| Blow Her Brains Out! This is Public School | |
|
By
Rabbi David Eidensohn
What do you do with a fifteen-year-old student who paints a picture
showing how he shoots a female police officer's brains out? According to
CNSNews (8:5:02::Jessica Cantelon), a case regarding a California student
who did just this is going through the courts. An art student was angry at a
police officer who cited him for marijuana possession, and so in art class,
Ryan D. drew a picture of how he shot her with a pistol and her blood and
head pieces flew away. Lest anyone mistake who the victim was in the
painting, Ryan painted the correct police badge number. One court found that
the student was guilty of terrorism. A higher court reversed and said that
this was not terrorism. Defense attorney James Webster said, "Schools
should look for alternatives to litigation when confronted with offensive
students. Kick the kid out, get him out of the school, get him away from
there ... but you don't throw him in jail."
The question in this litigation is how to deal with the boy who
painted the threatening picture. Should he, as the prosecution wishes, be
sent to jail, or should he, as his defense lawyer suggested, be sent away
from school? Are any of these options ideal, or even appropriate? Should a
boy who did such a thing be sent to jail as a terrorist? We wish that all
terrorists would merely paint pictures, instead of bombing buses. Therefore,
to consider this terrorism is questionable. On the other hand, the female
police officer is afraid, and she should be. People who talk threats or
violence and certainly people who go to such lengths as painting a picture
about it and presenting it to their teacher have a lot on their mind. In our
day and age, especially in a public school system that is held together with
a mob of armed police officers, this is significant and scary. Should such a
dangerous kid be sent away? Would he not then become even more dangerous?
Who could prevent him from returning with a gun?
The issue here is not a legal one; it is an educational one. Can a
school survive when it must drag such a serious situation for years into the
court system? Education, and family as well, can only survive properly when
a challenge to authority is dealt with quickly in a manner to let things
continue as if nothing major happened. To make a big deal out of disruption
is to disrupt. How would biblical schools handle such a problem?
In our previous article, Rape, Religion and Slaves, we compared the
prison system with biblical whipping and "slavery," a form of
working. We asked if a prisoner would rather sit in jail for ten years
getting raped by people with AIDS, or get a few whacks and go home to his
family. The answer is obvious. Forcing a person to be without sex for years
is cruel and unusual punishment. Whipping him is only cruel by modern
convention. Indeed, whippings are the perfect form of social, family and
educational justice. The disruptive person is punished quickly, is able to
finish with his ordeal without undue duration, and everyone returns quickly
to normal.
If such a young boy as the one who painted the picture blowing out
the brains of a police officer was given a good spanking, especially one in
public, he would not feel so high and mighty, and he would quickly resolve
his guilt with society, and continue as a good citizen. A beating brings out
a humility that does not co-exist with shooting people. More important, if
the school itself had such a policy, children would learn some respect, and
not end up determined to punish adults who call them for evil deeds. A
society that considers a few physical blows "cruel and unusual
punishment" then goes to another extreme and makes jails where one in
ten is sexually assaulted and one in five is raped. What of the ladies in
jail who are now pregnant against their will? Is this not cruel and unusual
punishment? The lady wished she had a few whippings under doctor's
supervision instead of the brutal rape some guard performed on her, a trauma
that will never leave her. Speaking
of rape, we come to Brandeis University, and another interesting court case.
Again, just as in the California case, a young male student is tied up in
litigation for years. Instead of going on with his life, he is busy working
on one trial after another, up and up a hugely expensive legal system. The
very facts of the case bespeak a system that is utterly deleterious to
normal people. A young man David Arlen S., called his girl friend, and then
went to her room. They kissed, and he wanted more. She was not interested.
He left, and she went to sleep. She woke up with him in her bed having
intercourse. She reported him to the college.
The college thereupon made an investigation, and concluded that David
should leave the college for four months. He sued, claiming that his rights
were violated, and one court agreed, and the other reversed, exactly as
happened in the California case. This confusion in schools, and the
inability to deal with serious student mischief, is itself a major problem.
The other problem is, why is this not plain criminal rape? The college sent
him away to protect the woman from another rape, but did not deal with his
attack upon her as criminal, nor did it punish him for it in proportion to
the crime.
Brandeis ruled that for raping a woman while she slept, David had
engaged, not in rape, but in "unwanted sexual activity." It also
found that he had "created a hostile environment," meaning,
obviously, that she feared him. The college then suspended him for four
months. If this had been a biblical environment, such a boy would have
gotten much worse, but in a secular college scene, a woman is bereft of
protection from such rape. On the other hand, a biblical environment would
not have men and women in the heat of their youthful biology kissing each
other, as this can only lead to trouble. Therefore, the college environment
itself, actually, the girls, invite trouble. If you kiss a young man before
he goes to sleep, you may get raped. The college obviously agreed with this
logic, as no criminal charges were pressed. What the boy did was merely a
benign "unwanted sex." Pity the women who go to college. Speaking
of women in college, we come to another college, Harvard, and another
college rape-related court case.
Federal Civil Rights officials are investigating Harvard University
for discriminating against women. The Associated Press, on August 6, 2002,
reports that Harvard decided to insist that women who charge men with sexual
crimes produce corroborating evidence. This is seen as discrimination
against women. What does the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department
of Education want from Harvard? Does it insist that women can get men
punished without proof of a crime? When we get to a point that Harvard
University, doing something accepted by its faculty and administration, is
considered discrimination against women, we are surprised. We should not be.
Women cannot live in a college if they play by the rules. They cannot
survive in colleges after they graduate, as we will soon discuss. Women must
bend the rules, and this means that men must suffer unjustly. Otherwise, it
is "discrimination."
If Harvard would accept biblical rules, and prohibit boys and girls
from having heavy sex, we would not have these problems. Girls are
constantly giving boys what only married men are supposed to have. They
excite boys who are in fervent biological heat. What will happen? Of course,
not every boy can control himself. So what can be done? Since these assaults
take place in private places, in the middle of the night, there are few
witnesses, or only circumstantial inferences. If a woman has to bring proof,
she is cooked. Therefore, to survive in college, and continue having florid
sex, she needs the right to accuse a boy and have him thrown out of school,
without any proof. Harvard refuses this. How amazing, but how
understandable, that the government considers Harvard to be discriminating.
The liberal, anti-biblical world is so confused. Harvard discriminates?
This brings us to another sad story about women, and once again, we
thank the liberal secularists who taught women that they must have lives
like men, and try to squeeze the women in somehow when nobody is noticing.
An article in the New York Times on August 4, 2002, discusses "Baby
Bias."
Women who want to become professors have serious problems with
babies. It can ruin their career. Professors usually get their degrees at
age 34, and then put in about six years to get tenure, when the good money
arrives. If they don't get tenure, they are essentially fired, and must live
on small salaries wherever they can. For a man, these six years are periods
where he devotes full time to his career, and pleases the committee that
will recommend tenure. A woman who wants to have a baby has a serious
problem. She is thirty-four, and her fertility is declining. By age forty,
when she must find tenure, her fertility is almost gone. She must therefore
combine parenting and seeking tenure. However, the colleges do not fail to
notice that she cannot put in the same time as a man, and they often reject
her. The article was about seeking solutions for this, but there is no real
solution. Having a career in college and a baby are not compatible, for the
mother or the college. If the mother brings the baby to college, it is not
compatible for the baby either, and if the baby grows up with a babysitter,
that is not the best option, as well.
Therefore, women have a hard time in college. So, what else should
they do?
Women are frustrated by a system that boxes them in at every turn.
When they are young, they must dodge the sexual minefields, and please boys
enough to be accepted, and avoid rape. There is no way to do this. When they
seek careers in college, their tenure is threatened by their motherly
instincts. If they go into corporate careers, they may get into a fast track
and go far in the business world, and yet lose the struggle for fertility,
and perhaps, even marriage. You can't be a hard driving man all day in
business and be a pleasing woman in the evening.
Our article has painted a picture of America anguished by its
unnatural school and college environment. These issues are likely to become
worse before they become better. Because they have no solutions, they are
festering frustrations that can only poison the well of gender
relationships, and increase the violence and unhappiness endemic in America.
Marriage will surely decline, as indeed, we find in a recent study by Gallup
(July 22-24 2002) entitled Americans' Lifestyles: Marital Status.
According to the poll, most adult Americans are not married, only 49%
to be exact. Eight percent are living with a partner, and the rest, live
alone. The majority of adult Americans are not married! Various studies and
articles have shown that men, fed up by the judicial pounding they take
during the divorces that are so prevalent, refuse in increasing numbers to
marry. They are also fed up by the impossible roles assigned to genders in
America. Men must not be men. Women must not be women. Children are taught
to assert themselves, instead of being molded by parents. So, who needs it?
The poll reports that of today's adults, one-fifth reports never
marrying. Of people over fifty only five percent were never married. We thus
have a situation whereby eighty percent of adults marry, about half divorce,
and less than half are now married. When we realize that people under fifty
are four times as likely to reject marry as people over fifty, we see that
an explosion of gender destruction is upon us. It will only get worse. As
long as the secularists insist on taking our children and ruining them, what
can we expect? 1
|
|
|
D. Eidensohn's poem
"The Wall" won an International Poetry Contest. His poems appear in
|