LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

jihad in 7th grade

Wed, Jul 3, 2002 at 8:32:00 am PDT

As our courts continue to do their best to eradicate all Judeo-Christian references from public schools, radical Muslim groups are sneakily introducing Islam to US children under the umbrella of political correctness. In classrooms across the United States, 7th grade students are following a three week course of indoctrination into Islam, even play-acting at jihad, in a simulation designed with input from several militant Islamic organizations. Daniel Pipes writes about this outrageous violation of church-state separation:

"Become a Muslim warrior during the crusades or during an ancient jihad." Thus read the instructions for seventh graders in Islam: A Simulation of Islamic History and Culture, 610-1100, a three-week curriculum produced by Interaction Publishers, Inc. In classrooms across the United States, students who follow its directions find themselves fighting mock battles of jihad against "Christian crusaders" and other assorted "infidels." Upon gaining victory, our mock-Muslim warriors "Praise Allah." ...

The Interaction unit contains many other controversial elements. It has students adopt a Muslim name ("Abdallah," "Karima," etc.). It has them wear Islamic clothing: For girls this means a long-sleeved dress and the head covered by a scarf. Students unwilling to wear Islamic clothes must sit mutely in the back of the class, seemingly punished for remaining Westerners.

Interaction calls for many Islamic activities: taking off shoes, washing hands, sitting on prayer rugs, and practicing Arabic calligraphy.

Students study the Koran, recite from it, design a title page for it, and write verses of it on a banner. They act out Islam's Five Pillars of Faith, including giving zakat (Islamic alms) and going on the pilgrimage to Mecca. They also build a replica of the "sacred Kaaba" in Mecca or another holy building.

It goes on. Seventh graders adopt the speech of pious believers, greeting each other with "assalam aleikoom, fellow Muslims" and using phrases such as "God willing" and "Allah has power over all things."

They pronounce the militant Islamic war-cry, Allahu akbar ("God is great.") They must even adopt Muslim mannerisms: "Try a typical Muslim gesture where the right hand moves solemnly... across the heart to express sincerity."

In the same pious spirit, the curriculum presents matters of Islamic faith as historical fact. The Kaaba, "originally built by Adam," it announces, "was later rebuilt by Abraham and his son Ismail." Really? That is Islamic belief, not verifiable history. In the year 610, Interaction goes on, "while Prophet Muhammad meditated in a cave ... the angel Gabriel visited him" and revealed to him God's Message" (yes, that's Message with a capital "M.") The curriculum sometimes lapses into referring to "we" Muslims and even prompts students to ask if they should "worship Prophet Muhammad, God, or both."
Advertisement

95 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 James  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 6:35:46am

I'm skeptical.

2 Q  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 6:39:41am

Who needs CAIR etc., when there are public schools? "Become a Nazi warrior..."

3 Charles  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 6:44:53am

I’m not skeptical at all. Here’s the catalog page for the simulation at the publisher’s web site:

Islam: a simulation

4 AG in Houston  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 6:55:25am

This is gross...

5 Robert Crawford  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:02:01am

I'm not skeptical, either. This was reported last fall, too, and barely got any attention.

To be fair to the publisher, they also have similar materials for ancient Greece, China, Japan, and other cultures. They even have one titled "Christendom":

Christendom

Do you think people would consider the following to be "promoting" Christianity?

o Take A Monk's Vow and become part of a silent and solitary cloister of a religious order to learn the role of the Catholic Church monasteries

o Inspire young crusaders to wrest the Holy Lands from the Saracen armies

I have no doubt people would object to a public school using this program -- and that some of those objecting would be Christians themselves.

6 J Lichty  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:03:25am

If the pledge of allegience is unconstitutional in the 9th Circuit, let them try to defend this one!

7 Tone  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:04:38am

You're kidding right?

You're not?

This is totally outrageous. I'm lost for any sensible words to say on this.

No I'm not - this is very sick indeed. I'm not a US citizen, but if I were I would be trying to make this as widely known as possible. This is disgusting.

Nope, that still doesn't sound *angry* enough.

Gobsmacked.

8 Eric the CR  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:05:01am

I suggest a new curriculum: Become a Communist for a week. The student will have fun re-enacting purges, famines and collectivization.

The teacher will choose a chairman of the class who will have absolute power.

Food will be rationed so that the chairman gets all the food he likes, while the others get scraps. Property will be owned collectively, with the chairman deciding who and for how long has the use of the collected property. The children will find out that the chairman usually has the best intentions and uses for all collectivized property.

Students will declare war on neighboring "capitalist" classes and purge their ranks of imperialist influences. The students will learn that no method is too extreme.

Students will form commits to isolate the enemies of the people, chosen by the chairman, who will be taken to the back of the beaten severely into submission.

Students who complain, will be taken to the back of the beaten severely into submission.

Students who refuse to participate, will be taken to the back of the beaten severely into submission.

You know, come to think of it, I should have done something like this for a real Islam class, which would have been more relevant. Oh, well.

9 denise  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:05:25am

Hmm. I was hoping this would be a blatant Islamic propaganda site. However, the Islam program is mixed in with units on the Gold Rush, Little Red Riding Hood and geometry, so it's more insidious. (There's also a program on Christendom -- d/n check out whether it presents any Christian belief as historical fact, but I'd be surprised).

I agree that this program would violate constitutional standards. For that reason, I think that few public schools would actually use it (there are definitely teachers stupid enough to try, but somewhere in the administration, someone might have a clue). Those that do try to use it will soon face a legal challenge -- and lose.

10 Meryl Yourish  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:06:34am

Before we all get our knickers in a twist, please tell me which schools are actually using this program.

None that I know of in New Jersey--this is the sort of thing that causes parents to sue their children's schools. You'd hear about it if it's being taught.

11 Eric the CR  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:10:30am

I think the point here is that what's being taught has a distinct political slant (Orientalism for 'tweens). The project could have just as easily emphasized the subjugation of women, the aggressive colonialism and the blood lost. But its just soft PC bullshit.

12 Andrea Harris  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:14:38am

This is just odd. Why "play act" at becoming followers of a religion? Isn't it possible to study the world's religions without elaborate games like this? It makes me wonder if the manufactureres of these simulations, and the schools that use them, consider religions to be "real."

Another thing: Islam, more than the other two "faiths of the Book," depends heavily on outward professions of faith and ritual. The teachers who might naively think that this course is nothing more than a "learning" experience don't seem to realize this. There are at least two outcomes that might result: this playacting could be seen as insulting to Muslims, treating their faith as if it were some sort of theater exercise; or it could make some Muslims think that Americans are ripe for conversion, and only inflame their desire to attack Western "infidel" society.

(Sorry if this comment isn't very clear: I have a miserable toothache and am scarfing down painkillers.)

13 James  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:16:07am

I don't believe it for the simple reason that there isn't a school district in America that could teach this without pissing off one parent.

They pronounce the militant Islamic war-cry, Allahu akbar

Proof please.

14 denise  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:16:07am

Robert Crawford is right. The "Christendom" section does have some constitutionally objectionable content.

You know, it's possible that the "simulations" with this kind of religious content could be designed for private schools. No constitutional problem there.

Of course, we'll soon be funding American madrassas with vouchers anyway, so this may be a little glimpse of things to come.

15 Jonathan  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:26:33am

I'm going to throw up.

Crawford is mostly right; a similar program was reported several months ago. The ever-controversial WorldNetDaily reported on it at:
[Link: worldnetdaily.com...]

It looks like snopes dispute that one in part, but I don't have the time to read it thoroughly or compare that textbook with what Pipes is talking about:
[Link: www.snopes2.com...]

16 Sherry Gaskin  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:28:25am

At least one school district in the San Francisco Bay area taught it.

17 Laurence Simon  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:30:24am

Golly, where's the Israel or Judaism simulation... I must be clicking on allllll the wrong links or something. Probably just a little snafu with my connection or the server's acting strange...

Yeah, right.

Here's three simulations that would be *really* fun if they tried to make them as "realistic" as the Islam one:

JOAN OF ARC: Followed by a class barbecue, of course.

SLAVERY: I'd hate to think how authentic this is if their Islam simulation turns kids into Muslims for 3-weeks. Better get the Bactine ready.

TRIAL OF SOCRATES: Don't drink the water, Soc. Anybody have Ipecac ready?

18 TeddyFlipped  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:39:01am
I don't believe it for the simple reason that there isn't a school district in America that could teach this without pissing off one parent.

Urban Legends School for Scandal has an interesting article about this controversy. While they have a quarrel with the group that originally raised the issue, much of the group's complaint about the teaching of Islam turned out to be true.

19 The Zymurgist  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:42:46am

I too am skeptical that this would be allowed in a public school. 3 weeks? No responsible cirriculum could accomodate it.

I don't really think Constitutionality is the problem, however. As I understand the program, it is made clear that its participants are play-acting.

That is not the case with the Pledge of Allegiance. By requiring teachers to encourage students to recite the pledge in its current form (under God), The Federal Gov. is clearly indoctrinating America's youth into a mono-theistic beleif system. They aren't playing.

20 Eric the CR  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:45:40am

3 weeks is not too long. My wife is an elementary school teacher (2nd grade) and she has teaching blocks. So, for example, the kids will study the eskimos or skyscrapers for 3 to 4 weeks. Not every minute, but for, say, 1 hour per day. The kids have maybe 4 to5 blocks like this per year.

21 alanH  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:48:04am

I'm trying to figure out how it could be that a significant number of parents whose kids were learning this tripe wouldn't be screaming bloody murder at the school board...

22 denise  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:54:00am

Zymurgist -- I don't think the "playing" element would be much of a shield against an establishment clause challenge. Do our schools have passion plays or do students act out the nativity? No (at least not since the '60s), because that would be considered establishment of Christianity.

23 The Zymurgist  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:54:25am

I see your point Eric, maybe it's only an hour or so a day. Although, it seems like all those costumes and everything would take alot of time.

Either way, 10 hours or 100 hours: Way too much time spent on a complex subject better examined later in life. I'd prefer they stick to the 3 r's, and let parents handle cultural sensitivity and awareness issues.

24 Q  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 8:14:14am

Constitutionality most definitely IS the problem. Another problem is the fawning presentation of the enemy's ideology.

25 BigDogDaddy  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 8:15:05am

>>>>That is not the case with the Pledge of Allegiance. By requiring teachers to encourage students to recite the pledge in its current form (under God), The Federal Gov. is clearly indoctrinating America's youth into a mono-theistic beleif system. They aren't playing.

BS! The Supreme Court ruled in the 1940's that a student can not be required to say the Pledge. Yes, it is taught to all students in all US schools, but it is not required. If a parent objects, the student can elect not to say the pledge without any kind of discipline. If you think spouting the words "under God" has some sort of magical quality that will convert a child to Christianity, I have some swamp land in Florida I can make you a good deal on. By that logic, if a kid says "Doobie" every morning, he is being indoctrinated into drug use. Think about it. Indoctrination? BS!

26 The Zymurgist  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 8:25:38am

Big Dad -- reread my words:

"By requiring teachers to encourage Students..."

See? No one said the students were forced into anything. I am fully aware that no one can force a child to say the words. Read before you spew.

Having said that, the only BS involved is your intentional ignorance of the social pressures the child of atheistic beleif would undergo when opting out of The Pledge's recitation based on Idealogical principle. And I think we are all aware of the popular methods of "pressure" among young boys. Black eyes, fat lips...

How would you feel if The Pledge was reworded in this way: "One nation, under NO God..."

If you answer that question by saying "I would have no problem with it, after all they couldn't force my child to say it..." then you are a liar. You would be up in arms and you know it. The difference? You don't give a shit about the rights of those that don't conform to your beleif system.

27 alanH  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 8:46:12am

So big deal...you say "under God"....hardly like being forced to attend church or wear a burkha...

28 M. Simon  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 8:54:59am

Jesus had something to say about public professions of piety. Let me quote from an article that I wrote on the subject about four months ago:


"under God" - requested by the Kights of Colombus was added in 1954. Making the oath a pubic prayer. Well we all know what Jesus said about public prayer. But hey, this is a Christian God fearing Nation. No need to listen to Jesus.

29 mistermarty  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 9:00:19am

Let's vote to change the pledge again. Under God doesn't mean anything because it may mean anything. Let's be more specific:
One nation under Allah
One nation under Christ
One nation under Buddah
One nation under Jehovah
One nation under water
One nation underwear
One nation under the sky
One nation underdog
Or let's leave it out altogether.
One nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

30 RWM  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 9:05:38am

Just a thought on a post by The Zymurgist:

"I too am skeptical that this would be allowed in a public school. 3 weeks? No responsible cirriculum could accomodate it."

Well, there's the rub: a responsible public school curriculum is oxymoronic these days.

I couldn't agree more. Teach these kids how to add and subtract; find their home state on a map; who George Washington and Abe Lincoln were; how to read and speak something that resembles English. Let's leave it at that.

If the parents want to indoctrinate their children on all the finer points of Islam (y'know, rape, suppression and mutilation) they can do it on their own time.

Sheesh, all this in a day when kids and teachers can't even wish each other Merry Christmas because it's offensive to the non-believers in the class.

31 M. Simon  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 9:07:46am

If this were really a Christian nation the people would be against the "under God" bit.

As 87% of all Americans (according to a poll) want to keep "under God" America can not possibly be a Christian nation in the sense that the people are followers of the teachings of Jesus.

As a matter of fact the level of support for the phrase would make this a nation of hypocrites. As is usual in most places and most times.

32 alanH  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 9:16:45am

Why is saying "under God" a public prayer?
Nobody's addressing the Almighty with the statement.

33 Robert Crawford  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 9:19:08am

Hey, nice little digression on the Pledge. What a pity it has nothing to do with the issue at hand: Should government schools be requiring children to take up the practices of Islam?

34 Walt  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 9:32:15am

Robert (Crawford),

It's because there's nothing more to say on the subject. Clearly teaching this stuff is outrageous, and if taught in public schools, unconstitutional. There wil be no readers of Little Green Footballs who think its a good idea.

35 The Zymurgist  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 9:39:38am

Robert, connect the dots. The connection does exist unless you choose to ignore it. The only difference is that Islam isn't something most Americans hold to be true, and so presenting it to children in a public school seems inappropriate.

But we all agree there is a God right? So references to that entity in kindergartens country-wide is just fine.

Just so we're clear, I want them both out. Talk about God at home. Don't subject my children to your chicken feet and tea leaves (or whatever subtle references you think you can slip in there with a 5-4 majority in some freaking court.)

36 Robert Crawford  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 9:55:39am

Zymurgist -- If you're incapable of differentiating between a school teaching the practices of a religion and the optional statement of the words "under God", I pity you.

I'm not religious -- agnostic's probably the best label -- and I'm perfectly able to tell the difference. I'm also able to see that the drive to force religious expressions out of the public sphere is as noxious as any attempt to impose an official religion.

37 The Zymurgist  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:15:13am

Leading 5 year olds in a federally mandated statement regarding the existance of God is teaching the practices of religion.

Again, I put it to you: What if we changed it to "Under NO God". I'd wager that everyone now claiming "Under God" to be benign would do a 180.

38 denise  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:21:42am

Zymurgist -- I'm still having trouble understanding how given your broad interpretation of the Establishment Clause (so that the mention of God is unconstitutional), you think having students play jihad against the Christian Crusaders and adopt proper Muslim names for three weeks would not create an Establishment Clause problem. (from post #19).

39 BigDogDaddy  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:22:01am

>>>>If you answer that question by saying "I would have no problem with it, after all they couldn't force my child to say it..." then you are a liar. You would be up in arms and you know it. The difference? You don't give a shit about the rights of those that don't conform to your beleif system.

I've yet to see it proven that a teacher is "required" to teach the pledge. It is standard practice, but not required that I am aware of. And while being a Christian, I actually have no problem with taking "under God" out of the pledge. It means something to those who believe in God, it means nothing to those who don't. I don't believe having it in the pledge supports or bolsters my personal faith anymore than I think it will indoctrinate an unbeliever. I don't go to church to learn how to do math and I didn't go to school to learn about God. I don't want the schools teaching religion......because it is a matter of personal choice and preference and the school is not equipped to teach the subject as a parent would wish it to be taught. As I said, those two words have no magic powers.

As far as the peer pressure trauma to a child who chooses not to say the pledge.....BS. Go to your kids classroom sometime as I have and see how many kids are preoccupied with other things and are not saying it with the ones who are. No one is looking around and deciding who is going to be beat up on the playground. The case that brought this all up in reality had little to do with the child....it was her athiest father who was offended by it and didn't want his kid saying it. Which brings me back to what I said about the school not being equipped for teaching religion. I'm prtestant, I don't want the school teaching catholicism to MY kid because it is not what I believe. The ostracizing of the child is a canard for the parents wishes, pure and simple.

So, you see, I'm not a liar, I can answer that I have no problem with it and I do give a Shit about the rights of people that don't believe as I do.

My point was and is, it is not required and it has no magical powers to convert.

Indoctrination? BS!

40 The Zymurgist  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:24:12am

There is a difference between saying "There are people who believe there is a God" and saying "There is a God."

How can this be difficult?

41 denise  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:28:17am

Well, okay, I agree with that distinction. But it appears the Islam simulation goes quite a bit further than saying "There are people who believe there is a God."

42 The Zymurgist  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:31:21am

Big Dad,

You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask you what if they took out the "Under God". After all, the remaining Pledge would still fit in with your beleif system.

My question was what if it were changed to "Under NO God". Only then would the Pledge actually contradict with what you beleive to be true. Kind of hard to "Stand United" with a bunch of people who want to make it perfectly clear that your idealogical conclusions are incompatible with those dictated to be true by The Fed Gov.

Oh, and we're just going to have to disagree on the peer pressure thing. I'm not sure what planet you are from, but in my experiences children can be extremely cruel to anyone who dares to be "different".

43 denise  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:34:48am

BigDogDaddy -- I'm right with you on why to keep religion out of schools. Except that I'm a Catholic, and I don't want Protestantism taught.

Whenever anyone says there should be prayer in school, I say fine, as long as it includes the Hail Mary and the Prayer of St. Francis. The point being that by the time you water down prayer to the point where it's acceptable to most people (impossible to make acceptable to all), it has lost all content and, if anything, teaches kids that religion has no substance. It's just a feel-good exercise and an excuse for strangers to hold hands in public.

It's been said before but the Establishment Clause does as much to protect religion from governmental intrusion as to protect governmental institutions from religious intrusion.

44 BigDogDaddy  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:40:16am

>>>>Leading 5 year olds in a federally mandated statement regarding the existance of God is teaching the practices of religion.

tr.v. man·dat·ed, man·dat·ing, man·dates
To assign (a colony or territory) to a specified nation under a mandate.
To make mandatory, as by law; decree or require: mandated desegregation of public schools.

The wording of the pledge was officially changed by Congress to include the words "under God". They did not mandate that anyone had to say them. Big difference.

Seperation of Church and State is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Big difference. That has become confused in recent years. The church can not establish an official church of the state and require people to worship there. People came to the the US from England not to escape religion period. They came to worship as they chose instead of being forced to worship an official state religion. Big difference. The state can make reference to God and any religion, just not force it or promote one over the other.

Use some common sense and plain old logic.

45 Robert Crawford  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:42:57am
Leading 5 year olds in a federally mandated statement regarding the existance of God is teaching the practices of religion.

No, it isn't.

For one, it's not "federally mandated". There is no law saying the kids have to say it, and there are no penalties for not saying it. I know this for a fact -- when I was a kid there was a time in which I did not say it. There was no penalty, from the school or from the other kids. This was at a small-town school with more churches in the town than grocery stores (4 or 5 to 1).

The words "under God" are about as connected to a religious practice as "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Do you object to teaching the Declaration of Independence?

The militant atheist reaction to those two little words -- "under God" -- is as ridiculous, pitiful, and sad as the fundamentalist furor over Harry Potter. Both groups are so afraid of ideas they don't realize how assinine they look.

46 The Zymurgist  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:43:18am

Visits to dictionary.com? You can always tell when a debate has run its course. Next.

47 BigDogDaddy  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:44:12am

I agree with you Denise. I think the words "under God" are as watered down as you can get. It does not mention which God after all. But I'm fine if it isn't there at all, because it has little meaning to me or my beliefs.

48 The Zymurgist  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:48:10am

No one will address the question as to how you would feel if the Pledge were changed to "Under NO God". Why? You wouldn't have to say it!

Too much emphasis gets place on "What can we get away with under the letter of the Constitution".

YOU focus on logic. YOU use common sense. I don't beleive in GOD! I don't wan't it in MY FUCKING pledge! Can't we have a pledge that represents ALL of us?

Damn, why is this so hard?

49 BigDogDaddy  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:50:58am

Zy, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Don't use a word if you don't understand it's meaning. It only proves the other person's point and makes you look ignorant.

As far as changing the pledge to say "under no god", you are right. It would not agree with my belief system or my son's either. I would counsel him to not say those words just as the athiest father should have. Some principles are worth being looked at funny by your peers. Yes kids can be cruel. Guess we will have to send the 1st graders to diversity sensitivity classes so the one minority kid in the class won't be offended by the majority. Why do you suppose that kid come to this country anyway?

50 denise  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:53:09am

I think it is accepted practice to ignore a child who is having a tantrum.

Having said that, I think I for one did answer your question, albeit indirectly. If I don't want Protestantism taught, why would I want atheism taught?

51 James  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:54:33am

I think we can parse the text of the First Amendment from here to eternity and we'll see only what we want to see.

Whatever the case, the task of interpreting it is the responsibility of the U.S. Supreme Court and regardless, they have clearly not found that it is unconstitutional. So unless the court says it is -- it isn't.

52 BigDogDaddy  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:54:43am

>>>>YOU focus on logic. YOU use common sense. I don't beleive in GOD! I don't wan't it in MY FUCKING pledge! Can't we have a pledge that represents ALL of us?

Damn, why is this so hard

YOU focus on logic. YOU use common sense. I didn't want Bush or Gore! I didn't want either of them to be MY FUCKING president! Can't we have a president that represents ALL of us?

Damn, why is this so hard

I think it is called democracy and majority rules. You are in the minority. Deal with it. I am until the next election.

Logical and sensible!

53 The Zymurgist  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:59:40am

I stand by the use of "mandate". The federal gov passed legislation changing the words. Please use your "gun" to explain how legislation can be effective without a "mandate".

It can't, and your little tangent into symantics is a common ploy by those who argue without substance.

It's easy to be magnanimous about a theoretical change to our Pledge, but again, I'd wager my left nut that you'd be freaking out if our Fed started spreading little references regarding our "collective" assessment about the non-existance of God in your children's education.

54 James  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 11:00:36am

YOU focus on logic. YOU use common sense. I don't beleive in GOD! I don't wan't it in MY FUCKING pledge! Can't we have a pledge that represents ALL of us?

I want it in MY fucking pledge and so do most Americans. The minority can't dictate to the majority, even in a tolerant and democratic society.

55 The Zymurgist  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 11:11:17am

The Bill of rights is the only thing preventing your statements regarding majority rule to be true.

Your rights end where mine begin. I don't care how many there are of you who want to infringe upon them.

The majority of people in this country would outlaw flag-burning. But those pesky amendments keep getting in the way!

56 denise  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 11:15:18am

BigDogDaddy and James,

"Majority rules." "The minority can't dictate to the majority."

Sorry, boys. I'm afraid you've lost me there.

There's no reason to have a First Amendment if it doesn't protect minority viewpoints from the tyranny of the majority. The majority can protect it self; only those in the minority need these constitutional protections.

57 Evan Kaiser  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 11:21:19am

As far as the peer pressure trauma to a child who chooses not to say the pledge.....BS.

BigDogDaddy - If you were an atheist you would think differently. The Pledge is obviously not a big issue on a realistic global or historic scale, but an atheist child is forced to choose to go along or risk ostracism. Your personal indifference to the words "under God" is as irrelevent as Andrew Sullivan's boasting about how he survived Anglican services at school as a child. There are millions of kids faced with this public religious oath daily. And I think you have not answered The Zymurgist's challenge. The issue is not whether teachers are "forced" to use the Pledge, it is whether the millions of kids who are faced with it are intimidated into submerging and devaluing their own beliefs (or those in which they are being raised, if you prefer). The persistence of "under God" proves that atheists are not as respected as other minorities of creed in this country.

All that being said, we are tolerated a hell of lot better than "dhimma," :) and only a lunatic would argue that the Pledge so much as nudges the U.S. even a micrometer out of place as the world's freest nation. I mean, this is really trivial in the larger scheme of things - the causes of religious freedom and minority rights have more serious worries in the world than the Pledge of Allegiance.

A plug for my blog, which discusses this and has a couple of links... [Link: evankaiser.blogspot.com...]

58 Terry  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 11:22:16am

Sometimes a post gets one too many comments. Its all been said.

59 alanH  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 11:27:09am

And then, there is also the fact that the issue of whether to say "under God" or not, in the pledge, is simply not so very important an issue when we get right down to it.

Aside from those who would see a slippery slope here (although nothing's slid down that slope in five decades), the fact is, you say it or you don't, or you say it and not mean it to get along, or you say it and mean it.

I'm sure there are some who don't feel allegiance to the flag who feel put upon at reciting a pledge too.

60 BigDogDaddy  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 11:31:56am

>>>>I stand by the use of "mandate". The federal gov passed legislation changing the words. Please use your "gun" to explain how legislation can be effective without a "mandate".

Yes, Congress officially changed the verbiage of the Pledge to include the words "under God". It is official.....a "mandate" if you will.

However, there is no Federal mandate that kindergartners are required to say the pledge. You are splitting hairs over the supposed "mandate". The words 'under God" are official. By law, no one has to say any of the words to the pledge ever. They are not mandated to recite the pledge. Period. So YOU don't have to worry about being offended.

61 Charles  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 11:37:51am

Sigh. This is why I didn’t comment on the Pledge of Allegiance flap originally, because I knew that these kinds of discussions rarely lead anywhere productive or illuminating.

But since it came up, my take: the 9th Circuit Court should have tossed the case out when that nut sandwich Newdow first brought it. They didn’t, because those judges are nut sandwiches themselves. Now it will have to be reversed by a higher court, and it probably will be.

The whole thing is nothing but a distraction.

62 The Zymurgist  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 11:38:50am

Yes, one should never discuss religion and politics among freinds.

Hey, wait a minute, that's all that gets discussed here! After ostracizing myself from the bulk of the bloggers herein, I suppose it's too late to issue kudos for the quality of content herein? No matter, I will continue to lurk.

Apologies for my zealous use of CAPS and expletives a few posts back. As a white straight male from mid-America, maybe it's good that I'm an atheist. It's about the only way I glean any insight into how minority segments of our society feel about majority intolerance.

63 BigDogDaddy  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 11:43:29am

Evan, I understand your points. I have a little trouble with the statement that "millions" of children saying the pledge against their personal belief. Given the polls, the majority of people are in favor of keepng the pledge as it is. If millions were offended, why have they not sounded off en masse? Look at this thread. How many are offended by it and how many are not?

I do understand peer pressure. I was once a kid too. As a Christian, I had to endure ridicule for not drinking, taking drugs or trying to score a virgin. Peer pressure goes both ways, whether you are religious or not. I was in the minority. I lived to tell about it. Part of the problem with the kids of today is in how we try to protect them from EVERYTHING! Guess what, when they get out in the real world, they won't be prepared for a boss who fires them for coming to work late......when they were allowed to express their individuality by sleeping in till noon as a kid. Poor analogy, but you get the point. As long as people walk the Earth, there will be differences and peer pressure. Better to teach kids how to deal with it and use it to build character than hide the world from them and protect them from everything. I took pride in standing up to my peers and following my principles even when it was stupid to them. Why shouldn't the athiest be able to do the same thing instead of having Federal protection from every offense?

64 The Zymurgist  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 11:54:02am

I've stood up all my life for my beleifs (or non-beleifs) if you will. As Charles points out, when religion is involved, it has usually been a lesson in futility. It is probably this very futility that explains why we (atheists) have not "sounded off en masse."

This ruling will indeed be overturned, and we in the minority know it is not a fight we can win.

65 James  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 11:55:44am

BigDogDaddy and James,

"Majority rules." "The minority can't dictate to the majority."

Sorry, boys. I'm afraid you've lost me there.

There's no reason to have a First Amendment if it doesn't protect minority viewpoints from the tyranny of the majority. The majority can protect it self; only those in the minority need these constitutional protections.

This is very true. However the first amendment means whatever each of us wants it to mean, but fortunately because of that we have a binding mechanism for interpreting what the first amendment means: the U.S. Supreme Court. To my knowledge no supreme court has found the inclusion of "under God" being recited in school (on a voluntary basis) to be a violation of the first amendment. So I think it's fair to say that objectively speaking it doesn't violate that first amendment.

Now, in light of that, minority opinions shouldn't dictate to the majority. However you are absolutely right that "tyranny of the majority" can be very real and that's what the first amendment safeguards. "Tyranny of the minority" is no better.

66 DZ  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 11:57:13am

The optional Islam course will be followed by an optional pedophilia course.

Optional, as the little angels will not be required to believe in pedophilia, only play-acting, but they need to experience pedophilia to see if it could be the right choice for them.

67 James  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 11:58:24am

Hey, wait a minute, that's all that gets discussed here! After ostracizing myself from the bulk of the bloggers herein, I suppose it's too late to issue kudos for the quality of content herein? No matter, I will continue to lurk.

i hope you don't mean that. I hope my opinion on an issue such as this doesn't mean that you wouldn't want to associate with me on a comments section in a blog. I feel the same about you and I'm sure most people who disagree with you on this issue do as well.

68 Evan Kaiser  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 12:02:37pm

BigDogDaddy - You are obviously a reasonable person and we must agree to diasagree.

Charles - Newdow is a nut sandwich, but I'm not. But you are correct - this stuff is a distraction.

The Zymurgist - I think we are among friends here, even when arguing. And I would remind you that you have not been entirely alone. :)

Everyone - Our intellectual alliance vis-a-vis the war is more important than this squabble. I suggest we move on.

69 The Zymurgist  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 12:06:14pm

James,

What I meant is that I will continue to visit this site because I agree with 99 percent of the views expressed here, and it is so nice to know somewhere (even if in cyberspace) there is a collection of people who recognize what is really happening in our world and are not too PC to dwell on it.

Unfortunately, my argumentative nature tends to get the better of me sometimes. If I refused to associate with those who disagree with my religious conclusions, I would be a fairly lonely man.

I will now click on "current weblog" and read a bunch of stuff that I can say "hell ya!" to.

70 BigDogDaddy  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 12:45:43pm

Evan, I am a reasonable person and have no problem agreeing to disagree. What are we disagreeing on? Saying that millions of kids say the pledge against their personal belief....or that peer pressure affects everyone and needs to be dealt with rather than have everything made politically correct for the minority view?

71 Jennie Taliaferro  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 1:23:15pm

There ARE some parents suing because their child was forced to do this at school.
I forget in which state but I just read the story this week at Lucianne.com.
It's at moments like this that I'm grateful I have no children. I don't know what I'd do if my kid came home from school, told me about his or her "day" and told me about this kind of PC crap.
No hijab- wearing or pork-free meals for my children because they're practicing being "good Muslims."

72 Squid  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 1:32:17pm

This particular example of a curriculum on Islam is inappropriate, as many of you have already pointed out. Clearly there is a need for public (and private) schools to study the culture and history of Islam, given the current global conflict surrounding it. I am a high school teacher and I can see the hatred and violence that is inflicted on my Bengali, Pakistani and African Muslim students. Why? Because the rest of the student body thinks that any Muslim is a member of Al Qaeda. This should not be tolerated, even during times of war with extremist factions of Islam. We must keep teaching children not to hate, while at the same time allowing them to be constructively critical. And to do so, we must teach children the complexities, the plurality and the history of many faiths and cultures.

73 CmdrNacho  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 1:37:37pm

And to do so, we must teach children the complexities, the plurality and the history of many faiths and cultures.

Great. A future generation of PC Ameri-weenies...

74 Ben Noah  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 1:58:00pm

CmdrNacho,

I think you misread Squid's point. As James (or was it Jeremy) said early in another thread, this comments area will be boring if we just sit around here and bitch and moan about everything, and begin to form a collective disdain for anything related to Islam or anyone that doesn't take an extreme Daniel Pipes/Netenyahu stance.

I know Islamics that are my friends, that are in no way related to even the slightest ounce of appeasement or terrorism, yet read my previous posts on LGF and I think you'll see that I stand clearly in the same camp of the majority here who support fighting the enemy with an iron fist, not a PC napkin.

All I inferred from Squid's post was is teaching the history of the culture of Islam including and especially its negative aspects is key to future generations understanding it, and that the curriculum mentioned by Charles is innapropriate. As much as I don't want future generations to become a huge base of PC "weenies" as you put it, neither do I want them to become a bunch of racists.

Bottom line is that we can all sit here and repeat the same point over and over. If someone like Squid wants to extend the discussion and explore the possibility that Bengali American kids shouldn't be targeted as Al Qeada, I don't think it automatically means they are engaging in equivelence or disagree with the main concensus in this thread.

75 Q  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 2:23:28pm

Daniel Pipes is "extreme" only by CAIR etc. standards. If anything, he is sober and realistic.

76 Ben Noah  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 2:28:16pm

Not everyone around here agrees with you Q. There was a pretty divided opion recently amongst regulars here regarding Pipe's critique of Bush's speech.

Additionally, to not acknowledge that Pipes and Netenyahu fall on the extreme side of even Israel's national political spectrum is not very intillectualy honest. I have sat watching Pipes many a time on Hardball and rooted him on with regards to many issues and ideas, yet sometimes his suggested policies suffer from the same luxary that a Freidman column does, that being that he doesn't have to actually implement any of them.

Point again is that there is room within these LGF walls for a little bit of divirsity, without being branded PC or and appeaser of terrorism.

77 Jennie Taliaferro  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 2:32:56pm

I am truly learning about Islam and its real teachings (i.e. that in its radical and increasingly prevalent form, it calls for the murder of infidels and world takeover) for the first time in my life and I'm going to be 46 next Monday!
And yet I went to a private prep school, have a B.A. in History and have 2 Masters degrees and I've been to Egypt TWICE.

I think that Islam is deliberately arcane.
You don't find too many translations of the Koran in English and who knows Arabic?

In fact, did you know that the Koran was originally written with NO VOWELS?!?
Thus leading to the arguments of its interpretation forever.

Bottom line, a little Islam is *enough* to expose impressionable, young American pre-teen minds!
Maybe not all Bengali teens are Al Queda, but do they wish they were???

78 Q  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 2:48:19pm

Well I just can't win, can I ;-) Agree with Maher - get critisized from the right, agree with Pipes - get critisized from the left.

79 Ben Noah  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 2:49:23pm

Maybe not all Bengali teens are Al Queda, but do they wish they were???

I see what is supposed to be anti-idiotariansim becoming co-opted by idiotariansim. Is that a serious question? Maybe you'd care to pose it to an American Bengali teen who's dad works for the NYPD?

In fact, did you know that the Koran was originally written with NO VOWELS?!?

I don't know much about the Qoran, but I know that Yiddish doesn't use vowels. What on earth is your point?

The great strength of the type of theories in the AI circles is that logical and intelligent analyses are being made and improved upon over time. Your comments don't really have any depth and I find them borderline racist.

The last thing we want to become caught up in the morass of hatred that our enemy engages in, its exactly what they want. Germany and Japan were transformed and I'd like to believe that someday the populaces of Arab and extreme Muslim nations can also be reformed. Will it take an ass kicking from us(US)? If so, fine by me.

Your bottom line is not really the bottom line. The bottom line is this group can benefit from a small spectral expansion in thinking. Am I advocating teaching or "exposing" Islam to youngsters as a form of religion? No!

I am saying that teaching the history of it is important, as is teaching how Germany was transformed into Nazi Germany. And as Squid noted along with everyone else, the curriculum in Charles' original post is *not* the way to go.

80 Ben Noah  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 2:54:44pm

Well I just can't win, can I ;-) Agree with Maher - get critisized from the right, agree with Pipes - get critisized from the left.

Q, I agree. My post was not an indictment of your opinion. I was just noting that there is an increasingly stiff guague by which PC and appeasers are being labeled around here. It seems if people even slightly deviate from the topic of modern extremist islam or dare be concerned for *American* Arabs or Islamics, they are PC or appeasers of terrorism. Or they are on the next flight to Bin Ladin's training groun. This despite their long post history of opinions that might even line up with the Israeli hard right.

I try to evaluate things on a case by case basis. Not everyone in here agrees exactly on everything. That has been proven in the debate about guns in the cockpits, and the Pipes review of the Bush speech.

81 Jennie Taliaferro  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 2:58:57pm

My point about the vowels is this:
apparently, in Arabic, the placement of one vowel or another in their words makes worlds of difference in the meaning of what Mohammed "the Prophet" actually meant.

They are basing whole government systems and peoples' lives (like ours!) on the meaning of words like shar'ia, kaffir and jihad.

I've seen 3 or 4 different spellings of "Koran" today alone.
These are subtle differences in language that, to them, mean different things.

And then there's the distinction between Sunis and Shi-ites and NONE of us want to go there!

82 Squid  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 3:05:43pm

Ugggghhhh... Stop it Jennie. You're scaring my Bengali students. Honestly, I think they'd rather wear baggy pants and dream of dating Brittany Spears (just like the other teens in the city) rather than join Al Qaeda.

83 M. Simon  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 3:08:25pm

Jennie,

What I would do with my children is yank them out of school. In Illinois home schooling is pretty easy from a regulation standpoint.

What is really needed is an end to the socialist school system. Even my mate who works in the system agrees. She says that a very high proportion of the teachers are just time servers. A voucher system would be a good start to changing all this. Only in communist systems is there no choiice.

84 James  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 3:14:21pm

In fact, did you know that the Koran was originally written with NO VOWELS?!?
Thus leading to the arguments of its interpretation forever.

Also the Torah, but that's because written Hebrew and Arabic were unvoweled languages until they were invented not because of some plot.

85 James  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 3:16:04pm

until they were invented

"They" as in vowels. ;)

86 Jennie Taliaferro  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 3:17:50pm

Agreed all! LOL--I think "Tenets of Islam" is giving us all a headache. I know it does me.
Every time I try to read about the difference between Suni and Shi'ite, my eyes glaze over.

All we need concern ourselves with is Wahhabbism.

As for the public schools, well, those teachers have my sympathies, but obviously, those who would teach a PC course like this are just "parrotting" what they've learned in our liberal, PC-universities, aren't they?

America needs to get to work on ALL her educational systems and I think President Bush's voucher program is a step in the right direction.
Mercifully, I don't have a child in a public school (and wouldn't if I could afford it) but I think it's gonna take a while to clean this PC rot out of our education systems.

There *must* be a difference between Education and Indoctrination somewhere and this Muslim "course" sounds like brainwashing to me!

87 M. Simon  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 3:44:23pm

It is not the job of the Supreme Court to determine what the kaw means. It is up to EVERY citizen.

Officials take an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution. They do not take an oath to preserve and defend the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

Here is something I wrote on why the whole pledge is the wrong idea.

[Link: www.sierratimes.com...]

Hint: we should pledge to the Constitution not the Flag. Any crook can wrap himself in the flag. Spiro Agnew for instance. Or his running mate Richard Nixon.

88 Backlash  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 3:56:37pm

the "Muslim" course is just one of many as hasbeen noted here numerous times.

For the record- I am Bengali (pretty unusual in America)- although I am Hindu, I have plenty of Bengali friends who are muslim.

Frankly, there is a pretty major split between the muslims of the Mid-East (who are on the whole, quite extreme)- this is

Saudi Arabia, Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Syria, etcetcetc (this is without a map, so forgive me if i missed anything).

and the muslims of Asia-

Bangladesh, Indonesia, Turkmenistan, India, Uzbekistan, and so on. People from these areas are rarely extremist. Indonesia is an area to watch out for, but we should strive to keep Indonesia out of extremism by keeping its economy stable.

As a matter of fact, the former group does not comprise a majority of the world muslim population because India, Indonesia and Bangladesh have the 3 largest muslim populations in the world (250 million for Indonesia, 140 million for India, 120 million for Bangladesh).

As a matter of fact, Bangladesh proves that poverty need not mean extremism (although it doesnt prove that poverty is CONDUCIVE to extremism).

89 freetles  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:11:25pm

Evan said: Our intellectual alliance vis-a-vis the war is more important than this squabble. I suggest we move on.

And Ben, breath of fresh air: Point again is that there is room within these LGF walls for a little bit of divirsity, without being branded PC or and appeaser of terrorism.

Some practical thoughts:
- the first thing to do is work out if any local school authorities are teaching this thing. Is the organisation pushing it even accredited as a course content provider?
- if there are any schools teaching it, make a big fuss in the mainstream media and elsewhere, find people who live in the area to stand for school board, etc. This could work even for private schools.
- perhaps lobby for world history/prehistory to be taught in (govt?) schools, as well as national-focused civics-type classes. Dispassionate perspective and an understanding about the contributions and failures of all societies would be welcome in the current world, even if it's only the kids.

As an aside, I must disagree with M. Simon's characterisation of "socialist school systems" being the problem. In Australia, the government school system is administered at state level, not local government level. That's too many people affected not to notice something really objectionable.

PS: Charles, I never did thank you for the perma-links to individual comments. They are a real boon.

90 freetles  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:19:33pm

Jennie These are subtle differences in language that, to them, mean different things.">said:
I've seen 3 or 4 different spellings of "Koran" today alone.
These are subtle differences in language that, to them, mean different things.

Uh, not necessarily. Any non-Roman script, whether it be Cyrillic, Arabic or Chinese, must be transliterated into Roman script somehow. There isn't a one-to-one mapping between sounds in one language and sounds in others, as represented in our case by the Roman alphabet, so variations can arise. Quick poll: how do you spell "Gadaffi"? I've seen about eight different ways, and they all mean the leader of Libya.

It's the same reason "Peking" became "Beijing"; the residents didn't start calling their city something different, us Westerners just started using a different system for transliteration.

91 freetles  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 7:20:29pm

whoops! That preview button is there for a reason, kids. Let me humiliation be a lesson for all of you.

92 Howard Owens  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 8:00:53pm

About the instructional material itself -- I note that it teaches some of the militnat sides of Islam.

And people keep beating me up for suggesting Islam is a violent religion.

Umm....

93 Jennie Taliaferro  Wed, Jul 3, 2002 10:26:45pm

freetles, I'm just trying to relate to you what I learned--the original manuscript of the Koran/Qu'uran without vowels has led to CENTURIES of arguments about interpretation and may have led to the formation of the Shi-ite and Suni sects,too.

Even Christians and Jews do this over translations of words or phrases in the Bible!

Wars have been fought and people killed over much less, sad to say.

When a man says, "God told me so...." then you got trouble with a capital T.

94 James  Thu, Jul 4, 2002 7:22:23am

Jennie, how about our continual debates about what the heck the first amendment means?

That's just par for the course with laws.

As for the schism that led to the formation of Shi'a and Sunni Islam, that was a political not doctrinal matter.

I do agree with your last statement.

95 freetles  Thu, Jul 4, 2002 4:41:30pm

Jennie, I'm perfectly aware that there are interpretation issues with holy texts, including those in Hebrew, Arabic, and Ancient Greek. I was just pointing out the difference between translation and transliteration, which you seem to have missed.

I'm particularly aware of the debate about the meaning of religious texts. Take Leviticus. It's not just this, my dad wants to sell me into slavery.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

Limited Time Offer:  FREE $10 Online Gift Certificate with $100 Gift Card Purchase!
Learn to Read with Hooked on Phonics
More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Luring disco dollies to a life of vice.


Discover Great New Writers