Translate

Showing posts with label religious freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religious freedom. 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, 21 April 2016

Is the reason why the Queen won't abdicate because she thinks Charles will convert to Islam as Charles III?

Let's assume that's the real reason, so let's assume that Charles is king and has just announced that he has converted to Islam, daring everyone to do their worst. Let us now deal with this constitutional crisis.

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Under Article 9 which includes everyone and this must include reigning monarchs, Charles has the right to freedom of religion.

They would force him to abdicate, of course, but he will have made his point.

Or, he could persuade the House to amend the Act of Settlement.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2/section/III

He could put the following questions to the House:

Q. Why can't Charles III be Muslim?

A. Because the constitution says no non-Anglican may be included in the succession.

Q. Why can't the constitution be changed then?

A. Because the House doesn't want to change it.

Q. Why doesn't the House want to change the constitution?

A.. Because the House doesn't want to rock the boat.

Q. Why doesn't the House want to rock the boat?

A. Because the House doesn't want to frighten the horses.

Q. Who might these frightened horses be?

A. They would be Islamophobic frightened horses.

Q. Which is worse? 1) frightened Islamophobic horses 2) the withholding of religious freedom to a reigning British king

A.  Frightened Islamophobic horses everywhere would run wild endangering lives and property while no one cares about withholding a king's religious freedom.

Q.  Fine, if you won't amend the Act of Settlement then I will have to abdicate in favour of William the Air Ambulance Pilot with the plebeian accent and in need desperate need of elocution lessons as you wish, but I would like you to give reasons. So you are saying that the preferences of Islamophobic commoners ignoramuses trumps a king's right to religious freedom?

A.  Well, Anglicanism has been the national religion of England since Henry VIII.

Q.  What was the national religion of England during the reign of Bloody Mary, his eldest daughter?

A.  We cannot deny it was Catholicism.

Q.  What was the religion of England during the reign of Elizabeth I, his younger daughter?

A.  We cannot deny that it reverted to Anglicanism.

Q.  The institution of the monarchy survived despite these changes of monarchs and the national religion, has it not?

A.  We cannot deny that the monarchy has indeed survived despite these religious upheavals.

Q.  Don't you think it can survive another one then?

A.  Perhaps it can but we don't want to take the risk.

Q.  For the monarchy to be relevant, it has to be deal with the concerns of ordinary Britons. Islam is much on their minds and it is time for a national debate. The view of these Islamophobic and hypocritical ignoramuses is that Christianity is a better religion than Islam, is it not?

A.  We cannot deny this, but why do you call them hypocritical?

Q.  I call these Islamophobic ignoramuses hypocritical because they are not even Christian. They prefer Christianity to Islam precisely because the Church of England fails to condemn the sexual liberation they all enjoy. Is this not so?

A.  We cannot deny this, but there are those who love church traditions, its music and architecture and suchlike.

Q.  They can still have those things even if I'm Muslim. My son the Air Ambulance Pilot can be crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury when his time comes, if the Church of England is still in existence by then, or he can convert to Judaism or Buddhism as he pleases. Any more objections?

A.  How are we going to sell this to the people who will be ranting and raving in their predictably Islamophobic way?  

Q.  You could point out to them that if Henry VIII had been Muslim he could have just taken another wife when Catherine of Aragon failed to give him a son. Or divorced her and married Anne Boleyn. It just wouldn't have been that big a deal. Think of all the bloodshed that would have been avoided if Henry VIII had been Muslim. The European Wars of Religion were about Christians killing each other. The Inquisition would have been avoided too. As for Edward VIII, he could have married the divorced woman he loved and kept the crown without the hypocritical establishment having fits of the vapours. There is a whole chapter in the Koran just about divorce, you know.

A.  Point taken, Sir. 

Saturday, 22 August 2015

Anjem Choudary's message to those who would give up the First Amendment/Article 9 to suppress Islam


Choudary is daring Islamophobes to give up the First Amendment and Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights in order to suppress Islam. Doing this would be analogous to putting your king in check in a game of chess, but the degenerate West is no longer capable of understanding rules, the purpose of rules, fair play nor does it value the hard-won liberties their ancestors fought for.

What kind of society will the West be after it gives up this most fundamental of liberal principles? It will no longer be liberal, of course.

What is liberalism anyway?

It would appear to be a gateway ideology to the dysgenic abomination of gay marriage.

Heads liberals lose, tails the Islamists win?


Choudary knows that hypocritical Islamophobes do not value these liberal principles because they are now too degenerate to grasp the concept of a principle, let alone know what they are for. What would be the West be like after it has given up all its liberal principles in order to suppress the Islamists? What would be the point of giving up these liberal principles just to prop up a demented matriarchy? They might as well give up these principles to re-establish a rational patriarchy.

He is saying - and of course I paraphrase:

"You don't believe in any of this crap either, do you? You will keep changing your laws in your attempts to criminalise what I say in order to suppress my message. You keep changing your laws to hide how useless and wrong they are, even though you continue to laud the rule of law as a fundamental British value, but you don't believe in that either, not really. If you imprison me, I shall be a martyr to free speech, but if your courts find me not guilty of inviting support for terrorism then my reputation is enhanced. I have in any case only expressed approval of Islamic State but this is what you want to in fact criminalise me for, without quite daring to say so. You cannot win this argument, so bring it on."

(Sharia law is of course a species of the rule of law, in case you didn't know.)

God is with those who are patient and persevere, and He does not change the lot of those who do not change what is in their hearts.

http://islamawakened.com/quran/2/153/
http://quran.com/13/11

http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/20/the-return-of-patriarchy/

What is in the hearts of so many Westerners that God if He exists would wish changed? I imagine it would be the irrational belief that liberalism and feminism is absolutely right and Islam absolutely wrong without an honest thoroughgoing debate and investigation into the policies that led us to this pretty pass.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/the-future-of-free-speech-in-britain.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/should-it-be-crime-to-express-approval.html

Saturday, 27 June 2015

Possibly murderous and genocidal "libertarianesque" ex-Kipper says what he would like to do to Muslims


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...