I don't know where you go to church, but my church has been taking care of the poor, and sick for many, many, years. You must be speaking of "Liberal" congregations who think it's the job of the Government to take care of everyone.
I think the churches answer to aids is to preach "keeping it in your pants".
the Churches are neglecting their role to care for the sick? Says who?
When I was a missionary doctor in Africa, two thirds of the rural health care was done by church hospitals (and even many government clinics were run by church trained nurses)...in our area the only hospital for 30 000 people was a church hospital...there were three clinics, one church, and two government, but I supervised all three clinics, and the churchhospital ran the baby clinics that went into the local schools and vaccinated all the local kids and babies...
As for Government clinics, these were run by our nurses who trained in church hospitals...and often the local pastor paid the hospital fees of those who had no money...
As for HIV, you will find that the local churches are still running the hospitals, the HIV clinics, but more importantly, the local churches are teaching sexual morality and helping out the sick without fanfare...and helping support the orphans who are usually cared for by extended families...
I guess Catholic or Lutheran or Anglican or Seventh day Adventist or Dutch Reform or Mennonite hospitals don't count...and of course Warren probably doesn't even think these churches are "christian"...nor does he seem to know how the local churches (whose pastors are locally trained men) support their people emotionally, religiously, and monetarily ...
And the small "christian" independent churches are excellent in this private help, and rarely get mentioned at all...
The church didn't start with Rick Warren, and the article sounds like a "look at me mom" type of boasting...but from one who has been there, he's wrong...
The money from Bush will go to fund the expensive medicines for these clinics to give out...
In the case of HIV/AIDS (at least in this country, in most cases) behaving according to church teachings keeps you free from the disease.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the churches' duty to the sick was to minister to them, to comfort them and to assist them in finding medical help, not to care for them. Defining "care" as medical treatment, that is; not as in caring about them.
But, maybe I'm splitting hairs over the meaning of "is".
;^)
Since when is it the responsibility of the "churches" to stifle sin and control health epidemics?
The Response of the Church?
Sex only with a married partner would eradicate HIV/AIDS in 20 years. Celibacy outside of marriage would stop HIV/AIDS dead in it's tracks right now.
The church has been teaching this for 2000 years.
Treat the cause, not the effects.
I saw Warren on Larry King...he suggested that "fundamentalist" (and he seemed to include conservative Christians) were all about POWER.
I am a bit weary of Warren.
What "Church" is falling down on this effort. Must be the one that promote Gay marriages and condone deviant lifestyles - Unitarians and Episcalopians come to mind or maybe the Council of Churches.
STDs act as natural brakes on population growth; having said that it could also be argued that such diseases also act to improve the gene pool as those who recognize the nature of its spread abstain from taking risks in order to avoid exposure.
Education is the best course for government, while compassion is the best course for the caretakers.
Intervention measures such as condoms only work to the extent that they are used by those who recognize the added risk of playing with fire.
Since the primary behavior responsible for spreading HIV/AIDS is homosexual intercourse, I'd say that all the churches who oppose homosexuality are deeply involved with reducing and eliminating the disease.
I recommend that we take all the money that is wasted by these agencies and organizations and give it religious groups, not just churches and you will see this problem diminish.