Moralistic Therapeutic Deism: The sequel

NPR's On Point had a show with Christian Smith and Greg Epstein which is available via a Podcast. It's worth a listen as it touches on this topic.

Another part of the problem that Mr. Smith fails to address in his interview is the fact that today's younger set is growing up (as their predecessors did as far back as the late 60s/early 70s) in an atmosphere of deliberately encouraged "tolerance", as well as a lack of seriously enforced standards of conduct.

Indoctrination in this ethos begins with kids' television: "Sesame Street", "Dora" and the like are very big on "inclusion". Since the average American child spends more time in front of the television set than in school, this matters.

The schools, in their turn, also heavily reinforce the notion of the radical equality of almost all behavior (homosexuality, substance abuse, sexual conduct in general) under the guise of "diversity". In practice, this produces such abominations as middle and high school "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Straight Alliance" clubs at a time in the lives of young people when they most need help in controlling, holding back and sublimating their sexual impulses. Basic discipline also suffers (particularly in urban schools) as any disparity in disciplinary offenses is immediately leapt upon as "racist".

School sports, especially, have gone from emphasizing competition and the development of excellence to "lifetime activities" education.

This foolish notion of "tolerance" also expresses itself in matters such as grading. I am given to understand, for example, that the typical grade in a modern college class is an "A", and getting a "C" or "D" in some classes is virtually unheard of.

The "tolerance" of virtually any form of conduct extends itself to college. If you don't believe me, just pay any college campus a visit on a Friday---or any other day of the week, for that matter. There's a reason why alcoholism has become a major concern of college administrators; institutional legal liability for incidents of such conduct can wreak havoc on a school's bottom line. But heaven forbid that students actually get suspended or expelled for such outrageousness. (Meanwhile, a comment like "nice dress" can get a male student sent to a University Judicial Board for "sexual harassment".)

Given that the typical young American spends the first 21 years or so of his/her life in such a milieu, is it any wonder that young adults suffer from MTD ? They're not simply exposed to it---they've marinated in it, virtually from Day 1.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Not that I really have a dog in this fight, but I will offer my two cents in any case. I admit being rather new around here, but I've been looking back at some past posts. It seems that the issue of this MTD has been around for a while, and a number of very good posts have been offered on it.

I am wondering if, just perhaps, the rise of MTD parallels the growth of highly politicized conservative Christianity? Could it be that as more and more of the boomer generation "got saved" and began raising their families in the environment of this politically active, generally conservative religion we began to see more and more of the young people looking for something that involved more than a religious commitment to the Republican party, capitalism, and the "big two" issues (pro-life, anti-GLBT)? The emergent church movement makes this claim, to some extent, and seems to be gaining traction with the college-age folk of today.

Just a thought...somewhat based on observations I have made in the lives of my friends over the years, and on some excellent books I have read the last few years. Could MTD be the offspring of the marriage of evangelical Christianity and conservative politics?

Lord Karth - I fear on this issue someone has been blowing smoke at you - I can assure you - as someone with two kids and a plethora of nieces and nephews who all recently finished college as well as being someone who hands out those grades - that A's are not handed out with such ease - consider that if this was true every kid would graduate from college with a 4.0 GPA and the entire graduating class would be summa cum laude - this rather obviously doesn't happen.

As for alcohol - yeah even more than drugs this has been a nightmare for college administrators. However - precisely because of the insurance and liability risks and the demands of parents forking out the 40,000 a year - there are quite a few schools that are very tough on this issue - kids get kicked out of the residential system if one of their room mates violates the no alcohol policy - even if said kid was not present when the infraction occurred. I do think that a big issue is that parents need to seriously look at a school's policies in this area before they finance their darlings attendance. And of course - the same parents who want tough standards on this will be the ones who sue the University when they enforce the standard by kicking their darling out. Then we have parents who happily pay serious money to allow their darlings to live in a frat house.

Are there colleges that have bad policies re: alcohol and drug use on campus - of course but it is an exaggeration to claim all colleges are lax in this area. Do some colleges have low standards re: acceptable academic performance? Of course - but it is once again an exaggeration to claim that all schools suffer from low standards.

Let's recognize that parents are ultimately the ones who form character in a child and while it is necessary for those children to find the values taught to them at home reinforced outside the home - the bottom line is that mom and dad have to do their job.

hlvanburen,

If your theory held true, then one would expect an explosion of MTD in the African-American community, since -- while it's untrue to say that the African-American church is nothing more than a religious commitment to the Democratic party -- it's equally as true (or rather untrue) to say that the African-American church is nothing more than a religious commitment to the Democratic party than it is true (or rather untrue) to say that the rest of the American church is nothing more than a religious commitment to the Republican party.

In addition to not having a dog in this particular fight, you also (to mix metaphors) seem not to have a leg to stand on when it comes to a subject you clearly don't know very much about.

Lord Karth

The schools, in their turn, also heavily reinforce the notion of the radical equality of almost all behavior (homosexuality, substance abuse, sexual conduct in general) under the guise of "diversity".

Tolerance of substance abuse is folded into diversity? Really? It seems that our resident aristocrat has been engaging in a little substance abuse himself. Between SADD, DARE, and any number of other student organizations dedicated to combating everything from alcohol and tobacco to illegal drugs, you couldn't possibly be further from the truth.

Interestingly, while you bring up the social-con bugbear of homosexuality (more than once), you actually leave out the far, far more common objects of diversity programs: preventing discrimination and prejudice based on race, ethnicity, gender and religion.

One may argue over the effectiveness of such programs. But the wholesale assault on "diversity" in general (under the guise of merely creating false equivalences between homosexuals and drug addicts) would seem to indicate a belief that schools would be better off if they were homogeneous in terms of the other factors as well; in other words, segregated.

In practice, this produces such abominations as middle and high school "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Straight Alliance" clubs at a time in the lives of young people when they most need help in controlling, holding back and sublimating their sexual impulses.

And yet again, we see the social-con presumption that orientation automatically implies sexual activity.

Never mind that major churches themselves state that a homosexual orientation does not preclude chastity (indeed, it's the central point in their argument against marriage).

Social-cons cannot bring themselves to give up the myth that sexual orientation implies morality. They cannot bring themselves to admit that a gay man might be more (or less) moral than a straight woman, that the orientation, like the gender or race or whatever, is irrelevant to whether or not a person acts morally and ethically. It's the same old attitude that the only immoral acts in America are killing babies and being gay. Everything else is just peachy!

In their minds, gays are all evil, and as soon as you cross that line out of heterosexuality, it's nothing but orgies and sex parties (and all of it drug-fueled based on the false equivalence mentioned above). My teenaged self might well lament, "Would that it were so!" although my adult self is very glad that it isn't.

Never mind that middle and high school is precisely when sexuality is being explored, and moreover that it always has been so: what are those '50s beach party movies with Annette Funicello and Frankie Avalon if not explorations of teenage sexuality?

But in Lord Karth's mind, and that of the social-con in general, sexuality is nothing but intercourse. And so, of course any discussion or exploration of orientation necessarily means jumping in the sack.

The critical point (the one social-cons continually elide, either through mental defect or deliberate obfuscation) is this (and I'll put it in bold to make it blisteringly obvious): orientation is not behavior.

Re: Thanks for pointing out all the work that the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Straight Alliance has done and is doing to discourage homosex.

Huh?

Why should they discourage homosex, in general? The responsible thing to say to gay teenagers, as with straight ones, would be to say, "we encourage you not to have sex until you are both a) an adult b) in some kind of loving, committed relationship." That doesn't equate to saying "homosex (what an ugly term, for what it's worth) is bad".

Hector,

I'm not saying homosex ought to be discouraged or that it ought to be encouraged.

I'm merely expressing surprise at Geoff G.'s claim that the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Straight Alliance doesn't encourage and/or that it discourages homosex -- homosex as distinct from homosexuality, homosexual behavior as opposed to homosexual orientation.

I'm merely expressing surprise at Geff G.'s claim tht the GLBTSA is the place to turn if, say, one is a teenage Roman Catholic girl sexually attracted to other girls who wants support for her decision not to sleep with other girls, or if, say, one is a teenage African Methodist Episcopal boy sexually attracted to other boys who wants support for his decision not to sleep with other boys.

I'm merely thanking Geoff G. for letting us know that the GLBTSA is a "safe space" for homosexual kids who choose not to engage in homosex on the basis of certain kinds of Christian belief to get support for that decision in a venue where they will be loved and affirmed for who they are -- traditionalist Christians as well as homosexuals.

I used the term homosex -- which is neither ugly nor beautiful to me but rather aesthetically and morally neutral -- merely to distinguish one kind of sex from another kind of sex -- i.e. heterosex.

I created a great video on utube about my deistic beliefs. Check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16BbYc2vGmo

Well taken, Karth. However, I don't see an explicit acknowledgment of my free will point: While I stand firmly with you in imparting on our children the ethical components of real life, and while there is some valid and important overlap with spirituality, it still begs the question: I've witnessed Catholic parents ostracizing their older or adult children for choosing to join a Protestant congregation.

That is the foundation for my challenging question. I stipulate that the child choosing a non-Christian path carries additional aspects, but the core principle is, for me, the same.

It is proper for a parent to phrase the teaching as "This is Truth", but at some point -- readily defined for the age and intellectual maturity of the child -- another phrase is often missing: "And this is why." If the "why" is merely a restatement of "Truth", if fails completely in the realm of free will.

Re: education -- I submit that we need to address the failures of college preparatory programs, both public and private, when mentioning the existence of remedial courses in colleges. For many of them, it's a simple matter of necessity.