Welcome to Gaia! ::


Feral Nymph

Ratttking
Pessimist
Kai-Shan Valandria
Old Blue Collar Joe
Knowingly spreading AIDs is a misdemeanor in Alabama? That's ******** up.


No kidding. It's a felony in NY, and quite frankly, I'm happy supporting intentional spread of ANY disease to be a felony. We need to punish people who deliberately hurt others.


I have mixed feelings on that idea. On one hand, yes, if you know you have HIV and you repeatedly have unprotected sex, you are a shitty person deserving of punishment. But on the other hand, I feel like such a law could lead to abuse, like does unprotected sex with someone who suffers from herpes the same as unprotected sex with someone who has HIV. And what if they test falsely negative? HIV has a window period of at least 3 months, potentially up to a year.

On the third hand, this is why no spitting laws were invented (to prevent the spread of TB) and I still support that, if only because it's gross as hell.

Re: the story? Based solely on my previous interactions with Baptist churches, I'm surprised he wasn't run out of town on a rail at the very least.
What if someone has HIV and uses protection, but does not tell their partner of their condition? Should that be a crime?


At the very least, that's a d**k move to the partner. But what's the viral load? How good is the protection? These and the other reasons I listed above, are why I'm not entirely sold on the idea of it being a crime. There is no black and white to having bloodborne diseases, from herpes, hep C or HIV.

Sparkly Shapeshifter

12,950 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Person of Interest 200
Old Blue Collar Joe
Knowingly spreading AIDs is a misdemeanor in Alabama? That's ******** up.


Yep. It should be a higher charge.
Ratttking
Pessimist
Kai-Shan Valandria
Old Blue Collar Joe
Knowingly spreading AIDs is a misdemeanor in Alabama? That's ******** up.


No kidding. It's a felony in NY, and quite frankly, I'm happy supporting intentional spread of ANY disease to be a felony. We need to punish people who deliberately hurt others.


I have mixed feelings on that idea. On one hand, yes, if you know you have HIV and you repeatedly have unprotected sex, you are a shitty person deserving of punishment. But on the other hand, I feel like such a law could lead to abuse, like does unprotected sex with someone who suffers from herpes the same as unprotected sex with someone who has HIV. And what if they test falsely negative? HIV has a window period of at least 3 months, potentially up to a year.

On the third hand, this is why no spitting laws were invented (to prevent the spread of TB) and I still support that, if only because it's gross as hell.

Re: the story? Based solely on my previous interactions with Baptist churches, I'm surprised he wasn't run out of town on a rail at the very least.
What if someone has HIV and uses protection, but does not tell their partner of their condition? Should that be a crime?

Yes it should be.
Pessimist
Ratttking
Pessimist
Kai-Shan Valandria
Old Blue Collar Joe
Knowingly spreading AIDs is a misdemeanor in Alabama? That's ******** up.


No kidding. It's a felony in NY, and quite frankly, I'm happy supporting intentional spread of ANY disease to be a felony. We need to punish people who deliberately hurt others.


I have mixed feelings on that idea. On one hand, yes, if you know you have HIV and you repeatedly have unprotected sex, you are a shitty person deserving of punishment. But on the other hand, I feel like such a law could lead to abuse, like does unprotected sex with someone who suffers from herpes the same as unprotected sex with someone who has HIV. And what if they test falsely negative? HIV has a window period of at least 3 months, potentially up to a year.

On the third hand, this is why no spitting laws were invented (to prevent the spread of TB) and I still support that, if only because it's gross as hell.

Re: the story? Based solely on my previous interactions with Baptist churches, I'm surprised he wasn't run out of town on a rail at the very least.
What if someone has HIV and uses protection, but does not tell their partner of their condition? Should that be a crime?


At the very least, that's a d**k move to the partner. But what's the viral load? How good is the protection? These and the other reasons I listed above, are why I'm not entirely sold on the idea of it being a crime. There is no black and white to having bloodborne diseases, from herpes, hep C or HIV.


It's not the infected persons place to decide whether or not to risk the other persons health. That is their decision alone, and to knowingly not inform them of this health hazard should be a felony.

Destructive Detective

19,200 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Cat Fancier 100
Old Blue Collar Joe
Ratttking
Pessimist
Kai-Shan Valandria
Old Blue Collar Joe
Knowingly spreading AIDs is a misdemeanor in Alabama? That's ******** up.


No kidding. It's a felony in NY, and quite frankly, I'm happy supporting intentional spread of ANY disease to be a felony. We need to punish people who deliberately hurt others.


I have mixed feelings on that idea. On one hand, yes, if you know you have HIV and you repeatedly have unprotected sex, you are a shitty person deserving of punishment. But on the other hand, I feel like such a law could lead to abuse, like does unprotected sex with someone who suffers from herpes the same as unprotected sex with someone who has HIV. And what if they test falsely negative? HIV has a window period of at least 3 months, potentially up to a year.

On the third hand, this is why no spitting laws were invented (to prevent the spread of TB) and I still support that, if only because it's gross as hell.

Re: the story? Based solely on my previous interactions with Baptist churches, I'm surprised he wasn't run out of town on a rail at the very least.
What if someone has HIV and uses protection, but does not tell their partner of their condition? Should that be a crime?

Yes it should be.
Why?

Feral Nymph

Old Blue Collar Joe
Pessimist
Ratttking
Pessimist
Kai-Shan Valandria
Old Blue Collar Joe
Knowingly spreading AIDs is a misdemeanor in Alabama? That's ******** up.


No kidding. It's a felony in NY, and quite frankly, I'm happy supporting intentional spread of ANY disease to be a felony. We need to punish people who deliberately hurt others.


I have mixed feelings on that idea. On one hand, yes, if you know you have HIV and you repeatedly have unprotected sex, you are a shitty person deserving of punishment. But on the other hand, I feel like such a law could lead to abuse, like does unprotected sex with someone who suffers from herpes the same as unprotected sex with someone who has HIV. And what if they test falsely negative? HIV has a window period of at least 3 months, potentially up to a year.

On the third hand, this is why no spitting laws were invented (to prevent the spread of TB) and I still support that, if only because it's gross as hell.

Re: the story? Based solely on my previous interactions with Baptist churches, I'm surprised he wasn't run out of town on a rail at the very least.
What if someone has HIV and uses protection, but does not tell their partner of their condition? Should that be a crime?


At the very least, that's a d**k move to the partner. But what's the viral load? How good is the protection? These and the other reasons I listed above, are why I'm not entirely sold on the idea of it being a crime. There is no black and white to having bloodborne diseases, from herpes, hep C or HIV.


It's not the infected persons place to decide whether or not to risk the other persons health. That is their decision alone, and to knowingly not inform them of this health hazard should be a felony.


So the best option is to send them to jail for not immediately disclosing their status to their partner, even if their viral load has substantially decreased? I'm not saying you shouldn't tell your partner, but that's one of those things where it's not uncommon to instantly lose a partner because you have a disease, no matter if they use protection or not.

And should we send people to jail who end up seroconverting (false testing negative)?

Not to mention, where do we draw the line when it comes to STDS? Is does herpes require the same amount of jail time? What about Hep C?

Also keep in mind that not all cases of HIV are from promiscuous sex/whatever else you feel you can deem morally reprehensible. Anyone who got a blood transfusion in the '80s-'90s is also at risk. It's how my former stepdad who was a hemophiliac ended up with Hep C. Should he go to jail for sharing a toothbrush with my mom?

Snuggly Buddy

29,150 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Conventioneer 300
Ratttking
David2074
McFarland, 47, has not been charged with any wrongdoing. Knowingly spreading a sexually transmitted disease is a misdemeanor in Alabama punishable by up to a year in jail.

Okay, so send him to jail for a year X the number of women he admitted to doing that.
Also send him to jail for fraud for transferring the church funds to a different account.

There seems to be so much wrong with this situation it is hard to believe they can't get him out or that they got into that situation in the first place.
But a few thoughts / comments:

1. The church's WEB SITE is functional but pretty lame looking. And yeah, that has little to do with the story other than I was trying to see who they are affiliated with. Though it does still describe McFarland as a wonderful man of God blah blah..
It does mention he is serving their "cultural and social needs.." Maybe that is the sex part. lol

2. He is a Baptist minister. Presumably he was ordained by one of the baptist organizations. Seems like they should revoke his ordination based on his self confessed abuse of his position in the church.

3. Why the heck was he apparently the sole signer on the bank account?
Most established churches have a treasurer or some other checks and balances on the money.
(Or at least I assume they do based on the ones I've had any knowledge of)
The church has at least 81 deacons so they could surely have at least one treasurer type person.

4. Why the heck did the one deacon vote to keep him as pastor after all the abuse he admitted to?

5. Knowingly spreading an STD may be a misdemeanor but it seems like knowingly spreading a fatal disease could be charged under a different law. Possibly not though since the Alabama law specifically includes HIV.
Ala. Code § 22-11A-21(c)
Class C Misdemeanor
Any person afflicted with an STD who knowingly transmits, assumes the risk of transmitting, or does any act which will probably or likely transmit such disease to another person is guilty of a class C misdemeanor. (HIV included among STDs, see Al. Admin. Code r. 420-4-1-.03.)
SOURCE


6. He changed the locks. So... change them again. Have the stuff ready then drill a lock or just hide in the church after a service and then change them out.

7. Why the heck is 29% of the congregation still showing up to hear him preach?

8. I know it is not legal or "Christian" but when you tell the congregation, "I've been ******** your wives and may have given them a fatal disease, which possibly you have by now as well, and by the way I've taken over all the church money and the physical church building and I no longer give a s**t about what you fine people think and refuse to let you fire me..."
Well... you'd think possibly something bad might happen to him on a dimly lit street or some such.
In answer to 4.: because Christians are supposed to be forgiving. That answers 7 as well.

As for 8, where does it say he was ******** anyone's wife? The article says 'women in the parish', so they may very well be unmarried women.
Did he have unprotected sex? That has not been covered. If he did use protection, then he likely did not assume they were at risk.


Sorry but no, "forgiveness" does not work as a blanket answer for 4 or 8.
They may choose to forgive him but that doesn't mean he has not proven himself to be an unsuitable candidate for the job of leading their religious lives.

His subsequent actions of changing the locks, trying to take sole control of the church's money and refusing to step down when the church overwhelmingly voted to fire him suggests a severe lack of contrition on his part. I am left wondering if he got caught and someone told him "either you tell the congregation or I will". Granted, the person committing an offense does not have to be contrite for the person injured by the offense(s) to choose to forgive. It helps but the two things are separate. But while I might forgive him as a human being I would in no way continue to support him as my spiritual leader.

It does not matter whether the sex was protected or not.
Either way he was putting their lives at risk. Using a condom greatly reduces the chances of contracting HIV / AIDS but more than one study has shown that even rigorous condom use does not eliminate the risk. In some cases where one person in a couple has HIV the other person makes a conscious choice to take that risk. But when you risk his/her life without giving them the choice I consider that criminal. So does the state of Alabama, even if they only have a max sentence of a year for it compared to harsher sentences in some other states.

You are correct the article does not say the women he had sex with are married.
I think I inferred it from the use of the word 'affairs' due to the common usage of it. When you hear about someone saying so and so is having an affair they usually mean "extramarital affair". But I admit that was an assumption on my part.

Snuggly Buddy

29,150 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Conventioneer 300
Pessimist
At the very least, that's a d**k move to the partner. But what's the viral load? How good is the protection? These and the other reasons I listed above, are why I'm not entirely sold on the idea of it being a crime. There is no black and white to having bloodborne diseases, from herpes, hep C or HIV.


Well yes actually there is.
You are talking about things that affect the amount of risk but the fact remains that there is still risk.
In the case of HIV it is a deadly risk.
Multiple studies have shown condom use reduces but does not eliminate the risk of contracting HIV.

When you TELL your partner you are infected with HIV (or some other STD / blood borne illness) THEN the degree of risk comes into play because it might affect their decision to say yes or no to sex.
But when you knowingly keep it a secret then you are subjecting them to risk without their consent. That is the part I consider very black and white.
It's bad enough with any disease but in the case of potentially / frequently deadly diseases I consider it particularly callous and criminal. Neither are desirable traits in a pastor.

Witty Conversationalist

Ratttking
What if someone has HIV and uses protection, but does not tell their partner of their condition? Should that be a crime?



      Considering protection isn't 100% effective, yes. There is a possibility, albeit slim, of contracting a disease that could be life altering (or really expensive to reverse) and this is something that should be made known to their partner. Some diseases can lead the individual sterile or irreversibly damaged if not treated right away and not every STD shows up right away.

      Knowingly withholding such information is morally wrong and could be considered criminal, in my opinion.

Feral Nymph

David2074
Pessimist
At the very least, that's a d**k move to the partner. But what's the viral load? How good is the protection? These and the other reasons I listed above, are why I'm not entirely sold on the idea of it being a crime. There is no black and white to having bloodborne diseases, from herpes, hep C or HIV.


Well yes actually there is.
You are talking about things that affect the amount of risk but the fact remains that there is still risk.
In the case of HIV it is a deadly risk.
Multiple studies have shown condom use reduces but does not eliminate the risk of contracting HIV.

When you TELL your partner you are infected with HIV (or some other STD / blood borne illness) THEN the degree of risk comes into play because it might affect their decision to say yes or no to sex.
But when you knowingly keep it a secret then you are subjecting them to risk without their consent. That is the part I consider very black and white.
It's bad enough with any disease but in the case of potentially / frequently deadly diseases I consider it particularly callous and criminal. Neither are desirable traits in a pastor.


You will certainly have no arguments from me re: bolded. That guy is reprehensible. I'm more concerned with 'knowingly passing along HIV/Hep C/etc" as a law. It feels too vague for me to be comfortable with, For example, in the link you gave earlier, states:

Quote:
Any person afflicted with an STD who knowingly transmits, assumes the risk of transmitting, or does any act which will probably or likely transmit such disease to another person


That leaves an absurd amount of room for, say, an ex to press criminal charges against someone who is HIV positive (from any number of reasons), even if they were using protection.

I am not saying the pastor was a piece of s**t. He is. But I also don't like the idea of a vulnerable population subject to criminal charges. Particularly when everyone else does not like to see them as vulnerable and prefers to think that people infected with HIV/etc 'deserved' their disease. Like I mentioned before, should my former stepdad go to jail because he might have shared a toothbrush with my mom, let alone had sex with her?

And, yes, I *do* understand that some will use their infection as a weapon. People are shitty. But for every shitbag, there's also someone else who isn't one and just wants to live as normal a life as possible. In the end I feel there is not a right answer to all of this.

Snuggly Buddy

29,150 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Conventioneer 300
Pessimist
David2074
Pessimist
At the very least, that's a d**k move to the partner. But what's the viral load? How good is the protection? These and the other reasons I listed above, are why I'm not entirely sold on the idea of it being a crime. There is no black and white to having bloodborne diseases, from herpes, hep C or HIV.


Well yes actually there is.
You are talking about things that affect the amount of risk but the fact remains that there is still risk.
In the case of HIV it is a deadly risk.
Multiple studies have shown condom use reduces but does not eliminate the risk of contracting HIV.

When you TELL your partner you are infected with HIV (or some other STD / blood borne illness) THEN the degree of risk comes into play because it might affect their decision to say yes or no to sex.
But when you knowingly keep it a secret then you are subjecting them to risk without their consent. That is the part I consider very black and white.
It's bad enough with any disease but in the case of potentially / frequently deadly diseases I consider it particularly callous and criminal. Neither are desirable traits in a pastor.


You will certainly have no arguments from me re: bolded. That guy is reprehensible. I'm more concerned with 'knowingly passing along HIV/Hep C/etc" as a law. It feels too vague for me to be comfortable with, For example, in the link you gave earlier, states:

Quote:
Any person afflicted with an STD who knowingly transmits, assumes the risk of transmitting, or does any act which will probably or likely transmit such disease to another person


That leaves an absurd amount of room for, say, an ex to press criminal charges against someone who is HIV positive (from any number of reasons), even if they were using protection.

I am not saying the pastor was a piece of s**t. He is. But I also don't like the idea of a vulnerable population subject to criminal charges. Particularly when everyone else does not like to see them as vulnerable and prefers to think that people infected with HIV/etc 'deserved' their disease. Like I mentioned before, should my former stepdad go to jail because he might have shared a toothbrush with my mom, let alone had sex with her?

And, yes, I *do* understand that some will use their infection as a weapon. People are shitty. But for every shitbag, there's also someone else who isn't one and just wants to live as normal a life as possible. In the end I feel there is not a right answer to all of this.


I don't have any trouble with the wording of that law except for perhaps adding some sort of exclusion for partners who are made aware of the risk and willingly choose to subject themselves to that risk.

But in this case, the pastor admits that he knew he had AIDS and that he did not inform his sexual partners. So yes, I think he should go to jail for that, or at the very least pay for their medical screenings / any related medical costs and do some sort of community service or something.

You say, "just wants to live as normal a life as possible".
That's fine, to a point. But when a person's version of living a 'normal life' includes subjecting your sex partners to a deadly disease without their knowledge or consent then no, that's not okay. It is extremely selfish. It doesn't matter if he was not actively trying to use his infection as a weapon.
Think of it this way -
If you intentionally kill someone with your car that is vehicular homicide / murder.
If you can't see well and have body motor issues that prevent you from properly controlling the car but you don't give a s**t about other people and drive anyway because you "just want to live a normal life" and then you kill someone - well, that may not be intentional murder but it is still extremely selfish and a crime.

The reality is life is not always fair and while it may suck to be blind or carry a deadly disease around in your body you do not have a right to put others at deadly risk just because you want to feel "normal".

One of my daughters' half sisters has HEP C. Medical info clearly states it can be transmitted through saliva (or more technically, minute amounts of blood in the saliva). Both of my daughters have repeatedly told her not to share food or drink with their kids yet she still tries to give them drinks of her soda and bites of her food and such. Some people don't really give a s**t about others.

Tipsy Smoker

I don't see the problem here. STOP ATTENDING THAT CHURCH. Let him preach to himself.

Lord Elwrind's Queen

Dangerous Fairy

55,065 Points
  • Waffles! 25
  • Team Poison Master 250
  • Winged 100
Ratttking
Nyadriel
I need time to form my thoughts on this one.

Basically, the community should shun this ___ and the church leaders and uppers such as Cardinals, should send him out. He does not belong there. And that is just a start.
Baptists don't have cardinals, only Roman Catholics do, and the term is only capitalized when it is used before a man's name or his rank, e.g. Cardinal Wuerl is the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, DC, and he achieved the rank of cardinal in 2010.

The deacons are trying to get rid of this guy.


Thank you for the correction. I get confused most of the time.

Omnipresent Warlord

Chahklet
I don't see the problem here. STOP ATTENDING THAT CHURCH. Let him preach to himself.


He doesn't own the church, he doesn't own the congregation. They seem to be willing to forgive the man for his sins, but they're not going to let him keep his position. They want someone else and he doesn't have the right to demand to keep his position.

Quotable Prophet

You know, I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but seriously, am I the only one who finds it a tad bit ironic that the church is turning to the courts to resolve an internal issue after all the complaints about the courts infringing on their rights and interfering with religious establishment?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum