conservatives, and critics of Islamic culture have ques- tioned the practice of spending taxpayer dollars to help repair the religious icons of other nations. State Department officials maintain the projects were
part of a broader program to improve relations with other nations by helping them preserve their historic artifacts, regardless of any religious tradition. Funds were also used to preserve early Christian frescoes from the Episcopal Basili- ca in Macedonia; $80,550 went to preserve ruins discovered in an archaeological dig in Jericho; and $94,827 went toward repairs on an 18th century convent in Guatemala City. The legislation for the aide program was passed in the waning days of the Clinton administration. The first mone- tary awards were made during the Bush administration. According to the Annenberg
Public Policy Center of the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania FactCheck. org site, the State Department’s database for 2009 and 2010 shows that 30 mosques and minaret repair projects, and 29 projects to repair churches or cathedrals, were made under Bush. As of 2010, President Barack
$76,135 $62,169 $67,500 $15,450
“To go and repair them for Egypt — when Saudi Ara- U.S.-Funded Projects
to repair the 16th century Grand Mosque in China
to repair a 19th century minaret in Mauritania
to help repair the Golden Mosque in Lahore, Pakistan
Obama’s administration had approved seven mosque renovation projects and 13 church or cathedral renovations. Precisely how much has been spent to repair mosques is difficult to determine. The State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs has stated more than $26 million has been spent on over 640 various cultural preservation proj- ects involving over 100 nations. Critics of the spending suggest most members of Con-
gress probably did not expect the money would be spent on religious facilities when they passed the legislation creating the fund in early 2001. Nonie Darwish, an author born in Egypt who immigrated to the United States, is among those who contend the money could have been “diverted” from its intended use. Darwish tells Newsmax that Islamists “are laughing all
the way to the bank” at the notion American Christians are paying to renovate their historic monuments, some of which may celebrate historic Islamic assaults on Christian- ity. She adds that some of the projects provided computer equipment and Internet access to mosques. Extremists of various stripes, both domestically and abroad, have found the Internet to be a valuable tool for devising and carrying out violent plots.
to restore the Gobarau Minaret, an 18th century structure in Katsina, Nigeria
Examples of U.S. -financed projects to repair Islamic sites abroad include:
bia is sending billions of dollars to the Islamists in Egypt — instead of spending it on repairing the old, ancient mosques, what’s happening is that they are spending it on terrorism and on radicalism,” she says. “And we are saving them the money and taking care of what they should be doing themselves anyway. It’s ridiculous.” So why is the United States government undertaking renovations at religious sites abroad, that, if they were to occur domestically, could provoke an ACLU lawsuit based on the First Amendment’s prohibi- tion against the state establishing a religion? Section 205.1 (d) of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations specifically prohibits spending funds abroad on structures used for “inherently religious activities.” In July 2009, the Inspector Gen-
eral’s office delved into precisely that question. It examined whether taxpayer funds were being spent by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in a way that supported religious activities. According to The Washington
Times, the auditors concluded USAID was funding religious-relat- ed endeavors. But they added they were
“uncertain of whether such uses of Agency funding violate Agency regulations or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.” That uncertainty apparently moved State Department
officials to seek an amendment to the Section 205 rule, con- tending it “unnecessarily and unduly restricts and inter- feres with the ability of USAID to effectively implement the bilateral foreign assistance programs of the United States.” The new proposed rule would expressly permit spend-
ing USAID funds on “the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of structures that are used, in whole or in part, for inherently religious activities,” as long as the grant is provided on a religiously neutral basis, after applying objective criteria. To Darwish, the concern that America’s generosity
could somehow be turned against it by its enemies is part of a larger dilemma being played out as extremists begin to move into the power vacuum created by the so-called “Arab Spring” that ousted several long-standing despots. “America doesn’t have a choice between good and bad in
the Middle East,” she says. “It’s just a choice between bad and worse.”
FEBRUARY 2012 | NEWSMAX 17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92