationship.  

I agree, Collis.  And this part of your note says *nothing* about being a 
hetero- or homosexual relationship.

Peace,

Jim

Glen,

We had a notes collision.  I agree with what you wrote.

Peace,

Jim

Glen,

I have no problem with you providing additional information.
All the facts you provide, however, will only reinforce
my claim that lifestyle is a *VERY* important risk indicator
of getting AIDS.

I seperate out homosexual sexual activity for several
reasons:

  - AIDS was historically present in the homosexual community
    to a much greater degree than the heterosexual community
  - this continues to be the case today (although it continues
    to decline)
  - those sympathetic to homosexuals wish to obscure, ignore
    and/or deny these facts.  In fact, including these facts
    makes me "judgmental" (at least in Richard's opinion).

As best I can tell, it appears that homosexual sexual activity
is more likely to spread AIDS than heterosexual sexual activity.
Perhaps it isn't.  Given the data, though, it's not an unreasonable
hypothesis.

Collis

    
    
    Collis:
    
    The point you fail to recognize, in my not so humble opinion, is that
    the phenomenon of AIDS being spread primarily in the gay-male
    population is quite unique to "western society".  Of the estimated
    12,000,000 people world-wide that have been exposed to HIV,
    approximately 1,000,000 of those are gay.  It's not homosexual activity
    that leads to exposure.  It's unsafe practices that lead to exposure.
    
    I contend that had AIDS manifested itself in the straight population in
    the United States before the gay population, Ronald "I won't say the
    word AIDS" Reagon would have jumped all over the disease and started
    pushing for funding for research much sooner than he did.  The people
    first exposed with, from many people's perspectives, disposable. 
       
        GJD

>    I contend that had AIDS manifested itself in the straight population in
>    the United States before the gay population, Ronald "I won't say the
>    word AIDS" Reagon would have jumped all over the disease and started
>    pushing for funding for research much sooner than he did.  The people
>    first exposed with, from many people's perspectives, disposable. 

    Interesting...

    By trying to suppress AIDS and the homosexual community the
    Republican party has:

	1. radicalized the gay population because they're now
	   fighting for their lives
	2. caused much of mainstream America and the media to
	   take a sympathetic view of both gay people and
	   those stricken with AIDS.

    Wow.  Ronald Reagon may be, in the long run, the best thing 
    to ever happen to homosexuals.

    Tom

re Note 217.57 by THOLIN::TBAKER:

>     Wow.  Ronald Reagon may be, in the long run, the best thing 
>     to ever happen to homosexuals.
  
        Well, (pause) there a lot of people who would agree that
        Ronald Reagan was one of the best things to happen to America
        recently.

        Bob

Re:  .56

I recognize all of what you say (assuming it is accurate).

I also recognize why you desire to minimize the association
of homosexuals to the early spread of this disease.

Collis

    I think that the behaviors that cause the transmission of HIV need to
    be focused on, not the politics of it.

    Read accounts of the first critical years after it was known that  AIDS
    was spread by the exchange of body fluids, to the regret of everyone
    today, time and energy that could have been used to educate people and
    discourage those behaviors was wasted on disruption, harassment, and
    litigation of the medical establishment, government, and churches.
    
    Rage isn't going to cure AIDS.
    
    Even today, condoms and clean needles are used as the props to permit a
    "choice" in people who need or believe they need those behaviors to
    continue.

.55, Collis, old friend,

From your .45:

>You pick your lifestyle and the consequences (or lack thereof)
>will tend to follow.

	This last sentence in particular seemed to me to be saying, "You
deserve what you get.  If you gets AIDS, you (more or less) asked for it."
This is what I was referring to in .51 when I remarked that your entry was
judgmental.

	Something else.  Not to quibble, but what about lesbians?  Don't
at least *some* lesbians fall under the classification "active homosexuals"?

Peace,
Richard

| <<< Note 217.59 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON "Roll away with a half sashay" >>>




| I also recognize why you desire to minimize the association
| of homosexuals to the early spread of this disease.

	Collis, please, tell us why Greg (or I) wants to minimize the
assosiation of homosexuals to the early spread of the disease. I could be
wrong, but I think we BOTH have stated right up front that in THIS country AIDS
has hit the gay community first, before the heterosexuals. So I can't see us
really minimizing anything, but are trying to show all the facts as they really
are and not just a version that only works for a small % of those with AIDS. If
we are to talk about the disease, let's talk. If we are to talk about a small
segment, then please, specify that. But, above all, please let us know what it
is we are minimizing and just why we are doing it.




Glen

| <<< Note 217.55 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON "Roll away with a half sashay" >>>



| I have no problem with you providing additional information. All the facts 
| you provide, however, will only reinforce my claim that lifestyle is a *VERY* 
| important risk indicator of getting AIDS.

	Hmmm..... describe lifestyle. We may be talking apples and oranges when
this word is being used. It may clear a lot up. 

| - AIDS was historically present in the homosexual community
| to a much greater degree than the heterosexual community

	Collis, ONLY in THIS country. As Greg pointed out, heterosexuals have
the disease at a much higher level than the gay community. I guess if you had
stated that the homosexual community in THIS country had AIDS strike it first
then there wouldn't be a problem. But, when you use a blanket statement like
you used above then you are distorting the truth of the matter. That would be
like comparing all Christians to David Koesh. It's a false statement that holds
very little water.

| - this continues to be the case today (although it continues to decline)

	Collis, let's look at the new cases that are reported. AIDS has hit the
heterosexual community in this country hard right now. Of the new cases,
heterosexuals have the most. On the good side one reason AIDS #'s are dropping
for the gay community is that more people are playing it safe, finding out what
they are getting into before they actually get into it. The sad part about the
overall number of cases dropping is that many have died. The end result should 
be this, EVERYONE should know what they are getting into BEFORE they get into 
anything. It would make the #'s of new cases drop dramatically (but I do
realize not as much as abstaining would).

| - those sympathetic to homosexuals wish to obscure, ignore and/or deny these 
| facts.  

	Collis, you are presenting these facts you have as the result of the
entire diesease. At least that is how it sounds to me (and from the writings,
many others too). If you want people to recognize your facts, present them as
they should be presented, not in the light of the disease of AIDS has effected
the gay community the hardest.

| In fact, including these facts makes me "judgmental" (at least in Richard's 
| opinion).

	I can see why some would feel this way. You have taken facts that are
for one area and made them into the entire disease. This is distortion! Present
the facts, nothing else and this won't happen.

| As best I can tell, it appears that homosexual sexual activity is more likely 
| to spread AIDS than heterosexual sexual activity. Perhaps it isn't.  Given 
| the data, though, it's not an unreasonable hypothesis.

	It most certainly IS UNREASONABLE! Based on your data you have come to
this conclusion. Based on all of the data it appears that one could say it is
heterosexual sex that is more likely to spead AIDS, not homosexual sex. But the
truth of the matter is that unsafe sex between 2 people who are both not HIV-
could cause someone to contract the disease. 




Glen

Re:  .61

  >This last sentence in particular seemed to me to be saying, "You
  >deserve what you get.

Actually, we deserve much worse than what we get.

My statement is not intended to single out AIDS victims.  It was
a generic principle statement.  We make our choices and then we
have the consequences to deal with.  This is true for those who are
not sexually active as well as those who are.
 
  >Not to quibble, but what about lesbians?  Don't at least *some* 
  >lesbians fall under the classification "active homosexuals"?

Sure.


God is indeed merciful to us.

Collis

    
    
    I do some volunteer work for several different AIDS related
    organizations including one called Bonaventure House -- a home for
    people with AIDS.
    
    I would ask one thing, and only one thing, of people who participate in
    this discussion.  Before you judge, go to such a place.  Talk to these
    people that are dying without the support of their family.  Hold them,
    pray with them.  We've got to stop bickering and starting serving.
    
       Greg -- who lost two friends over the weekend
    
    

    Greg .65,
    
    	My condolences on the loss of your friends.  I, too, have lost
    friends to AIDS.
    
    	At the same time, I am reluctant about seconding your recommendation,
    unless the visitor has truly not come to a judgment.  People with AIDS
    don't need pity, condescension or judgment.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    >>People with AIDS don't need pity, condescension or judgment.
    
      Never has a truer statement been made.  They need love, a helping
      hand, a friend...

>      Never has a truer statement been made.  They need love, a helping
>      hand, a friend...

    and *maybe* even a cure      :-)

    Tom

		       A SERVICE of PROMISE and HOPE

	For those who are living with AIDS.  For those who've died.  For
those who love them.  For those who care for them.  For those who care
about them.  All are welcome.

		          Wednesday, October 13th

			         7:00 PM

Calvary United Methodist Church
4210 Austin Bluffs Parkway
Colorado Springs

Sponsored by S-CAP (Southern Colorado AIDS Project)
             Interfaith AIDS Ministries

                               
    From radio 102.5 FM out of Boston this morning:
    
    	"For men between ages 25-44, AIDS is now the leading cause
         of death, surpassing accidents.  For women in the same age
         bracket, it is ranked as the fourth leading cause of death.
         For the US as a whole, it is now tenth."
    

    I heard a stat recently that I wonder if anyone can confirm.  It was
    said that 82% of all cases of AIDS were a result of a relationship
    outside of marriage.  This has nothing to do with man-man, man-woman,
    or woman-woman issues.  Only that the relationships were outside of the
    marriage covenant.  
    
    If this is factual, people could do a lot better to cling to their
    spouses as Jesus Christ said we should.  Imagine the impact on any
    further cases of AIDS!
    
    Mike

FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything"
Title:  Holy Living for all genders
                                                                                
    If this is factual, people could do a lot better to cling to their
    spouses as Jesus Christ said we should.  Imagine the impact on any
    further cases of AIDS!

It would have zero impact on the 18% that were within a marriage...

Steve

>It would have zero impact on the 18% that were within a marriage...

The 18% were not "within a marriage".

82% were the result of a relationship outside a marriage.

The other 18% would include:

	1. Intravenous drug use
	2. Transfusions (all vectored _back_ to one of the other categories)
	3. If inside a marriage, the result of the _other_ partner having
	   contracted the disease outside the marriage or from categories
	   one and two above.

If the 82% went away, some part of the remaining 18% would go away as well.

/john

	Of course, if we use facts it would help. :-)  Out of the 82% that
happened outside of marriage, how many were done outside of the relationship?
You can hardly use a "marriage" argument to have any meaningful stats when a
big part of society is told they can not marry. 



Glen

 >>   You can hardly use a "marriage" argument to have any meaningful stats
 >>   when a big part of society is told they can not marry.
    
    Doesn't matter Glen.  100% of the 82 percent would have to have at
    least one of the partners NOT be monogamous.  This would explain them
    contracting the HIV.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, this is misleading. The person could have contracted the disease
before they were ever in a relationship. So it doesn't accurately display what
% of people contracted the disease outside of a relationship.

    Then we have to find out exactly how many of these individuals were IV
    drug users of Hemophyliacs (sp?)
    
    -Jack

    the IV and drug users are part of the 18%.  And there isn't any part of
    society that is told they can't marry.  Any person in American can
    marry within the guidelines of the laws of the land and the Bible.
    
    The statistic is a literal one, no need to read things into it.  82% of
    *ALL* HIV cases are a result of a direct rejection of honoring God's
    covenant of marriage.  This includes *ALL* orientations.
    
    Once again, we see what happens when people reject God, kick Him out of
    their lives, and think we can make our own decisions and know what is
    best for us.  If we know so much and are so smart, we sure are doing a
    lousy job of it.  How many times do you have to hurt yourself before
    you realize something is bad for you?  Even toddlers learn after 2-3
    mistakes.
    
    Mike

    
    re:-1
    
    yes, it is true that "any person in America can marry within
    the guidelines of the laws of the land". that was also
    true when i was a boy growing up in Maryland and it was
    illegal for two people of different races to marry.
    
    but while it says something about the legality of the
    situation, it doesn't address the justice or morality
    of the 'guidelines of the laws".
    
    peter

     >>   but while it says something about the legality of the
     >>   situation, it doesn't address the justice or morality
     >>   of the 'guidelines of the laws".
    
    Peter, then the same argument can be made for abortion.
    
    You see, it's all situational ethics!!!!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 217.78 by FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything" >>>

| the IV and drug users are part of the 18%.  And there isn't any part of
| society that is told they can't marry.  Any person in American can
| marry within the guidelines of the laws of the land and the Bible.

	This is really funny. Let's see, what is marriage to me? Two people who
bond emotionally, physically, love each other, be IN love with each other, are 
truthful, caring, forgiving, understanding, willing to work together, etc. If a 
homosexual were to hide who they were, there goes the truthfullness, how can
someone who can't be truthful be seen as caring? Will the bonds that are made
be real, or done because some tell them this is how it should be? Now tell me
anyone can marry, and then tell me that it will be a real marriage. Now tell me
like you mean it.

| The statistic is a literal one, no need to read things into it.  82% of
| *ALL* HIV cases are a result of a direct rejection of honoring God's
| covenant of marriage.  This includes *ALL* orientations.

	Again, it is not a true indication of relationships and AIDS.

| Once again, we see what happens when people reject God, kick Him out of
| their lives, and think we can make our own decisions and know what is
| best for us.  

	Actually, what we have is other's telling people that they have kicked
Jesus out of their lives. Of course these people know what's in the hearts of
these people they've just told pushed Jesus out of their lives.... uh huh....

| If we know so much and are so smart, we sure are doing a lousy job of it.  

	Because we are all human? If we were so perfect, we'd be Jesus.

| How many times do you have to hurt yourself before you realize something is 
| bad for you?  

	I guess when Jesus comes out and says what is/isn't bad, you will have
a leg to stand on. But until then.... 


Glen

>	I guess when Jesus comes out and says what is/isn't bad, you will have
>a leg to stand on. But until then.... 
    
    Ask yourself what they were doing in the days of Noah and Lot and then
    read Luke 17:22-37.
    
    Mike

       >>     Again, it is not a true indication of relationships and AIDS.
    
    
    Glen:
    
    What is the percentage of HIV people acquiring through IV drug usage or 
    blood transfusions.  Probably extremely low!!!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 217.82 by FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything" >>>

| >	I guess when Jesus comes out and says what is/isn't bad, you will have
| >a leg to stand on. But until then....

| Ask yourself what they were doing in the days of Noah and Lot and then
| read Luke 17:22-37.

	The book was written by men with free will. It has errors. It has
inconsistancies. It is NOT the Word of God, Jesus, but of man. (imho)

| -< Jesus already took care of it >-

	I wouldn't be waiting if I thought He already did.


Glen

| <<< Note 217.83 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>

| >>     Again, it is not a true indication of relationships and AIDS.

| What is the percentage of HIV people acquiring through IV drug usage or
| blood transfusions.  Probably extremely low!!!

	As it is with a relationship maybe? 


Glen

>	The book was written by men with free will. It has errors. It has
>inconsistancies. It is NOT the Word of God, Jesus, but of man. (imho)
    
    The historical references to the events in the days of Lot and Noah are
    solid in both the OT and NT.  Jesus' comments on the sin condition of
    these people are in 100% agreement with the rest of God's inspired word
    on this subject.
    
    Mike

Re        <<< Note 217.86 by FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything" >>>
          -< no errors involved with sin during Noah and Lot's days >-

>>	The book was written by men with free will. It has errors. It has
>>inconsistancies. It is NOT the Word of God, Jesus, but of man. (imho)
>    
>    The historical references to the events in the days of Lot and Noah are
>    solid in both the OT and NT.  Jesus' comments on the sin condition of
>    these people are in 100% agreement with the rest of God's inspired word
>    on this subject.
>    
>    Mike

Mike, what references are you talking about, besides other biblical books?  To
my knowledge, there is not a single reference to those events ouside of the
bible.

/Mike

.76>	Jack, this is misleading. The person could have contracted the disease
>before they were ever in a relationship. 
    
    	If they got it before they were in a relationship, then they
    	got it outside of a relationship.
    
    	Gay or straight, it doesn't matter.  If two people remain celibate
    	before joining in a lifetime monogamous relationship, they will
    	not be a part of the 82%.

    Yeah, and that goes for atheists, agnostics, pagans, pants-wetting
    heretics, and the pitifully unsaved.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard...What's the point?

| <<< Note 217.86 by FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything" >>>

| -< no errors involved with sin during Noah and Lot's days >-

	I'm sure you don't mean that the errors happened in other places,
right? Cause then you could not believe that book.

| The historical references to the events in the days of Lot and Noah are
| solid in both the OT and NT.  Jesus' comments on the sin condition of
| these people are in 100% agreement with the rest of God's inspired word
| on this subject.

	Mike, if I had a book, and it had facts about stuff that happened in
the past, and you asked me to prove the book is accurate, would you accept the
book as proof to prove itself? If not, you know why I don't accept what you
wrote above as you would be asking me to do the same.


Glen

| <<< Note 217.88 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>


| Gay or straight, it doesn't matter. If two people remain celibate before 
| joining in a lifetime monogamous relationship, they will not be a part of 
| the 82%.

	And the 82% would be much lower if it included monogamous
relationships. That is the point I'm trying to get across.

>	And the 82% would be much lower if it included monogamous
>relationships. That is the point I'm trying to get across.
    
    	Monogamous relationships (*TRUE* monogamous relationships) by 
    	and large will not result in the spread of AIDS.  I'd bet that
    	you'd find the incidence of AIDS spread within truly monogamous
    	relationships closely parallelling that 18% figure.
    
    	If your only sexual contact is (and will be) with another whose 
    	only sexual contact has been (and will be) with you -- to me
    	a good example of true monogamy -- then your only chance of
    	being exposed to AIDS would be from those 18% vectors, and if
    	you notice, one of them is infection by an infected partner, and
    	therefore that one is also greatly diminished, if not eliminated.
    
    	I don't see how monogamous relationships would reduce the 82% 
    	figure at all.

    Once again, no distinctions were made to the current person's
    relationship or orientation in the data.  In dishonoring the marriage
    covenant, you can only have fornication and adultery.  These make up
    the 82%.  

Note 217.90

>    Richard...What's the point?
    
================================================================================
        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 581.6                    The Need for Dialogue                       6 of 7
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Luke 1.78-79"                     31 lines  30-AUG-1994 00:36
              -< A few thoughts about the nature of the question >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I'm very hesitant about responding to "What's your point?" type
questions.

Here's why:

	1.  If there is indeed a point to be gotten, I figure the reader
is intelligent enough to figure out what it is.

	2.  If there is indeed a point to be gotten, explaining it in public
is at best awkward and tedious, something like explaining a parable or a
humorous anecdote.  If you don't get it, you don't get it.  Maybe next time.

	3.  It's been my experience that if there is indeed a point to be
gotten, the one asking, "What's your point?" usually has a pretty good idea
what it is.  Confirmation is being sought, that's all.

	4.  I often say things to stimulate thinking, rather than having an
answer already formulated from which there can be no variance or from which
no new insights may be derived.

	Please understand, there's a great deal of margin for error built
into this way of looking at the question, "What's your point?" and I realize
that.  So if I'm totally off the wall (For our British readers: An American
expression roughly meaning outrageous, incoherent, non sequitur), I beg your
forgiveness.

Shalom,
Richard

PS  Doncha' just hate it when somebody assigns numerals in their answer?? ;-)

According to the Center of Disease Control, the present number one killer
of Americans between the ages of 25 and 45:

	AIDS

followed by:

	Accidents
	Cancer
	Heart Disease
	Suicide
	Murder

    Sounds like America has a serious moral dilema here!!

    	It's not a dilemma, Jack.  The problem is clear.  The course
    	is clear.  The solution is clear.  That's not a moral dilemma.
    
    	What we have is a moral disintegration.

    Diseases don't recognize morality.
    
    AIDS is not isolated to the immoral, the unrighteous, the unchaste,
    though it does make it easy to wash our hands of the situation if
    that is how we choose to see it.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Oh, please don't take my comment as washing my hands of it.  I believe
    it is a problem that needs to be addressed in our society...which is
    the very reason I made the comment I did in the first place.  
    
    AIDS is a communicable disease.  It is obvious that not everybody gets
    it through immoral action.  However, I believe society has put its head
    in the sand far too long in coming to grips with this disease.  AIDS is
    mainly spread through sex and drug use.  The disease is propogated
    through immoral behavior.  Who am I to judge society?  Well, I'm not
    judging...I'm just making an observation.  That being people around us 
    are dying left and right...and we're not dying left and right. 
    
    We all have our own vices in life and I have many to contend with.  But
    if somebody continually insists on touching the red hot stove, is it
    really unfeeling to tell them to stop acting like imbecels and leave
    the stove alone?  I think that's what bothers me most...not so much the
    one who is suseptible to AIDS, but a society that insists that this
    matter must be handled with feeling...and delicately...
    
    No, it doesn't have to be handled delicately!  Who ever wrote that
    stupid rule?
    
    -Jack

.97, .100: MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur"

    Sounds like America has a serious moral dilema here!!

    through immoral behavior.  Who am I to judge society?  Well, I'm not
    judging...I'm just making an observation.  That being people around us 
    are dying left and right...and we're not dying left and right. 

Of course you're judging, your entire note reeks of judgmentalism and
self-rightousness. 

    No, it doesn't have to be handled delicately!  Who ever wrote that
    stupid rule?

It's kind of funny (but sad), but the last people I expect compassion from any
more are the ones that most loudly proclaim themselves as Christian. How do you
suppose Jesus would handle AIDS if he were alive today?

Steve

	Steve, definitely NOT the way many Christians would.

    Steve:
    
    I just shook my head when I read your note and said to myself, "Why
    should I have expected any different"  Glen, you didn't dissappoint me
    per usual.  Okay...I'll bite, what exactly was it that reeked in my
    last note?  
    
    >> course you're judging, your entire note reeks of judgmentalism and
    >>self-righteousness.
    
    Wake up Steve.  AIDS is now the largest killer of people ages 25 - 44.
    Apparently the sensitivity route is not working.
    
    >>'s kind of funny (but sad), but the last people I expect compassion
>>  from any
>>  more are the ones that most loudly proclaim themselves as Christian.
>>  How do you suppose Jesus would handle AIDS if he were alive today?
    
    Interesting question.  Probably the same way he answered the woman at
    the well.  He made it known to her that HE was the messiah.  He also
    let her know that he knew everything about her.  He then touched on
    repentence...doing a 180 degree turn from what she was doing.  She was
    a prostitute and needed Salvation in her life.
    
                                                
    I want to thank you Steve, for conveniently putting me in a box because 
    I stated some facts in my last note.  If you think speaking the truth
    is judgementalism, then I guess that's your perogative.  Let me state
    once again for those who don't fly off the handle.
    
    Fact: AIDS is the largest killer of people ages 25-45
    Fact: AIDS is propogated mainly through the use of intervenous drugs
          and sexual intercourse.  The blood got tainted through immoral
          behavior.
    
    Now help me out here.  What part of my note reeked of judgementalism?
    I guess I'm missing something here!
    
    -Jack
    
    So Steve, 
    

    re .96  and replies
    
    The fact that four of the six leading causes of death to American
    between 25 and 45  are
    
    Aids
    Accidents
    Suicides
    Murder
    
    In its totality says there is something sick about our society.  Under
    the accidents I am assuming Alcohol, Drugs, and other unhealthy
    Reckless behavoirs contribute to many of the accidents.
    
    I do believe that society today struggles with a lack of intimacy and a
    lack of community and a lack of family.
    
    What should the appropriate Christian Response be!
    
    1.  Deal with compassion with all who are sick and dying.
    2.  Encourage life long intimate relationships.
    3.  Provide loving Faith Communities for all people.
    4.  Provide good sex education programs for all children.
    5.  Promote the equality and growth and social justice of all people.
    6.  Deal openly and honestly with gender issues and sexuality issues.
    7.  Preach the liberating word of Scripture.  Work toward creating the
    Kingdom of Heaven, here and now. 
    8.  Take serious the prayer, thy will be done, on earth as it is in
    heaven.
    
    Just some of the things that Christians and Christian Churches can do
    to improve the quality of life for everybody.
    
                                   Patricia
    

>>     In its totality says there is something sick about our society. 
>>     under
>>      the accidents I am assuming Alcohol, Drugs, and other unhealthy
>>      Reckless behavoirs contribute to many of the accidents.
    
>>      I do believe that society today struggles with a lack of intimacy
>>      and  lack of community and a lack of family.
    
    Exactly the point I have apparently failed to make...honestly DEALING
    with the fact that AIDS is propogated through behavior from a sick 
    society.  What kills me is that I get put in a box by my esteemed
    colleagues for saying this.  
    
    Very very good list of ideas on how to handle the situation.  I never
    said to not be compassionate to those who are sick Steve.  I said we 
    need to address the disease for what it is...a disease propogated by 
    incorrect behavior.  I also believe the brunt of the responsibility, 
    especially the sex education part, falls on the shoulders of the local 
    church!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,

    The unspoken tone of your notes is that people with AIDS, by and large,
    deserve what they get. For example when you say "No, it doesn't have to
    be handled delicately!  Who ever wrote that stupid rule?", people
    perceive you as judgmental. The fact is AIDS is spread by the sharing
    of needles and having more than one sex partner in your life. The
    *judgment* is that these people are immoral. I get the feeling you
    don't see AIDS sufferers as victims but as receiving their just deserts
    for their immoral behavior.  

    Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe your heart aches for these people. Maybe you are
    near tears when you think of the suffering an individual with AIDS
    endures. Maybe you pray to God for a cure... not to protect yourself,
    but for those already suffering.

    Peace,

    	Eric

Note 217.106

>    The unspoken tone of your notes is that people with AIDS, by and large,
>    deserve what they get.

This is what I heard, too.

Richard

    I also heard judgment.  Furthermore, I did not notice any thought given 
    to those who were neither unfaithful, nor needle sharing, yet have AIDS.  
    Maybe from an unfaithful spouse, maybe from a blood transfusion.  Another
    thing that went through my mind was that you seem to rule out repentance.

	.99
        
>    AIDS is not isolated to the immoral, the unrighteous, the unchaste,
>    though it does make it easy to wash our hands of the situation if
>    that is how we choose to see it.
    
	Correct, it is not ISOLATED to the immoral, but it is most
    	common (by a long shot) among those who choose immoral behaviors.
    	And for most of those who end up innocent victims of AIDS, their
    	tragedy is a result of the immoral behavior of others.
    
    	Yes, the disease doesn't recognize immorality, but immorality
    	propogates the disease.  The elimination of the immorality that
    	fosters its spread would virtually eliminate the disease.  If
    	we choose to hide behind the plight of the innocent victims to
    	downplay the truth of the immoral behavior that spreads the 
    	disease, we are doing a terrible disservice to all of humanity,
    	because we will then become indirect participants in the
    	continued spread of the disease.

    My frustration is directed not toward individuals with AIDS.  It is
    directed at the society in large who is brow beaten into using PC-Speak
    when dealing with the issue.  
    
    Its like a child who disobeys their parents.  They play with the stove,
    they get their hands burned, they cry.  The child didn't deserve to get
    their hand burned.  They countermanded what was required of them and
    unfortunately, the result was...a burned hand.  But my cynical tone
    would be directed toward the PC Speak crowd who say, "Awwww, now don't
    be so hard on Johnnie, let him explore and discover himself.  Just
    because his brother Joey burned his hand on the stove doesn't mean you
    have to be insensitive to Johnnie."  
    
    This is a crime...an absolute crime to the victims of AIDS.  Always
    believed the condom message was a phoney quick fix to the problem.  
    There needs to be a severe paradigm shift in society teaching that 
    casual sex is IMMORAL and WRONG.  No, not that it is recommended we
    abstain...it is IMMORAL and WRONG!  Otherwise, the death toll will
    continue to rise.  
    
    According to the AMA, Central Africa is "A LOST CAUSE".  I don't want 
    my sons generation to be a lost cause....and I won't!  
    
    -Jack

	.101
    
>Of course you're judging, your entire note reeks of judgmentalism and
>self-rightousness. 
    
    	I see nothing wrong with judging certain behaviors that spread
    	disease to be loathed.  I see nothing wrong with self-righteousness
    	in avoiding those beahviors.

>It's kind of funny (but sad), but the last people I expect compassion from any
>more are the ones that most loudly proclaim themselves as Christian. How do you
>suppose Jesus would handle AIDS if he were alive today?

    	You mistake speaking the truth about the spread of AIDS with
    	a lack of compassion.
    
    	I doubt that Jesus would soften his words about the behavior
    	that spread AIDS.

    > I see nothing wrong with judging certain behaviors that spread disease
    > to be loathed.  I see nothing wrong with self-righteousness in avoiding
    > those beahviors.
    
    Steve was replying to someone how was claiming *not* to be judgemental,
    however.
    
    > You mistake speaking the truth about the spread of AIDS with a lack of
    > compassion.
    
    What is the "truth" about AIDS you refer to... 
    
    	Eric

>>      What is the "truth" about AIDS you refer to...
    
    Eric, please understand that my tone here is meant to be respectful.
    I can only go by what I see and right now I see as I have seen the last 
    12 years that the MAJORITY of individuals contracting AIDS and other
    communicable diseases are from deviant behavior.  
    (Exceptions here are HIV+ babies, people getting blood transfusions
     and the like)  
    
    Furthermore, again from what I observe our society is anxiously putting
    its perverbial head in the sand in dealing with the MORAL implications
    of the spread of AIDS.  For example, there is a big push for the
    education of contraceptives...not as a way of birth control but as a 
    way to stop the spread of AIDS.  This is the typical pig in a poke
    approach to curing a problem which is only curable by behavior
    modification, not prophylactics.  
    
    I would be interested in some responses here to this question...
    Is the spread of AIDS mainly the result of Immoral behavior?  Until we
    come to grips with this, we will continue to wallow in the same misery
    and statistics  we've had in recent years.  We MUST minister to the
    AIDS victims...we MUST also tell the truth about the spread of AIDS!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Many of us believe Sex is a natural healthy part of our humanity.  Sex
    to me is not immoral.  It can be immoral when it is used to seek to
    control over  another.  It can be unhealthy when someone doesn't recognize
    the difference between love and sex and becomes addicted to sex and
    never finds love.
    
    I believe that it is part of the growing up process to experiment with
    sex.  I see nothing immoral about that experimentation.  I don't
    believe a person should be a virgin when they marry and I am not
    teaching that to my children.  However, when they do start there period
    of experimentation, I want them to do it in a healthy, caring way.
    
    The fear of Aids is not going to keep people from engaging in sex. 
    Therefore the use of the condom is the only way to stop the spread of
    the desease.  I do believe that Aids has had an impact in making
    responsible people much more careful about their sexual activity.  That
    to me is the goal.
    
    I too worry about my children and wish that I did not have to worry
    about Aids, Drugs, Alcohol, reckless driving, rape, violence, suicide,
    etc.
    
                                      Patricia

re Note 217.114 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     I believe that it is part of the growing up process to experiment with
>     sex.  I see nothing immoral about that experimentation.  

        I am sure that it is a common part of growing up.  Certainly
        "experimentation" such as masturbation is harmless in itself. 
        But I think you are going farther and suggesting intercourse. 
        Are you merely suggesting that it is a common part of growing
        up, or a necessary part?

        While intercourse in itself is as harmless as masturbation,
        it certainly carries a much longer and more problematic
        series of potential consequences -- even when conducted in a
        "healthy, caring way."   It carries a significant risk of
        teen pregnancy.  It carries a significant risk of infection. 
        There are emotional risks.  Isn't it immoral to risk such
        consequences -- and for what benefit?

        Bob

 >>     Many of us believe Sex is a natural healthy part of our humanity. 
 >>     Sex
 >>     to me is not immoral.  It can be immoral when it is used to seek to
 >>     control over  another.  It can be unhealthy when someone doesn't
 >>     recognize
 >>     the difference between love and sex and becomes addicted to sex and
 >>     never finds love.
    
    We both agree that sex is not immoral within the right context.  We
    both agree that it is immoral when not in its proper context.  Just so
    you'll know, I have three children and I agree that sex is a healthy 
    normal part of life.   I also happen to agree that sex is a part of
    adolesence, varying in degree with each person.  Keep in mind that it
    doesn't necessarily make it right.  At that age, let's just say it is
    absolutely normal to be selfish in regards to sex.  It is a desire and
    an appetite to be fulfilled and it's intent is for personal pleasure,
    in my humble opinion.  I think the definition of, "proper context" is 
    where we differ, yet I believe we strive for the same results.  
    
    I believe AIDS and other STDs robs us of watching our children grow up.
    I don't believe it is a judgement of God but I do believe God allows it
    to happen.  There are many books on the issue.  One book that comes to
    mind is called, "Why Wait?" by Josh McDowell.  Briefly, it touches on 
    these issues.
    
    A. The greatest sex organ we have is our mind.
    B. The trust factor is key to any relationship.
    C. Paul's teaching of keeping the marriage bed undefiled.
    D. When we engage in premarital sex, we damage the trust factor.
    E. When we have a physical relationship, we carry those very intimate 
       times with us for life.  Hence the marriage bed is defiled if we 
       marry somebody else.
    F. We are told to hold our spouse in high esteem (high honor)
    
    I believe these ideas to be coherent in forming a solid life
    relationship.  Our national divorce rate is a very good measurement 
    of these points...and it is statistically proven that the divorce rate
    is alot higher from those who lived together before they got married.
    
    I just don't see this as bad teaching.  I think it is very sound
    teaching and needs to be reenforced in the minds of our children, for
    their emotional futures and their very lives.  
    
    By the way, condoms do not prevent the spread of AIDS.
    
    In Christ,
    
    -Jack
    
    
    
    

   >>       While intercourse in itself is as harmless as masturbation,
   >>       it certainly carries a much longer and more problematic
   >>       series of potential consequences --
    
    Bob, could you clarify the first sentence a little bit please?  I see
    intercourse as being very harmful for the very reasons I mentioned in
    my previous reply.  Also, your following thoughts seem to contradict
    the first statement!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    	.112
    
>    > I see nothing wrong with judging certain behaviors that spread disease
>    > to be loathed.  I see nothing wrong with self-righteousness in avoiding
>    > those beahviors.
>    
>    Steve was replying to someone how was claiming *not* to be judgemental,
>    however.
    
    	So?  *I* still see nothing wrong with it.  
    
    	Besides, I think that Jack was bowled over by anti-Jack gang-
    	tackling, (as is common in here as I see it) and he was reacting 
    	by retreating to safe haven.  While I can't speak for Jack, that 
    	was my impression, and I was posting that reply in part as 
    	encouragement for him to stand by his beliefs and not smooth out 
    	the edges to appease an angry mob.
    
>    What is the "truth" about AIDS you refer to... 
    
    	I think I've been pretty clear about that already in .109 and .111.
    	Do you disagree with anything I've said in those replies about AIDS 
    	and its spread?

    > This is the typical pig in a poke approach... 

    Jack, is this a euphemism for using a condom? :^) You wild man, you!

    > Is the spread of AIDS mainly the result of Immoral behavior? 

    The spread of AIDS is mainly the result of well defined behavior. You
    choose to classify this behavior as "immoral." The behavior is FACT,
    the morality is OPINION.

    From your notes, here's what I think you believe. People who contract
    AIDS through what you consider immoral behavior have only themselves to
    blame. These people deserve our reproach for their behavior. You
    feel that the rate of infection was hastened by the suggestion that a
    condom was safer than no condom. You feel that those organizations
    proposing the use of condoms as "safe" or "safer" sex, really believe
    that condoms provide no protection, but encouraged their use anyway. Am
    I wrong?


    	Eric  

    > Besides, I think that Jack was bowled over by anti-Jack gang- tackling,
    > (as is common in here as I see it) and he was reacting by retreating to
    > safe haven.

    People were reacting to a seemingly callous and insensitive implication
    that since AIDS is propagated by immoral behavior the victims, by and
    large, deserve what they get. As is common in here, people react
    strongly to messages they perceive as uncompassionate or less than
    loving.
    
            Eric

	.114
        
>    Many of us believe Sex is a natural healthy part of our humanity. 
    
    	Probably all of us do.
    
>    Sex to me is not immoral.  
    
    	That is too broad of a statement to be worthwhile here.
    
    	Lovemaking within marriage is sex.
    	Lovemaking between long-term monogamous partners is sex.
    	An orgy is sex.
    	Contact between experimenting children is sex.
    	Rape is sex.
    
>    It can be immoral when it is used to seek to
>    control over  another.  It can be unhealthy when someone doesn't recognize
>    the difference between love and sex and becomes addicted to sex and
>    never finds love.
    
    	You identify one thing as immoral, but another as just "unhealthy".
    	Is the second case also immoral?  Would casual sex with a pick-up
    	at a bar be immoral?
    
    	Would it be safe to say that behavior that is PRONE TO spread
    	AIDS is immoral?
    
>    I believe that it is part of the growing up process to experiment with
>    sex.  I see nothing immoral about that experimentation.  I don't
>    believe a person should be a virgin when they marry
    
    	We disagree.
    
>    However, when they do start there period
>    of experimentation, I want them to do it in a healthy, caring way.
    
    	What, exactly, is a "healthy, caring way"?  Then again, this
    	is really ratholing the discussion, so perhaps we should drop
    	this...
    
>    The fear of Aids is not going to keep people from engaging in sex. 
    
    	That's obvious.  That's why we need to approach it from a morals
    	perspective, and not a fear perspective.  My point from the
    	beginning of my participation in this topic, though, is that
    	we need to do more than focus on the people who already have
    	AIDS.  When we downplay the behaviors that spread it, we become
    	tacit participants in the spread of the disease.
    
>    Therefore the use of the condom is the only way to stop the spread of
    >    the desease.  
    
    	We disagree.

    re .115
    
    Bob,
    
    I believe sex is a acceptable part of growing up.  Of course I wish that
    my teenagers avoid it until they are older and more mature and have an
    understanding of the decisions they are making and the impact, but I
    don't see any value in waiting until after one is partnered.  I believe that
    sex is an important part of an adult relationship and I don't see any
    value in entering into a long term adult relationship without fully
    experimenting with  the relationship.
    
    I accept that my children will make their own choices regarding when
    they are ready and I will support their choice and fully encourage them
    to use adequate precaution against both pregnancy and sexually
    transmitted deseases.
    
                                      Patricia

Hi Eric:
    
    > This is the typical pig in a poke approach... 

>>    Jack, is this a euphemism for using a condom? :^) You wild man, you!

Smarty!! :-)

    > Is the spread of AIDS mainly the result of Immoral behavior? 

>>    The spread of AIDS is mainly the result of well defined behavior. You
>>    choose to classify this behavior as "immoral." The behavior is FACT,
>>    the morality is OPINION.

This is why each faith system must have a set of standards to go by.  I believe
fornication and adultery are both poo pood by God as unsanctified acts.  
Yes, in our world, morality is subjective.  From a Christian Perspective,
I don't believe they are subjective.

>>    From your notes, here's what I think you believe. People who contract
>>    AIDS through what you consider immoral behavior have only themselves to
>>    blame. These people deserve our reproach for their behavior. 

No, actually, I have no idea how one could read that.  I believe people acted 
as they thought was normal and right in their own eyes.  Kind of like that
old expression "Whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap!"  I have openly
stated MANY MANY times that I am subject to the same condemnation as everybody
else because of my sordid past.  Never claimed to be any better than anybody 
else.  What I do object to however is this...society has a ho hum attitude 
about the actions which lead to the disease itself.  This is PC and is no
less than putting ones head in the sand.  And incidently, no reproach need go
to anybody except the person who feels they are doing society a favor by being
a pacifist in the area of morality.  This is the greatest disservice to
    our youth.  We are not training them to honor God in their actions!

>>    You
>>    feel that the rate of infection was hastened by the suggestion that a
>>    condom was safer than no condom. You feel that those organizations
>>    proposing the use of condoms as "safe" or "safer" sex, really believe
>>    that condoms provide no protection, but encouraged their use anyway. Am
>>    I wrong?

Yes and no.  I believe there is a sincere movement to curb the spread of AIDS 
through condom use.  But I'll never forgive Jocelyn Elders for what she did!
So yes, irresponsible people out there do exist!!  And by the way, safe sex is 
a paradoxical statement.  There is no such thing, let's stop kidding ourselves!

-Jack
                                                                       

    Joe,
    
    You want to approach the problem through a moral perspective.
    
    You and I have differing opinions of what is morally acceptable and
    what is not morally acceptable.  Do you therefore propose imposing what
    you consider morally acceptable upon others?  upon society as a whole?
    
    I too want to approach this problem and all of societies problems
    through a moral perspective.  I just don't believe in dictating what is
    moral, especially when it comes to sexual behavoir.
    
                                Patricia

re Note 217.117 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>    >>       While intercourse in itself is as harmless as masturbation,
>    >>       it certainly carries a much longer and more problematic
>    >>       series of potential consequences --
>     
>     Bob, could you clarify the first sentence a little bit please?  

        Well, now you understand an argument *for* gun control!  

        Or, to help you to think of this the way I was while writing,
        I could mimic what you wrote: "I see firing a gun as being
        very harmful for [I could name many ways in which firing a
        gun can be harmful]."

        You could counter by saying that firing a gun isn't
        inherently harmful, and in a way we would both be right.

        Bob

re Note 217.124 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

> Yes and no.  I believe there is a sincere movement to curb the spread of AIDS 
> through condom use.  But I'll never forgive Jocelyn Elders for what she did!

        And I'll never forgive the irresponsible people who hounded
        people who speak out until they resign or, worse yet, never
        speak out in the first place.

        Conservative PC kills.

        Bob

	Well, Eric, in both .120 and .121 you make some extreme 
    	projections:
    
>    From your notes, here's what I think you believe. People who contract
>    AIDS through what you consider immoral behavior have only themselves to
>    blame. 
    
    	OK.
    
>    These people deserve our reproach for their behavior.
    
    	Nowhere did Jack talk about reproach.
    
>    feel that the rate of infection was hastened by the suggestion that a
>    condom was safer than no condom. You feel that those organizations
>    proposing the use of condoms as "safe" or "safer" sex, really believe
>    that condoms provide no protection, but encouraged their use anyway. Am
>    I wrong?
    
    	I'm not sure where this came from.  I haven't been participating
    	in this conference long enough to know Jack's noting-history
    	here, but this certainly isn't commonly-held belief.  You might
    	have been more correct to say that the condom-culture mindset
    	(more than just the condom itself) has contributed to the continued
    	spread of AIDS.
    
>    that since AIDS is propagated by immoral behavior the victims, by and
>    large, deserve what they get. 
    
    	Nobody deserves AIDS.  At the same time, who else would you blame?
    	And we cannot lose sight of the primary causes that spread AIDS.
    	You may choose to see this statement as incompassionate or 
    	reproachful.  I see it as practial.

	.125
        
>    You and I have differing opinions of what is morally acceptable and
>    what is not morally acceptable.  Do you therefore propose imposing what
>    you consider morally acceptable upon others?  upon society as a whole?
    
    	"Imposed" morals are not morals, Patricia.  They are laws.
    
    	Putting into place a morality such as yours (which is pretty
    	close to what we currently have) has had clear consequences,
    	wouldn't you agree?
    
    	What it will take is an entire societal paradigm shift (certainly
    	won't happen overnight, and probably not even in my lifetime)
    	such that society accepts a different set of morals that will
    	result is a safer, healthier, and more sacred lifestyle.

If one swims in shark-infested waters, one runs a very real risk.

Is it helpful at all to cry out from the shore, "Don't do that!! It's
immoral!" or is it more helpful to cry out, "Don't do that!!  You'll
be eaten alive by sharks!"?

If one smokes, one runs a very real risk.

Is it helpful at all for a non-smoker to say, "So, you have lung cancer.
That's what you get for smoking!  You should have known better than to
desecrate your body with cigarettes!"?

Richard

Note 217.127

>        And I'll never forgive the irresponsible people who hounded
>        people who speak out until they resign or, worse yet, never
>        speak out in the first place.

>        Conservative PC kills.

And then there's Ronald Reagan who, according to former Surgeon General
C. Everett Koop, deliberately hushed information regarding AIDS.

Shalom,
Richard

    	.130
    
>If one swims in shark-infested waters, one runs a very real risk.
    
    	Now you're getting it!!!

>Is it helpful at all to cry out from the shore, "Don't do that!! It's
>immoral!" or is it more helpful to cry out, "Don't do that!!  You'll
>be eaten alive by sharks!"?
    
    	Bad example, because it is not "immoral" to swim in shark-
    	infested water.
    
    	And there already seems to be a consensus here (at least) that
    	the fear of AIDS alone will not keep all that many people from
    	having unsafe sex, so your suggestion of warning of the dangers
    	of the shark-like AIDS disease is weak at best.
    
    	But all you have to do is post a sign on a popular beach that
    	the water is now shark-infested, and practically all bathers
    	will stay out of the water.
    
    	Now, what are we to say to the ones who ignore the sign and
    	get mauled?  Do we say they were foolish?  Reckless?  Most
    	likely, yes.
    
    	At the same time, do I suggest that we leave them out there to 
    	die, or if they make it to shore we simply leave them to bleed 
    	to death?  Of course not!
    
>Is it helpful at all for a non-smoker to say, "So, you have lung cancer.
>That's what you get for smoking!  You should have known better than to
>desecrate your body with cigarettes!"?
    
    	It's what the AMA says all the time.  And then do we as a society
    	ignore the behavior and instead focus compassion on the smokers
    	and innocent victims of their smoking?  No.  We do not lose sight
    	of the behavior that causes cancer nor do we make quilts for those 
    	who died from that behavior. 
    
    	When a smoker dies of cancer, what is one of the first things
    	his family and friends comment on?  "Well he used to smoke 
    	like a chimney..."

>And then there's Ronald Reagan who, according to former Surgeon General
>C. Everett Koop, deliberately hushed information regarding AIDS.

    	There is plenty of this type of blame to go around, Richard.
    
    	"In the beginning we desperately wanted to believe it was some
    	big government plot.  But the dust settled and the unspoken
    	horror sank in -- WE unknowingly gave this disease to each other.
    	Today we know better, yet we are STILL giving this disease to
    	each other, only now we can't blame Ron and Nancy."  (Emphasis
    								not mine.)
    		Gay AIDS columnist Robert DeAndreis, in "Restoring
    		a Subculture Named Desire," San Francisco Sentinel, 
    		16-feb-1994, p 21.
    
    	Consider also:
    
    	"Aggressive public health methods might have prevented the 
    	epidemic's outward spread.  But every effort to take normal
    	precautionary measures was thwarted in turn by the political
    	juggernaut the gay liberation movement had managed to create."
    
    		David Horowitz in "Queer Fellows," The American
    		Spectator, January 1993.
    
    		(Horowitz's article goes on to describe how attempts
    		to screen donated blood supplies for AIDS was lambasted
    		as homophobic and discriminatory, or how attempts to
    		prevent known HIV-infected blood donors from donating
    		were squashed as being discriminatory, or how attempts
    		to notify partners of known HIV-infected people was
    		attacked as an invasion of privacy, and a whole bunch
    		of other examples.)

.132

Any analogy would be weak.

Shalom,
Richard

.133

Randy Shildts, a gay journalist and author, indicated that he encountered
considerable resistance in the early years.

Shalom,
Richard

	Well, if crying, "Immorality!" is what actually gets people
to stop infecting each other with the AIDS virus, more power to those
who cry out.

Shalom,
Richard

    Jack,

    Thank you for taking the time to help me understand your position a
    little more clearly. 

    Peace,

    	Eric

    Peter:
    
    Gays were treated as lepers in the early days of AIDS and like I said
    in another conference (dialog with Glen), fear is usually based on a
    lack of knowledge.  This is why knowledge is power.  But I want to 
    copy something my esteemed colleague said.
    
 >>   Is it helpful at all for a non-smoker to say, "So, you have lung cancer.
 >>   That's what you get for smoking!  You should have known better than to
 >>   desecrate your body with cigarettes!"?
    
    No, this is not helpful at all.  This is adding insult to injury and I
    would nover do this.  Also, if you read my replies, you will see that I
    in fact never inferred such a thing.  Again, I clearly condemn society 
    calling the wrong thing right and alot of times the right thing to each
    his/her own!  
    
    Patricia, you are right about the moral issue.  We live in a subjective
    hedonistic society (all is permissable as long as it doesn't hurt
    anybody else).  The problem is, it is hurting everybody else,
    therefore, we need to take the logical approach.  Under my code of
    morals, I WILL NEVER catch AIDS due to what I call deviant behavior.
    Now this of course means I must be consistent with my moral code and
    that is the trick...but it can be done.  Under the code you have
    described, one will PROBABLY avoid catching AIDS but the risk is a
    remote possibility.  As Joe said and as I initially stated at the onset
    before my friends here in CP started brow beating me, we need a 
    paradigm shift in this country.  Like bussing in the Boston School
    system, society will realize probably years from now that condoms will
    never rid us of AIDS...it will only stifle the spread and control
    it...to a point.  The real cure is when the words monogamy and
    abstinence become the cool thing to do.  Our adult part of society 
    has failed to reenforce this kind of thinking!  Until then, children
    will still die!  
    
    So please don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger!
    
    In Him,
    
    -Jack 

    Joe,
    
    The morality I advocate is implied in note .104
    
    
    We are a long way from that morality in society.
    
    By the way Joe,
    
    Is the moralty you propose,  sex only a part of lifelong marriage, the
    morality you have consistently practiced or is it your proposal for
    others?
    
    This is an important question for me regarding all who propose sexual
    intercourse only as part of marriage!  It is particularly important for
    me when men propose such a morality because of the double standard that
    existed from the time of the Hebrew fathers until present that it was a
    moral standard  for women but not necessarily  for men.
    
                                    Patricia
    
                                   Patricia

    Bob:
    
    Yes, silence or conservative PC kills too.  This is why in my previous
    replies I am a big advocate of the local church taking a more
    productive and leadership role in sex education.  
    
    But I still am interested in what you have to say about Jocelyn Elders
    knowingly distributing defective condoms to the Arkansas public school
    system.  Would you at least concede it was extremely lame-brained?!
    The Reagan administration may have been foolish to keep their head in
    the sand.  Perhaps at the time they weren't 100% sure as to what they
    were dealing with and figured it might be the Bubonic Plague all over
    again.  
    
    -Jack

    
    
    There is a disproportiante amount of "moral condemnation" directed
    towards the victims of AIDS in comparsion with the victims of other
    diseases.
    
    Why is the fervor of condemnation so dramatically less for individuals
    who smoke and then get cancer ? who become overweight and get heart
    disease ? who are careless and have a life threatening accident ?
    
    All such individuals have engaged in behavior that has some amount
    of risk involved and lost the gamble.
    
    Isn't it better to educate individuals on how to eat better, exercise
    etc. than to condemn them for their slovenly habits ? 
    
    With respect to AIDS, a double standard is applied...
    
    Bob
     
    
    

.113> I would be interested in some responses here to this question...
.113> Is the spread of AIDS mainly the result of Immoral behavior?  

jack, you have already given the reasons for the spread of AIDS

.103> Fact: AIDS is the largest killer of people ages 25-45
.103> Fact: AIDS is propogated mainly through the use of intervenous drugs
.103>       and sexual intercourse.  

you also add in .103: "The blood got tainted through immoral behavior."
this is not a fact, this is your perception.

i'd be interested to know from you what you consider immoral behaviour.
let me share a true story with you first though.

there is this guy who finds himself having an affair with a married woman. 
is he acting immoral? i mean he _is_ having the affair for fun and pleasure.
she complains to him about her husband but he figures her husband cannot be 
such a bad guy, by what she says. she did say that he takes care of the 
house and the child. months into the affair she breaks up with her lover, 
she's in tears: "you made me realise what a good husband i have, i am going 
back". and go back she did, to have another child, she's still married and the 
affair is long forgotten. is there a moral to this story?


in .103 you also mention the woman at the well, the "prostitute". as i was doing
that reading of john 8 recently i also came across that woman - she was referred
to in my bible as the woman who had cheated her husband. well the book i have 
is a modern german ecumenical version accepted by both the catholic and 
protestant churches. of course i have heard of women who have cheated their
husbands called prostitutes (i wonder what men cheating their wifes would be
called).

i think when jesus said to those who wanted to stone the woman at the well,
"let he who is without sin throw the first stone" he could have also meant that
there is more than what it appears like - there's more than just perception,
perceptions can be wrong. therefore we have no right to judge.


the spread of AIDS is best prevented if we take a pragmatical approach. it's
a medical problem and factual information about how to prevent contracting the
virus must be made available to everyone. if we go around demonising drug
abuse or free sex or homosexuality we are more likely to alienate those who 
are most in need of information. if you demonise a drug abuser do you then 
expect him to believe you when you try to tell him how to behave in a manner 
so as not to put his life and other lifes at risk?


andreas.

re Note 217.140 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     But I still am interested in what you have to say about Jocelyn Elders
>     knowingly distributing defective condoms to the Arkansas public school
>     system.  Would you at least concede it was extremely lame-brained?!

        I was referring to Elders' public statements that got her
        canned from the Surgeon General's post.

        Quite frankly, the only thing I've heard about Elders
        knowingly distributing defective condoms came via (what
        appear to me to be) extremely biased sources which are part
        of or draw from the well-funded right-wing smear campaign. 
        So I tend to not give it much credence.  But perhaps I'm
        reading and listening to the wrong things.  :-)

        Bob

re Note 217.136 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> 	Well, if crying, "Immorality!" is what actually gets people
> to stop infecting each other with the AIDS virus, more power to those
> who cry out.
  
        I think you're touching upon something that irritates me as
        well.

        Telling somebody that something is "bad" or "immoral"
        generally works only for very small children (or when the
        person giving the advice is trusted by the one receiving it).

        It would seem that it would be far more effective to teach
        *why* something is bad, to try to persuade people with facts
        and logic, to help them to come to the conclusion of
        "badness".

        Of course such persuasion doesn't always work.  People
        sometimes don't want to hear the message.  

        Sometimes you don't make a very good case, or sometimes the
        hearer knows counter-arguments.

        Sometimes they don't trust you because of something they
        think they know about or associate with you (for example, I
        know I associate a lot of today's older conservative leaders
        with their opposition to all civil rights legislation in the
        past, and so I don't really trust their motives).

        But if you tell me that something is "bad" which doesn't look
        bad to me, and I don't generally trust you, I may not listen.

        If you don't try to convince me with facts and reason, don't
        be surprised that I don't buy what you're selling.*

        Bob
        ++++++

        * I will be the first to agree that facts and reason aren't
        the only things that sell, or even the most effective tactic
        to sell a point of view.  Emotional appeals are very
        effective at selling ideas.  However they generally don't
        reach people who are not at least somewhat sympathetic to
        your position.  I think that this is why emotional appeals
        are so likely to polarize -- they very effectively sell the
        inclined, yet hardly reach, or even repel, the disinclined.

Hi Andreas:

>>you also add in .103: "The blood got tainted through immoral behavior."
>>this is not a fact, this is your perception.

This is actually a subjective opinion based on a Christian Perspective...
or an opinion based on the many many statements that are supposed to mold
the moral code of the Christian community.  The Bible is still considered a
great source of practical living, whether we believe it inerrant or not.

>>months into the affair she breaks up with her lover, 
>>she's in tears: "you made me realise what a good husband i have, i am going 
>>back". and go back she did, to have another child, she's still married and the 
>>affair is long forgotten. is there a moral to this story?

Well, it sounds like God took a bad situation and used it for good.  One of
the prophets, Hosea in the Old Testament was told by God to take a harlot as
his wife, simply to illustrate Israel's harlotry with other false gods.  
The woman in your story was quite fortunate and finally had the wisdom to 
get out of the situation she was in.  It seems you and agree agree on this..
that being that God's illustrations, both the woman who was to be stoned, the
woman at the well, and yes, the woman in your annecdote all had one thing in
common.  They were all in a sin condition but what God sought after from them
was not justice, not punishment, but a repentent heart.  If I were to serve a 
God who gave people their just desserts, I would have been dead 100 times over
years ago.  All three women in question came through and were forgiven.  
However, what they all did cannot be erased...it happened and each one had
consequences they had to live with the rest of their lives.  Mainly that the 
marriage bed had been defiled.  Same with King David.  He acted foolishly and
as a result, lost a son to death and wrote a whole Psalm on repentence for the
atrocity he committed. 

>>of course i have heard of women who have cheated their
>>husbands called prostitutes (i wonder what men cheating their wifes would be
>>called).

Just as bad in my book.  Keep in mind a prostitute has sex for money.  A Harlot
is one who leaves their first love for another.  I think people use the two
words synonomously.

>>i think when jesus said to those who wanted to stone the woman at the well,
>>"let he who is without sin throw the first stone" he could have also meant that
>>there is more than what it appears like - there's more than just perception,
>>perceptions can be wrong. therefore we have no right to judge.

I think Jesus was actually saying, "You're no better in the eyes of God than 
she is.  In fact you are worse because you pharisees are hypocrites but 
convey an aura of holiness.  

>>If we go around demonising drug
>>abuse or free sex or homosexuality we are more likely to alienate those who 
>>are most in need of information. if you demonise a drug abuser do you then 
>>expect him to believe you when you try to tell him how to behave in a manner 
>>so as not to put his life and other lifes at risk?

Interestingly enough, Jesus never demonized a repentent sinner but he did 
demonize the actions.  He would always say, "...go away and sin no more"
We as a society don't do this.  We tell our youth they have no control over 
their urges and therefore here is a quick fix.  We are shirking our 
responsibility to bring our children up to honor God.  Keep in mind I am 
speaking from a Christian Perspective.  

Our government uses the demonization of behavior quite frequently.  They used
it recently by attempting to demonize cigarette smokers.  There was a big
campaign on this very issue just last year.  

-Jack

jack, essentially, to the question of whether the guy in my story was acting 
moral or immoral, you say that "God took a bad situation and used it for good."
answer the question of whether the guy was acting immoral you didn't - in fact 
it is very difficult to answer that question.

to sum the moral of the story up in a christian manner: i'd say we should not
concern ourselves with calling something moral or immoral but rather put our
trust in god to serve himself of us as his instruments to "take a bad situation
and use it for good."

agree?


andreas.

    Sorry, I didn't purposefully dodge the question.
    
    Coming strictly from a Christian Perspective, I would like to remind
    you of two accounts.
    
    John the Baptist told Herod that it was not right for him to have his
    brothers wife.  Apparently, the King had been having sex with this
    woman.  John the Baptist was a prophet and as a prophet was never to
    speak on behalf of God unless he had pure revelation from God.  John
    the Baptist was thrown in prison for this and subsequently beheaded.
    
    Another interesting story.  King David was on his rooftop one night
    and saw a woman bathing, her name (no coincidence) was BATHsheba.  
    In a nutshell, David had her husband brought to the front lines in
    battle where he was killed.  Then David had his way with Bathsheba.
    Another prophet named Nathan went up to David and said, "King David,
    there was once a rich ruler who had many flocks and wealth.  Next to
    him was another man who had one small lamb.  The rich ruler took the
    lamb and had it slaughtered for a feast.  It was the only lamb the poor
    man had.  Tell me King, what should happen to the rich man?"  Davids
    response was that the rich man should surely pay with his own life for
    this atrocity.  Nathan then said, Oh King David YOU ARE THE MAN!  King
    David knew immediately that he had sinned a great sin before God.  
    
    So Andreas, my answer is a definite yes on the guilt of this man who
    had an adulterous affair with the repentent woman.  The man in this
    case stole something which did not belong to him.  Just as a single
    woman having an affair with a married man is stealing something which
    does not belong to her.  
    
    When it comes to the overall welfare of a nation, I believe it is the
    place of all individuals to set a moral and spiritual tone amongst
    society.  I believe it was JFK who instituted the Boy Scouts of
    America (Might not be him).  They recognized this very thing.  Wrong
    behavior must not be ignores, otherwise we leave no national
    inheritance for our children.  We only leave them with the status
    quo...the headaches we face with the rise of deaths from AIDS caused 
    by vices!
    
    -Jack

	.139
    
    	Patricia,
    
>    The morality I advocate is implied in note .104
    
    	.104 says nothing about it being OK for kids to experiment
    	sexually, or it may be better NOT to be a virgin when you
    	get married, etc.  That's also part of your morality, and 
    	THAT is what I was referring to as being part of our societal
    	morality today.
    
>    Is the moralty you propose,  sex only a part of lifelong marriage, the
>    morality you have consistently practiced or is it your proposal for
>    others?
    
    	I find (what I see as) the basis for your question to be dangerous.
    	Why do we listen to St. Paul?  St. Augustine?  If I as a teen had
    	done drugs, would it then be wrong for me to stress to my teens the
    	dangers of drugs?  What does it matter if I didn't consistently
    	practice it in the past?  For that matter would I be wrong to 
    	speak as the voice of experience if I were going through that
    	very crisis myself right now?  Wouldn't the message of a struggling
    	alcoholic fighting (and sometimes failing) to stay off the booze
    	be motivational to another alcoholic?
    
    	Having said all that, let me assure you that I did manage to
    	remain chaste until marriage, thereby being able to give the
    	one-time gift of my virginity to my wife, and was blessed in
    	return with the same gift from her.
    
    	The next reply is an excerpt from an entry that I posted about
    	this several years ago (coincidentally, in my name-signing 
    	days)  :^)    Maybe it will be interesting to you.
    
>    This is an important question for me regarding all who propose sexual
>    intercourse only as part of marriage!  It is particularly important for
>    me when men propose such a morality because of the double standard that
>    existed from the time of the Hebrew fathers until present that it was a
>    moral standard  for women but not necessarily  for men.
    
    	I think you let "this question" and the prejudice behind it
    	blind you from truth.  Truth is truth, even if a liar tells it.
    	Even more, your underlying problem with men will only continue
    	to drag you into unnecessary bitterness and anger.

9.1784> So my big curiosity here is that I haven't seen any affirmation from 
9.1784> my fellow noters here that I am not judging the poor victims of AIDS.  

well let me come forward here and declare publicly that i haven't seen jack
judge the victims of AIDS! 


jack, you are offering remedies to the problem of AIDS (and society) from a 
christian perspective. this is commendable, as it is (as you say) better than 
silence.

you say our children need to be taught that:

    "Monogamy and abstinence are very very cool."
    
    "Premarital sex, particularly of adolescence is not cool."

that's fine. that's cool - but should we teach them nothing about when they
do uncool things, ie. if you're going to break the rules than do it safely!
if we don't accept the danger that they might just do uncool things then we
won't tell them how to protect themselfes!


andreas.    

                <<< PEAR::DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< SOAPBOX: to seek out strange new opinions >-
================================================================================
Note 206.86            Public Sex/Exhibitionism/Videotapes              86 of 98
CSC32::J_OPPELT "Royal Pane and Glass Co."           83 lines   7-AUG-1991 14:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    	Let me address for a moment the value I see in "waiting for
    	marriage."  I "saved" myself for the person I married.  Sure,
    	I felt peer pressure to act differently.  I see myself as a
    	stronger individual for sticking to my convictions.  I also
    	read the major publications regarding sex.  I saw the magazines
    	and Joy Of Sex and Everything You Wanted To Know..., as well
    	as some explicit novels.  I'd have to say that I had a good
    	textbook understanding of what was going to happen.  But you
    	can't learn to drive a car or fly an airplane by reading the
    	manual.  You need experience.

    	There always has to be a first time.  What does it matter if 
    	that first time is with "anything with legs" or if it is with
    	your wife?  It is special to my wife that I loved her enough --
    	that I respected her and saw her as special enough -- to have
    	saved that special first experience for her.  I likewise see
    	it as special that she did the same for me.  That she loved
    	me enough -- even before she knew me -- to save that first
    	time for US.  Even with our respective textbook knowledge, we
    	certainly fumbled and bumbled.  Loving and accepting each other
    	at that time of embarrassment and vulnerability (as well as any
    	other vulnerable time) is what made(makes) our relationship 
    	strong and draws us close.  There was a certain risk to	being
    	naked together for the first time.  Through our dating and
    	courtship we gradually grew naked together in many ways.  We
    	stripped ourselves of our personal masks to allow the other
    	to see the person deep inside.  We revealed parts of ourselves
    	we had never revealed to others before.  The first time we
    	made love, we shed even more than that in the ultimate of
    	nakedness.  Over the years we have grown closer as we have
    	continued to reveal our inner selves -- cherished gifts to 
    	each other every time we do so.  But we also know that we have
    	given to each other something noone else can ever do, and something
    	we can never do again to each other or anybody else -- our own
    	virginities.

    	And to top that off, we also now have and know the best sex
    	that we have ever known or will ever know, because we have no
    	other point of reference to compare.  We have a wonderful
    	relationship and choose not to risk that relationship by
    	finding out that Ms Candi Cooze next door can do it better.  (Or
    	to cheapen it to find out that she cannot.)  We see lovemaking,
    	and especially the uniqueness of our own sexual relationship
    	as WE have developed it, as a gift and reward for growing into
    	committed lifelong best friends and lovers.  

    	The "repressive" requests of the Church (actually of God himself)
    	are there to allow couples to find and experience in their own
    	unique ways what we have found for ourselves.  None of this 
    	makes sense in the absence of a belief in God's plan for marriage.
    	We choose to believe in that plan, and we find great joy in
    	the way it has worked out for us.

    	Joe Oppelt

    re .150
    
    Joe,
    
    There is a loving, tender side of you expressed in .150 that does not
    come across in your other notes.  Even though I do not agree with the
    value of virginity at marriage, I can read in your note how important
    it is to you and there is something beautiful in that  revealing of your
    deep feelings.
    
    I wish that compassion and tenderness were revealed in all your notes.
    
                                     Patricia

	.142
    
>you also add in .103: "The blood got tainted through immoral behavior."
>this is not a fact, this is your perception.
    
    	Though that alone doesn't make it wrong.  Personally I find it
    	less likely that "innocent victim" donations were more responsible
    	for the blood-supply tainting than donations by people who were
    	infected by the common vectors.  I base this on the sheer numbers
    	of the two groups, and further believe it because many in the
    	"innocent victim" group are children, and therefore unable to
    	even donate blood.

>there is this guy who finds himself having an affair with a married woman. 
>is he acting immoral? 
    
    	Yes.  No set of circumstances can make his behavior moral.  See
    	IS 5:20.
    
>she's in tears: "you made me realise what a good husband i have, i am going 
>back". and go back she did, to have another child, she's still married and the 
>affair is long forgotten. is there a moral to this story?
    
    	Yes, that repentance and forgiveness can result in healing.
    
>if we go around demonising drug
>abuse or free sex or homosexuality we are more likely to alienate those who 
>are most in need of information. 
    
    	I see this ideology as dangerous. 
    
>if you demonise a drug abuser do you then 
    
    	There is a difference between demonizing drug abuse, and demonizing
    	the drug abuser.

    	.146
    
>jack, essentially, to the question of whether the guy in my story was acting 
>moral or immoral, you say that "God took a bad situation and used it for good."
>answer the question of whether the guy was acting immoral you didn't - in fact 
>it is very difficult to answer that question.
    
    	It is not difficult to answer the question at all.
    
    	Jack, don't turn wishy-washy simply because you might be afraid
    	of being attacked for your beliefs!
    
>to sum the moral of the story up in a christian manner: i'd say we should not
>concern ourselves with calling something moral or immoral but rather put our
>trust in god to serve himself of us as his instruments to "take a bad situation
>and use it for good."
    
    	That is not a Christian conclusion at all.  It is humanistic.
    	It is rationalization.  It is relativistic.  
    
    	Right is right.  Wrong is wrong.  It takes mental gymnastics to
    	make something like an affair with a married woman to have any 
    	semblance of positive morality from a Christian perspective.

>agree?
    
    	Never.

.147> So Andreas, my answer is a definite yes on the guilt of this man who
.147> had an adulterous affair with the repentent woman.  The man in this
.147> case stole something which did not belong to him.  

all you had, to base your judgement on, jack, was the bit provided in the 
story. would your judgement change if you knew more? did the man know that the
woman was married when she came to him? indeed who took the first step, he or 
she? note that the story says he "finds himself having an affair with a married
woman". did the man stop having sex with the woman after he found out about her
situation? well i'll leave you guessing. though i guess i know your answer by 
now! :-)


andreas.

    	.149
    
>that's fine. that's cool - but should we teach them nothing about when they
>do uncool things, ie. if you're going to break the rules than do it safely!
>if we don't accept the danger that they might just do uncool things then we
>won't tell them how to protect themselfes!

    	More dangerous thinking, Andreas.  Should we also teach kids how
    	to "safely" run red lights?  To drive with a buzz on?  How to
    	cheat in school without getting caught?  Or shoplift out of the
    	sight of security cameras?
    
    	In changing the message from "don't" to "be safe if you do", we
    	change the entire focus to our tacit approval rather than to our 
    	disapproval.

    	re .151
    
    	Patricia -- mere compassion and tenderness are no match for
    	the tidal wave of hedonism and humanism in this society.
    
    	I posted .150 to provide people here with a different side of
    	me, to let them know that I am not all fire and brimstone.
    	But it is my belief that I have to speak out strongly against
    	the attacks on the moral foundation of our society.  Tenderness
    	will only allow that foundation to continue to crumble away as
    	I tenderly watch.

    Joe,
    
    Hedonism is definately a problem in our society.
    
    Humanism is not a problem.  What we need is a more humanistic society.
    
    That is why Jesus identified the creation of a humanistic society as
    one of the two greatest commandments.
    
    To love thy neighbor as thyself.  That is the basis of humanism!  
    
    I think if you let your humanism show a little more, you may be much
    more effective in getting your message across.
    
    
                                         love,
                                         Patricia

.148>	Even more, your underlying problem with men will only continue
.148>	to drag you into unnecessary bitterness and anger.

.153>   Jack, don't turn wishy-washy simply because you might be afraid
.153>	of being attacked for your beliefs!


joe, SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, not for others!

as for jack, he has far more trust in his co-noters than YOU have. poor show!

but patricia is right, your finer sides shine through every once in a while,
maybe you are just not aware how you come across in notes.


re .152

>>if we go around demonising drug
>>abuse or free sex or homosexuality we are more likely to alienate those who 
>>are most in need of information. 
>    
>    	I see this ideology as dangerous. 

have you ever tried to talk to a junkie who's turned his back on his parents,
his teachers, society... because (in his eyes) they s*ck??!!

it's not an ideology, its an approach. it's not dangerous, it's realistic.


re .155

>>that's fine. that's cool - but should we teach them nothing about when they
>>do uncool things, ie. if you're going to break the rules than do it safely!
>>if we don't accept the danger that they might just do uncool things then we
>>won't tell them how to protect themselfes!
>
>    	More dangerous thinking, Andreas.  Should we also teach kids how
>    	to "safely" run red lights?  To drive with a buzz on?  How to
>    	cheat in school without getting caught?  Or shoplift out of the
>    	sight of security cameras?


no sir! it's all got to do with trust, trust in your kids, trust in what 
you give them, trust in your conviction! one day you'll have to let them 
go and they'll have to pass the tests - i'd rather they be prepared for *all* 
eventualities (note the use of the word 'eventualities').


thanks,
andreas.

    	.157
    
    	You are confusing humanism with humanitarianism.

	.158

>joe, SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, not for others!
>
>as for jack, he has far more trust in his co-noters than YOU have. poor show!
    
    	Uh, what happened to "speak for yourself"?  :^)

>but patricia is right, your finer sides shine through every once in a while,
>maybe you are just not aware how you come across in notes.

    	I think I know EXACTLY how I come across.  Your reaction is
    	no surprise to me.

>have you ever tried to talk to a junkie who's turned his back on his parents,
>his teachers, society... because (in his eyes) they s*ck??!!
    
    	What's your point?  In this case, it's too late.  Society
    	has already failed.  
    
    	A "compassion approach" as you are espousing is only a reaction
    	to the failures of society.  What I'm espousing is a ministry
    	BEFORE the breakdown.  A preemptive strike before sin takes
    	root.
    
    	I agree that there will always be failure.  My position is that
    	our current society is fostering more failure (in magnitutes)
    	than a more moral society would.

>no sir! it's all got to do with trust, trust in your kids, trust in what 
>you give them, trust in your conviction! one day you'll have to let them 
>go and they'll have to pass the tests - i'd rather they be prepared for *all* 
>eventualities (note the use of the word 'eventualities').
    
    	You still need to teach them right from wrong.  You can't just
    	leave it to God to make the best of bad situations as you
    	proposed in .153.  I'm sure you wouldn't just leave it up to
    	trust with respect to drinking and driving.  Why do the same
    	with teenage sexual behavior?

Jack,

The entire tone of your message (and subsequent messages) was you did something
bad according to my standards(judgemental) and you got punished like you
deserved (self-righteous). 

From follow up notes:
.110
    believed the condom message was a phoney quick fix to the problem.  
    There needs to be a severe paradigm shift in society teaching that 
    casual sex is IMMORAL and WRONG.  No, not that it is recommended we
    abstain...it is IMMORAL and WRONG! 

Judgemental. When you begin shouting absolutes such as IMMORAL and WRONG it
becomes extremely judgemental, not to mention arrogant. Patricia's note (.104)
states the same facts as you do, but is neither judgemental nor self-righteous
in tone. She suggests alternatives to what is self-destructive behavior without
bringing her judgement on that behavior. Pointing out the danger, fine, hooking
it to your particular view of morality, judgemental. Sorry, but being correct
doesn't make you any less hard to take.

    Otherwise, the death toll will continue to rise.  

Self-righteous. Same as above.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.111 CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?"

    	I see nothing wrong with judging certain behaviors that spread
    	disease to be loathed.  I see nothing wrong with self-righteousness
    	in avoiding those beahviors.

That's OK. I wasn't reacting to the fact that he was judgemental and
self-righteous, I was reacting to his claim that he wasn't... as stated by Eric
in the next note. (I hate it when a string runs away from me :^)

Steve

 >>>>   Otherwise, the death toll will continue to rise.
    
 ***   Self-righteous. Same as above.
    
    Steve:
    
    Your mindset chooses to see it as self righteous.  All I see is the 
    AMA statistical reports saying that AIDS is the biggest killer of
    persons ages 25-45.  I then ask myself what the cause and effects are
    of this problem.  One doesn't have to be a judge Steve to see what the
    cause and effect is.  AIDS is propogated through behavior but worse it
    is extended through societal permissiveness of this behavior.  
    Coincidently Steve, my current behavior excludes me from catching AIDS.
    You see this as self righteous...no, its a cold hard fact Steve, it
    works...and it gives me far more peace of mind than that of others.  
    
    Condoms are a quick fix to an ongoing problem.  Same with abortion...a 
    cheap counterfeit to control rather than cure.  You can call me self
    righteous all you want.  The bottom line however is Fact...my personal
    responsible behavior will determine the outcome of my destiny as will
    your behavior determine yours.  I believe in the need to shift
    societies way of thinking in the areas of sex and personal
    responsibility.  
    
    -Jack

    I understood it was not the AMA, but the CDC.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Okay.  Let's see how it rolls out.

The spread of AIDS can be prevented.

AIDS may be contracted through sexual relations with an infected partner.
This is presently the way it most frequently occurs.

Abstinence will prevent acquiring sexually-transmitted AIDS.  Few would
insist that abstinence is immoral.

Sexual self-gratification (masturbation) is probably way up there with
abstinence as far as the prevention of AIDS is concerned.  But to be honest,
everything I've read or heard has mentioned nothing of it.  Masturbation is,
well, considered immoral.  And even those who don't consider masturbation
immoral tend to feel some queasy measure of embarrassment about it.  (Those
who are willing to talk candidly about it risk forfeiting their jobs.)

So, are all forms of sexual immorality conducive to the spread of AIDS?

I confess I don't know what the current statistics are, but at one time AIDS
was virtually unknown among exclusively lesbian women.

Shalom,
Richard

    AAAAHHHHHHHHHH...YOU SAID THE M WORD!!!!!!!!! :-)
    
    Seriously though, it would seem that what your telling us is that
    conservative PC took place and hence our Surgeon General lost her job.
    Considering that sex issues and the current administration seem to be
    clashing lately, I think Bill Clinton did not want to take that step
    forward with candor and have a position on masturbation.  I have no
    doubt but that Reagan or Bush would have taken a position like that
    either.  Masturbation has a serious stigma to it, especially for men.
    Apparently, it is too hot a potato for the president to handle.  In a
    way I can't say I blame him...I mean, with such a stigma, what leader
    of a country wants to deal with that issue (no pun intended)!
    
    As far as Elders losing her job, I don't believe she would have been
    fired had she addressed this earlier.  I believe this issue she brought
    forward was simply the straw that broke the camels back.  I actually
    do admire her tenacity...one thing that can be said about her, she
    certainly wasn't a phoney.  She was a pure liberal in every sense of
    the word...but I don't believe she was the most qualified!  I believe
    she really had a heart for childrens interests but I don't think she was
    the greatest communicator. 
    
    Is masturbation immoral or sin?  Well, this is an interesting question.
    There was an old joke going around that said only 5% of male teens
    masturbate and the other 95% just lie!  This is going to sound silly
    but there is only one person in life who probably didn't...and he is
    fictitious and that would be of course
    
    
    Kane on Kung Foo.  I don't think his master would be pleased!!! :-)
    
    
    Okay, enough of the Greg Griffis toungue in cheek remarks.
    
    
    Masturbation is a completely selfish act but I believe it is a normal
    part of growing up.  Can it be avoided...that is the real question!
    
    -Jack

re .160

what you joe (and jack) are saying is that society needs to change in order
to prevent the spread of AIDS. you say we all have to live responsibly and that
you like to see preemptive measures taken. i have no problem with that at all.
all i say to that, let's not forget that there are people living irresponsibly
and they will continue to do so unless we can change their behaviour quickly
and effectively. because changing society takes a long time we need some
effective measures now.

a big contributor to the spread of AIDS is the use of intervenous drugs. 
AIDS is spread through the sharing of needles. AIDS thus spread is not 
contained just amongst junkies. junkies who prostitute themselves carry the 
virus further.

>>have you ever tried to talk to a junkie who's turned his back on his parents,
>>his teachers, society... because (in his eyes) they s*ck??!!
>    
>    	What's your point?  In this case, it's too late.  Society
>    	has already failed.  

my point is that because the drug problem contributes to the spread of AIDS
we must get junkies to behave responsibly.

my point is, as i said earlier, that junkies are not going to listen to moral 
speak. why? in their case, their role models - parents, teachers - have already 
let them down. which is why they have dropped out of society in the first place.
why should they care?

the only way of getting through to junkies is in talking to them about what 
concerns them directly. like death. the imminent risk of contracting AIDS. 
even junkies don't want to die. cynical but true.

so how can we get junkies to behave in a manner so as not to contribute to the
spread of AIDS? there's ALOT that can be done.

just one effective way (used in my country) to minimise the risk of transmitting
the disease amongst junkies is literally in giving them the kit, including the 
needles. so they all have clean kits, readily available and the needle doesn't
make the rounds. this approach works very well in the containment of AIDS.


i can hear jack saying this is "a quick fix to an ongoing problem". sure it
is and it sure works. keep in mind that it takes all of us to change society
but it only takes a few to spread the lethal virus so there's a benefit in
a quick fix.



andreas.

re .164


well if you're going to loose your jobs talking about masturbation, move 
over to europe folks. we won't persecute you for it here! masturbation is 
a perfectly common sexual practice and by no means only confined to men!


get real! :-)


andreas.

re .160
    
>    	You still need to teach them right from wrong.  

who said i don't? 

joe, i hope i do more than just teach them right from wrong!


>	I'm sure you wouldn't just leave it up to
>    	trust with respect to drinking and driving.  Why do the same
>    	with teenage sexual behavior?

my worry is joe, that i am not going to be there with them when they're exposed
to the risk, the peer pressure, the temptation! surely you agree that they'll 
have to go through it alone, at some point, right?

ok, i admit, my background probably has something to do with my approach.
i had a loving, strict and morally sound upbrining. my good old dad was 
pretty strict and dogmatic.

with all the well meant "DO's and DON'Ts" that i grew up with, my upbringing 
didn't stop me from having my first smoke at the age of nine, engage in sex 
from the early teens, have a sniff of cocaine with fifteen! these WERE all 
cool things to do in those days. and it's not as if i, as the son of a diplomat,
grew up in a rough neighbourhood.

looking back, what shocked me most about the time when i was a kid, is that 
my parents never knew what we kids were up to half the time (we kept the bad 
stuff well hidden from them). 

what reassures me though, when looking back, is that my parents' example held 
up to the risk - i didn't want drugs after trying, they just didn't do it for 
me. no marijuana, opium or cocaine, though they were all easily available. 
also, although i had many sexual relationships, i waited until i was making my 
own money until i'd engage in sexual intercourse. that was a long wait, but 
i preferred to deal with the 'problem' myself, in case there should be one, 
instead of having my parents sort it out for me.



my point is joe, kids can be pretty smart. i know i was. and parents don't
necessarily know what the kids are up to, especially when the parents are 
strict about rules. 

with my kids, i'd rather know what my kids are up to - so i can see any danger 
if they ever get close to real danger. if i had gotten into the wrong walks of 
life as a kid, my parents very likely wouldn't have had a clue of how to deal 
with it. how does anyone deal with a son who is a heroin addict? that just 
didn't exist for them!

from my experience, "NO-NO's" just don't work. with my kids, i have a 
"SEE-FOR-YOURSELF-IF-YOU-DON'T-BELIEVE-ME!" attitude. it's alot more open. 
whilst this may SEEM permissive to you, i can assure you, it isn't. it may
be alot more work. 


andreas.

    It is sort of neat, although shocking at times when you bring up your
    children to be empowered, liberal, Unitarian Universalist, and
    outspoken.
    
    The first time I saw a condom, blown up like a balloon, was when I was
    cleaning out my daughters room.  SEveral days later I was talking to my
    daughter and her friend and said, You will never guess what I found
    blown up in Diane's room.  Well they both blushed and laughed and told
    me another friend had some and was filling them up with water and tying
    them to parking meters down town.  These are fourteen and fifteen year
    old girls.
    
    You know, I might be wierd, but I like the idea of my daughter and her
    friends spoofing with condoms.  I pretty sure they are  not using them
    for what they are meant for, just by the silliness and the innocence of
    their spoofing.  But they are showing me that they know what they are,
    they know where to get them, and they are not embarrassed to handle
    them.
    
    The conversation was light and non judgmental.  It gave me one more
    opportunity to make my mother speech.  "I hope you wait until you are
    much older before you decide to engage in sex, but when you do I hope
    you make sure you use a Condom."  "oh, mom, don't worry, we are not
    going to do that" they retort.  Hopefully the message will be fully
    ingrained in their heads before they do "that".
    
                                     Patricia 
    

	.164
    
> So, are all forms of sexual immorality conducive to the spread of AIDS?
    
    	No, and that was never the point being made.
    
    	But I WILL make the suggestion that all immoral sex (all immoral
    	behavior of any sort, for that matter) has a risk and a cost of
    	one sort or another, and leading a more moral lifestyle keeps
    	us from being unnecessarily exposed to those risks and
    	complications.
    
    	Look at the recent example given here of the guy who "found 
    	himself in an affair with a married woman".  It was later suggested
    	(though not really confirmed) that he wasn't aware that the woman
    	was married at first.  I say "So what?"  Being sexually involved
    	out of wedlock with someone is immoral in itself.  And in the
    	example given it ended up unfolding into an affair with a married
    	woman.
    
    	So fine.  Masturbation won't spread AIDS.  That doesn't take
    	away from the fact that other immoral behaviors will.  And while
    	the morality of masturbation is certainly more arguable than
    	the morality of having an affair with a married woman, the fact
    	that it won't spread AIDS will not change its immorality as seen
    	by those who see it as such.

>I confess I don't know what the current statistics are, but at one time AIDS
>was virtually unknown among exclusively lesbian women.
    
    	Last I heard, it is still this way, though I don't know what
    	bearing it has on this discussion.

	.166

>what you joe (and jack) are saying is that society needs to change in order
>to prevent the spread of AIDS. you say we all have to live responsibly and that
>you like to see preemptive measures taken. i have no problem with that at all.
    
    	But just a few notes ago you were saying that our position
    	"demonizes" the people as well as the behavior!
    
>all i say to that, let's not forget that there are people living irresponsibly
>and they will continue to do so unless we can change their behaviour quickly
>and effectively. because changing society takes a long time we need some
>effective measures now.
    
    	Good point.  I fully admit that I am focusing more on a long
    	term treatment of the societal problem, and I've chastized you
    	(collectively) for ignoring the long term treatment to focus
    	on the immediate issue.
    
    	At the same time I an turning a blind eye to the immediate
    	problem to focus on the long term.
    
    	We do need more balance.

    >I confess I don't know what the current statistics are, but at one time 
    >AIDS was virtually unknown among exclusively lesbian women.
    
     >>       Last I heard, it is still this way, though I don't know what
     >>       bearing it has on this discussion.
    
    Let me take a stab at it.  Inferring that exclusively lesbian women
    don't get AIDS would prove God inconsistent if He were using AIDS as
    a judgement for sexually deviant behavior. 
    
    I don't personally believe AIDS is a judgement of God.  I believe 
    God is allowing it to happen to show us what happens when we do things
    by our model and not by Gods.  I believe AIDS is the result of our own
    architecture.  
    
    -Jack

    Aids, Cancer, Heart Desease, Suicide, Depression, Alcoholism,
    Workaholism, 
    
    Each is part of our own architecture.   
    
    And there is one simple solution!
    
    Love thy neighbor as thyself!
    
                                   Patricia

   >>     Each is part of our own architecture.
    
   >>     And there is one simple solution!
    
   >>     Love thy neighbor as thyself!
    
    To some, not warning somebody about immorality is a form of hate and 
    disregard.  Therefore, Love thy neighbor as thyself is true, but is
    a very broad term.  I believe to love our neighbor is to warn them of
    eternal consequences.  To others, this is prosthlytizing and
    insensitivity.
    
    -Jack

Note 217.170

>> So, are all forms of sexual immorality conducive to the spread of AIDS?
    
>    	So fine.  Masturbation won't spread AIDS.  That doesn't take
>    	away from the fact that other immoral behaviors will.

>>I confess I don't know what the current statistics are, but at one time AIDS
>>was virtually unknown among exclusively lesbian women.

>    	Last I heard, it is still this way, though I don't know what
>    	bearing it has on this discussion.

Ah, you don't get the point.  One of my difficulties is that it seems so
obvious to me.

In the case of masturbation and lesbians, it seems immoral sexual activity
as it is defined in some circles can practically insulate one against AIDS.
Put another way, it seems some forms of sexual immorality may actually
inhibit the spread of AIDS.

Shalom,
Richard

.171>	At the same time I an turning a blind eye to the immediate
.171>	problem to focus on the long term.
    
.171>	We do need more balance.


joe, hopefully, we will never agree - we add to the variety of the points of 
view! 

there will always be immediate and long term issues. i like the balance :-)


joe, before we get too peaceful here i have a highly inflammable counterposition
to your view of my story. it will add fire to the oil, do you want to hear it?


andreas.

.170>	Look at the recent example given here of the guy who "found 
.170>	himself in an affair with a married woman".  

the example was given to demonstrate that it can be diffcult to judge 
a situation purely from a moral point of view. particularly if you restrict
yourself to appearances. just how relevant is the outcome?

there are more stories from where this one came from. other stories. 
this story though also serves to illustrate the valuable function that lovers, 
mistresses and concubines can fill as marriage guidance councillors. 

no, a lover, a mistress, a concubine is definitely not a marriage guidance 
councillor. certainly not. but, if by virtue of an intimate relationship the 
lover discovers that the bond of marriage is not irrepairably severed, it would 
indeed be a sinful omission on behalf of the lover not to attempt to restore 
the marriage bond.

that's just what the lover did in the story and he may not even have done
so willingly!

to joe, i could equally reply "so what. helping to keep a marriage together 
is NEVER wrong!", but that would also be arrogant and self-righteous.

so i stand by what i was inspired by jack to reply in .146

>to sum the moral of the story up in a christian manner: i'd say we should not
>concern ourselves with calling something moral or immoral but rather put our
>trust in god to serve himself of us as his instruments to "take a bad situation
>and use it for good."



thanks,
andreas.

    Is Greg back again!!! :-)
    
>>    Put another way, it seems some forms of sexual immorality may actually
>>    inhibit the spread of AIDS.
    
    Yes but will it inhibit blindness!??? :-)
    
    Sorry, just my typical male response to dicussing an uncomfortable
    topic!
    
    -Jack

>In the case of masturbation and lesbians, it seems immoral sexual activity
>as it is defined in some circles can practically insulate one against AIDS.
>Put another way, it seems some forms of sexual immorality may actually
>inhibit the spread of AIDS.

    	Again, so?  In the case of the guy having an affair with the
    	married woman, some apparent "good" came of the affair -- the
    	woman went back to her husband.
    
    	Quarrantine of AIDS victims would also inhibit the spread of
    	AIDS.  Surely you wouldn't argue for that!

    	re .176
    
    	Please, have at it, Andreas!

	.177
    
>the example was given to demonstrate that it can be diffcult to judge 
>a situation purely from a moral point of view. 
    
    	Without qualification, this example was very simple to judge
    	from a moral point of view.  Any "good" that comes from an
    	immoral act does not somehow make that immoral act moral,
    	nevermind that the "good" was only questionably a result of 
    	the immoral act in this case.

>this story though also serves to illustrate the valuable function that lovers, 
>mistresses and concubines can fill as marriage guidance councillors. 
    
    	I absolutely reject this notion.  Such situations are more apt
    	to end up in brokenness than in healing.

>to joe, i could equally reply "so what. helping to keep a marriage together 
>is NEVER wrong!", but that would also be arrogant and self-righteous.
    
    	I don't consider that statement arrogant or self-righteous.

>so i stand by what i was inspired by jack to reply in .146

    	And I still reject that statement.

    
    Hi Jack,

    I don't want to be accused of brow beating or putting words in your
    mouth, but I do have some questions. 

    > I believe God is allowing it to happen to show us what happens when we
    > do things by our model and not by Gods.

    Do you feel that all diseases and maladies are allowed by God to show
    what happens when we deviate from God's model? Is there something about
    AIDS that sets it apart from other diseases as being a sign from God? 

    I believe you believe God created the AIDS virus (as well as everything
    else in the Universe). I believe you believe God defined the
    circumstances by which is transmitted. What I don't understand is how
    you differentiate a sign from judgment.  

    	Eric

re Note 217.174 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     To some, not warning somebody about immorality is a form of hate and 
>     disregard.  Therefore, Love thy neighbor as thyself is true, but is
>     a very broad term.  I believe to love our neighbor is to warn them of
>     eternal consequences.  To others, this is prosthlytizing and
>     insensitivity.
  
        Jack, I'm not addressing this to you, but your note prompted
        me to write this:

        I have no problem with warning people that promiscuous sex is
        dangerous and immoral.  I have no problem with telling people
        that the morality of gay sex is at least highly doubtful
        according to the Bible -- and I have no problem if those for
        whom there is no doubt tell others so.  I agree that this is
        the loving thing to do.

        However, it seems that so many of the people for whom the
        loving thing is to condemn gay sex also go much further and
        discriminate, or condone others discriminating, against gays
        in other, non-sexual areas of life.  I mean discrimination
        that results in gays having a tough time getting or keeping
        jobs, or a tough time obtaining decent housing.  I cannot see
        such discrimination as anything other than *hating* the
        sinner, *hating* your neighbor.

        Bob

	.184
    
>        However, it seems that so many of the people for whom the
>        loving thing is to condemn gay sex also go much further and
>        discriminate, or condone others discriminating, against gays
>        in other, non-sexual areas of life.  I mean discrimination
>        that results in gays having a tough time getting or keeping
>        jobs, or a tough time obtaining decent housing.  I cannot see
>        such discrimination as anything other than *hating* the
>        sinner, *hating* your neighbor.
    
    	Such *IS* hating one's neighbor.
    
    	My only beef with your response is the phrase "so many".  How
    	much really is "so many"?  Have any of those "so many" ever
    	responded in this conference?

Note 217.180

>    	Again, so?

I'll not pursue it further at this time, thank you.

>	In the case of the guy having an affair with the
>   	married woman, some apparent "good" came of the affair -- the
>   	woman went back to her husband.

Umm, I'm afraid I haven't been following that exchange.
    
>    	Quarrantine of AIDS victims would also inhibit the spread of
>    	AIDS.  Surely you wouldn't argue for that!

It didn't even occur to me.  People with AIDS -- perhaps they really are
the contemporary lepers.

Shalom,
Richard

This string is still running faster than I am!

.162  MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur"

Jack,

The reason it looks one-sided to me is that you have determined the sole cause
and cure. The death toll would not continue to rise, for example, if a cure for
the disease is found. It is also not entirely unlikely that the disease could
mutate and be passed through the air, no self-destructive behavior required.
This could cause the toll to rise no matter what moral codes were in place.

There is no doubt that AIDS is primarily propagated through certain types of
behaviour. This does make that behaviour self destructive. That does not make it
necessarily immoral. You can make a case that being a firefighter (or a postal
worker :^) is self-destructive (due to the danger), is it immoral? 

    Coincidently Steve, my current behavior excludes me from catching AIDS.

Don't kid yourself, you are not immune. Dental procedures, surgeries, hidden
indescretions by your spouse could all put you in harms way. And there are cases
on record where no infecting agent was identified. But you can reduce your
chances, of course.

    your behavior determine yours.  I believe in the need to shift
    societies way of thinking in the areas of sex and personal
    responsibility.  

I believe that we need to shift societies views around personal responsibility
also. But modification of sexual behaviour follows modification of taking
personal responsibility, not the other way around.

Steve

| <<< Note 217.110 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>



| Its like a child who disobeys their parents.  They play with the stove, they 
| get their hands burned, they cry. The child didn't deserve to get their hand 
| burned. They countermanded what was required of them and unfortunately, the 
| result was...a burned hand. But my cynical tone would be directed toward the 
| PC Speak crowd who say, "Awwww, now don't be so hard on Johnnie, let him 
| explore and discover himself. Just because his brother Joey burned his hand on
| the stove doesn't mean you have to be insensitive to Johnnie."  

	Jack, that has to be the strangest thing I've read from you. My hope is
in the notes following this a couple of key things will have been addressed:

	How what you wrote above makes any sense when everyone, including
	the PC-crowd is talking about and giving out education leactures,
	materials, etc to PREVENT AIDS from speading.

	How being sensitive to the person who got AIDS could ever be put
	into a catagory that you wrote about above as that deals with a
	person who doesn't have AIDS, and being sensitive deals with those
	with AIDS. 

| This is a crime...an absolute crime to the victims of AIDS.  

	What's a crime is your way of thinking. You have taken what is meant
for the victims of AIDS, and WRONGFULLY applied it to those without it. That's
the real crime Jack.

| Always believed the condom message was a phoney quick fix to the problem.

	Maybe it was incomplete, but it does save lives. Abstinence is being
stressed, but only a fool will believe in this day in age that everyone will go
that route. One needs to cover as many avenues as possible to help stop the
spreading of this disease.

| There needs to be a severe paradigm shift in society teaching that casual sex 
| is IMMORAL and WRONG.  

	Jack, once you throw in immoral, you'll turn a lot of people off. Keep
religion out of the mess and you'll probably get more people to listen. Sad,
yeah, but that's reality. A BETTER approach would be to talk about the dangers,
how there is only one SURE method of not getting the disease, but also talk
about protection measures that can help, as with anything else in this world,
people aren't always going to do what is right.

| No, not that it is recommended we abstain...it is IMMORAL and WRONG! Otherwise
| the death toll will continue to rise.

	Jack, the death toll will continue to rise by YOUR method. There are
too many people who do NOT want to be preached to. And I'll be damned if I will
let them be tossed aside because you feel your way is the only way. It isn't
dealing with reality. It would be like saying there is only one way to get rid
of the Federal deficit. Many measures will have to be taken.


Glen

| <<< Note 217.116 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I lied; I hate the fat dinosaur" >>>


| By the way, condoms do not prevent the spread of AIDS.


	If used properly Jack? Guess again.


Glen

>    Jack, the death toll will continue to rise by YOUR method. There are too 
>    many people who do NOT want to be preached to. And I'll be damned if I will
>    let them be tossed aside because you feel your way is the only way. It 
>    isn't dealing with reality. It would be like saying there is only one 
>    way to get rid of the Federal deficit. Many measures will have to be taken.
    
    Tell you what Glen, your way of doing it has worked effectively over
    the last ten years.  I'll just stay out of it and let you handle the
    problem.  Good luck!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 217.190 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| >    Jack, the death toll will continue to rise by YOUR method. There are too
| >    many people who do NOT want to be preached to. And I'll be damned if I will
| >    let them be tossed aside because you feel your way is the only way. It
| >    isn't dealing with reality. It would be like saying there is only one
| >    way to get rid of the Federal deficit. Many measures will have to be taken.

| Tell you what Glen, your way of doing it has worked effectively over
| the last ten years.  I'll just stay out of it and let you handle the
| problem.  Good luck!

	You know Jack, if you would put a correct timeframe on what you speak,
you would make more sense. Do you really think in 1985 that this country was
all talking about prevention of AIDS???? It wasn't until Magic Johnson that
many of the straight community opened their eyes to the fact it effects
everyone. Commercials and stuff didn't start until the 90's. Go look at the
stats since then Jack, and don't include a time where most of the people could
have cared less. 

	Also, I did see that the points I addressed a couple of notes ago were
not addressed in any of the notes that followed your entry. So would you please
go back and address this burning hand on the stove = being PC/sensitive to
those who don't have AIDS please?



Glen

    I would like to remind the heterosexuals in this conference, how devasting
    Aids has been to the Gay community.  I personally cannot imagine what
    it must be like to be a Gay man today.  I know that Aids is a very
    real, personal catastrophe.  I cannot imagine what it must be like to
    have friends and loved ones die of Aids and be HIV positive.  
    
    Unfortunately, moralizing can be very impersonal.  Let's not forget for
    a second, the personal side of this tragedy regardless of what are
    attitudes about sex outside of marriage and Gay sex in particular may
    be.  Let's not forget to have compassion for a community struggling
    with this horrible desease.
    
                                         Patricia
    
                                  Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    I sympathize...I Sympathize...Believe me I Sympathize...that is not
    the issue here.  My beef is with society, not gays.  
    
  >>>  Unfortunately, moralizing can be very impersonal. 
    
    Yes, and that's the real shame of it because what is immoral (by a
    biblical perspective) is moral to the world.  Hence there are lots of
    kiddies playing with a hot stove and nobody is begging them to get
    away.
    
    Nobody ever said that truth and popularity contests go hand in hand. 
    Jesus spoke the pure truth at all times and the world rewarded him with
    one of the most barbaric deaths anybody could face.  Same with Paul,
    Stephen, James, Andrew, Peter, John the Baptist et al.  In fact as I 
    brought up last week, John the Baptist was jailed and subsequently
    beheaded for merely telling the king it wasn't right for him to have
    his brothers wife.  I'm sure that came across as a very insensitive and
    impersonal comment in that culture.
    
    -jack

    Jack,
    
    The point is that you are not Jesus, or Paul, or John the Baptist.  You
    admitted before that you have an issue with the Gay issue that goes
    beyond the Bible.  You preach about this "sin" more so than other sins. 
    It could be a speck rather than the brick.
    
    I applaud the community of Gay men for how responsively they have
    ministered to each other and responded to the crisis of Aids.  Many
    facts have been written in here that are absolutely true.  The
    incidence of Aids in Gay men is declining.  Aids is very quickly
    becoming a hetero sexual  issue and it impacts everyone one of us.  With
    14 and 16 year old children, it certainly impacts me.  I am sorry that
    more of us heterosexuals have not been sympathetic to the issue for a
    longer time.
    
    But it certainly is time for all of us to get our heads out of the sand if
    they are not already out of the sand.
    
                                         Patricia

>>    The point is that you are not Jesus, or Paul, or John the Baptist. 
>>    You admitted before that you have an issue with the Gay issue that goes
>>    beyond the Bible.  You preach about this "sin" more so than other sins.
>>    It could be a speck rather than the brick.
    
    I'm interested in your first sentence here.  Are you saying that Paul
    and John the Baptist have more authority to speak on the ills of
    society than other followers of Jesus Christ?  I remember Jesus words
    quite well in the gospels when he stated, "For there has never been a
    greater prophet than John the Baptist, and the VERY LEAST of you is
    greater than he."  Jesus was making the point here that John the
    Baptist died before Jesus was glorified and that the simple believers
    and followers of Christ would perform greater exploits through their
    faith than he was able to in his short life.  So don't be so quick to 
    put the early disciples on such a high pedastel.  God has great plans
    for you and me as well.  
    
>>    You admitted before that you have an issue with the Gay issue that
>>    goes beyond the Bible. 
    
    Patricia, I think you have me mixed up with somebody else.  I do spend
    more time on this issue because I see a segment of society insisting
    homosexuality is sanctified by God.  If society insisted beastiality
    was sanctified by God, I'd latch onto that battle with the same fervor
    as I do with abortion for birth control.  These are the big battles of
    Christianity today.  As I have stated numerous times, peoples personal
    lives are their business, just don't teach my children that they are 
    normal or sanctified before God.  What is happening today is
    manipulation and social engineering!  It doesn't go beyond the Bible. 
    It is addressing what people say contrary to the Bible.
    
    -Jack
         

    Jack,
    
    No that is not the issue.
    
    The issue is that based on your Biblical beliefs, you believe that what
    is stated in the Bible about Jesus, Paul, or John the Baptist
    represents infallable truth.  
    
    You don't speak with infallible truth.  You don't have the last word on
    the subject.  There are many things about homosexuality that you cannot
    speak with certainty about.  There is lots of ground for
    interpretational error in the Bible about homosexuality since there are
    only 8 versus, none of them being specifically about homosexuality. 
    All of them lumping a lot of different issues together.  None of them
    even pretending to understand the modern day understanding of
    homosexuality.  And further more, Jesus says absolutely nothing about
    homosexuality.  
    
    Given all that, you cannot speak with certainty about
    the subject.  Nor can any other fundementalist.  But rather than be
    humbled by their human ignorance, Bible believers tend to use very
    scant and questionable biblical evidence to condemn a way of life.
    
    What would Jesus most likely say about the current Biblical based
    condemnation of the Gay community?  We have lots of good examples to
    infer his reaction not to the Gay community, but to those who would so
    easily condemn the community.
    
                            Patricia

    Jack,

    When you have a chance, could you reply to my .183... Feel free to
    reply off line if you'd like. I'm not trying to badger you or pin you
    into a corner, I just want to understand where your coming from with
    regard to signs from God versus judgment from God and the nature of
    diseases.

    If you don't have the time that's cool too.

    Eric

Re: Note 217.183         
APACHE::MYERS                                        19 lines   3-FEB-1995 15:25

Sorry Eric...I forgot!
    
    > I believe God is allowing it to happen to show us what happens when we
    > do things by our model and not by Gods.

>>    Do you feel that all diseases and maladies are allowed by God to show
>>    what happens when we deviate from God's model? 

No, I do not and Job is the perfect example of this.  Regardless of whether
he was real or fictitious, the theme of the book strikes me that the rain can 
fall on the righteous and the unrighteous...for a variety of different reasons.
Interestingly enough however, Jesus also healed and cured many people from 
diseases and sicknesses.  He always underscored it by saying, "Get up and 
walk...your sins are forgiven."  or "Your faith has made you well."  I do 
believe that disease and sickness is a result of our sin nature but I don't 
believe that illness always comes because we commit specific sins.

>>    Is there something about
>>    AIDS that sets it apart from other diseases as being a sign from God? 

Not necessarily.  I am no expert but the spread of other STDs is probably far 
greater than AIDS.  I do believe that alot of STDs are propogated in society 
by ignoring Gods plan for wonderful sex and substituting it for our own.  AIDS
carries so much more weight because the disease is a killer.  Otherwise, it
would be in there with Herpes, Gonnorhea, and the like.

>>    I believe you believe God created the AIDS virus (as well as everything
>>    else in the Universe). I believe you believe God defined the
>>    circumstances by which is transmitted. What I don't understand is how
>>    you differentiate a sign from judgment.  

Simply put, there are many circumstances God allows to happen.  Man does heroin,
man ODs on heroin.  Man cheats on wife...wife shoots husband.  Boy has sex with
girl..girl gets pregnant.  Three small examples of what happens when we fall 
away from Gods plan...but GOD STILL ALLOWS it to happen.  Now there are other
cases that God allows to happen...why, who really knows.  The Japan earthquakes,
the California floods, etc.  I believe all these things are to show that we
cannot be our own god and that the creator of the universe is sovereign.
Catastrophes draw people together and closer to God.  We are no longer self
sufficient.  Ever see War of the Worlds?

A judgement is different.  It is a supernatural act such as one that defies
nature...the nile turning into blood...God allowing the day to continue and 
stopping the earth from rotating so that Joshua could win in battle, Hailing 
heavy hail falling from a blue sky...these are what I call judgements 
anyway...my humble opinion only. 

Rgds.,

-Jack

    
    
    >> "...peoples personal lives are their business, just don't teach my 
    >> children that they are normal or sanctified before God."
    
    
       This cuts both ways. I believe that people's religious views
       with respect to individual's personal lives are their business,
       but just don't teach, my children, via censorship or otherwise, 
       that these views are "normal" or "sanctified before God." 
       
       In a pluralistic society, it is impossible for society to cater 
       to each individual's personal belief system. As such, the most
       inclusive views must be what is valued by the public sector
       of society. This will foster the most humane treatment for
       a maximal number of the members of the society and minimize
       a "caste" system mentality, (which is clearly harmful to the
       members in the lower echelons of the society). 
    
       I believe this approach encompasses the principles of Christianity.
    
       Bob
    
       
        

    re Note 217.198 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN
    
    Thanks, Jack. 
    
    Eric

    >>       This cuts both ways. I believe that people's religious views
    >>       with respect to individual's personal lives are their business,
    >>       but just don't teach, my children, via censorship or otherwise,
    >>       that these views are "normal" or "sanctified before God."
    
    Bob, good point but let me challenge you with this.  If the
    implementation of your idea means the lives of another 20,000 victims,
    is it worth this to you!
    
    Thx.,
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 217.194 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>



| Aids is very quickly becoming a heterosexual issue and it impacts everyone one
| of us.  

	Just a nit.... but worldwide AIDS has always been more of a
heterosexual disease. By a wide margin at that. In North America it
seems to have hit the gay community first. Why? I don't really know.

| I am sorry that more of us heterosexuals have not been sympathetic to the 
| issue for a longer time.

	In the rest of the world, they have been. They see it as a disease, and
they are trying to find a cure. 

| But it certainly is time for all of us to get our heads out of the sand if
| they are not already out of the sand.

	Amen to that! :-)


Glen

	Jack, could you respond to .191 please???? Thanks. :-)

    
    
    >>    Bob, good point but let me challenge you with this.  If the
    >>    implementation of your idea means the lives of another 20,000
    >>    victims, is it worth this to you!
    
    
    This is all hypothetical, I gather ?
    
    I'm not certain I follow the logic of this question in this context.
    
    Let me ask you - If the implementation of your ideas means the lives
    of another 20,000 victims, would it be worth it to you ?
    
    From your response, maybe I will be able to discern what you are
    getting at ... 
    
    
    Bob
    

	.194
        
>    The point is that you are not Jesus, or Paul, or John the Baptist.  
    
    	Good point, and very much worth remembering next time we 
    	condescendingly attack someone else with, "Well would Jesus
    	say/do such a thing?"

.182>  	Without qualification, this example was very simple to judge
.182>  	from a moral point of view.  Any "good" that comes from an
.182>	immoral act does not somehow make that immoral act moral,
.182>  	nevermind that the "good" was only questionably a result of 
.182>  	the immoral act in this case.

writing my 1052.13 today, the rationality behind joe's statement above finally 
dawned on me. if i replace "moral" with "legal" in the text above, i might
even agree with joe's statement. 

i can see joe's ground for judgement and dismissal: morality. since morality
is only ever confined to the individual, there is no binding morality between
individuals (only the law is binding), joe can only ever judge and dismiss on 
his own personal grounds.


.182> to joe, i could equally reply "so what. helping to keep a marriage together 
.182> is NEVER wrong!", but that would also be arrogant and self-righteous.
.182>    
.182>  	I don't consider that statement arrogant or self-righteous.

"helping to keep a marriage together is NEVER wrong!" is a moral statement. 
it would be self-righteous and arrogant of me to categorically assert this,
because in doing so, i would force my morality on others.


andreas.

    Andreas:
    
    Reverend Jim Jones took that position also.  He found he was lusting
    after women other than his wife and sought after a pastor of a cult
    church in California.  Jones was told the best way to rid himself of
    the lust was to commit the act with these women.  Jones followed this
    advice and subsequently violated the marriages of other people.  He
    justified his actions by saying they were good.
    
    -Jack

thanks for associating me with a famous person, jack, i am sure that man had
some savoury moments! :-)


seriously though, with the discussion we're also having in 1052 on law,
the sketch as it stands at the moment is:


				  applicability:

			personal		interpersonal
			-------------------------------------

	law		  YOU			     ME


	morals		  ME			     YOU



joe seems to fall into your category. what has me puzzled is how can you guys 
justify interpersonal applicability of morality in a multicultural society.



andreas.

    Andreas:
    
    We actually cannot do this.  Abraham in Sodom, Jesus in Israel, even
    Moses in the desert were not able to do this.  My whole take on this is
    simply:
    
    -Abstinence works 100%...and by the way is moral for single people to 
     practice since by the measurement of humanism, all is moral.
    
    -Free sex before marriage does promote the spread of STD's...AIDS in
     general.  Biblically, premarital sex is fornication and extramarital
     sex is adultery...both resulting in the death penalty under the 
     Mosaic law. 
    
     Now here's the question, if we cannot "push" morality on the public,
     lets position it this way.  Which perspective above will save more 
     lives...like 100%?
    
    -Jack

.206> i can see joe's ground for judgement and dismissal: morality. since morality
>is only ever confined to the individual, there is no binding morality between
>individuals (only the law is binding), joe can only ever judge and dismiss on 
>his own personal grounds.

.209> joe seems to fall into your category. what has me puzzled is how can you guys 
>justify interpersonal applicability of morality in a multicultural society.
    
    	First of all, to your suggestion that my personal judgements are
    	based on morality, I say, "So what?"  We have to have SOMETHING
    	upon which to base our judgements!  What do you use as a basis for
    	yours?
    
    	Secondly, even our founding fathers knew that the law in and of 
    	itself is toothless in the absence of morals in our society.  
    	Consider:
    
    	"We have staked the whole future of American Civilization 
	not upon the power of government, far from it!  We have staked
    	the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity
    	of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten
    	Commandments of God..."
    
    	James Madison.

.206>"helping to keep a marriage together is NEVER wrong!" is a moral statement. 
>it would be self-righteous and arrogant of me to categorically assert this,
>because in doing so, i would force my morality on others.

    	Boy, you have a broad concept of "force".  That's about all I
    	can say to that.

Note .209

>   Biblically, premarital sex is fornication and extramarital
>   sex is adultery...both resulting in the death penalty under the 
>   Mosaic law. 

I suppose this still seems to some like a pretty sound and Godly way
to deal with these situations.

Richard

jack, allow me this one personal remark: it is a great pleasure noting with you.
you have a firm foundation and are open to discussion. whilst i have quite
different views to yours (i try to approach moral issues objectively), i feel 
that when we discuss a problem, we do communicate well nonetheless.

by now, i see you as an ally in the confrontation of AIDS and i am quite sure 
that you might just see a little bit of the same in me too. that would mean 
alot to me.


>  Now here's the question, if we cannot "push" morality on the public,
>  lets position it this way.  Which perspective above will save more 
>  lives...like 100%?

summarizing, i think encouraging abstinence and discouraging free sex before 
marriage is perfectly ok inasmuch as these measures do contain the spread of 
AIDS. given the imperfection of the world we live in, it is to be expected 
however, that no one single measure, once implemented, will result in 100% 
success under all circumstances. this is why we should remain open to all 
measures which contain the spread of AIDS. in this light i view the two 
measures which you advocate as two valid measures in an array of possible 
measures. i tried to make the point of "using the most appropriate measure 
(out of an array of measures) given a specific situation" in my note on junkies 
(217.166). there we have people who will not abstain and where a most effective 
measure is handing out clean needles for every shot.

in (217.168, kids) i also tried to make the point that whilst we must teach 
our children our values, we should not close ourselves to what does not agree 
with our values. eg. i teach my children both in word and primarily by example
that i don't agree with drug abuse whilst this doesn't preclude objective 
discussion of drug use and abuse and potential risks and pleasures from drugs.
i do this in the confidence that a positive parental example by far outweighs 
the danger of the child succumbing to pear pressure, that education is most 
essential for my children to make their own choice when confronted with the 
temptation. as i feel a choice self made is far stronger and more enduring
than one which one was forced to make.


thanks,

andreas.

.210> What do you use as a basis for yours [judgements]?

i cannot say that i have a well defined basis for making judgements. i tend to
trust my intuition for judging a given situation. i have great difficulty at 
pronouncing judgements and with people who are prone to making judgements. 
i realise that it could be very difficult for you to understand my answer 
without judging me (and possibly dismissing my communication) at the same time.

i used to have a hard type myself in understanding judgemental "types"
until i came across this typification used in psychology which helped me 
follow the logic of judgemental types (this is actually the jungian typology)


		    rational	    irrational
		-----------------------------------

objective:	    reasoned   	    intuitive

subjective:	    emotional	    sensual

		-----------------------------------
		  judgemental	 non-judgemental



i believe i recall the chart correctly, but i can't guarantee it.
very very broadly speaking, by this typology, individual personalities are
classified as either judgemental (reasoned, emotional) or non-judgemental
(intuitive, sensual). i obviously fall in to the latter category.


andreas.    

| <<< Note 217.209 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| -Abstinence works 100%...and by the way is moral for single people to practice
| since by the measurement of humanism, all is moral.

	By the measurement of God, everything is moral Jack. If you base your
morals on humanism, then they are going to be far from perfect.

| -Free sex before marriage does promote the spread of STD's...AIDS in general. 

	Wrong Jack. Sex without thinking/caring/lack of knowledge promotes STD's
& AIDS. People who know the facts, people who put thought into what could
happen beforehand, and people who care about more than just an orgasm OR care
about the person their with (ie not sleep around), will not ever have a problem 
Jack. 

| Now here's the question, if we cannot "push" morality on the public, lets 
| position it this way. Which perspective above will save more lives...like 100%

	Being smart about it Jack will save all lives.


Glen

.213> i have great difficulty at pronouncing judgements 
    
    	And as you have seen, I don't.  Maybe I have more confidence
    	in the basis for my judgements.

| <<< Note 217.215 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| And as you have seen, I don't.  Maybe I have more confidence in the basis for 
| my judgements.

	But ya should be letting God handle the judgement of others. 


Glen

re .215     

>.213> i have great difficulty at pronouncing judgements 
>    
>    	And as you have seen, I don't.  Maybe I have more confidence
>    	in the basis for my judgements.

we can't measure confidence objectively. i fully trust my intuition for 
making my judgements.

if the judgement affects only me, i have no problem. if it affects others
i am more cautious. then i prefer judgement by consent. the reason being, 
i am not god. only god (if he exists) is infallible.

make sense?


andreas.

	.217

>if the judgement affects only me, i have no problem. if it affects others
>i am more cautious. then i prefer judgement by consent. the reason being, 
>i am not god. only god (if he exists) is infallible.
>
>make sense?

    	God has made Himself perfectly clear on many issues -- especially
    	those that currently receive much of the social discussion.  The
    	arguments against that clarity are the fabtications of individual
    	people to further their own selfish wants.
    
    	God's word makes perfect sense.

    
    
    
    re. 218
    
    Again, this cuts both ways. 
    
    Isn't it amazing how both sides of an issue can be perfectly clear,
    depending upon the individual's perspective ...
    
    
    Bob
    

>>    By the measurement of God, everything is moral Jack. If you
>>    base your morals on humanism, then they are going to be far from perfect.
    
    Where did you learn this...particularly the first sentence?
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 217.220 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| >>    By the measurement of God, everything is moral Jack. If you
| >>    base your morals on humanism, then they are going to be far from perfect.

| Where did you learn this...particularly the first sentence?

	St. Joseph's church in Berlin, CCD class. But I do see your point. What
I said is true, but I think I may have worded it wrong. It should read that the
measurement of everything that is moral is done by God. This makes it perfect.
A measurement on a human level gets us into free will issues.


Glen

.218 CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?"

    	God has made Himself perfectly clear on many issues -- especially
    	those that currently receive much of the social discussion.  The
    	arguments against that clarity are the fabtications of individual
    	people to further their own selfish wants.
    
Suuurrreee he does, Joe. I have yet to see any two Christians agree 100% on the
meaning of the Bible. I haven't even seen agreement on the meaning of the 10
commandments, which are about as clear and succinct as you can make such
pronouncments. Otherwise why would there be so many different Christian sects?
I can only see this as anybody who disagrees with your personal interpretation
is trying to further their own selfish wants. Give me a break.

    	God's word makes perfect sense.

To you, for your interpretation. Others may make the same statement, but the
perfect sense that is made would not match yours 100%. 

Steve

Note 217.215

>>.213> i have great difficulty at pronouncing judgements     

>    	And as you have seen, I don't.  Maybe I have more confidence
>    	in the basis for my judgements.

In fact, I have witnessed this absence of difficulty in pronouncing
judgment with confidence.  Note 960.2 comes to mind as an example.

Shalom,
Richard

An excellent and hopeful broadcast regarding AIDS aired last night on
"48 Hours" (CBS).

Shalom,
Richard

	Richard, that note of Joe's says an awful lot. And I STRESS awful.

	I missed 48 hours last night. I remember something about a possible
cure for AIDS, but I fell asleep before it came on. Could you tell us about it?


Glen

    It might be appropriate for those who think it a virtue to be sure of
    there right to be judgemental and critical to read what the Bible has
    to say about judging others.
    
    Richard,  The note you alude to is a good example!
    
                       Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    This has been discussed a few imes in the conference.  The Bible
    CLEARLY states that we are exhort one another toward Godly living.  
    The verse, "Do not judge others lest you be judged", is used widely out
    of context.  This verse is speaking of eternal destiny.  Like if I
    said, "Patricia, you are going to hell"  which is something I have
    never said in this conference.  
    
    -Jack

	.222
    
>Suuurrreee he does, Joe. I have yet to see any two Christians agree 100% on the
>meaning of the Bible. I haven't even seen agreement on the meaning of the 10
>commandments, which are about as clear and succinct as you can make such
>pronouncments. Otherwise why would there be so many different Christian sects?
    
    	Then you haven't looked very hard.  It's easy to take examples from
    	this conference where dissent and confusion are encouraged to help
    	alleviate guilt so that you all can ignore your consciences and
    	justify your personal moral shortcomings.  Rather than seek truth,
    	the indivisual is encouraged to formulate his own truth.  THAT is
    	where so many different Christian sects come from.
    
>I can only see this as anybody who disagrees with your personal interpretation
>is trying to further their own selfish wants. Give me a break.
    
    	My personal interpretation (or what I would want my personal
    	interpretation to be) is different in many instances from the
    	interpretation I choose to follow.  That's the difference between
    	you and me.  I don't create my own God, but rather bow to God
    	as He calls me (not through my own imagination, but through
    	His word and history and traditions) to see him.
    
>    	God's word makes perfect sense.
    >
>To you, for your interpretation. Others may make the same statement, but the
>perfect sense that is made would not match yours 100%. 
    
    	The perfect sense that I follow is not the "perfect sense" that
    	I would have chosen to interpret it to be.  So no, it is not
    	"my interpretation" that I challenge others to follow.

.228 CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?"

	Then you haven't looked very hard.  It's easy to take examples from
	this conference where dissent and confusion are encouraged to help
	alleviate guilt so that you all can ignore your consciences and
	justify your personal moral shortcomings.

My experience in this arena is hardly limited to this conference. From all of
my  experiences I believe that you would be hard pressed to find any two
Christians that agree 100% on their interpretations of every passage in the
Bible. Based on your later words, however, I might be persuaded that you were
willing to ignore your personal beliefs in favor of someone elses. In this way
you might achieve 100% 'agreement'. Beware this path, however, as it has been
tried by the followers of Jim Jones and others. BTW, I am not 'ignoring' my
conscience, nor am I justifying my personal shortcomings. What makes you think
that I am?

	Rather than seek truth, the indivisual is encouraged to formulate his
	own truth. THAT is where so many different Christian sects come from.

Broken down this says that if my interpreation does not agree with yours than
I am wrong and have fabricated my own truth out of whole cloth, while you have
been clever enough to correctly grasp 100% of what God meant. Wow. I guess all
I can do here is offer my congratulations.

	My personal interpretation (or what I would want my personal
	interpretation to be) is different in many instances from the
	interpretation I choose to follow.

If I understand this, you have read a passage and formulated your own
interpretation of what this meant. You then, for some reason, chose to ignore
your belief and to follow... what? Somebody else's view? Whose? Why? I truly
do not understand.

	That's the difference between you and me.  I don't create my own God,
	but rather bow to God as He calls me (not through my own imagination,
	but through His word and history and traditions) to see him.

Why do you insist that I have 'created my own God'? If you had even a clue as
to what atheism is about you would understand that this is not only
meaningless, but an outright contradiction. Joe, if you have no direct contact
with God, then you are bowing to the Bible, history and ritual and hoping that
all of that is what God really meant.

	The perfect sense that I follow is not the "perfect sense" that
	I would have chosen to interpret it to be.  So no, it is not
	"my interpretation" that I challenge others to follow.

Again, by definition, how can this be? You either make your own interpretation
or you choose (for some reason) to believe someone else's. The fact (and this
IS a fact) remains that for probably any passage in the Bible you have chosen
one of many different interpretations. The fact that you ABSOLUTELY believe
your interpretation to be correct does not make it different.

Steve

>If I understand this, you have read a passage and formulated your own
>interpretation of what this meant. You then, for some reason, chose to ignore
>your belief and to follow... what? Somebody else's view? Whose? Why? I truly
>do not understand.
    
    	See below.

>Joe, if you have no direct contact
>with God, then you are bowing to the Bible, history and ritual and hoping that
>all of that is what God really meant.
    
    	This is what it all boils down to.  I am more likely to be
    	following what God really meant by following these things, than
    	I am by following what my individual whims would imagine that
    	God means.
    
>IS a fact) remains that for probably any passage in the Bible you have chosen
>one of many different interpretations. The fact that you ABSOLUTELY believe
>your interpretation to be correct does not make it different.
    
    	I already addressed this and shown to you that your claim here
    	about me is wrong.

re Note 217.230 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

>     	This is what it all boils down to.  I am more likely to be
>     	following what God really meant by following these things, than
>     	I am by following what my individual whims would imagine that
>     	God means.
  
        "Following these things [literal Bible]" and "individual
        whims" are not the only alternatives.

        Bob

.230 CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?"

    	This is what it all boils down to.  I am more likely to be
    	following what God really meant by following these things, than
    	I am by following what my individual whims would imagine that
    	God means.

But *whose* interpretations of the writing do you follow? When you say that you
are following 'these things', do you mean the Bible, ritual and history? And
even then, whose interpretation, your pastor's?

My question is based on my observation that a large percentage of the passages
in the Bible seem to be open to different interpretations. In your note you said
that you don't always follow your own. My question remains, whose did you
choose, and why?

>IS a fact) remains that for probably any passage in the Bible you have chosen
>one of many different interpretations. The fact that you ABSOLUTELY believe
>your interpretation to be correct does not make it different.
    
    	I already addressed this and shown to you that your claim here
    	about me is wrong.

If you've addressed this, I don't see it. The base question remains unanswered,
whose interpretation do you follow? The Pope's? The ruling council of your
church? BTW, what claim did you see me making about you? 

Steve

	Steve, you may have brought up a very good point here. If anyone relys
on their own interpretation alone, then they could have the wrong view of
<insert passage>. If one sometimes uses their own, sometimes uses <insert other
person>, then it should probably be examined why one would not always use their
interpretation. Is it based on past interpretations being wrong? Then one must
look at what is the track record of the person they are relying on for their
interpretation. It really ends up being one big paradox. And believing in Him
is only as good as ones ability to listen. The message from Him will ALWAYS be
perfect, but it does not mean that the person will interprete it correctly.


Glen

	.232
    
>But *whose* interpretations of the writing do you follow? When you say that you
>are following 'these things', do you mean the Bible, ritual and history? And
>even then, whose interpretation, your pastor's?
    
    	Specifically, for me, the teachings of the Roman Catholic
    	Church.  The Church defines for me one specific, consistent,
    	and clear interpretation.  And before you suggest that there
    	are, even within the Roman Catholic Church, a multitude of
    	interpretations, let me assure you that I agree to that.  There
    	are plenty of individual interpretations, but the Church herself
    	as an institution has but one interpretation that is official
    	and sanctioned.  So no, I do not choose my pastor's interpretation
    	if it wavers from the true Church teaching.  I have in the past
    	on various occasions, and I have grown to regret it.

>BTW, what claim did you see me making about you? 

    	As an example you said:
    
>The fact that you ABSOLUTELY believe
>your interpretation to be correct does not make it different.
    
    	You have already acknowledged (and seem to understand) that I
    	do not consider all of my own personal interpretations to be
    	correct, so I wonder why you question my complaint about your
    	statement that I quoted above.

.234 CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?"

    	Specifically, for me, the teachings of the Roman Catholic
    	Church.  The Church defines for me one specific, consistent,

Thanks, Joe, that is what I was looking for.

>The fact that you ABSOLUTELY believe
>your interpretation to be correct does not make it different.
    
    	You have already acknowledged (and seem to understand) that I
    	do not consider all of my own personal interpretations to be
    	correct, so I wonder why you question my complaint about your
    	statement that I quoted above.

I just didn't know what claim you saw me as making, since I didn't (knowingly)
make one. I wasn't questioning your complaint, just asking you to clarify it.
Again, you have, and thanks.

Now a follow on question. Is there some point on some issue on which a decree by
the RCC would diverge enough from your belief to cause you to break?

Steve

P.S. The reason I am in this conference is to try to understand how you (as ani
intelligent being) can believe so deeply in things that to me make no sense.
When I ask questions like the one above I am (usually :^) not trying to bait
you, I am sincerely interested in your answers.

>Now a follow on question. Is there some point on some issue on which a decree by
>the RCC would diverge enough from your belief to cause you to break?
    
    	So far, no.  Years ago I did stray from Church teaching on
    	certain things, though I did not stray from the Church itself.
    	As time goes on I cling all the tighter to CHurch teaching,
    	and even come to accept in my own mind more and more of those
    	things with which I personally disagree(d).

.236 CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?"

This is interesting and helpful to me in my quest for understanding. Thanks, Joe.

Steve

[WHO press release]


WORLD AIDS DAY 1995: "SHARED RIGHTS, SHARED RESPONSIBILITIES"


        World AIDS Day -- 1 December -- will be marked in 1995 under
the banner Shared Rights, Shared Responsibilities, the World Health
Organization has announced.  In choosing the theme, after  
consultation with other United Nations agencies and with leading
nongovernmental organizations, WHO aims to highlight the importance
of equality and solidarity in the global response to HIV/AIDS.   

        "The HIV/AIDS pandemic can be addressed effectively only if
rights and responsibilities are shared equally across the globe",
says Dr Hiroshi Nakajima, Director-General of WHO.  "People share the
same rights whether or not they are infected with the human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV).  And responsibilities involved in HIV
prevention and caring for those infected must be shared too."

        Everyone -- men, women, children, the poor, minorities,
migrants, refugees, sex workers, drug injectors, gay men -- has the
right to be able to avoid infection, the right to health care, if sick
with AIDS, and the right to be treated with dignity and without
discrimination.  Regardless of HIV status, shared rights also include
the right to liberty, freedom of movement, to employment, to marry and
found a family, and to seek asylum.

        As for responsibilities, individuals have a responsibility to
protect themselves and others from infection.  Men in particular,
because of their dominant status in many societies, have the
responsibility to practise safe sex.  Families and communities have a
responsibility to educate their members on AIDS prevention, and to
care for those affected by HIV.  Governments, fulfilling their duty to
protect public health, have a responsibility to implement appropriate
HIV prevention policies and to ensure that all their citizens have
equal access to available care services.  For its part, the
international community has a responsibility to ensure effective
global cooperation on HIV/AIDS, and to support poorer countries in  
meeting the challenge.

        For World AIDS Day 1995, WHO invites individuals, families,
governments and the international community to expand this list, to
begin a dialogue on rights and responsibilities, and -- most
importantly - - to ensure that all rights are respected and
responsibilities fulfilled.

        In 1995, the United Nations International Year for Tolerance,
the theme of Shared Rights, Shared Responsibilities is particularly
appropriate for events and activities leading up to World AIDS Day and
beyond.   

        "Everyone shares the right to tolerance from others and the
responsibility to be tolerant of others, regardless of gender, race,
religion, ethnic background, social standing or health status,
including HIV infection", says Dr Peter Piot, Director of the joint
and cosponsored United Nations programme on HIV/AIDS, which will
bring together the AIDS work of WHO and five other UN agencies1 by the
end of 1995.

        World AIDS Day was observed for the first time on 1 December
1988 after a summit of world health ministers called for a spirit of
social tolerance and a greater exchange of information on HIV/AIDS.  
Previous World AIDS Days have had the following slogans:  Join the
Worldwide Effort (1988), Our Lives, Our World - Let's Take Care of
Each Other (1989), Women and AIDS (1990), Sharing the Challenge
(1991), A Community Commitment (1992) and Time to Act (1993).  On 1
December 1994, as 42 nations met in France for the Paris AIDS Summit,
hundreds of thousands of people around the globe marked World AIDS
Day under the banner of AIDS and the Family and its related slogan
Families Take Care.  

        The 1995 theme builds on part of the Paris Declaration, which
proclaimed the determination of signatories to fight discrimination
and promote the rights of people living with HIV/AIDS and of those  
most vulnerable to infection.

        "People living with HIV/AIDS should have equal access to
education, travel, employment, housing, health care and social
benefits," says Dr Piot.  "Vulnerable groups should suffer no  
discrimination in the context of HIV/AIDS."

        There is no conflict between individual rights and public
health in the context of HIV/AIDS.  In fact, the protection of human
rights promotes public health, because discriminatory and coercive
measures discourage people from coming forward for information and
treatment.

* * *

        Nearly 20 million people including 1.5 million children, had
been infected with HIV by the end of 1994 since the start of the
pandemic, according to estimates published in January 1995 by WHO's  
Global Programme on AIDS (GPA).  The total number of people estimated
to have developed AIDS since the start of the pandemic rose to around
4.5 million at the end of 1994.   
   
* * *

        Last year's World AIDS Day events included marches and
demonstrations, concerts and exhibitions, educational programmes and
condom promotions, commemorations, artistic happenings and countless
other events.  For many groups and organizations, World AIDS "Day"
extended over a week or even longer, crowning months of activity on
the theme.  WHO hopes that World AIDS Day 1995 will spur the global
response to HIV/AIDS by awakening people to their shared rights and
responsibilities -- and urging them to action.

-------------
                   
Further information:  World AIDS Day, Public Information Office,
WHO-GPA, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland.  Tel: (41 22) 791 4674.  Fax:
(41 22) 791 4191.  

_______________________________
1  The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations
Development Fund (UNDP), the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United Nations Population  
Fund (UNFPA), and the World Bank.

    My daughter attended a program at her middle school yesterday where a
    man and woman with Aids came in and talked with the children.
    
    First my daughter asked me for a persmission note to attend.  She was 
    very clear regarding the requirement for the letter.  Mom, you have to
    make sure you write "AIDS" on the note.  I guess the school wanted to
    make very sure the children had permission to attend.
    
    The speakers made a big impression on my fourteen year old daughter. 
    The woman had been on the streets as a prostitute since she was a
    teenager.  The Man had been a serious drug abuser.  Both had just
    started to get their lives together when they were diagnosed.
    
    The middle school kids could relate to each of the people.  The message
    was very clear.  It is easy to catch AIDS if you are involved in risky
    sex or drug abuse.
    
    The people also sent the message that persons living with AIDS are to
    be treated as people living with AIDS and not people dying from AIDS.
    
    I know when I get this much feedback from my children regarding
    something they did in school, that the message truly got across.
    
                                    Patricia

    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |d|i|g|i|t|a|l|              I N T E R O F F I C E  M E M O R A N D U M
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    TO:  Remote Addressee                        DATE:  May 12, 1995
                                                 FROM:  Glen Silva  @HLO
                                                        BIGQ::SILVA
                                                 EXT:   225-6306
                                                 LOC/MAIL STOP:  HLO2-1/C12


    SUBJECT:  Notice re:  AIDS Walks Pre-Registration


        Pre-Register for the Boston and/or Worcester AIDS Pledge Walks


   Employees taking part in either the, "From All Walks of Life" in Boston
   on Sunday June 4th, or the "Walk for Life" in Worcester on Sunday, June
   11th, can pre-register at the Digital HLO facility on Friday, June 2nd, 
   from 1:00 - 5:00pm for the Boston Walk, and on Friday, June 9th, from
   1:00 - 5:00pm for the Worcester Walk in the OLD HLO1 Lobby. Bring your 
   checks and/or cash along with your pledge sheets. (The OLD HLO1 lobby
   is on the right side of the facility if you are facing the front of it)

   All Digital walkers will receive any incentive prizes earned from both
   the Boston and/or Worcester organizers.

   For pledge sheets, directions, or more information, contact either Glen 
   Silva (BIGQ::SILVA or DTN 225-6306) or Chris Conran (BIGQ::CONRAN or DTN 
   225-4749). Also, check out the AIDS Walk notesfile for the latest 
   information about the Walks. You'll find it at  WECARE::AIDS_WALK

   Please remember that Digital Equipment Corporation will NOT be matching
   funds this year.

	Ok, for the recipient list, for the Walk route, how to get to Boston
Common for the Walk, insentive prizes, etc.... EVERYTHING! (even info on what
the AIDS Action Committee does)  The URL is


                           http://www.aac.org/walk/


	It takes about 1 minute to load, but after that it is pretty quick.


Glen

     -----------------------------++++++++++-----------------------------
     Pre-Registration for the Boston AIDS Walk in TAY1 and HLO2 on May 31
     -----------------------------++++++++++-----------------------------

	The Boston AIDS Walk is on Sunday, June 2nd. Digital is having a
	Pre-Registration for this Walk in TAY1 Cafe (11:00-12:30), and the 
	HLO2 Lobby (11:30-2:00) on May 31st.

	What is Pre-Registration? For those of you who are walking, it allows
	you to come in with your pledge sheets, and pledge dollars before the
	Walk itself. This will help keep you out of the long lines that are
	present the day of the Walk. Also, this will also help you take your
	pre-registration prizes early, which means you don't have to carry 
	them over the 10k Walk. 

	What this does for the AIDS Action Committee is allows them to get a
	head start on processing the paperwork. As the day after the Walk is
	quite a busy time for them. 

	What some site coordinators have said they would do is to gather up 
	your pledges from your site, and bring them to one of the
	pre-registration sites for you! For a list of the site coordinators
	for your facility, check out note 5.25 in the WECARE::AIDS_WALK
	notesfile, or the AIDS Walk homepage @:

   http://sdtad.zko.dec.com/pub/csgperf/group/wwlk/wwlk-aids-walk-info.html


	So if you aren't interested in standing in long lines the day of the
	Walk, stop by the pre-registration tables at TAY1 or HLO2!

    I offer my thanks to those responsible for bringing the Names Project
    Memorial Quilt to Colorado Springs recently, making it available to the
    public without charge.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

From:	CRL::"dspencer@summitstrat.com" "Douglas Spencer" 18-JUN-1996 14:25:53.31
To:	distribution:;@crl.dec.com@crl.dec.com (see end of body)
CC:	
Subj:	HIV Elimination



Here's an email I just received. Check out the bottom of the article for 
comments from someone at AIDS Action.

Scientists: HIV Elimination Within Sight

       By Associated Press, 06/14/96 

       NEW YORK (AP) - Some of the world's leading AIDS researchers and 
physicians have begun talking optimistically about the possibility of 
eliminating HIV from infected people. 

       Recent tests of existing and new treatments on tens of thousands 
of infected patients appear to have left them with no detectable signs of 
HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, the researchers say. 

       ``If you had asked me in January, `Can you eradicate HIV 
infection?' I would have laughed in your face,'' Dr. Julio Montaner of 
the University of British Columbia was quoted as saying today in Newsday. 

       ``But now we've been able to demonstrate that we can effectively 
suppress viral production. That is leading to a dramatic change in how we 
think of this disease,'' he said. 

       The clinical trials were discussed Thursday in Washington, D.C., 
at a conference held by the medical journal Antiviral Therapy and the 
University of Amsterdam. 

       Scientists cited three factors for their optimism: 

       -The development of a new class of anti-HIV drugs, three of which 
were licensed by the government earlier this year. 

       -Successful tests to combine different families of HIV drugs in a 
``cocktail'' that assaults the virus' ability to reproduce. 

       -Tests that allow doctors to measure precisely the amount of HIV 
present in a patient's blood. 

       Scientists believe treating patients early with the mixture of HIV 
drugs may be reducing the virus to a level that a still-intact immune 
system can handle. 

       The Wall Street Journal reported today that even cautious 
physicians are astonished by recent developments. 

       ``It now appears, at the very least, we may finally have the tools 
to turn (AIDS) into a long-term manageable and treatable disease, much 
like hypertension and diabetes,'' said Roy Gullick, research physician at 
New York University Medical School. 

       ``Almost every one of my patients is doing significantly better.'' 

       Between 650,000 and 900,000 Americans are infected with HIV; 
almost 60,000 have been treated with the new drugs, none for more than 
two years. 

- - - - - - - 

From a friend who works at AIDS Action: the 'buzz' here is that it's all 
real, but that it's premature to drop our guard given that we don't have 
stats looking at how protease inhibitors work over time. 

There are also concerns about protease inhibitors working on healthier 
bodies, and that they may not be as effective once people have "real" 
immune damage.  It seems the jury is still out. 

- - - - - - - 

                      ===========++++++++++++===========
                      Jeremy Mathews Memorial AIDS Quilt
                      ===========++++++++++++===========
    
    Many of us have lost friends, acquaintances, family members or even 
    lovers to AIDS.  At the recent HLO AIDS Walk meeting, Christine Conran 
    suggested that we, in an effort to bring AIDS to the forefront at 
    Digital, sponsor and dedicate a panel to those people who we know who
    have died from AIDS. The quilt will be named after Jeremy Mathews, a 
    DIGITAL employee who recently died of AIDS-related complications.
    
    For those unfamiliar with the concept, each AIDS quilt panel will be 6 
    inches by 6 inches, and is dedicated to the memory of the person lost 
    to this terrible plague.  Panels can include the lost person's name, 
    quilted pictures, birth dates, and any other information.  When 
    completed, any number of panels are sewn together and the resultant 
    quilt can be displayed at various DIGITAL facilities
    
    The HLO AIDS Walk team is also involving Corporate HR in this  project.  
    
    If you would like more information on the project, or if you would like 
    to submit a panel yourself, please either send mail to Christine Conran 
    (conran@bigq.enet.dec.com) or call Chris at work (DTN) 225-4749 or 
    (outside line) 508-568-4749.
    
    Let's get sewing!

        All employees are welcome--at 11:30 on 14 May, in the HLO2 
        Cafeteria Annex--to join in DIGITAL's kickoff for the annual 
        Boston (Sunday, 1 June) and Worcester (Sunday, 8 June) AIDS 
        Pledge Walks.  Registration materials will be available for 
        both events.
                
        Among the honored guests currently scheduled for the kickoff
        are:

        Ed Caldwell--Vice President of Digital Semiconductor, and 
        opening speaker;

        Paul Ross--Consultant/Director of HIV Education for DIGITAL, who 
        plans to discuss the company's past and present contributions 
        to this event;

        Larry Kessler--Director of the Aids Action Committee (AAC)
        of Boston, who will talk to where the money raised will be 
        spent and why the disease has not quite been conquered; and

        Andi Kudzol--Member of the Board of Directors of Aids Project 
        Worcester, who will share her experiences as an active volunteer 
        and as a young woman living with AIDS.

        The kickoff will be an opportunity for community members to 
        learn the facts about HIV and AIDS, become informed about local 
        support groups that might need volunteers, and to help raise 
        money to educate and provide support for people living with 
        HIV and AIDS.

	In addition to the speakers at this Wednesdays Corporate Kick-off Rally
for the AIDS Walks, a viewing of the AIDS Panel will be held as well. Several
people donated time and effort to either make a panel for someone they know, or
make a panel for someone else from the company for someone they knew. 

	The overall collection of panels was named after Jeremy Mathews. He was 
a DIGITAL employee who died of AIDS last summer. There have been about 10
people who submitted panels of people they knew who died of AIDS complications. 

	The panel can be viewed between the hours of 11:00-1:00 in the cafe
annex at HLO2 on Wednesday, May 14th.




Glen

	The Corporate Kick-off Rally for the AIDS Walks, and a viewing of the 
AIDS Panel will be held TODAY!

	Ed Caldwell (VP of DS), Paul Ross (HIV/AIDS office), Larry Kessler
(head of AIDS ACTION) and Andi Kudzol (a woman with AIDS) will be speaking
today.

	The Kick-off Rally for the Walks will be held between 11:30-1:00 in the 
cafe annex at HLO2.



Glen

    The Boston and Worcester AIDS Walks are almost upon us! As in past years,
    DIGITAL is having their own Pre-Registration in TWO facilities this year. 
    One will be in Littleton and one will be in Hudson. 

    On May 30th, from 11-1:00 we will have Pre-Registration for the Boston 
    Walk in the Tay 1 Cafe. A table will be set up, and someone from AIDS 
    Action will assist in collecting the pledge sheets and money.

    On the same day in HLO2 (May 30), a table will be set up outside the 
    Credit Union to collect pledges and money for Boston. The time for this 
    will be 11:30-2:00. 

    On June 6th, during the same time periods and same locations, tables will 
    be set up for collecting money/pledges for the Worcester Walk. A 
    representative from Worcester will be at this pre-registration as well.

    What does Pre-Registration do for you? The lines are long on the day of 
    the Walk. Depending on how much money you collect, you could end up 
    carrying the AAC/APW incentive prizes around with you. This would 
    eliminate that. 

    There is a prize from the DIGITAL Logo Store that will be given out to 
    the person who collects the most amount of pledges for either walk! So 
    regardless of whether you walk the Worcester or Boston Walks, you will 
    be elligible IF you come to Pre-Registration with your form/money. The 
    prize is a Sportsgear Jacket!

    Also this year, DIGITAL has made up some great t-shirts for the Walks. 
    These are in line with the Healthy Balance t-shirts many of you already 
    have. These are probably the best designed shirts for any of the Walks 
    we have had! Each Walker gets a t-shirt! 

    If you have any questions about Pre-Registration for Littleton, call 
    Donna Winston  227-3418 winston@mail.dec.com  or Patti Mahoney 227-3598
    mahoney@mail.dec.com. If you have any questions about the Hudson
    Pre-registration, call Glen Silva at 225-6306  gsilva@mail.dec.com.

    See you all at Pre-Registration!!!!!!!

The Boston AIDS Walk is almost upon us! As in past years, DIGITAL is having 
their own Pre-Registration in TWO facilities this year. One will be in 
Littleton and one will be in Hudson. 

On May 30th, from 11-1:00 we will have Pre-Registration for the Boston Walk in 
the Tay 2 Cafe. A table will be set up, and someone from AIDS Action will
assist in collecting the pledge sheets and money.

On the same day in HLO2 (May 30), a table will be set up outside the Credit 
Union to collect pledges and money for Boston. The time for this will be 
11:30-2:00. 

What does Pre-Registration do for you? The lines are long on the day of the
Walk. Depending on how much money you collect, you could end up carrying the 
AAC incentive prizes around with you. This would eliminate that. 

On the day of the Boston Walk, look for us at the corporate area, usually under 
the D, for DIGITAL! You won't be able to miss us with the GREAT t-shirts we 
have this year!

If you have any questions about Pre-Registration for Littleton, call Donna 
Winston  227-3418 winston@mail.dec.com  or Patti Mahoney 227-3598 
mahoney@mail.dec.com. If you have any questions about the Hudson
Pre-registration, call Glen Silva at 225-6306  gsilva@mail.dec.com.

See you all at Pre-Registration!!!!!!!