An article in The Spectator by Douglas Murray is a critique of the UK government’s Prevent program, which was set up to counter radicalization and extremism.
Murray argues that the program has expanded its scope beyond Islamist extremism to include right-wing extremism, which is defined very broadly and arbitrarily by left-wing activist groups.
Murray cites a report by Prevent’s own research unit, which claimed that people who follow pro-Brexit and centre-right commentators on social media are at risk of being radicalized. He mocks this claim and suggests that it is an attempt to stigmatize and silence opinions that are shared by many British people. (And beyond)
He mentions Lewis, Tolkien and Orwell as examples of authors whose works could be seen as potential sources of radicalization by Prevent. Because according to Prevent’s logic, radicalization could occur from reading C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Huxley or Conrad. Murray adds that he is not kidding and that this is based on a document by Prevent’s education team that was leaked in 2019. The document listed these authors as examples of ‘challenging texts’ that could be used to ‘stimulate discussion’ with students who might be at risk of extremism.
This is absurd and shows how Prevent has lost its focus and credibility.
Rusty Reno, editor of First Things explains our potential future. And nutshells the overall concern I’ve been expressing on this blog for more than two years now.
Pull quote from Reno’s essay.
I’m becoming an N. S. Lyons fan. “A Prophecy of Evil: Tolkien, Lewis, and Technocratic Nihilism” is the latest installment in The Upheaval, the mysterious author’s Substack. (He writes under a pseudonym.) This extended essay provides an arresting account of the deepening crisis in the West. By Lyons’s reckoning, Lewis and Tolkien were right. We are in the grip of a grim, despairing rebellion against reality that imagines itself to be the engine of moral progress.
Reno agrees with Lyons that the Western culture is influenced by a rationalist worldview that rejects any objective value or meaning in reality, and instead relies on subjective feelings and desires to guide its actions.According to Reno this worldview leads to a loss of human dignity, a disregard for nature, and a dangerous tendency to manipulate and control everything, including human life itself.
He uses the examples of C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien, two famous Christian writers who warned about the nihilistic consequences of modern rationalism in their novels. And explains how Lewis’s That Hideous Strength depicts a dystopian scenario where a scientific elite tries to overthrow the natural order and create a new humanity according to their own whims. Reno also refers to Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, where the evil Sauron seeks to dominate Middle-earth with his dark magic and his One Ring of power.
Reno concludes that the only way to resist nihilism is to appreciate and respect reality as God’s creation, and to cultivate a sense of gratitude and awe for its beauty and mystery.
We must reject the false promises of rationalism and technology, and embrace the truth and goodness of God’s revelation in Christ. That “reveal’ must be understood, at a minimum, as Jesus’s embodied life (incarnation), bodily death, bodilyresurrection, bodily ascension, and bodily return when he will finally put the world right. For us personally, that means, among other things, changed, imperishable New Creation bodies!
Blog take away?
We were given bodies by God, because we were meant to have them. Our bodies are not accessory items to be disregarded simply because we wish they were otherwise than male or female.
Read the whole thing! (The essay has ended when you see the heading “Saint Constantine School”)
Florida school board members clashed over the “definition of a woman” during a tense debate about their district’s sex education curriculum. Broward County School Board member Brenda Fam demanded to know the district’s curricular definition, arguing that parents want clarity on the matter. However, colleague Sarah Leonardi pushed back on the request by claiming Fam was pursuing a “political” agenda.
Well, yes. The agenda of determining a definition for the noun ‘Woman’ is unfortunately political these days. That’s how messed up the Western world is right now.
Speaking about Parents needing clarity, Fam said.
“This is going to weigh heavy on them and whether or not they choose to leave the public school system, or whether they stay based on some of these responses,” she continued. “They are very serious. They want answers to these questions.”
Fam noted that she requested the definitions previously but had not received them.
Interim Superintendent Earleen Smiley responded that she didn’t know if the curriculum contained gender definitions.
“That question is more than a question,” she said. “It’s a thought process and it’s an examination of a lot of laws based on a lot of things. I’m procrastinating and hesitating because there is no clear cut answer I could give you at this point.”
Fam responded that the terms “man” and “woman” had been used in official proceedings last year.
“At that time it wasn’t very difficult to decide,” she said. “So what has now changed where we don’t recognize what’s a man and what’s a woman?”
Another district staffer said that she would research whether or not the curriculum included gender definitions and report back to the board.
Fam asserted that parents had a right to know the district’s position on the polarizing topic.
“I think these are crucial terms,” she contended. “I think they’re actually very basic terms. This shouldn’t be a difficult response.”
Parents deserve answers to these questions!School Choice has never been more needed than right now.
While the news article itself does not explicitly discuss the connection between the debate in Broward County and school choice in Florida, it is possible to draw some potential connections.
Parental preferences: The debate over the definition of a woman in educational policies could influence parents’ decisions on where to send their children to school. Parents who prioritize traditional values and definitions of gender may prefer schools that adhere to these views, while those who prioritize inclusivity and respect for diverse gender identities may seek out schools with more progressive stances on these issues.
School reputation and funding: Depending on the outcome of this debate, schools in Florida may be categorized based on their approach to gender and sex education, which could impact their reputation and funding. Schools that adopt a more inclusive definition may be more likely to receive funding from organizations that support LGBTQ+ rights, while schools adhering to traditional definitions might attract support from conservative groups.
Magnet and charter schools: In the context of school choice, this debate could potentially impact magnet and charter schools, which often have specialized curricula or specific educational philosophies. Some schools may choose to focus on inclusivity and LGBTQ+ rights, leading to a more diverse range of options for families. This could also result in further competition between schools to attract students based on their approach to gender and sex education.
Policy influence on school choice legislation: The debate in Broward County could also influence broader state-level policies related to school choice. If the issue of gender definition and sex education becomes a prominent factor in determining school policies, it may lead to changes in legislation that either expand or limit school choice options based on a school’s approach to these topics.
While the article does not directly discuss the relationship between the debate in Broward County and school choice in Florida, it is possible to infer potential connections that could impact parental preferences, school reputation, funding, and the development of specialized curricula in magnet and charter schools.
