Lawsuit versus UNC Quran Reading

I realize you are attempting to be fair in the last post, but your stated conditions fall far short of that goal. The question is whether or not the college can assign a book about a religious subject for secular reasons (i.e. non-religious one such as historical interest, interest in literary merit, athropological interest, etc.), not whether they need to balance any portrayal of one religion with a portrayal of others. Were this the standard, the need to balnce the Quran would not end with Christianity, it would lead to an impossible quest to cover all beliefs. Also, you calim that the study inquestion needs to be counter-balanced with the study of TRUE ChRISTIANITY. That entails an outright advocacy of a specific religious view (and a highly problematical one at that). This is hardly a balanced response to a book that merely attempts to show that the tone of Quran is more positive in Arabic than in most English translations. I personally see no problem with teachers advocating such views as part of a curriculum, not in principle anyhow, but to require such ministry as a precondition of any treatment of other religions seems to confuse defense of your own rights with assertion of authority to impinge upn those of others. Teachers should not have to negotiate the curriculum in such a manner, no matter what the subject of interest.

Your comment about teaching a subject in a narrow secular manner is potentially equivocal. There are indeed secular humanists, i.e. those who render secular perspectives as a belief unto itself, but the term can also be used to convvey mere lack of religious interest. If I assign a passage to the Quran to my studentsin a history that is a secular interest insofar as I am not doing it to advance a specific religious view. It does not mean that I am advancing the moral outlook of secular humanism in doing so. To define all secular interests as reflecting the moral view of secular humanism is essentially to make all interests religious, and thereby cancel the meaning of non-establishment altogether. It's another argument perhaps, but I think I see where the remark is going and it reflects a potentially serious source of confusion.

"It really depends on the college. "

No, it doesn't. any college recieving fed funds have to go by those guidelines. Thus this is a totally correct lawsuit and according to guidlines set by the law already, seemingly breaks the law.

*wonders when we will be forced to study taoism too* same logic... As one person said in a idea why creationism shouldn't be taught, "if you teach one myth you must teach them all". thus they should do a short study on EVERY religion in exsistance, or none of them at all. That's the lawful and ethical thing to do.

I am noticing some inconsistency in the views here. A few weeks ago, when debating about school vouchers, most argued that even though schools were receiving public funds, the school still had the right to determine their own curriculum.
How is this any different?

Louis: I have a few questions for you.

   The Islamic religion is a large one, is it not? With large numbers of followers? And, lately, extremist members of that faith have performed acts with geopolitical consequences, correct?

  Now, given that the followers of Islam are in the news, and that those extremist followers have claimed religious justification for those acts, and have been denounced by their moderate brethren, is there any way to teach these current events without putting them in religious perspective?

   Specifically, in what way can you discuss the recent events without a firm footing in what these people believe, as well what the mainstream Muslims believe?

   Further, can you differentiate between teaching about a religion, and teaching a religion?

"is there any way to teach these current events without putting them in religious perspective?"

Yup. You don't have to learn the relgion to learn what causes it. You don't go over Puritan or seperatists views in history when talking about them coming to america now do you? You don't even go into Martin Luther King's relgious views when talking about him.

"differentiate between teaching about a religion, and teaching a religion?"

if its not forced its teaching about a relgion. Again, you don't have to force it, it violates law already in effect.

"You don't have to learn the relgion to learn what causes it. You don't go over Puritan or seperatists views in history when talking about them coming to america now do you? You don't even go into Martin Luther King's relgious views when talking about him."

Yes, Louis, you do cover their views when you teach those subjects. This is limited only by the time you have and the background you have on that siubject, but I don't think any history teacher I know would hesitate for one minute to go into that. It is a fundamental part of teaching the subject itself. Without such lesons you will not understand their behavior at all. If your own teachers are avoiding those subjects, then they are not teaching you.

  No kidding. Without understanding their beliefs, all history becomes is "what" with nary and "why" in sight.

  Kind of a lame education.

Scorched earth tactics. There is a lot of that in 'conservative' politics. If we can't have an officially Christian curriculum, then lets just ensure that the curriculumm is truly worthless.

Brimshack-[[The question is whether or not the college can assign a book about a religious subject for secular reasons (i.e. non-religious one such as historical interest, interest in literary merit, athropological interest, etc.), not whether they need to balance any portrayal of one religion with a portrayal of others.]]

Again, the purpose of studying the book and the Koran verses was to learn about the religion of Islam. And, it was mandatory. Islam is not a culture, it's a religion. Furthermore, the Koran promotes beating women, terrorizing others who are not Muslim, and waging war against the "Jews and Christians."

Spin a positive light on that, and we've suddenly got a million Johnny Walkers in America, and I'm not talking the bottle here.

Louis-[[ wonders when we will be forced to study taoism too]]

Busted me up. And satanism, homicidal cult, witchcraft, and the like. Everything but the Bible as mandatory literature.

If this were a book to force students to learn the Bible and the Christianity CS Lewis taught, then the liberal non-Christians would be in here screaming the other side.

Optional Bible & religious classes at secular colleges, especially at colleges that a good chunk of our tax money goes to.

You want to make Islam, Christianity, or RCC mandatory?

Go to their school.

It's simple.

Options, liberties, and unbiased teachers who do not force their opinions about theories/religions as facts at secular colleges.

And now we get to the punchline. Kyle thinks that he knows enough about Islam to claim as an objective fact that it promotes evil. He is also against studying the religion, so his position amounts to a claim that one can condemn others' beliefs without bothering first to understand them. I haven't seen someone openly advocate ignorance with such abandon in some time; perhaps it explains the incoherent sentence fragments which come at the end of this last post.

I force several students to study Taoism every year, btw, feel free to act outraged.

You may complain about liberal response to a hypothetical Christian reading assignment all you want. Your imagination isn't much of an argument, and the fact that you cannot grasp the goals of a liberal arts education also demonstrates the poverty of said imagination. As for biased teachers, the effort to distort common teaching teachniques into the image of sectarion advocacy is blatantly dishonest. If this is actually the way you perceive such assignments, then you are incapable of imagining a reasonable approach to this subject. You may have decided in your infininite wisdom that there are no important cultural factors involved in the teaching of islam, but this merely demonstrates the fact that you know nothing of the subject. I suggest you leave decisions about how to teach to those that actually do teach, or at least those who value learning.

I already explained the cultural connection; your effort to reduce this to a categorical syllogism is no more than a straw man.

FWIW, God has always encouraged me to study other belief systems. I have occasionally found things in them that struck me as good insights, but in the end, every one I have studied so far has been flawed in some way. However, by studying them, and learning enough about them to discuss them intelligently, I gain the ability to have meaningful discussions with people who hold these beliefs.

I think that familiarity with other belief systems is an essential prerequisite to effective apologetics. I also think it helps eliminate a lot of false beliefs.

If you're an atheist, call it xenophobia. If you're a Christian, call it Satan's work. Whatever you call it, we are easily tricked into fearing and hating those different from ourselves, and believing them to be worse than they are.

Is Islam true? I don't think so. Is it possible for a devout Muslim to be a good person? Yes. Even if you think that his beliefs are false, he may be a person who is genuinely seeking God's will for him. Do you think that God only made the white people who go to church in America? If His law is written on every heart, surely that includes people who have not accepted the Gospel, too - so, even if they may not accept the full law, they *will* know right from wrong, and many will seek to do right as well as they understand it.

You say it's not good enough? None of us are good enough; isn't that the entire point of Christian teaching on the subject?

I find the level of contempt and fear many Christians show for non-believers, or believers of something else, genuinely terrifying. It sure doesn't help us make our case.

[[I suggest you leave decisions about how to teach to those that actually do teach, or at least those who value learning.]]

It is your assumption that I do not teach, and your insult to assume that I do not value education.

Also, I have not attacked your character, you have attacked mine several times. Can we not be respectful toward one another, and not slander one another?

Based on what you have written, I believe you are not understanding what I've said. I think that every person should have the free choice to study about a religion. No religion should ever be made a mandatory study in a secular college, when other religions such as Buhddism and Christianity are ignored.

I do understand what you mean about the importance of studying other religion, and believe it is necessary. But liberty to do so must exist, not mandatory force.

If a study of the Koran is allowed to be made mandatory in all secular colleges, then what is next? Maybe they will begin forcing the Bible only on all students in secular colleges, and give no opportunity for other religions to be studied.

Fear is allowing others to force their religion on you, and not standing up for the liberties the God of the Bible desires for all human- that is to believe in Him or not.

I find the level of contempt for those who only desire all humans to have the liberty to worship God or not, as long as no person is harmed by it, striking.

It is an inference from your unrealistic proclamations of what teachers should and shouldn't do that you do not teach, or at least that you do not teach in the venue in question. I notice that you call attention to the inference, but you stop short of contradicting it. So, I'm sticking with it. Your scorched earth tactics to the subject demonstrate clearly enough that you do not value learning. The point is that you keep declaring ex cathedra what teachers must do in order to remain fair, and those declarations are made without due regard to the goals, operatoinal constraints, and standard procedures of college ediucation. So long as you continue to show open disregard for the value of a Liberal Arts education, I will continue to point out that your hyperbolic demands are inappropriate. If your approach changes, then so will my tone.

By implication you have attacked my character and the character of every teacher that attempts to help their students to understand any culture, religion, or outlook beside their own. You have stated categoricaly that many of the techniques essential to teaching courses in anthropology, history, philosophy, literature, and a range of other subjects in the social sciences and humanities are unfair and reflect bias on the part of the teachers in question.

The only force in question is the authority of faculty members to mandate their own course requirements and grade mandatory assignments which will demonstrate the students understanding of those materials. If you are opposed to that, then please do not pretend you understand the need to teach these topics. This is the only mechanism available to ensure that these subjects will be taught effectively. Either you do not realize this (another indication that you do not teach, or at least that you do not do so in a College setting), or you are engaging in deliberate obfuscation here.

If study of the Quran is to be made mandatory in all secular colleges…Red Herring. (BTW: The fact that you keep confounding different levels of decision-making regarding curricula is another indication that you are unfamiliar with the eductaional setting of a college.) I wouldn't object, btw, if portions of the Bible were mandatory at any particular college for historical, literary or anthropological reasons; my only concern with assigning the whole Bible would be the opportunity costs associated with such a requirement.

"…allowing others to force their religion on you…" Once again this is a deliberate misrepresentation of what happened in that college. The effort was to ensure that students had a better understanding of the Quran, a standard goal of anyone teaching a significant range of courses wherein Islam may come up. There is no evidence on the table (other than blatant equivocation) that this exercise was intended to force a religion upon students. I made one or two reasonable attempts to illustrate the difference, when these are ignored I conclude that the effort here is to slander the author and teachers in question.

"…contempt for those who only desire all humans to worship God or not, as long as no person is harmed by it…" once again a misrepresentation of the issue. No one is being prevented from worshipping as they see fit in the college in question, and the contempt that I am showing here is for the slanderous agenda of those that would use their beliefs as an excuse to gut the entire liberal arts curriculum of any content which is contrary to their own views. You pretend this is an effort to defend religious freedom, but it is actually an attempt to define your rights as a Christian as the right to shut every one else up. This agenda is deceitful, and I will not answer it with anything less than the contempt it deserves.

"Yes, Louis, you do cover their views when you teach those subjects. "

Nope, you can check any history book and with MLK it talks about passive resistance, nothing about relgion at all. Those views do not have to be covered at all. I think its pretty funny how when a christian does it, everyone jumps on their back but when any other relgion does, its just good ole' education...LOL...

*mod hat on*

Brim and Kyle why don't ya'll take some time off of this thread and cool down. Remember the rules and be polite to your fellow poster. Its starting to get heated so if it keeps up, I'll close the thread and let ya'll cool down if need be. Just relax, grab a soda, and remember ultimatly the courts will decide this matter.

*mod hat off*

I'll step out; no need to close it down.

No prob, and good call ump.

Brim and me are cool as far as I'm concerned.

Later.

Alright, I'm getting way to cranky these days. I'm the one who upped the ante on this one. I'm sorry Kyle. I'll stand by my actual arguments, but I could have phrased them differently. My apologies.

okay, glad to see ya'll got straight, now how about we go have a cider on me? Brim you invite seebs, I owe him one too.