2 of 3

"They're definitely on the run, and the military is at the point now that they can just shoot without worrying about hitting hostages," missionary Jodi Crane told the Post after meeting with Gracia. "But they've got a pretty big job cut out for them. It's easy for the Abu Sayyaf to drop the guns, change clothes and blend in with the farmers."

Also notable in the Post story is one unnamed Philippine official's remark that the presence of the U.S. military in the country has staunched collusion between corrupt military officers and the Abu Sayyaf. "Something seems to have changed," the official said. "It looks like the U.S. presence has brought in more integrity."

Meanwhile, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is busy defending the military's rescue attempt Friday. At a wake for slain hostage Ediborah Yap, Agence France-Presse reports, the president "was given the cold shoulder … by grieving residents." Priest Cirilo Nacorda, for former Abu Sayyaf hostage, was one of the critics. "How can you call it successful? What is their measure? It took more than a year, and then this," he said, pointing at Yap's coffin.

President Arroyo is standing firm. "Our military commanders made the right call," she told a news conference yesterday. "They made the correct call." She criticized media who called the rescue attempt "a botched job."

The U.S. government is now adding morale support to the weapons and military trainers it already sent to the country. "The heroes are the hostages, the three of them—the two who died and the one who survived—and the AFP, particularly the Scout Rangers," Ambassador Francis Ricciardone said. "No one should try to suggest that the rescue was bungled or botched in any way; these guys are heroes, they are brave and skillful. And the criminals are the Abu Sayyaf."

Study finds evidence of discrimination against faith-based groups
A study released yesterday finds that the government does discriminate against faith-based programs in the selection of groups to fund. Those groups that are funded, however, do not experience interference from the government or a loss of religious freedom.

"Working Faith" looks specifically at welfare-to-work programs in Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago, and Philadelphia. The study, commissioned by the Manhattan Institute and the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society, considers 500 welfare-to-work programs and analyzes how the faith-based organizations differ from their government-run, for-profit, or secular non-profit counterparts.

Other findings include:

• The Bush administration's faith-based initiative is merely an extension of current practice. Fifty percent of all faith-based welfare-to-work programs receive federal funds. These monies make up 50 percent of budgets of less-religious groups and 30 percent of those with deeper integration of religious elements into their work.
  
  
• There is evidence of discrimination against faith-based groups in the disbursement of funds. For instance, 21 percent of all faith-based programs who applied for funding were turned down compared to a 7 percent ratio for secular nonprofits.
  
  
• Only three out of 60 faith-based programs reported reducing religious practices as a result of receiving federal funds. However, nearly 40 percent of programs have an internal policy not to apply for federal funds because of such fears.

John DiIulio, former head of the White House Office for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and now with the Manhattan Institute, told The Washington Times that the study might be the best data yet collected on faith-based organizations.

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

June (Web-only) 2002, Vol. 46