SOCIAL STUDIES - Published Monday February 16th, 2009
Canada has the worst laws in the world when it comes to protecting animals.
We have virtually no protection for wild or stray animals. We do not have any way to protect animals that are used in sport, including fighting each other. It also seems virtually impossible to prosecute anyone for cases of neglect.
The main problem is an antiquated series of laws that treat animals merely as property.
My whole family was sick with stomach flu this week. It is terrible to see a baby, who cannot talk, become sick and unable to express the pain and discomfort except through crying. Of course, it is even worse when you see a sick animal. Our dog, Jacob, has epilepsy. Watching his seizures while helpless to explain or comfort him with words is a hard thing to do.
I always grew up with pets; kittens, bunnies, dogs, hamsters. I grew up in the countryside a lot and have taken care of horses and cows. I guess I have always had an animal around me in some fashion or another; as a companion.
I know that some will argue that just domesticating wild animals is a problem; and perhaps it is, but animals have been domesticated for some 10,000 years. So let's just accept that and say if we have animals as part of our households, we should protect them with the same sense as the rest of our family.
Just recently there was a case of a man in New Brunswick killing his dogs with a hammer. He was not found guilty on most of the charges in the end because; well, because they were his dogs to do what he would like with.
There is a difference between a coffee table, and a Labrador retriever. That difference is sentience. No living thing can be seen in the same category as an inanimate one.
The ruling on the Barton case I mentioned above leaves it up to the individual to determine why, for any reason, one would choose to end the life of a pet. As long as it was done without causing too much pain, it would be okay. So, need the fur for a coat, or the meat for dinner, or the body for a sandbag to stop a flood? As long as you get it over with fast and quick it should be okay.
If you are thinking about your family dog or cat then this seems pretty strange to say, doesn't it? But the thing is there is nothing in our law that distinguishes any type of animal from any other, nor is there anything that protects the life of individual animals.
Over the past 10 years 11 laws have been floated in Parliament trying to rectify this situation. They have never succeeded.
Right now Mark Holland is re-introducing his private member's bill on animal cruelty. Now numbered C-229, which is identical to the private member's bill C-373. Since first introducing Bill C-373, Mark has worked co-operatively with respected national and international animal welfare groups which are campaigning for effective animal cruelty law reform. Their concerted efforts are focused on convincing the Conservative government to introduce his bill as government legislation.
Bill C-229, is so important because it would increase penalties for animal cruelty offences and effectively close the loopholes in the Criminal Code that make it difficult for enforcement agencies and the courts to convict animal abusers.
Despite unfounded paranoia, C-229 protects against prosecution and allows for all regular hunting, fishing, farming, ranching, and industry practices to continue lawfully.
Apparently Belgium has laws that protect every sort of animal, farm animals included. As we become more ecologically aware, and as we start to think about our planet less as a machine and more as an organism, we are going to have to revisit our relationships with the other inhabitants of the planet, be they plant, animal or even insect.
Many scientists would argue that every action we take is somehow interconnected. We have all heard the saying that the beating of a butterfly's wings in China affects the weather patterns here in Canada. Well, what if there is an even higher level of interconnectedness? What if our cruelty and neglect going to come back to us as?
I remember the first time I realized just how outnumbered human beings are. Science fiction writers have been suggesting for a long time that insects, which outnumber all other animals four to one, might some day get angry with the way we treat them.
Of course, that is just fantasy, as was Planet of the Apes; which in its own way talked about what might happen if the tables were turned.
The thing is that a living being is a living being. We should be more respectful and careful of how we interact and care for the ones that cross our path. Since we as humans have very little luck with choosing to do the right thing when given the choice; we need regulations to help us.
The New Brunswick laws need to be changed, as does the federal Criminal Code, to provide a protection for animals based no longer on their status as property, but rather on their inherent self worth.
It is only when we begin to take this seriously that we will start to truly understand the depth of our relationship with our brothers and sisters of other species.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Animals do have a soul
RELIGION TODAY - Published Saturday February 14th, 2009
I saw an e-mail the other day which was a battle between church signs on opposing sides of a busy street somewhere in the United States. It started when the Catholic church put up a line from a popular cartoon movie, "All dogs go to heaven."
Then, the Presbyterian church across the street put up "Only Humans Go to Heaven, read your Bible!" The debate went on like this:
"God loves all his creation, dogs included." "Dog's don't have souls; this is not open for debate."
"Catholic dogs go to heaven; Presbyterian dogs can talk to their pastor." "Converting to Catholicism does not magically grant your dog a soul."
"Free dog souls with conversion."
"Dogs are animals; there aren't any rocks in heaven either."
To which, the Catholic church finally put up "All rocks go to heaven."
It would have been incredibly funny to drive down the road each morning and read the new signs. I suspect the Catholic church would have been a lot more fun to attend; the Priest seems like he must have a good sense of humour.
But, it is an interesting question. Animals are clearly part of the created order. If we are Biblical literalists, then God made them first, as part of the whole package. If we are secular humanists, then human beings developed over time from a mutation in the ape gene pool. Either way, there is a pretty close relationship. Anyone who has ever been around any sort of animal -- dog, cat, lizard, horse, cow or bunny -- can't help but notice that they have their own personalities, their own quirks, their own independent thoughts and their own drives to exist, and reproduce. All hallmarks of determining if something is "alive" and "sentient" according to Star Trek.
The English word "soul" derives from a number of different words in the Old and New Testaments and is used in the Bible in a variety of ways. First, it is employed as a synonym for a living, breathing person. Moses wrote: "All the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls." (Exodus 1:5; cf. Deuteronomy 10:22). In legal matters also, the word soul was used to denote any individual. The Lord told Moses: "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, 'If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done." (Leviticus 4:2).
Second, the word soul can be used to describe the physical form of life that both men and animals possess and that ceases to exist at death. In their Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown, Driver, and Briggs noted that the word "soul" (Hebrew nephesh) often is employed to mean "life principle" (1907, p. 659). In Genesis 1:20,24,30, God spoke of the nephesh hayyah--literally "soul breathers" or "life breathers" (often translated as "living creatures" or "life" --cf. Leviticus 11:10). The writer of Proverbs observed in regard to animals: "A righteous man regardeth the life (nephesh) of his beast; but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." (12:10).
Thirdly, the word soul can be used to describe something that is immortal and thus never dies. In speaking of Rachel's death at the birth of her son, Moses wrote: "And it came to pass, as her soul was departing (for she died)." (Genesis 35:18). Hezekiah celebrated the fact that the soul survives the death of the body: "But thou hast in love to my soul (nephesh) delivered it from the pit of corruption." (Isaiah 38:17).
The question therefore becomes: Can the word "soul" be used correctly in referring to animals? The first definition obviously cannot apply to animals since animals are not persons. But the second definition most certainly would apply to animals. In Genesis 1:20,24, the identical Hebrew word is employed to speak of animals as "living creatures" (Hebrew nephesh hayyah).
But can the third definition be applied to animals? Do animals possess immortal souls that one day will inhabit heaven or hell? Religious columnist and Veterinarian Michael Fox wrote:
"There is indeed a kinship in the present diversity and evolutionary continuity of all life . . . It is more important today than ever before for human beings to be aware of their kinship with all life. It is essential for our survival that we have a strong reverence for all forms of life as our kin . . ."
Theologian Frank Hoffman wrote in his book, All Creatures Here Below:
". . .if the animal sacrifice is the precursor, or type of the final sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour, which is a mainstream Christian teaching, is God's Word not also telling us that animals do have souls? . . . Now then, why are we reluctant to accept the fact that animals do have souls? Because we are still trying to hold on to some of our pride, and perhaps our greed. If we do not accept the fact that animals have souls, then we may have a self-acceptable excuse for the way we treat the rest of God's creatures, which is not in accordance with God's desire, but ours."
So, I would wade into the argument with those U.S. Roman Catholics and declare, from what I have read and from personal experience, 'my dog, Jacob, has a soul.' And so does every other creature. Now, how are we going to treat them?
I saw an e-mail the other day which was a battle between church signs on opposing sides of a busy street somewhere in the United States. It started when the Catholic church put up a line from a popular cartoon movie, "All dogs go to heaven."
Then, the Presbyterian church across the street put up "Only Humans Go to Heaven, read your Bible!" The debate went on like this:
"God loves all his creation, dogs included." "Dog's don't have souls; this is not open for debate."
"Catholic dogs go to heaven; Presbyterian dogs can talk to their pastor." "Converting to Catholicism does not magically grant your dog a soul."
"Free dog souls with conversion."
"Dogs are animals; there aren't any rocks in heaven either."
To which, the Catholic church finally put up "All rocks go to heaven."
It would have been incredibly funny to drive down the road each morning and read the new signs. I suspect the Catholic church would have been a lot more fun to attend; the Priest seems like he must have a good sense of humour.
But, it is an interesting question. Animals are clearly part of the created order. If we are Biblical literalists, then God made them first, as part of the whole package. If we are secular humanists, then human beings developed over time from a mutation in the ape gene pool. Either way, there is a pretty close relationship. Anyone who has ever been around any sort of animal -- dog, cat, lizard, horse, cow or bunny -- can't help but notice that they have their own personalities, their own quirks, their own independent thoughts and their own drives to exist, and reproduce. All hallmarks of determining if something is "alive" and "sentient" according to Star Trek.
The English word "soul" derives from a number of different words in the Old and New Testaments and is used in the Bible in a variety of ways. First, it is employed as a synonym for a living, breathing person. Moses wrote: "All the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls." (Exodus 1:5; cf. Deuteronomy 10:22). In legal matters also, the word soul was used to denote any individual. The Lord told Moses: "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, 'If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done." (Leviticus 4:2).
Second, the word soul can be used to describe the physical form of life that both men and animals possess and that ceases to exist at death. In their Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown, Driver, and Briggs noted that the word "soul" (Hebrew nephesh) often is employed to mean "life principle" (1907, p. 659). In Genesis 1:20,24,30, God spoke of the nephesh hayyah--literally "soul breathers" or "life breathers" (often translated as "living creatures" or "life" --cf. Leviticus 11:10). The writer of Proverbs observed in regard to animals: "A righteous man regardeth the life (nephesh) of his beast; but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." (12:10).
Thirdly, the word soul can be used to describe something that is immortal and thus never dies. In speaking of Rachel's death at the birth of her son, Moses wrote: "And it came to pass, as her soul was departing (for she died)." (Genesis 35:18). Hezekiah celebrated the fact that the soul survives the death of the body: "But thou hast in love to my soul (nephesh) delivered it from the pit of corruption." (Isaiah 38:17).
The question therefore becomes: Can the word "soul" be used correctly in referring to animals? The first definition obviously cannot apply to animals since animals are not persons. But the second definition most certainly would apply to animals. In Genesis 1:20,24, the identical Hebrew word is employed to speak of animals as "living creatures" (Hebrew nephesh hayyah).
But can the third definition be applied to animals? Do animals possess immortal souls that one day will inhabit heaven or hell? Religious columnist and Veterinarian Michael Fox wrote:
"There is indeed a kinship in the present diversity and evolutionary continuity of all life . . . It is more important today than ever before for human beings to be aware of their kinship with all life. It is essential for our survival that we have a strong reverence for all forms of life as our kin . . ."
Theologian Frank Hoffman wrote in his book, All Creatures Here Below:
". . .if the animal sacrifice is the precursor, or type of the final sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour, which is a mainstream Christian teaching, is God's Word not also telling us that animals do have souls? . . . Now then, why are we reluctant to accept the fact that animals do have souls? Because we are still trying to hold on to some of our pride, and perhaps our greed. If we do not accept the fact that animals have souls, then we may have a self-acceptable excuse for the way we treat the rest of God's creatures, which is not in accordance with God's desire, but ours."
So, I would wade into the argument with those U.S. Roman Catholics and declare, from what I have read and from personal experience, 'my dog, Jacob, has a soul.' And so does every other creature. Now, how are we going to treat them?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The loudest voices are often a minority
SOCIAL STUDIES - Published Monday February 9th, 2009
What if I could find a clever way to say that men were better than women? Would you allow me to put up a poster all over town making fun of women?
What if it was saying, in a nice way, of course, that Caucasians were the master race?
How about if we made fun of people with different sexual orientations, or perhaps people who are too tall?
Okay, surely we could make fun of the elderly. . . .
Hopefully the majority of my readers are shaking their heads and asking what I am on about. Fair enough.
Here is what astounds me, religion, especially the Christian religion, is not afforded the same basic rights and protections that we afford almost any other group.
Every time someone wants to go on record attacking religious people for erroneous views, it becomes national news, and everyone weighs in on the argument instead of asking "could you be saying the same sort of thing about any other single group of people?"
You have probably heard the news that the TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) seems to be okay with allowing ads on the buses and subway which read: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
It started in the UK after a comedy writer, Ariane Sherine, saw an evangelical church ad on a bus. In an online blog with a local newspaper she wrote that if she were to declare on London buses that a lion had escaped from the city zoo, she'd be required to give evidence, so why wasn't any required of Christians for their advertising? Sherine hoped to raise enough money for a set of counter-adverts on London buses if enough people pledged £5. Her appeal brought pledges of £140,000 (about $250,000) and the proposed campaign became far more widespread.
Over there, the ads have unleashed a wave of public response, with one devout Christian bus driver in the south of England being supported by management in his refusal to drive a bus adorned with the ad. The slogan has gained attention from some Members of Parliament, who have called on the government to ban it.
I am not trying to be pro or anti these ads; my beef is completely different. Religious fundamentalists, of whatever stripe, account for somewhere around 12 per cent of all religious peoples. I mean there are only 12 per cent of Muslims who are fundamentalist, 12 per cent of Christians, Baha'i, Hindu, Buddhist, you name it.
Now, it is the religious fundamentalists that believe if you do something wrong you are going to burn forever in a lake of fire. Every other religious person believes, in one variant way or another, that God is love; that humanity is progressing towards something. Most religious people also believe that we were created as rational, thinking, inquisitive beings who become scientists and surgeons and surveyors for a reason. By "created," I also mean that solar energy mutated the zygotes in a mud puddle billions of years ago and voila.
Unfortunately it is the fundamentalists who both speak loudest and get heard the most; think Jerry Falwell and Osama bin Laden.
Then you have reactionary bus advertisements that paint everyone with the same brush. God is going to get you if you have fun. . .
Back to my opening paragraph; is there any other group we could paint with one brush and get away with it? No, there is not; it was rhetorical question.
So what of free speech? I have always understood that in order to qualify for free speech the facts have to be straight. As a local politician said to me one time not so long ago, you don't pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel. The other side of that is that if you are crazy enough to put your opinions down for thousands of people to read, you have to be right, or you will get called on it.
Do you know how long it took for someone to call me on writing that Tim Horton's makes such and such a profit on a cup of coffee? I had a letter in my inbox in three hours from the federation of coffee growers pointing out that I had doubled the profit margin.
This level of accountability is not a bad thing, merely a curious thing when religious slogans are free to make exorbitant claims for or against God that really are not based even on a factual representation of the people on either side of the debate.
That in the end is my pet peeve. I wish people would stop assuming that those loud and outrageous voices are the majority -- and I am talking about politics, religion, health care, journalism, or in fact any expression of opinion.
The majority of people are in fact moderate in their thinking and actions. This especially needs to be said in terms of religion.
It would seem that more arguments, fights, and outright wars are developing around religious intolerance every day, most of which are based on totally false portrayals.
The United Church in Toronto has the best response I can think of. They are buying their own advertising and changing one word: "There probably is a God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life!"
What if I could find a clever way to say that men were better than women? Would you allow me to put up a poster all over town making fun of women?
What if it was saying, in a nice way, of course, that Caucasians were the master race?
How about if we made fun of people with different sexual orientations, or perhaps people who are too tall?
Okay, surely we could make fun of the elderly. . . .
Hopefully the majority of my readers are shaking their heads and asking what I am on about. Fair enough.
Here is what astounds me, religion, especially the Christian religion, is not afforded the same basic rights and protections that we afford almost any other group.
Every time someone wants to go on record attacking religious people for erroneous views, it becomes national news, and everyone weighs in on the argument instead of asking "could you be saying the same sort of thing about any other single group of people?"
You have probably heard the news that the TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) seems to be okay with allowing ads on the buses and subway which read: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
It started in the UK after a comedy writer, Ariane Sherine, saw an evangelical church ad on a bus. In an online blog with a local newspaper she wrote that if she were to declare on London buses that a lion had escaped from the city zoo, she'd be required to give evidence, so why wasn't any required of Christians for their advertising? Sherine hoped to raise enough money for a set of counter-adverts on London buses if enough people pledged £5. Her appeal brought pledges of £140,000 (about $250,000) and the proposed campaign became far more widespread.
Over there, the ads have unleashed a wave of public response, with one devout Christian bus driver in the south of England being supported by management in his refusal to drive a bus adorned with the ad. The slogan has gained attention from some Members of Parliament, who have called on the government to ban it.
I am not trying to be pro or anti these ads; my beef is completely different. Religious fundamentalists, of whatever stripe, account for somewhere around 12 per cent of all religious peoples. I mean there are only 12 per cent of Muslims who are fundamentalist, 12 per cent of Christians, Baha'i, Hindu, Buddhist, you name it.
Now, it is the religious fundamentalists that believe if you do something wrong you are going to burn forever in a lake of fire. Every other religious person believes, in one variant way or another, that God is love; that humanity is progressing towards something. Most religious people also believe that we were created as rational, thinking, inquisitive beings who become scientists and surgeons and surveyors for a reason. By "created," I also mean that solar energy mutated the zygotes in a mud puddle billions of years ago and voila.
Unfortunately it is the fundamentalists who both speak loudest and get heard the most; think Jerry Falwell and Osama bin Laden.
Then you have reactionary bus advertisements that paint everyone with the same brush. God is going to get you if you have fun. . .
Back to my opening paragraph; is there any other group we could paint with one brush and get away with it? No, there is not; it was rhetorical question.
So what of free speech? I have always understood that in order to qualify for free speech the facts have to be straight. As a local politician said to me one time not so long ago, you don't pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel. The other side of that is that if you are crazy enough to put your opinions down for thousands of people to read, you have to be right, or you will get called on it.
Do you know how long it took for someone to call me on writing that Tim Horton's makes such and such a profit on a cup of coffee? I had a letter in my inbox in three hours from the federation of coffee growers pointing out that I had doubled the profit margin.
This level of accountability is not a bad thing, merely a curious thing when religious slogans are free to make exorbitant claims for or against God that really are not based even on a factual representation of the people on either side of the debate.
That in the end is my pet peeve. I wish people would stop assuming that those loud and outrageous voices are the majority -- and I am talking about politics, religion, health care, journalism, or in fact any expression of opinion.
The majority of people are in fact moderate in their thinking and actions. This especially needs to be said in terms of religion.
It would seem that more arguments, fights, and outright wars are developing around religious intolerance every day, most of which are based on totally false portrayals.
The United Church in Toronto has the best response I can think of. They are buying their own advertising and changing one word: "There probably is a God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life!"
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Why does violence seem closer to home?
SOCIAL STUDIES - Published Monday February 2nd, 2009
Between 250 and 300 people have died in a war in Sri Lanka this past week.
We read something like that in the headlines and we almost dismiss it out of hand. It is far away, and violent things are always far away.
A man who had five kids in California came home after losing his job and shot them, his wife, and himself dead. Of course, California is part of the United States and, well, Americans are always shooting each other.
A man walked onto a busy subway platform and opened fire in Toronto. Hey, someone is shooting someone almost every second day in Toronto; that's why we all stopped moving there and headed for Calgary.
Last week there was a drive-by shooting at the community college in Woodstock. Yes, Woodstock, New Brunswick.
I do not really think of myself as naive. I have lived in a lot of violent places. I was even a student in Montreal and hung out in some very seedy parts of town. I have spent time in Mexico City and Guatemala City. It is not that I think the world is a nice place; it is simply that this is New Brunswick.
I remember decades ago when I was growing up in Hampton that we did not lock our car doors. We did not even lock our house doors. When something went wrong, or something went missing, you had a pretty good idea who took it and you went and got it back. My bicycle was stolen once and it took exactly one day for the RCMP to return it.
I am not being naive about Hampton in the 1980's either. There were bad people there. There were even sexual deviants in our small little town. But we knew who the dangerous people were, and we never put ourselves in harm's way. It was easy to figure out because you could predict what was going to happen.
I happen to have spent some time in Woodstock. It has changed a bit since the new highway has gone in, but it is the proverbial one street town. There are some rough crowds there. There used to be a bar called JR's which I remember getting into a few fights in; but for there to be a drive-by shooting just seems unbelievable.
It seems too cliché to ask what the world is coming to, so let me ask you this, why is it getting more violent?
Some people have wanted to blame video games for a long time, but recent research from A&M University of Texas says that a decade's worth of statistics and research has failed to drum up any evidence. I remember a cop a decade ago saying it doesn't make you any more violent, it might make you a better shot.
In fact, psychologist Richard Ryan at the University of Rochester in New York says that gamers are actually craving control and competence; two things that actually are not part of the usual desires of a psychopath.
What about violence on television?
There are in fact many studies that seem to link the amount of violence we witness on television to the amount of violence we either enact, or tolerate.
Back in 2003 Reuters Health determined that children who watch pro wrestling are more likely to get in physical fights. There have been other long standing studies, including a study in upstate New York that has followed kids for over 20 years, which seem to prove this link.
So here is the thing. I love television. Not only that, but most of the shows I watch are extremely violent.
Battlestar Galactica, 24, NCIS, CSI, Fringe, The Unit, Ghost Whisperer, Lost, even Chuck. I like to be comfortably oblivious to the fact that what I see on television is unbelievably evil and violent.
In fact, I enjoy the sheer escapism of existing, even for an hour, in that other world of which I currently do not have a part.
How easy is it to separate fantasy from reality any more though? Every week, on television, I see at least five people killed in horrible ways.
I now have two daughters who do not sleep so well, and so end up snuggling in my arms as I watch television late at night sometimes. I usually choose to watch Gray's Anatomy or something when they are awake, but even then. It is a hospital and people die.
Do we need the violence to be entertained?
MASH was one of the most interesting and entertaining war stories ever told and it almost never showed physical violence. When it did, it was for great effect.
I almost can't believe I am saying this because it goes so much against my wants and desires, but I know it to be true that we should shield ourselves from some of this fantasy violence if we ever hope to become a more peaceable dominion once again.
Once you see something over and over, it becomes easier to justify, to understand, and to ignore.
I don't want to be shot in front of the Library. I think if I was, it might just be my own fault.
Between 250 and 300 people have died in a war in Sri Lanka this past week.
We read something like that in the headlines and we almost dismiss it out of hand. It is far away, and violent things are always far away.
A man who had five kids in California came home after losing his job and shot them, his wife, and himself dead. Of course, California is part of the United States and, well, Americans are always shooting each other.
A man walked onto a busy subway platform and opened fire in Toronto. Hey, someone is shooting someone almost every second day in Toronto; that's why we all stopped moving there and headed for Calgary.
Last week there was a drive-by shooting at the community college in Woodstock. Yes, Woodstock, New Brunswick.
I do not really think of myself as naive. I have lived in a lot of violent places. I was even a student in Montreal and hung out in some very seedy parts of town. I have spent time in Mexico City and Guatemala City. It is not that I think the world is a nice place; it is simply that this is New Brunswick.
I remember decades ago when I was growing up in Hampton that we did not lock our car doors. We did not even lock our house doors. When something went wrong, or something went missing, you had a pretty good idea who took it and you went and got it back. My bicycle was stolen once and it took exactly one day for the RCMP to return it.
I am not being naive about Hampton in the 1980's either. There were bad people there. There were even sexual deviants in our small little town. But we knew who the dangerous people were, and we never put ourselves in harm's way. It was easy to figure out because you could predict what was going to happen.
I happen to have spent some time in Woodstock. It has changed a bit since the new highway has gone in, but it is the proverbial one street town. There are some rough crowds there. There used to be a bar called JR's which I remember getting into a few fights in; but for there to be a drive-by shooting just seems unbelievable.
It seems too cliché to ask what the world is coming to, so let me ask you this, why is it getting more violent?
Some people have wanted to blame video games for a long time, but recent research from A&M University of Texas says that a decade's worth of statistics and research has failed to drum up any evidence. I remember a cop a decade ago saying it doesn't make you any more violent, it might make you a better shot.
In fact, psychologist Richard Ryan at the University of Rochester in New York says that gamers are actually craving control and competence; two things that actually are not part of the usual desires of a psychopath.
What about violence on television?
There are in fact many studies that seem to link the amount of violence we witness on television to the amount of violence we either enact, or tolerate.
Back in 2003 Reuters Health determined that children who watch pro wrestling are more likely to get in physical fights. There have been other long standing studies, including a study in upstate New York that has followed kids for over 20 years, which seem to prove this link.
So here is the thing. I love television. Not only that, but most of the shows I watch are extremely violent.
Battlestar Galactica, 24, NCIS, CSI, Fringe, The Unit, Ghost Whisperer, Lost, even Chuck. I like to be comfortably oblivious to the fact that what I see on television is unbelievably evil and violent.
In fact, I enjoy the sheer escapism of existing, even for an hour, in that other world of which I currently do not have a part.
How easy is it to separate fantasy from reality any more though? Every week, on television, I see at least five people killed in horrible ways.
I now have two daughters who do not sleep so well, and so end up snuggling in my arms as I watch television late at night sometimes. I usually choose to watch Gray's Anatomy or something when they are awake, but even then. It is a hospital and people die.
Do we need the violence to be entertained?
MASH was one of the most interesting and entertaining war stories ever told and it almost never showed physical violence. When it did, it was for great effect.
I almost can't believe I am saying this because it goes so much against my wants and desires, but I know it to be true that we should shield ourselves from some of this fantasy violence if we ever hope to become a more peaceable dominion once again.
Once you see something over and over, it becomes easier to justify, to understand, and to ignore.
I don't want to be shot in front of the Library. I think if I was, it might just be my own fault.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
