History A Lie!

Public School Madrassa Now in Grove Heights, Minnesota

Many months ago we wrote about how there is no such thing as neutrality in education. Neutralism, taught faithfully in public schools, however, is today a deeply rooted belief in the conscience of American students and has been so for over 100 years. It rules the institution of public education.

There is a record in The Bible of Jesus having said, “He that is not with me is against me.” Evidently at least for followers of Christ there is no moral neutrality. He’s pretty cut and dry. “You’re either with me or against me.” According to Robert Lewis Dabney, a well-known 19th-Century Christian theologian,

“Man is born with an evil and ungodly tendency. Hence a non-religious training must be an anti-religious training. The more of this, the larger the curse. But the American commonwealth has expressly pledged herself to a non-religious attitude. Hence, she cannot, by her State-action, endow or inculcate a particular religion. While the population of some states was homogeneous, this radical difficulty was not seriously felt: the people of a Protestant state, like Connecticut, could quietly overstep the true history of their own constitution, in favor of Protestantism; and there was nobody to protest. But now we have Papists, Unitarians, Chinese, Jews and Atheists by the myriads; and they will not  acquiesce in the wielding of State-power, in which they have equal rights, for the partial advantage of a creed to which they are opposed. The result will be, that their protests will triumph, as they do now, in many States; and we shall have a generation of practical atheists reared ‘on State account’”…

He was speaking of the coming struggle for religious hegemony that would be played out in government school classrooms all across America with the creation of a more powerful State after the end of the American Civil War and with the advent of greater religious and ethnic heterogeneity as a century rich in immigration was drawing to a close. He warned to his audience that, if the Christians of the day pledged themselves to a “non-religious attitude” (i.e. neutrality of religion), then a non-Christian majority would win over the public school because, under pressure from these pluralistic interest groups, the State would not permit the inculcation of a particular religion into the minds of the coming generations, which would leave a vacuum that atheism would fill. He was saying that, based on the cut and dry words of Christ, Christians of the day shouldn’t allow neutralism to operate in their public schools.

Well, that was then. Here’s today:

Wall of Silence Broken at State's Muslim Public School

"Recently, I wrote about Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA), a K-8 charter school in Inver Grove Heights. Charter schools are public schools and by law must not endorse or promote religion.

"Evidence suggests, however, that TIZA is an Islamic school, funded by Minnesota taxpayers."

Read more here...

Aren't you glad the Christians didn't win?

A Reader Explains Why Education Is Not Neutral

Sometimes some of our visitors leave some exceptional exchanges between each other within our posts. It has occurred to us to mine for them and occasionally post them openly for new visitors to read. Here is one between Al Shaw and Let_Us_Reason that we thought was quite outstanding at describing why education is not neutral. Note the view expressed comes from a thoroughly Christian perspective.

Let_Us_Reason | September 07, 2006 at 07:09 PM: Pedagogy is not neutral. All teaching depends upon an assortment of beliefs that bestow meaning to the simple and complex facts that we observe daily. Thus, all teaching is based not on facts per se but on the interpretation of these facts. And not all interpretations are equal. Some are right and some are wrong. Only fools believe otherwise, since their mere disagreement with this statement proves that they think THEY are right in their belief of neutrality, leaving those of us who disagree with THEM unavoidably in the opposite camp.

To disagree with someone's view and call it wrong is not to exclude them from public discourse. It is to test them in their fundamental assumptions on which they build their ideology, and call them forth to prove them right, if they can, which most people can't or won't do. Muslims are very particular about being questioned. This is a safety mechanism in their belief system. It's the pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain approach to reasoning. Such belief systems are inherently weak without the sword backing them up, because they're part of the might-makes-right family of creeds.

They're also inherently confessional. Since they cannot be questioned, they offer one alternative -- acceptance. "Submit. Admit we are right or be gone!" Democracy only allows those in this camp to enforce their creed upon others either when they become a majority, as has been the case in Asian and Middle Eastern countries, or when they become the influential minority, as is occurring in Europe and could happen in the Americas. Democracy is not the answer. The answer is Truth debated in the context of Liberty.

But Truth is not what is being taught in Muslim-revised Western history books. And Liberty will see its last days, if we let Islam have its way in our democracies. Islam devours the very land that gives it birth, like locust.

Al Shaw | September 08, 2006 at 11:09 AM: I also accept, of course, your analysis of pedagogy. There is no such thing as values-free education. Please explain, though, how this should be worked out in the context of state education. Thank you.

I agree with your critique of Islam.

I'm not sure I have grasped, though, what you are saying about the application of the idea of Truth debated in the context of Liberty as it relates to European state education policy.

Please expand.

Let_Us_Reason | September 08, 2006 at 08:09 PM: Al Shaw, I’ll address your 2 questions in a single post.

First of all, Truth is not an idea. Truth is Reality. It’s what is. Unless we find ourselves within a context of Liberty, where we are free not only to think but openly and graciously able to express and exchange our thoughts without fear or reservation, we won’t be able to seize enough Truth to be set free any further from our inherent superstitions and errors. Liberty feeds on Truth, and Truth cannot expand without Liberty.

Muslims are not free. They don’t know enough Truth, and it does not set them free because Muslims aren’t free enough to come to know enough Truth to be set free. Therefore, how can their doctrine be conducive to anything other than bondage? When Islamic Thought infiltrates public school curricula (and I don’t mean when Western Thought ABOUT Islam is taught in public schools), the toxins from repressive, Islamic thinking begin to take hold of the immature mind, leading it to subjugation, because the immature mind is not prepared to debate this way of thinking. On the contrary, it is being TAUGHT this way of thinking and in time will emulate it! Such is the way of all learning.

This is why, if given enough leeway early on, Islam will vanquish opposing views and leave its believers in abject privation -- in their ignorance unable to free themselves. Democracy provides such leeway. Christian Constitutionalism does not. The United States is founded not upon a democratic but a constitutional model of government, permeated to its core with Western Christian Thought, which is fully antithetical to Eastern Islamic Thought. So, your remark about one of the principles of democratic societies being that its citizens are to have equal access and freedom of participation in public life is correct to the extent that their participation is not seditious, i.e. lawless, unconstitutional and destructive of Liberty, which is precisely what Islamic indoctrination in public schools is to our form of government. Europe is rich in Christian heritage. It should turn back and stand firm, lest its golden lampstand be removed.

As to your second question regarding how we should work out the challenge of delivering what amounts to value-laden instruction to the wide assortment of students attending State institutions, much could be said. But suffice it to say the following. The State is an ethical institution. It exists for ethical purposes. It enforces a moral code – a religion – indicative of a knowledge of good and bad. Therefore, it can either force unjustly such knowledge from a majority onto a minority; or it can try to appease everyone by imparting equal support to all opposing creeds, thereby asserting that it knows best how little it matters that the truth of one group suggests the falsehood of another; or it can teach one group the beliefs it wants to learn while concurrently teaching another group other beliefs that it wants to learn, thereby establishing what amounts to State religions. Short of these options, the State can simply secularize instruction and focus only on temporal materiality. But in so doing, it doesn’t stop being an ethical institution. It is still teaching morals.

Thus, there is no way to avoid the issue. Someone’s knowledge of good and bad will be taught in the State institutions. The question is whose?

The answer is the parents’. It is the parents’ morality, the parents’ religion, that ought to be taught by the State, because the children belong to the parents not to the State. But this is premised on Judeo-Christian thought, that submits to the belief that parents instead of the State are the stewards of the children who Almighty God gave them and, consequently, it is the parents who are principally responsible and accountable to God for them. “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.” Deuteronomy 6:5-7

In America this Judeo-Christian premise built the nation. The State is not to interfere with the parental authority to instruct children as parents see fit, and this way is, inevitably given the premise, a Christian way of instruction, a Christian way of thinking. State instruction in America should be Christian instruction. Either that or pull the kids out and teach them at home. Let us obey God, for as the Apostle might have said, “Let God be true but every man a liar!” Romans 3:3

Parasitic Islamism: When the Guest Consumes the Host

Raphael Israeli is a Fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and a professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He has authored numerous books about Islam, including The Third Islamic Invasion of Europe. In the excerpt below from his article The New Demographic Balance in Europe and its Consequences, he speaks of how Muslim minority power seeks to divide and conquer its host countries. An example he gives is how in Europe Muslims “demand their own school systems, in their own native languages, financed by the host state and, in the long run, to its own detriment.”

It is nonetheless important to come to understand what provokes this behavior. Islam will not tolerate encroachment upon a Muslim’s freedom to worship and behave as Allah demands, and will use not only all but any means to achieve the submission of the violating party, i.e. surrender from the host country.

“When Muslim minorities become frustrated by the unworkability of a pluralistic society, either because they believe they are discriminated against or their expectations are not met, they become antagonistic to their host society. This is so much more so when they perceive the majority as having transgressed the limits of previous coexistence and encroached upon their freedom of worship or conduct. In such cases, they use Western vocabulary (freedom, tolerance, democracy, human rights, etc.) to impress upon their hosts that while they wish to play by the rules of their adoptive countries, it is the latter that violate them. In more extreme cases, like with some Muslim fundamentalist leaders (religious actors par excellence) in London, they claim that they came to Europe in order to change it, not to be reshaped by it, or they reject Western attitudes altogether. This sets the Muslim minority, and especially the fundamentalist elements in its midst, on a collision course with the host authorities. Militant elements among this disaffected minority may seek political or cultural autonomy (such as the London Muslim ‘Parliament’).

“In India, Muslims had conquered the land and subjugated Hinduism, but when Muslim power was eroded by the British, Islam sought and achieved separation from the Hindus for the most part, rather than submit to the democratic rule of modern India that would have allowed the Hindus to exercise political domination over the Muslims. When the majority of Indian Muslims established their own state (Pakistan), their 'ulama spoke of the reinstitution of the Shari'a as their state law. There was no alternative to this arrangement if one bears in mind the fact that Islam is incompatible with other political ideologies.

“As Orthodox Muslims see it, and much more so the fundamentalists among them, Islam is ideally an either-or affair. Either Islamic law and institutions are given full expression and dominate state life or, failing that, if the state is non-Islamic, Muslims should try to reverse the situation or leave.

“Despite the initial naïve days of Muslim immigration into Europe, when it was assumed that Muslim minorities would integrate painlessly into the much more prosperous nations where they made their new homes, difficulties began to emerge from the outset, which were dismissed as pangs of acculturation. But as the years passed, the Muslim communities grew, their Muslim radicalism came to the surface, and the illusion of integration began to fade, replaced by the illusory vision of multi-cultural societies, which made cultural concessions to the immigrants in order to accommodate them and make them partners in the system. But far from satisfying the Muslims of Europe, whose growing numbers gave them the necessary self-confidence to defy the system, that only further increased their sense of alienation from their host countries. The Europeans, in turn, sensing that their liberalism had turned against them, began to try to back-pedal, but it was too late and the collision became inevitable.”

Read the article in full...

More Controversy Develops in California Gold Country Over Islamization of Local Public School

“The victors write the history books, the saying goes. But increasingly, religious advocates try to edit them.

"Religious pressure on textbooks is growing well beyond Christian fundamentalists' attack on evolution. History books are the biggest battleground, as groups vie for changes in texts for elementary and secondary schools that cast their faiths in a better light.”

-- Daniel Golden, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 2006

As we reported late last year, the California Gold Country has been brewing as concerned parents expressed dismay at public school administrators fomenting the Islamization of a local middle school by embracing a corrupt history curriculum called History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond.

It looks like the situation is beginning to reach a boiling point, as several of these parents have taken to the street to protest the school administration.

Is this what it takes in America to get educrats to listen?

The Children Trap: More On The Church of American Public School

It is not the state's function to support the educational establishment. If it does, this is the equivalent of state-supported religious worship. It is the re-establishment (compulsory tax-financing) of the church, with a new priesthood, the teachers.

Established Churches

The public schools have long been America's only established church. This has been recognized by liberal church historian Sidney Mead and by conservative scholar R. J. Rushdoony. In 1963, Mead wrote this brilliant analysis of the Christian dilemma over public schools-a dilemma that has yet to be resolved, but which Christians need to resolve once and for all. There was a time in U.S. history when churches were established (paid for) by the state. This ended in the nineteenth century. But when the churches gave up state support in order to secure religious freedom, they lost something very important, Mead says: power over the schools.

Perhaps the most striking power that the churches surrendered under religious freedom was control over public education which traditionally had been considered an essential aspect of the work of an established church if it was to perform its proper function of disseminating and inculcating the necessary foundational religious beliefs ....

And who can deny that these beliefs are religious? Certainly this was dearly recognized by early leaders such as Horace Mann, who frankly stood for "nonsectarian" religious teaching in the public schools. But it was soon discovered that there could be no "nonsectarian" religious teaching in America, because religion had been poured into sectarian molds and had hardened into sectarian forms. Thus Horace Mann's brand seemed to many evangelical Protestants to be suspiciously "Unitarian," and at best what passed as "nonsectarian" religious teaching seemed to many Unitarians, Roman Catholics, and others to be evangelical Protestantism. Even the Bible was ruled out, for it could not be read in the public schools except in "sectarian" English translations.

Here are the roots of the dilemma posed by the acceptance of the practice of separation of church and state on the one hand, and the general acceptance of compulsory public education sponsored by the state on the other. Here is the nub of the matter that is all too often completely overlooked ....

In other words, the public schools in the United States took over one of the basic responsibilities that traditionally was always assumed by an established church. In this sense the public-school system of the United States is its established church. But the situation in America is such that none of the many religious sects can admit without jeopardizing its existence that the religion taught in the schools (or taught in any other sect for that matter) is "true" in the sense that it can legitimately claim supreme allegiance. This serves to accentuate the dichotomy between the religion of the nation inculcated by the state through public schools, and the religion of the denominations taught in the free churches.

In that same year, 1963, Rushdoony wrote:

The extensive emphasis on moralism and patriotism in state-supported schools was in fulfillment of this purpose in their creation, to become the "catholic" [universal] church of the people of America and the moral identity of the body politic. This aspect of educational history is in abundant evidence; it has been neglected only because, while latter-day Puritans helped powerfully to make state support a reality, the schools fell steadily into the hands of the anti-Puritans. As a result, the school continues today as the true established church of the United States, dedicated to a catholic faith which is no longer semi-Christian moralism but social morality and social democracy.

Read more here…

A Muslim Uppercut Against A Secularist Glass Jaw

And we’re told Secularism is not a religion! Check out this video. It’s tremendously revealing. Amehd Bedier, spokesman for C.A.I.R., and Michael Gross, Civil Rights Attorney, duke it out on separation of “Mosque and State.” Let’s study the bout closely and notice the nuances in this dynamic.

The Muslim takes a stance asserting that the believers whom he represents are granted authority to observe holy days (holidays) within the realm of government schools. And who granted this authority? Allah? Nope. The Supreme Court did it through its interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, he left jabs. The secularist counters with a combination punch, by saying that the Muslim is going beyond the established norms of this interpretation and, fearing tripping down a slippery slope, he does not want to grant any leniency to the religious in observing their holy days within government schools, because these holy days have been usurped from Nature – a greater divinity than Allah, of course. So the Muslim feints, by asserting that America is not atheist France, implying that America is a religious (Muslim?) nation, and who does this secularist think he is in trying to censor religion in the land? So the secularist lunges a right hook, retorting with his approval of French atheism and expressing a yearning for seeing the same in application here in America. That, after all, is the religion he adheres to, to which the Muslim responds with a solid uppercut to the jaw, warning in essence, “OK, so you wanna see riots here in America about it? We got them going in France already.” And that did it for the count!

Check out the transcript below, showing the last 2.5 minutes of the debate. I give the Muslim the heavy weight title for beating the Secularist into a panic. It’s no wonder Islam is taking over Europe. Not only are secularists fools, but also wimps! They come to fight with a bat, only to get beaten with the very weapon they wield. And that's because their god is inferior to the Muslim god. Even in America's syncretistic pantheism of religious pluralism, some gods carry bigger bolts of lightning than do others.

The Muslim: “The Supreme Court ruled in Lemon vs Kurtzman that there’s nothing wrong with school officials coinciding days off with religious holidays, as long as it met a three-prong test; that is, it should have some sort of secular purpose, it should not inhibit or advance religion, and it should not entangle government with religion. And clearly students taking time off to observe their religious holidays with their family…there’s nothing wrong with that.”

The Secularist: “Where’s the secular purpose in that? If you let, as my Arab friend tell me, the nose of the camel under the tent, you will soon be sleeping with camels! Don’t…”

The Muslim: “The secular purpose is that you have teachers, who are Christian, Jewish and Muslim, and you have students as well. It would make it inefficient to run the school system, and there’s nothing wrong with doing that. Listen, we’re not in France, where religious expression should be eliminated and we should live in an atheist society. The Constitution ensures the right for freedom of religion. Don’t take that away from the people.”

The Secularist: “Well, I like what the French have done, and I hope that we do it here as well.”

The Muslim: “Well, they have a lot of rioting now because of it.”

The Secularist: “Yeah, yeah, yeah and we’ve got to guard against that here as well. It’s because people want to force their religion into and believe that they should be directing the lives of people where government does that, and we don’t have government by religion.”

Time to visit the dentist for a jaw replacement, Mr. Gross...

The Lesson That Islam Will Ensure Public Schools Stop Failing to Teach

“State-sponsored schools were not part of the original make-up of this country. None of the Founders – all of whom were educated at home or privately – saw providing compulsory, state-sponsored education as a proper function of the central government, which is why education is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. There were no government schools in any modern sense of that term until the 1840s, when Horace Mann’s Unitarians started them up in Massachusetts as what were then known as common schools. Mann had been to Prussia where he learned of a far different view of the relationship between central government and its citizens than our own tradition which sees the individual as special both morally and economically.”

So says Steven Yates, founder and director of the Worldviews Project. The history of American public schooling is of great importance in light of the amount of time that a typical American student dedicates to state-sponsored education. By the time a conventional American student graduates from high school, about 20% of that child’s waking hours in the last 12 years have been devoted to public education. That’s a huge investment in consciousness. Upon which philosophical foundation then are American state schools built and toward what objective do they orient our children throughout all these formative years? Yates continues.

“Prussian schools considered children property of the state, and educated them accordingly. They were raised to be obedient to the state, their purpose being to advance the interests of the state. [Robert Owen was] one of the Anglo-American world’s first influential socialists, who developed a similar philosophy of education. Owen believed that children should be separated from their parents as early as possible and raised by the state. He believed people were exclusively the products of their social environments, and that if nurtured properly by the state, could be molded into whatever was desired. A key to the thinking that went into forming the official ideology of state-sponsored education was that human beings are innately good, not sinful, and that human nature could be perfected by the right kind of educational system. The ideology that eventually developed would hold that children could be molded into willing consumers of the products of big business and obedient servants of government. In short, the aims of state-sponsored schools were to transform thinking, highly individualistic and very literate citizens into an unthinking, collectivized mass. The slow but steady decline in literacy of all kinds was a by-product.”

This was always the objective of elitists who favored the establishment of a potent central government in their pursuit of a Utopia on earth. One of these elitists was Orestes A. Brownston (1803 – 1876). As a Unitarian clergyman, he became a transcendentalist intimate in the knowledge of Owen’s perspectives and those of a host of Unitarian intellectuals. In his autobiography he writes of Owen’s goals in attempting to attain universal public education:

“The great object was to get rid of Christianity, and to convert our churches into halls of science. The plan was not to make open attacks on religion, although we might belabor the clergy and bring them into contempt where we could; but to establish a system of state, – we said national – schools, from which all religion was to be excluded, in which nothing was to be taught but such knowledge as is verifiable by the senses, and to which all parents were to be compelled by law to send their children…” (Orestes A. Brownson, The Works of Orestes A. Brownson, collected and arranged by Henry F. Brownson, New York, AMS Press Inc., 1966, Vol. XIX, pp. 442-43.)

Horace Mann thought along similar lines. He worked for the adoption of the Prussian education system in Massachusetts, which revolutionized the methodology of instruction in use at the common school system in that state and influenced those in other states. He wanted the influx of immigrant in the United States to be uniformly Americanized. “Why did nineteenth century Christians go along with this scheme?” asks Yates, “One of the central reasons was that most were Protestants who hoped common schools would slow the spread of Catholicism in the new world. What mattered most about Horace Mann was that he wasn’t sympathetic to Catholicism! It mattered less that he and his Unitarian colleagues were preaching that man could perfect himself through his own efforts, and that compulsory education was a means to this end. So Protestant Christians, including many clergy, supported government schools thinking they could control them.

“Very slowly, Pandora’s Box opened. A creeping secularization began. A few theologians (R. L. Dabney is an example) warned of the emerging dangers of state-sponsored education. Dabney, who was no friend of Catholics, was surprisingly prescient. He warned that the danger was not Catholicism but secularism, and that if the common school movement continued unchecked, government schools would end up entirely secular institutions. Christianity – in whatever form – would eventually be driven from them. At the heart of the danger was the transference of responsibility for education from the home to the government, an inherently secular institution.

“The official philosophy of state-sponsored education gradually became a materialistic humanism, protected by statism. When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), it made the federal courts arbiter of what the states could do regarding religion in government schools. This opened the door to the eventual court-ordered removal of officially-sponsored prayer (even, in some cases, prior to athletic events), by virtue of the Court’s new ‘wall of separation’ doctrine. This misreading of the Constitution holds that Establishment Clause in the First Amendment means the need to remove Christianity from all public institutions.

“Various forms of ethical subjectivism, relativism and nihilism become unavoidable. They took forms such as ‘values clarification,’ which urged children to talk openly about ‘their values’ but provided no direction. ‘Everybody has their own morals,’ teenagers learned to say (complete with grammar mistake). While the dialogue over moral theories may captivate career academics, the absence of definitive moral guidance in young people’s lives has proven catastrophic. During the past half-century, with materialistic humanists more and more in control, we saw the rise of teen pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections, a cavalier and casual attitude toward sex (and at ever-younger ages), the break-up of families – and epidemics of cheating and other forms of academic dishonesty. In the last analysis, what needs to be said about humanist ethics as that they don’t work. Humanism’s message, essentially, is: we are responsible for our own moral lives, and one should never be judgmental (and never mind the contradiction here). Humanistic approaches to morality, combined with opposition to ‘judgmentalism,’ leads to the idea that all ‘lifestyles’ are morally equal...

“The plummeting levels of literacy have been even more pronounced…government schools are graduating legions of seniors who cannot construct grammatical English sentences, do arithmetic beyond a rudimentary level, and have little or no knowledge of the history of this country or its Constitutional foundations. These results are hidden by grade inflation, recalculations of GPAs, and the dumbing down of standardized tests, often in accordance with the politically correct need to remove ‘cultural bias.’ This ought to concern everyone worried about the status of our liberties in what little is left of our Constitutional republic.”

Why should it concern us? Anti-judgmentalism, a plump fruit of humanist education, is keeping us blind from the real judgment of Islam. We cannot distinguish the road to liberty from the road to bondage, because absolutes no longer exist in the mind of the pseudo-educated mass of state-indoctrinated schoolers, except for the one egoist absolute of “Right is whatever might seem right to me at the moment, and wrong is anything that disagrees with it.” But life and death are absolutes, and Islam is here to ensure that we learn this lesson the hard way.

The God Democracy and Its Priestess Public Education

"We believe that the reduction of the citizen to an object of propaganda, private and public, is one of the greatest dangers to democracy. A prevalent notion is that the great mass of the people cannot understand and cannot form an independent judgment upon any matter; they cannot be educated, in the sense of developing their intellectual powers, but they can be bamboozled. The reiteration of slogans, the distortion of the news, the great storm of propaganda that beats upon the citizen twenty-four hours a day all his life long mean either that democracy must fall a prey to the loudest and most persistent propagandists or that the people must save themselves by strengthening their minds so that they can appraise the issues for themselves."

-- Robert M. Hutchins, University of Chicago President, The Great Conversation

Democracy is one of our great Western gods. We're in Iraq trying to establish one for Muslims. We pride ourselves in having its glory manifested all across America. We teach our children in public schools and colleges its inherent goodness, its worth that merits reverence, and the fear of deriding it. This is worship. And to preserve Democracy, the masses must be educated, strengthened in their minds, so they can "appraise the issues for themselves" to keep them from being "bamboozled" through relentless propaganda. But is this not itself propaganda? Is this not an elitist attempt at self-preservation that schools and the media propagate unremittingly to bamboozle the masses?

Freelance writer Lee Duigon puts it well. The pretty picture of the most staunch proponents of democracy paints a world they hope to make "'an open and democratic society' with a 'full range of civil liberties' and a 'decentralized' decision-making process that gives everyone a say in how things are done. There will be 'elimination of all discrimination based upon race, religion, sex, age, or national origin,' and everyone who needs it will receive '€˜a minimum guaranteed annual income.' It will all be part of 'an integrated community.'"

"Those fine words all come from The Humanist Manifesto II (for full text and source of quotations see http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html), from its section on 'Democratic Society.' Because humanism has dominated American education for over a century, most Americans have bought into the humanist sales campaign for 'democracy.'

"The Constitution of the United States guarantees us a republican form of government (art. IV, sec. 4), not a democracy. 'Democracy' is a humanist idea, and we would do well to understand what humanists mean by it."

Go ahead. Come to understand what humanists mean by it.

The Church of American Public School

"The public school, especially the American high school, with its spacious lawns and playing fields, is a quasi-sacred landmark in every American town, as indelibly part of the community government as the town hall, the fire station, the police station, the court house, the public library. But the public school represents something more than merely a government service or the enforcement of law. It represents a body of intellectual, moral, and philosophical values based on the concepts that created it and expressed in the activities that go on within its walls. The youngster who passes through its classrooms emerges indoctrinated in a body of secular values as if he had gone to a sort of government parochial school. It may not be a very coherent body of values and it may conflict with the values of his parents or religion; but that very incoherence and conflict, combined with a general philosophical confusion, become the dominant frame of mind of the graduate.

Thus the school building itself seems to have its own spiritual aura, as palpable as that of any church with its peculiar spiritual architecture. The textbook, with its litany of questions and topics for discussion, takes the place of the prayer book, dispensing moral as well as instructional information. This is particularly true in the social sciences, where a secular humanist view of the world is presented virtually as a revealed religion based on an unquestioned faith in science and materialism. Thus, the rituals of school life replace the rituals of the church to fill the youngster's days with a formalism called 'education.' No one is sure what it all means, for there is in America as much confusion and vagueness surrounding the word 'education' as there is surrounding the word religion."

Samuel L. Blumenfeld, Is Public Education Necessary? (Boise:The Paradigm Company, 1985), p. 3.

What Does Islam Promise to Save Us From?

Islam promises to save us from idolatry. Idolatry is a word that today sounds archaic. But it isn’t. Consider the concept that the word aims to convey. It is full of significance today.

Idolatry is devotion heart and soul to an idol. What is an idol? Idol is from the Greek eidōlon, meaning phantom, itself from eidos, meaning form. Thus, idolatry is total devotion to a form. Forms lack substance.

Imagine you are at the head of a long caravan traversing the most arid Sahara desert, and your party lacks food, water, direction. You’re pined, parched, perplexed. Time is running out. The moment of crisis lies before you. In that heat, in the distance upon the horizon you discern water! You set your sight toward it.

From the ranks of the learned class rises a fellow traveler. He approaches you with urgency and says, “Friend, where are you taking us now?”

“To that water beyond.”

“What water? I see no water!”

“I see water. Follow me!”

“It is a mirage that you see! You’ve given yourself body and soul to mere form. There is no substance there! I know the way to oasis Paradise. It is me you must heed not that idol!”

“How did you come to that knowledge, Muhammad?” you ask.

“The One God revealed it to me through his chief messenger Gabriel. Now, believe me, give up your illusions, strive after me, and you and yours will have peace now while you travel and Paradise when you arrive. No options. Follow me or die! Your pursuit of a mirage dooms you and those who follow you to calamity, and so would your disobedience to my directive, so unless you follow me you’re already dead! Your only way to life is that which the One God revealed to me. I give you this one chance, because the One God is merciful. Therefore, submit now or die!”

Islam has promised to save the world, by concord or force, from its devotion to idols since Muhammad began converting polytheist Arabs to his Unitarian belief system in the sixth century, right at the time that Europe was also reverting feverishly back to classic idolatry.

According to Edward Gibbons in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, “The primitive Christians were possessed with an unconquerable repugnance to the use and abuse of images; and this aversion may be ascribed to their descent from the Jews, and their enmity to the Greeks. The Mosaic law had severely proscribed all representations and practice of the chosen people. The wit of the Christian apologists was pointed against the foolish idolaters who bowed before the workmanship of their own hands: the images of brass and marble, which, had they been endowed with sense and motion, should have started rather from the pedestal to adore the creative powers of the artist.”

However, “Under the successors of Constantine, in the peace and luxury of the triumphant church, the more prudent bishops condescended to indulge a visible superstition for the benefit of the multitude; and after the ruin of Paganism they were no longer restrained by the apprehension of an odious parallel. The first introduction of a symbolic worship was in the veneration of the cross and of relics.” Images of saints and martyrs followed.

“The Christians of the seventh century had insensibly relapsed into a semblance of paganism; their public and private vows were addressed to the relics and images that disgraced the temples of the East: the throne of the Almighty was darkened by a cloud of martyrs, and saints, and angels, the objects of popular veneration; and the Collyridian heretics, who flourished in the fruitful soil of Arabia, invested the Virgin Mary with the name and honours of a goddess.”

Islam enters the picture to combat this idolatry first in Arabia then the rest of the world. “The prophet of Mecca rejected the worship of idols and men, of stars and planets, on the rational principle that whatever rises must set, that whatever is born must die, that whatever is corruptible must decay and perish. In the Author of the universe his rational enthusiasm confessed and adored an infinite and eternal being, without form or place, without issue or similitude, present to our most secret thoughts, existing by the necessity of his own nature, and deriving from himself all moral and intellectual perfection. These sublime truths, thus announced in the language of the prophet, are firmly held by his disciples, and defined with metaphysical precision by the interpreters of the Koran.”

What idolatry does Islam promise to save us from today? What forms without substance do we bow to in the West? How about worship to the secular state? Materialism? Hedonism? Or, in the words of Nathan Gardels, editor of NPQ, in his article Civilizations Out of Synch, “The problem is not that Muslims don't understand America, but that they do. They understand that the faithless, materialistic, sexually immodest, liberal message -- or meme -- of the American mass media is a threat to the conservative and pious civilization of Islam.

“The ‘material girl’ is the very opposite of what conservative Muslim culture prescribes for its young women. Just as for many American parents Britney Spears is a threat to decency, in many Islamic families Britney idolatry is an affront no less disrespectful than Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses. They know she would not have gotten nearly so far in life if she covered her head and body modestly as Islamic stricture calls for.

“Above all, the impiety and secularism that is the face of America presented by the mass media -- even if the soul of American society itself is a kind of religio-secular hybrid -- is a challenge to a civilization based on faith, a civilization where praying is more important than shopping.”

“This is what the Pakistani scholar and diplomat Akbar Ahmed means when he talks about the ‘media Mongols’ being ‘at the Gates of Baghdad’ -- a reference to the Mongol hordes in 1258 who shattered the greatest Arab empire in history.”

“But this time, as Akbar and many Muslims see it, the challenge is not one of armies and territories, but worse -- a challenge to the very idea of a life centered around faith.”

The lines are drawn and Islam knows what it aims to destroy, because it knows what for centuries it’s been called to save the world from. Do you need salvation?

List of California School Districts Infiltrated by Islamic Propaganda

Leading into this school year the History-a-Lie administrators have been warning California parents of the advancing Islamization of the history curriculum in their local middle schools. Our poster child textbook has been TCI's History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond, which is rife with distortions, half-truths and outright lies about Islam's roots, the real impact it has had on the world and its objectives for world domination by force under the guise of being "the religion of peace." Likewise, the textbook's teacher's manual is a recipe guide on how teacher's can indoctrinate students into believing all these falsehoods about Islam.

During a trial run of this textbook in Scottsdale, Arizona, outraged parents rose in protest against this subtle attempt by influential Islamists to infiltrate their school system through the history curriculum, thereby forcing publisher TCI to pull the textbook from use in that district. In California parents have been laxed. The situation is different.

TCI has managed to fulfill delivery of its bogus history material to several school districts that have welcomed it uncritically and even gleefully because of its colorful series of pictures and illustrations! (Eye candy) History-a-Lie is alerting California parents, determined that truth be taught to their children, to contact middle school administrators if you find your district listed below, where the TCI history curriculum is already in use or will be in use soon.

• Ackerman Elem. Sch. Dist.  
• Amador County School District  
• Antioch Unified School District  
• Berkeley Unified School District  
• Berryessa Union School District  
• Black Oak Mine School District  
• Brisbane Elementary School District  
• Burlingame Elementary School District  
• Cajon Valley Unified School District  
• Campbell Union School District  
• Carlsbad Unified School District  
• Carmel Unified School District  
• Carpentaria School District  
• Caruthers Unified School District  
• Central Union Elementary School District  
• Colusa Unified School District  
• Cupertino Union School District  
• Davis Joint Unified School District  
• Denair Unified School District  
• Dixie School District  
• Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District  
• East Whittier School District  
• Etna Union School Dist  
• Eureka Union School District  
• Fort Bragg Unified School District  
• Fort Sage Unified School District  
• Fortuna Union High School District  
• Guadalupe School District  
• Imperial Unified School District  
• Irvine Unified School District  
• Jefferson Elementary School District  
• Kentfield School District  
• Lafayette Elementary School District  
• Lemoore Union Elementary School District  
• Lake Tahoe USD  
• Live Oak School District  
• Lodi Unified School District  
• Los Angeles Unified School District  
• Los Gatos Unified School District  
• Mammoth School District  
• Mill Valley School District  
• Moreland School District  
• Mountain View-Whisman Sch Dist  
• Napa Valley Unified School District  
• Newark Unified School District  
• North Monterey County Sch Dist  
• Novato Unified School District  
• Oak Grove Union School District  
• Ophir Elementary School District  
• Orchard Elementary School District  
• Palermo Union Elementary School District  
• Pacifica School District  
• Paso Robles Unified School District  
• Piedmont Unified School District  
• Placer Hills Union School District  
• Portola Valley School District  
• Redwood City School District  
• Rosedale Unified School District  
• Ross Valley School District  
• San Carlos School District  
• San Francisco Unified School District  
• San Gabriel Unified School District  
• San Juan Unified School District  
• Santa Barbara School District  
• Santa Cruz City School District  
• Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District  
• Santa Rosa School District  
• Saratoga Union School District  
• Sierra Sands Unified School District  
• Snowline Unified School District  
• Sonoma Valley Unified School   District
• Southside Elementary Sch. Dist  
• Summerville Elementary School District  
• Sweetwater Union High School District  
• Temecula Valley Unified School District  
• Thermalito Union Elementary School District  
• Vista Del Mar Union   Sch. Dist.
• Vista Unified School District  
• Weaver Union School District  
• West Contra Costa Unified School District  
• Willits Unified School District  
• Wilsona School District  
• Windsor School District  
• Yuba City Unified School District

Don't find your district listed above? Check you school any way! If parents in Scottsdale could defeat these infiltrators and defend their children from gross manipulation of their forming minds, so can you!

Washington Would Say: "Washington Won't Save You From Islam"

The news came in fast and furious. Measure G, which several parents joined to defeat in the California Gold Country, passed on November 7 with 3 out of 5 voters favoring the multi-million dollar bond proposal. It aims to fund public schools in the Black Oaks Mine Unified School District (BOMUSD), whose administrators several parents accused of being pro-Islam because of their adoption against parental wishes of a notorious textbook called History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond, well known to be a tool of Islamic indoctrination (Dawah).

These parents believed that their community would understand the reason for denying funding to a school district bent on building more infrastructure where to continue teaching falsehoods and feeding insipid intellectual nourishment to naïve students. But the connection is not obvious, apparently because the threat of Islamization in public schools is even less palpable.

To bring that peril closer to home the group Citizens for Truth in Education (CFTIE) that led the “NO on G” initiative has begun to concentrate on educating its community on the reality of Dawah and the encroaching advancement of Islam across the land. Using home-made pamphlets, placards, brochures, a new blog and signs which they attach to their own vehicles, the members of this group are targeting their hometown and its vicinity, calling out the residents to become cultivated on the subject of Islam and active in resisting its assault on the culture.

Today on Veterans Day they passed hundreds of invitations at a local memorial activity to draw attendance to a free showing of the recently released documentary “Islam: What the West Needs to Know.” Despite having received a lot of flak from several neighbors (but mostly educrats) because of its stand against Measure G, CFTIE has reportedly also been encouraged by the strong support from many local residents who, not being enough to defeat the measure, have nonetheless slowly begun to learn more about the Islamization taking place in their local schools thanks to the group’s outreach efforts in the last 2 months.

This should serve as an example to other communities around the country. George Washington in a letter to David Stuart, June 15, 1790 said: “I can truly say I had rather be at Mount Vernon with a friend or two about me, than to be attended at the Seat of Government by the Officers of State and the Representatives of every Power in Europe.” The first president of the United States knew where his heart was. It was in his hometown, surrounded by friends he knew, not in the heart of the city now called after his name. It is in our hometowns and home districts where each of us can wield our most influence. CFTIE is an inspiring illustration of community activism, and most American in this regard.

It is critical to keep this local focus in mind, for Washington also said in his Annual Message, December 1793: “If we desire to insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War.” We must be ready to receive as much as we give. Do we want to receive peace? Then we must be able to give a fight. Peace is not for free. Do you want peace with the Islamists? You must be able to resist them, and do so at the local level, because no one in Washington will save you from whatever happens to you in your own street block.

"Muslims" Go Trick or Treating for Dollars in Gold Country!

For several weeks we've been tracking a developing story in the California Gold Country about a group of citizens outraged by the Islamization of children in their local public schools and the resistance of school administrators to being accountable for pumping such Islamic propaganda into young minds against parents' wishes.

Now this group of citizens has organized and taken the battle to the school yard in sheer satire, dressing up as Muslims, and clamoring to the community to stay away from funding the local pro-Islam school district.

It was a scary Halloween! These folks are out for getting some real business done and it will be worth watching whether they will succeed at derailing the district's multi-million dollar bond Measure G next week.

Stay tuned!

There Is No Such Thing As Religious Neutrality in Public School Education

Picture a perfectly inert human body. Now give a name to this condition of absolute inertia. Would you say this body is a corpse? If one force is moving in one direction and an equal force is moving in an opposite direction and they collide, neutralizing each other perfectly, the result is inertia. Inertia stems from neutralization.

To be neutral is to be neither one thing nor another, neither force A nor force B. But true neutrality only produces inertia, and inertia is like a dead body. It goes no where. It does nothing. But more importantly, it is nothing. Neutrality is not a state of being. On the contrary, it is a state of not being. It is a state of nothingness, where you’re neither one thing nor another thing; therefore, you’re no thing. Neutrality is an either-or outcome -- “If not this one thing and not this other thing, then none of the two things.”

You might think I’m belaboring the point. But that’s not so. You must understand that in applying the condition of neutrality appropriately to any situation, there must be no presumption of more options being available, as in “If it’s neither thing A nor thing B, then there is always thing C left open to it.” That’s not neutrality. Neutrality applies only when all opposing options, if none chosen, leave no remaining alternative for selection, as in “If not A, and not B, and not C, then none of them it is.”

Why all this talk about neutrality upfront? We’re all very casual about our use of the term neutrality. “Oh, I think public officials should be neutral when teaching religion in schools.” Oh really? So here we have a public school instructor teaching lessons about Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism and Hinduism, let’s say. What does neutrality look like? The teacher would say, “If I favor not Islam, not Christianity, not Buddhism, not Judaism and not Hinduism, then I favor none of them. I’m neutral.”

“Ah, I see,” an alert parent might quip, “You favor none of these 5 religions. Got it. You’re neutral about them. But what religion outside these 5 do you favor? Or, since all religions are essentially distinct perspectives on how the world should run, if you favor none of these 5 world perspectives, then what perspective outside these 5 do you favor? And which perspective then will you be using to instruct my children about the world around them? Is it Modernist Secular Humanism? Is it Positivist Utilitarian Pragmatism? Is it Postmodernism? Is it Animistic Spiritism? What are you not neutral about?”

You see, there is no neutrality in education. We all adhere to some world perspective, and can claim neutrality over a subset of these perspectives. Yet we will unavoidably manifest our own bias whenever the full universe of perspectives available is called into account.

The gig is up. Let’s stop joking around. The more secularists we hire to instruct in public schools, the more Statist the instruction will become. The more Muslims we hire, the more pro-Islam the instruction will become. The more Christians we hire, the more pro-Christianity the instruction will become. The more Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, etc. we hire, the more pro these religions the instruction will become. But also the more religious pluralists we hire, the more syncretistic our children will become, because religious pluralists “hold that their own, self-made syncretistic belief system is ‘true’. In other words, their religion is the most complete and accurate interpretation of the divine, though they also accept that other religions teach many truths about the nature of God and man, and that it is possible to establish a significant amount of common ground across all belief systems.” This they claim as a possibility, though no major religion listed above agrees with them on it.

So what world perspective do you wish to be used in your local public school, now that you know there is no such thing as religious or worldview neutrality in education and several major religions are on the move to assert themselves in the public classroom?

Students Cannot Opt Out of Lessons Conflicting with Their Religious Beliefs says Federal Government

“U.S. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, a Clinton appointee, dismissed the lawsuit against the Byron Union School District, arguing the Muslim unit does not promote religion, and therefore does not violate the First Amendment's clause against religious establishment.”

-- Paul Sperry, Washington DC-based journalist, contributor to Worldnet Daily and author of Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington

Now both the U.S. Supreme Court and a U.S. District Court have dismissed a case against the Byron Union School District. But the controversy only continues to swell. Ponder on the following. How would you interpret the following guideline from the U.S. Department of Education as it relates to religious expression in public schools?

"Students generally do not have a federal right to be excused from lessons that may be inconsistent with their religious beliefs or practices. School officials may neither encourage nor discourage students from availing themselves of an excusal option.”

So if under this guideline school officials can do neither, what is the purpose of the guideline? What then is an official to do generally? Well, read the first line. Generally, according to the Federal government, a student has no right to be excused from lessons on religion that he disagrees with. That seems plain enough, doesn’t it? So the school official by clear mandate must shut up about offering any student the alternative to stay in class or opt out of it and, next, ought to presume that students have no federal right to be excused from being taught material contrary to their religious beliefs. Simple.

Although under applicable State laws, schools have the discretion of excusing individual students from lessons objectionable to them or their parents on religious or conscientious grounds, under the same guideline, California and Oregon students have been told nonetheless as part of their curriculum:

“You are beginning a simulation of the history and culture of Islam. It is important to study the origins of this religion and how it has affected mankind. … It is impossible to study Islam without understanding the relationship between the teaching of Prophet Muhammad and the entire Mid-Eastern culture. It was the early Muslims, primarily the Arabs, who shaped the future of a wide area of Europe, Africa, and Asia. Muslim contributions are extraordinary in art, architecture, philosophy, science, mathematics, government, and of course, religion.

"From the beginning, you and your classmates will become Muslims. You will be a member of a caravan starting from a trading center based around an Islamic city. The task of each caravan group is to be the first group to complete a pilgrimage to Mecca, the holiest of Islamic cities, with the most amount of dirhems (Arabic money). This pilgrimage or 'haij' is a requirement of all faithful Muslims once in their lifetime.”

As you can imagine, this was objectionable to several students and parents. So they took Byron Unified School District to court, since the students were not allowed to opt out of the lessons. But federal judges dismissed the case. Nothing surprising there.

Why these judges think the way they do makes for intriguing reading. Bob Unruh in particular traces the roots of this situation to Islamic activism during the Clinton Administration -- a worthwhile read.