Liberty Liberally - Vol II Issue V - May 2022

From the Journal of Joshua Fryfogle

Liberty, Liberally Volume II - Issue V

May 2022

Alaska

Religion In Schools

Just Justice

(ORIGINALLY WRITTEN MAY 4,2018)

I reject Critical Theory and all of its derivative disciplines. I do not subscribe to this methodology of thought. I simply, and without hesitation, reject it as a valid means of affecting society. (This is not to say that it is completely without merit, and should be thoroughly understood by those who hope to counter it.)

The Liberal tradition, in stark contrast to the Critical Theorists and theirs’, is equally concerned with societal justice but the Liberal philosophers refer to it as just ‘Justice’.

Justice is the treatment of the individual fairly under the law, and a just society is one where no law exists that is unjust - we call this “equality under the law”.

Justice is the most woke concept ever formulated - that the strong ought not overpower the weak simply because they can; that the group, the tribe, the faction shouldn’t join together as a mob and force its will on someone who happens to disagree with them or does something they don’t like.

Justice for the individual is a really new concept on the Earth. Woke woke.

The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth: for kings are not only God's Lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called Gods.

- King James I The Liberal Tradition is a valid, peaceful system, relative to that older order of authoritarian monarchy. The Critical Theorist tradition embraces the ancient authoritarian concept of power and control, as did the Monarchs, making the state the administrator of all that is.

They believe that all of society’s woes can be minimized under the watchful eye of a centralized government. This is a throwback to the monarchies of old Europe. This is a really old concept on the Earth. Not woke, not at all.

Critical Theory is historically rooted in white, male Europe. I don’t reject Critical Theory because it happens to be the tradition of old white dudes from Europe, but the critical theorists of today have posited, again and again, that this is enough reason to reject it; smash the patriarchy, et al.

Critical Theory is self-destructive. It destroys itself, and self in general. It suggests that our individuality ought

to be replaced by a cross section of characteristics, like race, sex, gender, religion, etc... It is opposed to the fundamental ideas of Justice as equality under the law, and calls this opposition Social Justice.

Nice Try, But No Thanks By rejecting this system of thought, this epistemological stream, I preclude any arguments that depend upon it. The only argument that I can logically have with someone who accepts this way of thinking, knowingly or unknowingly, is to recognize this difference in our fundamental perceptions of reality. I can only argue that their tradition of thought is faulty, and contrast it with the Liberal tradition instead.

Yet still, those who do not know the provenance of their modern, Marxian traditions will insist as if their way of thinking is universally accepted. They push a premise, assuming adamantly that they are correct in that premise, never questioning their foundation of thought. They do not put critical theory through the rigors of the critical consciousness they’ve developed, because it cannot withstand its own methodology.

My system of thought and theirs are different.

I adhere to the Liberal tradition. I believe that the individual exists, even though the state cannot control individuality. I believe the state should protect the individual, even though the state tends to destroy the same. I believe that the means of power that the monarchs used against all of humanity for all of history ought to be turned in on itself, and made an instrument of the People, who are all individuals in their own right. I believe that their rights to exist peacefully should never be interrupted frivolously by some authoritarian proxy, and that if they are accused of a crime - meaning to have harmed another - then they should have the full measure of the Justice system. Nothing more and nothing less.

The destruction of the conscience of individuals requires that any opportunity for its development be diminished. The conscience is something that develops naturally, through pain and suffering.

Empathy is the side effect of one’s own suffering, which allows us to see that suffering in others.

We see a grimaced face, tears welling up, and we want to help those suffering with emotional turmoil. This is only so because we’ve experienced that pain for ourselves. Without that shared suffering, how could we identify it in others?

The conscience compels us to do what is right, but that distinction is only a possibility because of the experience of our own pain and heartache. The value of that heartache yields stories of our own lives, that we then relate to our children, usually when they are experiencing some pain of their own. We tell them these stories of our real life experiences, to help them to come into empathy - and parents feel especially proud of their children when we see them express that kindness to others that results from their own pain and heartache.

These stories, they compound, and through the generations they become great traditions. Throughout the world, these stories become teachings that we inculcate to our children, and eventually they become canon.

They become scripture. They become religion.

This is why we see so many similarities between different traditions.

The Buddhists have stories that are similar to the story of King Solomon, who wisely deduced the true mother of the child by commanding that the infant

be cut in half. The true mother, of course, did not want the child harmed, and acquiesced her own rights to preserve the child. We see this story play out almost exactly in the Jataka stories of India, among many others. Clearly the root story is the same one, and these traditions have continued each other’s most potent stories.

While this similarity is used by some to disprove the uniqueness of the Hebrew story, I see this as proof that humanity is able to uncover the same universal truths through story telling. For me, finding this same story in other cultures only builds my faith in continued learning.

These stories of historical events, they become wisdom stories over time, proven by their universal acceptance as such.

The modern idea that we can replace this human experience of storytelling, because of the inconveniences of multicultural interaction, is a lost opportunity. We think that we will take from the People taxes to pay for public education, and then educate the children of the People without the benefit of these stories; it’s foolish.

Religion Is History

Education is the result of religious study.

If it weren’t for the many religious traditions of the world, we would not have an education system at all. In fact, all educational systems are merely the outgrowth of religious traditions.

And by removing religion from schools, we are chopping at the root of them all.

ARTICLE CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE

I do not believe in the academicallyrooted, emotionally coercive Social Justice system. It is fickle, it is cruel, it is unmeasured, it is illiberal.

ARTICLE CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE

You can respond to what you’ve read, or write what matters to you.

WWW.MAKEASCENEAK.COM

Liberty, Liberally

www.LibertyLiberally.com

From the Journal of Joshua Fryfogle

Volume II - Issue V

Liberty, Liberally

Donate. Subscribe.

Support.

907-373-2698

www.LibertyLiberally.com

By Joshua Fryfogle On the first day God said “good” About the day so made And every other day created Was also good, God said

RELIGION IN SCHOOLS

CONTINUED FROM FRONT PAGE

Except the second day of course After God divided light From the darkness in this world; Thankfulness from spite So the heavens were divided From waters down below An expanse betwixt them both As God said, it was so And on this day unlike the other Days of every week God did not declare it good God did not so speak But why oh why would God make evil An absence of the light?

The thought of day necessitates The coming of the night The first day of the week is Sunday The calendar still shows In each week are seven days As everybody knows Monday is the second day Divided from the first And to this day we all still say That Mondays are the worst

JUST JUSTICE CONTINUED FROM FRONT PAGE

I reject it, and am dumbfounded that a system that has ultimately decided that the straight, white, male category is to blame for all of the planet’s problems is itself rooted so deeply in the soil of White Europe. I can make no better argument against Critical Theory than the one it has spent these last many decades making against itself.

The Critical Theory of Marx, Marcuse, Adorno, Freire, and so many more has ultimately failed to prove its case that we should abandon liberal philosophy and embrace one that always selfterminates.

They insist that their belief system is moral and good, and the liberal philosophy is evil, yet it is always those using power and control of the state that have committed mass murder and genocide in the world.

When governments drift from liberal philosophy, they drift into those ancient habits. History shows us that those who seek to centralize authority are the ones who commit atrocities. Liberalism, as a philosophy, is meant to free the individual from that system, and insists that this is the natural order of things.

The authoritarians, whether monarchs or Marxists, always resort to violence and coercion. They can’t not.

The world we’re seeing take shape now, it will not be a just world. It will be an unjust world. Social Justice is differentiated from Justice for a good reason. It is not a little different, it is the opposite of justice. It insists that your

We’ve gotten a surprising number of donations from community members at The People’s Paper and Make A Scene Magazine over the years, and recently it’s increased with the publication of Liberty, Liberally.

characteristics, being shared or not shared with others, is the most important thing about you. It ‘classifies’ you. This is what authoritarians do, classifying society into some caste system. This is how the state is supposed to better manage society. The liberal tradition is that this is foolhardy, and we should instead allow the individual the right to express themselves freely, and control their own lives. They shouldn’t be awarded or denied any treatment based on their immutable characteristics.

The next time someone assumes that their “critically conscious” perspective is automatically moral and good, remind them that this tradition of thought is illiberal by design, and that they need to justify their blind adherence to this academic stream, as opposed to the liberal tradition that undergirds our free societies. Its likely that they are unaware that this critical consciousness that they’ve adopted is not a continuation of the liberal order. They probably think of themselves as liberal, even. Use that opportunity to remind them that critical theory has NEVER been a continuation of liberalism, but an entirely separate, competing philosophy that doesn’t believe in the basic principles that so many modern liberals assume that it does.

Make them do their homework. This, I believe, is the only way to actually fight back against this insidious, slow creep of totalitarianism.

There is no necessity to separate the monarch from the mob; all authority is equally bad.

- Oscar Wilde

in return, too? With a minimum $8 per month donation, you’ll receive a copy of each publication - and even special publications and other things that might fit in a Manila envelope!

We’ve also received many requests for subscription services, requests to mail Liberty, Liberally, and our other publications to people near and far...

Thanks so much for your words of encouragement and financial support over the years. We take your trust very seriously, as we steward content from you and your neighbors onto the printed page.

So we thought, why not make it easier to donate, and get something

It’s an American tradition which we are blessed to uphold.

Let’s consider language itself, the primary building block of all learning.

The first writings of humanity were mostly and most certainly of a religious nature. Historically, this is a fact that cannot be disputed. People do not often think of it this way, but language is nothing more than symbolism, and symbolism is a mystical art. Reading this writing is the result of millennia of mystical tradition. For example, the Christian scriptures tell us that God is ‘The Word’. Clearly the Christian writers understood that grammar is holy before it is practical.

The number system we use today is the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. We’ve simply ignored the fact that even our numbers are rooted in religions of the world. So, if you truly do not want your children to be taught a religious tradition that is in conflict with your own, you must remove the number system they already use. (Don’t worry though, Biblical Hebrew language serves as a number system as well as alefbet.)

If you are unfamiliar with this truth, if it comes as a surprise to you, then your own ignorance is surely a deficiency of your own education.

Consider science. The ancient alchemists were the developers of modern science.

Their mystical traditions - veiled in an allegory of turning lead into gold were the earliest beginnings of science.

Chemistry is understood as the first science, and Alchemy led to chemistry.

Al-chemistry! The word itself reveals this truth.

There are certainly some atheists who have no belief in religion at all, but believe very much in humanist ideals. I’ve known many people who think this way, and they believe very strongly that their children should not be forced to learn religious ideas. I certainly respect their conscientious objection (as guaranteed to them in the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause). However, they too must reckon with the reality that all human learning is rooted in religions of the world.

While they might enjoy the benefits of these traditions in a practical sense, if they are to truly insulate their children from religion, they will need to limit their understanding of world history.

If their children ever take an interest in history, they might discover that all education is the result of the religionists with whom the atheist disagrees.

Mathematics, too, is interwoven into religious traditions around the world.

All education is the result of world religion. And now we’ve come to this point in our society where we cut off these branches of education from their root. Education itself is made lifeless as a result.

The conscientious ideas of right and wrong cannot be removed from learning.

Learning without moral instruction only gives the learner cold and calculating knowledge, and removes the moral mandate that goes with great knowledge. To know how to bend nature to your will, but not know right from wrong, is a dangerous and destructive state of being.

Now, of course I’m not saying that we should teach religion to children in the sense that they are taught dogmatic practice of religion, but to not teach these foundational curricula for fear of the “other” is intellectually dishonest.

Only the degradation of the individual student can possibly result.

Our public education system, if we are to justify it’s existence at all, should be a complete system. To remove the common foundation of all curriculum is to undermine education as a whole. The holistic reality of human knowledge, being based on religious traditions around the world, must be communicated in as honest and complete a way as possible. That includes all religious traditions.

Now, I know that some religious people will scoff at this. They will say that they don’t want their children taught religious ideas that might conflict with their own. To them I would respond that their children are already taught ideas that are rooted in other religious traditions, except with the true nature of those curricular subjects being hidden from them. They are taught in ignorance.

If you truly do not want your children to be taught other religious traditions, then you must accept that much of what they are learning is, in fact, the result of those religions.

Religions of the world must be accepted as part of any complete education system. Not because I believe it should be this way, but because any earnest and intellectually honest exploration of history will reveal this truth. It is inescapable, if someone truly studies education as a historical phenomenon.

We see our children suffering, we see the tears in their eyes, and the anguish of their expressions. They need to know that all of humanity has had the same existential questions, and that all of humanity has deduced very similar ideas of how to respond to these human dilemmas. We can teach them math, but the truth will never add up for them unless they understand that mathematics is rooted in world religions - that human suffering led to a search for answers.

We can teach them grammar, but they will never understand what we tell them until they understand the symbolic underpinnings of language itself.

We see our educational systems and our teachers must dance carefully around these sacred cows. We expect them to teach our children, but not teach our children about education itself.

This is a hard truth that I present to you, not in conflict with your own beliefs, but in concord with our shared belief in education as the path to enlightenment.

www.LibertyLiberally.com

www.LibertyLiberally.com Liberty, Liberally

Perhaps the removal of religion from the curricular studies of our children has cut them off from a complete understanding of their educational system. Perhaps without these traditional teachings, our children are the victims of partial truths, which might be more dangerous than complete ignorance.

www.LibertyLiberally.com

From the Journal of Joshua Fryfogle