Last month, a Tufts student newspaper (The Primary Source) published the following ad (thanks to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education for the pointer):
The preceding December, the student newspaper also published a satirical Christmas carol — in its Christmas carol parody issue — cricitizing affirmative action by criticizing Tufts' black admitted students; in my view, that carol was offensive because unduly harsh and hyperbolic, but it was clearly an attempt to condemn affirmative action in admissions.ISLAM
ARABIC TRANSLATION: SUBMISSION In the spirit of Islamic Awareness week, the Source presents an itinerary to supplement the educational experience.
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." — The Koran, Sura 8:12
MONDAY Author Salam Rushdie needed to go into hiding after Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini declared a fatwa calling for his death for writing The Satanic Verses, which was declared "blasphemous against Islam." Slavery was an integral part of Islamic culture. Since the 7th century, 14 million African slaves were sold to Muslims compared to 10 or 11 million sold to the entire Western Hemisphere. As recently as 1878, 25,000 slaves were sold annually in Mecca and Medina. (National Review 2002).
TUESDAY The seven nations in the world that punish homosexuality with death all have fundamentalist Muslim governments. In Saudi Arabia, women make up 5% of the workforce, the smallest percentage of any nation worldwide. They are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle or go outside without proper covering of their body. (Country Reports on Human Rights pracitces 2001)
WEDNESDAY Most historians agree that Muhammed's second wife Aisha was 9 years old when their marriage was consummated. "Not equal are those believers who sit and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit. Unto all Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit by a special reward." — The Koran, Sura 4:95
THURSDAY The Islamist guerillas in Iraq are not only killing American soldiers fighting for freedom. They are also responsible for the vast majority of civi[l]ian casualties. Ibn Al-Ghazzali, the famous Islamic theologian, said, "The most satisfying and final word on the matter is that marriage is a form of slavery. The woman is man's slave and her duty therefore is absolute obedience to the husband in all that he asks of her person."
FRIDAY Mohamed Hadfi, 31, tore out his 23-year-old wife Samira Bari's eyes in their apartment in the southern French city of Nimes in July 2003 following a heated argument about her refusal to have sex with him. (Herald Sun) If you are a peaceful Muslim who can explain or justify this astonishingly intolerant
and inhuman behavior, we'd really like to hear from you! Please send all letters to
tuftsprimarysource@gmail.com.
Yet according to the a decision by the Tufts University Committee on Student Life both these items violate Tufts policies and are thus forbidden at Tufts. Tufts policies prohibit, among other things, "[h]arassment or discrimination against individuals on the basis of race, religion, gender identity/expression, ethnic or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, or genetics", including (emphasis added) "attitudes or opinions that are expressed verbally or in writing." Here's what the University Committee — a majority of which apparently consists of faculty members — had to say about the anti-Islam item (in the interests of saving space, I omit the similar findings about the anti-affirmative-action carol) (emphasis added):
[W]e find that the MSA proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that The Primary Source harassed Muslim students at Tufts, and created a hostile environment for them by publishing “Islam-Arabic Translation: Submission.” The Committee found that the MSA established that the commentary at issue targeted members of the Tufts Muslim community for harassment and embarrassment, and that Muslim students felt psychologically intimidated by the piece....Lovely: Harsh criticism of Islam doesn't — in the Committee's view — "promot[e] political or social discourse." Rather, it is an "unreasonable attack[]" (and it's up to the Committee to decide which attacks on religions are reasonable and which aren't).[A]lthough Tufts students should feel free to engage in speech that others might find offensive and even hurtful, Tufts University’s non-discrimination policy embodies important community standards of behavior that Tufts, as a private institution, has an obligation to uphold. Our campus should be a place where students feel safe, respected, and valued. Freedom of speech should not be an unfettered license to violate the rights of other members of the community, without recourse.
We find that the above-mentioned carol and commentary, rather than promoting political or social discourse, as claimed by the members of The Primary Source, instead were designed to harass and intimidate members of the Tufts community because of their race (black) and religion (Islam)....
[T]he Committee has attempted to strike a balance between protecting the rights of students to exist on campus without being subjected to unreasonable attacks based on their race or religion and protecting the rights of students to publish controversial writings....
From now on, all material published in The Primary Source (whether characterized as satirical or otherwise) must be attributed to named author(s) or contributor(s).
We ask that student governance consider the behavior of student groups in future decisions concerning recognition and funding....
The Committee believes that it is important for Tufts University to foster an intellectual climate in which students feel free to express their thoughts, however controversial. Nevertheless, based on the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing on April 30, 2007, the Committee on Student Life holds that The Primary Source violated Tufts University’s non-discrimination policy in publishing the carol “O Come All Ye Black Folk” and the commentary “Islam-Arabic Translation: Submission.”
What's more, this "unreasonable" speech violates the "rights of other members of the community." What are those rights? Apparently the right "to exist on campus without being subjected to unreasonable attacks based on their race or religion" (including attacks on the religion generally, even those that don't give any student names in particular). And apparently the right to be free of "attitudes or opinions that are expressed verbally or in writing" that "create[] a hostile environment" for students "on the basis of race, religion, gender identity/expression, ethnic or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, or genetics."
In this case, the punishment for the speech is a ban on one newspaper's ability to publish anonymous speech — while other newspapers that express favored views remain free to shield their contributors from social ostracism and other retaliation through anonymity. It requests "that student governance consider the behavior of student groups," which is to say the viewpoints those groups express, "in future decisions concerning recognition and funding."
But more importantly, the ruling finds that the speech violated general campus rules that make such speech "unacceptable at Tufts" and require "prompt and decisive action." Though it looks like no individual students are being disciplined in this instance, if the Tufts Administration accepts the ruling, it will send a clear message that students who express "attitudes or opinions" like this will be seen as violating campus anti-harassment rules, and will be subjected to "prompt and decisive action," which campus rules say may involve "the disciplinary process," against individual students as well as against organizations. After this decision, what should Tufts students feel free to say in criticizing religions, or in criticizing affirmative action?
Welcome to the new freedom of speech at the new university. No, the Committee's actions don't violate the First Amendment, since Tufts is a private university. But they violate basic principles of academic freedom and public debate on university campuses, especially when the top university administrators claim to "fully recognize freedom of speech on campus." Appalling.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Governments -- Don't "Inflexibly Cling[] To Free Speech ... With Absolute Disregard for Religious Feelings":
- McLean's Article on the Campaign to Create an International Law Norm Banning "Defamation of Religion":
- Opinion Preliminarily Enjoining SFSU Civility Code...
- "Intentionally Putting a Negative Spin on Islam" -- Flabbergasting!
- The New Anti-Blasphemy Rules, Again:
- SFSU Republicans Will Face No Punishment:...
- The Effort to Ban "Defamation of Religion" and the Democracy Deficit of International Law:
- Baltimore Hebrew University Professor Supporting Legal Penalties for "Negative Depiction of Religion":
- A New International Law "Value" -- Freedom from "Defamation of Religions"?
Be nice to the clones. Many of them are made to feel like second class citizens, organ farms, etc.
"O Sing Gospel Choirs // We will accept your children // No matter what your grades are, F's, D's, or G's [sic]"
"All Come! Blacks we need you // Born into the ghetto // O Jesus! We need you now to fill our racial quotas // Descendants of Africa with brown skin arriving"
I certainly wouldn't advocate punishment or censorship of the group for the stunt, but those lyrics are pretty appalling, particularly the part about their low marks implying stupidity or a lack of work ethic. Then the preposterous allegation that all blacks are born in the ghetto. There are plenty of ways to demonstrate the absurdity of affirmative action. At my undergraduate institution, the conservative newspaper obtained admissions data and showed the rates of admission for different ethnic groups: they raised quite a stir using actual data. I can understand how a parody should be protected and perhaps used as part of a multi-pronged approach to opposing using race as an admission criterion, but the song is certainly in very poor taste.
The Islamic "raising awareness" posters also appear quite inflammatory. But the worst part by a long shot is the jab at the end:
"If you are a peaceful Muslim who can explain or justify this astonishingly intolerant and inhuman behavior, we'd really like to hear from you!"
I think that's just disgusting. There's just no academic honesty there. Do other Muslims really need to explain why, for instance, a man ripped out his wife's eyes because she wasn't in the mood, and in France, no less? Let's just discount the vast cultural differences between an American student who happens to be Muslim and a French maniac who happens to be a Muslim, and then ask the American to explain the actions of a Frenchman he's never met and probably knows almost nothing about. The implications that all Muslims must answer for one another and the "If not every Muslim is a terrorist, why don't the peaceful ones speak out?" argument are disgusting. Pure intellectual dishonesty.
But that's not what these guys are going for. They're trying to mobilize like-minded people to join their cause. A reasonable student should see that, as should the university. While this is in poor taste like the affirmative action carol, I would rather see facts, even if devoid of context and replete with bizarre implications, than what simply appears to be a song to infuriate black people. The song says that the entering class has 52 black freshman. That's it. In retrospect, perhaps the Islamic poster is just as foul as the song, though for different reasons. That being said, I also don't think the university should be censoring the Islamic awareness poster either. Intellectually dishonest it may be, but students should be able to critically evaluate such material.
I do not understand these universities that censor so much material. When students leave these bubbles of academia, they're going to be at a disadvantage when it comes to critically evaluating inflammatory arguments because they've never seen one.*
*except for arguments directed towards the Bush Administration
Turning to the main topic....
This and similar episodes lead me to believe that we need to re-think protections on free speech which apply only against governments. Any employer in the US could, of course, limit speech in the workplace on the same basis as Tufts or on other grounds. I'm not sure whether that would receive approval here; the ratio of those who defend property rights v. free speech is not obvious. Nevertheless, the basic point is clear: private businesses, including internet sites, can infringe on liberty. What's the remedy?
Seriously, I am disgusted with Tufts.
Perhaps you can suggest a time in the past when this kind of material would have been considered appropriate for a college newspaper? I edited my college newspaper for a year in the mid-70's, and I would have been severely reprimanded for publishing either of these "satires." I think they're mean-spirited and inflammatory. I fail to see the "educational" value of promulgating half-truths and slanders.
The students who run this newspaper need to grow up and get a life. Yes, they have the "right" to publish what they like, but the university also has the "right" to do what it did. I glad someone saw fit to express their disapproval of this bigotry.
Nick
Since most Saudi women don't work and cannot drive cars or expose themselves, can we also assume they are married at the age of nine?
The remedy is (a) choice, and (b) contract. Choose not to patronize businesses or attend universities that don't respect free speech. And ensure that they do by contracting for it.
Maybe not but you would be supprised at how young the average bride is. In 80 when I was in Saudi talking with several of the married men (age 30 or so) said that their wives were in High School. They marry them YOUNG.
Husband and sons in the front of the pickup, wives and daughters in the open bed.
I realy doubt that it has changed much in 20 years.
High school?! That's not nine years old. I just moved to Southern Oregon. Do you know how many people I've met who got married and had kids in their mid- to late teens? Seems to me the juxtaposition implies that Saudi men not only repress their women but are pedophiles to boot. What other conclusion am I supposed to draw?
Not at all. Where you come from, do feminist groups typically run man-hating ads in this vein in the college newspaper and attract no adverse attention for it? Please, tell us more. Perhaps it's standard discourse on college campuses for black student groups to publish ads demanding that white people justify Timothy McVeigh's actions, and I just missed it.
My point in offering a comparison is that I wouldn't want people's evaluation of this advertisement to be colored by a personal belief that Muslims are, in fact, a barbaric people. Thus I offered up an analogy in hopes those folks would be able to see it a little more objectively.
Look up the responses to the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre in Montreal.
Since I assume most American Muslims don't hold those sort of beliefs, I'd like to see more Muslims articulating why those sorts of things are not inherently a part of Islam, or ideally, why they should be considered un-Islamic. Perhaps that sort of open discussion could help sway other Muslims to modify their religion. Or if those practices are inherently Islamic, well, that would be good to know too.
For one, I don't think a "peaceful Muslim" is in any position to explain (let alone justify) the actions of a radical. Certainly to denounce such acts, but demanding justification implies that all Muslims must agree with these actions in the first place.
If the paper stuck to the literal word of the challenge, then they've set up a condition for automatic failure any response from a "peaceful Muslim" that doesn't try to find justification for atrocity (as opposed to a Muslim writing to demonstrate how these actions are against Islam and citing whatever theological source they can think of - whatever that'd be).
If that's the case, then it seems that the paper's actions weren't in the interest of dialog, but specifically to harass and offend, and that Tuft's was consistent, in this case, with their rules.
Volokh's asserts that these rules "violate basic principles of academic freedom and public debate on university campuses." I disagree. I think that there is no one single principle to which all academic institutions must conform.
Maybe some private universities want to punish any students who make fun of fat people. I think that such a university would create a unique environment for the obese, and thus would satisfy a certain niche. It would be unfortunate if all universities adopted such rules. But there is no harm here if a few do. Just as there is really no harm in Bob Jones University censoring "anti-Christian" speech if it so desires. If you want to engage in speech that Bob Jones forbids, go elsewhere.
In effect, if a fat student signed a contract with such a university, in a sense, they would have a contractual right (really justified expectation rather than an actual full blown right) to not be subject to ridicule.
Shockingly, I actually agree with Nieporent on this one. Let the market decide, at least for private universities. If you don't like Tufts policies, don't attend their as a student.
Of course, their should be some limit to markets. For example, universities should not be able to promote racism that leads to the exclusion of minorities.
So if your point is simply that Tufts is doing what we might expect a Bob Jones University to do -- I don't know whether Bob Jones does it or not, but you used it as a hypothetical so let's imagine the Bob Jones of that hypothetical -- then that strikes me as a mighty damning thing to say about Tufts. And the market ought to hear about it.
I should also stress that it would be a shocking First Amendment violation if universities were banned from teaching racism, or any other ideology, regardless of whether that leads to exclusion of minorities.
How about this: anything Rush Limbaugh wouldn't get fired for saying. If he was caught singing that "Come all ye Black folk" song in the shower he'd never work in radio again. Nevertheless he manages to speak his mind.
I'm not saying that Tufts should have brought disciplinary action, but to suggest that banning blatant racism is tantamount to suppressing rational debate is absurd.
"why would one assume that american muslims don't hold such beliefs"
Well, because the injustices and atrocities that happen regularly amongst Muslims elsewhere just don't happen that often here. Isn't Rushdie teaching a literature course at Emory? He doesn't feel he has to hide for his life in America. And just anecdotally, the (admittedly few) observant Muslims I have known haven't been "astonishingly intolerant and inhuman".
Note that I don't say that there are no American Muslims that hold these beliefs and also that I've limited myself to American Muslims. I do think that the mainstream of Islam globally is in fact "astonishingly intolerant and inhuman", and it does no one any good to pretend that it isn't. But to the extent that non-Muslims have influence over it, it will be by encouraging the more tolerant forms. If we write off every Muslim, where does that get us?
I don't know what the law is in MA, so I'm assuming private institutions have the legal right to control speech on their premises.
I guess that puts you, Viscus, and Prof. Volokh on the same side. I wonder if, perhaps, the same rule ought to apply to private employers and speech as to private employers and religion, namely, an obligation to make reasonable accomodation. Since the practical burden of allowing speech is frequently minimal, this might, in practice, considerably expand the arena available for free speech.
I should note that I'm thinking out loud here and probably have missed some obvious reason this won't work.
1) I believe, but am not certain, that California is the only state with the equivalent of the Leonard Law.
2) Well, not on the same side as Viscus, no; the fact that a university may have the legal right to punish free speech does not mean I think they should be above criticism for doing so. Personally, I like FIRE's approach: if a university states up front that they don't respect free speech, then I don't criticize them for not respecting it. If they claim to do so, though, then they deserve harsh criticism for censorship.
Perhaps I'm unduly influenced by living in CA, but I'm inclined to favor expansion of speech rights even against restriction by private entities. Certainly by universities. If that is not to be the law, then of course I agree with you on the need for criticism.
I wouldn't. I think there's a difference between "anti-" and "critical." I've always assumed that "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Jewish" speech was just that--opposing or speaking against those groups or religions. But what you quote above is worse--it's a taunt. "Go ahead, defend your pedophile prophet."
And, to pose my question again, Eugene, can you remind me of a time when something like this was appropriate to publish in a college newspaper?
"Listening to the silence from the community, I don't see how one could conclude otherwise."
The Muslim community, especially here in America, is not silent on these issues. The internet is filled with Muslim-American commentary on violence, terrorism, intolerance, etc.
Also, a case I have lost track of, at the University of Arizona (I think. It was at a public University in Phoenix.) in which a resident hall proctor (again, I apologize for not remembering his exact position) was fired when he refused to participate in "diversity training". It seemed to consist of different groups based on gender and race, one at a time, sitting in a circle with the others teling them everything that was wrong with them and how they had been offended. The problem, among other things, was the white males only got to sit in the middle and never got to question any other group or speak to them. The person in question refused. He was a recent Iraq Vet as I recall and just refused. He was fired. The last I heard, he was going to sue the school. Does anyone know what has happened in this case?
Both of these cases seem most discriminatory to me and both got university approval.
And their statements generally run the gamut from equivocation to full throated support.
Cute comment, but not true.
Actually, it is true. At this moment, Pakistan is about to enact the death penalty for apostasy for Islam. Afghanistan, as you should know, already has it, as do some other Muslim countries. Malaysia does not impose the death penalty but makes it virtually impossible to leave Islam. Please cite the fatwas from American Muslims authorities decrying this intolerant, un-Islamic behavior. Where are the fatwas retracting the verses in the Qur'an, frequently quoted in sermons, that call non-Muslims pigs and monkeys? Where are the condemnations of the murder of van Gogh and of the death threats against Hirsi Ali? Where is the Muslim outcry against the laws of many countries requiring the President or Prime Minister to be a Muslim? Where are the Muslim demands for freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia? Where is the Muslim campaign against "honor killing"? From time to time we hear a condemnation of a specific violent act. More often we hear vague claims that Islam is tolerant and peaceful, but no real condemnation of intolerance and violence.
Thank you for offering the sort of context that is conspicuously absent from the Primary Source article.
http://tinyurl.com/22u76d
http://tinyurl.com/yuk4u7
http://tinyurl.com/yr55mx
http://tinyurl.com/26hlwe
http://tinyurl.com/2cnu4l
http://tinyurl.com/2avzcj
http://tinyurl.com/2ym64p
That's for starters. I can't stay up all night looking for something you can investigate yourself if you're really inclined to do so.
Really? So religions can't change at all? Does that mean I can legitimately say that every christian believes in slavery? It's in the bible: Genesis 9:25-27: Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem
Can I also say that all catholics support and encourage molesting boys? The clergy leaders have tried to protect the molesters and your average catholic has not been nearly vocal enough in denouncing the priests.
Are you going to defend my speech rights too or are you just going to denounce me?
http://www.masnet.org/pressroom_release.asp?id=3264
http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=122
Please read my post again. Some religions can and have changed. A major problem with Islam is that its tenets preclude change. If what is not prohibited is permitted and if every action of Mohammed is worthy of emulation, the kinds of changes that have taken place in other religions are in fact precluded. Of course, one could reject these two precepts, but that would be very radical. This is why Islamic reformers are so few and have such difficulty. In order to make significant change, you've got to reject such fundamental aspects of Islam that it isn't much further to rejecting Islam entirely. That is why there are more Hirsi Ali's than Irshad Manjis. And the Irshad Manjis have a hard time arguing with the traditionalists because it is in fact the traditionalists who have the texts and the tradition on their side. So, yes, religions in principle can change, but it is very hard for Islam to change.
As for Catholics, actually at least in the US and Canada lay Catholics have been fairly vocal in denouncing molestation of boys by priests. This is a problem for which the Church as an institution can be faulted, but Catholics are on solid ground in maintaining that the molestation is contrary to the doctrines of the church. Note, further, that the priests who have engaged in child molestation have not claimed that their behavior is justified by Catholic doctrine.
You seem to think that I consider all Muslims responsible for the acts of individuals. I do not, and nothing that I have said justifies this. What Muslims are responsible for, other than their own actions, are the doctrines to which they adhere.
Grover Gardner,
I have no doubt that you can produce some condemnations of violence and intolerance by some Muslims. I am aware of Muslims who hold such views, and have Muslim friends who do. The problem is that all the evidence is that these are not mainstream views. These are not the positions of authoritative institutions, such as Al-Azhar University in Cairo or the Umm-al-Qura in Mecca. Furthermore, one can see what Islam means in practice by looking at the behavior of Muslims when they are in control. I do not see how it is possible to maintain that Muslims believe in freedom of religion when not only the Qur'an and the Hadith say otherwise but the ACTIONS of Muslims in power say otherwise. The prohibition of any religion other than Islam in Saudi Arabia is surely not a policy imposed against the will of the people. The death penalty for apostasy in Pakistan is a popular policy to which General Musharaff is probably personally opposed.
So, yes, there are a few Muslims who actually oppose some or all of the offensive aspects of Islam. There are others who, being basically decent people, do not openly engage in opposition but do not really support such things, but because they are aware that these are in fact the doctrines of their religion, when push comes to shove go along.
This is no different than any other religion. Like Islam, christianity makes explicit things that you cannot do and gives a general guideline as to how one should live their life. To my understanding Judaism is the same way (I have not studied judaism but this is basically what my jewish friends have told me). It is incredibly hard to get any religion to change. Just look at the attempt to get christianity and most of its derivitives to accept homosexuality. any group that does is instantly a fringe group, not a mainstream one. I don't see why you are singling out islam for something shared by other religions. I also take issue with your implication that somehow violence is fundamental to islam. as something like 99% of muslims can tell you, islam is not a violent religion and is as violent as every other western religion.
I don't mean to get into a proverbial pissing contest with examples of bad behavior between religions. The fact is that many "evil" deeds are performed by people in the name of various religions (war, bombing of abortion clinics, murder of homosexuals or people of other faiths, etc...). What I was trying to do is point out a double standard. No one demands that christians denounce one another when a christian does something wrong. But when a muslim does something wrong, other muslims are expected to come forth and defend their faith. (I also disagree with the substance of your response but the catholic reaction to molestation was an example used to illustrate my point so I'll drop it unless you want me to elaborate further)
I apologize if I've misconstrued your comments. However, I still don't think your right. The problem with your last statement is that Islam, like christianity and judaism, is an incredibly broad religions encompassing a wide array of beliefs. Muslims are only responsible for the specific brand of islam that they practice...they are not responsible for what anyone else does. this fact is conveniently ignored by much of the conservative right and a smaller fraction of the liberal left.
- I consider myself the same. But what I don't agree with is singling out one religion for something shared by nearly all western religions.
The first link at least does not come from Muslims, but from an immigrant advocacy group The Municipal Moroccan Council (SMR). Even at that the commentary is self-serving as in the following.This is typical of what the Muslims do when a outrage get perpetrated in the name of Islam, they start in with the “backlash” whine. They are doing it with the Fort Dix Muslim terrorist plot, which the MSM seems to have lost interest in. Compare the amount of coverage that got versus Paris Hilton’s jail sentence.
Brian K:
“The fact is that many "evil" deeds are performed by people in the name of various religions (war, bombing of abortion clinics, murder of homosexuals or people of other faiths, etc...).”
Name me one mainstream Christian Church that advocates the murder of homosexuals or the bombing of abortion clinics. Or one that even makes excuses for those acts? Name me one poll of Christians or Jews that finds a large number approving acts of terror against the west. according to polls, about 100,000 Muslims in Britain voice approval of the bombings in the London subway.
BTW why do you put “evil” in quotes. Do you not believe in the concept?
Anyone care to tell me where either the Old or the New Testament advocates violence against any group in such an explicit way? Now you will find descriptions of violence in the bible and condemnations of sins, but as far as I know, never a call to murder anyone. Is there a non-Muslim country in the world that makes leaving the Christian or Jewish religion a capital crime?
Islam is not compatible with western values. It is a mistake for Europe and the US to admit large numbers of Muslim immigrants. We are buying a pack of trouble, and for what?
Oh come on. You're kidding, right?
Leviticus 24:16
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
There's quite a few calls to murder various people in Leviticus and Deuteronomy--for all sorts of reasons, cleaving to other religions among them.
No one demands that christians denounce one another when a christian does something wrong. But when a muslim does something wrong, other muslims are expected to come forth and defend their faith. (I also disagree with the substance of your response but the catholic reaction to molestation was an example used to illustrate my point so I'll drop it unless you want me to elaborate further).
They do when the Christian does something wrong in the name of Christ. Yes, when someone saws off a head, crying "praise Allah," I would expect a condemnation from Muslims who don't want to be associated with such acts. But I haven't noticed anyone head hacking lately while praising Jesus or Yahweh.
When was the last time anyone was stoned/crucified/burned/beheaded at the behest, or with the approval of, a major Christian or Jewish sect, using scripture as justification? The moral equivalence meme falls apart under the most cursory examination.
What if Islam is currently undergoing a religious reformation, and it turns out that perpetual Jihad is the result of it?
And you, Eugene, are brighter than this. You know better and shouldn't act the fool.
You know that Jews have always gotten hammered when Christians actually find some fool Jew to translate ancient Hebrew commentary. You know that for centuries Jews have had to redact their writings and pass along the nasty bits in secret so the goyim wouldn't find out. And you also know how Jews fought Martin Luther (in particular) and his followers from using those writings as grounds for expulsion and pogroms.
Yet here you go, inciting the damn Christians to start using ancient religious texts to go after Muslims, thinking that you are somehow magically protected as a "good" Jew. May I remind you that six million European Jews also thought they were protected against the Christians just sixty years ago, and now they are dead.
If it is free speech to use Muslim text against Muslims, it is free speech to use Jewish texs against Jews, too. We'll see how you champion "free speech" then! Don't mess with the Christians, son, they'll hurt you every time.
Feh.
Regardless, even if you can make the case that Nazism was some sort of Christian church (you can't), I'm sure you'll admit that their atheist contemporaries were pretty handy with a mass grave. Based on body counts, at least, Stalin showed Hitler up to be a real piddler. Mao and Pol Pot were pretty busy, too.
“Oh come on. You're kidding, right?”
Can’t you read? I said, “a group,” and not “condemnation” for a sin. Leviticus 24:16 condemns the sin of blasphemy. I repeat, where does the bible instruct you to go out and kill a member of another group or religion just for being a member of that religion?
Where do you find anything in the bible that is the equivalent of the following?
Moreover the Koran is not subject to interpretation because it's supposed to be the literal word of Allah and that is so stated in the Koran itself. Compare and contrast to the bible.
Leviticus condemns the sin of blasphemy; 2:189 apparently condemns the sin of idolatry. What distinction are you trying to draw? As for commands to kill, you might want to check out the term "Amalek."
"Just stating the facts" can indeed be needlessly confrontational and inflammatory, depending on the context. Moreover, "the facts" can be "stated" in such a way as to distort the underlying truth or convey false impressions. Surely this isn't news.
No they don’t. Why do you think they have the oral Torah: The Talmud? Compare and contrast to the Koran.So tell me where in Judaism is it asserted that the Torah is the literal word of God?
“Leviticus condemns the sin of blasphemy; 2:189 apparently condemns the sin of idolatry. What distinction are you trying to draw? As for commands to kill, you might want to check out the term Amalek.”
You are dancing around the question. If you think the bible contains exhortations to kill non-believers, then give them to me.
Needlessly confrontational and inflammatory to whom? To thin skinned head choppers? Grow a freakin spine!
Head choppers?! At Tufts? That's news, and it certainly puts things in a different perspective.
"Grow a freakin spine!"
Got one, thanks--and have often put it to good use as a teacher, letting students know what sort of behavior I will and will not tolerate in my classroom. Head-chopping would definitely be a no-no.
Huh? Look it up for yourself. Google "torah literal word of god."
This, as they say, is not a bug, it's a feature. Potential employees (students) who specifically prefer to work (study) in such "free speech restricted" areas should have the right to do so, as long as some employer (school) is willing to offer such an environment.
I think we are getting hung up over the meaning of the phrase “literal word of God.” That phase has a very different meaning in when you are talking about the Koran.
This except from a WSJ article captures the distinction.
Thus the oral Torah is, in a sense, the literal word of God, but the written Torah is something else. It has to be interpreted. That’s why we have the Talmud. On the other hand, the written Koran when read in Arabic is supposed to be the very words of Allah. You can’t say that about the Torah. You can't say that about the Christian bible.
Well, I think you're straining to make your own point, but for the sake of argument let's make the distinction. Your original point, however, was that the Koran is not subject to interpretation. But this isn't strictly true, either. There is a huge body of commentary and explication which continues to the present day. OTOH it would appear that the Koran is treated nowhere near as liberally as the Bible is, even by devout Christians and Jews. That said, there *are* less sanguinary interpretations of the Koran, and many Islamic scholars strive to enlighten Westerners on the contextual meanings of many of the passages that we find so objectionable.
Moreover, there are passages in the Bible wherein God commands His people to kill those "who do not fear God" or do not accept His word--the Amalikites being a prime example. But it is also true that modern Jews and Christians who would interpret the Bible to mean that non-believers should be killed would be far, far out of the mainstream, whereas it's clearly a problem that many Muslims find ample "justification" for violence in the Koran.
That said, someone else commented to the effect of "when was the last time someone was killed" for not believing in the Bible. And the answer would be, not all that long ago, in the timeline of modern history. Islam is six hundred years younger than Christianity, so perhaps they too will undergo an enlightenment and liberalization process. Given the inexorable force of modernization, I don't see how they could not.
Consider as an analogy the Constitution. I assure you that the Constitution is not merely "inspired by" the founders; it's the literal word of the founders. I further assure you that the Constitution is not meant to be merely allegorical. That does not mean that it doesn't need to be interpreted. (What does "due process" mean? What is "good behavior" in Article III?)
I won't try to speak to the Christian view of the Bible; I don't have firsthand knowledge and in fact I'm not sure that there is only one such view, anyway. But to Orthodox Jews, everything in the oral and written Torah is true and comes from God's lips to our ears, so to speak. Not merely divinely inspired, but divinely written. But one still needs to interpret it to understand what it means.
As for commandments to kill unbelievers, I have no doubt that Jews and Muslims view the subject differently. Judaism, unlike Islam (or Christianity), is not a proselytizing religion; it does not have, even as an aspiration, that everyone will convert to Judaism. But as I said, you may want to look up the term "Amalekite." A direct commandment to kill. All of them, men, women, children.
(*) (Incidentally, "Oral Torah" and "Talmud" are not identical. Indeed, there are two Talmuds, the Babylonian and Jerusalem.)
First off, Muslims don't just "do something wrong" - they often murder in the name of their church. And they aren't just lone nutcases with a religious mania, but acting in groups, and sometimes even as agents of their government. The only comparable activities by Christians I can think of in the last couple of centuries (once again excluding the lone nuts) were Jim Jones in Guyana, a few murders of abortionists, and maybe the Manson family. It's not hard to find denunciations of those people from mainstream Christians, and from fundamentalists too.
More importantly, Christians act to stop such killings - the surviving killers are all locked up, with the full approval of nearly all the Christians among the voters. Almost no Christian preacher holds abortion-clinic bombers up as examples for his congregation to follow. By contrast, if some Palestinian loser blows himself up along with a busload of children, many Muslim preachers (and even some in this country) praise him and encourage others to imitate him, certain Muslim governments may pay a bonus to the loser's family, and the Palestinians elect the guys who sent the loser out with a bomb as their government. IMO, that gives the Muslims that don't think such things are right a duty to speak up and try to stop them - but with a very few exceptions they won't.
I doubt that the difference lies in the sacred texts. I have not read much of the Koran (in translation), for one reason because I have problems with poetic, mystical texts with no clear meaning in real-world terms. It certainly doesn't stand by itself without interpretation (and training in ancient Arabic if you want to do it the Muslim-approved way), anymore than the Torah or the New Testament do. The commentaries on those texts (Talmud for Jews, and the huge mass of commentary published for each major Christian religion) seems to be well matched if not exceeded by the Haditha and Muslim commentaries on the Koran. Nor are the Jewish or Christian Bibles free from exhortations to kill unbelievers; it looks like the Hebrews only stopped doing that when they were conquered by unbelievers, and "Kill them all, God will know his own" were the words of a Christian bishop, based on an interpretation of the Bible backed by the majority Christian church of the 12th Century. The problem is that while Jewish and Christians have changed the way they interpret their holy books, the Muslims stick to a medieval interpretation - and are afraid to change, because their co-religionists would murder them.
It's odd, then, that I don't see praise here for Tufts offering such an opportunity to its students. Instead, the common view is the same as mine: these restrictions are silly at best and destructive at worst. Sounds like a bug, not a feature.
Agreed. I never defended Tufts's response to the anti-Islamic ad. It's mean-spirited and unnecessarily offensive but passes the "what would Rush do?" test and shouldn't be the subject of disciplinary hearings.