The date of my writing this is April 23, 2015. It's about 3:30 in the afternoon. I'm scheduling the post to appear on 4/26/15, because I will be working that day and unable to post.
I just finished posting a rant about Churches facilitating illegal migration with public money, and then not liking it when they are told to do things that go against their religion. There are several thoughts that popped into my head when I was writing that post.
1. Christians are becoming almost useless in modern American culture. Not because they don't have a contribution to make, but because they compromise with the culture instead of standing in contrast to it.
2. The handful of Christians who are truly counter cultural in terms of faith and action are increasingly demonized and ostracized in the media and public forum.
3. No other religious group is treated this way in America.
4. The only religious group facing wide spread social persecution in America today are Christians.
5. We are constantly reminded that the Constitution prohibits the Christian faith form receiving any public support or practice. This rule does not apply to other religions which can be taught in the public schools.
My prediction is that within my life time we will hear America's talking heads proclaim that it is acceptable to promote and practice Islam with public support and funding because the Constitution prohibits "Church and State" not "Mosque and State". Worse they will do it earnestly and with a straight face. Worst yet, Americans so dumbed down by public education and common core curriculum will buy the lie.
"1. Christians are becoming almost useless in modern American culture. Not because they don't have a contribution to make, but because they compromise with the culture instead of standing in contrast to it."
ReplyDeleteTo an extent it's because Christians generally aren't in charge of the culture. That's driven by New York, Hollywood, and Europe. However, many Christians do tend to become of the world, rather than in it. Even then, though, you can find examples like the Duck Dynasty folks who find a way to stand up.
"2. The handful of Christians who are truly counter cultural in terms of faith and action are increasingly demonized and ostracized in the media and public forum."
Yes. Again, the Duck Dynasty family as an example.
"3. No other religious group is treated this way in America.
4. The only religious group facing wide spread social persecution in America today are Christians."
These are basically saying the same thing. And you aren't paying attention if you think Muslims are not also discriminated against in America, especially since 9/11.
"5. We are constantly reminded that the Constitution prohibits the Christian faith form receiving any public support or practice. This rule does not apply to other religions which can be taught in the public schools."
And yet you just proved in your article four days ago that Christian organizations DO receive public support, contradicting your claim here. But I do partially agree with the "teaching in public schools" charge.
"My prediction is that within my life time we will hear America's talking heads proclaim that it is acceptable to promote and practice Islam with public support and funding because the Constitution prohibits "Church and State" not "Mosque and State"."
I disagree with this prediction. Atheist organizations such as the FFRF will continue to oppose promotion of any religion using public funding, just as they have with Christianity. See this case where they objected to a professor promoting Islam -- rather than merely teaching about it -- in an "Introduction to Islam" class.
And you aren't paying attention if you think Muslims are not also discriminated against in America, especially since 9/11.
ReplyDeletePublic schools are having "Muslim days" and events where the entire class is expected to engage in various acts of worship according to Muslim practice. When was the last time a public school class had to recite the Westminster Confession of Faith?
My guess is that 9/11 has been a net positive for the Islamic cause in America. Huma Abedin's parents are significant Muslim Brotherhood fundraisers. Yet the Secretary of State never saw any negative information concerning Islamic activates. Wonder why? The most powerful people in this country surround themselves with Islamic advisers and Islamic policies are advanced in government
Being a government subcontractor and receiving pubic support are not the same thing. Paying people wages to preform work isn't the same as giving a Christian organization money to further their religious programs. I assume you are equating "support" with money. I'm not. Support can be and often is an intangible. A favorable news story that omits key information to present events in a certain light is a kind of support, although you would most likely call it propaganda.
The Dearborn MI police department arrests Christians who display any reference of their faith in the public square when Muslims are present. Public schools bus students to attend proselyting services at mosques. Imams are brought into schools to teach how to become a Muslim. These are all examples of public/government support.
Right now Muslims are still less than 10% of the US population. Assuming I live another 40 years (statistically a realistic possibility providing I keep losing weight and working out) and assuming they are actively recruited and brought to the US as they have been, in 20 years they should be over 10% of the population. European nations that have brought them in start seeing significant problems after they hit 10% to 12% Muslim population numbers.
Lets hope you are right. My children and grandchildren will have a much easier time of it if you are.
"Public schools are having "Muslim days" and events where the entire class is expected to engage in various acts of worship according to Muslim practice. When was the last time a public school class had to recite the Westminster Confession of Faith?"
ReplyDeleteThat is why I said that I partially agree with your charge of "teaching in public schools". The part with which I disagree is that it is only Islam being taught. Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Arizona are some of the states which permit teaching the Bible and Christianity from a historical and literary aspect, as of the time of that report. Beyond that, the report also found, "Although some Texas districts do adhere to appropriate and merely academic study of the Bible in their courses, most still continue to ignore the law. " That means Christian proselytizing.
So how is teaching about Muhammad and the Pillars of Islam any different than teaching about Jesus or Moses or Solomon and the foundations upon which Christianity is built? If one is allowed to be taught, then all should be allowed...or ban them all.
"The Dearborn MI police department arrests Christians who display any reference of their faith in the public square when Muslims are present. Public schools bus students to attend proselyting services at mosques. Imams are brought into schools to teach how to become a Muslim. These are all examples of public/government support."
And South Carolina allows public school credit for off-campus Bible courses, too. Again, it isn't all as one-sided as the propagandists are trying to make it appear.
The Dearborn thing was obviously wrong. Not only does common sense bear this out, but so did the legal system:
"A judge in Detroit has ruled that the decision by police in neighboring Dearborn to arrest a Christian pastor who wanted to hand out Christian tracts at the city’s Arab fest in 2009 will cost the city some $100,000.
That’s the decision following a request from the pastor’s attorneys that the losing side in the First Amendment argument over expressing religious perspectives on city streets be required to pay them for their work on behalf of Christian Pastor George Saieg.
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen said his recommendation for fees and costs totaling $103,401.96 be awarded in the case that was handled by attorney Robert J. Muise.
.
.
.
The judge said in the order, “In this case, the plaintiff received the full relief he sought – an invalidation of the leafleting restriction and a permanent injunction barring its enforcement. … Because this result ‘cannot fairly be labeled as anything short of excellent, [plaintiff] is entitled to a fully compensatory fee.’”
The Saieg case was just one of several that have developed in recent years because of the city of Dearborn’s special protections for Islam at the festival, at the cost of those who would speak of, or hand out information about, other religions.
Muise, in fact, recently won acquittals on charges of “disturbing the peace” brought by Dearborn against a group of Christians after they were arrested by Dearborn police in 2010 for a similar kind of speech activity."
"Lets hope you are right. My children and grandchildren will have a much easier time of it if you are."
I don't think it will necessarily work out that way for them, either. The point I was trying to make is that with the increasing influence of atheism, I expect it to get more difficult for all religions to operate in public schools.
All the more reason to use private religious schools or homeschool, then.
I don't have a problem with getting credit for off campus religious studies for any religious group in a public school setting.
ReplyDeleteA couple of reasons for that:
1. Off campus means that the tax payer isn't on the hook for it.
2. Typically these classes are similar to a confirmation class and do actually involve real "study".
3. Typically the classes are not during school hours and therefore require extra effort and are not fluff to avoid doing actual school work.
4. Typically the classes only provide a limited number of credits and are of a "elective" nature; therefor they are not required for graduation.
5. If you don't want to take the class you don't have to.
I don't know how it is done now but when I had a world religions class in PS it was very matter of fact. The focus was on basic beliefs, practices and some distinction on theology of the different groups. Looking back on it I think that maybe the Hindus got short changed as far as time and depth of their POV.
I was not aware of the situation in Texas. I don't think that one religious group should be able to use the classroom to advance their denomination. I'm not opposed to letting a clergy (including Rabbi's and Imams) member address a class and talk about their faith as part of a class on religion. It makes sense to me that a person who is an expert in that religion would be a good person to present "their side" so to speak. I would want to see that the school was utilizing a method to provide fair representation in that case.