The Handmaid’s Tale in the classroom:

Atwood novel too brutal, sexist for school

Robert Edwards says if students repeated some of the words from Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale in the school halls, they’d be suspended, so he questions why it is okay in the classroom.

And what about the foul language, the anti-Christian overtones, the violence and sexual degradation, asks the parent who launched a formal complaint about the Canadian novel. Don’t they violate the Toronto board’s policies of respect and tolerance?

“I have a major problem with a curriculum book that cannot be fully read out loud in class, in front of an assembly, directly to a teacher, a parent, or, for that matter, contains attitudes and words that cannot be used by students in class discussion or hallway conversation. Let alone a description of situations that must be embarrassing and uncomfortable to any young woman in that class – and probably the young men, too.”

He said if the book was anti-Islam, it wouldn’t be allowed.

Russell Morton Brown, a retired University of Toronto English professor, said The Handmaid’s Tale wasn’t likely written for 17-year-olds, “but neither are a lot of things we teach in high school, like Shakespeare.

“And they are all the better for reading it.”

Robert Edwards has a point. It wouldn’t be so bad if the book were any good; of course, as the last sentence reveals, the object of North American schooling is not education but social engineering. Mr. Edwards has an uphill battle on his hands.

To adapt something Malcolm Muggeridge once said, “I would rather be a minor character in a Jane Austen novelette than a major one in a Margaret Atwood book”.

The empire where sun has already set.

The loss of Empire and the rise of multiculturalism has destroyed Britain’s “big vision” and risks creating segregation, the Archbishop of York has warned.

But he went on to say that this shared “big vision” has now been lost and that Britain has become “a society which is ill at ease with itself”.

Dr Sentamu said: “I believe that one of the key factors which has contributed to our loss of the big vision for our country, has been the loss of the Empire. I am aware that this is a controversial view. But whilst Britain had an Empire, a large merchant navy, a large manufacturing industry and commerce, and significant numbers engaged in armed forces, and an expatriate Civil Service in the colonies, it encouraged an outward-looking perspective.

Britain’s “big vision” has not been lost because its empire has gone, rather the reverse. For all its failings, Britain – and the West – once believed that its ideas, ways of doing things, government and religion were better than those it found elsewhere. Exporting these in the form of an empire was viewed as bringing civilisation to barbarians – an act of benevolence, albeit a profitable one. To voice the idea now that the values of one’s civilisation are inherently superior to those of others is to invite a session of compulsory sensitivity awareness training; Britain lost its identity and consequently squandered its empire.

Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in faith, the root of any civilisation: Christians are eager to include Buddhist chants in Canterbury Cathedral; the Archbishop of Canterbury waxes eloquent on the benefits of Sharia law; Christianity is expunged from public life while Islam is welcomed; mentally unstable and sexually deviant individuals are invited to become priests and bishops.

Because of this, the Western Anglican Church has become an edifice in dramatic decline; the determination of its leaders to stay the course is a salutary reminder that those whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad.

It’s finally arrived: the ambulatory statement of belief from the atheist faithful.

Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said the adverts were “overwhelmingly positive” and were intended to reassure agnostics and atheists that there is nothing wrong with not believing in God.

An odd statement from a champion of reason; if God actually exists there is everything wrong with believing he doesn’t; if the material universe is all there is, there is everything wrong in believing in God. The idea of objective truth appears to elude Stinson – the atheist’s bane.

The public theology think tank Theos makes the point:

“We think that the campaign is a great way to get people thinking about God. The posters will encourage people to consider the most important question we will ever face in our lives,” said Theos Director Paul Woolley.

“The slogan itself is a great discussion starter. Telling someone ‘there’s probably no God’ is a bit like telling them that they’ve probably remembered to lock their front door. It creates the doubt that they might not have done so.”

The campaign may backfire on ardent atheists. The chief preoccupation in the West is not that of spending a great deal of time mulling over whether there is a God and concluding there isn’t; it’s not thinking about the question at all.

From here:

Tewkesbury Borough Council in Gloucestershire is considering scrapping charges for churchgoers throughout its car parks on Sunday mornings.

Mayor Brian Calway, a Conservative who represents Prior’s Park, chaired a working group of six, tasked with reviewing the town’s parking strategy.

But a majority of the team writing the preliminary report felt the idea should not become policy as it could be viewed as unfair to other faiths.

Councillor Mike Collins, who spoke against the scheme, worried it would be perceived as discriminatory in “the modern PC world”.

Mr Collins said yesterday: “When the word Christian was used and Sunday worship, I felt that my view was there were many people around Tewkesbury who are not Christian these days. I’m not the most PC person but to single out one section would be discriminatory.

I can’t see the problem. Christianity is true and other religions aren’t. Any sane person would discriminate on the side of what is true and if those who are immersed in error become offended, suggest they abandon their error. In fact, I think Christians should have free parking all the time and atheists not be allowed to park anywhere until free parking lots spontaneously evolve on their own.

It seems that the UK government is determined to bring its pernicious brand of equality hell to 80 year olds:

Home for retired missionaries loses grant – because it won’t ask residents if they are lesbians

Brighton & Hove Council told the home to ask pensioners four times a year about their sexual orientation under its ‘fair access and diversity’ policies, which stem from New Labour equality laws.

Phil Wainwright, director of human resources for Pilgrim Homes, said he was told by the council the home had to ask residents if they were lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual or ‘unsure’, even if they objected. Many of the elderly rebelled, however, and the home wrote to the council saying residents did not want to participate.

Mr Wainwright said: ‘There was a strong feeling among people in the home that the questions were inappropriate and intrusive. They felt they had come to Pilgrim Homes because of its Christian ethos and were upset they were not protected from such intrusions.’

Contrary to 21st Century neo-pagan superstition, there is only one path to God: through Jesus Christ. There are many paths to hell, though, and this one is paved with government sponsored egalitarian fascism; as Theodore Dalrymple observes:

Equality of opportunity is a thoroughly nasty and totalitarian concept. It is the demand that no one should start (or continue) life with any advantages relative to another. But how could such a condition actually be achieved? Leaving aside genetic differences, which must persist until all hereditary endowments can be made precisely the same, and which for the time being must be accepted even though they are unfair (not unjust, although most people nowadays seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the two), the only way environmental factors affecting opportunities can be made equal is by social engineering on a scale that would make North Korea look like a paradise of laissez-faire.

The UK’s unerring instinct to self-destruct:

Iran’s Ahmadinejad to give alternative Christmas message

Jewish groups were up in arms today when it was revealed that Channel 4’s “alternative” Christmas Day broadcast is to be delivered by President Ahmadinejad of Iran.

Mr Ahmadinejad’s speech will go out at 7.15pm, four hours after the Queen’s traditional Christmas Day message is broadcast on the main channels. His message is a spiritual one but includes some more nakedly political elements – including the implicit claim that if Jesus Christ were alive today, he would oppose US hegemony.

“If Christ was on Earth today undoubtedly he would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers,” Mr Ahmadinejad will say in a speech to be shown in Farsi with English subtitles.

“If Christ was on Earth today undoubtedly he would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over. If Christ was on Earth today undoubtedly he would fight against the tyrannical policies of prevailing global economic and political systems, as He did in His lifetime.”

Where does Mahmoud get this nonsense: when Jesus was on earth the first time, it was the fact that he didn’t fight against political tyrannies that upset many of his potential followers.

And when Christ comes to earth again it will actually be like this:

Then I saw  heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called  Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.  His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and  he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. Rev 9:11-16.

I wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of someone who is determined to destroy Israel.