Columnist’s claims inconsistent and false
Given Jordan Manalastas’ proclivity for the Founding Fathers in “Day of Prayer? That’ll be the day” (May 12), I suppose he’d give guys like Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and others the benefit of the doubt when considering the constitutionality of certain government proclamations.
The Continental Congress established a national day of prayer in 1775, which gives us insight into what the Founding Fathers believed to be in line with the document they created. Given this, it wouldn’t be a stretch to claim that Judge Crabb and the court of the 1970s and ’80s crossed the line in their application of judicial review. The inconsistent application of the Establishment Clause makes that apparent.
Thomas Jefferson made a subtle dismissal ““ but not an outright condemnation ““ 13 years after the second initiative for a national prayer day and 33 years after the first, which hardly defines his opposition. Taken out of context, he could have very well been speaking out against a tyrannically imposed codification of prayer ““ and rightly so. But who knows?
Lastly, one other point of contention: Saying that “crime rates and religious presence in society are positively correlated” is flimsy. Why religious presence? This could just as well be replaced with the presence of SUVs, or the consumption of hot dogs and apple pie or the number of baseball games played. It’s a rather weak correlation, and I would say a false one.
Michael Manalastas, San Francisco
Overcoming linguistic barriers is first step
Commendations to UCLA for the unique Hindi-Urdu initiative and to Avni Nijhawan for the column “Hindi-Urdu class uniting these two languages is crucial to maintaining UCLA’s rich culture” (April 20). I hope the UCLA program will be emulated by other schools, universities, community programs and others. Surely there are differences in Hindi and Urdu, just as there are between Sanskrit-Hindi, Arabic-Persian-Urdu, English-French, Spanish-Portuguese-Italian and several other linguistic combinations. An ideal language teacher (my own Urdu teacher comes to mind) presents interesting references and connections to language roots and stimulates deeper exploration of the language(s).
I see nothing wrong and no loss to either if Hindi-Urdu are taught as one class. On the contrary, it would be a great service. As it is, there are many poly-ethnic couples teaching two totally different languages simultaneously to their young children, combining English and Spanish, or German and Urdu, or French and Hindi. The children are doing quite well, thank you ““ and will no doubt one day thank their parents for the effort and foresight. Let’s live in the present and frame the future with constructive ideas. Breaking down linguistic barriers is a good way to do just that. It may also erase political or religious scars of ancient history.
Amjad Noorani, Advisor to the Board of Directors, The Citizens Foundation
Precedent for language separation is outdated
I was greatly encouraged to read about the initiative at UCLA through Nijhawan’s column from April 20 and the thinking that supports it. I am myself an Urdu speaker who has learned Hindi on my own. The attempt to divide started with the Fort William College, which set up separate departments for Hindi and Urdu, and it is a pity that it has been institutionalized ever since. An alternate approach is “The South Asian Idea,” a learning resource for college students in South Asia that aims at promoting mutual understanding in the region through structured conversations on issues of common interest.
Anjum Altaf, 1983 doctoral alumnus, Stanford University