Murders and Shootings to "Relieve Pressure"

For those of us blessed to live in areas where violence is low, the thought of any murder can be very frightening—of course, in this regard, we must remember Matthew 6:27. But these stories are really just more sad reminders of the nature of man in our fallen state; despite what secular humanists would have us believe, we struggle with the dark consequences of the Fall each day. The world, even for all its technological advances, is not getting better.

We recall thinking these same thoughts when, during the attempted evacuation preceding Hurricane Katrina last year, snipers began shooting at people helping evacuate hospitals in New Orleans.1 What makes the killings in Seattle so “bizarre,” really, is the seeming randomness of them. Decades and centuries ago, killings were much more about blind passion, greed, revenge, etc.—none of them justifications for murder, but reasons that society could “understand.” For example, if someone killed a bank teller during a bank robbery fueled by the love of money, society wouldn’t condone that, but would at least understand how the murder was rationalized in the killer’s mind.

...we begin to see murder used not as a tool to further avarice, lust, or revenge, but rather, just as an end unto itself.

But as evolution soaks into the minds of millions of people and poisons the conscience of entire generations, we begin to see murder used not as a tool to further avarice, lust, or revenge, but rather, just as an end unto itself. This is why we included the link to the story about Zachariah Blanton, who shot at highway vehicles to “relieve pressure.” There is an increasingly “Greek” mentality among young people today. Years ago, when children were taught do not murder, the teacher could point right to Exodus 20:13 and Genesis 4:10 as a justification, and everyone understood that this was a mandate from, literally, the mouth of God.

But in today’s public school system, the idea of not murdering is either (A) not justified, because it is assumed everyone agrees that it is wrong, or (B) it is justified based on some idea of a “social contract” to respect the lives of others. Regarding (A), it’s only a matter of time before society, as we “progress” farther and farther from Thou shalt not kill, loses the common understanding that “it’s just wrong.” Those who learn the (B) justification will eventually run into philosophical difficulties grasping what makes a social contract binding, especially for a generation already suicidal!