Qualities differ but each community has their own choice of what to do with freedom of religion.

In Israel back when they had 12 tribes not 2, there was no such thing as freedom of religion. That wasn’t part of the plan or the Covenant.

Americans progressed enough, or at least the Pilgrims did, that they repented of false beliefs and adopted a system closer to what the Israelis could not tolerate. The 12 tribes of Israel couldn’t even stop wanting to go back to Bhaal and sacrificing children. Freedom of conscience was way too big of a step for them. But for Pilgrims and later Americans, it was deemed you people might be fit to follow this law.

As we can see, not everyone was capable of tolerating this higher law.

“Those whom one expects to impose some order on all this–conservative politicians, religious leaders, civil libertarians, journalists, scholars–are either hiding under the table or signaling their virtue by themselves fanning the flames of a hysteria that they show no interest in trying to understand.”

“The early opposition to all this, by Christians and other ethical critics, was long ago ridiculed into silence by the political shock troops of the Revolution: the feminist and later the homosexualist ideologues, who advertised unrestricted sex as a form of political “liberation” from “oppression.” This enlisted the intellectuals and provided a moralistic zeal that diametrically inverted the moral stigma from those who indulged in the sexual freedom to those resisting it, who were then stigmatized as political oppressors.”

“In short, sexual ideologues have created a new political theology, replete with apoliticized, government-approved definition of sin.Or in other words, they eliminated religious sin and replaced it with political crime. …The vagaries allow them to establish the larger principle that all male-female relations themselves constitute political oppression.”

“So cowed are Christian leaders that they almost never speak of “fornication” and “adultery” (or even “sin” very much), even in their own churches. So now they too try to save themselves from irrelevance by jumping on the bandwagon to advertise their own ideologized virtue. …the radicals are (by accident or design) adroitly recruiting conservative moralizers as their stooges. Conservatives delight in pointing out that liberal male politicians like Bill Clinton who are the most outspoken feminist supporters are also the most aggressive womanizers. Yet lacking the fortitude to content themselves with traditional stigmas against Clinton’s or Weinstein’s immorality in hitting on married women and betraying their own wives, they parrot the radical jargon of the “harassment” industry. When one understands the dynamics of feminist politics it is clear that the radicals will have the last laugh, because the end result is that we further abandon morality for ideology.”

“Rather than establishing clear rules of sexual morality and having the courage to uphold them in our daily face-to-face interactions with other people, we hire professional disapprovers with political muscle–journalists and media pundits, lawyers, judges, police, and jailors–to inflict punishments in our name, while we sit back and safely jeer at the malefactors from afar. This indulgence in the soothing pleasures of moral posturing entails no risk to ourselves and no requirement to take responsibility for our own role in either the sexual decadence or, if they turn out to be unjust, the ensuing witch hunts. And we need not bother ourselves about niceties like rules of evidence or due process of law. In short, we have adopted the justice of the mob, into which the Sexual Revolution, like every revolution, must inevitably degenerate.”

I found a fascinating article that delves into some of the other societal effects on AoSHQ:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/sexual-revolution-turns-ugly

I agree with the analysis
* * *
Fascinating article, and you are right about the refusal to undercut their own primary message (same reasoning for circling the wagons around Bill Clinton back in the day).

Women need men, and men also need women.
That’s pretty much the message of Genesis (help “meet” means “fit for the purpose” – coequal procreators of the human family).
The Adversary has been fighting that principle from the beginning.

Parochial schools in the 50 & 60 were ethnic schools with no other races represented therefore RACISM was not there to be seen and boys and girls regardless of school success were treated alike & made demands upon. I have no idea what your school experience was and you have no idea what mine was beside what I am relating to you. I hope you can respect that.

I hear that no where near as much time is allocated to recess/gym/ phys ed during those years anymore.

Hopefully, someone will wide up some day.

In a community where 70% of children grow up in a single-parent household, their aren’t enough dads around to help out with others. Further, our culture has been attacking dads for years. Television, programs and ads, assure us that a little girl is probably smarter on a whole bunch of issues than is the incompetent dad.

Too many of the men left in education have adapted and become “woke” believers in feminism.

Lots of whites don’t see racism against blacks, either.