HIV, AIDS and Religion: An Ambiguous Relationship. 2/3/10

Religion was faced with a dilemma of status – interacting with and in response to people living with HIV & AIDS.

Religion has played a role in how HIV & AIDS are fought and viewed within respective social contexts since very early in the pandemic. The relationship between religion and HIV & AIDS has often been an ambiguous one – torn between religious morality in supporting people living with HIV & AIDS, and imposing certain ‘moral’ codes on society and social agents in line with the respective religious beliefs.

This dichotomy in their attempts to address the pandemic has placed religious circles under constant criticism, and has been the topic of much heated discussion over the past decade. This CAI brief takes a closer look at the ambiguous relationship that continues to persist between religion and HIV & AIDS.

The obscure dominance of religion in the social understanding of HIV & AIDS

From the onset, HIV & AIDS were both permeated with various meanings, and the understanding of the pandemic was very much dependent on one’s moral standing on the issue. Religion was faced with a dilemma of status – interacting with and in response to people living with HIV & AIDS. It is argued that religion places a code of moral norms which directly impact any understanding of the pandemic related to human social behaviour (2). Hence, the question as to why and how religious groups should engage in public issues such as HIV & AIDS comes to the fore.

With the advent of HIV & AIDS, and its subsequent rise to the status of pandemic, people living with the virus, their partners and families became viewed as “sinful recipients of their just deserts from God.” (3) HIV & AIDS were viewed within many religious circles as a harbinger of the apocalypse, and a collective punishment from God. Three responses to HIV & AIDS have been proposed: first, blaming the victim, defining HIV & AIDS as a divine punishment. This stance is dominated by the belief that a failure to comply with traditional norms of sexual morality will result in death; second, embracing the victim, defining HIV & AIDS as a disease, which can and should be prevented through avoiding certain behaviours. From this stance, HIV & AIDS are separated from sexual morality; and finally, helping the victim, attempting to reconcile these two poles by defining HIV & AIDS as a public health crisis, while maintaining the sacredness of traditional moral norms. This stance views the pandemic as a deterrent to ‘sinful’ behaviour (4). These three responses to HIV & AIDS can be used to systematically explain the progression of a community, family or partner in accepting and helping an individual living with the virus. They also provide a good theoretical grounding from which to examine the position of religion, with regards to HIV.

Conservative religious beliefs

In the earliest days of HIV & AIDS, proponents of the first response (those who blamed the victim) vehemently believed that the disease was a punishment from God. Reverend Jerry Falwell commented early on in the pandemic in 1987 that “God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah primarily because of the sin of homosexuality. Today He is again bringing judgment against this wicked practice through AIDS.” (5) This belief of HIV & AIDS as a disease affecting the collective gay or homosexual constituencies was well supported by various religions such as the Islamic faith (6), and thus society at large. In fact, it is noted that the “religious norms regarding human sexuality are surprisingly similar.” (7)

Malik Badri, Professor of Islamic and Civilisation Studies in Malaysia, and one of the few Islamists who has written at length about HIV & AIDS, stated that, “The general [Muslim] belief about the AIDS pandemic is that of divine retribution for the immoral homosexual revolution of the West and its aping in other countries…The famous hadith…is translated as follows – if fahashah or fornification and all kinds of sinful sexual intercourse become rampant and openly practiced without inhibition in any group or nation, Allah will punish them with new epidemics (ta’un) and new diseases which were not known to their forefathers and earlier generations.” (8) It is evident, therefore, that the commonly held belief of various religious groups is that: (a) HIV & AIDS is a punishment from a higher power; and (b) they are punishments specifically directed to homosexual individuals or persons. A recent example are the attacks on homosexual men in Kenya in February 2010, linked to local Christian and Muslim leaders urging their congregations to expose homosexuals and turn them in to authorities (9). These religious leaders have criticised the Kenyan Government for providing HIV & AIDS services to homosexuals.

The response from many religious followers and faith-based organisations to HIV & AIDS has vacillated between a moderate stand of ‘finger-pointing’ and blaming the individual, to a ‘mean-spirited’ and bitter punitive ideology. This could be attributed to the fact that Muslims, Jews, Christians and other religious groups largely adhere to the ideal of sexuality having its rightful place in lifelong marriage (10), and of course only between a man and a woman. In defence of this stance, however, it can be argued that the deviation from this ideal can in many cases lead to HIV infection. The blatant and unashamed abuse of human rights is far from necessary, however, and certainly not in line with the moral codes commonly preached by most religions.

Turning the religious tide toward the fight against HIV & AIDS

While it is important to note that there is a lot being done within religious circles to address the pandemic in Africa, these efforts need to be significantly stepped up, especially in light of many members of these groups, and/or their loved ones, suffering and dying as a result of HIV & AIDS. It is reported that 70% of the world’s people identify themselves as members of a faith community, and religious groups therefore have huge potential to influence the progress made in HIV & AIDS efforts. The important question, however, is whether this influence will ultimately be positive or negative, as the relationship that exists within the religion/AIDS debate continues to be one of inconsistency.

Churches around the world have, over the past few years, become more comfortable about discussing HIV & AIDS with their congregations, due in some respects to the large number of HIV-related funerals which they perform (11). Faith-based organisations have, in fact, been involved in the HIV & AIDS response since the earliest days of the epidemic and have often been among the first to respond, providing services, education and care for those in need. Religious communities, mosques, temples, churches, hospitals and clinics have reached out to provide support to those living with and affected by HIV. Their leadership has great influence in the lives of many people, and leaders speaking out responsibly about AIDS can make a powerful impact at both community and international level.

On the contrary, of course, their leadership can also have various adverse effects, and examples persist where religious groups continue to impede progress in addressing the effects of HIV. The Vatican’s position on their fight against HIV & AIDS, for example, has in a sense turned back the tide of the Church in their fight against HIV & AIDS. The comments made by Pope Benedict XVI in his first visit to Africa in 2009 led to a surge in media criticism. The pope said that HIV & AIDS was “a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem.” (12) The Pope was of course speaking in favour of the “traditional” view of the church with regard to abstinence in avoiding contracting HIV. The Pope’s comments that condoms exacerbate the problem of HIV & AIDS were, of course, wildly inaccurate and could have had devastating consequences. The World Health Organisation (WHO) responded to the Pope’s comment in saying that, “these incorrect statements about condoms and HIV & AIDS are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million.” (13)

While there is still much debate around the motives and logic behind the proposed Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill, cultural and religious beliefs also certainly play an influencing role here. Homosexuals, who are a high-risk group for contracting HIV, are forced further and further underground, placing them and in fact the rest of the Ugandan people at risk. In general, social-cultural norms related to marriage, poverty and wealth, as well as the lack of access to prevention, care and treatment, are the main factors fuelling the spread of HIV in Uganda. Uganda AIDS Commission (UAC) boss Kihumuro Apuuli has thus called upon religious leaders to include HIV-prevention strategies in their programmes. Apuuli strongly believes that these religious leaders have the power to convince their congregation on behaviour change (14).

Although the argument could be made for and against the role of religion in helping or hindering the fight against HIV & AIDS, it is nevertheless important to note the there is a great amount of dominance of religion within the social context and among members of a respective community. Through this influence, religion has the ability to construct and reconstruct people’s views on HIV & AIDS which will affect their very interaction with the disease and people living with HIV & AIDS on a daily basis. Religion is like a double-edged sword, with the ability to create the greatest miracles and the most horrific atrocities. Only time will tell on which side the sword will sweep.

NOTES:

(1) Justin Du Toit is an External Consultant at Consultancy Africa Intelligence's HIV & AIDS Unit (

hiv.aids@consultancyafrica.com ).
(2) Benn, C. 2002. The influence of the cultural and religious frameworks on the future course of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Journal of Theology for South Africa . 113: 3-18.
(3) De Waal, A., et. al. 2006. AIDS and Power: Why There Is No Political Crisis – Yet . Zed Books Ltd. in association with the International African Institute and the Royal African Society. New York.
(4) Kowalewski, M. R. (Spring, 1990). Religious Construction of the AIDS Crisis. Sociological Analysis . Association for the Sociology of Religion, Inc.. Vol. 51, NO. 1, pp. 91-96.
(5) De Waal, A., et. al. 2006. AIDS and Power: Why There Is No Political Crisis – Yet . Zed Books Ltd. in association with the International African Institute and the Royal African Society. New York.
(6) Kowalewski, M. R. (Spring, 1990). Religious Construction of the AIDS Crisis. Sociological Analysis . Association for the Sociology of Religion, Inc.. Vol. 51, NO. 1, pp. 91-96.
(7) Benn, C. 2002. The influence of the cultural and religious frameworks on the future course of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Journal of Theology for South Africa . 113: 3-18.
(8) De Waal, A., et. al. 2006. AIDS and Power: Why There Is No Political Crisis – Yet . Zed Books Ltd. in association with the International African Institute and the Royal African Society. New York.
(9) http://www.nation.co.ke
(10) Benn, C. 2002. The influence of the cultural and religious frameworks on the future course of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Journal of Theology for South Africa . 113: 3-18.
(11) Van Sickle, A. 2003. Religion and HIV. http://www.csa.za.org.
(12) http://news.bbc.co.uk
(13) http://www.timesonline.co.uk
(14) http://www.bcnn5.com

To download the pdf version, click here (483 KB)