Gun Control or Heart Control? A Great Awakening?

By David Eaton

In the aftermath of another heinous act of mass murder, this time at a high school in Parkland, Florida, there was the usual spate of hand-wringing over the question of gun laws in the United States.

For the record, I’m not fond of guns and would like to see greater prohibitions on the sale of automatic weapons. That said, it was not at all surprising to hear certain commentators reflexively cite and blame the usual suspects (the NRA, the GOP) for “America’s gun problem.”

In a discussion after the Parkland shooting, MSNBC commentator Mike Barnicle asked the rhetorical question, “Is this a cultural problem?” The answer should be fairly obvious.

Our “gun control” problem is a resultant phenomenon, a symptom of a serious cultural and spiritual disorder. By all means, let’s have the debate about guns and laws, but we need to understand this is not fundamentally a “gun problem” but rather a “heart problem.”

It’s well-known that politics is downstream of culture. The Greeks understood this long ago; Plato was very perceptive when he cited musicologist Damon’s assertion that “if you change the songs of a nation soon you will change the laws.”

Politicians and our political punditry are reacting to the Parkland tragedy in the way they have for decades. Rather than examine deeper cultural concerns — family breakdown, sexual immorality, a debased entertainment industry — their focus immediately becomes political.

This is not to suggest there isn’t a law-and-order aspect in the equation. However, we already have many gun laws on the books. Both the Parkland perpetrator and Las Vegas shooter obtained their guns legally. There are as many as 100 million gun owners in the USA and most are law-abiding citizens. Most gun-related crimes in the USA are committed with illegally obtained weapons. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet annually leads the nation in gun-related crimes — over 4,000 cases in 2016.

A study on gun–related crime published in 2017 by the federal National Institute of Justice found that between 1993 and 2013 gun ownership increased by nearly 50%. Yet during the same period, gun homicides decreased by nearly 50%. Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin pointed to the fact that in the 1950s there were far, far fewer gun laws on the books, yet the kinds of mass shootings we are seeing with disturbing frequency were almost non-existent.

In spite of the fact there are laws on the books intended to mitigate crimes such as murder, domestic abuse, driving while intoxicated, rape, etc., people still commit these crimes. When these occur, justice is usually served and punishment meted out. But laws will continue to be violated because this is not primarily a law-and-order issue, but rather a behavioral issue rooted in one’s spiritual and psychological disposition. Because our identities, individually and collectively, are determined by what we value, treasure and love, our behavior will reflect those values.

It’s no secret we are facing a moral crises and our sense of morality has become deeply skewed. There are many of a liberal persuasion who wish not to engage in discussions regarding morals because of their trepidation about “religious” connotations and the accompanying component of “judgment.” Because the current iteration of progressive orthodoxy hails openness and tolerance to be significant aspects of its Holy Grail, judgment is considered anathema to all that. For progressives, making distinctions on the basis of any moral standard vis-à-vis behavior is often viewed as being discriminatory — invidious, in fact.

To be fair, there are some of a conservative/capitalist persuasion who also avoid moral issues because it might negatively impact profit margins. “Sex sells” is a primary dictate of Madison Avenue. Then there is Hollywood.

Unspoken in many of the “gun control” discussions is just how inured we’ve become to violence due to the promotion and glorification of sex and violence in popular culture. Film producers, directors and musicians make fortunes by creating and aggressively marketing content that has morally corrosive aspects to it. Yet these same people are often the first to condemn the NRA or GOP for their failures to address the gun-control issue, as well as chide religionists for being backward and out of step with contemporary social norms. This double standard is fairly typical, but yet another example of the moral malaise in which we now live.

Causal Dimension

In 1934, anthropologist, J.D. Unwin, published his seminal book, Sex and Culture. In an attempt to examine the Freudian premise that “civilization is a byproduct of repressed sexuality,” Unwin studied 86 cultures and tribes going back thousands of years (Sumerians, Greeks, Romans, et. al.), and found that in every case when sexual mores were loosened, societies fell into moral decay and tended to dissipate. As a liberal, Unwin was somewhat conflicted with his findings, but in the spirit of anthropological integrity published his results anyway. Not wanting to cast moral aspersions, he wrote:

“I offer no opinion about the rightness or wrongness… In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence.”

Monogamy, according to Unwin’s research, has been the constant factor in the success and survival of all societies, regardless of their political, religious or cultural characteristics (his research corroborates St. Augustine’s contention that people and nations fail because they choose to love the wrong things). Though his conclusion speaks to the importance of marital fidelity, his side-stepping of the moral issue — rightness or wrongness — leaves us needing a more thorough explanation. We need to connect the dots. Because family breakdown has become epidemic, children are not inculcated with well-defined moral codes; thus moral confusion often results in immoral conduct.

According to Divine Principle, it is precisely the misunderstanding of God’s principles regarding love — divine, parental, conjugal, filial — that lies at the heart of our cultural maladies. Divine Principle instructs that the divine aspects of love, sexuality and morality must be understood in the context of Godism if we’re ever to find our way out of the moral confusion that continues to plague humankind.

Chapter Two of Divine Principle explains that because humankind does not yet live in a time where God’s absolute standard of goodness has been fully realized, moral and ethical standards in human societies vacillate. Consequently, we are living in an age in which conflicts — political, social, cultural, ideological — will inevitably occur. The course, motivation and ramifications of the Human Fall as described in Divine Principle provide an understanding of the root of human proclivities and how we might free ourselves from the wages of original sin and fallen nature.

Essential to the account of the course and motivation of the Fall are the matters of jealousy and “lack of love.” Because the Archangel did not process jealousy in a principled fashion, he became predisposed to unprincipled behavior. This issue is of primary significance, for without knowing the principled ways to process inappropriate or unprincipled emotions, we inevitably deviate from God’s ideal. By not being able to properly process resentment, jealousy or rage, we become predisposed to the problems of sexual immorality, family breakdown, corrupt politics, depraved entertainment — and gun violence.

Accountability and Judgment

Most Unificationists are not likely supportive of Ayn Rand’s concept of rational egoism, but all might agree she was correct when she stated, “You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.” As we come to terms with the reality of school shootings we see that many of the perpetrators were from broken homes, had mental health problems, spent copious time on social media, had misanthropic tendencies, and were addicted to video games. 

Of all these contributing factors, a case can be made that family breakdown has the most deleterious effects on the hearts and minds of young people. It is an issue that should not be easily dismissed as being a myopic, Christian (and thus judgmental) explanation as to why these tragedies occur with alarming regularity. In this respect, judgment is an important component in shaping our cultural identity. Avoiding the discussion about the realities of family breakdown and infidelity because it may be “judgmental,” or because it may cast moral aspersions, is counterproductive to the process of solving the “heart control” issue.

As British philosopher Roger Scruton observes, judgment is implicit in any faith-based community because once ideals and tenets are firmly in place, there is expectation that good citizens of the community will abide by them in order to realize the “ethical vision.” For the religious person there is an understanding that judgment is our destiny — something we all will encounter when we ascend to the spiritual realm. This concept is deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian cultural sphere and though we may live our lives with the intention of doing what is morally and ethically correct, how we actually behave in relation to others is the ultimate measure of our contributing to an ethical society.

As Scruton observes, our intellectual life has become “one vast commotion of specialisms,” where making distinctions between the “virtuous and the vicious, the beautiful and the ugly, the sacred and the profane, the true and the false — is to offend against the only value judgment that is widely accepted, the judgment that all judgments are wrong.” A prevailing opinion in contemporary culture is that exercising any kind of judgment is somehow illiberal and mean-spirited.

Subsequently, the morality of our culture declines and we continue to be lost in the abyss of moral relativism, situational ethics or worse — a “post-truth” culture (see Graham Simon’s essay on the AU Blog on this topic).

Coming to the realization that there are moral truths, and not merely interpretations of truth, is crucial. By accepting such, responsibility and accountability become significant aspects in our psychological maturation. Not to accept this reality is being irresponsible and immature.

In his Farewell Address to the nation upon leaving office in 1796, President George Washington gave heed:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”

Perhaps the Parkland tragedy will conjure a “great awakening” that will prompt us as a people to put an end to the day-to-day abnegation of religious-based morality.

Lack of love, jealousy, resentment, and the accompanying bad behavior triggered by these emotional impulses can only be assuaged by the proper understanding of the causal dimension of the Human Fall.

If we think about it, guns, fire, music, religion, money and even politics, can have beneficial aspects as well as deleterious ones. Motivation and intent determine everything. Dealing with the “heart control” problem starts with a proper diagnosis of the cause of the problem. Only then can a proper remedy be prescribed and real healing take place — and our “gun control” problem be ultimately resolved.♦

David Eaton has been Music Director of the New York City Symphony since 1985. In addition to his conducting career, he has been an active composer, arranger and producer with 64 original compositions and over 700 arrangements and transcriptions to his credit. One of his recent compositions, “70 and Counting!”, was performed at the United Nations as part of its 70th Anniversary concert in 2015. In 2016, he was awarded an honorary doctorate by UTS.

31 thoughts on “Gun Control or Heart Control? A Great Awakening?

  1. Thank you, David. With regard to the entertainment culture, I rarely watch movies or TV. But I was stuck on a 12-hour flight and watched a couple, or parts of a couple of movies, and saw the screens of passengers around me. I was amazed at the cold-blooded, heartless constant murders in some of those movies, on the part of the heroes as well as villains. Pistols to the head, knives through the throat, a man stuffed down a meat-grinder, all by glamorous and chic men and women. The movies compete for creative/cool gruesomeness. We need a cultural revolution.

    • I tend to like action shows. You are right that the violence and trauma in them is totally unrealistic, in terms of what kind of a beating people can take and keep on ticking. Also, if you believed Hollywood and the news then gruesome violence seems to be a constant of life, when in reality, it’s nearly never been less than it is now, and it’s on a downward trend. Despite what you see on TV and the movies, or even what David says, automatic weapons have been nigh on impossible to get in the US for more than 80 years. No bad guys are using them in any kind of criminal activity in the US.

      But, I still like action shows because this is the typical story: normal people are living normal lives until bad people show up and start doing heinous things; the nature of their actions makes it pretty clear that they need to be stopped by any means necessary. Then the normal guy becomes a hero by doing really bad things back to the guys acting badly; until the bad guys stop, or are defeated, it continues. When the evil is defeated, there is resolution and the good guy stops doing bad things.

      The story of good vs. evil is a worthy story.

      We yearn for a time with less evil and violence in the world. The really great news is that we are moving towards that time, not because it’s HP’s providence, the merit of the age or the inevitable arc of human progress, but because good people stand up and act righteously.

      Morality stories with strong heroes help give people courage. I applaud them.

  2. Great piece, David. One question I have is: Will we be able to have this cultural re-set (I hesitate to call it a “cultural revolution” after the Chinese version stained the term) until we re-set human nature, as in the emergence of the True Heavenly Culture after the Coming of Heaven. I know this is very idealistic, but then again that’s what True Parents are — the ultimate idealists as to the possibilities for human beings.

    • Yes, Henri…we have had the right people (TPs) and right teaching (DP) to assist us in the “re-set” of culture and values. DP and UT speak to the very issue of axiology and the moral aspects of all creative endeavors — art, music, the cinema, et. al. (I like your “cultural re-set” term, BTW).

      I’ve mentioned this before but Father states in CSG that the “ism” in Godism means “way of life.” Taking that concept out of the realm of the abstract and into the realm of application we can then fashion a culture — and the artistic pieces that begin to express or reflect those ideals — that begin to lift us out of the cultural malaise that inundates us with the most degrading types of cultural expressions.

      What has been encouraging in the aftermath of the Parkland tragedy (and the #MeToo movement), is that there is now a rational, national discussion about values and what is considered appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Morality is beginning to be discussed in the context of how we define ourselves — individually and collectively. It’s about time — and necessary.

      • Everything else is either distraction or a holding action (keeping destructive forces at bay) while doing #tribalmessiah.

  3. So fair-minded and erudite; very impressive. Thank you for delving into why it is so hard to state the obvious about the damage resulting from children growing up lonely and disconnected under adults who are lonely and disconnected in a culture that peddles the notion that all solutions involve violence (and sex). This essay was helpful for me to sort things out.

  4. Excellent, enlightening piece, David, on a very serious issue.

    There is a great need for a rational discussion and debate on the firearms issue. While I agree that it is clearly and primarily a moral, or as you put it, “heart” issue, most of us are still immature in matters of the heart and morality. Therefore, better and enforceable laws are needed while we are in the process of evolving to the “ideal” state you allude to. Simple things like better background checks, longer waiting periods (e.g., 60 days), written and practical exams, checks for mental stability, requiring references from family members, etc., would go a long way to improve the current situation. It seems easier to acquire a gun than a driver’s license or passport in the USA. The fundamental reason for the Second Amendment was due to the then battle with the British over 200 years ago. Times have changed and improving gun laws will not infringe on the “right” to bear arms. Some might even consider amendments to the Second Amendment.

  5. I don’t see the business world nor the next generations waiting around for peaceful families and domestic tranquility to emerge somehow. Nor will they buy erudite discussions and historical perspectives.

    In the financial and business community, BlackRock, the largest equity management company in the world, is moving to divest from the gun industry. I heard the CIO of CALPERS, the pension investment arm in California, state flatly he does not see the industry as a growth one. As baby boomers pass away and the younger generation votes more and is elected, they do not see gun sales growing and voting trends changing dramatically. The owner of storied Smith & Wesson is trying to emerge from bankruptcy. The power of the NRA they see as eroding and similar lobbying groups supporting gun regulation as growing and being more powerful than the NRA.

    And 20+ major firms to date have ended their partnerships with the NRA. Culturally, one difference between the U.S. and other countries on this issue is the importance of money and the NRA in this issue. The financial and business community see things changing. Gun revenues will be declining and thus the power of the NRA and its influence on the political world and debate.

    And the millennial generation and those younger, the ages of those in Florida now speaking out, already outnumber the boomers and others. Their ownership of guns and views are markedly different. I see them funding organizations as influential as the NRA and a lot faster than we might think. They are voting and will be elected. These generations will standup and politicians will find the courage to follow their lead.

    Once a gun manufacturer is successfully sued in a class action suit, control or regulation will be the norm. Big tobacco thought this would never happen and the Harvey Weinsteins thought their status quo would remain, but “the times they are a changing.”

    I am a gun owner and am not worried about my rights being regulated.

    • Hey, Rob. Do you know how to boil frogs? If you try to throw them into a boiling pot they will jump out. So, you put them into a lukewarm pot and allow them to get comfortable. Then you very slowly raise the temperature. Voila! Job done. Namaste!

      • Gary,

        I think you missed my point. My comment was not about control vs. no control, but that the demographics and markets are shifting. Gun sales are slowing. The next generation sees them differently than ours does. Smith & Wesson is filing for bankruptcy and some of the largest money managers made a financial decision that guns are a declining market. And the recent tariffs on steel will tend to make guns more expensive. These are financial arguments, not moral or political ones. Maybe the gun manufacturers will be the frogs in the pot. We will see.

    • “I am a gun owner and am not worried about my rights being regulated.”

      I do not believe fair and balanced regulation is the vision. I believe loss of gun rights altogether is the vision.

    • Fundamentally you might define a right, but you can’t really regulate it any more than you can deny the exercise of it.

      The Second Amendment is about the human right to defend oneself, one’s family, life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. Without this right, you have no others except as delusional belief.

  6. I thank you very much, David, for writing this article. English not being my first language, I hope you will not mind us using a few paragraphs of your paper for our Tribal Messiah’s “Purity Revolution” Outreach — which is principally based on J.D. Unwin’s book Sex and Culture.

  7. Another interesting and disturbing revelation has emerged in the post-Parkland discussions, namely, Broward County’s policy of fighting what is known as the “school to prison pipeline.” Read how Broward County school and law enforcement officials implemented a policy to reduce arrests in order to prevent stigmatizing young people and protect their future employment status or college entrance possibilities. Had the Parkland perpetrator been arrested and prosecuted for his prior unlawful behavior (e.g., bringing weapons to school), perhaps his heinous actions could have been thwarted. This is yet another example of moral and cultural confusion. When law enforcement is politicized or becomes ensnared in politically correct attitudes, we shouldn’t be surprised about deleterious outcomes.

  8. Thank you David Eaton. There is little to disagree with here.

    As TM is suggesting, “peace begins with me”. It is up to each of us to create a culture of peace. The cause of all evil, crime and malfeasance comes from the corruption or lack of good culture.

    A few days ago, I had the opportunity to talk to a young Muslim (non-practicing). He told me that he had been shot and his associate killed by three teenage thugs with guns during a robbery at his gas station (in the hood). He volunteered passionately that “the problem is the culture in some communities (sic racial minority). In the Islamic culture families teach their kids the difference between right and wrong. We understand that if we do wrong things Allah will burn us. In this other culture the only wrong thing is to get caught, then you are punished.” As a victim of gun violence he never suggested that guns were the problem or the cause. Only the culture.

    Many ask, “Why is this happening, suddenly with so much frequency.” When we were growing up we were all taught clearly about right and wrong by our parents, in our schools, in our places of worship, by our coaches, our culture. Not so, today. What changed? Not the guns. We had the same Second Amendment.

    Whose tribe did these shooters belong to? Father once told us after a jet crashed in Chicago, killing all on board. “If something bad happens in your area you should repent. It means that you did not do enough.”

    Fix the culture and everything else will be fixed. Culture begins with myself and my family and my tribe.

  9. Thank you, David; a very good piece. Since studying Lincoln, I have been fascinated with the power, and limits, of leadership. One major problem we are facing in the U.S. is the collapse of moral responsibility among most of our political leaders. But this can also be traced back to ignorance of our founding traditions, specifically their emphasis on establishing a republic of virtue as in your George Washington quote.

  10. The students on the “March for Our Lives” today are focused on changing gun laws and will achieve some of their aims. I was struck by one that mentioned there are more laws governing toilets than govern guns. I wish them well. Perhaps the generation after them will get to the root cause of gun violence: the archaic Second Amendment.

  11. Just a minor point, but automatic weapons have been outlawed since 1934. Many people get automatic and semiautomatic weapons confused. Machine guns are automatic. An AR-15, used in the Florida shooting, is a semiautomatic varmint rifle, less powerful than most handguns but accurate for shooting squirrels.

    In terms of a new awakening, it is unfortunate that the Church has missed its chance to make a major difference in improving the culture. After a Near Death Experience where I spoke with God directly, it has become clear to me that TF should have placed more emphasis on uniting religion and science, which he made some attempt to do with such things as ICUS and the spirit world machine project. Since 1975 when Raymond Moody’s book came out and was circulated around the movement at the time, much research has been done which has led to hard scientific evidence for the existence of God and life after death. It is clear to many scientists that this world is made of quantum pixels of energy. Those who have been on the other side recognize that the energy is the love of God. Experiments in Quantum Physics like the two slit experiment also point to the fact that this energy is alive and aware, capable of being influenced by consciousness.

    What if this was taught in science class? What if it was taught that God is the source of the loving energy that powers the universe and makes us all one. What if it was taught that we are spirits having a physical experience, rather than matter having a spiritual experience? And what if it was taught that travelers come back from that other dimension describing a perfect system of justice where you experience a life review from the point of view of those around you, whose lives you affected, and you experienced every good and bad thing you did to them, feeling every punch and kick, every slight and taunt, and felt exactly what they felt physically and spiritually. So that everyone knew that your actions are reflected directly back into you with perfect precision. You punish yourself as you reward yourself by how you treat the others in the body of God. God is us. We are God. Since we punish ourselves, there is no need for God to punish us or condemn us. Our judgement is our own.

    If we are really interested in helping humankind then we must aim to reach a point where there are no religions, a place that TF spoke of when we truly understood that only True Love matters and that even the seemingly most insignificant selfless, loving act is the most important thing to God. Where we realize that there are no kings and queens or reverends or priests in the spirit world. There are only brothers and sisters growing in love and becoming more one with God. I was given a choice to come back here or to stay on the other side. When God talked to me about it, it was humorous to Him. He was joking around with me, like He knew what I would say even though I had to think about it. The moment I realized how devastated my wife would be if I left her behind, I woke up in the ICU. There is so much scientific information about God and the afterlife due to the massive research that has been done. It needs to be taught far and wide. If we do that, creating a scientific basis for the belief in God, then humanity will be revived.

    • “After a Near Death Experience where I spoke with God directly, it has become clear to me that TF should have placed more emphasis on uniting religion and science…”

      Gil, you don’t know how happy this sentence makes me. I have been working on this stuff for years and have noticed a shift in the attitude of our church/movement toward science. From an acceptance and excitement about science when I first joined in 1984 to a skepticism of science today that is more in common with the views of Evangelical Christianity. Mother’s restarting ICUS and tasking it to environmental issues perhaps marks another change and a renewal of interest in this area.

      I know my response has nothing to do with guns, but this issue of science and religion cuts to the fundamental core of our view of existence. Which in turn underpins everything else. Dr. Andrew Wilson believes that Father’s hope for the first ICUS was that the scientists would have accepted Unification Thought and from that developed the basis for a new culture. I fully agree with him, but my own work suggests that Unification Thought itself was not up to the task. Specifically that Unification Thought, or perhaps Dr. Sang Hun Lee, did not fully understand how the view of existence in Divine Principle was different to that of Christianity and the Christian philosophical tradition.

      My contention is that the type of thinking behind Unification Thought separated from Divine Principle and turned our movement down the wrong path. A path that is a dead end with respect to unifying science and religion. Further, that this has prevented the full potential of Divine Principle for the unification of science and religion to be realized. Consequently the task is not first to teach in science classes, but rather to understand more fully our own tradition. What is new about the New Truth of Divine Principle? That is to get our own thought back on track. To understand the theoretical basis for how Divine Principle is continuous with scientific explanation so that it can realize Father’s original intent for ICUS.

      • David,

        I was a presenter at an ICUS conference in Korea back in 2001. I gave a paper on the moral and ethical aspects of music and attempted to draw parallels between the lawfulness of physics (Pythagoras, Kepler, et. al.) as it applied to music and certain tents of Chapter I — polarity, give and take, etc. The scientists who thought I was daft were more concerned about an exercise that arbitrarily linked musical pitches to DNA code.

        So, what questions/issue do you believe need to be addressed in the juxtaposing of DP and UT as part of the renewed ICUS initiative?

        • David,

          Ah, scientists don’t like arbitrary things without experimental support.

          As to the core issue? Personally I believe the core issue for science and religion goes to the view of existence, the ontology, that underpins the whole thought. Christian doctrine and philosophical tradition begin from the form-and-matter ontology of Plato, and its modification by Aristotle. Divine Principle begins from an ontology of relationship within and between discrete existing beings. This is a totally different ontological starting point for Divine Principle.

          Now bring in science. As soon as experimental evidence for atoms was provided, science falsified form-and-matter ontology, such that Christian philosophy and experimentally supported scientific explanation are mutually exclusive. It is simply not possible to fully reconcile the two. However science does not falsify the relational ontology of Divine Principle. Rather the opposite is true, the relational categories of Divine Principle give us an alternate, and complementary, way to view scientific explanation itself. Divine Principle has a continuity with scientific explanation not found in Christian philosophy.

          If Unification Thought had followed the position of Divine Principle, all would have been well, but it did not. Dr. Lee tried to place Divine Principle in the context of the Christian philosophical tradition — and in so doing he gave priority to the traditional form-and-matter ontology over the relational ontology of Divine Principle. Consequently Unification Thought as it exists now, just like Christian philosophy, cannot be fully reconciled with science.

          How can this help the current iteration of ICUS? Other than providing a basis to accept climate and environmental science itself I am not sure. At the first of the new conferences last year there was a group interested in science and spirit that wanted to become a formal subgroup of ICUS. This would have fit right in but it was not supported. Hopefully down the road a bit when it becomes established as a serious conference we can begin to look at the spiritual dimension to environmental issues.

        • David,

          Have you tried to contact the ICUS organizers about this? It seems very important.

        • David,

          Yes, I have. In addition to publishing in the Journal of Unification Studies, since 2005 I have also presented papers at several Unification Thought conferences in Japan and Korea. Unexpectedly, I was even able to speak at February’s Hyo Jeong symposium after the last leaders’ meeting in Korea. I was in Korea for the ICUS conference. My topic was the evolutionary theology of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who is also very significant in the area of science and religion.

          Unfortunately, I have not found a lot of traction — actually, not any traction. The movers and shakers in our more academic organizations are invested in Plato and Christian philosophy, particularly Kant, and it is difficult to introduce something else.

  12. David Burton’s comments on the core view of existence that underpins the philosophical and doctrinal tradition of the Hellenistic-Christian stream of thought and the difference with the relational (dual-characteristic) view of Divine Principle vis a vis science is one of the most important comments made on this and any other blog. David’s insight helps clarify not only the DP position with science but also in our other discussions about headwing and related sidebars such as gun control and more. I suggest David Burton, if he hasn’t done so already, share more about this fundamental and pertinent philosophical issue.

  13. As far as I know, every single mass shooter in modern memory has been estranged from religion. Every major religion teaches terrible spirit world consequences for such grievous sin. When people no longer believe in such consequences, a society becomes a much nastier place.

Use the box below to submit a new comment (To reply, click "Reply" within a specific comment above)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s