Guilt is a powerful motivator. But if there is no God, why should we feel any guilt at all? Shouldn’t we cast off the restraints implanted into us by evolution and live according to the popular, campus-culture phrase, YOLO? (You only live once) Why should I feel guilty because evolution has apparently deemed some races inferior if obviousness is a factor? Look around. Wouldn’t it follow that if history, and thereby evolution, has brought us to this place where some races are obviously exploited by others? And if they are, doesn’t if follow that evolution has made one superior to the other? Seems logical to me… if there’s no God. Of course, I reject that, but then again, I prefer to live a life of consistency. And I also prefer to teach consistency to my children.
Still, if the Godless statist education institution thinks that we ought to not feel guilty about sin, and it rejects sin, but at the same time it teaches our children to feel guilty based on the Godless statist’s morality, then the only conclusion I can come to is this: Never feel guilty for violating God’s morality, because guilt is bad. Always feel guilty about violating the god/state’s morality of equality, even though that morality contradicts everything else the god/state teaches, because… errrr, ahhh… guilt is good? It must be good because as we can see in this article, teachers are urged to teach it:
The author of this article includes an excerpt from another of his articles addressing a “privilege walk”:
1. “If you were embarrassed about your clothes or house while growing up, take one step back.”
2. “If you have tried to change your speech or mannerisms to gain credibility, take one step back.”
3. “If members of your gender are portrayed on TV in degrading roles, take one step backward.”
4. “If you can walk past a construction site without being looked up and down or catcalled at, take one step forward.”
So, basically, anyone who has ever gone to school in a bright orange sweatshirt with flowers on it (not that I’m talking about myself or anything), only to feel humiliated, could technically step back for item 1 regardless of family income. For item 2, anyone who had not used an f-bomb during a job interview. As for item 3, anyone familiar with characters like Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, or actually pretty much most TV dads would realize that everyone in the room could step back regardless of gender.
There are a couple of things that are very glaring to me about this exercise. First, it’s self-contradicting, which is a tale-tell sign that it’s founded in the liberal, Godless mind. In number one I’m supposed to be able to look like everyone else or I’m under-privileged. In number two I’m supposed to be accepted even though I am different. In number three it speaks of degrading roles played by gender on TV. In number four it degrades and prejudges men, who are not acting out due to their gender distinctions, because those distinctions don’t exist, but who instead are acting according to the social constructs they’ve learned, which is what all our morality is based on, except when it’s not, I guess. Confused? I am.
Second, it’s based on a worldview that is antithetical to true happiness. For the Godless liberal, this world, and this life is all there is. So power and material possessions are the only things that matter. But in my experience, nothing could be further from relevant.
Studies show a reality beyond materialism and power. A more pertinent question would be, “Were you happy as a child?” Or, “Were you raised in an intact, traditional family?” If the answer to those questions were yes, the odds are much greater that you really were privileged, regardless of the wealth and power your family enjoyed. But no one’s going to be asking those questions because families are available to all regardless of race, gender, wealth and power. In fact, studies show that families fair much better in all those categories. And if the statist school system actually cared a whit about the welfare of your children it would encourage sexual purity, marriage, childrearing, and family to all races and socioeconomic groups. Fatherlessness and its effects do not discriminate. There are worse things in life than being poor. I’d bankrupt myself for my family. I’d rather live in a dumpster with my family than in a mansion without them. But then again, I’m not a materialist.
This is important. The statist education institution is GOING to do everything in it’s power to have your child worshipping at the altar of materialism and power. They must, lest your children realize that there’s much more to life than the god/state’s promise of a Utopia, which is out there in the future somewhere, eventually, once your child finally grows up and gives it the power it needs to create it. But it will always be out there in the future because it is an impossible task, an illusion. The only Utopia that the state will bring about is for the masters who live an isolated existence, protected from the very law that makes life hell on earth for everyone else. But even in that hell, the family is the best place to be, and your children should be taught this and it should be demonstrated to them constantly. And sending them to the god/state for a statist, secular humanist education is not demonstrating it.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437954/national-conference-tells-educators-check-their-book-and-newspaper-privilege