Should those of religious faith be allowed to run this country?

Wow. That liberal, political correct, multiculturalist conspiracy is so powerful that they can even make neocons act like hypoctrits.

No, he doesn't address the fact that North American Muslims allowed the Wahabbis to take over their institutions, he only says that the Wahabbis have done that. My issue with Schwartz is exemplified by exactly that. He says, over and over, that the vast majority of muslims are peaceful democrats, who assimilate. Yet, trhat the wahabbis have been allowed to take over suggests otherwise. No, it doesn't suggest that the majoriuty is violent. But it does suggest that they do not truly assimilate. It suggests that in their heart of hearts they support the Wahabbi goal to Islamicize our society. Were it otherwise, they would have joined the boards, and fired the Wahabbi imams. Or they would have resigned and established new congregations. That's what all others would do. Example: More recently arrived Sikh extremists began to take over established moderate Sikh congregations in Vancouver. The moderates quickly rebelled. They held firm, even in the face of threatened and actual violence and intimidation.Schwartz is a dedicared democrat and a loathed enemy of the Wahabbis. Yet, at the same time, he has said that "Islam is the solution to America's moral problem." And so, even he can't help but see that the Islamicization of America is a desirable and important goal. It seems to go to the root of the faith.

Here it is. Tell me what about it is "reactionary" or otherwise objectionable.1. All faculty shall be hired, fired, promoted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise and, in the humanities, the social sciences, and the arts, with a view toward fostering a plurality of methodologies and perspectives. No faculty shall be hired or fired or denied promotion or tenure on the basis of his or her political or religious beliefs.2. No faculty member will be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.3. Students will be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.4. Curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social sciences should reflect the uncertainty and unsettled character of all human knowledge in these areas by providing students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints. Academic disciplines should welcome a diversity of approaches to unsettled questions.5. Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.6. Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other student activities will observe the principles of academic freedom and promote intellectual pluralism.7. An environment conducive to the civil exchange of ideas being an essential component of a free university, the obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or other effort to obstruct this exchange will not be tolerated.8. Knowledge advances when individual scholars are left free to reach their own conclusions about which methods, facts, and theories have been validated by research. Academic institutions and professional societies formed to advance knowledge within an area of research, maintain the integrity of the research process, and organize the professional lives of related researchers serve as indispensable venues within which scholars circulate research findings and debate their interpretation. To perform these functions adequately, academic institutions and professional societies should maintain a posture of organizational neutrality with respect to the substantive disagreements that divide researchers on questions within, or outside, their fields of inquiry.

I don't understand why this is the case. Can you explain why you believe this?

Hello, CanadianSteve.I'm still wondering if there is evidence that the Wahabbis have taken control of the mosques and Islamic organizations in North America. Some good evidence will be a report detailing the membership of the governing boards of these mosques and organizations; their membership in known Wahabbi organizations, financial support of these mosques and Islamic organizations by Wahabbi groups; changes of policies, governing board memberships, and teachers and imans that can be linked to prefences by Wahabbi groups; or any combination of these.Other evidence would be good, too, if there is any. I'm just trying to get away from simply quoting people who say there has been a Wahabbi take-over without actually providing this kind of evidence.

If you do a Google search, you'll find many references to this. And, again, Schwartz and Pipes are entirely creditable. If they state this to be true, then that is your first excellent evidence. You'll also find on Google many references to CAIR being a Wahabbi front, and several CAIR members being imprisoned for terrorist associations and activities. Same for several Muslim Middle East profs.

One more thing about evidecne: Obviously, no one announces that they are a Wahabbi or Wahabbi sympathizer. Thus you will not find the kind of evidence you seek. However, you will find through google references to the Saudis, who are Wahabbi, financing North American mosques and educating imams.

Hello, CanadianSteve. I guess you haven't been reading the posts.The ideas themselves are not objectionable. In fact, most universities and colleges already have implemented them. What is being objected to is legislation that will not only make it easier for just any student who has a gripe to file nuiscence law suits, but also putting the decision of what constitutes valid, reasoned opinions in a given field in the hands of administrators and judges who do not have the expertise in that field to make such a determination. There is also a concern that colleges and universities will begin to avoid controversial subjects out of fear of provoking trouble.What is yet to be determined is:That the numbers of abuse by "liberal" professors is great enough to warrant concern,
that the internal review procedures of the universities themselves are not adequate to handle these problems that arise,
and that legislation is the appropriate way to deal with the problem.So far, only some anectdotal evidence has been presented, but not much substantive evidence indicating a wide-spread problem that merits concern.

So, you are making claims, but I am supposed to do the work of finding the evidence that backs your claims?Odd.

First, there is logical contradiction in defaming Horowitz for this bill, and calling the bill "recationary," and then acknowledging that there's nothing wrong with it.Second, leftists will never acknowledge that there is a problem, and all evidence presented will be denied as valid. They'll even deny the outcome of recent surveys showing an overwhelming proportion of leftist profs as meaningful. Since you are, in all liklihood, a leftist sympathizer who votes Democrat, you will never agree that there is a problem. Nor will you agree that if this bill is fine and neutral, and is, as you say, consistent with most universities' stated policies, then it is non problematic to have it legislated. All law presents particular issues with respect to determinations, at least at first, until the courts have defined the issues and guidelines. This bill, however, is rather straightforward, and presents no especially difficult legal issues.

a neat circle of idiocy! The torturing violent anti-democracy Saudi regime is funded by American taxpayers, and in return the Saudi Wahabbi sects pour their bile back into the US polity. Poetic justice?

People simply stating that Wahabbis have "taken over" American Islam is not creditable evidence; I don't care if Jesus Christ himself makes these claims. I have given you an example of what would constitute evidence. If you claim that such evidence does not exist then you are admitting that you believe what you do without any good reasons for that belief.And, yes, I am aware that many Muslims who have been critical of the "War on Terror" have been arrested. I am also aware that in many of these arrests, the evidence against the individuals have never been made public. And I know that many of these individuals were either released, or deported without hearings, all without any public disclosure of the evidence against them.

Americans do not give money to Saudi Arabia, except through oil purchases. However, you are absolutely right that there is a circle of idiocy when the US treats that nation as an ally, when it funds anti-Democratic forces to undermine our civilization. It appears that Bush and previous admins have believed, and Bush still believes, they could work with the Saudi royals and induce them towards better behaviour.

quote:

---

First, there is logical contradiction in defaming Horowitz for this bill, and calling the bill "recationary," and then acknowledging that there's nothing wrong with it.

---

First, this is probably because that is not what I said. What I said is that the principles in the "Academic Bill of Rights" are already in place in the universities themselves. What I said is that there is no problem that warrants legislative action. What I said is that the legislative solutions being proposed would disrupt the academic activities that are supposed to be protected.--

quote:

---

Second, leftists will never acknowledge that there is a problem, and all evidence presented will be denied as valid.

---

Second, rightists will never acknowledge that there is no problem, and will be unable to supply any good evidence whatsoever.Gosh, this is fun! Lets just call each names and avoid actually dealing with evidence!

What names have I called you?The kind of evidence you seek will never be provided sufficiently to convince you. I'll mention the biology prof who showed Farenhiet 9/11 in class before the election, and you'll say that's the exception that proves nothing. I'll mertion the profs who have anti-war posters on their office doors, and you'll say: So what? I'll mention the prof whose exam asked students to indicate why the war is imperialism, and you'll say: So, students were asked to show they could defend a particular view point (rather than believe it). But if you are a leftist, as i suspect, then it is most probale that if 80% of faculties were conservatives, and up to 90% in arts depts, you'd see that alone as reason to act. Invariably, cultures arise. Invariably, hidden prejudices result. How would a student know that his exam defending the war earned him a B, but he would have got an A for the same quality exam opposing the war? University camouses believe now, in a way they did not historically, in advocacy of causes. Affirmative action programs (which I supported for a certain duration, before they became a permament fixture) in and of themselves betray a sociological and, at this point, political vantage point. But so ensconced are they, few profs would agree that that is so. It's the entire academic culture that is the issue, one borne upon leftist bias. I rather doubt you will see this. Typically, those of a particular persuasion see it as moderate and the norm, almost by definition. That is how, for example, the leftist CBC speaks of reports from "Right wing" think tanks, but never mentions that dissenting reports are from "let wing" think tanks. Instead, they only mention this left wing body by name.