Fading Colors, Fading Ideals, Fading Nation

David C. Stolinsky, MD
May 13, 2010

Have you ever mistakenly washed new clothes in hot water and bleach? The vivid colors fade, leaving dull, lifeless fabrics good only for working around the house. If the clothing is poorly made, the colors fade even faster.

Children are like new clothes – full of bright colors. They have an inherent sense of justice. They know that there are monsters in the world. But they play video games and watch cops-and-robbers movies, and learn that good guys fight monsters.

But what if young people attend liberal schools and universities instead of conservative colleges? What if they are taught a secular view of life? What if they are indoctrinated with leftist ideology and moral relativism? What if they are taught to look at America through a colonoscope?

The strong beliefs fade, leaving only the bland pastels of “Who are we to judge?” and “That’s just your opinion.” The fact that there are monsters in the world fades from memory, to be replaced by “We aren’t perfect” and “We should see their point of view.” The idea that good guys fight monsters vanishes entirely.

The reds fade first, and with them the courage to stand up for what’s right. The blues go next, and with them the loyalty to ideals and persons. Finally the whites turn a drab yellow, and any traces of Judeo-Christian values disappear.

TV teaches kids that fame is the most important thing, and we give more fame to criminals than to victims. Then we are shocked when young people seek fame by antisocial behavior. This is as true in the Middle East as it is here.

The word “judgmental,” in the sense of overly critical or self-righteous, dates from the 1960s. For centuries, great writers expressed themselves without using this word. Yet now we use it frequently. Why? Occasionally we mean someone who is excessively critical. But usually we are condemning someone who dares to express moral values.

To paraphrase Dennis Prager, instead of learning to judge evil, we learned that it is evil to judge.

A minister declared that it is “our duty” to forgive Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing. How is it our right, much less our duty, to forgive those who haven’t injured us, and who don’t ask to be forgiven?

Maybe the Fort Hood shooter “had a toothache.” Maybe the Times Square bomber was upset over his house being foreclosed. No. Maybe he could have kept up his house payments if he hadn’t quit his job and flown to Pakistan for five months of terrorist training. We go to ridiculous lengths to excuse the inexcusable.

A book titled “Heroes for My Son” includes not one soldier. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s ban on military recruiters at Harvard goes along with this liberal disdain for those who safeguard our freedom. If we cease to be the home of the brave, how can we remain the land of the free?

On a hill in the Mojave Desert, a cross commemorated our troops killed in action. Activists fought all the way to the Supreme Court to have the cross removed. They lost − then stole the cross. Their fantasy is that the Constitution forbids crosses but allows theft.

On a hill near Columbine High School, 15 crosses commemorated – without distinction – the two murderers and their 13 victims. When the father of a victim objected, all 15 crosses were removed. Liberals warn others not to be “judgmental,” but they felt free to judge that father. Their tolerance is great, but it has limits. Let someone express a moral judgment, and they promptly condemn him.

Oddly, it is the “non-judgmental” who often judge others most harshly. It is the “tolerant” who often show the greatest intolerance for those who disagree with them. And it is the “humanitarians” who “love all people,” but who stand by idly, in smug neutrality, while inhuman acts are committed.

We threw out the rulebook and rejected the Referee. So we have no basis to judge, regardless of how evil something may be. No wonder we hate those who are “judgmental” – they show us up for what we are.

If we “see both sides,” why are we dismayed when others do the same when we are attacked? If we find excuses to remain neutral, why are we disappointed when others do likewise? If we don’t want to risk trouble by taking sides, why do we expect others to risk trouble by taking our side?

If smashed trains, buses, buildings and people in London, Madrid or Mumbai leave us unmoved, why do we expect others to be moved by collapsing office towers?

If our liberal politicians, journalists and clergy express equal sympathy for criminals and victims, why are we upset when foreign politicians, journalists and clergy do the same? Why are we shocked when they claim that we deserved 9/11?

Nobody is perfect.

Violence is violence.

Criminals and terrorists are also victims.

There’s something to be said for both sides.

Maybe the kids at Columbine were bullies and deserved to be shot.

Maybe both we and the communists made mistakes during the Cold War.

Maybe the Israelis stole the land and deserved to be blown to pieces while going out for pizza.

Maybe the people in the World Trade Center were capitalists who were as bad as Nazis and deserved to be incinerated and pulverized.

Who are we to judge?

But if we don’t judge, who will? If we don’t take the side that is more right and less wrong, who will? If we don’t fight terrorists, who will? If we can’t distinguish murderers from their victims, who can?

If we use “tolerance” as an excuse to tolerate anything, no matter how horrible, we will become intolerable.

If we use “humanity” as an excuse for inaction in the presence of cruelty, we will become inhuman.

If we use “forgiveness” as an excuse to treat criminals and victims alike, we will act unforgivably.

And if we use not being “judgmental” as an excuse for moral and physical cowardice, we will be judged.

● Activists want to remove “God” from the Boy Scout Oath. This leaves only “country,” which they believe is the source of all law.

● Activists want to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. They don’t want to be under God – that would mean they are governed by eternal moral principles, and not free to do whatever they please.

● Activists want to remove the Ten Commandments from courthouses. The idea that law is based on anything except the latest social theory would offend their urge to be “progressive.”

● Activists want to prevent people at a senior citizens’ center from praying before meals. Even for secluded old folks, they tolerate no sign that there is any Authority other than the state. To worshipers of big government, that’s blasphemy.

● Activists want the government to restrict speech that may be “harmful,” so they can make sure there is not an “overabundance” of a particular idea in the media. They want to “redistribute” ideas − that is, to make sure that liberal ideas dominate.

The stresses of life may cause some fading of the bright colors of youth. But we have to be sure that those colors are dyed deeply into the fabric in the first place. We have to give kids moral principles to guide them. If we leave them to “find their own path,” we have no right to complain if they wind up like “Taliban” John Walker Lindh or “Al Qaeda” Adam Gadahn. A moral vacuum is not a gift suitable for a child.

Young people will be exposed to the hot water and bleach of schools, universities and media that are empty of ethical values − but full of leftist ideology. Unless the fabric is well-made, it will surely fade.

If we want the rich reds, pure whites and vivid blues to remain strong and not run, we should make sure the fabric is strongly made, and then care for it properly. If we don’t, our enemies won’t have to destroy us. We’ll just fade away.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com