The Koran "the book of the enemy"

by JanH 9 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  JanH

  US university sued over Koran class

  Religion and education in the US are an awkward mix A US university that included a book on the Koran in a class for new students is being sued by a Christian organisation and a group of students.

  They claim the university is unfairly promoting one religion at the expense of others.

  This is part of a long history of anti-Islamic bias that is akin to anti-Semitism or even racism

  University professor Carl W Ernst

  The incident has led to renewed controversy over American attitudes towards Islam following the 11 September attacks.

  The case began when the University of North Carolina chose professor Michael Sells's book, "Approaching the Qur'an" for one of its courses.

  The university felt that interest in Islam had increased among the student population.

  "We are obviously not promoting one religion," the university's Chancellor James Moeser told the Washington Post newspaper.

  "What more timely subject could there be?"

  'Violated rights'

  Students were required to read the book - a translation into English of passages from Islam's holy book - as part of a first-year course.

  US students have become more interested in studying Islam

  But legal action group the American Family Association Centre for Law & Policy, part of conservative Christian group the American Family Association, filed a lawsuit on behalf of three students and two former students in late July.

  It claimed that the university's requirement to read the book violated their First Amendment rights.

  It added that the book does not present a full picture of Islam as it does not contain passages cited by Islamic militants as justification for acts of terror.

  The university later amended the course so that students would have an option not to read the book - although those who objected would have to write a paper on why they chose not to.

  But this was dismissed by the organisation.

  "Pitting students who object to the forced reading of the Koran against those who do not is the modern equivalent of requiring the objecting students to wear yellow stars of David," the organisation said in a statement.

  The university countered last week by asking a judge in North Carolina to dismiss the suit and the university's religious professor, Carl W Ernst, accused the group of bias.

  "It is easy to take phrases out of context from any sacred book," he told the newspaper.

  "This is part of a long history of anti-Islamic bias that is akin to anti-Semitism or even racism."

  Bigotry accusations

  The study and teaching of Islam in US universities has increased in popularity since 11 September, although attitudes towards the religion in some sectors have caused controversy.

  Comments made by conservative Christian groups in the US have sparked criticism and accusations of bigotry.

  Shortly after the attacks, evangelist Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, wrote in the Wall Street Journal newspaper that the Koran "provides ample evidence that Islam encourages violence in order to win converts and to reach the ultimate goal of an Islamic world".

  Right-wing pundit Bill O'Reilly said on his Fox News Network programme that teaching the Koran to US students was wrong as it was the book of "our enemy's religion".

  From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2178067.stm

  - Jan
• 

  ThiChi

  This is what happens when Government is involved in education. Government sponsored systems generate this type of response when religion is considered. Private schools that do not receive government funds do not have this problem (there are many religious based schools that promote religious studies).

  Lets examine the situation:

  Does the Holy Koran (or even the Bible) belong in a general "class for new students" at a public college, or should the study only take place in a specialized field of study picked by the student?

  Should a book be used that takes out the critical aspects of the Holy Koran?
• 

  Kinsman

  Hi Jan,

  Actually this is a very interesting case because its so backward I mean it usually goes the other way. That is, it is usually the US left that is suing to remove religious subjects and ritual (generally Christian) from publicly funded facilities and programs. For example: the recent suite in California regarding the allegiance pledge in public schools and other wide-spread suits preventing the placement of the ten commandments in public court houses across the nation.

  The issue here is the US constitutions first amendment that describes Jeffersons wall between Church and State. It has long been argued and many times successfully defended that the US government should remain completely neutral as regards religious belief or non-belief in its publicly funded activities.

  Regarding this case, whats good for the goose is good for the gander; the University should not have made the course mandatory. This opened the door for a legitimate suit on first amendment grounds given that the University is a public one. The University seemed to later recognize its mistake and made the reading of the book optional but still required the student to write a paper describing their objections to reading the book. The University should have dropped all 'mandatory' requirements around the study of a particular religion, especially sense it applied to all majors.

  On the other hand, it must be stated that the present administration in the US has an open and popular agenda to weaken Jeffersons wall with its faith based humanitarian programs, etc. It is openly Pro-Christian and Pro-Belief both verbally and on the record and I find this offensive and scary. I wish more people felt the same way. The current administration has the potential to set US social progress back decades especially if it gets to appoint a few Supreme Court justices. Thus, the issue is a serious one in my mind. Nevertheless, the academics should back off and abide by the same constitutional standards by dropping their own 'mandatory' attempts to prompt religious relativism.

  Regards Kinsman
• 

  plmkrzy

  the forced reading of the Koran against those who do not is the modern equivalent of requiring the objecting students to wear yellow stars of David,"

  That is SOOOO out there.

  I NEVER had to wear confederate clothes in any of my history classes.
• 

  Satanus

  "This is part of a long history of anti-Islamic bias that is akin to anti-Semitism or even racism."

  Good point. In fact, arabs are also semites, because they are descendents of the traditional shem. So, arab haters are anti-semites. Israelis, strangely enough, are anti-semites as well, even though they are semitic. A dna study of the arabs surrounding israel, found that they are brothers, all semitic.

  SS
• 

  SYN

  Shortly after the attacks, evangelist Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, wrote in the Wall Street Journal newspaper that the Koran "provides ample evidence that Islam encourages violence in order to win converts and to reach the ultimate goal of an Islamic world".

  Oh, and the Bible is a work absolute free of violence and gratuitous (SP?) genocide, right? HYPOCRITE!
• 

  Francois

  Characterizations of Bill O'Reilly as a right wing pundit don't go far enough in my opinion.

  Mr. O'Reilly has converted himself into a full-blown demagogue in the last 12 months, going so far to say that it was "un-American" for any American attorney to represent the so-called "20th Hijacker" whose name I don't immediately now how to spell.

  Frankly, any American, news pundit or not, who thinks that anyone charged by our government with a crime does not deserve a full, fair, and impartial trial doesn't understand what American jurisprudence or our constitution is all about.

  And Bill is wrong on a lot of other issues, too, at the very top of his lungs. And I'm a politically conservative person.

  Bill is shooting himself in the foot. The sooner he's had his "15 minutes" and is gone, the better I'll like it.

  -frank
• 

  Bendrr

  Frank, I have to go with O'Reilly on the issue of an attorney for Moussaui (sp?). He was a foreigner who conspired with other foreigners and foreign governments (you know as well as I do that Iraq and probably others were in on it) to commit an act of war against the United States. What he should get in the way of legal representation is some incompetent trainee from the local public defender's office like most other poverty-level AMERICAN CITIZENS end up with. And that in my opinion is more than he deserves.

  And for all you Islam defenders out there, I'll feel a lot more comfortable with your faith when I see the Islamic nations start handing over terrorists instead of dancing in the streets when innocent Americans die.

  Mike.
• 

  Double Edge

  Well said, Bendrr!!
• 

  Grunt

  >
  Fear & Loathing in Norway: Neo-nazism, nostalgia and immigration

  Author: Valerie Borey
  Published on: July 27, 2001

  Related Subject(s): Immigrants -- Norway , Neo-Nazism -- Norway , Racism -- Norway

  A recent study conducted by the Norwegian Statistics Bureau reported that Norway rated 3rd in Europe for highest net immigration when compared with the countrys existing population. This influx of immigrants has been problematic for many regions in Norway who find themselves unprepared to deal with the complexities of integrating culturally diverse refugees into what has traditionally been a homogeneous system.

  Municipalities have responded to these difficulties by developing an elaborate screening system, in which they choose how many refugees they are willing to receive and from which countries. Problems with racism, violence, and religious differences have culled a sense of caution in the selection process. The Norway Post reports that, more often than before, [the municipalities] also demand detailed personal information.

  In June, the parliament rejected a proposal for mandatory HIV screening of all residence permit applicants on the grounds that such a practice would be discriminatory. Regional Minister Sylvia Brustad said, The proposal is part of the general debate around Norwegian immigration policy, in an attempt to frighten people and brand a whole group as carriers of HIV/AIDS.

  Fear that immigrant populations will be responsible for contaminating Norway has been widespread not just in terms of HIV, but drawing also on beliefs about criminal behavior, employment, religious zealotry, public health, and the integrity of the educational system.

  In light of these concerns, a number of neo-nazi groups have been gaining in popularity, especially in areas which have seen a larger influx of immigrants. One group in particular, Oslos Boot boys, is believed to be responsible for several episodes of racist violence in the past two years, including the brutal assault of a 31 year old Moroccan-born man in 1998 and the murder of a 15 year old Norwegian-African boy in January of 2001.