In the US, for the first time in two decades, the White House has not recognised the Muslim holiday Ramadan, unlike the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, which did recognise it. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the State Department would break with tradition and not host a Ramadan reception (thewashingtonpost 25/6/17).
to which Wallace Klinck from Canada explained:
Well, recognition by the State could well be interpreted as an endorsement by Government. If that is to be accorded then in all “fairness” it should be done for every other “religion” large or small even if entirely incompatible and at odds with one another—or with the larger society or the State itself. The problem is, of course, that when different groups of people find “realities” which are not compatible but all claim, honestly or otherwise, to be correct—how do you accommodate this chaotic situation? I think that it is fairly safe to say that in final analysis there is only one “reality”—but what mortal human is qualified to render a conclusive judgement on the matter? We who have developed within and from an overwhelmingly “Christian" background seem to have produced with great historic faith, effort and dedication the most advanced societies and I think that we would be very foolish to abandon this achievement to the demands of minorities or foreign migrants, promoted and encouraged through subterfuge by hostile elements, domestic and foreign, who are skilled in exploiting our “tolerance” and “fairness” for their own ends.
Obviously, I am biased toward the Christian concept of life because I think that, although it has by no means been adequately followed and has had its own dark moments in history, it has in balance produced through its unique emphasis on individual freedom by far the most desirable conditions for humans. Nominally, at least, and historically, it is overwhelmingly the dominant belief system in our part of the world and I think that wisdom requires that we should retain it in our continuing, but increasingly threatened, free and open quest for truth, in its broadest interpretation, as the only known sound foundation upon which to construct civilization.
Organic change effected by constant contact with the real world and universe is both inevitable and entirely desirable—but we should resist sudden and/or radical social upheaval engineered by hidden and secretive forces bent on overthrowing millennia of development for their own self-serving ideological, political and economic agenda. So far as Islam is concerned, aside from the undeniable merits of some of its individual members, it is as a collectivity both ideologically and politically militant and fundamentally incompatible with our civilization and I think that the two belief systems should remain in their own regions of the globe to demonstrate to themselves and to the world what they can achieve. Islam has nothing essential to offer the West and we are under no obligation whatsoever to extend to it an opportunity of occupation and inevitable conquest through the means of its high birth rate alone. We already have erred fatally by succumbing to the inimical policies of another group which is very small in number but exercises by deceptive means and subterfuge an influence that is thoroughly out of proportion to its numerical presence.
In my opinion, politicians who compromise the interests of their nations either by bending to wealthy and powerful minority interests or by promoting an influx of foreign peoples for the intended purpose of securing an expanded electoral base are guilty of betraying their nations and are the basest of people, devoted to the quest of power and devoid of morals or ethics. One wonders, of course, what this may have to say about the people who repeatedly vote them into office.
The people perish for want of knowledge.