www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall AIDS funds refused over prostitution clause

So if Jesus' family tree was corrupt, the sins of the ancestors should be accepted because of relationship?

God gave His only son Jesus Christ as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind. He gave his Son because all had fallen short. He gave his Son to redeem them- and us. He was crucified for the sins of those 'prostitutes he was hanging out with'. Remember "Go and sin no more" ? They listened and their lives were changed.

As a Christian I have the same responsibility to 'go and sin no more'. I have more than a great respect for the awesome sacrifice of the Son of my God. For this I will not prostitute myself, engage in deviant sexual practice with members of my own sex, lie, steal, murder or anything else that goes against the teachings of Christ to the best of my ability.

If I am unaware of my sin and become aware I have a responsibility to change my behavior, not rationalize my behavior.

As a country based on Judeo-Christian tradition I am glad the USA is responsible enough in this situation to add the prostitution clause. Prostitution is illegal in the US. Why would we give a thumbs up to Brazil's acceptance of such exploitation?

AIDS and HIV in Brazil is partially a result of prostitution. Many prostitutes are forced into this type of existence, including young teenaged women and boys. I see this as a problem. I don't want my tax dollars paying for this.

I am sure those who disagree with US policy on this matter can send Pedro a donation from their own pockets. How about it WG and Jean. How much did you send so far?

Sam

The saddest part of this whole matter is that people will die for lack of the funds to prevent and treat this dire disease while the US and Brazil bicker over words.

No one ever caught AIDS from governmental bickering. ISTM that if people simply remained celibate until marriage, there would be no more incidents of AIDS within a generation. It would be irradicated like smallpox was.

Gaudior, who is most definitely NOT saying not to help people who are ill, but IS saying that not to point out to those you are helping that a main contributing factor in their illnesses is their behaviour is completely wrong.

A further thought to my thoughts...I think what I am saying is that we each, no matter how charitable, would look slightly askance at the thought of handing a beggar $20 in a bar, while he was half soused to begin with...however, we might spend $20 ordering him some food, which meets our obligations to help those who are hungry without compromising our beliefs that solid food, and not more alcohol, are what the man requires.


Gaudior, who is afraid that that just added to the confusion

Actually Jean Francois did you ever think that they United States might actually be taking a stand on behalf of the porstitues by the condemnation. Perhaps they are making this statement to challenge the immoral traficing of people, and the upholding of their human digntiy?
Stephanos I

I say let the clause remain and let Brazil change their socio enconimic system which causes women to resort to a degrading life like this.

Oui! Oui!! Jean Francois. Merci beaucoup.

"La sagesse parle"


The sheer hypocrisy lies in the addition of the condemnation in the first place.

American and British troops in Iraq (at the cost of trillions?) may sexually abuse a few Iraqi insurgents... but none of our AIDS funds going to Brasil may be associated with helping prostitutes.

Yep, sheep hypocrisy. Calling a spade a spade.

Governmental aid from one country to another has not got one thing to do with holiness in faith. The immorality of America is America's. The immorality of Brasil is Brasil's. A restriction of how the funds are used should not enter into the equation at all.

If Makarios III (May he rest in peace) had refused to help Crete similarly, we'd have a case. No arm of the US gov't is holy and therefore has no business attaching a restriction clause to AIDS/HIV money. Sorry, folks.

I doubt that the USA claimed to be holy...just sensible. Prostitution spreads disease. Why give Brazil billions so they can continue to act in a manner that endangers people?

Jean Francois, Christ most certainly did NOT withhold His love from prostitutes, but He most certainly DID condemn their actions, telling one to go and sin no more.

Gaudior, who most certainly condemns the mentality that allows people to engage in activities which produce disease to the extent that billions of dollars need to be solicited from other countries to control their disease problem, yet refuses to address a strong source of infection.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood something basic for all these years. But doesn't the giver actually own the money, and decide who gets it for what purpose? I know that I give to the causes I support, not necessarily to someone else's causes.

I would think the 'giver' owns the money it decides to give- or not give.

Like I stated in an earlier post- we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. We are either too Christian or not Christian enough. Too much this or not enough that.

There will always be those perfect people out there who look for and find fault in every situation. Like the old song lyrics go "Can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself."

We? The American Gov'tal body that decided to dangle the carrot in front of the Brasilian Gov't's nose?

Sam, as your mssg icon suggests, you jest. :rolleyes:


Gaudior, surely we didn't already know that "prostitution spreads disease" did we. Where in the Holy Gospels do we find Jesus telling a prostitute to go and sin no more? Is it because this imaginary NT prostitute was spreading disease that Jesus said go and sin no more? You have raised a hypothetical situation you cannot back up with Scripture or Tradition, haven't you? Let's do get our facts straight before we speak, OK. blessing, wg

My oh my, what a Freudian slip that was, LOL.

Below is the link for USAID:

http://www.usaid.gov/policy/budget/cbj2005/lac/br.html

Looks like a lot more than just "dangling a carrot", doesn't it?

Apparently 60% of South America's AIDS/HIV problem lies in Brazil alone.
Again I say-adding the prostitution clause is responsible use of American tax dollars. Obviously Brazil has a problem. Obviously they aren't solving it passing out condoms. What a surprise.


Sam

more carrots to criticize:

http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/


and:

http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2005/pr050127.html