‘Islamic indoctrination’ taken to Supreme Court
Posted on June 9, 2006
Imagine the moonbat screams that would come from the ACLU if a middle school were to implement a three week course on how to “become a Christian.” Imagine that children of all religions were required to wear identifaction tags that displayed their “new Christian name” and the symbol of a cross. Can you imagine the outrage if they had to memorize the Lord’s prayer, the ten commandments, and various Bible verses? The ACLU would trumpet a case against this all across the country, and rightly so. However, when the religion is Islam the ACLU are nowhere to be found. This case has been so controversial it may end up at the Supreme Court level, and still not one peep from the organization that brags about protecting “the separation of church and state.”
Via WND
A public-interest legal group is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowing a California public school to engage in a three-week intensive course for 7th graders on how to “become Muslims.”
A California federal trial court and the 9th Circuit, widely considered the nation’s most liberal appeals court, determined the class did not violate the Constitution.
This is the same Court that ruled the pledge of alligience unconstitutional because it included the words, “under God”. If ever there were a questionable court it would be this one. They have made quite a name for themselves through controversial rulings.
The 2001 course had students take Islamic names and wear identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the Muslim star and crescent moon. They also were handed materials that instructed them to “Remember Allah always so that you may prosper”; complete the Islamic five pillars of faith, including fasting; and memorize and recite the “Bismillah,” or “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,” which students also wrote on banners hung on the classroom walls.
Students also played “jihad games” during the course, which was part of the school’s world history and geography program.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, said the “case cries out double standard.”
“The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the same court that held our Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it contained the phrase ‘under God,’ and yet they allow a three-week intensive course on how to become Muslims, including class memorization of Islamic prayers and participation in Islamic religious rituals,” Thompson said.
Edward L. White III, the Law Center’s trial counsel handling the case, argued that although a public school may teach about religion, the school district “went far beyond an explanation of the historical or literary significance of Islam and placed these seventh graders into the position of becoming trainees in that religion.”
“These young children were indoctrinated in Islam, which the Constitution forbids,” White said.
The Supreme Court will decide within the next few months whether to review the case.
When it comes to Christianity we have seen that even voluntary student prayer is not exempt from attack by the ACLU. However, when it comes to true indoctrination of the Islamic faith , the “separation of church and state” folks at the ACLU are nowhere to be found. Thankfully The Thomas More Law Center is.
» Filed Under ACLU, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
23 Responses to “‘Islamic indoctrination’ taken to Supreme Court”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
I didn’t say learning Christian crapola, I said if it was to the point of indoctrination. And regardless of whether they would be right or wrong in that case, they are always moonbats.
Thanks for the spell check. The ACLU have proven themselves to be moonbats time after time. Being right occasionally means nothing. And, yes I admit that regardless of the sect involved, a particular degree of teaching is a good cause for opposition. There is a difference between recognizing history and its influence and actually indoctrinating people. Regardless, that is beyond the point I am making. The point is that if you are truly going to claim to protect people from something, you should protect it from all sides, not just from the side you don’t like.
What’s the difference between indoctrinating children in secular atheism or in Islam. Americans have allowed the former so why are they screaming about their religious rights now. Is atheism acceptable to God and Islam not acceptable to God. I would like to see some consistency.
Its no surprise that religious people don’t understand make-believe.
“Its no surprise that religious people don’t understand make-believe.”
Make up your mind. People of your ideology say we worship a “make-believe” god, have a “make-believe” faith, guided by a “make-believe” book.
Now you are saying we don’t understand “make-believe”.
Well then y’all shouldn’t have any objections to “Christianity” in schools… y’all think it is just “make-believe”, or are you saying that Muslims don’t take Islam seriously?
loboinok,
Good point!
“Well then y’all shouldn’t have any objections to “Christianity” in schools… y’all think it is just “make-believe”, or are you saying that Muslims don’t take Islam seriously? ”
I’m saying these kids are engaged in role play. In make believe. They’re not actually converting.
In elementary school we dressed up as ancient greeks. Yet none of us thought we were actually become pantheistic hellenics.
Yet, when Christmas roles around there is no way the ACLU will let any school act the part of Mary and Joseph to tell the Christian viewpoint of the Holiday. For that matter they have even interceded to keep them from singing silent night.
“For that matter they have even interceded to keep them from singing silent night.”
But are they singing because they worship? or just for study purposes?
“I’m saying these kids are engaged in role play. In make believe. They’re not actually converting.”
Children playing in Christmas pageants or plays are engaged in role play. In make believe. They know they’re not Mary, Joseph and Jesus, the Three Wise Men or the Shepherds.
They are role-playing not converting.
If those who sing “Silent Night” are worshipping, it is their God-given inalienable right of which the Constitution forbids any infringement of.
Islam on the other-hand, does not care whether or not you are role-playing. They don’t care if you don’t mean it, only that you say it.
“Children playing in Christmas pageants or plays are engaged in role play. In make believe. ”
Are you sure? They’re not worshiping? they’re not doing them as believers? People take the same approach to Christmas pageants as they do to Hannukah or Ramadan rituals? I think they wouldn’t take kindly to the idea that they don’t really believe in christianity and are just pretending.
“If those who sing “Silent Night” are worshipping, it is their God-given inalienable right of which the Constitution forbids any infringement of.”
Or respect the establishment of. Its not that complicated.
“Islam on the other-hand, does not care whether or not you are role-playing. They don’t care if you don’t mean it, only that you say it.”
Do you care if they mean it? or do you allow islam to define it for you?
Role-playing or not these children are being taught Islam in public schools. That violates the non establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. I am against mandatory bible lessons for the same reason. I could spin those lessons and say that the bible is a book of philosophy that I am teaching to the students. I would probably have more grounds as Thomas Jefferson did state that Jesus was a philosopher.
“That violates the non establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.”
It violates it if they’re taught it as religious truth. There’s no problem with teaching kids about islamic, catholic, or greek mythical doctrines. The problem is teching them one as true.
“I think they wouldn’t take kindly to the idea that they don’t really believe in christianity and are just pretending.”
Now you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
I framed it the same way you did and you go from role-playing to worshipping.
I dressed up as “Santa” for my kids when they were children. I don’t believe in Santa and I don’t worship Santa, I was role-playing.
If I were to play the part of Jesus in a passion play I would still be role-playing even though I believe in and worship Jesus.
“Or respect the establishment of. Its not that complicated.”
One wouldn’t think so, but you and many others apparently believe that a child singing “Silent Night” or role-playing is somehow establishing a religion.
Even if that were the case, it would be constitutional.
It would be unconstitutional were the school to do it.
“I don’t believe in Santa and I don’t worship Santa, I was role-playing.”
But you were really celebrating Christmas, not pretending to.
“It would be unconstitutional were the school to do it.”
Or to organize it.
“Or to organize it.”
Wrong.
“Wrong.”
To me, part of establishing is organizing. Think of a movie or a broadway play. When someone puts on a movie or a play, there is more than the actors saying the lines. You know that right? There is a studio, an organizer, etc…
gfactor, your argument doesn’t hold. You have to use the same standard no matter which religion it is. You are arguing just for the sake of disagreeing. If there is any religion we should fear theocracy from it is Islam.
“You have to use the same standard no matter which religion it is. ”
I am. When Christian kids are putting on Christian passion plays, they’re not pretending to be christian for educational purposes. They’re actually being christian.
When I was kid and we dressed up as characters from greek mythology, we weren’t being taught what was religious truth. It was education.
There’s no problem with kids learning about the belief’s and practices of the worlds religions, and there are lots of pedagogical tools to achieve that. The problem is when one is taught as true, or assumed as true, over the others.
Factor,
“t violates it if they’re taught it as religious truth. There’s no problem with teaching kids about Islamic, Catholic, or Greek mythical doctrines. The problem is teaching them one as true.”
Now you are stating that all religions are false. I guess you believe that Atheism is the established religion of the United States. I agree is was established in 1947 by a Supreme Court whose members were all appointed by Democrat politicians. It probably had something to do with the love affair between Democrats and the Communist party who also supports atheism. It does violate the non establishment of religion clause of the U.S. Constitution though, Hopefully American will once more strive for religious and other freedoms.
“Now you are stating that all religions are false”
No. I’m saying that you cant have government money saying that one is true. Thats up for someone else to pay for. Because its respecting an establishment.
gfactor,
You can not have government money saying they are false either as that is also respecting an establishment. The government should have no collective opinion of whether they are true or false. That is what separation of church and state is all about.
“You can not have government money saying they are false either as that is also respecting an establishment”
Well, it can’t pick one over the other. You can teach kids that the earth is billions of years old and was formed out of the big bang No matter that greek mythology says some gods made it, or that christian mythology says one god made it.