The problem with with religious fanaticism is that they always think they know more than what they know. The baali teshuva [newly religious]without having gone through Shas already think they can tell us what the Torah is all about because of their impression that they as already experts in Torah,. This is in start contrast to the world of university where is one thinks he is already a doctors because of his "vast knowledge "is not helpful in actually becoming a doctor.
The "baali teshuva" are the destroyers of the world of Torah because they think they already know Torah. {Though they skipped the verse about listening to one's parents.] If they had really been expert in Torah they might have noticed that verse.
[And they already try and in fact get certificates of ordination to get to to tell us what Torah all about Torah.-- the religious leaders are in fact baali teshuva that actually have no knowledge of Torah. They give certificates of ordination one to the other. One idiot to the other. If someone has not learned in the Mir or Brisk, then what they say about Torah is self delusion.]
In what Rav Nahman calls hisbodadut [private talking with God in one's own language] it is helpful to go ovr one's own past to get some orientation about where one went wrong. Over the course of time one can begin to see where things really went wrong. So you are no longer confined to deciding what your sins are based on books but rather actual experience. If you can tell where things started to go wrong, then you can reach some conclusion what was your actual sin. In this way you get beyond guess work about what perhaps you did wrong to actual knowledge. [An obvious choice could be the commandment to listen to one's parents except when they are obviously saying something that goes not in accord with Torah. Still in general one parents provides the best guidance to what one ought to be doing]
In the LeM of Rav Nachman [of Breslov] Vol I. chapter 22 is brought the idea that when the sound of holiness sounds further. against it is automatically the sounds of the Dark Side also come forth. From this you see why when you try especially hard in the service of God, you always find the Dark Side comes back at you especially strongly. From this I have found it better to take a lower profile.
[When learning Torah or doing some public service, it is always better to be as discreet as possible. However still when one learns Torah, at least one must says the words--at least as a whisper. Otherwise one does not fulfill the commandment to learn Torah. [And in fact saying the words helps in understanding as the sages say in Avot rather that read the Torah is a tree of life for those that find it read it is a tree of like for those that say the words [at least as a whisper] עץ חיים היא למוצאיהם אל תקרא למוצאיהם אלא למוציאיהם
"This loaf is forbidden to me" to the Ran and Rambam is the main neder vow. So why is he says, "This loaf is forbidden to me like meat that was not slaughtered properly [nevala]," is permitted? Because when one says, "This is forbidden to me like such and such a thing" the "such and such a thing" has to be something that can be forbidden by a neder [vow] or like someone who says, "This loaf is a present for the temple" [things presented to the temple are forbidden in use.] [This is a special law. For you might ask what is the difference between "This is forbidden to me" and "This is forbidden to me like nevala"?] [This is not like the other Rishonim that hold the real neder vow is when one says "This is forbidden like a sacrifice to the temple" and the only reason "This is forbidden to me" works is as a extension [yad]]
However the very well known question on the Ran at the very beginning of tractate Nederim is that at first glance he seems to contradict himself. At first going like the Rambam and then going like Tosphot on the very same page.
Rav Shach says that for the actual law of neder is without attaching the prohibition to anything else [as the Rambam says] but for the language to make clear what he means [as is necessary for nederim] he has to say 'like a sacrifice.
This to me seems like a very good answer to show that the Ran does not contradict himself. However the remaining question is that the actual language of the Ran does not seem to accept this explanation.
What I means is that the Ran [Rabbainu Nissim] says in tractate shavut the reason you need "like a sacrifice" is because הקדש עושה חליפין if one says this animal is like that sacrifice, that is valid. The second animal becomes a sacrifice also.
This me this seems like a contradiction to the idea of Rav Shach [in the beginning of Laws of Vows]
[However a further point is that if the main neder is ''This is forbidden'' then it is hard to see that the very words ''this is forbidden'' would be thought not to count as a neder--and only valid as a short way of saying ''this is forbidden as a sacrifice'' when ''this is forbidden as a sacrifice'' is only forbidden because it is thought of as an extension of the main concept of neder. ]
However one can answer this thus: in the way that Rav Shach explains the Rambam. I.e., that This is forbidden as a karban sacrifice is not valid as an extension of This is forbidden. Rather it is its own separate law. So This is forbidden is the main prohibition but still the language has to serve as a meaningful way of saying you are forbidding something to yourself or to another, Not as saying that is is already forbidden before you make that statement. And that would in fact be meaningless.
I have not been able to figure out why the religious world thinks we second class citizens ought to support them for their self proclaimed holiness. If they find a young native kid with rich American parents, they pull out all he stops to show how loving they are. [Love bombing ] . Until the time comes when he needs a favor. Not a large favor. Perhaps a simple word of support to his wife. Then all of a sudden they do not know him. They are these great astronauts.
The religious proclaim the value of kindness when they need it from secular Jews. When it is asked from them they suddenly become holy saints that can not be bothered by such trivialities.
[This of course is not meant to include the great Litvak yeshivot that in fact learn Torah for its own sake.]]
The religious world thinks that their keeping a few public rituals makes them defined as keeping Torah. Whatever the religious do is not not Torah.