All state pupils may be taught Islamic traditions as part of compulsory citizenship lessons

State school pupils are set to be taught Islamic traditions and values in compulsory citizenship lessons.

The move  -  part of a package of initiatives announced by Communities Secretary Hazel Blears yesterday  -  is designed to curb extremism.

The obvious question is whether this is a move to push understanding of Islam as opposed to other faiths.  Why should Islam be the darling religion?  What about Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and so many more?

Education campaigners warned however against giving Islam a privileged position over other faiths.

Other plans announced by Miss Blears also drew criticism  -  including a state-funded panel of Islamic scholars and theologians to provide community leadership.

Again, why patronize the Islamic community?

maybe because of the extremists that lurk within the rank and file of Islam who tend to do crazy things like riot and blow up cars (France).  And that’s not even mentioning the ones that do far far worse in the name of the religion of peace.

Whether they want to admit it or not, the fact is that this is a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease.  Islamics are a loud and often violent bunch, so Britain is containing them with some legislative ass kissing.

And here is an interesting fact:  Even some of the Muslims think this is a bad idea:

Prominent Muslims said this scheme was naive because Government endorsement would erode the credibility of those taking part, especially among the young and disaffected.

Another measure will see Muslim children being taught citizenship lessons by imams in mosque schools  -  in the hope that they will be better equipped to resist extremist messages.

Did they forget that some of the Imams preach the most hateful and violent messages?

Many Muslim youngsters in the UK attend evening classes at madrassah schools attached to mosques, where imams give instruction in the Koran and Islamic history.

Great Britain, normally our staunch ally in the war on terror has apparently become the front line of the war of appeasement and Dhimmitude.

First I saw this story about British Courts allowing Sharia law to prevail.  I was initially appalled, though further reading about the details makes this less of a dangerous precedent then the headline implies:

Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain, says UK’s top judge

The most senior judge in England yesterday gave his blessing to the use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said that Islamic legal principles could be employed to deal with family and marital arguments and to regulate finance.

He declared: ‘Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.’

The key here is by “contractual agreement”, apparently.  In other words, if the parties agree, then that is acceptable.  I personally don’t have an issue with that, in principle, as the same courtesy is extended to other faiths, such as the Beth Din courts for Orthodox Jews, and the Church of England consistory Courts and Tribunals.

In fact, the Church of England courts and tribunals have the force of law, which none of the others do.

Two minor worries persist however.  First, Sharia law permits polygamy, which is otherwise banned.  Is this a back door to practical acceptance?  And second, will the woman in the Burka be given a chance to fair chance to accept judgment this way, or will she be governed by her husband per Sharia law?

Robert Whelan, of the Civitas think tank, said: ‘Everybody is governed by English law and it is not possible to sign away your legal rights. That is why guarantees on consumer products always have to tell customers their statutory rights are not affected.

‘There is not much doubt that in traditional Islamic communities women do not enjoy the freedoms that they have had for 100 years or more in Britain.

Again, I apologize, I seem to have been missing for another week or so.  Life is like that, sometimes.  Chalk it up to some needed down time and a family reunion.

So one of the ‘big’ stories on my return to the blog world was the whole Rachel Ray kerfluffle over her scarf?

So initially I assumed there was some dark sinister message hidden in her headgear, but then I saw the picture you see to the right.

And I don’t get it.

Oh, I get the fact that it is somewhat similar to a kaffiyeh, the traditional Arab headdress worn by our enemies in the middle east.

But at the same time, it is a scarf, around the neck of a woman who hosts a TV cook show, and who has never to my knowledge made a single political stance on the war or on Islamfacism.

So the accusations that this was something nefarious fell on deaf ears here.

With due respect to the people who have taken a solid offended stance on this, I have to solidly disagree.  This was a much ado over nothing.

What concerns me is that this outcry has only served to once again make conservatives appear weak and shrill, and gives the impression that they will overreact to the slightest provocation.

While I agree that appeasement and Dhimmitide is a problem that needs to be watched,the conservatives appear to have taken it to a level that begins to become a witch hunt.

When we start jumping at shadows and shooting at phantoms, we set ourselves up for ridicule and derision, and like the boy who cried wolf, when the time comes to demand action for a more serious threat to our freedoms, we will not be listened to, and incidents like this will come front and center as the rationale.

Put simply, there are far more obvious and odious things to get worked up over.  This is what it looks like:  A scarf.  Nothing more.

Let’s state early, I don’t listen to him very often and i don’t like the brand of show he runs, the demagoguing incite the masses kind of talk show.

I prefer intellectual discussions to his “psychological nudity”.

But I am impressed at his gumption, his chutzpah, as he sues CAIR and labels them for what they are.

Savage lawsuit calls CAIR ‘vehicle of international terrorism’: Accuses group of seeking ‘harm to those who speak against violent agenda’

Trend-setting radio talk show host Michael Savage has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the Council on Islamic-American Relations, and has accused the organization of being a “political vehicle of international terrorism” that seeks to do “material harm to those voices who speak against the violent agenda of CAIR’s clients.”

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in California, seeks damages equal to the ongoing donations from CAIR supporters “who expect CAIR to act in this manner in exchange for continuing financial support” as well as “actual damages according to proof.”

A spokesman for Savage indicated the top-rated talk show host would have no further comment, saying the text of the lawsuit itself would answer questions.

The focal point of the lawsuit is a series of audio clips CAIR has been using in its promotions and fundraising efforts.

Those comments from Savage’s show include his criticisms of Islam and Muslims, including:

“I’m not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I’m not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I’m not getting’ on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don’t like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don’t wanna hear any more about Islam. I don’t wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I’m sick of you.”

But the lawsuit maintains such comments, taken in context, are Savage’s verbal expression of the feelings of many Americans.

Darn those Christian kids, expecting they can assemble and associate like the chess club or the Anime Club.

What were they thinking?  Were they expecting some constitutional protection or something?

Leave it to the 9th Circuit Circus Court.

Christian group loses suit against Kentridge

Kentridge High School was within its rights to refuse a Christian group the same privileges as other student organizations at the school, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

The case, initially filed in 2001, was brought against the Kent School District by parents of Sarice Undis, then a junior at Kentridge, and Julianne Stewart, a sophomore.

It was filed after the school refused to charter their Truth Bible Club, preventing them from certain fundraising, yearbook and advertising rights, though the group was allowed to meet on campus.

Why?

By restricting voting membership only to students who had professed a “belief in the Bible and in Jesus Christ,” Truth Bible Club was violating the school district’s non-discrimination policy, Kentridge officials said.

Exit Poll:  Bearing in mind dhimmitude, would the school have had the balls to deny a Muslim group that limited voting members to professing Muslims?

I think not…

 Trackposted to ST, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Big Dog’s Weblog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Amboy Times, , Stageleft, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Nanotechnology Today, Adam’s Blog, Nuke’s News & Views, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, , Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, , The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, High Desert Wanderer, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

I have avoided the use of this term in the past as it is pejorative and far too convenient for my tastes.

But more and more, the ass kissing of Muslim hyper-sensitivity has been irking me, so I see no reason to continue ignoring it for what it is.

In short, when newspapers or other media avoid or censor anything that might be offensive to Muslims, where it is fairly obvious that such avoidance action would not happen if it was say Catholics or Jews.

My interest in this is equality.  I refuse to accept that the media or others have an obligation to handle all matter Islam with kid gloves where people of my particular faith are open targets for scorn, mockery and derision.

So while I felt no particular interest in the Dutch Cartoons, this cartoon, I now do.

And it’s ironic. The cartoon in question is less mocking of Islam then it is of idiotic aging hippies and their fad causes, and chauvinistic men.  So the irony is that the cartoon is treated as off limits because the core issues is Islam, even though the people in it are mocked for being too “American”.

But the mere fact Islam is the core issue makes the cartoon apparently untouchable.

So here it is, and part two will follow as soon as it is published.  Click on the image below for the full size image.

And from this point on, LSU is going to focus on social Dhimmitude.

Source:  Hot Air

 Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Big Dog’s Weblog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Amboy Times, , Stageleft, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Committees of Correspondence, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Nanotechnology Today, Adam’s Blog, Nuke’s News & Views, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, , Conservative Cat, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, , The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, High Desert Wanderer, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.