Showing posts with label #Oklahoma. Show all posts

Friday, July 17, 2015

The Koran and Conquest A Look at Islamic Theology

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about terrorism from the Koran. This follows this post about food prices. This follows this post about Greece and Germany. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.

The Koran and Conquest

A Look at Islamic Theology

by Eric Snow 3 comments Estimated reading time: 15 minutes

Add to my study list

The Koran and Conquest: A Look at Islamic Theology

Is Islam really a peaceful religion, as we are often told?
When the 9/11 hijackers flew planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing 3,000 Americans and citizens of other countries, did they violate their own faith's teachings?
When Muslim suicide bombers blow themselves up, as hundreds have done in recent years, what motivates them? What reward do they expect now or in the afterlife?
The answers to these questions are crucial if we are to understand what is really going on in the world around us. Otherwise we risk burying our heads in the sand and remaining blind to danger.
Let's begin with a simple question: Could the actions of Muslim terrorist groups have developed logically from their faith's time-honored theology?
Do the traditional interpretations of the Islamic faith's sources of authority—its holy book the Koran (Qur'an), the Hadith (collections of the acts and sayings of Muhammad) and Sharia law—promote violence and war against non-Muslims (infidels)?
The “Arab Spring” has cleared from the world's stage several long-time secular nationalist Arab dictators, with Islamic religious groups lining up to grab a share of power. Further, many Muslims, not least among them Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, believe in the imminent arrival of an Islamic messiah known as the Mahdi, or “Guided One,” who will establish Islam as the world's dominant religion.
So it's a good time to carefully examine the theological underpinnings of Islam that are behind so many of today's conflicts and that could lead to the biblically prophesied end-time clash between the Middle Eastern Arab countries and the West.

Why is Islam so different?

In the last century, political groups seeking independence from the Western colonial powers or wishing to impose communist ideology on their nations were the main sources of terrorism. But with almost all former colonies having gained independence, and with the fall of the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc nations discrediting communism, what is today's largest source of terrorism?
What do an overwhelming majority of terror attacks in recent years have in common? The perpetrators are Muslim. Why? Certainly many Muslims are peaceful. Not all advocate violence or terrorism. But there is evidently something about Islamic teachings or the conditions of Muslim lands and communities that provoke far more Muslims, proportionately, to resort to violence than equally poor, mistreated and uneducated people of other faiths.
So is it poverty, lack of education, lack of political freedom or lack of opportunity that explains Islamic terrorism? A desire for national independence or a history of suffering under imperialism hardly explains why Muslim terrorist groups presently kill far more people for political and religious reasons than non-Muslims who've suffered similarly.

Are poverty and lack of education the cause?

According to an article in the British newsmagazine The Economist, a conference in Ireland brought together dozens of former terrorists and political revolutionaries to try to uncover the roots of violent extremism.
Such factors as child abuse, alcoholism, “lonely teenage years,” the desire to belong, and personal identity crises were used to explain why the participants became terrorists. But as the article acknowledged, “For some, most notably those who had been involved in Islamist groups, ideology played an important and complex role” (“Violent Extremists: Of Skinheads and Jihadists,” July 2, 2011, p. 51).
Young people may become alienated for many reasons, but why do disaffected Muslims, including second-generation ones born in Europe in circumstances considerably more privileged than their parents, generally commit its worst recent terrorist attacks?
People's levels of poverty and education correlate poorly with people's choice to become terrorists, explain Alan Kreuger and Jitna Maleckova in their Journal of Economic Perspectives article “Education, Poverty, and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?” (Fall 2003, pp. 119-144).
They found that no significant correlation appears between the amount of terrorism and the average levels of either education or national GDP per capita figures (adjusted for the level of civil liberties). Likewise, Claude Berrebi's 2007 study of 285 Palestinian terrorists discovered that they had better educations and came from less poor families.
For example, Al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups blame America's interventions in the Middle East and/or Israel's treatment of the Palestinians for provoking the 9/11 and other terrorist attacks. However, the United States has intervened in Latin America much more and over a longer time, yet has provoked very little terrorism from there compared to the Middle East.
Likewise, China's Communist rulers worry far less about Buddhist Tibetans attacking Beijing than Russia's leaders fear Muslim Chechens striking Moscow (as has happened repeatedly). A desire for national independence, political oppression and/or a history of imperialism hardly explains why Muslim terrorist groups have killed far more people than non-Muslims in similar circumstances.
Since such non-ideological, sociological factors can't account for grossly disproportionate Muslim terrorism, let's look for other explanations.
To understand the mindset behind such actions, secularly minded people need to overcome a skeptical tendency to believe religion never really influences anybody's actions. The fact is, it has and does. History shows that Islamic theology has and will stir up far more religious wars and terrorist actions proportionately than Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or other religious belief systems.

Some Koranic verses abrogate other verses

Those who claim that Islam is a religion of peace commonly cite verses from the Koran such as Sura 2:256, “There shall be no compulsion in religion,” and Sura 4:90, “Therefore, if they keep away from you and cease their hostility and offer you peace, [Allah] bids you not to harm them” (Dawood translation throughout).
However, few admit that, because many verses in the Koran contradict other verses, Islamist leaders long ago formulated the principle of naskh, or “abrogation,” which teaches that Allah's later revelations override His earlier ones.
This is even spelled out in Sura 2:106, which says, “If We [Allah] abrogate any verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better verse or one similar. Do you not know that [Allah] has power over all things?”
Muslims believe Allah revealed the Koran to Muhammad over a span of 22 years. Interestingly, almost all of the peaceful, tolerant verses appear in the earlier “Meccan” suras (chapters) of the Koran, but the verses promoting violence and holy war emerge in the later “Medinan” suras.
Naskh isn't some esoteric theory with no practical consequences. Two years before killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, the Muslim U.S. Army Major Nidal Malak Hasan cited this principle in relation to jihad in a presentation explaining Islam that he gave at Walter Reed Hospital.
What are the historical origins of naskh? Muhammad began his religious career in Mecca as a preacher against considerable opposition. But after fleeing to Medina, he became a military commander leading his followers in battle against unbelieving Arabs.
Correspondingly, as his circumstances changed, so too did the supposed revelations of Allah. When he was in the distinct minority in Mecca and trying to establish his new religion, his revelations advocated peace and cooperation with others. But in Medina, as he gained a large following and military and political power, a very different message appeared in his revelations.

What the Koran clearly states

According to the notorious “verse of the sword” (Sura 9:5), Muhammad was told, “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them”—unless they convert.
Some argue that this is no different from the biblical command to the Israelites to kill the idolatrous Canaanites when they entered the Promised Land. But there are big differences. Whereas the command to Joshua was limited in time and circumstances, the Koran places no similar boundaries on Muslims to wage war against unbelievers.
According to Sura 9:29, Muslims are to “fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures [i.e., the Bible] were given as they believe in neither [Allah] nor the Last Day… until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.”
This, in the eyes of Muslim fundamentalists, justifies permanent war against non-Muslims until the entire world is under Islamic rule.
They also cite Sura 8:39, in which, after winning a crucial battle, Muhammad received instruction that permanently authorizes holy wars to spread Islam: “Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and [Allah's] religion [Islam] reigns supreme.”
According to the Koran, Allah gives Muslims a spiritual incentive for joining in jihad, or holy war: too: “Fight for the cause of [Allah]; whether they die or conquer, We shall richly reward them” (Sura 4:74). The reward of those who die in jihad, in Islamic teaching, is to immediately go to Paradise.
Elsewhere the Koran authorizes violent war against unbelievers (see “Does the Koran Promote Peace and Cooperation?”). No clear pacifist verses appear that temper or overrule its warlike teachings. By contrast, in the New Testament, Jesus Christ told His followers to turn the cheek to those who would strike them (Matthew 5:39) and to love and pray for their enemies (verse 44).
After Peter tried to defend Him by attacking someone in a group trying to arrest Him, Jesus responded, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).
While on trial for His life before the Roman governor, Jesus explained that His servants would fight only if His Kingdom were part of this present world (John 18:36). Since it wasn't, they didn't.
Even in the Old Testament, Israel's armies sometimes miraculously won battles without any physical violence. For example, in one night, an angel struck down 185,000 Assyrians besieging Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 32:8, 21; Isaiah 37:36) after righteous King Hezekiah prayed for deliverance.

Following Muhammad's example

Serious Muslims aspire to follow the personal example of Muhammad, whom they regard as the perfect example to emulate. According to his early biographer Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad took part in 27 raids and battles. If he literally waged war to promote Islam, wouldn't that encourage his followers to do the same?
The most reliable reports among the Hadith and the early legal rulings that compose the core of Sharia law clearly endorse holy wars as well. For example, in one tradition, when asked what was the best good deed a person could do besides becoming a Muslim, Muhammad replied, “To participate in jihad”—holy war.
In another report Muhammad proclaimed, “Paradise is under the shades of swords.”
According to one particularly important Hadith story, Muhammad told Muslims to ask their enemies before starting hostilities to convert to Islam, to surrender to Islamic rule, or to go to war. Restated in one form or another, this standard three-way offer repeatedly reappears historically in Muslims' conflicts with nonbelievers.

Later Islamic rulings enshrined jihad

The teachings of the Koran and Hadith about jihad aren't ancient dead letters. They remain a live issue because they were codified and frozen into place centuries ago.
Why is it so hard to reform Islamic teachings about jihad? Sunni Muslims, who are in the great majority, uphold the legal theory that open inquiry into the Koran's interpretation ended in the ninth century. Thus, freely interpreting and inquiring into the meaning of the Koran and Hadith to form basic new legal rulings is no longer allowed. As a result, the early medieval jurists' rulings about Allah's will are not to be reconsidered and overturned, including those about jihad.
The four main Muslim legal schools clearly endorse literal jihad. For example, the jurist Al-Qayrawani (who died in A.D. 996) declared: “Jihad is a precept of Divine institution … It is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before inviting the latter to embrace the religion of Allah … They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them.”
Because orthodox Islam is very legalistic, what these jurists wrote centuries ago still serves as living legal authority for mainstream Muslims. The teachings about jihad of Ibn Taymiyya, who died in 1328, still resonate today as Osama bin Laden and other jihadists fondly quoted him.

What about modern Koranic interpretations

To illustrate how traditional Muslim teachings are applied in today's world, consider the beliefs of Sayyid Qutb (1906-66). He was the chief ideologist of the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hasan Al-Banna, this Islamist organization is the world's most influential Muslim group.
Its power and political organization far surpasses any other non-governmental group in Egypt. It boasts chapters in more than 100 countries and an estimated 600,000 members. Since the Arab Spring and the revolution in Egypt has greatly increased the Brotherhood's influence, we should be sure we understand the beliefs of one of its most important past leaders.
According to Qutb in his seminal work Milestones, Islam has an affirmative duty to impose Sharia law on the whole world: “Other societies do not give [Islam] any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems”(2005, p. 48, emphasis added).
He went on to explain that the Islamic community “has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the divine system on earth.”
According to Qutb, Muslims who teach that jihad should only be defensive wars mistakenly ignore the progressive revelation of Allah's will in the Koran: “This is because they regard every verse of the Qur'an as if it were the final principle of this religion” (ibid.). Thus for Qutb, the principle of naskh, or abrogation, for Koranic interpretation allows for aggressive jihads.

Could we see a return of the caliphate?

What about the Islamist teaching that Muslims should have a supranational spiritual leader, or caliph, to lead all Muslims worldwide? The father of modern secular Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, formally abolished the caliphate in 1924 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War I.
So is the idea obsolete? Dr. Douglas McLeod's political research and polling team found that majorities in Egypt, Morocco, Indonesia and Pakistan favor reestablishing the caliphate!
As the Arab Spring produces a power vacuum, with the old secular nationalist dictators pushed aside, the mosque emerges as the most important source of social organization in Arab Muslim countries.
Most importantly, their people's sense of national identity and patriotism is weak compared to their religious and tribal affiliations. Furthermore, even as a small but intensely committed political minority, radical Islamists could take over governments weakened by recent revolutions.
After all, few Russians were Bolsheviks in 1917, but the October Revolution ultimately gave them full control of their war-ravaged nation. Although the Muslim Brotherhood's 1982 Syrian revolt was ruthlessly suppressed, the group could use violence in the future again, and succeed.
For this reason and because Islamists can publicly intimidate the majority of sincere conservative Muslims as “bad Muslims” when they disagree with their policies, public opinion polls in Muslim countries that show Islamist parties lack popularity should not be reassuring.
Further, in the present unsettled conditions of Middle Eastern politics, Islamist parties could easily win elections, much as Hamas did in the Palestinian territories (2006) and the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) did in Algeria (1991).
Although the brief merger of Egypt and Syria as the United Arab Republic more than 50 years ago (1958-61) proved abortive, a future dynamic leader calling himself the caliph and/or the mahdi could succeed in doing what the Arab nationalist Gamal Abdel Nasser failed to do.

Does this play into end-time events?

The biblical prophet Daniel tells us that “at the time of the end” a leader will arise, apparently from the heart of the Muslim world, called “the king of the South.” He will launch an attack of some sort against a new European-centered geopolitical superpower (Daniel 11:40).
Given the historical background described above, it's not much of a stretch of imagination to think that either a new Muslim caliph or a new Muslim messiah would see it as his duty to expand Islam into Europe by force, or jihad. For decades now, much of the Muslim world, both Sunni and Shiite, has heard such preaching about imminent end-time events, including the coming of an Islamic messiah. And they've long desired to expand Islam into Europe—and indeed, this is a major factor in current Muslim immigration into Europe.
In the years to come, the Bible prophesies that this longtime clash of civilizations between a traditionally Christian Europe and the Islamic Arab world will reach an earth-shaking climax. After the king of the South (i.e., quite possibly a mahdi or caliph to come) attacks, the leader of the new European-centered superpower, called “the king of the North” (and in Revelation “the Beast”) will strike back “like a whirlwind … he shall enter the [Arab] countries [of North Africa], overwhelm them, and pass through” (Daniel 11:40).
The future dictator of a united Europe will successfully invade both Israel and Egypt (verses 41-42; compare Revelation 11:1-2; Luke 21:24).
Being now forewarned by this knowledge of how Islamic theology will likely impact the world's future, what should we do?
First, we must stay alert to world news reports as Europe and the Arab worlds both become more politically unified and increasingly authoritarian as well. The high hopes of the Arab Spring for creating Western-style democracy in the Middle East will ultimately be dashed.
Since the only source of spiritual and even physical protection in the times of deep trouble to come is our great God, we need to prepare ourselves spiritually by turning our lives over to Him through repentance and faith in His Son Jesus Christ, remembering His warning to us in Matthew 24:44: “Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”

Friday, April 17, 2015

Patriot Day: The Road to Infamy

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the American revolution. This follows this post about news headlines. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.

The Road to Infamy

article by Gary Petty

He was a successful businessman and a war hero. But then something went terribly wrong.

Things looked bleak for the fledgling American Revolution. After Bunker Hill the Continental Army seemed to lose every encounter with the British. The revolution was in need of a hero.
Ben, a Connecticut lad, was a leading merchant in the colony. He not only ran a successful mercantile, but owned a fleet of ships and was an accomplished sea captain. His sense of honor and business acumen gave him an aura of confidence. Acquaintances said he appeared arrogant, and he occasionally sought solutions through dueling.
As his business fortunes rose so did his resentment of British taxation. Smuggling was an acceptable means to evade taxation. Ben became an outspoken leader of the liberty movement. His articulate and passionate letters appeared in local newspapers.
When war broke out Ben was elected captain of the local militia. He promptly organized them into an effective fighting force and presented a bold plan for seizing the British forts at Crown Point and Ticonderoga. The plan was accepted and the expedition successful, although Ben was in constant conflict with fellow officers.
Because of the nation's lack of hard currency, Ben spent a large sum of personal money financing the campaign. Added to his financial hardships was the tragedy of his wife's sudden death. Ben contained his sorrow by dedicating himself to the revolution.
About this time Ben caught the attention of George Washington. The General saw through Ben's bluster and tactlessness and recognized him as a leader and good tactician. Ben had come up with a plan to invade Canada and make it a fourteenth colony. Washington gave him the pick of the army.
The hardships of the Canadian expedition were overwhelming. Upon reaching Quebec Ben's troops united with another column under General Richard Montgomery. In the ensuing battle Montgomery was killed and Ben wounded. During the harsh winter retreat, Ben's leadership held the army together.
Returning home, Ben found himself faced with charges because he had forced Canadian merchants to give food to his starving army. To his wounded pride this was a bitter pill. He demanded an inquiry, and, after an investigation, the charges were dropped.
Without a command, and on his own initiative, Ben constructed a small fleet of ships on Lake Champlain. In October 1776 he attacked and defeated a larger British fleet. A few days later Ben and a small group of men held off the British fleet from a scuttled ship while the Americans retreated.
By now Ben had been promoted to brigadier general. He was sure that he was next in line for promotion to major general. The Continental Congress, being politicians, felt that generals should be more evenly distributed from among all the colonies. New England, they felt, had more than its share. So the next major generals would have to come from the southern colonies.
Ben was livid and resigned in response to this decision. However, Washington convinced him to stay. Because Ben was instrumental in defeating a British force in battle, Congress was obliged to give him the promotion. But there was no army for him to command. Ben got into an argument with his commanding officer and was fired. He enlisted as a common soldier and was seriously wounded in the Second Battle of Saratoga.
As he recovered Ben was given command of the garrison in Philadelphia. Tired after having spent much of his personal fortune on the war effort, as well as having been wounded twice, Ben decided to enjoy the fruits of his labors. Ben lived extravagantly. It wasn't long until British sympathizers used his lifestyle to bring charges against him. He was commanded to appear before a court martial.
Ben was exonerated on all charges, given a mild reprimand to please the politicians, and given back his command. But this was the last straw. The young patriot, ablest of generals and loved by his men, became bitter, disillusioned, and it was at this point that Ben...Benedict Arnold...betrayed his country.
Mention the name of Benedict Arnold today and nobody remembers his victories and bravery, only the crime of treason.

The seeds of disillusionment

What causes a person to betray his own ideals? For a person to betray everything he loves and believes he must first feel betrayed.
Benedict Arnold felt stabbed in the back by jealous fellow officers. He had charges brought against him by British sympathizers. Congress refused to refund money he had spent out of his pocket for war expenses. Eventually, he convinced himself that the leaders of the revolution were incompetent and he lost faith in the cause of liberty.
Once we allow bitterness over another person's actions or words to set in we become consumed with self-justice. Arnold's disillusionment in the revolution was rooted in his concern with personal injustices both real and perceived. Always a prideful man, Arnold's pride became more important than his values.
Pride is a great deceiver. It makes us forget our goal and centers our attention on what we feel we deserve because of our own effort and sacrifice. It changes the focus from how we treat others to how others treat us. Issues are replaced with personalities. Character, the internal force to do right, becomes easily manipulated by a drive to be vindicated no matter what the price.
A wise man once wrote, "When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom" (Proverbs:11:2 NIV).

When you feel betrayed

All of us have been misused or betrayed by a family member, friend, employer, organization, even a church. We can internalize the hurt caused by others until the memory of betrayal controls our thoughts and emotions. At times we allow the faults or abuse of others to weaken our commitment to our own values or even our faith in God.
A Canaanite woman came to Jesus asking for her daughter to be healed. Imagine her surprise when Jesus ignored her. His disciples asked Jesus to send her away. Jesus finally addressed her by saying, "It is not good to take the children's bread and give it to the little dogs."
If anyone ever seemed to have the "right" to feel betrayed it was this woman. Jesus, the one many claimed was the Messiah, had ignored her. His disciples were rude and seemed prejudiced against Canaanites. She could have become disillusioned, claiming Jesus to be a fraud.
Instead, she answered, "True, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Jesus commended her faith and healed her daughter (Matthew:15:21-28). The Canaanite woman's faith couldn't be swayed by the actions of others. She was too aware of her total dependency upon God.
If beliefs and values are based in spiritual reality, they can't be changed by the imperfections of people. Benedict Arnold felt betrayed by human beings. He responded by betraying his own values and ideals. He serves as a warning on the road to infamy.

Friday, March 13, 2015

After Quick Expulsions, U. of Oklahoma Taking Heat on Free Speech and Due Process

A timely post about from www.thefire.org about Oklahoma. This follows this post about the age of Obama. You can follow me here.

After Quick Expulsions, U. of Oklahoma Taking Heat on Free Speech and Due Process

Order FIRE Guides

By Susan Kruth March 11, 2015

FIRE has serious concerns about the University of Oklahoma’s (OU’s) disregard for the free speech and due process rights of two students who were told yesterday they would be expelled from the university for their participation in a “racist and exclusionary chant” that was caught on video. As I wrote on The Torch yesterday, the language in the video is constitutionally protected, and OU is legally and morally bound by the First Amendment not to punish students for speech merely because it is offensive or hurtful.
Parker Rice, the first of the two students to be publicly identified, has apologized and stated that he withdrew from the university. Parents of Levi Pettit, the second student, have also publicly apologized. These statements, however, should not alleviate concerns about OU students’ rights. Even if neither of these students choose to challenge OU’s actions, their punishment remains a threat to freedom of expression on campus, and no student can be sure what action administrators may take against them with no notice or meaningful opportunity to be heard.
A growing number of media outlets are pointing out that whatever one’s personal feelings about the chant in question may be, the university’s actions are inconsistent with our nation’s broad free speech protections. For example, the New Republic took the question back a step for those less familiar with First Amendment jurisprudence, citing the Supreme Court’s consistent reiteration of the principle that “the mere dissemination of ideas—no matter how offensive to good taste—on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of conventions of decency.” Constitutional law professors including Erwin Chemerinsky, Geoffrey Stone, and Eugene Volokh have faulted OU on First Amendment grounds as well.
Some observers have also emphasized the practical reasons why punishing students for racist speech is ineffective or even counterproductive. Slate’s Jamelle Bouie aptly remarked yesterday that “[e]ducation would be better”—those who strive to combat racism should engage with those who contribute to it, perhaps changing their thinking instead of just their behavior. FIRE wholeheartedly agrees that the best answer to speech with which one disagrees is more speech, not punishment.
Blake Neff of The Daily Caller shares FIRE’s concerns about due process, as well. As he points out, OU has written procedures that dictate that students facing punishment for conduct code violations must receive notice of the charges against them, a meeting to discuss the charges with the Student Conduct Office, and a hearing if timely requested. The procedures even afford students additional safeguards when they are facing expulsion. Yet Rice and Pettit were informed by the university president—not the conduct board—that they were to be expelled based solely, apparently, on President David Boren’s judgment of the case. And Boren’s letter does not even specify what part of the student conduct code Rice and Pettit supposedly have violated—the most basic information they would need in order to defend themselves against punishment by the university.
OU’s provisions do allow for “prompt action” where “ there is substantial concern for the health, safety, or welfare of a member of the University community.” However, it is doubtful that this provision could be validly applied in this case. For one thing, it is unclear how a chant about black students’ exclusion from a fraternity could be deemed a safety concern. Secondly, according to The Oklahoman, university legal counsel Anil Gollahalli characterized the case as an academic matter. This labeling, the outlet reports, allows the university to expel students without approval by the board of regents, but it also precludes any argument that the students needed to be kicked off campus immediately. After all, how many genuine academic disputes pose any physical danger to the campus community?
Unfortunately, not all civil liberties advocates are taking a strong stance in favor of student rights. The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma (ACLU OK) released a statement on Tuesday understandably denouncing racism and encouraging the administration to respect students’ due process rights. Another statement posted yesterday on ACLU OK’s website mirrored Bouie’s argument that counter-speech is the most effective response to hateful speech. Disappointingly, however, the ACLU chapter’s remarks have failed to note that OU has ignored its own policies in dealing with Rice and Pettit and taken action against them for speech that is—however despicable ACLU OK or others find it—protected under the First Amendment.
ACLU OK director Ryan Kiesel said, “From everything we’ve seen it appears the university has stuck by their commitment to due process.” But how is Boren’s letter informing Rice and Pettit of their expulsions from the university—without notice of what student conduct code provision they have violated, and before any hearing on the issue—consistent with OU’s written procedures? And how could the punishment meted out without following those procedures be viewed as a “commitment to due process”?
It is also disappointing that ACLU OK has not, as others have, spoken about the First Amendment problem inherent in punishing speech simply because it is racist. Even if ACLU OK is unsure whether the chant created a “hostile environment” that must be addressed by OU (FIRE believes it falls far short of this standard), the interest in ensuring that expression on campus is not unduly chilled or unlawfully punished is strong enough to merit comment by any free speech advocate. This is particularly true with respect to the ACLU, which has a history of defending hateful speech from government censorship.
Unless the two students decide to fight back, the university may indeed get away with violating their constitutional rights this time. But other students should be vigilant, because it is only a matter of time before OU takes action against someone else for their protected speech, or moves to expel another student without due process. In order to understand their rights, students at OU and elsewhere should read FIRE’s Guide to Free Speech on Campus and our newly revised Guide to Due Process and Campus Justice.

Schools: University of Oklahoma

brianlee

Friday, July 17, 2015

The Koran and Conquest A Look at Islamic Theology

The Koran and Conquest