Our Moral Void: The
Problem of Violence in America
There are certainly
many factors to consider when addressing the problem of violence in America:
demographics, median income, number of single family households, gang
membership, etc. One thing is certain, violent criminals hold no sanctity for
human life. (This was supposedly a blanketing statement. Do you agree? Can you
murder someone, and still hold human life to be sacred? I don’t think if a
criminal holds his child’s life sacred, and then goes and kills a stranger that
he holds human life sacred. That’s my opinion, and I’m interested to know how
many people disagree.) It’s my belief that instead of attempting to legislate
our troubles away, we should instead go to the source of our problem: we are
facing a fundamental break down in the fabric of society. Our children are not
being taught the Golden Rule; they are not being taught to love their neighbor.
(I was told this is a blanket statement. Maybe it is. With a 400 word limit, I was trying to keep the premise simple. I worded it this way for the sake of brevity. Was hyperbole in an opinion piece that unconscionable? How many kids today are
being taught the golden rule? Children are not being taught this in public
schools. Many children come from homes where the parents are not religious, or
are busy working to provide for their families. I could change this to 'too few' children today are being taught the golden rule. Would that be acceptable? Do
you disagree?)
Part of my work as a
mom and political activist is to teach others about personal sovereignty and
the Non-Aggression Principle. The N.A.P. is an ethical stance which denounces
any use of aggression (violent force, fraud, or the threat of such) as immoral
and illegitimate, except in the employment of self-defense. These principles
hold individual human life to be sacred above all else. Imagine what our nation
would look like if we all followed such an ethic! Additionally, the N.A.P goes
hand in hand with Christianity and many other peace-oriented religions.
It is in the tradition
of our nation to not only own a gun, but to be well trained in its use. (I was
told this was also a blanket statement. Not all Americans own guns. Obviously
what I meant was that it is part of American heritage. If you read much about
our founding, guns were a big part of our culture. In many states men were
required to join militias. In some states they were even required to bring
their guns with them to church. In DC v Heller referenced below, Justice Scalia
goes into some detail about our national heritage. This is a fact. However, I
understand how it could make some anti-gun folks uncomfortable. For that I will
not apologize. Some people today wish to distance our current culture from our
founding values. I think it’s deplorable. If you continue reading it is clear I am talking about heritage going back centuries, and not about each and every single American today. That being said, as someone who has lived outside of our country, I can tell you that guns are part of our heritage whether every American likes this idea or not.) Without this fundamental tradition,
our nation would never have been founded. In the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in
the case of the District of Columbia vs
Heller, Justice Scalia writes that owning a gun is a pre-existing right.
Further he states that this right is among the highest, especially in defense
of “hearth and home”.
Rather than take guns
away from responsible, law abiding citizens (effectively erasing part of our
country’s heritage), I believe it’s more prudent to attack the source of our
societal woes. Each of us can do our part. Whether it’s reaching out to a
friend or neighbor who needs help, or becoming a mentor for a young child, the
most important thing we can do is to be a good example to others. Advocating
for peace and brotherhood using such principles as the N.A.P and the Golden
Rule is key in fighting violence in America.
So what did I learn? I learned that just because I value all perspectives, it does not mean that others do. I find it despicable that our universities have crowded out freedom of thought in this way. If your opinion isn't p.c. it isn't welcomed. I had already learned that. I think I was just so excited to write about the NAP that I didn't think it through. And then again, maybe I'm out of line.
Do you think what I said was blanket statements. Was I not clear? Is opinion not acceptable in a university paper? I'm always ready to admit I was wrong. Yet as I calm down, and think, well maybe if I just change this word or that...I get fired up again. Why should someone have to temper their beliefs so that they don't offend or provoke thought in another? Maybe that is the real issue at hand.
In the end, if they think they are blanketing statements, they don't have to use my piece. That's okay. I will not change it though. I meant what I said. You want my opinion on violence in America, there it is. We have to teach our children to value human life (yes all life, not just the lives of people they care about).
-ONE LOVE-
Update: Okay, so I did make some small changes that I felt comfortable with. I swapped in a couple synonyms and made a disclaimer that it's a peace activist's perspective (that violent criminals don't hold life to be sacred). Hopefully this will work out so that they use it. By the way, my rant about universities was about ALL universities...I just wanted to clarify that. It's not a problem with any one school or set of faculty. I hope my post came across, not as a vengeful rant, but as a discussion on the current state of our national culture.
Update: Okay, so I did make some small changes that I felt comfortable with. I swapped in a couple synonyms and made a disclaimer that it's a peace activist's perspective (that violent criminals don't hold life to be sacred). Hopefully this will work out so that they use it. By the way, my rant about universities was about ALL universities...I just wanted to clarify that. It's not a problem with any one school or set of faculty. I hope my post came across, not as a vengeful rant, but as a discussion on the current state of our national culture.
