... or the good outcomes celebrated and the not-so-good outcomes questioned. Taking a uniform view seems to ignore reality. It really depends on who receives the aid and how it's used, the predictable parts of which the aider should hold some responsibility towards. So foreign aid sent to a country which is in dire need and where the aid is properly used to address the needs is good. The stated intention may be good, but the devil is in the detail. No one with bad intentions ever has or ever will come out and say "I intend for this aid to be used in a very unethical way." If for example I send money to the Afghani government as aid knowing that much of it will go into the pockets of terrorists or drug cartels, then my intention of helping the Afghani people is just a really convenient excuse for funding terrorists and drug cartels. We determine the sincerity by comparing predictable outcomes vs intentions, and we are fools if we don't do this given the historically known propensity of such people to embelish or lie about the truth.
Is this your first time on this forum? If you don't clearly state your point of view on the topic you are starting a thread on, then it's pretty reasonable to assume you agree with whatever you are posting. And I'm all for preserving historical monuments, 1300 and 900 year old mosques? That is history worth preserving.
I agree with you that foreign aid needs to be looked at carefully but I think in principle such aid for repairing cultural / historical sites isn't a bad thing. When I was in Cambodia last year every single site was being restored with foreign aid and many of these ancient temples were also being actively used as temples by current monks. Regarding the issue of separation of church and state giving money for restoration doesn't violate that if the basis of it is for the purpose of preserving culture rather than advancing the religion. I have yet to hear anyone claim that the US government is advancing Buddhism because US money has gone to help rebuild the Bayon temple in Cambodia.
As far as I'm concerned, this is an investment to improve our image in the Muslim world. Part of the battle to win "hearts and minds" over there. I wouldn't be surprised if this was going on during the Bush administration too.
You do realize that mostly everyone sees you as a joke, right? You come off as a nice guy sometimes but you're the guy I wanted to punch in the face while I was attending Baylor.
I admit that I can take things a bit too far. But I was just reading a good news story that I believe shows that a majority of Muslims are not the extremists that we see regularly in the news...( a little off track, but what the heck...) http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news...y-to-accept-infidel-as-jakartas-leader/546530 Imagine that, the most populous Islamic nation voting for someone for their track record and integrity (and an ethnic Chinese Christian), and not because he is a hard line Islamist sharia fanatic. There is good and bad in every race, religion and country. I admit that when I posted the OP I was a bit angry that the Obama administration was throwing money at radical Islamic states and rebuilding mosques in countries where they are burning churches, I saw it as a bit of hypocrisy...(see the bolder text) but I am a lover of history and agree with preserving historic cultural icons... Is it OK to admit that my keyboard was working a little faster than my brain on this one? Is it OK to admit that maybe on this one... Spoiler Wrong? ???? Edit: I still believe that if you are going to throw cash at one religious institution and rebuild their places of worship, the same should be done for other faiths...fair is fair.
It is a PR outreach campaign. The US has had a long-standing image problem in the Muslim world, which hurts US interests-- doesn't help economic stability to make enemies in the world's biggest oil producing region (or anywhere else, really). So, they are spending a little money to work on the problem. Similar outreach stuff likely happened under Bush (who has made a point to repeated state that the US is not at war with Islam) as well. Probably won't cause a sea change in opinions but it is not a huge amount of money in the bigger scheme of things and every bit helps. Now, I am sure of the US has a big image problem among Cathlics (due to, say, recently invading Costa Rica and having drones bombing and killing Filipinos) and this is causing issues with its international relations, they will do similar things with Catholics, too.
I think we're pretty much saying the same thing, good aid is good aid but we shouldn't close our eyes to the possibility that the stated intention is not genuine or the recipients will not misuse it. I'm generally very uncomfortable with authority giving money to anything religion related. In this case it doesn't violate separation, my concern is mostly the independence of the mosques which are rebuilt - even if they are cultural sites, they will likely have an imam and mosque-goers. As long as no "return on investment" is expected other than a genuine thank you, it's all good.
you act as if this is new. This has been a tactic of war where you go in, provide infrastructure and turn the population to your side you do realize they aren't buildng mosques for the taliban and the people who we have issues with. They are building for general population for their morale and trust to help the fight againsts extremism...not the fight against 'muslims', you should learn the difference
I think we should send foreign governments a special American Express card that has no credit limit and is fully guaranteed by US taxpayers, I would call it the Robin Hood Gold card.
There is a current project underway to do just that. http://news.n7w.com/2011/03/10/remembering-and-restoring-the-buddhas-of-bamiyan/
