Support NeoGAF

[ToxicAdam]

Religious Groups Get Chunk of AIDS Money
By RITA BEAMISH, Associated Press Writer



President Bush's $15 billion effort to fight AIDS has handed out nearly one-quarter of its grants to religious groups, and officials are aggressively pursuing new church partners that often emphasize disease prevention through abstinence and fidelity over condom use.


Award recipients include a Christian relief organization famous for its televised appeals to feed hungry children, a well-known Catholic charity and a group run by the son of evangelist Billy Graham, according to the State Department.

The outreach to nontraditional AIDS players comes in the midst of a debate over how best to prevent the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The debate has activated groups on both ends of the political spectrum and created a vast competition for money.

Conservative Christian allies of the president are pressing the U.S. foreign aid agency to give fewer dollars to groups that distribute condoms or work with prostitutes. The Bush administration provided more than 560 million condoms abroad last year, compared with some 350 million in 2001.

Secular organizations in Africa are raising concerns that new money to groups without AIDS experience may dilute the impact of Bush's historic three-year-old program.

"We clearly recognize that it is very important to work with faith-based organizations," said Dan Mullins, deputy regional director for southern and western Africa for CARE, one of the best-known humanitarian organizations.

"But at the same time we don't want to fall into the trap of assuming faith-based groups are good at everything," Mullins said.

The administration is beginning a broad effort to attract newcomers and distribute money for AIDS prevention and care beyond the large nonprofit groups that traditionally have led the fight.

The New Partners Initiative reserves $200 million through the 2008 budget year for community and church groups with little or no background in government grants. Some may have health operations in Africa but no experience in HIV work. Others may be homegrown groups in Africa that have not previously sought U.S. support.

"The notion that because people have always received aid money that they'll get money needs to end," Deputy U.S. global AIDS coordinator Mark Dybul said in an interview with The Associated Press. "The only way to have sustainable programs is to have programs that are wholly owned in terms of management personnel at the local level."

Large nonprofit groups involved in health and development projects typically enlist local religious groups because of their deep community ties.

The goal now is to penetrate hard-to-reach corners of the target countries — 13 in Africa, and Haiti and Vietnam — and bring aboard community and faith groups that previously lacked expertise to win grants, Dybul said.

Religious organizations last year accounted for more than 23 percent of all groups that got HIV/AIDS grants, according to the State Department. Some 80 percent of all secular and religious grant recipients were based in the countries where the aid is targeted.

Among those winning grants were:

_Samaritan's Purse, which is run by Graham's son, Franklin. It says its mission is "meeting critical needs of victims of war, poverty, famine, disease and natural disaster while sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ."

_World Vision. The 56-year-old Christian organization is known for its TV appeals — some with celebrities such as game show host Alex Trebek — that asked people to support a Third World child.

_Catholic Relief Services. It was awarded $6.2 million to teach abstinence and fidelity in three countries; $335 million in a consortium providing anti-retroviral treatment; and $9 million to help orphans and children affected by HIV/AIDs. The group offers "complete and correct information about condoms" but will not promote, purchase or distribute them, said Carl Stecker, senior program director for HIV/AIDS.

_HOPE. The global relief organization founded by the International Churches of Christ recently brought comedian Chris Rock to South Africa for an AIDS prevention event. AIDS grants support HOPE in several countries.

_World Relief, founded by the National Association of Evangelicals. It won $9.7 million for abstinence work in four countries.

Most of the money in Bush's initiative goes to treatment programs, earning the administration praise for delivering lifesaving drugs and care to millions of HIV-infected patients.

For prevention, Bush embraces the "ABC" strategy: abstinence before marriage, being faithful to one partner, and condoms targeted for high-risk activity. The Republican-led Congress mandated that one-third of prevention money be reserved for abstinence and fidelity.

Condom promotion to anyone must include abstinence and fidelity messages, U.S. guidelines say, but those preaching abstinence do not have to provide condom education.

Is it a waste of money to devote 1/3 of this money (5 BILLION) towards abstinence and fidelity?

 

[sprsk]

yes, yes it is.

 

[AdmiralViscen]

How can money improve abstinence rates?

What is wrong with fidelity? That can do more than any vaccine can do.

 

[kablooey]

These things really annoy the piss out of me. Yes, we'll help you, but only if you don't have sex. What kind of bullshit is that? Not to mention the fact that abstinence education rarely ever works, if statistics are any indication.

Before anyone tries to spin, I am thankful that Bush is spending so much money on AIDS prevention, but the fact that it comes with so many conditionalities like the above makes me and others think that there're ulterior motives at work here.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

How can money improve abstinence rates?

What is wrong with fidelity? That can do more than any vaccine can do.

What's wrong is the reasons they'll give for being faithful. What's also wrong is that the teaching of abstinence has been demonstrated to be a huge waste of time and money, whereas sex education and free condoms is very effective.

But the main point here is that Bush is using AIDS as an excuse to divert the taxpayers' money to promote his favorite brand of religion.

 

[Spencerr]

I bet with 5 billion dollars you could pay all American jr high kids enough money to convince them to wait until they're older.

 

[ronito]

Haven't enough studies shown that abstinence only education only results in higher pregancy and STD rates?

Seriously a 1/3 of the budget? That's WAY too much. These are values that are best taught in the home. Guys don't look at a hot girl and say, "You know that sign up in my church with all the nifty marketing? I think I'll stay faithful." It's not a problem you can solve with money. I'd be ok with like 1/20 or MAYBE 1/10, but a 1/3 sounds like at best someone's being naive, at worst someone's giving their friends some kickbacks.

 

[Triumph]

Is it a waste of money to devote 1/3 of this money (5 BILLION) towards abstinence and fidelity?

Yes. Not only is it a waste, it is DUMB.

You deal with the way things ARE, not the way you want them to be.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Although, I don't agree with the percentage .. this money is earmarked for *GLOBAL* AIDS education and prevention. So, using American or developed world examples isn't exactly making a proper point.


I would imagine in places like Kenya and Ghana there isn't many organizations trying to convey this message to the masses. It definitely has it's place in AIDS prevention, but probably not to this degree.

 

[Phoenix]

Yes. Not only is it a waste, it is DUMB.

You deal with the way things ARE, not the way you want them to be.

Not really, you spend money to get things to the way you want them to be while also spending money to address the way things are. From this article it appears that they are doing just that, spending 2/3rd of the money to deal with the way things are and 1/3rd to get things to the way they want them to be. I don't think their particular method makes sense, but the idea of only fighting a fire and not dealing with ways to stop fires from happening is silly and keeps you in the status quo.

 

[Triumph]

Not really, you spend money to get things to the way you want them to be while also spending money to address the way things are. From this article it appears that they are doing just that, spending 2/3rd of the money to deal with the way things are and 1/3rd to get things to the way they want them to be. I don't think their particular method makes sense, but the idea of only fighting a fire and not dealing with ways to stop fires from happening is silly and keeps you in the status quo.

Listen- people like to fuck. People are going to continue to like to fuck no matter what you tell them. So you might as well tell them to fuck with a condom on instead of just telling them "don't fuck till you're married!". Especially underdeveloped countries.

 

[APF]

I think abstinence and fidelity programs would definitely be good if their message was along the lines of, "don't fuck hookers--and definitely don't fuck 'em raw, moron."

They don't let me coordinate many faith-based charities however...

 

[krypt0nian]

I think abstinence and fidelity programs would definitely be good if their message was along the lines of, "don't fuck hookers--and definitely don't fuck 'em raw, moron."

They don't let me coordinate many faith-based charities however...

Yet your methodologies would have more lasting effects. You should apply.

 

[xsarien]

Although, I don't agree with the percentage .. this money is earmarked for *GLOBAL* AIDS education and prevention. So, using American or developed world examples isn't exactly making a proper point.


I would imagine in places like Kenya and Ghana there isn't many organizations trying to convey this message to the masses. It definitely has it's place in AIDS prevention, but probably not to this degree.

When the approach is to prevent AIDS by preaching "No sex before marriage," then yes, it's quite a waste

We're humans: We eat, shit, fuck, and die. The best prevention given those circumstances is to teach people how to do it safely.

 

[Azih]

It's a problem for 2 reasons

1) It's not effective, the money should be spent in other programs
2) Any organisation that preaches while providing aid shouldn't get one cent of assistance from ANYONE

 

[DCharlie]

just give me all the cash, Mr Bush...

here is my genius plan...

we'll all get together and PRAY that AIDS goes away.

I'm sure if we pray hard enough then it'll be fine.

What a tightrope christians must walk : be fruitful and multiply, but for christ sake don't think about sex!

 

[Mandark]

This is a problem because the money is not being spent based on the most effective way to fight AIDS in Africa, but based on someone's personal moral standpoint on sex. It's politics undercutting policy.