In this case, it is in the reporting of the case of Caleigh Wood, a high school graduate appealing a case that stemmed from a world history class she took as a junior.
Reports on Fox and other news outlets of their ilk say that she was made to write an "Islamic conversion prayer," as WND quoted the Thomas More Law Center's legal team on this matter...
"As a Christian and 11th-grader at La Plata High School in Maryland, Caleigh Wood was taught that 'Most Muslims' faith is stronger than the average Christian.' She was also required to profess in writing, the Islamic conversion creed, 'There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.' Ms. Wood believed that it is a sin to profess by word or in writing, that there is any other god except the Christian God. She stood firm in her Christian beliefs and was punished for it. The school refused her request to opt-out or give her an alternative assignment. She refused to complete her anti-Christian assignment and consequently received a failing grade,"
...and the next thing you know, reports are even saying that she was forced to "recite" the prayer (known as the Shadaha), the recitation of which would have turned her into a Muslim!
She took the principal to court over this and lost. She appealed and lost. She (and the TMLC) went all the way to the Supreme Court of the US...and her appeal was rejected. That is the news item I was reading.
After reading the Fox article I thought for a bit. I am an atheist who supports the First Amendment, and I personally object to the use of "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" in any official use, so I would not want schoolkids to be forced to recite any prayer. The Fox article, through it's use of quotations, was able to express the opinion that no schoolchild should be forced to say a prayer that is not part of their religion, and that it was a "double standard" to not allow Christian payer in school and yet allow this to happen.
Could Fox be right, just this once? Could I actually be agreeing with what Fox said? I decided to click on the video in the Fox article to see if there were more details.
I could not get past the first two minutes.
The host of the program asked the first guest why the Supreme Court would reject this case. The fellow was upfront about how he was not in the meeting and does not know the specific reason why they would reject the case. Then he went on and put the decision in a greater context of Islamicizing America, as if the newly-conservative court, the one that for which a submitted judge was ignored for the better part of a year so that a Republican president could submit a known conservative, would have an "Islamic agenda."
The next guest was an "Muslim scholar," Zuhdi Jasser, president of something called the American Islamic Center for Democracy. He fell over himself decrying the allowance of the prayer in school as a violation of the separation of church and state and gushed thanks over the TMLC for standing up and going to bat for this girl.
They did make a show of acting lie they were explaining the legal basis for the original decision, something called the "Lemon test," but did not go into detail over what that was or that it was the precedent set in Lemon vs. Kurtzman. I thought they were going to talk about "If you squeeze it, does it taste like a lemon" or something.
So I decided to look into the issue a bit more. What kind of public school would really force a kid to say a prayer that turns people into Muslims? Would simply saying one sentence turn you into a Muslim?
So in the course of a very brief Google search I found this article from "the Free Speech Center at MTSU" and the actual court documents of the decision in the 4th Circuit Court and the Lemon case.
It turns out that what was being described was not what was happening at all. As part of a five-day section of a world history class that focused on Islam. The specific complaint was about the moment in the class in which, in an exam, there was a "fill in the blank" question in which one had to fill in two words in the sentence that was the Shahada.
So I looked up the Shadaha. Apparently, yes, saying it is the minimum one needs to do to accept Islam as one's faith. As it says in islamreligion dot com...
"Becoming a Muslim is a simple and easy process. All that a person has to do is to say a sentence called the Testimony of Faith (Shahada), which is pronounced as:
I testify “La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah.”
"These Arabic words mean, “There is no true god (deity) but God (Allah), and Muhammad is the Messenger (Prophet) of God.” Once a person says the Testimony of Faith (Shahada) with conviction and understanding its meaning, then he/she has become a Muslim."
I think that filing in a couple of words in that sentence in a written exam in school is not exactly the same as saying something "with conviction" in the eyes of any god that may be listening and any legal authority that may care.Apparently the courts feel the same way. The "Lemon test" is not some variant of "If it looks like a duck..." but rather a three-step process by which one asks certain things about the context in which religious information is used/disseminated/tested in school to determine if it constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
The MTSU article linked above breaks down the three steps of the Lemon test and, one by one, shows how the case passes the Lemon test as not a violation of the First Amendment. Here is the link again so you can check it yourself.
So there you have it. Not even the 5-4 conservative majority in the Supreme Court found the young woman's case to have enough merit to warrant hearing the appeal.
A simple Google search of her name will find plenty of pictures of her. She is young, blonde, beautiful, and had nicely-done makeup. I am sure she will be able to get whatever she wants in life if she asks nicely, so long as she is not asking a court to rule against the Constitution and legal precedent.
So what the heck is the point of championing such an obviously flawed case? I mean, Islam is a big part of the world in which we live, and learning about it can only help us. If we understand it, we will be able to deal with the people who believe in it in a more appropriate manner (and i can say that whatever you believe that manner to be. Knowing your enemy is as important as knowing your friend).
But there are already people who are scared of Muslims. After all, the 9-11 conspirators were Muslim. A lot of the world's oil is controlled by Muslims. If we can destroy or scare away all the Muslims, then we will protect ourselves from future 9-11s and be able to take all the oil, right?
Well, if you follow that logic, then we ought to vote for those candidates that talk toughest against Muslims. Then who cares if those candidates relax pollution standards, causing increased incidents of asthma in inner cities, cancer in Klondikes, and medical problems in Michigan. But the corporations that don't have to spend extra money minimizing and properly disposing of their waste will make more profits. And maybe some of those profits will trickle down to the workers, maybe not, but more importantly, no more Muslim problems!
And that is just one of the many other issues supported by the same candidates who demonize Muslims and are supported by Fox News which I find objectionable.
And so the business executives sponsor the networks that make the Muslims look bad so the candidates that talk tough against them can get elected and loosen up pollution restrictions to they can make more money. Whether or not most Muslims are suicidal plane-hijacking terrorists or oil sheikhs or if we should learn abut history and the people around us unimportant.
And Fox News is not "news." It is an entertainment/opinion channel with an agenda.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment