Faith & Social Justice: In the spirit of Richard Overton and the 17th C. Levellers

Tragedy at Virginia Tech

By now most people know about the tragedy at Virginia Technical University in Blacksburg, VA where, on Monday, a student shot 32 people before killing himself. I have not immediately blogged on this because I wanted to digest it.  Although the U.S. seems wedded to a gun culture, I keep hoping that we will wake up to the need for strict gun control before more tragedies like this happen. The pro-gun folk like to quote the saying, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” While true, it fails to mention how much EASIER guns make it to kill people. If the depressed student had been armed with a knife, he might have succeeded in killing one person before he was stopped. He certainly couldn’t have killed 32 in one morning. Had he been armed with bow and arrow, he might have killed more than with just a knife, but still considerably fewer than with a gun.

In 1984, I was mugged and stabbed, nearly to death. Had the mugger used a gun, I almost surely would have died (especially considering how long it took the ambulence to find me).  I would have missed the last 23 years of life, a marriage of 17 years, and 2 daughters. 

It’s time that the U.S. makes it harder to kill people by making it harder to get and use guns.  How many more Columbine High Schools, how many more VA. Tech U’s will it take before we stop valuing gun ownership more than we value human life in this nation?  11 years ago, a similar event happened in Australia and the result was landmark gun restrictions (resulting in turn in decreased violent crime and gun deaths). In 1996, after a gunman killed 16 children in the U.K., the result was an almost total ban on handguns. But no one believes this will be the result in the U.S.  A total ban would take a constitutional amendment, but even reasonable gun control laws clearly within the Constitution won’t be touched–because Democrats fear this would lose them upcoming elections. Any leadership on this will have to come from faith groups–but our churches are just as filled with pro-gun nuts as society at large.  It is SO frustrating.

April 18, 2007 - Posted by | guns, sin


  1. I feel your frustration. This is a serious moral issue.

    A hugely complicating factor is the mythos of the gun culture, which argues that guns make people safer from violence. In fact, I’ve heard some people saying that this tragedy at Virginia Tech proves that we need to allow guns on college campuses, because if other students had been armed the gunner would have been “neutralized” as soon as he started firing.

    When we look to guns for safety, we fail to see how their presense makes us considerably less safe.

    Comment by Sandalstraps | April 18, 2007

  2. Yeah, and the Democrats are afraid to touch this issue for fear of losing their narrow majority. So, let’s see: if the GOP is in power, we get loose gun laws. If the Dems are in charge, we still get loose gun laws. Great.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | April 18, 2007

  3. I would be quite happy to have some vastly increased gun control in exchange for some serious tort reform and less howling about surveillance. Anyone up for creative compromise?

    Comment by Looney | April 18, 2007

  4. Let’s see, Looney wants us to let corporations rape us without legal recourse and to shut up about government violations of our civil liberties. In return, he’d be happy if we had a little more public safety. Sorry, I won’t take that Hobson’s choice, no. That’s the funny thing about progressives, we think we ought to be protected against assault by gun nuts, assault by corporate predators, and assault/surveillance by the government. We’re just “unreasonable” that way, huh?

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | April 18, 2007

  5. While I am a pacifist in the Christian sense of the term, it is naive to think that more laws will create a safer society. Whatever happened to teaching people that human life has value (unfortunately our laws, entertainment, and music don’t do that). The generation that gave us the middle and high school shootings of the late nineties has now moved into the college age group and brought some systemic issue with them that also brings violence. You can’t cure a systemic propensity for violence with more laws. Plus, someone bent on using guns to take human life will have no problem acquiring a gun, even if American society outlaws the legal purchase of all guns.

    Comment by James | April 18, 2007

  6. James, I disagree. As Martin Luther King, Jr. pointed out long ago, laws couldn’t force white people to love (or like or respect) black people, but they could keep them from murdering them with impunity. Likewise, stricter gun laws won’t cure violent people of their sin, but they will make it harder for them to carry out their sin. As I said, it the student at Virginia Tech had been armed only with a knife, he might have been able to kill one or two people (still a tragedy since every life is infinitely precious to God), but there is no way he could have killed 32 people before being stopped. If the student had been armed with a machine gun, he could have killed even more people before he killed himself. Clearly, the more destructive a weapon is, the more damage it can do. And if it is difficult to obtain very destructive weapons, this does not stop someone from trying to kill with a knife or club or rock–but it limits the amount of damage they can do before being stopped.

    Law is no cure all. It has limits on what it can do. But we KNOW that stricter gun laws do make a difference because we can see the drops in violent crime that happen when nations tighten their gun laws–and when gun ownership isn’t considered an inalienable right, a sign of citizenship, “manhood,” etc. We should neither trust in laws to cure everything, to do the work of the gospel, for instance, or the work of good mental health care, etc., nor should we throw up our hands and say that law is powerless. We should work for wise laws to play their limited-but-important roles.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | April 18, 2007

  7. Laws are only followed by those who respect them. Murderers by definition do not respect the laws, and trust me if someone wants an assault rifle (even those already banned) they can find them in the black market regardless of stricter gun laws. That is why, as Derek Webb implies in his song A New Law, laws are a lazy way of guiding human behavior and instead we need to teach people how to live as free people (more laws do not equal a free society).

    My concern is that if this society begins to take away the 2nd amendment rights for its citizens what will stop it from revoking the rest of them (some argue that this is already occurring post-9/11). Its a slippery slope.

    Also, don’t mistake my position as one that advocates gun ownership. I said in my previous comment, I am a Christian pacifist. My positions on nonviolence are directed at the church only, because this society is not Christian and therefore I do not expect it to live up to Christ’s standard for His people. I believe Christians are entrusted with the peace of God and are responsible for bringing it to this world through our words and deeds not by legislative coercion. I guess my sympathies with the Anabaptists and Mennonites color my view of government’s role in the lives of human beings.

    Also, don’t mistake my positions as someone oblivious to the damage inflicted by gun violence. My best friend was murdered at the age of seventeen by another teenager with an illegal firearm. No laws you could imagine would have stopped his death fourteen years ago.

    Comment by James | April 18, 2007

  8. I like Derek Webb a lot, but he is sometimes an antinomian. The law has positive connotations for Calvin and Wesley – it can be a vehicle for sanctification. It is from Luther that the negative view of the law comes, not from Paul.

    Comment by Jonathan Marlowe | April 18, 2007

  9. I have no idea who Derek Webb is. I hate most of what I hear on “Christian” radio, so I just never listen to it. The last time I knew one Christian singer from another was when I went to Andre Crouch and Rez Band concerts in college.

    Also, I have to tell you, I have read all of Menno Simons’ collected works repeatedly, and he constantly admonished rulers to create and enforce just laws–quoting both the prophets and Christ. Later Anabaptist apolitical withdrawal was a result of over a century of intense persecution and being chased out of new countries. Becoming apolitical was the “deal” Anabaptists had to make to be allowed to live, not be drafted, etc.–it did not stem from their original theology. And modern Mennonites work against gun laws more than anyone else I know.

    I respectfully have to disagree with the idea that stricter gun laws will not help. Sure, there can be a black market, but this still makes it more difficult than a legal market. The U.S. is the largest exporter of guns in the world.

    Further, the idea that removing the “right” to own guns (or testing the 2nd Amendment to see if it really does require unfettered individual gun ownership or only a right for militias) will reck all civil liberties is false. This was the same argument pro-slavery folks used against abolitionists trying to change the Constitution so that slavery would be abolished. Yes, our civil liberties are VERY MUCH under threat since 9/11. But loose gun laws haven’t helped with that one bit.

    In my view, loose gun laws are a public health and safety problem, period.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | April 18, 2007

  10. I guess we will just disagree. I don’t believe you can legislate morality and you seem to think you can. Murder and violence have existed since the time of Cain. Whereas you think that human laws can change that, I for one do not buy into the myth of human progress as being able to make a better world. I don’t put my faith in human governments to be able to change human nature no matter how many laws it passes.

    Making more laws will not solve the problem of the human heart. Again, if we really want things to change then we need to change the messages that are forced into the minds of people in this country through the media, entertainment, music, games, etc. When a country glorifies violence then it is no wonder people behave violently. Gun laws are an excuse for not making systemic societal changes. Its like applying a band-aid to a wound that actually needs hundreds of stitches. In all honesty, that is precisely what most politicians advocate when they call for more gun laws: a band-aid rather than real hard work that restores a healthy environment that values all human life instead of one that glorifies violence and death. These are systemic problems that a band-aid measure cannot correct.

    Banning all guns may be a good idea, but if it is the only measure that society implements nothing will really change except the weaponry used.

    Comment by James | April 18, 2007

  11. I share your dislike for most contemporary Christian music. However, fyi, Derek Webb is one of the only contemporary Christian singers to engage social justice issues like war, poverty, nationalistic idolatry, and a consistent life ethic.

    Comment by Jonathan Marlowe | April 18, 2007

  12. The thing is, I am not trying to “legislate morality.” I’m simply trying to put speed bumps in the way of immoral people. I’m not trying to change human nature (except by means of the gospel) or buying into myths of inevitable progrss. And I agree that our entire culture needs to be weaned from its addiction to the myth of redemptive violence. That will take more than gun laws.

    But you seem to be saying that laws can do nothing and that it is wrong to try to get societies that are even relatively more just than previously, relatively less violent, relatively more caring. By this logic, the Civil Rights movement was wrong. No one should have even tried to end segregation laws (which is precisely what some white Christians argued–that since laws could not change human hearts, changing laws was useless). Nor should anyone have tried to end Apartheid in South Africa. We shouldn’t try for laws that force polluters to clean up the air and rivers they pollute or outlaw pornography or even having traffic lights.
    I find such a position completely ridiculous.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | April 18, 2007

  13. I am not saying that we should not pass new laws. Unfortunately the sentiment that seems to be pervasive in today’s society is that more laws are the answer to all the problems we face in America. “Smoking kills, pass laws banning it. Walking while listening to your iPod is dangerous so let’s pass a law making it illegal to do such a thing, etc., etc.”

    If gun laws (or any laws) are the only answer that society has to stop this senseless violence (or whatever else it is focused on at the moment) then nothing is going to change. It becomes nothing more than a band-aid solution when what is needed is a surgical procedure. That is my point, sorry if I wasn’t clear enough in my previous comments.

    If you really want to know where I stand on this, then here it is. The Christian church needs to get its own house in order on issues such as war, poverty, social justice, etc. before it can ever hope to help society change its ways. Only when the church begins to practice what it preaches will we legitimately be able to bring the peace of Christ into this world. That is the key: Only Christ can bring peace to the human heart and thus end the control violence has over the hearts of men. No law no matter how strict or enforced can do that.

    Comment by James | April 18, 2007

  14. Well, if you ever read this blog, you know I want the church to get its act together, James! Yes, if the churches remember they are to be nonviolent, much of the world will have a BIG recruiting problem for armies and gun shops will go out of business. If the churches pay all their employees, including janitors, living wages, and preach simple living, radical sharing, and economic justice, they will become a powerful example–and their members will be influences in the corporations they work for (or refuse to work for). But, again, I am NOT trying to get laws to do the work of the church–but the evidence is clear. EVERY place where gun laws are strict, violent crime is lower, and shooting sprees like this don’t happen.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | April 19, 2007

  15. James,

    That gun laws are an answer does not make them the only answer. We needn’t choose between passing laws that restrict access to destructive weapons and doing the difficult Gospel work of changing hearts and minds. We can, and must, do both.

    Setting up such a false dichotomy simply isn’t helpful. Gun control laws can’t be placed in opposition to efforts to root out the spiritual and psychological causes of the violence that is so pervasive in our culture, any more than intensive medical care can be placed in opposition to eating right and exercising.

    To end (or at least curtail) violence we need a multi-pronged approach.

    Comment by Sandalstraps | April 19, 2007

  16. Michael,

    I am frustrated too – frustrated that everytime something like this happens politicians and political pundants immediately begin to either defend guns or call for their removal, as if that is the problem. The problem isn’t the vehicle of violence – it is the person DOING the violence. I agree with James about how we often treat laws without dealing with the underlying problems causing laws to be necessary. Removing guns from our society may only mean that terrorists and crazed men will resort to bombs, mass poisonings, or something worse we can’t even imagine.

    The problem comes down to one of EVIL – something that liberals like yourself seem to only talk about when you’re referring to George Bush, the Iraq war or any other of your pat issues. But instead of talking about what people really need – THE GOSPEL – you talk about more government intervention. You worry about your rights being taken away, yet you want to limit others’. You decry laws against abortion, which protect innocent life, but on issues liberals love to champion (like gun control – or homeschooling – remember that discussion?), you reverse your libertarian stance and require big government reforms . You worry about the government coming for you, but you don’t want to allow people to own guns – the very reason for the 2nd ammendment. It is just so contradictory.

    Finally, as one who claims Christ, I don’t see how your only comments on this issue have to do with calling for more gun control. After this incident, looking around the Evangelical world, what do you hear? THE GOSPEL! Go to John Piper’s website (www.desiringgod.org) and what do you see in response? THE GOSPEL! Turn on the TV and see Franklin Graham speaking at VTU and what do you hear? THE GOSPEL! Listen to the Al Mohler radio show and what do you hear Dr. Mohler repeatedly talking about in reponse to VTU? THE NEED FOR THE GOSPEL! But what do I hear from liberals who claim Christ? More government intervention. That’s disappointing.

    I just don’t get it Michael. When are you guys going to acknowledge that liberal Christianity has failed to preach the Gospel and the continual secularization of our society is destroying the very fabric of our once strong country? Dedication to social ministries can only do so much. Without constantly preaching THE GOSPEL and acknowleging that sin is our problem (not too many laws, or a lack thereof), we will continue to see this sort of scene play out over and over again.

    Comment by D.R. Randle | April 19, 2007

  17. Well, D.R., you and James just go on being frustrated, o.k.? You obviously haven’t read anything I really said, because I have REPEATEDLY said this doesn’t negate any need for the preaching of the gospel. YES, this is evil! Yes, abortion is always tragic and almost always evil! Homeschooling should be protected as a civil right but discouraged as a bad social policy.

    I am no libertarian. Law is a blunt instrument that can achieve only limited results. But one thing it can achieve is to make it more difficult for evil people, whether liberal, fundamentalist, secular or whatever, to commit mass killings. Since 9/11, our government has made it harder for terrorists to get drivers’ licenses, but EASIER to get guns. That’s not liberal, conservative, or purple. It’s just STUPID, D.R.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | April 19, 2007

  18. I was just reminded of another related issue: “Rights of the Mentally Ill”. To illustrate, there was a beautiful, extremely intelligent young lady who just graduated from UC Berkeley, but suffered from delusions and paranoia when she wasn’t taking her medicine. She took her mother to court and got a restraining order to keep from taking the medicine. I watched as she wasted away and then I lost contact with her because she could no longer hold a job. Her desperate mother could do nothing.

    This leaves me wondering what the story is of the parents of this rampaging young man.

    Comment by Looney | April 19, 2007

  19. Looney, that is an important point–so much so that I will make my reply an entire post. Thanks.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | April 19, 2007

  20. Where is the evidence of your speaking of the Gospel in this post? Sorry, but you immediately ran to gun control – not the Gospel, as the way to reduce tragedies such as this one. That is simply not the answer. And you continue to skew the facts, without any regard for evidence, all the while ignoring my very important point about the possibility of ratcheting up weapons in the absence of guns. Your point about “EVERY place where gun laws are strict, violent crime is lower, and shooting sprees like this don’t happen.” Go tell that to England, who has very strict gun laws in comparison to ours and is now seeing a great increase in crime (especially violent crime). Additionally, whole books have been written that discredit your assumption here. One is John R. Lott, Jr.’s book More Guns, Less Crime, where he statistically charts the rise of gun ownership corresponding to the decrease in crime rates. Pretty harsh criticism of your position. Finally, you said, “Since 9/11, our government has made it harder for terrorists to get drivers’ licenses, but EASIER to get guns. That’s not liberal, conservative, or purple. It’s just STUPID, D.R.” This is simply not true. I would love to see some evidence that actually backs up this ridiculous statement. Black market purchases of guns will always exist and the Homeland Security office has worked hard to stop this. But, black market gun trafficking won’t stop, even if we stop selling guns, thus putting ordinary citizens even more danger. You want anarchy? Then let ONLY the terrorists own guns – then you will see a real crime increase. As Lott Jr. points out – at least now criminals have to think twice before engaging in gun related crime, wondering if they will be out gunned by prey.

    One last point – your statement on homeschooling above doesn’t reflect your post on the Mainstream site where you said: “Homeschooling is a civil liberty and I will defend it as a legal right–although I think states should make all parents who choose this route have the same qualifications that public schoolteachers need and their children have to go through rigorous testing–and it should be just as illegal to teach Intelligent Design as SCIENCE for homeschooling as for public schools, because it simply IS NOT SCIENCE.” Hmmm…so your defend homeschooling as a legal right, as long as it is regulated the way you think it should be so you can continue to control what is taught in the home. That’s not much of a right if you ask me.

    Comment by D.R. Randle | April 20, 2007

  21. I have not read Lott’s work. It goes against many years of social science data. The data I got on the U.K. came from the BBC after the VA Tech shooting. The criminologist they were interviewing did say that there was a recent crime spree, but he made the cross-national studies and showed that strict gun control lowered deaths by violent crimes.

    The claim I made about post 9/11 came from a summary of the second 9/11 Commission Report.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | April 20, 2007

  22. By the way, I am not frustrated. I have completed grad school and am about to begin doctoral work and understand that in the academic arena there will always be different positions on any subject. I would hope that as someone with a Ph.D you understand the value of hearing opposing voices, and that you know in listening to such voices you may grow and change your thinking, just as you would expect others to listen to your voice, consider your positions, and hopefully change thinking that needs to be changed.

    When I said the church needs to get its own house in order, I meant it. For example, I am pro-life which means I oppose war, violence, the death penalty, and abortion. Apparently you oppose war, violence, and the death penalty, but not abortion. That illustrates my point. Until the church is consistent in its positions it cannot help society deal with its issues.

    As you can see I make a distinction between the church and society (to which government belongs). This is perhaps the source of our disagreement. I do not see the government as an extension of the church (a Christendom worldview, illustrated in the works of Menno Simons, Hubmaier, etc.). Instead, I see the world through the post-Christendom lens, in which true societal change occurs from the bottom up, not from the top down.

    Comment by James | April 20, 2007

  23. James, my pardon. I let D.R. speak for you when he said he was as frustrated as you. I do understand differences, but do not think all differences are valid. D.R. likes to push my buttons.

    My position on abortion is more complex than be explicated in a comment section. I have written on it before and will do so again, but not here. Again, D.R. brought it and home-schooling up as red herrings. They were off topic. He likes to do that to see if he can get me angry and sometimes it works.

    My view on abortion is neither approval nor opposition. Both are too simplistic in my view.

    I also make a STRONG difference between the church and the government and you cannot have read my blog long if you think I endorse ANY form of Christendom or need to be introduced to the works of Menno or Humbmaier, etc. To say that church and state or church and society are different and neither an extension of the other, however, is not the same as saying that the church has no message to the state or society.

    Should the church get its own house in order and be more faithful? Absolutely! Should it wait until this is perfect before ever bearing wider witness–reminding the state and other Powers and Authorities of their responsibilities before God? Absolutely NOT. That would be to abandon the prophetic calling of the church. God didn’t wait until having perfect servants before raising up prophets among them. Nor did they only speak to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, but called the pagan nations to account, too. Menno Simons, Balthasar Hubmaier and other 16th C. Anabaptists were very aware of this and I can cite chapter and verse if you want.

    I was post-Christendom long before post-Christendom was cool.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | April 20, 2007

  24. I think, perhaps you and I are not really all that different in our thinking. Since I just discovered your site recently, I do not fully know your positions on significant issues facing the church today, and am basing my thoughts strictly off of what I have read of your writing thus far (which isn’t much).

    In all honesty, I come from GenX and really do not have a high view of the government being able to make the world a better and safer place for my family, so I just trust in God’s plan for this fallen world, and try to be a part of His missionary activity of calling a people to Himself. To me, it is only when people encounter Jesus that the immorality in their lives can begin to be stripped away, all the laws in the world cannot do that nor can they truly prevent immoral people from carrying out immoral activity. They may make it more difficult but are really only a band-aid solution rather than the cure, which is the whole point I was trying to make. I am not opposed to stricter gun laws, but don’t see them as THE solution to the problem.

    Comment by james | April 20, 2007

  25. Fortunately, Gen Y isn’t quite so pessimistic about government. That extreme pessimism allowed your generation to not vote and that was a large factor in the extreme people and policies getting in place. It’s also what allowed (in a different generation) Hitler to come to power, etc.

    We should never place our hopes in governments–that’s the Christendom error. But God’s plan in a fallen world is a plan for the redemption not just of humanity, but of all God’s creation, including the Powers and Authorities. They were created by God and are thus good, but are now fallen and rebellious. Ignoring them–not bearing witness to them and reminding them of their Created purpose (including the purposes for the Powers of economies, governments, etc.) is to leave them to the forces of evil.

    Dietrich Bonhoeffer called this the difference between the Ultimate and Penultimate things. The Ultimate Good, the Ultimate Concern, is the gospel of free grace. But penultimate goods and concerns (e.g., healthy family life, good government, clean air and water, etc.) are also important. We work for them not because we substitute them for the gospel, but because they can help prepare the way for the gracious coming of God. If we fail to do that, then God comes any way, but in judgment rather than mercy. (See Bonhoeffer’s _Ethics_.)

    The problem with liberal social gospels (or conservative versions which want Christians to take over governments and institute “biblical laws” for that matter) is that they confuse the Ultimate and the Penultimate and treat the latter as if it were the former. But the problem with some reactions to that, such as yours appears to be in these comments, is that it fails to consider Penultimate matters at all–and thus fails to develop an ethic of Preparing the Way.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | April 20, 2007

  26. You said: “Fortunately, Gen Y isn’t quite so pessimistic about government. That extreme pessimism allowed your generation to not vote and that was a large factor in the extreme people and policies getting in place. It’s also what allowed (in a different generation) Hitler to come to power, etc.”

    That is absolutely not true. Even if every member of GenX voted, we would still be outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1 by the Baby Boomers. The problems in this country are the result of those with the political power, i.e. the Baby Boomer generation, not those who don’t have enough of a voting block to exercise any real political muscle. Furthermore, it has only been in the last several years that GenX politicians have begun to emerge. So no one can truly know what we will do within the political arena as the boomers begin to decline in numbers.

    Also, Hitler came to power because of horrible poverty and he played on the resentment that the suffering people had towards their government that ‘lost them the war’ in order to put himself in a position to take over a nation. He made promises that his government would make their lives better, and then subsequently began implementing stricter and stricter laws effectively taking away the rights of the people, with the culmination being the stripping of all human rights from the Jews and others he deemed to be subhuman.

    Do you think that maybe this is why I am so hesitant to call for more laws? Governments that tighten their grip on the people by implementing more and more laws have historically not been great friends of the church.

    Then again you probably already know all of this stuff, and who am I to teach you anything, right?

    Anyways, best wishes in your future endeavors. Maybe when I have the letters after my name you will treat me as an equal rather than someone beneath you.

    Comment by James | April 21, 2007

  27. Beneath me? Where’s that coming from? I haven’t talked down to you. I’ve just disagreed. I find political apathy or despair dangerous, but I understand fear of political idolatry. I’m trying to support that part of your views that I think correct and warn you about over-reactions that are dangerous. There’s no contempt there.

    I’m at the tail end of the baby boom (b. ’62) and I know that 2 hoaxes were played on those just younger than I am: 1)The hoax of believing in Reaganism. That captured many, but not all. 2) The hoax of believing that they had no political power at all and so should give up. Long before GenXers (those few who didn’t give up) rose high enough to be a political force, they were old enough to vote and didn’t. Yes, the players were Boomers and those older than us. Progressive forces kept losing from 1979 through 2006. Very often the losses were by only a few numbers that GenX voters would have made a major difference.

    Yes, Hitler came to power out of poverty and resentment, etc., just as you say. But there were also a large number of Christians in Weimar Germany who were talked into political apathy: because the Weimar Republic was secular and because they associated democracy and human rights with French ideas. See Fritz Stern’s The Politics of Cultural Despair.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | April 21, 2007

  28. […] tragedy to promote stricter gun control laws. It’s saddens me greatly. And I’ve seen this happen …. and that’s why I’ve dropped Christian Peace Bloggers Blogring. It’s not […]

    Pingback by Dropping Christian Peace Bloggers Blogring | Brandy’s Variety Garden Blog | April 28, 2007

  29. The use of any weapon against another human is merely a sign of a faulty system. Rather than teach our children their responsibilities to humanity, rather our system teaches them their civil rights.

    Rather than living within the frame of an ethical set of principals, principles that come from within, we appear rather to be living within the frame work of moral law from without. This outside law allows many to believe that they have the right, even an obligation to judge the conduct of others.

    Therefore, as long as we continue to teach our children moral law, rather than expand their consciousness regarding ethical principals, no laws or gun control is going to change a thing.

    And as the poster above relayed, as long as we allow the medias to control the hearts and minds of our children, our children will know no peace.

    We all choose our own reality, and now it is time to play the tape out to its conclusion, then record a new tape, for a new day is dawning where bellicose behavior will no longer be rewarded with the attention it so desires.

    Comment by Ancient Wisdom | December 30, 2008

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: