Mosque Makeovers With Your Tax Dollar

[Rockstar]

http://www.wsbtv.com/video/25764282/index.html

Federal tax dollars to rebuild religious institutions in foreign lands of all places. And to top it off provide them internet access too to help spread their cause. Either we're blind & stupid or in league with the lot of them.

[yubba]

And they still hate us, and will kill us at a drop of a hat.:nope:

[gimpy117]

well we probably shoulda thought of this before we spent all that time wheeling around the middle east blowing stuff up.

[krashkart]

Bets on when the next part of the story involves contractor funding being paid to local warlords? :yeah:

[Growler]

http://www.wsbtv.com/video/25764282/index.html

Federal tax dollars to rebuild religious institutions in foreign lands of all places. And to top it off provide them internet access too to help spread their cause. Either we're blind & stupid or in league with the lot of them.

Yeah, it's much better to let them hate us for destroying all their stuff in the first place, and not try to do anything about it.

What's the big deal? We're not waiting in food lines with ration books. We're not out of gas. We're not dropping off pantyhose for military use, or donating old pots and pans to make airplanes.

Americans support the war, right? So... that's gotta mean more than a yellow ribbon magnet on a car. It means someone's got to foot the bill for the consequences of the war as much as the waging of it, and so far, I haven't once seen a line of my 1040 that says, "War Supply Fund (Optional)."

This was and is a war. With it comes costs. We, as the nation in the war, bear the responsibility of paying those costs - even if we don't agree with them, it is our nation, acting - ostensibly - on our behalf.

The America I was raised in provides for freedom of religious expression and freedom of the press. We destroyed their holy grounds - denying them that freedom, and limit their access to information, denying them that. Would it be better to be hated for being us, or being hated for being us and denying others the freedoms we claim to hold dear?

The Internet is a dangerous place, where all sorts of groups can spread their hate, right here in the US. Should we eliminate that danger here as well, if it's so bad?

[Tribesman]

Federal tax dollars to rebuild religious institutions in foreign lands of all places.
The article says Egyptian churches and mosques benefit from not being flooded by raw sewage as tax dollars has rebuilt the Cairos sewage system.
How does that become "rebuild religious institutions"?

Wow internet in Mali, thats the place where they have been setting up the fight against an al-qaida influx since the Afghan invasion isn't it, I wonder why they are playing nice with the locals?

[yubba]

I don' t remember invade-ing Egypt , damn mushrooms.

[Lord_magerius]

Wow tax dollars going to other countries, who would think such a thing could happen. And they're building mosques with it oh noes! We're funding the evil enemy and such. *yawns*

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The America I was raised in provides for freedom of religious expression and freedom of the press. We destroyed their holy grounds - denying them that freedom, and limit their access to information, denying them that. Would it be better to be hated for being us, or being hated for being us and denying others the freedoms we claim to hold dear?

It allows freedom of religion, as I understand it. It shouldn't be supporting religion. Which means sure you can build a mosque with your own money. The government can't build a mosque with taxpayer's money.

[Lord_magerius]

It allows freedom of religion, as I understand it. It shouldn't be supporting religion. Which means sure you can build a mosque with your own money. The government can't build a mosque with taxpayer's money.

But it's perfectly fine to build churches with the same money? :hmmm:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

But it's perfectly fine to build churches with the same money? :hmmm:

No. I hadn't heard about the American "Bible-belt" getting so brazen as to trash 1st Amendment in this manner, but if they did it is still wrong.

[Lord_magerius]

No. I hadn't heard about the American "Bible-belt" getting so brazen as to trash 1st Amendment in this manner, but if they did it is still wrong.

How is this trashing the 1st amendment? Freedom of speech unless someone of darker skin complexion says something about the good ol' U S of A!
I appreciate your comments about trashing the 1st amendment, but IMHO I can't really see where you're coming from.
Probably because I'm from the UK or some other form of excuse etc...
But don't worry, I don't really care about our soldiers, and looking at the casualty rates neither do your half assed, yee haw, yeah I gots meeees a kill army. yeah 15% of british soldiers are coming home in body bags because some random gun nut from Iowa decides that they are taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaliban.
"Derp I got me a real kicker!"
Sorry to derail the thread but it all comes back to the same thing.

[Growler]

It allows freedom of religion, as I understand it. It shouldn't be supporting religion. Which means sure you can build a mosque with your own money. The government can't build a mosque with taxpayer's money.

I understand - more to my point, though, was this: If our actions (as a military) were a part of the denial of anothers' right to free expression of faith, then, as a nation that prides itself on that free expression of faith, the right thing to do would be to rebuild that which we destroyed. To do otherwise risks branding our actions - legitimately or not - as wars on anothers' religious freedom.

Your post helped me clarify my original statement, for which I thank you, because I totally agree with the last part of your comment: I want no part of government sponsored religion.

[Tribesman]

It allows freedom of religion, as I understand it. It shouldn't be supporting religion. Which means sure you can build a mosque with your own money. The government can't build a mosque with taxpayer's money.
Religious institutions can get the same building grants from the taxpayer as anyone else.

[Rockstar]

Tribesman do you mind quoting the USC that you say allows tax payers money to be used in this manner?

"In July 2009, the Office of the Inspector General published an audit of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) faith-based and community initiatives that examined whether government funds were being used for religious activities. The auditors found that while USAID was funding some religious activities, officials were “uncertain of whether such uses of Agency funding violate Agency regulations or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution” when balanced against foreign-policy objectives.

For example, our government rebuilt the Al Shuhada Mosque in Fallujah, Iraq, expecting such benefits as

“stimulating the economy, enhancing a sense of pride in the community, reducing opposition to international relief organizations operating in Fallujah, and reducing incentives among young men to participate in violence or insurgent groups.”

But Section 205.1(d) of title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations prohibits USAID funds from being used for the rehabilitation of structures to the extent that those structures are used for “inherently religious activities.” It is impossible to separate religion from a mosque; any such projects will necessarily support Islam."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/10/tax-dollars-to-build-mosques/

[Tribesman]

Tribesman do you mind quoting the USC that you say allows tax payers money to be used in this manner?


you quote it yourself.
Each of the mosques in Iraq is not a inherantly religious issue its a community issue, the Egyption sewer project and its associated works is a health issue, the old cathedral/mosque in Cyprus is a heritage and culture issue and the internet in Mali is an infrastructure and educational issue.

Its the same code that says you can lecture foriegn people about the bible if you can dress it up as health education:yeah:

[tater]

The question I suppose would be if US tax dollars would be allowed to refurbish a church here in the States for historical reasons, for example. Have taxpayers funded repairs on the Old North Church (of Paul Revere fame)?

That said, why put internet access in a mosque in North Africa? It's OK in my book as long as we get to be root and read all their stuff and know what they are looking at.

[nikimcbee]

I thought the translation of mosque into english was:Weapons cache:shifty:

[Sailor Steve]

The question I suppose would be if US tax dollars would be allowed to refurbish a church here in the States for historical reasons, for example. Have taxpayers funded repairs on the Old North Church (of Paul Revere fame)?
Not even just for historical reasons. If a chuch is one of the buildings destroyed by natural disaster it doesn't violate any Church/State bans to repair those buildings along with all the others.

[tater]

Not even just for historical reasons. If a chuch is one of the buildings destroyed by natural disaster it doesn't violate any Church/State bans to repair those buildings along with all the others.

I'd think FEMA would be "colorblind" in that sense.

It's perfectly valid to discuss not funding any such foreign aid. I tend to think that we should expect something tangible in return for any foreign aid given. Vote against us in the UN—no more aid. Your state propaganda, erm, "press" publishes anti-american diatribes... no aid for you, etc. Can't live with simple terms like that, look elsewhere for your pork.

I'm willing to try the "hearts and minds" thing for a while with no strings, but I think a serious cost-benefit analysis needs to be done, including how it is seen by the locals (as a gift to be thankful for (the only acceptable response, IMHO), or some sort of appeasement).