England Circles the Plughole

charles bin windsorThe news from Kenya of yet another Islamist massacre reminds us yet again that Christians are being killed by their tens of thousands across the Islamic World and Africa. A Christian woman in Pakistan is sentenced to be hanged for drinking from a Muslim cup. An official who tries to save her is murdered by his own bodyguard, who becomes a popular hero. ISIS carries out mass beheadings of Christians and burns a captured pilot alive. Jewish babies are murdered by more Islamic heroes in Jerusalem. Islamic terrorist outrages occur somewhere in the world virtually every day.

The Church of England, meanwhile, devotes its energies to attacking the British Education Secretary for plans to teach “British values” in schools, calling them potentially “dangerous, divisive and undemocratic.” London’s Daily Telegraph reported that the church, which is responsible for educating about a million children in England, voiced fears that a “narrowly focused” definition of British values would be used to test whether people were loyal and safe to be around.

The government guidelines were drawn up after it was found schools had been infiltrated by Muslim extremists. The church said it had major concerns about the use of inspectors to police instances of promoting the
values that diverged from the politically correct ideas of equality and diversity. It accused the Education Secretary Nicky Morgan of assuming very wide powers and closing down public debate.

Recently, a small Christian school in Berkshire was failed by inspectors for lacking sufficient political correctness in that it failed “to prepare pupils for life in modern Britain.” This looked like a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing, or more accurately, yet another case of a Tory Government (apparently obsessed with slashing defence spending) not knowing what its own officials were doing: while the Government talked of promoting British values, the school was punished by officialdom for being too British.

The headmistress was questioned by government officials as to why she had not brought in an imam to lead assemblies, and also as to whether children were being taught about diverse sexualities under the Equality Act. The inconguity of those two thoughts is striking. The idea of bringing in an Imam to teach the presumably Christian-reared children about sexuality opens up all sorts of intriguing possibilities. One wonders, for example, what would be the response if the Imam advocated death for female adultery, endorsed child marriage (following the example of The Prophet) and judicial amputation for theft, not to mention endorsing the correctness of  female genital mutilation, blowing up ancient statues and monuments (Britain has plenty of these at the moment), stoning to death homosexuals and the annihilation of Israel and Jews?

Must the pupils at this Christian school now be taught at morning assembly that Christ was not the Messiah but only a prophet (evidently a very deluded one), and Mohammed was the last and greatest prophet of Allah?

Further, if Imams must leads assemblies, why should cults like the orange people or transcendental meditationists not get a look in, to say nothing of the rather larger religions, Buddhism or Hinduism? Furthermore, the whole complex paradox of extending tolerance and pluralism to an absolutely intolerant and uncompromising creed is simply denied or ignored. Another high-achieving primary school, this time in Lincolnshire, has been attacked and denied its “outstanding” rating by government quango, OFSTED, because the pupils are “too English and too white.” How can it be expected to have non-white pupils if none live in the area?

Orthodox Jewish schools have also complained about government inspectors asking girl students intrusive questions about sexuality, contrary to their culture of modesty (Actually, I have seen certain teachers like this answering to their bail in the Police Court).

The church’s criticism came from its chief education officer, Nigel Genders, who warned against allowing a government definition of “Britishness.” The Church also published a submission to the government warning against such an allegedly “negative” and “divisive” approach. A government spokesman, defending what should not have needed defence, said: “The fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual respect and tolerance were set out by the Government four years ago and have been commonly used since.” A pity this wasn’t the case a couple of years ago, when a schoolgirl asked a teacher if she could do a group assignment with English-speaking pupils. The teacher’s tolerant response and individual respect took the form of calling the police and having her arrested for racism (I kid you not).

The government mouthpiece continued, wetly, “We believe that all young people should develop an appreciation of these values, as this will help them to contribute to and succeed in modern Britain.”

Meanwhile, a senior Anglican Bishop, Lord Harries of Penmgarth, a former Bishop of Oxford, said Prince Charles’ future coronation service should be opened with a reading from the Koran. The gesture would be, he claimed, a “creative act of accommodation” to make Muslims feel “embraced” by the nation. I am not sure that even one of the clerical satire-figures of the late Peter Simple could quite capture that mushy note of patronising arrogance and stupidity. Lord Harries told peers that the Church of England should take the lead in “exercising its historic position in a hospitable way”. Of course church leaders, social workers, police and local councillors at Rotherham have already been hospitable enough to allow “Asian” gangs to sexually abuse an estimated 1,400 British children.

He claimed further that at a civic service in Bristol Cathedral last year authorities had agreed to a reading of the opening passage of the Koran before the beginning of the Christian ritual. This, he said “was a brilliant creative act of accommodation that made the Muslim high sheriff feel … warmly embraced but did not alienate the core congregation. That principle of hospitality can and should be reflected in many public ceremonies, including the next coronation service.”

Perhaps, to make the embracing even more complete and ultimate, the two Muslims who showed their appreciation of the principle of British hospitality by beheading one of Prince Charles’s soldiers, Lee Rigby, in a London street, could place the crown on the new King Charles’s head? Or should ISIS’s chief headsman be flown in to do the job?  Alternately, the monarch’s head might be flown to Syria for crowning?

What of Omar Bakri Muhammad, the extremist preacher who is said to have played role in radicalising the murderers of Lee Rigby and who has attempted to justify the killing of those who have taken up the fight against jihadis in Syria and Iraq? Using Facebook as his pulpit he advised that it is sometimes necessary to kill women and children sheltering in schools and hospitals.

A place for him at the Coronation, surely, along with those ISIS executioners?

  • sylydon@gmail.com

    An article by Daniel Greenfield entitled ‘This Culture War we’re In’ explains this process of cultural change and suggests how it can be countered. The link:

  • en passant

    Hal, You have only outlined the chapter headings of the UK’s suicide note, but it is a start.

  • Jody

    My husband and I have spent a fairly long time in Europe in the last few years and we will not go within a bulls’ roar of the UK for the reasons outlined in this article. What we notice about BBC News/World Service on cable is the CONSTANT PROPAGANDIZING about pluralism, equality, harmony, tolerance – it just goes on and on and on. The Politburo could sure have learned some real lessons in propaganda from the BBC; meanwhile, I’m sick to death of it – completely.

  • prsmith14@gmail.com

    Great piece. What gets me is the sheer wilful ignorance of Anglican clerics. Do they not know their scripture? Christ clearly said that false prophets would arise. If Mohammed is not a false prophet then who is? Having his words, which he falsely and self-servingly ascribed to God, read out in Christian churches is sacrilegious in the extreme. Peter Smith

  • aertdriessen@gmail.com

    They say of the share market that it goes up by the staircase and down by the elevator. I guess that goes for Western culture as well. The scourge of political correctness will wreak more havoc than the Black Death.

  • jonreinertsen@bigpond.com

    Peter, Most Anglican clerics have not studied the Bible, have they studied “biblical studies” from which they learn the Bible is a load of old tosh. A Muslim would never dare to say some of the things many Anglican clergy say about Christ and the Bible on a regular basis. The only reason more Fatwas are not issued is they consider them deluded anyway. Never mind open day at the Mosque, how about a few more Muslims attend church on Sunday morning? They will be horrified to discover the disconnect between what is said in the liturgy and what is said in the sermon.

  • gardner.peter.d

    All the things that UK government should be doing and which most western sovereign nations do, it is not doing, not even debating in the weeks before a general election. There is only one party advocating a return to sovereign parliamentary democracy, not because the others believe UK already has it but because, they genuinely believe it is right that 70% of laws in Britain should be made by the wholly unaccountable, un-elected foreign legislators of the EU, that the laws of the EU have primacy over any made by the nation’s parliament, that UK should have a mere 8.2% of the votes in the EU Council and no veto, that foreign, security and defence policies should be coordinated by the EU External Action Service, whose primary remit is to prosecute the territorial and population expansion of the EU – eg., in Ukraine – and for which purpose the EU is seeking its own ‘Army’ not for defence but to project power. Oh yes and EU law is enforced by the European Court of Justice regardless of the wishes and decisions of national parliaments.

    One can see the attraction for professional politicians. The EU offers a great career path to rise above petty constituency issues and to play a leading role in this high growth polity. Nations like Britain – and Greece since it is rather in the news at present are mere dominions of this expanding progressive empire.

    One cannot help reflecting as April 25th approaches that whereas the Great War ended a century of relative peace in Europe, it is only 70 years since the peace achieved by victory in WW2. Will we make it to the century?

    • gardner.peter.d

      I forgot to say that under EU law it is illegal for the UK to negotiate a free trade deal with any country outside the EU and that UK is no longer represented in the ITO. The EU represents all 28 member states. How can it possibly do that? It can’t. Furthermore the UK cannot have a fair immigration policy since it is not allowed to require any citizen of an EU member state to meet any kind of entry criteria either for visiting or residence. So immigrants from other countries, however worthy and beneficial to Britain may be denied entry in order to allow space for free entry by Europeans regardless of their ability to contribute and regardless of the burden they might place on Britain.

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.