SCHOOLHOUSE SHARIA

A RECENT PEW RESEARCH poll shows American attitudes about Islam trending toward accepting the narrative that organizations like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) are peddling. This narrative includes the propositions that Islam is and historically has been a religion of peace and that Muslims are the victims of a great deal of discrimination in this country.

Not coincidentally, this faulty narrative is being peddled in many of our public schools. Small wonder more and more Americans are falling for it. Several months ago the ACT! for America Mission Viejo (CA) chapter completed an eye-opening report about the disinformation and outright propaganda showing up in public school curricula and textbooks that deal with Islam.

We have written frequently on this topic, but that pales in comparison to the Orwellian "newspeak" that has recently been handed down by California's education establishment with respect to teaching Islamic studies. For instance, as reported in the Investors Business Daily editorial below:

...the suggested framework glorifies Shariah as a liberal reform movement that "rejected" the mistreatment of women that existed in Arabia before Muhammad and his successors conquered the region, according to Accuracy in Academia. The guidelines claim that Islamic law established for the first time that men and women were entitled to equal "respect."

This astonishing example of historical revisionism is just one more reason why we communicate such a sense of urgency to you about the rapid advance of radical Islam and creeping shariah here in the United States. Our window to build the organized resistance to defeat this is not twenty or thirty years long—it is more like five to ten at best.

Over the past two decades college campuses have become hotbeds for pro-Islamist, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and anti-American indoctrination. This has now made its way into our public high schools and middle schools.

If an entire generation of American students are successfully indoctrinated with lies, such as that shariah Islamic law established that men and women were entitled to equal respect, the chances that we can successfully roll back the rising tide of radical Islam dim immensely.

As Adolf Hitler is reported to have said to the adults in Germany, "I care not what you think...I have the children."

Recently, Fox News reported that the head of CIE—now known as the Institute on Religion and Civic Values—misled California education authorities about his academic credentials. For one, Shabbir Mansuri never received a USC degree in chemical engineering as he has claimed, Fox says.

The group's Web site no longer includes the claim. These are the folks who are teaching your children about Islam in public schools. Parents have protested, even sued, but to no avail.

For example, parents of seventh-graders in the San Francisco area, who after 9/11 were taught 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 by mandating that their kids participate in Muslim role-playing exercises such as designing prayer rugs, taking an Arabic name and essentially "becoming a Muslim" for two full weeks.

Children also were told to recite aloud Muslim prayers that begin with "In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful," and memorize the Muslim profession of faith: "Allah is the only true God, and Muhammad is his messenger."

But a federal judge appointed by President Clinton told parents in so many words to get over it, that the state was merely teaching kids about another "culture."

California's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision, ruling that it was OK to put public-school kids through Muslim role-playing exercises. The decision was a major victory for the multiculturalists and Islamic apologists in California and across the country who've never met a culture or religion they didn't like—with the exception of Western civilization and Christianity.

You can't teach the Ten Commandments in public schools. But teaching the five pillars of Islam is A-OK.

Read it all

MARRIAGE BY ANY OTHER NAME

One should always thank Mr. Dodgson for creating Alice, you know, that girl from Wonderland. For without his protrayal of a world gone mad, we would have no handle on what's happening today across the magical lands of California. Also known as Lewis Carroll, Charles Dodgson was a mathematician. Perhaps, if China only had nurtured their own brilliant teaser, then this article and the next one might make more sense to those in charge over there. But here's the straight dope from California today:

In legal briefs submitted to the California Supreme Court, which is considering whether to license "same-sex marriages" next year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown both stated that a future Legislature could abolish marriage and yank marriage rights from a married husband and wife. A group hoping to place a question on the 2008 ballot to defend traditional marriage suggests that the briefs are evidence of the urgent need for the ballot initiative.

In the Governor's brief, filed by his team of lawyers, Schwarzenegger says, "The Administration submits that use of the words 'marry' and 'marriage' is not required by the California Constitution. Thus, the name of the legal relationship now known as 'marriage' could be changed."

In his brief, Brown says similarly, ". . . the words 'marry' and 'marriage' have no essential constitutional significance under the California Constitution. Thus, the Legislature could change the name of the legal relationship now known as "marriage" to some other name without any constitutional impediment."

In the briefs the Governor and Attorney General also suggest that marriage rights and marriage benefits for a husband and wife can be eliminated by the California Legislature.

Said Brown ". . . except for this essential ability to choose and declare one's life partner in a reciprocal and binding contractual commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded exclusively to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose."

Schwarzenegger's brief states: ". . . except for the ability to choose and declare one's life partner in a reciprocal commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose."