Islamic Indoctrination in American Classrooms

By Adrian Morgan, FrontPageMag
(Oiginally published in | April 17, 2007)

The First Amendment to the US federal constitution was written in 1789, and was ratified by the States in 1791. It states:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The interpretation of the First Amendment and in particular its first clause, referred to as the “Establishment of Religion” or “Establishment” clause, has a direct bearing on how federally- funded public schools can teach religion. Alan Brownstein, a constitutional law expert from the University of California at Davis’ School of Law states:

    “From a constitutional perspective, schools can’t teach the truth or falsity of religious belief, and atheism would fall in that parameter.”

Public schools can teach about religions, but can neither denigrate one religion nor promote another. When 9/11 happened, children were confronted with the spectacle of Muslim terrorism on their TV screens. Sadly, for children growing up in America, their understanding of why Islamic terrorism takes place is not likely to be explained at school.

There are “problematic” verses in the Koran, advocating violence against “unbelievers”. These include

    Sura 8:12: “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”

    Sura 3:151 states: “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!”

    Sura 9:25 declares: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

    Sura 9:29 states: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Jizya was a tax which non-Muslims had to pay to their Muslim overlords).

The First Amendment was originally designed to prevent the conflicts which (Christian) religion had caused in Europe. Now, it is being employed by the politically correct to present an anodyne and inaccurate portrayal of Islam in US public schools. Sura 4:34 specifically states that a husband has the right to beat his wife if she is not submissive. Problematic Suras such as this are not likely to even be mentioned in public schools, for fear of being seen to break the terms of the First Amendment by “denigrating” Islam.


April 25, 2007 | 2 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

2 Comments / 2 Comments

  1. It is not just the wahhabis who are responsible for the religious and political propaganda that young people in the West receive (though that is where some of the funding and bribes in the form of contributions to university chairs, etc, comes from); it is also a large contingent of academics who have modeled themselves after the Human Rights abusers at the UN. Recall, the Durban debacle.

    On the campus of a nearby University there is a particularly virulent propaganda arm of that university called The Centre for Peace Studies. It specializes in ignoring human rights abuses and, instead, makes full-time academic careers out of bashing Israel and the West. If one parrots the party line then, as a student of peace studies, one is assured a prominent place in the department and guaranteed a higher degree.

    The guest speakers invited to speak at the Centre are usually people willing to turn a blind eye to the seriousness of terrorism and quite willing to jump on anything that requires action against terrorism. Israel has always been its number one target. Antisemitism is a common thread. The department has helped radicalize the campus to the point where professors are afraid to speak up and a form of academic coercion is making the campus as unhealthy as any in the Arab world. They celebrate symbols of oppression and Islamic extremism such as the hijab and burka with day-long celebrations. This behavior is fine with the President of the university because of the significant numbers of Islamist students and faculty joining the campus and he uses the academic freedom excuse to ignore what is taking place.

    The university’s mottos should be: 1) academic freedom = the right to screw Israel; and, 2) cultural sensitivity = ignoring and sometimes celebrating the human rights abuses and terrorism in every country.

  2. At the end of last year there already was a hue and a cry when parents brought a suit against California public schools under the First Amendment. A Clinton appointed judge, however, ruled against the parents and found nothing wrong with “public-school put kids through Muslim role-playing exercises, including:

    Reciting aloud Muslim prayers that begin with “In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful . . . .”

    Memorizing the Muslim profession of faith: “Allah is the only true God and Muhammad is his messenger.”

    Chanting “Praise be to Allah” in response to teacher prompts.

    Professing as “true” the Muslim belief that “The Holy Quran is God’s word.”

    Giving up candy and TV to demonstrate Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting.

    Designing prayer rugs, taking an Arabic name and essentially “becoming a Muslim” for two weeks.

    Parents of seventh-graders, who after 9-11 were taught the pro-Islamic lessons as part of California’s world history curriculum, sued under the First Amendment ban on religious establishment. They argued, reasonably, that the government was promoting Islam.

    Frankly it was promoting Islam, and that judge should have been thrown out for ruling against the Constitution. You can bet your bottom dollar that His Honor would never have tolerated a similar exercise if the religion being acted out was Christianity or Judaism. With such judges, can Sharia law be too far away?

Comments are closed.