On Bush v. Gore: I was talking about the electoral college as an example of how this country is a democratic republic, not a democracy, and not always beholden to majority rule. If it were, Gore would be prez, since he got more votes. I also think he'd have easily been prez without butterfly ballots (I know -- the fault of one of our own) and/or black people being denied the right to vote. But that's for another thread (one that will surely surface in 04, if not before). I only meant to defer the majority rule thing. On the letter of our founders' history vs. our modern interpretation of the constitution: We take those most vital principles which make up the constitution and do our best to apply them to modern society. Strict constructionists might never have included freed slaves in the proposition that all "men" were created equal. After all, our founders "owned" them. We correct for our founders as we should do and we should continue to do. Religious freedom includes the freedom FROM religion (which is I think what you started this thread arguing FOR, before it's subject turned to Christianity). Yes, it sprung from a specific situation. Yes, the people who brought the pledge case might have been flawed and might have even been hypocrites. Freedom of religion is still a vital cause. So's freedom from it. I don't really want to be a lawyer. I just like debating them. Mostly cause they're (read: you're) good at it. Sometimes makes me wish I had the training and permission to do it in court. But only sometimes. I like my theater jazz. Thanks for the props though.
We did in the case that you brought up via Constitutional Amendment. That does not ignore the history surrounding the Constitution. If you take the history out of the interpretation, in time the document will be rendered meaningless. The history was not just in the past so we amended it. If some believe that the past surrounding the 1st is not just then we could amend it too. To ignore the history is to give an erroneous reading. Not at all. From a specific faith maybe. But not to "sanitize" God out of the equation. Like I said I have a problem with any religious text for a specific faith (even my own) being required text in a required class. When I was in college, here were the required English courses: ENGL 104 -- Composition ENGL 210 -- Technical Writing I fail to see how a religious text is germane to either of these. Perhaps to a literature class...but then again people CHOOSE to major in English or lit. When I took these classes there were no literary reading assignments. We chose a topic and wrote on it. If somebody chooses to write on religion in these courses, I have no quarrel with that. If there is a reading of the student's writings then people should respect what their peers care enough to have written about. But that's not the case at hand.
The Supreme Court, which leans right, disagrees with you that the emphasis on anecdotal history outweighs the principles in the Constitution. They interpret freedom of religion more broadly, understanding it to mean that no one should be either (a) forced to worship in a way they'd rather not, or (b) be punished in any way for refusing to worship in a way they'd rather not, majority be damned. You know this. This is why it's not okay for public schools to endorse prayers at football games. I don't say it'll always be that way, but it is now. And I, for one, appreciate it. If you want to call it "sanitizing God out of the equation," so be it. Characterize it however you like. The separation of Church and State DOES remove God from state affairs in all meaningful ways. I'm all for removing God from money and our courts. I am an atheist. That is my religious belief. And I enjoy my religious freedom (of and from). If you want me to tell the truth in court, threaten me with perjury. Don't make me swear on a book I view as worthwhile to a literature class and little else.
hmmm, I missed a response to my post. I apologize for the tardiness of this reply then : re : Mein Kampf. It is my conjecture, that Adolf Hitler laid out everything he was planning on doing, in Mein Kampf : From uniting Germany under one supreme ruler, reclaiming Germans who were not living in Germany(4.5 million Germans living in Austria and the Sudetenland), Engage in a final conflict with France, to settle things once and for all, acquire "living Space" at the expense of eastern Europe and Russia and purify the German Race. Everything he did, or set out to do, was explained in vivid, almost nauseating detail, many years before he had the ability to do it. Had the Leadership of these countries - namely France, England, Russia and Poland - read Mein Kampf, I believe they would not have allowed Hitler to pull off the remilitarization of the Rhineland, or the unification of Austria with Germany, or the annexation, and eventual dissolusion of Czechslovakia. I believe they would've made a stand, and possibly resorted to military measures. Had they done so, their massive superiority at that time would've been practically impossible to stop, and I believe Germany would've been defeated. By waiting to take a stand as long as they did, they allowed the balance of the equation to slip into Germany's favor - so that when war did come, they were overmatched. But this is all useless conjecture.
I often disagree with the right. I lean to the right, but I don't always agree with them. There are some parts of the Constitution where the history controls. For instance when determining the right to a jury trial, we look at how it was done at the Old Bailey in 1789. Yet we don't look at the history for other parts of the Constitution. Maybe I'm crazy to want a little consistency. If you think that a student group saying a prayer before a football game is meaningful then we'll just have to disagree on the definition of meaningful. I don't see you suing over it. Maybe it's that you have other things to worry about. These are things that were established by our founders. To consider them unconstitutional without an amendment seems bizarre.
First of all I just want to point out that the students aren't being asked to read the Koran. They are being asked to read a book about Islam. So there's a difference between that and asking students to read the bible. Secondly, I think the problem I have when talking about this country being founded on judeo/christian principles, I disagree with the extent that it's true. We know that Thomas Jefferson was a deist, and opposed many tenants of the Christian Church. In fact Patrick Henry and other of our Founding fathers also opposed much of organized religion. I think our country was founded on Freedom for some, based actually more on Greek ideas about govt. than it was on the bible.
So I suppose that all of the references to the Creator and God in the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents was just one big coincidence?
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html In pertinent part, a few quotes from the document... "...the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..." "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
This is from the Constitution... "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, " Note that they called it in the year of our Lord. I realize that it was common nomenclature, but they could have just said 1789 A.D.
Wait a minute, our rules are from the Constitution, which was mostly written by Jefferson, not the DOI. Sorry. Ref, what were they supposed to write, year one of freedom? Or just follow the Georgian(is this right?) calender
But to ignore the other documents is to ignore the reason for the revolution in the first place. Notice that the DOI was signed by our founders. They ascribed their names to it and they believed in it. It is not just a nicety to be considered irrelevant.
It's not that easy. The English established an official church (the Anglican church). Not a religion, but a specific denomination. Failure to join resulted in imprisonment. Other churches were locked up and closed down. Sometimes they were burned to the ground. Tidings were compulsory and in many instances went right to the King. It was more about religious persecution than it was about imposing the concept of religion.
I dont mind that, its very educational but I would want the course to be given by a Christian! To get a balanced view of both sides of the coin!
Yetti, it isn't a coin and there aren't only two sides. And if you understand Christianity, you understand that it isn't the opposite of Islam. Why don't you simply ask that it be taught by an English teacher, so that it will be taught as literature? Chapel Hill is really not known for it's Islamic crusaders. Are people here scared that the point of this assignment is to convert college students to Islam? Or worse, does anyone here actually think that an American University is trying to sign up radicals for duty to Al Qaeda? Because that's really what it sounds like. Refman, once again, this country was founded largely because our founders found their native country's take on religion to be oppressive. The advances we have made in interpreting that philosophy are the result of the greatest minds in our country's history thinking hard about difficult subjects. Do you believe in the Supreme Court? Do you respect them and presume that they honor their stations? They do not seek to erase history. They seek to apply crucial, historic documents to our modern society. And they generally do a good job of it, regardless of their politics. They say there should be a separation of Church and State and they interpret that separation in broad terms, so as to be inclusive to all Americans. Arguing on behalf of Judeo-Christian superiority (even by trying to preserve the religious history of our founders) is at odds with preserving religious freedom for all Americans. I just don't believe you really want to do that.
Batman-- Upon reading dozens of Supreme Court opinions one thing is clear. Very often the opinions are outcome determinative. This means that the Court decided what they want the outcome to be and they made the law fit the facts. Some of these opinions have tortured logic. It is clear from the Declaration of Independence that nobody intended to make the mere mention of God taboo. At least in Texas, literature is not required for all students. Composition and technical writing are. This does not fit in either of these conceptual cubbieholes. Should one choose to take a course in literature then you take the reading list as it is given. That's the thing...it's about choice. If I don't care to learn about Islam, I don't take the class. If I'm indifferent I take the class and see what I can get out of it. Assuming that lit is not a required course in NC, what say you Batman? How would you reconcile that?
I say that English courses, in any state, can include literary elements. I also say that it is only in times of unusual sensitivity that an English teacher assigning a text dealing with religion causes controversy. I recognize this is one of those times, and I understand it. But that's all it is. No evil is being done here and no student will suffer, unless they truly insist on their education being one of willful ignorance. I had to read about a lot of things that didn't interest me in college and a lot of things I didn't agree with. I didn't get a lawyer. If you don't like the professors at your college, or what they assign, you go to another college. It happens every day here in this free country. If I'd made the mistake of enrolling at Bob Jones, you can be sure I'd have transferred early on rather than seeking legal remedy for my unfortunate choice. If people are offended by reading about Islam, they have other options. As for the other thing, nobody has said that the word God should be taboo. People, including myself, have argued that in a country based on freedom of religion, we should not be required to say this country is "under God" in order to pledge allegiance to it. In fact, not only should we not be required, it just shouldn't be in the pledge. It makes people who don't believe in God "other." And they are not. Patriots are patriots in this country, regardless of their religious leanings. Call the term "diversity" PC if you need to, but it's what this country's about. When school children start every school day saying the pledge, and some of them come from families who don't believe in a Judeo-Christian god, it is not an adequate remedy to say they can leave that part out. We should all leave that part out in goverment institutions (including schools and also courts) and leave it in in our church of choice.
I see your point, but a course in composition does not typically include traditional literary elements. If it does then we have a different story. Recalling upon my experiences in collegiate English, there were no such elements. If this is a course in which this is the sole literary element then it seems bizarre to me. The only reading I had in my composition course in freshman English was a book on grammar and style. That was the thrust of the class. If the only texts for this course were a book on grammar and style and a book on Islam I'd be scratching my head a bit. Diversity is not PC. PC is the ridiculousness which will eventually make it so I can't call my dog a dog anymore. She will have to be called a Canine-American. That's another thing. We have way too many hyphenated Americans. It goes to show that this is a very divided country. There are too many agendas that are not worried about being just Americans. This is the great American melting pot...but nobody wants to melt just a little bit. Sad really.
