@Hunt “Let’s say the Duke Atheist’s Association wants to invite Richard Dawkins to speak on “Why All Religions Are False.” They ask to have his speech in one of the auditoriums at the school. Will anybody object to this? Will anybody object to the group putting up posters around campus advertising the speech? I wouldn’t object to this. I also wouldn’t object to having the DAA list its weekly meetings in the campus calendar, or on a bulletin board–which, I assume, is the way such a group would typically advertise its meetings. I see no principled difference between this and what the Muslim students want to do.”
I would encourage inviting speakers of any world view to campus. Unlike many religious groups, I support allowing speakers of all views. However, I would object to Richard Dawkins being broadcast every Friday, if that right was not extended to other groups. Additionally, I suspect that many of the the same religious groups that are fighting for more privileges on campus would fight to prevent Mr. Dawkins “hate speech” from just like they did with Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Starting on the path of allowing special rights for groups with longer traditional practices is a slippery slope that prioritizes one group over another and undermines equality. In that case, I believe the Hindus, Jews, Pagans, and Buddhists would get priority over other religions with shorter traditions, such as Christians, and Muslims. I don’t think that would make sense either.
I would be inclined to consider several factors in determining whether a group’s request was reasonable or not. These would include whether what they are asking to do relates to an established practice of their group, how important it is to them, how much disruption it causes to others, and how big the group is. Thus (for example), I might allow the Muslim call to prayer once a week, but not every day, and certainly not five times a day. If there were only two Muslims on campus, I might not allow it at all.
I think some of you are confusing this situation with equal access to forums for speech. In such cases, I would take a more absolute position–all messages have to be treated equally, whether we like them or not. But (in my judgment), this example is not primarily about the message being conveyed by Muslims to non-Muslims, but primarily about a common religious practice among Muslims. Thus (as an example), I would make a distinction between a Christian group that asked to hold a sunrise Easter service on the quad, and a Christian group that asked to hold an evangelistic tent revival on the quad. The first I would allow if it didn’t inconvenience anybody; the second I would allow if other groups were also able to hold meetings on the quad to promote their beliefs. I think that’s an important distinction, although sometimes it might not be so easy to draw the line.
For what it’s worth, the specific case would be an easier decision for me if the call to prayer was only going to be in Arabic, because that would strengthen my conclusion that this is primarily a religious practice as opposed to a message aimed at non-Muslims.
Personally, I think campus broadcasts of any sort are disruptive and inconvenient to everyone. So if that were a major criteria, I would not allow any of them. Especially if the interested target group is small.
@Nrdbs4 “did you just post the contents of a private message on the forum? Why would you do that?”
If someone wants to make a personal accusation, they should do it in the light of day. If you send a critiquing pm as a dialogue, I think that is fine, and I would respond in kind. However, there is no special right to impugn people privately and expect that it will not be shared.
Why send an ad hominem in a pm? Because you want to silence someone with whom you disagree, and you are losing on the facts. Maybe you can silence them instead. We must distract people from the truth.
The facts are that It is hard to make a good public argument against the position that all people should have the same rights on campus and that everyone deserves to be treated equally without sounding like a prejudiced bigot. I do not support special rights for my beliefs or anyone else’s. I am not opposed to rights for Muslims at all. I am also not opposed to rights for Christians or any other religious group as long as the same rights and privileges are also afforded to Jews, Hindus, Atheists, Buddhists, Satanists, Pagans, Agnostics et al.
If Muslims are allowed to broadcast their creed across campus for 3 minutes per week, then Christians should be allowed to broadcast the Nicene creed, or Atheists can broadcast Dawkins on science and reason, or a Rabbi can quote the Thirteen Principles of the Jewish faith. What would be wrong with that?
Will you join me in treating everyone fairly and equally?
I think it is worth noting that I am not a Muslim; I am agnostic. My mother is Catholic and my father is Muslim - I have read both the Bible and the Qu’ran in both Arabic and English. I do standby the claim that insisting Muslims worship a different God does nothing but alienate Islam to make it appear a “foreign” or “unfamiliar” faith which only fuels a lot of the paranoia that exists around Islam. This has nothing to do with a “victim complex” - this has to do with calling out specific damaging tactics as I see them. I also don’t appreciate private messages being posted on public forums - I thought that was in very poor taste. But whatever, I’m not gonna lose sleep over it.
I think the primary issue at hand is the coupling/grouping of different clauses in the First Amendment - there is one clause that deals specifically with religious tolerance (which was what I was structuring my responses on - religious pluralism, “the free exercise” clause, etc) and then there is a free speech clause which I wasn’t including because it does not pertain specifically to religious groups/religious practices.
I think a more appropriate question would be if we let Muslims announce the call to prayer, should we also let Hindus, Buddhists, Satanists, and Pastafarians endorse their own specific rituals - in which the response is a resounding “yes” – to bring up atheists (or any other group that isn’t a religion - like 7th graders, DJs, photographers, and the dudes that work at the deli at my grocery store) kind of derails the question. That was the issue. This is not about discriminating against atheists - this is about the nuances of crafting a religious pluralism that mirrors the student body of a private institution and the pros/cons of such.
As a Christian, I don’t care to hear Muslim prayers. Muslims probably don’t care to hear my prayers either. Just drop the issue and don’t let anybody broadcast prayers. Really people, can’t we all just get along?
If mirroring the student body is the goal, then it seems that broadcast time ought to also be allotted for the non-believers, especially since 30% of Americans between 18-29 identify themselves as having “no religion” or “none.” Otherwise, you are ignoring their existence. Although I recognize that they do not care about religious practices, surely they have opinions about life without religion that ought to be respected and equally represented.
I’m glad to hear the idea has been shelved. But btw, do people realize how long a three-minute broadcast is? That is the entire length of a typical popular song on the radio. How could that not be disruptive to whatever is going on at the time?
@Bay I understand that atheists account for a large segment of the population - both at Duke and the United States as a whole. Hell, I live in Boston; I’d think it would have dawned at me by now that Massachusetts isn’t a very religious state lol. However, mirroring the student body (in general) and mirroring the religious pluralism of the student body are, in my mind, two different things. There are lots of distinct non-religious groups within Duke; including ethnic, racial, and political groups but I understood the allowance for the call to prayer to be a strictly “freedom to express religious views” thing rather than “freedom to express XYZ views” on anything. Of course all views should be respected about life, society, etc but I didn’t really think that was the issue at hand. But I suppose the point is moot now that the decision has been reversed.
I’ll reword my answer using different examples:
The question “if we let Muslims do this [religious ritual], shouldn’t we let atheists do the same” sounds to me a lot like “if we let Catholics do this [religious ritual], shouldn’t we let the Polish American club do the same.” That was my issue this whole time.
@Bay “If mirroring the student body is the goal, then it seems that broadcast time ought to also be allotted for the non-believers, especially since 30% of Americans between 18-29 identify themselves as having “no religion” or “none.””
I agree with this. Additionally, you will find that on typical college campuses, the percentage of “nones” is significantly larger than it is in the general population. Preamble1776 's view that only people with unsubstantiated, magical beliefs deserve special rights, and the growing number of people who embrace substantiated, science-based views do not deserve similar treatment is troubling to me.
Why do some always have to be more equal than others?
Amusingly, while opposing these rights for Atheists, he includes Pastafarians on his approved list.
I understand how you are rationalizing your position, preamble, but think of it this way: to an atheist, a Catholic broadcast IS the same thing as a Polish-American Club broadcast.
As an atheist, I’m with @preamble1776 on this one. Atheism isn’t a religious group, and I don’t really see why it’s being included in a conversation about religious rituals. I don’t see anyone “opposing rights” for atheism, here, because atheists, by definition, don’t have religious rituals. Not a case about “more equal” than others. In a conversation about other non-religious free speech rights, then sure.
MODERATOR’S NOTE: Quoting a private message on the public boards is not permitted. If you believe a PM is inappropriate, copy and paste it into a message to a moderator.
@Bay That makes sense. Thank you for the comparison. I did not think of it that way.
@Much2learn - Pastafarianism is a religion; albeit a satire religion meant to highlight the absurdities of the leeway given to conventional religious groups. And I am not saying “magical beliefs” deserve special rights - I’m saying that the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants the free exercise of religion. Also, religion is substantiated - another poster mentioned that a lot of evidence exists to support religious views - some people do not find such evidence to be sufficient enough to believe in a certain deity, which is completely fine.
I also think that some particularly well known atheists such as Sam Harris have a lot to add to academic atmospheres; some of the most intellectually stimulating forums I have ever watched included atheists debating leading theologists (and eventually ripping apart theological arguments) - they are absolutely riveting and thought provoking.
I’ve already rationalized my position like 4 times.
Here is the Free Exercise Clause:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Key word: religion.
Atheism isn’t a religion - therefore, in the specific context of the Free Exercise clause, atheism is not afforded the same right. That doesn’t mean it is discriminated against. In the context of the Free Exercise clause, Social Conservatism, Environmentalism, and Fiscal Liberalism also are not afforded that same identical right because they are not religions. But no one is questioning whether or not Environmentalists have apt forums to speak their views on Global Warming in an academic atmosphere.
@irlandaise - I would think that it is against ToS to post PMs - I actually sent that PM so that I wouldn’t have to clog up the thread anymore by raising an issue that would only send this thread further into absolute nonsense.
irlandaise,
If a college is only allowing religious groups broadcast time, then it is elevating religious students’ speech rights over non-religious students’ speech rights.
Right, but I don’t think it was ever said that non-religious messages weren’t allowed, just that this was a discussion of allowing one group’s prayer and how it should be?
I would think that non-religious messages would also be allowed, but that including atheism in the same vein as Christianity or Islam was implying that it was a (religious?) belief system, which I don’t consider it to be. I’m only referring to the differentiation presented here in this thread.
All the same, if Duke were to only allow religious speech, I guess that’d be their prerogative; I still don’t think atheism would fall within that. But it probably doesn’t, and atheists, vegetarianism, and bird-watching enthusiasts and others are all probably given broadcast time if requested.
There is zero testable evidence of the existence of God. Accounts of Jesus? Mohammed? Yes, sure. Their divinity is a whole other thing that is a shared belief, which doesn’t meet the threshold of undeniable truth.
It sounds from my atheist perspective that some people do not respect the religious beliefs of Muslims. I accord them with the same respect I give to all religions - knock yourselves out but please don’t fight about it and don’t try to bring me on board.
I think it is also important to note that atheistic views are probably infused in the philosophy of different groups that are probably given appropriate forums to broadcast such views. Any group - like the Biology Club for instance, might hold a forum discussing Darwinian Evolution; a view that would contest many religious understandings of the progress of mankind. I do not see an issue with this. The Environmental Club might hold a forum on Global Warming which would state that the world is a lot older than conventional religious canons state it to be. That is also fine. I just thought that the “Islam vs. atheism” argument was sort of invalid because its comparing apples to oranges.
irlandaise,
I don’t disagree with anything you wrote, but IMO the appropriateness of broadcasting a Muslim prayer on campus cannot properly be analyzed without acknowledging and taking into account that there are non-religious students also on the campus.