Amy Alkon at The Advice Goddess ("syndicated advice columnist, journalist, author and blogger ") voiced a reasonable critique.
Money quote(s):
"(F)unding mosques (run by extremists in Egypt, for the most part) shows weakness, it does not "build bridges," as the State Department claims."
Given all the different things we can reasonably aid and assist with funding in a Third World country like Egypt, are mosques really the smartest choices?
7/28
4 comments:
The Ambassador's Fund for Cultural Preservation funds restoration projects for historical sites around the world. In many, if not most, countries, history and religion go hand and hand, and the most significant historical sites in need of restoration are thus religious in nature.
If you look at the statistics, the AFCP funds restoration of more churches than mosques.
Now, if you are making the argument that the AFCP is a waste of money compared to other uses of federal money, okay--but no need to single out the mosque projects any more than the churches & other AFCP projects.
@Seigs: You make two fair points.
Unfortunately, funding for Egyptian mosques coming from the "Christian" U.S. is likely to be both perceived, and propagandized, in Muslim Brotherhood (and Salafist) circles as "jizya." That is, the tax or tribute owed to Islam by conquered or (otherwise inferior) infidels.
Just curious: I assume your statistic about AFCP is worldwide. How does it hold up in the Egyptian context? That is, do we grant funds to, say, a tenth as many churches as mosques, the Copts being 10 percent of Egypt's population?
Lastly, that argument is implied. Given that something like 40 percent of the federal budget is now borrowed money, from the Chinese (both Mainland Communist and Taiwan/diasporan, among others), is this one of the things that we really ought to retire from doing until we're running budget surpluses again?
Thanks for commenting!
CAA: I don't know the statistics in Egypt off the top of my head. I'd venture a guess that the fund has not funded Coptic churches in Egypt.
Every year, the State Department holds an international competition for AFCP funding. As I understand the process, the Department judges applications based on historical & cultural significance & relevance to the goals of the mission. Religious significance, to my knowledge, does not play a role in the judging.
Given what I have learned about you from your posts, I doubt you would support a religious quota when it comes this kind of funding instead of judging against the historic / cultural value of each individual project. Do you think the Department should attempt to diversify its ACFP projects based on the religious composition of the country in question? For instance, following the logic of your Coptic question, would you like to see a small percentage of the projects funded in Europe dedicated to mosques since Muslims make up a small minority in those countries?
I honestly don't know the answer to your last question--I think you can make an argument for these types of "diplomacy by good deeds" projects, but I am not sure whether the ends justify the means.
Post a Comment