As HIV and STDs explode globally, most HIV/AIDS-related programmes aim to build and strengthen community capacities to cope with infections. Within communities, there are various institutions, each built over a period of time by common beliefs. Principal among these is religion.

While a small segment of individuals propound atheism, a majority of people are born into and brought up in an environment that believes in religion. Religions have contributed to human development by structuring the lives of men and women through different codes. These codes often evolved in the absence of secular and other penal codes and played an important role in enforcing societal discipline.

People living with HIV/AIDS (PHAs) seek support and comfort to adjust to an infection that is presumably life-long. Yet communities continue to condemn men and women living with HIV as deserving of the infection because they are considered "immoral". Condemning them prevents others from seeking information about HIV/AIDS. Also, under the guise of religion, some community members tend to control the content of health education. They prescribe "moral living" (abstinence and fidelity) as the only solution for the HIV pandemic.

Is this prescription a real solution in a world where the pattern of spread is predominantly sexual? Should not religions also support the global consensus for promoting condom use wherever information and education programmes focusing on abstinence and fidelity have made little or no impact? All people need to know more about HIV/AIDS, a disease about which currently millions are ignorant and/or harbour prejudiced opinions, as well as access to preventive methods such as condom use.

The poet Robert Burns observed that "Morality, thou deadly bane, thy tens of thousands thou has slain". What is morality in the context of sexual relationships? Is it to be defined as not having sex before or outside marriage? Or should it be defined as having enough respect for one's partners so as to not put them at risk of HIV/STD infection?

Perhaps there will never be unanimous agreement on the definition. Sociologists have demonstrated the existence of dual standards - the personal and the public - in adhering to established "morals". This implies that individuals set for themselves different codes of conduct, which may or not may not be acceptable to others. Therefore educators and counsellors must refrain from "moralizing" while offering people different options to protect themselves and others.

Ostracizing individuals is not sanctioned by religious laws. In fact, religious edicts forbid stigmatization, discrimination, prejudice and ill-treatment. Religions in general expound tolerance and are founded on a universal belief that each of us has a duty to support everyone who is suffering and to help them obtain the best possible care and best available treatment.

This suggests that religion can play a significant role in making HIV an acceptable social condition. Tolerance and acceptance are keys to social harmony and are effective tools against stigmatization, discrimination and prejudice against PHAs.

HIV prevention calls for multisectoral, multi-institutional collaboration. A venerable institution such as religion cannot stand apart as a non-participant, either on the grounds of edict or morality. There are excellent examples of how religion has restored respect, dignity and understanding for those living with HIV. Increasing numbers of projects by religious groups provide psychological and medical care for PHAs. We must find ways to encourage collaboration between them and secular groups to expand coverage and offer people different options to protect themselves and deal with the effects of the epidemic.