Right wing religious fundamentalists loudly shout moral demands that they use as a political tool for control of how we address sexual behavior issues. In pushing this hysterical political agenda; they are at odds with the need for compassion, practicality, common sense, scientific fact and the quick & meaningful actions that lead to the timely elimination of HIV/AIDS. One of the morality based regulations of life styles proclaimed by fundamentalists as absolutely needed: ‘abstinence without marriage’ is an accident looking for a place to happen. When you couple this with their distain for frankly common sense remedies like: sex education, condoms, and needle exchanges, plus the suppression of prostitution and homosexuality, you have in the final analysis set up an essentially harmful mix that adversely affects and ‘will infect’ the entire society. The three groups mentioned when suppressed become a breeding ground for disease and the vector for infection because of their interaction within all segments of society. These are the common risk factors at the base of, and affected by, ignorance of sex education and the need for the use of condoms. One can not alienate one limb of the body of a society without condemning the whole to chaos. World health organizations have been gathering the conclusive evidence that displays the rapid increase of HIV/AIDS infection around the world. And from what I’ve head; the fundamentalists who offer moralistic opinions about sex education are not only unreasonable and divisive; they are now being shown to be downright childish, prudish and impractical. And to add insult to injury; their sought after goals for moral laws and procedures to their liking are being shown to be unenforceable, illegitimate and unconstitutional. They are trying to breach the constitutionally guaranteed rights to ‘the pursuit of happiness (in the absence of injury)’ for every citizen in the U.S.A... This is, to my mind, malfeasance. The fundamentalist’s attitude to this crisis is that they are in contact with God; they’ve got it right, and everyone should follow them and bow to their judgments as if they were the indisputable words of God. Maybe, my God has different words. Anyhow, this usurps our inherent right to the dignity involved in making our own choices. Their approach to this crisis colors they’re emotional and intellectual arguments adversely; because they do not make sense. It is injurious to people who hear and believe their nonsense; it is, of course, injurious all those people who are HIV positive, and to all of those people who are about to become victims of the stigma fundamentalists foment for not complying with their absurd rules. The Utilitarian ethical view of the greatest good for the greatest number demands practicality as the answer to what has rapidly become a human pandemic caused by HIV/AIDS. In other words, the correct way to eliminate this disease is to go with the proven value of condoms and extensive sex education. Without regard for these proven opportunities for stopping AIDS; sex education & condoms are exactly what religious fundamentalists find so repugnant that they are willing to let millions of people suffer and die, rather than accept natural human behavior patterns, and allow access to these basic and effective tools in the fight to eliminate HIV/AIDS. As a case to point to; a very bad amendment fostered by the religious right was added on to the law financing America’s global AIDS efforts. This 15 billion dollar ‘President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) of 2003’ is a somewhat laudable effort by President Bush, but this bad amendment that he and the Republican Congress added, requires that 33 percent of these funds must be used for religion based concepts such as ‘abstinence-until-marriage,’ ‘fidelity-programs,’ ‘condemnation of prostitution,’ and ‘the prohibition of abortion.’ It not only drastically limits the money for the most important parts of this system that actually work; it also wastes the time of skilled workers who have to account for and prove that this standard is being met. The flexibility needed for broader, proven strategies to combat AIDS; including the condom part of the ‘ABC’ approach which stands for ‘Abstain, Be faithful and use Condoms,’ is being shoved aside because of a religious agenda that is not only impractical but murderous in effect. This can be said, because the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV, is among the practical strategies that are being reduced or remain unfunded as a consequence of this amendment. Everyone has heard fundamentalists exclaim a statement about sexual abstinence being the only way to remain free of HIV/AIDS; that, in and of itself, is correct, but is in effect a show stopper, misleading and irrelevant. This I say, because it is only incidentally useful, does not work for the benefit of those who do not know about or understand the reason for abstinence and is therefore intellectually unsupportable because the facts demonstrate its falsity. What really makes abstinence useless and meaningless is that it is roundly ignored by an extremely high percentage of people around the world. And it is no surprise that it is even given reverence by many fundamentalists who profess it as a truth to live by, and don’t. HIV/AIDS is a deadly disease which has quickly spread throughout the world and there is no cure. In the first quarter-century of this epidemic, 25 million people have died. At this time; nearly 40,000,000 people are living with HIV/AIDS, and 25% of those (10,000,000), who look like you and me, don’t know that they are not only infected but spreading HIV. This virus’s long incubation period works vary much in its favor; because, those who are infected might not feel sick for 10 years, and don’t realize they’re HIV-positive until they become ill. This is quite unlike SARS and Bird flu, which strike quickly, kill some, and leave just as quickly. This is why there is a necessity for frequent testing for anyone who is sexually active and/or ill informed about the necessity for the use of condoms and/or new needles. The stated long incubation period is the reason for the projection, that the death toll from AIDS over the next 25 years is expected to be another 75 to 150 million people. This, in and of itself, is a good reason for realistic planning to drastically reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, immediately. By using ‘Occam’s Razor’ we find that the preponderance of value lies in practicality which demands feasible methods & quick community response, sex education, the use of condoms, testing, agencies for needle exchanges; the decriminalization of homosexuality, intravenous drug users and prostitutes, and the empowerment of girls and women over their own sexual choices and education. As an important side issue; this also means the elimination of the female sexual slavery that is found in so much of the world. Through trial and error the scientifically grounded health communities have found that by educating people about choices, people tend to protect their individual and community health much more effectively and infection rates go down. Sexual education would encompass all the practical advice that fits in with the way people actually live their lives here and now; and it is not judgmental or prudish about who people are or how they earn money to pay for food and shelter. The observable truth is that provable scientific realities are being violated and/or ignored by ultra-conservative religious fundamentalists all the time. While they hide behind sanctimonious piousness, these naive fundamentalists adhere to unrealistic morals as justification for their sins of omission and commission. The fact remains that they are feeding us a barrel of poisoned half-truths that tell us only part of what we need to make informed decisions. It is a half-truth that celibacy can save one from HIV/AIDS, but who wants to be celibate? It is most certainly a half-truth when considering that there are other ways to get AIDS. One may acquire it by an accidental needle prick or blood infusion, or get it from a trusted life mate, or rape, or from one’s mother during birth or breast feeding. It is even more a half-truth when one knows that one could greatly decrease his/her chances of getting infected by using a condom. Bearing these facts in mind, we need to find a new balance between the individual rights to freely practice one’s religion, which voices public lies about the practicality, value and motives of sex education, and the scientifically proven, effective and practical efforts that benefit everyone. The dichotomy between the scientifically righteous and the religiously unreasonable is proof that we need to construct a wall between religion and practical science and that is best accomplished by building a much more impassable wall between church and state. Once we have established that it is far more feasible for public health to follow science to truth, than to follow religion in anything but metaphysics, we will then have the groundwork in place so as to achieve a much more healthy future for all. Health truths based in scientific observation and reason are important, and these facts can only be taught through scientifically based sex education. That is why sex education needs to be freed from religion’s stranglehold on the sexual morality issues in America and all over the world. I am not saying that all the religiously stated morality commandments are inconsistent with present day needs but that some of the fundamentalist’s agenda is definitely misconstrued, misleading and even harmful. This is why more scientists need to take a stand for stable and reasonable approaches to the needs of humanity; especially when religious figures preach scientifically proven hogwash. Religion has a place in society because it can feed the poor, help sooth one’s emotions by reinforcing a person’s spiritually while teaching how to perceive good from evil by telling morality stories. But, it is precisely in its perception and designation of good and evil where it can sometimes go astray and make some very strange choices that are contrary to the practical needs of its adherents. Religions have the right to govern themselves but they should never have the right to govern a state or create its laws; because, that would be a giant step back to the 13th century and both humanity and science would suffer greatly. When one considers the sad plight of the world today; with millions of humans dying from starvation, polluted water, curable diseases, pests, bad governance, terrorist attacks and wars; I can listen to fundamentalists and rest assured that the religious leaders who offer no advice to the world other than, ‘abstinence is the cure’ and ‘homosexuality, prostitution, abortion & use of condoms are sins,’ to be so removed from reality that they are no longer functioning in the best interest of their parishioners and are in fact leading them astray. They can say that they are doing all that is possible under present day circumstances, but when they include outright lies and misdirection of attention about the value of sex education; misinformation about and condemnation of homosexuals, prostitutes & abortion; and describe as immoral the use of condoms to prevent pregnancy, STDs and HIV/AIDS. Then, they are illegitimate leaders of society with a contemptible agenda.
In the Consideration of ways to decrease HIV/AIDS and venereal diseases from destroying our collective future, the following seven objective statements are presented as examples of actions that need to be enacted immediately. This is a must, because there is no time left for discussion or moralizing or delay. We need to do this correctly, NOW! Or, the future of our posterity and their inherited mother earth will be even more troubled with the huge population of infected individuals who shall have become the second or third class citizens of this world’s future. 1. Sex education, family planning and reproductive health services should be required in schools, clinics and meetings everywhere; to present practical choices to every person in our society and reduce any stigma attached to HIV/AIDS. 2. Among those choices, should be taught ways to relieve sexual tension without shame and without the unsafe exchange of bodily fluids.3. Counseling for homosexuals, people in the sex trade, and everyone else about how to negotiate the use of condoms is definitely a part of sex education.4. Sexual protection should be provided to anyone who wants it via the free distribution of condoms in schools, bars, churches and anywhere people gather. 5. Free new needles need to be provided to intravenous drug addicts in exchange for used needles; drug addicts need to be tested, treated and given methadone.6. Prostitution should be decriminalized everywhere, so prostitutes can be taught how to evade HIV; and be tested, treated, registered, and taxed. 7. Everyone should be required to be tested for all STDs every year and to show proof of their status before engaging in any sexual act that could spread HIV/AIDS. The corollary to that would be that anyone who knowingly spreads an STD would be jailed, cured if possible, and reeducated so as to better understand their responsibilities. This is necessary because; the cost of late intervention is 3.5 to 7.5 times the cost of prevention and/or early HIV positive status discovery. I will not pretend to be a moralist about the practical measures many people take when they are propelled by their needs to make a living any way they can. Sometimes that living is comprised of catering to the lust of others and is therefore; outside of the boundaries of what is morally espoused by judgmental people who are relatively well off. There are people who live their lives in ways we may find to be socially unacceptable, but that is no reason to condemn them to ignorance about sex education, its benefits and the benefits of the other points I offer for consideration. This I can say, because the distinction between lust and ignorance is that lust doesn’t spread disease; it is ignorance, propagated by lies, half truths and contempt for the natural needs of humanity that spreads disease. I hear the fundamentalists when they say that abstinence is the way to protect one’s self. The truth of that statement can not be debated; it will work for anyone who is able to maintain celibacy. But I must also state that the human animal developed its nature over millions of years and it is not going to change just because someone says that it is not nice for anyone to have sexual relations outside of wedlock. Wedlock is a rather new innovation to man and a fine institution; but I would not be surprised if someone said that most sexual relations happen outside of wedlock. That this is a possibility which cannot be disputed is strictly open to conjecture. But don’t bet the farm on the chance that it may be proven one day that most sexual relations happen within wedlock. Abstinence, all by its self, is historically considered a morally negative stance to take; because of the need for companionship, and the need for the sexual relations that replenish society’s losses. Abstinence may work as a preventive stance against HIV, but it is not the only way to protect our bodies from STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases), and that is where sex education comes in as a valid way to avoid the transmission of HIV/AIDS, and many dangerous and debilitating venereal diseases, to future generations. As to the morals based in an ethical stance that includes the betterment of the health of humankind; these are ideals for which we may desire to strive, but as the ethicist Kai Neilsen says “To require them (good morals) is a perversion of moral endeavor.” It is a perversion of the striving to be moral because it makes an enforceable law to punish apparent wrongdoers of victimless crimes while failing to educate and persuade people as to why they are wrong, and it fails to take notice of the actualities of natural human behavior. Too take it one step further; it is silly to attempt behavioral modification that is genetically induced and has proven useful in the establishment of unsustainable billions of humans as the top predator on earth. Now let us muddy the waters with moralizing. Many of us have heard fundamen-talists both Protestant and Catholic espouse abstinence as the only way to maintain 100% safety. Well, I’ll grant you there is some truth to that. But it is not the whole truth; it allows no significance to education. And, who among us will be willing to live their entire lives without sexual intimacy, ever? Must we all get married in order to have sexual relations, and if so, why? For many people, marriage would be the worst thing that could happen to them. Look at the divorce rate, it’s over 50%. Quite simply the admonition of: ‘No sex without marriage’ is unsustainable because it doesn’t even come close to the realities of human behavior. It does not stop people from having consensual sexual relations outside of wedlock. And furthermore, it does not matter now passionate those fundamentalists are who preach abstinence as the only correct way to prevent HIV/AIDS; because their pathetic sincerity comes from their determination to deceive themselves with their individually conceived truth; as well as, all the people in the audience. And, they are motivated by a desire to maintain control over their follower’s lives and wallets. So! Do we see the light yet? Do we moralize or do we go with what actually works. Reasonable precautions based on sex education; along with the freedom to decide what is best for one’s own life is, for my money, the most efficacious course to take. This is why my vote goes with freedom of choice based on a scientifically formulated education as opposed to the ignorance that goes with moralizing based on scientifically dubious religious dogma. I am a human, and in chorus with millions of other humans, I demand the right to choose how to live my life and my God has nothing to do with unprovable and meaningless religious fundamentalist dogma. Now let us muddy the waters even further. I’ve heard some fundamentalists state that anyone who does not follow their rules for ‘sexual intercourse only in monogamous marriage and only between opposite sexes,’ deserves what he or she gets; and furthermore, deserves to die in agony for making the wrong choice. I’ve heard them say: ‘They brought it upon themselves, and they are only reaping their just deserts for sowing their wild oats.’ Let’s be perfectly candid here, the condem-nation of the morals of many people who now have HIV/AIDS is unquestionably a matter of adding of insult to injury. The morals of many people who now have HIV/AIDS can not be questioned because it was not their morals that brought it to them; HIV/AIDS was brought to them by someone they trusted as a married partner for life…or by rape…or by accident…or by infection at birth. Condemnation from fundamentalists is a passive-aggressive act, and not only is it the uncompromising judgment by people who are supposed to love their neighbor as much as they love themselves; it comes from the same people who are commanded by God to honor and help their fellow human? What kind of help is condemnation? And who benefits from it? Clearly, it is not the people who are condemned to suffer. It must be those who are condemning who are benefiting in some way. Does this really make them feel superior to condemn others? Or is it useful to dwell on it so as to shame people into increasing their offerings to the church as a way of purchasing redemption? The Bible states: “Judgment is mine sayith the lord.” So, who are these right wing fundamentalists with a political agenda that condemns so many other people; but minions of the devil, who attempt to decide what is correct for everyone, and then force it on them for their own good. Is life so meaningless that they can find meaning only by browbeating and forcing their moral strictures on everyone else? What spiteful, mean, unworthy, and ethically challenged behavior it is to condemn those who do not live exactly by your moral rules and at the same time, enforce ignorance by disallowing sex education. Certainly, if there are universally accepted laws as to what is good and correct behavior as is espoused by Gandhi and Marten Luther King, then condemnation, for following the immutable laws of survival and the need for the fulfillment of intimacy, is not one of them. It is an assault on one’s dignity and one’s freedom of choice. One more thing needs to be considered at this point, and it is, that those fundamental ethical egoists who equate goodness with ignorance stand in the way of progress toward a healthier future, and that betrays an absence of realistic moral prudence that is not only unacceptable; it is a tantamount to the murder of millions people who have not, as yet, contracted HIV/AIDS or any of the disgusting (so called) venereal diseases. The ethicist Kai Neilsen stated: “A life lived without purpose is indeed a most dreadful life, but we do not need God or the Gods to give purpose to our lives.” Planning for the future of mankind should be our purpose, and that purpose is available and in our hands right now. That is why I say that it is unconscionable to entrust any society to the hypocritical moralistic people who are wearing religious blinders which render them emotionally and intellectually incompetent to judge the ethics and morality of others. These are the same people who refuse to allow the teaching of sex education in schools and therefore, enforce ignorance. Enforcing ignorance is the way to enforce slavery; and that is the road to hell paved with good intentions. The ethicist Kai Neilsen put it very well when he said: “It still remains true that we can only come to know that anything is good or evil through our own moral insight.” This quote describes my position and it is why I have to say that to disallow sex education in schools is to endanger future generations and condemn them to pain, misery and early death. Not to teach ways to relieve sexual tension without shame and without the exchange of bodily fluids is the way to condemn us to hate, wars and in short a continuation of the conflict we see all over the earth. Addicts are a fact of life in many societies and to disallow free new needle exchanges is a tragedy that may bring mankind to its knees; unless of course, we are prepared to euthanize them. Protection from disease is necessary and to disallow free condoms to all, at any time, and at any age is to remove the foundation of today’s civilization and its future. Intravenous drug addicts, prostitution, and homosexuality should all be decriminalized everywhere. Testing for STDs and HIV should become standard tests that apply to everyone on a yearly basis. Test results should be kept confidential; be linked to counseling and treatment; and a positive or negative status for any disease should be described on the person’s medical status card along with any other communicable diseases. And finally; if recognition of prostitution as a profession in need of sex education is refused, it will mean that fools have come to power who will obliquely advocate ‘the end of days’ as a cure for all the ills of humanity. For those who don’t understand, ‘the end of days’ is a euphemism for a continuation of the status quo and its spiral into an abyss. And that abyss will be filled with the meaningless lives of people who had no purpose other than survival of the fittest. Life can have a purpose beyond survival. Foresight is the beginning; planning & doing is the middle and the betterment of the health and well being of humanity is the goal. © Works Cited:1. Neilsen, Kai – “Religious Ethics Versus Humanistic Ethics” 1985, from: Perspectives on Ethics Page 151 paragraph 52. - Page 153 paragraph 23. - Page 154 paragraph 3
