Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8945 total)
33 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,184 Year: 20,220/19,786 Month: 617/2,023 Week: 125/392 Day: 38/87 Hour: 3/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should those of religious faith be allowed to run this country?
EZscience
Member (Idle past 3465 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 271 of 308 (215507)
06-08-2005 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by dsv
06-08-2005 4:36 PM


Re: How things change.
No kidding.
The neo-cons are so drunk with power over their apparent success with media manipulation that they think they can cast 'liberals' as the intolerant ones. Isn't that the kettle calling the pot black...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by dsv, posted 06-08-2005 4:36 PM dsv has not yet responded

EZscience
Member (Idle past 3465 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 272 of 308 (215514)
06-08-2005 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Jazzns
06-08-2005 6:37 PM


Re: Academic bill of rights my A**
Right on the nose.
Couldn't have said it better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Jazzns, posted 06-08-2005 6:37 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 33615
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 273 of 308 (215515)
06-08-2005 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by dsv
06-08-2005 4:36 PM


Re: How things change.
OK, not that there are NO conservative violations. In fact David Horowitz does document a few of those, but the fact is that the great majority are on the side of the left these days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by dsv, posted 06-08-2005 4:36 PM dsv has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by dsv, posted 06-08-2005 10:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2222 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 274 of 308 (215516)
06-08-2005 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Chiroptera
06-08-2005 6:45 PM


Re: Academic bill of rights my A**
It really is silly sometimes.

"I can't give you evidence because it dosen't exist!"

We are being called intolerant and unreasonable for being critical of legislation that seems iffy. Yet the sense of injustice is so brutal. This just makes liberals more skeptical of the legislation because why does something as natural as academic integrity need to be treated with such controversy? Why the crusade against liberalism rather than the crusade for the general promotion of education and academia against all that slows it?


FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Chiroptera, posted 06-08-2005 6:45 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

dsv
Member (Idle past 3035 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 275 of 308 (215517)
06-08-2005 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Faith
06-08-2005 10:35 PM


Re: How things change.
I agree that there are biases from both sides. We're all human, after all.

However, if I'm going to Atlantic Christian University it's probable that I will experience some creationist bias.

At Massachusetts Institute of Technology, should I be surprised to received scientific bias?

My point is, most universities (non-religious based) side on factual evidence, so why are we surprised to find biased professors? If I tell a professor that I don't agree with the research and it's all false -- God did it -- isn't he allowed to say "you're crazy" in nicer terms?

I suppose that's just my opinion. I'm at university specifically for the professor's thoughts, teachings, and insights. That's what you're paying for, not to have curriculum read to you.

This message has been edited by dsv, Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:43 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 10:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Jazzns, posted 06-08-2005 11:01 PM dsv has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2222 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 276 of 308 (215518)
06-08-2005 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by dsv
06-08-2005 10:42 PM


Re: How things change.
I suppose that's just my opinion. I'm at university specifically for the professor's thoughts, teachings, and insights. That's what you're paying for, not to have curriculum read to you.

That is such a great point although I am not sure if it is entirely true.

In my college there was a specific set of knowledge that they were required to dispense to the students in order for the school to receive accreditation. I am pretty sure this is the case for most higher learning institutions.

Despite that, good professors often went beyond the box to teach us what we needed to know rather than just what we were required to know to be professionals in our field.

Regardless, the spirit of your argument is correct. I did not go to college to validate my own ideas about the world and my profession but rather to be instructed in the science and knowledge of The Greats in my field before me. I went for apprenticeship and to immerse myself in in a wealth of knowledge, not to validate what I already knew.

This message has been edited by Jazzns, 06-08-2005 09:02 PM


FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by dsv, posted 06-08-2005 10:42 PM dsv has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by EZscience, posted 06-08-2005 11:09 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

EZscience
Member (Idle past 3465 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 277 of 308 (215519)
06-08-2005 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by CanadianSteve
06-08-2005 4:57 PM


Re: Academic bill of rights my A**
CS writes:

Moreover, very few students, given their age, given that some are influenced uncritically, and given their principle concern about marks, would either notice or make an issue of it (infered = political bias in the classroom) when they do.

So you are hypothesizing a problem, based on a very tenous assumption of 'student indoctrination', without producing any compelling preliminary evidence, and you expect all of us to just drop everything we're doing and divert resources to proving you wrong ? Because you claim that 'maleable' young students are ready and willing to sell out for test scores for fear of challenging the status quo !? When and where did you go to college ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by CanadianSteve, posted 06-08-2005 4:57 PM CanadianSteve has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Jazzns, posted 06-08-2005 11:06 PM EZscience has not yet responded
 Message 284 by CanadianSteve, posted 06-09-2005 9:50 AM EZscience has responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2222 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 278 of 308 (215520)
06-08-2005 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by EZscience
06-08-2005 11:01 PM


Re: Academic bill of rights my A**
Because you claim that 'maleable' young students are ready and willing to sell out for test scores for fear of challenging the status quo !? When and where did you go to college ?

Don't you know? Conformity in academia is all the rage! I always got A's for expressing zero originality in all my work and totally conforming to all the ideas spood fed to me by my professors.

Now with my degree, I can go home and feel totally content when I curl up in a corner with my blanket and memorize exactly what the TV tells me is real.

{My friends think I need more sarcasm in my life, sorry} =)


FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by EZscience, posted 06-08-2005 11:01 PM EZscience has not yet responded

EZscience
Member (Idle past 3465 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 279 of 308 (215521)
06-08-2005 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Jazzns
06-08-2005 11:01 PM


Re: How things change.
Jazzns writes:

I came there for apprenticeship and to immerse myself in in a wealth of knowledge, not to validate what I already knew.


Spoken in the true spirit of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Jazzns, posted 06-08-2005 11:01 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8866
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 280 of 308 (215522)
06-08-2005 11:12 PM


No resolution yet, wait and see
I don't think this one will resolve with what information is at hand.

We will have to wait and see won't we? I think we will have a thread within a year or so that will be discussing something going to court that is obviously (to some of us) going to be based on dishonesty. Not dishonesty by a professor nor by a student but rather by some fundie sort having lied to the student and then a right-wing-nut organization supporting some idea of an inverse Scope's trail on the topic.


Faith
Member
Posts: 33615
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 281 of 308 (215530)
06-09-2005 12:26 AM


Refs Acad Bill of Rights /CAIR / Koran
I did spend some time checking: There are no statistical studies of the sort that are demanded here. It might be a difficult thing to study statistically at this point. But there is a wealth of checkable information of various kinds.

Unfortunately the main web site is arranged in such a way that I can't link to separate sections of it. I could maybe go through it and select out quotable parts and give a title to help you find them, but that would take a lot of time and since the basic mentality here is not open to anything I have to say I've decided it's not worth it.

Here's the web site:

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/

And just to keep the evidence on CAIR up front:

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6176

And here's the one CSteve contributed about the Koran's war verses:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18231

Now I know most here don't recognize this evidence as evidence but there it is for anybody who knows better.


Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by MangyTiger, posted 06-09-2005 1:11 AM Faith has responded

MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4664 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 282 of 308 (215542)
06-09-2005 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Faith
06-09-2005 12:26 AM


Re: Refs Acad Bill of Rights /CAIR / Koran
Here's the web site:

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/

Just for grins I took a look at this and for no other reason than it caught my eye I looked at this one:

Wells College Suspends Student Republican Leader Three Weeks before Graduation

The link leads to an article which describes the situation leading up to her suspension and contains this:

Wells senior Nicole Krogman is the Co-Chairman of the Wells College Republicans and an editor of the Cornell American, a conservative publication at nearby Cornell University. She is the most high-profile conservative student at Wells.

In her final semester at Wells, Krogman undertook a non-credit bearing independent study tutorial with Professor Linda Lohn, Chair of Wells’ American Studies Department.

So I put 'Nicole Krogman' into Google and found a bunch of hits. It seems studentsforacademicfreedom.org chose to neglect to mention a rather crucial fact - namely that Krugman had to do this 'non-credit bearing independent study tutorial' because she was accused of plagiarism.

Now I make no comment as to her guilt or innocence, but I do say that the fact the site you link to did not mention perhaps the crucial fact in the whole episode does not give me a good feeling as to the integrity or veracity of the site.

Here's a newspaper article with some more info.

Of course one story picked at random isn't necessarily indicative of the true level of accuracy - but it's late and I can't be arsed to look at any more today :)


Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 06-09-2005 12:26 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 06-09-2005 2:10 AM MangyTiger has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 33615
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 283 of 308 (215557)
06-09-2005 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by MangyTiger
06-09-2005 1:11 AM


SAF report on Wells student
So I put 'Nicole Krogman' into Google and found a bunch of hits. It seems studentsforacademicfreedom.org chose to neglect to mention a rather crucial fact - namely that Krugman had to do this 'non-credit bearing independent study tutorial' because she was accused of plagiarism.

The story about Nicole Krogman at Wells is a Press Release, not something SAF wrote. I googled the story myself and found a credible report about the plagiarism charge, supporting your view, then emailed Students for Academic Freedom to alert them to the problem so they can remove the story from their site -- or refute the charge if possible.

This message has been edited by Faith, 06-09-2005 02:10 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by MangyTiger, posted 06-09-2005 1:11 AM MangyTiger has not yet responded

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 4783 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 284 of 308 (215595)
06-09-2005 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by EZscience
06-08-2005 11:01 PM


Re: Academic bill of rights my A**
Nothing can convince you, because you are pleased with the leftist bias. Others reading this will see it differently. For them, I present the following:

//www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/2005/March2005/DHohiotestimony031505.htm

Why an Academic Bill of Rights is Necessary

Testimony before the Education Committee of the Ohio Senate

By David Horowitz-Frontpagemag.com-03/15/05

Ohio Senate Bill 24, which has been sponsored by Senator Mumper and is now before this Committee, and which is based on my Academic Bill of Rights, is not about Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, left and right. It is about what is appropriate to a higher education, and in particular what is an appropriate discourse in the classrooms of an institution of higher learning.

All higher education institutions in this country embrace principles of academic freedom that were first laid down in 1915 in the famous General Report of the American Association of University Professors, titled “The Principles of Tenure and Academic Freedom.” The Report admonishes faculty to avoid “taking unfair advantage of the student’s immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher’s own opinions before the student has had an opportunity to fairly examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own.”

In other words, an education -- as distinct from an indoctrination -- makes students aware of a spectrum of scholarly views on matters of controversy and opinion, and does not make particular answers to such controversial matters the goal of the instruction. This is sound doctrine and common sense, and in one form or another it is recognized in the academic freedom guidelines of all accredited institutions of higher learning in the United States.

Unfortunately, it is a principle increasingly honored in the breach and not in the observance in American universities today. All too frequently, professors behave as political advocates in the classroom, express opinions in a partisan manner on controversial issues irrelevant to the academic subject, and even grade students in a manner designed to enforce their conformity to professorial prejudices. (Numerous instances of these abuses are available on the websites www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org and www.noindoctrination.org)

Why this abuse of the academic classroom has occurred in the last academic generation is a matter for historians. Why it has not been remedied by existing institutional supports for academic freedom is the business of Senate Bill 24 and the Academic Bill of Rights.

To anticipate, it is the view of the authors of this legislation that the academic freedom protections to prevent indoctrination in the classroom are generally buried in “faculty handbooks,” as faculty “responsibilities,” never codified as a student right. Therefore when they are neglected there is no remedy for students who are victims of professorial abuse. Nor does there exist any grievance machinery that specifically recognizes this academic freedom right or that provides a policy for redress. The purpose of Senate Bill 24 and legislation in other states based on the Academic Bill of Rights is to rectify this omission.

It is not an education when a mid-term examination contains a required essay on the topic, “Explain Why President Bush Is A War Criminal,” as did a criminology exam at the University of Northern Colorado in 2003. It is not an education when a professor of property law harangues his class on why all Republicans are racist as happened at the Colorado University Law School in 2004. It is not an education when a widely-used required “Peace Studies” textbook, described by the professor as a “masterpiece,” explains that the Soviet Union was a force for peace in the Cold War and the United States was not, that “revolutionary violence” is the only justifiable violence, and that the United States is the greatest terrorist state – and does so without making students aware that there are other interpretations of this history and other views that should be considered on these matters. This extremist text, Peace and Conflict Studies, written by two university professors who explain in their preface that they are partisans of the political left is the required “academic” textbook for students in the Peace Studies course at Ohio State University (Marion).

At Foothills College in California, a pro-life professor compared women who have abortions to the deranged mother Andrea Yates who drowned her six children. The professor then gave D’s and F’s to students who expressed opinions in favor of abortion. Abortion is a matter that is both profoundly controversial and also emotional, and involves the deepest and most personal values. It is also a matter of opinion. It is not the task of a professor to provide his students with politically correct opinions.

It is the task of professors – whether they are politically left or politically conservative -- to teach students how to think and not what to think about matters that are controversial. An education should make students aware of the range of scholarly views on a subject, teach students how to marshal evidence in behalf of a point of view, and instruct them how to make a logical case for their conclusions. An education is not about providing students with the correct conclusions on controversial matters.

We live in democracy that is based on the proposition that there is no correct conclusion available to ordinary mortals, that no one – not even professors – are in possession of absolute truth. If there were only one correct conclusion to all controversial issues there be no need for a multi-party democracy, since the only party necessary would be the one with the truth. No such party exists. No such professor exists. Therefore, Ohio Senate Bill 24 states that “students [shall] have access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects they study;” and further that:“Students shall be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects and disciplines they study and shall not be discriminated against on the basis of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs. Faculty and instructors shall not use their courses or their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious, or antireligious indoctrination.”

Three principal objections have been made to the Senate Bill 24, all of them groundless. The first is that the Bill would impose “political standards” on higher education. This is an invention of opponents of the Bill, whose text could not be clearer on this matter: “students [shall] have access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects they study.” In other words, the standards “imposed” by the Bill are scholarly not political.

The second objection is that the Bill “limits free speech” and in particular would impose limits on the ability of professors to express themselves freely in the classroom. A typical “news” headline in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, reporting Senator Mumper’s legislation, transforms a bill expressly designed to promote academic freedom into its opposite: “Legislator Wants Law To Restrict Professors.”

This false charge originates with the American Association of University Professors, which long ago abandoned its commitment to academic freedom where students are concerned. The AAUP was entirely absent from the battle against speech codes in the 1990s – the most dramatic infringement of free speech rights on college campuses since the McCarthy era. I am acutely conscious of this dereliction because my Individual Rights Foundations was actively engaged in those battles.

The AAUP has particularly singled out the following clause in the Senate Bill for disapproval: “Faculty and instructors shall not infringe the academic freedom and quality of education of their students by persistently introducing controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to their subject of study and that serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose.” According to the AAUP and opponents of the Bill generally, this stipulation is an infringement of the free speech rights of professors.

Presumably it would be perfectly appropriate as far as the AAUP and these opponents of the Bill are concerned if a professor of property law were to devote an entire class to explaining why Americans deserved to die on 9/11, or a professor of Women’s Studies devoted an entire class to discussing how the terrible results of the 2004 presidential election could be countered or a Metallurgy professor confronted students in a class on “Organic Materials” with the question of whether it was right for the Governor of California to leave his state to campaign for George Bush in Ohio, or whether a Spanish language professor used her class time to tell her students “I wish George Bush were dead.” All these incidents happened at quality American universities (Colorado, Stanford, and Ripon) within the last school year.

In fact, the issue here is not the free speech rights of professors as private citizens, but what is appropriate to a classroom, and in particular what form of discourse constitutes indoctrination as distinct from education. We don’t go to our doctors’ offices expecting to get a lecture on politics. That is because doctors are professionals whose responsibility is to minister to all their patients regardless of their patients’ political beliefs. Introducing passionately divisive matters into a medical consultation can injure the trust between doctors and their patients, which is essential to the healing misson. Why is the profession of education any different? When students go to their professors’ offices, for example, they go for advice and help. When professors plaster their office doors with partisan cartoons that mock the deeply held beliefs of students on matters like abortion and party affiliation – which they regularly do – this creates a wall between faculty and students, which is injurious to the counseling process. How can a professor teach a student whom he regards as a partisan adversary? The answer is he cannot.

Can professors, under this guideline, discuss controversial matters in class? Of course they can. But their purpose must be educational and not political. They can present students with the opposing views that define a controversy, show them how to marshal evidence for one view or the other and teach them how to construct a case in behalf of their own viewpoint. What they must not do is jump into the controversy on one side, wielding all the authority of their greater experience and superior knowledge, backed by their grading power. They are not in the classroom to recruit students to their political or religious agendas. They are there to teach them. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand the difference. A classroom is not – or should not be – a political soap box.

The truly insurmountable problem for opponents of this injunction is that the principle of restricting professorial speech in the classroom to what is professionally appropriate is not only a long-standing principle of academic freedom, it is a principle already embraced (if not practiced) by most universities. The Faculty Handbook of Ohio State University, for example, instructs professors as follows: “Academic freedom carries with it correlative academic responsibilities. The principal elements include the responsibility of teachers to “…(5) Refrain from persistently introducing matters that have no bearing on the subject matter of the course;…(7) Differentiate carefully between official activities as teachers and personal activities as citizens, and to act accordingly.”

Is it feasible for professors to keep the political opinions and prejudices they hold as citizens out of the classroom? I attended school for 19 years from kindergarten to the graduate level, where I received my M.A. 43 years ago. In all that time I do not remember a single teacher or a single professor on single occasion in any classroom reveal or express their political beliefs. If my teachers could be that professional, so can this generation of educators.

The principle of professional restraint in the classroom could not be stated more clearly than in the Ohio State University handbook and it is expressed in the very wording of Senate Bill 24 to which apparently the same administrators who are responsible for the Faculty Handbook and the same professors who are supposed to be guided by it now strenuously object. Apparently, the principle of academic freedom is acceptable when it is only a faculty responsibility that can be disregarded. When it is proposed as a student right that might be enforced, it becomes objectionable.

There is a reason that the Academic Bill of Rights and the Faculty Handbook have nearly identical wording. Both are derived from the long-standing Academic Freedom guidelines of the American Association of University Professors, which the present leaders of the AAUP have turned their backs on now seek to repudiate: Thus, the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the AAUP states: “Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.”

The real problem has now been revealed, and the third of the three objections to the bill – the complaint that this would be a legislative interference in academic affairs – is answered: it wouldn’t be an interference because the university itself has already adopted the principles of this Bill; the problem is that they will not enforce them.

The reasons for enacting Senate Bill 24 are that too many faculty members at our universities no longer observe their responsibility to teach and not to indoctrinate students; that university administrations no longer enforce their faculty guidelines on academic freedom; and that the existing guidelines are not codified as student rights; as result students currently have no way to redress their grievances. In this situation legislatures have a fiduciary responsibility – as the elected representatives of the taxpayers who fund these institutions -- to step in and provide a remedy. If they do not, the future of our universities is bleak.

David Horowitz is the author of numerous books including an autobiography, Radical Son, which has been described as “the first great autobiography of his generation,” and which chronicles his odyssey from radical activism to the current positions he holds. Among his other books are The Politics of Bad Faith and The Art of Political War. The Art of Political War was described by White House political strategist Karl Rove as “the perfect guide to winning on the political battlefield.” Horowitz’s latest book, Uncivil Wars, was published in January this year, and chronicles his crusade against intolerance and racial McCarthyism on college campuses last spring. Click here to read more about David


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by EZscience, posted 06-08-2005 11:01 PM EZscience has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Jazzns, posted 06-09-2005 11:14 AM CanadianSteve has not yet responded
 Message 288 by EZscience, posted 06-09-2005 11:59 AM CanadianSteve has not yet responded
 Message 291 by jar, posted 06-09-2005 12:06 PM CanadianSteve has not yet responded

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 308 (215598)
06-09-2005 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
06-06-2005 1:53 PM


Re: A Muslim president for the US
Faith,

quote:
If it is their religion that is "oppressed" then that complaint is already a suggestion that Islam and the US are at odds, don't you think? However, I'm well aware that the average Muslim may have no aspirations to take over the world, because their religion is a matter of daily life for them more than an overriding ideology. Nevertheless the writings of Islam give plenty of inspiration for zealots who want to fulfill everything they understand Allah desires of them, the major goal being subjugating the world to Allah. There are also different ways "jihad" is interpreted by different Muslims, but the fact is that the interpretation of violence against the infidel has a long history and is quite orthodox.

One rule when discussing something with those with a different religion is to never assume you know what they believe more than they did.

I acknowledge that you were being careful with your words, and directly pointing at zealots using Islamic teachings as an excuse for their agenda. But I must correct you on the interpretation of jihad. The rule for the use of violence in Islam is for self-defense. The Qur'an does encourage Muslims to strike back when persecuted, but does not endorse unprovoked aggression.

Of course historically there has been Muslim aggressors. But these were politically motivated (you know, people, sometimes they're hungry for land and riches), and sometimes they used religion to support and justify their actions. Christian kingdoms also do this in the past.

quote:
Sure, it is possible to get a Muslim president who serves the Constitution fairly, either from a less zealous religious spirit or from a pragmatic attitude, but Islam itself promotes a strong sense of allegiance to Islam that refuses allegiance to any nation. The problem would be in the blindness of the American public to this tendency in the religion, or the growth of a pro-Islam attitude in the nation, or the advantage given to the zealous Islamists by such a political situation.

I'm not concerned with the issue of American nationalism since I'm not a US citizen. Well you know better what makes someone a president in the US. You might know why more people choose GW Bush than John Kerry. Now just imagine a scenario where a similar victory by a Muslim candidate is possible. Try to think of circumstances that can make this happen. Change in religious composition? Competence of the candidate? Public opinion becomes more positive to Muslims?

Also, it is unfortunate that the opening post specifies a Muslim president scenario. I'd like to expand that question. What will happen if:
1. a Jew, or
2. a Hindu, or
3. an atheist
gets elected as the US President?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 06-06-2005 1:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019