ACT UP used sacred spaces including hospitals, churches, and politically symbolic places for their demonstrations. They craved for a direct response and direct action from the United States government and medical establishments, who the organization believed were inadequately addressing the AIDS epidemic. Activists demanded the FDA to approve certain drugs and drug trials to be made available. ACT UP led the first “Stop the Church” protest at St. Patrick’s Cathedral where they interrupted Mass, chanted slogans, and layed down in the aisles. Activists disagreed with the church’s stand against safe sex education in public schools, condom distribution, and the church’s views on homosexuality and abortion. As a result, ACT UP was viewed as representing militancy and disrespect by Mayor Edward Koch. The organization also distributed safer-sex packets outside of Seattle high schools that contained information on how to have sex safely. The act was condemned illegal as it was harmful to minors and distributing sexually explicit material to underage people was unlawful. Furthermore, activists dumped the ashes of passed loved ones who suffered from AIDS on the White House lawn.
Evidently, ACT UP strategically targeted sacred spaces that both gave them more media coverage, but also ignited emotions amongst those that were against the organization, ultimately allowing ACT UP to reach those that were ignorant. However, the organization also faced some backlash from the government and society for violating sacred spaces. As a result, the morality of their actions were scrutinized. After all, churches are places of worship, schools are places for education, and the White House is government property. Disturbing worship, influencing young minds, and attacking the top of the government hierarchy can be seen in a negative light. However, it effectively strengthened the point ACT UP desired to make. Distributing worship was viable in the eyes of activists because the same church that didn’t want to be disrespected, was disrespecting and oppressing the ideas and faith of activists who supported homosexuality and free choice. The church, a powerful institution of morality, was acting immoral when condemning those with AIDS, as it was the fault of their illegitimate homosexual desires. Equally important, school is supposed to provide education and safety for its students, however keeping them away from knowledge of safe sex wasn’t keeping them away from sex, rather was leading them to make unsound choices in their sexual lives. Sexual education was destigmatized because of ACT UP’s efforts. Even more, ACT UP was using their right of protest in blaming the government for the loss of their loved ones. The government was clearly ignoring a large epidemic, failing to provide its people with the resources and help they needed. Thus, for ACT UP to want to protest against the government was not only legally sound, but a result of the government’s inadequacy.
Sacred spaces are sacred because they serve their communities. If a large group of people believe that these places themselves are defying their fundamental values, why should they be condemned for demanding what is theirs’ on a humanitarian level? The fact was that the institutions like churches, hospitals, and schools didn’t want activists to be quiet in just their respective sacred space, but be quiet everywhere else in society as well. Activists didn’t damage property or attack people, rather held benign demonstrations in the places they knew would enrage many. They reinvented the form of protests by not just chanting or carrying signs, but by blocking traffic with their bodies, proving that their goals were even more valuable than their lives. Activists were unapologetically confrontational which is why their efforts were fruitful. They gave anger a purpose.
I think activists today must learn from activists in history. While activism achieves a lot for society, there are also negative facets we must try to rectify. For example, many believed ACT UP to be a racist organization. After all, racism was prevalent in the society and an organization led by middle class white men had to exhibit some as well. However, instead of viewing ACT UP in a monolithic way, we must realize how activism can be better today. In terms of using sacred spaces today, I don’t think much has changed. With the rise in hate crimes that target institutions like mosques and churches, demonstrating in such places will be as challenging and consequential as it was years ago. What is different about today, however, is the fact that religious people themselves are starting to become more open-minded and adjust to the attitudes in society.
-K.A
