A couple of three of things

Great Britain seems to be undergoing some sort of schizophrenic crisis.

First we have this: Christian BA employee to take legal action over suspension for wearing cross For those not in the know, BA stands for British Airlines. The woman in the story was not even wearing a crucifix. She was wearing a cross on a chain. But the wise men at BA thought that such a display of religious affiliation by a Christian might be offensive to... who? One wonders if the officials at BA might not think it a good idea to take down the crosses from all the churches in Great Britain to avoid offending ....who?

Of course, we all know who the "who" referred to by your faithful correspondent. But they shall remain nameless. Let's just say that if Great Britain continues on its present course the guild of church bell ringers will be abolished and screaming prayer callers in church steeples will take the place of the clarions.

But some Englishmen seem to understand that there is a difference between the fear of offending and the expectation of assimilation: The Standard - China's Business Newspaper. Be it known that the wearing of a veil across a Muslim woman's face is a nationally cultural norm. It is not a religious requirement for Muslim women. Muslim women in India, Pakistan, Southeast Asia and Egypt have gone for years without veiling their faces. If the veiling of the face were a religious requirement your faithful correspondent might be more sympathetic to the woman in question. But once one immigrates to another nation it is only to be expected that one conform to the norms of that nation. Otherwise, why immigrate?

Several years ago there was a controversy in Central California dealing with a Sikh boy who wore a knife on his belt to school. The school thought the carrying of the knife was dangerous to other students because of the fear that the boy might go nutty and attack other students with his knife. The boy carried the knife because it is one of the requirements of the Sikh religion that all men carry either a knife or a sword. One reason for this requirement is due to the persecution the Sikhs suffered under the Mughals (Mohammedan) dynasty in India during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. The school district finally decided that the boy could carry the knife if it was riveted to the scabbard. And the Sikh religious leaders in the area agreed, seeing that the knife was, in the US, a symbol more than a weapon. The Sikhs moderated to the larger American culture. But the sons of Allah do not seem to be willing to do so. It makes one wonder if followers of Islam immigrated to the West to become citizens of the West or to take over the West.

Finally, Fjordman, a resident of one of the Nordic countries, has a few suggestions for the West: Gates of Vienna: Recommendations for the West . Republicans should take note. Democrats are hopeless on this matter. Every matter dealing with the sons of Allah is a new Gates of Vienna, a new Battle of Lepanto. And where are our Charles Martel, Roland, John Sobieski, Andrea Doria, El Cid? They aren't beating the bushes for campaign money because real defenders of the West act even if their swords are spotted with rust.