Rikes! Rits Ra Raria Reep!
As the Daily Mail and Michelle Malkin would have it, there is a nationwide rash of adopting Shari’a law in Britain, including not teaching the Holocaust. (Lisa, in comments to this post, points out that I missed the fact that the Mail article does claim that the Holocaust drops were to avoid “offending” Muslims - before it claims otherwise.)
Sure, it’s happened. Here’s the report (thanks to ahem in comments at the other post):
For example, a history department in a northern city recently avoided selecting the Holocaust as a topic for GCSE coursework for fear of confronting anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils. In another department, teachers were strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict and
the history of the state of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination. In another history department, the Holocaust was taught despite anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils, but the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 because their balanced treatment of the topic would have directly challenged what was taught in some local mosques.Where teachers model the processes of critical enquiry that characterise the adult discipline of the subject, history teaching may well clash with a narrow and highly partisan version of family or communal history in which some pupils have been reared. In some settings, emotive and controversial history is avoided because it is considered irrelevant to the needs of pupils. In an all-white school, little black history may be taught at all on the grounds that there are no black
pupils to whom it would be relevant.
So it appears they didn’t drop the Holocaust, they simply chose not to teach it. It should be taught, of course, but in GCSE coursework, the courses of study are very narrow compared to US classes (at least they were in 1990 when I did a year of them) and, as cowardly as the choice may have been, there are certainly many controversial topics not being taught in favor of the Holocaust in other schools.
Moreover, the examples given above, as you can see, include pressure by Christian parents - the very thing implied by Malkin but not stated in the report about the Holocaust - about other aspects of Middle Eastern relations. So: No pressure by Muslim parents, as implied by Malkin; Pressure by Christian parents, which causes no outcry.
Again, here’s the thing: Like I said in my earlier post, the Holocaust should be taught. So should the Arab-Israeli conflict. Religious concerns should never dictate curriculum in public schools.
And I was a bit careless in rushing to criticize Malkin, without reading the Daily Mail article carefully enough. Both her statement and my statement were justified by the article, giving Americans unfamiliar with the British press some idea of just how much to trust the Daily Mail.
But Malkin has a lot of work to do before she ever gets the benefit of the doubt from me when it comes to reporting issues related to Islam. Let me give you an example.
Back in my Malkinwatching days, a bank started offering Shari’a-compliant banking products. Oh dear, were the righties sore about that! Special treatment, they cried! Sharia creep! Dhimmitude and a whole bunch of other made-up shit!
So then I did some research:
I e-mailed University Bank:
Are Sharia’a-compliant products available to non-Muslims who might like their features regardless of faith?
Answering was none other than Stephen Lange Ranzini, President:
The answer is yes! But since the products, due to their legal complexity and higher cost to deliver, are more expensive than traditional products, it’s unlikely that they would appeal to anyone other than a Muslim or observant Jew who were concerned about usury for ethical reasons. Both traditions have an absolute ban on all interest whereas Christians observe a ban on excessive interest and believe that reasonable interest is okay. In Michigan this is the usury law: you can charge up to 25% but not more.
So, not only are those wacky Muslims not the only religion to attempt to set up religion-specific lending practices, but apparently Christians have made their lending traditions the law of the land.
Raise your hand if you’re surprised.
Frankly, maybe we should spend less time worrying about the Muslims wanting some sort of special rights and listen a little more to religions - all religions - about what the Catholics call “exploit[ing] the passions or necessities of other men by compelling them to submit to ruinous conditions.”
And, of course, this was far from a rare occurrence. Right-wingers are absolutely convinced that we’re on a slippery slope towards chucking the Constitution in favor of the Koran. Perhaps there are times when teachers need to take a stronger line when dealing with “religious objections” to important curriculum. Maybe lawmakers do, too. But three schools do not an Islamic Revolution make. The hysteria is clearly out of proportion to the actual threat.
Ideas solicited for why that is.
Update: More school-related Malkin fun.
26 Responses to “More Thoughts on “Sharia Creep””
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Has anyone noticed the almost prurient obsession with Sharia punishment for sexual crimes in the Trolls who bring it up? They go into great detail about the types of punishment viollators of the sexual code they share with their purported enemy. The detailed descriptions they provide seem to betray some desire to actually be the person exacting the punishment. It’s kinda freaky.
Also, the Holocaust will become a compulsory part of the history curriculum from next year, which hard lends support to the creeping sharia allegation. I strongly recommend people interested in this subject read the original report. The newspaper stories have been very misleading. The report is depressing enough on its own, but it’s not mostly about religion or even about topics being ignored. One of its main themes is that controversial or emotive subjects, including the Holocaust but also the Bolshevik revolution and the slave trade in Britain, are taught blandly and by the book to avoid controversy or causing offence.
Educational institutions taking the cowardly and nonconfrontational way out of a situation! Pshaw, next thing you will tell me is that the Theory of Evolution isn’t being taught in many US public schools because of the whining of a few christians.
Just an FYI, the Daily Mail is a crappy right wing newspaper famous for being trashy, tory-leaning and anti-europe.
I am getting to the point where I just don’t give a shit what Malkin or Coulter say.
They are has beens. If it wasn’t for the conservative book club giving away their stinky prose, they wouldn’t have anybody but knuckle dragging inbreeders paying any attention to their silly discourse.
[…] This post reminded me of a few other things. Like Sharia-paranoia as noted over at Pandagon. Or the choice bits of pure racist fearmongering that occasionally pop up here on wordpress. (That blog is a particularly reliable source of pure racism). What all of this nonsense has in common is a rhetorical strategy. […]
Thanks for doing some digging, Auguste. Reality is rarely simple.
That said, this smacks of a larger agenda masquerading behind the worst sort of political correctness and being so open minded that one’s brain falls out.
Regarding this -
“Christians observe a ban on excessive interest and believe that reasonable interest is okay. In Michigan this is the usury law: you can charge up to 25% but not more.”
In Australia we have a number of laws regarding fairness with respect to provision of credit (including maximum interest rates). These laws were generally enacted at the behest of social democrats and similar lefty type politicians rather than at the behest of godbothering fascist clergymen intent on forcing their anti-usury prejudices down our throats. I assume that this is pretty much the same in most democratic countries around the world.
You can’t be as silly as you sound can you ?
This caught my eye. I’m sure there are balanced treatments of the Crusades, and that some schools teach them. I’m not quite as sure that the Daily Mail is a good arbiter of what constitutes such balanced treatment.
Just an FYI, the Daily Mail is a crappy right wing newspaper famous for being trashy, tory-leaning and anti-europe.
True that. This piece, however, I saw almost word for word at The Guardian a few days ago.
Flobber, you seem confused.
Until VERY recently, “Godbothering Fascist Clergymen” WERE “Social Democrats and other lefty types.”
hell, it’s called “Usury” and not “Excessive Interest” for a reason.
…the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 because their balanced treatment of the topic would have directly challenged what was taught in some local mosques…
Actually, I’m kind of curious about this. What exactly are they teaching at the mosques that would be contradictory? I’m assuming that the school doesn’t teach that the Crusades were only about piety on the part of Europeans.
Karpad
It is not called anything like “usury” in the Australian legislation which was enacted in the 1980s.
What I am trying to point out is that a lot of legislation in a lot of places has been enacted to deal with unfair credit and high interest rates. Almost none of this has anything to do with the Christian religion’s medieval ban on usury. The fact that Michigan has a law called the “Usury Law” does not even necessarily indicate that the passage of that law had anything to do with the church. The law may have been called that for a number of reasons.
Flobber,
First of all, in my post I wasn’t referring to Australian law. I was referring to Michigan law, since that’s the location of the particular Shari’a-compliant bank that Malkin was complaining about.
Second of all, it was the president of said bank, who in your mind I would assume can’t be as silly as he sounds, who first made the connection between Christian teachings on usury and Michigan law.
Third of all, what karpad said re: who social democrats were in the United States.
Auguste
Yes I got the bit about not referring to Australian law.
What I was trying to communicate to you is that in most of the civillised world there are similar provisions - none of which have anything to do with those poisonous christians. Which kind of refutes the point that you were trying to make.
Nor despite you and karpad’s non sequiturs did those laws have anything to do with christians in social democrat’s clothing (since you know presumably less than bugger all about Australia it was probably a little presumptuous of you both to even suggest that).
I assume that the president of the bank had a particular barrow to push - ie “Hey this new sharia thing we’re trying to sell ain’t so new/weird. And the criticism we’re getting is just plain wrong/crazy. Can I sign you up for our new deal now ?”. Do you see that at all ?
By the way do you actually have any proof other than the title “Usury Law” (which is no proof at all) that the Michigan law had anything to do with christians ?
Auguste
I failed to notice that you did hedge your reference to clergymen being social democrats as relating to the US. Therefore my snark at Karpad’s presumptuousness should not include you.
WTF? Christians can’t charge interest. It’s one of the most basic tenets of Christianity. It is actually ONE of those things that’s in the Bible. One that most Christians gloss over now, but it is in there, in the words of Jesus himself. (Luke 6:35)
It’s also the reason that Jews got the reputation for being money-grubbing bank-owners: They were the ones the Church (that would be the Catholic Church) went to to finance things like the Crusades.
And “usury?” Shylock in The Merchant of Venice is a usurer (and, notably, a Jew). His “excessive interest”? Four percent. FOUR. Twenty-five percent would have had people stringing him up over the Grand Canal.
As Ginger Yellow said, the report is much wider in scope on the general topic of teaching controversial and emotive historical topics, and its examples of good schools and creative lesson-planning offer fantastic models for those few schools with weak, crappy teachers. And that’s what they are.
And I’d like to know who issued the press release that undoubtedly triggered the stories in the British press, particularly the oh-so-typical Mail piece.
Hi All,
As I read it this has all been a storm in a tea-cup,
The lead on this was “schools stop teaching about holocaust”. The reality, as revealed, is that “a couple of schools didn’t choose this topic for their GCSE coursework”.
I.e……. they almost CERTAINLY taught the subject. But out of the dozen subjects taught that year they had to pick 1 or 2 to be the subject of examined coursework. And due to worries about some students “sensistivities” picked less controversial subjects for the coursework…… I bet 1001 schools ALSO didn’t pick the holocaust, but picked other subjects, just out of sheer law of everages.
If I remember rightly my history GCSE coursework was on the Treaty of Versailles and Post WWI Germany. Not because my (catholic) school was suppressing the holocaust…….but because you have to pick a damn topic, and it can’t be the holocaust every year.
That doesn’t mean they aren’t TEACHING those things…….. they may have had the standard classes on the Holocaust everyone has (including me)……… just that they are using other topics for examination. Given what is actually SAID in the article I can’t see how Malkin et al can jump from that to “they aren’t teaching this”.
It’s as though the “English Coursework” this year was “The Work of Chaucer” and the right jumped in with both feet yelling “What !! They aren’t teaching spelling anymore ? Or grammar ? Or Modern Literature ? Or Shakespeare ?”…….. yes they ARE, they are just picking chaucer for the damn coursework. All those other things are still being taught……. the students just aren’t being examined on them in the coursework portion (although they may still be in the exam portion, or taught as a compulsory subject).
If you can only pick 1 coursework subject BY DEFINITION almost everything must be “left out”. If I remember rightly my History GCSE had only the one coursework portion (though this may vary)…… was my school NOT teaching me about the holocaust, WWII, British History, European History, American History, Economic History, Social History etc. etc. ? No, I was taught all those things……. but the coursewrok was the Treaty of Versailles !
Yours,
TGP
Hi All,
Oh and, BTW,
For those interested in the UK papers and who/what their audience is (i.e. who they pander to) …… There was an excellent summary on a British Comody Sit-Com about Government called ‘Yes, Minister” in the 80’s. It’s a bit dated……. but as a run down of who reads what you couldn’t do it more succinctly in a single paragraph………
Jim Hacker (The Prime Minister): Don’t tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think this country IS run by another country.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits.
(Note, the Sun is one of several british tabloids to feature semi-naked women on page 3)
TGP
Yep, if you read the actual report you’ll find that every single news outlet that has reported on this has basically lifted two or three sentences from section 4, subsection 6 (pp15 of 48) in order to make these claims.
You will aslo notice that this is not a diagnostic report, in that it doesn’t actually survey the teaching of such subjects. Nowhere will you find any stats or metrics on how often such subjects are avoided, or how they are handled, because that’s not what the report is about.
Personally, when I did the equivalent of what is now GSCE History, we didn’t do the Holocaust either. In fact, we didn’t even do WWII - possibly because the curriculum we were following was British Political History 1812-1918…
“Right-wingers are absolutely convinced that we’re on a slippery slope towards chucking the Constitution in favor of the Koran.”
Which of course, is totally wrong–we’re supposed to be chucking the Constitution in favor of the Bible . . .
Love the picture and caption, but what does Scooby have against Uriah Heep?
Scooby probably thinks their music is overly bombastic, fakey-fantasy “Yes” wannabees.
Love the picture and caption, but what does Scooby have against Uriah Heep?
Ri Refer Rishbone Rash.
Even after all that digging you make one fatal error, you equate laws in Michigan with Islamic law - there is no comparison. The laws in Michigan and every other US state are secular and not based on the Bible or any other religious book.
This is the typical argument of Muslims who claim that jihad in the name of Islam is the same as historical violence that is mentioned in the Bible. Again, in the Qur’an it dictates Muslims wage jihad and other forms of warfare against non-Muslims while the Bible talks about historical events and doesn’t dictate to Christians that they must kill non-believers…for a full refutation, read Robert Spencer’s book.
Almost a year from the time you posted and Islam is making great progress in the US…more schools added to your list, more airports, more mosques built, more Muslims in political office, and an ex-Muslim about to become President…and that’s just the beginning…check out http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com and other similar blogs to track the progress of sharia law in the US