Usikkerhed om fortolkningen af visse bestemmelser i lovgivningen omkring USAs udviklingsbistand har skabt forvirring i overgangen mellem George W. Bush’ og Barack Obamas præsidentperioder.
Det er nødvendigt med en juridisk adskillelse mellem ‘indirekte’ og ‘direkte’ religiøst betinget udviklingsbistand, skriver IRINNEWS
NEW YORK: 24 March 2010: From the first day of his presidency, George W. Bush made it a priority to provide faith-based organizations, including those abroad, with greater opportunities to receive government money. In 2006, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) awarded 552 million US dollar to such groups, rising to 586 million in 2007.
But the initiative did not come without its share of controversy. Civil libertarians worried about violations to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” According to federal regulations, USAID is required to refrain from providing financial assistance to organizations that engage in “inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization”.
(…)
The report descri-bed the phrase “inherently religious” as confusing.
“For example, some might consi-der the provision of a hot meal to a needy person an ‘inherently religi-ous’ act when it is undertaken from a sense of religious motivation or obligation, even though it has no overt religious content.”
In a taskforce report issued on 23 February, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs – an independent think-tank – urged the US government to act promptly to clear up “uncertainty surrounding the limits of the Establishment Clause”.
Confusion over the application of the Establishment Clause, “appears to be impeding foreign policy in some significant ways”.
Læs videre i historien via nedenstående link.
