From social revolution to - this is no big deal

 

In the liberal and relativist world, off handed comments in social situations are what shape your world view. 

Your basic assumptions are decided by the majority vote of those around you (paraphrase from the writings of Rachel Pomerantz). 

Should  you chafe at such a culture, should you resist the assumption that your reality is decided by impression and feeling, should you ask critical thinking questions, should you introduce the concept of facts, you may find yourself pressured, when in a social situation.

 

Should you chafe at the social pressure, you are told, “oh what she said is no big deal, that is just how she is, she can be a bit harsh, take no notice, don’t be too sensitive.”

 Wait, so was the liberal trying to make a point, or just… behaving? 

Which one is it? 

Thus liberals pull the intellectual rug out from under you. You are confronted, then when you object, the response is, “oh that is just the way she is.”

---

The sexual revolution was supposed to liberate society from the shackles of sexual repression and the patriarchy. 

Actually, then the idea transformed to: “sex is no big deal”.

Wait a second. Those in chaste relationships, upon a break up, do not suffer like those who had been in an intimate relationship. Bring up this important point, and,  you hear, “don’t be so sensitive”.

Was this a sexual revolution, or no big deal? Isn’t a revolution supposed to confront people with new ideas? If so, you would expect a sensory reaction to any revolution. 

"Don’t be so sensitive", and, "this is no big deal", are contrary to the call to revolution, right?

You cannot have a revolution that is no big deal and that no one notices. 

You cannot wage a social battle and then say, "oh, take no notice, it is no big deal."

---

Merle Hoffman runs an abortion clinic and had admitted that abortion is an act of power and is indeed stopping a beating heart.  

 

Power over a helpless fetus…I am not sure what kind of power that is.

 

Most pro-choice advocates claim that removing the unborn from its mother's womb is like removing a polyp, a cluster of cells, no big deal, and that woman’s choice takes precedent anyway. 

(Why bring up woman’s choice if it is only a cluster of cells?)

Answer - you only bring up woman’s choice when you are about to confront the humanity of the unborn.

 

So which is it, a mere cluster of cells, no big deal, or an act of power and “stopping a beating heart”?

 ---

The group that calls itself the women of the wall, at the Western Wall of Jerusalem, insists on behaving in ways that offend the religious sensitivities of orthodox Jewish women. One of their stated goals is in order to “liberate” the orthodox Jewish women.

 

(How is a desecration of holy objects and holy space a way to “liberate” religious people?)

 

Others say that the orthodox women should ignore them.

 

Wait, is this an effort at liberation, or something to be ignored, like it is no big deal? 

“We hope to liberate you, actually if we offend you, just ignore us, this is no big deal.” 

How does that make any sense?

 

The only way the above examples concerning social pressure by liberals, the sexual revolution, abortion, and the women of the wall group, in short: "we are waging a revolution, actually what we are doing is no big deal", can be coherent is when operating in opposition to a real or imagined “authority figure”. 

Remove the liberal's stance in opposition to religion or to the “establishment”, have them sit alone with and ponder whether what they are believing in makes any sense, they are left with intellectual anarchy.

Some find their way out.

 

Haredi ("ultra orthodox") Jewish schools do not teach religion.

That's right.

You see, there is so much variety within Haredi orthodox Jewish society, their schools cannot teach religion.

Their focus is textual study.

Interpretation is learned at home and synagogue.

 - Those families who embrace the study of the  Zohar, a book of mysticism, do so at home or with private tutors. 

They do not even think to impose mystical teachings on the school.

- Those who reject the study of the Zohar emphasize Bible and Talmud learning at home.

They do not even think to impose their eschewing of for mysticism on the school.

 See more examples below

Thus, in Haredi schools in Israel, when children learn scripture, they are NOT indoctrinated.  

They are simply learning classic texts and commentary.

Schools in the USA may like to try this. 

Stop indoctrinating.

Teach classic texts, science and mathematics, and leave interpretation to the home.

---

Haredi means "shaker" or "quaker", and connotes fundamentalism. 

Within this segment of society you have many diverse streams, here are but a few:

Chassidic - follow the teachings of the Ba'al Shem Tov, founded in early 1700's to uplift the poor Jewish masses spiritually.

Within this group you have much variety, the following groups still bear the names of the towns in Eastern Europe from which they hailed:

--- Gur Chassidim - emphasize secular careers, husband and wife relationship a formal one.

--- Slonim Chassidim - emphasize Talmud learning, similar marriage philosophy as Gur.

---Viznitz and Sanz  - emphasize interpersonal warmth and awe of their Rebbe (Rabbi).

--- Breslov - emphasize simplicity and happiness, hold that Rebbe Nachman of Breslov was unique in that cleaving to his teachings can rectify one's soul.

--- Satmar - emphasize building strong family and community, anti nationalist regarding the state of Israel.

--- Sqvere - interpersonal warmth, separation from host society

Lithuania ("Litvishe") - rational, do not study mysticism, less in awe of their Rabbi.

Chabad Lubavitch - follow the line of teaching of the Chabad Lubavitch Rabbis. Study the "Tanya" , a mystical text.

In the country of Yemen, there were three major streams:

Yemenite Baladi - rationalist, reject mysticism

Yemenite Shami - study the Zohar, a mystical text

Yemenite Dor Dai - cleave to the teaching of Maimonides, reject the Zohar

Morocco - also host to streams more rational and streams that studied mysticism.

And this is just a start.

Therefore, in Haredi schools, when children learn scripture, they are not indoctrinated. 

They are simply learning classic texts and commentary.

Those who hold that the teachings of Maimonides are to be followed, emphasize this at home and at their synagogues.

They do not even think to impose Maimonides' traditions on the school. 

Those Chassidic Jews who hold that their Rebbe is a unique saint teach their children this in their homes and their synagogues.

They do not even think to impose the uniqueness of their Rebbe on the school. 

Those who hold that Rebbe Nachman of Breslov's teachings can rectify one's spiritual imperfections teach this at home and in the synagogue.

They do not even think to impose the soul-mastery of Rebbe Nachman of Breslov on the school. 

Those who hold that the state of Israel is premature teach their stance at home, likewise those who believe that the state of Israel is the herald of the messianic age teach this at home.

They do not even think to impose their ideas on nationalism, for or against, on the school.

 

Sex education is done at home. Should the school see a need, they will speak to parents privately.

One group holds that you teach sex-ed just before marriage.

Another holds that you teach sex-ed upon puberty.

They do not even think to impose sex ed on the school. 

 

If religious fundamentalists can respect other groups' interpretations, and leave school as a place to master classic text and commentary, then why on earth are secular relativists given free reign to impose everything from scorn for religion, to contempt for police, to concepts of sexuality, to dividing children based on race in the classroom?

Stop indoctrinating. Start learning the classics.

 

The message that western society is inherently racist and sexist leaves children cynical and paralyzed. And it is simply not true.

It would have been ok to be liberal if I could have built a wall inside myself.

 

But I was a sensitive child. It did not occur to me to think, “this is just what people here say, but not how they live”, bowed my head, focused on making myself into something and lived with the inconsistency until I made a life for myself.

 

Tell a sensitive child that black people are forever oppressed because of the horrendous “system” you live within, she will feel overwhelmed, hopeless, paralyzed, cynical. This propaganda persists despite strides in civil rights, cultural re-conditioning via the media, for example Fred Rogers’ hosting black singer Francoise Clemens, and programs like affirmative action.

After all these strides, after voting in a black president for two terms, we need to teach critical race theory to elementary school children?  

 

Have not we cured so much of racism and sexism? 

 

Why keep these issues on life support?

 

If I could have been told, “you care about black people? Great! Focus on your studies, secure a career in which you can really help others, then offer assistance.”

 

But feeling overwhelmed by the injustice of it all made me suspect the very school in which I was learning, I mean, if the “system” is inherently corrupt, why should I listen to teachers, follow any instruction? Runkle school and Brookline High in the 70’s and 80’s must also be part of that corrupt “system”, right?

 

Or the harping on the “oppressive patriarchy” lectured by teenage girls going home at the end of the day to a beautiful house, elegant supper, and solid income, thanks to a mother who takes care of home life and a father who is a professor at a university…um, where was the oppressive patriarchy?  On to a highly competitive New England college thanks to nurturing by mom who freed you to study and engage in extracurricular activities, plus a sizeable income thanks to dad - was that not gender role differentiation that freed you up and allowed you to sneer at the very traditional family structure that nurtured you?

 

So you may need to to have a split personality. Now, even more so, until this battle against CRT indoctrination in schools is won.

 

You may need to nod your head up and down to statements that we live in an inherently racist culture and an oppressive patriarchy as if facing a religious fundamentalism that could turn to inquisition and excommunication.

 

Go along and pretend outwardly that people are born gay or straight, even when you see first hand that sexuality is flexible: straights become gay, gays become straight - but do not dare say that.

 

And remember that if you succumb to the cynicism of the modern liberal narrative, you will be paralyzed into inaction, self-loathing, with no ability to act and thus no future.

 

And then you notice that those harping stridently on the systemic racism and patriarchy and p.c. sexuality are somehow benefiting mightily from all that capitalism that they say they loathe.

 

They are your college professors, journalists, lawyers, paid activists.

 

So some will have to pretend to go along with it. Put your head down and bow before the lifeless liberal idol, though your conscience pricks, do not get into debates until you are strong, and that not will happen for a few years into building a career, way after college years.

 

You will get past it, you will be free once you solidify your job skills or career path, develop respectful interpersonal characteristics, marry even, engage in healthy habits.

 

You are not likely to have much strength until well into your 20’s.  

 

So build that wall inside yourself in the meantime.

 

Let the strong engage in the fight against critical race theory and other forms of indoctrination, because it is not over yet.

 

 

 

Parents raise kids, not the state.

 

The USA supposedly  has a separation  of religion and state.

Yet public schools  have been teaching subjects that overlap religion. 

Sex education is an example.

But even those who were teaching history or English imposed their views on us.

My eighth grade history teacher in Runkle school, Brookline Mass, year 1981, illustrated on the chalkboard that abortion is black and white in the first and third trimesters - in the first, it is completely okay to abort because the embryo “is like glue”. 

The third trimester, well it is too late then, the fetus is practically a person. But the middle trimester is a gray area and is thus unclear whether abortion should happen in that second trimester.

 

No one in class raised any objection. I do not believe any parents called the principal and complained either on account of a pro life stance from conception, or for a longer time span of when it is supposedly okay to abort, or for something deeper - why was he even instructing students on this topic?

 

So we were told that the USA had separation of religion and state, yet teachers in public schools had free reign to touch upon topics that scripture and tradition deal with.

 

And no one stopped it, no one questioned it, no one even countered with the basic assumption and declared what we all should:

 

Parents raise children, not the state.