« O! | Main | Huckabee To Be Endorsed By Rubio »

Huckabee's Response On AIDS

08 Dec 2007 06:26 pm

(Note: no repudiation of his anti-gay sentiments).

“In the late 80’s and early 90’s we were still learning about the virus that causes AIDS. My concern, as a Senate candidate at the time, was to deal with the virus using the same public health protocols that medical science and public health professionals would use with any infectious disease.

Before a disease can be cured and contained we need to know exactly how and with near certainty what level of contact transmits the disease. There was still too much confusion about HIV transmission in those early years. Recall that in 1991, Kimberly Bergalis testified in front of Congress after contracting HIV from her dentist, and that summer a study was published showing that HIV was transmitted through breastmilk more easily than had been thought. But the federal government provided some guidelines: Also in 1991 the Centers for Disease Control recommended restrictions on the practice of HIV-positive health care workers.

At the time, there was widespread concern over modes of transmission and the possibility of epidemic. In the absence of conclusive data, my focus was on efforts to limit the exposure of the virus, following traditional medical practices developed from our public health experience and medical science in dealing with tuberculosis and other infectious diseases.

We now know that the virus that causes AIDS is spread differently, with a lower level of contact than with TB. But looking back almost 20 years, my concern was the uncertain risk to the general population – if we got it wrong, many people would die needlessly. My concern was safety first, political correctness last.

My administration will be the first to have an overarching strategy for dealing with HIV and AIDS here in the United States, with a partnership between the public and private sectors that will provide necessary financing and a realistic path toward our goals. We must prevent new infections and provide more accessible care. We must do everything possible to transform the promise of a vaccine and a cure into reality.

Furthermore, I am proud that the United States has led the global battle against HIV/ AIDS. We have both a strategic interest as the world's only superpower and a moral obligation as the world's richest country to continue to do so until this scourge is a memory.

I supported the current Administration’s proposal to double our initial commitment from $15 billion to $30 billion over the next five years for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). PEPFAR has already done an extraordinary amount of good, by providing drugs for over a million people and care for four-and-a-half million people, but it expires in 2008 and must be reauthorized. I support an increase in our commitment to the Global Fund. Through PEPFAR and the Global Fund, we can do our fair share to meet the Millennium Development Goals we affirmed in 2000, which include universal access to HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care.”

Comments (19)

What a worm.

I think Huck's response was correct and balanced.
He supports funding for those suffering from AIDS, so I don't see the reason for the liberal media to attack him besides anti-Christian bias.
$30 billion for AIDS isn't nothing.
I understand that its hard for people that are unfamiliar with Christian beliefs to understand all this, so I'll attempt to explain.
He had said that he thinks homosexuality is sinful, so did Jesus. Yes, Christians believe Jesus is God, and those statements against homosexuality in the Old Testament are spoken by God. Additionally, statements against homosexuality in the New Testament are "inspired by the Holy Spirit." Since Christians believe in the Trinity, they believe that the Holy Spirit is God. And the apostles of Christ were appointed by Christ and it is obvious they spoke against homosexuality. Of course, Jesus spoke on many different sins, including pride, greed, and specifically sex outside of marriage and adultery. It is immoral for people to look at pornography too, yet the media is very supportive of everything pornographic.

It is funny how things take a life of their own. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say *anything* about homosexuality. AT ALL. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Common misconception but a strange one for people who make such a show of reading the Bible so many times and "live by it". One would think they would know what is actually in there.
The only few verse that seem clear about homosexuality in the Bible (although they can be interpreted differently but let's assume they are against homosexuality) are in the Old Testament ("you shall not lie with a man as you would a woman..." or something of that nature is the clearest it gets and I personally find it ambiguous).

And I am going to lose any respect for political journalists if not all of them make clear that EVERYONE knew how AIDS was transmitted by 1992. Those who say there was still "confusion" are the same people who say evolution is a "debated theory". The only people who had "doubts" were not scientists if you know what I mean.
I was 10 at the time and *I* knew.

It was clear by the mid 80's that AIDS was a fluid borne disease, much like hepatitis. Huckabee was probably deliberate ignorant when he put forth his claims. The only ones disputing this were religious nuts, who have probably damaged Christianity severely by their actions in this time period. I lived in Arkansas at the time and can remember Christians calling for gay people to be put down like rabid dogs. That mosquitoes would spread the plague if gays were not rounded up. Really disgusting religion.

I'm pretty sure Romney wishes he was the one who had made those comments and not Huckabee. LOLOLOL


That being said, I honestly believe Huckabee has evolved from that position. And I forgive him.

Capping all public research funding and quarantining AIDS patients? That was extreme and odd even in 1992.

Huckabee was pandering - a trait hardly disqualifying in a politician - but to appear irrational at the same time is troublesome.

Sorry, Mike.

To Ben:
From your post its obvious you are unfamiliar with the Bible, that's not surprising in this increasingly secular age, where people do not study the Bible daily. Christians believe that Jesus is God. God forbids homosexuality in passage after passage after passage, in the New Testament, and in the Old Testament. Follow this:
1. Jesus is God
2. God forbids homosexuality
Conclusion: Jesus forbids homosexuality.
The New Testament repeatedly condemns sexual sin,
Jesus taught:
"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man" Mark 7:21

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you." 1 Corinthians 6:9
Or 1 Timothy 1:8
"the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers"
And many other passages that I could cite in the New Testament. It would be more honest for those who reject Christ's teaching on sexuality to openly say so, rather then pretend that the Bible is somehow unclear. And yes, many homosexuals and bisexuals are wonderously saved from their sins by our almighty, merciful Lord Jesus, just like many people with drug or pornography addictions are, and find freedom in Jesus. And I praise the Lord for that!

What Jesus seems to condemn here is any kind of fornication, gay or straight.

Why isn't interdiction of divorce and sex outside of marriage as big an obsession for extreme conservatives then ? You would think that is as big a deal especially considering the Bible has way more verses related to THAT rather than to gays.

Let's admit same-sex marriage IS indeed a threat to marriage. As Wanda Sykes would say, isn't DIVORCE a bigger threat to marriages everywhere ?

Oh and for the record I completely reject the Christ's teaching on sexuality and I am only questioning the whole thing because a bunch of you want to tell me how to lead MY life based on what they read in a book. Then the book becomes fair play.

PS: Check out this fun link about the long list of different translations for the Corinthians verse.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sav1.htm

Always remember that people translate in relation to their own cultural context and notions of what they want to find in the Bible. In the end, your point stays valid because that's what you want to read in that verse but I thought it would help relativise "the word of God".

The whole website is actually fun. It provides two readings of the Bible from the point of view of people like you and from a liberal point of view that is closer to the point I was trying to make.

You fake Christians and your phony moralism.

You are is disgusting.

Jesus never condemned homosexuality. But he said many times to love one another.

That being said, he's not my Jesus so...

you can all go to hell.

And enjoy your nominee, the adulterous Rudy.

Taking those cited biblical passages:

For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man

The word "fornications" is a poor translation of the Greek "porneia", which means "sexual immorality". It doesn't mean sex outside of marriage, and its exact referent in antiquity is always shifting. As such, if this speaks to the morality of homosexuality, it does so at most very obliquely, and it equates the evil of sexual immorality to the evils of pride and foolishness. I see no grounding for "Jesus condemned homosexuality" in this pssage.

The second two passages you cite were not spoken by Jesus. They are passages from Paul's letters.

In both, you have a poor translation - the Greek does not say "homosexuals" or "sodomites" - those are not Greek words, nor ideas that existed in Mediterranean antiquity. As Episcopalian scholar Dale Martin shows, the words "arsenokoites" and "malakos" appear to have meant something more like "pimp" and "effeminate person". They do not refer to homosexuality in the modern sense, and they have been translated as such by ideologically motivated writers, not based on the best historical understanding of the meaning of the words.

Yes, I have a Greek-English bible like many others, I'm not unaware of what you are saying. Many of my friends study greek as well, as Christians have for generations without ever coming to the bizzare conclusions of liberal theology. If you were interested in an academic discussion, buy the book "The Same Sex Controversy" on Amazon.
I am well aware some of my quotations were from an Apostle of Jesus Christ, a Jewish man named Paul (that's why I put a space, and mentioned other NT passages I could have cited).
Those who reject Christ and enjoy sexual sin in their mind and refuse to repent are sufficiently refuted by a few texts, rather then going through an exhaustive listing.
Since the Lord Jesus appeared to Paul and appointed him to preach to the Gentiles, and gave Him the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit spoke through Him in writing the texts I mentioned, and other the James and Peter both gave the right hand of fellowship to Him, his teaching must be accepted.
It is absurd liberal revisionism to imagine 1st century Christians were actually 21 century pro-gay liberals, anymore then they were secretly Marxist-Leninists.
Again, Christians have always understood these verses in the way that I have mentioned.
I have historical documents that understand the meaning of the New Testament in the same way I do, that I can use from several different centuries, yet I am unaware of the pro-gay writers of the 2nd century or the 16th.
Considering that Christians for 2,000 years have understood these verses to mean one thing, and then a few non-Christian liberals say otherwise recently (obviously under the influence of liberal philosophy and their own morals) I think it wise to go with the plain meaning of the text.
Remember that the Lord Jesus Christ said:
"The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me." Luke 16:16

Part of your arguments are against a straw man (that somehow we think that people in the 1st century were walking around talking about "orientation" or something like that).
And yes, I've met homosexuals that have been saved out of their homosexuality, as well as a bisexual who is heterosexual by God's grace.

Responsetoben writes: "God forbids homosexuality in passage after passage after passage, in the New Testament, and in the Old Testament."

That is a flat-out LIE. The ONLY clear reference to homosexuality in the entire Bible is in Leviticus, where men having sex with men is called an "abomination", i.e. something that is ritually unclean for the Jews. These verses appear in the middle of a long list of other abominations, like eating pork or seafood or wearing clothing made of more than one kind of thread.

If you've ever eaten bacon or shrimp, you are violating the Jewish law JUST AS SERIOUSLY as any homosexual. YOU may not think eating bacon is a big deal, but that's not what the Bible says. Scripture is very clear: eating a crab cocktail or giving a blowjob are EXACTLY the same level of sin.

If you were less ignorant, you would realize the early Christian church declared all these early rules as non-binding on Christians. That's why we Christians don't keep kosher, DUH.

The quotations from some redneck phony-baloney Bible "translation" mentioning "homosexuals" are pure blasphemy. Neither the word nor the concept of "homosexual" existed in Biblical times, or in the languages the Bible was written in.

Any Bible which contains the word "homosexual" is a blasphemous twisting of sacred scripture to suit the modern secular prejudice against gays. What these sinister "translations" do is inject the word "homosexual" where the text actually refers to an "evil-doer" or a temple prostitute.

No reputable translation of the Bible contains either the word or the concept "homosexual". Period.

If yours does, you may be anti-gay, you may be ignorant, but what you're certainly NOT is a Christian ...


A Christian believes what Jesus Christ taught, and what the Spirit teaches, not what makes a non-Christian feel less guilty after committing adultery or fornication or viewing pornography.
The truth is you are either lying or ignorant (I'm assuming the later), so I suggest you take the 75 or so hours to actually read the Bible. I believe in intellectual honesty: since homosexuality is condemned repeatedly in the OT and in the NT, it is silly to pretend otherwise.

If you'd have read the New Testament, you'd be aware the Jesus specifically declares all foods clean (read Mark), as do the Apostles (read Acts), yet Jesus repeatedly teaches against fornication and adultery, while as a strict Jewish prophet approving of the prophet Moses's teachings. After all, Jesus is God and He was the one that told Moses that homosexuality was immoral, just like, for example, pornography is. The New Testament repeatedly says that Christians are not under the old covenant, so when Christians hear these times of arguments about how having gay sex is the same as eating shrimp, they conclude the person is ignorant of the sinless Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit that indwells those adopted by God the Father.

So I'm "NOT a Christian" and "blasphemous" to believe what Christians have always believed about sexual immorality? Jesus Christ himself teaches it, it is sin to reject his teaching. I urge you to repent before the merciful Lord.
Its obvious to me that you haven't studied the bible seriously or history.
Again, any actual evidence of "pro-gay" writers from the 2nd century to the 16 century would be nice. Obviously they don't exist, your views are a unlearned and unstable twisting of the Scriptures to support your own and others sexual immorality. Again, I urge you to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, He is ready to forgive. I've experienced that wonderful forgiveness, and the complete peace with God that Christ brings, and the joy of the Holy Spirit, and the fellowership with the Father. I testify that Jesus Christ has been crucified and died for our sins, and rose from the dead. Whoever believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. Again, I've been where you're at (before I was saved by the Lord), but you haven't been where I'm at.

The old KJV had about forty-seven translators (scholars for the time period), drawing on earlier work by many scholars and earlier translations. The NKJV had more than a hundred working on it. The NIV had more than a hundred that worked on it. Or the many scholars on the NASB. These aren't "redneck" bibles - they are what are used by Christians. The "liberal theology" school is a modern invention - nobody believed such nonsense for almost 2000 years, it is completely without any historical connection to Jesus Christ, His Church or to the Holy Spirit that inspired the the prophets and apostles.
Or If you like, the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible repeatedly rejects homosexuality over and over and over and over again. Every commentary on the Bible that has existed for 2000 years until very recently by a few non-Christians has understood the Bible to NOT support male and male sexuality.
Or if you like, try a Spanish Bible. Or if I look greek-english bible, its the same message.
If you'd have studied the writings of the Christians throughout the ages, or listen to the voice of the Church or the Spirit, you'd be aware its not some "modern prejudice."
As a former bisexual saved by God's mercy,
I command you to turn to Jesus Christ, the merciful and all-powerful Lord, who saves us by His grace through his death on the cross for our sins, and not anything we have done, because we are sinners. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be declared righteous by almighty God.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived.
Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,
nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor relivers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

"And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cornthians 6:9)
Thank you for your time.

midwesternguy,

You write a beutiful thesis, but where are your foot notes. These foot notes, I if you could find them!, would help prove your statements. I must also say, what the Hell does this article have to do with being homosexual?

Dudes, midwesternguy hit the nail on the head. Why are you using the Bible for moral learning anyway? It's a crazed assemblage of Bronze and Iron Age contradictions. Let's have a bit of independence of mind, and decide whether or not we want to stone adulterers and homosexuals on our own terms.

springy,
it is foolish to make yourself the standard of all things moral, when you yourself do many immoral things. You must look to a standard of morality outside of yourself from someone who is not immoral. That Person is Jesus Christ.

It is foolish to make yourself the final authority on all things, because you are often wrong. You must look to someone who is never wrong. That Person is Jesus Christ.

It is foolish to claim "independence of mind," if strict materialism is true.

It is foolish to spend your life getting high and drunk and living in fear of dying, even though you're 'completely sure' that there is nothing after death. On the other hand, Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

What frosts me with the so called 'christians' who like to rail against homosexuality, is that they don't spend nearly as much energy and vitriol going off on all the other biblical admonitions. One of which is adultery (anyone that has been divorced and remarried or had more than one sex partner is guilty). Are all persons that are divorced ready to go back to their first sex partner or first spouse so they are no longer guilty of committing adultery? Why aren't the 'christians' raging against this? This was one of the BIG 10 commandments. Homosexuality wasn't even mentioned in the BIG 10...

And isn't usury (loans with interest) condemned by the bible? Especially loans with exorbitant interest such as is charged by payday loan sharks, the current mortgage crisis, all credit card companies, etc.? Why don't we have the same rage against this practice? You can bet there are scores of thousands of people participating in these business practices that rape the poor that supposedly don't think they are 'sinning' at all.

Oh yes, and what about another BIG 10 commandment about keeping the sabbath holy? How many 'christians' violate that by working and/or going on mad shopping sprees on sundays?

And lets see- not making false idols- wouldn't we say that the 'christian' churches with their huge multi-million dollar mega-churches and their own personal McMansions, their huge SUV's in the drive, etc. Seems like we all worship the almighty dollar. Wasn't this the kind of place and practice that Jesus ripped apart as being the height of hypocrisy?

The list of other offenses could go on for pages, but why don't the 'christians' spend as much energy on these other so called sins, many which were mentioned much more often in the bible and by Jesus himself...

I believe in the teachings of Jesus and I do my best to model them, but how his teachings and his intent for a church have been bastardized is the true abomination.

Jerry C,
Well, if you spend serious time within the Christian Church, you'd be aware there is no exclusive focus on homosexuality. I attend a church that is considered to be conservative, and yet I don't think there has been any sermons exclusively on homosexuality. I think you are dealing in sterotypes about people that you are unfamiliar with. Of course, the Christians spend every day studying the Bible, and God speaks on homosexuality, just like He speaks on adultery extensively. You're a little confused about the teaching of the Bible on adultery, I'd suggest doing more study on it. God hates adultery and divorce, yet the Bible does not command married people to leave their spouses, ever. If you are invovled in adultery, I urge you to repent. Or if you're involved with pornography or masturbation.

Corrupt business practices are condemned in the Bible over and over again, that's true. Yet Jesus discusses loans and interest favorably. Those who exploit the poor with dishonest business practices are sinning. It doesn't matter if they claim they aren't. As opposed to homosexuality, there is much teaching against corrupt business practices in the conservative church I attend.
If you'd read the book of colossians, you'd understand that Christians are not under law, to keep the sabbath which was for the Jews, which pointed to the rest we have in Christ (read Hebrews). Remember Jesus healing on the Sabbath and declaring all foods clean? And the Christians meeting on the first day of the week? Instead of launching an attack on the body of Christ, submit yourself to its Head, Jesus Christ.

Yes, those who worship the almighty dollar are sinning. Read 1 Timothy 6. The false "prosperity" gospel is a total lie. The gospel (good news) is that the Lord Jesus Christ was crucified for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead, in fulfillment of what the prophetic scriptures predicted would happen. The good news is that whoever believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. God commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man He has ordained, the Lord Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead. God is just and the justifer of the one who has faith in Jesus Christ.

Midwesternguy, you do realise that you telling me to examine the morals of Jesus isn't going to make me do anything? There's no point discussing anything with you, because of your Biblical fundamentalism. Discussion is impossible because you'll just tell us to go and read the Bible. That's why I suggested that everyone else stop trying to argue that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, because it clearly does. But for me, that means we should discard the Bible as a moral text.

I don't claim to be the final authority on anything. I'm just saying what I think, which is different. I'm not trying to Shut You Up, or blaspheme, or put myself in the place of God. I have been trained to think for myself, and to listen to people who make good points that I think might be true, and to adjust my own thoughts accordingly. I do not subscribe to any medieval notion that I must obey some metaphysical entity - and that to do otherwise is making myself the final authority.

I don't understand point 3. Why do you think I'm a "strict materialist"? Do you mean that because I believe in matter, I am incapable of believing in mind? Eh?

By the way, I like your repetition of "foolish". Very preacherly.

I do drink, you're right, and I smoke cannabis extremely occasionally. I don't see what that has got to do with anything. Perhaps you mean my drug intake makes me incoherent? I'll leave that for others to judge. Or perhaps - from your following sentence - that I am so depressed about death that I live in a constant alcoholic daze. In truth, death is something I occasionally think about, sometimes fearfully. But even if I do have a death-fixation that makes me depressed, that doesn't mean that there is a heaven.

"Jesus Christ rose from the dead." Well, there must be a God, then! And I will go out and stone some sodomites right away.