What we teach at fault
As I was watching the final capture of Boston-bombings “Suspect No. 2,” the TV showed a picture of the 19-year-old boy. I could imagine his predicament: tired, scared, thirsty and hungry; so young, and surrounded by others who were necessarily willing to kill him. Why, allegedly, did he do what he did to get to that point?
The answer is that he was taught. So, I have to ask: What are we teaching our children?
Our legislators are teaching them that it is OK to borrow money with no intention of repayment. There's a word for that.
Entertainers teach them that violence and crime are sources of amusement. Our government says it is legally OK to terminate a human life in its mother's womb.
And our schools? I don't know what they are teaching. But I do know they are not teaching our children about God or religion. In effect, the wisdom of the ages has been banned from our schools.
Parents and churches seem to be the last refuges of truth and moral training. But how many children grow up with two parents these days?
Despite all of this, the truth is a stubborn thing. I guess that's why I am still an optimist.
The first step in solving a problem is knowing you have one. If we are going to teach our children properly, we need to start today by praying for the wisdom we are lacking, and by doing what each of us can to stand up for the truth. The cost of failing is just too high.
Richard J. Krauland
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Rhetoric & reality
- Buffer zones needed I
- Buffer zones needed II
- An Obama explanation
- Ex-Im & Westinghouse
- Diabetic shoe access
- Despair & chaos
- The bell tolls
- Extension agent remembered
- Corbett better choice
- Getting bad advice