Translate

Showing posts with label Christian Institute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian Institute. Show all posts

Monday, 16 July 2018

Assimilated liberal Jews threaten the religious freedom of observant Jews



Liberal democracy is unnatural. It is a product of power and security, not innate human sociability. It is peculiar rather than universal, accidental rather than teleologically preordained. 


But power is a protean thing; it doesn’t just mean state power but any kind of hold over human beings. This highlights one of the paradoxes of liberalism: the ideology gains more power in terms of popular appeal at the expense of the states that make it possible. This is a good thing to the extent that liberal attitudes check abusive government. It’s a bad thing to the extent that liberal attitudes deprive states and populations alike of the wherewithal to combat external threats when they do arise. Pacifism, as a cousin or acute manifestation of liberalism, is a case in point. It’s one of the ideological luxuries made possible by security, but if adopted generally there would soon be no security left to leave it a choice for anyone but martyrs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b9v6cw


Emily Buchanan:

There was a time when being Chief Inspector of Ofsted meant simply monitoring pupil welfare in schools and keeping a beady eye on academic standards, but as cultural and religious standards increase, the job is now much more challenging. Amanda Spielman became the Head of Ofsted 18 months ago and has found herself at the sharp end, often treading on religious sensitivities as she attempts to exert what she calls Muscular Liberalism in favour of so-called British values in the classroom. She gave a speech last week in which she talked of an expanding sense of religious and cultural entitlement by some faith groups.  I asked her what she meant by that.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/amanda-spielmans-speech-at-the-ascl-annual-conference-2018

Amanda Spielman:

We're hearing from a number of directions that parent groups and community groups increasingly putting pressure on schools to make provision that is very specific to that group, so for example, community groups even that only reflect a small proportion of parents' groups in the school may feel that they have an absolute entitlement to a community language taught, we see more pressure for parents to be able to withdraw children from slices of the curriculum that haven't historically been talked about as being things from which children should be withdrawn as well as disagreements about school uniform policies.

Emily Buchanan:

So why do you think this is happening?

Amanda Spielman:

Well, we are in increasingly diverse world with greater divergence in parental expectation and desire and community affiliation, the job of being a head is harder and it's tougher for them to get all parents to get decisions that they have to take.

Emily Buchanan:

And I suppose with that comes perhaps a lack of confidence in what is meant by so-called British values. You've talked about the need for Muscular Liberalism to be confident of those values but perhaps heads are not so sure what they are?

Amanda Spielman:

Well, at one level I think it's clear, but how it's interpreted, I think it's a question of what is the point at which tolerance of other faiths and beliefs strays a little too far into allowing groups of people to wall themselves off into a bubble that nothing else can penetrate at which point the sense of a school as a cohesive community can start to break down.

Emily Buchanan:

Well, now you've clashed with a number of religious groups, haven't you, from the Muslim Council of Britain and the Christian Institute. They would argue that there's already too much interference by the government in education.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/ofsted-criticises-charedi-school-for-failing-to-teach-about-same-sex-orientation-1.60382

Rabbi Bassous calls all Jews with the flame of the Torah still burning in their hearts to take a stand against "fundamental British values" which have fallen dangerously below the minimum standards of the Noahide laws

Distinguishing authentic Orthodox Judaism from Reform Judaism is crucial to preserving the good of Jewish identity and keeping observant Jews safe

Amanda Spielman:

I don't think that's the case. I am talking about state education that is funded by the taxpayer and about a system that is designed to make a nation that works for all children. Schools have to make a balance that works for all children. Nobody should feel left out, nobody should feel not included. If anybody wants to make one identity that shuts out all identity - tribal identity if you like - then it creates problems for the people around them. So what we're trying to do is to make sure that we properly apply the framework of law and policy that we have to apply and that way we work helps heads balance out those competing interests, those competing cultural and religious preferences to make something that is fair and sensible for everybody.

Emily Buchanan:

Well, can we talk about hijabs in schools? In your speech last Monday, you spoke about aspects of a school's provision dictated by the preferences of a particular group whether that be uniform, curriculum or after school activiities, but why shouldn't parents whether they are religious or not be able to express a preference about what their child wears?

Amanda Spielman:

I start at the other end: we have for many years in this country had a default expectation that there is a school uniform that is something that is simple, age appropriate and that everybody wears so that nobody feels left out, nobody is marked off as different by reason of what they wear, and that's not something that is true in every country but that's something that we have. So if you unpick that then you get into a world where everbody wears what they want and you would probably have little girls wearing high heels, make up and jewellery  in classrooms - things that most people wouldn't be comforable seeing.

Emily Buchanan:

But that's not what people are talking about, is it? A lot of parents feel that what their child wears doesn't really affect their learning and they feel that if they're not allowed to wear the hijab that the government is somehow targetting Muslims in particular which of course alienates a group that you want to integrate.

Amanda Spielman:

And that's unfortunate because it's so clear that this is not a matter of religious requirement. It is very much a cultural preference. Remember, we are talking about very young children here, we're talking about children in the first half of primary school long before there is any age of religious expectation, so if you allow cultural preferences to determine what one group of children wear then effectively you have to apply that to all groups.

Emily Buchanan:

Would you prefer to have an approach more along the lines of what they have in France where religious face coverings are banned in public buildings including schools?

Amanda Spielman:

I think legislating is something that polarises and crystallises dissent. I think it's always much better to work to a degree of consensus and what we see is heads trying to exercise their responsibilities fairly and sensibly and that's what we at Ofsted are endeavouring to support.

Emily Buchanan:

Apart from clothing, what other aspects of the curriculum have you seen under threat from religious groups? I mean there's obviously evolution, but there are others that you have been concerned about ?

Amanda Spielman:

Yes, we've seen children being withdrawn from dance and music and drama. We've also seen in recent inspections things that are quite central to the national curriculum around areas of history, areas of science, thinks that most people would be quite surprised.

Emily Buchanan:

Do you think that inevitably, religous groups and religious preferences and even religious freedom has to be curtailed then?

Amanda Spielman:

I read and Adam Wagner piece in the Jewish Chronicle last week which I thought made a strong point that religious freedom isn't an absolute that trumps everything else. We exist in a framework of competing rights and perhaps what we need to discuss a bit more is very much the substance of my speech earlier this week is to recognise and acknowledge the place where different rights bump into each other and conflict and we would be better off having adult conversations about how those tensions ares best accommodated.

Ofsted's approach to Charedi schools has changed - for good reason Freedom of religion is not an absolute right, argues Adam Wagner

Emily Buchanan:

I suppose the other problem for you if you want to exert your muscular liberalism and give British values more clout is that these British values change all the time. I mean once upon a time Christian school teaching that marriage was between a man and a woman would have been fine but now that would be seen as against British values.

Amanda Spielman:

I think it's really important to stress tha ta vast majority of faith schools do a very good job. I'm talking about a very small subset of schools that struggle with this and I very much hope they can draw from the example of the other faith schools that do it so well, because there are so many that do. 

Thursday, 1 May 2014

Why Trojan Horse Muslim parents don't want sex education and co-ed schools

Because it turns their daughters into sluts and their sons into MCSFs.

This is precisely what the Trojan Horse Muslim parents http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10790441/Guide-to-school-Islamisation-by-ringleader-of-Trojan-Horse-plot.html wish to prevent by banning sex education from Birmingham state schools who are majority-Muslim. There are in fact many non-Muslim parents who want to do the same thing who would support such organisations as the Family Education Trust. http://www.famyouth.org.uk/ Being Christian, they can't act their act together to do so, because we know that Christianity and hypocrisy go hand in hand, and cowardice is the main ingredient of hypocrisy.

Perhaps they have reason to fear. A High Court judge was forced to resign because he dared to support marriage. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526180/Anger-judge-forced-resign-championing-marriage-Sir-Paul-Coleridge.html (We should discover the names of the his colleagues who opposed his views, should we not? Any judge who opposes marriage must be morally suspect, must s/he not?)

Why might Muslims want to segregate the sexes?

Is it because they want their sons to learn masculine values - and more importantly, learn the skills of leadership and character that would help their sons become leaders and alpha males - that are more easily inculcated in an all-male environment?

Leadership skills should be taught in boys' schools, or ought to be.

In a co-ed environment, the perceived alpha male is the one the girls go for. So boys are psyched to learn how to please girls from early adolescence. That is why the morals of this country have turned into the SHIT they have become.

The more I think of it the more I think the Trojan Horse Muslim parents have it right. I rather admire the way to have got it together to try to do what they did.

Lots of non-Muslim parents want to withdraw their sons and daughters from sex ed, because it turns their daughters into sluts and the sons into MCSFs.  (The MCSF is explained at http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/all-spossms-are-mcsfs-but-not-all-mcsfs.html.) Too bad the people at The Family Education Trust, The Marriage Foundation, The Christian Institute, Christian Concern and The Conservative Women don't have the guts to say so, and are secretly glad in their Islamophobic way that the more enterprising Muslim parents have got themselves into trouble again with the liberal establishment.

We live in a matriarchy and all matriarchies are pornocracies.  The pornocracy recruits fresh blood by turning our sons into MCSFs and our daughters into sluts.

Most British women are sluts these days.

Sluts (women who have sex with men not their husbands) tend to become SSMs. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Should-Spinster-Single-Mothers-be-lashed-100-times/417696111659379?fref=ts

Most British mothers are SSMs. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html

'The whites have become black' says David Starkey. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14513517

By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/ann-coulter-on-single-mothers-the-statistics-from-guilty/

The real root of crime in Jamaica where 85% of mothers are SSMs. http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070204/focus/focus2.html

The Bhagavad Gita indicates the position we should take on SSMs if we are to save our civilisation.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-bhagavad-gita-indicates-position-we.html

Are 83% of female MPs morally corrupt, compared to only 48% of male MPs?
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/if-you-hate-gay-marriage-blame-83-of.html

Cultural Collapse Theory  http://www.rooshv.com/cultural-collapse-theory

Remember: all advanced civilisations are patriarchies, and all primitive and declining civilisations are matriarchal.  

A patriarchy condones male promiscuity while a matriarchy condones and rewards female promiscuity.

A properly regulated patriarchy would have an alpha male.

In a matriarchy all males are afraid of criticising sluts. This means all males are lower than the omega female. The omega female would be considered the least desirable female if you are looking for a wife and mother for your children, because she has already given birth to some other man's bastard - the SSM. The deemed alpha male of Britain is its Prime Minister. Is David Cameron afraid of cirticising SSMs, who have the vote? Does any leader of any political party in the UK dare to criticise SSMs, who have the vote?

It is dangerous to allow your society to become a matriarchy because matriarchies are atomised societies - the opposite of being socially cohesive - who are vulnerable to their internal and external enemies.

Who are the internal enemies of any society? Socialists, sluts and their running dogs, I would suggest.

How to solve the problem of matriarchal hegemony http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/too-many-women-have-vote-and-solution.html

Out of two evils, it would be moral and rational to choose the lesser evil, and it is clear that the patriarchy is the lesser evil.

Please help me save Western civilisation from sluts.  All other races and nations who have enjoyed the benefits of Western civilisation should have a care too.

Tolerating illegitimacy is the act of allowing your race to be taken over by an inferior race.  Their agents are the SSM, the cancer of your society.



How chasing the female vote took away our liberty and increased our taxes
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/case-for-disenfranchsing-women-or-why.html

Tuesday, 1 April 2014

The Conservative Woman run by mealy-mouthed Christian hypocrites afraid of calling a slut a slut and never married mothers SSMs

https://www.facebook.com/TheConservativeWoman?fref=ts



The Conservative Woman is run by a female Catholic hypocrite and her name is Alison Figeurido https://www.facebook.com/alison.fi?fref=ts  I believe she is the admin for The Conservative Woman.

  1. I am sick to death of "isms". Of people's hair catching fire over the slightest things, offence being taken quickly and dramatic over reactions to words and sentiments. There are some days when I think e should be made legal and dropped into everyone's tea. Especially the drama queens in our governments and media who exist to create disharmony where none ever previously effing existed!


This was what I said before I was blocked:








Maronite Christian ⁨@GBkishere⁩ tells us the story of his life

1:00  Sharia is the bitter medicine Westerners must take.  2:00  Maronite Christianity explained.  3:00  Adam and Eve 4:00 Phoenicians and z...