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

AIDS funds refused over prostitution clause
Wednesday, May 4, 2005 Posted: 8:07 PM EDT (0007 GMT)


RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) -- Brazil won't accept some $40 million (euro30.88 million) in U.S. funding to fight AIDS unless Washington drops a clause condemning prostitution, the Health Ministry said Wednesday.

The head of Brazil's anti-AIDS program, Pedro Chequer, sent a letter to the U.S. government last week saying that his country would not accept the money under the conditions imposed in funding agreement.

"We don't accept this meddling because it interferes with our sovereignty. We have our anti-AIDS program and they have their way of fighting AIDS," said a press officer at the Health Ministry who declined to be identified.

The money is part of a funding package from USAID, which allotted $48 million (euro37.06 million) to Brazil for its AIDS campaign between 2003 and 2008. The Health Ministry estimates that $8 million (euro6.18 million) dollars of that money has already been spent.

Brazil has received funding from USAID since 1996.

The Health Ministry said the clause that condemns prostitution -- which is legal in Brazil -- was not in the original agreement signed by Brazil, but was added later by the Bush administration.

Brazil is one of the first countries to oppose the Bush administration's policy of linking foreign aid to policies favored by the religious right.

Brazilian officials said that condemning prostitution represented a serious problem for their anti-AIDS program, which works with many non-governmental organizations that encourage the use of condoms by sex workers -- one of the groups with the highest risk of getting AIDS.

Brazil has made great progress in curbing AIDS by distributing millions of free condoms every year at street festivals like carnival. It also provides anti-AIDS drugs free to anyone who needs them.

About 600,000 of Brazil's 183 million people are infected with the HIV virus.

no problem, pedro.
i am sure we can use the extra 40 million dollars right here inside the united states, no?

sam

Exactly...although, the no-prostitution clause probably won't make Nevada happy, either...

Gaudior, disgusted

... but if we don't 'tithe' and/or help the weaker brother... what will God think?


Those poor people are infected with the AIDS virus or they are infected with HIV. There is no such thing as the Human Immunodeficiency Virus virus.

Those poor people should talk to Pedro. Apparently he seems to think HE has their problem under control.

God might 'think' Pedro is prideful. God might agree prostitution is wrong. I don't know what God thinks.

There are many areas in which we can and do 'tithe'. We 'tithe' more than any other country on the face of the planet. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Thats how it is at the top. ;-)

Sam
USA

Wild goose, I quite agree with your observation that there is no such thing as the HIV Virus. Perhaps, however, you might be better off addressing your corrections to the author of the article, rather than posting them on the forum?

Gaudior, who really thinks that that is beyond petty

Hi gaudior,

As one can clearly see, I didn't address it to you particularly.

Yes you are right, the media often make this mistake. The author of the article didn't make him/herself known to us, nor did they leave a postal address.

You have noted one of my pet pieves! :-) Please don't take it personally, OK. blessing, wg

p.s. it's not petty... it's medically and scientificaly inaccurate

Ah, well, I'll grant you your pet peeve...everyone's got them.

Gaudior, who thinks of quite a few that occur too often for my liking...

Gaudior, you wouldn't be implying that there are those who are peevish, would you?

Only meself, Charles, only meself Now, if anyone were to be foolish enough to, say, speak evil of chocolate, that would be another story...

Gaudior, peaceably

AHHHH! Chocolate is SINFUL!!
Especially Godiva (and those new chocolate cream filled chocolate Hershey chocolate bars)!
Sam

Speaking of women who are famous for shady reasons...

Tamar was an adulteress; Rahab was a prostitute from pagan Jericho; Uriah's wife Bathsheba, was the woman David seduced; Ruth was not even a Jew at all, but a Moabitess-the people from Moab were forbidden to go near the Temple of the Lord for all eternity! And she had sex with Boaz before 'marriage.'

The $$$ that Brasil is refusing to accept should not be tied to a clause that condemns prostitution from some moral high ground. And no Christian who knows Jesus' family tree should have any complaints with what the gov't of Brasil has done.

By that logic, since David was a murderer, we should not condemn murder since Christ's ancestors were murderers.

Gaudior, stating that immorality is immorality, and to condone behaviour that is both unsafe AND immoral while throwing money at it, is sheer hypocrisy. If we are giving money to stop the spread of a disease transmitted, in the majority of cases, by sexual contact, we certainly can say "please don't condone this behaviour if you want our money".

Right on Gaudior!

WG,
I hope this isn't going to turn into another 14 page thread attempting to prove to ourselves deviant sexual behavior isn't sinful.
Have a nice day.

Sam

Did Jesus Christ withold his love for the prostitutes he was hanging out with ?

Withdraw the condemnation clause and give impoverished Brazil the AIDS medical funding it needs.

I.F.

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