By DEACON MIKE MANNO, JD
It seems like anytime people get together these days and the subject of Islam is introduced into the conversation, there are no neutral comments. For some, the religion, its history, Mohammed, and the Koran are as controversial as they come and should be met with universal condemnation. On the other hand, there are many whose view of Islam is not prejudiced by contemporary jihadists and those fighting to resurrect a new caliphate; they prefer to see the religion as one of peace.
The debate will probably continue with many good people believing that Islam is trying to negatively infiltrate our culture and others defending the Islamists’ right to defend and articulate their faith. We are Catholic and we know firsthand the history of religious bigotry against ourselves and, more and more, against all Christians.
The point of the debate is probably sharpest when Islam is brought into the public schools. The assumption by many — if not most — is that there is an attempt at proselytizing especially when school field trips are made to local mosques and children are taught Muslim prayers, or when Islam clerics are brought into the schools to teach the tenets of their faith.
But if we are an open society and seek facts, is it not proper to at least present a fair and honest history of the religion, both good and bad?
If a world history class teaches about the societal history of Europe, should not the history of the Catholic Church be part of that class? After all, considering the history of the Church in the advancement of education, medicine, science, shouldn’t it at least be part of the discussion? And, of course, it could easily be done without proselytizing.
Can the same be said for Islam? Sidestepping the question of why is Islam being taught and not Christianity, the answer is yes. Unfortunately, when it is, there is always someone crying wolf claiming that the very mention of Islam is an invitation to indoctrination and that the very study of the subject puts Christian students’ faith in jeopardy.
In Charles County, Md., La Plata High School required students to pass a course in world history. Included in the course was a section on the history and influence of Islam.
One of the students, through her parents, objected to that section and claimed it forced the student to contradict her own Christian faith by learning and memorizing Islamic prayers and being subjected to PowerPoint slides that proclaimed: “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian’s.”
Naturally, the parents filed suit claiming their daughter was taught that “there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah.” Obviously proselytizing, the lawsuit claimed, it violated the girl’s religious liberty by requiring her to profess the existence of a god other than the Christian God. In what appeared to be shocking court rulings, the parents’ claim against the school was dismissed by both the district and appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court just recently refused to take the case.
Sounds horrible, doesn’t it? One of the attorneys claimed that “under the pretext of teaching history…public schools across America are promoting the religion of Islam in ways that would never be tolerated for Christianity or any other religion.”
But after examining the entire record of the case, the Supreme Court made the right decision not to hear the appeal. The court of appeals, in holding for the school, held, correctly in my opinion, that the mere teaching of Islam did not violate the student’s religious freedoms and the course was not an excuse for proselytizing.
According to the appeals court, the yearlong class covered the years 1500 to the present. “Among the topics covered in the course were the Renaissance and Reformation, the Enlightenment period, the Industrial Revolution, and World Wars I and II. The topics were divided into separate units, with each unit generally being taught over a period of between ten and twenty days.
“The smallest unit of the world history course, encompassing five days, was entitled ‘The Muslim World.’ The unit was designed to explore, among other things, formation of Middle Eastern empires including the basic concepts of the Islamic faith and how it along with politics, culture, economics, and geography contributed to the development of those empires.”
While even the school admitted that the PowerPoint statement that “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian’s” was not appropriate in the context of a history course, the students were not required to learn Muslim prayers, but were given a basic understanding of what Islam did hold as doctrine.
The court continued, “As part of the ‘Muslim World’ unit, [the] teacher presented the students with a PowerPoint slide entitled ‘Islam Today,’ which contrasted ‘peaceful Islam’ with ‘radical fundamental Islam’….[The student] also was required to complete a worksheet summarizing the lesson on Islam. The worksheet addressed topics such as the growth and expansion of Islam, the ‘beliefs and practices’ of Islam, and the links between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Part of the worksheet required the students to ‘fill in the blanks’ to complete certain information comprising the Five Pillars of Islam.”
It also included one of the workshop questions, “There is no god but — and Muhammad is the — of Allah.”
The court concluded, “In the present case, the record is clear that the [class] assignment did not require [the student] to profess or accept the tenets of Islam. The students were not asked to recite [prayers], nor were they required to engage in any devotional practice related to Islam. Instead, the [class] assignment required [the plaintiff] to write only two words as an academic exercise to demonstrate her understanding of the world history curriculum.”
Methinks that if “wolf” is cried in too many questionable situations, it will give legitimacy to claims from the left that none of these issues could be valid. Best be careful of tenuous claims before we raise our voices in protest.
On another matter, the same day the above case was declined by the Supreme Court, a federal court in Texas held that a 2016 rule by the Department of Health and Human Services that required nearly every doctor in the nation to perform gender-transitioning procedures on any patient referred by a mental health professional, regardless of the doctor’s personal beliefs, was unconstitutional and struck down the Obama era regulation.
Under the regulation, doctors who refused to perform the transition procedure — even on grounds of conscience, could have lost their jobs. The decision is similar to holdings in two other federal districts.
In an update of the updates: The Des Moines Register is suffering another indignity over the Carson King controversy. You remember that Mr. King is the gent who held up the beer sign at a televised sports show that resulted in $3 million being raised for a children’s hospital. The Register in its coverage found negative eight-year-old online posts by King while a high school sophomore.
Well, now the entire staff of RAGBRAI, the Register’s Annual Great Bicycle Ride Across Iowa, have quit in protest of the paper’s treatment of Mr. King and announced that they are going to sponsor a trans-state bike ride of their own.
First held in 1973, RAGBRAI has grown in popularity over the years annually, drawing over 8,000 official participants from across the nation as well as many foreign nations, who spend a summer week traversing the state. That number swells as many others join the ride for only a day or two.
The reporter who wrote the original story on Carson King has been fired. Carol Hunter, the editor who approved the story, is still on the job.
(You can contact Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress