You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at Jkfitz42@cs.com. This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.
We have become accustomed to aging hippies leaving their brown rice and peasant blouses to enjoy the pleasures of fine restaurants, sports cars and Jacuzzis. The same can happen to their children.
And yet, it cannot be denied: this young man’s plight throws a spotlight on what can happen when children grow up in a world shaped by the high-profile relativism of the 1960s. If you live your life, and teach your children to live their lives, by the rubric of “Do your own thing,” you have to accept the likelihood that their thing will be something that ruins their lives.
We all have heard the formulas that express these people's theories on child-rearing. “I don’t care what my kids do, as long as they are happy.” “My kids can be whatever they want, as long as they are true to themselves.” “I want them to develop their individual potentiality.” “I want my kids to be themselves, not be forced into a predetermined mold by society.” These aphorisms represent what is arguably the central proposition of the “different strokes for different folks” view of life: the denial of objective truth. It is the message found in many Beatles’ lyrics, and the darker expression of those lyrics in the words of Charles Manson, as well in the hedonistic rejection of traditional values championed by the New Left’s favorite philosopher, Herbert Marcuse.
It is a quite logical frame of mind, once you buy the relativist premise: if truth cannot be found in the Bible, in the Ten Commandments and the words of Jesus, in lessons of the art and literature of the Christian West, then probably a parent’s duty is to facilitate their children’s search for meaning in life by introducing them to the rich panoply of lifestyles in our modern world, including life under the direction of Osama bin Laden. Why not bin Laden? There is no “straight and narrow” for a relativist.
John Walker was encouraged by his parents to do just this, to stress his individuality and avoid conformity. His father was a Catholic of sorts, his mother a woman who experimented with Buddhism. They were determined not to force their personal beliefs upon the boy. So when the young Walker found it trying to conform to the demands of the traditional high school classroom, they enrolled him in a “self-directed” program that permitted him to shape a curriculum that suited his “individual needs.” It was there that he discovered his interest in Islam.
While other self-directed students were avidly pursuing the study of topics such as, let me guess, “Beat poets” and “feminist literature,” Walker began to memorize the Koran. No doubt, his parents thought it would be a passing fancy that he would drop when the next enthusiasm overcame him. The key was to allow him to “be himself,” to march to the beat of whatever drummer caught his fancy. They even financed his journey while he was still a teenager to Pakistan to pursue his interest in Islam. Considering what has happened, it may be cruel to speculate whether his parents boasted at social gatherings of their son’s committed “individuality” and determination to “break out of the mold.” If I had to bet, I would bet that they did.
Indeed, many of Walker’s neighbors still express this view of life. Several were quoted in a New York Post story late last year. One insisted that the community is “understanding – even proud – of the boy whose path of personal growth eventually led him to Afghanistan.” Marcie Miller, the principal of Tamsical High School, the alternative school that Walker attended, “remains proud of Walker, as well as its other students, who tend to be self-directed.” A parent from San Anselmo stressed that he wanted his own children to be as “open-minded” as Walker. “I strongly believe in this sort of citizen-of-the-world notion.”
But what is the alternative? Can we undo the now solidly rooted, half-century-long conviction that young people must be encouraged to “think for themselves,” and “be true to their personal beliefs”? We can’t indoctrinate our young people, can we? Wouldn’t that be brainwashing?
No, it would not be brainwashing. Directing a child to the truth is not brainwashing. Perhaps the tragic fate of this misguided young Californian will wake us up to the fatal flaw in the “I gotta be me” school of thought that dominates our time. Our goal in life is not to “be true to ourselves.” It is to be true to the Lord. The highest form of human behavior is not a consequence of “being an individual”; it is a result of taking up one’s cross and following Jesus. Those who feel uncomfortable with such thoughts have some rethinking of their faith to do. Catholicism is not just another “lifestyle choice” in the smorgasbord of life.
Jesus is not an “option” that we are to present to our children to see if they will feel comfortable with it. It is not “their choice” to accept or reject the Lord. Our obligation is to teach the Faith to our children. Perhaps they will reject it, but our goal should be to strive to avoid that outcome, to stack the deck in the Lord’s favor, not congratulate the kids if they find something “more meaningful.” Jesus did not present Himself in that manner. If we are Christians we must take him at His word. Ideas have consequences. The truth matters. “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12: 48).