<p>How is it possible that people in this community – which is darn intelligent – still can’t tell the difference between the Taliban and al-Qaeda? I know they’re both our enemies and Islamists and all, yadda yadda, and for a while al-Qaeda was centered in Afghanistan, but they are really totally different problems. Conflating them makes for nice slogans, but dumb ideas.</p>
<p>Also, how does being a 22-year-old smart intern for a moderate member of a legitimate government (which is what the Yale kid was in 2001, and he was never more than that) get you to being an “al-Qaeda leader”?</p>
<p>Now North Carolina A&T – that school can really brag about having had an al-Qaeda leader. Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, the principal planner of 9/11, got his engineering degree there.</p>
<p>You continue to equate apples and oranges, in this case a student led group versus a University academic unit. </p>
<p>To what purpose you do this I don’t know, but you obviously display a shocking ignorance of how higher education operates.</p>
<p>Why not go bully and slander some more worthy group? </p>
<p>Given what has happened in our country the past few years, and our treatment of muslims, given the prominence evangelicals have assumed, both politically and socially, I find posts like yours particularly repugnant.</p>
<p>I’m not going to waste my time with any more replies to one who is so obviously bigoted and closed minded.</p>
<p>Logo, I think they are allowed to determine which groups are allowed to assemble at their facilities. It seems that the Evangelicals were proseletyzing and anti-papist creed. Do you not think that the Jesuits have a right to protect themselves? And how has the mission of the Muslim Christian Center changed?</p>
<p>gla,
The way that I’ve always understood it is that institutions that receive government funding aren’t allowed to practice religious discrimination. There are some schools that refuse any government funding to avoid any government encroachment, but I don’t think that Georgetown is one of those.</p>
<p>I suspect it all has to do with who is able to bring, and win, a lawsuit. Should a Christian group that claims the Pope is the Anti-Christ and the Devil Incarnate be allowed to proselytize on a Jesuit campus? Are academic freedom and religious institutions by nature antithetical (even when their differences are papered over with a liberal veneer?) Is the right to proselytize part and parcel of academic freedom? What is “public accommodation”? (I know there are lots of court cases on that one - and they go back a long time: my beloved professor of Russian at Williams was fired by Georgetown after he divorced his first wife, but there weren’t groups around in that period who would be willing to take up his cause, and it was before case law developed following the Civil Rights Act.)</p>
<p>Lots of questions. Makes things interesting. But I suspect it is all “academic”.</p>
<p>JHS: THe Taiban gave al-Qaeda sanctuary. I’m not drafting policy here, just tossing a quip driver’s way about Yale’s eagerness to fawn over a Taliban guy. I misidentified him & stand corrected, but the point remains. And “moderate” by Taliban standards means what exactly? (I think Mr. Taliban was a press secretary with about a third grade education, by the way.)</p>
I think the more important question is, “Should mini be allowed to proselytize on a Jesuit campus? Or would the skies darken and the earth split asunder & swallow him?”</p>
<p>“Are academic freedom and religious institutions by nature antithetical?”</p>
<p>mini - Gee, I don’t know. How was it for Oxford and Cambridge which were founded as Catholic universities (was it an oxymoron back then?) and remained so until Henry VIII got into the act and forced, yes forced, the entire realm to buck the pope – why? – because he could not get along with one of his wives!</p>
<p>It is not against Federal law. When Congress was debating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (nondiscrimination in Federally assisted programs on the basis of race, color, and national origin) the issue of religious discrimination was discussed. It was purposefully left out of the law. There are some exceptions in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 relating to relgiouas instituions.</p>
<p>The DC Human Rights law (not sure of its exact name) may cover this issue.</p>
<ol>
<li>They are not real friendly to pro-abortion views.</li>
<li>I was told by a Dean, citing a former University President, that you don’t have to leave your religion at the door when you come to Georgetown. Meaning that Georgetown, although a Catholic-sponsored institution, was welcoming to members of all faiths.</li>
</ol>
<p>“mini - Gee, I don’t know. How was it for Oxford and Cambridge which were founded as Catholic universities (was it an oxymoron back then?) and remained so until Henry VIII got into the act and forced, yes forced, the entire realm to buck the pope – why? – because he could not get along with one of his wives!”</p>
<p>In our daily prayers for the Queen at Oxford, we prayed for her as head of “the one, holy, Catholic, and universal apostolic Church”.</p>
<p>To this day, in an Anglican confirmation, the Bishop lays hands on him/her and says: “We recognize you as a member of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, and we receive you into the fellowship of this Communion.” </p>
<p>At ordination, a new Anglican Bishop is consecrated into “the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” </p>
<p>As far as I am aware, Oxford and Cambridge still subscribe to the articles of the state religion. (I have some funny stories as to how that impacted student life when I was there.)</p>
<p>“As far as I am aware, Oxford and Cambridge still subscribe to the articles of the state religion.”</p>
<p>Yes, with the state religion being Anglican. They may intone “catholic” all they like, but the fact is that the only “true” catholic church is the one directed by the Vatican.</p>
<p>StickerShock: If I remember the NYT article correctly, the subject and his boss had been opposed to harboring Bin Laden, opposed to destroying the Buddhist sculptures at Bamiyan, and opposed to closing girls’ schools. That seems like “moderate Taliban” to me. The young man had a third grade education, and had taught himself English and calculus. He was obviously intelligent and charming, and he was one of the only English-speaking Taliban, which was why he got assigned to deal with the American press.</p>
<p>Remember, the main focus of the Taliban was to have an Islamic government that was free of the corruption, lawlessness, and violence that characterized the Afghani government of the early 90s, that reflected the country’s Pashtun majority, and that was primarily friendly with Pakistan rather than India, Iran, Russia, or the US. Some of those goals are more laudable than others, but none of them are beyond the pale, and no one disputes that the Taliban were, until their last year or so in power, pretty broadly popular at least among the Pashtuns and successful in bringing a modicum of stability to the country (and in shutting down the opium trade). Saying that someone was in the Taliban does not mean that he was in favor of war with the U.S., at least prior to 2002. (Saying that someone is in al-Qaeda means that he was actively engaged in planning terrorist attacks on the U.S.) Reports in the press about captured documents seem to indicate that al-Qaeda was doing a lot of manipulation and lying to keep the Taliban from kicking it out of Afghanistan prior to 9/11.</p>
<p>The article in this week’s NYT Magazine about the Taliban is amazing (and horribly depressing), by the way – a ton of personally-reported detail I have never seen anywhere else. Among the interesting parts was the surprising diversity of views within the Taliban and in the Pakistani madrasas from which it draws its membership. People who hate Americans and those who don’t; people who want to work with the Karzai government and those who don’t; people who believe in a duty to attack America and people who disagree strongly with that; people who are in it for the money and people who drink the Kool-Aid. They were just like real people (who are very dangerous to us) – not “Islamofascist” zombies.</p>
<p>Funny story #35. Yes, I am a Quaker, but wasn’t at the time. (But wasn’t Anglican either.) However, the Vice Provost of Worcester College, Oxford was Lord Oliver Franks of Headington. Lord Ollie WAS a Quaker (a Quaker lord is an oxymoron), and he had to preside over the prayers for the leader of the holy, Catholic, and universal apostolic church. His solution was to start the prayer, but not finish it!</p>
<p>Anyhow, Worcester had a Benedictine foundation (Gloucester College) abolished by ol’ Henry. And still had some 15th century buildings (where Thomas DeQuincy had smoked his opium.) Anyhow, while I was there, a “papist” student saw an apparition in one of the 15th century rooms, and decided he wanted the ghost exorcised. So he contacted a Blackfriar (of the Roman variety), but when said friar arrived, the chaplain of the College, who had care of “all souls within the gates”, barred the door. The student (and friar) claimed it must have been a “Catholic” one, since it was within the 15th Century building; the chaplain claimed he represented the only true Holy, Catholic, and Universal Apostolic Church. </p>
<p>Needless to say, this all went to Lord Ollie for adjudication. He was stumped, so he sent it “upstairs” to the Hepdomanal Council (read: high muckymucks). It was ruled that since the Church of Henry had an unbroken line that went back to St. Peter, the soul was to be in the care of the college chaplain, representative of the true Catholic church. By the time the exorcism was to have taken place, I had graduated.</p>
<p>Interesting story but I am not quite clear. Was the chaplain of Glocester College Roman Catholic? If so, had its Catholic status been restored? Or, are exorcisms also practiced by Anglican priests?</p>
<p>Gloucester College had been Benedictine prior to Henry, hence “Roman”, though they never would have thought of it that way. Therefore, the chaplain of Gloucester (in the 15th Century) would have been “papist”. Worcester was founded in 1714, and hence Catholic (meaning “Anglican”), though it also had a Greek foundation, and Greek Orthodox priests were often invited in to preach and study. But “Church of Henry” nonetheless.</p>
<p>Lord Ollie (actually Baron Oliver) was a life peer - head of the British Coal Board after the War -</p>
<p>One of the most charming (and disarming) people you’d ever want to meet.</p>
<p>Exorcisms are practiced by Anglican priests (or at least they used to be.) Maybe more often, as the churches and parsonages are increasingly turned into condominiums.</p>
<p>mini - Oliver Franks does sound fascinating. What took you to Oxford in the first place and when was that? Did you also attend university in the US? If so, how did the two systems compare?</p>