Finals week at my alma mater approximately fifteen year ago and another building is closed. Why? “Oh, someone called in a bomb threat,” my friend says with a rather “ho-hum” attitude. “Probably wasn’t ready for his final,” and we rolled our eyes.
In a less desirable part of town a student is robbed and shot. Just another crime. The University responded by putting emergency phones up.
What is different about today? We take bomb threats much more seriously. A gun on campus and a disgruntled student can mean more than a robbery, it can mean thirty dead. Why?
Perhaps it has to do with the cheapening of human life. If you can make one life less valuable, all life becomes less valuable. We kill “those evil people in that country,” we kill some of our criminals, will assist suicide, we abort millions of people sometimes for just not being the right kind of person or as healthy as we would like, through pornography we can learn to treat persons as objects to do with as we will, advertising not only skews what is valuable about us as human beings but humans are also used as objects to sell, and thanks to the myth of safe sex and faulty contraception that often does not prevent births nor prevents illness and/or death, we at least have the illusion that we can use a person sexually and walk away without any consequences or responsibilities AND WE ARE TAUGHT THAT THESE ARE THINGS NOT TO FEEL GUILTY ABOUT. Then why are we surprised when someone solves their problems with guns and death? There is no longer the strong community taboo against even thinking of such methods. If you take all of this into account, Cho’s statements make horribly logical sense. He simply took our secular societal view to its logical end, an end which sees human life as something to be used and death as an answer to problems. Why is anyone shocked?
Perhaps it is a good sign however that on the front page of the PD right next to “A KILLER SPEAKS” is a much smaller headline, “Ban on abortion method upheld,” as many see this form of abortion as far too close to infanticide. Interesting also that it did not say (as it usually does) “Abortion foes win victory” or “Blow for women’s rights.” Is there a possibility that we have seen we have come to far?
In a less desirable part of town a student is robbed and shot. Just another crime. The University responded by putting emergency phones up.
What is different about today? We take bomb threats much more seriously. A gun on campus and a disgruntled student can mean more than a robbery, it can mean thirty dead. Why?
Perhaps it has to do with the cheapening of human life. If you can make one life less valuable, all life becomes less valuable. We kill “those evil people in that country,” we kill some of our criminals, will assist suicide, we abort millions of people sometimes for just not being the right kind of person or as healthy as we would like, through pornography we can learn to treat persons as objects to do with as we will, advertising not only skews what is valuable about us as human beings but humans are also used as objects to sell, and thanks to the myth of safe sex and faulty contraception that often does not prevent births nor prevents illness and/or death, we at least have the illusion that we can use a person sexually and walk away without any consequences or responsibilities AND WE ARE TAUGHT THAT THESE ARE THINGS NOT TO FEEL GUILTY ABOUT. Then why are we surprised when someone solves their problems with guns and death? There is no longer the strong community taboo against even thinking of such methods. If you take all of this into account, Cho’s statements make horribly logical sense. He simply took our secular societal view to its logical end, an end which sees human life as something to be used and death as an answer to problems. Why is anyone shocked?
Perhaps it is a good sign however that on the front page of the PD right next to “A KILLER SPEAKS” is a much smaller headline, “Ban on abortion method upheld,” as many see this form of abortion as far too close to infanticide. Interesting also that it did not say (as it usually does) “Abortion foes win victory” or “Blow for women’s rights.” Is there a possibility that we have seen we have come to far?


