The 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?