Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Faith based schools should not be funded by the state
Especially Islamic ones - since Islam is not a faith.
by StFerdIII
In Canada and Europe we have an odd picture. 'Conservative' politicians so enamoured by, and fearful of the multi-cult, are embracing some rather silly ideas. In Canada's most important province a 'Conservative' leader proposes funding Islamic schools and mosques. This already occurs in the UK and Europe with nary a raised eyebrow from a 'Conservative' populist politician. Truly odd isn't it. Since when did church and state become melded together in Western societies and since when have 'Conservatives' decided to fund an ideology called Islam, which desires our destruction? How useless are these 'Conservatives'?
The answer is very. Being useless is one thing. Being dangerous is quite another. You cannot possibly believe that supporting Islamic madrassas is a positive for any country in the West. Neither can you possibly support the idea that spreading the Islamic doctrine so that it acquires more cultural and societal power is a positive either. What are these 'Conservatives' doing then by proposing or allowing the state to fund faith and Islamic institutions?
As Conservatives they should have a number of problems just with the idea. There are certainly a number of inconsistencies with funding any faith based school system. The most obvious problem is that the state should play no part in promoting a religion. In most Western states the constitution discusses keeping religion out of the state and vice versa. In reality this occurs and in reality keeping the state out of religion or vice versa is at times, very difficult. But the separation must occur. The issue then is to limit the mixing of the two. This is not to suggest that faith is unimportant. But there are issues with state funds being used to build up a certain faith-based school.
Why must the state be separated from religion? In Conservative terms the state is secular and faith is ecumenical and personal. Faith is a private choice and private freedoms and rights must be protected from state intrusion. Governments have no business in setting up a state sponsored ideology which could either harass, discriminate, or assail individual citizens' freedoms.
The Romans for instance had a state religion but even though the Romans allowed the practice of other pagan programs, there were definite limits. Freedoms were in this regard limited and if the populace did not pay enough heed to the Roman gods, persecution followed. Early Christianity is proof of this. In Medieval Europe similar state inspired prejudices and pograms were legion. The Protestant reformation was as much as civil liberty, as it was about personal religious choice.
Faith based school programs in most Western states are historical legacies from the 19th century. Lacking a strong public state system, and faced with a network of existing church based institutions it was easier, less costly and politically sensible to fund separate Catholic and Protestant schools. Religion in the 19th century was also far more profound and divisive making the funding of separate school boards a necessity.
Not so today. All Western states have extensive publicly funded schools. Taking taxpayer money and developing a Catholic school system alongside this state system, and not a Judaic or Protestant one, is frankly discriminatory. It matters not what the funding formulae are, or if the state subsidy covers a majority or a minority part of the faith-based school system's costs. That is immaterial. If Catholics, Protestants or Jews want a separate school system they must fund it privately and it must meet state-regulations and quality standards. Period.
There can be no imposition by the state upon religion. There should of course be taught in public schools, the Judeo-Christian heritage and the fact that these two belief systems are the bedrock of our modern Western civilisation. That must be pursued and enhanced. But this cultural education is not religious indoctrination. It must be factual, rational and inquiring. It should encourage private faith but not force it on young minds. [This rule should be applied to environmentalism – which is brainwashing 10 year olds with eco-marxist tripe and eco-religiosity.]
The idea of not funding faith based schools is even more critical when looking at Islam. Islam is first and foremost a political ideology of control not a faith in the Western sense. Islam has nothing to do with our Western development. Only 'Conservatives' such as David Cameron the UK Tory leader or the wrongly and amusingly named John Tory of Ontario's Tory party would disagree with this. For these useless 'Conservatives' the Muslims are another voting bloc to woo, another multi-cult group to appease, and another set of lobby interests to empower.
Any politician who proposes even off-handedly, that the state should fund Islamic schools or mosques should be immediately de-listed from his party by his constituency council. They must be barred from entering the political circus and their announcements should be broadcasted far and wide. Funding Islam is not what Western states need to do. The Saudis and Iranians are doing a fine enough job corrupting our education and cultural systems without domestic taxpayers being forced to furnish even more money for our self-destruction.
Islam is an apartheid, supremacist and racist ideology. Judeo-Christianity is the opposite of Islam. For example, the Muslims, too caught up in imperialism and spreading apartheid, could not even come up with the basic premise of the modern world – thou shall not steal. The Jews [or Jooos] did that. Not stealing denotes the importance of private property and wealth accumulation as well as the sanctity of the family.
Plows, sheep, goats and even the wife were all off limits to any and everyone including the local tyrant. Such a concept was too much for the Muslims to develop, since Islam is premised on supremacism and dhimmitude. Dhimmitude is apartheid and what the dhimmis have the Muslims own. Thou shall not steal was rewritten in Islam to 'Muslims shall steal, and do whatever they want besides.' A very harmonious idea. Why would any 'Conservative' politician wish to fund an ideology rejects the basic idea of the modern world – thou shall not steal?
As a political species, it seems that real Conservatives don't exist outside the United States. Conservatism is indeed a broad tent covering many different ideas. Supporting socialism, cultural marxism and ideological relativism are not however, part of what makes anyone a conservative. Yet in Canada, England and across Europe we have conservatives rushing to implement policies that are nothing different than what cultural and class warriors wish to implement. Funding faith-based schools? Surely we have moved beyond the 19th century.
