Many young people lose their religious faith and their conservative beliefs to moral radicalism when they get to college. There is a relentless and sustained attack on their values as soon as they enter their dorm room. Some kids can handle the attacks but many can’t. They fall for the moral relativism lie, except, of course, when it comes to people who do not believe in moral relativism. It’s the supporters of moral absolutes who are the perpetrators of real moral radicalism.
Were there Christians in the class who refused to do what the teacher told them to do? Reports are that only one student refused to participate. Surely this wasn’t the first time this directive had been given.
The author of the manual that includes the “stomp on Jesus” exercise wrote the following about the exercise: “This exercise is a bit sensitive, but really drives home the point that even though symbols are arbitrary, they take on very strong and emotional meanings. He goes on to say that “most will hesitate.” The ultimate goal is to get the students to go against their belief system, to break down their moral barriers in order to soften them up for later radicalization. Liberals are patient. They won’t get every student, but they’ll get enough of them so that their agenda will continue to the next generation.
It’s that initial hesitation that has to be overcome I order for the radicalization process to continue. Radicalization has taken years to accomplish. What would have been considered moral depravity 40 years ago is today what college students believe and do.
Here’s one teacher’s first-hand observation of how clear thinking has devolved.
Kay Haugaard began teaching creative writing in 1970. As with most of her classes, students read and discussed Shirley Jackson’s short story “The Lottery” that was first published in the June 26, 1948 issue of The New Yorker. Jackson’s lottery isn’t about winning millions of dollars by picking the right series of numbers; it’s about human sacrifice that a small town accepts and takes part in with no questions asked.
As the years of teaching this story have passed, Haugaard began to see a change in the moral perceptions of her students. Their views on right and wrong had been dulled by the rhetoric of moral neutrality, “the danger of just ‘going along’ with something habitually, without examining its rationale and value.”1 Haugaard’s closing comments are chilling:
“No one in the whole class of more than twenty ostensibly intelligent individuals would go out on a limb and take a stand against human sacrifice.
“[Here’s how] I wound up the discussion. ‘Frankly, I feel it’s clear that the author was pointing out the dangers of being totally accepting followers, too cowardly to rebel against obvious cruelties and injustices.’ I was shaken, and I thought that the author, whose story had shocked so many [in past years], would have been shaken as well.
“The class finally ended. It was a warm night when I walked to my car after class that evening, but I felt shivery, chilled to the bone.”2
We’ve become a nation of moral bystanders. Deep down we know certain behaviors are wrong, but we’ve been cajoled into believing that nothing can be said in objection to the new amoral climate. If we do react, we are labeled “intolerant” and “insensitive” to different “lifestyle choices.”
A moral lottery goes on every day in America and there are many people who refuse to question it.