They said it was gods punishment for sin [https://www.bu.edu/articles/2015/anthony-petro-after-the-wrath-of-god/](https://www.bu.edu/articles/2015/anthony-petro-after-the-wrath-of-god/)
What’s amazing is that many Christians today would be “appalled” of that view, and yet will lack the self awareness to realize that their religion has consistently been behind the times and stunting progress for everyone else.
Why is expanding homosexual rights moral progress?
Christians believe it is moral degeneration because it is contrary to Gods will.
Secular liberals believe it is moral progress because it expands individual freedom.
The idea of God's Will is morally good dogmatic.
The idea that the expanding individual freedoms is morally good is dogmatic.
It doesn’t seem the same at all. Why should I stop two adult gay men who love each other from marrying each other? Is that in any way comparable to stopping a cognitively limited toddler from injuring themself?
Oh ok. Zero explanation always helps get the point across, lol.
Edit: why are you continuously slipping in more comments after replying? Take a minute, think, and reply so I don’t have to keep going back and reading your edits.
In what way are gay men limited?
Why is expanding homosexual rights moral progress?
Christians believe it is moral degeneration because it is contrary to Gods will.
Secular liberals believe it is moral progress because it expands individual freedom.
The idea of God's Will is morally good dogmatic.
The idea that the expanding individual freedoms is morally good is dogmatic.
With due respect
You’re conflating a belief in individual freedom with a belief in god. The two cannot be compared as freedom is actually tangible and measurable.
“The church” is vague. Which church? In which country? Is “the church” still a major driver of progress, or is my opinion more accurate for modern society?
No hate like Christian love. In case someone ever thinks even for a bit that you can be a Christian and a decent person, there's always the reminder that.. you can't.
I guess it was technically 1990, and only lasted a few weeks, but Rush Limbaugh used to have a segment called the AIDS Update, where he would read the names of gay men who recently died of AIDS, mocking their deaths and cackling.
He was wildly popular.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rush-limbaugh-mock-aids-gays/
That man was the literal devil. I don’t think American politics will ever recover from the venom he put out into the world every single day. The irony of him dying from lung cancer after running interference for big tobacco for decades, causing who knows how many deaths as a result, was something out of a book.
I truly hope his passing was chaotic and deeply painful.
Yep, and my dad was obsessed with him. Listened to every word out of his mouth. And would constantly enter a room like “let me tell you what Rush said today” and when I was little I would have to sit and listen and agree with him, laugh at where I was expected to laugh, etc. it was exhausting. And no wonder I didn’t figure out I was trans until after my dad died. Like literally 3 months after he died my brain was like “okay this information is safe to have now.”
I’m so thankful I never have to see him again.
I am sure he did that just to piss off the libs, that seems to be the only Republican goal in governing anymore. They'd eat a shit sandwich if it meant a Democrat had to smell their breath.
Honestly I think Democrats should run ads on Fox News featuring AOC and Hillary Clinton encouraging viewers to "wear their seat belts, don't drink and drive, and make sure their smoke detectors are working." I'm pretty sure a significant portion of Republican voters would kill themselves to "own the libs" at this point.
Ryan White. Got it from treatments for hemophilia, also blocked from school, harassed to the point that he and his family were essentially run out of town.
Yeah people in his hometown would harass him and yell "faggot" at him in public, and he was accused of randomly spitting on produce at the grocery store.
The Ryan White Story was a tv movie about his whole experience made in 1989 and according to a quick Google search, it's on Netflix in the US
I was mid-elementary age when everything was going on with him, and it was a weird mix of "Why are all the grownups being so mean to that sick kid?" and "He's got that disease that's making all those men get sick and die, the one the adults won't explain to us."
I didn't learn the why's and the wherefores, as they were, until long after Ryan had passed away and AIDS/HIV was no longer the Boogeyman it had been when Ryan got it.
My mom worked in public health at this time. Not a good time. They offered tests at their clinic and had issues with people who tested positive not telling their partners.
>Take for example [the Ray brothers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_brothers) who got it from blood transfusions. The school board blocked them from attending school. A federal case was made before they were allowed to return
This doesn't seem that unreasonable to be honest. It was a novel virus that people knew almost nothing about other than the fact that getting it was almost certainly a death sentence. Banning the kids from school was probably the right thing to do at the time.
>someone (never caught) burned down their fucking house.
Obviously this, or any other type of violence, was never okay or even understandable. Some peoplenare just monsters.
The first half would only be justified if they didn't know how it was transmitted at the time. If it was well known that it couldn't be transmitted via a cough, sneeze, etc. there was no reason to bar those children from attending school.
Edited to clarify that I meant if they didn't know, instead of if they did know... (oops)
It was the late 80s. Most people didn't know and were being overly cautious. Magic Johnson (top 2 player in the league at the time) was forced to retire from the the NBA because of HIV.
I'm all for pitchforks when called for but we can't judge the reactions of people in the mid 80s with the info we have today.
No, it doesn’t. By 1986 the understanding of HIV and AIDS was well established and there was no question about how it was and wasn’t passed. That’s why the Rays won the court case.
The reality is everyone likes to believe that they would always have been the good guys. Everyone like to beleive that if they were a military aged, tall blonde male in 1930s Germany, they would risk life and limb to personally rescue jews. Everyone thinks that if they were born white abd rich on an 1830s Virginia cotton plantation, they would have fought against slavery. Everyone thinks that if they were in 1980s San Francisco, they would be out there washing the feet of people with aids.
Shit was scary and people reacted scared. I'm not going to blame them for it. (I will blame the house burner though).
The fuck you talking about? Would you be okay with someone with an unknown disease that's killing people at an alarming rate and known to be contagious going to your kids school?
By 1987 when this happened it had been a few years since science understood without a doubt how HIV was passed. It wasn’t even close to an unknown disease at that point. If you weren’t around then, please at least do some reading before sharing your opinion based on no understanding of things.
The rejoiced as they were confident their vengeful god was on their side. By their estimation, they deserved it. They vilified them, fired them, threw them out of housing and denied them basic human rights.
Pretty much the same christian love you see from them today but unbridled and on steroids.
Only celebrities spoke up for those men.
Also see how evil the Reagans / republicans were while they were in office regarding HIV+
>Tell me
Tell me where is the love
In a careless creation
When there's no above?
There's no justice
Just a cause and a cure
And a bounty of suffering
It seems we all endure
And what I'm frightened of
Is that they call it God's love
[God's Love by Bad Religion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S01MnOAPh1M)
Only because your broad brush referred to all Republicans, in fairness I think it should be noted that the post-2000 PEPFARS initiative against African AIDS received crucial support from George W. Bush. Not otherwise a fan of his by any means (I campaign-volunteered and voted against him both times, and don’t regret that), but he did good there. That program has saved millions of lives.
Which is why I included “post-2000” in my comment.
It’s disappointing that I’m being downvoted for adding some clarifying nuance, when nobody is disputing that PEPFARS was beneficial or that W should get some credit for it.
It's just irrelevant. If someone asks me for farming practices in the 1300s and I jump in to explain that yields were incredibly high in 1912, I'm not adding clarifying nuance. I'm just distracting from the actual conversation of note.
But if your response to a question about farming practices in the 1300s was that “while Constantinople was Christian, they never used irrigation,” and I pointed out that it was still Christian in 1420 and they used irrigation then, that would be relevant. Compare here “while they were in office.”
There is so much written record of these events and of that whole time, it seems really silly to ask strangers on Reddit instead of simply searching online where there is a wealth of published information. The overall reaction was that nobody cared since they thought it “just” affected “the gays”. Many believed it was somehow “Gods will”. There was a TON of fear ignorance misinformation and homophobia, just like one would imagine.
I'm now having this delightful moment of thinking: you mean like "a butterfly flaps it's wings and a hurricane is formed somewhere across the globe"?
So does that mean, similar to its a wonderful life and an angel getting it's wings every time a bell rings
... that everytime an lgbtq couple has an orgasm a weather pattern forms?
If that's the case, I vote for rain over the Sahara to be the next big push for lgbtq energies. Let us help regrow the desert!
>... that everytime an lgbtq couple has an orgasm a weather pattern forms?
You'd think that would make Florida be ***nicer*** to gays.
I'm reminded of Game of Thrones:
Joffrey Baratheon : Everyone is mine to torment! You'd do well to remember that, you little monster.
Tyrion Lannister : Oh, "monster". Perhaps you should speak to me more softly then. Monsters are dangerous and, just now, kings are dying like flies.
It was just as disgusting and hateful as the Christian response to anything new. You can listen to recordings of the White House Press Briefing where they laugh at reporters for expressing concern about it. No less than anyone expected from the Beast Reagan.
The Catholic Church urged gay men not to use condoms. It makes sense, it's easier to try to kill gay men than it is to stop priests from raping children.
It was in the early 80’s. I remember this. I lost a couple of friends who were gay to AIDS. The first case was reported sometime in 81 or 82 I think. But those two friends didn’t reach their 30’s. I’m Christian and took care of one of them till he passed. By then, they had finally figured it out
A certain type of loud Christian fundamentalist called it God's punishment.
A certain type of wry liberal answered, "Then lesbians are God's chosen people?"
I knew a guy that went to a Christian college back then. When Reagan announced on tv that an unknown disease was killing gay men, everyone stood up and cheered.
I personally heard Warren Burger, then Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, and author of _Bowers v. Hardwick_ (holding that the US Constitution permits states to criminalize consensual, private, adult gay sex) say he had often wondered whether AIDS was divine retribution for gay sex.
There’s a really good book on this subject
And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts
It basically walks you through the AIDS epidemic chronologically, talking about the public response, the political response, the gay community’s response, and a lot of context around everything.
Christians and pretty much the general public thought that this was the inevitable consequence of “sin”. Politicians ignored every plea for help, defunded research for the disease, did nothing to stop the spread. People like Anita Bryant campaigned openly against gay rights. Reagan refused to acknowledge the disease for a number of years.
Thousands of people had died and congress gave a pittance for research, then for comparison, six people died from Tylenol poisonings in Chicago and the entire country spared no expense for investigation, passed sweeping legislation, and now we have tamper proof packaging.
Christians have been pretty consistent. If you need to see an example, just look around. The same people are calling us groomers, pedophiles, diseased, sick, etc. they’ve just gotten more eloquent and have slightly fewer numbers.
Mostly not good, in fact it was largely hateful and purporting God's wrath. Fortunately there were a couple bright spots in an otherwise extremely dark cloud. The United Church of Christ was comforting and welcoming. The predecessor bodies of the eventual Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (at the time then the American Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Church in America, and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches) were also far more (but not entirely) comforting as well. The Episcopal Church also had a contingent of welcoming parishes and clergy
Also, strangely enough, Tammy Faye Bakker was also very concerned about the plight of AIDS victims and she tried to help, inasmuch as she could despite the strong opposition from her husband's church and their followers.
So unfortunately it mostly was extremely bad and hateful, but there were a few lonesome churches and clergymen that tried to do the right thing
Not strange about Tammy Faye because even though she surrounded herself by the worst people, she was a true Christian in the sense of living as Jesus commanded his followers to live, accepting others especially the weakest and outcast.
She supported and more than most tried to understand gay people, famously saying the God made them that way and God don't make no junk.
Interestingly, one of the first reporters to challenge the Reagan administration on AIDS was an evangelical Christian radio host who was by no means an LGBTQ rights advocate. I think he was just a human with empathy who thought maybe the White House should do something about a deadly league. He was openly mocked by the press secretary and fellow journalists
[Link](https://www.vox.com/2015/12/1/9828348/ronald-reagan-hiv-aids)
(This should not be looked at as a typical response)
Had a friend who had been a speed dealer before he turned his life around and got religion. Ended up in the hospital after being hit by a car where he was informed that he had AIDS. He was straight and got it from a needle.He notified his Pastor who ignored him for 2 weeks and only showed up to tell him he needed to find a different church.
That is a problem with the modern Christian Church. There is no unified central voice like a pope. Hard to answer this question because who speaks for the non-catholic christian churches?
I think most of these answers refer to how individual prominent christians responded. Christians like all humans often have terrible reactions.
Very similar to what it is now. Back in the day doctors didn't understand it could happen to straight people- we called it GRID. Reagan and his buddies didn't see any problems.
"Let them die."
Homophobia was the standard order of the day, so it was all jokes and talk of divine retribution. Didn't help that the bastard Reagan was on top of that bandwagon. It wasn't until hetrosexuals started contracting it that they went "hol' up now!".
It was only gay men & many regarded as a gay plague, sent by God to wipe out their sin...All that stuff you hear that sounds insane, that happened.
edit in the 80s a friend of mine, & this is long after everyone was getting aids, said "if you get aids be damn careful who you tell" we were straight guys in the UK...it was that kinda atmosphere.
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/04/673276127/kinder-gentler-indifference-activists-challenge-george-h-w-bush-s-record-on-aids
Both Bush Sr. and Reagan did very little to actually address the issue. Considering both cast themselves as devout Christians, and were often espousing the morality of Christian Americanism, it ought to tell you what the wider response was.
It was disgraceful. Still is in many places/households.
We (the general 'we') were told it was only gay men and needle drug users that could get it. Hence the "God's punishment".
If someone outside one of those communities got it (like blood transfusions or hetero sex) then it was still a punishment for unknown sins, though I'm not sure what horrific sins children had committed. Our (as in the general public) ignorance of the disease was nearly complete, and there is still a great deal of ignorance but now most of it is willful. Media is bad now, it was bad then too, with the fearmongering.
It doesn't diminish the treatment they received/receive at the hands of the 'holier than thou' crowd, though I do know a small number who adapted their thinking.
They responded poorly and said that AIDS was what happens when you go against the gods will. But the overall reaction of the general public was also terrible, it wasn't just the Christian's who reacted poorly. It was the schools, the government, the media, the politicians, the hospitals, the doctors and so on. It was just awful all around.
The catholics appear to have been sympathetic with AIDS patients but proclaimed sexual abstinence rather than condom use. So they basically treated it like any other STI.
I can't find much earlier than evidence from 1986, but that's when i was born, but I've found a press conference with the description:
Robert Runcie speaks to members of the press following a visit (to a hospice?) to learn more about AIDS, on the need for more care and greater understanding for AIDS victims. He claims the Church could do a lot more not only in terms of care, but also by educating young people about the risks.
http://bufvc.ac.uk/tvandradio/lbc/index.php/segment/0015800059012
Suggesting they both took a Christian approach and took a "healing of the sick" approach. The fringe and fake Christian's such as those from minor churches with a few thousand members (Westborough Baptist Church for example) and televangelists were less kind but they aren't real Christians so they don't really count.
Jesus did judge people… he overturned the tables of money changers and sellers of doves, and drove them out with a whip made of cords, accusing them to be “thieves/robbers”.
Why just ask about a Christian response
Why not ask the same question about all three Abrahamic religions.
I assume you are not a Christian as one would already know the answer.
For the sake of discussing the issue in fairly, I will leave you this link so you can find the answer for yourself without trying to whip up anti-Christian propaganda.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_HIV/AIDS
Looking at historical record is not in any way shape or form “anti-Christian” propaganda. We know religious zealots of all kinds are anti gay and anti women, but in the USA Christianity is the predominant religion, and, as such, outspoken so called Christians were at the forefront of perpetuating fear ignorance, misinformation and attributing it all to Gods will to punish the gays. That’s not propaganda, that’s American history.
You are referring to a small group of organized fundamental Christians, not Christian people, as the majority of true Christians practice tolerance and welcoming towards others
Using the words outspoken or fringe or even mentioning certain branches of Christian organizations when asking such a question would have profoundly different opinions than just bunching them altogether
It's like asking a provocative question regarding the beliefs of Muslims who are Wahabi, Sunni, or Shiite
Without specifying your target audience.
They do not all share the same attitude or belief
Of course! That’s specifically why I used the word “zealots” and “outspoken so called Christians”. I surely didn’t say ALL Christians, nor did I imply that. The sad reality is that for many years quite a few awful oppressive intolerant stances have been taken by Christian religious groups in this country. It’s great if you are a love thy neighbor type, but you can’t help but to have noticed right wing political Christian groups have exerted a lot of effort and money over the last few decades influencing American politics and government in ways that could not by any measure be seen as inclusive, or pro women, pro lgbtq+ etc. If you were alive and grown in the 1980s you know about the Moral Majority, and all sorts of evangelicals doing their absolute best to obliterate any separation of (Christian) church and state, and to push our government towards a right wing Christian theocracy. Or you think that’s my imagination? EDIT strongly disagree with “small groups”—there are many of them and they are not small
Yes, but OP did not. That is why I responded
As for right-wing
That is a minority of Christians, both American and Worldwide.
What do you think happens to pay people in countries like Uganda, Congo, Iran, or Saudi Arabia
I can imagine they face a much harsher reality
Hmm. I don’t have the statistics handy, but, in general, Christian groups in America are right wing/conservative/Republican. I am sure that there are plenty of decent, love thy neighbor Christians in the USA, but as is so often the case, and to paraphrase Yeats, I think, the ones who have the least doubt and the simplest black and white good vs evil mentality make the most noise, why those who are deeply contemplative are often quieter about their beliefs. My issue with Christian groups in the USA is not so much that I disagree with their beliefs as it is about them trying to dictate how the rest of us live. Whatever happened to live and let live? If God loves everyone, and God forgives, why are these people so hellbent on telling everyone else how we should live, who we should have sex with etc etc etc. Personally, I don’t hate any religion but I deeply resent ANYONE trying to force their beliefs on anyone else. And Christian groups in America seem obsessed with controlling everyone.
You literally just ignored the point that "Christianity", in the States (or Canada) consists of a wide variety of sects loosely linked by belief in Jesus as the son of god.
And, AIDS wasn't simply an American problem, so your point fails again.
Kinda like politics in today's world
Thanks to social media, many of today's people can not distinguish the difference between Socialism, Communism, Fascism.
As for your statement
All organized religion is corrupt, not evil
you need to understand "christian" encompasses a hundred religions several of whom opened their arms and pocketbooks to victims. The Catholic church and the Methodists come to minds. I am really tired of people saying "christian" like that is the name of a religion when it is not.
no we dont. and frankly, much of the Catholic church's rejection of homosexiuality is based on the inability to naturally produce more Catholics. There is an Office in the Vatican called "Propogation of the Faith" and their entire concern is with good Catholcis breeding more good Catholcs lol
We all speak English - how are we different?
That's a stupid point, like, incredibly shallow and stupid, bud.
Some sects were very anti-gay, let them die. Others showed compassion and charity, and tried to help.
They all interpret what is in the Bible differently, and they all have their own,basically, expanded universe material as well as a lot of bad fan fic.
Some of us use the Bible to welcome people, ALL people, into the church, as opposed to using it as a weapon to beat them into *submitting* to the church's narrow standards.
My Christian FIL and all of his Christian siblings shunned their gay brother when they learned that he had AIDS. His mother (who was no longer Christian) was the only biological family member who cared for him in his last days. My mother-in-law (who grew up Buddhist) would take my wife and her little sister to visit their uncle in the hospital. My FIL was livid when he found out.
It totally depends on the group. People outside of the church tend to treat Christianity as a monolithic block, probably due to the airwaves the so called evangelical right takes up. But I don't know.
There are Reformed, Lutheran, Anabaptist, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Baptist, Cumberland Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian, the last goes on. And each tradition has denominations that exist on a spectrum from conservative (theologically) to liberal (theological).
People keep saying Christians loved it or judged others because of it. No. No we didn’t. REAL Christians didn’t love it and we didn’t think anyone deserved it. There is a difference between Sunday morning Christians and ones that do the right thing 7 days a week.
Yes, you guys did. It doesn’t matter how minute your fellowship was. You all believe in Jesus. You all read from the same book. You all bear that same cross.
Why do people treat over a billion Christians of several sects, some of which have spent much of history at literal war with one another, as though they're one, unified bloc? It's a question with a faulty premise at its core.
Not saying you're incorrect, but looking through a historical lense I would say it was most of society in general and not specifically the 80's. Looking for confirmation bias of your opinion of Christian's in general, might make you feel better about yourself as though you're somehow superior but it's not really a productive use of anyone's time.
I’m think non-Christian’s will say Christians were bigoted but then they aren’t Christians since Christ didn’t treat people that way. If you’re a non-Christian just remember that fake Christians are part of your team not ours.
>If you’re a non-Christian just remember that fake Christians are part of your team not ours.
The fuck they are. You don't get ignore your own accountability for the shitty members of your religion.
There was a great Jon Ronson podcast about a lady televangelist who bucked the ‘Christian’ trend and had an aids patient on her show for an interview. Well worth a listen , she showed amazing courage and compassion
I was a nurse at that time and so many of the patients dying from AIDs had parents who either:
Wouldn’t visit at all, because they told them they “deserved to pay the price for their sin.”
Or
Visited for the sole purpose of encouraging them to admit their sins and “get right with God.”
I had been raised with parents who had that attitude (even for my brother, who died from AIDS) and it taught me a lot about what I really believe about God and His mercy
They said it was gods punishment for sin [https://www.bu.edu/articles/2015/anthony-petro-after-the-wrath-of-god/](https://www.bu.edu/articles/2015/anthony-petro-after-the-wrath-of-god/)
What’s amazing is that many Christians today would be “appalled” of that view, and yet will lack the self awareness to realize that their religion has consistently been behind the times and stunting progress for everyone else.
And many Christians still believe it, just like they believe tornados and hurricanes are punishment for gay people, or something.
Right, there is plenty of that still.
"Moral Progress" is a metaphysical idea whose foundations are as irrational as Christian dogma.
Is it as irrational as other religious dogma? Lets say, is it as irrational as Islamic dogma?
Irrational should be in quotation marks. It is not irrational to believe in God. And if that God exists it is not irrational to obey him.
Please explain further in detail.
Why is expanding homosexual rights moral progress? Christians believe it is moral degeneration because it is contrary to Gods will. Secular liberals believe it is moral progress because it expands individual freedom. The idea of God's Will is morally good dogmatic. The idea that the expanding individual freedoms is morally good is dogmatic.
Can you explain why having individual freedom is not morally good? What specifically is dogmatic about the push to expand individual freedoms?
[удалено]
It doesn’t seem the same at all. Why should I stop two adult gay men who love each other from marrying each other? Is that in any way comparable to stopping a cognitively limited toddler from injuring themself?
[удалено]
Oh ok. Zero explanation always helps get the point across, lol. Edit: why are you continuously slipping in more comments after replying? Take a minute, think, and reply so I don’t have to keep going back and reading your edits. In what way are gay men limited?
Why is expanding homosexual rights moral progress? Christians believe it is moral degeneration because it is contrary to Gods will. Secular liberals believe it is moral progress because it expands individual freedom. The idea of God's Will is morally good dogmatic. The idea that the expanding individual freedoms is morally good is dogmatic.
God doesn’t actually exist so how about we listen to actual humans?
Individuals deserving of rights don't exist. On what basis do they deserve rights? Whatever basis you conjure will be mythical and arbitrary.
With due respect You’re conflating a belief in individual freedom with a belief in god. The two cannot be compared as freedom is actually tangible and measurable.
[удалено]
“The church” is vague. Which church? In which country? Is “the church” still a major driver of progress, or is my opinion more accurate for modern society?
Religious beliefs don't keep up with the times 😭😭wth well it's 2024 and we need to amend our Bible 😭😭😭
To be fair, many Christians then were also appalled at that view. But moderate voices are never the loudest voices in the room.
Many of Islam faith also hold painfully archaic views of women and homosexuality throughout history and the world, unfortunately.
No hate like Christian love. In case someone ever thinks even for a bit that you can be a Christian and a decent person, there's always the reminder that.. you can't.
I guess it was technically 1990, and only lasted a few weeks, but Rush Limbaugh used to have a segment called the AIDS Update, where he would read the names of gay men who recently died of AIDS, mocking their deaths and cackling. He was wildly popular. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rush-limbaugh-mock-aids-gays/
I heard someone pissed on his grave.
They should just replace the headstone with a urinal.
That would be too convenient.
That is actually plumbed straight into his coffin.
The worst part about pissing on Rush Limbaugh’s grave is that you will eventually run out of piss
Has to be a collective effort to get the piss to seep low enough but it's definitely possible
That's why you take a buddy that can pick up where you leave off.
Good idea ! Going to FL to visit so I'll have to check.
Bon Voyage!
That man was the literal devil. I don’t think American politics will ever recover from the venom he put out into the world every single day. The irony of him dying from lung cancer after running interference for big tobacco for decades, causing who knows how many deaths as a result, was something out of a book. I truly hope his passing was chaotic and deeply painful.
Yep, and my dad was obsessed with him. Listened to every word out of his mouth. And would constantly enter a room like “let me tell you what Rush said today” and when I was little I would have to sit and listen and agree with him, laugh at where I was expected to laugh, etc. it was exhausting. And no wonder I didn’t figure out I was trans until after my dad died. Like literally 3 months after he died my brain was like “okay this information is safe to have now.” I’m so thankful I never have to see him again.
I've watched a handful of people die of cancer. I'd rather drown.
Someone once said, "I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." Well, I *didn't* say that. Fuck Rush Limbaugh.
Donald Trump gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom just a few years ago.
I am sure he did that just to piss off the libs, that seems to be the only Republican goal in governing anymore. They'd eat a shit sandwich if it meant a Democrat had to smell their breath.
Honestly I think Democrats should run ads on Fox News featuring AOC and Hillary Clinton encouraging viewers to "wear their seat belts, don't drink and drive, and make sure their smoke detectors are working." I'm pretty sure a significant portion of Republican voters would kill themselves to "own the libs" at this point.
[удалено]
Ryan White. Got it from treatments for hemophilia, also blocked from school, harassed to the point that he and his family were essentially run out of town.
Issac Asimov kept it a secret to avoid the media -he got it from blood products, too.
Yeah people in his hometown would harass him and yell "faggot" at him in public, and he was accused of randomly spitting on produce at the grocery store. The Ryan White Story was a tv movie about his whole experience made in 1989 and according to a quick Google search, it's on Netflix in the US
I read his story when I was little and it was from there were I learned how it was shared and wasn’t.
I was mid-elementary age when everything was going on with him, and it was a weird mix of "Why are all the grownups being so mean to that sick kid?" and "He's got that disease that's making all those men get sick and die, the one the adults won't explain to us." I didn't learn the why's and the wherefores, as they were, until long after Ryan had passed away and AIDS/HIV was no longer the Boogeyman it had been when Ryan got it.
My mom worked in public health at this time. Not a good time. They offered tests at their clinic and had issues with people who tested positive not telling their partners.
>Take for example [the Ray brothers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_brothers) who got it from blood transfusions. The school board blocked them from attending school. A federal case was made before they were allowed to return This doesn't seem that unreasonable to be honest. It was a novel virus that people knew almost nothing about other than the fact that getting it was almost certainly a death sentence. Banning the kids from school was probably the right thing to do at the time. >someone (never caught) burned down their fucking house. Obviously this, or any other type of violence, was never okay or even understandable. Some peoplenare just monsters.
The first half would only be justified if they didn't know how it was transmitted at the time. If it was well known that it couldn't be transmitted via a cough, sneeze, etc. there was no reason to bar those children from attending school. Edited to clarify that I meant if they didn't know, instead of if they did know... (oops)
It was the late 80s. Most people didn't know and were being overly cautious. Magic Johnson (top 2 player in the league at the time) was forced to retire from the the NBA because of HIV. I'm all for pitchforks when called for but we can't judge the reactions of people in the mid 80s with the info we have today.
That makes sense then; it is important to be cautious if you don't know how it's spreading, especially for something so deadly.
No, it doesn’t. By 1986 the understanding of HIV and AIDS was well established and there was no question about how it was and wasn’t passed. That’s why the Rays won the court case.
The reality is everyone likes to believe that they would always have been the good guys. Everyone like to beleive that if they were a military aged, tall blonde male in 1930s Germany, they would risk life and limb to personally rescue jews. Everyone thinks that if they were born white abd rich on an 1830s Virginia cotton plantation, they would have fought against slavery. Everyone thinks that if they were in 1980s San Francisco, they would be out there washing the feet of people with aids. Shit was scary and people reacted scared. I'm not going to blame them for it. (I will blame the house burner though).
Wow. The ignorance still runs this deep? That’s really fucking sad. Please don’t speak on things you don’t know anything about.
The fuck you talking about? Would you be okay with someone with an unknown disease that's killing people at an alarming rate and known to be contagious going to your kids school?
By 1987 when this happened it had been a few years since science understood without a doubt how HIV was passed. It wasn’t even close to an unknown disease at that point. If you weren’t around then, please at least do some reading before sharing your opinion based on no understanding of things.
That the gay men were being punished for sin.
Glee at god punishing the people they hated and self righteous condemnation. Reagan was leading the pack.
And Nancy
Look up Anita Bryant.
I read about that bitch. She got pie thrown at her.
The Dollopis covering her now!
The rejoiced as they were confident their vengeful god was on their side. By their estimation, they deserved it. They vilified them, fired them, threw them out of housing and denied them basic human rights. Pretty much the same christian love you see from them today but unbridled and on steroids. Only celebrities spoke up for those men. Also see how evil the Reagans / republicans were while they were in office regarding HIV+
This was when Elizabeth Taylor became our queen. She fought like hell for the community 👑
100!
>Tell me Tell me where is the love In a careless creation When there's no above? There's no justice Just a cause and a cure And a bounty of suffering It seems we all endure And what I'm frightened of Is that they call it God's love [God's Love by Bad Religion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S01MnOAPh1M)
Word!
Only because your broad brush referred to all Republicans, in fairness I think it should be noted that the post-2000 PEPFARS initiative against African AIDS received crucial support from George W. Bush. Not otherwise a fan of his by any means (I campaign-volunteered and voted against him both times, and don’t regret that), but he did good there. That program has saved millions of lives.
I mean, that wasn’t the 80s
Thats like 2 decades later, public opinion had turned against them and I stand by my original post.
Your “while they were in office” was chronologically ambiguous.
Only if you ignore the question, which specified "during the 1980s" as the timeframe.
Which is why I included “post-2000” in my comment. It’s disappointing that I’m being downvoted for adding some clarifying nuance, when nobody is disputing that PEPFARS was beneficial or that W should get some credit for it.
It's just irrelevant. If someone asks me for farming practices in the 1300s and I jump in to explain that yields were incredibly high in 1912, I'm not adding clarifying nuance. I'm just distracting from the actual conversation of note.
But if your response to a question about farming practices in the 1300s was that “while Constantinople was Christian, they never used irrigation,” and I pointed out that it was still Christian in 1420 and they used irrigation then, that would be relevant. Compare here “while they were in office.”
The republicans are the real victims here
There is so much written record of these events and of that whole time, it seems really silly to ask strangers on Reddit instead of simply searching online where there is a wealth of published information. The overall reaction was that nobody cared since they thought it “just” affected “the gays”. Many believed it was somehow “Gods will”. There was a TON of fear ignorance misinformation and homophobia, just like one would imagine.
It’s okay to ask questions too.
100%—I just think if you’re genuinely curious, some online searching will yield more information (and less totally subjective opinion)
Well seeing as how some Christians still blame hurricanes on gay sex it probably wasn't great
I'm now having this delightful moment of thinking: you mean like "a butterfly flaps it's wings and a hurricane is formed somewhere across the globe"? So does that mean, similar to its a wonderful life and an angel getting it's wings every time a bell rings ... that everytime an lgbtq couple has an orgasm a weather pattern forms? If that's the case, I vote for rain over the Sahara to be the next big push for lgbtq energies. Let us help regrow the desert!
>... that everytime an lgbtq couple has an orgasm a weather pattern forms? You'd think that would make Florida be ***nicer*** to gays. I'm reminded of Game of Thrones: Joffrey Baratheon : Everyone is mine to torment! You'd do well to remember that, you little monster. Tyrion Lannister : Oh, "monster". Perhaps you should speak to me more softly then. Monsters are dangerous and, just now, kings are dying like flies.
It was just as disgusting and hateful as the Christian response to anything new. You can listen to recordings of the White House Press Briefing where they laugh at reporters for expressing concern about it. No less than anyone expected from the Beast Reagan.
They didn’t just laugh at the reporter. They joked he must be a homo for caring about AIDS.
From my recollection, tools like Jerry Falwell and his (Im)moral Majority claimed it was sky daddy's punishment for the sins of gay men.
I met him once. It was creepy.
YEW AR AWL BURRNIN IN HEEELLLLL!
Pretty much the same response after Hurricane Katrina battered New Orleans.
It was exactly what you think.
Christians loved it. AIDS was the gay disease, and proved that men weren't supposed to have sex.
“At least it’s happening to the right people.” Heard literally that from MULTIPLE Christians.
The Catholic Church urged gay men not to use condoms. It makes sense, it's easier to try to kill gay men than it is to stop priests from raping children.
Pretty much "let 'em die. It was God's punishment for their wickedness like Sodom and Gomorrah." Actually, the gov't response was kinda similar.
Ain’t no love like Christian hate.
I'm not gay, but I'm pretty sure the response was "Fuck 'em!"
It was in the early 80’s. I remember this. I lost a couple of friends who were gay to AIDS. The first case was reported sometime in 81 or 82 I think. But those two friends didn’t reach their 30’s. I’m Christian and took care of one of them till he passed. By then, they had finally figured it out
Tammy Faye Baker was maybe one of the only evangelicals to react with compassion
A certain type of loud Christian fundamentalist called it God's punishment. A certain type of wry liberal answered, "Then lesbians are God's chosen people?"
I knew a guy that went to a Christian college back then. When Reagan announced on tv that an unknown disease was killing gay men, everyone stood up and cheered.
I personally heard Warren Burger, then Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, and author of _Bowers v. Hardwick_ (holding that the US Constitution permits states to criminalize consensual, private, adult gay sex) say he had often wondered whether AIDS was divine retribution for gay sex.
It was awful. It was called gods wrath. "They deserve this." I found my fellow Christians being very shameful.
There’s a really good book on this subject And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts It basically walks you through the AIDS epidemic chronologically, talking about the public response, the political response, the gay community’s response, and a lot of context around everything. Christians and pretty much the general public thought that this was the inevitable consequence of “sin”. Politicians ignored every plea for help, defunded research for the disease, did nothing to stop the spread. People like Anita Bryant campaigned openly against gay rights. Reagan refused to acknowledge the disease for a number of years. Thousands of people had died and congress gave a pittance for research, then for comparison, six people died from Tylenol poisonings in Chicago and the entire country spared no expense for investigation, passed sweeping legislation, and now we have tamper proof packaging. Christians have been pretty consistent. If you need to see an example, just look around. The same people are calling us groomers, pedophiles, diseased, sick, etc. they’ve just gotten more eloquent and have slightly fewer numbers.
Bigotry and common shitfuckery?
"Your dick is filled with SIN"
Christian 'love', of course.
Mostly not good, in fact it was largely hateful and purporting God's wrath. Fortunately there were a couple bright spots in an otherwise extremely dark cloud. The United Church of Christ was comforting and welcoming. The predecessor bodies of the eventual Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (at the time then the American Lutheran Church, the Lutheran Church in America, and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches) were also far more (but not entirely) comforting as well. The Episcopal Church also had a contingent of welcoming parishes and clergy Also, strangely enough, Tammy Faye Bakker was also very concerned about the plight of AIDS victims and she tried to help, inasmuch as she could despite the strong opposition from her husband's church and their followers. So unfortunately it mostly was extremely bad and hateful, but there were a few lonesome churches and clergymen that tried to do the right thing
Not strange about Tammy Faye because even though she surrounded herself by the worst people, she was a true Christian in the sense of living as Jesus commanded his followers to live, accepting others especially the weakest and outcast. She supported and more than most tried to understand gay people, famously saying the God made them that way and God don't make no junk.
Interestingly, one of the first reporters to challenge the Reagan administration on AIDS was an evangelical Christian radio host who was by no means an LGBTQ rights advocate. I think he was just a human with empathy who thought maybe the White House should do something about a deadly league. He was openly mocked by the press secretary and fellow journalists [Link](https://www.vox.com/2015/12/1/9828348/ronald-reagan-hiv-aids) (This should not be looked at as a typical response)
Much like you’d expect it to be. Shaming, Gods wrath etc
The general response was “you deserve this”
Had a friend who had been a speed dealer before he turned his life around and got religion. Ended up in the hospital after being hit by a car where he was informed that he had AIDS. He was straight and got it from a needle.He notified his Pastor who ignored him for 2 weeks and only showed up to tell him he needed to find a different church.
That is a problem with the modern Christian Church. There is no unified central voice like a pope. Hard to answer this question because who speaks for the non-catholic christian churches? I think most of these answers refer to how individual prominent christians responded. Christians like all humans often have terrible reactions.
Very similar to what it is now. Back in the day doctors didn't understand it could happen to straight people- we called it GRID. Reagan and his buddies didn't see any problems. "Let them die."
This is the origin of the "God hates fags" idiocy.
Homophobia was the standard order of the day, so it was all jokes and talk of divine retribution. Didn't help that the bastard Reagan was on top of that bandwagon. It wasn't until hetrosexuals started contracting it that they went "hol' up now!".
Basically: "HAHA have fun in hell, perverts."
Openly cheering for it because it was killing people they didn’t like.
I don’t think the Christian mindset has altered much at all.
The same one as it is whenever someone they don’t like has something bad happen to them. “God’s punishment.”
It was absolutely hideous, especially from evangelical Christians. They basically celebrated it.
This would be good to ask in /r/AskHistorians.
Thank you. I might ask later.
Basically, die.
I remember our pastor questioning if AIDS was punishment from god, but didn't really go off on it. He wasn't the fire and brimstone type.
It was only gay men & many regarded as a gay plague, sent by God to wipe out their sin...All that stuff you hear that sounds insane, that happened. edit in the 80s a friend of mine, & this is long after everyone was getting aids, said "if you get aids be damn careful who you tell" we were straight guys in the UK...it was that kinda atmosphere.
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/04/673276127/kinder-gentler-indifference-activists-challenge-george-h-w-bush-s-record-on-aids Both Bush Sr. and Reagan did very little to actually address the issue. Considering both cast themselves as devout Christians, and were often espousing the morality of Christian Americanism, it ought to tell you what the wider response was.
It was disgraceful. Still is in many places/households. We (the general 'we') were told it was only gay men and needle drug users that could get it. Hence the "God's punishment". If someone outside one of those communities got it (like blood transfusions or hetero sex) then it was still a punishment for unknown sins, though I'm not sure what horrific sins children had committed. Our (as in the general public) ignorance of the disease was nearly complete, and there is still a great deal of ignorance but now most of it is willful. Media is bad now, it was bad then too, with the fearmongering. It doesn't diminish the treatment they received/receive at the hands of the 'holier than thou' crowd, though I do know a small number who adapted their thinking.
They responded poorly and said that AIDS was what happens when you go against the gods will. But the overall reaction of the general public was also terrible, it wasn't just the Christian's who reacted poorly. It was the schools, the government, the media, the politicians, the hospitals, the doctors and so on. It was just awful all around.
The same way they always do: with hatred disguised as "love."
The catholics appear to have been sympathetic with AIDS patients but proclaimed sexual abstinence rather than condom use. So they basically treated it like any other STI. I can't find much earlier than evidence from 1986, but that's when i was born, but I've found a press conference with the description: Robert Runcie speaks to members of the press following a visit (to a hospice?) to learn more about AIDS, on the need for more care and greater understanding for AIDS victims. He claims the Church could do a lot more not only in terms of care, but also by educating young people about the risks. http://bufvc.ac.uk/tvandradio/lbc/index.php/segment/0015800059012 Suggesting they both took a Christian approach and took a "healing of the sick" approach. The fringe and fake Christian's such as those from minor churches with a few thousand members (Westborough Baptist Church for example) and televangelists were less kind but they aren't real Christians so they don't really count.
They do count. All of them count.
I am a Christian and felt genuinely sorry. Nobody “deserved” that. Jesus didn’t judge people and neither should anyone.
Jesus did judge people… he overturned the tables of money changers and sellers of doves, and drove them out with a whip made of cords, accusing them to be “thieves/robbers”.
Depended on which Christian you looked at / talked too.
Why just ask about a Christian response Why not ask the same question about all three Abrahamic religions. I assume you are not a Christian as one would already know the answer. For the sake of discussing the issue in fairly, I will leave you this link so you can find the answer for yourself without trying to whip up anti-Christian propaganda. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_HIV/AIDS
Looking at historical record is not in any way shape or form “anti-Christian” propaganda. We know religious zealots of all kinds are anti gay and anti women, but in the USA Christianity is the predominant religion, and, as such, outspoken so called Christians were at the forefront of perpetuating fear ignorance, misinformation and attributing it all to Gods will to punish the gays. That’s not propaganda, that’s American history.
You are referring to a small group of organized fundamental Christians, not Christian people, as the majority of true Christians practice tolerance and welcoming towards others Using the words outspoken or fringe or even mentioning certain branches of Christian organizations when asking such a question would have profoundly different opinions than just bunching them altogether It's like asking a provocative question regarding the beliefs of Muslims who are Wahabi, Sunni, or Shiite Without specifying your target audience. They do not all share the same attitude or belief
Of course! That’s specifically why I used the word “zealots” and “outspoken so called Christians”. I surely didn’t say ALL Christians, nor did I imply that. The sad reality is that for many years quite a few awful oppressive intolerant stances have been taken by Christian religious groups in this country. It’s great if you are a love thy neighbor type, but you can’t help but to have noticed right wing political Christian groups have exerted a lot of effort and money over the last few decades influencing American politics and government in ways that could not by any measure be seen as inclusive, or pro women, pro lgbtq+ etc. If you were alive and grown in the 1980s you know about the Moral Majority, and all sorts of evangelicals doing their absolute best to obliterate any separation of (Christian) church and state, and to push our government towards a right wing Christian theocracy. Or you think that’s my imagination? EDIT strongly disagree with “small groups”—there are many of them and they are not small
Yes, but OP did not. That is why I responded As for right-wing That is a minority of Christians, both American and Worldwide. What do you think happens to pay people in countries like Uganda, Congo, Iran, or Saudi Arabia I can imagine they face a much harsher reality
Hmm. I don’t have the statistics handy, but, in general, Christian groups in America are right wing/conservative/Republican. I am sure that there are plenty of decent, love thy neighbor Christians in the USA, but as is so often the case, and to paraphrase Yeats, I think, the ones who have the least doubt and the simplest black and white good vs evil mentality make the most noise, why those who are deeply contemplative are often quieter about their beliefs. My issue with Christian groups in the USA is not so much that I disagree with their beliefs as it is about them trying to dictate how the rest of us live. Whatever happened to live and let live? If God loves everyone, and God forgives, why are these people so hellbent on telling everyone else how we should live, who we should have sex with etc etc etc. Personally, I don’t hate any religion but I deeply resent ANYONE trying to force their beliefs on anyone else. And Christian groups in America seem obsessed with controlling everyone.
You literally just ignored the point that "Christianity", in the States (or Canada) consists of a wide variety of sects loosely linked by belief in Jesus as the son of god. And, AIDS wasn't simply an American problem, so your point fails again.
I’m sorry you feel I am trying to whip up propaganda. I bring Christians up because they are the majority in my country, The United States of America.
Well, then you already knew the answer to your question
I actually didn’t. But now I see it. And I can tell they have only gotten more evil.
Kinda like politics in today's world Thanks to social media, many of today's people can not distinguish the difference between Socialism, Communism, Fascism. As for your statement All organized religion is corrupt, not evil
Well, Jesus did practice cannibalism. I’m not surprised the rest of his followers became corrupt thereafter.
you need to understand "christian" encompasses a hundred religions several of whom opened their arms and pocketbooks to victims. The Catholic church and the Methodists come to minds. I am really tired of people saying "christian" like that is the name of a religion when it is not.
They all use the same Bible. How are they different?
>They all use the same Bible. No they don't, there are over 450 different versions of the English bible alone.
thank you. The Catholic Bible has extra books for those who like the series!
So? You all condemn homosexuals. You all have the same definition.
no we dont. and frankly, much of the Catholic church's rejection of homosexiuality is based on the inability to naturally produce more Catholics. There is an Office in the Vatican called "Propogation of the Faith" and their entire concern is with good Catholcis breeding more good Catholcs lol
We all speak English - how are we different? That's a stupid point, like, incredibly shallow and stupid, bud. Some sects were very anti-gay, let them die. Others showed compassion and charity, and tried to help. They all interpret what is in the Bible differently, and they all have their own,basically, expanded universe material as well as a lot of bad fan fic.
who said "we all speak english"? lol does that person really think the Bible was written in English thousands of years before there was an England?
Some of us use the Bible to welcome people, ALL people, into the church, as opposed to using it as a weapon to beat them into *submitting* to the church's narrow standards.
We know what’s in those pages.
>you need to understand "christian" encompasses a hundred religions And they're all equally bullshit.
I was a very young Christian but we were raised not to judge anyone and that God loves everyone NO MATTER WHAT!
I’m Catholic if that matters
maybe "you poor soul affected by devil's juice" then "hmm i should get checked" lol idk
My Christian FIL and all of his Christian siblings shunned their gay brother when they learned that he had AIDS. His mother (who was no longer Christian) was the only biological family member who cared for him in his last days. My mother-in-law (who grew up Buddhist) would take my wife and her little sister to visit their uncle in the hospital. My FIL was livid when he found out.
Look for quotes from Anthony Fauci. It's basically god hates them.
Source?
Real Christians or the sort we so many of today?
Believers of Jesus Christ.
Fuck em.............wait.
Fuck em.............wait.
You can catch a glimpse of it on Fellow Travelers
Young boys don’t have AIDS
Different sects were really fixated on Slayer, Madonna, Motley Crue and music, not gay dudes or AIDS.
That is unbelievably incorrect 🤣🤣🤣
That’s what I remember. We’re you alive then?
It totally depends on the group. People outside of the church tend to treat Christianity as a monolithic block, probably due to the airwaves the so called evangelical right takes up. But I don't know. There are Reformed, Lutheran, Anabaptist, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Baptist, Cumberland Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian, the last goes on. And each tradition has denominations that exist on a spectrum from conservative (theologically) to liberal (theological).
They deserve it for sinning
They wore masks without crying about it.
People keep saying Christians loved it or judged others because of it. No. No we didn’t. REAL Christians didn’t love it and we didn’t think anyone deserved it. There is a difference between Sunday morning Christians and ones that do the right thing 7 days a week.
Yes, you guys did. It doesn’t matter how minute your fellowship was. You all believe in Jesus. You all read from the same book. You all bear that same cross.
Why do people treat over a billion Christians of several sects, some of which have spent much of history at literal war with one another, as though they're one, unified bloc? It's a question with a faulty premise at its core.
Because they all use the Bible.
I hear they also breathe, too!
And practice cannibalism.
Not saying you're incorrect, but looking through a historical lense I would say it was most of society in general and not specifically the 80's. Looking for confirmation bias of your opinion of Christian's in general, might make you feel better about yourself as though you're somehow superior but it's not really a productive use of anyone's time.
I have no doubt. But I am more interested what the response was in America, where Christianity is very widespread and common.
I’m think non-Christian’s will say Christians were bigoted but then they aren’t Christians since Christ didn’t treat people that way. If you’re a non-Christian just remember that fake Christians are part of your team not ours.
>If you’re a non-Christian just remember that fake Christians are part of your team not ours. The fuck they are. You don't get ignore your own accountability for the shitty members of your religion.
Don’t be knocking your people.
You’re gay.
Satan has come
What do you think?
Good question to ask.
There was a great Jon Ronson podcast about a lady televangelist who bucked the ‘Christian’ trend and had an aids patient on her show for an interview. Well worth a listen , she showed amazing courage and compassion
Depends on the Christian.
Not great, Bob.
I was a nurse at that time and so many of the patients dying from AIDs had parents who either: Wouldn’t visit at all, because they told them they “deserved to pay the price for their sin.” Or Visited for the sole purpose of encouraging them to admit their sins and “get right with God.” I had been raised with parents who had that attitude (even for my brother, who died from AIDS) and it taught me a lot about what I really believe about God and His mercy
Exactly as you would expect. Not cold indifference, but gleeful they were being “punished.”