Brickbat: Say It Loud

|

credit: FirasMT / photo on flickr

Roy Wagner isn't happy that his son was forced to recite the Islamic declaration of faith at his Seminole County, Florida, high school. He's even less happy that the textbook used in his son's world history class are missing pages on Judaism and Christianity. The school system says the teacher in charge of the class isn't trying to indoctrinate students, but Michael Blasewitz, who oversees the system's high school curriculum, walked out of a TV interview when he was pressed on the content of the class.

NEXT: Veterans Lives, and All of our Lives, Made More Difficult and Painful Thanks to Government's War on Painkillers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Reasons to home school. Teach your offspring whatever you want.

    /thread

  2. The Constitution says nothing about the separation of mosque and state. Besides, it’s the kid’s responsibility to disprove Islamic extremism. How can he do the president’s homework workout book learning on the subject?

    1. At least the Muslims didn’t start the Crusades.

  3. I thought public schools were big into separation of church and state. Why is ‘understanding’ Islam so important to progs?

    1. The separation fanaticism is only for the yucky Judeo-Christian religions.

      1. That kinda includes Islam, WTF.

        1. Islam is Abrahamic, not Judeo-Christian. Maybe I should have just said JOOOs and CHRISTFAGS.

          1. I will cede the point on semantics.

          2. “Abrahamic religions are religions that share the patriarch Abraham in their lineage, although he plays different roles in different belief systems. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all considered to be part of this group, because Abraham appears in the religious texts of all of these faiths.”

            http://www.wisegeek.org/what-a…..youknowout

            1. that share the patriarch Abraham

              Teh patriarchy is EVERYWHERRRRRRRRE!!

              1. Abraham

                Heh. You said “Ham”.

                1. Isn’t he referred to as Ibrahim in Arabic?

    2. “Why is ‘understanding’ Islam so important to progs?”

      When you’re engaged in a conflict where you’d like to marginalize your enemy it might be important to know something about the dominant ideology in the area. This isn’t as much a prog thing as a war thing, remember Bush’s ‘hearts and minds’ and ‘listening tour?’

      1. If it were such a ‘know they enemy’ schtick, why do they constantly get basic facts wrong and behave in a supplicatory manner towards people who openly confess to wanting to see them dead?

        1. Because ‘know thy enemy’ is just bullshit cover for their multi-culti idiocy.

        2. I think they have a tendency not to ascribe the actions and beliefs of some or even any members of a large group to everyone in the group.

          1. Except when talking about white people, westerners, conservatives, republicans (not the same thing as consrvatives) or men. In fact, they on’y seem to refuse to collectivise when they’re trying to excuse behaviours which are oddly pervasive and supposed by large portions of a designated ‘victim’ group.

            Funny that.

            1. Fair enough, it can be selective.

              1. And bigoted to a degree that outshines even the most racist klansmen

      2. But as you inversely squwak Islam isn’t the enemy. You can’t have it both ways.

        And if you can’t see the distinction between being made to recite a declaration of faith and simply learning about that faith then you are completely obtuse. Of course you aren’t obtuse (in this case only normally your obtuseness is overwhelming) you just like seeing Christians with a boot to their neck.

        1. I and my entire family are active Christians. I never said that forcing kids to recite something like this isn’t egregious.

          1. When you’re engaged in a conflict where you’d like to marginalize your enemy it might be important to know something about the dominant ideology in the area.

            I did not know that high schoolers were engaged in a conflict with Islam. Good to know the draft has been reinstated – government schools are the perfect place for boot camp.

            This is why people hate you, Bo – you immediately misrepresent the facts of the situation, then go on to argue more and more strawmen.

            Please – take today off, have a great weekend, and we’ll see you Monday.

            1. The power is in your hands. Just say no Bo.

              1. It’s really a low effort, high impact approach. Deny him the attention he craves.

            2. Old Man Almanian has some good advice

      3. Well, our chief executive is currently denying we are in a conflict with any form of Islam, but why is having students recite a declaration of faith necessary to achieving understanding. Would reciting the Nicene Creed be acceptable method for understanding Christianity?

        1. Nicene creed is catholic

          1. Did you mean catholic in the small “c” or were you referring to the Roman Catholic Church.

            I am a life-long Episcopalian. The Nicene creed is one of two foundational statements of our denomination’s faith. Although most people (including many Episcopalians) believe that our two foundational creeds are proper behavior and well-tailored clothes.

            1. We believe… In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

              Episcopalians believe in one and only one holy catholic church?

              1. Yes, and they think they are that church. The same as every other denomination that accepts the Council of Nicaea.

                Unlike “The” (Roman) Catholic church, they don’t bring it up much.

              2. Yes. Maybe you do not know the meaning of the word catholic (lower case “c”).

                1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
                2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.
                3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.

                Hence the first sentence in my comment above.

          2. The Nicene creed was established by the Council of Nicaea, which is one of the 7 ecumenical councils widely accepted by Western (Roman Catholic, Protestant) and Eastern (Greek, Russian, etc.) Christianity. It is only the Oriental churches (Coptics, Armenians, Syriacs, etc.) and the fringe sects (Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc.) who reject some or all of those councils.

      4. During the 40s kids had to do the Nazi salute in US classrooms, duh.

        1. No, but they were in the 1920s. My mother remembered doing it to the pledge in grade school, and a Girl Scout merit badge with a swastika on it.

          1. swastikas weren’t inherently evil until they were co-opted by the nazis

            1. Swastikas still aren’t “inherently” evil. They don’t burn you when you touch them; they just give you a small shock, like static.

      5. In production operations management, I’ve noticed that really bad managers tend to befriend their problem subordinates, whom they fear to discipline. Such a bad manager has created an excuse for himself and to give others for his cowardice in not dealing with the problem employee. I wonder if the same issue is at play with proggies and whom they fear.

  4. But the principal is soooo coool!

    1. “Dr. B is the ish!”

      The ish: “The joint; tight off the chains…really good”

      1. “He is so much cooler and leniant than Gruber was.”

        Well, Hans Gruber was a fucking terrorist, so…

        1. +1 Welcome to the party, pal.

  5. As noted theologian, Obama, says: “Florida can’t get on it high horse considering its history of atrocities and weirdness.”

    1. Florida Man don’t need him around, anyhow.

      1. You know it!

        1. I saw Epcot, and
          Strollers crashin, and
          How long?, how long?…

  6. Even at that age, if anyone had leaned on me to recite a religious litany, I’ve have told them to go fuck themselves.

    -jcr

    1. Tough talk, but it wouldn’t get you too far with a nun

      1. Curtis was the ish.

    2. I delivered the invocation at my high school graduation. I was in my irrelgious time – one of our family friends said after, “That was very interesting – I believe that’s the first one I’ve ever heard that didn’t mention God….”

      WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW, MY HIGH SCHOOL CLASSMATES AND FAMILIES?!!

  7. In my Catholic school religion class, we had a whole year on other religions (sixth grade, I think) in which we learned quite a bit about Islam. It was very respectful, almost to a fault, of other religions’ beliefs and practices. We of course weren’t required to recite the declaration of faith but we were taught and tested on the five pillars and some other basics.

    In my public high school AP History class we spent a fair amount of time on the Middle East (Desert Storm was current) and learned a bit more about Islam. Again, I’m pretty sure we never had to say the declaration unless it was to explain its basic meaning.

  8. I have an idea: “Everyone Commit Apostasy Day” wherein folks will present YouTube videos of themselves making the Islamic declaration and then rejecting the faith in various ways. More or less controversial than “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day?”

    1. Edgy. I like it 🙂

    2. It might earn you a beheading, but you wouldn’t have to worry about being burned alive, maybe.

  9. OT (kinda): You guys remember when domestic right-wing terrorists tortured and murdered people as they tried to establish their own state? Neither do I.

    Money shots:

    They’re carrying out sporadic terror attacks on police, have threatened attacks on government buildings and reject government authority.

    Some federal and local law enforcement groups view the domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups as equal to — and in some cases greater than — the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS, that garner more public attention.?

    Domestic right-wing terrorists: worse than ISIS!

    1. As I recall, it’s been 20 years since domestic terrorists killed any significant number of people. (I may have missed a one-off fatality somewhere, hense the weasel words)

      1. I went looking for those missing one-offs. There was one fatality at the olympics in ’96, and Ted Kazynski wasn’t cought until around then, but since the mid-90s, the dearth of actions has forced those deperate for an enemy to go so far as to drop Chris Dorner on the list of ‘domestic terror’ incidents when most of the terrorizing was being done by the LAPD. There was a mention of a shooting at a sikh temple, but there is question if it was terorrism or just a crazy guy shooting up a place. (Article on the incident proper doesn’t regard it as a terror attack, just an unhinged racist on a rampage)

        1. It seems domestic terror peaked in the 70s and was in strong decline by the 80s, petering out mid-90s for all intents and purposes after the last rash of attacks. For all the ‘domestic terror’ groups out there, there is a real dearth of activity if they are supposedly “worse than ISIS”.

          1. It’s a stupid and tone-deaf piece from CNN, and an especially stupid instance of pearl-clutching from DHS, given that ISIS is roasting dudes alive RIGHT NOW, among other things heinous.

            If their thesis is that domestic terrorists pose a potentially greater threat to American citizens than ISIS, they could maybe be correct in a technical sense, in that domestic terrorists are by definition already here, and ISIS is occupying territory most Americans couldn’t find on a map.

            1. In the past year, ISIS has killed more Americans than Domestic Terrorists have killed in the past decade. That says to me they pose a greater actual threat to American citizens than the domestics, so even in a technical sense they got it wrong.

            2. The way the article is written, it seems that DHS “rejecting government authority” is synonymous with terrorism. For instance:

              Among the findings from the DHS intelligence assessment: “[Sovereign citizen] violence during 2015 will occur most frequently during routine law enforcement encounters at a suspect’s home, during enforcement stops and at government offices.”

              DHS seems to be saying that every one of those law enforcement encounters with citizens was totally legit, and not say, a homeowner taking violent exception to being awakened at 2am by an invasion of masked, armed men who were supposed to raid the house next door. The sort of happenings we read about here every other day.

              1. Then DHS has the wrong definition of terrorism. Terrorism is the use of violence and fear, particularly indiscriminate acts of violence, by a non-state actor to attempt to force political change.

                The ‘non-state actor’ clause is because such violence by state actors is tyranny when used against its own people and war when used against someone else’s.

                1. It has to be a sure bet that more US citizens have been killed by year by LE officers than by ‘domestic terrorists,’ right? And I’m just counting the number where the shooting results in a successful wrongful death suit or other official declaration of wrongdoing.

                  1. Here you are Bo:

                    “Cops Have Killed Every 8 Hours in 2015, Sending At Least Three People to Early Graves Per Day”

                    http://thefreethoughtproject.c…..raves-day/

                    Have a nice day.

                2. “Terrorism is the use of violence and fear, particularly indiscriminate acts of violence, by a non-state actor to attempt to force political change.

                  The ‘non-state actor’ clause is because such violence by state actors is tyranny when used against its own people and war when used against someone else’s.”

                  This is so well written I thought it worth reposting. the only thing I would add is covert operations or war when used against someone else’s.

                  Excellent Uncivil.

                3. The ‘non-state actor’ clause is because such violence by state actors is tyranny when used against its own people and war when used against someone else’s.

                  Very well put, UC.

              2. I’m pretty sure they also count belief that the government ought to be strictly confined to constitutional limits as terrorism, too.

                1. Yes, if you “Make Numerous references to US Constitution” you might be a domestic terrorist: http://welfarestate.com/pamphlet/

                  There is also this (which was eventually retracted): “Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate [sic]: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.

                  http://documents.scribd.com/do…..67kt0c.pdf

                  1. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate [sic]: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.

                    Well yeah, if you’re not a member of Team Red or Team Blue, you are clearly a terrorist.

                    1. “Well yeah, if you’re not a member of Team Red or Team Blue, you are clearly a terrorist.”

                      That’s the implication. Distrusting mainstream news outlets is on a list too.
                      Here’s a link to a good article which mentions several reports: http://gunowners.org/media10242014.htm

                  2. Be on the lookout for Lone Individuals, who may be Single Issue Terrorists.

                    At least the FBI didn’t call out “Shall Issue Terrorists”.

                  3. Yes, those hardline capital-“L” Libertarian Bob Barr supporters. Anarchists and terrorists, all of them.

              3. The sentiment over at PhotographyIsNotACrime seems to be that the police are using Sovereign Citizen designations as a way to justify punitive actions against those they have a beef with. Like activists who would hold officials accountable for respecting their first amendment rights by filming in public places.

                Apparently at least one of their activists has been branded a member of the “sovereign citizen” terrorist movement, even though he has no involvement whatsoever with the group (and from what any of us on the outside can tell, isn’t a terrorist group by any reasonable definition of terrorist). The police use this to justify a supposition that he is armed and dangerous and must be searched at every encounter. Basically just a cover for a policy of harassment.

          2. Folks ain’t home. Cross won’t burn. Hell, it ain’t like it used to be.

    2. The timing of this being reported is interesting.

    3. Some federal and local law enforcement groups view the domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups as equal to — and in some cases greater than — the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups . . .

      Well of course they do. Islamic terrorists want to *expand* state power, sovereign citizens (around all their moon-battery) want to ignore the state.

  10. All part of the ‘we must understand them and give them jobs’ mentality that infests the minds of some in our political and intellectual classes.

    1. If you remember it was part of Bush’s foreign policy that corrupt, non democratic regimes with closed, stagnant economies were breeding grounds for terrorism. I don’t say this to go BOOOSH but to suggest that it’s not outlandish of an idea.

      1. I agree with the sentiment. Nothing domesticates people more than wealth. I don’t know if the Middle East is open to freer trade or not. It seems like in history it was a hub for trade so I don’t see why not.

      2. Bush’s policy could have added to it but Islamic terrorism in various forms has been around for centuries and certainly terrorism as a political tool for a few decades now.

        So forgive me if I don’t focus on 8 years of American foreign policy (to which Obama has done jack shit to alter but in fact enhanced) against the backdrop of, call it (sticks thumb in the wind) 1300 hundred years.

        1. 1300 hundred years.

          130,000 years? So, as long as humans have been human?

          1. I used the fight over the Caliphate as a starting point. 12 or 13. What’s one or to centuries between jihadists?

        2. I wasn’t saying Bush’s policies caused terrorism, I was noting the idea that stagnant, corrupt dictatorships were breeding grounds for terrorism is not some new idea.

        3. ” but in fact enhanced”

          Enhanced? By what measurement do you arrive at this conclusion?

          1. Perhaps I give too much credit to drone killings as an ‘enhancement’.

            1. I don’t think you do, Rufus. At least two Middle Eastern young adults reported to Congress and/or President Obama in person how one drone strike “radicalized” some of their peers whereas years of Al Qaeda propaganda and strong arming failed.

              1. There you go.

              2. It makes sense to me. I mean, fuck, I’m an American, (so, totally meda saturated) who grew up in the military who has had “WAR ON TERROR” drummed into me for decades, and I’ve ignored all that. But a drone strike that killed my wife might well convince me it was time to go fuck someone else up, in treturn.

  11. Before Blasewitz walked out, he further justified the curriculum, saying students learn specific Judaism doctrine, the Bible and its scriptures, in earlier school years.

    “If anything, it’s a little imbalanced toward Christianity and Judaism,” Blasewitz said.

    If anything? Why are they teaching *anything* about the tenants of *any* of these religions?

    Other than acknowledging that they exist, the specific details necessary to understand them (in a high school history course context) can be found in Wikipedia.

    1. I thought Mythology classes were optional?

    2. A certain level of knowledge about Christianity is necessary to understand European history. A certain level of knowledge about Islam is necessary to understand Central Asian history.

      However, that doesn’t justify using them as an opportunity to proselytize, as appears to be going on here.

      1. Yeah, trying to teach history without ever discussing religion would be kinda pointless.

  12. Look on the bright side, folks.

    Perhaps they’ll have to come around to teaching people to understand libertariHAHAHAHAA!! Damn, couldn’t quite get it out!

  13. As usual, the simple-minded are looking for sole causes. Does being a Muslim make you a terrorist? Does living in a third-world shithole make you a terrorist?

    Of course not.

    But the vast majority of terrorists these days are Muslims from third-world shitholes. And no, a thin coating of oil wealth doesn’t mean your country isn’t a third-world shithole. The remainder seem mostly to be upper-middle-class Marxists from just about anywhere.

    This ain’t fucking rocket science. A little multi-factorial analysis points you pretty much right at the demographics and belief systems that act as a cliff function when trying to figure out the odds that someone is a terrorist.

    As always, correlation is the easy part. Its the causation that gets murky, especially when you are talking about what motivates people to do things. I’ve always thought that a good starting point is what they say motivates them. And lo and behold, it generally boils down to either Islam or Marxism.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.