Response to AIDS
There were many helpful comments in Neil R. Schram’s article (Editorial Pages, Dec. 31), “1987 Could Be the Year Showing a Slowdown in AIDS Spread--If . . . “ We need to be reminded that this is a most serious epidemic of concern to all citizens. That the only proper attitude toward those who have AIDS is one of compassion and the rendering of as much medical and other assistance as is possible. And that we should do our best to avoid a judgmental attitude toward those who have AIDS.
However, some of his comments were not helpful. Even so, I would not attempt to respond were they not in common with many similar comments that I have read on the Editorial Pages of The Times and elsewhere. Those serious recurrent errors are at least threefold.
First : That intimate homosexual practice and heterosexual promiscuity are not morally wrong. Either morality comes from God, or we do not have any morality. If we do not have an authoritative statement of God-given morality in the Scriptures--what we are left with are the shifting sands of public consensus, and people know that. They know that in such a case morality is up for grabs. What may be recognized as immoral today may be accepted as proper practice tomorrow. Even worse, what presents itself as morality has no roots in justice. For as Dostoevski and many others have pointed out with great care, if there is no God there is no justice. Trying to have morality without God is like trying to make bread without flour. All that you end up with is a mess.
The problem of AIDS will not be solved by taking an amoral stance toward those who have contracted it, regardless of how they acquired it. And, by the way, thinking people should be able to distinguish between identifying an activity as morally wrong and condemning a person. The amoral approach is akin to pouring gasoline on a fire. We declaim our distaste for the fire, and then continue to fuel it by stubbornly refusing to deal with the basic cause of the fire.
The AIDS epidemic needs our compassion. It needs the best of medical research and practice. And, by all means, encourage those who persist in promiscuous sexual practices to be as careful as possible. But ultimately we need the backbone of moral commitment. Without that it will be either AIDS or some other severe consequence.
Second: It is amazing with what facility people can tell God what he should do and what he should not do! The kindest thing that one can say about Schram’s comment on lesbians being virtually AIDS-free is that it is sophomoric. If a person does not believe in God, it is hardly necessary for him to give God any advice at all. For those who do believe in God, it is presumptuous to substitute human wisdom for his wisdom, our judgment for his judgment. Those who want to deny that there is any wrongdoing involved in the present crisis are at least as far off the mark as those who are notorious for singling out certain wrongs and ignoring others.
Third: Let us please stop this nonsense that homosexuality is like left-handedness or having blonde hair or brown eyes. That has not been established as factual. In addition, although ordinarily one does not choose to be right-handed or left-handed, a person does choose what to do with those hands. One does not choose the natural coloring of one’s hair, or eyes, or skin. Sexual practice whether homosexual or heterosexual involves the will. It is a matter of choice.
The AIDS epidemic will either persist or be eliminated on the basis of responsible decisions made by millions of individuals. Schram and others do not contribute to the solution of a problem that they decry by offering inappropriate analogies.
FOSTER H. SHANNON
Alhambra
Shannon is pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Alhambra.