Refman - after reading much of this thread, I'm in agreement with you nearly 100%. Here in Florida, the only writing classes required are Freshman Writing and Composition I and II (ENC 1101 and ENC 1102). Literature classes are required, but there is a long list of classes to choose from. But, what drew my attention was this paragraph: That hits the nail on the head. Sounds eerily similar to the material I covered in Race/Ethnicity in America...in fact, I'm trying to remember who originally fought against hyphenated Americanism - Teddy Roosevelt, if I'm not mistaken. Though their methods weren't exactly the best, the theory is still valid. But that's off the topic. I'll let you and Batman Jones get back to your regularly scheduled debate on the merits of the choice by UNC.
Thomas Jefferson was a deist who believed in a God but not necessarily Christianity. The fact that they included 'God', or 'Lord' in documents doesn't mean it's based on Christian/Judeo principles. Also there aren't too many places in Christian/Judeo religious texts that talk about democracy, but there are plenty of writings from Ancient Greece that define democracy etc. Those are the principles that the country is truly founded on. Also the Allah is the same as God. It's a direct translation. In French they would say Dieu. Christians of Arab decent who read the bible, read the word Allah. Allah is the same God of the Jews and Christians, so it might be that if someone believes in those principles they might want to say Christian/Judeo/Islamic principles.
Nope. It DOES show that they were comfotable with the mention of God in our government from its inception. A lot of people out there want to sweep that fact under the rug, or they pull out the argument that the Supreme Court ruled on this. The Supreme Court once ruled that slavery was ok...then came a Constitutional Amendment. The Supreme Court is far from infallible.
My first English course at Southwest was focused solely on environmental activists. No one complained.
Was it a required course? Was it a composition course? Was it required of all freashmen at Southwest?
Yes, English was a required course at SWT. I'm pretty sure all the professors taught with different materials, but my point is that if a university or a professor feels that certain material is good for the students without trying to convert, then they should be allowed to do that. I'm sure those incoming students could choose to go to N.C. State if they didn't want to read the book. As for the hyphenated stuff...I'm sure they just got sick and tired of hearing racial slurs all the time. I've never understood why people got so bent out of shape at African-American or Chinese-American. It's better than ****** or chink. BTW, have you heard anyone propose that dogs be called Canine-Americans or are you just comparing minorities to dogs?
Are you serious or are you just trying to stir up controversy where none exists? I made a point and used an absurd example to illustrate it. Now you have gone off and twisted it. You are really out of line trying to paint me as a racist. You sir, have crossed the line and have just become offensive. The fact is that until we drop all of the hyphens we will never achieve the unity as Americans that we need in order to form "a more perfect union." I'm not saying that we need to all think alike. Disagreement is part of what makes this country great. But the hyphenated Americans sets people apart in very meaningful ways. We always hear about the African-American community or the Hispanic-American community...but we never hear about just "the community" (ie Houston). That bothers me, and it should bother you. This is because we will never make meaningful progress in race relations until we all live as Americans. That makes me sad. RM95 I have never really had a problem with you. We have disagreed but have always done so civilly. Unfortunatley, you have broken that string of good disagreements with your ridiculous implication that I am a racist. If I seem incredulous regarding your assetion...then I have gotten my point across.
I don't think you're a racist, (though I can see where you might think I was calling you that...didn't mean to imply that) I was just trying to show how ridiculous your example was. A group of people coming together and preferring a common name that identifies them as Americans and people instead of racial slurs, to me is not a bad thing. It's also a way to show ignorant people who like to tell minorities to get the hell out of our country that they in fact do belong to this country.
The whole idea of the melting pot, though, is to incorporate all of the good qualities of each society under one banner. Past attempts at assimilation failed - that's where the speech from Roosevelt and the attacks on hyphenated Americanism came from. However, the overall concept of allowing everyone to unite under one common banner, where all of the good aspects of each society are welcome and embraced for what they are is still valid. Unlike in the past, Americans shouldn't be forcing minorities to convert to Americanism or face prejudice; they should be moving towards a more pluralistic society in which America adapts to the new cultures around it. But tying this back to the original Islam at UNC argument - it's great if students read about Islam in their literature classes. That's the choice they make to learn about the religion. But to single it out amongst all other religions as a requirement (from a public college; it would be different if UNC were a private college) probably isn't the way to go, even considering the events of the world over the past year.
Man, this hurts my feelings. When did college become glorified vocational training in the US? As to hyphenation in the US, or lack of "melting," don't act as if this is some US - only phenomenon - it happens in every country. Actually, Americans (and their stores, churches, etc) in Paris were just plain Americans..."French" never came into the descriptive title. In Latin America, despite mixing, there are still separate nationality descriptions (and the racism that comes with it, of course). The list goes on. edit: All of my required English courses as an undergrad were heavy in literature (and writing). It seems silly for it not to be.
Are we supposed to ignore those statements in there, then? Different religions have different Gods - as you pointed out with Allah and so forth - but the inclusion of the Christian terms for God and Lord in the constutition shows their willingness to accept God as the oversser of the new nation called the United States of America. As time has gone by, mostly post-slavery, we've seen further attempts to prove this fact, the least of which is the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. The nation may not be a true religious nation, such as Vatican City - but the principles it was founded on draw upon a great belief in the oversser, their God, to make the nation prosperous and watch over her as years go by. Throughout American history, people have always been looking for or trying to found that proverbial "city on a hill," the utopia protected against all who would try to bring it down by the natural will of the Lord. The first settlements in New England, dating back to the voyage of the Mayflower, draw upon this belief. After all, many people have come to America over the years - and not just before the American Revolution either - to escape from religious persecution. Our nation may be founded upon Christian beliefs, but it is supportive of the many different religions that its citizens preach...and that's partially what makes America a great nation.
but wait...at college and in high school we learned that the melting pot concept was mean and insensitive...that it should't be the model...and since i learned it in institutions of educaton, they must be right...right??
I don't ever recall hearing that in college and high school...in fact, along with a pluralistic society, I've learned that a melting pot of all cultures is a good thing to have - as it incorporates all of the good features of each culture into the American identity while providing for others who do not wish to melt into this identity to hold on to the ties to their original heritage and still be embraced as members of the American society.
I think the original version of melting pot was to mean that everyone who comes must assimilate completely with our culture...and I think that is wrong. The term I learned in high school was salad bowl...where we can all live together peacefully while retaining our own identities.
I agree there - that's assimilation to me though, and not the metling pot. Just a different collection of terms used in different books and different universities. And that's what I mean with a pluralistic society...which would be a good thing. Again, just looks like some different verbage.
And so would be to call them Americans. Ignorant people are not going to be swayed by a label. They are going to believe the way the believe and the only way to change that is to change their value system. No external factor can do that...it is internal.
Excellent post!!! Many people ignore the history when they don't like it or it will not bolster their ideology. In many ways we have lost what America was intended to be about. I couldn't disagree with you more on the issue of hyphenation though. To the good people out there it doesn't make much of a difference. To the ignorant out there it furthers the notion that these people are different. To them different = bad. We'd be further along without the labels but retaining the cultures.
I think inclusion of God or Lord shows they had belief in a deity. The fact that many of them were deists proves this. But the documents themselves aren't based on any Judeo/Christian ideals. The ideals are reaction to European govts., and based on Greek philosophy and ideas on govt. I agree the original Pilgrims were very religious, and Christian. But things had changed by the time our Constitution was drafted. I do agree our country is tolerant of many different religious beliefs, and hopefully it will continue to accept those from all religious walks of life.
Greek philosophy???!!! Where in the name of Socrates do you find that in the Constitution? I've thumbed through my pocket Constitution and can't seem to find it.
Here are some thoughts from Aristotle on Democracy. What are the political ideals and aims of the classical Athenian democracy? In his famous book The Politics (written between 335 and 323 BC), Aristotle points out that one basic principle of the classical democratic constitution is liberty. To Aristotle, liberty means two things: (1) "ruling and being ruled in turn" and (2) "living as one chooses." As such, liberty and equality are "inextricably linked." In fact, the first element of liberty, "ruling and being ruled in turn," is based on a fundamental conception of equality, which Aristotle labels as "numerical equality" (as opposed to "equality based on merit"). "Numerical equality" means an equal share of the practice of ruling for all, regardless of individual ability, merit or wealth. "Thus understood, equality is the practical basis of liberty. It is also the moral basis of liberty." (David Held) http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives/1_083199/politics.htm From the same website here is something that relates to the constitution in much more direct way than anything in Judeo/Christian religious texts. The Athenian democrats also showed a remarkable appreciation on the value of justice, rule of law, and due process. "The Athenian did not imagine himself to be wholly unconstrained, but he drew the sharpest distinction between the restraint which is merely subjection to another man's arbitrary will and that which recognizes in the law a rule which has a right to be respected and hence is in this sense self-imposed." (Sabine) "If the law is properly created within the framework of the common life, it legitimately commands obedience." (Held)
