Happening's

Loading...
Loading...

Saturday, July 5, 2008

England does it in schools

surrender that is.....

Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and 'pray to Allah' during a religious education lesson.


Parents were outraged that the two boys from year seven (11 to 12-year-olds) were punished for not wanting to take part in the practical demonstration of how Allah is worshipped.


They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing Muslim headgear - was a breach of their human rights.


Alsager School, near Stoke, has received furious complaints from parents after two Year 7 boys were punished for refusing to kneel to Allah during a religious studies class


Can you imagine what would happen if Muslim children were forced to take communion?

And the oh so typical "aint our fault" ending.

A statement from Cheshire County Council on behalf of the school read: "The headteacher David Black contacted this authority immediately complaints were received. Enquiries are being made into the circumstances as a matter of urgency and all parents will be informed accordingly. Educating children in the beliefs of different faith is part of the diversity curriculum on the basis that knowledge is essential to understanding. We accept that such teaching is to be conducted with some sense of sensitivity."


Ok Mr and Ms Council. Whatca gonna do about it??




“Jihad is from Mars and Islam is from Venus”?

Diana West interview.

Lopez: “Jihad is from Mars and Islam is from Venus”?

West: Ah — you have seized on my spoofy punchline about the extent to which the myth of Bad Jihad-Good Islam has become our conventional wisdom. Such “wisdom” requires us to remove jihad from Islam entirely, allowing us to frown on the former and embrace the latter. This is a dangerously misleading strategy.

I have come to believe that the Western way of life — which I’ll define in brief as life lived according to Judeo-Christian-evolved morality and liberty — is imperiled by the demographic spread and influence of Islamic ideology and laws. Notice I didn’t say the spread of “Islamism.” Or “Islamist-ism.” Or “Islamofascism.” Or just “Wahhabism.” Or “fundamentalist militant extremism.” Over the years, I have used most of these “ists” and “isms” in my column, trying them out one by one until I got to the point where I realized they were serving as a distraction, a form of verbal camouflage that turns our attention away from the ideology and laws of Islam itself. In the cause of not-giving-offense — the highest cause of Westerners-turned-multiculturalists—we have prevented ourselves from undertaking a hard-eyed appraisal of Islamic ideology as a whole, jihadism included, and engaging in a serious discussion of how to contain it.


The problem is, the left doesn't want to contain it, they think they can coexist with radical Islam, so they certainly have no reason to see problems with non-radicals.

Worth noting is that poll after poll in the Muslim world indicate that Muslims believe the “war on terror” is in reality a “war on Islam.” Are they correct? As the war is currently designed, I would have to say yes, they are — although this is surely not the president’s intention. If, however, you understand that freedom of conscience and sexual equality, to take just two basic ideals of the president’s democratization strategy, are seen as antithetical to Islamic law, it becomes clear that bringing such freedoms to the Islamic world would certainly appear to Muslim believers as being part of a war on Islam.


So again a reasoning person returns to the basics. There are certain tenets of Islam that appear to be incompatible with the basics of what we see see as Western culture.
And while we like to think that what is happening in Europe will not happen here, nothing supports that belief. In fact, it is the very opposite when we revisit what our so-called officials say:

McLEAN, Va. - Textbooks at a private Islamic school in northern Virginia teach students that it is permissible for Muslims to kill adulterers and converts from Islam, according to a federal investigation released Wednesday


Now that seems rather straight forward. And yet we have this:

"I would be less than frank if I didn't tell you that the curriculum does contain references to the Quran, which, if taken out of context and read literally, would cause come concern," Hyland said at the meeting at which the lease was extended.


Did I miss something?? Did the Feds say "out of context?" No. Just the school official.

Why am I not surprised?

Link


Slap down

As usual, I doubt you even heard of this interview unless you are English.

Of course the media doesn't want such obviously correct thinking distributed to the massess.

Justice Scalia, a conservative justice who was appointed to America's highest court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, said he and the other justices had no option but to intervene once Mr Gore sought to overcome Mr Bush via the lower courts.

He said that he "of course" regretted that the Supreme Court had become involved. "But I don't know how we could have avoided it. Could we have declined to accept the case on the basis that it wasn't important enough?


Perhaps the most striking comment of all, especially for Demos who want to don virginal white, is this:

"And you know bear in mind that the issue wasn't whether or not the election was going to be decided by a court or not. It was whether it was going to be decided by the Florida court or by the United States Supreme Court, for a federal election.


That's the neatest slap down of the Florida court I have ever seen. Best one, too.






Why do they come?

Some immigrants to Western Europe – and recently in the US – have an unusual record. Historic immigrations wished to emulate the success stories of their hosts. That meant that one wished to be successful under new conditions. A mixture of underdeveloped origins and its internalized value-system blocking development, and the context of the receiving welfare-state’s services, lead to an unexpected new substance. In some ways the adjustment to exploit available aid intended for the unfortunate, is commendably rapid. It also comes about by blotting out the positive elements of the hosting culture such as the opportunities it offers to the success oriented. A need arises to choose between the relative comfort of support for failure extended to under-achievers and the chances and insecurities of careers for talents. Some of those that were originally embedded in a static culture are inclined to prefer the bother-free security of the former. The result is a sub class of society. Once politically organized it is prone to assert, in the name of cultural integrity, a right to immunity from the laws and ways regulating the lives of the majority. In this, it is reinforced by its common language or religion. Dealing with the problem is hindered by values such as in “religious freedom” and “discrimination”.


The above is from the Brussels Journal and is a great summation of what happens when the host country doesn't demand assimilation but lets PC nonsense take over.

And remember that Europe has a lot more experience with the subject than we do.

My take on legal immigrants is simple. You are here. Great and welcome and all that. Now start calling yourself an American and don't use the hyphen.

My take on intercultural sojourners, aka illegal aliens, is simpler. You are here. Go home!