Many news outlets marked the 30th anniversary of the discovery of AIDS -- or, more accurately, the first reports of five otherwise healthy homosexuals in Los Angeles who had contracted a rare cancer -- with stories on the medical and scientific aspects of the disease. "The AIDS war still rages," according to the Los Angeles Times. And the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported "hope for a cure."
Others supplemented medical pieces with first-person accounts of living with the disease or explorations of AIDS' impact on culture.
Was religion mentioned? Deep down in several pieces, reporters remarked that some religious conservatives remain opposed to condom use and others still call AIDS "the wrath of God."
Yet, glossing over the entangled relationship between religion and AIDS, or simply consigning that history to conservative sound bites, overlooks crucial links between the impact of the epidemic and changing coverage of sexuality. It also occludes shifts in the GLBT community's public profile as well as important theological developments in mainline Protestantism and progressive denominations and traditions.
When AIDS emerged in the early 1980s, the decades-old campaign for gay acceptance, rights and non-discrimination had achieved some notable victories. Newspapers covered the new gay scene, profiling a subculture with its own bars, clubs, music and freewheeling sexual mores. (That this "gay community" was depicted as predominantly white, urban and middle class deserves its own media critique.) At the same time, journalists followed a growing religious backlash against gay rights, crystallized by Anita Bryant's 1977 drive to repeal a Dade County, Fla., non-discrimination statute. Bryant's "Save Our Children" campaign alleged that homosexual behavior endangered children and was an unacceptable affront to biblical morality.
These two types of stories -- gays as hedonists and gays as a social menace -- were more sophisticated spins on homophobic news stories from the 1950s and 1960s that almost invariably framed gay life in terms of deviancy and perversion. Arguably, this coverage merely reflected or echoed widespread discomfort with same-sex relations (most reporters shared the same preconceptions as the public), whereas stories in the '80s tended to evince the news values of sensationalism and conflict.
The first reports of a mysterious cancer afflicting otherwise healthy gay men seemed neither controversial nor titillating. But as the contours and scope of the disease became clear, the story suggested both. Why were gays susceptible to this terrible epidemic? Religious conservatives had a biblically based answer: immorality.
Many of the early human-interest stories incorporated this condemnation. Either a religious conservative was quoted saying AIDS was a divine punishment or an AIDS patient or family member voiced shame and guilt that explicitly stemmed from a sense of God's anger.
At the same time, other Christians were beginning to articulate an alternative religious response. They told reporters that God loves AIDS patients and that Jesus would be ministering to them. These beliefs were quoted as a counterpoint to conservatives, but as the decade progressed and journalists wrote more about coping with AIDS and caring for the afflicted, stories that offered a religious angle on "Why me?" and "What should I do?" proliferated.
By the 1990s, many Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant churches had direct experience of people with AIDS, either as congregants, clergy, friends or family. Articles about their experiences documented their (often evolving) beliefs about the disease -- it carried no divine stigma and could strike anyone -- as well as about gays, whom God loved too. Moreover, once sexual contact was discovered to be an avenue for transmitting the disease, journalists reported that some churches were initiating conversations about safe sex and others were distributing condoms.
Did working through their theological response to AIDS help some mainline Christians come to accept GLBT people as God's children, equal members of the congregation, deserving of ordination and entitled to the sanction of religious and civil marriage? Likewise did reporting on mainline Protestants' beliefs about gays and activities around AIDS predispose news consumers to rethink their own opinions? Or, on other hand, did hearing Falwellian assertions about gay immorality harden some hearts and convert others?
Academics wrestle with the question of whether journalism reflects public opinion, shapes it or does a little of both. Insofar as religion influences attitudes about sexuality, which it does directly to the faithful and indirectly, through cultural osmosis, to many others, coverage of religious responses to homosexuality provides a glimpse into living history. It also offers a way to chart broader and deeper currents of cultural change.
How could assessments of AIDS at 30 fail to look at the dramatically altered landscape of our cultural discussions? In 1981, for example, few Americans would have taken seriously the possibility of gay marriage, including many gays, who would have scoffed at the notion that mirroring what they saw as an inherently (hetero)sexist, monogamous lifestyle could be a milestone on their own path to liberation. What caused the change? AIDS for one, evolving religious opinion for another and -- arguably -- the news media's role in bringing both developments to public attention.
Follow Diane Winston on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dianewinston
Religion and AIDS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 30th Anniversary of HIV/AIDS | Change.org News
Religion was born out of an evolution of melding spirituality with philosophy into ideology, NOT the hand written word of a "god". Unless we attack the history of ideology openly and honestly from its inception, we will always be vulnerable to its corruptive influence.
The vast majority of victims of AIDS are heterosexual. But because it started in the gay community here christians claimed it was some punishment from their vindictive god. Tell me, what kind of god gives AIDS to newborn babies?
The greatest threat to the human race is, and has always been, religion. I just cannot imagine the life of guilt and self-loathing that religious folks must embrace. It's bad enough that some choose this life. The real shame is they indoctrinate their children. If I threatened my children with the things christians threaten their god will do to their children it would be considered child abuse. How is it any different?
Rather, it was first the militant movement that grew among queers fighting AIDS which blew the doors off the closet; and following that, the broad diversity of LGBT folks who walked through that new opening and showed themselves to the world. That new openness is what has, over time, led to the progress that's been made.
"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Romans 1:32
I learned long ago that it's useless to preach to folks that have no time for God. If they give up on God, they are subject to the consequences thereof.
Still, I beleive that it's entirely plausible that a good man named Jesus did exist, but he definitely was not divine. Belief in the supernatural is rather disturbing, to say the least.
We still have work to do.
aids will continue to be a problem for anyone who has casual sex without protection and for anyone who shares infected needles. imaginative religious fanatics will always find something they consider proof to their beliefs and will use it to demonise whichever part of society suits them best.
Religious fanatics are in business to hate "the other." It's their biggest seller. What's more "other" than being gay and infected with an incurable virus? Maybe being poor, brown, pregnant AND infected with the virus—not through casual sex, but sex with a boyfriend or husband who was infected by a dirty needle long ago or has unprotected sex with men on the side.
And "sex" isn't even the right word. Lots of sex involves nakedness and intimacy and zero risk for HIV transmission. HIV is transmitted to the receptive partner through unprotected (i.e., no condom) sexual intercourse.
By the way, obesity is not "preventable" as you suggest. In fact, thinness is not preventable either. It is extremely difficult to make someone genetically predisposed to thinness fat -- and vice versa. The fact is, we don't know why there seem to be more obese people. All reliable statistics actually show that fat people live longer! Only the extremely obese (over 350 lbs) show any diminution in life expectancy. But people who are more than 20lbs UNDERweight have a 74% chance of not reaching average life expectancy. That's not sexy news, so the media does not report it. It goes against the common belief that only skinny bodies are beautiful, so we prefer to ignore the facts and keep on ranting about "obesity." Fit and fat is healthier than thin and unfit.
Again, do some research and educate yourself before promulgating bigoted nonsense!
It is religion-informed "magical thinking" that gives people comfort in this way: they start by dividing the world into us and them. "They" have bad habits and therefore they get sick. "We" are virtuous, therefore when we get sick that's somehow their fault too.
That person's comment is a perfect example of religion's response to AIDS. Class dismissed.
The label is "Bio-Hazard."
Why after 30-years, do US-Americans still get AIDS?
When AIDS occurred, The NY Times printed only blurbs about AIDS on inside pages. It took months of haranguing by activists like Larry Kramer before they covered AIDS seriously. It wasn’t churches demanding action as more died, it was powerless gay men doing the work. It took years of rage and protest before we saw progress.
The country’s response to AIDS was a disgrace. As we saw when terrorists attacked the WTC, some people run toward disasters to offer help, while most run away and cower, wondering why god would punish them.
Religious hatred of gays persists today. Religions and governments (ours) would withhold AIDS treatment and prevention unless with anti-sex strings attached. Catholics close down charities rather then minister to gays. Mormons spend millions on anti-gay politics. Christians blame every bad thing including the weather on god's rage at kindness toward gays.
Religion-wise, things are only worse. If AIDS had arrived today and not in 1981, the lack of compassion would be about the same..
I mean like, the very churches you mention have a very low to none occurance in their groups.
Some notable victories--and one big defeat, namely AIDS itself.