School Shootings and You
An Essay
To return to the home page close this window
Introduction
Shootings Since 1979
Focus on the Community, Not the Shooter (School Shooting Factoids)
Discipline
Disciplining Children
Emotionalism
Morality
Nihilism
Narcissism
More Influences, Less Support
Lack of Compassion
Isolation
Judgment Based on Style Over Substance
School
Adolescence
Silly Solutions
Rationalizations
Final Word
Statistics
Links to Statistics
Does a happy kid take a gun to school?
No.
The kid who takes a gun to school is angry, hostile and hurting... though he does not choose to be.
The school shooter does not choose to be angry.
He does not choose to be hostile.
He does not choose to be hurt, confused, excluded or alienated.
A teenager lives in a world created by the lifestyles, choices and attitudes of adults, in which many of the causes of school shootings shall be found. The origin of school shootings is not strictly in the biology/psychology of the shooter; he is not solely a product of his parents but of the greater social, spiritual, cultural environment. School shootings should not be blamed on violent video games or movies or access to guns, all of which may influence a shooter but do not cause the despair, confusion, loneliness, anger, rejection, resentment, self-destructive thoughts, insecurity, inferiority, emptiness, unhappiness, powerlessness, frustration, alienation, exclusion, hatred, isolation and pain that pull the trigger. To cease the violence among the young is for adults to own their (the children's) pain. Rather than blame the school shooter (who should indeed accept some responsibility), we must begin by taking a hard look at the communities, schools and the culture in which such a tragic and irresponsible act is allowed to occur.
A school shooting indicates a young person's the level of character development; it reveals a shooter's poor discipline, immature coping skills, and absence of healthy communication skills; it reveals his feelings of being unheard and unrecognized, an absence of compassion, lack of respect for and from peers. Ultimately, it reveals divisiveness among youth. To uncover the roots of the shooter's state of being and accurately explore the impetus for his decision, we must focus on the community, not merely the shooter. To focus solely on the shooter requires a comprehensive psychological and family history, without which one cannot accurately seek to understand him. Information on most school shooters is scant and any "second hand" or third party information that might be available cannot be trusted (for nobody could ever claim to fully and completely "know" a person) and shouldn't be relied upon to form conclusions. Certainly, Jeff Weise's online logs and conversations can be trusted; The diaries and video tape footage of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold can be trusted; an interview with Luke Woodham, part of which is logged on-line can be trusted. Psychologists have interviewed Kip Kinkel; the parents and teachers of many school shooters are still alive and have vital knowledge; the author of Rampage did an excellent job of interviewing subjects who knew the shooters. Yes, these provide clues, but to explore why school shootings (i.e. mass attacks at school) as a phenomenon has become so prevalent in the 1990's and today is a question that begs for facts about community and cultural trends since the first school shooting, in 1979.
This essay shades in some of the answers, as does my book, but those who prefer essay over art may appreciate the lay out and format of this page
Arguably, a school shooting personifies the degradation of a culture. The phenomenon of children killing children symbolizes many ugly truths about the culture, not the least of which is the demoralized cry of the wealthiest of generations sprung from the womb of the superpower. So, while asking the aforementioned questions, we should also ask the following:
To reflect on the habits, lifestyles, attitudes, priorities and belief systems of those who comprise the communities not only aids in the quest to understand and cease school shootings but enables us to understand what's essential for us to evolve as an enlightened people prepared for the imminent convergence of economic and environmental challenges that lay ahead for the children about whom we're concerned..
This essay is formed mostly of my theories. To rely solely on scholarly work/data/stats (besides, to prove or disprove with stats that all or even some school shooters were 100% to blame for their act is to disown the problem and ignore our duty to be concerned about children and live as agents of change) is to ignore our own experiences, intuitions, insights and observations that are also valid. We can determine trends and prevalence by our own experience. My views are merely that, put here for your consideration, not endorsement; naturally all arguments are open to challenge and debate. In fact, some of the discussions below try both sides of the argument.
Admittedly penning most pieces are scattered: Reflections of a High School Shooter left me little energy to expose in depth my theories on school shootings that appear below here. There is always more to say about school shootings. This page is meant to make the connection between our behaviors and that of children, to invite the mass into the fracas, to engage minds and open souls in the spirit of taking apart our selves and society with hopes that, by turns, working together the global family may construct a healthier world that is not only productive but humane.
Is that possible? Only time (i.e. carried on the backs of our children) will tell.
"We need to kick-start a revolution here... start a revolution of the dispossessed."
- Eric Harris who along with Dylan killed 15 at Columbine High School
Let us not
January 29, 1979
San Diego, CA
Brenda Spencer, 16, opened fire with a .22-caliber rifle at an elementary school across the street from her home. She killed two people and wounded seven.
January 21, 1985
Goddard, KS
James Alan Kearbey, 14, armed with a M1-A semiautomatic rifle and a .357-caliber handgun, killed the principal and wounded two teachers and a student at his Junior high school. He pleaded no contest and served seven years in a state youth facility.
May 1, 1992
Olivehurst, CA
Eric Houston, 20, killed four people and wounded 10 in a siege at his former high school. Houston was convicted and sentenced to death.
February 2, 1996
Moses Lake, WA
Two students and one teacher killed, one other wounded when 14-year-old Barry Loukaitis opened fire on his algebra class.
February 19, 1997
Bethel, AL
Principal and one student killed, two others wounded by Evan Ramsey, 16.
October 1, 1997
Pearl, MS
Two students killed and seven wounded by Luke Woodham, 16, who also killed his mother.
December 1, 1997
West Paducah, KY
Three students killed, five wounded by Michael Carneal, 14, as they participated in a prayer circle at Heath High School.
December 15, 1997
Stamps, AK
Two students wounded. Colt Todd, 14, was hiding in the woods when he shot the students as they stood in the parking lot.
March 24, 1998
Jonesboro, AK
Four students and one teacher killed, ten others wounded outside as Westside Middle School emptied during a false fire alarm. Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, shot at their classmates and teachers from the woods.
April 24, 1998
Edinboro, PE
One teacher, John Gillette, killed, two students wounded at a dance at James W. Parker Middle School. Andrew Wurst, 14, was charged.
May 21, 1998
Springfield, OR
Two students killed, 22 others wounded in the cafeteria at Thurston High School by 15-year-old Kip Kinkel. Kinkel had been arrested and released a day earlier for bringing a gun to school. His parents were later found dead at home.
April 20, 1999
Littleton, CO
14 students (including killers) and one teacher killed, 23 others wounded at Columbine High School in the nation's deadliest school shooting. Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, had plotted for a year to kill at least 500 and blow up their school. At the end of their hour-long rampage, they turned their guns on themselves.
May 20, 1999
Conyers, GA
Six students injured at Heritage High School by Thomas Solomon, 15, who was reportedly depressed after breaking up with his girlfriend.
December 6, 1999
Fort Gibson, OK
Four students wounded as Seth Trickey, 13, opened fire with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun at Fort Gibson Middle School.
March 5, 2001
Santee, CA
Two killed and 13 wounded by Charles Andrew Williams, 15, firing from a bathroom at Santana High School.
March 22, 2001
Granite Hills, CA
One teacher and three students wounded by Jason Hoffman, 18, at Granite Hills High School. A policeman shot and wounded Hoffman.
April 14, 2003
New Orleans, LA
One 15-year-old killed, and three students wounded at John McDonough High School by gunfire from four teenagers.
November 24, 2004
Valparaiso, IN
James Lewerke, a 15-year-old student at Valparaiso High School in northern Indiana, pulled two large knives out of his pants and stabbed seven of his classmates. None of the injuries was life threatening.
March 23, 2005
Red Lake, MN
Jeff Weise, 16, killed grandfather and companion then went to school where he killed a teacher, a security guard, 5 students, and finally himself, leaving a total of 10 dead.
November 8, 2005
Jacksboro, TN
15-year-old Kenneth Bartley allegedly killed an assistant principal and wounded two administrators.
To view these mass attacks as isolated incidents attributed to violence in movies, video games, access to guns or "bullying" is to deny ownership of this recent phenomenon. If we are ever to solve this problem adults must take ownership of the issues among youth.
The outlier is Red Lake, Minnesota, the Native American reservation that was home to Jeff Weise who killed 10 in March of 2005. Statistics for Red Lake could not be found, and were not included in the above data.
Theory: a school shooting indicates poor self-discipline as a result of poor discipline in the home. Poor self-discipline could be evident in many of the potential influences of school shootings, eg. the bully, the parent of the bully, the shooter/retaliator, the parent of the shooter; the uninvolved neighbor, other seemingly "irrelevant behavior" of uninvolved adults
Statistics cannot be gotten to compare levels of child (or adult) discipline to that of other generations, compelling us to observation and postulation.
Could anyone say with any confidence that children are more disciplined today? Are parents more stringent in their discipline practices?
I assert that
Let us consider our discipline with respect to daily decisions:
Spending Habits Re: Time
Do we discipline ourselves to work in a position that does the least amount of environmental and social harm, and most good?
Do we discipline ourselves against exploiting some for the benefit of others?
Do we discipline ourselves against sacrificing our minds for money?
Do we discipline ourselves against sacrificing identity for money?
Do we discipline ourselves to work only to afford necessities, to have free time to be spent elsewhere for our benefit and that of others?
Do we discipline ourselves to do what's best for our children?
Do we discipline ourselves against the acquisition of money, status and power at the expense of the health and welfare of others?
Do we fully consider the repercussions of our daily lives?
The greatest proof of ill discipline is in the number of luxuries we own. Most of what is possessed is not needed. We consume far more then we need... breeding our children to consume accordingly and beyond their means. After all, any item a child "owns" was bought without his money. Therefore more and more children begin adulthood in debt, having put out little labor for their possessions. Children don't learn the concept of "effort begets material gain". By 18, they expect to maintain a lifestyle of excessive possessions without the money or know-how to do it. This is subject to yet another discussion altogether.
It is a lack of discipline to avoid setting aside daily or weekly time to spend with the lonely, the hospitalized, the jailed, the underprivileged. It is a lack of discipline not to incorporate altruism and compassion into one's profession or daily life.
Our purpose then is to fulfil our potential not as accountants, lawyers and doctors but as humans with the ability to think and create a world far more functional, harmonious, peaceful and, dare I say, joyful?
But it requires discipline.
If adults are less disciplined, it is likely that their children will be likewise.
Are we disciplining our children to be good, compassionate, kind, outgoing and merciful?
Are we allowing our children to refuse to eat at a certain time, to get away with not clearing their plates, to leave the TV on after we asked them to turn it off, to interrupt conversation... etc?
If a child learns that he only has to do what he wants when he wants, the child will grow up to:
a) Worry only about himself
b) Base his behaviors only on what he wants
c) Be generally unsatisfied because he can't possibly feed his wants all the time
d) Make it more likely that one day he will resort to self-help, religion, medication, food, consumption, or expert to get "the pill" to make him feel better
Ultimately the undisciplined child will behave as an undisciplined, self-centered, self-indulgent adult whose conduct could negatively impact the lives of family, neighbors, colleagues and fellow world citizens, and as a result, make life more difficult for more than himself.
Too many children control their parents (see child-controlled parental purchases under stats at the bottom). Too often the case is such that mom and dad exert little authority. Instead they bargain with the child setting him up to have unrealistic expectations of a world that won't conform to his demands. In the real world if a person doesn't do his job, he isn't coddled and pandered to. He's fired. A supervisor won't waste time bargaining: "okay, you can serve the burger to the customer after your smoke break... oh and feel free to smoke anywhere, as long as you work for a few minutes... okay??? ... please?"
Nothing is more painful than hearing a parent bargain, or say "please" to their child, or fail to follow through with a demand. If at 3, 4 and 5 Little Suzie is allowed to do what she wants, when she wants, and insists that her parents say "please" (ug!) then she is going to expect to get her way on the playground and in the classroom or, worse, expect everyone to be polite. When she wants to play with the toy that Little Johnny has (and he always got everything he wanted) you can expect them to square off in the schoolyard: alas, school violence.
Let us take this one step further: is it any wonder that one day Johnny who, as a boy always got what he wanted, forces sex when he so "deserves" and "wants" because he didn't get it, even though he said "please"? Not only is he undisciplined but:
The kid who wields too much power at home is in for frustration and shock in the real world which will ultimately frustrate thus anger him. Who will the kid blame? Will he blame himself? No. He will blame the world for not giving him what he "rightfully" wants and deserves. The frustrated either withdraws from the world or acts out. He will ostracize, alienate, name call, fight, retaliate and attention-seek so that the world feels his presence and bows to his insatiable hunger for power, control and attention. One result is a school shooting, a mass attack at school in which a teenager holds hatred for "everyone", a hatred that may be derived from the poor discipline received at home where he was entitled to do as he wished to feel good. The kid doesn't know what to do but hate the world for denying him he believes is rightfully his.
Of course, at home, there is a fine line between teaching self-discipline and exerting punishment. Punishment teaches obedience. Discipline teaches self-control which enhances self-respect. A school shooter could be deemed "out of control", an angry kid acting on emotion and without self-discipline. Some may see it differently, that he who plans a shooting and sacrifices himself for a cause is in fact self-disciplined. This we discuss later.
As defined by Glen Woiceshyn, "Emotionalism means placing feelings above reason and reality; it means taking one's immediate emotions as standards of truth and guides to action." To read Glen's views on school shootings visit the following link: http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=99
In other words one's emotions become "the law". When this law is broken the "violated" feels justified in retaliating.
The child who refuses a parental request/demand based on how he (the child) feels learns that he can act on emotion (rather then reason, reality and the best interest of all parties involved, himself included) thus his emotions become standards of truth and can justify any behavior, including abuse, destruction, torture and murder. Consider the fusion of an emotionally driven child without discipline or self-control. Consider excessive, or even normal, amounts of confusion, alienation or exclusion at school. Consider low academic performance and poor social status... Then consider his lack of power at school that contrasts the great power he wields at home. Frustration is the result, for it is only natural that a kid who has always been allowed to act on his emotions at home will be a "walking time bomb" where he has no power.
The argument is that "kids should be allowed to be kids," that "kids grow up too fast." Truth is children in developing nations still have ample time to kick around a soccer ball and be a kid. America lets kids be kids too long, resulting in immature high school students disengaged from the real world, craving responsibility or at the very least stimulation only to be left smoking dope, watching movies, listening to music, playing video games, having sex (therefore stimulating themselves) and wasting away in their rooms (yes, of course, most teens are not like this, but too many are) while studying for the next test of "information" that will soon be long forgotten. Forget "protracted adolescence". What about "protracted childhood"? We wonder why our "kids" get into trouble. It's because they live in a holding cell known as "high school" and "adolescence" without opportunities to be mature and put their mind, talents and emotions to good use.
Further exacerbating the problem of extended childhood are laws regarding sexual consent, employment, driving age, drinking, smoking and voting, denying the 15, 16 and 17 year old what he was denied at 5. You may wish to read any of John Holts works to further explore this theory.
The undisciplined (i.e. immature) parent spoils himself, thus his child with excessive amounts of toys, food and drink and thereby creates in the undisciplined child a hunger for more, especially to assuage any normal levels of hurt, pain or guilt. In the child's life these toys, i.e. agents that facilitate external pleasure, may one day be replaced by other forms of external pleasure so that instead of seeking fulfillment by visiting the lonely or feeding the hungry a kid will continue to consume and perhaps indulge in the unhealthy. This is immature and undisciplined. This is the result of one acting on emotion rather than reason, or from a place of compassion that dictates consideration about consequences to others.
Consider what most teens have that they don't need:
Ultimately, an ill-disciplined child trained to consume more then he requires with hopes that the act of consuming will make him "feel" happy will only result in negative "feelings", i.e. frustration, embitterment, disillusionment, anger, and hostility likely processed in hurtful or destructive ways, either as an instigator or a retaliator. This includes such self-destructive acts as suicide, drugs, bingeing, eating disorders, obesity, etc., bullying and school shootings.
What all the "prevention programs" and "school safety specialists" ignore is the discipline, self-control and character development of children. Without these, all the surveillance cameras, metal detectors and security guards in the world aren't going to stop a crisis. Parents must self-assess and change their own habits rather than apply band-aids that, like all band-aids, lose the stick and fall off. Likewise it is the undisciplined behavior of the government (an extension of the people) that provokes terrorism and all the "homeland security" measures aren't going to prevent the next crisis.
Microwave
Dishwasher
TV
DVD
Computer
Internet access
Washer and Dryer
Soda/Junk Food
Other Miscellaneous Appliances
Boat
Three wheelers
Guns
Trailers
Some may think I'm unreasonable, while I think the level of materialism today is insane. When we look at the behaviors of people of all socioeconomic levels in the US, could we really say that my views are unreasonable, and that these behaviors are an out-growth of a healthy society? And if we believe that we have such a "healthy" society, why is the self-help section of the book store so large? Why did Chicken Soup for the Soul sell so well? Because people are empty, their soul's craving an "emotional" fix.
Now, "emotionalism" isn't always a bad thing. Humans are going to act on emotion, and often times with great results. With respect to murder, it was the emotion and righteous indignation that moved the original 13 colonies to attack the British, incite a revolution and effectively found a country. Is it possible then that a school shooter's emotions could warrant the attack? We must consider the possibility that the emotions of a school shooter are valid. We know that he thinks so. And if he thinks so, we must ask why. Is it because a) he wasn't taught discipline? or b) he was taught discipline, but deemed the abuse he incurred was so awful that only the highest form of retaliation (murder) was the answer? Some shooters might be acting on behalf of others and in this way deem their shooting justified, and "good" (see Morality below), in fact better than letting the abuse continue. In short, if the shooter was wrongfully goaded and provoked at length, the possibility ought to be entertained that his retaliatory act of killing was "right". After all, our army has justified the murder of greater numbers in this way.
Ultimately, discipline enables one to keep his emotions from causing great destruction, which is a pre-cursor to being moral. Without discipline to be considerate of others, children will act in the way that serves their own needs and wants.
Theory: that school shootings have surfaced in a time of lower moral standards in American society, i.e. pervasive moral relativism, that the alleged acceptance of moral relativism has taught children that there is no moral standard to live by and that as a consequence it is okay to kill
One dictionary defines Moral Relativism as: the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or the context of individual preferences.
In contrast, "moral absolutism".
Moral Absolutism is the position that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. It is a subset of moral objectivism, and stands in contrast to situational ethics, which hold that the morality of acts depends on the context of the act. According to moral absolutism, morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, or some other fundamental source. Moral absolutism regards actions as inherently or inarguably moral or immoral. Moral absolutists might, for example, judge slavery, war, dictatorship, the death penalty, or childhood abuse to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engages in these practices.
We could explore the subject of morality, i.e. what is moral and what isn't (and whether morality even exists, the roots of western morality, i.e. Christian Church), but that isn't the purpose of this page. The question of right and wrong behavior could be debated at infinitum but what I believe most would agree upon is that entering one's school with a gun to eliminate as many as possible is wrong, or immoral.
The phenomenon of school shootings have been blamed on the pervasive moral relativism of this generation, implying that previous generations held closer to the rule of Moral Absolutism. This may be true with respect to rules on sex, drug use, and other behaviors but I challenge this claim with respect to murder, the attitude toward which has been morally relativistic since the birth of the nation.
A vote for George W. Bush in 2004 was a support of the retaliation to 9/11 and the pre-emptive attack against Iraq. Likewise, bullying is an attack, while school shooting is both an attack and a retaliation. Instead of denouncing school shooters as products of an ever-increasing moral relativism of the era, we ought to draw parallels between the behavior of children and that of authority, past and present, to understand the roots of such relativism.
Many of these "pre-emptive attacks" the American public deems justified, thus "moral". Young American men and women equal in age to some school shooters (Eric Harris of Columbine was 18) are murdering overseas, or preparing to, right now. If this is immoral how do we explain the immorality of school shootings to our children? If anything, the school shooter's hurt is far deeper then that of any soldier who hasn't any personal grievance toward his enemy; the soldier is instructed to kill by a higher power. That higher power is we the people who support the government that commands the soldier to kill! Do we the people feel so justified? Most would likely say "no". The teenager who kills at school feels hatred and anger toward his enemy, more so then the soldier or we the people. The teenager is not instructed to kill but in fact instructed not to kill, for "moral reasons" by we the people.
Are we morally relativistic? When it comes to murder, absolutely (especially those who support capital punishment), but no more than we ever were. But with respect to other so-called "sins", i.e. violence, sex before marriage, rape, theft, infidelity, some would argue that we are "less moral". Again, definitions of "right" and "wrong" behavior is subjective but I would argue that the general behavior of the population has become less moral, less disciplined, less mature, more emotionally-driven.
This, of course, requires a lengthier discussion than I provide here, for if we consider the "immorality" of racism, sexism and inequality we might argue that there is less discrimination today, that we are a more moral society with respect to racial and sexual "equality" (though far from perfectly equal, which is an impossibility in a society such as this). Conversely, however, when it comes to loving others as ourselves, I would argue that we are indeed more relativistic, i.e. less moral. With the demise of community and focus on personal achievement, people have become increasingly self-centered, focusing more on getting what they want than on acting in the best interest of the community/collective. Can this be categorized as "immoral"? Unlikely. However I would argue that we are less attuned to the needs of others and teach our children accordingly, that we are less concerned about people, thus less moral. As long as we live solely for ourselves we neglect children and teach them to behave accordingly. As a result parents either neglect children or neglect to teach them character and integrity. Those who aren't neglected in either way are affected by such neglected, likely in destructive ways. A child's resentment toward a neglectful society will no doubt surface in the classroom, e.g... bullying, hate, anger, alienation, misuse of power.
A child's lack of character and integrity will no doubt surface in the classroom.
A child's lack of discipline will fuse together with aforementioned character insufficiencies and surface in the classroom.
A neglected child without integrity or discipline who lives in a morally relativistic society (with respect to the question of: "murder") is more likely to perpetrate murder than a child who received an appropriate amount of attention to self and the development of character and was taught self-discipline and compassion.
Curious to me is that most believe that school shootings are "wrong" and "bad" yet continue to live as they do, conforming to a culture prone to creating a social environment home to more school shootings then any other. They also continue to raise uncompassionate, apathetic, ill-disciplined, uncaring, self-absorbed, bullying, excluding, materialistic children. We may claim to believe school shootings are wrong but we certainly aren't role models for a "better society"; in short, we don't do the right, good, "moral" and practical things to help prevent them.
Theory: that youth today are nihilistic, therefore without a belief in God. To some, one's disbelief in God precludes one's immorality, or lower standards of "morality". One of the results is the phenomenon of school shootings.
From C. Bradley Thompson's article: Our Killing Schools...
For the rest of this article click visit http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=104
A discussion on narcissism is further below.
Nihilism: The belief that there is no universal truth or underlying reality that under girds moral values; that ultimately existence is meaningless. From the Latin "nihil" or "nothing".
gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/glossary.stm
"As a doctrine of negation, nihilism maintains that religious and moral truths are entirely irrational. It then follows, in the words of Ivan, from Dostoyevski's The Brothers Karamazov, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted." Nihilism is a pessimistic view of reality that results from "God is dead" thinking. In the words of Nietzsche, since there is no God, "there is no one to command, no one to obey, no one to transgress..."
www.apologetics.org/glossary.html
Talk of "Nihilism" furthers the discussion about moral relativism and absolutism, God, Christianity and American culture, all of which are inextricably intertwined and together affect the psyche, laws and culture of the people.
Please observe the following findings, with respect to the communities in which mass attacks have occurred at school:
Whether raised Christian or not, most Americans are influenced by Christian theology, principles, laws, outlooks, e.g.: The Christian calendar, Christmas, Easter, Sundays (in many communities stores are not open in honor of the Sabbath; and "dry counties" that do not sell alcohol on Sunday), the Cross on burials, ubiquitous Christian churches, prayer in school, "One Nation Under God", "In God we trust", Amazing Grace, Ten Commandments at the Courthouse, concepts of heaven and hell, "forgiveness", the apocalypse, Armageddon, stories/mythology about Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah's Ark, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jonah, David vs. Goliath, and numerous teachings of Jesus, e.g. Prodigal Son, The Good Samaritan, The Beatitudes, The Crucifixion, etc.
Christian philosophy more than any pervades this country and its contradictions must be acknowledged: "forgive", says Jesus (Matt 5:38) vs. "I didn't not come to bring peace, but division." (Matt. 10: 34) Compare the forgiveness of Jesus to the wrath of the god of the old testament and we have a contradictory God. This of course could be debated and has been for centuries. What can't be debated and what is so seldom discussed in public is the negative affect these stories/parables/quotes and contradictions may have on children; the affect Christian children have on non-Christian children and vice versa. Whether Christianity is right or wrong is irrelevant. What's important to consider is its place and affect in an increasingly liberal secular world that contradicts some Christian teachings, while, it could be argued, in some ways does more good than Christianity, depending on one's definition of "good" and "bad" which, today, is quite varied. This in itself has caused confusion among youth who do not know what to believe, i.e. what is right and wrong behavior. School shootings then should not be blamed on Christianity per se, but its contradictions cannot be taken lightly, nor its fight against alternative views, lifestyles, beliefs more prevalent today. The mixture of messages cannot be easily digested by a teenager seeking the "right way" to be.
The words of above-quoted words of Dostoyevski and Nietzsche might apply if God were indeed portrayed as an Moral Absolutist but with respect to murder God is not so. In fact in The Bible He is shown repeatedly to break His own sixth commandment "thou shalt not kill". It is His moral outrage that:
a) Justifies the murder of "sinners" in Sodom and Gomorrah
b) Justifies the murder of Egyptians when Moses leads His people across the Red Sea
c) Justifies the flood to murder all but Noah's family
d) Justify David's murder of Goliath
e) etc. Please see Bible
God is clearly a relativist, as are Christians who claim to be absolutists but believe that the murders perpetrated by God were "right" and "good" and who also approve of the war in Iraq. Certainly school shooters could be relativists but this should come as no surprise when they were raised as such (intentionally or accidentally).
Some school shooters have killed themselves following their spree perhaps because they knew they were wrong.. More likely the shooter knew he would be punished by the society he despised and didn't wish to be put to the scrutiny and punishment of a morally relativistic nation.
Add to this the principle of "forgiveness" that the founder of the Christian church (Jesus) preached time and again of his followers. The lack of forgiveness shown the shooter by way of prison is another example of moral relativism and yet another source of aberration to the shooter, not to mention the possibility that some of the bullies, excluders and judgers that demeaned the shooter and caused his resetment and who would also judge him afterward were in fact unforgiving and uncompassionate Christians.
I raise these issues because much of American culture is influenced by Christianity's moral relativism which incites the very resentment that cause attacks like Columbine. Eric Harris and Dylan Skewbald spoke openly on video tape about their resentment of Christians. Did we ever investigate the source of hostility toward Christians? Of course not. This might have offended people. This may have provoked people to examine their own behavior. This may have caused people to question their fellow Christians. This may have begged the question of the incongruencies of the religion itself. This may have called into question the possible negative effects of such trends as "What Would Jesus Do?"
If for a moment we were to ponder the "What Would Jesus Do" phenomenon of the late 90's, we might begin to plumb the depths of resentment against Christianity. If a teenager wears a shirt inscribed with WWJD and:
a) excludes deliberately or inadvertently
b) talks negatively about someone
c) hurts someone deliberately or inadvertently
d) is not paying attention to his/her behaviors (which is normal for any human) and unknowingly alienates or fails to connect to the alienated
Then the victim will see Jesus and His followers as:
Stuck up
Conceited
Uncompassionate
Unforgiving
Unloving
Hurtful...
All humans at some point are hurtful but to wear a shirt that demonstrates that one is forever pondering what God would do yet behaves sometimes (understandably so, as all humans are flawed) as God wouldn't do is to:
a) misrepresent God, that is if He exists in the way that Christians claim
b) set the victim up for disappointment and resentment against this sect of people for claiming to behave as God would without doing it
c) induce greater resentment from the victim when the Christian claims that he/she is guaranteed a spot in heaven regardless of the hurt he/she may have inflicted on earth
None
of this did anyone explore upon the tragedy at Christian-influenced
Columbine High School. The Christians of Littleton attended
the funeral of the deceased, cursed the boys at fault, and
returned to business as usual without having self-assessed
or pondered all elements of the community that may have caused such a drastic retaliation. Could Christianity have provoked
the shooting? Dare we ask. In fact, when a student had erected
crosses to represent Eric and Dylan an angry Christian parent
immediately tore them down an act of emotionalism and ignorance.
Instead of objectively putting under the scope all the forces at work at Columbine High School and in the suburb of Littleton and the nation as a whole, how did we respond? We pointed to the perpetrators, not the victims, and characterized Eric and Dylan as a bunch of crazy kids whacked out on meds watching violent movies, playing murderous video games, visiting Nazi sites online and building bombs in their garage... etc... the rationalization of a deluded, dissociated and ignorant republic preferring to point much of the blame onto the parents alone... very unChristian-like judgmentalism...
To believe that this tragedy would have been averted had Eric and Dylan had, as one minister suggested to me, "the love of God in their hearts" is shortsighted, ignorant and just plain wrong. In reality, the actions of Eric and Dylan and other school shooters were:
a) Influenced by the theories (or mythology) of Judeo-Christianity.
The evidence:
i. Dylan Klebold asserted in his notebook, "About 26.5 hours from now the Judgment will begin." This hints of the Apocalypse portrayed in The Book of Revelation in the Bible.
ii. Dylan said on video, "What would Jesus do? What would I do?"
iii. Eric said, "Go Romans! Thank God they crucified that Asshole."
iv. Luke Woodham who killed three at his high school in Pearl, Mississippi, told reporters and police that he was "going to heaven now... It's God's will," he said.
v. Michael Carneal of West Paducah, Kentucky shot into a prayer circle
vi. Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden of Jonesboro, Arkansas lived in the reputed buckle of the Bible Belt
vii. James Lewerke (see explanation below) stabbed classmates and later told a psychologist God had told him to "cleanse the world of evil"
b) A reaction to the possible contempt they received from the Christian community
c) A reaction to the hypocrisy they observed
The hypocrisy of a wealthy Christian community is inherent in their choice of lifestyle. Consider Jesus' teaching that "you cannot serve God and money", that "he who loves one will hate the other", (Luke 16: 13) a teaching ignored by the majority of Littleton with a median income $10,000/yr over the national average.
God isn't really dead in America. He's very much alive and contradicting Himself in the form of his capitalistic followers whose love for money eclipses their love of their brother. "Cynical, resentful" teenagers are merely questioning the way to lead an honest, decent, meaningful life, questioning the question of meaning itself. After all, Sunday school teaches them that "meaning" comes through "serving Christ", "to forgive" while the other five days of the week they learn to compete. It is the inherent contradiction of a culture that offers no opportunity for meaning that has turned young people into rebels, not the so-called "death of God".
Consider then the statistic included above about libraries and churches. If there were more libraries and less churches, America would be far more open-minded, less judgmental, less repressive, and more free. America would be less ignorant of the ways of other races, religions and nations and therefore exude the very compassion that all spiritual leaders (not just Jesus) encourage of people. America might exploit less. America might understand more. To place infinite trust in the dozens of naturally flawed writers of the Bible, the editing of the Bible, the content of war and destruction in its stories, and in the interpretations of ministers (flawed men and women) is to commit a sin toward humanity far greater then pre-marital sex, gluttony or theft... of course I know very few Christians who wait till marriage to have sex anymore... should they be allowed to judge "non-believers" as infidels going to hell?
A person of religion assumes his/her world-view is the world view, implying that all others are "wrong". This is no way to make strides toward world peace, no way to fulfil the dream of all spiritual beings.
As an aside, if Jesus was as morally relativistic as His Father, Jesus would have led an army to defeat the enemy that eventually killed Him. Jesus took no such action. If anyone could have led a revolt against any enemy it was Jesus the Christ who had the power to murder but refused to. His behavior in his final hours portrays the true essence of Christianity but is ignored by relativistic followers when they wish to support or glorify war. If in 1941 Jesus were President of the US He would not have retaliated to the bombing of Pearl Harbor nor dropped the A-bomb on Japan, twice.
Considering the moral outrage that has sparked many wars in the name of God, a case can be made for justifying a school shooting. Assume that the God of Judeo-Christianity exists and that He is the father of moral absolutism. If Anyone would be angered by wrongdoing, torture, vilification, ostracization, exclusion, bullying, immorality, it would be God the Father of morality. Why then couldn't a shooter, offended and injured by what he deemed were immoral offenses, justify elimination of evil forces?
A school shooting in many ways is akin to religious warfare or terrorism based on one's religious convictions (for or against God) or moral outrage. The reaction to the 9/11 attacks sparked moral outrage among most Americans, including the President representing Christian concepts and using apocalyptic terms in speeches following the tragedy. Please observe:
"Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil."
George W. Bush, September 14, 2001
"Our nation has been chosen by God and commissioned by history to be a model to the world."
September 14, 2001
"My administration has a job to do. We will rid the world of evildoers."
September 16, 2001
"Now we go forward, grateful for our freedom, faithful to our cause and confident in the future of the greatest nation on Earth."
September 16, 2001
VALPARAISO | James Lewerke believed he was following the will of God when he attacked several of his fellow students at Valparaiso High School with a machete and tree saw late last year, according to Chesterton psychologist Anthony Thomalla.
The 15-year-old believed God had communicated to him through his feelings that he was a Messiah figure, who should cleanse evil from the world, Thomalla said.
While the delusion has subsided, Lewerke remains a very disturbed boy in need of an unknown amount of help in the form of strict monitoring, medication and therapy, Thomalla said.
President Bush was never told that he was in need of "strict monitoring, medication or therapy". Add to that the fact that his messiah complex delusion has yet to subside. Both the President and the "disturbed boy" were acting to cleanse the world of evil, to fulfil concepts of Judeo-Christianity. Not only were the wars they perpetrated not acts of nihilism but that which gave their lives great meaning.
Yet another question I have is: Does God approve of murder for one's country? The Christian cross in military burials represents the memory of a murderer who in essence defied Jesus' teachings. Jesus preached forgiveness, not murder. Nowhere in the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke or John) does Jesus approve of murder. Jesus said, "forgive seven times seventy times" (Matt. 18: 22) so the cross, that which represents Jesus and His teachings, is the last symbol that ought to be "used" to represent the murderer.
Finally, we must consider the possibility that life may in fact be meaningless. He who does not believe in God should not be vilified nor should he who believes that life is meaningless. A belief that life is meaningless is not one of hate and should not be
condemned. It is possible that western people make too much of their lives, which would explain the irrational fear of death. To talk about fulfilling potential, realizing dreams, "being all that we can be" may be to make too much of one's life. To celebrate people of great works and deeds, to read inspiring quotes and self-help books, to listen to motivational speakers, to hand each other nobel prizes, oscars, emmies, awards and appreciation nights all may indicate a rather over-zealousness about, and over-evaluation, of people's lives, leaving the uncelebrated feeling as though they're worthless. This may lead to:
This over-emphasis of one's "meaning" could possibly affect the "narcissism" that Bradley claims is an issue among the young people he teaches.
Theory:
that narcissism among youth leads to school shootings
Bradley claims that young people have "artificially inflated opinions of themselves and are intolerant to criticism" believing that youth are "narcissistic". Bradley's claim is plausible but debatable. For insight on narcissism I include the following notes written for this page by Dr. Sam Vaknin, author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and host of www.narcissistic-abuse.com where one can find extraordinary explanations about narcissism.
According to Dr. Vaknin:
Healthy narcissism is common in adolescents. Their narcissistic defenses help them cope with the anxieties and fears engendered by the demands and challenges of modern society: leaving home, going to college, sexual performance, marriage, and other rites of passage. There is nothing wrong with healthy narcissism. It sustains the adolescent in a critical time of his life and shields him or her from emotional injuries. Still, in certain circumstances, healthy narcissism can transform into a malignant form, destructive to self and to others.
Adolescents who are consistently mocked and bullied by peers, role models, and socialization agents (such as teachers, coaches, and parents) are prone to find succor in grandiose fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience. To sustain these personal myths, they may resort to violence and counter-bullying.
The same applies to youths who feel deprived, underestimated, discriminated against, or at a dead end. They are likely to evoke narcissistic defenses to fend off the constant hurt and to achieve self-sufficient and self-contained emotional gratification.
Finally, pampered adolescents, who serve as mere extensions of their smothering parents and their unrealistic expectations are equally liable to develop grandiosity and a sense of entitlement incommensurate with their real-life achievements. When frustrated they become aggressive.
This propensity to other-directed violence is further exacerbated by what Lasch called "The Culture of Narcissism". We live in a civilization that condones and positively encourages malignant individualism, bad hero worship (remember "Natural Born Killers"?), exploitativeness, inane ambitiousness, and the atomization of social structures and support networks. Alienation is a hallmark of our age, not only among youngsters.
In the context of the previous and forthcoming discussion, Dr. Vaknin's words are fitting. Eric and Dylan of Columbine were reported to have watched Natural Born Killers more than once. For more on narcissism visit www.narcisitic-abuse.com.
Theory: that today's youth incurs a greater number of influences with less support, i.e. time with parents to help process the increase of influences, many of which impart competing or conflicting messages
The number of influences on youth is disproportionate to the level of support required to process such influences.
Increase of Influences
In 1980, TV offered about 10 channels
Today, TV offers far more then ten channels; in many homes hundreds of channels
Today, internet offers access to an unlimited number of web sites
In 1980, you couldn't buy or rent a movie or video game
Today, access to movies and video games is easy and plentiful
Decrease of Support
Today there are more single-parent, and double-income, households.
According to www.childstats.gov, in 2004, 68% of children ages 5 to 14 lived with two married parents, down from 77 percent in 1980