A concerted effort is made to work with people with leprosy. Why not with AIDS? The public attitude toward AIDS, at least in America, is that the patient with AIDS is a helpless victim who ought to be allowed to cook in a restaurant so there is no breath of "discrimination" against him or her. The individual who would object that other people might be infected by this practice is viewed with scorn as though he is insensitive to handicapped people or racial minorities.

Recently the government of the United State has set aside a cemetery as a national monument. It is a cemetery for the victims of AIDS. The idea seems to be that dying of AIDS is somehow on a level with dying for one's country.

Why don't we do the same for pneumonia or heart disease? Why don't we do the same for those who are killed by drunken drivers? Why not a national monument for heavy smokers who die of lung cancer?

We are not suggesting that we should be harsh and unloving toward people who have needs. Rather we are stating that the public attitude in America toward AIDS is different from leprosy, typhoid, or any other highly dangerous infectious disease.

Surrounding the AIDS problem is the attitude that the AIDS patient is some kind of a martyr. In one city the flag over the administrative offices was flown at half-mast to honor those who have died of AIDS. Why was it not flown in honor of all who had lost their lives during the same period of time? What is the difference? The only comparable attitude is that toward those who have died in the service of their country.

In our point of view, the public attitude toward AIDS, the concept that the AIDS victim is a hero, a martyr even though he had caused his own death by immorality or drug abuse, is the beginning of a revolt against God. Because AIDS is caused by homosexual activity, a behavior condemned in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, there is a fear that the Judaic-Christian values may somehow be involved in how the AIDS victim is treated. The idea is, someone is causing harm to the homosexual, to the drug addict, or to the promiscuous individual. The homosexual must be permitted to continue his "lifestyle," and anyone who claims otherwise is an enemy of man.

In one hospital a few years ago the nurses were not permitted to wear gloves when treating a victim of AIDS in order not to offend the patient. (But how about the danger to the life of the nurse?)

The prevailing sentiment is that we must not condemn the homosexual or the drug addict for his behavior. Rather we must condemn whoever is causing the homosexual or drug addict to suffer. We must condemn the government for not providing more money for AIDS research or the drug laboratories for charging so much for medicine.

Although the truth is vehemently denied at the present time, it eventually will dawn on the minds of people that the enemy is God!

To be continued.