A Cultural Change We Desperately Need

In his immensely popular book, "The Purposeview theft as being almost as bad as violence and
Driven Life", one of the major points that Pastorthen treat it that way. Our new view of it would
Rick Warren tries to make is that people mustresult in theft becoming more stigmatized. At that
change the way they think before they canpoint, we would likely institute more of a
change the way they live. I believe the samezero-tolerance policy toward it, with thieves being
principle applies to cultures. As I've mentionedpunished more severely than they are today.
many times before, I do not believe morality canThen, perhaps, theft would become more of an
be legislated. All the laws in the world againstanomaly and less of an expectation.Foul language
every imaginable immoral act will not make anyhas become a mainstay of modern dialogue. While
culture or nation better or more righteous.I don't agree with the cultural conservatives'
Instead, we need a cultural change that comes asefforts to censor various forms of media, I do
a result of modifying our opinion about certainagree with their perception that our culture has
things in our society. Specifically, we must changebecome coarsened. One of the major
the way we view violence, theft, foul language,manifestations of this coarsening is our increased
and personal responsibility.Sadly, the culture ofuse of profane and vulgar language. In fact, our
violence is so ingrained into American culture thatlanguage has become outright callous and is
the two have become almost interwoven. Wequickly headed toward becoming atrocious. On top
have come to accept violence as a fact of life.of that, habitual use of foul language makes us
We wink at it. We even laugh and make jokesseem collectively boorish.When I was growing up,
about it. I believe this attitude stems from theback in the 1960's and 1970's, I believed that
fact that, for many centuries, we have blithelycertain "bad" words had just recently been
accepted idea that it is sometimes okay for ainvented. I was wrong, of course. They've been
man to strike or assault another man for reasonsaround for centuries. However, they weren't used
other than to defend himself or someone elsein polite society or mixed company. They were
from imminent physical harm. For example, wemainly confined to locker rooms, sports fields,
seem to think it is sometimes acceptable for abars, dance halls, smoke-filled back rooms,
man to give another guy "a good beating" forbattlefields, etc. They weren't used in many other
"mouthing off" at him. Some people refer to thisvenues because people viewed them as
attitude as "old school." Well, if that's old school,inappropriate.Fast forward to the early 21st
classes need to be shut down immediately!Let'scentury and we can't escape foul language, no
look at what this mindset as led to. Since thatmatter where we go, except maybe for our
kind of escalation has been accepted for so long,houses of worship. It's on TV, it's in the movies,
people now often escalate from hitting toit's at our work place, it's in the classroom, it's at
shooting or stabbing, without thinking twice. Manysocial events, it's in the "music" being blared out
young people today see no difference betweenby the driver next to us at the stoplight, etc.
those forms of violent escalation. In their minds, ifThings have gotten to the point where some
one form of escalation is acceptable, then whypeople literally can't verbally communicate without
not another? Of course, mobsters, gangs, andthe use of profanity or vulgarity in every other
those involved in the drug culture have never hadsentence.What happened? We let our guard down
any problem with the escalation of violence, butand started accepting this kind of language
now that sentiment has spilled over intowithout blushing or raising an eyebrow. We
mainstream society.Violence has become a staplestopped correcting and punishing children for using
of our entertainment industry. Violentit. We eventually became indifferent to it. We
entertainment, even in its most graphic form, andneed to shrug off our indifference and start
is considered socially acceptable. In fact, the FCClooking at foul language as both unnecessary and
cannot fine broadcasters for violent content as itextremely rude. Once this attitude change
can for sexually explicit or vulgar content.We needbecomes prevalent, we could well be on our way
a whole new attitude toward violence. It should beto a more gentile society.Another problem that
completely abhorrent to us. Those who harmplagues modern American culture is that we have
others with violence, other than in cases of selfbecome a nation of blame-shifters. Far too many
defense or the like, should be consideredof us are constantly looking for someone (or
disgusting. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't wantsomething) else to blame for our own actions. In
to see all manliness as well as manly sportsaddition, we often hold one person (ex., the child
erased from our culture. I'm not one of thosewho got his bike stolen) accountable for the
fanatics who advocate such foolishness. In fact,deliberate and illegal actions of someone else (ex.,
football and boxing, what some people would callthe person who stole it). We also expect the
the two most violent sports, are two of mygovernment and or our fellow citizens to bail us
favorite sports. Also, if two guys want toout or relieve us of the consequences stemming
mutually agree to settle their differences byfrom our illegal and/or unwise behavior. When
"duking it out", that's fine with me. However,they fail to do so, we act as if we have been
when someone resorts to the use ofwronged. The root cause of these attitudes is
unnecessary and unexpected violence againstthat we have a distorted view of the role of
another person, it should be interpreted as apersonal responsibility.We need to amend our view
barbaric act and treated as such by our laws.of personal responsibility in such a way that we:
Violence will never be completely eradicated from(1) require that any natural consequences resulting
our society, but it can be greatly reduced.from a person's behavior, both private and public,
However, this will only happen when we begin tobe borne solely by that person and (2) hold people
view it as unacceptable.As is the case withentirely responsible for their own actions and
violence, our culture seems to accept theentirely blameless for everyone else's.Accordingly,
inevitability of theft. It didn't use to be that way.we would rightly blame the person who actually
There was a time when almost everyonedoes the crime, not the one who (although
respected the property of others and would notnegligently) might make it easier for him or her to
bother it. However, people now have to keep thedo it. A person would not be allowed to blame
doors of their homes and cars locked to keep the"hate speech" for his or her violent actions.
contents of such from being stolen. In fact, weCriminals would not be permitted to use the
spend millions of dollars a year on devices thatexcuse that their parents abused them as
attempt to prevent would-be thieves fromchildren. Poverty would not be a valid excuse
stealing our cars, breaking into our homes, andeither. The victims of shootings and/or their
robbing us of other precious possessions.Wefamilies would be blocked from suing gun stores.
sometimes excuse theft and take it lightly. WeRapists could not pin the blame for their actions
treat it in such a matter-of-fact manner that weon pornography or indecency in the media.
assume that a certain (high) level of it is alwaysWhoever commits a crime would do the time. We
going to exist. For example, most stores seemwould rid ourselves of the scapegoat mentality
resigned to the "fact" that a certain percentagethat says someone else could be prosecuted or
of their merchandise will be lost to shoplifting.Insued for it. If the perpetrator could not be caught,
addition, we often seem to hold everyone but theno one would be punished (criminally or civilly).We
thieves themselves responsible when theft occursdesperately need a cultural change affecting all of
(I'm getting to a general point on that later). Forthe areas that I have described. Without it, we'll
example, if a child leaves his bicycle outside,soon find ourselves in the wastebasket of
unprotected, overnight and it gets stolen, the childhistory.Terry Mitchell is a software engineer,
gets yelled at for being irresponsible. Now, if thefreelance writer, and trivia buff from Hopewell,
child goes outside and gets molested by aVA. He also serves as a political columnist for
pervert, I bet his parents wouldn't yell at him.American Daily and operates his own website - -
Why the difference? Because we treat childon which he posts commentaries on various
molestation as unacceptable while treating theftsubjects such as politics, technology, religion,
as somewhat of a norm. I don't mean to makehealth and well-being, personal finance, and sports.
light of child molestation in any way, but we oughtHis commentaries offer a unique point of view
to treat theft as unacceptable too.We shouldthat is not often found in mainstream media.