Yes, Khamenei has ordered the shut down of news agencies with "conflicting" idea's, but soon they all will be internet. The internet is something the government can't control. The passage above is true. However I am betting the current generations grand-children will fix that. Also the since the subject of learning about religions would be taboo, the kids, who detest the government, would probably read it just to rebel. Thanks for the compliment Mango. You can bet I shall keep up my intrest of world politics
It is this type of logic that is leading people to believe that the Patriot Act is the end of civil liberties. I personally know of no Mafia leaders (assuming there is really a Mafia ) blowing themselves up on a bus or hijacking planes. Honestly.
What do you know...we agree. I would have no problem with this were it part of an elective course in comparative religion or Islamic studies or some other elective course. But this is being made compulsory to ALL students. How is this germane to an English course anyway? There will be some students that will find this repugnant...I don't know why...but they will. They should not be forced to read it as a freshman requirement. No 1st Amendment issues...but improper methodology.
When exactly did the English surrender? The last time I opened up the World Book, England was a member of the Allied forces until the end...ergo they never surrendered. Also the countries that did surrender did so because they were overmatched on a military level. Reading Mein Kampf wouldn't have made their military mightier.
Fair enough...my bad. I didn't fully understand his post...I retract. I'm not totally sure that reading Mein Kampf would have changed anything...but I can't prove it wouldn't have either.
Mango, Not for one moment would I see these "Islamic" countries as taking these sort of steps of understanding. But we are the intellectual elite and I believe it is our right and our purpose. The problem with the Islamic world is not the religion, but the culture and manipulation of the religion based on illiteracy. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard than a group of corrupt, fascist style regimes that manipulate religion to maintain an iron grip on their governments. Why do you think so many of these leaders stress religion?? Because they realize they are robbing these countries blind, and wish to divert the attention away from their inefficient, corrupt regimes. You have heads of state that are in place because they are family, a system in which capital does not "trickle-down" and military rule and strict laws about everything to control every facet of their lives in order to rule their nations and cheat their people out of any sort of liberty. With the system we have here in the West, we need to use our literacy and our system of thought and higher learning to read the Koran, and decipher and understand the religion. Of course my opinion is also that very little of the actions of terrorists have to do with religion. They will manipulate religion to fuel their regimes and appeal to the masses, but its just a tool. I for one don't understand why there is a huge "Muslim" militant or "Islamic" terrorist everytime there is a suicide bomber in Palestine. This is a land and liberty issue, that truly has nothing to do with religion except for the holy lands. But even if the lands were not holy to the religions the fighting would still be going on with an expansionist state fighting the people of the land its taking. Quite simple to me. The tactics are deplorable on both sides, but nothing that isn't common in the history of the world.
F.D. Khan, Even if we were able to get half of the US population to read the Quran and be able to explain <i>Mufti</i>, <i>Caliph</i>, <i>Sharia</i> etc , there would still be troubled Islamic countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If we make 99% of the effort to bridge the gap in understanding, while they only move the remaining 1%, won't it mean that we are continuing to be open minded and progressive, while they are still mired in their current situations? As soon as there is a majority Islamic population in a country, there is an urge to implement Sharia law which cuts down on separation of church and state concepts and allows the Mufti to influence political thought.
Mango, The difference is based on perception and understanding of Shariah. Though I truly do not know enough about it to discuss its viability, I do know that the version of it today does not parrallel the historical norms. For years when it was first implemented, it was the most tolerant of others in terms of religious and political freedom and thought, and was one of the first to ever even grant women the rights of suffrage and inheritance over a thousand years ago when it only happened in the United States less than a hundred years ago. I think the lack of education is the problem that is allowing the political and religious "leaders" to manipulate the religion which if understood actually promotes capitalism, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and individualism which I feel is a contrast to the current makeup of the Middle East and or the Muslim world.
Sorry to bring this old thread back, but I hadn't seen this post and I'm so bored these days I could almost talk about a big ass Gordita (and I'm vegan). Students are "required" to learn about all sorts of things. Some are "required" to learn about Tom Sawyer, some Jane Eyre, some Ulysses. The fact that this is a religious text really doesn't infringe on the separation of Church and State. Requiring a student to salute or embrace a particular religion does. That was the argument against the pledge, and it's a solid one. Ref: The students whom you theorized might be offended (for reasons you said you didn't understand) have no basis for such offense. I have no problem requiring students to learn about all religions, from Islam to Christianity to Greek Mythology. Religion, like philosophy, art and science, is an important phenomenon in our society. The problem comes when you require someone to violate their beliefs (or un-beliefs). Learning about or reading about a religion doesn't do this in any way, unless your particular belief system hinged on willfull ignorance.
Good points. I should add that I don't think this is that bad, but of course I don't think the pledge is bad at all. That's why I said I thought the NC thing was "much worse". What particular religion are you referring to with the pledge?
I don't necessarily quarel with you about this. I think that courses like this should be available, but not mandatory. If somebody wishes to remain ignorant about religion that is their right. It does not mean they won't be good engineers, accountants or meteorologists. The role of the college is to prepare the student to go into their chosen field. Especially troublesome about this is that it is put in the guise of an English course. That just makes it look like they are trying to sneak it in under the radar. Not good.
Refman: I'm not aware of any college which requires only those courses relating to a student's major. Far as I know, all colleges require core courses, such as English, and if you want to get an engineering degree, you have to take those courses. I really don't think they were trying to sneak anything in. When you take an English course, you are required to read certain books. Some of those books might be on subjects that bore you and some might be on subjects that offend you. There was a time Moliere was banned. More recently Mark Twain was. That's all on account of certain trends. Like the neo-patriot one which inspired this flacid debate. If an English teacher, or even if all of them, deem a religious text relevant to a literature course and choose to require it, they've done nothing to violate Church and State. They can only do that by requiring them to practice religion. There's nothing the least bit sketchy teaching it as literature or even presenting the writers' views, only in teaching those views as fact. I'd have no problem with the Bible, Mein Kampf, various Greek mythology texts or even the Satanic Bible being required reading in a literature class, assuming they would be taught as literature. I was required to read Lolita in college. All of us were. In an English class. I am opposed to pedophilia, but I didn't feel like being required to read about it infringed on my rights as an American or as someone opposed to pedophilia. I mean, that should be even worse, right? I don't think anyone from this college's opposition is prepared to say they're opposed because they're opposed to Islam. Americans have a right to freedom of religion, which means they should be free to practice whichever religion (if any) they choose and should not be forced to practice one they'd rather not. No foul here. They also have both the right to an education and the right to be ignorant. As I said in the beginning, I'm not aware of a college which allows you to pursue an undergrad degree in your chosen field but to refuse to study anything you might find distasteful. If you wish to study engineering, but refuse to study English on the grounds that you find the reading list offensive (frankly due to religious bigotry, spurred on by the new patriotism), then you need to find a college without core courses, one at which you like and agree with the reading list, or learn it at home over the internet. Rather than being an attempt by lefty English teachers to force Islam down the throats of hot blooded Americans, this feels more to me like another gust of hot air from the post-9/11 neo-patriot class. If a public university was requiring students to violate their beliefs as a condition for their education, it would not be allowed and this would be over by now. That's not happening. This is a non-issue. Where's the anti-lawsuit crowd when a really stupid case comes around? Oh, right. Hanging with the neo-patriots...
I doubt you would have a problem with it. You're a fair person. But you can't honestly tell me that if it were the Bible on the reading list that the ACLU and other groups wouldn't be marching to Chapel Hill to file countless lawsuits. As I said you are fair...a lot of others on the left are not fair. It is your fairness that has earned my respect. I actually would have had a problem with this before 9/11, so it can't really be reconciled that way. Maybe it wouldn't have been "newsworthy," but I don't care about what is deemed worthy of my attention by the media. I don't think they have violated the First Amendment. I think I said that before. I simply disagree with this being a required text. For the record...I don't think the Bible should be required text in any other place than a theology course either. That's a big assumption. The next time somebody sues over the pledge even though their daughter has no problem with it or somebody sues McDonald's because fries are bad for you don't worry my friend...I will be here.
I can assure you the ACLU has no problem with the Bible being taught in literature courses. Sections of it have been required reading in lit courses before and there was no lawsuit. Refman, I don't doubt you. I take you at your word that you'd oppose this with or without recent events. But this lawsuit absolutely would not have happened without 9/11. I think we can agree on that. And if it had teeth, before or after 9/11, it would have been brought by the ACLU. I don't think I need to tell you to check the record, but for those who don't know the ACLU has staked out unpopular positions on both sides of the aisle, in the interest of preserving civil liberties. None are being violated here, and that's why they're not the ones suing. I don't know why you say it's a big assumption to say a lit prof would be teaching writing from a lit perspective. Do you think everyone at Chapel Hill is an Islamic crusader? Refman, in another recent thread you are posting in favor of fathers' rights. What about the right to protect your daughter from pledging allegiance to a god your family doesn't recognize as holy, whether she has a "problem" with it or not? You apparently think the pledge thing is no big deal. I can only assume that's because you have no problem with children being required to pledge allegiance to that particular god. Let me get you straight now: You think a lawsuit against reading about a religion is valid, but a lawsuit against requiring allegiance to a nation "under God" is frivilous. Am I reading you right? What if the pledge went "one nation, under Allah?" If you didn't want your five year old Christian (or agnostic) child saying that, would you be in the wrong?
I think I need to spell out the facts here. The child in question is being raised in a Christian home and she believes in God. Dr. Nednow filed the suit alleging that his child was injured by saying the pledge. This is simply not the case. Dr. Nednow is likely guilty of perjury even though he will likely never be prosecuted. Bad example. Both sides of the aisle have mentioned "Constitutional amendment" to ensure that this judicial decision is never rendered again. Besides...whether people like it or not this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Look at our laws...it's clear. To allow this decision to stand would be to render unconstitutional our money and all of our founding documents which mention God or "the Creator." This really shouldn't be controversial. Of course not. I would teach my child our beliefs and they would act accordingly. There is a big difference between having the pledge read for recital and requiring that every child says it. when I was in school if you had a religious objection to the pledge you didn't even have to stand for its recital. It's allowing the majority to rule while respecting monority rights. That's called democracy.
Ref, you know this case and I don't. I defer to you on it's particulars. The basic case against the inclusion of "under God" is solid and I'm happy to debate that, but I have not studied the Nednows or their religious background and I don't think that any facts of their personal leanings should prejudice the basic argument. The fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles is not nearly so important as the fact it was founded largely in the interest of religious freedom. If we ever needed proof not everything in this country is beholden to majority rule, we got it in the last presidential election, when the candidate who got half a million more votes "lost." If 99 out of 100 kids in a public school want to pray (to Yahweh or Allah or David Koresh or just an unnamed higher power), it is not okay to do it. You know this. You might disagree, but you know it to be a fact of constitutional law as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court. In cases of separation of Church and State, the majority does not enjoy special privileges. But then, I'm not a lawyer. Sometimes I think it might be fun. Is it, Refman? How do you think I'd do? I can't keep this theater jazz up forever...
Even the Miami Herald (a noted liberal paper) has come out and said Bush won. We could debate the electoral college...but that would go on for days. If you look at the history, they were trying to flee a system that would imprison them for not being in the Anglican church. They were not seeking a world "sanitized" from God. I don't know why we don't look at the history of the Constitution before declaring its meaning. Being fair here...I also don't think the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to have an AK-47. In any event, the religious freedom they were seeking was not to wipe out the majority but to have a country where they wouldn't have their churches closed and their physical liberty taken from them for not ascribing to the state religion. It has its days...but on the whole not really. It's better than a lot of jobs I've had though. Honestly, I think you'd be fantastic. We agree on a few things, but not many. You are a worthy adversary though. The force is strong with this one. If you are really interested in being a lawyer, we can talk about it in depth sometime.
