Every year a few dozen parents, no more, decide to yank their children from the juddering state education system and educate their kids themselves [in Israel]. The Education Ministry abhors home schooling, however, and requires the parents who really insist to submit the planned study program, to make sure that the child receives basic living skills. If the ministry doesn't like the parents' proposed curriculum, it simply won't provide the hoped-for home-schooling permit, even though the parents aren't asking the state for a budget.

The Education Ministry's concern for the quality of education given to our children, including children not educated on its dime, as it were, is praiseworthy. Until, at least, we realize that the very same Education Ministry isn't applying the same rule that governs a few dozen home-schooled children to a vast population of 145,000 children in the ultra-Orthodox school system.

De facto, the ministry is simply abdicating responsibility for the quality of education that those children receive. Deliberately, it does not supervise the quality of teaching in ultra-Orthodox schools and it is now suggesting at the High Court of Justice that the ultra-Orthodox schools for boys be exempted from all standards.

The Education Ministry is officially proposing to allow teenage ultra-Orthodox boys who are receiving their high-school education at small yeshivas, to devote their entire time to religious studies.

Not one single hour would be devoted to regular studies such as English, any of the sciences, computers, mathematics, history, Zionism or democratic values, and these boys constitute 15% of all schoolchildren in Israel, and counting.


From: "Hard look / Handing the Haredim a noose," by Meirav Arlosoroff. Haaretz April 10, 2008.

The article goes on to worry about discrimination, since only the Orthodox would be allowed the exemption. It also worries that the Orthodox schools are tax-funded. It also worries that without other subjects, the Orthodox children wouldn't grow up to be employable by the capitalists.

I don't agree with Jewish Orthodoxy, of course, or I'd convert to it. Most of them hate Jesus more than does any other group. They stand against Jesus's message and exemplary life. Jesus exposed their spiritual ancestors as hypocrites. Frankly, he exposed everyone's ancestors as hypocrites. He exposes each of us to ourselves for our own individual hypocrisy. Why be offended rather than glad for the correction — the good lesson? An earnest "thank you for the proper instruction and sound advice" is just part of a righteous reaction.

That said, who granted the Israeli state the authority to coerce the orthodox parents to educate their children in secular ways? Who made that state infallible enough not to err in such matters? Who's to say that educating people with their future employment under capitalists in mind is the best policy? In truth, it is not. That's not to say that the Orthodox instruction is right or better. It is to say that the proper path is to simply discuss matters with the Orthodox and if they see some light, good. If they don't, then so be it.

State-advocates (false state) imagine they are looking to protect children and future society in general. What is truly best for the children is not the system that has been forced into existence by militarists. Coercion engenders more of itself. The coercive can and do shift on a dime — a whim. The only true state (real and error free) is the one that is entirely non-coercive. Heaven is not forced upon anyone. Only those who freely volunteer enter. Hell is coercive.

Teach the children correctly. Then they will look out for each other's best interest in total peace, which is their best interest.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.