Rick and Kay Warren condemn the denial of link between HIV and AIDS as promoted by the AFA’s Bryan Fischer

Early in January, Bryan Fischer, issues analyst with the American Family Association, threw his support behind the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS. On his daily talk show, Fischer hosted University of California, Berkeley professor, Peter Duesberg, who is the principle proponent of the theory that HIV is a harmless virus and that AIDS is the result of lifestyle choices, such as drug use and promiscuity, which weaken the immune system. Duesberg says that gay men are at special risk since they use drugs and engage in casual sex more so than other groups.

In a column on the AFA website, Fischer wrote:

So what is the cause of what we know as AIDS? What is the cause of this condition that is killing people? Duesberg’s answer can be found in one word: drugs.

And specifically, drug use connected with the kind of sex that is far too common in the homosexual community. While the average heterosexual has somewhere between seven to 14 sexual partners in a lifetime, it is not uncommon for homosexuals to have hundreds, even thousands, of sexual partners.

By partnering with Duesberg, Fischer brought AIDS denialism closer to the mainstream of evangelicalism. In response, Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren and his wife Kay issued a statement to me about Fischer’s and Duesberg’s denial of the HIV-AIDS link. The Warrens’ statement is powerful and decisive. It is reproduced here in full:

Since AIDS was first discovered in 1981, 30 years of non-stop scientific research by the US military, the medical community, our government, and by every international health organization has proven over and over, with countless irrefutable results, that ONLY people with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) develop AIDS.  To imply the disease is caused by anything besides HIV is quack science, like claiming the earth is flat, or the moon is made of cheese. Since 1985, when the virus that creates AIDS was isolated, every doctor on the planet, except Peter Duesberg, has known that HIV is the only cause of AIDS.

Duesberg’s denial of the entire body of research, and his rejection of thousands of scientific trials and papers, would be laughable if millions of lives weren’t at stake.  But his view is deadly.  Unfortunately, Duesberg convinced some people in Africa that HIV was not the cause of AIDS and as a result many people there needlessly became infected with the virus, and some have subsequently suffered and died.

It is frustrating – and frightening – for those of us in AIDS ministry to see someone like Dr. Duesberg play to people’s bias and prejudices.  For the past eight years we have worked with thousands of churches around the world and in America who have ministries to those infected and affected by AIDS.  No one deserves this illness, and we must not ignore those among us who are infected or affected by HIV and AIDS.  There are numerous ways to acquire the virus – sexual activity, blood transfusions, being born to an HIV positive mother, dirty needles –  but what matters isn’t  how a person became infected as much as how we will respond. People with living with the virus are people that Jesus created, loves, and died for. Jesus’ story of the Good Samaritan teaches us that when you find someone bleeding on the side of the road, you don’t say “Was it your fault?” You just help them in love!

Let’s be very careful about what reality we deny; lives are at stake.

When the Warrens write that Duesberg convinced some in Africa that HIV and AIDS were not related, they are referring to the period of AIDS denial in South Africa from 2000 to 2005. In 2000, Duesberg was invited by South African President Thabo Mbeki to provide advice on AIDS policy. Subsequently, the South African government displayed antagonism toward AIDS treatment and prevention programs which involved anti-retro viral drugs (ARVs). Nicolo Nattrass, writing in African Affairs, said that President Mbeki questioned the science behind the epidemic. However, the consequences were devastating. According to a Harvard University press release and a study from the journal African Affairs, over 330,000 deaths could have been prevented if ARVs had been used. The Harvard release, citing a 2008 study, added that 35,000 babies were born with HIV due to failure to implement appropriate drug based prevention programs.

If anything, the African epidemic provides evidence counter to Duesberg’s theory. The epidemic there is driven by heterosexual activity. The stereotype about gay men spreading HIV via lots of drugs and sex is not applicable there.

Given what is at stake, the Warrens’ statement is important. The American Family Association has a sizable audience which includes GOP Presidential candidates. Confusion over something as basic as what causes AIDS could become a barrier to the progress made in ministry and treatment for those with HIV/AIDS. As the Warrens remind us, lives are at stake.

Former Bachmann advisor says Santorum should apologize to Bachmann

In other news, Peter Waldron thinks Rick Santorum ran a sexist campaign in Iowa and owes Bachmann an apology.

Santorum Owes Michele Bachmann an Apology

“…children’s lives would be harmed if the nation had a female president” Jamie Johnson, Senior Santorum Advisor

Contact: Dr. Peter E Waldron, 727-415-7189, [email protected]

OPINION, Jan. 14, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ — Presidential candidate Senator Rick Santorum deployed a sexist strategy in IA. His IA Evangelical surrogates promoted the idea that a female cannot be an elected official or a commander-in-chief. The same Evangelical surrogates repeatedly called upon Rep. Michele Bachmann to withdraw from the race although she led the Senator and other male candidates in the polls. Bob Vander Plaats, CEO Family Leader and Santorum endorser, also, rejected two consensus votes in favor of Rep. Bachmann polled among Evangelical pastors at a meeting hosted by an organization close to the Family Leader. Home school parents circulated a treatise written in 2004 titled, “Should Christians support a female civil magistrate.”

Further, the Des Moines Register ran a story on Friday, January 13, 2011 written by Jennifer Jacobs that published excerpts from an email written by the Senator’s senior advisor, Jamie Johnson. Mr. Johnson sent out an email saying that “children’s lives would be harmed if the nation had a female president”. He continues, “The question then comes, ‘Is it God’s highest desire, that is, His biblically expressed will, … to have a woman rule the institutions of the Family, the Church, and the State?'”

If the issue were “racism” or “anti-Semitics” I believe that Senator Santorum would terminate the staffer and apologize to Michele Bachmann. Sexism and misogyny require no less of an expeditious response.

The longer that the Senator takes to step up and apologize to Michele Bachmann, the guiltier he looks.

(Peter Waldron is the former National Faith Outreach Coordinator for Bachmann for President. He is based in Florida.)

Religious conservative confab backs Santorum

Just one more thing religious conservatives did not need to do.

Santorum sent out this email in response just a bit ago:

I wanted you to be the first to know about some very big news the campaign just received.

Last night, 150 of America’s top religious and conservative leaders had a meeting to decide who they would unite behind in the Republican primary.

I am honored — and humbled — to announce they have chosen to use their united voice to support our campaign.

This latest endorsement reinvigorates our campaign. But it also presents new challenges.

We will be conducting an even higher level of outreach to evangelical voters and other social conservatives in South Carolina and across the country.

That will cost a great deal of money. And it’s why I need your continued support right now.

Make a special contribution of $25, $50, $100 or more to help us capitalize on this truly encouraging news.

This announcement came as a wonderful surprise. Tony Perkins, the group’s spokesman and President of Family Research Council, said:

“Rick Santorum has consistently articulated the issues that are of concern to conservatives, both economic and social. He has woven those into a very solid platform. And he has a record of stability.”

Tony has been a strong fighter for our shared conservative values over the years. And that’s why this endorsement means such a great deal to me.

But as I wrote earlier, it will mean that we need to redouble our efforts in South Carolina and beyond. We must ensure that we have the resources to reach “values voters” with our consistent, conservative, pro-family message.

Please help us do that by making a donation of $25, $50, $100 or even more right now.

I am so thankful for your continued support. It is truly a blessing and I appreciate the continued faith you have had in our campaign.

Thank you again.

Fighting For America, Rick Santorum

I doubt this will be a game changer, evangelicals are too diverse a group. The problem now for Santorum is that he has little hope of drawing in the middle. I could be wrong but I don’t think this helps him as much as he thinks it does.

 

Another Pastor Problem for Ron Paul? UPDATED

First read this:

Ron Paul Receives Major Evangelical Endorsement from Dr. James Linzey, President of Military Bible Association

Then, read this:

James F. Linzey Espouses anti-Semitic, White Racialist Conspiracy Theory

Then, check out the reaction at the Daily Paul:

Amazing evangelical endorsement from the president and founder of the Military Bible Association!

Paul’s supporters, for the most part, like the endorsement.

Nothing yet from the Paul campaign. I wrote Dr. Linzey to ask whether or not the Paul camp intends to promote the endorsement, with no answer as yet.

UPDATE:

Dr. Linzey today urges all military personnel in South Carolina to support Paul.

Is the Jefferson Bible just the words of Jesus?

In his American Heritage series, David Barton  told Matthew and Laurie Crouch that the Jefferson Bible was Thomas Jefferson’s attempt to construct a Bible to evangelize the Indians. He said that Jefferson put together the “red letters” or the words of Christ (often written in red in King James Bibles) for this Bible so he could get across the moral teachings of Jesus. Listen to Barton’s claims in this video:

Regarding Jefferson and his edited Bible, Barton said:

I have to stop on Jefferson for just a minute because when you say the Jefferson Bible, people say, I’ve heard of the Jefferson Bible, that’s where he cut out everything he disagreed with. He was so anti-Christian, so anti-Bible that he cut it all out. Well, temporary time-out; if he’s so opposed to the Bible, why is he one of the founders of a society that promotes the entire Bible? I mean if the Jefferson Bible charge is right, that he cut out the parts with which he disagreed, then why would he fund and contribute and help run a society that gives out all the Scriptures unedited. That’s inconsistent.

What happens is, this little document here is called the Jefferson Bible. We call this the Jefferson Bible and the last 30 years, people have consistently said this is the Scriptures that Jefferson cut out everything with which he disagreed. Well if you go to the front of this work, it doesn’t have the title Jefferson Bible. If you’d used that title with him, he’d have probably punched you out for saying it. The title he gave it is the Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. What he did was he went through and cut out all the red letters of Jesus and pasted them from end to end so he could read the red letters of Jesus without stopping. He’s not what he cut out but what he put in. But why did he do that?

He tells us, he did this twice, he did this in 1804 and he did it again in 1819. He said that he did this to be a missionary tool to evangelize the Indians. Because if we can get them to read the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, it’ll changed their lives. So this was not a work that he turned and cut out everything he disagreed with. It’s a work where he took all the words of Jesus and put them there so you could read the words of Jesus non-stop.

In April, 2011, I addressed Barton’s claim that the Jefferson Bible was an evangelism tool (it wasn’t) and yesterday I examined the claim that Jefferson founded the Bible Society of Virginia (he didn’t).

Today, I want to show that Jefferson did not include all the words of Jesus and that he did cut out miraculous elements, presumably because he disagreed with them. Indeed, he told John Adams in 1813:

We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.

So Jefferson included the words of Jesus but not all of them because some, he asserted, included the disciples’ “misconceptions as his [Jesus’] dicta.” Just for example, let’s look at a selection from Chapter one of Jefferson’s version. Here is an image from Jefferson’s manuscript. As you can see, this portion combines parts of Matthew 12, and Mark 2. As I will demonstrate, Jefferson omitted many words of Christ and the miracles He performed.

Now look at the Mt 12:10-15.

10And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.

11And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?

12How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

13Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.

14Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.

15But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;

(non-italicized words designate what was removed by Jefferson and the red letters are words of Jesus that Jefferson removed)

In reading through the Jefferson Bible, many words of Jesus are missing (e.g., Jn 14:6 – “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me“, Mt 28:19 – “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.“). In fact, there are no post resurrection words of Jesus because Jefferson ended his Bible with the end of Mt 27:60 – “…and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.”

If a modern day President chopped up the New Testament in the way Thomas Jefferson did, that President would be excoriated by Christian leaders. Examining Jefferson’s work, it is clear that the Jefferson Bible is not as Barton described.

To read Jefferson’s edited Bible, go here and/or here.