Date: Tue Dec 02 20:42:14 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Here It Comes!
At 03:05 PM 12/2/97 0600, you wrote:
It is sad. Have you seriously examined WHY you expected the "first violence" (You expect it too, I see.) to come from the right? Careful of personal bias coloring your reasoning. ; )
Absolutely, I've thought about. Because they're a tad quick to jump to conclusions and claim martyrdom before the facts are in. ; )
I don't really have a position on that issue, and thanks for respecting my position. [Editor's Note: The authors are referring to the debate that the 2nd Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.] Truth is, when I think about it, I have a hard time buying the "left's" arguments that it was written only to continue to authorize state national guards. It just doesn't read that restrictively to me, as many times as I've tried to get it to. (Repeat that and I'll deny it!) ; )
“Was he taunted or victimized in some way by the "prayer crowd" that killing was the only way of dealing with it?”
According to the NBC Nightly news tonight, this is the present theory among detectives. If true, it looks like one or more of MY speculations was closer to the truth. It wasn't the "prayer crowd" as much as the "football crowd," the kids in prayer were a convenient target. The kid was "different," wore funny hats, was the object of kids will be kids ridicule. That is not an excuse, and I do not suggest that anyone deserved it. But it's terribly important to understand it as a possible explanation for why he snapped, if that is in fact true. With that great equalizer, the bullet, every David can best their imaginary Goliaths. When we single people out because they are different, make them the object of scorn and ridicule, they will either fade into obscurity or, every so often, take their place in infamy.
I'm not saying excuse the kid, just understand what happened. He obviously had seriously impaired coping skills. Somebody failed to see the signs, if there were any. And it ain't no answer to say kids will be kids, because you've seen the result. While we're generalizing, I'm just amazed that you're so quick to find the fault and blame, and then just stop, rather than assume responsibility for finding ways to avoid that from happening in the future.
“Was it something as simple as a broken heart, a lost girlfriend who got ‘saved,’ and he blamed ‘them’ for losing his love? Was he making a political statement? Did he want to die too? What troubles at home? At school? Were the kids in prayer an intended target? Or just a convenient one?”
At the outset, I agree with the need to consider the questions you've raised. Absolutely!
Thanks. The police have already closed the case. He's confessed. The only question is whether he'll be tried as an adult. But I want to know why. Only then can we attempt to prevent it from happening again. Finding the root and cause, the fault and blame is only half the journey. The questions is, what are we gonna' do about it when we do find the cause?
Now let me hold up a mirror to you to peer into. Substitute "pro lifer" for "atheist" and "abortionist" for "praying student." Would you honestly be as ready with possible reasons/excuses? Response comments are not required. Selah. While I agree with your logic, it is just that kind of logic NEVER comes from the left when one of theirs has been victimized by someone from the right. I was just somewhat surprised when it came from you, when the "right-wing Christian whackos" are guilty before the fact in (what seems to be) your frame of reference.
If you agree with my logic, why not leave it at that? I told you up front I wasn't making excuses, I was looking for explanations. I did not jump to conclusions that it was religiously motivated just because the victims were praying.
Honest answer why that "logic" never comes from the left when one of their own is victimized? Because in the example you gave, the "pro lifers" are the ones who are already in the face of the "abortionists," they're the ones on a mission from God who have splashed blood on women going into clinics, who get up in their faces as they exercise their right to free speech. It goes way past harassment in many of the cases. The closest analogy I can think of on the left are the animal rights activists or the Greenpeace people. They're just as rabid as the "pro lifers" when it comes to their politics. Harassment is harassment, trespass is trespass, assault is assault. On THIS political issue of religion when you line up the people already prone to violence, and if we're going to make political generalities, they're going to be on the "right."
Abortion is your example, it's a good one. The Greenpeace and animal rights activists example is mine, it's no different. Extremists are extremists. When I say I admit I expected the first volley to come from the "right" I'm talking about extremists, not about you. Holding the mirror up to me isn't clever unless your analogies are apt.
Why he did it is not an overriding point, important, but not overriding. A characteristic of the left is trying to somehow justify the action because of the criminal's environment, relationships, upbringing, economic status, race, etc., etc. Example: Menendez brothers who blew away their parents.
That's just garbage. Don't hold the mirror up to me when I'm counseling restraint and then blast off and make generalities about the left justifying the acts of a sick individual. The Menendez weren't sick, they were cold and calculating. Their defense lawyer's "victim" defense didn't work in either trial. The "left" wasn't rallying behind them to justify patricide or anything remotely like it. I cautioned against making a political issue out of this until we knew the facts, and you're making generalizations about the left like there's no tomorrow.
Consider the boy's parents for a second. Do you think they had a clue this was going to happen? I promise you they didn't. And you don't want to jump to the conclusion that they were neglectful parents. They were probably hard working god fearing folk who raised their son the best they knew how. If not, you'd have seen them on TV by now. They didn't have guns in their house. He had to steal them from a neighbor. The kid had religious friends judging by the boy named "Strong" who's emerged as the local hero and peacemaker, who called himself a friend. I've known kids who've done things like that. I've had their parents in my home. Good god fearing law abiding hard working people who tried their damnedest to raise their kids as Christians. And still the kids do heinous, atrocious things that you and I wouldn't have dreamed of in our youth. And I'm not talking about sex and drugs, I'm talking about murder, cold blooded murder, gangland killing style, just like that kid in Kentucky.
Why he did it "is not an overriding point, important, but not overriding"? Seriously, what is the meaning of that statement? Other than a nice segue into generalizations about the left that have less and less relevance as the facts emerge in this case? What other question is left, but "why"? "[E]nvironment, relationships, upbringing, economic status, race, etc., etc." as you say, are only the surface issues. Even if Bible readings and school sponsored prayers were legal, they're not gonna' reach kids like that, that are so alienated and divorced from the sanity you and I take for granted as to commit such vicious and unconscionable acts. How are we gonna' know which ones to lock away? Especially since, I'll betch'a right now, he came from pretty ordinary folks and family. He probably fit the ordinary profile of 75% of all "disaffected youth" today, most of whom all grow up to lead very productive lives, like me.
From the initial information "martyr" may be the applicable term.
When you wrote this, you may not have had the benefit of watching the news first, so perhaps I should let it go. I've made the point that we should wait until more facts are in, you've agreed with the logic. If you're going to turn all our hard work back into a left vs. right, Christian vs. atheist issue because it's the easy way to explain such aberrant behavior, I gotta' wonder, what's the point?
Yes, there is potential for repercussions from the right, but I hope not. Actually, I don't expect it.
Well, I fully expect it, if "the right" is going to draw conclusions about the politics of a situation, and decline to investigate the underlying facts.
I do believe there will be other incidents in the future with a common thread. It is a natural outgrowth of the direction our courts and our country are going. Do I want to see "holy war?" Absolutely not! But as a Christian, I fully expect further restriction of my religious liberties, more open rejection and vilification by the public sector (We already have it in the entertainment and news media.), and eventually open persecution. Personally, I feel that my chances of dying at the hands of a government goon while defending my rights to be high enough to give me real concern.
Sigh. Rob shaking head and wondering who he's been talking to these past many weeks....
Frank, wouldn't it be a better world if the left and the right looked for things they had in common, rather than look for ways to blame one another for things they'll never have or come to fully understand? Is it really so earth shattering that you might be more in agreement with "the other side's" view of what kind of world they want to live in than you've been led to believe in the past? Repeatedly I've shown you that you have more in common with "the left" than you believed before we met. Will the world stop spinning if you accept that?
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment