There is a deeply disturbing controversy at Wheaton College where Larycia Hawkins, an associate professor of political science at Wheaton College, has been suspended after she wore a hijab throughout Advent as an act of “solidarity with my Muslim sisters.” Hawkins is Christian but believed that her Christian Advent values called for her to extend his symbol of kindness and support to Muslims. On Facebook, she wrote “I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book.” That caused an outrage and her ultimately suspension.
Some viewed the statement as conflating Christian and Muslim faiths, even though Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet of God. Wheaton College would have none of it: “While Islam and Christianity are both monotheistic, we believe there are fundamental differences between the two faiths, including what they teach about God’s revelation to humanity, the nature of God, the path to salvation and the life of prayer.”
Hawkins was going to take off the Hijab at Christmas and said that it’s “a time of real vitriolic rhetoric by fellow Christians sometimes and people who aren’t Christian who conflate all Muslims with terrorist — and that saddens me — so this is a way of saying if all women wear the hijab we cannot discriminate. If all women were in solidarity, who is the real Muslim? How is TSA going to decide who they really suspect?”
The fact is that this is not a violation of the First Amendment because the college is not a state actor. It is a religious based institution that has a right to set its own rules based on that faith. I simply believe that the college is wrong and has taken a message of solidarity and replaced it with a message of intolerance. Moreover, the statement being attacked was made on social media by this academic. I have previously written about the increasing monitoring and discipline of teachers for conduct in their private lives. We have seen teachers face discipline over social media pictures holding a weapon. Even a picture of a teacher holding a glass of a drink is enough to trigger discipline.
Wheaton College stressed that Hawkins should have cleared any statements or actions in advance, raising concerns over the right to free speech for teachers. The college said “Wheaton College faculty and staff make a commitment to accept and model our institution’s faith foundations with integrity, compassion and theological clarity. As they participate in various causes, it is essential that faculty and staff engage in and speak about public issues in ways that faithfully represent the college’s evangelical Statement of Faith.”
Source: Chicago Tribune
Thank youOlly … I do try to be sincere and I find that most of the commenters here and elsewhere, for the most part, do too. I learn a lot, and periodically change my mind, or at least modify my viewpoint(s). I only go to a blog or website to learn something or affirm something…works so far. Once I had to travel half way around the world and back to find real open diversity in thought, today I can sit here and do the same thing, more or less….so long as comenters post in good faith. We’re fortunate today to have the Internet “forum” to learn more from others. Easy to scroll by the “trolls” (and frauds) but “troll” doesn’t mean I disagree, just that I think the remark is merely a provocation rather than inquiry.
For the record, I find too many of us today fascinated with “symbols” rather than beliefs and intentions. No woman’s hijab will ever bother me…for the reasons I’ve stated. Anything like a niqab or burka does irritate me a bit…our faces express what we feel and sometimes what we think. It’s been an important survival mechanism for me over many years. I want to see them. I’ve frequently seen my own innermost feelings reflected back at me. Where I live if someone is in full regalia you cannot really tell if it is a man or woman. That can be troubling. Mainly I just find the requirement by some sects that women hide everything but their eyes a form of oppression of women (and potential means to conceal motivations)…and as I’ve said often here, I usually like women better than men, especially if blow hards. Most of us males recall the “locker room” guys who had stories abut their sex lives that to be true would mean they had sex 10 time a day every day….please, just please. I’ve not heard women do the same thing, but then I don’t get to be around for the “gossip” time either…so I could be wrong on that.
I’ve told the anecdotal story here before I’m sure about my time with a ROK NCO and I sitting around yakking it up and drinking “Malkali’ (gag) around a fire in the boondocks or “Injun Country” as they called it …. we got down to the principle difference between how he saw westerner thinking of the right to kill as presumed, but debated as to means…while he saw easterner thought to be to discuss and decide whether to kill or not, and not worry about the means. It influenced my viewpoint from that day onward. He had a point, at least in those days and times…and from the opinions of other Asians I met…we learned from each other. To me, that’s the whole idea of an open Internet and sane blogs.
Travel is certainly less costly 🙂
Davidm2575. When Paul and others shifted their efforts of converting persons to the new religion from Judea where they failed miserably to the Greek and Roman worlds they ran into a serious problem. According to Greek and Roman beliefs only Gods were allowed to reside on the Olympus. All others went straight to the underworld (Hades) after death. How could they be made to accept that Jesus did not descend to the underworld? Is that an origin for “the son of God”?
Dieter, I think most theologians teach that Jesus did descend into the underworld at death. Jesus was in hell (Hebrew = Sheol, Greek = Hades) for those three days that he was dead. He liberated many that were held there (Matthew 27:52-53).
“Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)”
(Ephesians 4:8-10)
“For David speaketh concerning him … thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. … He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.”
(Acts 2:27-32)
Those are some really heartfelt comments Aridog. I appreciate you sharing them.
PS: “Ordnance” in the early days of “forward support” meant you didn’t get to sit back in a base camp…you moved with the grunts and repaired their gear on line…a times with jerks pot shotting away at you….bless the infantry and armor platoons or squads who had our back, and when we had to we joined them.
Thanks David …good clear comment. I wish I could be so erudite.
One thing that keeps coming up in my mind is the history of where I live, originally Polish, Czech, Slovak, and Italian …now mixed in a majority tilt to Shia’ Muslim, many assimilated to a good degree. This “thing” with head scarfs doesn’t seem “Muslim” to me….as not long ago, and some still today, the eastern European women all wore head scarf coverings almost everywhere….and very similar to the Muslim versions, but usually white in color. I mean not long ago it was c-o-m-m-o-n. The older east European women still do it and it seems natural. Not sure why it became their custom. In short, a hijab doesn’t seem foreign to me, but a niqab certainly does. I cannot respect men who demand it of women and disparage those who do not observe.
Of course, none of the east Europeans wore “niqab” (the veil) and that’s a big difference and I am displeased as I seem more niqabs in my locale. I speak kindly of my neighbors, but as I see more of the veils and men congregating without women, it irritates me and I am watching it…if it progresses too far, I will have to move, double or more my taxes, and live where I don’t wish to do so. It represents, to me, male dominance of women and childish male behavior to insist on it. Why would any man want his sister, wife, girlfriend, whomever, “covered” and unable to smile to others as she sees fit?
The ability to “smile”, and been seen doing so, is all important in my experience, and it saved my life more than once…as a “signal” that I was perhaps a technical enemy, but not a brutal savage and willing to talk. It took some language learning, even pig-din, to do so, but it n-e-v-e-r failed me. I achieved semi-fluency in only one. I learned a lot from the Asians I got to know just be being open with them…and smiling. Hell, I even married a college educated one whom, although we’re divorced now for various reasons, I still think is a special lady. If shot at, of course, that all ceased for a bit…but I struggled to regain it. Many of the corpses of our enemies of my day, according to the “grunts” I knew well (I was Ordnance…though I saw a few of these items) had pockets filled with photos of family, children, wives, parents…the kind of things we also carried in case we might not see them again. They weren’t the enemy per se, their dictatorial power mad government(s) were. You have to fight if a gun is pointed close to your back…just ask the Laotians. There was a reason for the long ago 3 man cadres…the 3rd man.
Aridog, your comments are always sincere and without any sense of guile. I like that.
I agree with your comments about the hijab, niqab and burqa. Hiding the face is disturbing. What if somebody said that they would never communicate with you face to face, but only by telephone or internet? How could we possibly respect that? Body language is so helpful in communication. They are in a sense saying from the start that they will never be a close friend. I have trouble respecting that.
David writes, “Aridog, your comments are always sincere and without any sense of guile. I like that. . . . I agree with your comments about the hijab, niqab and burqa. Hiding the face is disturbing. What if somebody said that they would never communicate with you face to face, but only by telephone or internet? How could we possibly respect that? Body language is so helpful in communication. They are in a sense saying from the start that they will never be a close friend. I have trouble respecting that.”
I have trouble respecting Christians for the same reasons. How could “we possibly respect that?” (groen 1:1)
stevegroen wrote: “I have trouble respecting Christians for the same reasons. How could “we possibly respect that?” (groen 1:1)”
Be careful about stereotyping entire groups of people based upon one or two criteria. That is the basis of discrimination based upon race or religion. Please note that I never expressed any difficulty in respecting Muslims. There are many things that I do respect in Islam. Wearing the niqab or burqa is not one of them.
David writes, “Be careful about stereotyping entire groups of people based upon one or two criteria. That is the basis of discrimination based upon race or religion. Please note that I never expressed any difficulty in respecting Muslims. There are many things that I do respect in Islam. Wearing the niqab or burqa is not one of them.”
There are many things that I do respect about Christianity. Relying on hearsay from two milennia ago as fact is not one of them. (groen 1:2)
Everyone’s different, David. How you cannot respect a religion which requires a female’s face be covered, and then cite Ephesians and Acts is what has created more bloodshed than even your god knows.
stevegroen, I did not express disrespect for Islam. I expressed disrespect for teaching women to wear the niqab or burqa. The Qur’an does not require it. Some hadiths in Islam require it, but others do not. Furthermore, I lack respect for all religions which is why I do not belong to any. I do not have any more respect for Christianity than I do for Islam. I respect some practices and disrespect others in BOTH religions. And books like the Bible and the Qur’an are not hearsay. They are grounded in history and culture, just like our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Citing either book in response to the philosophical musings of another commentator does not result in bloodshed. How can you possibly think that it does? The principle of freedom of speech is all about being able to discuss theology and religious practices without fear of fines, imprisonment, or bloodshed.
Good work David. Thank you for the clarity.
This is kind of strange action by the college considering that the New Testament tells women to cover their head. However, the Qur’an denounces the Trinity as a false doctrine and declares Jesus to be only a man, so if her purpose is to align with Muslims, she would be renouncing her Christian faith.
Perhaps the suspension is temporary to find out what the professor was trying to do and whether or not she has renounced Christianity. If the school employs only Christian professors, then the professor is violating her agreement with the college and most likely will be fired.
Okay, so I just looked at the College’s website, and sure enough, they have a Statement of Faith for all faculty and staff. I also found a letter from them about Larycia Hawkins. As I suspected, the wearing of the hijab was not the problem.
“Contrary to some media reports, social media activity and subsequent public perception, Dr. Hawkins’ administrative leave resulted from theological statements that seemed inconsistent with Wheaton College’s doctrinal convictions, and is in no way related to her race, gender or commitment to wear a hijab during Advent.”
…
“The freedom to wear a head scarf as a gesture of care and compassion for individuals in Muslim or other religious communities that may face discrimination or persecution is afforded to Dr. Hawkins as a faculty member of Wheaton College. Yet her recently expressed views, including that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, appear to be in conflict with the College’s Statement of Faith.”
“… the views expressed by Dr. Hawkins were more complex. Discussions between her and the administration were at an initial stage, and she was placed on administrative leave by Provost Dr. Stanton L. Jones in order to allow adequate time for reflection and review by Dr. Hawkins and the administration. In her most recent statement, Dr. Hawkins seems committed to her personal theological stance, as stated in social media posts and subsequent media interviews; she has not yet reconciled her beliefs with the College’s theological position. Dr. Hawkins will remain on paid administrative leave while the College continues the review process to which she is entitled as an employee and faculty member. This will include an assessment of her views related to our Statement of Faith through respectful and fair dialogue on these matters of strategic importance to our institutional identity and mission.”
http://www.wheaton.edu/Media-Center/Media-Relations/Statements/Wheaton-College-Statement-Regarding-Dr-Hawkins
VeloMac … very well said. I live among some 30,000 Shia’ Muslims with another 10,000 of which sect I’m not sure nearby. The occurrence of jerks among them is about the same as for the rest of us. You are correct that if you look and listen it is no problem to tell the terrorist types from the ordinary folks, many around me who are now citizens of the US…and shown entrepreneurial expertise that saved my neighborhood. Almost everything rebuilt or new. Most of my neighbors in the 30K are refugees…as expressed by the crying woman on 9/11/2001 who grasped my hand over the fence and said “what we fled has followed us here” and more about how sorry she and her husband, standing next to her, were…not to mention a sense of desperation over the situation.
So far we are still at peace here where I am, albeit my neighbor’s concerns, although periodically some pundit or commenter will cite “Dearborn” as a hot bed of terrorists. Very few of those have ever been here, even in passing. Best example was Sharon Angle of Nevada who assured Harry Reid of another term due to her idiocy, amongst it, telling everyone we’re under Sharia Law in my town. Were that the case I’d no longer have a head….and not have Muslim neighbors who saw someone hit my truck and told me, and when I said I did not see it so I couldn’t intervene with the guy who did it, they said “well we did see it and we’ll intervene” …and they did, settling everything peacefully.
She obviously doesn’t realize that that the term “people of the book” originated with Muslims in specific reference to the Judeo-Christian written traditions which pre-date any of Muhammad’s plagiaristic scribblings or intolerant utterances. She sees “conflation” where none occurs since Americans are perfectly capable of making fine distinctions between “all” Muslims and those that are out to slit our throats. BTW, the term “conflation” is one of those academically trending words the half-educated are fond of trotting out.
phillyT at December 17, 2015 at 6:05 pm
Does the NSA’s revised collection rules preclude them from monitoring your chip?
Which “chip?” My time in DOD tells me that if they can get to it they will, under color of necessity, even if they shouldn’t. They can have my whole dang computer etc. if they choose…I’m not taking anything back. Never-the-less, when a DOD guy I was careful to keep personal on my PC and “.mil” on theirs, and they provided me a PC just for that purpose for home & travel as well as one at the office. Doesn’t mean they didn’t look at mine however, ….heck I would have if in the security guy’s shoes. If you publish it in any form, on any format, you can bet someone is looking at it besides you and your correspondent. As it should be due to the traitor creeps among us. Blame them….just don’t let them take over and make it worse. First line of defense…watch them!!
I personally would not have had a problem with her wearing a hijab, roosari, or whatever else she wanted.
As for the college, I have a few questions. Was her FB comment on her private page, or was she posting as an employee? If it’s private, it’s her business. Was she wearing the hijab on campus? If so, then as a Christian institution, employing Christians, teaching Christian based education, then they can object to it on the basis of the dress code being inconsistent with a Christian institution.
I imagine a madrassa would have an issue if one of its instructors dressed like an Hassidic Jew or the Democratic National Party chair plastered her office with “Go Jeb Bush!” posters.
I still don’t understand why they just didn’t tell her not to wear it on campus. The suspension seems like an over reaction.
Don’t get me started.
McCarthy pointed out that’s precisely what they have done…
swear on (i.e. allegiance to) the Communist Manifesto.
Hello, Mr. Roosevelt, how’s your buddy, Alger?
Hello, Mr. Soetoro, how’s your buddy, Van Jones?
National Review, 2013:
“Former Hillary Press Secretary Refuses to Agree Alger Hiss Was a Communist”
“MSNBC host Karen Finney raised eyebrows yesterday when she hung up on conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt after she turned down several chances he offered to acknowledge that the late Alger Hiss was a Communist. He barely got to the point of discussing if Hiss was a spy for the Soviet Union.”
Of course, Hills is not a communist, she’s only a “progressive” which is a socialist progressing towards communism.
I’d have to agree that Joseph McCarthy, like Edward Snowden, was right.
If you live under the “dictatorship of the proletariat;”
Central Planning
Control of the Means of Production
Social Engineering
Redistribution of Wealth,
there’s a good chance you’re a communist.
And a good chance your leaders have sworn on the Communist Manifesto.
P.S. I wonder if Welfare, Affirmative Action, Social Services, Quotas, “Fair Housing,” “Non-Discrimination” law, Medicare, Social Security, Obamacare, HAMP, HARP, HUD, Education, Labor, etc. are all full blown, pure communism.
Quick question for the paranoid schizophrenics contributing here:
Does the NSA’s revised collection rules preclude them from monitoring your chip?
Their Selfie Photo Album.
HaHaHa, good one Nick!
The Communist Manifesto.
Aridog is a wise man. Like the Municipal judge[small potatoes position] saying “LOOK AT ME”, this case is the same. Our narcissistic culture is @ the core of this and the judge/Koran post.
What book should atheist and agnostics swear their oath on?
Ben Franklin, 1789, we gave you “a republic, if you can keep it.”
Ben Franklin, 2015, we gave you “a republic, if you can take it back.”
Ben Franklin’s republic:
A restricted-vote republic deliberately precluding a vote of the “working masses.”
Distinctly not a one man, one vote democracy
Franklin’s Vote Criteria – Male, European, age 21, 50lbs. Sterling or 50 acres
Alexander Fraser Tytler –
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”
Mr. Franklin, can you help stop the madness?
Guess she got a bit more than her sought after 15 minutes…she just had to also run off at the mouth and that bit her in the butt.
See, just wearing the hijab wouldn’t really be noticed…like who cares? So she just had to expound …. with nonsense. She has no idea of what being a Muslim woman is like in general, let alone in some fanatical versions of the faith. She’s almost comical if it were not for the subject matter. She got a PhD? How?
Acts of treason must be met with the severest of penalties. In 17th century Britain, the penalty for treason was Drawing and Quartering, as one example of sure and swift justice.
The Quran and Muslims of Islam are sworn enemies of the U.S. as Islam, through the Quran, requires Muslims to CONVERT or KILL INFIDELS, in various forms throughout its text, and in verbal presentations in mosques and madrassas.
The Constitution provides for freedom of religion.
The Quran controverts and subverts the Constitution as treason by denying and intending to deny believers of other religions, AKA Infidels, their constitutional rights.
Traitors, subversives, insurrectionists and enemies must be defeated, prosecuted and deported.