Columbine

[Jaltus]

Yesterday marked the anniversary of the Columbine massacre, and I am afraid that the media and students throughout the US never learned the lesson behind what happened.

Essentially, a small group of friends kept being picked on by all of the popular kids. They were mocked, derided, bullied, and otherwise intimidated. At that age, one feels as if there is no escape from one’s circumstances. Thus, the boys responded to violence and hatred with violence and hatred. They hated themselves and others, for they dispised their lives, and so took out their anger on those tormenting them and then turned their weapons on themselves.

The alleged lesson learned is that kids should not play violent video games and that counselors needs to look out for the malcontents.

The real lesson, if anyone paid attention, was that the marginalized will only allow themselves to be oppressed so much, and then they will respond with greater force to the threat. There is a typical line of thought in intelligence gathering that one must hold a tight line when torturing: one must cause enough pain to show that more pain can come, but not enough pain that the victim gives up hope on their body, health, and life. Once the victim gives up, the torturing is irrelevent snce no information will be forthcoming. This is how it is with kids terrorized by bullies. They give up on life, they lose hope, and the only way out is death. In turn, they decide to sometimes take others with themselves, whether it be their tormentors or those who saw them being tormented and did nothing.

This last group is often the most important group, by the way. Just one ray of hope can change a life. I am sure everyone has heard this stroy, but it bears repeating (whether true or not):

The quarterback of the football team was on his way hme from school when he saw someone else from school walking home. The other kid was the typical nerd who got good grades, had few friends, and he was carrying a bunch of books. Other kids from school were giving him a hard time and finally caused him to drop his large stack of books. As they laughed at him, the quarterback came up and decided to help pick up the books. He asked if he could help and carried some of the books home for the other boy. This began a friendship that lasted the rest of the year, as the two spent a bit of time together each week. At graduation, the one who had been picked on was giving the valedictorian address, and he said these words, “Not many of you know me, and that is fine, but I want to tell you how a word of kindness can change a life. I was being picked on one day, and someone came and helped me out. That saved my life, for you see I was carrying all of my books home so that my mother would not have to clean out my locker after I committed suicide that night.”

A kind word can change a life, a friendship can save a life. Jesus reached out to the marginalized, the destitute, those thrust aside by the norms of society. He saved lives by healing, but how many more lives did He save by simply being a friend? How many souls did He save through kind words?

If Columbine taught us anything, it should have taught us the value of human life, the value of kind words, the value of friendhsip, the value of sticking up for those marginalized by society. It is what Jesus did and what He taught. Can we really do anything else and still call ourselves Christians?

[Spiritus Naturae]

Yesterday marked the anniversary of the Columbine massacre, and I am afraid that the media and students throughout the US never learned the lesson behind what happened.

Essentially, a small group of friends kept being picked on by all of the popular kids. They were mocked, derided, bullied, and otherwise intimidated. At that age, one feels as if there is no escape from one’s circumstances. Thus, the boys responded to violence and hatred with violence and hatred. They hated themselves and others, for they dispised their lives, and so took out their anger on those tormenting them and then turned their weapons on themselves.

The alleged lesson learned is that kids should not play violent video games and that counselors needs to look out for the malcontents.

The real lesson, if anyone paid attention, was that the marginalized will only allow themselves to be oppressed so much, and then they will respond with greater force to the threat. There is a typical line of thought in intelligence gathering that one must hold a tight line when torturing: one must cause enough pain to show that more pain can come, but not enough pain that the victim gives up hope on their body, health, and life. Once the victim gives up, the torturing is irrelevent snce no information will be forthcoming. This is how it is with kids terrorized by bullies. They give up on life, they lose hope, and the only way out is death. In turn, they decide to sometimes take others with themselves, whether it be their tormentors or those who saw them being tormented and did nothing.

This last group is often the most important group, by the way. Just one ray of hope can change a life. I am sure everyone has heard this stroy, but it bears repeating (whether true or not):

The quarterback of the football team was on his way hme from school when he saw someone else from school walking home. The other kid was the typical nerd who got good grades, had few friends, and he was carrying a bunch of books. Other kids from school were giving him a hard time and finally caused him to drop his large stack of books. As they laughed at him, the quarterback came up and decided to help pick up the books. He asked if he could help and carried some of the books home for the other boy. This began a friendship that lasted the rest of the year, as the two spent a bit of time together each week. At graduation, the one who had been picked on was giving the valedictorian address, and he said these words, “Not many of you know me, and that is fine, but I want to tell you how a word of kindness can change a life. I was being picked on one day, and someone came and helped me out. That saved my life, for you see I was carrying all of my books home so that my mother would not have to clean out my locker after I committed suicide that night.”

A kind word can change a life, a friendship can save a life. Jesus reached out to the marginalized, the destitute, those thrust aside by the norms of society. He saved lives by healing, but how many more lives did He save by simply being a friend? How many souls did He save through kind words?

If Columbine taught us anything, it should have taught us the value of human life, the value of kind words, the value of friendhsip, the value of sticking up for those marginalized by society. It is what Jesus did and what He taught. Can we really do anything else and still call ourselves Christians?

Good thoughts, Jaltus. :thumb: I like it.

[Ryokan]

Yesterday marked the anniversary of the Columbine massacre, and I am afraid that the media and students throughout the US never learned the lesson behind what happened.

Essentially, a small group of friends kept being picked on by all of the popular kids. They were mocked, derided, bullied, and otherwise intimidated. At that age, one feels as if there is no escape from one’s circumstances. Thus, the boys responded to violence and hatred with violence and hatred. They hated themselves and others, for they dispised their lives, and so took out their anger on those tormenting them and then turned their weapons on themselves.

The alleged lesson learned is that kids should not play violent video games and that counselors needs to look out for the malcontents.

The real lesson, if anyone paid attention, was that the marginalized will only allow themselves to be oppressed so much, and then they will respond with greater force to the threat. There is a typical line of thought in intelligence gathering that one must hold a tight line when torturing: one must cause enough pain to show that more pain can come, but not enough pain that the victim gives up hope on their body, health, and life. Once the victim gives up, the torturing is irrelevent snce no information will be forthcoming. This is how it is with kids terrorized by bullies. They give up on life, they lose hope, and the only way out is death. In turn, they decide to sometimes take others with themselves, whether it be their tormentors or those who saw them being tormented and did nothing.

This last group is often the most important group, by the way. Just one ray of hope can change a life. I am sure everyone has heard this stroy, but it bears repeating (whether true or not):

The quarterback of the football team was on his way hme from school when he saw someone else from school walking home. The other kid was the typical nerd who got good grades, had few friends, and he was carrying a bunch of books. Other kids from school were giving him a hard time and finally caused him to drop his large stack of books. As they laughed at him, the quarterback came up and decided to help pick up the books. He asked if he could help and carried some of the books home for the other boy. This began a friendship that lasted the rest of the year, as the two spent a bit of time together each week. At graduation, the one who had been picked on was giving the valedictorian address, and he said these words, “Not many of you know me, and that is fine, but I want to tell you how a word of kindness can change a life. I was being picked on one day, and someone came and helped me out. That saved my life, for you see I was carrying all of my books home so that my mother would not have to clean out my locker after I committed suicide that night.”

A kind word can change a life, a friendship can save a life. Jesus reached out to the marginalized, the destitute, those thrust aside by the norms of society. He saved lives by healing, but how many more lives did He save by simply being a friend? How many souls did He save through kind words?

If Columbine taught us anything, it should have taught us the value of human life, the value of kind words, the value of friendhsip, the value of sticking up for those marginalized by society. It is what Jesus did and what He taught. Can we really do anything else and still call ourselves Christians?
I agree, as a bullied kid, we should all be kinder to each other. However, from what I've read, the Columbine kids were outcasts of their own accord, and interested in fame, not vengeance, when they acted?

[Jaltus]

That depends upon who you read. THe kids at the school itself said they were bullied all the time. I tend to listen to the kids who were not popular rather than the popular kids and the administration on this one.

[themuzicman]

My guess is that it was both ways. They didnt' fit in, so they were picked on. The more they were picked on, the more they didn't fit in.

As a bullied kid, I can honestly say that I don't know that anything among kids is going to be a solution. There are going to be insecure kids who who bigger/stronger who feel the need to push themselves up by pushing others down. Trying to "make the boys (or girls) play nice" isn't going to help either side.

Neither will "outlawing bullying."

I do think that raising kids to have compassion on the downtrodden will help to the extent that those kids can help someone. There was a kid in 9th grade. I barely knew his name, although I'll remember it as long as I live, in spite of never seeing him again to be able to thank him. I was opening my locker, and two bigger bullies were yelling at me and messing up my combination. He came up to them, told them to grow up and leave me alone. And he stood there for a moment until they walked away.

I remember being stunned as they did, and I don't remember saying thanks, as he disappeared down another hallway. I regret to this day not doing so, because that was the beginning of the end of the bullies for me.

If someone had done that for the boys of Columbine in 8th or 9th grade, would it have made a difference? I can't honestly say. I never had the sense that I needed to kill classmates because I was an outcast or being bullied.

Obviously showing compassion and love to these kids is key. If a couple of boys had truly befriended my wounded soul would have made my HS experience much easier. I might have even gotten better grades. (I was convinced from the 4th grade on that the other kid didn't like me beause I got better grades than they did, so I intentionally didn't do as well as I could have.)

But I think showing some love and compassion towards the bullies is just as necessary. The kids that picked on me turned out (in general) to be the druggies and partiers whose lives went nowhere after High School.

I dunno. We live in a fallen world. We can work to redeem as much of that as we can through loving others, but I think this kind of suffering is going to continue this side of the resurrection.

Michael

[Soundsurfr]

My guess is that it was both ways. They didnt' fit in, so they were picked on. The more they were picked on, the more they didn't fit in.

As a bullied kid, I can honestly say that I don't know that anything among kids is going to be a solution. There are going to be insecure kids who who bigger/stronger who feel the need to push themselves up by pushing others down. Trying to "make the boys (or girls) play nice" isn't going to help either side.

Neither will "outlawing bullying."

I do think that raising kids to have compassion on the downtrodden will help to the extent that those kids can help someone. There was a kid in 9th grade. I barely knew his name, although I'll remember it as long as I live, in spite of never seeing him again to be able to thank him. I was opening my locker, and two bigger bullies were yelling at me and messing up my combination. He came up to them, told them to grow up and leave me alone. And he stood there for a moment until they walked away.

I remember being stunned as they did, and I don't remember saying thanks, as he disappeared down another hallway. I regret to this day not doing so, because that was the beginning of the end of the bullies for me.

If someone had done that for the boys of Columbine in 8th or 9th grade, would it have made a difference? I can't honestly say. I never had the sense that I needed to kill classmates because I was an outcast or being bullied.

Obviously showing compassion and love to these kids is key. If a couple of boys had truly befriended my wounded soul would have made my HS experience much easier. I might have even gotten better grades. (I was convinced from the 4th grade on that the other kid didn't like me beause I got better grades than they did, so I intentionally didn't do as well as I could have.)

But I think showing some love and compassion towards the bullies is just as necessary. The kids that picked on me turned out (in general) to be the druggies and partiers whose lives went nowhere after High School.

I dunno. We live in a fallen world. We can work to redeem as much of that as we can through loving others, but I think this kind of suffering is going to continue this side of the resurrection.

Michael

More good thoughts, Muz.

This is a good thread. I have two sons in high school. One is a Junior. He has ADHD and Tourettes Syndrome, which together cause him to appear nervous and display some motor ticks. Other than that, he's smart, good looking and even a pretty good athlete. He has no close friends - other kids think he's weird. Somehow he manages to stay positive and optimistic - keeps his head up and smiles at everyone, doesn't take any crap from bullies. He keeps himself quite busy. Works out in the gym, does his homework, works at a job after school.

I don't know how he does it. Every once in a while he'll confide in me that he feels bad that no one will socialize with him, but he also feels that he's not doing anything wrong and that when he gets to college, kids will be less critical and will hang out with him. I hope he's right. In the meantime, his family loves him to death and we have a great time together.

My other son is a freshman - outgoing and wildly popular. Dozens of friends, gets invited everywhere. The two brothers get along pretty well, and the young one actually hangs out with the old one a lot. It's hard to know what to say about all this, or what to do to help out. I just hope it all works out for the best for both of them.

[Jedidiah]

Yesterday marked the anniversary of the Columbine massacre, and I am afraid that the media and students throughout the US never learned the lesson behind what happened.

Essentially, a small group of friends kept being picked on by all of the popular kids. They were mocked, derided, bullied, and otherwise intimidated. At that age, one feels as if there is no escape from one’s circumstances. Thus, the boys responded to violence and hatred with violence and hatred. They hated themselves and others, for they dispised their lives, and so took out their anger on those tormenting them and then turned their weapons on themselves.
One lesson that might come out of Columbine is just as you describe. We, as a people, need to learn to treat kindly those different than are we. I was a different one, and the only reason I faced little torment was my physical size and attitude.

Over the years, however, there have been many kids bullied. Until recently, however, those kids did not opt to go out and kill everyone else they could. The real problem is the cultural attitude towards violence. This may be in some small way contributed to by violent video games, but if so I suspect the influence is small. Violent video games are another symptom of the modern attitude toward violence.

[Soundsurfr]

One lesson that might come out of Columbine is just as you describe. We, as a people, need to learn to treat kindly those different than are we. I was a different one, and the only reason I faced little torment was my physical size and attitude.

Over the years, however, there have been many kids bullied. Until recently, however, those kids did not opt to go out and kill everyone else they could. The real problem is the cultural attitude towards violence. This may be in some small way contributed to by violent video games, but if so I suspect the influence is small. Violent video games are another symptom of the modern attitude toward violence.

There was a study done recently that tried but could not correlate the playing of violent video games to later aggressive behavior in young people. I'll try to find it if anyone's interested.

[Ryokan]

One lesson that might come out of Columbine is just as you describe. We, as a people, need to learn to treat kindly those different than are we. I was a different one, and the only reason I faced little torment was my physical size and attitude.

Over the years, however, there have been many kids bullied. Until recently, however, those kids did not opt to go out and kill everyone else they could. The real problem is the cultural attitude towards violence. This may be in some small way contributed to by violent video games, but if so I suspect the influence is small. Violent video games are another symptom of the modern attitude toward violence.
The problem, I think, is the pervasiveness of the modern media. We live lives totally connected, 24 hours a day, to the media. It is global. And it can adjust and be remade on the fly. 40 years ago, people could and did shoot up a school. Or, in one case, literally blow it up. But it was rarer because no one saw it, over and over again, in the media. Most never even heard about it. Not so today.

[Jedidiah]

40 years ago, people could and did shoot up a school. Or, in one case, literally blow it up.Are we speaking of groups of school children here?

[Ryokan]

Are we speaking of groups of school children here?
Kids, parents, and teachers. It happened, just not as often. Here is an interesting, if less than comprehensive, wiki list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting

[semmie]

frank peretti actually wrote a book about kids being bullied. if you're interested, it's called the wounded spirit (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0849916739/sr=8-7/qid=1145669843/ref=pd_bbs_7/103-2502230-1817401?%5Fencoding=UTF8). it's been awhile since i read it, but i thought he did a great job of describing the issue.

it is, perhaps, a combination of all the things y'all have mentioned: being bullied, not fitting in, violence in video games and media, etc.

i like what Muz said, though...we can't stop the bullying, but we can raise our own children to be compassionate and to love those that don't necessarily appear lovable. :shrug:

[themuzicman]

One thing I've found for our kids is to get them involved in youth sports. They develop friendships and self-esteem that last beyond those days.

Obviously not all kids are athletic, but there are places for pretty much any kid to participate.

Michael

[Pilgrim]

I was thinking about other more practical reasons for such violence. One of the issues I think is that we have outlawed all forms of more minor altercations.

School yard fights are completely forbidden, even when it is just some pushing or wrestling. Boys need those sorts of outlets I think. When they are denied that outlet the frustration of both physical and emotional energy builds to a boiling point and explodes in extreme violence.

Heck, kids can't even ride a bike or skateboard in the drive way with out enough safety gear to keep a NASCAR driver safe. Our kids are over protected in many ways and so when presented with truly painful situation they have no idea how to react except to simply explode.

[Ryokan]

I was thinking about other more practical reasons for such violence. One of the issues I think is that we have outlawed all forms of more minor altercations.

School yard fights are completely forbidden, even when it is just some pushing or wrestling. Boys need those sorts of outlets I think. When they are denied that outlet the frustration of both physical and emotional energy builds to a boiling point and explodes in extreme violence.

Heck, kids can't even ride a bike or skateboard in the drive way with out enough safety gear to keep a NASCAR driver safe. Our kids are over protected in many ways and so when presented with truly painful situation they have no idea how to react except to simply explode.
I definitely think their is something to that.

[Raptor]

Violent video games are another symptom of the modern attitude toward violence.

(Note: I'm not trying to single Jed out here, so anyone feel free to answer.)

Out of curiosity, why are violent video games considered more problematic than a violent book? Is it due the visual compent of video games, the interactive nature of them, or something else that I'm missing?

Edit to add: The tricky part for me is determining when the modern era starts.

[Raptor]

The problem, I think, is the pervasiveness of the modern media. We live lives totally connected, 24 hours a day, to the media. It is global. And it can adjust and be remade on the fly. 40 years ago, people could and did shoot up a school. Or, in one case, literally blow it up. But it was rarer because no one saw it, over and over again, in the media. Most never even heard about it. Not so today.


I think this could be applied on a much broader scale with respect to crime and natural disasters. Would anyone know Scott Pederson's name if it happened 30-40 years ago?

[Jedidiah]

Out of curiosity, why are violent video games considered more problematic than a violent book? Is it due the visual compent of video games, the interactive nature of them, or something else that I'm missing?
If we look at violence as something that is becoming more acceptable by the culture at large, what ever that means, then there is nothing special about the video games. Movies, books, etc. are all part of the same trend.

[Pilgrim]

If we look at violence as something that is becoming more acceptable by the culture at large, what ever that means, then there is nothing special about the video games. Movies, books, etc. are all part of the same trend.
Of course, in a video game, one actually perpetrates the violence rather than just observing it.

[darby]

As an adult, I see so much clearer the pain and repercussions caused by bullying, cliques, even simple name calling. Many adults can retrace problems they are going through today to particularly painful childhood taunts, etc. Growing up, I was sadly oblivious to it. I cringe at the times I missed stepping in on someone's behalf, and thinking of the pain/shame they must have been enduring.

As parents, we can't go back, but as was said above, we can certainly teach our children to be kind, seek out those on the margins, etc. Should be just a part of "training up a child in the way he should go."

[Larry Ancil]

Out of curiosity, why are violent video games considered more problematic than a violent book? Is it due the visual compent of video games, the interactive nature of them, or something else that I'm missing?


I would be inclined to suggest that the video games (providing 1st person perspective where the user "causes" the violence, as already mentioned) do a better job of de-sensitization. That is, watching it happen you get accustomed to the images, making it less impacting which has the the effect of making the virtual less significant and making the real more like the virtual. In this way we become accustomed to killing being "No big deal."

[Raptor]

I would be inclined to suggest that the video games (providing 1st person perspective where the user "causes" the violence, as already mentioned) do a better job of de-sensitization. That is, watching it happen you get accustomed to the images, making it less impacting which has the the effect of making the virtual less significant and making the real more like the virtual. In this way we become accustomed to killing being "No big deal."

If a person has difficulty seperating the virtual from the real, then they should not be playing video games. As someone who has played video games growing up, the line is not blurry in the slightest between the virtual and real world. Nor do I think I would not be shocked to see actual violence in the real world.

Is the fantasy world of Lord of the Rings different from the fantasy world of Metal Gear? How about a documentary on WWII, a Bugs Bunny cartoon, or Super Mario Brothers?

To me, the problem has more to do with the selfish nature of our culture. Someone or something "caused" me to do this. (Note: I'm not trying to downplay those who actually have mental disorders or developmental problems.)

[Pilgrim]

Yes those worlds are different in that in one instance you are observing and in the next you are initiating. Your brain literally responds differently to the two.

[Raptor]

Yes those worlds are different in that in one instance you are observing and in the next you are initiating. Your brain literally responds differently to the two.

So you have never read a book and contemplated what you would do in a certain situation?

I thought of another example, Risk. It's a board game, so it fits the interactive criteria. It has a violent objective as a goal. How is the response to it different then a video game?

[Pilgrim]

So you have never read a book and contemplated what you would do in a certain situation?

I thought of another example, Risk. It's a board game, so it fits the interactive criteria. It has a violent objective as a goal. How is the response to it different then a video game?
Yes, clearly reading evokes the imagination. Still it is clear that what goes on psychologically and phisically is different from what goes on when engaged in motor skill behaviors like gaming.

Biologically it's very different. Wire your brain up in the two different scenarios and you will see very different things happening to you physiogically. Some of the differences are only in scale (pulse, heartbeat, respiration etc,) but many of them are different in class as well. That is, entirely new and different parts of the brain light up.

Clearly something different is going on.

I think the jury is still out on just how universal any affects are to such things and if the affects are so profound they need to be mitigated in some way. But it would be ignorant, imo, to say that reading a book affects the brain and behavior the same as playing a video game.

Having said that, I spent 2 hours last night in a video arcade with my youth group so I have to admit I love playing video games. But even I was amazed at the prolific nature of killing games. From Silent Scope to 911 trainer to Time Crises etc, the intent of 95% of the games in the place was to simulate the taking of human life in a realistic manner. Even though my favorite games are the first person shooters, it scares me to see 5 year olds pulling the plastic trigger.

[micah4]

If Columbine taught us anything, it should have taught us the value of human life, the value of kind words, the value of friendhsip, the value of sticking up for those marginalized by society.


These are all good, but you left out the hazards of doping our kids up on SSRI's.

[Zhangliqun]

A lot of causes have been mentioned but the key one these days has been totally missed.

There have always been bullies but contrary to what someone else said, there were NOT always school shootings like today. (Trust me, the media would have been all over it in the 70's when I was in school just like they are today.) In the New York City school system, they had shooting teams and the kids would take their guns back and forth to school on the subway. It never occured to any of them that they should light up their classmates or plant bombs. It never occurred to their teachers, coaches and principals either -- because that sort of thing just didn't happen.

The difference today is a culture of apathy and/or fear on the part of parents and authority figures (teachers, principals, cops, etc.). Parents are so preoccupied with themselves that they really don't know what's going on their kids' lives, and public school teachers and principals run their schools to avoid getting sued or getting the worst parents mad at them intead of seriously trying to run a school. I really wonder what happened the first time the Columbine shooters told their parents -- or their teachers or principal -- that they were being bullied. The parents probably just laughed it off and told them to let it go, while teachers, counselors, and principals in so many vague words told them there was nothing they could do about it.

Kids like that figure out really quick that they are on their own. Nobody will stand up for them. And that drives me insane -- parents and teachers and administrators should NEVER, EVER, EVER look the other way or in any way take bullying unseriously. They should stomp all over it like fire ants invading your kitchen.

The other part of the problem that should be obvious, given the nature of this forum, is God's absence due to his eviction from public schools and parents too cool and hip to be seen inside a church. The result is a spiritual desert, especially in those schools, where nihilism is the state religion -- there is no right or wrong, good or evil, etc. In such an atmosphere where basic morality is so diluted, it's hard to work up any passion about bullies to do something about it. More often the bullies get more sympathy and compassion than the bullied. The result is schools that are effectively run by the worst parents and the worst kids. The principals and administrators and teachers are all afraid of parents suing and kids doing them bodily harm. (This is how you get metal detectors at schools to prevent guns from getting in -- as if the point is to punish guns -- instead of screening and disciplinary processes that prevent bullies and thugs from staying in the school in the first place.)

From this kids get it reinforced that they are on their own, because they see that the bad guys will not only win, they'll get more attention and compassion and sympathy from the very people who are supposed to protect these kids from them.

They have no spiritual guidance either to counter that message by teaching them to hold on through difficult times, that God is watching over them and it will be okay in the end. With God not in the picture it becomes very easy for difficulties at school and with other kids -- or ANYTHING -- to completely fill their horizon overwhelm them, way out of proportion to what's actually happening.

It is a bleak, bleak world that such kids inhabit. Parents are too busy to even be there when their kids get home from school, never mind listen to them and find out what's really going on. Their oppressors are portrayed as the "real victims" and effectively rewarded. No-one will stand up for them. And finally, they are never taught that God looks out especially for people like them. If that is all you know, what is the point of existing in such a world for even one more minute?

They're on their own, they're on their own, they're on their own, and they know it. And they have to come up with their own way of escaping this hell (something teenagers are just not equipped to do), even if it means killing themselves and taking a bunch of their classmates down with them.

[Ryokan]

A lot of causes have been mentioned but the key one these days has been totally missed.

There have always been bullies but contrary to what someone else said, there were NOT always school shootings like today. (Trust me, the media would have been all over it in the 70's when I was in school just like they are today.) In the New York City school system, they had shooting teams and the kids would take their guns back and forth to school on the subway. It never occured to any of them that they should light up their classmates or plant bombs. It never occurred to their teachers, coaches and principals either -- because that sort of thing just didn't happen.

The difference today is a culture of apathy and/or fear on the part of parents and authority figures (teachers, principals, cops, etc.). Parents are so preoccupied with themselves that they really don't know what's going on their kids' lives, and public school teachers and principals run their schools to avoid getting sued or getting the worst parents mad at them intead of seriously trying to run a school. I really wonder what happened the first time the Columbine shooters told their parents -- or their teachers or principal -- that they were being bullied. The parents probably just laughed it off and told them to let it go, while teachers, counselors, and principals in so many vague words told them there was nothing they could do about it.

Kids like that figure out really quick that they are on their own. Nobody will stand up for them. And that drives me insane -- parents and teachers and administrators should NEVER, EVER, EVER look the other way or in any way take bullying unseriously. They should stomp all over it like fire ants invading your kitchen.

The other part of the problem that should be obvious, given the nature of this forum, is God's absence due to his eviction from public schools and parents too cool and hip to be seen inside a church. The result is a spiritual desert, especially in those schools, where nihilism is the state religion -- there is no right or wrong, good or evil, etc. In such an atmosphere where basic morality is so diluted, it's hard to work up any passion about bullies to do something about it. More often the bullies get more sympathy and compassion than the bullied. The result is schools that are effectively run by the worst parents and the worst kids. The principals and administrators and teachers are all afraid of parents suing and kids doing them bodily harm. (This is how you get metal detectors at schools to prevent guns from getting in -- as if the point is to punish guns -- instead of screening and disciplinary processes that prevent bullies and thugs from staying in the school in the first place.)

From this kids get it reinforced that they are on their own, because they see that the bad guys will not only win, they'll get more attention and compassion and sympathy from the very people who are supposed to protect these kids from them.

They have no spiritual guidance either to counter that message by teaching them to hold on through difficult times, that God is watching over them and it will be okay in the end. With God not in the picture it becomes very easy for difficulties at school and with other kids -- or ANYTHING -- to completely fill their horizon overwhelm them, way out of proportion to what's actually happening.

It is a bleak, bleak world that such kids inhabit. Parents are too busy to even be there when their kids get home from school, never mind listen to them and find out what's really going on. Their oppressors are portrayed as the "real victims" and effectively rewarded. No-one will stand up for them. And finally, they are never taught that God looks out especially for people like them. If that is all you know, what is the point of existing in such a world for even one more minute?

They're on their own, they're on their own, they're on their own, and they know it. And they have to come up with their own way of escaping this hell (something teenagers are just not equipped to do), even if it means killing themselves and taking a bunch of their classmates down with them.
How would "Having God in the Picture" fix things? Was God really in the picture in the past more than now? Or was it lip service? And sure, these happened less often in the past, because it wasn't in peoples heads, because their wasn't a 24 hour a day media.

[Pilgrim]

A lot of causes have been mentioned but the key one these days has been totally missed.

There have always been bullies but contrary to what someone else said, there were NOT always school shootings like today. (Trust me, the media would have been all over it in the 70's when I was in school just like they are today.) In the New York City school system, they had shooting teams and the kids would take their guns back and forth to school on the subway. It never occured to any of them that they should light up their classmates or plant bombs. It never occurred to their teachers, coaches and principals either -- because that sort of thing just didn't happen.

The difference today is a culture of apathy and/or fear on the part of parents and authority figures (teachers, principals, cops, etc.). Parents are so preoccupied with themselves that they really don't know what's going on their kids' lives, and public school teachers and principals run their schools to avoid getting sued or getting the worst parents mad at them intead of seriously trying to run a school. I really wonder what happened the first time the Columbine shooters told their parents -- or their teachers or principal -- that they were being bullied. The parents probably just laughed it off and told them to let it go, while teachers, counselors, and principals in so many vague words told them there was nothing they could do about it.

Kids like that figure out really quick that they are on their own. Nobody will stand up for them. And that drives me insane -- parents and teachers and administrators should NEVER, EVER, EVER look the other way or in any way take bullying unseriously. They should stomp all over it like fire ants invading your kitchen.

The other part of the problem that should be obvious, given the nature of this forum, is God's absence due to his eviction from public schools and parents too cool and hip to be seen inside a church. The result is a spiritual desert, especially in those schools, where nihilism is the state religion -- there is no right or wrong, good or evil, etc. In such an atmosphere where basic morality is so diluted, it's hard to work up any passion about bullies to do something about it. More often the bullies get more sympathy and compassion than the bullied. The result is schools that are effectively run by the worst parents and the worst kids. The principals and administrators and teachers are all afraid of parents suing and kids doing them bodily harm. (This is how you get metal detectors at schools to prevent guns from getting in -- as if the point is to punish guns -- instead of screening and disciplinary processes that prevent bullies and thugs from staying in the school in the first place.)

From this kids get it reinforced that they are on their own, because they see that the bad guys will not only win, they'll get more attention and compassion and sympathy from the very people who are supposed to protect these kids from them.

They have no spiritual guidance either to counter that message by teaching them to hold on through difficult times, that God is watching over them and it will be okay in the end. With God not in the picture it becomes very easy for difficulties at school and with other kids -- or ANYTHING -- to completely fill their horizon overwhelm them, way out of proportion to what's actually happening.

It is a bleak, bleak world that such kids inhabit. Parents are too busy to even be there when their kids get home from school, never mind listen to them and find out what's really going on. Their oppressors are portrayed as the "real victims" and effectively rewarded. No-one will stand up for them. And finally, they are never taught that God looks out especially for people like them. If that is all you know, what is the point of existing in such a world for even one more minute?

They're on their own, they're on their own, they're on their own, and they know it. And they have to come up with their own way of escaping this hell (something teenagers are just not equipped to do), even if it means killing themselves and taking a bunch of their classmates down with them.
Just FYI, the worst school shooting in the Unites States happened in the mid 1920's. I think you need to go back and check your historical facts before making assertions. And let's not forget the Bath Michigan School bombing of 1927 which killed 43 people including 39 grade school children. It was the worst act of domestic terrorism up until Oklahoma City. Schools were not necessarioy the bastion of peace in by gone days you seem to think they were.

I was just talking to my b rother wh went to highschool in the 70's and he clearly remembers kids bringing guns and knives to school.

I think it is one of the biggest flaws of American Christianity that they somehow think that there was a magical time in the early to mid 20th century that was somehow safer and more pure and moral than anyother time. It's almost dillusional to think that way.

[Zhangliqun]

How would "Having God in the Picture" fix things? Was God really in the picture in the past more than now? Or was it lip service? And sure, these happened less often in the past, because it wasn't in peoples heads, because their wasn't a 24 hour a day media.

Having God in the picture would have comforted them and calmed them and had them focusing on something other than just their private, ignored misery all day long.

God is every bit as much in the picture now as he was at any time. That adults abdicating their responsibilities and otherwise screwing up has horrific consequences for kids is nothing new. I fail to see your point.

There are all kinds of problems with modern media but the fact that they report on a school shooting is not the cause of school shootings.

[Zhangliqun]

Just FYI, the worst school shooting in the Unites States happened in the mid 1920's. I think you need to go back and check your historical facts before making assertions. And let's not forget the Bath Michigan School bombing of 1927 which killed 43 people including 39 grade school children.

You appear to be one who doesn't do his homework. You had to go back 79 years to find an example, and it doesn't count. The problem with your use of the Bath Michigan School bombing is that as you can read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

...it was an ADULT (Andrew Kehoe, 55) who was upset over PROPERTY TAXES who bombed the school. NOT a student. Therefore, it doesn't count any more than if you used as an example the Tri-State Tornado in 1925 that killed 695 people, including many dozens of school children at several different schools. We are talking specifically about STUDENTS committing mass murder at schools, NOT every conceivable way somebody could die at a school.

It was the worst act of domestic terrorism up until Oklahoma City.

But again, we're not talking about domestic terrorism, we are talking about students lighting up dozens of their classmates.

Schools were not necessarioy the bastion of peace in by gone days you seem to think they were.

Saying there weren't mass murders in schools 25 years ago is not the same as saying they were "bastions of peace". There have always been bullies and their terrified victims and the occasional cruel teacher or principal. But in those days, kids generally had someone to turn to. Now they don't.

That said, schools actually were a lot more peaceful than now, because:

1) In those days, parents and teachers and adults in general took disciplining their kids very seriously. Today they're afraid of hurting their feelings or confronting them, or they're just too lazy or self-absorbed. The culture is circling the toilet bowl because everyone is all about rights and feelings, never about responsibilities and, God forbid, facts.

2) You had to go back to 1927 and find a case of an ADULT blowing up a school. Where are your examples of kids committing mass murder? Even if you count the Bath mass murder, that's one such incident in over 70 years before Columbine.

3) Unlike you, I don't have to rely on older brothers to tell me anything, I was THERE. I went to junior high and high school in the 1970's. There were bullies and occasional fights, even gang fights, but no mass murders, and...

4) ...such an event would have been huge news, even bigger than now. The media would not have hidden it from us as you seem to be implying. Trust me, they were just as eager to scare the hell out of us then for ratings and circulation as they are now. (If you are saying they would hide something like that from us, can you show me some examples?)

I was just talking to my brother wh went to highschool in the 70's and he clearly remembers kids bringing guns and knives to school.

He's right -- again, I was there -- kids sometimes did bring weapons to school. But this is also an irrelevant point unless you can give some examples of these kids committing mass murder. They brought the weapons, but they never crossed the line because their motivation was completely different. It was about protection and sometimes intimidation, but never about committing mass murder -- because if it was, they would have done it.

I think it is one of the biggest flaws of American Christianity that they somehow think that there was a magical time in the early to mid 20th century that was somehow safer and more pure and moral than anyother time. It's almost dillusional to think that way.

I take it you have problem with American Christianity? Anyway, it isn't just Christians who think the general morality of people was better 50 years ago than now. Ask any non-Christian old timer if you could walk the streets at night more safely 30 years ago than now. We even used to leave our house and doors unlocked up until about '76 or '77. How is the murder rate today compared to, say, 1938? Were there metal detectors in schools then? It's just not disputable.

And once again, you are conflating the relevant with the irrelevant because saying morality was better then is not the same as saying it was a magical time or that it was in all ways safer. (It's also not saying there wasn't plenty of room for improvement then, too -- only that it has gotten a lot worse since then.)

In certain ways, it was less safe and less "magical". Racial problems were far, far worse then than now. Many vaccines for crippling or even fatal diseases (like polio) were not around. Wars were fought in which many more American soldiers died in a single hour than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11. Today's weather forecasting technology would likely have saved about 90% of those folks killed by the Tri-State Tornado.

But today our enemies are more inside us than outside of us. Technology has made us safer from weather and disease, but people have gotten complacent and are losing their sense of honor, duty, purpose. They feel lost and depressed and disconnected from each other, and really don't know anymore if life really has any meaning or not. As we've seen with the school shootings, which are just the tip of the iceberg, the consequences of that are far more deadly than any disease, tornado or war.

[Ryokan]

Having God in the picture would have comforted them and calmed them and had them focusing on something other than just their private, ignored misery all day long. Niw, can you back that up or is it just assertion? And by having God in the picture, do you mean school based religious education, the ten commandments in schools, or what?


God is every bit as much in the picture now as he was at any time. That adults abdicating their responsibilities and otherwise screwing up has horrific consequences for kids is nothing new. I fail to see your point. So these kids are just victims?


There are all kinds of problems with modern media but the fact that they report on a school shooting is not the cause of school shootings.
Really? Then why do school shootings cluster?

[Zhangliqun]

Niw, can you back that up or is it just assertion?

I can. The culture was immersed in God 30+ years ago. Now it is not.

There were no school shootings in those days, no handing out of condoms, no "values-free" education, no paralyzing fear on the part of adults of confronting bullies taking the form of making excuses for them treating them like they are the victims, intellectual fads that value feelings over facts, far fewer 11-year olds getting pregnant.

Now we have all of those things and much more. Coincidence? I think not.

Now the fact that you have asked me to back up my "assertion" implies you are asserting the opposite, that having God in the picture would have no effect on countering these evils. So now back your assertion up.


And by having God in the picture, do you mean school based religious education, the ten commandments in schools, or what?

In the culture in general. I would have no problem with religious schools or posting the ten commandments in schools because I want a wooden stake driven through the heart of public education. It had its chance and it blew it.


So these kids are just victims?

If you mean the Columbine shooters, they are part victim, part perpetrator. The law of God is written on every man's heart so they must be held accountable for deliberately slaughtering their classmates, regardless of their duress -- because it is not possible that they didn't know it was wrong. Still it should be tempered with God's mercy because all the adults in their lives failed them miserably, and they must be held accountable too.


Really? Then why do school shootings cluster?

They don't. They have happened all over the country, and often years apart. You seem to be suggesting that the shootings are often done by kids who are actually well-adjusted and happy and one day they see a school shooting on the news 5 states away and decide, hey, that looks like fun.

To the extent that such shootings inspire other kids to do likewise, these other kids are kids who are already very close to the edge to begin with. Even the slightest breeze of any kind, media or not, from the right direction will push them over.

Don't get me wrong -- the media is not exactly God's best friend these days and I have a great deal of contempt for their worship of sensationalism and their huge contributions to social rot. But if you're counting on not reporting these things on the news to be a cure for this problem, then your analysis needs to go a little bit deeper.

[Ryokan]

I tried a long response to you, Zhang, but I've changed my mind. We are talking past each other.

[Pilgrim]

All I know is that there is evangelical Christian in the white house. The most powerful political machine in the nation is powered by the Relgious Right. That group has managed to get elected and appointed a religious right friendly congress, senate, and a supreme court. Something like 80% of Americans report they are Christians and even more than that report that they believe in God.

Maybe the issue is that as religious models we have failed our country by buying into a right-wing, bottom line, meritocracy that seeks to serve the individual first and the community second and only invokes God at election time?

[Zhangliqun]

All I know is that there is evangelical Christian in the white house.

Well, clearly we can't have that -- we must pass a law saying only atheists or at least only leftists can run for public office.


The most powerful political machine in the nation is powered by the Relgious Right.

The left has had its way so long that any pushback at all beyond mealy-mouthed acceptance of their dominance while wearing sackcloth and ashes is culture shock, and seems like "the most powerful political machine in the nation". They really talk and act -- as you seem to be doing -- as if they have no idea what a stranglehold they have over the culture, education, and politics. This is why they freak out at the sight of right wingers protesting something: they really believe they have a monopoly on the First Amendment, especially the right to protest.

Is it the Religious Right that has kids putting condoms on bananas at school, or teaching them that it really doesn't matter if they pass the test or know anything when they get out of school as long as they feel good about themselves? Or dumbing down history courses so that we know only about the oppression, not the good things, and not who actually did what and what actually happened? Or encouraging kids to fly the flag of ANY country -- EXCEPT the American flag? Or forcing intellectual fads on us "Whole Language" or bilingual education or outcome-based education (that is strangely named) or "creative math" that have been shown to be miserable failures over and over again? Or forcing teachers to NEVER make "value judgements", thereby preventing the kids from getting any reinforcement about right and wrong -- except for hating the Religious Right and people who don't recycle?

Is it the Religious Right that has given us TV, movies, music and a fashion industry that ridicule marriage and commitment in favor of indulgence of impulses at all costs and laugh at middle class and family values? Or replaced class and modesty in behavior and dress with titillation at all costs? Does the Religious Right teach 6-year old girls to wear "hooker chic" clothing and gyrate like pole dancers? Are you saying Calvin Klein, Benetton, Abercrombie & Fitch, gangsta rappers, MTV and Rock the Vote, the producers of "Desperate Housewives" and "Twins", and the ACLU are members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?

Has the Religious Right tried with all its might to remove God from the culture and replace him with existential nihilism and I'm-okay-you're-okay-what's-true-for-you-isn't-true-for-me-beyond-good-and-evil relativism?

Has the RR given us college and university faculties that are 95% leftist, with professors who teach their students to hate America and shout down and scream like a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic at anyone who disagrees with them? Or violated First Amendment rights by stealing and burning the college newspapers of those they disagree with? Or had people expelled from the college for "conspicuous laughter" (laughing at a politically incorrect joke)?


That group has managed to get elected and appointed a religious right friendly congress, senate, and a supreme court.

Who are these senators, congressmen and justices and what have they done to be, in your view, overly friendly to the "Religious Right"? Be specific.


Something like 80% of Americans report they are Christians and even more than that report that they believe in God.

But only about a third of Americans attend church regularly, when it used to be about 80-90%, so these reports don't mean much.


Maybe the issue is that as religious models we have failed our country by buying into a right-wing, bottom line, meritocracy that seeks to serve the individual first and the community second and only invokes God at election time?

FIRST: Democrat and Republican alike invoke God at election time. Republicans are the only ones who will invoke him between elections, with the exception of one or two Democrats.

SECOND: Everything is "bottom line", even to you, whether you will admit it or not. To say otherwise is to say you don't care about results. But you do and you should. You just want left-wing election results, leftist policy results, leftist results in changing the culture. And if you're going to argue that you were only speaking financially, it still applies. Leftists love money too, especially someone else's money -- because they find the easiest way to make money is to pass laws that will allow them to take somebody else's money forcibly. At least the right-wingers started their own companies and made their own money.

THIRD: The Religious Right is all about community. This is why we get concerned about the culture wars, like glamorizing pre-marital sex and gangster lifestyles on TV, encouraging boys to walk around with their pants below their butts, and presenting abortion as a sacred right, or softcore porn masquerading as music videos, and encouraging a generally rebellious stick-a-finger-in-everybody's-eye-for-the-fun-of-it a la James Dean in "The Wild Bunch". We do care very much about the community. The leftists are the hyper-individualists who believe everyone lives in a moral vacuum and that your morality is determined only by the way you vote, not how you actually conduct your personal life. To the extent that the left cares about the community, it is only to the extent that it can make the government underwrite all manner of obscene "art" and demoralizing and self-destructive behavior that any member of the community wishes to engage in in its worst moments, and then clean up the mess afterward without attaching any strings or making any judgements, and then blame said mess on the Religious Right for not giving more money for this "cause".

We RR's believe that caring is done one-on-one, as Jesus taught, not by voting for the government to take more of somebody else's money to feed gutless welfare bureacracies that waste far more money than they ever put to good use -- with the added bonus of us never having to get personally involved and get our hands dirty or something icky like that. (As Mother Teresa said "Governments can't love".) "Compassion" at a great distance like that is just narcissism pretending to be compassion, and why you see limousine liberals wringing their hands about the homeless without taking one of them into their own home (something I have actually done several times). Results don't matter, evidence of horrific failure doesn't matter. It gets swept under the rug because it is far more important that one APPEAR compassionate and be applauded by one's friends than to actually BE compassionate that violates the PC dictums and ends up costing one his or her PC friends. God forbid that anyone should get booed at the Oscars for saying we should forget about taxes and just go out and find a needy family we can personally help.

FOURTH: What's wrong with meritocracy? Should you give the same reward to an armed robber that you would give to a volunteer who tutors poor kids after school? If yes, then that means either both should go to prison or both should get an award banquet honoring them for their work? Help me with this one -- I don't understand your point at all.

FIFTH: To the extent that we as religious models have "failed" (other than the usual bumbling and stumbling of human nature that Christians are not immune to -- not quite practicing what we preach), it is because we have allowed Godless "social justice" (social-ISM) to be come a substitute for the preaching of the Gospel. We substitute government bureaucracies for God. The most extreme examples are Jim Jones (Guyana 1978) and even Jimmy Carter, who portrays any foreign dictator as a saint, but the NCC and the Revolution Theology and probably about 90% of the people who regularly use the phrase "social justice" are on the same continuum.

The best way to help people is to teach them how to fish, not fish for them in perpetuity. And the best way to underwrite that teaching is to earn as much of your own money as you can legally, morally and ethically, so that you can ensure that people who actually care -- not loveless, incompetent government bureacracies -- are calling the shots and that people who are actually in need get the help.

[Zhangliqun]

I tried a long response to you, Zhang, but I've changed my mind. We are talking past each other.

How so?

[Ryokan]

How so?
We see the world in a fundamentally different way, based on different foundational assumptions and understandings, I think. No amount of web conversation will persuade either of us the other is right. In fact, I doubt we even properly understand the way each other thinks..

[Pilgrim]

Well, clearly we can't have that -- we must pass a law saying only atheists or at least only leftists can run for public office.

Sarcasm right? The point is that to cry persecution in a political atmosphere that is increasingly dominated by Christians is naive. How can one claim persecution of our faith when Christians are running the show?


The left has had its way so long

How long is that exactly? Of the past 35 years 22 of them have been republican controled and all of them have seen a Christian in the Whitehouse. And before that 35 years we're getting back to your supposed "golden age of moral Christianity" or what ever you want to call it.


Is it the Religious Right that has (snip)

No, they are endorsing terrorism abroad by suporting the School of The Americas while at the same time trying to tell kids not to be bullies in the school yard.


Is it the Religious Right that has given us TV, movies, music and a fashion industry that ridicule marriage and commitment in favor of indulgence of impulses at all costs and laugh at middle class and family values? Or replaced class and modesty in behavior and dress with titillation at all costs?

Yes. Let's think about this one: Jim Baker and Jerry Falwell come right to mind. Newt Gingrich cheated on his wife too, what else, oh yeah, Bill Bennett has a gambling problem and Rush Limbaugh pops pills. So yeah, the religious right does all those things you talk about. Of course what you are describing is the human condition and not a condition related to any specific party. That you think it is specific to a particular party is naive.


Does the Religious Right teach 6-year old girls to wear "hooker chic" clothing and gyrate like pole dancers? Are you saying Calvin Klein, Benetton, Abercrombie & Fitch, gangsta rappers, MTV and Rock the Vote, the producers of "Desperate Housewives" and "Twins", and the ACLU are members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?

Nope, don't think I said any of those things. However, you seem to be implying that those things are the result of some "Vast left wing conspiracy?" and not the product of the capitalist meritocracy that, by the way, is defended to the death by hard core conservatives?


SECOND: Everything is "bottom line", even to you, whether you will admit it or not. To say otherwise is to say you don't care about results. But you do and you should. You just want left-wing election results, leftist policy results, leftist results in changing the culture. And if you're going to argue that you were only speaking financially, it still applies. Leftists love money too, especially someone else's money -- because they find the easiest way to make money is to pass laws that will allow them to take somebody else's money forcibly. At least the right-wingers started their own companies and made their own money.

We need a NEW bottom line. One that is not about accumulation and is more about compassion. The sort of bottom line that Christ taught and towards which the Gospel compells us. It may surprise you but I don't really care about "results" as much as you'd think. I'm an independant voter and encourage both Dems and Repubs alike to engage in a political and religious bottom line that is less about fear than it is about hope.


THIRD: The Religious Right is all about community. This is why we get concerned about the culture wars, like glamorizing pre-marital sex and gangster lifestyles on TV, encouraging boys to walk around with their pants below their butts, and presenting abortion as a sacred right, or softcore porn masquerading as music videos, and encouraging a generally rebellious stick-a-finger-in-everybody's-eye-for-the-fun-of-it a la James Dean in "The Wild Bunch". We do care very much about the community. The leftists are the hyper-individualists who believe everyone lives in a moral vacuum and that your morality is determined only by the way you vote, not how you actually conduct your personal life. To the extent that the left cares about the community, it is only to the extent that it can make the government underwrite all manner of obscene "art" and demoralizing and self-destructive behavior that any member of the community wishes to engage in in its worst moments, and then clean up the mess afterward without attaching any strings or making any judgements, and then blame said mess on the Religious Right for not giving more money for this "cause".

Prove it. I agree in a family vaules platform in both the church and in government. But the religious right is not pro-life, it is merely pro-birth. Once you're born, you're pretty much on your own. I am pationately pro birth and pro life. And I think those values are as much for the weekday as for Sunday.


We RR's believe that caring is done one-on-one, as Jesus taught, not by voting for the government to take more of somebody else's money to feed gutless welfare bureacracies that waste far more money than they ever put to good use -- with the added bonus of us never having to get personally involved and get our hands dirty or something icky like that. (As Mother Teresa said "Governments can't love".) "Compassion" at a great distance like that is just narcissism pretending to be compassion, and why you see limousine liberals wringing their hands about the homeless without taking one of them into their own home (something I have actually done several times). Results don't matter, evidence of horrific failure doesn't matter. It gets swept under the rug because it is far more important that one APPEAR compassionate and be applauded by one's friends than to actually BE compassionate that violates the PC dictums and ends up costing one his or her PC friends. God forbid that anyone should get booed at the Oscars for saying we should forget about taxes and just go out and find a needy family we can personally help.

Why can't it be both? If as a society we value all sorts of care and compassion then why as a society should our goevernment not reflect those values? Unless of course this is just lip service from you? Seriously, if we say that God ordains governments, why do we get all twisted up about a government that actually reflects Godly values? Why wouldn't we want government to reflect the values of caring and compassion we say are evidence of faith?


FOURTH: What's wrong with meritocracy?
Ultimately there are points to earning things by merit, I think it has it's place. But the gospel teaches a system of grace, not merit. Unless you think you can earn your place in heaven?


Should you give the same reward to an armed robber that you would give to a volunteer who tutors poor kids after school? If yes, then that means either both should go to prison or both should get an award banquet honoring them for their work? Help me with this one -- I don't understand your point at all.

Of course you don't, you're not articulating my point at all. Rather you're burning a straw man.


FIFTH: To the extent that we as religious models have "failed"

We have failed in that we have articulated a language of fear rather than of hope. We have failed in that we are more concerned with personal rights than community or social responsability. We have failed in that we are more concerned with getting than giving.


The best way to help people is to teach them how to fish, not fish for them in perpetuity. And the best way to underwrite that teaching is to earn as much of your own money as you can legally, morally and ethically, so that you can ensure that people who actually care -- not loveless, incompetent government bureacracies -- are calling the shots and that people who are actually in need get the help.

That's a great way to absolve yourself of laziness and to make yourself feel better about wanting more things. I think Jesus would both fish for them and teach them to fish. Whatever it would take to make sure they were filled.

"When Lord, when did we see you hungry and not give you spinning reel"...errr...wait...let's try that again, "When Lord, when did we see you hungry and not give you something to eat..."

[Zhangliqun]

Sarcasm right? The point is that to cry persecution in a political atmosphere that is increasingly dominated by Christians is naive.

Sarcasm, yes, perhaps that was below me and I apologize. But back to business at hand:

That there are more Republicans in office at the national level does not mean there are more Christians. There are plenty of Christians who are Democrats and plenty of Republicans who are atheists or agnostics, particularly in the libertarian wing of the party.


How can one claim persecution of our faith when Christians are running the show?

I didn't cry persecution at all. I pointed out the silliness of crying persecution just because the president is a Christian.


How long is that exactly? Of the past 35 years 22 of them have been republican controled and all of them have seen a Christian in the Whitehouse.

No sarcasm intended at all but it's really like you never read my post at all.

I focused entirely on the rot of the entertainment industry (TV/movies/music), on the university, college and even primary education school campuses, popular culture, etc., and you reply as if Republicans in White House means none of what I described above has happened, as if I am imagining things. You have this bizarre tunnel-vision focus on the presidency as if you think the President has absolute power to dictate what the popular culture will be. The fact is that the President (of any party) has ZERO power to dictate the popular culture. The fact that Republicans have held the White House 22 out of 35 years means nothing. Therefore your point above is as relevant to my points about the culture as the average weight of crocodile eggs.

(And besides, prior to the changing of the guard in 1994, the Democrats had been the majority party in the Senate and House since 1952, except the Senate for 2 years during Reagan's second term.)


And before that 35 years we're getting back to your supposed "golden age of moral Christianity" or what ever you want to call it.

There has never really been a "golden age of morality" for anyone. But 40-50 years ago, it was definitely better in general on the morality front not just for Christians but for everyone.


No, they are endorsing terrorism abroad by suporting the School of The Americas while at the same time trying to tell kids not to be bullies in the school yard.

What terrorism is the United States engaging in via the School of the Americas? (This isn't going to be some pacifism speech is it?)


Yes. Let's think about this one: Jim Baker and Jerry Falwell come right to mind. Newt Gingrich cheated on his wife too, what else, oh yeah, Bill Bennett has a gambling problem and Rush Limbaugh pops pills. So yeah, the religious right does all those things you talk about. Of course what you are describing is the human condition and not a condition related to any specific party. That you think it is specific to a particular party is naive.

You forgot Oral Roberts, the Speaker of the House just after Gingrich who had to step down due to marital infidelity (can't think of his name at the moment), and Randall "Duke" Cunningham who's going to prison for taking bribes. And many many other preachers and Republicans. (By the way, Rush Limbaugh no longer pops pills, plus he got hooked on prescription pain killers because he was having back problems -- he didn't start taking them for "recreational" purposes.)

Your point here is that Republicans sin too. An irrelevant point because I never said otherwise.

My point was and is that the Left not only engages in this behavior but largely celebrates it and pushes it on us in the form of legislation and erasing taboos via the entertainment industry and classroom, and tells us it is perfectly fine. Or the extent they admit it is maybe not so great, they say it's no big deal or it's somebody else's fault. By way of contrast, NONE of the people you and I mentioned above said anything other than that what they did was terribly wrong.

There is a BIG difference between committing a sin, and committing a sin and then trying to convince yourself and everybody else that it ISN'T a sin. Civilizations can survive a certain level of sin but they DIE when they start saying sin isn't sin. It happened to the Romans, it looks like it is happening to us. You can name all the sins and air out all the dirty laundry of all the Republicans who ever lived from here until doomsday but it is not the Republicans who are saying sin isn't really sin.

Do you understand my point now?


Nope, don't think I said any of those things. However, you seem to be implying that those things are the result of some "Vast left wing conspiracy?" and not the product of the capitalist meritocracy that, by the way, is defended to the death by hard core conservatives?

Not any sort of conspiracy at all -- unfortunately as someone involved to a certain degree in the entertainment industry, I can tell you that this sort of behavior is just in the nature of most entertainers and always has been. I have a theory as to why but that's for another time.

At any rate, entertainers are the trend setters but for a long time they had their indiscretions swept under the rug, just as with politicians. Along came the "God Is Dead" moral relativism movement (that originated in Europe in the 1800's) via our college professors in the 50's and 60's that turned young minds away from God and gradually spread throughout the culture with its "free love" and its deadly affair with drugs. Without God to answer to, the entertainers became gods, there was less and less of a need to sweep their seedy behavior under the rug, it became more and more known and the general public started to imitate them more and more. It was definitely accelerated by technology, especially television and now the internet, but it was coming anyway.

The point is:

a) I don't think it is a vast conspiracy on the part of entertainers or anyone else, except for activists and leftist college profs most of whom openly say it is their goal to change the culture in that direction, and:

b) There is no denying that the culture has become ever more coarse, rude, gross, self-indulgent, self-destructive, more celebrating of evil and holding virtue and goodness more and more in contempt, with more people than ever not even knowing their neighbors' names. (And by the way, more school shootings.)


We need a NEW bottom line. One that is not about accumulation and is more about compassion.

a) Promoting a culture of self-indulgence, drug dependence, one-night stands, "unwanted" pregnancies, etc., won't get you there. I'm not saying that's what you believe in, I'm saying it only to make this point: That selfishness isn't always about money as most liberals would have you believe, it is even more about personal behavior, which most liberals would have you ignore. To focus on strictly on the financial sins of Enron and other corporations or rich people and remain silent about all these social pathologies is to "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel".


The sort of bottom line that Christ taught and towards which the Gospel compells us. It may surprise you but I don't really care about "results" as much as you'd think.

Perhaps you are unaware that "results" and "bottom line" are the same thing. So yes, you do care about results. As you should.


I'm an independant voter and encourage both Dems and Repubs alike to engage in a political and religious bottom line that is less about fear than it is about hope.

On this we agree.


Prove it. I agree in a family vaules platform in both the church and in government.

So far so good...


But the religious right is not pro-life, it is merely pro-birth. Once you're born, you're pretty much on your own.

As you said, prove it. The fact is that there are married couples from all walks of life lining up around the block to adopt children, including and especially minority children, and even horribly deformed children. They are often stopped by all kinds of red tape, and by racial activist groups that don't want white couples adopting non-white kids for fear that they will commit "cultural genocide" because they can't raise them "black" or "latino" or whatever. If this red tape was cut, every child that is aborted could instead have a loving home.


I am pationately pro birth and pro life. And I think those values are as much for the weekday as for Sunday.

We agree again.


Why can't it be both? If as a society we value all sorts of care and compassion then why as a society should our goevernment not reflect those values?

Very simple -- beacuse government bureacracies are by their nature utterly INCAPABLE of reflecting those values. It is like trying to get a cat to bark. Socialism not only doesn't work, it is destructive, especially in the area of eroding character and creating economic disaster. Churchill put it best:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."


Unless of course this is just lip service from you? Seriously, if we say that God ordains governments, why do we get all twisted up about a government that actually reflects Godly values?

Bureaucracies do not reflect Godly values. They can't. I repeat Mother Teresa's point: Governments can't love. Therefore they can't reflect Godly values. What is it that Paul says in 1 Corinthians about if I don't have love, every accomplishment of mine is just noise and dust?

Please also note that God ordained our government to be a democracy in which we can all participate. God apparently did not intend for us to always agree with everything our government does, or he would not have allowed the founding documents to be written in such a way as to repeatedly encourage us to petition our government and guarantee our rights to do so.


Ultimately there are points to earning things by merit, I think it has it's place. But the gospel teaches a system of grace, not merit.

Another agreement.


Unless you think you can earn your place in heaven?

Obviously the answer is no. I'm sure that was a rhetorical question on your part, and a fair one. So please understand that...


Of course you don't, you're not articulating my point at all. Rather you're burning a straw man.

...I am not burning a straw man, I am doing the same thing you just did, asking you a rhetorical question. I do not believe for a second that you think a robber and a volunteer should be equally rewarded. I was only making the point -- that you seem to agree with above -- that meritocracy has merit to a very large degree here on earth.


We have failed in that we have articulated a language of fear rather than of hope. We have failed in that we are more concerned with personal rights than community or social responsability. We have failed in that we are more concerned with getting than giving.

You are correct, and I repeat it isn't all about money, it is also and more importantly about personal behavior. The practical effect of socialism is just another form of being concerned more about getting than giving.


That's a great way to absolve yourself of laziness and to make yourself feel better about wanting more things. I think Jesus would both fish for them and teach them to fish. Whatever it would take to make sure they were filled.


"When Lord, when did we see you hungry and not give you spinning reel"...errr...wait...let's try that again, "When Lord, when did we see you hungry and not give you something to eat..."

The lazy ones are the ones who insist the government does all this with someone else's money without them ever having to get involved personally, and without ever making any demands on the recipients that they can learn to take care of themselves so they too can become able to PERSONALLY help someone else. Jesus would fish for them as long as they were unable to fish for themselves. He would not continue to fish for them after they had already learned how because he would want them to go and fish for someone else who was unable fish until they learned how, and so on. Jesus is not an enabler who makes us weaker and less able, he gives us power.

The obvious exception to this is people who due to age or other physical or mental defects or disabilities will never be able to fish for themselves. Such people we DO have the moral responsibility to care for from womb to tomb.