Jim Rayphand
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are strictly that of the writer and do not explicitly or necessarily reflect, nor represent the policies and position of Northern Marianas College.
MY first and only reaction to the news of a young man being fatally shot on a college campus in Utah was disgust with a visceral sense of nausea and immense sadness. To make it worse, the shock and dismay in the eyes and rattled voice of my 13-year-old son who watched the video footage of blood spurting out of the man’s neck as he fell back from a gunshot broke me in a way that I still can’t reconcile.
“Dad,” he said. “They say his kids were there and saw the whole thing… I can’t get that image out of my mind. They didn’t have to shoot him!”
“I know, Son. I’m sorry you had to see that,” was all that I could offer in the moment.
My son didn’t have to witness it of course, but short of cutting him off any online access, the internet is not about to let him or any of us on the web get by without a front row seat to this murder. As if that weren’t bad enough, social media has taken up the baton of vitriol overtly intent on having people beat each other over their heads with it. Essentially, some people didn’t like how that man made them feel and have now taken to turning on anyone who may not feel the same. Internet algorithms coupled with brittle spirits are quarrying chasms between people — even pitting brother against brother or family against family.
How insane, if not maddening, is it that the very public murder of a man (for the world to see) can be overshadowed by how people feel about his personal beliefs and whatever he had to say (emphasis added) about those beliefs? For emphasis, a man got shot down in cold blood for speaking his mind and some people’s reactions are to celebrate because his rhetoric (not his actions, but his words) did not align with their own worldview. The saying use to be, “I weep for the future,” but it seems to me that future is now.
I didn’t know the man personally and frankly whether I liked or didn’t like what he had to say has zero bearing on how I live my own life — I have my own moral compass with my own spin on what that looks like in practice. Still, at the risk of alienating so many people I know, I will say that I’ve listened to several video recordings of his debates, and I simply don’t see the hate being attributed to him; in fact, I agree with much of what he’s had to say. But, let me also add that there is no verse or logic grounded in the Bible or anywhere else that he or anyone could regurgitate to make me love my daughter, daughter-in-law, nieces, nephews or anyone else who is gay any less. And as much as I pray that all pregnant women would choose life for their babies, I cannot be convinced that it isn’t their sole right to choose. I don’t agree with him (or with most staunch Bible bangers) entirely, but I don’t hate him and unlike him I don’t have the will or decency to even want a debate over my own or anyone else’s opinions. For that matter, if I chose to hate anybody entirely for any opinion that they may not agree with me about then I would hate everybody. We can agree with some of the people some of the time, but we can’t agree with all of the people all of the time.
Now, in the spirit of biblical debate, I believe it’s Joshua 24:15 wherein the Israelites are told to “choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve” — Joshua presents a clear choice and declares his own but leaves the final decision to them. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 30:19 says, “I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore, choose life that your offspring may live.” The point is the Bible itself teaches that God created humans with free will and the opportunity to choose. So, if the Bible is your main guiding source, then be reminded that even Adam and Eve were given the freedom to obey or disobey God’s commandment not to eat from the tree of knowledge. The irony (or maybe it’s hypocrisy) of pointing to examples of tolerance from the vengeful God of the Old Testament does not escape me.
Our college campuses should be the Mecca for open discourse and, when necessary, civil disobedience, namely nonviolent action in which we combat the unjust through advocacy for social change. The killing of Charlie Kirk for doing exactly that (in and around our country’s college campuses no less) is vile and reprehensible. I would say the same about anyone killed over differences in ideology but make no mistake — with God as my witness — I believe wholeheartedly in the principle of punishment that is proportionate to the offense committed. Exodus 21:23-25 — “Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” In other words (given a fair and impartial trial and a verdict of “guilty”), I hope that the internet grants me a front row seat at the public execution of the coward who committed the murder.
May the algorithm of life and death bring peace to us all.
