Leveraging Death

I am so grieving over the cruelty to innocence at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  I find myself averting my imagination with every news report; the horror is so incomprehensible.

Mass shootings by otherwise unexceptional citizens seem to have increased in frequency since Columbine in 1999.  The Beltway Sniper, the Aurora movie theater, the Oregon mall, and now the slaughter of children and their teachers; It is as though evil keeps trying to outdo itself.

For the first time ever, I actually appreciate that my wife keeps the television pegged on The Food Network so I don’t have to dwell on the bewilderment of senseless mass murder (Although I keep expecting Giada De Laurentiis to squint directly into the camera and protest, “Hey, Mark!  My eyes are up here!”).

I also dread hearing the mavens of liberalism leveraging the deaths of five-year-olds to advance their cause of keeping the government safe from an armed citizenry.  Asked if the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is the moment in history that could change public opinion on gun control, Congressman Jerrold Nadler responded, “I think we will be there if the president exploits it.”

Of course, removing weapons from parents in order to protect their children from harm is folly.  If the people are disarmed, only government employees will commit massacres (See Waco, Texas).  And, there will be no higher authority responding with a rescue force.

The disregard for human life and Nadler’s distrust of individuals to bear personal protection together are suggestive of a larger causation.  I would contend that the campaign to diminish the Second Amendment is treating one destructive symptom by introducing another complication.  No physician could keep his license with such unconscionable malpractice.

It seems that the disease that America suffers is the rejection of self-evident truth.  Conservative Americans are looking at their nation like the heartbroken parent of a wayward teenager. 

A close and respected friend of mine, David Gill, expressed it best: “We remove God from our Schools and our Nation's public places to the best of our ability. We build a society that tells us that there is no definitive moral standard of what is right or wrong...what's right for me might not be right for the next person. We teach that one culture or society is no better than any other. We create areas where we advertise no effective defense is allowed. We sell and distribute violent computer games that glorify crime, assault, and killing. Our culture tells us that fame is what is important and our media makes murderers famous. Considering all our modern society does to discourage ethical behavior, maybe rather than asking why these tragedies occur we should ask why we don't have more of them.”

Back in college, I had one of those stereotypical psychology professors who wore a beard and elbow patch tweeds.  In his opening monologue of the first class, he proclaimed a ground rule for the semester’s deliberations; “There are no absolutes.”

I objected to this premise.  However, I had not as yet been down that bunny trail of pretzel logic.  So, I was inadequately prepared to overrule his academic arguendo.  Instead, my jousting with the more seasoned professor merely diverted the first 15 minutes of the class with a ludicrous volley.

This prepared me, however, for a moment that occurred some three weeks into the next semester.  My political science class was taught by yet another professor on a mission for the church of leftism.  And, predictably, this new teacher tossed out the same thesis, “There are not absolutes.”  Only, this time the professor added, “Right, Mr. Baisley?”  

“No, sir.  That theory cannot even hold up to itself.”  The professor immediately conceded and moved on to his next point.

The slaughter of innocence shocks our conscience and escapes our reason.  For a troubled temperament set sail without a compass, a vicious indifference does not need to make sense.