Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Minnesota: The State That Brings You Lutherans, Garrison Keillor, and . . . Jihadist Madrassas?

Seriously, I thought it was a reactionary fluke when maverick Minnesota voters elected Keith Ellison to the state's 10th congressional district--who then went on to take his oath of office on the Koran.

Now it looks like the Minnesota Board of Education is not only looking the other way while a state-funded Islamic school flagrantly hoardes the children to and fro for compulsory prayers, but contiues to do so despite the fact that a teacher has come forward to say that this is exactly what is happening.

Any thoughts on how long it will take to strip their funding against the backdrop of the seperation clause? I's say about . . . um, never, actually.

Albeit, I take specific comfort in all of this; for the God I serve can't get past the state-funded religo-meter without being tossed out the Gate called Voucher.

Just like He said it would be.

11 comments:

aahrens said...

Ron,
So true. I really get so weary with being the religious denomination (for lack of a better way to put it) that always gets picked on, targeted. I just never understand why the very thing this country was founded on - Judeo-Christian values - is treated like the plague! The next time I see protests over rights of any sort, I'mtempted to grab my sandwich-board sign and speak my rights as a Christian! Trouble is, I'd be the first one thrown in jail for disrupting the peace.

AA

James D. Wilder said...

Ron, I had a hard time understanding your last paragraph. Are you a proponent of vouchers becoming the solution for "everything but Jesus" politics?

Ron Giesecke said...

James,

Point taken. Sometimes I guess I can get as loquacious as the next guy.

I am a proponent of vouchers. But I happen to believe that christianity is the trip wire for the rabid opposition from teacher's unions, and politicians in general. The argument is always couched as an assault on the "separation clause" in the first amendment.

But--the muslims are not only getting a free ticket to fund THIS madrassa, they're going to keep doing it--in other states as well, until it becomes a "standard" practice. And I predict that politicans will look the other way while they wink and pour funds into their religious schools.

It works like this:

CHRISTIAN: "Hi, I'm a christian, and I'd like some choice as to where and what my children are taught."

LAWMAKER: "Separation of Church and state. Sorry. Now go away.

CHRISTIAN: "But . . . "

LAWMAKER: "Go away, bible thumper." (Mr. Lawmaker now goes away and pats himself on the back for stemming off an inqusition).

Then,

MUSLIM: "I want my islamic school funded now."

LAWMAKER: "Sorry."

MUSLIM: "Then we will slit your throat."

LAWMAKER: "I'll attach your funding to House Bill 1564, in which I will forcefully decry the malicious cancer of islamophobia. Allah be praised."

Perhaps I sound extreme. But I guarantee Theo van Gough, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the entire French populace wouldn't think so.

-R

chantell said...

I understand your dismay at the fuzziness of how the separation of church and state has been applied as of late, but

1. Why is an Islamic school automatically considered a "jihadist madrassa"?

2. Not all Muslims are jihadist extremists. It's just that they're the only ones that dominate the news. Implying that Muslims in general would "slit the throat" of whomever didn't give them their way (even in a tongue-in-cheek manner) could be considered offensive and insensitive and show ignorance of the core beliefs of Islam that the majority of Muslims embrace.

3. If you feel it would be unfair for a non-Apostolic to brand Apostolics in general with a characterization of their most extreme and negative example, then please consider what you are doing when you talk about "the muslims."

4. I do not embrace Islam in the least bit. But I do feel it is important to at least be informed about other religions which would help us do our best to reach out to others. Muslims need to see the love and changing power of Jesus Christ. And I wince to think that a Muslim reading much of what you've written of late wouldn't.

Ron Giesecke said...

I'm wondering if you even read the link I provided in the post itself. A former teacher has stated that the school is engaging in all the aspects of a madrassa. They simply cover their 'mandatory prayer' tracks when administrators come around.

And as far as cutting Islam any slack . . . well, um no. Sorry. It's their job to change he perceptive tide, not mine. They are continually in the vortex of every modern act of terror, here and abroad. And it’s their ideology that drives it. And when a modern act of terror isn’t committed by them (i.e., Oklahoma City) we handily dispatch them to his maker without the least bit of concern about the feelings of anti-government separatists.

QUOTE:

“Not all Muslims are jihadist extremists. It's just that they're the only ones that dominate the news. Implying that Muslims in general would "slit the throat" of whomever didn't give them their way (even in a tongue-in-cheek manner) could be considered offensive and insensitive and show ignorance of the core beliefs of Islam that the majority of Muslims embrace.”

Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert cartoons, was asked why he would handily satirize Christians, but has yet to do so with muslims simply replied, “because I like life better than death.” Did he say all muslims were extremists. Nope. Just the ones that matter.

This might be an uncomfortable subject, but I do not demur from my statements. Sitting around trying to placate some larger muslim world as “non-terrorists” doesn’t erase my point—that these politicians will not deprive this school of it’s public funding despite the fact that it is flagrantly violating the law applied to everyone else.

And why is that? Why?

We all know why.

QUOTE:

“If you feel it would be unfair for a non-Apostolic to brand Apostolics in general with a characterization of their most extreme and negative example, then please consider what you are doing when you talk about "the muslims."

See, this is just me, but just where in the world are genuine Christians given a fair shake. We’re inbred hayseeds in “Inherit the Wind,” we’re drunken adulterers and uneducated nitwits in “The Apostle,” and abject stooges in “Borat.”

And I’m fine with it. It’s Jesus they hate. But Robert Duvall hasn’t had to move to Denmark and hire s security team since he made a movie trashing-tongue-talkers. Nor should he have to.
The same cannot be said of Salman Rushdie, Geert Wilders, or even Ayan Hirsi Ali.

-R

chantell said...

You make some valid points.

I don't take issue with the point you're making in your original post. I agree that the same conditions of the law should apply to everyone (although I'm still unsure why prayer = "jihadist". Prayer 5 times a day is typical Muslim practice). I take issue with your lumping Muslims in general with violent extremists that Muslims in general don't support.

When you say "it's their job to change the perceptive tide," who is "they"? All Muslims? In other words, it's the responsibility of Muslims at large to change the perceptions of violent fundamentalist extremists? If Muslims at large aren't violent fundamentalist extremists themselves, how could they? The FLDS group who had hundreds of children taken away from their compound and put in state custody consider themselves "Christians." (We might not consider them true Christians, just as Muslims might not consider jihadists true Muslims, but that is beside the point.) Notwithstanding, it is NOT my job to change the perceptive tide concerning them.

I also disagree with you that "it's their ideology that drives it." Anyone who knows even the most basic Islamic ideology would know that only the most extreme and twisted interpretations of the Koran sanctions the type of violence being perpetrated by those who do so in the name of Islam. I don't think I need to remind you of atrocities that were committed throughout history in the name of Christianity. I don't think today you'd say that truly Christian ideology fueled any of that.

Using the way that Christians have been portrayed in Hollywood is a very weak excuse for not "cutting Islam any slack." Sure, it's unfair for Christians to get lampooned by the media, but is equal-opportunity lampooning a worthy cause to advocate? By golly, everyone should have the same chance to be made fun of! What about "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you"? (And if I may be allowed to add, "those who misrepresent you in the media"?)

You do hit on an uncomfortable point that the Muslims who "matter" are the extremists. I don't like how that sounds, but I understand that you're trying to say that they matter because they are dominating the news and are instilling fear in the world at large. I recognize that and abhor it. But what I'm trying to get you to see is that lumping all Muslims right along with them is wrong, unfair and unfounded.

Ron Giesecke said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron Giesecke said...

prayer = jihadist to me because, with me, they don't get my assumptive luxury of "peaceful parochial academy" when an ex-teacher proves they are engaging in serruptitous, compulsory behavior. If they want my assent, then they'll knock off the machinational garbage the Arab Street has successfully fed to the UN. So they go into the "Jihadist" column by me. And I have nothing but confidence that, when they are done threatening lawmakers to keep their funding, that I'll be vindicated--to my own consternation.

I run into the argument that "twisted" interpretations of the Koran are responsible for the jihadist--until I pull out my Koran and start reading from it. It doesn't take long before the Wrath of Allah starts demading the blood of . . . well, um, me. Too bad the accepted cliche rules the day, in most cases. I understand that the president has to go out in public and draw all kinds of dileneational hooey about a "religion of peace," and such. But I ain't him.

How else is one supposed to combat the INARGUABLE attempt to hijack both foreign policy as well as airplanes by an ever-growing constituency, if the harangue of "islamophobia" becomes an effective smart bomb to stem any and all criticism? Am I not supposed to be critical of throat-slitters because they slit throats? Maybe I'm culturally deaf, but I don't hear any "moderates" taking to the streets to decry anything other than Israel and America.

Am I supposed to cower in my rhetorical corner with my WORDS as I criticize those who use far more than words to get their--or let me say more correctly Allah's--goals achieved?

And I ask again: WHY is the school story a story at all? If it were an apostolic school trying to cover its tracks to maintain school funding, they’d be paraded into the streets like that goofy polygamist group and forced to take paper routes to pay every dime back. But precisely because they are Muslims—they that want to address the story head on know good and well they will keep their funding. Why? Because lawmakers don’t like having their jugulars opened at the stoplight any more that Theo van Gough did in Paris--killed because he was making a movie standing up for Muslim women.

Or perhaps my language of "open jugulars" is vulgar--not diplomatic enough. Let me quote from the Pentagon: "the credible threat of violence." If it weren’t for that, cartoonists, both here and abroad wouldn’t be hiding from the fatwas on their heads.

CAIR, the supposedly peaceful (though provabeably terrorist-supporting) Council on American Islamic Relations, absolutely hides in the skirts of the arguments you put forth. Everyone who criticizes Islam is “Islamophobic.” This makes many recoil in fear, and thus results in some kind of shameful kiss-fest on the part of the perp, just to prove they don’t hate Muslims.

The difference between me and them is, I just simply clarify:

I don’t hate a single Muslim. I just detest Islam itself. And when those beliefs slaughtered 3,000 people on a bright Tuesday morning, I knew I’d had enough of Koran 101—with all those “peace loving” exceptions to the rule waving their hijabs in the streetsin celebration.

If that makes me islamophobic, so be it. As far as the way they are perceived? Well, if the exploding shoe fits . . . . then hopefully a Hamas representative isn’t wearing it when Jimmy Carter’s skulking around the Gaza strip planning the demise of Israel—as we speak.

So, it just simply comes down to this: we’ll agree to disagree.

Robert Spencer of “Jihad watch” fame, and another guy whose blog has nearly forced him to have his family cryogenically frozen and hidden away, analyses the Koran verse by verse. It’s worth checking out: Blogging the Koran:
http://jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php

-R

Anonymous said...

Ron,
This isn't exactly about "agreeing to disagree."

You seem to be neatly sidestepping the points about "Muslims need to see the love and changing power of Jesus Christ. And I wince to think that a Muslim reading much of what you've written of late wouldn't."

Can't these viewpoints be written w/Christian love instead of bluster & self righteousness about "being right?" Most people remember the tone of the commentator, not their arguments...

Ron Giesecke said...

I have asked a pointed question: WHY is it that this school will be allowed to proceed unchecked by legislators? And if the process of stripping them of it begins, it WILL somehow be reversed.

Why? I realize answering it honestly would make one seem to align with my position.

I've sidetepped nothing--and far less than you have sidstepped entering the debate anonymously. And I hope I'm certainly not seen as showing Chantell disrespect by debating her. My passion about this subject hits VERY close to home.

Elijah showed Baal's prohets no respect when he mocked their cutting and caterwauling. Isaiah lays out the whole "piece of wood--one half used to heat the home and the other half used to be god" satire with great apolmb.

Perhaps my percieved spirit is offending. That is not my goal. But I'm just saying it's much easier to be to the left of my position. But that won't stop the encroachment we all know is coming.

-R

Ron Giesecke said...

Just a note.

I'm going to tone down my debate here, as I believe, that, despite my ssuredness in my positions, that I can, from time-to-time, express them with an acidity that even I didn't intend.

I respect Chantell, both as my sister and as a blogger. I've told her as such privately as well.

So, I'd like to thank "anonymous" for bringing it up. Point taken, and I'm sorry.

-R