Re: CITR and the Koran

I think that's a bit reductionistic -- what people put up on billboards and what
people can teach in schools are two entirely different issues. The separation
of church and state has long been used to inhibit the free exercise of the
Christian religion in public schools. There is another side, of course -- in
many instances public schools were openly advocating Christianity. But in many
cases these laws were used to restrict the free exercise of religion outside of
the regular classroom period, even in student led events. Christianity is
hardly _the_ accepted religion across America anymore and people take issue with
every expression of it they see in publicly funded institutions on a regular
basis.

The fact that "God" is used in the pledge shouldn't be obscured by the fact
there are a lot of people that want to remove it -- and it's used so generically
it could be a reference to the God of virtually any religion.

But there's also a big difference between college campuses and public
elementary, middle, and secondary schools. What won't fly in K-12 works fine on
a college campus. Fact is the Koran (and Arabic authors) is used as reading
material (as well as the Christian Bible) in college campuses across the US
pretty regularly and you don't hear a peep -- until recently, when some
reactionary boneheads decided they knew what was appropriate reading for a
college classroom.

At any rate, I don't think you can generalize about receptions of either the
Koran or the Christian Bible at all from just this instance.

Jim

m e g h a n wrote:

> No, I'm not saying that at all. I just disagree with you that there'd be
> twice as much controversy. I think there'd be little controversy, if any,
> over the Christian bible. I don't think you can argue that Christianity
> isn't the most accepted religion. As I've said before, it's perfectly ok to
> say God. How many God Bless America billboards and such have you seen since
> September 11? No one cares if people want to talk about God. But once you
> mention Allah, you're practically labeled a terrorist. I may be the only one
> arguging with you over this issue, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. It's my
> opinion. Could you explain why you think there'd be twice as much of a
> reaction, instead of just repeating that?
>
> >From: "adam lescalleet" <adam@sebcoe.org>
> >Reply-To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
> >To: <bananafish@roughdraft.org>
> >Subject: Re: CITR and the Koran
> >Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:31:12 -0500
> >
> >ok, so what exactly are you saying? are you saying that since God is still
> >in the Pledge that people accept God more than "any other religious
> >figure"?
> >i don't think so...my point here still stands, that if it were the
> >Christian
> >Bible being read, then there would have been at least twice as much
> >reaction. you're about the only one that would disagree with me on that.
> >
> >-adam.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "m e g h a n" <bedroomdancing@hotmail.com>
> >To: <adam@sebcoe.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:40 AM
> >Subject: Re: CITR and the Koran
> >
> >
> > > A big dispute, and look what happened.. God is still in the Pledge. You
> > > can't argue that God is more accepted than any other religious figure.
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: "adam lescalleet" <adam@sebcoe.org>
> > > >To: "m e g h a n" <bedroomdancing@hotmail.com>
> > > >Subject: Re: CITR and the Koran
> > > >Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:47:37 -0500
> > > >
> > > >It's ok to mention God?
> > > >
> > > >Hmm. Wasn't there a big dispute about saying "one nation, under God" in
> > > >schools when repeating the Pledge of Allegiance?
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "m e g h a n" <bedroomdancing@hotmail.com>
> > > >To: <bananafish@roughdraft.org>; <adam@sebcoe.org>
> > > >Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 1:57 PM
> > > >Subject: RE: CITR and the Koran
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I also said that there wouldn't be controversey, at least not as
> >much,
> > > >if
> > > > > the Bible instead of the Koran was chosen, and I think that for the
> >same
> > > > > reasons you do. It seems that it's ok to mention God, in Christian
> >form
> > > >as
> > > > > much as you want, but if you want to mention Allah, well then
> >there's
> >a
> > > > > problem.
> > > > > >From: "Matthew S. Mahoney" <matthew.s.mahoney@vanderbilt.edu>
> > > > > >Reply-To: bananafish@roughdraft.org
> > > > > >To: "adam lescalleet" <adam@sebcoe.org>,
> ><bananafish@roughdraft.org>
> > > > > >Subject: RE: CITR and the Koran
> > > > > >Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 06:49:22 -0500
> > > > > >
> > > > > >that was me who said it wouldn't have been as big a deal if the
> >Bible
> > > >was
> > > > > >the
> > > > > >text in question-what i was implying, however, was not that groups
> >like
> > > >the
> > > > > >ACLU, etc, would not get involved, because they most certainly
> >would,
> > > >but
> > > > > >that
> > > > > >popular sentiment, the thoughts on the issue by the average joe,
> >would
> > > >be
> > > > > >much
> > > > > >less ferocious and pervasive, and indeed even existent. the bible,
> > > >being
> > > > > >inherently more familiar and 'accepted,' would provoke less of a
> > > >response
> > > > > >than
> > > > > >an unfamiliar and distinctive Koran, simply because more noteworthy
> > > >things
> > > > > >lead us to perform a double-take. (the Koran, of course, has
> >largely
> > > >been
> > > > > >dragged into this due to our frenzy with all things 9/11-in any
> >other
> > > >year,
> > > > > >this would have gone largely unnoticed. my read on the
> > > >situation-extremely
> > > > > >savvy newspaper personnel picking up on a story guaranteed to turn
> > > >heads,
> > > > > >and
> > > > > >us (society) following in tow-some with meritorious debates, most
> >with
> > > > > >ignorant rhetoric).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >===== Original Message From "adam lescalleet" <adam@sebcoe.org>
> >=====
> > > > > > >That's exactly their explanation for the reason it was chosen.
> >Due
> > > >to
> > > > > >the
> > > > > > >recent happenings "over there", they figured it would be good to
> >gain
> > > >a
> > > > > > >better understanding on the religion that is supposedly the flame
> > > >that
> > > >is
> > > > > > >the passion that drives them to do this; some of them say they do
> >it
> > > >for
> > > > > > >religious purposes, and, for the most part, true devout followers
> >of
> > > >the
> > > > > > >Koran are being cast under an ugly light. I can't really say
> >that
> >I
> > > > > >appose
> > > > > > >or support this...I think that, like someone said earlier, it's
> >all
> > > >quite
> > > > > > >silly to be made such a big deal over.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >And who said that if they had to read the Christian Bible it
> >wouldn't
> > > >be
> > > > > >a
> > > > > > >big deal? I think that if they did, there wouldn't have been
> >just
> >a
> > > > > >handful
> > > > > > >of people suing the university over this... =)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >-adam.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > >From: "Scottie Bowman" <rbowman@indigo.ie>
> > > > > > >To: <bananafish@roughdraft.org>
> > > > > > >Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 2:02 AM
> > > > > > >Subject: Re: CITR and the Koran
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I presume the idea is to broaden understanding in the
> >aftermath
> > > > > > >> of last September & Middle Eastern events generally. But I
> > > >wonder
> > > > > > >> really how much relevance a grasp of the Koran has to that
> > > > > >enterprise.
> > > > > > >> It's like suggesting that a mastery of the King James Bible
> >or
> > > > > > >> of Humanae Vita will illuminate the conflict in the North
> >of
> > > > > >Ireland.
> > > > > > >> Only very, very marginally.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Scriptures can be used - and are, all the time - in
> > > >diametrically
> > > > > > >> opposed ways to support almost any political stance.
> >'Islam',
> > > > > > >> nowadays, is essentially a tribal badge - just like 'The
> >West'.
> > > > > > >> The tribes have grown to existence along many different
> >routes
> > > > > > >> - economic, historic, & the rest. The religion of the tribe
> > > > > >(whether
> > > > > > >> Islam or Humanist Capitalism) is now little more than a
> >handy
> > > > > > >> combustible to fuel the fire.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Scottie B.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> -
> > > > > > >> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> > > > > > >> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >-
> > > > > > >* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> > > > > > >* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
> > > > > >
> > > > > >" I would gladly trade all my friends for the company of children."
> > > > > > -Albert Einstien
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Matthew S. Mahoney
> > > > > >Station B 8209
> > > > > >matthew.s.mahoney@vanderbilt.edu
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-
> > > > > >* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> > > > > >* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
> >http://mobile.msn.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >-
> >* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> >* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH