Dumbest (uncorrected) Choices in American History: Shortlist

100_0172a

My list of REALLY STUPID CHOICES made in American history; just a short-list I am afraid:

Diet Food” that is more chemicals than food

Having the Soviet Union an “ally” in WWII – better to have let them go it alone; email for full argument

The Electoral College in the Age of Communication; direct election of all offices should be the norm; Political Parties are OBSOLETE and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE

Public Sector Unions

Adding “under God” to the Pledge making it a point of division instead of unity

Lotus and Apple’s Patent-the-Universe Syndrome making the courts accept patents on things never meant for patent

Failing to live up to Dr. King’s vision and refusing to stop being prejudiced regarding race

Private campaign donations of any kind other than labor

Campaign donations by businesses

Supreme Court deciding that money= a right to a louder voice for YOUR ‘free speech

Dropping the no-partisanship requirements for radio talk-shows and ‘interview’ programs

Letting Lawyers advertise

Supreme Court declaring that nothing of value is earned by the recipient of a military award or decoration

Women’s, Chicano, Black “Studies” propping up people selected, distorted and lionized with blatant prejudice; taking away self-respect while pretending to help by ‘giving the poor things a hand’, and White Studies designed to rip on Western Culture for the same purpose – removing its self-respect – it seems non-whites are too dumb or clueless to run their own lives or stand up to whites and that whites are just intrinsically demonic – welcome to the enlightened world of PC education

Failing to settle on the point in a pregnancy where a woman’s choice is MADE and she must be held responsible for an infant rather than a piece of owned tissue. (6 month preemies regularly survive today and the Radical Right’s agenda on abortion would make women all but chattel)

Worrying more about which consenting adults, what age, color or how many may legally get ‘married’; ignoring the concept of duty, honor and responsibility anyone brings to their marriages

Bilingual Education as a policy

Helmets, knee and elbow-pads for tricycle riders

Peer promotion in school

Affirmative Action after 1990 – where was the transition to color-blind government?

Worrying more about what actual people have DONE with their guns than trying to get law-abiding folk to not have any at all

Electing Andrew Jackson, Jimmy Carter, George W., and Obama

Forgetting that ALL countries do best with immigrants if they pick from the TOP of the pile instead of the bottom

Paying a private group to print/coin money like a product to be bought forgetting that money has no ‘intrinsic’ value’; dollars are just counters for the economic game; increasing or decreasing the supply by fiat to ACCURATELY reflect the production/wealth of a nation is the ONLY reason when deciding when or if to print more money, or let the cash pool contract

Deciding that political consensus and no working model or scientific theory that has been tested is sufficient when making decisions in haste that could wreck the world’s entire economy/infrastructure; in the 70’s it was the next Ice Age that was imminent… no models then either

Making an “eco-friendly” light-bulb containing hazardous amounts of mercury

Adults stealing Halloween from the children and making it another grown-ups party holiday

The Writer’s Strike

ANY serious university or college that “emphasized” sports to make money and enabled ‘tails’ that can wag Great Danes with ease

Religious education in Germany

God and Berlin
Mar 26th 2009 | BERLIN
From The Economist print edition

A referendum next month may import religious teaching into Berlin’s schools

BY AMERICAN standards, German culture wars are mild affairs. A spat in Berlin over teaching religion in schools may be an exception. Next month the city will vote on whether schools should teach the subject as an alternative to an ethics course. The debate is only partly about how God fits into the classroom; it is also about how Muslims fit into Berlin.

In most of Germany, the constitution already makes religious instruction part of the curriculum (secular students can opt out). But Berlin and two other states are exempt. The city’s godlessness was shaken in 2005 by the “honour killing” of a young Turkish woman. As an antidote, Berlin’s government brought in a non-religious ethics course a year later.

For Berlin’s beleaguered believers, this was both threat and opportunity. Enrolment in (voluntary) religious classes outside school hours dropped. But some religious folk spotted a chance to sneak in more traditional teaching. Thus was born Pro-Reli, a movement that has festooned Berlin with red-and-white posters demanding “free choice between ethics and religion” and collected 270,000 signatures to force a referendum.

The debate is over whether religious teaching fosters or hinders tolerance. Pro-Reli’s critics fear that separating schoolchildren by religion may undermine social peace. Supporters retort that people with strong religious convictions respect faith, whatever its form. …

The battle lines are not sharp. Stephan Frielinghaus, a Protestant pastor, supports ethics classes as a “space where different traditions can learn to live together”. … he has joined a pro-ethics movement. Berlin’s ruling coalition of Social Democrats and the Left Party is anti-Reli, but some Social Democrats are pro, including the foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

What everyone shares is an obsession with Muslims, who account for over half the students in parts of the city. The ethics course is partly meant to snuff out incipient violent radicalism. But it leaves many children learning the Koran from teachers who have little stake in German society. Better, says Pro-Reli, to bring it into school, where German-speaking teachers can impart Islam under the state’s watchful eye.

That Pro-Reli has got so far is a success in a city one sociologist calls “the world capital of atheism”. Some 60% of Berliners profess no religion, a tendency stronger in the ex-communist east than in the bourgeois west. Even if Pro-Reli wins a majority, the referendum will fail unless a quarter of the 2.4m-strong electorate says yes. Teaching of religion in schools may be undone by sloth, not atheism.

Ooh, the Christian Taliban are subtle but DO exist!

(HH here: now at first glance a moderate to conservative who did not have a personal ax to grind against Christianity might see this article as reasonable. But take note that if there ever arose in America a town High School with a majority of Muslim or Pagan students who tried to establish a “student” tradition like this one this same author’s head would explode.

The district is right on this one! The only solution is for teachers and coaches to maintain total neutrality toward religion IN THEIR JOB. What they speak when THEY are paying for their speech is certainly their own business. But not when they are on the job. It is not the function of a coach to help “maintain the solidarity of traditional religion”. Not unless you want to agree with people like the Saudi Government and the Taliban.)

LAW OF THE LAND
Judges: Coach can’t bow head while players pray
Court decision affirms school’s ‘hostility’ to religion

Posted: March 03, 2009
1:29 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear a case involving a high school football coach’s effort to respect his players’ tradition of stopping for a moment of prayer prior to games, leaving in place an appeals court decision that essentially mandates a school policy of “hostility,” according to a law firm whose members worked on the case.

(HH here: one beautiful thing about some conservative judges; they have an annoying tendency, (annoying to their appointers that is”) they tend to get tot he Supreme Court and TAKE THE JOB SERIOUSLY. Many have shed partisanship and become much more impartial and objective once on the top bench.)

“This [decision] undermines a time-honored tradition that has less to do with religion than it does athletic tradition,” said John Whitehead, chief of The Rutherford Institute, which argued the case on behalf of Coach Marcus Borden of East Brunswick High School in New Jersey.

“It’s a sad statement on our rights as Americans that schools are no longer bastions of freedom. We’ve become so politically correct and secularized that religious individuals who seek the same First Amendment rights as others are censored,” Whitehead said.

(HH here: Coming from someone who would froth at the mouth at the thought of a Muslim or Pagan teacher or coach being able to speak their mind “uncensored” on things like prayer and religion this seems a tad disingenuous.)

As WND reported, a federal court of appeals concluded the high school coach broke the law routinely when he would bow his head or “take a knee” while his team prayed before games – a school tradition for 25 years.

Borden has defended himself, saying, “We’re teaching kids values. There’s nothing wrong with being spiritual.”

(HH: Spirituality is not a “Value” in the sense that a school should be teaching it. There are many different “spiritual values” and who gets to choose which ones YOUR kids are exposed to?)

A ruling from the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with the activists, saying Borden was endorsing religion unconstitutionally.

The Rutherford Institute said the decision was a blow to athletic coaches across the nation, because the rights of coaches to silently bow their heads in respect while student players are offering a pre-game prayer has been called unconstitutional.

The bottom line, Whitehead said, is that the logical interpretation now is that coaches – as well as teachers – have no constitutional rights of liberty, expression or academic freedom in connection with their jobs

The American Football Coaches Association had filed an amicus in support of Borden, declaring that “when the federal courts interpret the Constitution in a way that intrudes into the locker room, invades the player-coach relationship, and undermines a coach’s ability to maintain an atmosphere of mutual respect and team unity by showing deference to the prayers of this nation’s youth, that concerns the AFCA.”

(HH: WOW, that is almost a straight out statement that they want to be able to “enforce” a particular SPIRITUAL value system on their players. Nuf said I think. Supreme Court 1 Christian Theocrats 0.)

In its brief requesting a Supreme Court review, the Rutherford Institute warned of the impact of the decision.

“By enjoining Coach Borden from showing respect for his players voluntary prayer acts, the decision … requires public school educators to violate the Establishment Clause by showing disrespect and hostility towards student-initiated religious practices,” the brief said.

(HH here: I must have missed the part that said the coach was to “disrespect” anything. I read it as a requirement that the coach remain aloof, not in contempt. See how the all black or all white thinking or a totalitarian works?)

Prior rulings from at least three other federal court circuits have established that schools cannot show hostility to religion, and even the Supreme Court’s prior decisions reflect that belief, the institute argued.

“In Lynch v. Donnelly, this Court recognized that the Establishment Clause ‘affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any,'” the Rutherford Institute said.

(HH: here they are taking a page from the Muslims supremacists book. To not be seen to conform is to be seen as disrespecting. Our home grown version is a bit softer around the edges but Taliban is Taliban and by their fruit shall ye know them!)

Read it all by clicking on the title

Law to protect the young must cover madrassas as well

Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui
Commentary The Times
10 December 2008

Child protection legislation may as well not exist for Muslims who operate and teach at some of Britain’s 1,600 or so madrassas, or Islamic schools. For such people, who either consciously flout the law or are completely ignorant of it, beating children is not a form of abuse but a method of enforcing discipline.

It may surprise many people to find that, unlike schools and other institutions dealing with children, madrassas are not subject to government regulation. The situation is compounded as even many mosque-run madrassas are not registered with anyone.

A recent survey by the Charity Commission found that 11per cent of mosques in London were unregistered. Travel north to the Midlands and that figure mushrooms to 70 per cent. But even the registration of mosques is limited in the type of protection that it offers children, because, while registration ensures random checks by the commission, it does not ensure the regulation of madrassas within the mosques.

Only two years ago my organisation, the Muslim Parliament, published a report to highlight the problem of child abuse in madrassas, including the mentality that holds such abuse as a taboo subject that is best kept quiet. We said then that too many members of the community seemed more interested in protecting it from embarrassment than in ensuring the wellbeing of innocent and voiceless children.

The report highlighted that up to 40 per cent of madrassas exclude uncooperative pupils, and its estimate of 15-20 cases a year of sexual abuse was considered an understatement. Those parents whose children are abused remain silent for fear of being ostracised by their community or stigmatised by mainstream Britain.

Many local safeguarding children boards have begun to engage the faith and voluntary sector and have organised workshops and training courses in their respective areas. However, it seems that these activities have been attended by only a handful of mosque and madrassa organisations.

In the absence of a national register of mosques and madrassas, it is difficult to say what percentage of them have taken advantage of these provisions and have gone on to put in place child protection policy and procedures in their own madrassas. I am not sure how many madrassas have even done Criminal Record Bureau checks on staff who routinely deal with children.

Sadly for the 200,000 children in Britain who attend madrassas, however, the situation will not improve and may even get worse unless new laws are introduced to ensure that every madrassa is regulated by a government body. Such laws could force the closure of madrassas in breach of the Child Protection Act. Until then, children who attend madrassas, whether those connected to mosques or one of the many makeshift varieties operating from people’s homes, will remain at significant risk of physical and sexual harm.

– Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui is head of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain.

Read it all by clicking on the title