The Minister and the Media

Everyone seems a bit up in arms about the recent appointment by President Bush of the Rev. Herbert H. Lusk II to a position on the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS. Whereas the other appointments to the panel seem almost uncharacteristically appropriate, I thought I'd poke and prod around a bit to figure out who the minister with close ties to Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council is. Upfront, the man is fairly hostile to us mo's. However, gay media are once again being brutally dishonest to their readers.

• Hosted Justice Sunday III at his church in Philadelphia, remarking, "My friends, don't fool with the church because the church has buried a million critics. And those the church has not buried, the church has made funeral arrangement for."
• Here we're treated to a short biography that notes, "Herb Lusk was not traded or cut by the [Philadelphia] Eagles, but left because he was compelled by the Spirit of God to do so." Probably all that ass-patting. I'm told God frowns upon that sort of thing.
• Alas, the resume. He has a Master's in Divinity, and a Bachelor's in psychology and sociology. So, he can ascertain when people are crazy, but only because God tells him. Super.
• What of Lusk's qualifications to sit on an HIV/AIDS panel? In 2004, Lusk intended to apply for faith-based initiative funds to fight AIDS in Africa. "Lusk said that Greater Exodus and a coalition of other black churches that have missions in Africa are preparing to apply for some of the global AIDS funding that is at the heart of Bush's remarks. 'It's going to be in the millions, I'll tell you that,' Lusk said. 'It won't be small potatoes.'"
• Whether or not he received millions in AIDS funding is unclear. He founded Stand for Africa, which this article notes, "has raised more than $350,000 since November 2003," including $100,000 for African orphans.

So, here we're met with a religious conservative opposed to gay rights and possessing a pro-abstinence approach to AIDS prevention. However, he is also extensively involved in AIDS activism in Africa, using faith-based initiatives, church monies, and fundraisers.

It seems like a mixed bag. While he's not my personal choice for the Council, at least the man has experience in HIV/AIDS activism, even if it is of the religious right kind. The original article I read made no mention of these activities. In fact, the article states he has no experience whatsoever with AIDS policy. "Anti-gay minister appointed to AIDS panel," is a far more alarming story than, "Anti-gay minister who established African AIDS charities appointed to presidential council." In fact, not one single article I read through about this appointment made mention of Stand For Africa or any other AIDS outreach connected to the Reverend.

Are people being purposefully misleading, or is this simple laziness? I can understand opposition to this appointment. Suspicion of an anti-gay appointment to an HIV panel is not without historical justification, especially not when coupled with some of the stranger religious appointments we've seen to bodies such as the FDA. However, it'd be nice if activists and their allies in the gay media would be somewhat honest and open, rather than tossing out very selective facts and getting caught deliberately concealing information - if not outright lying about it - that is very relevant to forming an opinion on this matter.

Is he who I or your average gay person wants to see on the Council? No. Is he entirely without qualification? No. In my mind, he doesn't have the kinds of qualifications I'd expect for appointment to such a body, though much of his work is admirable when it comes to AIDS activism.

Wouldn't it be nice if we were trusted enough to make up our own minds instead of playing these games?

Comments

[North Dallas Thirty]

Purposefully misleading.

The gay media starts with the assumption that every Bush nominee is unqualified and sets out to prove it, even if they have to lie.

This is what keeps the money flowing from the Democrats, abortion groups, and the others who fund them for whom gays are a useful propaganda outlet and smoke screen.

[James]

North,

Sure the story should be more nuanced, but we can at least agree that this guy is a strange pick, no?

As for other stuff, well no need. We will end up disagreeing anyway! :-)

peace

[Robbie]

Well, there's a vast difference between "nuance" and omitting every single piece of information that's salient to his appointment. He's appointed to an HIV/AIDS council, and that article makes it sound like he has zero experience with the issue. They don't mention one, single thing about his past efforts at outreach, fund-raising, etc.

I mean, sure, I absolutely understand opposing his nomination.

But what the online gay media have done here is egregiously dishonest. On the one hand, I almost believe this was a willful omission. On the other, I can see the thought process that went behind this. "He's against gay marriage. Seek out gay marriage foes he's allied with." And whether or not he had any experience in AIDS activism never crossed their minds.

Which, you know, the HRC does have a press office. They don't need the help.

[James]

Robbie,

Don't get me wrong. The press didn't do itself any favors by not telling the full story, but the press, be it gay or straight, does not have a history of telling the full story. So I'm not surprised his background was not mentioned. However, eeven with that, I still think we need to question why he was picked.

peace

[North Dallas Thirty]

Sure the story should be more nuanced, but we can at least agree that this guy is a strange pick, no?

"Strange pick", in what context?

The only group even remotely approaching gays in terms of new infection rate and number of people living with HIV is African-Americans.

AIDS is the number-one cause of death for African-Americans between the age of 25 and 44.

Historically, black churches have been the focal point for community outreach and health initiatives related to the black community.

This guy has background and experience in dealing with, operating, and setting up HIV-related charities and activities, both nationally and internationally, and especially in Africa, a location to which the Bush administration has made a strong commitment.

Rev. Lusk himself has national name recognition and status as a former professional football player, and he is a degreed individual on several levels.

So, in short, I don't consider him a "strange pick". Obviously I disagree with the man on several philosophical points, but that is hardly a reason to discard him in the battle against a common enemy which cares nothing about sexual orientation.

Furthermore, the same people who are criticizing him are the ones who are arguing that Viagra ads are promoting unprotected sex and spreading HIV. The only thing they know about AIDS prevention and activism is that it's always somebody else's fault.

Finally, I find it ironic that, whenever the finger is pointed at gays as being responsible for the rapid spread and continued presence of HIV/AIDS, we whine and squirm, arguing that "it's not just us"; however, when someone who represents that "not just us" is put in a position relative to HIV/AIDS policy, we shriek how "the gay thing" is the most important, and how all other concerns must be subordinated to that.

[James]

North,

You do not have to give me the figures about HIV and the black community. I know them way too well. And when I say he is strange pick, I'm pointing to the very things you and me disagree with him on. That's all.

peace

[GayCowboyBob]

I started to write a post about him, but like you too found there was more to the man and his work than meets the eye. I was more than ready to bash this appointment as again nothing more than cronyism, religiously oriented at that, but he seems to do a lot more than condemn the morals of people by actively supporting and organizing the the charity and relief for the cause he preaches about. I can disagree with him on his religion but not his actual work.

He wouldn't be my first pick because I prefer health professionals to advise on health issues to say spiritual leaders who have good faith but questionable knowledge (say like appointing a horse breeder to FEMA), but he's a decent pick because of the work he's done in advocating on the issue.

[Robbie]

Exactly, GCB. I originally started googling him because information about him was sparse in the article. I was wondering who he is, what his Church is about, what kinds of attitudes he holds. I was not expecting to find gobs of information about his AIDS work. The article made it sound like he hasn't done a damn thing, and other outlets and bloggers are running with that storyline.

I was very (pleasantly) surprised to see all the work he's done, the money he's raised. I may disagree with faith-based initiatives and mixing government funds with churches, but there's no denying he is not taking the typical fire-breakthing religious right tack on this issue. There's another article - I wish I had saved the URL - where he and another minister are speaking of needing to get evangelicals to understand HIV is not a "gay disease."

Really, really surprising stuff after reading that disingenuous article.

[Rod]

Hey Robbie.
It was interesting that you found that I "had it wrong" on Lusk's background and are "very (pleasantly) surprised to see all the work he's done."

My take is that it's tenuous to label fundraising for AIDS orphans and related missionaries in Africa as "experience" in urban North American urban HIV issues especially when they require programs that relate to gay black men.

However, we can talk about Lusk's faith-based initiatives to combat HIV/AIDS in Philadelphia. Many churches such as his target so-called "innocent victims" of HIV such as women and children and neglect (gay) men. Example of Lusk's AIDS ministry here. This is par for the course with many such programs from the administration and the churches.

Also, it's very obvious that Lusk has received funding from the administration. WaPo story here cites a million dollars plus.

North Dallas Thirty you make some very good points. However, since HIV has disproprtionately impacted blacks and especially black gay men, it does help to have someone familiar with the issues. Chutch initiatives have largely revolved around abstinence and care for women and children. Lastly, as a black gay man who grew up in the Missionary and Southern Baptist Churches, can you please educate me on which "health initiatives related to the black community" that the "black church" has been the focal point? My impression was that the church has been woefully inadequate in addressing HIV/AIDS and only now is trying to play catch-up.

The bottom line: Lusk is an obvious choice to the board because his religion and politics are perfectly in sync with the GOP and Bush administration policies of using the black church on wedge issues like gay rights, abortion and same-sex marriage.

[Robbie]

I take no issue with opposing his appointment to the council, Rod.

What I do take issue with is gay media and bloggers claiming he has had no experience or involvement with AIDS issues - intentionally making it seem the president just threw someone on the council willy nilly when they had zero qualifications.

Objectively, that's clearly untrue.

We can disagree with the decision. We can disagree with the man's approach, his religion, his stance on gay marriage.

But we can't just make things up to support our position. We cannot intentionally leave people with false impressions of a person.

And this clearly what's being attempted here.

[James]

Robbie,

We agree. I dislike his appointment AND the way the press has handled it.

peace

[North Dallas Thirty]

Chutch initiatives have largely revolved around abstinence and care for women and children.

And here's why, Rod (emphasis mine):

HIV/AIDS has impacted the African American community in epidemic proportions. It is the top killer of African American women and men ages 25 to 44. Black women represent an overwhelming majority of HIV/AIDS cases, with three out of four HIV/AIDS cases being women of color.

Now, what does that make of your statement here?

However, since HIV has disproprtionately impacted blacks and especially black gay men, it does help to have someone familiar with the issues.

I'd say it points out how gays are out of touch with the reality of HIV/AIDS in the black community and are concerned only with their own situation.

[James]

Noth,

Not to nitpcik brother, but I'm assuming you mean white gays.

peace always

[Rod]

North Dallas, when you say you "gays" you refer to white gay men. You're certainly not referring to black gay men such as myself.

And on that note, I'll excuse myself from this conversation.

[Aatom]

"The bottom line: Lusk is an obvious choice to the board because his religion and politics are perfectly in sync with the GOP and Bush administration policies of using the black church on wedge issues like gay rights, abortion and same-sex marriage."

sorry, guys, i'm with Rod on this one. seems to me the real story here isn't a lapse on the part of gay media. I'm not saying there wasn't one, I'm just saying that's not the real story here. Lusk strikes me a right-wing fundraising whore, who creates shell orgs to spread the Word and tap into millions of Federal dollars. i'm not against faith-based orgs, and I agree with NDT that they are the front line often in the fight against poverty/disease/crime in minority communities. But this guy smells of Big Church Business, and his appointment reeks of religious base pandering. I think in this case, I can forgive the gay media for focusing on the many negatives involved with this appointment.

[North Dallas Thirty]

North Dallas, when you say you "gays" you refer to white gay men. You're certainly not referring to black gay men such as myself.

Excuse me, but who made this statement?

However, since HIV has disproprtionately impacted blacks and especially black gay men, it does help to have someone familiar with the issues.

Facts point out that black women are the ones taking the brunt of the HIV hit, not black gay men, who apparently are sitting around complaining that churches spend too much time ministering to the women and children who are actually getting HIV in epidemic proportions.