Crowning Moments in Britain’s One-Sided Culture War
http://spectator.org/articles/61143/crowning-moments-britain%E2%80%99s-one-sided-culture-war
Latest dispatches from the relentless campaign against “British values.”
Send to Kindle
Christians
are being killed in tens of thousands in the Islamic World and Africa. A
Christian woman in Pakistan is sentenced to be hanged for drinking from
a Muslim cup. An official who tries to save her is murdered by his own
bodyguard, who becomes a popular hero, and Jewish babies are murdered by
more Islamic heroes in Jerusalem.
The Church of England, meanwhile, devotes its energies to attacking the British Education Secretary for plans to teach “British values” in schools, calling them potentially “dangerous, divisive and undemocratic.”
The London Telegraph reported that the church, which is responsible for educating about a million children in England, voiced fears that a “narrowly focused” definition of British values would be used to test whether people were loyal and safe.
The government guidelines were drawn up after it was found schools had been infiltrated by Muslim extremists. The church said it had major concerns about the use of inspectors to police instances of promoting the values that diverged from the politically correct ideas of equality and diversity.
It accused the Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, of assuming very wide powers and closing down public debate.
In October a small Christian school in Berkshire was failed by inspectors for lacking sufficient political correctness, and failing “to prepare pupils for life in modern Britain.” This looked like a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing, or more accurately, yet another case of a Tory Government not knowing what its own officials were doing: while the Government talked of promoting British values the school was punished by officialdom for being too British.
The headmistress was questioned by government officials as to why she had not brought in a Muslim Imam to lead assemblies and as to whether children were being taught about sexuality under the Equality Act.
The idea of bringing in an Imam to teach the presumably Christian-reared children about sexuality opens up all sorts of intriguing possibilities.
There was, of course, no suggestion of reciprocity — that Christian chaplains lead assemblies in Muslim schools (whether in Britain or Saudi Arabia) - to prepare their pupils for life in modern Britain by teaching tolerance, diversity, and respect for other religions, for instance.
It is not hard to imagine how such a proposal would be received, though the recent revelations of the sexual abuse of 1,400 British children in the small city of Rotherham alone by “Asian” grooming gangs suggests there may be a need for wider education in such values. Surveys show that a large part of Britain’s younger Muslim population subscribes to extremist propositions, and has provided a large number of recruits for ISIS.
One wonders what would be the response if the Imam advocated death for female adultery, child marriage, and judicial amputation for theft, female genital mutilation, stoning to death for homosexuals and the annihilation of Israel?
Must the pupils at this Christian school be taught at morning assembly that Christ was not the Messiah but only a prophet, and Mohammed was the last and greatest prophet of Allah?
Further, if Imams must leads assemblies, why should cults like the orange people or transcendental meditationists not get a look in, to say nothing of the rather larger religions Buddhism or Hinduism? Furthermore, the whole complex paradox of extending tolerance and pluralism to an absolutely intolerant and uncompromising creed is simply denied or ignored.
Another high-achieving primary school, this time in Lincolnshire, has been attacked and denied its “outstanding” rating by government quango Ofsted because the pupils are “too English and too white.” How can it be expected to have non-white pupils if none live in the area?
Orthodox Jewish schools have also complained about government inspectors asking girl students intrusive questions about sexuality, contrary to their culture of modesty.
The church’s criticism came from its chief education officer, Nigel Genders, who warned against allowing a government definition of “Britishness.” The Church also published a submission to the government warning against such an allegedly “negative” and “divisive” approach.
A government spokesman defending what should not have needed defense, said: “The fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual respect and tolerance were set out by the Government four years ago and have been commonly used since.”
He continued, wetly, “We believe that all young people should develop an appreciation of these values as this will help them to contribute to and succeed in modern Britain.”
Meanwhile, a senior Anglican Bishop, Lord Harries of Penmgarth, a former Bishop of Oxford, said Prince Charles’s future coronation service should be opened with a reading from the Koran.
The gesture would, he claimed, be a “creative act of accommodation” to make Muslims feel “embraced” by the nation. I am not sure that even one of the clerical satire-figures of the late Peter Simple’s immortal column could quite capture that note of patronizing arrogance combined with cultural shame and masochism.
He told peers that the Church of England should take the lead in “exercising its historic position in a hospitable way.”
He claimed further that at a civic service in Bristol Cathedral last year authorities had agreed to a reading of the opening passage of the Koran before the beginning of the Christian ritual. This, he said, “was a brilliant creative act of accommodation that made the Muslim high sheriff feel, as she said, warmly embraced but did not alienate the core congregation. That principle of hospitality can and should be reflected in many public ceremonies, including the next coronation service.”
Perhaps, to make the embracing even more complete and ultimate, the two Muslims who showed their appreciation of the principle of British hospitality by beheading one of Prince Charles’s soldiers, Lee Rigby, in a London street, could place the crown on the new King Charles’s head. Or should ISIS’s chief headsman be flown in to do the job?
What of Omar Bakri Muhammad, the extremist preacher who is said to have played role in radicalizing the murderers of Lee Rigby and who has attempted to justify the killing of those fighting against ISIS jihadis, using Facebook to say that it is sometimes necessary to kill women and children sheltering in schools and hospitals? What could be more inclusive and multicultural than place for him at the Coronation with the ISIS executioners?
The Church of England, meanwhile, devotes its energies to attacking the British Education Secretary for plans to teach “British values” in schools, calling them potentially “dangerous, divisive and undemocratic.”
The London Telegraph reported that the church, which is responsible for educating about a million children in England, voiced fears that a “narrowly focused” definition of British values would be used to test whether people were loyal and safe.
The government guidelines were drawn up after it was found schools had been infiltrated by Muslim extremists. The church said it had major concerns about the use of inspectors to police instances of promoting the values that diverged from the politically correct ideas of equality and diversity.
It accused the Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, of assuming very wide powers and closing down public debate.
In October a small Christian school in Berkshire was failed by inspectors for lacking sufficient political correctness, and failing “to prepare pupils for life in modern Britain.” This looked like a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing, or more accurately, yet another case of a Tory Government not knowing what its own officials were doing: while the Government talked of promoting British values the school was punished by officialdom for being too British.
The headmistress was questioned by government officials as to why she had not brought in a Muslim Imam to lead assemblies and as to whether children were being taught about sexuality under the Equality Act.
The idea of bringing in an Imam to teach the presumably Christian-reared children about sexuality opens up all sorts of intriguing possibilities.
There was, of course, no suggestion of reciprocity — that Christian chaplains lead assemblies in Muslim schools (whether in Britain or Saudi Arabia) - to prepare their pupils for life in modern Britain by teaching tolerance, diversity, and respect for other religions, for instance.
It is not hard to imagine how such a proposal would be received, though the recent revelations of the sexual abuse of 1,400 British children in the small city of Rotherham alone by “Asian” grooming gangs suggests there may be a need for wider education in such values. Surveys show that a large part of Britain’s younger Muslim population subscribes to extremist propositions, and has provided a large number of recruits for ISIS.
One wonders what would be the response if the Imam advocated death for female adultery, child marriage, and judicial amputation for theft, female genital mutilation, stoning to death for homosexuals and the annihilation of Israel?
Must the pupils at this Christian school be taught at morning assembly that Christ was not the Messiah but only a prophet, and Mohammed was the last and greatest prophet of Allah?
Further, if Imams must leads assemblies, why should cults like the orange people or transcendental meditationists not get a look in, to say nothing of the rather larger religions Buddhism or Hinduism? Furthermore, the whole complex paradox of extending tolerance and pluralism to an absolutely intolerant and uncompromising creed is simply denied or ignored.
Another high-achieving primary school, this time in Lincolnshire, has been attacked and denied its “outstanding” rating by government quango Ofsted because the pupils are “too English and too white.” How can it be expected to have non-white pupils if none live in the area?
Orthodox Jewish schools have also complained about government inspectors asking girl students intrusive questions about sexuality, contrary to their culture of modesty.
The church’s criticism came from its chief education officer, Nigel Genders, who warned against allowing a government definition of “Britishness.” The Church also published a submission to the government warning against such an allegedly “negative” and “divisive” approach.
A government spokesman defending what should not have needed defense, said: “The fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual respect and tolerance were set out by the Government four years ago and have been commonly used since.”
He continued, wetly, “We believe that all young people should develop an appreciation of these values as this will help them to contribute to and succeed in modern Britain.”
Meanwhile, a senior Anglican Bishop, Lord Harries of Penmgarth, a former Bishop of Oxford, said Prince Charles’s future coronation service should be opened with a reading from the Koran.
The gesture would, he claimed, be a “creative act of accommodation” to make Muslims feel “embraced” by the nation. I am not sure that even one of the clerical satire-figures of the late Peter Simple’s immortal column could quite capture that note of patronizing arrogance combined with cultural shame and masochism.
He told peers that the Church of England should take the lead in “exercising its historic position in a hospitable way.”
He claimed further that at a civic service in Bristol Cathedral last year authorities had agreed to a reading of the opening passage of the Koran before the beginning of the Christian ritual. This, he said, “was a brilliant creative act of accommodation that made the Muslim high sheriff feel, as she said, warmly embraced but did not alienate the core congregation. That principle of hospitality can and should be reflected in many public ceremonies, including the next coronation service.”
Perhaps, to make the embracing even more complete and ultimate, the two Muslims who showed their appreciation of the principle of British hospitality by beheading one of Prince Charles’s soldiers, Lee Rigby, in a London street, could place the crown on the new King Charles’s head. Or should ISIS’s chief headsman be flown in to do the job?
What of Omar Bakri Muhammad, the extremist preacher who is said to have played role in radicalizing the murderers of Lee Rigby and who has attempted to justify the killing of those fighting against ISIS jihadis, using Facebook to say that it is sometimes necessary to kill women and children sheltering in schools and hospitals? What could be more inclusive and multicultural than place for him at the Coronation with the ISIS executioners?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment