The nation was stunned by the recent shootings in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Since that time a national soul-searching has occurred in an effort to understand how an eleven and a thirteen-year-old could be so callous as to shoot their schoolmates. Many reasons have been proposed, but it is unlikely that the blame for this tragedy can all be isolated to just one cause; there is undoubtedly a combination of factors.
Yes, guns are a problem, as is any weapon–if it falls into the hands of the ignorant or the psychotic. Are guns THE problem? No. Just a few days ago it was stated that more young people are killed with knives than with guns. And what of the two preteens who murdered a 5-year-old by dropping him from a high-rise apartment window? Shall we pass legislation against gravity? Still, guns made it easier for the two boys to kill so many people so quickly. And for that reason people must be required to practice appropriate safety measures.
Some have attributed this increase to the influence of movies and television. This observation is not without some merit, although there has been violence in these genres for forty years. “Westerns” have traditionally been replete with shootings, which involved the use of guns. But those who grew up watching Gunsmoke, Wanted: Dead or Alive, or Have Gun; Will Travel never thought about killing anyone. Probably, many boys wanted to grow up to be like John Wayne, Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, or Tom Mix, but it would never have crossed their minds to kill their playmates.
Certain movies, however, have spawned imitations, such as misguided souls playing Russian roulette after The Deer Hunter was aired. Other incidents have been duplicated, such as bombing a toll booth or dowsing a derelict with gasoline and setting him on fire. It would be foolish to assert that what people see on the screen has no effect on viewers (why advertise?). Furthermore, it’s not just the violence, which has always been present; recently there has been more graphic violence and an indifferent attitude toward killing. Villains flaunt their lack of remorse, and the heroes possess such little virtue that the two are practically indistinguishable.
Is that not the message of society? There might be a birth defect; abort (translate “kill”) the child. Pain is too burdensome; call Kevorkian. Society approves and applauds the deaths of the defenseless and the infirm. The only way to improve on these already legal means of death is to additionally “relieve” society of the burden of those who are mentally and physically handicapped. The latter category always gets the best places at stores and restaurants anyway. Never mind the triumph of the human spirit overcoming adversity; we deserve a perfect world.
Consider some other factors that lead to the cheapening of human life. In public schools children can no longer pray or study the Bible–or even learn about God’s creation. But they can be taught the theory of evolution–and sometimes it is presented as fact. Parents ought to think about what that doctrine means to a child. The young one is taught that he is just like the “other” animals instead of a unique individual created in the image of God. He may be genetically unique, but he can never transcend being merely a higher animal.
Hunters go out and kill animals. “Doctors” kill babies and the elderly. Humans are nobody special; if it’s all right to kill the one, why not the other? What difference will a person or two in this world make, one way or another? Life in any form is not that valuable.
The problem with this theory is that by itself it does not explain everything. Evolution has been taught for a number of years now, and Roe vs. Wade was legislated by the Supreme Court 25 years ago. If this were the sole explanation for these tragic events, we might have expected them to have occurred before now.
However, it would be a mistake to summarily dismiss these ideas, for they obviously contribute in large measure to the problem. Because bureaucrats, the National Education Association, the ACLU, and other powerful influences upon society will never admit that they and their philosophies are at fault, problems like these will continue. Passing assault rifle legislation will have no appreciable effect on crimes like these; it will prove to be a solution without effect.
What kind of example do young people have set for them when atrocities such as these are occurring? Granted that the two boys in Arkansas may have never heard of any of these incidents, but unfortunately these are not isolated examples. What about the teacher who has given birth to the child of her 14-year-old student? Teachers, like “clergymen,” used to set high moral standards.
And then there is the matter of the President, who wants to discover why children do such things. A Dallas Morning News article, entitled “Nation Must Try to Discover Why Children Are Killing, Clinton Says,” he says:
“At heart, it’s a matter of basic values, of conscience and community. We must teach our children to respect others. We must instill in them a deep, abiding sense of right and wrong” (March 29, 36A).
Please, sir. Is it appropriate for the person with more scandals in his administration than any other president in the last 50 years (actually, since Harding) to speak with such moral conviction? The White House has done nothing but contribute to the decline of this nation. Is it possible to teach respect for life and one another when signing the partial-birth abortion bill into law?
Parents must bear their fair share of blame, also. Consider the beginning of this story that appeared on page 3A of the Denton Record-Chronicle on April 7th.
Things have gotten out of hand, with all the rudeness and foul mouths teachers contend with. A new school policy aims to put an end to it–curse out a teacher, get suspended. But the rule isn’t aimed at students. It’s for their parents.A 1 1/2-page statement spells out what the district’s 4,000 employees should do when a parent gets abusive or threatening.
If someone shouts, curses or becomes demeaning, a staffer should politely remind them to be civil. If the person refuses, they are “suspended” and told to leave. If necessary, the staffers should call police.
People keep talking about “road rage”; what road rage? We have a nation of spoiled “brats” who get mad when they don’t get their way–whether on the highway, in a school meeting, or the grocery store.
No, instead, we tell them, “It’s not your fault for the way you are. It’s genetic–or something.” If a basketball player tries to kill his coach, we may suspend him for a few weeks, but it was probably the coach’s fault for making him mad.
The father of one of the two murderers is quoted as saying, “My son is not a monster.” Oh, really? If normal children behave this way, the nation is really in trouble. We hardly expected that anyone should say, “I have failed as a parent” or “I’m not sure how my son came to be so pathetically perverted.” No, that would be taking responsibility–something hardly ever done any more.
On a recent Kojak rerun several detectives were analyzing a security leak, which led to one murder and the theft of over a million dollars. By process of elimination, the culprit had to be a man who had held his job for 20 years, which made him seem like a highly unlikely suspect. One detective was running down a list of his virtues to show that there was no reason to suspect him: he paid his bills, live modestly, drove an older model car. Kojak interrupted with his usual cynical comment: “Tell me he loves his mother.” The point is that possessing good qualities doe not negate evil actions.
But society does not want to hold people accountable for their actions. They are to be explained away–or forgiven. One news story coming out of Jonesboro just days after the killings reported how the town was trying to forgive the boys. Right! If we cannot find some way to shift the blame for their actions onto someone or something else, why not do the next best thing: forgive them for what they did? Forgiveness apart from repentance (or even an appropriate length of time to grieve) is not forgiveness–it is psychobabble.
Who knows what drives someone like Cain to say, “I’m going to murder my brother”? Sure, he was envious of his brother, but many siblings have survived that state of affairs. What pushed him to the point of saying, “I’m so mad, I will kill–despite whatever consequences there are”? Murder is not a logical or practical thing to do; what pushes people over the edge of rationality? Cain could not claim genetics, environment, bad examples, or the availability of guns. He chose to do evil because he wanted to do evil.
But even if all these things were adequately handled, there would still be the problem of evil.