I have heard the following argument a number of time recently, and I wanted to voice my thoughts on the issue. I would also like to know your opinion on the matter, if you do not mind sharing.

The issue is schooling. The specific issue is sending your child to a school that is not totally compatible with your world-view. From the schools viewpoint.

For example, if I want to send my child to a cheider, yet I continue to wear colored shirts, have internet access at home, play basketball once a week, etc. So on the surface it seems unlikely they would accept my child to study in their school. Their argument would be that your child should not be in our school. Not that there is anything wrong with your child, but if that is what your family does, if that is what your child sees at home, than it is not an appropriate match.

From the parents viewpoint, the argument goes, I am making a mistake putting my child in an environment that is one I do not hold of or agree with it. By living a different lifestyle other than the one supported by the school, I am setting my kid up for failure, as he will have conflicting messages. Therefore, it is a no-no to send your kid to a school that is different from your lifestyle.

I say there is a way and a reason to do so. And it does not have to be a failure, and it does not have to be a mistake. If I believe that the specific school has something to offer my child that I want my child to absorb, even if I disagree with the school on other points, and I feel that this lesson, this quality found in this school, is more important than the other issues on which we disagree, than I say I should be able to send my child to that school. And it can be a success.

Obviously my child, in this case, would have to be a child who is not detrimental to the system. He does his work, and he even excels at it. He dresses according to the school code. Basically, he is not out of the ordinary in any way other than the family he comes from.

I am not going to the school. They should not be making rules for me to follow. They should have rules for my son to follow, but not me. I went to yeshiva when I was younger. I had a mashgiach and a rosh yeshiva back then. They told me what to do and what not to do. I listened at times and broke the rules at times. When I broke the rules, I paid the consequences (if I was caught and if it was something bad enough that they cared to punish or admonish me). I am not a student in this cheder. I am an adult. They should not be telling me how to live my life. I am past that stage already. They can, they should, and they do tell my son what to do - what the rules are, what he should be doing when, what he should not be doing, how he should be dressing, how he should be behaving, etc. That is acceptable. He is in their institution and needs to follow their rules.

And I am not talking about a situation in which I disagree with the school and it becomes an issue. I am completely respectful of the school and its rules for my son. I never talk badly about the school, even though there are things I do disagree with. I dress according to the style they desire whenever I am at a school function or even if I am just going to drop my kids off. I have a good relationship with the teachers and we talk fairly often. So nothing I am doing is damaging the school's image in my sons eyes.

So if I want to send my son to a school whose rules I personally do not live my life by, I see nothing wrong with sending my son there. Why I would want to is a different story, but I see no reason why it should not be ok, as long as I do not talk badly about the school or tell my son to not follow the rules.

My father has told me regarding his own experiences that he always sent us to schools, wherever we lived, that were more religious on the spectrum than the family was at the time. Why, I do not know and I never really understood why they made that choice. But that was their choice. For better or worse we went to schools that our family's lifestyle may not have been 100% in compliance with the lifestyle promoted by the school.

Many people in many schools do the same. There were always kids in my classes in the day school, high school, yeshivas I went to that came from a more modern background than the school actually catered to.

If you walk into pretty much any of the most yeshivish yeshivas, in Israel or America, you will find plenty of students who come from more modern backgrounds. YU boys learning in Brisk type yeshivas, boys who grew up in schools like HAFTR and Skokie and others end up in Yeshivas that eschew the modern orthodox communities. It is part of life. Yeshivas take students even though they come from different and varying backgrounds.

It works the other way as well. A very religiously right wing boy wants to study in a more liberal school, the school should not reject him because his parents way of life is not appropriate for the school.

Not only that, but the schools should be happy to do so. It opens their way of life to a different crowd. If a more modern boy wants to learn in a more right wing yeshiva, the yeshiva should be open to teaching him and showing him their way of life. It will withstand the test on its merits, and if they believe they are right, they should have nothing to fear. They will be teaching another student to live by what they believe to be true.

So why should I be told that my son should not be in school x, y or z just because I wear colored shirts or because I play basketball or softball? My son does not. He is the student, not me. As long as I do not damage the school's rep in my son's eyes, there should be nothing wrong with my son going to a school that is promoting a different view than the one I personally live by.

Lod. A city with a mixed community. Mixed meaning Arabs and Jews.

Lod happens to have a large Arab population. Recently the Ramat Eshkol neighborhood of Lod (not to be confused with the Ramat Eshkol neighborhood of Jerusalem) has been in the new a number of times. Ramat Eshkol (of Lod) is a neighborhood populated by a majority of Arabs and a minority of Jews. The Arabs in Ramat Eshkol have perpetrated a number of attacks on the Jews there. When going to shul the Arabs throw stones at them. They have probably become emboldened by the recent riots in Pekiin in which the Druze community showed the police a thing or two and in the process they chased out just about all the Jews from the town.

Anyways, there has always been the occasional strife between the Jews and the Arabs, but overall Lod is generally quiet in that regard. Recently it has heated up.

One would think that in properly functioning government, be it municipality, be it national government, the authorities (police, government decisions, etc.) would crack down on the recent uptrend of violence and put a stop to it. They would say we will not tolerate that here. Arrest the violent perpetrators. Dole out some harsh punishments and quickly put an end to it before things get out of hand.

What does our government do? Well, Yoram Marciano, a Member of Knesset from the Labor Party and a resident of Lod, has petitioned the government to take action. What action you ask?

Instead of him demanding that they quell the violence before it turns to riots, he chose capitulation.

Did you think "disengagement" was only for "Occupied Territories"? Did you think the government was only going to remove Jews from Gaza and the Shomron?

Marciano's solution to the problem in Lod was to petition the government, get this - are you sitting down? - to permanently transfer all the Jews out of the neighborhood and make it into an Arab neighborhood.

When the left does not really believe in our right to be here anyway, so why not just move Jews out of every neighborhood, city, settlement, etc. in which the Arabs make trouble. It is much easier to do that than to enforce the law on the Arabs.

If it is no longer just the Occupied Territories but Israel proper, what more remains. At what point will the left stop turnign over parts of Israel? Two years ago it was Gaza. Last year it was Homesh. This year it is Lod. Next year it will be Jerusalem. Then it will be Tel Aviv. Where exactly do we have a right to be according to them?