David Montgomery reports in the Seattle Times about ways that public schools are responding to the prayer needs of Muslim students: Muslim students get help juggling school and faith. Montgomery interviewed me at length last week about the issue, but only included a brief mention of my concerns at the end of the article, so I thought I would elaborate here.
Public schools are government institutions, and as such they must be neutral in matters of religion. When they craft policies, such as determining when children must be in school, how many absences children are allowed, and under what circumstances parents may excuse an absence, those policies must not be tailored to any particular religion. Ideally, they should not mention religion at all - the same rule that allows an excused absence for Good Friday should allow one for visiting the Seattle Art Museum.
The typical response to having a neutral policy on prayer is: "Islam is unique. Practicing Muslims must pray five times a day, sometimes during school hours, and they should make those prayers in a mosque on Fridays." That is true, but it does not trump the First Amendment prevention of an establishment of religion or the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law. When a public education and the freedom of religion conflict, public education must give way. School administrators should keep this in mind when formulating education policy, in particular when making accommodations for religion.
An accommodation that seems common in public schools (if Montgomery's article can be used as a guide) is the practice of setting aside an empty classroom for Muslim prayer. This strikes me as an establishment of religion. Other students pray on campus, and some groups use school facilities for prayer when classes are not in session, but this seems to be the only instance where a religion may practice officially during the school day. As such, it puts the followers of Islam in a privileged position, and may reasonably lead students to conclude practicing Islam is ok with the school, but practicing another religion is not. (I hope to be proved wrong. If you have examples of other organized prayer in public schools during the class day, please leave them in the comments.)
This is not to say that the school district should remain ignorant of the religious beliefs of its students. It should have an understanding of the teachings of the major religions and know the obligations each religion places on its adherents. It should do this not to create exceptional policies for believers, but rather so it can be better able to help parents understand the secular nature of the public schools. That way the parents can decide if a secular, government school is right for their children, or if another alternative better fits their religious beliefs.
Posted by Andy MacDonald at June 15, 2006 02:48 PM | Email ThisSims and the Council have never been willing to debate the arguments for or against all-mail-voting and really understand what makes sense for King County. They simply took Logan's word that it was the right thing to do.
Wait! Correction: Council minus Phillips, because he didn't even think that attending the debate was important. Although it was important to introduce his dog to the public.
Woof, Woof, Woof. Larry, I think he's trying to tell you that he likes to get out and walk, and thus he prefers you voting at the polls.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 15, 2006 02:52 PMWould the school district allow a Bible study class to be held during school hours?
In Seattle, that's a resounding 'no'. Thus, these hypocrites are applying a double standard.
Posted by: Steve_dog on June 15, 2006 03:04 PMAnd let's not mention the court battles over having a Bible club after hours on school property. The separation of church and state crowd have been very vocal on that, but once again they are strangely silent when it comes to a group the Loony Left feels sorry for. This has got to stop!!!
This is America. Our schools are not meant to be based on the tenets of a deranged theocracy. If the parents have issues with this, then they need to send their kids to a private school. Other religions have private schools and many are run on shoestring budgets. Or they can homeschool. It is just ridiculous how we are no longer the great melting pot but instead are fast becoming a "how can we kiss your a** and recreate the homeland you left behind" nation. The founding fathers are spinning in their graves. It's time to round up the terrorist sympathizers and pack them all off to the Islamic utopias that habor these low lifes.
If you come to America to seek a new life and are willing to accept our customs and norms, welcome!! But if you come and then whine it isn't like the old country, then go back. And take the moonbats with you (goodbye, Alec Baldwin!!).
Posted by: Burdabee on June 15, 2006 03:20 PMGod is great!
(HE is. I wonder what language is being used in these prayer services, given that Muslim students cover the spread from Arabic to Urdu to Maylasian and Indonesian... Plus some Russian, Serbian, etc... An English translation might make for an interesting read. Ditto a translation of the sermons from local mosques.)
Posted by: Abu Jihad on June 15, 2006 03:31 PM
Abu - please go home and take your sharia with you.
It's a tough balancing act, and that's why it's an area of law that's litigated so much.
Posted by: DJ on June 15, 2006 03:51 PMOne of the reasons I am homeschooling is because I have objections to some school policies. Don't see the school bending over backward to address my concerns! So here I am, and there they should be ... if it is tolerable enough, then put up and shut up, if it isn't then leave ....
Posted by: Peggy U on June 15, 2006 04:13 PMPublic schools are government institutions, and as such they must be neutral in matters of religion. When they craft policies, such as determining when children must be in school, how many absences children are allowed, and under what circumstances parents may excuse an absence, those policies must not be tailored to any particular religion.
With all respect to Andy MacDonald, this is a lot of horse-hockey!
My children's schools, and every government school in the state avoids school on December 25th, a decidedly Christian holiday. They know, that the the day our children are required to be in school on Christmas Day is the day that public education in this country will be abolished.
Why would anyone yield some an ignorant position that "policies must not be tailored to any particular religion." Is that wishful thinking?
Grow up! Embrace reality!
Posted by: huckleberry on June 15, 2006 04:15 PMAnd whilst we're on the matter at hand perhaps it should be tested using McCollum v. Board of Education, School District 71 (1948). This Supreme Court decision has long been a very important tool of atheists in their successful attempts to purge ANY type of religious activity at or dealing with a public school.
Those who use McCollum often claim that those being accommodated create a feeling of exclusion for those who don't participate - "exclusion" even for those who choose not to participate.
Setting the school calendar is an exercise with the union. When the union becomes more than 50% Muslim, then watch for Christmas to be a school day. Then, Christians will miss a day of school, like Jews do currently on their holidays. What is the problem?
Posted by: Janet S on June 15, 2006 05:02 PMNow, now. I suddenly have a hope. Maybe, just a big maybe, Muslims will object to the theory of evolution which corrupts their young ones' minds, and since it is from the Muslims, the educational establishment will now listen. How about that?
Posted by: C. Oh on June 15, 2006 05:42 PM. . . . and while Seattle Public Schools doesn't track religious affiliation among its students, officials believe the number of Muslims is growing.
Hmmmmm. What's to stop an enterprising young student from claiming to be Muslim and getting a half-day off every Friday?
Probably true. Let's not let some troll divert the the thread.
At Garfield High School, an empty classroom is provided for Muslims to pray during lunch periods, Principal Ted Howard said. Students who don't want to miss lunch can have an extra 10 minutes to pray after the lunch period provided their teachers sign off on it. On Fridays, Muslims are allowed to go to a nearby mosque.
So at Garfield high it is ok to allow Muslims to pray (which could be argued violates the constitution), but don't try to come on campus if you are a military recruiter (which has been approved by the federal government).
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 15, 2006 09:13 PMI am surprised that you are sticking with this stance. Of course public schools must strive to be neutral in matters of religion. However, to imply that an accommodation of praying by Muslim students/staff is taking the policy out of balance, is incredibly ahistorical. The historical set-up of the public school calendar in the U.S. revolves around 1) Christianity and 2) agriculture. In recent years, there has been some movement to a 12-month school year with the acknowledgement that most students do not need the summer off to help with the harvest. If we wanted the public school to be truly neutral with regard to religion, we would have a 7-day school week with rotating time off. Given that it currently favors a Judeo-Christian prayer schedule with Saturdays and Sundays off, an attempt at accommodating other prayer schedules is an effort towards neutrality, not away from it.
I think this problem of an ahistorical stance also shows up when you are arguing for a “colorblind” society. Of course it is a good thing to not have the color of one’s skin matter. However, unless you think everything is perfectly fair now, ignoring skin color at this point just cements the unfairness into place.
The question is what to do about a religion -- Islam -- whose practice requires some disruption to educational activities every day (as opposed to, say, just skipping school on some holidays). This is different from any other major religion. I don't know how those conflicting goals should be reconciled, but any arguments that ignore this issue will fail to convince me, or a court, of anything.
Oh, and the ACLU has defended Christians who wish to pray in school. With the country led by people who say their life is based on what Jesus Christ wants, however, it's hard to argue that Christians are a persecuted minority these days.
Posted by: Bruce on June 16, 2006 09:39 AMHow do you respond to the idea that the whole school calendar (e.g. no school on Sundays) is a huge accomodation to one faith (Christianity)?
Posted by: ChrisB on June 16, 2006 10:18 AMHow do you respond to the idea that the whole school calendar (e.g. no school on Sundays) is a huge accomodation to one faith Christianity)?
This is a Christian nation. Why shouldn't the schools reflect the Christian calendar?
Posted by: huckleberry on June 16, 2006 10:30 AMAmerica has had too many of its' own martyred to give up so easily what we fought and died for. Special diets was not one of those causes.
Posted by: dan on June 16, 2006 10:52 AMA few things muslims have been asking for in various parts of the country like greater Chicagoland:
Muslim girls basketball team is willing to play non-muslims IF...
No men or boys are allowed to watch.
Posted by: Sandy P on June 16, 2006 12:32 PMWell, as someone pointed out we started out as agrarian and mainly Christian. I believe we still are predominantly Christian, although far fewer people farm these days. The work week is also structured around this schedule and has been for a long time. It's traditional - and we should be allowed to keep OUR COUNTRY'S traditions.
Posted by: Peggy U on June 16, 2006 12:49 PMIt is not the case now, that this is because of religion, now it's more of the culture of America, it is recognized that this is how we as Americans do things. Plenty of people take Saturdays and Sundays off, as well as Christmas, yet do not practice any religion. It has been established as the norm.
Change it if you wish, try to make the weekend on Tuesday and Wednesday. Good luck. And try to take away Christmas as a holiday, and you'll have most of the nation looking to tar and feather you, whether they observe Christmas as a religious holiday or not!
Next:
If schools allow prayer times and meetings for one religion, then they MUST accomodate all religions. On taxpayer dime. Who's going to agree to that?
If someone's religion requires them to pray at certain times of the day, disrupting classes and other educational activities of their other students, then they can form their own schools and pray there. If their religion requires such things and doesn't allow them to be taught as easily, perhaps their religion does not wish them to be taught in our schools.
They could go back to the countries controlled by their religion and get their education there, thereby fulfilling their religious requirements.
Posted by: HappyGoLucky on June 16, 2006 12:53 PMMy 8-year-old son made the observation that if everyone's special needs have to be met, it will be chaos, and no work will ever get done! This is supposed to be a place of education, not worship.
One more thing - I know a boy who is accelerated in his academic studies. The school refuses to make accomodations for ACADEMIC needs! He is taking online classes from another school district, he provides his own laptop computer, and the school he is attending requires him to leave the school grounds during his online lessons. At one point they had grudgingly allowed him to use an outlet and a desk in an empty resource room, but they have pulled this "privilege". I'm sorry, but if a school can't accomodate educational diversity, it has no damned business catering to religious interests!!!
Posted by: Peggy U on June 16, 2006 01:13 PMOr are you hoping it won't come to that?
Posted by: dan on June 16, 2006 02:59 PMThe ACLU's cultural-Marxist roots show abundant when it comes to religion. In other areas, they goes through the motions of being civil libertarian for anyone, particularly terrorists and criminals and sometimes common folk- just as long as it doesn't interfere with their one-world secular progressive agenda.
The Seattle Public Schools admin have been brainwashed by the religion of liberalism and a majority are card-carrying members of the ACLU. At the same time, they are in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution. However, they only look at the constitution when it threatens their agenda. The cold war is not really over - it has left Berlin when the wall went down and morphed into multiculturalism and political correctness over here in the last 15 years.
Posted by: KS on June 16, 2006 03:03 PM"to honor one religon with special accomodations is to dishonor others" How are you defining "special"? Seems to me, an accomodation is an accomodation. Public schools give Sundays off for Americans who are Christians. Is this dishonoring of people who want Fridays off?
Posted by: ChrisB on June 16, 2006 03:50 PMExactly what does teenage pregnancies or drug and violence prevention have to do with providing Muslims with special praying resources? Are you suggesting that we reduce financial resources for curbing teenage pregnancies, drug use or violence prevention and direct said resources to prayer rooms for Muslims to use to pray to Allah? Or are you suggesting that by praying to Allah teenage pregnancies, drug use and violence will decrease thus reducing the the need for resources?
I understand that in many Muslim countries Christians are severely harmed for practicing their faith by the Muslim government. I also understand that American military personnel protecting the Saudi government must comply with Muslim law or suffer harsh consequences. This is particularly difficult for American female soldiers who drive cars.
So on the one hand many Muslim countries demand strict compliance of their Muslim laws and practices of all people, including invited guests, or suffer harsh penalties, including death and on the other hand you are whining because you were ridiculed in high school.
Samia, let that be the worst that happens to you during your life. And when next you pray to Allah, be thankful to Allah that you are in America where you may whine.
Posted by: Snuffy on June 16, 2006 03:59 PMI object to many tenets of many different religious systems. That is one of the many reasons I am very thankful that I am an American citizen. There are lots of things that religious groups think I should do or not do and I don't have to listen to any of them. It is not that I just have "hope it doesn't come to that". I have a strong faith in our American society that we the people won't allow any religion to dictate to civil society.
Posted by: ChrisB on June 16, 2006 04:01 PMUnless you are advocating a style of government found in many Muslim countries, what relevance does the treatment of Christians in those countries have to do with the way that we treat American citizens in the U.S.?
Posted by: ChrisB on June 16, 2006 04:06 PMWe are first of all Americans, then we are hindus, catholics, jews, queers, whatevers. America is a country with its' own customs and language, built out of many different customs but adhering to one.
The taliban does not distinguish how nice you were
to their kind - you're an infidel and an American.
Samia has alternatives, including online public schooling - which is "free" (well, not for taxpayers!)to all students, including Muslims, and which can be done from at home - in the evenings or on weekends, if that makes it more economically viable. No one is forcing anyone to attend on-site public schools. Is there an issue of childcare? If this family is too poor to afford to homeschool, then they doubtless qualify for government assistance of some sort to cover childcare. The point is, there are many options available to help people achieve what they want without inconveniencing everyone else in the process!
Our family is taking advantage of online schooling, because we can't afford private school and we want to meet the requirements of the state. Of course, we supplement with our own material, much as Samia could. What fries me is this: Samia is requesting that her religious desires be met. That is not the function of the school. I know a boy who is requesting that his EDUCATIONAL needs be met, and the schools are doing less to address this (which IS their job), than to pander to "needs" it is none of their obligation to meet. And WE ARE PAYING FOR IT !!!!
Posted by: Peggy U on June 16, 2006 04:48 PMI think we are agreeing, but maybe not. I agree with the idea that we are Americans first. I also think that America gets enriched with every wave of immigration, and our American culture changes and grows with new input. This is what I see as multiculturalism and I do see it as a good thing.
With or without rose-colored glasses, I don't see that multiculturalism leads to balkanization. It wasn't that long ago that people felt that the Irish immigrants would never assimilate. Despite annual St. Patrick's Day parades and the assorted Irish neighborhoods on the East Coast, the assimilation is mostly complete with a richness added by Irish-Americans. Any argument that the current group (whoever that may be) is too different or times are too different was an argument that was also used back in the 1800's.
Regarding the Taliban, are you saying that they will take over the U.S.? If so, you have a lot less trust in the strength of Americans than I do. It also doesn't matter to me if the Taliban thinks I was nice "to their kind". We have the responsibility as Americans to treat each other with respect. It has nothing to do with if the Taliban is watching us or not.
Posted by: ChrisB on June 16, 2006 05:07 PMI agree that we should appreciate the freedoms we have. I also agree that sometimes the minority just has to "deal with it" for society's sake. I would extend that sentiment to say that also sometimes those of us in the majority have to just "deal with it" for society's sake. That is one of the beautiful things about the U.S. - an attempt at balancing minority vs. majority desires.
It becomes tricky when the question gets to the practical of what is a "want" vs. a "need" as well as what is a "special" accomodation and what is a "standard" accomodation. I think we all tend, as humans, to not notice the accomodations that happen for us (e.g. no school on Sunday) while noticing accomodations for others (e.g. Muslim students praying in an empty classroom).
Posted by: ChrisB on June 16, 2006 05:21 PMI am not anti-Muslim, but I am against them receiving preferential treatment is public schools as is happening in Seattle.
Posted by: KS on June 16, 2006 05:26 PMI would point out that the Christian schedule observed by our government institutions is a carryover from an earlier time, and that Christian practices/holidays are not continuing to be adopted. If anything, the vines of secularism are encroaching and eroding our longstanding values and traditions. For example, when my oldest children attended public school, they had an actual school Christmas tree that the students could decorate (it was optional to participate, even then). The tree is no more. It has been replaced by a sterile winter celebration. I don't know how many people this satisfied, but the majority of students went along with it in the interest of "sensitivity".
I would also like to point out that my Christian nieces were ridiculed when they said grace over their school lunches. They were teased by kids who never attended church of any sort. Teasing is a fact of life. It isn't pleasant, but you can't completely avoid it. It happens to everyone, at different times, for different reasons. You live through it and get over it!
In spite of Samia's protestations, I have read on more than one Islam informational site that it is proper for Muslims, when not in a society governed by Islam, to obey the regulations of the government at the expense of the performance of rituals, if there is a conflict of interest. I'd say emphatically that this falls under that category! And, as I pointed out FREE online schooling is now available in the convenience of a home setting. Insight School is even providing its students with laptops for school use. I don't see the point in forcing this issue, when alternatives exist that should work for those unhappy with the schedule - for whatever reason, religious issues included!
I believe the desire to perform religious rituals is indeed a want rather than a need. I say this because there are instances in which it is physically impossible to go through ritualistic motions. What, as I mentioned before, does a Muslim do on a long flight? I don't think you are allowed to kneel in the aisle of a plane, and figuring out where Mecca is can be a hell of a challenge! Our neighbor, a good Catholic, recently died after a protracted illness. She didn't go to confession or attend church for months before she died - she was comatose! The point is, most religions, including Islam, recognize that there are practical considerations that can interfere with the ceremonies of religion. The faithful are absolved of culpability in these instances.
Our government is leaning too far toward favoring minority interests. It might make some people temporarily happy, but is unwise in the long haul. Let's bring up the Irish again. As you pointed out, it took time for them to assimilate. HOWEVER, they did not have as much assimilating to do! Language was not as much of an issue, nor was religion, because the ethnic background they came from was similar to that of most 19th-century Americans. I don't believe the government made any special move to accommodate these immigrants, and ultimately they assimilated, rather than the government adapting to please them.
I agree that immigration has made our nation what it is. But most early immigrants were from Europe, and that is our base. Other immigrants have certainly added their flavor to the mix, but up until recent history, those who came here were intent on becoming "American". For example, my grandfather (from Czechoslovakia)refused to teach my mother and uncles his language, because he insisted that they speak like "Americans"! My father in law (from Switzerland) is also adamant on that subject. The adult ESL students I have met recognize the need to assimilate; but there are plenty of immigrants who don't, and that trend is growing. At the same time, when the government "celebrates diversity", it excludes the majority and promotes nonassimilation by immigrant minorities.
Diversity does make life interesting, but celebrating our differences, and not what we have in common, undermines national unity. We can appreciate what different cultures have to offer without demolishing our establishments and traditions to incorporate theirs.
I'll ask the same question to you that I have been asking all along on this thread - isn't getting days off scheduled around one's prayer time (e.g. Sunday) more preferential than getting to work around someone else's schedule (e.g. getting to use an empty classroom on Fridays)? I understand why the schedule is the way it is, but it does represent a huge accomodation of Christianity in the public school.
Posted by: ChrisB on June 16, 2006 09:50 PMThank you for your thoughtful response. While I disagree with some of your conclusions, I appreciate hearing your viewpoint.
Posted by: ChrisB on June 16, 2006 09:52 PMAs I suspected that is a phony argument. It appears that you agree with the secular progressive agenda and the ACLU here- how about the chief financier, George Soros ?
Posted by: KS on June 16, 2006 10:20 PMAre you really trying to argue that the Sunday off schedule is not based on the Christian sabbath?
Regarding Saturday, when another day off got added to the traditional work week, I imagine that the Jewish Sabbath influenced a Saturday off instead of a Monday off - still religiously influenced.
Of course Christians are allowed to pray in public school rooms - Antioch Bible Church prays every Sunday in the Lake Washington High School Gymnasium. That prayer service doesn't conflict with the classes because the class schedule is based on the fact that the majority of the students who want to pray, want to pray on Sunday. It certainly is practical to set up the schedule for the majority, but it is still a huge accomodation for Christians.
You may suspect all you want that this is a phony argument. I disagree. I think it is a phony argument to pretend that our weekend of Saturday and Sunday is not based on a Christian tradition. Certainly a few crumbs can be tossed to the Americans of other faiths who have to work around the schedule set up to benefit Americans of Christian faith.
I'll decline to declare my allegiance to any particular agenda or person.
(By the way - Andy MacDonald - are you going to weigh in about these various comments?)
Correct me if I'm wrong, does Antioch Church rent the gym from the school district or do they use it for free - thereby creating a situation of state (or taxpayer) sponsored religion?
Peggy - ditto what Chris said, very thoughtful response.
Anxious to hear your reply.
Posted by: dan on June 17, 2006 06:00 AMI do believe that it can be proven that we have done more in the last 20 years to make new emigres feel welcome than we ever did for any ethnic groups in our history.
Perhaps you have a different take on that.
Posted by: dan on June 17, 2006 06:37 AMWhat does Antioch meeting at a school in the Lake Washington school district have to do with children missing classes to accomodate their religion? Nothing. This is the bizarre logic of Left.
A certain group of children get special privileges and it is wrong. Period.
In response to Samia, today's immigrants are treated better than any other immigrants in our history. And let's look at the other countries, a man in Afghanistan was almost killed for practicing his Christian faith. It seems like American Muslims have it a lot better than Christians in Muslim countries. So, I say quit your whinning.
Posted by: M&M on June 17, 2006 09:26 AMYour not buying the Sat/Sun off argument goes right back to my first observation to Andy - the ahistorical nature of this discussion. Even if you want to argue that it sprung from the Industrial Revolution, the historical setting of the Industrial Revolution had a strong Christian influence. Maybe the weekend sprung from the head of Zeus?
Posted by: ChrisB on June 17, 2006 11:01 AMHaving an opinion that agrees with another's opinion is different than declaring allegiance to that other person/group. I think it is an important point to make because I see allegiance as a stance where one stops forming their own opinion. I may be well matched in my opinions to some and not well matched to others, but I am still forming my own opinions.
My willingness to tutor people on Sundays or in the summers is not relevant. The Muslim students are not asking for that. They are asking to be able to use an empty classroom and people are begrudging them that use.
I assume that Antioch Church pays rent. The point of my example is that Christians do officially pray inside of public school buildings, so it is not just Muslim students who do. Would you feel more comfortable if the Muslim students rented the empty classroom? I didn't think the money was the issue.
I think that the "terrorist mentality" of some young 1st and 2nd generation Muslims in Canada and Britain is a very complicated issue that is straying too far from this particular question about allowing Muslim students to use an empty classroom in a public school building.
I disagree that Islam is incompatible with "western ways". However, that question is also straying too far off the topic for me.
It would be refreshing to hear the proof of how ethnic groups in the last 20 years have been the most welcomed in our history. Of course, implying that Islam is incompatible with western ways doesn't strike me as the most welcoming stance one could take.
Posted by: ChrisB on June 17, 2006 11:26 AMWhere are you in this?
Posted by: ChrisB on June 17, 2006 11:30 AMI do want to comment more on this issue and address the specifics you raise. Today is too busy, but tomorrow I should have some time to write.
Thank you as well for the interchange.
Posted by: ChrisB on June 17, 2006 04:21 PMI am always interested in hearing different perspectives. Do you have some books that you have read that you would be willing to recommend?
Posted by: ChrisB on June 17, 2006 04:24 PMIf Muslim parents want a formal Muslim-style education for their kids, they should get together and establish a Muslim private school like Christians do.
Posted by: Anchorage Activist on June 17, 2006 10:21 PMHow do you respond to the idea that having no school on Sunday is clearly discrimination in favor of Christian students?
Posted by: ChrisB on June 17, 2006 11:15 PM"I’ve never heard of an online high school, but that would impractical for younger students, who would need supervision. For that to happen, one parent or guardian would have to stay home, which may not be economically feasible."
I believe that where there is a will, there is a way, and it is all a matter of priorities. If religious adherence is your top priority, then you will make it happen by looking into different possibilities including:
Finding a work schedule, or even a different job, that will allow you to be home during the day, if young children require supervision. Does that sound draconian? Many of us do it! (I've given up a larger potential income and benefits and work from home). Again, it has to do with figuring out what is most important in your life! That may mean living a very modest lifestyle. Money an issue? If you are indeed that poor, there are government organizations that will help with child care. In this respect, as a minority, you have the advantage! If you have not heard of online classes or other public services, then it is your responsiblity to seek them out and educate yourself. How is it the rest of us are aware of these options? This information is available to all. Obviously, you have a computer, or at least have access to one. So, either you have enough financial wherewithal to afford a machine and internet connection, or you have tapped into government services. This holds true for anyone, including the homeless people who hang out at the public library! If you want information, you can get it!
"Obviously there is leniency when it comes to someone who is sick or traveling, but if one can make accommodations for themselves, they should."
If one can make accommodations for themselves, they should? Not if others can make accommodations for us? Here the operative word is IF. I think you fail to realize that popping in and out of class may be disruptive to the progress of the class as a whole. Also, schools have to deal with issues of cheating, especially during test periods, and allowing people to leave the room at will is obviously going to be a problem! I have no issue with empty classrooms being used for extracurricular activities during off times - if the curricular needs are met first. Here I really have to bitch, because I know of a student who was denied the use of an empty classroom for EDUCATIONAL purposes. So, to me, it is outrageous that they should allow one for prayer when they won't grant it to meet the purpose they are actually supposed to fulfill!!!
"I bet 100% if the Bible or Torah said that you had to pray during allotted times, schools would give them the chance. After all, this is why schools and most government jobs give Good Friday off."
A big fat NO on this one!!! Get real! Also, I have yet to work a job (and my husband has never worked in one, either) where Good Friday was observed - I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's certainly not universal. In fact, I don't remember getting Good Friday off when I was a kid growing up in the midwest - and there are a lot of Catholics there.
I've got other ideas, here, but I've got to go ... I'll be back ....
Now, if Christians were complaining that they wanted an opportunity to pray in school or to hold any form of religius activity during school hours on school grounds, the LLL and the ACLU would be all over it on separation grounds.
Until you can make a point that compares that granny smith to the jonagold of the muslim prayer issue without bringing up the navel orange of our traditional weekend, THEN you HAVE no leg to stand on. Because I am certain that if Christiany all of a sudden decided that worship was to be on Wednesday and tried to get the schools to accomodate, the hue and cry of the LLL would be heard from Portland Maine to Portland Oregon, without the aid of electronic amplification.
No one is buying it except the agenda driven, anti-christian LLL.
Eyago
Posted by: Eyago on June 18, 2006 11:34 AMWhat are specific books that you have read that you want to recommend?
Posted by: ChrisB on June 18, 2006 01:57 PMI am pleased that you agree with me regarding the history of Saturdays and Sundays off as well as the opinion that the weekend is here to stay. I think an issue of disagreement is the time limit you seem to apply to accommodation. It doesn’t matter how ancient a custom or calendar is, the U.S. constitution does not favor one religion over another. On a practical matter, in society we are always trying to balance exactly what this means. It makes sense to set up the system to accommodate the most people and then do some other stuff to accommodate the rest. All of it is accommodation.
An analogy to the time-frame issue is an engineering building in a public university that only has men’s restrooms. There is historical reason for only having men’s restrooms, but that long tradition doesn’t matter. How women’s restrooms should be added (what space is taken for this new use) can be controversial, but no one denies that it is not fair to provide restrooms for men and not for women.
The choices for a public school calendar in the spirit of the US constitution would be to:
A) Favor no religion
e.g. random days off or days off not associated with any religion (I don’t know if there is any day that is not sacred to some religion)
B)Take turns favoring one religion then another
e.g. one year we get Saturdays and Sundays off, the next year we get Fridays and Saturdays off.
C)Favor the religion that the majority follow and then allow flexibility for the others
e.g. Sundays off and let Muslim students pray in an empty classroom on Fridays.
Option C seems the one that would work the best. The options should not include favoring the majority religion and then not allowing minority religions to work-around the favored status of the majority, no matter how long the favored status has been around.
Europe in the Middle Ages
Thatcher and Schwill
The Church of our Fathers
R.H.Bainton
The Little Flowers of St.Francis
Lots of stories of Catholic Saints.
Robert Lull is one of my favorites.
Operation World : a day by day guide to praying for the world Patrick Johnstone
Inside the Third Reich
Albert Speer
Jerusalem Countdown
John Hagee
Islam Unveiled
Robert Spencer
Pirate Coast
Richard Zacks
Here is something I would submit to you : How is it intolerable to not accommodate school prayer, yet it is ok for Muslims to break other religious rituals? For example, Muslim women are supposed to wear veils. This would mean never setting foot in a bank or a store, and no driver's license or ID card! A passport? Forget it! Samia's hypothetical Muslim mother, who works outside of the home, will be severely restricted in her options for employment. I think school prayer may actually be a lesser issue, here, than the really BAD fit between the practice of Islam and life in a modern world. How do you answer these concerns? Does Islam need to change, to allow its women more freedom, or do we need to cave on what are obviously security issues? Also, it would seem that many western Muslims choose to forego veils, rather than limit themselves. This is a free choice. Which rules are ok to break? It seems kind of picky choosey to me. Honestly, I'd like to know how you'd address this.
Then there's the whole issue of lending and money ... these people can't in good faith carry a balance on any credit card or take out a mortgage. I believe it is considered usurious. Our society has some real compatibility problems with this particular religion!
Posted by: Peggy U on June 18, 2006 02:59 PMThis book is written quite recently (shortly before Zarqawi was killed, I believe). If you find it enlightening, please pass it on!
Posted by: Peggy U on June 18, 2006 03:25 PMPeople on this thread ARE complaining about the use of an empty classroom for Muslim students to use.
I don't believe that students "popping in and out" are really a disturbance to the teaching process, but maybe that is just my experience. I would hope that our students would not be so thrown off by something minor like that.
Since I am not Muslim, I cannot speak as to the relative importance of various things. I know that among Christians, there is a huge range of what is acceptable behavior. I am under the impression that there is quite a range among Muslims as well regarding what is required by Islam and what is considered to be cultural. I would take Samia at her word when she said, "After all, praying five times a day is the most important tenet in Islam, and we just can’t get away with praying in the morning or evening, as someone suggested".
The idea that we can't give into something because then they'll want more is not something I am a big believer in. Boundaries are often hard to maintain, but they are still are responsibility to maintain. To put a false boundary up so we don't have to deal with the real boundary later is not an admirable position.
Regarding usary, Catholics used to be against it and now aren't. Times change and religions (or really, various groups within religions) decide what they change and what they don't. I would love to change many rules within in many religions, but it is not my business.
Posted by: ChrisB on June 18, 2006 04:18 PMThanks for the suggestions. I'll look into them. Out of curiosity, what does The Little Flowers of St.Francis and Lots of stories of Catholic Saints have to do with this discussion?
Letting people leave the classroom at will is not disruptive? What about the WASL, as a small example? When they hold it at our schools, they won't allow people to leave. Not only that, they won't allow freshmen, juniors and seniors to be on campus during testing, for fear of cheating and distraction.
I am having a real hard time with this whole discussion, and here is why: I have not seen these simple kinds of adjustments made for quite legitimate EDUCATIONAL purposes. Here are two examples. The first is the one that I have harped on before, and which no one wishes to address. Why should an accelerated student be denied the use of a corner desk in an empty classroom to take an online class, when the classes offered are so far below him as to be unuseable, and when the school itself has denied the boy enrollment in easily accessed on-site high school classes? Why should this boy actually have to leave the school premises in order to hook up his laptop, when the resources are available and ready? There may be a lawsuit coming this school's direction over their management of this situation! In general, I don't approve of lawsuits, but this one seems founded, especially as this boy's IEP has been sadly neglected! He has also been the frequent target of bullies, because they don't like the fact that he's a "smart guy". I know this boy. He's different, but he's a nice kid. When he retaliated against the incessant bullying, using words instead of fists (albeit they were CHOICE words), he found himself threatened with expulsion!
If children leaving the classroom is not disruptive, then answer me this: why is allowing a child to go off in a corner and quietly read (because he is accelerated beyond the language lessons)a disruption? It apparently is too much of a disruption for our grade school to handle. They didn't want it to appear that the student was receiving "special privileges".
Education is a legitimate function of the school - hell, it's supposedly its prime directive! If students who are different can't receive accommodations (such as the one Samia is requesting) for educational purposes, why should religious requests be handled preferentially?
Posted by: Peggy U on June 18, 2006 06:19 PMI think you are continuing to create a false argument. The issue is not that current school schedules exist to accommodate Christain students. It happens that current school schedules exist to accommodate western week norms and would not change if Christian worship suddenly needed a different day. Culturally Saturday and Sunday are our weekends. That is the reality.
The real question, and the only one we should be debating is whether the schools and the ACLU are hypiocritical ragarding this accommodation for Muslim religion in the public schools when they make such loud protests about any Christian effort to practice their religion in school. The best thing you can say is that IF schools find it necessary to accommodate Muslims due to their religious needs, they then should give up trying to restrict Christians from doing the same.
I really have no issue with the needs of Muslims. I think TRUE NUTRALITY means the schools stop trying to restrict people from practicing their religion in public places rather than trying to stop all practice in public places. But if they want to stop all practice, then they need to be consistent. Which is it going to be? ALL or NOTHING?
Again, the weekend issue is a distraction and irrelevant to the central question stated above.
-Eyago
Posted by: Eyago on June 18, 2006 06:29 PMIt looks like we are just going to stay in disagreement about class disruptions and where boundaries are set.
I do agree with you regarding accomodating children who are educationally outside of the class norm. I also think that this is a separate issue. Fight the wrongness of that situation, but don't use it as an excuse to justify another situation. I never did feel that eating my peas was going to help a starving child in India.
Posted by: ChrisB on June 18, 2006 11:12 PMWhat are you talking about when you say, "when they make such loud protests about any Christian effort to practice their religion in school"? This post is about allowing Muslim students a chance to go to an empty classroom and say prayers. The weekend argument is relevant because the school, by virtue of the schedule, is allowing Christian students to easily attend their prayer services.
Christian students are allowed to hold bible study classes in public schools. Christian churches can hold services on Sundays in public schools. What more are you wanting Christian students to be able to do?
Posted by: ChrisB on June 18, 2006 11:21 PM"We protestants are proud of our correct doctrine..."? Wow.
No. I'm proud of being American. I think it is incredibly anti-American to try to censor any religion, including Islam. As long as a Muslim is a law-abiding citizen, they are welcome here. Clearly it is possible to be both law-abiding and Muslim, since many, many Americans are.
Posted by: ChrisB on June 18, 2006 11:30 PMOne school district understands our frustration - and the fact that for many students "physical" schools have become unworkable. Samia, pay attention, because THIS is the answer to your dilemma: take online classes. Quillayute's Insight School (www.go2ischool.net, I think) will work for you if you are willing to make some adjustments (it can be done). If they are full up, Federal Way's Internet Academy (www.iacademy.org) is another way to go. Furthermore, Quillayute is going the extra yard to arrange outings and get togethers for its students, to combat the feeling of isolation that can go with distance learning. Muslims aren't alone in having problems with the public school system. There are many issues, including religious ones, which the present system is frankly incapable of addressing adequately.
I do understand, Samia, that you are likely as assimilated as a Muslim person can be in this society. Honestly, your religion is a restrictive one, and it presents some real problems. I think that by trying to adapt, you may have actually crossed a line into what the fundamentalists we are fighting against would consider betrayal of your religion. That must be difficult, but perhaps it is time for a Muslim reformation movement to counter what seems to be a refusal to change and grow with the times.
Posted by: Peggy U on June 19, 2006 12:24 AMI may be misinformed, but aren't the Bible Studies and Church services held after school hours? What you are advocating is to integrate Muslim religious practice DURING school hours. As I have said, it is fine with me as long as the same privileges exist for other major religions. Additionally, it is my understanding that efforts have been made (whether always succesful or not, I am not sure) to try and prevent religios groups from having bible studies and such things after school. In our current environment, it would not surprise me that in 5-10 years anti-religious groups will attempt to ban the use of school facilities for Sunday services in the name of "separation". That has been the trend.
-Eyago
Posted by: Eyago on June 19, 2006 06:38 AMThe bible studies and church services being held outside of school hours is exactly why my argument about weekend is relevant. They are outside of school hours BECAUSE the school hours are set up to make the bible studies and church services outside of school hours. Saturday and Sunday for the weekend was not set up in a vacuum, it was set up to make it convenient for Christians to observe their religion. That is why objecting to Muslim students slipping out of class and using an empty classroom seems petty to me. Christians already got a whole day and now feel discriminated against because Muslims are trying to work around their schedule?
Posted by: ChrisB on June 19, 2006 10:11 AMIncidentally, if you adopt this policy, brace yourself for a wave of Muslim "converts".
Posted by: Peggy U on June 19, 2006 10:39 AMYou still miss the point in all this. Yes, Chirstians don't "need" to hold Church services during school hours. What you fail to address is the hypocritical approach you are advocating.
Straight up Chris: Is it a violation of "separation" for Chirstians to practice their faith on school grounds during school hours?
"Separation" is NOT a conditional policy. It is either true or not true. What you are saying is that we don't need to accommodate Chirstians because they don't "need" it but Muslims do, so we have to make an exception for them. However, that is NOT the argument that has been used to fight the battle of "separation". So, either the issue is "separation", or it conditional based on the religious needs of the individual in question.
Again, I am not saying no to Muslim prayer, I am saying that religious rights are for everyone. You let Muslims pray in school, you cannot bar Christians form the same thing. You can't simply excuse your discrimination on the basis that Christians have Sundays so they can be barred at the other times. What you are saying then is that the Government has the right to say who can worship when and use arbitrary rules to make those determinations.
Think very carefuly before you aswer this because there are a lot of current practices by liberals in schools that will be affected by some of the positions you might take.
-Eyago
Posted by: Eyago on June 19, 2006 10:53 AMI teach physics and math at a community college. I have lots of issues with the way public education is structured from k-16, but I'm not particularly interested in going into an in-depth conversation about it in blog form. I agree with you that the advanced student you know, should be able to go and study by himself. In my own experience as a student and as a teacher and as an observer in k-12 classrooms, I just don't think it is that big of a deal to let a student get up and quietly leave/enter the room. But, then I tend to have a noisy, active room anyway.
Posted by: ChrisB on June 19, 2006 11:44 PMI am sure there are lots of reform movements within Islam - it is no more a monolithic religion than is Christianity. This post is about allowing Muslim students to go use an empty classroom, not about teachers leading an Islamic reform.
Posted by: ChrisB on June 19, 2006 11:47 PMI am not "missing the point in all of this". We have a difference in the scale of our viewpoint. I am looking at a larger picture that includes acknowledging the benefit that Christian students have by having their sacred day off from school. You are choosing to focus more narrowly on what happens within the government mandated schedule. It is not about a missing point.
Regarding my belief about separation of church and state - I personally would prefer no religion in any public building. This means no Muslim students using an empty classroom, no bible study classes before school, no renting the school gym to a church group on Sundays. On the other hand, it does strike me as a waste of resources to not allow the use of a building if no one else needs it at the time (as long as they pay for any costs that wouldn't have occured if they weren't using the building). So, the status quo of allowing groups to use the space is ok for me, even if I would prefer otherwise.
The vital thing about separation of church and state, for me, is making sure that someone who doesn't want to participate doesn't have to be exposed to it and to make sure that a public official (e.g. teacher, principal) isn't leading it. So, have a bible study class in an empty classroom, but don't have it in the lobby of the building. I'd have a huge problem with Muslim prayers being said over the loudspeaker at a public school.
Futhermore, I am not against Christian students slipping out of class for prayers. There are certainly Christian practices where one prays on designated hours and that could interfere with school. What I have been saying is that I think it is petty to complain about Muslim students slipping into an empty classroom when Christian students have a huge advantage. Instead of screaming discrimination, be thankful that most Christians aren't put in the position of choosing between getting to worship they way they want to and getting to stay in class.
The practical side of all of this is how disruptive is all of this leaving class. It becomes a balance thing. If most everybody is going to leave, it might be better to schedule a day off (hence: Sundays off). If it is just a few people, then it won't be that big of a disruption. In New York state, they arrange the school schedule to have the Jewish High Holidays off as well as the major Christian holidays since they have a large number of Jewish students as well as Christian students. If a particular public school had a population of 50% Christian and 50% Muslim, it might make sense to have a four day week and extend the school year. I have the practical dilemma in Fall quarter about what to do with my evening class the night before Thanksgiving. I have to decide if I give a test, to make sure everyone shows up or if I make it a "throw-away" class since so many students will start their holiday early.
Posted by: ChrisB on June 20, 2006 12:33 AMI appreciate your point of view. I agree that Christians have an advantage due to the fact that this country was founded on Christian principles by Christians and that the culture reflects that heritage. The thing about culture is that it is much more divisive and disruptive to try and force the majority to change to adjust to many different minorities than to have the culture itself adjust and absorb the mixing of the cultures as they integrate. Unfortunatley, the LLL thinks the majority culture in this country is evil and must be forcibly altered and that minority culture must be cultivated in its place. Hence, we have schools restricting Christians and encouraging Muslims. That is what I object to. I only ask for consistency one way or another. Either religion is allowed to occur during school hours, or religion is allowed only during off hours or no religion is allowed at all, but to say that one religion is preferred over another such as in this case, is wrong.
Now, I disagree with you that religious institutions aught to be restricted from using public school (and I guess by extension, all public) facilites. Public facilites are in fact PUBLIC. That means we, the people, own them. They are not property of the "government" such that only the "owners" can use it (military and other sensitive functions not withstanding.) We are the government, and our elected officials and employees are simply hired by us to perform fuctions on our behalf. If one group can use a public facility than any leagal group can use that facility. It is asinine to say that the use of a public place by a religious group is the same as government "promoting" religion. So far, religion is not illegal in this country, so they have as much right to access public facilities as any other legal group. To deny them is to practice discrimination and in effect indicate religion is LESS legal than other organizations and entities. You confuse "religion neutral" with "anti-religion".
Posted by: Eyago on June 20, 2006 05:16 AMYour statement "the LLL thinks the majority culture in this country is evil and must be forcibly altered and that minority culture must be cultivated in its place" is exactly why I have been staying on this thread for so long. (I'm not quite sure what the LLL stands for, but I'll guess is has something to do with a "liberal" stance and is pejorative and my viewpoint probably gets me lumped into this category).
People do not feel that the majority is "evil". We feel that the majority has advantages that may or may not be noticed by those in the majority and it with a sense of fairness that we advocate for minority rights. I like this particular topic because it is less charged than many topics and also is more obvious to point out the advantage that the majority holds. I do not think Christianity is evil and we need to replace it with Islam. I think that Christianity is at a huge advantage in our religion-neutral country and it is only fair to toss a few crumbs to other religions.
This extends to much more hot-button topics, namely race and gender. Liberals do not think men are evil or White people are evil. Rather, the idea is that in our race-neutral and gender-neutral country, men and White people have a huge advantage that may not be easily noticed by people in those groupings. In a strive for true neutrality, some of that advantage has to be leveled out, ideally in the least painful way to everybody. So, in the case of the Muslim students, I think that you don't take away Sunday from Christians, but rather you let the Muslim students slip away to an empty classroom. I don't mind if Christian students also need to slip away to pray, but from my point of view, that is not helping the situation of trying to balance advantages in a quest for real neutrality.
Clearly, many will disagree with this goal of a redistribution of advantages, but at least know that when men or White people are being asked to change, it is not because people hate them or think that they are evil.
Posted by: ChrisB on June 20, 2006 10:38 AMAs to your teaching environment, there is the fact that the students pay up front to take the classes. Students can take their money to whatever institution gives them the best fit. The best way to fix the situation for all would be to go with a voucher system, so people would have that freedom at lower grade levels as well. This is probably the most equitable arrangement of all, yet it is one that is unlikely to be adopted because of union opposition.
Posted by: Peggy U on June 20, 2006 12:08 PMThis post is about allowing Muslim students to go use an empty classroom, not about teachers leading an Islamic reform.
I was not suggesting you actively attempt to reform Islam (good grief, how silly!). I was suggesting you let them work out their issues themselves, without tampering.
Posted by: Peggy U on June 20, 2006 12:15 PMPeople do not feel that the majority is "evil". We feel that the majority has advantages that may or may not be noticed by those in the majority and it with a sense of fairness that we advocate for minority rights.
Then you need to better understand the underlying philosphy behind the major propoents of modern liberalism. For you it might seem like all that people want is "fairness", but for them, it is a radical shift in culture. Yes, they think capitalism is evil. Yes, they think Christianity is evil. Yes, they think white males are evil. It is not equality they want, it is the destruction of western mores and values.
Christianity is at odds with cerain in-vogue minorities, so it is incompatible for liberals to advocate for equality for everyone. Christianity is at odds with their philosophy, so either their philosphy goes or Christianity goes. Capitalism is at odds with their philosophy, so one of them has to go.
White male, western culture is who they blame fore EVERY ill in the world today. Genocide in Africa? A direct result of western imperialism, or more recently, American imperialism. Tribal conflicts? America's fault. No matter where you go in this world, if there is a conflict, if there is pain and suffereing, it is NOT due to the actions and choices of the polulations involved, it is America. We either acted wrongly or failed to act correctly. Never is blame placed (except in Isreal's case, but ultimately that is also placed on us) on anyone else. You will read only how America is at fault.
More domestically, you can read all about the struggles of various minority classes and how they are victims of the whites. Never is their plight a direct result of their choices or culture. It is simply that the white, Christian male is ultimately at fault.
But back to the philosophy issue. This philosophy fails at several levels, and is ultimately self-defeating. Not all cultures are equally valid. Not all philosophies are equally to be embraced. But the liberal viewpoint, when all the layers are pealed away, ultimatley proposes that nothing is more or less valid and that all views are to be respected and valued. That sounds good in a touchy-feely way, but it cannot withstand even the slightest scrutiny, nor do liberals actually follow that tenant themselves. They make value judegements all the time. They villify those who don't beleive as they do.
Ultimately what liberalism advocates is to accept portions of belief systems that do not make judgements about other belief systems, meaning that there is no moral right or wrong, just choices, as long as you don't hurt anyone. That is moral relativism. Unfortunatley, without an objective standard, you are subject to what someone else determines as "hurt". We see this with laws meant to limit "hate" speach where anyting negative said about a minority class is considered hate. This goes so far as to threaten religious freedom. In several countries, there have been efforts to make sermons regarding the practice of homosexuality prosecutable under hate speach. That is where your path takes us. You might be ok with that, but when you let the camel's nose under the tent, nothing will be safe.
You might be tempted to argue that reasonable people will not do that, but once you give the government the power and the tools to do something, you have given it too much power, and you will be hard-pressed to stop it.
Another problem with this philosophy is the idea that everything can be made equal. That is not possible, nor is it necessarily beneficial. You can't make me as smart as someone else, you can't make someone else as athletic as me. you can't make another person as artistic as Picasso. You can't make some people more socially adept, others more mercifaul, these people here more analyitical, those people there more perceptive. You can't make people more prone to drive and ambition. People are inherently different.
Additionally, culture plays a big role in the equality status of the people in that culture. cultures with differing values will have differing strengths and weaknesses, and those will bear out in how the offspring immersed in that culture do in the greater world. However you might like to think it is the lack of opportunity created by the evil white, Christian, male, capitalists, it is not true and does not bear real scrutiny. Liberlas do not want to look at the root causes of problems they simply want to find a convenient scape-goat to advance their ideology. Within any of the minority groups there are those that succeed and those that fail. The ones who succeed generally are willing to step outside of the failed system and adapt to the culture in which they find themselves.
And this brings us to the next problem. While liberlas are quick to accept Darwinian evolution in nature, they work actively against it in social constructs. However, the fact is, that culture is a living creature hat adapts to the natural forces that act upon it. Only in cases where something lives in isolation does it fail to adapt, and then when it is thrust into a new environment may struggle or become extinct. Our American culture is not monolithic. It is a culmination of all the verious forces that have impacted it to date. Sure, cerain forces had greater influence than others, but as this country is affected by other cultures and ideas, it will adapt, and those that come to this country also will adapt. To force an artifical environment is counter productive and slows the melding of the cultures into a new and more vibrant culture. You are, in efect, creating a fragmentation that will weaken the "creature". The focus on the parts rather than the whole is harmful.
Finally, the key behind Darwinian evolutionary theory is the concept of the "survival of the fittest". It is only those cultures and ideas and choices that strengthen that ultimately result in survivability. It is actually the CONFLICT and the CHALLANGE that makes something strong. I read a brief today on how lab mice are more susceptible to allergies than those found in the wild. It is due to the fact that they have no stress on the system to build protections. You propose to remove all the societal stresses on the system thinking that it will benenifit. It will not. Ultimatley it will harm. Stress, necessity and challenge are what spur on growth and development. If one is not challenged, they attrophy. Happens with muscles, brains, and just about anything. You want to level the playing field and take away the stress. I say you will destroy the culture by doing that.
It is precicely the fact that I am a son of a fatherless, immigrant mother who raised me on her own in poverty that I am who I am today, that I have achieved what I have personally and has formed my character. I do not regret that my half-sister got inheritances from my step-dad's family to the tune of millions while I got zero. I can be proud of what I accomplished because it gives me self-respect to say "I did it on my own dispite my humble beginnings." What can my half-sister say? "I'm rich"? I like my story better.
Now, the same circumstances could have beaten me down, but would I have had any better self-esteem if I relied on hand-outs all my life? It is true that the Kennedy's have it easy. That they are born with the silver spoon, and they are influential in America. The same can be said for the Bush family. That is not fair. So what? tha vast majority of us are not an an even keel with them, and we can go on to have very happy, healty lives with meaning. Many others find a way to join the Kennedy and Bush families, at least in wealth, if not power, and they did it with humbler beginings than I had.
But if you truely want to advocate for true equality, America itself is the Kennedy family and the vast majority of the world is dirt poor. You really want to help the world, sell your holding in the US, and move to Ghana. you could feed a village on what you have. Liberals never seem to want to go that far, so forgive me if I am not enamored by their theories when they can;t step out of their own relative world wealth and put their money where their philosophy is.
So, no, we don't throw crumbs to the minorities. We give them the same thinge everyone else has: A chance to make their way in the country with whatever deal they were given in life and they can make choices and play that hand like everyone else. We don't take the cards away from person A and give them to person B. Ultimatley you will create resentment from person A and have not allowed person B to develop their own self-respect.
In regards to the specifics of this post, my position is to allow the Muslims to practice their religion freely. We are NOT a religion NEUTRAL country, we are a country of religious freedom. The distinction is that people are free to worship not taht they are restricted from affecting anyone by their worship. But if we allow one to worship freely, we have to provide the same legal protections to every religion. We don't reverse discriminate to redress some preceived imbalance, and we don't try to sujugate the majority to the wants of every identifiable minority. We blend and we adapt, and it is not fair. The majority is what the majority becomes when all parts are put into the whole. The outliers will likely both move to the center and draw the center out to where they are. Let the natural process work and simply create a system where everyone is free to make their own way.
-Eyago
Posted by: Eyago on June 20, 2006 01:14 PMSpell checker? There is no spell checker here is there? Hard to type with three young ones always interrupting. I'm surprised I can even keep a thought long enough to get it in writing. :) I guess I'll compose in Word and paste next time.
Posted by: Eyago on June 20, 2006 01:53 PMThe values of equality may be utopian, but they are very American. Have your war with Islam, but try not to lose the values that make America worth holding on to.
Posted by: ChrisB on June 20, 2006 10:37 PMI agree that there is a big difference between college and k-12 (I wouldn't dream of teaching in the k-12 system for lots of different reasons). However, in my own experience as a student and my experience in watching an excellent public elementary school, I think that students can quietly leave/enter a classroom and it not be a disruption to learning. Another place we agree to disagree?