No, I am not talking about a computer antivirus program. If you were expecting this topic, sorry. I am talking about virus vaccines.

I read a small article where someone actually did a sociology study on the distribution of a theoretical HIV vaccine. It was fascinating to see, mostly because it was an article that was more unique than other articles I have ever seen. Instead of listing results for one country – which has been done – the main researcher collected data from three different countries in the world for this study’s content.

While every study I always have to take with a grain of salt to make sure that I know that it does not represent all people, I can relax a bit on this one. (I still am, by the way; people can influence numbers to say what they want.)

I am just going to go out and say it: HIV scares the crap out of me. It is a deadly virus, in most cases can lead to AIDS, and you can get it from something as simple as having sex with someone (or contaminated blood). There is no known cure, but there are drugs that can help prolong lives and stuff.

In the early 90′s, there was a big awareness campaign about it. You could not see any awards show, for example, without the red ribbon that I show above here on any celebrity throughout the show. It fell out of favor after a couple of years, of course, just like most Hollywood trends.

I wish Hollywood would get tired of this trend, though. Paris, you are ugly, and you are not news. GTFO.

Most people know, however, the threat is still around. AIDS was not exterminated; some say the figures may be as high as 1 in 3 people in Africa are infected with HIV. Tens of thousands of people are infected with the virus in each North American country, if not hundreds of thousands. There is no denying that it is an epidemic, and for a lot of people, it is a death sentence.

I know there is some around that will say the HIV virus is God’s way of smiting the wicked or something like that. I disagree with this statement, since I do not believe a god could be that cruel. What I do believe, though, is that people whom have made the lifestyle choice to put themselves at risk for this virus should not be punished for making that choice, no matter how much I disagree with it personally. Furthermore, for those that do not believe there should be a HIV vaccine because it is “God’s will for the wicked to be cleansed”, do you also believe that a “pure” woman whom was raped should also be subject to God’s judgment in such a manner?

I believe I developed a bit of a tangent from my main point, so allow me to return to it. In the article, I was particularly drawn to this:

We all have our way of thinking and frankly most of us associate vaccines with ‘Okay, now I’m fine.’ The other thing, though, is sometimes we associate vaccines with “Okay, that means that you are going to put a bit of flu inside me.” … Imagine when people think you are going to put a little bit of HIV inside me, [even though] it’s not the case.

This particular part struck me, as I have used the same argument about flu shots. I do not exactly like getting the flu shot, specifically because the vaccine uses a dead version of the virus to allow the body’s immune system learn how to attack the real virus, so then when exposed to the virus the body then can combat it effectively (at least, that is how I understand it). One thing that made more sense about an eventual HIV vaccine: the government would never allow someone to inject another with any form of the HIV virus (at least the Canadian government would not), unless it was proven it works without risk of the person… you know, dying and all that. The version used in testing right now is synthesized to not use the virus, unlike the flu shots.

It leads me to the very obvious question, though, the one I want to base this post on:

If an HIV vaccine was put out tomorrow, would people take it?

It is a legitimate question. I know I definitely would, due to the fact that I would rather be protected against something that could possibly kill me, but would others? Would people in religious communities be shunned for getting a vaccine because of the social stigma surrounding HIV infection? Would the price be too high? Are the side effects bad?

Will taking the vaccine make Vin Diesel ever wear a leather kilt again?

It is a good question. Maybe someone should ask the Pope about it. Yes, I am serious. It would answer a lot of questions right there and then, would it not? It would definitely answer the religion question, and since churches in general tend to dictate behavior in the bedroom and a good majority of the world is religious in some form or another (not to mention that Christian aid organizations are pretty big players in developing countries), it is a valid philosophical question… not the kilt question, but the rest of it.

How will we answer it? I sincerely hope that a lot of the answers come from a personal viewpoint and not a big viewpoint like the Pope or another religious leader, because we need to stamp this out now. HIV has taken too many people away that could not even live up to their own potential as people.

Rest in peace, Freddie. (What? I do not have to put jokes on ALL my picture captions!)

The same can be said for any vaccine. We just hope it does not turn out to be a worldwide placebo, and help the world get over one of the deadliest epidemics to affect the world since the Black Plague (in my opinion only; that may not be a statement of fact).

By the way, I am going to pimp something out here: the World Community Grid. Got a computer that you leave on and are not using all the time? Why not let it crunch a science project for FightAIDS@Home? I challenge you to beat my statistics; I have run over a year of processor time for FightAIDS@Home, and I am proud to donate my spare CPU cycles to a worthy cause such as this.

Now, the vaccine for HIV is many years off – I will be truly surprised if it comes any sooner than five years in the future – but finding out the social impact now of such a breakthrough would be a great thing. I know there are people dying in Africa right now of AIDS – ironically, the one that is rampant through Africa, the place with more HIV infections, is of a different subtype compared to the ones researched in North America, where there is less infected people – and this thing is one of the more adaptive viruses that has ever existed. We should be looking at curtailing this however possible; I would prefer to take all people into the future, if possible.

Let us all hope for a world where we have destroyed this virus, and there is no new outbreaks.

Before I begin, I need to declare that I mean no offense to any religion by what I do, say, or show in this following blog post, nor do I mean to hurt those that say free speech the most sacred of the freedoms that we hold dear. This is only my opinion on the matter.

And here we go…

Bob Martens posted up an article from the Associated Press on his Twitter, and it moved me to make this post. The article itself is one that touches on something that has become a matter of contention in between Islam and the West in general, about religion and free speech. For those who are not going to click on the link, allow me to summarize: a group of Islamic nations from the Organization of the Islamic Conference are lobbying at the United Nations for an international law that will prohibit defamation of all religious symbols. They are in the very early stages of this particular piece of legislation; there is no formal proposal made to the United Nations General Assembly at this time – at least, not one that I can find online. However, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has promised it will be coming.

Earlier this year, the UN passed a resolution which combated defamation of religions all over the world. The original text, I believe it is this one, clearly outlines what it thinks about defamation of religious icons. It seems that there has been at least two other resolutions on this subject, denouncing religious defamation.

I, for one, agree that we should not defame religion. What I do have a problem with, however, is the wording.

I do not meddle much in the matters of international law too much, specifically because I try to take a standpoint of trying to see both sides of the argument, then trying to compromise a solution that is agreeable to both sides. This is probably my main detractor from getting into politics, because I do not like to take sides, and I just prefer being the one who listens to all sides of an argument and helping the two come to a middle ground. Maybe I should be a mediator…

Well, anyway, back to what I was saying. The few things I actually do not like about the text are:

• The interpretation of the resolution is left very wide open. You could open an eight-lane freeway interchange in the space it leaves for what defamation actually is. Does it cover satire? Commentary? Interpretations of religious texts that do not conform with religious norms (which is illegal in some Islamic states)?

I hear UN Resolution Highway is a great drive in the spring time.

• The mention of Islam specifically in the text of the resolution. So… according to the UN, Islam is more important than all other religions in the world? That can not possibly be misinterpreted at all. And yes, I am against the specifically anti-Semitic resolutions in the UN as well.
• This text, which has noble intentions but basically points the finger at the West:

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

6. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general have become aggravating factors that contribute to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups, as well as to their economic and social exclusion;

I really wish that people got along. I also wish that people would respond more with gentle words and not bombs or religious epitaphs. In diplomacy, we may have resolutions that make sense, but in this… I can not support any resolution that singles out a single religion or group before any others that constitutes infringing one freedom to protect another.

The title of this particular posting is “The Battle of the Freedoms”. Indeed, this is what at least the Associated Press has led me to believe what is happening: the West strictly opposes this resolution, while the non-West supports it almost unanimously. The United Nations is the battlegrounds for this, and the weapons words. The casualties may be a freedom that you hold dear, whether it is your freedom to say what you want, or the freedom you have to be protected against someone telling you that your religion is stupid. Veterans of wars past, I do not envy your position on this.

What will the outcome be?

I sit here, watching the Internet for the next salvo to be fired off.

Should I get myself one of these?

I am worried, not because I like to make fun of religions and that sort of thing – which I do not unless it is Scientology – but it is because of what this law can be mutilated in to.

If I question my own existence in a way that is offensive to the core tenet of a belief of one particular religion, will that make me a criminal in the law’s eyes?

If I am to state an opinion about a policy that a church adopts that is unfavorable, does this mean I will have people calling me a blasphemer?

If I say that I believe a prophet of one religion may be related to another, will I have people calling for my head?

I'm sure the Internet's flying tank will protect me!

I state these, because this is what does happen in some countries. I believe you can do some of the research on this particular point yourself, because there are many examples of where this does happen and will continue happening. The real question I have is… how far will certain countries go to enforce this law in other countries? In this aspect, this is both where the UN both fails and succeeds: it is the democratic way of the member nations, but fundamentally wrong to accept resolutions of this nature that are so open to interpretation.

Because I do not think either of these should be in charge of anything:

And with this… this particular piece of legislation, if it ever passes, will be what has been done.

When I got this blog I never thought I would have to have sequels to my own posts, but apparently I do, especially when I make somewhat erroneous statements that should be corrected, and then within themselves analyzed and explained.

Now, quoting myself:

Actually, that last one has always confused me. WAS there a new bible that specifically forbade two people from expressing their love for each other by getting married? I am not a Christian, true, but I have problems believing that an all-mighty God that is forgiving and loves everyone suddenly hates people that openly admit attraction for the same sex. Did Jesus all of a sudden hate little Billy because he found out he liked looking at Tommy instead of Jill? I just… I do not get it. As far as I know, there is nothing specifically in any part of the Bible that says a marriage is only in between a man and a woman. Marriages had been going on for years before the New Testament was written; it’s only natural the Bible includes at least one marriage ceremony.

After some humbling I got from certain people whom I hold in high esteem, I decided to take some of my own advice and investigate for myself into the parts where marriage in between two people of the same sex is talked about in the Bible, in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. I read Genesis and Exodus completely, and used Wikipedia as a guide to skip to the parts where the rest of this topic were brought up. This is my results.

What is odd is that people today kind of gloss over the fact that same-sex marriage is not brought up in the Bible whatsoever. I am serious on that. Nowhere does it say, “Two men can not get married” or “Two women can not get married”. Actually, when reading over all the parts that people quote for evidence against same-sex marriage, only one part of the Bible actually mentions same-sex intercourse in between women (and I will come to that later). Most of it has to do with male homosexuality and sexual relations specifically.

As you can probably guess, the word “sodomy” is directly derived from the city of Sodom. The passage that directly relates to same-sex relationships in general is Genesis 19:4-9. I will quote from the New Jerusalem Bible, because it was easiest to find online:

4 They had not gone to bed when the house was surrounded by the townspeople, the men of Sodom both young and old, all the people without exception.

5 Calling out to Lot they said, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us so that we can have intercourse with them.’

6 Lot came out to them at the door and, having shut the door behind him,

7 said, ‘Please, brothers, do not be wicked.

8 Look, I have two daughters who are virgins. I am ready to send them out to you, for you to treat as you please, but do nothing to these men since they are now under the protection of my roof.’

9 But they retorted, ‘Stand back! This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge. Now we shall treat you worse than them.’ Then they forced Lot back and moved forward to break down the door.

Now, to put it in plain speak, basically these two angels came down posing as people to see if the people of Sodom were bad. They met Lot, who was a good man and gave them shelter and food. That night, a bunch of townsfolk found out about what the two people were doing there and basically preemptive strike them by having sex with them. The rabble, being mostly men, were about to rape the two traveling men. Lot offered his virgin daughters, but the crowd wanted retribution on the two travelers and wouldn’t settle for anything else.

What’s odd about this section is that the New Jeruslaem Bible specifically states “have intercourse with”, but other bibles actually say “meet” (for example, the New American Standard Bible says this). See, one of the things I brought up in the first part was how the original Bibles were written in Aramaic and Hebrew, and direct translations are sometimes not possible. Indeed, even looking at the English language, “intercourse” does not specifically have a sexual meaning. Dictionary.com refers to intercourse as “dealings or communication between individuals, groups, countries, etc.” while still retaining the sexual connotation of the word in a later definition. In Hebrew, it is even more confusing. The word “yada” is used in this passage, which directly translates to “relations” in a non-sexual manner, though it is used as innuendo to sex in other parts of the Bible. It is the key to the very sexual connotation of this entire passage of the Bible, and there’s a question as to its accuracy. What was that gang trying to do to those two? Were they going to gang-rape the travelers, or were they going to simply beat them? A trick of language is really all that stands in between us and the intent of the original writing – note I do not say author.

I realize that the Old Testament is more used by the Jewish religion than Christianity, but all of Christianity is based upon the teachings of the Old Testament. What really boggles me is the next part of the examination of the books, which comes from the Book of Leviticus. Leviticus basically is the closest thing you can ever have in the Bible to a book of direct rules. It is where Moses gets the laws he must pass down to the Isrealites, mostly about procedures for worship and stuff like that. 18:22 is what we’re interested in, though, and is the most commonly cited evidence against same-sex coupling in the Bible, and for good reason. It reads:

You will not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. This is a hateful thing.

Again, translation issues with the last little bit there, as well as the intercourse bit. I checked a few different versions of the Bible, and this one is pretty clear-cut as a sexual connotation, though, especially considering Leviticus 18 is going over what is classed as incest before this little gem pops up. So according to the Old Testament, sex in between two men is wrong.

All right then, so we have our clear-cut proof, but why am I still hanging on this point? Because of Leviticus 20:13, that is why.

The man who has intercourse with a man in the same way as with a woman: they have done a hateful thing together; they will be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Yes, this is a quote that I am going to use against people whom are arguing with Leviticus 18:22. Why? Well, there are a few reasons. First off, if someone is using the Old Testament as a rule reference in Christianity, it stands to say that entire book becomes fair game, right? Second, it very clearly states that the punishment for sex in between two men is death for both parties; if someone believes so strongly in Leviticus 18:22, why are they not doing the duties directed to them by God Himself and putting every gay man to death that they can find as directed by Leviticus 20:13? Third, why is Isreal not following this law? Isreal was set up as a Jewish state with religion making the backbone of the Isreali way of life. The Hebrew Bible – the Old Testament – is the books they follow. Yet, Isreal’s LGBT rights rival that of anywhere in the world, according to Wikipedia. Gay couples can not get married on Isreali soil – this is really the only spread of religion that affects gay couple’s rights – but out of country marriages are recognized.

I am skipping over Ruth 1:14, the Books of Kings “male prostitute” references, and the Books of Samuel story about David and Jonathan, because they are really weak references. Ruth 1:14 is way open to interpretation, as is the David and Jonathan story, and the Books of Kings “male prostitutes” were part of rituals of other religions that were expelled because they were not needed for rituals for God – a morally ambiguous thing since the female prostitutes were kept. Also, I am skipping these so I can get to the New Testament.

I will admit, I was used to the script and voice of the Old Testament when I switched gears over to the New Testament, and I found myself confused when I started to read over the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans. The language was different, definitely. The Apostle Paul was a good writer, and the book is written much like an open letter to the people of Rome. Not a bad way of putting things, I think.

Romans 1:26-27 has apparently the most condemning view of homosexuality, and I can see why:

²⁶ That is why God abandoned them to degrading passions:

²⁷ why their women have exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices; and the men, in a similar fashion, too, giving up normal relations with women, are consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameful things with men and receiving in themselves due reward for their perversion.

Yes, this is the mention of female homosexuality that I was mentioning earlier. However, I learned long ago that context is everything, so I read back a bit in this chapter and I discovered that this was apparently punishment for idolatry, the First Commandment. Oh yes, I just pulled out the Ten Commandments on you. The entire structure of Chapter 1 of Romans is starting off with introducing Paul as the servant of Jesus and referred to as an apostle, and he is telling the Romans about how proud he is that the Romans believe that Jesus is the Son of God and their savior. He apologizes for not coming earlier to the Romans to talk with them because he was held up with responsibilities to the Greeks and barbarians, and then expresses his joy at preaching to the Romans. He believes that God is great and for everyone that believes, and that people who do not honour God and acknowledge Him will be abandoned to “unacceptable thoughts and behaviors”.

In context, the standard Christian behavior of today now seems a little clearer, and makes me understand those that are gay in the Christian communities and what they must go through. According to this, people whom have sinned are being punished by giving them homosexual desires. Specifically in this passage is mentioned idolatry, which is putting something else above God whom is supposed to be the highest on the totem pole (now there is a mixed metaphor if I could ever think of one). So a Christian man or woman who is an upstanding member of the community and is the first person to further the word of God and Jesus, feels the desire for someone of the same sex… and this is punishment for breaking the First Commandment? Is it just me, or does this sound like entrapment?

It seems that Paul was the only one that brought up homosexuality in the New Testament, referring to it in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 as well:

⁹ Do you not realise that people who do evil will never inherit the kingdom of God? Make no mistake — the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, the self-indulgent, sodomites,

¹⁰ thieves, misers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers, none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians again is set up like an open letter; probably better to say that this is the recorded text of a verbal sermon given in the church at Corinth. This particular passage, though, suffers from translation problems as well; “sodomites” in the New Jerusalem Bible is actually derived from the greek word arsenokoitēs in the original untranslated version. This is a word whose origin can only be guessed at – and is many times within the different translations of the Bible – and only appears here and in 1 Timothy 1:9-10. It actually can translate out to “abusers of themselves with mankind” as it does in the King James Version of the Bible, or “those who practice pederasty” as it does in other versions.

It is odd that Paul does not say that fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God; Jesus himself said that fornication defiles a man (Matthew 15:19-20 and Mark 7:20-23) and it would be logical to assume that fornicators do not inherit the kingdom of God as Paul said would happen to the sodomites as well. To be honest, it sounded like Paul was homophobic. Why would Paul be the only one to bring up homosexual practices when it was not even brought up by Jesus himself? And why did no one else bring it up? I seriously doubt that only one of the twelve apostles would come across homosexual behavior; after all, pederasty was kind of big in both Greece and Rome.

With how much emphasis has been put on the words pointed out here, I wish there was more on this. I wish the meaning was clearer in what they were trying to say, because there needs to be a way of grokking this better than what we have today. While the Bible is direct in some places, where it is direct has me asking questions, and then other parts combined with that confuse me and make me want to know why. I am not a theology scholar, nor do I pretend to be. I am just a guy seeking answers to questions in my own mind.

Paul also had one other good point that I would like to point out while I am here. It is something I caught from Romans 1:21-22:

²¹ …they knew God and yet they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but their arguments became futile and their uncomprehending minds were darkened.

²² While they claimed to be wise, in fact they were growing so stupid…

If you talk to some people, they will tell you that I have, in the past, been a victim of this. In fact, we all can be at times when we do not see the other side or try to understand why someone is arguing so passionately for or against. This applies to people who believe and people that do not believe as well, which is where I disagree with Paul the Apostle on this subject. Whether it is faith, politics, economics, or any topic in the world, we are all victims of this, and the better we are at recognizing it, the better off the world will be.