Malice

October 28, 2011

America, Spirituality, Terrorism

Muslim students at the Catholic University of America in D.C. called the lack of a room to pray in sans crosses a ‘violation of their human rights’ and a suit has been filed against the private institution.

The investigation alleges that Muslim students “must perform their prayers surrounded by symbols of Catholicism – e.g., a wooden crucifix, paintings of Jesus, pictures of priests and theologians which many Muslim students find inappropriate.”

A spokesperson for the Office of Human Rights told Fox News they had received a 60-page complaint against the private university. The investigation, they said, could take as long a six months.

People have even gone so far as to say that the university is exhibiting ‘malice’ toward the muslim students. John Banzhaf, a George Washington University Law School professor who has a storied history of filing meaningless complaints:

“It may not be illegal, but it suggests they are acting improperly and probably with malice,” said Banzhaf about the religious imagery in classrooms. “[Muslims] do have to pray five times a day, they have to look around for empty classrooms and to be sitting there trying to do Muslim prayers with a big cross looking down or a picture of Jesus or a picture of the Pope is not very conductive to their religion.”

Interestingly enough, not all muslim students were… radical:

The Post article, which interviewed several Muslim students, found none of them critical of CUA’s attitude towards their faith, and many of them complimentary. One student said his Islamic faith had matured for the better amid the welcoming campus culture.

So is this another instance of muslims trying to integrate and change from within or a case of an overzealous professor with an agenda and/or a grudge?

Personally, I think that anyone having a problem with crosses should not be attending a private Catholic university. They can transfer to another school or leave altogether… but isn’t it interesting that they can’t pray with a likeness of Jesus in the room, when we’ve been told over and over that He is a part of their doctrine too? I think the malice is theirs.

Ed Morrissey writes:

Besides, what exactly is CU supposed to do — tear down the cathedral dome? I’ve visited CU and the Basilica, and it’s a beautiful, contemplative place. My wife and I attended Mass there on a visit a couple of years ago. The university is hardly overwhelmed with Catholic iconography, however, and there are plenty of places off-campus in the neighborhood for students to meet for those who think it is. According to Google Maps, there are five Islamic centers within 4 miles of the Basilica, including three less than two miles away.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy.

Subscribe

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

Related Posts:

23 Responses to “Malice”

  1. davek Says:
    28. October 2011 at 10:46 am

    I don’t see the point.

    I could pray to my God in a mosque in the middle of Mecca.

    My faith is not influenced by my surroundings.

    davek
    :texas:

  2. patti Says:
    28. October 2011 at 11:05 am

    We’re doomed – doomed I tell you…

  3. diamond dave Says:
    28. October 2011 at 1:13 pm

    Given this is a PRIVATE university, I don’t see why this suit wouldn’t be thrown out. Because this could be considered meddling with a church’s (Catholic) guaranteed right to practice it’s own religion free from gov’t interference. This isn’t gov’t sponsoring or endorsing a particular religion, it’s a church using IT’S OWN MONEY to build IT’S OWN INSTITUTION reflecting IT’S OWN BELIEFS. :angry:

    • Pam Says:
      28. October 2011 at 1:15 pm

      Yup. I don’t care if it’s Catholic, Mormon, Baptist, Hindu or Jewish, it’s their business how they worship and how they decorate their privately funded institutions.

      :yes:

      • diamond dave Says:
        28. October 2011 at 1:50 pm

        And, as a side note, I hope whoever the judge is that throws this one out charges the plaintiff for ALL the legal fees for both sides(and a few made-up PITA fees too) for bringing forth a frivolous lawsuit.

        • patti Says:
          28. October 2011 at 4:18 pm

          that depends totally on the judge in the case. most of the time the agitators don’t bring these sorts of cases unless they know they have a sympathetic district court judge…

  4. Lee Ann Says:
    28. October 2011 at 2:41 pm

    That’s right…you caught us. We’re all bastards…evil, beedy-eyed rat bastards that hate everyone else because you don’t look like us, talk like us, pray like us and wipe your ass like us.

    You caught us Clousteau, congratulations, you’ve just made Detective. :finger:

    That’s like winning the prize for being dumber than rat shit in a rat infested tanker sinking to the bottom of a rat sea.

    Way to go moron. Hire the ACLU, they’d give a rats ass, whereas we don’t because we’re evil like that.
    :devil:

  5. Peter Says:
    28. October 2011 at 10:33 pm

    If the US justice system gave a damn about justice any judge who allowed this case in a federal court would be arrested. After all, one would think that any judge, steeped in the law, could count all the way to “one”. And the First Amendment, the very first one, starts with “Congress shall make no law…”

    Now I will admit that Einstein didn’t stay up nights worrying about Peter someday outsmarting him but I know how many laws “no law” is. Or are. Is zero laws plural? Anyhow, no law is pretty clear. The judge has to butt out of anything a religion does, AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT KEEP SOMEONE ELSE FROM PRACTICING THEIR RELIGION IN THEIR OWN PLACE.

    We have entirely too many people in positions of power who seem to be not smart enough to count to “one”. Seems they should be removed from office and placed in the Happy Acres Home for the Simple Minded.

  6. Bitterroot Says:
    29. October 2011 at 1:49 am

    “…acting improperly and probably with malice”??

    I can show you malice, rugsuckers… I propose a widespread practical revival of the Jerusalem Cross for starters, married to a modern revival of the movement under which it was historically carried. :finger:

  7. Erinyes Says:
    29. October 2011 at 7:29 am

    You people and your crosses. They’re freakin’ EVERYWHERE…

    http://www.warfoto.com/319053Anzio%20Nettunosmll005.jpg

  8. me Says:
    29. October 2011 at 9:06 am

    yes, and those are real Americans under them crosses

  9. Folly Says:
    29. October 2011 at 9:35 am

    Um, court precedence has said that a private, religious school or institution is not obligate to act in a manner that is contrary to their beliefs. Good luck, Mooslims. We keep letting them do this, they’ll make this country into the Islamic States of America in no time.

  10. Peter Says:
    30. October 2011 at 3:15 am

    I just got an E-mail from an old fried that another old friend has died. He was your hubby’s and my age, throat cancer got him. The friend that wrote me was working with him on coming up with an effective shotshell for a .32 revolver. I do not have a .32 revolver of any kind although I have a few items from my decades with the .30-06 rifle that might help in the quest. So, I shall step into the breech and try to help. When it’s working we’ll call the ca’tridge the .32 Leon shotshell in his honor. Just out of curiosity, have the Muslims ever invented anything more complicated than the suicide bomber? And they stole THAT idea from the Japanese.