Duke University

In the past I have argued against using pressure and bullying to get others to either agree or to conform with a certain course of action (e.g. HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE).

I have seen this some variations of this tactic used against Christians recently, but it isn't always against Christians. Sadly, Christians also know how to do a little "arm-twisting" of their own. Enter Duke University and Franklin Graham.

Duke University in Durham, North Carolina recently accepted a plan to have a Muslim call to prayer come from the Duke Chapel bell tower. Some of the members of the Duke Muslim Students Association would chant the call from the bell tower each Friday at 1 p.m., starting on January 16th. The chant, which includes the words “Allahu Akbar” would be amplified across the campus to announce the call to prayer. There was a great backlash against this plan.

I think this was ill-advised, especially starting barely a week after terrorists in France forced their way into the offices of the periodical  Charlie Hebdo, shouting "Allahu Akbar" while killing 12 people. But I think the method used by Franklin Graham to kill the plan was also ill-advised, and crossed over the line from convincing free speech to bullying in submission. What was Graham's plan? Hit them where it hurts. He urged Duke alumni and other supporters to pull their funding and withhold their donations.* According to its web site, Duke is a private university that "maintains a historic affiliation with the United Methodist Church." As a private university, this kind of pressure is much more significant than for a public university. The university cited a "credible and serious security threat" as their primary reason for nixing they call to prayer from the bell tower. I have no further information on that, but it is likely that Graham's threat played a significant role. Muslim students will still pray as they have, but without the amplified call to prayer from the bell tower.

This private university had the right to agree to such a plan. Alumni and concerned citizens had the right to oppose it. How much better had they convinced them of the error of their ways with reasoned arguments than to push them to pursue a certain course? Have we decided that doesn't work, or whatever works is "reasonable"? When Christians such as Graham teach others how to use this tactic, it will be used against them when the shoe is on the other foot -- and when they are powerless to stop it.

Some links on the topic.
* Duke reverses decision to allow Muslim call to prayer
* Duke backs down, cancels Muslim call to prayer from chapel tower
* Security threat nixes Islamic prayer call from Duke Chapel 

* There may be a fine line between an individual choosing not to support Duke because of the Muslim call to prayer, and an organized boycott to not support Duke because of the Muslim call to prayer. But I believe there is a line. The first is an individual to pursuing a course of action consistent with his or her conscience, while the second is aimed at hurting (or at least threatening to hurt) in order to guarantee a certain course of action is followed.