Amazing how you went for a whole couple of sentences before you transitioned your demand from "deistic" to "deist/Christian". How long before you drop the "deist" and just let your imam write all the laws? Why don't you just admit you want the state to impose your beliefs on everyone else?
Separation gone too far - the making of a secular state
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Amazing how you went for a whole couple of sentences before you transitioned your demand from "deistic" to "deist/Christian". How long before you drop the "deist" and just let your imam write all the laws? Why don't you just admit you want the state to impose your beliefs on everyone else?
If we could trust the empowered to do what they ought and be what they claim, then I would be fine with a Christian Republic. But that simply isn't how it plays out, which is why, I suppose, we need grace (and government) to begin with...our founders knew the lessons of history more intimately than we do, though we have ample reason in our acclimated cynicism to nod and agree. Religion infused into government confuses some. They begin to see the moral good as an instrument of power instead of standard or bar. And among the scoundrels who begin with no other notion it quickly becomes an active tyranny.
One day I believe Christ will govern men. Today, I think he leads us by example and within our relationship to him. And that should be enough. What in the world can overcome a man who follows that lead, not into the corridors of power, where Christ only went in chains, but along the byways and paths of our lives, where humility, love, patience, and the uncompromising truth of grace, of our need for reconciliation and fulfillment can have a far more meaningful impact. A man in love with his wife doesn't need to be told to be kind to her. A nation in love with God won't need to be told to love one another.
Imagine that.
One day I believe Christ will govern men. Today, I think he leads us by example and within our relationship to him. And that should be enough. What in the world can overcome a man who follows that lead, not into the corridors of power, where Christ only went in chains, but along the byways and paths of our lives, where humility, love, patience, and the uncompromising truth of grace, of our need for reconciliation and fulfillment can have a far more meaningful impact. A man in love with his wife doesn't need to be told to be kind to her. A nation in love with God won't need to be told to love one another.
Imagine that.
At least he's honest about his motives.
Lon
Well-known member
No, they are either reinterpreted according godless men, or are eradicated. Both are happening else we'd not have had prayer removed from school in the first place nor would we have had religious quotes removed from school walls. Why in the world would a good sentiment from Gandhi or the Lord Jesus Christ be removed from the wall? Why would "In God we Trust" be removed from a classroom? It makes no good sense because these do express most of our values. The one or two oddballs it doesn't? Too bad. One or two oddballs think they should be able to kill whoever they want to without reprise too. When we bow to the inept and inane instead of 'We the People," Someone is making decisions against the rest of us. Law has to have a concrete moral standard and ONLY an agreement upon which those are CAN make for a moral society. We have been reducing down to the lowest common denominators more and more and it is mindless and horrible.
:nono: History teaches us that a monarchy does that. It absolutely doesn't show that religion will do that. If you are holding angst against Catholicism, it is only one case study and I'm still not sure I agree with you. I don't see religion as the culprit.
AND insodoing, it has made harsh decisions against us and our freedoms, many of them wrong and wrong-headed. Government 'serves me' not the other way around.
OR upholding an American Ideal. I was, afterall,"created" by my "Creator" with unalienable rights in these United States where we "Trust in God" and are "One nation, Under God." Whether you know it or not, you are against all of these godly values in our nation and government.
No, especially not in high school. It because an expression that either relates to me, or doesn't. There is no pressure. It is an expression AND an appropriate one. Shoot, I have OFTEN heard my fellow teachers say incredibly more PURPOSEFULLY offensive things to students that SHOULD be cause for firing (but it ain't
). Something like this? IRONY! and horribly so. You are really going to have to rethink. The other is allowed 'because' it isn't religious but it IS religiously offensive. That's my point. You eventually will have to see who's throat is getting cut and whose is not. You are on the wrong side. I think by 'hope' and optimism, I see your point, but the world doesn't work that way. Your 'optimistic' view of government is killing us. It doesn't work.BUT that Republic should represent us ALL well. I don't see us "ALL" being well represented. As I said, the secular teacher gets away with language, by instance, that is greatly offensive and at times against the Lord "Jesus Christ" and "God" our Father. When the laws no longer are blind and hurt us, you need to choose sides because it becomes "us/them" at that point. The Us/them is happening often these days, and you really are going to have to make some godly choices concerning them.
Lon
Well-known member
As is your inept ability to functionally summarize a paragraph :noway:
Fail. That's what's 'obvious.' You are the odd-man-out as an atheist.
lain: Or a secular atheist who sees us all as animals, such that death is of no real consequence. It isn't the religion we are attacking, but the wrong-headed sentiment. See the difference?
Your inane attempts at slander and mindless side-stepping not-with-standing. I could give a care less about mutual disdain here. When you try three times to make it somehow 'personal' you bore me. It evidences a guy unable to discuss matters intelligently. Step up to the plate and be a bigger man, or just a man.
Yeah? You gonna try and take it away??? :think:
So? The separation clause is not nor ever was about that. To think it is or did, is inept. The courts are wrong.
Nobody leaves his religion or lack thereof at the door. Never gonna happen lest we become a communist/atheist state. It was tried and in EVERY instance failed.
Baloney. Nobody had to do anything, not even sit and watch if they didn't desire. These are high school students. Most of them can drive or ride with a friend who does.
This and the rest of this is simply your inept personal slams. I'm sure they amuse you to make them and show you've turned off your mind. I don't really care about your 'assessment of me.' Leave them at the door. Nobody cares what you think of me. I certainly don't value your opinion because of it. :wave:
:yawn:
:yawn:
:wave:
Lon
Well-known member
I'm sure it works with your fears and fuzzy math. Try again?
Lon
Well-known member
It doesn't work when it effectually, over and over again, encourages trouncing upon our rights. YoungLife, for instance, was attempted to be removed repeatedly from my high school's campus by the principal. What was it he was trying to remove? 1) Students passing out permission slips to other students for a weekend retreat. 2) The right of students to invite whoever they wanted to YoungLife meeting. 3) a removal of a poster from a bulletin board that was open to all students. As soon as 'secular' government begins persecuting Christianity, (it has and continues to do so), then that 'secular' government no longer serves but oppresses religion by the very separation clause that is supposed to protect us from this in the first place. If you can't see it as the abusive oligarchy it has and is becoming, you've sided, yet again, with the atheists and pagan lawyers and judges, as well as pagan and atheists on TOL. Pay attention to the Christians on this website and what they are saying, at least the ones you deem are genuine by whatever standards God has given you. You may not be seeing all this where you live, but it is a very real problem and it is repressive and subjugating to our freedoms and values.
I will continue to stand against tyranny and oppression. I have in the past with my time, prayers, canvassing, and monies. I will do so again. As long as the coach was silently praying, it again, is nobody's business. When the law was enforced in my school, the students led the prayer for whoever wanted to sit there and listen. The law is supposed to protect our rights TO worship as we see fit without harassment or oppression. They are supposed to enable it, not repress it.
No, it doesn't make sense to turn our walls into potentially competing ads for particular religious views. And it's not one or two. It's then every religious view and who decides where that line is drawn, who gets what space. The complications and committees almost create themselves.
Our law is founded upon the notion of right and in defense of it. Most moral compasses will line up with the important parts of that. And all can be protected by it.
Re: the history or particular religion melded with political might.
Sure it does. Study the Warrior Popes. Look at the 30 years war. Protestant and Catholic kingdoms fought over exegesis when they weren't going to war with the heathen.
I wrote: Our state serves your right to believe and worship. One way it does this is by removing itself from the endorsement of any competing notion. It was never intended to serve our particular faith as an instrument.
Government serves everyone. And all it denies you is the ability to enforce your particular faith on those who don't share it.
There's literally no mention of Christianity in that. You bring Christ into it, which is how it was meant to be. That's your idea. And the next fellow sees his understanding. And you're both free to. I'm not against your values. I'm set against you lording them over the Muslim, the Hindu, the Jew, the atheist. There's no good reason to empower you in that regard and every reason not to. You can't legislate a moral compass. You can only legislate the appearance and that way always ends in something ugly.
Re: the danger of coercion.
Rather, especially in high school, where the pressure to conform meets the least formed resistance.
I disagree and say it has worked better than anything I see around it.
And I don't see enough particularity in your complaint. The law protects all of us. The problem is that for a fairly long time it failed to do that in any number of ways, favored and catered to the majority (more like a democracy than the republic it was meant to function as) and a lot of people are confusing the course correction as some sort of attack. But it isn't.
That's the stuff for school boards and concerned parents. Around here it would be grounds for discipline.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
New member
This is the absurdity of your argument and why it has failed at every level it's been tried in the legal system. You are actually trying to convince people that a high school football coach is not an influential figure to his players. If you truly believe that, then I have to wonder if you've ever participated in sports in any way.
The rest of your post also indicates why you are on the losing side. You offer no legal arguments, and instead can only appeal to tribalism, tradition, and emotion. But this is a legal case and those things don't carry much weight, especially when the other side can simply cite the law and legal precedent.
The other thing you don't seem to understand is what it means to work for the government. I've worked for government agencies in the past and one of the first things that's explained to you is that because you're a public employee, everything you do and say in that capacity is reviewable by the public. After all, the taxpayers are paying your salary, so they have a right to know what they're paying for.
The other part of working for the government is that when you are interacting with the public or in the presence of the public, you are the government. Everything you do is a government action.
So when this coach, acting in his capacity as a government employee, went out to the middle of the field to engage in a deliberately public display of religion, that is the government publicly endorsing religion. The taxpayers see that their tax dollars are going towards their government promoting and advocating religious belief. That's a problem. The government is not supposed to promote and advocate religious belief.
Then you add in the influential role of a high school football coach, and the fact that many of his players joined in the prayer, and you have the full picture. The government is coercing students to follow a particular religious faith.
Now can you imagine if this was a Muslim coach who prayed in such a deliberately public manner, and as a result some of his players converted to Islam? It would be national news and right-wing Christians would be up in arms! "Government schools are converting our kids to Islam!!!" Shoot, we already see that when the schools simply teach about Islam. I can't imagine what it would be like if they were actively coercing them.
And when you get down to it, that's what this is really about for you, isn't it? As long as public school officials are promoting and endorsing your faith, you're fine with it. You hinted at that when you appealed to what is "good and proper". Ah, but change the faith that's being promoted and I don't doubt for a second that you'd be on the other side screaming and yelling about the government promoting Islam.
So I suggest you try your best to think beyond mere tribalism Lon. If you can do that and place yourself in someone else's shoes for a bit, you just might understand.
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: "Mutual" laws, mores, values, and ANY quote that supports them, regardless of where it comes from is NOT an endorsement of that religion or lack thereof. It is an endorsement of values. Government is inept to remove them simply because "Billy Graham" or whatever is behind the quote. It again, is separation gone entirely too far.
Not if it keeps degenerating to the lowest moral and lowest values. It already doesn't serve and oppresses me and mine. I will fight against that.
This quote from Cecil B. Demille came to mind:
Imho, poor example. EVERY culture was fighting to those extremes and it is wrong to simply apply without discernment these examples across board.
Yet they ineptly stopped a coach from 'silently' praying, thus interfered with his right to worship unmolested. It doesn't matter that he is an employee. This was 'after' the game. It was over. Never mind I disagree that he cannot silently pray when and wherever he pleases unmolested. Scripture says to pray without ceasing. Does that mean no Christian (at your extreme) may work for government???? How far are you willing to take this absurd? To me, it is an absurd.
There is no enforce. Nobody is forced into any religion barring cults. Praying silently is my right. You nor anyone can 1) fire me for it or 2) compel anyone not to practice what innately in their character. 2 Corinthians 5:17 You are creating a false dichotomy. The state tries to by ineptly interpreting the separation clause, but it isn't possible. It becomes oppressive and anti-religion, therefore favoring atheism and secularism by default. It is why our kids are more secular and more atheistic. The public school system is producing this by default. It is time to stop the madness.
Yet, your answer is more ugly by the atheist and secular nature of it. I realize you think it is neutral, but no such neutrality exists in this world. We wrestle not with flesh and blood, BUT with spirits and principalities. A lack, is another spirit, another principality. There is no such thing as a neutral government. It is a pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking and false philosophy. You've bought into that when you went through law-school but it doesn't exist. In theory, perhaps a desirable idea, but it doesn't exist, Town.
Options, not coercion. There is none. Nobody that didn't want to, by example, went to YoungLife. The fear and imagined culprit and arm-twisting never happened. Again: Options, opportunities, NOT coercion. You guys are fighting the wrong battle and it is about the same mentality as other frivolous lawsuits and whims brought to court over some feigned tragedy that doesn't exist.
:nono: It is hurting people. We didn't have Columbines before this 'separation' that is 'supposed' to be helping us, started going this direction into secular godlessness. The persecution of any well-meaning religious expression has caused this. There is a cause/effect. A secular school, rather than celebratory school that hold unity amidst diversity with a celebration of that diversity, causes some of these kids, who would ONLY get it at school, to become people without hope and who then have NO reason not to shoot up their classmates. That is where secular, then atheist, wake leaves those vulnerable kids.
Newton's third law. Inept becomes its own form of equal reaction of damage.
Again, Newton's law. If you remove values, the absence IS a secular godless, and sometimes atheist atmosphere. Town, there is nothing left in its wake. You are really really going to have to examine this. You are leaving something in its wake and it is NOT God. It cannot be, think about this really hard. You cannot leave God out without 'something' taking its place. There is no such thing as neutral in wrestling against spirits and principalities. Something else, and more than not, bad, is left in the wake. You are going to have to understand that sin is a 'privation' and absence. Your worldview has to come to something different than the world now, as you understand it. There is no such thing as 'blind' justice. It CANNOT exist BECAUSE morality and righteousness are God's principles. Only that which is imago deo left in man CAN account for what you desire. Listen to a few of the forefathers and what they meant when saying only Christian/Godly principles can serve this country. They were completely right. AMR says this as well. He's written several times about atheism values and by extension, about secular values. They all necessarily borrow from God by necessity. There is never any morality without God. A secular state cannot serve us. It is a pie-in-the-sky non-reality.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
:sigh: Yep, I've been part of it. The kids that didn't want to pray, didn't pray.
lain:No, what I'm saying is there is value in diversity of perspectives not your own. You don't have to 'be' African American to watch a Kwanza celebration. The kids in school didn't have to go. As a Christian, I had NO problem with them carrying out that celebration during school time. Why? It wasn't forcing anyone to do anything. It was just a celebration. That's it.
Sure, but is prayer a bad thing? :nono: Is eating nothing but kosher while you are on the job a bad thing? :nono: Again, if it is a 'good' thing and causing nobody harm, let the guy wear his yamaka.
Yes, but as I said, that doesn't mean you aren't an atheist when you are doing so, you still retain your person. As a public school teacher, without ever saying a word, my students knew I was a Christian. I asked one or two 'how.' I didn't cuss, was kind, etc. We can't hide who we are. In and of that, you'd have to fire me because if a kid was going to be impressed by Christianity, these kids certainly were. We ARE who we are, always. We can't change that and shouldn't. I shouldn't have 'started cussing' in school to hide my Christianity etc. Again, whatever I am that made kids know I was a Christian, it was purposeful by my living, and evident to them. These laws, pushed too far, would disallow but an atheist to be a school teacher. My concern then, is how far the government will go in this 'attempt' to be secular.
That is what the 3 judges concluded too. I disagree with them. Simply saying 'thank you' is something that should be celebrated, not repressed. Look at the action of 'saying thanks' (something we all value) rather than the offense that it happened to be to God. We can be inept, and frankly, this was inept. There was no foul. Not a one. Nothing to harm anybody. We should all say 'thank you' and learn to do so from others. I don't care who is 'against' being polite or grateful. Nothing else, at that point mattered.
No, that part was already handled in the previous directive. The coach simply decided to do so on his own, according to his own God-given rights and thankfulness. This is simply persecution after this.
No conversion, just expressions. A celebration vs proselytizing.
Nope. Why do you keep jumping that hurdle? I've repeatedly told you if a man bowed to Mecca after the game, it is a celebration of his. It wouldn't bother me in the least. I 'value' giving 'thanks.' You? We can be really mindless sometimes with what we complain about. There is nothing here to complain about. A guy is just giving thanks.
Look, you often try to get personal. I've not done so with you. Treat the subject and address the points. Nobody cares what your or my motives are. Rather, we need to examine repeatedly why we are offended or not by certain things. For me, I want to celebrate our diversity insomuch as it expresses values we all share. If parts of such are a bit different than we'd do, we can learn tolerance and even a bit of appreciation. ANYTHING than encourages kids to be thankful, appreciative, and/or thoughtful, is a better tack. As you suggest, it is indeed beyond tribalism. Rather, by your expression, yours looks more tribal and narrow than mine. :think: What we are both talking about is the way to handle differences: You: trounce/silence them all. Me: learn to appreciate that which is mutual and be accepting of things that might be different. I too, don't want captive audiences of government involvement in proselytizing. I agree those should be firmly, yet tactfully and respectively discouraged. I am not for preaching a gospel message after a football game. In a nutshell, our disagreement may be more over the applications here, than the sentiment. I think we can both live with that. We are disagreeing with procedure at that point, but seem to share some of the very same concerns. I am against the removal of all of who we are and what makes us all unique and different from school. Our kids will never learn tolerance if we simply eradicate everything offensive to everyone. That's the wrong tack and wrong idea.
In your next post, try to remember we share some of these concerns mutually. If we don't agree on policy to address our mutual concerns, at least understand that we aren't often as polarized as you think you are, away from Christians and such concerns. It isn't always us/them. -Lon
Jose Fly
New member
And according to the law and long-standing legal precedent, the government cannot put the public in a situation where they have to make that sort of decision. IOW, the government cannot make its citizens decide "Do you want to join in government-promoted religion or not?"
And most certainly the government cannot put students in such situations.
No one is arguing otherwise.
Right, the students can celebrate and practice their religious beliefs. The government cannot promote or endorse them.
This is my point....you're not disputing that the government was promoting religious faith to students. You're just trying to say "So what? It was a good type of religion".
Unless the employee is deliberately making a public display of it to his students, it's not the same thing.
?????????? No one said government employees have to go around saying God doesn't exist.
Exactly. You didn't go out of your way to promote your faith to your students, whereas this coach did exactly that.
I suppose to a binary mind, neutrality is no different than negation.
That really only matters to you, and unless you figure out some new legal argument it's likely to stay that way.
Except that's not what happened. Had the coach done nothing more than that, we wouldn't be discussing it.
I gotta ask......have you actually read the ruling in this case?
I suppose if by "already handled" you simply saying "no coercion". But in a legal dispute "Nuh uh" is hardly a meaningful argument.
Ah, but he wasn't "on his own", rather he was acting in his capacity as a government employee and his actions were a deliberate endorsement of religious belief to a captive audience (his players) over which he held a very influential role.
His decision to make such a public spectacle was most certainly indicative of proselytizing.
It fascinates me how you keep trying to to recast this as if it were nothing more than a football coach silently saying "thanks" well after the game and after the players had been dismissed for the night. It hints that you aren't really comfortable with the actual circumstances in this specific case, so you're working to create an alternative reality in your mind.
So Lon is perfectly fine with the government coercing children towards Islam. Interesting.
Oh don't give me that garbage. You were the one who brought up my wife (again).
Again, this isn't about being "offended", but is about active, deliberate promotion of religion by the government.
How in the world you've twisted government neutrality towards religion into a tribal position is a mystery.
Not at all. Again we see your binary thinking in action, where if a person's religious expression is restricted in one minor aspect, then that must constitute total "eradication" and "trouncing/silencing" of all religion in all circumstances.
Exactly how was that not the case with this coach's actions?
It's hard for me to say. My interest in this is ensuring that the government is not in the business of endorsing or promoting any particular religious belief, or belief over non-belief. I'm fully supportive of ensuring that citizens maintain their rights to practice (or not) their religion as they see fit.
And that's the key aspect to the football case. The coach was acting in his capacity as a government employee, rather than as a private citizen. If his intent really were merely to "give thanks", why couldn't he do that when he was a private citizen? Why make such an obviously deliberate public spectacle of it?
I agree.
It might help if you stopped accusing folks like me of trying to eradicate religion, promote atheism/communism, and foster more school shootings.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
That would be a refreshing change of pace, wouldn't it?
If i stand on the corner of your street and pray to the Lord God of all, how have I imposed my beliefs on you? Why dont you just admit to being a whiny baby who is actually the one imposing YOUR beliefs on others by trying to take away their freedom.
You dont have to pray, agree or even look at someone praying.
Lon
Well-known member
You wanna stand on my street and pray to Jesus, Budda, Satan, whoever, I don't care. Where we have a problem is when you expect me to participate. In the space of a few sentences, we witnessed Lon try to introduce a tiny bit of his faith into my life and then grow it by a significant increment. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that he would do more of that if he had the chance.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
:nono: I expect it of luna, not you.
You mean rexlunae? He makes a good point. That really is the aim of the more fundamentalist Christians of whatever denomination, but they dance around it. Better to just be honest and come right out and say it.
And BTW, Lon, I'm not here to meet, fall short of, or exceed your expectations.
Lon
Well-known member
Again, we are seeing a difference between coercion and expression.
No, the WA RCWs actually encourage such instruction as and if it falls among the curriculum. Good sportsmanship and thanksgiving ARE part of that curriculum. ONLY second-guessing would suggest anything else. Some students happened to ask the coach what he was doing. He said 'silently giving thanks for you kids, health, and a good game.' End of that story. You nor TH can find anything about promoting religion from that.
Not true. You are saying it isn't good (It is). The law should never protect those who simply disagree with you 'because they are offended.'
He had previously done it for seven years. Nobody even noticed. He never invited a kid out there. So, he was not proselytizing.
Its like you don't ever listen.... I repeatedly have said no, it was not promoting a religion but 'thanks.'
While his refusal was political as far as disregarding the directive, it wasn't for proselytizing. That's the difference here. He was, as he says, just genuinely grateful.
:think: or acting like it?
You and TH must have different news sources than I do.
Correct as to binaries.
Nope, that's what counter-suits are for and this one has one (or more).
That's why I wonder what source you and TH are reading. From what I've been reading, it is exactly that. :think:
Sure. As I said, I don't know what other sources you two are reading, but I've seen nothing BUT accusation, not actuals regarding the matter which is why there are counter suits.
He stopped praying 'with' the players out loud, pre-games.
Again, all I have read, he was against the accusation. It took a player asking "what are you doing?" He basically said "my constitutional right, as is yours to do as you like." So the kid and others, exercised 'their' constitutional right. That is as far as I've gotten and have seen no information contrawise. I saw the ruling, but as I said, it was based on a fear, rather than an actuality. Were the Satanists asked to leave the stadium? :nono:
By your accusation? :think:
I've linked now three times. You? :nono: I've no idea, other than your imagination so far, where you are getting your information from
Could it be the same place the 3 judges got theirs???
Again, display, not coercion. On top of that, my own kids can figure some of this out on their own. I'm not sure if they would have sat next to the
'supposed' Satanists dressed in make-up and horns but I know for fact they'd not have felt persuaded nor really uncomfortable.
In NO negative light. You can carry that tire all on your own. If you read anything but the fact that you enjoy your 'Christian' wife and her "Christian" sentiments, you read too much. My point was life doesn't work that way so your fears are unfounded. IOW, if your wife can't even convert you, your fears are unfounded." Try not to be so defensive where NO offense was given. After that, stop your inane attempts. As it sits, I'm always nicer to you than you ever are to me. Frankly "Odd-man-out" was the only comparison, and that by your own identification and admission. Read your sig again. That guy is you. Nothing you don't admit yourself. So again, leave your inane summations of me behind. Nobody, including me, wants to hear them AND thank you for doing better in this particular post. We always do better when we argue the material, not the person.
"If" it is found that it is, or was, I'll be on page with you. So far? I'm not seeing that and it is a counterpoint to the countersuit as well. The lawyers said it never was for that and that it was simply a silent expression of his faith. Until proven otherwise, we are ALL innocent until proven guilty and so I think there is a good possibility he will win this countersuit.
No, I'm simply saying we don't need to stop being who we are. A secular version of myself is NOT myself. I'm also not for proselytizing BUT I'm not for the sanitized eradicated version of what is killed off in the process either. I don't believe in zero impact of most of our decisions.
Right, else there is a 'gray' area and that is the area that tends to trounce on individual's rights.
Read the other side, the countersuit.
It is the accusation and the ruling BUT the countersuit is contesting that this was the intention or reality. To me? It seems you'd also want all freedoms preserved as well as I. Other than that, I nor my children are adversely affected by celebrations different and other than our own. We don't necessarily 'celebrate' Cinco De Mayo but I don't need to eradicate it or some form of observance at school.
:up:
It should be all of our concern. Somehow, what we are doing, isn't stopping kids from killing kids. I don't think rehanging the Ten Commandments on the wall would stop it but we still should be trying to promote good by quotes and sentiments. If Gandhi says something good about non-violent activism, we should hang it up. We have too many 'take it down!' and not enough 'put that up! :up: ' Maybe here too, we are on page. -Lon