Women Only Gym at Harvard

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
If you want to understand whether or not Muslims are attacking out of hostility or spite, wouldn’t the prudent thing to do be studying their religion? I don’t mean reading John Esposito and Karen Armstrong on Islam, I mean reading the actual source texts or at least an accurate representation of those texts. [/quote]

PRCalDude. Would you agree that a lot of Christians do not read the Bible literally? Some of them are inspired by the message of love of Jesus and believe he is their savior but don’t always “go by the book”. For example, there is a lot of controversy over what books should or should not be in the Bible. The Apocalypse is in the Bible, even though a lot of biblical scholars believe it should not be. A lot of Christians view the story of Genesis as a parable, an important mythological story with a message, not as a literal truth.

I will admit that I don’t know a lot about the Qu’ran. I can understand your preoccupation with its talk about Holy War. However, I suspect that there are various interpretations and that not all Muslims interpret it literally.

On the flip side, a Religiously based hospital targeted by a transgender fella, because he was denied an ELECTIVE surgery. Of course, being an elective surgery, he was able to have it done elsewhere without a problem. Yet, he sued the Religious hospital.

�??Moral victory against Catholics�??
http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=95b10b5f-9552-4022-a54f-29574567d00a

[quote]entheogens wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
If you want to understand whether or not Muslims are attacking out of hostility or spite, wouldn’t the prudent thing to do be studying their religion? I don’t mean reading John Esposito and Karen Armstrong on Islam, I mean reading the actual source texts or at least an accurate representation of those texts.

PRCalDude. Would you agree that a lot of Christians do not read the Bible literally? Some of them are inspired by the message of love of Jesus and believe he is their savior but don’t always “go by the book”. For example, there is a lot of controversy over what books should or should not be in the Bible. The Apocalypse is in the Bible, even though a lot of biblical scholars believe it should not be. A lot of Christians view the story of Genesis as a parable, an important mythological story with a message, not as a literal truth.

I will admit that I don’t know a lot about the Qu’ran. I can understand your preoccupation with its talk about Holy War. However, I suspect that there are various interpretations and that not all Muslims interpret it literally.

[/quote]

I would agree that many Christians do not read the Bible literally. It is still a non-sequitur to bring the Bible into this discussion as there are no open-ended commands to wage warfare on unbelievers to establish Christian dominance and submission to Christ in the Bible or any tradition of Christianity that I’m aware of. So for the orthodox Christians who do take the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, there are still no commands to establish an earthly kingdom by the sword. Do you understand the difference? Even if you don’t, your admitted ignorance of the Qur’an disqualifies you from making a comment on the matter one way or the other.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I would agree that many Christians do not read the Bible literally. It is still a non-sequitur to bring the Bible into this discussion as there are no open-ended commands to wage warfare on unbelievers to establish Christian dominance and submission to Christ in the Bible or any tradition of Christianity that I’m aware of. So for the orthodox Christians who do take the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, there are still no commands to establish an earthly kingdom by the sword. Do you understand the difference? Even if you don’t, your admitted ignorance of the Qur’an disqualifies you from making a comment on the matter one way or the other.[/quote]

You are right that it is troubling that the Qu’ran has passages that could be interpreted to wage literal Holy War. However, my point is that we can not ASSUME that these students are part of a conspiracy to overthrow Western Civilization, beginning by asking for exclusive time in the gym.

Now, here is a quote from the Bible that the KKK and the Confederacy and others have used to justify slavery:

Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, ‘Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave.’ "

Should I assume then, based upon this passage, that all Christians (or Jews for that matter) condone slavery?

[quote]entheogens wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I would agree that many Christians do not read the Bible literally. It is still a non-sequitur to bring the Bible into this discussion as there are no open-ended commands to wage warfare on unbelievers to establish Christian dominance and submission to Christ in the Bible or any tradition of Christianity that I’m aware of. So for the orthodox Christians who do take the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, there are still no commands to establish an earthly kingdom by the sword. Do you understand the difference? Even if you don’t, your admitted ignorance of the Qur’an disqualifies you from making a comment on the matter one way or the other.

You are right that it is troubling that the Qu’ran has passages that could be interpreted to wage literal Holy War. However, my point is that we can not ASSUME that these students are part of a conspiracy to overthrow Western Civilization, beginning by asking for exclusive time in the gym.

Now, here is a quote from the Bible that the KKK and the Confederacy and others have used to justify slavery:

Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, ‘Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave.’ "

Should I assume then, based upon this passage, that all Christians (or Jews for that matter) condone slavery?

[/quote]

Only if you’re going to apply different interpretive standards to the Bible than you would to the Qur’an. Both have a context and a progressive nature of revelation contained in them. At that period of Biblical revelation (redemptive history), the Bible is developing the Christ vs. Anti-Christ theme, where the saints (here represented by Shem and Japtheth) and are spiritually held in contrast to the line of the antichrist (represented by Canaan). See Genesis 3:15.

So what is the context and understanding of Surah 9:29? At what period in MOhammed’s life was it revealed? What authority does it have over other verses? What is the context?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

Only if you’re going to apply different interpretive standards to the Bible than you would to the Qur’an. Both have a context and a progressive nature of revelation contained in them. At that period of Biblical revelation (redemptive history), the Bible is developing the Christ vs. Anti-Christ theme, where the saints (here represented by Shem and Japtheth) and are spiritually held in contrast to the line of the antichrist (represented by Canaan). See Genesis 3:15.

So what is the context and understanding of Surah 9:29? At what period in MOhammed’s life was it revealed? What authority does it have over other verses? What is the context?

[/quote]

My only purpose of my post was not to condemn or support either Christians or Muslims. My purpose was that Muslims, like Christians, may or may not interpret their various scriptures literally. I cannot, therefore, jump to the conclusion that all nominal Muslims are on a crusade to otherthrow Western Civilization. In the same manner, I cannot assume that just because there is a passage advocating slavery in the Old Testament that a modern Jew or Christian would see it as justification for condoning slavery (although a tiny minority might choose to read it that way).

For example, I have heard some Muslims speak of Jihad as an internal battle between good and evil within themselves.

I agree with you that it is unfortunate that religious text lend themselves (whether or not the original writers intended it) to such interpretations as advocating Holy War. Still, I dont think all Muslims interpret it that way or that Christians all condone slavery or think the universe was created 6000 years ago.

As I said, I am ill prepared to go tete-a-tete with you regarding nuances of the Bible or the Qu’ran. That, however, does not invalidate my above observations. No matter what the texts say we must see how they are interpreted. In the case of Muslims, some do believe in literal Holy War and as justification for some of the despicable acts.

Anyway, I feel that maybe we are going off on a tangent. Let me ask. Does the following accurately describe your position?

All Muslims believe in Holy War in order to impose Islam on the world. The Muslim girls are trying to impose their ways on a Western university. Therefore, we should conclude that this actions is a small step toward the achievement of Muslim overthrow and dominance of Western Civilization.

I honestly see it another way. Some Muslim girls are at Harvard studying their particular field. They would like to use the student gym but feel inhibited in so doing because of their beliefs about exposing their bodies and ask (and are granted) a few hours of gym time.

Now, people might be right that there is something wrong or discriminatory in such an action (that’s what we have been discussing), but I don’t see, based upon what we know, that we can jump to the conclusion that this is somehow an extension, albeit a mild one, of Islamic expansionism.

It’s a private school. They can do whatever they want with their gyms.

[quote]entheogens wrote:
My only purpose of my post was not to condemn or support either Christians or Muslims. My purpose was that Muslims, like Christians, may or may not interpret their various scriptures literally. I cannot, therefore, jump to the conclusion that all nominal Muslims are on a crusade to otherthrow Western Civilization. In the same manner, I cannot assume that just because there is a passage advocating slavery in the Old Testament that a modern Jew or Christian would see it as justification for condoning slavery (although a tiny minority might choose to read it that way).

For example, I have heard some Muslims speak of Jihad as an internal battle between good and evil within themselves.

I agree with you that it is unfortunate that religious text lend themselves (whether or not the original writers intended it) to such interpretations as advocating Holy War. Still, I dont think all Muslims interpret it that way or that Christians all condone slavery or think the universe was created 6000 years ago.

As I said, I am ill prepared to go tete-a-tete with you regarding nuances of the Bible or the Qu’ran. That, however, does not invalidate my above observations. No matter what the texts say we must see how they are interpreted. In the case of Muslims, some do believe in literal Holy War and as justification for some of the despicable acts.

Anyway, I feel that maybe we are going off on a tangent. Let me ask. Does the following accurately describe your position?

All Muslims believe in Holy War in order to impose Islam on the world. The Muslim girls are trying to impose their ways on a Western university. Therefore, we should conclude that this actions is a small step toward the achievement of Muslim overthrow and dominance of Western Civilization.

I honestly see it another way. Some Muslim girls are at Harvard studying their particular field. They would like to use the student gym but feel inhibited in so doing because of their beliefs about exposing their bodies and ask (and are granted) a few hours of gym time.

Now, people might be right that there is something wrong or discriminatory in such an action (that’s what we have been discussing), but I don’t see, based upon what we know, that we can jump to the conclusion that this is somehow an extension, albeit a mild one, of Islamic expansionism.

[/quote]

…Basically the words I haven’t been able to find for a long, long time.

Well done.

[quote]Anyway, I feel that maybe we are going off on a tangent. Let me ask. Does the following accurately describe your position?

All Muslims believe in Holy War in order to impose Islam on the world. The Muslim girls are trying to impose their ways on a Western university. Therefore, we should conclude that this actions is a small step toward the achievement of Muslim overthrow and dominance of Western Civilization.

I honestly see it another way. Some Muslim girls are at Harvard studying their particular field. They would like to use the student gym but feel inhibited in so doing because of their beliefs about exposing their bodies and ask (and are granted) a few hours of gym time.

Now, people might be right that there is something wrong or discriminatory in such an action (that’s what we have been discussing), but I don’t see, based upon what we know, that we can jump to the conclusion that this is somehow an extension, albeit a mild one, of Islamic expansionism.[/quote]

My position is that this is another example of the inch-by-inch expansionism of Islam in the West. Muslim student associations raise money for jihad on one front and demand shari’ah on another. Given a basic understanding of their source texts, their publications, their writings, and their doctrine of taqiyya, I’m prepared to defend this position. The fact that any Muslim would tell you that jihad is an internal struggle without telling you that all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence teach that jihad by the sword is a good and noble thing means that you’ve fallen victim to Islamic obfuscation (kitman):
http://www.google.com/search?q=kitman&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Violent jihad to spread Islam is not a minority understanding of it. It is a mainstream, orthodox understanding dating back to Mohammed’s ascension to power in Medina.

The fact that you keep bringing up Christianity is evidence of the fact that you can’t get your head around the idea that there is no parallel to the concept of shari’ah in Christianity, whether we accept the Bible literally or not.

[quote]entheogens wrote:
I honestly see it another way. Some Muslim girls are at Harvard studying their particular field. They would like to use the student gym but feel inhibited in so doing because of their beliefs about exposing their bodies and ask (and are granted) a few hours of gym time.
[/quote]

And perhaps a muslim male would like hours set aside so they have to train alongside scantily clad women?

Do you object to the demands of the ladies? Would you object to a similar demand from the men?

Entheogens, had this been about devout Christian women, would they’ve probably been rejected, and labelled fundamentalists?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It’s a private school. They can do whatever they want with their gyms.[/quote]

I work for a private company and we cannot discriminate based on gender, race, creed, etc.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It’s a private school. They can do whatever they want with their gyms.[/quote]

Not if they are on the government tit. And they are.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do you object to the demands of the ladies? Would you object to a similar demand from the men?

Entheogens, had this been about devout Christian women, would they’ve probably been rejected, and labelled fundamentalists?[/quote]

I do not know that THEY would have done. I am only trying to describe what I think might be fair.

I think we agree that there are situations that might indicate special treatment for minorities. The case of the handicapped wanting exclusive hours at the gym that I gave is one of those. As I said, I feel like that a school should not AUTOMATICALLY grant special privleges like this, but should have some sort of interview or process for deciding if a particular case merits this kind of special treatment.
In other words, I dont think that it is a “Black and White” Yes or No. It needs to be determined on a case by case basis.

I haven’t completely formulated what I think the criteria for granting such special treatment would be. However, if I were the administrator I would try to determine how sincere the people are; how compelling are their reasons; the quantity of facilities, etc.

I have to concede to you that hypothetically the situation could get out of control. As you point out, what if other sub-sections of the student population started asking for the same privleges? Ok, if one or two groups did so…but what if more did. Admittedly that would be a problem but just because it might be a problem does not mean that we skirt the issue by dismissing sincere, serious minorities who request such treatment.

The majority needs to make certain allowances to the minority. Likewise the minority should not tyrannize the majority. I don’t think asking a few hours of gym time is tantamount to tyrannizing the majority in this particular case. If Muslim students demanded that women and men be in seperate classes at Harvard, then I think that would be a case of the minority tyrannizing the majority.

[quote]entheogens wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Do you object to the demands of the ladies? Would you object to a similar demand from the men?

Entheogens, had this been about devout Christian women, would they’ve probably been rejected, and labelled fundamentalists?

I do not know that THEY would have done. I am only trying to describe what I think might be fair.

I think we agree that there are situations that might indicate special treatment for minorities. The case of the handicapped wanting exclusive hours at the gym that I gave is one of those. As I said, I feel like that a school should not AUTOMATICALLY grant special privleges like this, but should have some sort of interview or process for deciding if a particular case merits this kind of special treatment.
In other words, I dont think that it is a “Black and White” Yes or No. It needs to be determined on a case by case basis.

I haven’t completely formulated what I think the criteria for granting such special treatment would be. However, if I were the administrator I would try to determine how sincere the people are; how compelling are their reasons; the quantity of facilities, etc.

I have to concede to you that hypothetically the situation could get out of control. As you point out, what if other sub-sections of the student population started asking for the same privleges? Ok, if one or two groups did so…but what if more did. Admittedly that would be a problem but just because it might be a problem does not mean that we skirt the issue by dismissing sincere, serious minorities who request such treatment.

The majority needs to make certain allowances to the minority. Likewise the minority should not tyrannize the majority. I don’t think asking a few hours of gym time is tantamount to tyrannizing the majority in this particular case. If Muslim students demanded that women and men be in seperate classes at Harvard, then I think that would be a case of the minority tyrannizing the majority.

[/quote]

And so you don’t have see a problem? Would you have had a problem had this been devout Christian men?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And so you don’t have see a problem? Would you have had a problem had this been devout Christian men?[/quote]

Like I said, I wouldn’t dismiss their request, nor would I have necessarily accepted it. It would have to be determined, as described in my previous post.

For example, if some devout Christian men came to me and
showed me precedent in their tradition that they should not exercise with other women, were apparently sincere, then I think there request would need be taken seriously. If they came and were just making an abstract argument as to why they should be given equal treatment but did not demonstrate true sincerity or precedent, I would be inclined to not take their request seriously. It would be a case of just being “spiteful”. Obviously

Again, I don’t know how the Harvard people made their determination. It may be that they did it from “political correctness” or, as I believe Lixy speculated, because Harvard got money from rich Muslims. Or it may be that they did it based upon careful, ethical consideration. That I can’t know for sure…and neither can you. However, based upon the little I know, it seems the request by the Muslim students is, at least, reasonable.

[quote]entheogens wrote:

In other words, I dont think that it is a “Black and White” Yes or No. It needs to be determined on a case by case basis.[/quote]

See, this is exactly it. It is absolutely an area containing “shades of gray”.

And the problem is, of course, the choice of drawing a line is inevitably converting it to a “black and white” issue because you are making a choice of who to leave in and who to leave out. A naturally “gray” area suddenly has stark criteria bestowing a privilege or providing a restriction, and the fit is imprecise because no one has particularly good or fair reasons to make the necessary distinctions.

We keep returning to the same problem - no one can explain why the same accommodations shouldn’t or can’t be made for Muslim men or Christian women. The choice to draw a line makes the situation a “black and white” one, and there comes an expectation to provide a clear and fair reason why the “black and white” distinction was made. No one seems to be able to do it.

[quote]entheogens wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And so you don’t have see a problem? Would you have had a problem had this been devout Christian men?

Like I said, I wouldn’t dismiss their request, nor would I have necessarily accepted it. It would have to be determined, as described in my previous post.

For example, if some devout Christian men came to me and
showed me precedent in their tradition that they should not exercise with other women, were apparently sincere, then I think there request would need be taken seriously. If they came and were just making an abstract argument as to why they should be given equal treatment but did not demonstrate true sincerity or precedent, I would be inclined to not take their request seriously. It would be a case of just being “spiteful”. Obviously

Again, I don’t know how the Harvard people made their determination. It may be that they did it from “political correctness” or, as I believe Lixy speculated, because Harvard got money from rich Muslims. Or it may be that they did it based upon careful, ethical consideration. That I can’t know for sure…and neither can you. However, based upon the little I know, it seems the request by the Muslim students is, at least, reasonable.

[/quote]

Had this been a group of Christian men, who had these hours set aside, and someone shared the story on this board, you’d be as lukewarm about this? Be honest now. It’s just that, well, I supect the more left leaning amongst us would be crying foul.

“Christian right-wing fundies! They’re not the only one’s paying fees! And, how can Harvard accept tax funded government money, while giving the Christian right special privileges!” Come on, you know this would be a crapstorm.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
entheogens wrote:

In other words, I dont think that it is a “Black and White” Yes or No. It needs to be determined on a case by case basis.

See, this is exactly it. It is absolutely an area containing “shades of gray”.

And the problem is, of course, the choice of drawing a line is inevitably converting it to a “black and white” issue because you are making a choice of who to leave in and who to leave out. A naturally “gray” area suddenly has stark criteria bestowing a privilege or providing a restriction, and the fit is imprecise because no one has particularly good or fair reasons to make the necessary distinctions.

We keep returning to the same problem - no one can explain why the same accommodations shouldn’t or can’t be made for Muslim men or Christian women. The choice to draw a line makes the situation a “black and white” one, and there comes an expectation to provide a clear and fair reason why the “black and white” distinction was made. No one seems to be able to do it.[/quote]

Allow me.

No quarter of any kind should be given to any religious sensibilities. That way, there’s the same standard for everyone, and we’re not caving to shari’ah. Muslim women can choose to dress modestly in the gym if they want, as can Christian women.

Or they can use their entrepeneurial skills and open a gym of their own that respects their religious sensibilities. Or they can simply pack up and move back to Dar al-Islam, which is what would be the best for me and the rest of the infidels.

Well we seem to have reached an impasse and I think everybody has made their point, so this may be my last post to this thread, unless someone comes up with a novel point of view. To summarize:

I can understand your issues. You think that a double standard is being applied here. I think we need to take into account special needs of certain minorities, and decide to comply or not comply with their requests. If a faction of male Amish students at Harvard (does such a creature exist?) sincerely wanted a few hours for JUST males at the gym because it was against their religion to train with females or be seen dressed scantily in front of them, then I think that request should be considered and, all else being equal, be granted.

I can understand that you think certain Muslims want to impose their ways on the West. And certainly there are some Muslims that do aspire to that. Let’s not confuse “certain” Muslims with “all” Muslims I have no reason to believe that cultural expansionism was the goal of these students. The Muslim girls did not demand that the gym be segregated on a permanent basis. They asked for a few hours. There’s a difference to my mind.

EDIT: Thanks for the good debate. I think folks on both sides made some good points. And I managed to screw away almost a whole day at work (which I will have to make up) responding!

Well actually the Amish aren’t the only ones with a call to modesty. Very mainstream Christian denominations also teach this. And, ladies in shorts so tight it looks like their butt is swallowing them, don’t exactly fit the idea. So, mainstream Christian fundamentalists have just as much of a religious case.