Ayn Rand ‘s: The Fountainhead Toohey …..”One does not reverence with a giggle”…. Envy/Hatred of the Good for Being the Good — Ayn Rand Lexicon http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/envy-hatred_of_the_good_for_being_the_good.html …..” Today, we live in the Age of Envy. “Envy” is not the emotion I have in mind, but it is the clearest manifestation of an emotion that has remained nameless; it is the only element of a complex emotional sum that men have permitted themselves to identify. Envy is regarded by most people as a petty, superficial emotion and, therefore, it serves as a semihuman cover for so inhuman an emotion that those who feel it seldom dare admit it even to themselves. . . . That emotion is: hatred of the good for being the good. This hatred is not resentment against some prescribed view of the good with which one does not agree. . . . Hatred of the good for being the good means hatred of that which one regards as good by one’s own (conscious or subconscious) judgment. It means hatred of a person for possessing a value or virtue one regards as desirable. If a child wants to get good grades in school, but is unable or unwilling to achieve them and begins to hate the children who do, that is hatred of the good. If a man regards intelligence as a value, but is troubled by self-doubt and begins to hate the men he judges to be intelligent, that is hatred of the good. The nature of the particular values a man chooses to hold is not the primary factor in this issue (although irrational values may contribute a great deal to the formation of that emotion). The primary factor and distinguishing characteristic is an emotional mechanism set in reverse: a response of hatred, not toward human vices, but toward human virtues. To be exact, the emotional mechanism is not set in reverse, but is set one way: its exponents do not experience love for evil men; their emotional range is limited to hatred or indifference. It is impossible to experience love, which is a response to values, when one’s automatized response to values is hatred”…… “The Age of Envy,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 152 What’s Wrong with Stomping on “Jesus”? http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/03/whats-wrong-with-stomping-on-jesus/ ….. ”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. “…. RRD: Exactly. I have encountered this before,it is not a attack on Christianity per se. It is an attack on that which someone values because it is of value to them. It’s purpose is not to tear down a false standard & replace it with a true one,its purpose is to to tear down standards for the sake of tearing down standards. It is destruction for its own sake ,it is pure nihilism. Unlike Voltaire with his Satires ,this is not about ridiculing or rebutting Christianity so as to replace it with some belief system that the satirist thinks is superior,it is about making people attack their own values,precisely because they are sacred to them. This type of “teacher” would probably do the same to an Atheist. It is an act of impotent rage,it is the kind of spite for its own sake that one encounters in a Dostoevsky villian. This is exactly what one encounters with ”transgressive art”.