Again, from the top: The Left is the enemy of God, Man, Freedom and Democracy. It hates and seeks to destroy the heritage and values of the Christian Faith, the Christian West and the American Experiment. To that end, anything willing to join the Left and seek the demise of its enemies is its friend.
Likewise, any who oppose the goal - including Muslims, blacks, American Indians, women, Jews - become the enemy just the same. No amount of ethnic slurs, racist attacks, anti-Semitic dog whistles, sexist or misogynistic attacks is too much for them.
That's a suburban town of fairly ordinary dimensions. The school district has about 16,000 pupils enrolled. If it's an ordinary school district, about 160 are from Muslim households, or about 8 in a typical school in the district.
ReplyDeleteThe board has five members. The outlier is a nurse-anaesthetist in the Army reserves, who has three children. Two appear to be housewives who have children (three between them) enrolled in the district; one of these two has an ag school degree and has worked in pet care businesses. One is an elementary schoolteacher which children enrolled in the district. One appears to be a childless bachelor who does not list his occupation in his squib. His LinkedIn profile indicates he has a law degree, but has in four years been unable to find a position in law or build his own practice. (He's hoping a union will hire him). The Hilliard district elects its board in multimember districts according to first-past-the-post, which generally means you vote for any five candidates; it's about the worst way of electing anything. The board is notionally nonpartisan. The members serve staggered terms. If Hilliard is like my home town, the winning candidates are invariably the first two or three listed on the ballot. Personal statements by some of the candidates are to be found on Ballotpedia. The Army guy's remarks are concise and sensible. The schoolteacher lady's gushy and frothy.
My wager would be that, except for the army guy, they're a bunch of people pleasers and wouldn't say no unless there was something about the petitioner that activated their mean girl tendencies.
I'm not so sure. People in these parts have seen the Christian elements removed over the decades and have tried to preserve them, or even bring them back, only to be told no in the name of separation of church and state. Sometimes it's under the guise of 'we don't want to offend.' For instance, in the school district we live in, there are an amazing number of Jehovah's Witnesses. Because of that, our elementary schools just didn't have programs, rather than worry a program might be connected to a holiday or special day. Despite pleas by parents, they said no, there would be none of those delightful programs parents get to watch. Only one when they were ready to move on from elementary school, and that was that. So saying no has not been a problem. It appears it's saying no to some, but not others. And that, to me, is the problem.
DeleteYou're the people activating their mean girl tendencies.
DeleteAmerican popular culture has a short attention span. After about 200ish years of hearing about Jesus, our cultural institutions are bored. They're looking for whatever the next trend is (in this case Islam), but they don't want to admit it. As a result, they use multiculturalism or whatever to justify their anti-Christian bias and hope nobody notices the contradiction. Maybe that's just the price of living in a nation founded mostly by protestants. Protestantism isn't known for stability of doctrine. The dominant factions in American Catholicism still have a chip on their shoulder from the Irish potato famine and the Know-Nothing riots, so there's not much substance there to resist the Protestant tendancies of American Culture. Add to that the fact that our current Pope can't seem to avoid viewing the world through a distorted Argentinian lense (and many in the anti-woke faction can't get over their 1500s Hapsburg view of Islam as a monolithic, Mordor-like force), and our only hope for survival is that the wokists start eating each other before they can do too much more damage
DeleteDonald, that could be to a point. I don't think it's quite so passive as that. I think there is a deliberate movement here because peoples tend not to be neutral in their goals. To reject Christianity in our society is not to land in some values neutral void where everyone just gets along and agrees to disagree - even if that was the big billboard of post-war liberalism. Obviously it isn't, and likely was never, that. With Christianity out, something else will come in and call the shots. Which is what we're seeing. I think this something sees a broad coalition of anyone 'not West' to join against the West, Christian values, and the American experiment. So by painting rose colored glasses regarding Islam, they align with Islam against the common foe - Christianity and the West. If this school board isn't doing this on purpose for that expressed goal, it's playing to those who are. ,
Delete