Robert Spencer

|

Pamela Geller

|

Bat Ye'or

|

Brigitte Gabriel

|

Daniel Pipes

|

Debbie Schlussel

|

Walid Shoebat

|

Joe Kaufman

|

Wafa Sultan

|

Geert Wilders

|

The Nuclear Card

How Christian Fundamentalists Plan to Teach Genocide to Schoolchildren

Posted on 05 June 2012 by Ilisha

Child with Bible

While many in the West are myopically focused on Muslim extremists, another form of religious extremism is poised to reach thousands of children in public schools across the US.

Aside from the disturbing implications for those who advocate a clear separation between church and state, the alarming content of the curriculum begs a question about the sponsors: What if they were Muslim?

How Christian Fundamentalists Plan to Teach Genocide to Schoolchildren

By Katherine Stewart, Guardian UK

Good News Clubs’ evangelism in schools is already subverting church-state separation. Now they justify murdering nonbelievers.

The Bible has thousands of passages that may serve as the basis for instruction and inspiration. Not all of them are appropriate in all circumstances.

The story of Saul and the Amalekites is a case in point. It’s not a pretty story, and it is often used by people who don’t intend to do pretty things. In the book of 1 Samuel (15:3), God said to Saul:

“Now go, attack the Amalekites, and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

Saul dutifully exterminated the women, the children, the babies and all of the men – but then he spared the king. He also saved some of the tastier looking calves and lambs. God was furious with him for his failure to finish the job.

The story of the Amalekites has been used to justify genocide throughout the ages. According to Pennsylvania State University Professor Philip Jenkins, a contributing editor for the American Conservative, the Puritans used this passage when they wanted to get rid of the Native American tribes. Catholics used it against Protestants, Protestants against Catholics. “In Rwanda in 1994, Hutu preachers invoked King Saul’s memory to justify the total slaughter of their Tutsi neighbors,” writes Jenkins in his 2011 book, Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can’t Ignore the Bible’s Violent Verses (HarperCollins).

This fall, more than 100,000 American public school children, ranging in age from four to 12, are scheduled to receive instruction in the lessons of Saul and the Amalekites in the comfort of their own public school classrooms. The instruction, which features in the second week of a weekly “Bible study” course, will come from the Good News Club, an after-school program sponsored by a group called the Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF). The aim of the CEF is to convert young children to a fundamentalist form of the Christian faith and recruit their peers to the club.

There are now over 3,200 clubs in public elementary schools, up more than sevenfold since the 2001 supreme court decision, Good News Club v Milford Central School, effectively required schools to include such clubs in their after-school programing.

The CEF has been teaching the story of the Amalekites at least since 1973. In its earlier curriculum materials, CEF was euphemistic about the bloodshed, saying simply that “the Amalekites were completely defeated.” In the most recent version of the curriculum, however, the group is quite eager to drive the message home to its elementary school students. The first thing the curriculum makes clear is that if God gives instructions to kill a group of people, you must kill every last one:

“You are to go and completely destroy the Amalekites (AM-uh-leck-ites) – people, animals, every living thing. Nothing shall be left.”

“That was pretty clear, wasn’t it?” the manual tells the teachers to say to the kids.

Even more important, the Good News Club wants the children to know, the Amalakites were targeted for destruction on account of their religion, or lack of it. The instruction manual reads:

“The Amalekites had heard about Israel’s true and living God many years before, but they refused to believe in him. The Amalekites refused to believe in God and God had promised punishment.”

The instruction manual goes on to champion obedience in all things. In fact, pretty much every lesson that the Good News Club gives involves reminding children that they must, at all costs, obey. If God tells you to kill nonbelievers, he really wants you to kill them all. No questions asked, no exceptions allowed.

Asking if Saul would “pass the test” of obedience, the text points to Saul’s failure to annihilate every last Amalekite, posing the rhetorical question:

“If you are asked to do something, how much of it do you need to do before you can say, ‘I did it!’?”

“If only Saul had been willing to seek God for strength to obey!” the lesson concludes.

A review question in the textbook seeks to drive the point home further:

“How did King Saul only partly obey God when he attacked the Amalekites? (He did not completely destroy as God had commanded, he kept the king and some of the animals alive.)”

The CEF and the legal advocacy groups that have been responsible for its tremendous success over the past ten years are determined to “Knock down all doors, all the barriers, to all 65,000 public elementary schools in America and take the Gospel to this open mission field now! Not later, now!” in the words of a keynote speaker at the CEF’s national convention in 2010. The CEF wants to operate in the public schools, rather than in churches, because they know that young children associate the public schools with authority and are unable to distinguish between activities that take place in a school and those that are sponsored by the school.

In the majority opinion that opened the door to Good News Clubs, supreme court Justice Clarence Thomas reasoned that the activities of the CEF were not really religious, after all. He said that they could be characterized, for legal purposes, “as the teaching of morals and character development from a particular viewpoint”.

As Justices Souter and Stevens pointed out in their dissents, however, the claim is preposterous: the CEF plainly aims to teach religious doctrines and conduct services of worship. Thomas’s claim is particularly ironic in view of the fact that the CEF makes quite clear its intent to teach that no amount of moral or ethical behavior (pdf) can spare a nonbeliever from an eternity in hell.

Good News Clubs should not be in America’s public elementary schools. As I explain in my book, The Good News Club: The Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children, the club exists mainly to give small children the false impression that their public school supports a particular creed. The clubs’ presence has produced a paradoxical entanglement of church and state that has ripped apart communities, degraded public education, and undermined religious freedom.

The CEF’s new emphasis on the genocide of nonbelievers makes a bad situation worse. Exterminist rhetoric has been on the rise among some segments of the far right, including some religious groups. At what point do we start taking talk of genocide seriously? How would we feel about a nonreligious group that instructs its students that if they should ever receive an order to commit genocide, they should fulfill it to the letter?

And finally, when does a religious group qualify as a “hate group”?

 

  • Faisal Rathor

    @Michael Elwood,

    First of all thank you for your very convincing references!!!

    Secondly, I will just quote a verse from Quran to end my discussion on this topic with you,

    59:10 And those who came (into the faith) after them say: Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who were before us in the faith, and place not in our hearts any rancour toward those who believe. Our Lord! Thou art Full of Pity, Merciful.”

  • Michael Elwood

    @Faisal Rathor

    “After all this long chain of discussion, you could come up with only a grand site where author claims that he has original copy but never proved it. and other evidence sited by you is Rashad Khalifa’s Quran’s Translation which has that scan? Can you post his Fatwah where he calls people apostate who go against his Fatwah (explictly)? So assumption at best is not good to have.”

    First you asked which book, and it was pointed out to you. Then you asked which page, and it was pointed out to you. I don’t know what would convince you outside of Bin Baz coming back to life and telling you himself. You don’t have to take Yuksel or Khalifa’s word for it. You have the reference. And you’re in Saudi Arabia (where his books are presumably readily available). You can read the suggested page for yourself. You can even read the pages before and after, or the entire book, for context.

    “It is very simple common sense. If Sheikh Bin Baz has issued any such Fatwah that whoever believes such and such is apostate, he is not saying that whoever goes against his Fatwah is apostate but whoever believes this is apostate. There is a huge difference here. His understanding could be that such believe is against Quran or Sunnah though he corrected himself later. That is why he might have issued such Fatwah of apostasy against those who believes in it and not because such believe goes against his opinion.”

    That sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.

  • Faisal Rathor

    @Mikael Elwood,

    /* I think the quote was from page 23 of “al-adillat al-naqliyyati wa al-hissiyati ‘ala jarayan al-shamsi wa sukun al-’ardi. . . .”. I think a scan would have been overkill. But my old, dusty copy of Rashad Khalifa’s translation of the Quran does have a partial scan of the Arabic version. */

    After all this long chain of discussion, you could come up with only a grand site where author claims that he has original copy but never proved it. and other evidence sited by you is Rashad Khalifa’s Quran’s Translation which has that scan? Can you post his Fatwah where he calls people apostate who go against his Fatwah (explictly)? So assumption at best is not good to have.

    /* And I don’t understand why you find it so hard to believe that he called those who disagree with his flat earth view apostates. */

    It is very simple common sense. If Sheikh Bin Baz has issued any such Fatwah that whoever believes such and such is apostate, he is not saying that whoever goes against his Fatwah is apostate but whoever believes this is apostate. There is a huge difference here. His understanding could be that such believe is against Quran or Sunnah though he corrected himself later. That is why he might have issued such Fatwah of apostasy against those who believes in it and not because such believe goes against his opinion.

    Since he repented and corrected himself, May Allah forgive his shortcomings.

  • Michael Elwood

    @Faisal Rathor

    “Sorry to say that author in that site says he has original copy of the book and never shown Sheikh Bin Baz quote by page! Very skeptic though the author least could have some scans of his fatwa if he really has that book”

    I think the quote was from page 23 of “al-adillat al-naqliyyati wa al-hissiyati ‘ala jarayan al-shamsi wa sukun al-’ardi. . . .”. I think a scan would have been overkill. But my old, dusty copy of Rashad Khalifa’s translation of the Quran does have a partial scan of the Arabic version.

    “Let me be more pessimistic about Sheikh Bin Baz and after ready his Fatwa from grand site given by you, let me accept that he said that whoever believes such and such is apostate. Wait! where did he say that whoever does not accept his Fatwa is apostate. If he has said what this grand site says, then according to Sheikh’s understanding such believe might take someone of out of fold of Islam but still never proves that he called those apostates who goes against his Fatwa. There is a huge difference between these two statements.”

    I’m not sure I understand the distinction that you’re trying to make. And I don’t understand why you find it so hard to believe that he called those who disagree with his flat earth view apostates. Wasn’t the reason why King Faisal was so mad at him was because that would make him an apostate too (presumably he was of the round earth persuasion)?

  • Faisal Rathor

    @Michael Elwood,

    Sorry to say that author in that site says he has original copy of the book and never shown Sheikh Bin Baz quote by page! Very skeptic though the author least could have some scans of his fatwa if he really has that book.

    After all you could come with only this evidence. Come on! The book Sheikh Bin Baz wrote, it was only published by Madinah University (KSA) in 1975 as per site given by you and interestingly the author of that site got the original copy of it?

    Let me be more pessimistic about Sheikh Bin Baz and after ready his Fatwa from grand site given by you, let me accept that he said that whoever believes such and such is apostate. Wait! where did he say that whoever does not accept his Fatwa is apostate. If he has said what this grand site says, then according to Sheikh’s understanding such believe might take someone of out of fold of Islam but still never proves that he called those apostates who goes against his Fatwa. There is a huge difference between these two statements.

    Anyhow, I have seen Sheikh, he was very humble man and same time very staunch to enemies of Islam. Rest I leave it to Allah.

Advertise Here
Advertise Here