The original colonists on these fair shores left England to escape the religious persecution of the Church of England.
It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same: A childless British couple went to Morocco to adopt a four month old child, converting to Islam along the way, as required by the Moroccan government. The boy has thrived at home with the couple, who in 2007 decided to fly back to Morocco to adopt another child. And that’s when things got “interesting“:
(Even) though social workers indicated in an initial report that they would be prepared to support the second application, the couple were left with the impression that they were being asked to do more to show they were living a Muslim lifestyle…
In their report, social workers noted that although the couple had stated their religion was Islam “there is no outward sign that this is a Muslim family . . . Joanne and Robert (Garofalo) are aware that the socio-religious element is an aspect of Samuel’s identity and heritage which this agency takes very seriously.” It recommended that “particular attention be given to sharing techniques and strategies with Joanne and Robert that will enhance their children’s sense of identity and legacy, particularly in view of their very public statement they made deciding to convert to Islam in order to adopt”.
So, the Wise Government Bureaucrats from the Surrey County Council threw stumbling blocks at the feet of parents wishing to save a child from a third world orphanage because, in the view of those same functionaries, the parents forced conversion to Islam appeared insufficiently sincere. Only try to imagine the Surrey City Council foiling the adoption of an Italian child to lapsed Catholics. Or a child from South Africa because his parents weren’t tithing to the Anglican Church.
Britain appears to retain its affection for the kind of state sanctioned religion that sent the pilgrims hither. It’s just, you know: A different religion, now.
The world truly has turned upside down.
Lex,
Quote: “The original colonists on these fair shores left England to escape the religious persecution of the Church of England.”
As much as it pains me to offer this up, this is simply not true. Their were numerous prospering colonies of hard-working English citizens (as well as Spanish and French) in this country decades before the Pilgrims arrived.
In fact, things were going rather swimmingly over here until the Puritans (thank you ever so much, John Calvin) arrived and put a damper on things that seems to have lasted lo these many centuries.
Damariscove Colony, up here in Bristol, Maine, was one of those pre-Puritan colonies, and the area was used by Portugese fishermen before the English established a permanent base.
I consider this lack of education one of the many failings of a government run school system. Expect much more of the same in the coming years.
Sorry to say, the historical England appears just about gone.
The future is a rapidly-growing immigrant by-and-large militant Islamic population with a thin overlay of politically correct governance. That governance will come tumbling down, either crumbling under failed legitimacy due to assaults like this, or more radically.
It is hard to imagine how things don’t “end” with blood in the streets.
Maybe that is why the historic British population has been disarmed — it makes things less messy in the end state.
The original colonists on these fair shores left England to escape the religious persecution of the Church of England.
I think they came over to practice their own form of religious intolerance.
Used by transient fishermen is not the same as settled by. And for all the bugbears of Calvinism, its stoic descendants did a lot more to conquer America than the Portuguese or Spanish ever did. And finally, when it comes to religious tolerance I point you to the colony of Rhode Island and the strange career of Roger Williams.
I love watching how these threads meander from the original post’s intent…as interesting as pursuing a debate over whom colonized where, when and to what enduring effect, might be, I’d like to comment on the adoption issue.
While I agree that there is something truly sad about a child’s future being decided based on identity politics; I am also baffled by would-be parents who by-pass equally needy children living in their own country.
I know couples who have ’shopped’ (and are currently shopping) around to see which countries have the easiest and most affordable adoption procedures, who have compared the health ‘quality’ of the children available for adoption, debated which country’s children are most deserving of being saved, etc. When the Iraq war began, I predicted that the Middle East would become the next adoption hot spot once rebuilding was well underway.
It is clear that many of these couples (the ones I know) like the idea of acquiring a child (I should say, explicitly a baby) who can be stripped of its history–very little chance that the Chinese, or Thai, or Guatemalan, or Russian, etc., etc., biological mother or father or siblings may one day appear on the doorstep–an increasing likelihood when adopting in the US.
In this sense, I can understand some of the concerns of adopting countries regarding whether the child will have some notion of their cultural heritage made available to them–which is very different from saying that I support the case described. Clearly there is a huge divide between educating a child about their ancestry versus dictating how a child will be raised.
Still, the whole foreign adoption process reduces children to commodities in ways that are unsettling to me. I guess I wish, as far as adoption goes, it would become trendy to “buy American” and consider older children, not just infants or toddlers.
OriginalFrank wrote, “It is hard to imagine how things don’t “end” with blood in the streets.
Prince Charles converts to Islam and ascends the throne.
The Greeks, the Romans, the Franks, and now the British..