UNC 0, Ignorance 1

[RTFirefly]

It shoulda looked like this:

*Originally posted by Double Darren *
world’s religions? What other ones?

I think gobear beat you to the punch there.

I’d have much less a problem with the whole thing if there was a genuine effort to teach the kids to take a look at all religion’s texts but to only review one is not a complete approach to this type of study.

OK, now we’re getting somewhere. You say…

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

*Originally posted by Double Darren *
**Daniel, #1 is your opinion, and #2 I clearly stated that I have participated in such. As for #3 don’t play stupid, you know no such christian book would ever be forced on the students at UNC. This book is clearly not an objective look on the koran. **

Eh? Huh? #1 said:

“1) It is acceptable for a school to require all students to take a specific class.”

By “acceptable,” I meant, “legally acceptable.” Apologies if that wasn’t clear. This is not a matter of opinion.

And no, I’m not playing stupid. I grew up in Chapel Hill; I went to high school in Chapel Hill; I had many, many friends who went to UNC-CH (and more still who went to other schools in the UNC system). I would not be the least bit surprised if UNC required students to read, for example, a book on Liberation Theology, or a book on the history of Christianity.

Given the school’s demographic and its mission of educating people (which necessarily involves exposing them to ideas they haven’t encountered before), I wouldn’t expect UNC to give students a book of analysis of the Psalms as an introductory book. Most UNC students grew up in North Carolina, an overwhelmingly Christian state in an overwhelmingly Christian country. Most of them will be familiar with the Psalms. Such a book would not be as educational as a book on passages from the Koran.

**I’d have much less a problem with the whole thing if there was a genuine effort to teach the kids to take a look at all religion’s texts but to only review one is not a complete approach to this type of study. By it’s nature it is selective and anyone who knows the flavor of thought at UNC knows no christian book would be offered as the textbook and that this “objective” lesson for the kids is bogus. Not only that but are there no more objective books on the koran that could have been chosen? **

Again, I disagree with you, and I’m intimately familiar with UNC (at least, with the UNC of the late '80s and early '90s).

I do note that you never responded to my question of whether you agree with the statement that:

“#3 It is unacceptable for a school to require all students to take a specific class in which the professors require the students to read a religious text.”

You just told me that I was playing stupid to ask such a question. Respectfully, I wasn’t. So do you agree with this statement? If so, what’s your reasoning and/or (preferably and) evidence?

Daniel

[Fretful_Porpentine]

RTF, my freshman Shakespeare prof (and mentor) had that Doonesbury strip on his office door. Thanks for the memory.

As a side note, I talked with the students in one of my tutorial groups about this issue last night. Their consensus? They were absolutely delighted that they got to write a one-page paper instead of reading this book … and not for religious reasons. Their only concern was whether the bookstore would give them a refund. I did my best to impress upon them that they should take the assignment seriously unless they had a genuine religious objection, but I think this fell on deaf ears.

Ack. When I let students do make-up or alternative work, dammit, I come up with something that will make them wish they had done the original assignment instead. I can’t believe the administration hasn’t figured this out yet.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

FP, I agree with this. I’ve refused two assignments in my day on ethical grounds (both, go figure, in high school).

For one (dissecting a pig), I had to write two five-page papers as a make-up assignment, and in doing so learned more about cloning and parthenogenesis than most kids my age. For the other (reading Genesis in high school), my religious background meant that I still scored higher on the tests than most of the kids who’d done the reading.

(Note that I refused to read Genesis on religious grounds, precisely what I’m now saying students shouldn’t be able to do. WHat can I say? It’s been 13 years, and I’m a different person today than I was then).

Daniel

[Double_Darren]

Pi rat
No I didn’t say I refuse to read it, I said I didn’t want to read it, maybe next week I will want to. You don’t see the distinction between reading such things as you list in an english class where it is absolutely read only in an objective way as opposed to having to read a book that is not objective but intends to accentuate the best known parts of the koran, definately in a possitive way. Because of this the book isn’t neccessarily objective.
RTFirefly,
"So you’re saying that the university should ignore criteria such as relevance and usefulness?"

Do you really believe christian books aren’t relevant, or as Daniel is pitifully trying to suggest, that there is no need for a christian based book to be given the same attention because of demographics?

I’m still trying to figure out this alternate UNCiverse where a liberal, anti-Christian faculty turns out to be apologists for a more conservative faith than the one they’re rejecting.

No, no alternate unciverse. I’d say there is a certain distaste for anything christian for such people with like minds as many that post on this board.
Daniel I suppose due to a kid growing up in the state of NC and attending a college in the same state, there is no need for even lightweight college level investigations into the christian literature or the bible because he or she will already be so familliar with it. ???

To answer #3, can’t you see there is a double standard exhibited by UNC by this. A double standard derives from a bias. That bias at UNC is anti-christian, same flavor as many of the posters on this board. It’s laughable to think that that anti-christian bias doesn’t make its way into the biased people’s work no matter how harmless the influence. I don’t think the problem is so much the evolution or the book, but that there is a dishonest aura to the basis of the study and what it is when they know full well no christian book would be given even half a thought to be considered for this type of thing. Do christians need to kill 2800 Saudis in one big bang before a christian book would be studied for it’s poetry?

[Monty]

Friend of mine many years ago made this comment to me when I used the expression “I want.”

“Want!” “Want!?” You want!? You’re old enough for your wants not to hurt you.

He was right then and he’s right now. As others have alluded to in a number of postings in this thread, your want to do the assignment doesn’t have jack to do with it. You, and all the incoming freshman to UNC are presumably old enough for their wants not to hurt them.

Heck, they might even get an education!

BTW, DD; you’re intentionally ignoring the fact that (a) millions have been killed over the years with “biblical support” for the wars and (b) the ultimate Christian book (the Christian Bible) actually is currently, and has been for some time, studied for its poetry.

Your assertion that the UNC is anti-Christian, btw, has been pulled out of your keester. Unless you can honestly prove otherwise, of course.

[Double_Darren]

I should answer #3 (a yes or no question): I don’t think so.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Double Darren *
RTFirefly,
"So you’re saying that the university should ignore criteria such as relevance and usefulness?"

Do you really believe christian books aren’t relevant, or as Daniel is pitifully trying to suggest, that there is no need for a christian based book to be given the same attention because of demographics?

Why, did something happen recently that demonstrated Americans’ urgent need to know more about Christianity than they do?

I believe the Bible is exceedingly valuable - from a spiritual perspective. I’m a born-again Christian, and I find regular interaction with Scripture to be a spiritual necessity.

But there is no urgent need now, from a state perspective, to have more Americans better educated about Christianity or the Bible than they are. There are tens of millions of Americans who are intimately familiar with both, and Christianity is sufficiently omnipresent in our society that those less familiar with Christianity than they’d like to be have lots of places to get help.

But September 11, 2001, reminded us that how the Islamic world perceives our influence on their world matters to us. And in order to understand the Islamic world’s perception of anything, we need to understand Islam itself.

We have an electorate that is extremely unfamiliar with Islam. An increased knowledge of Islam is of much greater relevance and usefulness to us, as a nation, than an increased knowledge of Christianity.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

DD, I forgot that I said that “there is no need for even lightweight college level investigations into the christian literature or the bible.” I thought that I said:

Most UNC students grew up in North Carolina, an overwhelmingly Christian state in an overwhelmingly Christian country. Most of them will be familiar with the Psalms. Such a book would not be as educational as a book on passages from the Koran.

Note the comparative: a book on Psalms would not be AS EDUCATIONAL as a book on passages from the Koran.

AS EDUCATIONAL.

AS EDUCATIONAL.

Could you remind me where I said it wouldn’t be needed?

An analogy: Most American college freshmen are familiar with the rudiments of English grammar (this is a hypothetical; indulge me). Most are not familiar with the rudiments of Ancient Greek grammar. A college that required incoming freshmen to study the rudiments of English grammar would be teaching those freshmen less than one that required them to study the rudiments of Ancient Greek Grammar.

Capiche?

As for your assertion that UNC is anti-Christian: evidence? support? That assertion is positively dripping with rectal mucus.

Daniel

[Kimstu]

DD: *[…] can’t you see there is a double standard exhibited by UNC by this. A double standard derives from a bias. That bias at UNC is anti-christian […] *

Darren, you’re jumping to rather wild conclusions from your very limited knowledge of one book in UNC’s required Summer Reading Program. A look at the Program’s website supplies some information about this and other required books from recent years:

2002: Michael Sells (ed.), Approaching the Qur’án: The Early Revelations […] Westerners for centuries have been alternately puzzled, attracted, concerned, and curious about the great religious traditions of Islam. These feelings have been especially intense since the tragic events of September 11. Approaching the Qur’án is not a political document in any sense, and its evocation of moral “reckoning” raises questions that will be timely for college students and reflective adults under any circumstances.

2001: Anne Fadiman, The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down […] explores urgent yet painful questions of medical ethics and cultural difference. […] Anne Fadiman explores the radically different notions of disease that divided the Hmong sense of health and disease from the views of American scientific medicine. The resulting conflict left behind heartbreak and bitterness and raises pressing questions for all thoughtful citizens.
Is there such a thing as “too much” cultural difference? How can science coexist respectfully with competing conceptions of the universe? What should be the role of law in defining the best interests of children when parents and doctors disagree?

2000: Tony Horwitz, Confederates in the Attic […] Horwitz raises issues important for all of us who will call the South home for the next several years. The book, chosen by a group of Carolina students and faculty, provokes readers to consider the centrality of the Civil War for Southern culture and identity, the importance of race in shaping our worldviews, and the enduring significance of regional differences. […] The book’s Chapter 13 has engendered comments and criticisms of its portrayal of Mrs. Alberta Martin, the last known living widow of a Confederate Veteran.

1999: Alex Kotlowitz, There Are No Children Here: The Story of Two Boys Growing up in the Other America […] Kotlowitz tracks […] what it is like in parts of contemporary urban America by focusing on life in a tough public-housing project on Chicago’s west side over a two-year period. We get to see how real, good people, in a terrible environment, are affected by social problems and social policies at ground level.

So we’ve got topics here ranging from Islam in the wake of 9/11, to conflict between modern science and religious belief, to race and cultural/regional identity, to social policies and social problems. “Anti-Christian bias”? Hogwash. What this reading list reflects is engagement with controversial issues in our society, and the need for students to tackle important and uncomfortable ideas in a critical way.

Your complaining that the choice of required reading for 2002 is somehow “anti-Christian” makes no more sense than complaining that the choice of the Fadiman book was “anti-science” or “anti-religion”, or that the choice of the Kotlowitz book was unfair to white people because it deals with problems in a black neighborhood. In short, you’ve focused on one particular aspect of the 2002 reading (i.e., it’s about Islam and not Christianity) and magnified that into a wholly unsupported accusation of a “double standard”. Pretty pathetic.

Porp, sorry to hear that your little slackers are taking advantage of the University’s spinelessness on this matter, but just think how much more interesting the discussion of the book will be now that the willfully ignorant and lazy have self-selected out.

[Jodi]

Aw, I’m just kidding – of course I did. I hate it when people say that.

Anyhoo –

First, no one has “forced” UNC to change their reading requirment, it changed the requirment itself. Under the threat of a lawsuit, granted, but UNC is a big enough school to have lawyers of its own and I doubt very much it would have caved on the issue if it did not see a potential problem. And decry the decision as much as you like – there is a potential problem – prolly not a real problem, but a potential one.

As many of you know, there are two potential religion-related problems that may arise under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. First, the government may not become excessively entangled in matters of religion, or advance or inhibit religion, under the Establishment Clause. Second, the government may not inhibit the ability of citizens to practice or follow their religions, under the Free Exercise Clause.

1. The chief way the courts have recently determined if an enactment violates the Establishment Clause is by applying the Lemon test, from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). The Lemon test states that, in order to be constitutional, an enactment must: (1) have a secular purpose; (2) have a principle effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) not excessively entangle government and religion.

IMO, UNC is okay here. The reading selection serves a secular purpose – to open the students minds on a thought-provoking subject and to foster debate. Merely reading a single book about a religion probalby cannot reasonably be said to advance that religion. And one book, read as an introduction to a liberal arts education, would not constitute excessive entanglement of church and state. However:

2. The purpose of the Free Exercise Clause is to

secure religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions thereof by civil authority. Hence it is necessary in a free exercise case for one to show the coercive effect of the enactment as it operates against him in the practice of his religion. The distinction between the two clauses is apparent – a violation of the Free Exercise Clause is predicated on coercion while the Establishment Clause violation need not be so attended.

Abington, 374 U.S. at 223.

Clearly in this case, the government (through UNC) is coercing the students – it requires them (or was trying to require them) to read the book. All of them – every incoming freshman. So the coercion is there. But coercion to do what? The key is that the government may not coerce you into doing any act inconsistent with your religious beliefs, including taking an oather or saluting the flag. But is the exposure to mere ideas the compulsion to do a particular act in violation of any religion? Probably not. In order to win on this basis, a plaintiff would have to argue that his or her religion forbids him or her to even study, for any reason, be it historical, philosophical, political, or as literature, any chief text of any other religion. (And, again, I think clearly this book, as an interpretation of at least part of the Koran, would constitute study of the chief text of Islam.) That’s a hard argument for any Christian to make, but one that a fundamentalist Christian might try to make. Think of it this way: What if the religion were Satanism? Would it be constitutional to compel fundamentalist Christians to read a book that respectfully dealt with that “religion” as a prerequisite to attendance at a state school? Beause some fundamentalist Christians consider Islam to be little better than Satanism – it is idolatry, the worship of a false god, which is antithetical to Christian belief. (And make no mistake: Idolatry is antithetical to most Christians, regardless of liberal or conservative bent – it’s just that moderate to liberal Christians believe (or recognize) that Muslims worship the same (true) God we do, while fundamentalist Christians do not believe that.)

So that’s the argument I think they would make, and win or lose eventually, it is IMO a colorable argument. Translation: At best – at best – UNC gets a long and expensive lawsuit while the Free Exercise question is hashed out in the courts. Better to simply back of the requirement in the name of political and economic expediency, which is what they did. You may decry that backing off as abandomment of the “liberal” in “liberal arts,” but the reality is that schools do not have pots of money sitting around with which to defend things on principle.

Do not interpret this as saying that the required reading of this book is unconstitutional. It may not be – one might even say probably is not. The U.S. Supreme Court has said:

*t might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.

School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 1573, 10 L. Ed. 2d 844, 860 (1963).
Surely this applies equally to the Koran. But if UNC insisted on adhering to mandatory reading of the book, I think it is buying itself a legal nightmare, and I see nothing unworthy in the school’s clear-eyed decision to avoid that if it can.

[Double_Darren]

**Your assertion that the UNC is anti-Christian, btw, has been pulled out of your keester. Unless you can honestly prove otherwise, of course.

As for your assertion that UNC is anti-Christian: evidence? support? That assertion is positively dripping with rectal mucus.

“Anti-Christian bias”? Hogwash.**

Well you may think this is pretty difficult for someone to prove but maybe you’re not aware that UNC, before the start of each school year, releases a collective inventory of subjects the faculty are biased for and against. But just in case I’m unable to find that list, can one of you get a copy and let me know what it says for this year?
Your complaining that the choice of required reading for 2002 is somehow “anti-Christian” makes no more sense

Didn’t say that, or mean that. I’m saying the bias shouldn’t allow for certain other books like christian books to be overlooked or to never be “germane”. I’m more of the mind that if a truly objective study could be preformed at UNC and without the exclusion of religions that may not be very popular with members of the faculty then it would get a green light from me.

RTF,
Can you tell me the % of incoming freshmen at UNC who are christian or who has a knowledge of the bible enough to not learn anything from the same type study? And can I not walk into a highschool anywhere in America and find students that can’t locate washington DC on a map of the United States?

But there is no urgent need now, from a state perspective, to have more Americans better educated about Christianity

When will demographics change?

[samclem]

Damn! Jodi.

That’s just the argument I was gonna expound on in my original argument on page 1.

That is, if I had a clue about the law.

[RTFirefly]

So that’s the argument I think they would make, and win or lose eventually, it is IMO a colorable argument.

Thanks for your much more informed look at the issues, Jodi. It hadn’t crossed my mind that the course raised a Free Exercise Clause issue.

::bows::

DD:

RTF,
Can you tell me the % of incoming freshmen at UNC who are christian

Rather higher than the % who are Moslem.

or who has a knowledge of the bible enough to not learn anything from the same type study?

Excepting something trivial like tictactoe, we can all learn more about anything. So?

And can I not walk into a highschool anywhere in America and find students that can’t locate washington DC on a map of the United States?

And the connection is…?

[samclem]

Hey, Double D. You say

Well you may think this is pretty difficult for someone to prove but maybe you’re not aware that UNC, before the start of each school year, releases a collective inventory of subjects the faculty are biased for and against. But just in case I’m unable to find that list, can one of you get a copy and let me know what it says for this year?

Not disputing you. JUst curious how you know this exists? Source?

[Monty]

samclem:

Do you suppose DD’s talking about the course catalog?

[Double_Darren]

RTF
quote:

And can I not walk into a highschool anywhere in America and find students that can’t locate washington DC on a map of the United States?

And the connection is…?

“we can all learn more about anything.” - regardless of demographics or sunday school. So your argument that kids from NC have more to learn from a book on the koran than a book on the bible is rather pointless. Since you’re going to once again revert to the “it’s in the news and germane” side of your argument then I can’t help but wonder why is it no book on the troubles in Israel have been given a shot. At any rate, it’s not ‘ignorance’ that should be addressed but ‘hot world topics’, right?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

*Originally posted by Double Darren *
Well you may think this is pretty difficult for someone to prove but maybe you’re not aware that UNC, before the start of each school year, releases a collective inventory of subjects the faculty are biased for and against. But just in case I’m unable to find that list, can one of you get a copy and let me know what it says for this year?

Terribly sorry you’re having trouble getting your hands on this list, DD. Tell you what: you get it and you show us where it says that the faculty is biased in favor of Islam and against Christianity, and I’ll send you a batch of my famous cookies.

Hint: you may want to find out where Joe McCarthy got his list from: I’m guessing it’s the same supplier.

RTF,
Can you tell me the % of incoming freshmen at UNC who are christian or who has a knowledge of the bible enough to not learn anything from the same type study? And can I not walk into a highschool anywhere in America and find students that can’t locate washington DC on a map of the United States?

Can you tell me who said that freshmen couldn’t learn anything from studying Christianity? I thought I made that point clear above, what with repeating myself three times and using all-caps and bold letters. Let’s try again:

AMERICANS ARE MORE INFORMED ABOUT CHRISTIANITY THAN ABOUT ISLAM.

Do you understand the difference between “more” and “perfectly”?

Geez Louise.
Daniel

[DMC]

After reading this thread and also the website of the homophobes that filed the lawsuit, I’d like to petition the OP to have the title changed. While UNC is still scoreless, ignorance has put quite a few more points on the board.

For anyone besides Double Darren (since he can’t be bothered to study anything that might be relevant to the topic) that wishes to see what sort of religious interests the UNC faculty has, their College of Religious Studies has their specialties and areas of interest listed. I only saw one that had any background in Islamic studies, so it might take a bit of convincing to lead me to believe that the entire administration is a bunch of Christian-bashing Muslim fundamentalists.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Double Darren *
At any rate, it’s not ‘ignorance’ that should be addressed but ‘hot world topics’, right?

How about ‘ignorance directly related to hot world topics’?

I thought I’d bounce this up to the top, since it puts everything else in perspective.

“we can all learn more about anything.” - regardless of demographics or sunday school.

True.

So your argument that kids from NC have more to learn from a book on the koran than a book on the bible is rather pointless.

No.

For obvious reasons, the book on the Koran is more likely to address their ignorance, which is probably pretty complete on that topic, than the book on the Bible, which a great many students in NC will start off knowing a lot about.

And as I’ve previously pointed out, you have not demonstrated any strategic shortcomings in Americans’ knowledge of Christianity. For purposes of our electorate responding to domestic and international matters involving Christianity, we know enough about Christianity to handle whatever comes up with minor additional research.

OTOH, we unquestionably have such a strategic shortcoming in our knowledge of Islam. Islam is important to us right now, yet we know practically zip about it.

Since you’re going to once again revert to the “it’s in the news and germane” side of your argument then I can’t help but wonder why is it no book on the troubles in Israel have been given a shot.

Because UNC offers only one course of this sort per year?

Not to mention, the troubles in Israel have been going on a bit longer than you or I have been alive, in sharp contrast to 9/11. (And fwiw, they also relate to Islam.)