Islamic Creep

The objection began with a single Muslim parent. Combine that with the ACLU and you can kiss traditional American customs goodbye, supplanted by the new multiculturalism that gets more multi- and less American every day.

(CBS) OAK LAWN, Ill. Parents in Oak Lawn sounded off Tuesday night about what they see as an assault on traditional American celebrations. At issue is whether Halloween and Christmas celebrations are insensitive to school children who are Muslim.

As CBS 2's Derrick Blakley reports, the school board held an emergency meeting Tuesday night.

Comments

[nowingker]

The assault on Christmas actually started with the jews and liberals and began decades ago.

[rwilymz]

I'm not so sure there's an actual "assault on xmas" going on so much as there is a decertification of the Will of the Majority.

We exist in a democracy [democratic republic, for purists] and the majority has a legitimate civic expectation of getting what they want with very few exceptions. One of those exceptions is if the will of the majority actually -- and **materially** -- denies a minority one or more of their legitimate rights. Not asserted rights, but *accepted* rights. Defined rights.

We have religious freedom [putatively] in this country; you're free to worship -- or not -- as you choose. But many have asserted that those who worship in specific ways not merely offend a minority, but violate that minority's own religious freedoms to be free from others' worship.

This is not a right we possess: Freedom **from** others' freedoms. It is plain old garden variety tyranny of the minority wrapped up in democracist pseudo-enlightenment.

If it were being accomplished simply on the basis of religion I might be peruaded that it was a singular attack on the ostensibly christian majority. But it's not. Similar things are going on in other areas of socialization, as noted recently in other topics.

Because minorities are offended by rudeness, we've implemented de facto denial of free speech/press, arguing that certain kinds of rudeness comprises "fighting words" -- i.e., insult of such a degree that one's only recourse is to commit assault. Because minorities are paranoid about drunk drivers, we've denied all their 4th and 5th Amendment rights on the roadways, rationalizing that because the Constitution doesn't mention automobiles, a citizen's right to be secure in his possessions [when the possession in question = auto] does not exist.

It is well beyond mere freedom of religion.

Democracy is fragile and subject to the abuses of those who would use Majority Will, and exaggerate the majority's impositions, to create their own tyranny.

[seekeronos]

I would hesitate to refer to our republic as a "democratic republic" on the basis that that term is used to describe socialist and former communist regimes (such as the German Democratic Republic, or the former East Germany).

I prefer the term "representative republic" to define the political construct of our nation, although in actual practice these days, it is much closer to a "representative democracy", where one might impute a certain malicious quality to the "mob rule" of the "Empowered Minority" ... that is, the overly vocal but concentrated group of minority interests - which can be quite louder than the silent majority of "Joe and Jane Six-Pack" who'd rather mind their business and be spoon-fed the latest televised pablum on Cable or Network TV)

To wit, how a small group of Muslims can singularly dictate terms to a school district to either include Eid-ul-Fitr (end of Ramadan) observations alongside those the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus (never mind the actual Christian aspect of these once-and-future pagan holidays)... or just simply prevent the display and observation of all non-secular holidays, period.

As for "fighting words", hardly a day goes by where some Muslim is not offended by the very slightest thing that those nasty Christians and Jews did or didn't do -- such as commenting on the Quran, not providing foot-washers in public schools for the 5x daily prayers, toilets facing Mecca, and the nonsense goes on.

All this as a "decertification of the will of the majority" is co-tangent with the "decertification of the will of God" as well: who is actually harmed by school prayer - bible study - or even the moment of ambiguous silent meditation on the deity or non deity of your choice?

We were far, far better of when the Ten Commandments were taught in schools, where the first book to be read in the day was the King James Bible, and the day started with a prayer of thanks and praise to Our Blessed Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Today, we worry about when the next gunman is going to stride through the doors of our schools to hose down students and faculty, and while less mortally dangerous but still quite dire, our school boards spend much more time trying to cover their collective rear-end from litigious parents and NGOs than working out the best curricula to produce educated, thoughtful, and service minded graduates... and PTA boards that spend more time squabbling over stupid issues like lettingthan working with the school to guide their children down the right path.

How far has this nation fallen into the multi-culti sewer of division and strife and surfeiting for special protections and rights indeed?

Will it not someday produce a terrible harvest that our sons and grandsons may forever hate us for having collectively shirked our duties as teachers and parents, when this continent goes up in the flames of civil war?

[nowingker]

Sorry, Seek, I can't get down to the school kids starting their day praying to Jesus and being taught the Ten Comandments in anything but religion class. I would be horrified to learn of Bible Study being funded by the government, sorry. Indoctrinate your children in Christian mythology on your own time and dime.

Why do you blame Muslims for this? It started ages ago, as I said when mostly Jews and Liberals took issue with anything approximating a tacit endorsement of Christianity over any other religion, which is why we now have "Holiday Parties" instead of Christmas Parties and only out in the heartland or the south are you going to see a city sponsored nativity scene, here in Blue America you're going to see generic holiday green and red crap and maybe some Santa's and "holiday" trees.

My view is it should be up to the city, town or school as far as displays. If the town council approves spending money on a Christmas Decoration and people are okay with it, the ACLU should stay out of it, if the town wants a Holiday or Ramadan or Passover Display let them vote in like minded people.

[K]

"But many have asserted that those who worship in specific ways not merely offend a minority, but violate that minority's own religious freedoms to be free from others' worship."

rwilymz has summed up the situation rather well. We are edging toward a right not to be offended or upset by those who differ from us by race, sex, sexual preference, legal residence, religion, or cultural practice. Or who knows what else, the list is open-ended.

The difficulties with this are immense; "offended" is not well defined. Is it proved when someone asserts they are offended? Is evidence needed? Do some people have more right to be offended than others? Do some people have more right to offend than others?

The test answers are: "almost always", "probably not", "feelings trump evidence", "yes", and "yes".

Women have owned the term "uncomfortable" in recent years: a man must stop anything a woman says makes her uncomfortable. But each woman can apply it to some men and not others.

A feeling, "offense", has been equated with "damage". "Damage" can be assessed. It is material even when it must be inferred indirectly. But even damage is being redefined. It no longer needs to be demonstrated; it can exist if someone believes it exists or should exist.

Yes, proving "offense" now requires only opinion or belief. And "damage" too.

Smoking damages lungs. True. Can it damage a non-smoker? Sometimes. Does it damage every non-smoker? Tougher question, I can find an expert who will say "yes, any smoker anywhere in the world damages someone on the other side of the Earth".

To the smoking question many people would say "no, the smoke damage and/or offense has a limit somewhere". Well, in Santa Monica the limit is fifty feet away outdoors. Anyone can walk up to a smoker and demand smoking cease. The smoker may agreeably move well away from anyone else, it won't help, the "offended" person has the right to follow and keep being "offended". I don't smoke but I saw it happen.

Our majestic Law wades ever deeper in the quagmire of mind reading. And worse, it now proclaims acts were retroactively unlawful simply because someone said so. The offender need not been reasonably aware of what would irritate the offended.

Having no need for evidence frees the police, judge, and jury to do anything. What matters is opinion and expediency.

These changes do not happen overnight or in every place at the same pace. But the trend is to rule by "feelings".

Historically where "feelings" rule, it is the "rulers feelings" that rule. The ruler need only "feel" irritated.

[seekeronos]

I won't even agitate for restoring things back to the way they were at the dawn of the 20th century vis-a-vis teaching the kids the right way to go.

But again I ask, what is wrong with the Ten Commandments, particularly:

"Thou shalt not kill"
"Honor thy father and thy mother, that your days may be long in the land..."
"Thou shalt not bear false witness..." (don't lie)
"Thou shalt not steal"
"Thou shalt remember to keep holy the sabbath day..." (take a day off for rest once a week at the very least)
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods or thy neighbour's wife"
"Thou shalt not commit adultery"

Tell me, what is wrong with teaching kids about these?

[seekeronos]

By the same token, NW:

One could reasonably claim that having our children forcibly subjected to the "anything goes-I'm-okay-if-you're-okay" tradition of (a)moral relativism, and that you should teach your children about the Darwinist mythology of biogenesis "on your own time".

[rwilymz]

"I would be horrified to learn of Bible Study being funded by the government, sorry."

Me too. But that portion of the Constitution which was rationalized as prohibiting "bible study" doesn't. It prohibits "establishment', but there is no demonstration, let alone proof, that the mere existence of "bible study" *establishes* squat.

Hell, with the way actual, unquoted bible study affected me and huge wads of others, it would seem to be that "bible study" has little to no correlation to the future religiousness of the individuals afflicted with it. It would seem, therefore, that "bible study" would be like Western Civilization or American Literature for most students: a class you sit through and learn nothing from. Almost none of the students studying AmLit grew up to be literate let alone American Literarians...

"it should be up to the city, town or school as far as displays."

Bingo. And if the city has a little of all religions, why, then, use the courthouse lawn for the appropriate display of each in season.

[nowingker]

One could reasonably claim that having our children forcibly subjected to the "anything goes-I'm-okay-if-you're-okay" tradition of (a)moral relativism, and that you should teach your children about the Darwinist mythology of biogenesis "on your own time".
--------------------------

I agree they should keep things like "I have two mommies" out of the schools and stop trying to "teach" tolerance and focus on teaching history, logic, math and english.

However, evolution is science not mythology.

When you've got provable scientific evidence that god created the universe you would have a valid point, teaching "god created the universe because its too complex to be random" doesn't cut it outside of religion class.

[seekeronos]

"--- When you've got provable scientific evidence that god created the universe... ---"

I might say the same for Darwinist evolution. Either way, it takes a great deal of faith to accept either concept as true gospel. I find it rather incredible to think that we are just lucky descendants of some lucky blobs of amino-glop that happened to turn into self-replicating DNA. Just like you might think it is incredible that God created Man in His own image, as a special creation apart from the animals, plants, etc.

Besides, there is evidence which tends to cast doubt on Darwinism, but since we are likely to be quite intractable on this issue, I'll leave it to you to check it out for now.

As for the teaching of practical matters over all the psychotic social engineering that makes up much of modern basic education these days, I'm with you, for the most part.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wanna know what I'd like to see taught in primary/secondary schools?

(a) Math - especially applied math-intensive courses like physics and calculus (pre-engineering)

(b) Literacy i.e. "reading and writing" - in English first, then Spanish (no comment here, but Spanish language and no small amount of cultural pressure WILL be a fact of life for everyone born in this decade and the next)

(c) Practical Skills -

--- Horsemanship (cuz the oil won't last forever, and we may well need to re-learn some of the lost arts of the West)

--- Marksmanship and Firearms safety - how to properly use, maintain, and honor the lethal potential of your firearms.

--- Basic Automotive Mechanics.

--- Horticulture and preservation of non-hybrid seed stocks; animal husbandry

--- Basic Self Defense (modeled on some solid combinations of fighting arts, Krav Maga, Brazilian Juijitsu, some borrowings from old koryū styles)

--- Carpentry and Welding at a basic level, then moving along that line to electronics and robotics as applicable)

(d) Basic Finance and Economics

(e) Moral Instruction: Biblical Studies with a view toward evangelising the lost (Christian-dominant communities) or Studies of the lives of the Founding Fathers and their writings, with moral inputs coming from certain Classical works (strict Secularist dominant communities)

(f) Applied Sciences (stuff that leads to career specific application of science)

(g) Non-Applied Science (research stuff - to include different and perhaps _opposing_ ideas such as Theistic Creation, Theistic Evolution, Materialistic (Darwin) Evolution, and other ideas. Because: None of us were there to see "Day One" when life came to be.

At the end of all this however... the decision for how a community gets to educate its children should begin and end with that community, with a minimum of interference from higher government aside from setting clear-cut standards, perhaps at the state level.