Reblogged: What’s Wrong with Stomping on “Jesus”?

[Blog Auto Feed Retired]

When a professor at Florida Atlantic University asked students to stomp on the name of “Jesus” written on a piece of paper, a Mormon student objected. Although the university first threatened to sanction the student, in the face of widespread criticism the university relented and apologized for the exercise. (For details, see Todd Starnes’s report for Fox.)

Surely there is something very wrong with this assignment. But what exactly is the problem with it? Some might argue that, hey, it’s just a piece of paper with ink patterns on it. So what if the name “Jesus” is written on the paper. That name also refers to a large number of people living in Latin America. Would we be offended if “Bob” were written on the paper? What’s the big deal?

To zero in on what’s the big deal, consider the language of the assignment:

Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper. Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.

We all recognize that intentionally stepping on something in such a context, or spitting on it, or burning it, is a sign of disrespect of the person or thing symbolized. There is of course nothing wrong with showing disrespect toward a person (or institution) who deserves it and for whom one legitimately holds contempt. For example, Hitler, Stalin, and comparably evil figures are worthy of nothing but contempt. And TOS published images of Mohammed that Muslims find offensive; but this was in response to Muslims assaulting and murdering people for exercising the right to freedom of speech.

The problem with the exercise at Florida Atlantic University is that it asked students to show disrespect toward a figure they likely personally admire. The assignment did not argue that Jesus was a bad person or that Christianity is a bad religion; nor was the assignment a response to something horrific or irrational that Christians had done in the name of Jesus. Rather, this assignment asked students to personally stomp on a symbol representing a religious figure for whom they likely hold great reverence. The purpose of the assignment was to make them assault their own values. It was an exercise in moral nihilism. This—not the mere fact that it offended some Christians—is what was reprehensibly wrong with it.

(As to whether Christianity is right or wrong, good or bad, that is an entirely separate debate.)

Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.

Related:

• Debate: Christianity: Good or Bad for Mankind?
• Religion Versus Morality

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Link to Original

[bluecherry]

"Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

 

There is full expectation and intention here for there to be students who won't do it. The lesson is started by discussing why some people won't do it. Nobody is supposed to be doing something to show disrespect for something they value, if they all did that it would defeat the purpose of the exercise by taking away the starting point for the conversation. There's no nihilism there.

[mdegges]

^ That's true. The exercise in itself can be positive, but the problem is, the school was going to penalize the kid for refusing to step on the paper.  "Although the university first threatened to sanction the student, in the face of widespread criticism the university relented and apologized for the exercise." Universities should know better.

[Dante]

"Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

 

There is full expectation and intention here for there to be students who won't do it. The lesson is started by discussing why some people won't do it. Nobody is supposed to be doing something to show disrespect for something they value, if they all did that it would defeat the purpose of the exercise by taking away the starting point for the conversation. There's no nihilism there.

 

 

That's how I read the assignment also, but if that's the case, why would a student get in trouble for not following through with the stomping?  If the assignment ultimately allows students to decide they can't do it, then they wouldn't be sanctioned for that.

[tadmjones]

At first blush it seems to me an exercise to teach students with an assumed American/Judeo/Christian backround some kind of cultural relevancy a la how do think a student with assumed islamic backround feel when seeing their symbols/ icons denigrated. But that is of course just my first thought without knowing the intentions of the instructor.

[Eiuol]

That's how I read the assignment also, but if that's the case, why would a student get in trouble for not following through with the stomping?  If the assignment ultimately allows students to decide they can't do it, then they wouldn't be sanctioned for that.

I am guessing that there is more to the story than is apparent. I don't see anything wrong with the assignment either. I found this on a Yahoo news article: "The allegations against the junior include 'acts of verbal, written or physical abuse; threats, intimidation, harassment, coercion; or other conduct which threaten the health, safety or welfare of any person'." I don't know what the student did, and apparently, the issue wasn't his refusal to stomp on the paper. Did the student become verbally abusive? I have no idea, but I'd guess that the university judged it properly. It isn't ridiculous to think many people made assumptions, created an outcry, then the university just found it easier to drop any charges because media damage would be greater.

[Nicky]

^ That's true. The exercise in itself can be positive, but the problem is, the school was going to penalize the kid for refusing to step on the paper.  "Although the university first threatened to sanction the student, in the face of widespread criticism the university relented and apologized for the exercise." Universities should know better.

That's according to FoxNews (an opinion piece, from an obviously biased individual, at that). According to the University, the exercise wasn't mandatory, and the student was going to be punished not for refusing to step on the paper, but for threatening the teacher who held the exercise.

Again: the student objected not to him being forced to step on the paper (something he wasn't forced to do), but to the exercise itself: to ANYONE stepping on the paper.