Article

2006-10-15 Britain

Non-muslim students forced to wear headscarfs in UK

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 2006-10-15 06:42|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 So will the dhimmis also have to wear special clothes so they stand out as *them*? Will jews have to wear a star of david?

Posted by CrazyFool 2006-10-15 10:02|| 2006-10-15 10:02|| Front Page Top

#2 My son attended a Catholic high school. Non-Catholics were in the minority, but it was a surprisingly large minority. They paid higher tuition because they didn't have a parish chipping in. They had Study Hall instead of Theology. But they did have to wear the uniforms and the uniforms did include the school emblem complete with Catholic symbols. As far as I know, nobody complained. It's a private institution -- if you don't like it you can go elsewhere.

Posted by Darrell 2006-10-15 10:35|| 2006-10-15 10:35|| Front Page Top

#3 Excuse me for being dense, but why exactly would any non-moslem want to go to a moslem school?

You can read all about the koranimal and bomb-making online at the local library.

Go to a regular school for normal studies.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-10-15 11:19|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-10-15 11:19|| Front Page Top

#4 I'm with Darrell, if this isn't a public funded school - I don't really think this is a big deal, though I agree with Barbara - why would anyone want to do that? I do think it would be interesting if the local synagogue took them up on the offer. Kinda like Selma. But since the kiddies wouldn't get the national guard, probably not a good idea on an individual basis.

But most of all, I agree with the comment that this is a great one to keep in the back pocket for the next time they demand the right to wear headscarves when it is not part of the uniform. Not that it will stop them from whining, but it will make the lawsuit more interesting.

Posted by anon 2006-10-15 11:36|| 2006-10-15 11:36|| Front Page Top

#5 crazy fool - that's a good question. Seems to me to be a good reason to have one uniform for all with no exceptions for religion. Don't like it, send your kids somewhere else.

Posted by anon 2006-10-15 11:39|| 2006-10-15 11:39|| Front Page Top

#6 If the headscarf is ok, then so should be shirts saying "women are subhumans who have fewer rights under law" or shirts saying "women who don't wear veils are sluts who deserve to be raped". The symbolism of the headscarf says the same things.

Posted by Jules 2006-10-15 12:15|| 2006-10-15 12:15|| Front Page Top

#7 Little steps first. I'm impressed with the very idea of a muzzie school.

Posted by Shipman 2006-10-15 12:55|| 2006-10-15 12:55|| Front Page Top

#8 lets not push this too far. We don't get excited when the Amish women wear their headcaps. For centuries, catholic churches required women to cover their hair inside the church.

Posted by anon 2006-10-15 13:15|| 2006-10-15 13:15|| Front Page Top

#9 Excuse me for being dense, but why exactly would any non-moslem want to go to a moslem school?

Perhaps the only alternative is a public (government) school.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-15 13:32|| 2006-10-15 13:32|| Front Page Top

#10 Nimble lol!

Posted by anon 2006-10-15 13:34|| 2006-10-15 13:34|| Front Page Top

#11 The Madani High School in Leicester will be required by law to accept 10 per cent of its 600 pupils from a non-Muslim background.

Didn't anybody notice this? If the school is privately funded, then they should be immune to any government regulations about uniforms. Due to the "10 per cent" enrollment clause, it appears as though they may well be receiving government funding.

And guess what?

The £17m school project will have places for 600 pupils and has received £15m of funding from the government. The school, which will be named the Madani High School, will be the home of the Leicester Islamic Academy and is due to be finished by August 2007. It is hoped the school will address the 1,300 shortfall in places forecasted for Leicester and meet the growing needs of the city's Muslim population.

So, constitutional liberties are suspended even though millions in taxpayer money is being used. I'm beginning to think that a total ban on the hajib will become necessary. These Islamic fuckwits just can't bring themselves to imagine a world where the sun doesn't shine out of Allah's Asshole.

But girls who are not Muslim will still have to abide by a rule insisting all female pupils cover their heads as part of the uniform.
Imagine the furore if they attended a Christian school and were required to wear crucifixes? I am all for freedom of choice: ie - if you don't want your kids to wear a headscarf, then don't send them there. But this isn't how the argument goes when it is say Muslim kids in public schools. Then it's "you're violating my right to wear a headscarf" if they are asked not to as it is not part of the uniform.
Assistant principal Zainab Elgaziari said he did not regard the demand as a problem -

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-15 13:36|| 2006-10-15 13:36|| Front Page Top

#12 Oops. Please disregard the trailing text in my last post. I had also intended to note how:

Assistant principal Zainab Elgaziari said he did not regard the demand as a problem

Of course it's not a "problem" if sharia is being imposed upon the kuffar. But just try and require the ummah to follow a single edict of common law and watch the ~~feathers~~ fatwahs fly!

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-15 13:42|| 2006-10-15 13:42|| Front Page Top

#13 it's a good point, Zenster. I'd say that it is more like non-jewish students attending a govn't funded Jewish school being forced to wear a yarmulkes.

Posted by anon 2006-10-15 13:45|| 2006-10-15 13:45|| Front Page Top

#14 #3, Barbara,
My sentiments exactly. Issue resolved.

Posted by SpecOp35 2006-10-15 14:13|| 2006-10-15 14:13|| Front Page Top

#15 govn't funded Jewish school

With no disrespect intended, anon, just where in hell besides Israel is there a "govn't funded Jewish school"?

Well, tie me to a hog and throw me in the mud!

While it was right that state funding for schools was being extended beyond the Anglican, Roman Catholic and Jewish faiths, he warned of arguments ahead over whether religious groups such as the Moonies or Scientologists should be subsidised by the state.

"The intellectual argument in favour of extending the provision of voluntary-aided schools to other faiths is unanswerable," Mr Smith said. "The issue on which we will really have to concentrate is will the Green Paper proposals open the way for financially powerful cults such as the Scientologists or the Moonies to apply for public funding? "Who is to decide between a mainstream non-Christian faith which is entitled to be considered and a heavily-bankrolled fringe religion?"

'Insulting'

But a senior government source dismissed Mr Smith's comments as offensive to the millions of parents who sent - or wanted to send - their children to church and other faith schools. "The supposed threat he's talking about doesn't exist - there is no more chance of a Scientology or Moonie school being established now or in the future than there was in 1944," the source said.

At present, along with Anglican, Roman Catholic and Jewish schools, there are state-funded Islamic, Sikh and Greek Orthodox schools.

Crikey! I'm so glad to live in a country where there is separation of church and state. I can only hope that the above serves to demonstrate exactly why I am so dissatisfied with how Bush has intentionally eroded our separation of church and state here in America.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-15 14:23|| 2006-10-15 14:23|| Front Page Top

#16 My sentiments exactly. Issue resolved.

Maye, maybe not, SpecOp35. Read what follows:

It is hoped the school will address the 1,300 shortfall in places forecasted for Leicester and meet the growing needs of the city's Muslim population.

More than likely, that "1,300 sortfall in places" is not entirely Muslim. Therefore, the 10 per cent issue. The children of Leicester may not have a choice about what school they attend, just as they will not have a choice about what religious attire they are forced to wear. This sucketh mightily a great wind.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-15 14:34|| 2006-10-15 14:34|| Front Page Top

#17 #8 anon-And for the same reasons then that Muslims want to do it now. In recent history, the Amish also painted the doors of their homes when teenage girls begin to menstruate. Some folks need to drag themselves into the 21st century; let's try not to go backwards.

Posted by Jules 2006-10-15 15:07|| 2006-10-15 15:07|| Front Page Top

#18 Jules, I agree with the point you are making. It's clear the hijab represents more than a headscarf in the same way that yarmulkes represent more than a cap. And worse, it is becoming a sign of "us v/s them" that results in justification of violent actions as has happened in France, Australia and England. It's become a bit like gang colors.

When I see it, it strikes me as a sign of oppression against women - but still, for them it is an expression of their faith and I don't harbor ill feelings toward Muslim women who are simply following traditional dress codes in much the same way that I don't walk around topless.

Should a govn't funded school be allowed to force non-Muslims to wear a symbol of their faith? No. It's not just a headscarf any more than a yarmulkes is a beaded cap or a cross is a geometric piece of jewelery.

Posted by anon 2006-10-15 15:28|| 2006-10-15 15:28|| Front Page Top

#19 More than likely, that "1,300 sortfall in places" is not entirely Muslim. Therefore, the 10 per cent issue. The children of Leicester may not have a choice about what school they attend, just as they will not have a choice about what religious attire they are forced to wear. This sucketh mightily a great wind.

Yes that's the point right there.
At least 60 kids are going to just "get stuck" with this odious institution.

Posted by J.D. Lux 2006-10-15 16:08|| 2006-10-15 16:08|| Front Page Top

#20 to demonstrate exactly why I am so dissatisfied with how Bush has intentionally eroded our separation of church and state here in America.

Zen, be exactly specific, will ya?

Thx,

Yours truly,

2x4

Posted by twobyfour 2006-10-15 17:32|| 2006-10-15 17:32|| Front Page Top

#21 Maybe parents should pay for schooling their children rather than taxpayers?

You know it might solve a lot of other problems...

Posted by Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2006-10-15 17:40|| 2006-10-15 17:40|| Front Page Top

#22 Maybe parents should pay for schooling their children rather than taxpayers?

And in exchange do the young get to stop paying Social Security to those not in need?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-15 17:42|| 2006-10-15 17:42|| Front Page Top

#23 hello? Property taxes generally pay school fees

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-10-15 18:14|| 2006-10-15 18:14|| Front Page Top

#24 For centuries, catholic churches required women to cover their hair inside the church.

And the analogy is...? The Church regulrted the clothing of people in the church, just as now it would not admit people in bikini and as I would not tolerate someone in my house crossing certain limits on clothhing. Women who didn't like to cover their hair could choose not to go to the church. Islam regulates women clothing in the STREET and lets you no choice unless that you never leave your house. In Iran they even regulate what women must wear in tehir own house.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-10-15 18:19|| 2006-10-15 18:19|| Front Page Top

#25 FICA is paid by payroll taxes

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-10-15 18:28|| 2006-10-15 18:28|| Front Page Top

#26 I'm Catholic and I don't know a single parish that requires veils. Name one. Otherwise, admit that some religions have moved ahead, but Islam hasn't. When's the last time a Ctholic threw acid in a women's face? Stoned a woman to death. Barbarian human trash

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-10-15 18:30|| 2006-10-15 18:30|| Front Page Top

#27 I don't understand the big deal about the fact that the Muslim religion requires a hijab. Our religion requires us to wear a top. BFD.

Every single thing they do isn't frick'n Satanic. I addressed the fact that I understand it's not as simple as just a cultural norm in previous posts. I said I don't think that gov't funded schools should allow non-Muslims to be forced to wear what is essentially a statement of faith. But that their culture requires them to cover their hair is not the problem. It's what their culture does if they choose not to.

Posted by anon 2006-10-15 19:00|| 2006-10-15 19:00|| Front Page Top

#28 Our ~~religion~~ culture requires us to wear a top

Posted by anon 2006-10-15 19:01|| 2006-10-15 19:01|| Front Page Top

#29 Exactly. The Catholic Church has made giant strides. Like many other churches it still has some way to go when it comes to equal treatment of genders regarding "unsanctioned" sex. But the members of the Catholic Church, unlike members of Islam, have admitted wrongs done in the past in the name of their religion-the Inquisition and associated witchhunts, pedophilia by priests, etc., and the Catholic Church has moved beyond insisting women cover their hair to make their presence in public tolerated. Not so Islam-it doesn't admit to its witchhunts, pedophilia or shaming of women.

Posted by Jules 2006-10-15 19:08|| 2006-10-15 19:08|| Front Page Top

#30 I'm guess I'm making an obscure point. Will it mean that we are more liberated when we are allowed to go to work naked? That they wear a hijab just isn't the big deal in my mind. It's the fact that they don't allow Muslim women, in western countries, to opt out of doing it if they choose.

Posted by anon 2006-10-15 19:17|| 2006-10-15 19:17|| Front Page Top

#31 Anon-that is a strawman argument. I don't believe anyone here is arguing for complete nudity (although, given rantburgers, I could be wrong about that). :)

"...that their culture requires them to cover their hair is not the problem."

Acutally, I would argue that is precisely the problem. Just because x is an aspect of someone's culture doesn't make it untouchable. All ideas can be questioned, even cultural ones. That particular cultural expression embodies more than the notion of religious piety.

Posted by Jules 2006-10-15 19:44|| 2006-10-15 19:44|| Front Page Top

#32 that's a strawman for sure. Who's allowed societally to go naked? Come up with something a LOT better or refrain, thx

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-10-15 19:48|| 2006-10-15 19:48|| Front Page Top

#33 I think most Rantburgers concur with you on one big problem with it being that Muslim women have no real choice; even if folks in their umma don't demand a veil per se, not wearing one would carry consequences, perhaps even lethal ones.

Posted by Jules 2006-10-15 19:48|| 2006-10-15 19:48|| Front Page Top

#34 Zen, be exactly specific, will ya?

You have got to be kidding, twobyfour. Are you totally unaware of Bush's "White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives"?

Have you ever heard of convicted felon, self-proclaimed Messiah and cult leader, Sun Myung Moon?

"I gave all the individuals in the world cause to kneel down in front of me."
(Rev. Moon, Today's World, March 1995 p.6)

"I served the famous professors and scholars, and eventually they learned that the Reverend Moon is superior to them.... Even Nobel laureate academics who thought they were at the center of knowledge are as nothing in front of me."
(Rev. Moon, Today's World, April 1995 p.6)

"The whole world is in my hand, and I will conquer and subjugate the world."
(Sun Myung Moon, Master Speaks, 5/17/73)

Do you know that affiliates of Sun Myung Moon's Christian Unification Church have received hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars?

Free Teens USA, an after-school program in New Jersey promoting abstinence until marriage, has been given $475,000 by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, another part of the Department of Health and Human Services. Free Teens is led by Richard Panzer, another alumnus of Unification Theological Seminary. Panzer was also a leader in the American Constitution Committee, one of many political organizations affiliated with Moon.

[snip]

Another longtime political operative in Moon front groups, David Caprara, now directs the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for the federal government's Corporation for National and Community Service. That agency runs, among other things, AmeriCorps Vista, which works with community organizations in low-income neighborhoods, and has emerged as a key player in Bush's faith-based initiative, handing out $61 million to faith-based organizations in fiscal year 2003.

Do you not have a problem with the possibility of your tax dollars going to registered charities like The Nation of Islam or the Krishnas or Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network?

Do you not have a problem with recipient religious organizations, despite receiving taxpayer dollars, being allowed to violate Federal hiring guidlines that prohibit basing employment decisions on a person's religion?

If you don't, I most certainly do.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-15 20:02|| 2006-10-15 20:02|| Front Page Top

#35 I get the distinct feeling you aren't reading what I'm writing - but perhaps we just don't agree.

I'll make one last go at this. Does it upset you to see a nun in full garb? Probably not. Why? Because it is a choice on her part to do so.

I see no problem in their decision to wear a hijab. It bothers me no more than when I see an Indian women wrapped in those beautiful dresses that cover them to their ankles.

What does bother me is that if an adult Muslim women wants to opt out of wearing the veil, then Mulsim culture will encourage or excuse all sorts of criminal actions to be taken against that women for choosing to do so.

Additionally, I find it VERY disturbing that Non-Mulsim women, who are in contact with Muslim communities are finding themselves forced to wear a hijab out of fear of being raped or otherwise harrassed. In no way should government funded schools support these "gang colors" that create an atmosphere of "them v/s us".

Focusing on women who choose to wear a hijab, or the hijab itself, is sidestepping the real problem.

Posted by anon 2006-10-15 20:06|| 2006-10-15 20:06|| Front Page Top

#36 just for the record, I read #33 after I posted. Looks like we can agree afterall.

Posted by anon 2006-10-15 20:09|| 2006-10-15 20:09|| Front Page Top

#37 One last bone to pick: A nun is not the equivalent to a Muslim woman in hijab; the equivalent, at least in principle, would be every Catholic woman.

Posted by Jules 2006-10-15 20:14|| 2006-10-15 20:14|| Front Page Top

#38 I'm not sure I was saying that she was. But I get your point.

Posted by anon 2006-10-15 20:17|| 2006-10-15 20:17|| Front Page Top

#39 One point that is maybe not widely known, is that a non-muslim pupil may well want to attend a muslim school as it will be VERY WELL FUNDED.

Not just because it gets a pittance from the government but because it will have the very latest computers - and lots of them, gym equipment, the latest and best of everything. And Islamoschools get this stuff from their network of Islamic charities funded from oil-rich arabs in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

They are very keen on funding the Islamoschools as it perpetuates and spreads the culture, and even better if there's a cherry of maybe converting some kaffirs along the way.

No sharing computers here. They will have powerpoint presentations and smaller class sizes and all the best stuff money can buy.

Posted by anon1 2006-10-15 20:30|| 2006-10-15 20:30|| Front Page Top

#40 Zen, you sounded like Bush's gummint is trying to instal theocracy.

I don't have a problem with similar initiatives per se.

1) I question the timing. It has to be somewhat equal, so there is a chance that funds would be channeled to nefarious outlets that are connected to Islamonazis.

2) The main issue is transparency. Of course, if someone violates federal guidelins, the support should be yanked out, the program should be based on merit only.

3) Further, the taxpayer should have a say how the money would be allocated, or even have an option to opt out of certain programs. Meaning, you, for instance, should have a selection of choices of distribution of your tax money 100% to military budget if that is what you want. Creating budgets based on taxpayer supplied choices may be actually not as big paperwork nightmare as it seems on the first look and may help government making more informed budget decisions instead of the current ad hoc wrangling of intrest groups.

Posted by twobyfour 2006-10-15 20:36|| 2006-10-15 20:36|| Front Page Top

#41 Lol. Some days you just let it flow by, the great sewer of half-baked cranial excrement, and hold you nose, as well as your peace. Other days, well, you feel the need to engage, parry and thrust, do some yadda stuff, seek enlightenment and rapport. Once in awhile you just say fuck it.

Zen has a woodie - religiosity: it's his favorite dumbfuck rant. 90%+ of the money given to religious orgs is just possibly because they run more efficient homeless shelters, battered women shelters, traditional orphan care, general and disaster aid centers, etc. and this has been going on since Day One in the US. And, under Presidents like Bush, less money flows to the asshole outfits, the SP orgs who have more in common with ANSWER and the ACLU than with Americans.

I am an atheist, but I don't shoot all the dawgs cuz some of them have fleas. I learned, the hard way, that The Salvation Army is a worthy charity and The Red X isn't. Now I know.

Nonetheless, despite those inconvenient bits of reality we have admit the brilliance and bow to the Grate Zen:

The constitution is ripped, shredded, torn asunder!

Say Doom!

Fuck.

Posted by .com 2006-10-15 20:37|| 2006-10-15 20:37|| Front Page Top

#42 . com, thx for supplementary commentary.

And, although I am not and atheist (agnostic, there is a diff... though some may call it fence-sitting), any church and me are mutually incompatible. ;-)

Posted by twobyfour 2006-10-15 20:44|| 2006-10-15 20:44|| Front Page Top

#43 Zen, I understand your concern, I really do. But you would be a lot more persuasive IMO if, like anon, you were able to see the good in various religions. Or, to put it a different way, to see what those inside them might find valuable.

I don't have a problem holding my own in our coarse, elbows-out society. But I do understand -- deeply understand -- how that culture *feels* to many women from more traditional cultures. And I understand why they would want to separate themselves from it.

There's a REASON that conversions to Islam are occuring among hispanics, for instance. I believe the women converts who've been interviewed and who say that, while they have less freedom, they are relieved to have (as they see it) more respect and a shield from a popular culture filled with violence, degrading sexuality and little real payoff for them.

Same thing is true of some Christian fundamentalists, who may have 6, 7, 8 or more kids they homeschool and whose husbands may not only work but do much of the shopping etc. I don't want their lifestyle and I would fight its imposition on me -- quite fiercely. But I understand what they value in it.

My own view is pretty close to anons (FWIW). Want to wear a hijab over your hair? Go right ahead!

I have a lot more problem with the veil. That's so foreign to western civilization that I do think those who want to wear it should do so in Islamic countries rather than insist we condone it here. But the real issue is what happens in the Muslim communities to a girl or woman who does NOT want to wear them. IMO we should come down fast, hard and publicly on any intimidation or violence in such cases.

My 2 cents ...

Posted by lotp 2006-10-15 20:58|| 2006-10-15 20:58|| Front Page Top

#44 Non-Muslims attending a Muslim school ? HA ! What a joke ! Like any sensible minded infidel would want to attend such a disgraceful place.

Posted by Oztralian 2006-10-15 21:52|| 2006-10-15 21:52|| Front Page Top

#45 Non-muslim students forced to wear headscarfs in one particular school in UK

Yesterday Leicester City Council said it did not believe the scarves would deter non-Muslim parents from sending children to the school.

Turning this around, why would non-Muslim parents want to send their children TO a Muslim school? Do all of the other NON-Muslim schools in Leicester suck or something?

The Madani High School in Leicester will be required by law to accept 10 per cent of its 600 pupils from a non-Muslim background.

It isn't like Her Majesty's Government is going to round up girls at random to make up this quota.

Posted by eLarson 2006-10-15 21:57|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2006-10-15 21:57|| Front Page Top

#46 Zen has a woodie - religiosity:

Sure thing, especially when it interferes with good government. Do you think an athiest or agnostic president might have minced as many words about the Religion of Peace [spit], the Cartoonifada or took so long to finally identify Islamofascism?

But you would be a lot more persuasive IMO if, like anon, you were able to see the good in various religions.

Must I suppose that you've forgotten my rather consistent support and deep personal concern for Pope Benedict in his timely opposition to Islamism? Has my unwavering backing for freedom of religion flown entirely under your radar? Why would I vigorously support freedom of religion if I didn't believe it served some good or noble purpose?

Further, the taxpayer should have a say how the money would be allocated, or even have an option to opt out of certain programs. Meaning, you, for instance, should have a selection of choices of distribution of your tax money 100% to military budget if that is what you want. Creating budgets based on taxpayer supplied choices may be actually not as big paperwork nightmare as it seems on the first look and may help government making more informed budget decisions instead of the current ad hoc wrangling of intrest groups.

And that is precisely the problem, twobyfour. We don't have any regular vote as to how this money gets spent. Look who's directing this office, David Caprara, a former operative for convicted criminal, Sun Myung Moon. Doesn't that raise any concern on your own part? A check-off box on each taxpayer's 1040 would make a lot more sense. We don't have that and I don't like it.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-15 22:26|| 2006-10-15 22:26|| Front Page Top

#47 Turning this around, why would non-Muslim parents want to send their children TO a Muslim school?

The school on question has gotten massive government funding and is required by law to have 10% non-muslim students ( and there are students waiting for a desk in the area)
The Non-Muslim girls who are unlucky enough to draw the short straw will have to wear the headgear whether they like it or not.
This is the objection,

Posted by J. D. Lux 2006-10-15 22:49|| 2006-10-15 22:49|| Front Page Top

#48 Unfortunately, in Europe, faith-based schools do receive gov't funding. I believe that it has been documented in these very pages that there are gov't-funded Roman Catholic schools in the UK, which are now majority Muslim wherein the parents are agitating to turn said institutions into Muslim schools. In Holland there are Muslim "schools" that are little more than Paki-style madrassahs. The Europeans, despite their intense anti-clericalism, have never quite gigured out the whole seperation of church and state thing. Ironic, isn't it?

Posted by 11A5S 2006-10-15 23:13|| 2006-10-15 23:13|| Front Page Top

#49 Very ironic and the precise reason why I rail against any erosion in the separation of church and state. I believe firmly that this is one of the things that has made America the great nation and military superpower it is today. I also believe that any tampering with the separation of church and state leads to one of the slipperiest slopes imaginable. The theocracy which awaits at that slope's bottom is such a hideous prospect whereby I would sooner avoid any such tampering at all. The situation in Europe that you mention, 11A5S, should be regarded as a prime example of what I'm trying to illustrate.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-15 23:22|| 2006-10-15 23:22|| Front Page Top

#50 Nice drive-by posts there, .com and lotp. It really bolsters your arguments to dash in, briefly poke at things and then run off with out involving yourselves in any significant exchange of ideas.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-10-15 23:54|| 2006-10-15 23:54|| Front Page Top

23:58 .com
23:57 .com
23:55 .com
23:54 Zenster
23:48 Zenster
23:37 3dc
23:36 DMFD
23:33 anon
23:30 anon
23:29 Baba Tutu
23:28 Glerelet Flaviger5433
23:22 Zenster
23:21 .com
23:19 trailing wife
23:15 anon
23:14 Zenster
23:13 11A5S
22:55 Zenster
22:49 J. D. Lux
22:48 pihkalbadger
22:41 Zenster
22:31 Sgt. Mom
22:26 Zenster
22:21 .com