What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Prayers to Allah come to UK Public Schools

As you've probably seen elsewhere on the blogosphere, two boys in a public school in the UK were punished with detention for refusing to kneel down on prayer mats and pray to Allah as part of a "religious education" lesson.

But although you've no doubt seen it elsewhere, you haven't heard my two cents, so I might as well give you those two pennies, unasked, just because you were kind enough to drop by W4.

I think it's a big deal. And I don't think the teacher is going to get in trouble. I think the school officials are going to do precisely nothing to reprimand the teacher but are merely going to tell her that she has to make it clear to her students that this is "role-playing" and that therefore they are, you know, pretending when they kneel down on the prayer mats and pray to Allah. And that will make it all okay.

As you also probably know, there is already a similar curriculum in place in California, which our courts, always so very solicitous to avoid any appearance of an establishment of religion, have declared constitutional on the grounds of role-playing, a ludicrous defense that would never pass the laugh test were the religion in question Christianity. About the only thing that I can see that is missing in the California curriculum is the prayer mats, but I understand that the teachers have some leeway in how they teach it, so I'm sure some enterprising and creative teacher somewhere in the U.S. will stash some prayer mats in her cupboard and whip them out at the right moment to make the "role-playing" that much more real, just like the teacher in the UK. And woe betide the young Christian who refuses.

If you are a Christian parent, is this the sort of role-playing you would want your child to be doing?

Yet another reason to home school.

(Crossposted)

Comments (63)

Why not require the children to simulate a black mass? After all, they are merely engaged in a bit of harmless, inconsequential role-playing, and it will enable them to understand the mythical counter-history, authored by esotericists, of the principal rite of Western civilization.

I'm not being facetious. One can only accept that the children are not participating in Islamic rites if one can also accept that the "actors" in pornographic "films" are not engaged in sexual intercourse.

I agree. And I'd been saying, "Hey, what about prayers to Satan?" around the house here after reading about it. The whole thing is creepy and crazy. I gather in the California situation they had to memorize and recite verses of the Koran and make religious responses to things the teacher called out. I should perhaps have been clearer when I said that the only thing missing was the prayer mats that I mean that they apparently only had to _recite_ things like the Muslim confession of faith, etc., not kneel down to pray, in California. Which hardly makes me feel much better.

I'd really like to see some Christian kids get public with this--giving interviews to the news and such, really pushing back. It may be that this particular teacher in the UK went a tiny bit farther than other teachers are going elsehwere in the UK and the US, but if so, it wasn't by jolly much. And there has already been a similar "hand-writing" case in the UK a year ago, where children were forced to write out the shahadah as a "hand-writing exercise":

http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003829.html

So this isn't an isolated type of thing.

There is something so inexpressibly creepy about teachers who are probably agnostics or only the fuzziest of Christians themselves, not religious people of any sort, forcing children in the name of "learning about other cultures" and such to write out or say Muslim prayers, the Muslim confession of faith, etc. In a strange way, it makes sense. If they don't believe anything and think all religions are equally stupid, they have no problem with forcing people to go through the motions of one of them! But the imams must be laughing their heads off, all over the world, about getting the public school teacher infidels to do this work of softening up for them.

Yeah, the teacher was stupid about it, but just like every other outrageous story (remember the "Jenna 6"?) it'd be great if we had more information about it.

It isn't hard to imagine a scenario like this: a well meaning teacher sets upon an inappropriate lesson plan, and two students, acting entirely out of 11 year old boy mischief, were disruptive. Hardly indoctrination, hardly persecution of Christians, hardly the imposition of sharia, for crying out loud. Just a teacher being an idiot and two boys being obnoxious.

Or, yes, this could actually have been a terrible violation of religious freedom. My point is, there is nothing in the article you linked to that strongly supports any one perspective.

"Were disruptive" equals "refused to kneel down and pray to Allah"?

And I just really love "inappropriate lesson plan." Yes, you _could_ say that, "Okay, everybody," (brightly) "We're all going to get down on these prayer mats and pray to Allah, now," is an "inappropriate lesson plan."

I have no idea what the religious beliefs of the boys were. I suppose they might have been hard-core atheists, Christians, or just vaguely non-religious kids who felt there was "something weird" about it. The whole thing is intensely bad stuff and creepy, but I have absolutely no doubt that commentator Mike, of all people, will never, never see that. So I have no intention, Mike, of trying to convince you.

Hardly indoctrination

- "But not only did they have to pray, the teacher had gone into the class and made them watch a short film and then said 'we are now going out to pray to Allah'."

- "Not only was it forced upon them, my daughter was told off for not doing it right."

- "They'd never done it before and they were supposed to do it in another language."

- "My child has been forced to pray to Allah in a school lesson."

- "If they didn't do it they were given detention."

- Parents said that their children were made to bend down on their knees on prayer mats which the RE teacher had got out of her cupboard and they were also told to wear Islamic headgear during the lesson on Tuesday afternoon.

No, not hardly. Quite plainly.

I know I'm playing devil's advocate here. If a child of mine were in that class, I would be every bit as angered as any one of you.

What I'm trying to show is that it is illegitimate to link this story - with the facts as presented - to some larger narrative about the degradation of Europe. Or to link it with the Mark Steyn American Alone/defense of the white Christian race racism that is so gleefully indulged in here.

[quote]"Were disruptive" equals "refused to kneel down and pray to Allah"?[/quote]

The facts as presented in that article - and in every other article I can find on this - do [i]not[/i] force the conclusion that these were two Christian kids refusing to worship an idol or deny the name of Jesus. For all we know, these were two kids that just insisted on running around the class, laughing, throwing spit balls, etc.

And to make it very clear, to try and head off the inevitable ridiculously hostile reading of what I've just written, I'd still be angry, even if it was my kid that was shooting the spit balls. I'd probably even be proud of him/her.

Mike, I think that's pretty ridiculous. The kids in the class generally knew that they would get detention if they refused; That's why the parents of the kids who _cooperated_ are angry. They are saying that their children were forced. You're straining by making up this whole "maybe they were running around shooting spitballs" scenario up out of whole cloth.

And how many times do I have to say that I'm not saying these particular two kids were Christians? I'm not saying that. I already said they might have refused for other reasons, even just because something about it didn't seem normal to them. But I _do_ say that Christian kids _should_ refuse to do that, and the quotes from the parents make it absolutely clear that kids who did refuse would receive detention.

And _of course_ it fits into a larger context of the degradation of Europe. No public school teacher would have been doing this in England 20 years ago, and if one tried, there would have been a huge outcry, not just from the parents but from the administration and everything.

These Islam-teaching curricula are quite recent and are certainly part of a recent, degrading, and crazy trend in the West: Fly airplanes into our buildings, murder our civilians, and we'll give all our children indoctrination classes in how peaceful your religion is and make them memorize your prayers and dress up like you.

Do I expect _you_, Mike, of all people, to realize that? No, I don't. I say it because it's obvious sanity and because you provoked it with your denial.

This particular incident seems an aberration and is likely the result of poor judgment by an idiosyncratic teacher. At least the children were not branded with a star and crescent, like a child was recently branded with a cross by a Christian teacher in Ohio.

I think compulsory religious education in all state-funded schools is a great idea, and the UK has a great model. We should teach comparative world religions, with an emphasis on Pagan religions of Europe, Judaism, and Christianity. Americans are woefully ignorant on these subjects.

Gee, Robert would like them to be forced to memorize pagan prayers, too. He would just (presumably) draw the line at forcing them to kneel down and pray to the pagan gods. That would, of course, be an "aberration." Whereas if some teacher really did do what he reports in Ohio, that, of course, is presumably typical of American education, despite the fact that it is no part of the curriculum for all children in a class, and that any teacher who did such a thing will doubtless face serious consequences?

The fact that kids all over California are being forced to dress up and pretend to be Muslims for several weeks, including giving thimgs up for Ramadan, memorizing Muslim prayer verses, and such, evidently is _not_ an aberration but is part of the curriculum. So, too, is the recommendation in the UK curriculum that children be forced to write out the shahadah--the Muslim confession of faith. But presumably Robert will think these requirements will simply help to correct Westerners' ignorance.

Personally, I'm in Robert's camp. I find the average Americans ignorance of world religions appalling. What I'd really like to see is a healthy exercise where the teacher divides the class into two groups, pagans and Mohammedans, and then has the class role-play evangelization efforts. The teacher could give the Mohammedan group scimitars and have them force the others to kneel and recite the shahadah. Any students who refused to participate wouldn't have to be punished for disruptive behavior -- the Mohammedans could just role-play cutting off their heads.

Down with Christendom! Three cheers for Bedlam!

I'll add one to that, Steve: They could role-play that the pagans/Christians/other infidels would have a choice: They could say the shahadah, have their heads cut off ("role-playing"), or give their lunch money to the Muslim students as jizya and have their faces slapped a little in token of their dhimmi status.

This would be very educational.

You're straining by making up this whole "maybe they were running around shooting spitballs" scenario up out of whole cloth.

Oh, sorry, I should have spent another hour trying to come up with ways that you could misunderstand what I said and head them off at the pass. Do you really believe everything you read in newspapers? Do you really never think about what facts could be missing, or what kinds of distortions could very easily find their way into the story? Really? Because yes, I am making the spitball thing up - but my whole point is that it could fit the facts as presented, save perhaps for the 2nd hand complaint of the one-of-my-best-friends-is-an-Indian parent.*

This is my point: a wealth of scenarios fit the facts as provided. It requires only a tiny amount of critical thought to see this.

*Let's be clear: I am calling this parent racist, and so have the same questions about what they say as I do about what the newspaper reports.

Ooh, good one Lydia. But if I understand correctly, they're only supposed to give monotheists the choice of the jizya, the pagans would have to convert or go. If the Christians/Jews are brown-baggers though . . . off with their heads!

We ought to see if we can't get this cirriculum in the HeadStart! program. It's a great way to weed out those close-minded students who aren't as culturally sensitive before they make their way into elementary and start infecting the others with their fear-mongering ethnocentrism, the little vermin.

Oh, wow. I can't believe I spelled curriculum wrong, and I almost did it again just now. My apologies.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031784/

The article in the Daily Mail would seem to confirm much of what Lydia has asserted

Distorting another person's position and then showing how it is ridiculous is an effective rhetorical technique in a debate with a live audience, but it is not helpful in an honest exchange of ideas.

I don't condone the incident in the UK, just as I'm sure you guys don't condone the aberrant incident in Ohio. I just want to educate children on history, both their own and that of other cultures.

Why is this such a bad idea?

Robert, Steve and I aren't distorting what _you_ said, we're using humor to point out that the "educational" programs that are being instituted are not really educational, because they whitewash Islam.

Let me point out, again (again, again) that the "role-playing" program in California that says, "For ____weeks you will become a Muslim" is a _program_. It is _not_ an aberration. The _only_ thing that one can claim is some sort of individual teacher pushing the envelope a little bit in this UK story is actually making them "role-play" kneeling down and praying. But making them memorize and recite what are in effect Muslim prayers and other koranic verses, making them pretend to be Muslims, take Muslim names, give up stuff to pretend to be practicing Ramadan, making them give Muslim responses to the teacher's promptings, these are part of a program in an entirely different part of the world from the UK program in which they were made to bow down and pray to Allah. In the UK, I have also cited a program that in the guidelines urges teachers to have the children write out the shahadah--the Muslim confession of faith--and a classroom that followed these guidelines and in which exactly this was done--the students had to write it as part of a hand-writing exercise. These pro-Muslim programs are _written up curricula_. They are _not_ aberrations. They are being done in multiple places in the Western world. They are not just some one kooky teacher getting a crazy idea one time. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

It all arises from a combination of naivete (yes, I'm afraid, Robert, that I do think you are a bit naive on this subject) that recommends that students "learn about Islam" from people who don't in fact really know what they are talking about (concerning what Islam is really like) and the educational philosophy that recommends a heavily role-playing and participative form of learning. So the way that they think elementary students should "learn about Islam" is by pretending to become Muslims for a certain number of weeks. That _is_ their idea of "teaching them about Islam."

Liberal people and parents all over the Western world are saying exactly what you are saying, Robert: "Hey, what could be so bad about their learning about other religions?" And this is the outcome. That is because nobody wants to teach the kids bad and true stuff about Islam, because that would be politically incorrect. Instead of teaching them about things like female genital mutilation, forced marriage, honor killings, the many verses in the Koran glorifying killing infidels, the heavily anti-semitic (and I do mean _heavily_) verses and hadiths, and so forth, they teach them "Islam as cool costumes, charity, and luv and fluffy bunnies" and have them pretend to be Muslims for three weeks. The _only_ thing this UK teacher did that was a _little_ further along (and I'm fairly sure, in the widespread educational context I'm citing, that she isn't the only one) was to take the role-playing to the level of having them kneel down on prayer mats.

The parallel of these programs if it were done with Christianity would be "teaching children about Christianity" by forcing them to memorize and recite the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed, forcing them to memorize some of the prayers of the Rosary, forcing them to stop to mark the canonical hours in class, forcing them to take Christian religious names as monks do when they enter holy orders or as some adult Christian converts do at baptism, and so forth. And somehow I doubt that this would be considered acceptable by most secular parents who now wax eloquent about how great it is to have "compulsory religious education" for public school children in _other_ religions.

Well I agree that the methods you describe in California and the UK are idiotic. Also, what I am proposing is hardly politically correct. I want kids to learn the early history of Christianity and Islam, warts and all. Religious indoctrination depends heavily on the forced ignorance of the young. The Islamist know this better than anyone. Fundamentalist Christians know it too.

"Why is this such a bad idea?"

The State views the Christian heritage as undesirable and one best erased by the favored ruse of "neutrality". As always happens when a Sex-ed program, or new module on "multi-culturalism" is being imposed, representatives from each "faith tradition" are magnanimously invited into the process. The rolodex for savvy educrats contains heterodox Christians anxious to curry favor with Caesar and their hipper neighbors and practice a perverse form of anti-evangelization. It would be "The DaVinci Code", Bishop Spong's rebuttal to the "Resurrection Myth" and other Gnostic texts that would dominate the syllabus in most school districts.

Your proposal is flawed. It naively and suicidal accepts the premise that we need to be neutral and wary of truth claims, and is ignorant of the process; "we are fortunate to have Ms. Millie Modern, the Presiding Priestess from the Episcopal Church of Earthly Rewards to guide us during this delicate, but noble endeavor."

Your proposal is flawed. It naively and suicidal accepts the premise that we need to be neutral and wary of truth claims

I am not neutral, especially about what is most likely true. Teach kids the beliefs and practices of world religions. That's all. The public schools should not teach that one or any of them is "True". That's the job of parents and religious institutions. I'm puzzled why you find this notion so dangerous. Actually, I'm not puzzled at all.

"I am not neutral, especially about what is most likely true.", but contradictorily, you believe "public schools should not teach that one or any of them is "True"." Sounds like you accept the premise in practice, just not in theory.

The project of sustaining a culture without the cult is already in action and "The blood-dimmed tide is loosed". As a Catholic I'm not interested in siring the rough beast to maturity. Why are you content to reduce the Christian faith to a mere academic discipline taught by hostile pendants? Perhaps it is true; "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

How am I contradicting myself? If I am I need to correct my error.

Did you think I meant teach kids that all religions are untrue? That's not what I meant at all.

I don't want to reduce anyone's faith to an academic discipline. How does teaching children the history, beliefs, and practices of various world religions reduce them to "mere academic discipline"?

"How am I contradicting myself?"

By agreeing that Christianity should be put on the same operational plane as Islam, Buddhism, et al and be deprived of the deserved primacy that should come to the faith that gave birth to, and nurtured our civilization.

That, and the fact that even the most Christians struggle to honestly "teach the history, beliefs, and practices" of Christianity without falling into an arid reductionism. Faith for the Christian is not mere dogma and devotions, it is a Person. Never accept any restrictions on introducing young people to Christ, no matter how noble-sounding those curtailments may sound. Never. If only for the sake of your own soul.

By agreeing that Christianity should be put on the same operational plane as Islam, Buddhism, et al

I never "agreed" to that. Whether or not Christianity is on some higher plane is something parents and churches should teach, not public schools.

I said "Teach kids the beliefs and practices of world religions. That's all." I'm talking about educating kids ABOUT religions, not teaching them theology. It's different.

Why do you think I want to "accept any restrictions on introducing young people to Christ"? I don't want any restrictions on what parents and churches teach their kids.

The last thing I would want is my kids to experience what you are proposing; courses taught by authority figures that present their faith as just another flavor available from Pluralism's stock. Yawn. And talk about the evil of banality.

You agree to a public framework that sanitizes their faith of any troubling and divisive claims to possessing the Truth. Somehow you don't see any conflict between your proposal and your Christian vocation. Equally odd is you think your project novel, when it's just more of the same effacing of Christianity from genuine public discourse that has lead us to the current disaster.


I tend to think that there are very few people who could be trusted even to teach _factual_ statements about Christianity without a) distorting them and b) undermining students' Christianity.

I can think of one professor I had for a Latin class in graduate school (it was actually an undergraduate Latin course, but I needed it for a language requirement) who was an unbeliever but did a very good job of teaching Christian Latin texts. We read Augustine's _Confessions_ and the martyrdom of Felicity and Perpetua in Latin. He kept his skepticism pretty quiet and just did the straight Latin.

His type is rare.

In the public schools, among graduates of (shudder) education degrees, I wouldn't expect to find even one. They would either be so badly disinformed and uneducated themselves (yes, both) that their teaching would spread all sorts of nonsense about Christianity, or they would be outright out to undermine it. And that's certainly what's happening with the multi-culti stuff. If they could really just teach the kids to read and write, it would be a start, but they can't even do that. Public school education is a dead loss and worse than a loss. Smart parents--certainly Christians but secular parents, too--will get their children a better education in some other way.

And I should add that for elementary and high school age students, religious education really is best done in a context where truth claims are on the table. They are too young to have academic disciplines (like reading Christian texts in Latin) separated out from truth claims without this causing confusion in and of itself. So I tend to think the whole "comparative religion for ten-year-olds" project is a bad idea from the start.

While I can agree with Robert insofar as seeing the lack of knowledge about world religions as a negative with public education, I am not convinced that it would provide any greater understanding of said religions. To use an example, in my Intro to Philosophy, we read some Buddhist texts. As I was attempting to read it, I came to the realization that it was like I was running a marathon but started in the last mile. Technically, I might be in the race, or at least deceive myself into thinking so, but I couldn't actually win.

It is the actual living out of religions, mind-body-soul, that one can develop an understanding of it. Similarly, it requires a culture that has been shaped and formed by the religion for religious education to be effective. As I see it, all you are suggesting is putting lipstick on a pig and declaring it Miss America.

Lydia, I agree that pragmatically my idea would be hard to carry out well. What you say about potential undermining of beliefs would go across the board though, whether or not it's true. I'm not sure a Christian's faith would be more tenuous than any other.

among graduates of (shudder) education degrees

That made me laugh. A mathematician friend told me recently that he taught a class for non-math/non-science majors and the education students were far and away the worst. He was horrified.

They are too young to have academic disciplines separated out from truth claims without this causing confusion

I just disagree. I think a kid can tell the difference between what they are taught in school about Hinduism and what they are taught about Jesus in Sunday school. We may disagree in principle here, which is OK. Except I'm right. :)

Paul, Buddhism is simple, all you have to do is wake-up, and how easy is that? To our Western minds it seems like a long and painful race, until we realize that it's not. The problem is not that you can't win, its that you want to win.

It is the actual living out of religions, mind-body-soul, that one can develop an understanding of it.

The Buddha said that too.

I don't think I understand what the pig is in your statement, but I might agree. I don't want to put lipstick on it at all, I want to take the lipstick off, so kids can see it for what it is. (I'm kidding, but you put that on a tee for me.)

Kevin, check your assumptions.

The last thing I would want is my kids to experience what you are proposing

I know, and I find that sad.


Robert, Christianity without Christ has been tried - it's called liberalism - and it's legacy is a hollowed out, barren culture stripped of the original Source for it's once dazzling fecundity. Sorry to sadden you, but those pursuing the Truth, aren't going to answer your call to rally around indifferentism.

If you have the Truth, then why are you afraid to have your kids learn about other religions? It seems very strange to me.

I am not proposing that someone else teach your kids Christianity. I'm proposing that public schools just teach the religious history of the world. What are you afraid of? What do you not want your kids to learn about?

Robert, I want my kids to learn other religions and other civilizations from people who are both committed and competent enough to spark the flame that resides within them. Secularists having denied a Truth worth pursuing, are incapable of doing so. Your repetitive responses support my contention.

Kevin, just to enter a slight demurral: Myself, I wouldn't particularly want a Muslim to teach my kids about Islam, for several reasons, including the fact that there's that "taqiyya" thing--The organizations in the West that specialize in "teaching" Westerners about Islam are the worst white-washers of all. Think CAIR. And someone who is going to say outright, "Well, yes, it is part of our religion that we would like to take over your civilization and have people beheaded for converting from Islam to Christianity (among other things)," is a rather scary person that I'm not actually going to have come within 100 feet of my kids.

Secularists having denied a Truth worth pursuing

The one's I know have not denied that, but people do have different values.

I had to look up "indifferentism". Great word, thanks for helping me learn something. Knowledge is something I value.

I guess I have not made myself clear. I do not think public schools should teach "the belief that all religions are equally valid". That is altogether different from what I'm suggesting. I'm sorry you think I'm repetitive, but your claiming I'm proposing things that I'm not. Your claiming I want public schools to teach something I categorically do not want them to teach. So I keep having to remove words you place in my mouth.

So, we disagree. OK, no big deal. (And no, I don't think we're both right.) Thanks for the chat.

Lydia, agreed. Interesting dilemma; Islam taught by a Westernized propagandist or an unabashed true believer. My gut tells me the typical School Board would select a CAIR certified shill for Islam and an ex-nun who found bliss at the altar of the Earth Goddess for Christianity.

And a Reform feminist Rabbi-ette for Judaism. :-)

Part of the issue is that with some religions, you really _don't_ want to be giving a platform to true believers. Wicca, for example. Satan worship. And, in my opinion, Islam.

Of course, the selection of Rabbiette would be hailed given her pedigree; a Ph.d in Womyn Studies from Brown,Chairperson of the Board for the local Planned Parenthood affiliate, and famous for bravely advising Leon Klinghoffer's widow to "outgrow her disabling self-pity"

The real problem with this issue is why would we entrust the very establishment that has de-Christianized our public spaces, razed the classroom to a dreary flatland offering only social indoctrination coupled with training in the sterile art of Consumption, construct an honest curriculum for comparative religion courses? Might as well ask Penthouse to author a compelling Abstinence program.

We're way past propping up structures built on lies and can no longer compromise with the "dictatorship of relativism". We need only turn to the timeless texts and enduring witness of our Fathers for guidance.

I agree with those commentators who have written above that it is important that the average citizen have a fair-minded understanding of the world's most dominant and influential religious traditions. The level of ignorance is indeed appalling. However, these students in the UK--which is no doubt the case in the US--don't have any understanding of their own cultural patrimony. In other words, before we start introducing these students to Muhammed, why don't we help them to understand and appreciate the theology and philosophy that Muhammed rejected, namely, the tradition of rational theism that gave rise to the science, philosophy, politics, and social institutions that made it possible to have UK and US schools in the first place. Why, for example, does a Christian child in Saudi Arabia have virtually no religious liberty while his Muslim counterparts in the UK and US do?

These school children wind up in the news rooms, board rooms, and broadcast programs of American media in which their ignorance is advanced with an air of authority that it should not have. Before we teach Johnny about Muhammed, perhaps we should first teach Bill Maher, Ted Turner, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens about Christianity.

Why, for example, does a Christian child in Saudi Arabia have virtually no religious liberty while his Muslim counterparts in the UK and US do?

Because we are are not afraid of education, and they are. Because we are not threatened by exposure to other ideas or faiths. If our ideas and culture are strong, they will hold their own in the public square. Islamic countries enforce ignorance because they fear modernity. A religious belief that is threatened or will be undermined by education is not worthy of belief.

"If our ideas and culture are strong, they will hold their own in the public square."

Exactly. So why are you banning Christianity from the classroom, except to allow it's appearance in a historical context? Again, you've contradicted yourself by simultaneously espousing openness, yet
constricting the terms of the discussion. You claim theology would be banned. What are you afraid of?

"These school children wind up in the news rooms, board rooms, and broadcast programs of American media in which their ignorance is advanced..."

One cannot give that which one does not have. Our public education authorities do not have an understanding of Christianity that transcends a cartoonish rendering of it. Those calling for the instruction of comparative religions in public school must furnish evidence that such a project would not be another exercise in the erasure of our spiritual and cultural heritage from the minds of our young. As anyone with teenagers can attest, American History, let alone Western Civilization isn't introduced until late in middle school and well after studying Eastern civilizations.

Good morning Kevin, I don't want to "ban" anything. The public school is not the same thing as the public square. I have not contradicted myself. It seems we don't understand each other. Thanks for the chat.

Robert, "The public school is not the same thing as the public square." O.k., elaborate - what is it? You said earlier; "I'm talking about educating kids ABOUT religions, not teaching them theology." Sounds like something is being excluded from your academic offering and it is hard for me to imagine a course on comparative religions which doesn't touch on key theological differences.

I assume Francis' criticism of our elites ignorance also extends to their historical and cultural impoverishment. As children of privilege, they are products of our most prestigious schools. What assurances can you offer that the results will be different this time around for our children? And what is it within our educational establishment that makes your confident in it's ability to teach a subject they have little affection for?

It seems a defense of our current educational system is in order, before a proposal like yours can be accepted. For now, the Scriptural warning to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing applies to those who gave us the ideology of multiculturalism and produced the very results they describe as "appalling.

The reason why Saudi jurisprudence on religious questions forbids the teaching and dissemination of contrary theologies is that Shar'ia law requires it. To attribute their views to "fear" is to give in to the modernist temptation to reduce all non-secular beliefs to some sub-rational cause. In the name of "understanding the other," the secularist redefines the other in order to be able to stomach what modernism simply has no category to stomach, namely, that people really believe this stuff and are willing to kill you and your family for it.

"...the modernist temptation to reduce all non-secular beliefs to some sub-rational cause..."

Multi-culturalists assume everyone is deep down just like them. They see cultural heritages, mythologies, meta-narratives, languages, biology, customs and belief systems as irrational impediments preventing the rest of the human race from advancing to their enlightened state. Sadly, as the leading content-providers to K-12 textbooks and curriculums, their world-view is the one religion officially sanctioned in schools across the country. Their celebration of diversity hides the real mission, which is to eliminate it.

Teach kids the beliefs and practices of world religions.

I'm going to have to chime in and say that this is, indeed, naive. Who really thinks that the average HS teacher is qualified to teach "comparative religion" when so many college professors specializing in the "subject" of "comparative religion" are not even qualified to teach it? Our public schools can barely make the grade in teaching what the current curriculum demands, let alone cope with this proposed new burden which in itself is fraught with pitfalls into which Ph.D's habitually wander. Let's just stick to the Three R's and see if we can't get our children reasonably well-prepared to face the critical reading and writing demands that will be made on them as college undergrads and as adult citizens of the world. The goal of education is to teach students how to learn, which means teaching them how to read critically and write coherently. Given the appropriate skills, they can go out and learn world religions for themselves. Watered down propaganda is what you'll get with a school board-approved "comparative religions" textbook. Our public school systems have long been kicked out of the religious education business. It's far too late in the day to put them back into it. Talk about piling tragedy on top of disaster. Our public schools need more Euripides, Cicero, Shakespeare, Auden and Eliot. No PC comparative religion, and no Islamic indoctrination, please.

Their celebration of diversity hides the real mission, which is to eliminate it.

to paraphrase Chesterton: "All religions are equal--especially Islam."

Right on, Byronicman. (About the schools' not being qualified to do anything good along these lines.)

"Our public schools can barely make the grade in teaching what the current curriculum demands..."

That maybe the result of the mushy, uninspired text's and lesson plans that dullen the appetite for learning. "Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire." Sadly, the educrats differ from Yeats.

"Our public schools need more Euripides, Cicero, Shakespeare, Auden and Eliot."

Amen. D.W.M.'s enjoy the same obscurity as American History in the establishment's canon, so it falls to parents to provide their children with the necessary intro's to the key figures and moments in their civilization's development.

The reason Saudi jurisprudence forbids the teaching and dissemination of contrary theologies is that Shar'ia law requires it.

I don't find tautologies interesting or useful answers.

To attribute their views to "fear" is to give in to the modernist temptation to reduce all non-secular beliefs to some sub-rational cause.

I'm not sure I'm a modernist, as I don't know what you mean in this context. However, fear is certainly rational. If something is a threat, a rational agent fears it.

the secularist redefines the other in order to be able to stomach what modernism simply has no category to stomach, namely, that people really believe this stuff and are willing to kill you and your family for it.

I am a secularist in the sense that a person should be allowed freedom from religious dogma, but not in the sense that religious motivations, political or otherwise, should be suppressed. The latter would be just another kind of dogma.

So, although I speak for no secularist but myself, I think people really believe this stuff and are willing to kill me. A Christian Reconstructionist recently told me he hoped to establish laws so that people like me would be publicly burned alive. I believe this Christian, as he points to the scripture which instructs him. I rationally fear such people.

Someone quoted Scripture to you that indicated Christians should burn secularists alive? What Scripture is that?

"I think people really believe this stuff and are willing to kill me"

You're not alone, Robert! It is called paranoia, or hysteria, or hate mongering - all depending how genuinely one believes one is a target of the christian fanaticism.

Hey, there are people who believe they HAVE been abducted by the aliens who have subjected them to some really strange experiments. Try to contact them - you have a lot to talk about.

Another thing is that considering the multitude of unbelievers killed by Christians for their atheism in the past 100 years you should not take it lightly, wear a crash helmet and do hire a body guard. Make sure he is an atheist!

(You may also want to see a psychiatrist)

"A Christian Reconstructionist recently told me he hoped to establish laws so that people like me would be publicly burned alive."

People like you? Burned Alive? Publicly?! Wow! When and where!?

I will forward your experience to my atheists friends. I am alarmed to see how these otherwise reasonably well informed people are completely oblivious to the peril.

Well, perhaps it is because they are not exactly "people like you". Few are...

Someone quoted Scripture to you that indicated Christians should burn secularists alive? What Scripture is that?

No, just me in particular, I don't recall for what exact offense. He quoted me something from Leviticus.

chistian west, good morning. Perhaps you should read the other posts in order to understand the context of what I wrote. Also, please to not distort what I have said. I made none of the claims you are suggesting. I am thankful that the Christian Reconstruction movement is small, and most Christians do not share their Theonomic vision. I do not believe the particular fellow I conversed with in anyway represents a mainstream view.

Robert,

The context?
In what context does: "I think people really believe this stuff and are willing to kill me" means something different than it seems to do?

Distorted?
What part of your terrifying account: "A Christian Reconstructionist recently told me he hoped to establish laws so that people like me would be publicly burned alive." did I distort?

And, finally, what claims did I suggest you are making except the two quoted above?

You came up with gibberish and I had a bit of fun quoting and commenting on it. What is wrong with that?

Otherwise, good morning to you too.

Christian West,

The distortion was turning my report of a threat into a claim that the threatened actions were actually happening. As far as context goes, "people really believe this stuff" was a phrase another person used. I riffed it and constructed an hyperbole.

Here is my point and my opinion: Some Muslims believe some crazy stuff, and that makes them dangerous. Some Christians believe some crazy stuff, and that makes them dangerous.

I thought it was funny that a Christian would use the phrase "people really believe this stuff", so I borrowed and repeated it to highlight the irony. Thanks for helping the cause.

Robert, I think your parallel is a little too glib. In sheerly statistical terms, a _lot_ more Muslims believe crazy and dangerous stuff than do Christians, and a lot more Muslims support that crazy and dangerous stuff indirectly. Moreover, there is stuff that isn't (perhaps) immediately violent or life-threatening that is bad for Western culture that comes directly from Muslim beliefs: Just to give one example, there is the irrational Muslim aversion to dogs that is already affecting the lives of blind people with service dogs in Minneapolis and other cities who need to take taxis from the airport, where there is a large Muslim taxi driver contingent. (Fact.) In the UK, there are Muslim female medical workers who refuse to roll their sleeves up above their elbows to scrub before carrying out medical procedures, as required by hospital codes. (That one ought to interest you, especially.) The truth is that as a matter of actual empirical fact you can't actually parallel these things. The sheer numbers of Muslims who believe stuff that is either totally crazy (violent jihad) or disruptive or problematic in other ways (like the examples I have just given), and the cultural aggressiveness of these Muslims in demanding that they be accomodated throughout society really dwarfs anything remotely parallel from kooky "Christian" groups.

I read Jihad Watch a good deal, and based on that (I admit to not having read the book itself) I would highly recommend Robert Spencer's book _Religion of Peace_. The subtitle, if I recall correctly, is "Why Christianity is and Islam Isn't." Spencer is very good on facile parallels between Christianity and Islam.

Lydia,

I get your point and agree with you sort-of. Yes, Islam is worse than Christianity from my perspective. As I said, my statement was hyperbole.

I would rather live among Christians than Muslims, given how the respective religions are practiced today.

There were periods is history when a person such as me would have been safer among Muslims than Christians.

You might be surprised on that point.

Robert,

The distortion was turning my report of a threat into a claim that the threatened actions were actually happening. As far as context goes, "people really believe this stuff" was a phrase another person used. I riffed it and constructed an hyperbole.

Your clarification is dishonest and as clumsy as your hyperbole. In fact it is a gross distortion.

Nowhere did I suggest you made ”a claim that the threatened actions were actually happening”. As much as you would love to report such a case, so it may add even a crumb of substance to your anti-christian raving you would have to invent it first. Something like the Tawana Bradley hoax. You are trying to extricate yourself from the pathetic nonsense you produced through falsehood.

So again, in the absence of ”the threatened actions actually happening” in the past 100 or so years , your ”report of a threat” may be either result of paranoia, hysteria, hate mongering, or wishful thinking, rather than an objective danger. Considering your consistent and dreadfully slapdash anti-christian animus, I don’t think the latter is the case.

A word of friendly advice: next time you attempt a hyperbole you should let the innocent and unsuspecting reader know in advance, so he may try to concentrate and read it in ”hyperbolic spirit”, or, even better, skip it altogether.

Some Christians believe some crazy stuff, and that makes them dangerous.

Suure, and some confused village atheists not only want to believe "Some Christians" are dangerous, but hope to make others believe it too. Thanks for making that fact so obvious.

You might be surprised on that point.

I doubt it. Facts never surprise or convince someoneone who has willfully invested in a falsehood.

willfully invested in a falsehood.

Elaborate please.

Elaborate please.

All religions equally bad, but Christianity more equally.

(With apologies to G. Orwell)

Anyway, responding to your comments becomes as pointless as it is tedious. Please understand and excuse if I will not reply to your future contributions to this thread.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.