On Thursday night, the News and Observer web site came up with: Book author, Muslim group, react to committee's vote on Quran textbook as all the usual suspects weighed in. First the author, Michael Sells:
Islam is mischaracterized as a religion of violence in contrast to peaceful Christianity by opponents who cite verses in the Quran that demand slaying the unfaithful, Sells said. Most Muslims interpret those verses in the context of early war between Muhammad's followers and their opponents.I guess the prof hasn't been keeping up with current events. Then the whiners at CAIR had a shot:
Muslims "no more expect to apply them to their contemporary non-Muslim friends and neighbors than most Christians and Jews consider themselves commanded by God, like the Biblical Joshua, to exterminate the infidels," said Sells, a professor of comparative religions at Haverford College in suburban Philadelphia.
Meanwhile, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations pointed to the North Carolina dispute as evidence of "the rising level of anti-Muslim rhetoric in America."It must be bigotry to notice that violent Islamic thugs want to kill you and your fellow citizens.
"The level of anti-Muslim rhetoric from commentators, religious leaders, and now elected officials, is getting out of hand and is poisoning the minds of many ordinary Americans," the group said in a prepared statement. "Only a strong statement from President Bush will put these people on notice that anti-Muslim bigotry will not be accepted in our society."
Then today's News and Observer finally came up with some of the legislative details plus an amplified whine in Study limit may risk certification :
The House Appropriations Committee overwhelmingly approved a measure Wednesday barring the university from spending public funds for the Quran reading program "unless all other known religions are offered in an equal or incremental way." The measure, sponsored by Rep. Larry Justus, a Henderson County Republican, said it was "not intended to interfere with academic freedom, but to ensure that all religions are taught in a non-discriminatory fashion."Real legislative genius! Hit 'em with one of their own favorite whines. Speaking of which, some new moans were registered:
"The point is, you shouldn't be confronted with this as a mandate of government," Rep. Martin Nesbitt Jr., a Buncombe County Democrat, said Thursday. "What if I forced all of the children in the state to read the Bible?"
"I don't think the state can question the right of scholars to make those pedagogical decisions," said Warren A. Nord, a UNC-CH scholar who studies how religion is taught in U.S. schools. Nord, director of the UNC-CH Program in the Humanities and Human Values, said he doubted the measure could withstand constitutional scrutiny.Sorry gents, but you've been foxed. The NC legislature merely ensured that state funds would not be used to favor one religion over another when UNC management forgot their responsiblities (politely put). No one was told what to teach. No point of view was banned. Bzzzt - game over.
...
Retired UNC president William C. Friday compared the House measure to the Speaker Ban Law, enacted by the legislature in 1963 to bar communists from speaking on state campuses. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools criticized that measure as a threat to academic freedom, and it considered revoking the accreditation of North Carolina's state-supported universities.
Friday and others persuaded SACS in 1965 to renew the accreditations, but the ban lingered as a divisive issue in Chapel Hill and across the state. In 1968, ruling on a challenge filed by Chapel Hill student leaders, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Speaker Ban Law unconstitutional.
"I understand the depth of feelings in the current debate," Friday said Thursday. But he said he hoped the legislature would remove the House reading ban before adopting the budget, "because the university would suffer greatly from another lengthy, costly battle over accreditation that would surely ensue."
