I agree that the adhan should not be prevented because it bothers certain people of other religions. However, I have a problem with many of the same people who agree with that, but want to ban a cartoon of Muhammed because the think Muslims are too thin skinned to handle it.
We need to get beyond the victimization mentality that is still pervasive.
Perhaps they should choose to go to a Christian or Jewish school to ensure that they don't hear anything that may potentially trigger a memory.<<
[/QUOTE]
@romanigypsyeyes, do we understand correctly that Christian and Jewish colleges can be exempt from the requirement to broadcast Muslim prayers over the loudspeaker from atop of churches/synagogues located in the center of campus? This is really generous. I understand that all others are fair game.
But people get so much milage from it…
What are you talking about, CCDD? There is no such requirement. Colleges are under no obligation to do this. Duke is doing it and as a private college, it is well within its rights. I don’t think a Christian or Jewish college would do that (for obvious reasons…)
It’s not clear to me where one should even start here, so I’ll just dive in. First off, while Duke is nonsectarian, it has historic and denominational roots in the United Methodist Church. Far from hiding those roots, the university takes pride in them and, to this day, runs what is probably the preeminent divinity school in the denomination. (See links 1 & 2, below.)
Every weekday at 5:00 PM, the bell carillon on the Chapel plays, and the music includes many familiar Christian hymns. (See link 3, below.) On Sundays, of course, the bells play as part of nonsectarian Christian worship services and, on a clear day, can be heard for miles.
In addition to those roots, Duke works hard at being a good home for active practitioners of many faiths. Some of this has been mentioned in the prior posts, but it is worth noting that the university has a large and active Center for Jewish Life (see link 4, below), along with an active and growing Hindu and Muslim student associations.
With that context, it might be easier to understand why Duke’s administrators viewed their original proposal on the Friday call to prayer as a logical extension of the university’s historic commitment to supporting its students’ religious life in addition to their academic pursuits. (After all, the school motto is is Eruditio et Religio.) To answer one strangely persistent question above, having the call to prayer made over a loudspeaker from the Chapel probably would not have carried much further than about halfway down either the residential or academic wings of the old main quadrangle and certainly not as far as the bells do.
In hindsight, Duke’s administration was somewhat tin-eared to how the outside world was going to react, but, then again, I’m not sure I want my school’s administrators making decisions regarding religious principles based on how they’re going to play on talk shows. In my view, it is unfortunate that they now look like they caved in to the heckler’s veto because that sets a dangerous precedent for the future. However, given reports that there had been threats against members of the university community (see link 5, below), I understand the decision.
I believe that, far from turning Duke into some sort of madrassa, supporting a vibrant religious life for Muslim students and other students at Duke and other places like it is crucial to developing strong, active, well-educated, thoughtful future leaders for our faith communities and, one hopes, for reducing the voice and power of extremists everywhere. Here’s hoping that Duke keeps at that task.
1/ http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/uarchives/history/articles/methodist-church
2/ https://divinity.duke.edu/united-methodist-connections
3/ http://chapel.duke.edu/worship/music/carillon
4/ http://studentaffairs.duke.edu/jewishlife
5/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/knowledge-religion-and-vitriol-at-duke/2015/01/18/2422fbce-9dd4-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html
Not really a precedent, but it is not surprising that they caved in to terrorist threats, demonstrating that terrorism can be effective.
“I agree that the adhan should not be prevented because it bothers certain people of other religions. However, I have a problem with many of the same people who agree with that, but want to ban a cartoon of Muhammed because the think Muslims are too thin skinned to handle it.”
Who on this thread - or in America, for that matter - has called for banning cartoons of Muhammed?
CCDD14, what do you mean by “requirement”? There’s no requirement.
As someone who lives in NC and has seen many news reports on this situation since it began, here is my take: The problem that many people had with the call to prayer was not the call to prayer itself but that it was going to be broadcast from the Duke Chapel tower. Christian leaders at Duke extended the offer of the chapel tower to Muslim leaders as a gesture of interfaith goodwill. A Muslim group had already been conducting prayer services in the chapel basement.
After the decision was reversed, the call to prayer was held on the chapel steps. This call to prayer drew a large group of Christian as well as Muslim students. This change in location seems to have calmed most of the voices in opposition.
Duke is a private, Christian-founded school with a well-known Divinity School. I am not a Duke grad, parent, employee (and certainly not a sports fan 
), so I shouldn’t have a say at all in what Duke does. However, I appreciate that the Christian and Muslim groups at Duke are committed to interfaith cooperation. I don’t agree with the protesters, but I understand why broadcasting from Duke Chapel’s tower, as opposed to other campus locations, would upset some people.
Of course Duke is a private university–which is why I referred to public universities in many of my posts above. It could be, though, that Duke was trying to behave in a way consistent with our Constitutional rights–until it got too hot for them, financially. I’m not sure what lesson Duke students will take away from this.
I agree with this, but with the reservation that one group may not need the accommodation, and thus (in my opinion) shouldn’t get it. Example: the school has a rule against wearing hats inside buildings. Orthodox Jews and Sikhs ask for an accommodation allowing them to wear their religious headgear in buildings. If I’m in charge, this is granted. Now a Baptist group comes and asks for permission to wear baseball caps with their emblem inside buildings. If I’m in charge, this request is denied.
For a real example, the Supreme Court just ruled that a prison couldn’t prohibit a Muslim prisoner from growing a beard, because they had no really good reason to prohibit it. This doesn’t mean that all prisoners now have the right to grow a beard.
Hunt, I wasn’t addressing you when I emphasized that Duke is a private university. It’s my response to reading so many other comments (including those on other websites) about how Duke “has to” do X or Y.
A thought about classroom seating and single-gender swimming accommodations: I would deny those, on the basis that the university should not have to accommodate religious beliefs that insist on gender segregation (or the demand not to sit next to a woman) in public places any more than it would have to accommodate beliefs that insist on racial segregation (or the right not to sit next to a [name your race] person) in public places.
Isn’t the whole issue of accommodating religious beliefs still far from settled, though? The Michigan legislature just passed a bill that says it is legal for businesses to deny services to same-sex couples (you know, in the name of “religious freedom.”)
I touched on this briefly early on, but it seems to me that universities ought to consider the issues of discrimination against women, gays and others before giving any religions any accommodations on campus.
Does this mean a Muslim firefighter could refuse to hose water on a burning magazine publishing house that printed a cartoon depicting Muhammad?
@Hunt I agree with your example of the baseball hats. To me this is analogous to the situation with driver’s licenses. Instead of approving one at a time, you establish a broader rule that does not appear to favor particular groups, such as “You can wear religious headgear, as long as it does not obstruct your face.” Baseball caps are not allowed, but yarmulkes (Jewish), Dastars (Sikh), and colanders (FSM) are allowed. This would keep the school out of the business of approving which religious views are “approved beliefs to them.”
With regard to the Muslim beard, the court ruled that only a 1/2 inch beard is allowed. Furthermore, anyone who wants a beard can claim to also be Muslim and grow one, so essentially anyone can do it.
I would also suggest that the use of the word “need” is very ambiguous. Muslims do not “need” the adhan to practice their religion. Christians do not “need” church bells. None of these issues are preventing someone from practicing their religion.
I agree that the important part of the Duke situation for me is the use of the broadcast system, and the ability of all groups to proselytize publicly. When they just announce the call to prayer from the steps, there is no ambiguity about whether all groups also have the right to announce their views in the same way since it is not being electronically broadcast. I also assume that a student of any religion is free to stand in front of the chapel and proselytize, so to that is equal. If what they are saying and the way they are saying it are allowed for anyone, who could reasonably object?
GMT I think there is an exception for services like firefighters and police. But they could’ve taken that out of the final bill. This reactionary legislature might’ve found that provision too cumbersome on Christian police 8-|
First responders are not businesses. They are government. However, what exactly any of this has to do with broadcasting the call to prayer complete with English interpretation I have no clue.
@Pizzagirl “Who on this thread - or in America, for that matter - has called for banning cartoons of Muhammed?”
Yale University bans Muhammed cartoons. http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/8108
New York University banned Muhammed cartoons. http://thevillager.com/villager_153/nyubansdanish.html
I do not think it is reasonable to argue that if a Christian is offended by a Muslim’s adhan, the Christian can go somewhere else, but if a Muslim is offended by a Christian’s Muhammed cartoon, then the cartoon has to go.
I am sure the far left will come up with some rationale, but to me freedom of religion does not mean freedom from criticism, and it also does not include the ability to control what other people say and do because we must not offend the Muslims or some other religious group. To me, this a free speech issue, and in my opinion the PC police have gone too far in these cases.
Now this idea seems to be expanding because a publisher in the UK has announced that it is avoiding mentioning pigs, or anything to do with pork because that could offend Muslims. Where does it end?
Seems like the people who would be excessively offended from a religious standpoint are more likely to be far right rather than far left.
A bit OT, but a serious question: how cam Muhammad ever be depicted if no one has ever seen him?