Yesterday brought us yet another story about a person who kills several people at random, flees from police and then ends the drama by killing himself. This time the episode unfolded in rural Alabama. Unsurprisingly, the Reuters release (see link below) included the following perspective:

“Mass shootings have become more frequent in recent years in the United States, where guns are widely available for purchase and the right to own weapons for self defense and hunting is defended by many.”

Of course, this only fuels the motivation of many to severely limit or even ban the private ownership of firearms. To the uninformed, this might even seem to be a logical solution to the problem of firearm violence. However, is it really the availability of guns that is causing the problem?

I hardly think so. As much as we want an easy solution to this senseless violence, banning private ownership of firearms is not it, and unfortunately, I don’t believe the solution will be easy to implement. The real problem is our self-centered culture where people see the entire world as revolving around them. When they feel they have been wronged by society, they lash out by inflicting harm, often deadly and randomly, on that same society. They act out against that nameless, faceless society they feel wronged them. And at the end of their rampage, these people engage in the ultimate act of cowardice; rather than face the consequences of their actions, they commit suicide.

To implement a solution to this problem would be to radically change our values as a culture. To do that, however, we need to understand the root cause of the problem. That root cause can be blamed on many things, but what it ultimately comes down to is a lack of consistent moral values. Over the past forty years, values which were deeply ingrained in American culture since its founding began to get watered down.

Moral values are seen by many today not as absolute, but as relative to the situation at hand for each person. People focus not on what is right, but what is perceived by them to be fair or unfair.  They need to learn that life isn’t fair, but rather that truth is consistent and unwavering. 

One last thought: Joshua Myers, an Alabama deputy sheriff who was involved in the effort to stop the shooting spree lost his wife and 18-month old daughter in that same shooting spree. Unbeknownst to him as he was performing his duty, his wife and daughter had just been killed by the same coward he was pursuing. Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your other children, Joshua; thanks for your service to your community.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52A01D20090312

The Chicago Tribune ran an article on Friday titled “Obama administration may rescind conscience rule.” The ‘conscience rule’ was implemented by the Bush administration. It allows health care workers to refuse to perform an abortion or provide other family planning counseling because those procedures are in opposition to the personal beliefs of the provider.

Now, it seems the "right" to abortion will trump the right of an individual to act in accordance with their personal beliefs. The danger we run into with this situation is it allows the “rights” of those in a popular position to supersede the rights of those whose position is less popular. Once this precedent is set, where do we go next?

This past December, a Montana court ruled assisted suicide to be legal. Will the precedent set by rescinding the ‘conscience rule’ apply to assisted suicide? Will doctors and other medical personnel be forced to ‘terminate’ patients, despite their personal beliefs?

When we start subjugating the rights of those in the minority or less popular positions to the will of those who have the popular support, we begin to lose the very principles this great nation was founded upon.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-conscience-rulefeb27,0,1515759.story

On Friday, there was an article in the Washington Post which, by the weekend, was featured in many local newspapers around the country. The article was about the George Mason Homecoming Queen who was crowned during halftime of the basketball game Saturday evening. The “queen” is actually a 22-year old gay man who performs as a drag queen. This is being touted by many as a victory for inclusiveness. 

Was inclusiveness really the reason the student body at George Mason voted Ryan Allen (a.k.a. Reann Ballslee) as their “queen?” With their votes, were these young adults really trying to break another societal shackle restricting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for their fellow students who choose to live life a little differently than the rest of us?

I may be wrong, but I honestly believe these students’ motives were a little less principled. I believe most of the students probably thought it would be funny to elect a drag queen as their homecoming queen; it was a joke. Unfortunately, the joke isn’t really funny. 

While some may claim victory, there are no winners in this situation. The university has become a joke and Ryan has become the punch line. I’m not sure what kind of personal darkness leads a man to dress like a woman and perform in seedy nightclubs, but we can only hope that Ryan finds his way out of that darkness before it consumes him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/19/AR2009021901780.html?hpid=sec-education