…and this is a 
Islamic schools, Christian schools … same difference
Category: Local • Religion
Posted on: April 10, 2008 9:15 AM, by PZ Myers
I've been getting a lot of email about this putatively Islamic public school in Minnesota, Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy. It's a wretched situation — this is a school associated with the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, and clearly all the students and families involved are Muslims who want a little bit of cultural isolation, and I suspect there is a lot of religious indoctrination going on behind closed doors — and I think it's a bad thing that this school is receiving state tax dollars.
I've been reluctant to jump on this story, though, for a couple of reasons. The main person fanning the hysteria is a columnist for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Katherine Kersten, who is a far right-wing kook with a history of hypocrisy, and this is just another example. I am actually quite happy to see her and her fellow Christianists tearing their hair out in anxiety over the existence of a culturally Islamic school in our midst — maybe (but I doubt this a bit) they are actually getting a vague idea of what it feels like to be non-Christian in America, and watch as the schools are blithely used as organs of theological propaganda while the administrators claim they are not.
For instance, Kersten is outraged at this report:
Afterward, Getz said, "teachers led the kids into the gym, where a man dressed in white with a white cap, who had been at the school all day," was preparing to lead prayer. Beside him, another man "was prostrating himself in prayer on a carpet as the students entered."
We are about to go through the various graduation ceremonies out here in Morris. There will probably be a student speaker who will be trotted out to tell everyone how much he or she loves Jesus. We will witness a man dressed all in black with a funny collar who will be given a place of honor in the event, and who will close his eyes, bow his head, clasp his hands, and lead everyone in attendance in prayer to the Christian deity. What's the difference? One chooses white, the other black? I don't think Kersten will be going on a rampage to get baccalaureate ceremonies shut down all across the state.
Our local high school had Youth for Christ assemblies on campus, during school hours. This is just as insane and distasteful to non-Christians (as well as many Christians who didn't care much for an airhead braying about abstinence-only education and how wicked gay people are) as having an imam preach during school hours, but of course it was welcomed by our fundie community. Where was Katherine Kersten then?
Andy Birkey points out more Kersten hypocrisy: she has nothing but praise for a "classical curriculum" that contains Christian nonsense and was implemented in a school run on the grounds of a Catholic church in Minneapolis. You could argue, of course, that you can teach religion from a secular perspective and just exposing kids to their historical roots is not in itself a forbidden act by a public school, but the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy may be doing exactly the same thing … just from a minority Islamic perspective rather than a majority Catholic one. Their website is carefully non-sectarian and secular, at any rate, not that I wouldn't put it past the liars for Jesus or Mohammed to scrub the crazy talk from their public face.
So, yeah, I don't like any of it, but I find it hard to get irate at a school of 300 students which may be subverting the secular mission of the public school system, when we've got over 800,000 students in this same system who take Christianity for granted. Let's get it all out. The main virtue of this little episode is that we'll be able to use it to our advantage next time some school administrator tries to infuse Christian values into our schools — we'll be able to point out that if it's not OK to peddle Islam in school, then Christianity should be getting equal treatment.
The other good outcome here is that the ACLU is on the case, and has sent a letter demanding explanations and accountability. I like the ACLU; I'll abide by their findings. What will the wingnuts say, I wonder?
Politics
Education & Careers
Comments
If the Muslim fundies want to be just as clueless and insulated as Christian fundies, let them do it on their own dime. The biggest issue I have here is the use of taxpayer money to support this nonsense. If they want to set up a little madrassa for Ahmed and Fatima let them call on the Saudis to get their start up money.
I understand your reservations about graduation ceremonies and extracuricular (and sometimes curicular) activities, but whorshipping Jeebus isn't really built in the the school day every day like it appears that getting their Muhammed on is built into this school's daily life.
Cut out the religion (at all schools) or cut out the public money.
Posted by: corsair the rational pirate | April 10, 2008 9:25 AM
I joined the ACLU while in high school, right after Nixon was elected president. One of the more intelligent things I ever did. And I'd hear family members grumble about the "Anti-Christian Litigation Union." But nope, not adopted.
Not religious now, either.
Posted by: Zeno | April 10, 2008 9:26 AM
Didn't you know that the ACLU hates America and everything it stands for? It's not surprise that they're on the case to help those evil Muslims who are out to destroy our Christian nation.
Posted by: Runolfr | April 10, 2008 9:33 AM
That was sarcasm, if you couldn't tell.
Posted by: Runolfr | April 10, 2008 9:36 AM
They need to decide *now* if they want cheese on their pasta or not!!!
*That* is the *real* question in life.
Posted by: marc buhler | April 10, 2008 9:49 AM
I'm outraged that any of these religions exist anywhere!
It will eventually be the norm that we will be so outnumbered by religions of any and all persuasions that any expressed outrage will be useless against the demented hordes. Shall we have gated communities for atheists only as is now so prevalent in many states? "ATHEISTS ONLY! ALL
RELIGIONISTS REPORT TO YOUR HOUSES OF INSANITY AND STAY THERE, OR SO HELP YOUR god!" Dream on!
Posted by: Holbach | April 10, 2008 9:53 AM
In my experience, this kind of hypocrisy is usually the cue for that old saw, "[But] this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values...".
You know. In the same way that democracy and "free will" are based on sycophantic subservience to an almighty being.
I've given up on trying to figure out which ghost in the brain finds these notions tenable.
Posted by: Pete | April 10, 2008 9:57 AM
I don't want to sound like one of those wankers who automatically think "terrorism" when they hear the word "Islam", but just one point to make.
Often Islamic communities in the west are immigrant communities that are fairly secluded, giving them there own school can stop integration between communities, which makes it much easier for them to be brought up with an us verses them mentality, which can lead to people being vulnerable to brain washing. I am not saying this is going to be a common thing, I am sure most of the time this wont happen, but there have been cases of Islamic schools in England teaching fundamentalism.
Also this is all the same issue as Northern Ireland, where Catholics and protestants had there own schools and that lead to in-group/out-group thinking, and then violence.
All faith schools are just as nutty, but they are more likely to breed violence if it is a school for only members of a closed community. Of course the best way to settle this is to make all schools secular. But here in the UK we recently had a nut-bag Prime Minister who increased the number of faith schools.
Posted by: Gobaskof | April 10, 2008 9:59 AM
Actually, from Kersten's perspective, there is nothing at all ironic or hypocritical about her views. She's not objecting to having religion in school, she's objecting to having the wrong religion in school.
If she believed in freedom of religion, as well as separation of church and state, then she'd be a hypocrite. I'm confident she doesn't.
Posted by: qetzal | April 10, 2008 9:59 AM
#2
"And I'd hear family members grumble about the 'Anti-Christian Litigation Union.' But nope, not adopted."
I feel your pain buddy. My in-laws consist of baptist preachers and their wives. After watching the NOVA doc on the Dover trial, they came to the conclusion that PBS was an anti-christian propaganda machine. The cognitive dissonance was palpable.
Posted by: JCG | April 10, 2008 10:01 AM
Kersten is like a broken record. About two out of three columns she writes are about her outrage over special accommodations being made for Muslims. She's a complete nutjob. I can't believe the paper continues to publish her tripe. These diatribes are barely-veiled racial/cultural attacks. You can bet your ass that she's the kind of fundie asshole who bitches that Christian kids can't pray in the public schools.
She has a blog on Startribune.com called "Think Again." I say we're all still waiting for Katherine to think the first time.
Posted by: Andre | April 10, 2008 10:05 AM
I was discussing school vouchers with my grandfather the other day; he's for them, I'm against. I point out to him, appealing to his anti-Muslim bias, if he'd like his tax dollars going to an Islamic school. He was reluctant to think of it as a possibility, basically saying that "real Americans" wouldn't tolerate Islamic schools indoctrinating their children -- apparently not caring that Christian schools do their fair share of indoctrination.
I really like the ACLU; it's one of the few organizations that stands up and defends our civil liberties, rather than helping to further leverage power to corporate entities. I support them with financial donations when I am able.
However, as one of few (possibly the only) anti-gun-control people who post here, I am astonished that they choose to completely ignore the second amendment. I'm sure someone is going to attempt to flame me over saying that, but we can save the gun discussion for another time. Summary of my view: if the government has guns, I want guns. I will happily destroy every gun I have as soon as I'm assured that all other guns have been destroyed. A simple run-through of the Prisoner's Dilemma will illustrate that point very thoroughly.
The interpretation of the 2nd amendment that they use is the one currently reigning as precedent in our United States: that the amendment is directed towards militias, which are comprised of citizens. I wouldn't have a problem with that interpretation except that, these days, a militia is equated with "tin foil hat guys fighting the New World Order." Expecting these people to provide resistance if the government (further) oversteps its bounds is ridiculous -- almost to the point of lunacy.
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross... it will also be carrying guns -- you won't. The ACLU fights for our rights in court -- so, what happens when all we have are kangaroo courts? What do you fight with then?
Posted by: Slightly | April 10, 2008 10:08 AM
Posted by: Bob O'H | April 10, 2008 10:09 AM
This is a PUBLIC Islamic School? There should not be any public schools in the United States.
Posted by: Joel | April 10, 2008 10:09 AM
"What will the wingnuts say, I wonder?"
They'll say, "Why aren't the atheists doing anything about this? They just hate Christians, and are in league with the Muslims!"
Posted by: CrypticLife | April 10, 2008 10:09 AM
Isn't annoying when you find yourself agreeing with the enemy?
I always just shut up and wait for them to get back to what they do best.
Posted by: wazza | April 10, 2008 10:10 AM
Pfft. Amateurs.
In the UK, we have the opposite problem; politicians over here are concerned that there aren't *enough* religious state-funded schools. This despite the fact that a third of all UK state-funded schools are religious in nature, and despite the fact that the UK populace is largely non-religious.
Of course, calls from the NSS and other secular organizations to stop state funding of religious schools is met with pretty much the same response.
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | April 10, 2008 10:12 AM
With all the fundie twits running around, I can completely sympathize with a desire by Muslim parents to send their kids to a segregated school. I am absolutely certain that any visibly Muslim child, or any child with visibly Muslim parents, gets even MORE crap than I got growing up a pagan in a small town. (My classmates eventually resolved that I was Jewish, since I wasn't Xian and that was all they'd heard of. These days, kids have HEARD of Muslims.) In that regard, these parents may have some sort of case: "If you aren't going to make the schools safe for our kids, you have to give us our own school."
The other possible issue is--I'm not sure at what age kids are expected to begin participating in the daily prayers, to be honest, so I may be making an unwarranted assumption. But if these kids are, I don't imagine for a moment that the public schools accommodate students needing to go pray at all gracefully. We had a couple people at my school whose parents opted out of our (thankfully mostly reality-based) sex ed program on religious grounds. Those kids took so much crap it wasn't funny, and that was only from students. I'm sure Muslim kids who need to leave class to pray get crap from teachers, as well.
So, the fundamental question is this. Should the school district spend its time and money funding a separate school for the Muslim kids, or should it spend those same resources teaching tolerance? Given the obvious lack of community interest in the latter, the former should be taken as a second-best alternative.
Posted by: lytefoot | April 10, 2008 10:12 AM
I would also like to mention that I do (now) realize how idiotic it looks to say, "...we can save the gun discussion for another time," and then immediately launch into a gun discussion. I didn't intend to.
:)
Posted by: Slightly | April 10, 2008 10:14 AM
The bible is already being taught as an elective course in "Over 1,350 schools in 37 states," according to the National Council On Bible Curriculum In Public Schools.
This is the less-publicized 'back door' to teaching Xtian theology in public schools.
Posted by: ennui | April 10, 2008 10:17 AM
I think getzal's got it on the nose; trouble is, these are the folks who are impervious to logic and reason. Religion is just one aspect of this kind of approach to life - blind belief is easier than thinking; knee-jerk reaction is more comfortable than empathy. Of course, that's not limited to religious people. As for the in-group/out-group problem, that's all true, but that's a pervasive human thing. I'm not sure how to eradicate it, either - no matter how big and inclusive you make the in-group, there's always going to be an out-group. Looks like it's turtles all the way up as well as down. There are arguments either way about public funds, too. Me, I think that at least state funding gives the theoretical option of state influence. Honey and vinegar, too.
Posted by: John R | April 10, 2008 10:19 AM
Sometimes, I've thought that the best thing to do is let these taxpayer-funded religious schools have their way, then sit back and watch the hysterics when Joe Fundie (usually a Republican who hates paying any taxes) has to pay taxes to educate a Muslim or Jew.
I understand some of the folks in towns that do have school vouchers suddenly don't like the idea so much, for this very reason.
But then I get the last laugh by throwing into the fundies' faces: For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk; the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up. Hosea 8:7
That one seems to be a lot more appropriate than the version that Paul stole/manipulated for Galatians 6:7.
Posted by: Aquaria | April 10, 2008 10:23 AM
"Under the U.S. and state constitutions, a public school can accommodate students' religious beliefs but cannot encourage or endorse religion."
The problem is with this "can accomodate". It's so wishy washy. That's what leaves the door open for insiduous religiousily to enter into public schools, even if they're not supposed to encourage or endorse religion.
America wake up, make things clean. It can be done, it has been done in France since 1905, and everytime a politician barely suggests to ammend the Law on Laicity, he provokes an incredible outrage. Zero tolerance for religion in public schools, wether "accomodation", "encouragement", or "endorsement". These are all unnecssary words. Zero. Zilch. It's simple, and easy to implement.
Schools should not have to "accomodate" religious beliefs. Parents have plenty of opportunities to brainwash their children outside of school anyway.
Posted by: negentropyeater | April 10, 2008 10:31 AM
Here here, PZ, thanks for bringing to the discussion the parallel problem with Christianity in schools. I went to such a (PUBLIC) school in Michigan, in an overwhelmingly and pathologically Christian community.
At the moment, Harry Potter is banned from the school's library (witchcraft!). When I was there, outside media tried to pick up on the story that several kids were being suspended for wearing T-shirts with the names of secular rock bands (no bad words, just 'Korn' or in some cases -- to test the waters -- 'Karrot'). But the community collectively stonewalled the media and they eventually gave up. Those families who don't endorse these rules were in such a minority -- and, you might be surprised to hear, consistently in the lower class of the community economically -- had to eventually give up seeking legal representation.
My father has the same view as #9 attributes to Kersten: religion in schools is only bad if it's not Christianity. He feels Christianity is privileged because it was the religion that the country's founders endorsed.
Posted by: anon | April 10, 2008 10:36 AM
It's actually the other way around: in in-group/out-group thinking and violence predate the schools by a wide margin. Henry II invaded Ireland in 1172 (based on a Papal warrant issued by Pope Adrian, the only English Pope ever, some years earlier). There was already in-group/out-group thinking (natives vs. invaders) by the time Henry VIII split from the Vatican. In Ireland, the natives stuck with the Vatican while the invaders retained their loyalty to the Crown and switched religion.
I am, of course, painting the complex history of hundreds of years with a very broad brush, and secular integrated schools are a much better idea. I do agree that segregated schooling in Northern Ireland exacerbated the problem, but it did not cause it.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | April 10, 2008 10:42 AM
My sympathies.
Regarding schooling, here in Sweden the second case of creationism in home schooling has just been rooted out. An evangelical cult of Maranatha has been homeschooling 200 - 300 children since this was allowed in 1977. Now it is going to be stopped since it has been revealed that they break the school law - they hit the children "for discipline", they teach that evolution "is a viewpoint among many", they use unlicensed teachers, and one of the three children currently there is supposed to be home schooled elsewhere.
The responsible cultist is open about their intentions to break the law in continuing, and ironically calls their "education" brainwashing. Presumably he intends to face jail time later, to no avail.
Btw, in more depressing news, Deepak Chopra is visiting Stockholm due to an expo on alternative "medicine". The largest liberal newspaper has an article which has the usual ham handed "no facts" stance.
It notes that new age ideas has replaced christian religious ideas in the "super secularized" Sweden, and that it for many is an interest among others where they keep up on the latest trends. Unfortunately it ends even worse, letting a new age proponent say that "We have left the stone age. We live in the space age, or the IT era. Time has come to realize that our thoughts choose the world we live in."
The irony is massive.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | April 10, 2008 11:01 AM
I have to agree with 18. I went to a catholic school, while I was a practicing (then not now) Easter Orthodox (still Christian). I got more crap than anyone else. So I can see why the parents want a separate school. The one danger I see is that the school will be isolated. I don't see any difference between this and the Souther Baptist dominated public school. If you not a Jesus freak (fundy) like them your in trouble, if your gay, Muslim or any other reviled group your probably dead or out before graduation.
Posted by: vlad | April 10, 2008 11:03 AM
The wingnuts will parry your efforts with convoluted praise for the long standing "judeo-christian" identity of your country. You need to understand that the founders of the US were all Christians who just happened to forget to add that little clause to the constitution.
I have trouble seeing how any reference to the identity of modern nation-states can exclude the ideals of the enlightenment. But there you go, gone and discarded in a bright flash of ignorance and replaced with "judeo-christian" ideals.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | April 10, 2008 11:15 AM
The point about baccalaureates is a good one, but what about "release time." Do they still do that? We got out of school every Wednesday afternoon of fall quarter during my junior high years to go to our churches for religious education. I'm still fussy about that. Same damn thing as everyone going to the gym to pray.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 10, 2008 11:18 AM
What will the wingnuts say, I wonder?
As usual, the wingnuts will howl that the ACLU is anti-Christian. "How dare they suggest that the laws that apply to those OTHER religions should apply to us as well?"
Posted by: Pocket Nerd | April 10, 2008 11:19 AM
But there you go, gone and discarded in a bright flash of ignorance and replaced with "judeo-christian" ideals.
Not to mention the fact that they love to use the term "judeo-christian" because it sounds multicultural and inclusive, but most of them will throw Judaism under the bus the second it actually comes up.
Posted by: Carlie | April 10, 2008 11:20 AM
But... but... but Kersten, we desperately need a school like this with its "a rigorous Arabic language program."
These students can go on to serve in Iraq and help us to win our 100 Years War (brought to you in easy-to-swallow six-month segments).
Think of the war effort, Kersten!
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 10, 2008 11:44 AM
The wingnuts will say "Allah Can't Love...U."
Ah well, I tried. Sometimes cleverness is hard.
Posted by: defectiverobot | April 10, 2008 11:54 AM
Slightly said:
Do you also want tanks, fighter jets and nuclear submarines?
I will not derail this thread. I will not derail this thread. I will not derail this thread. I will not derail this thread...
qetzal at #9 is right. There's no irony or hypocrisy here. Kersten isn't complaining about religion in a public school. She's complaining about Islam in any kind of school.
I also agree with PZ. Public funds = secular school. Religious promotion is school = no public funding.
Who wants to bet that the next time Xians want to complain that the ACLU only exists to persecute them will ignore/forget this case?
Posted by: John Marley | April 10, 2008 12:05 PM
God? Moslems, Christians and Jews pretty much all agree that they worship the same God, but cannot agree on much beyond that. I'm perfectly happy to let them fight, using their own money (and, yes, that means no tax subsidies for them, either). If they want to discuss it in public schools, they better be prepared to have all of their doctrines critiqued. Parochial schools always used to be good enough for the strongly religious, they should be now.
Guns? My prediction is that DC and its gun law will lose 6-3 or 7-2, but that the Supreme Court will hold out hope that there might be a regulatory regime that is acceptable without actually defining what is acceptable. I'm certain that no majority in the Supreme Court ever will agree that anyone has the right to own an fully armed fighter-bomber. The ACLU has been perfectly happy to let the NRA argue that it is the organization that protects the Second Amendment, but that doesn't mean I'll turn my back on the ACLU or join the NRA any time soon.
I'll skip the last talking point of the trinity of intolerance.
Posted by: freelunch | April 10, 2008 12:42 PM
Christian fundies rail against separation of Church & State - until it's a religion with which they don't agree.
Then all of a sudden "The Wall" becomes a good idea.
Posted by: ZacharySmith | April 10, 2008 12:52 PM
I picked up the story off MPR this morning (sorry I only occasionally listen to their local right-wing leaning "news") and what was interesting was the omission of Kersten's name. All that was said was that Getz brought it to the attention of a local columnist. It took all of 1.1 nanoseconds to come up with Kersten as the columnist. (Hasn't the Getz name popped up in the news before? It's ringing a bell but I can't make a connection.) The report had zero specifics one way or the other (so much for "reporting") and left the listener with the impression that "of course these evil Muslims were doing something wrong." And of course failing the test of balance by omitting the many common illegal and inappropriate influences of the christianists in our publicly-funded schools. (meph)
Posted by: Sky Blue | April 10, 2008 1:04 PM
After attending my son's graduation from a public high school in Alabama a few years back, I remarked to my sister that there was so much preaching & praying going on, for a minute there I thought I had made a wrong turn & ended up in an outdoor Baptist revival service.
I noted particularly the repeated references to "accepting" Jesus as one's "personal savior." Of course, such a prescription for salvation is considered heresy by the Catholic and Orthdox churches (not to mention every other religion), which undercuts claims that these are innocuous nonsectarian expressions of faith. What many may not know, however, is that there are also many Protestants, including fundamentalists, who reject that doctrine. Thus these prayers & statements are even more narrowly sectarian than most people may know.
Posted by: Georgia Sam | April 10, 2008 1:07 PM
"What will the wingnuts say, I wonder?"
THE ACLU IS ISLAMOCOMMIEFACISTS!
IOW dumb crap like ususal.
Posted by: Sean | April 10, 2008 1:10 PM
Christians don't seem to want to believe it, but the Separation of Church And State protects thems too.
Posted by: Jeff Flowers | April 10, 2008 1:18 PM
As other UK commenters have pointed out, we have seen a very disturbing increase in 'faith' schools over here under Blair's leadership - the Vardy Foundation seem to be AiG's bridgehead over here. It gets my goat, to the extent that if it is mentioned even tangentially friends shush the offender lest I go off on one.
But I keep running into the same problem - 'faith' schools are at least subject to inspection and regulation. Without them how many parents would opt for home schooling - and not the good kind?
For years we managed to chip away until most CofE schools were basically ordinary schools with a vicar on the board of governors who would show up at harvest festival and twitter 'We plough the fields and scatter' and sometimes potter around remarking on the displays. Now we have bloody zealots in the mix.
In the US at least you have the church/state separation argument to make (doesn't seem to be working, but you have it.) Over here there is no such clause. Technically, there is a no proselytizing rule, but that requires a measure of alertness (I have made a nuisance of myself on that score more than once).
So, if you withdraw state funding for religious schools, how do you deal with losing a huge number of kids to mind -destroying fundy home schooling? You can't just write these kids off, they didn't make the system.
Posted by: Don | April 10, 2008 1:39 PM
#34 -
Im not Slightly, but sure. No so much on the tanks, but I think it would be way cool to have fighter jets and nuc subs.
OK - I wont hijack the thread either, which is good, as my opinion on the 2A is such that I get jumped on by both sides of the argument. (Ive managed to carve out a middle ground that nobody likes.)
I do want to say that I think Slightly is wrong to say the ACLU ignores the 2A. I seem to recall looking at their list of cases and noticing a number of 2A cases they were involved in. Unfortunately, my webfilter here at work keeps me from checking.
Posted by: Dave | April 10, 2008 1:39 PM
Now look at Scientology, allowed to deduct the cost of auditing from their federal income taxes:
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/tax-case-jewish-scientology.htm
"In 2002, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit turned down Mr. Sklar's appeal. The court sharply criticized the IRS for its secrecy and suggested that the deduction for Scientologists was probably unconstitutional. However, the judges said the accountant had not shown that the religious instruction his children receive in school was sufficiently similar to the kinds of training courses that Scientologists are allowed to deduct."
Posted by: Jesus | April 10, 2008 1:40 PM
It's been said a thousand times before, but it bears repeating: making it a crime to own a gun does nothing to discourage criminals (i.e. those who commit crimes with no regard for the law) from obtaining guns, but does everything to prevent an honest citizen from practicing self-defense when necessary. Even if you did get rid of guns completely, people would just start stabbing each other or even beating each other with sticks if it came down to it.
The government isn't going to give up its arms, but you expect me to give up mine? I guess some people get it, and others don't. I don't expect the government to give up its arms - I don't believe any reasonable person does. I do, however, expect to be allowed to own guns, as a law-abiding citizen, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. I can't help but think of the bumper sticker with the text of the 2nd amendment defaced with a red "VOID WHERE PROHIBITED" stamp.
"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military." -William S. Burroughs
Thoroughly derailed... damn it! I'll just end on topic, that will make it all better.
Christians can reason with themselves (and no one else) that the separation of church and state should not apply to their religion, because they sincerely believe this country was founded as a Judeo-Christian nation. The Trinity Broadcasting Network has a 30-minute special on the "Christian History of America" that they show regularly to confirm their (other) insane belief.
Posted by: Slightly | April 10, 2008 2:05 PM
Um, citing William S. Burroughs on gun control is a bit dubious. Given that his best known connection with guns was shooting his wife in the head.
Posted by: Don | April 10, 2008 2:10 PM
#42:
You are correct. I'm sure I really meant to say something more along the lines of,
"The ACLU ignores the explicit implications of the 2nd amendment while taking every other amendment at face value, and sometimes maybe even expanding upon the founding fathers' original intentions (but in a good way)."
Their official position is the same as that of every moderate gun-control group, that it only implies that state militias may own guns. Thomas Jefferson would beg to differ, but they don't care for his opinion much when it comes to amendment #2. Perhaps they think his concerns about the acquisition of power and the people's ability to fight it were all a bit loony. Perhaps you think the same thing about me.
:)
Posted by: Slightly | April 10, 2008 2:14 PM
Re #12 "Summary of my view: if the government has guns, I want guns."
If the government has thermonuclear missiles...
Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 10, 2008 2:17 PM
Absolutely -- one has to have transportation to and from one's secret volcano lair, after all.
Ditto for laws against murder and theft.
And sticks are of course just as dangerous as guns, as the experience of countries with gun controls show.
Americans have this weird romanticized notios, epitomized in Red Dawn, that guerillas armed with hunting rifles and .45s can defeat an occupying force with tanks, jets, and satellite intel. (For that matter, they seem to romanticize the notion that the US would somehow be occupied, despite that geography makes that nearly impossible.) I grew up in the US, in Texas, and I still don't understand this.
Posted by: Tulse | April 10, 2008 2:24 PM
So... if I said something that makes sense, then do something horrible, my quote is no longer valid?
Besides, I would blame that more on alcohol. What if he had stabbed her in the face while playing a drunken game of "Stab Each Other in the Face"?
Posted by: Slightly | April 10, 2008 2:26 PM
Re #12, 47 Sorry, didn't read all through and see others had made the same point. But think about this Slightly: I'd bet that across the USA, there's a close correlation between religious fundamentalism and number of guns in private hands. Your "well regulated militia" is likely to turn out to be a Christian lynch-mob.
On "faith schools" in the UK: they are allowed to select on grounds of religious "committment", but many of them seem to practice covert selection on class grounds - middle-class parents are usually better at sucking up to the vicar/priest, even if their Church membership is entirely nominal. There have long been Anglican, Catholic and Jewish schools, but under Bliar, other sects and religions have been getting in on the act, including the poisonous Vardy creationist academies. Because they are weaker than in the US, British Christians (not UK - Northern Ireland is an exception) tend to support calls for Muslim, Sikh and Hindu state-funded schools. (We can't call them "public" schools - that term has long been co-opted for the top private schools, which were indeed once for the sons of the poor, but now charge enormous fees.)
Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 10, 2008 2:34 PM
You'd ban the people from having guns, but not the government? What the hell is wrong with some of you people? You may have broken the spell of religion that your family had undoubtedly attempted to cast on you, but few of you have managed to shed the idea that the government is here to manage your lives for you. Like I said, if they have guns, I want guns. When I can trust them to give up theirs, I will happily turn over mine. Until that day, I will be armed. You have no right to take my guns away from me, and neither does the government. You may, however, feel free to try.
"Ditto for laws against murder and theft."
If someone murders someone else, put them in jail to prevent them from doing it again. If someone steals from you, put them in jail, for they have wronged you and deserve punishment. If someone possesses a gun (and hasn't threatened or shot you with it), they have done the most grievous harm to you and should also be penalized; you know, for having a gun. Because everyone knows just the act of holding a gun in your hand equates to theft, if not murder. And how dare I keep -- in my house, locked in a gun safe -- guns and ammunition that have the potential to kill! And in my kitchen drawer -- an "arsenal" of sharp cutting instruments, any of which could render any mortal being lifeless! O, the audacity of my position!
Posted by: Slightly | April 10, 2008 2:38 PM
Posted by: Slightly | April 10, 2008 2:46 PM
Slightly, you said that criminals pay no attention to laws, and thus gun bans are ineffective. That is all I was responding to, by pointing out that the same can be said for any law -- if double-parking is outlawed, only outlaws will double-park. It's pretty damned close to a tautology.
If you want to instead argue that there is no reason to restrict personal firearms ownership, that's fine, but don't get uppity if you make a silly argument about outlaws and guns that gets refuted.
Posted by: Tulse | April 10, 2008 2:51 PM
*watches the gun control debate starts to wind up*
Someone better quash it before it gets out of hand. Not to further derail the topic, but I'd say the current U.S. policy is very reasonable. Guns ought not be outlawed, but they should be regulated.
On-topic: it's funny to see Christians react every time the shoe is on the other foot... but they never seem to get the idea.
Posted by: Kyle W. | April 10, 2008 2:54 PM
@Tulse:
I was merely pointing out the logical fallacy of your argument. The two things you named are crimes, and for good reason, and the third is not a crime but an unreasonable restriction on law-abiding citizens.
If it seemed uppity, I apologize. I'm just a little incensed at the extreme-left views that show their face on this blog quite often. I'm sure that comment will make a few more show their faces, as well.
Posted by: Slightly | April 10, 2008 2:57 PM
if they have guns, I want guns.
an' I want an Apache helicopter an' I want an Abrahms tank an' I want a SAM battery an' I want ICBMs with thermonuclear warheads an' I want a contract with Blackwater... where does this end?
In any case, please do not harbor fantasies that any number of personal firearms in the hands of private citizens is going to act as a deterrent to any kind of oppressive action by a sovereign government with nigh unlimited access to advanced military hardware. It's a delusional argument made by those who want to sound noble about their homocidal urges.
Posted by: CJO | April 10, 2008 3:09 PM
Yeah, crazy homicidal bastards like Thomas Jefferson. You're exactly right.
So, basically, you're saying that you have accepted the fact that the government owns you and have no desire to ever fight back against that? Fucking insane.
Posted by: Slightly | April 10, 2008 3:11 PM
Yes, the government can crush you. No, your guns can't do anything about it. Yes, that is fucked up.
But what can you do?
Posted by: Special Ed | April 10, 2008 3:15 PM
There are places in the world where a peaceable and law-abiding man might still find it reasonable to be armed. If you live in one of those lawless places, please accept my sympathy and good luck to you.
Owning weapons when you don't need them is an irresponsible practice with frequent and horrible consequences. The idea that owning them will protect freedoms from the US government is fraught with practical considerations.
Posted by: Don | April 10, 2008 3:29 PM
"I'm just a little incensed at the extreme-left views that show their face on this blog quite often."
Oh, sure. The US government would have each and every one of us clapped in irons in a second, if it weren't for those brave souls who bought a couple of shotguns and are keeping those menacing phalanxes of Marines with their tanks and assault weapons at bay.
I salute you, friend. If it weren't for you, the Army would have taken over my house and the corner drugstore by now.
Posted by: Madam Pomfrey | April 10, 2008 3:44 PM
Owning weapons when I don't need them?
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that nothing terrible has ever happened in the United States and that people don't ever have to protect themselves from criminals. Crazy me, living in a fantasy world. Hell, in your world, I can just leave my doors unlocked all the time because no one has ever broken into anyone's house to rob, rape or kill them.
When people are responsible in their ownership of weapons, they are perfectly safe. I own several guns, all of which stay in a locked gun safe and have never even been pointed in the direction of a person. The problem isn't guns, it's irresponsible people (and the same point can be made about the vehicles we drive -- I hear no calls to ban cars in order to save lives).
Posted by: Slightly | April 10, 2008 4:05 PM
Posted by: Tulse | April 10, 2008 4:14 PM
Madam Pomfrey:
Don't even go there -- you're trying to paint me as some crazed militant convinced the government is out to get him. That's absolutely incorrect, and your attitude doesn't help to make your point.
Everyone here loves to quote Thomas Jefferson, so go read some of his writings on the topic. As for me, I'm out of here. Good luck, PZ, with the crowd of extreme-left-wing people that hang out here. I'd love nothing more than to see very secular reform in America, and thought the people who hang out here would be the very people who helped instigate it; but their intolerance for different viewpoints makes it clear that it's simple not the case. They should get it through their heads that not everyone who is an atheist agrees with all of the liberal dogma - particularly on an issue like gun control. I'm painted as a tin-foil-hat wacko, isolated in my home, convinced that the government is coming to get me (a la Ruby Ridge) when, in fact, I'm a quite liberal person who has simply been on the wrong end of violence before. I don't want to go into detail but a member of my family was killed in front of me. Until you've had that happen, it's really easy to pretend that guns are the problem.
I wish society were perfect. I wish everyone was compassionate and able to empathize. But they're not. And until that day, I'll keep my guns.
It kind of hurts to see people's reactions to comments about gun control. I'm from a small town in the southern United States, and I'm one of the only people in my town that will admit to being an atheist. I have no one to engage in conversation around me, and was pleased to be able to engage in intelligent conversation on this board. I felt at home, among like-minded individuals. But all it takes is to make one comment that doesn't fit the very narrow-minded idea of "secular progressive" and you're an outcast. It's a shame.
Posted by: Slightly | April 10, 2008 4:19 PM
"you're trying to paint me as some crazed militant convinced the government is out to get him. That's absolutely incorrect, and your attitude doesn't help to make your point."
vs.
"So, basically, you're saying that you have accepted the fact that the government owns you and have no desire to ever fight back against that? Fucking insane."
Totally consistent (rolls eyes)
I don't have to paint you as anything; you did that just fine by yourself.
Posted by: Madam Pomfrey | April 10, 2008 4:25 PM
In his defense, Madam Pomfrey, that second quote you're using is not exactly in context. I believe it is a summary of what someone else just stated.
Slightly: Thomas Jefferson's writings on the subject stay as vague as the constitution itself. He alternates between "the individual" and "militias" so often that it's hard to tell what he really means.
Posted by: Kyle W. | April 10, 2008 4:29 PM
I would just like to point out that, as someone who frequents this site but rarely comments, not everyone is against the general gist of what you're trying to say, Slightly. While I do believe guns should be registered, I also believe that they are essential to maintaining our freedoms. The American Revolution wasn't won by a 'sit-in'.
I shall now disappear into the lurking-void.
Posted by: Rapscallion | April 10, 2008 4:33 PM
""[But] this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values..."."
... so was Islam!
Posted by: Tony Kw | April 10, 2008 4:48 PM
I believe it is a summary of what someone else just stated.
Where "straw-man argument" is synonymous with "summary."
Posted by: CJO | April 10, 2008 4:48 PM
Slightly, you seem to have a very thin skin. Part of being a rationalist about the world is being willing to defend one's beliefs with arguments, and not sulk off when people disagree with you.
Posted by: Tulse | April 10, 2008 4:56 PM
Slightly,
'Hell, in your world, I can just leave my doors unlocked all the time because no one has ever broken into anyone's house to rob, rape or kill them.'
Oddly enough I feel rather apologetic because that is, in fact, true.
As I said, if you are in that situation then by all means make a judgement call. I am not presuming to decide your threat level. There are situations where I would feel more comfortable armed and preferably surrounded by expensive protection.
My point was the proliferation of fire-arms for ideological reasons, rather than rationally evaluated need, is just putting more guns into the mix.
But if you are in the civilised world (take that as you will) and you need to be armed to be secure in your home, then your polititians need a good slapping.
Posted by: Don | April 10, 2008 5:00 PM
Fuck it, one more post.
1. I'm not sulking off because people disagree. I got set up as a straw man to be knocked down, and got pissed off at it. The field of beliefs on this board is so damned narrow (among the commenters) that you are physically unable to debate inside this little text box; anything you say will be taken out of context and ran away with before you have a chance to respond -- unless you hang out and refresh non-stop.
2. I summed up what someone else said and got accused of using a straw-man argument, rather than actually being engaged in the point I was making.
3. I do have thin skin on this one topic -- but only because a great deal of emotion is tied into it. For most here, the issue is a philosophical one. But for many, it hits home.
4. I've watched the same thing happen to other people, and it's really sad that the most open-minded people I thought I knew are really not willing to listen to arguments that don't coincide with their committee-approved beliefs.
5. I'm done. Sorry for wasting anyone's time.
Posted by: Slightly | April 10, 2008 5:03 PM
# 57 Slightly "Yeah, crazy homicidal bastards like Thomas Jefferson."
I think you mean racist slaveowning rapists like Thomas Jefferson.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 10, 2008 5:04 PM
Slightly, it's unfortunate you feel the way you do. In my experience here, there can be a great deal of diversity -- all that's expected is that one can defend one's views rationally and honestly. I can understand if this is an emotional issue for you, but that ideally shouldn't preclude you from providing reasoned arguments for your position. If it does, well, that's too bad.
Posted by: Tulse | April 10, 2008 5:10 PM
Well, WHEN JESUS COMES BACK IN 10 DAYS, we won't need any guns. But, until then, I'm going to keep packing heat at all times, never know when some crazed atheist who hasn't devoured a baby recently might attack.
Posted by: Kyle R. | April 10, 2008 5:15 PM
Actually it's our friend Slightly who lives in a one-zero world. If you don't buy his reasoning 100%, you're "against" him, and he automatically pegs you as one of those liberal pacifist hippie caricatures. (That will no doubt be amusing to the variety of political opinions held