Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

They Left Out Terrorism!
Hmmm...maybe that wasn't an accident? Via the WSJ's Best of The Web Today, an article from the UK's Daily Express about a ban on “un-Islamic” activities in British schools:

DEMANDS for a ban on “un-Islamic” activities in schools will be set out by the Muslim Council of Britain today.

Targets include playground games, swimming lessons, school plays, parents’ evenings and even vaccinations.

And the calls for all children to be taught in Taliban-style conditions will be launched with the help of a senior Government education adviser.

Professor Tim Brighouse, chief adviser to London schools, was due to attend the event at the capital’s biggest mosque.

His presence there was seen as “deeply worrying," and a sign that the report was backed by the Government.

Tory MP Greg Hands said: “The MCB needs to realise it has to move closer to the rest of the community, not away from it."

“The presence of Tim Brighouse implies Government back­ing of this report. This is very worrying.”

Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society said the report was a “recipe for disaster."

He added: “Schools with even just a handful of Muslim kids will find they have to follow these guidelines because there aren’t the staff to have one set of classes for Muslims and another for the rest.

“The MCB shouldn’t try to force its religious agenda on children who may not want it. The Government needs to send the MCB packing. Schools should be about teaching, not preaching.”

The report, Towards Greater Understanding – Meeting The Needs of Muslim Pupils In State Schools, says all schools should bring in effective bans for all pupils on “un-Islamic activities” like dance classes.

It also wants to limit certain activities during Ramadan. They include science lessons dealing with sex, parents’ evenings, exams and immunisation programmes.

Here in America, Irshad Manji writes in the WSJ about the news from Pew:

For example, one in four respondents under the age of 30 accepts suicide bombing. As a reformed-minded Muslim, I say that honoring any religion of peace through violence is like preserving virginity through pre-marital sex. Think about it.

She does find some bright spots. Muslims in America are more integrated than Muslims in Europe. They have more non-Muslim friends. And in America, ambition and initiative pay off (well, except when you get caught before you can blow up JFK).

I don't share her optimism. It doesn't take a whole lot of Muslims to bring down our society. Depending on which estimate of the American Muslim population you go by, there could be approximately 300,000 who think suicide bombing infidels in the name of Islam is A-OK!

Imagine if that were some other population that thought that way. From IowaHawk:

Midwest Lutherans Largely Reject Violence

Chicago - By an almost two-to-one margin, Midwest Lutherans voiced solid opposition to decapitation, suicide bombing, and chemical warfare in a new comprehensive survey of their social attitudes.

The Pew Research survey, conducted May 13-19, queried nearly 2,500 randomly selected Lutherans at flea markets and convenience stores across the Midwest. Interviews were conducted in High Plains Twang, Great Lakes Nasal and Flat Ohio Valley Bland.

"If there is one headline here, it's how remarkably moderate the Lutheran community is," said Pew director Andrew Kohut of the survey, which was co-sponsored by the Council on American-Yooper Relations. "It really paints a picture of a dynamic culture in or somewhere near the American mainstream."

Kohut pointed to one of the study's key findings that only 29% of all respondents agreed that "bloody, random violence against infidels" was "always" or "frequently" justified, versus 56% who said such violence was "seldom" or "never" justified. The approval of violence rose slightly among younger Lutherans and when the hypothetical violence was targeted against Presbyterians, but still fell well short of a majority.

"The only demographic cohort we saw where murderous random violence had a majority support was among 18-35 year old male followers of the Wisconsin Synod," said Kohut. "And that was barely above the margin of error. Even then, fewer than half (41% to 46%) said they would personally volunteer to carry out the violence themselves."

Further bolstering the findings, Kohut noted that fewer than 6% of respondents physically attacked field interviewers during the survey.

Now, I'm no fan of any primitive religion (any that encourages raising children to believe in anything without thinking), but of all the religions I'm an unfan of, the death cult that is Islam is the out and out worst.

Posted by aalkon at June 5, 2007 1:08 PM

Comments

Keep going. It's not that we want you to grade on a curve, but we want you to issue grades. Faith is not a uniform, across-the-board horror (though I've been enjoying Hitch's book tour).

Posted by: Crid at June 5, 2007 5:29 AM

I love that Iowahawk bit.

Don't hate me Crid - but a question Amy...

Which religion is more dangerous to the US? Christianity full of "love thy neighbor", "turn the other cheek" and "just war" mumbo jumbo, which effectively hobbles our leaders into a self-sacrificial non-war.
Or Islam, which as a a murderous ideology would fail if we self assuredly destroyed Iran, then credibly threatened Saudi Arabia and Syria into ceasing ALL support for radical Islam.

Agressively taking out States that sponsor terrorism is inconsistent with Bush's acceptence of the Christian ideal of altruism. I feel Christianity is more dangerous.

Clearly if you are living in the South of Thailand, or an Israeli border town, your cntext changes. But as a force in the world, I think Christian philosophy is harming our long term interest in a potentially devestating way.

Posted by: newjonny at June 5, 2007 6:46 AM

Geez...and here I thought all I had to worry about was the punks in my neighborhood, my step-daughter's crappy grades (and absolute refusal to acknowledge there's a problem), and her flirting around with cutting. Now I gotta keep an eye on some pretend insanity trying to put her in a burkha. Yay. Oh, wait...this is in the UK...so I have at least until my next kid (expecting in October) is in school.

Posted by: Jamie at June 5, 2007 6:46 AM

Islam is more dangerous because so many of its adherents want us dead. You can't really say "if we destroyed Iran," etc. because that wouldn't wipe out Islam or terrorism. After all, "destroying" Saddam didn't exactly do the job. In fact, it fomented more terrorism. See the entry from yesterday about how polygamy in these Islamic societies causes violence, referencing Satoshi Kanazawa's work. (Basically, low status men can't get fucked because high-status men have four wives.)

Altruism doesn't come from Christianity. Cooperation and reciprocal altruism are survival tactics wired into all humans.

Christianity has far too much pull in our government, and negatively affects our lives (based on primitive, evidence-free beliefs), but to say it's more dangerous than Islam is patently ridiculous.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 5, 2007 7:01 AM

P.S. The least dangerous dimwitted belief is astrology.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 5, 2007 7:02 AM

Well I think we agree Iraq should not have been in the cards. Iran has been and still is the terror master. I think taking down the Mullah's would go a long way in defeating radical islam and their vision of the global caliphate.

Mother Teresa is the Christian ideal. Altruism and self-sacrifice as the highest virtue.

Cooperation isn't altruism.

And I don't think it is patently ridiculous, you will likely never be directly physically threatened by Islam(although you do spend time in Paris). Christian ideals as you agree have far too much sway in our current politics and affect you now and in the medium term via stem cell legislation, irrationality in schools etc etc. It is difficult to quantify your loss from medicines that will never come into being because of dampened research in one of the most promising fields, to name just one narrow concrete effect.

And I don't disagree with you on Islam - it is evil and dangerous. I thought I would try to have some fun with a rare post where you try to show a little love to the Jesus worshipers. :)

Posted by: newjonny at June 5, 2007 8:13 AM

Hey Amy: When I linked to the article, I noticed it seems to have been posted in February. Were there any follow-up articles done on this subject? Especially from the Brighouse guy who attended the event?

-CD

Posted by: CornerDemon at June 5, 2007 8:31 AM

CD,
I did some digging around and couldn't find anything about whether these policies were anything more than a wish list. Anybody know anything more?

Posted by: justin case at June 5, 2007 12:34 PM

The least dangerous dimwitted belief is astrology.

I'm sure you're right.

But I pass on a stupidly easy time-saving tip: just don't ever bother with any horoscopes.

Skip all of 'em.

You'll never miss that empty sense of either fleeting cheer or unease!

(I actually found it vaguely liberating, until I forgot I ever read them in the first place.)

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at June 5, 2007 12:54 PM

It doesn't take a whole lot of Muslims to bring down our society.

No. It doesn't take a whole lot of Muslims to take down a building (for that matter, a couple non-Muslims with a Ryder truck of manure did a pretty decent amount of damage in Oklahoma City). If we allow that to bring down our society, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Paul Phillips had a provacitive post about the Orwellian-named "Enduring Constitutional Government" today: http://extempore.livejournal.com/185199.html

Posted by: franko at June 5, 2007 2:56 PM

"there could be approximately 300,000 who think suicide bombing infidels in the name of Islam is A-OK!"

There was a survey done in January using the same question about whether bombing and violence against civilians was justified. The sample was Americans -- a cross-section of the country. Compared with the young Muslims that everyone's so worried about, the average American was MORE likely to say that such violence was often or sometimes justified, and LESS likely to say it was never justified.

(For a longer version of this with links, see
http://montclairsoci.blogspot.com/2007/06/who-supports-terrorism.html)

Posted by: Jay Livingston at June 5, 2007 7:12 PM

Jay, there's no link. And yes, there are a handful of Christian nutwads who want to blow shit up. But, there are numerous Imams preaching death to the infidel and a growing network of death squads for Islam. I'm pissed off about the creep of Christianity into policy. But, pissed off and dead are two different things. Hear about Daniel Pearl? I don't think he was murdered by disciples of Jerry Falwell.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 5, 2007 8:11 PM

> it fomented more terrorism

How could you possibly know this? If Saddam and his international links and shenanigans had been left unchallenged, do you really believe we'd not have suffered another Stateside attack by now? Can you offer a shred of evidence, or do you accept the supposition as a matter of --ahem-- faith?

Posted by: Crid at June 5, 2007 8:23 PM

This kind of bowing to dhimmitude is why it ultimately doesn't matter who wins the next presidential election.

Because not one politician in the US is willing to stand up to the PC brigades and say "get the fuck out of my country!" to those who would use our system of law to impose sharia upon us.

Not even the sainted Ron Paul.

Posted by: brian at June 5, 2007 8:25 PM

> Don't hate me...

newjonny, I hate you! Hate hate hate!

Not really, but I think you're wrong about a few things. The nature of Christian forgiveness and the excellence of Teresa especially

Posted by: Crid at June 5, 2007 8:27 PM

sweet Crid,
exactly my point on both accounts. We can't win against Islam if Christian forgiveness is our ideal - personified by Teresa. What would she do in the face of Islamic brutality?
Nothing.
I'm saying Islam is only powerful because the strong have defaulted on our obligation of self-defense.

Posted by: newjonny at June 6, 2007 8:59 AM

Well, we've defaulted on a lot of obligations, and not just to ourselves.

Posted by: Crid at June 6, 2007 6:57 PM

Leave a comment