Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Is the U.S. Building Mosques Abroad?
Posted by Bruce VanWyngarden on Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:14 AM
In my editor's column last week, I wrote about the controversy regarding the building of a mosque near Ground Zero. As one might expect, the column drew lots of comments (62, the last time I checked). One of our regular commmenters, CHG, at first claimed that President Obama admitted to being Muslim, and attached a link to a George Stephanopoulos interview (in which it was clear, the president did not claim to be Muslim). In later comments, he sent a links — one from Reverend Moon's Washington Times and another from a right-wing website — that decried the fact that the U.S. was spending tax-payer dollars to "build" mosques around the world.
Upon researching the issue, I learned that there indeed is a federal aid program that spends our tax dollars on foreign mosques (among many other kinds of structures in other countries). Here is a summation from the conservative website, Daily Caller:
Nicole Thompson, a State Department spokeswoman, told The Daily Caller that the U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation is a type of diplomatic effort and outreach, what she says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls “soft power.”
“It is helping to preserve our cultural heritage. It is not just to preserve religious structures,” Thompson said. “It is not to preserve a religion. It is to help us as global inhabitants preserve cultures.”
In a document provided on Monday to Indiana Republican Sen. Richard G. Lugar, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the State Department explained that the practice of funding such projects became acceptable in 2003 when the Justice Department declared that the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause did not preclude federal funds from going to preserve religious structures if they had cultural importance.
So let's review, shall we? The Cultural Preservation program was started by the Bush administration in 2003, vetted by a Republican Congress, and approved by John Ashcroft's Justice Department. But now that the Democrats (and the dreaded combo of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) are in power, this has become yet another false cause celebre for right-wing websites and other media to demonstrate how Obama is a Muslim terrorist sympathizer.
Getting to the bottom of these issues takes time and a little research, which is what conservative mouth-pieces (and website commenters) hope we won't do. And sadly, for a large number of those who are predisposed to buy into this right-wing malarky, they are correct.
Comments (41)
Showing 1-25 of 41
Bruce, facts and digging for the truth don't matter. The right wing strategy is to continue to repeat falsehoods until it becomes, as you say, a meme. Then of course, denigrate anyone or any entity which debunks the original assertion as "biased." The Big Lie....repeat...repeat...repeat....
like
dislike
All this is a smoke screen to cover the fact that Obama wants to kill my granny. Don't kill granny!
Shouldn't everyone be against this?
The right should be upset money is going to a mosque.
The left should be upset that money is going from the state to a church.
JDF, I agree with you 100 percent. This is a boondoggle and a waste of tax dollars, liberal or conservative.
Also, given the fact that this program was set up during the Bush administration, I suspect those "reconstruction" contracts around the world are pretty sweet. A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon we're talking about real money. I say let each country take care of their own historic buildings. We've got lots of better uses for that money here at home.
One question that struck me, Bruce...are you saying that Lugar was requesting this information from the State Department? Geezus, the guy has been in the Senate since 1976 and was Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from 1985-1987 and from 2003-2007! Shouldn't he have already known this???
I like the fact that real libertarians believe government and religion should be totally separate, don't you, charles?
Another reason to put fiscally conservative people into office and if they do not hold to their principles YANK 'EM OUT!!
Packrat, one can hold to a particular party and not adhere to every single piont they promote. Religion and government are inescapable concepts. All legislated law presupposes a moral base; and this moral foundation represents someone(s)ideology or religion. a religion is more than an admiration for a deity or leader; it entails adherence to several tenets of reality, i.e. epistemology (how we gather knowledge), ethics, and explanations of why natural law is uniform to justify scientific probability. The laws we have against theft, murder, slander, libel, etc. are a reflection of morality. The question isn't religion or no religion, but whose religion do we legislate?
Well, it worked, he bit on it......btw, all legislated law presupposes consent of the governed, and like Einstein said to his cousin: it's all relative.
"Religion... entails adherence to several tenets of reality."
This statement is an example of:
A) an oxymoron
B) cognitive dissonance
C) irony
4) let's do the mind warp again
I would have published Alex's piece from the DC
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/31/the-root…
cdog, imo, he's way off base. I'm definitely a liberal/libertarian when it comes to social issues, and I can only speak for myself, but I dislike triumphalist fundamentalist religious movements of any stripe, not just God's Own Party types. That includes Islam when joined with the power of the state . To paraphrase Mark Twain (what a fine American he was) whether my neighbor worships Jesus, Allah, or goats, does not harm me in any way. Just don't try to force it on me or my kids (through government-sponsored public school indoctrination/prayer). The reason why right wing CHristianity gets the ire of the Left in this country vs. other religions is that they're the ones who consistently try to give their faith a special status in America and relegate everyone else's to second class. And they have the political clout to make it happen if not opposed. Since Muslims in the U.S. make up, what? 2% of the country?, they hardly have the standing to force anything on anybody else. If they start trying that, I'll buts their chops as well. As long as they are responsible citizens, and worship their religion in a manner consistent with our CIVIC virtues, I have no problem with them. So far, the vast majority of them do so.
What is stored in those spires? Is that where the forty theives keep their loot?
if a libertarian candidate would come forward and make what Packrat posted a pillar of his candidacy - every bit as important as free markets and fiscal responsibility - i'd vote for him/her in a second.
Being a libertarian sounds good, until you start receiving The Limbaugh Newsletter and a copy of "How to be a republican, and deny it publicly".
I know too many people who claim to be libertarian but really believe it means "I get to do whatever I want, and you get to do whatever I want you to do."
yeah. when i'm honest with myself i know you're both right. i guess Ron Paul would be the closest thing to a viable "libertarian" there is, and his constant to the point of obnoxiousness refrain of leaving every semi-difficult decision "to the states" is a cop-out, imo. yeah dude, if we 'left it to the states', black citizens in some parts of the South would still be unable to vote.
Packrat, For you to say, 'Well, it worked, he bit on it.' What you're doing here is to make it sound like you were only playing a bait-game of some sort to justify your false belief that there is an absolute neutrality in regards to politics.
'all legislated law presupposes consent of the governed' And this consent is a compilation of belief systems in which one will win-out over another, or a combination thereof.
'and like Einstein said to his cousin: it's all relative.' Then your claims are merely relative also.
wvfii, Paul doesn't say to leave it all to the States. He acknowledges certain powers that the Constitution gives to the Federal Government, which are very limited; the operation of post offices, the building of roads and means of travel, a military, coin and mint money, promote the progress of science and useful arts, securing copyright laws, to declare war, and that is about it. Health, education, and welfare programs are roles for the State and/or the people.
CHG - Ron Paul has stated explicitly that the question of gay marriage - a fundamental question of constitutional equality if there ever was one - should be left to the states. That is a cop out. He has used a similar deflection maneuver any time unconstitutional breaches of the separation of church and state (which I realize you like to pretend does not exist) come up - e.g. prayer in schools, Christian iconography on public grounds, etc.. His refrain: "leave it to the states". Again, cop out. And while I can't claim to know how he personally feels about the Federal imposition of civil rights during the 60s, the skeletons in his closet do him no favors:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/pau…
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
