Do you have any supprt for the notion that this was considered or consulted in any way by the Framers?
Sure. This is from a different website. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/DEMOC.HTM "For the next major democracy was American democracy, and the founders of that democracy were avid readers of Plato, Aristotle, and the Greek historians, and essentially agreed with them about the nature of democracy. Both Plato and Aristotle believed that the best form of government is "rule by the best," or aristocracy. This word did not mean for them "rule by the ruling class," as it did in early modern and modern Europe; they really believed that only the smartest, most temperate, most mature, most reflective, most educated, and the bravest should be in charge of government—that is, only the best (the Greek word for "best" is aristos ). American government is a fusion of democracy and aristocracy (in Plato's and Aristotle's sense of the word); as a representative democracy, the principle of government is that the people elect (democracy) the individuals that they feel are the best and most qualified to represent them in government (aristocracy). Look closely at American electoral politics and you will see that all politicians shift between these two poles in their political rhetoric. Sometimes being too "democratic" can be either a positive or negative characteristic; sometimes being to "aristocratic" will be presented as a positive or negative characteristic. "
Just an update... UNC can assign Koran to freshmen, judge says GREENSBORO, North Carolina (AP) -- Incoming freshmen at the University of North Carolina will participate in discussion groups on Islam's holy text after a judge ruled that having them read about the Koran did not threaten religious freedoms. U.S. District Court judge Carlton Tilley Jr. refused Thursday to grant a temporary restraining order requested by two taxpayers, one of them an official of the conservative Virginia-based Family Policy Network, and three unidentified freshmen. Attorneys for the network said they filed an appeal minutes after the judge recessed court. The appeal will be considered by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. Both sides claimed a victory after the ruling. Network President Joe Glover said the lawsuit forced the university to change its program from a required reading and discussion to a voluntary program. University Chancellor James Moeser said the program was never required in the first place, and was intended to stimulate critical thinking in freshmen. He said opponents of the program "consistently missed the point. "There's absolutely no penalty," the chancellor said. "We have no way of knowing which students show up, we don't take roll, there's no grade. There never was." The plaintiffs sued last month to overturn an assignment for 4,200 transfer students and freshmen at the Chapel Hill campus to read and discuss "Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations," by Michael Sells. Lawyers for the network argued that the program ignored violent passages in the Koran and sought to indoctrinate students with the idea that the religion embraced only peace. They also said the university's announcements on postcards sent to students appeared to be requiring the reading. "The university initially required everyone to read the book and write a paper," said James Yacovelli of Youngsville, the center's state director and one of the individual plaintiffs. "Now you don't have to do anything." Tilley's ruling came on a request for an injunction to stop the program which starts Monday, the day before classes begin in Chapel Hill. The lawsuit still is pending in Tilley's court. The 180 discussion groups, meant to last about two hours, were to be led by volunteers from the faculty and staff. Students who objected to the assignment were allowed to explain their case in a one-page paper and skip the discussion. "Learning in a university setting involves the ability to confront other viewpoints," said Celia Lata, the assistant attorney general representing the university. "A university that exposes students only to what they already know or believe would not equip them to live in the world." Detractors said the 220-page book could convert Americans to the religion of terrorists blamed for the deaths of 3,000 people in the Sept. 11 attacks. The book contains commentary on 35 verses of the Koran and has a companion CD with audio recitations of several verses in different styles. Carl Ernst, a professor of Islam at UNC, recommended it to the selection committee to help students struggling to understand Islam, a religion shared by 1.2 billion people. The reading requirement met political pressure in the state House, which passed a budget proposal this week that would cut public money for UNC's reading program unless it gives equal time to all religions. The stance was largely symbolic, since the program costs relatively little and the General Assembly is weeks away from passing a final budget.
Did anyone else catch Nightline tonight on this subject? It was lefty Carl (?) Esposito vs. righty David Horowitz with lefty Ted Koppel (sp?) moderating the debate (kind of like the Lakers-Kings playoff game 6 this past season). Anyway, it looked to me like Esposito made a much stronger case, with Koppel's help of course, while Horowitz ended up looking like a paranoid xenophobic donkey's as$. But I'm no expert on politics like you guys, nor can I even pretend to be one, so fire away! Anyone? Hello? (embarassing silence.....crickets chirping.....)
I thought that Koppel was a conservative. Maybe not, but I know he used to, or still is, a huge Rush Limbaugh fan.
I can't believe Horowitz still gets any air time. The guy is a nut. I thought only Fox would put hm on the air. He's been on plenty of talk shows and is almost always made to look like fool. The guy's just trying to sell books.
News talk shows like this (on Fox or otherwise) always get the extreme on. It's entertaining to see them get verbally smacked around. Ratings ratings ratings.
