Controlling Radical Religion in the United States-Logan Clarry

Controlling Radical Religion in the United States

The threat of Christian desecularization, or de facto (socially acceptable but not legal) establishment of Christianity as the official religion in the United States, has been a legitimate problem since the late seventeenth century, when immigration to the US was spearheaded by the persecution of Christian sects by the Catholic and Protestant royalties of the different nations, especially England, where religious instability haunted the peasants. This affected Non-Protestants at first, and then it started to affect non-Christians, as they were treated with contempt from their Christian peers, such as the events leading up to Engel v. Vitale. This case ruled that schoolchildren could not be required to pray in school, nor could governments authorize prayers for schools because this violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. This also led to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution stating that the country cannot establish one religion as its official one or prohibit other religious groups from worshipping in the US. Under the following proposal, any pastor who supports the Christian desecularization of the United States will have to fight to the death in modern day arenas with the atmosphere of the Roman Colosseum because America was founded as a secular haven for many religious beliefs, and is heading into the same mess that the European monarchies were with their de jure religious governments.

It is estimated that about ninety percent of the American population would disagree with this view of the problem because either A: They think that it is only a personal problem, pertaining solely to atheists and/or Satanists, B: It would not happen because the Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” (US Constitution, Amendment I), or C: They support the Christianization of the country, and see no problem with forcing their version of religion onto other people, or in their words, teaching people about the word of “God”. One would also ask them, “What denomination will this follow? There are over 100 denominations of Christianity”, or “Would citizens of the United States be required to switch churches every four to eight years as to belong to the same church as the sitting President was raised with? (an example would be a Lutheran taking office and then losing to a Catholic the next election cycle)” If so, this would remind some people of England before the 1701 Act of Settlement, which states that “That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established;” (12 and 13 Will III c 2). This Act was designed to bar Catholics from inheriting the throne, thus keeping the country in one status quo by establishing the Protestant Church of England as the official one. The act itself is also a pro-desecularization factor because there is a lack of tolerance towards other religions in practice and in who shall inherit the throne. A person defending this theory would also state that there are many Christian television stations (examples: EWTN, Daystar), musical artists, (ex. Skillet, Chasen, Mercyme), and radio stations (KLOVE), promoting faith for the Christian population but barely any other religious media for Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. This is not fair, as people of other religions will not only miss the opportunity to teach children about their religion.

The people who solely think that it is only a personal problem should realize that this is a societal problem because there is religious intolerance in countries where one religion is official, especially theocracies such as Iran, who brutally enforce religious laws. Those who think that desecularization could not happen due to the Constitution need to realize that this establishment is not legal, but societal as many people are beginning to take God and Jesus Christ for granted. Finally, the people who support this movement is committing religious intolerance and enforcing a new Inquisition in the US if they manifest this doctrine into law.

There is also concern for the nation as politicians have been leading religious revivals such as Rick Perry’s Evangelical revival at Reliant Stadium in Houston, Texas. This revival was planned long before his campaign for President, but it has a significant impact not only on American politics, but on American society as well because this is an example of a politician endorsing Christianity and acting as a pastor, not the politician who is supposed to keep his religious views separate from his political views. Mark Halperin wrote for Time Magazine that, “As 30,000 faithful took refuge from triple digit heat in the air conditioned safety of Houston’s massive Reliant Stadium On August 6, Rick Perry was setting the place on fire. Mixing Bible passages with his own prayerful words, the Texas governor bowed his head…riding an almost visible wave of emotion in the crowd” (Halperin, 32).This passage shows that he is not only popular among evangelicals, but is a force in the evangelical community and shows the leadership necessary for his post. For people who defend the forthcoming proposal, it will be a nightmare if America elects Perry because they will have a religious president endorsing Christianity as a de facto official religion.

Another issue with desecularization is what is punishable under religious laws. For example, the Inquisition punished people with views that conflict those of the Catholic Church by burning at the stake. The inquisitors, especially in Spain, would torture people to obtain confessions by using tools such as the stretching rack or the strappado. The strappado is a torture device in which “the hands of the accused were tied behind his back and the rope looped over a brace in the ceiling of the chamber or attached to a pulley. Then the subject was raised until he was hanging from his arms. This might cause the shoulders to pull out of their sockets” (Freeman). The author explains that this torture dislocates the shoulders of the accused, and that is not the least of the tools that the Spanish used. The Aragon Wheel of Death, popularized on the television show Machines of Malice, is a wheel where the accused was strapped in a wheel that had spikes on the inside and was spun slowly so the spikes could impale him/her and make him/her confess to heresy. However, these were punishments used in religious inquisitions, not the plan that is being set forth. These inquisitions are a problem and secular laws can help prevent religious violence by providing religious equality for all.

My solution is to have all Christian religious authorities and politicians who support this radical theory fight to the death in an arena similar to the Colosseum in Rome. This is an effective way to control religious sentiment because it reduces the amount of influential religious leaders, thus preventing an uprising in a religious name. Some problems with this include

A: The religious right will have an uprising over it because not only does it decrease their influence, it is morally wrong.

B: Law enforcement may arrest government officials for murder due to the nature of the fights.

C: The Supreme Court may rule it unconstitutional because it violates the Eighth Amendment, and D: The United Nations may sanction us for our “persecution” of Christians.

The religious right will flip out over this solution by calling it morally wrong, but it has been evident that there are Americans who have a bloodlust for such events. An example is violence in professional ice hockey and baseball, where people have been known to cheer for fights. Dirty, Dangerous, and Unfun states that “After the hit on [Marc] Savard, the outcry against [Matt] Cooke was loud, sustained, sincere, and justified. Hockey is a physical game, but there’s no place for headshots like the one Savard suffered. But look where that’s gotten us: an expectation that somehow, the Bruins would retaliate. Would they go after Cooke? Would they go after Sidney Crosby, the Penguins’ star? Would retaliation take the form of a similar cheap hit, or a gloves-on-the-ice brawl?” (Dirty, Dangerous, and Unfun). The author states that hockey takes its place among the ancient bloodsports due to the fans’ expectation of retaliation against a cheap shot. Law enforcement may have a problem with this because they think that it is murder, but if it is governmentally sanctioned, it is legal. The Supreme Court would rule this unconstitutional because the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution states that, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (US Constitution, Amendment VIII). However, this solution of death matches would be an act not only to entertain, but to control religious sentiment among the population. By not being a legal punishment for a crime committed against the laws of the nation, the games would not violate the Eighth Amendment. A law criminalizing any attempt to desecularize this nation will be enacted with violations punishable by death through combat in an arena. Finally, the UN may call it persecution and genocide, to which we will respond by placing other radical religious leaders in the pit so that it is not against solely one religion, but all radical beliefs.

The Roman games, or munera, were established as sacrifices after a person’s death, but evolved as they became more political. Sir Thomas Browne writes that, “captured soldiers had been made to fight with their own weapons and in their particular style of combat. It was from these conscripted prisoners of war that the gladiators acquired their exotic appearance, a distinction being made between the weapons imagined to be used by defeated enemies and those of their Roman conquerors” (Browne). These games were successful because there were crowds packing the Colosseum every day to see this carnage and satisfy the bloodlust that they have.

This will affect not only leaders of different churches, but this will also affect the public opinion as the majority of the United States belongs to some form of Christianity. If any Christian cries persecution, he/she will be informed that it is not just them, and will not be just them as any other religion is fair game too. In the short term, there will be experiments on only Christian leaders, but if the experiment works, then it shall be enforced on all radical religions in a long term version around the country until there are few radical religious leaders left. It is logical because some people are sick of seeing Christian media everywhere, and it is practical because it will about 5 million dollars a year because the fights will happen at current facilities used by major sports teams with the owners getting as much revenue as they would with events such as concerts and shows; and the only costs will be for hand to hand weapons such as swords and knives, as firearms will be banned. The reason firearms will be banned is that people will not want to see a quick shot to the heart or head, but want to see hand to hand combat .There will also be costs for armor, as people want to see a prolonged, intense combat. This will NOT have to be voted on by the people, but by the representatives of Congress as we are a representative democracy, not a true one. I believe there will be a profit to this because there is a market for people who like this kind of action and brutality (just go to a hockey game and when a fight occurs, people will cheer. When a player is bloodied, people cheer more).

An example of Supreme Court cases that uphold the First Amendment is Engel v. Vitale, which states that, “Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law ‘respecting an establishment of religion,’ which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day -- even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited” (Pp. 422-436). This was because New York schoolchildren would say a state written prayer before class every day, and certain people found this unconstitutional. Another example is the case Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, in which the court ruled that churches in Massachusetts did not have a constitutional right to prevent alcohol licenses for businesses under 500 feet away from them. This stemmed from a bar called Grendel’s Den opening near a Catholic church only ten feet away. The church tried to ban the bar from obtaining an alcohol license, but the bar sued and won. The Massachusetts law places the regulation of alcohol with the churches, giving them government powers, and for that reason, plus the ruling in Engel v. Vitale, America should not have religion regulating bars or public schoolchildren.

The fear of desecularization is a problem because in today’s society and previous generations, Christianity has become such a major part of life that society itself is violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by broadcasting Christian messages on TV, in music, and in movies. Although they have a constitutional right to do so, they should not be the only group to do so. The real problem behind this is religious domination, as America was founded by different religious groups immigrating to worship openly without the intolerance that occurred in the European monarchies that were either Catholic or Protestant. America also condemns the tortures of the Inquisition and prevents them with the Eighth Amendment.

The solution is proposed in the manner that it is because it is being proposed to shock and terrorize people. The solution would justify its implementation because it will help control religious fevers and maintain a secular nation, while also raising revenue for the government from fans of this “sport”. This solution in reality would not be worth the criticism because the government that implements this will be charged with genocide due to the many deaths of people of one religious/ethnic group. The societal cost of this solution would be many “innocent” lives sacrificed for the gratification of bloodthirsty, unstable people, just as in Rome.

Imagine that there are a Muslim and Catholic who turn on the television. Instead of their favorite station, they see that an Evangelical Christian station has taken over the airwaves of the former station. They then hear the doorbell ring and when they answer, there are (insert Christian sect here) missionaries who come to their door daily trying to scare them into joining their faith and once again “condemn” them to hell for not believing their version of Christianity, or in the Catholic’s case, for actions beyond that person’s control such as the sex abuse scandals. The Catholic and the Muslim should see to it that the missionaries’ leaders fight each other so that they do not have to constantly answer the door to hear the phrase “You’re going to hell unless you accept the ‘true word’ of ‘God’” (their version).

Works Cited

An Act for the Further Limitation of the Crown and Better Securing the Rights and Liberties of

the Subject, Parliament of the Kingdom of England §§ 12-13 Will III c2 (1701). Print.

Balse, Shyam. "Witches and Heretics." Machines of Malice. Discovery Channel. DSC,

21 Sept. 2009. Television.

Browne, Sir Thomas. "The Roman Gladiator." University of Chicago,2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. .

"Dangerous, Dirty, and Unfun » Bloodlust." Dangerous, Dirty, and Unfun. 2011. Web.

30 Nov. 2011. .

Freeman, Shanna. "HowStuffWorks ‘Torture and Punishment During the Spanish Inquisition’”

HowStuffWorks "History" Web. 30 Nov. 2011. .

Halperin, Mark. "The Lone Star Warrior." Time Magazine 22 Aug. 2011: 32+. Web.

Larkin, et al. v. Grendel’s Den Inc. 459 U.S. 116 United States Supreme Court. 13 December 1982. Print.

Steven I. Engel, et al. v. William J. Vitale, Jr., et al. 370 U.S. 421 United States Supreme Court. 25 June 1962.

P. 422-436. Print.

United States Constitution, Amendments I and VIII

A Watchful Eye; An Effective Solution to Child Abuse -- Holland Foley

Child abuse has been and continues to be a major social problem in America and the world as a whole. Child abuse has many facets, including; sexual abuse, emotional mistreatment, failure-to-provide, educational neglect, and drug abusive parents. On a broader spectrum, child abuse falls into two main categories, Physical and Nonphysical Mistreatment (Giovanni). For hundreds of years children have suffered abuse, and that number is growing exponentially. In 1967 there was less than one report of child abuse for every thousand children, in 1985 that number had grown to 31 reports for every thousand children, and today a report of child abuse is made every ten seconds (Waldfogel). Child abuse occurs in every social class, every ethnicity, and every religion (“National”). Children subject to abuse are not the only ones who suffer, child abuse is a community problem and must be dealt with accordingly. Prevention is the only way to slow the rapid increase in child abuse victims, and eventually eliminate it everywhere. Child abuse can be prevented through the trained eyes of school nurses and mandatory checks and when suspected through the installation of cameras in the child’s home as well as educating children about child abuse.

Defining child abuse is difficult, because there are so many different forms of legitimate abuse. Child abuse is not only the physical abuse that can be seen, but also the mental abuse that is not. Regardless of the type of abuse, the difficulty arises from the fine line between parenting and abuse. One point of view is that something as trivial as spanking could be described as abuse, because “abuse is often a spanking that simply went too far” (Justice). For this reason, some parents may disagree that child abuse is a legitimate problem, saying that parenting requires physical contact with a child. Children throughout history have been viewed as property of their parents, and the “parents have the rights to punish their child however they like” (Justin). So parents who chose to punish their children the ‘old fashioned way’ believe that it is parenting, not child abuse, and therefore these parents refuse to believe that child abuse is a major social problem.

Each state defines child abuse slightly differently, however, as a general statement child abuse is “any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation” (“What”). According to this definition, abuse is serious harm inflicted upon a child. Every child has been spanked or been slapped on the wrist, but never do these simple punishments leave serious lasting marks. A child may not be able to differentiate between being beaten and being parented, because the child only perceives how one set of parents interact with their child. For a child it is easy to believe that all parents severely spank or beat their children due to the child’s limited point of view (Pelton). For this reason it is often difficult to prove that a child is actually being abused. However, children who are repeatedly hit, and are able to point out the places where they have been hit by showing visible bruises, are obvious abuse victims. As an adult, making the distinction between child abuse and parenting is easy; if the parent is unknowingly inflicting pain upon the child, then it becomes abuse. Spanking is therefore not a facet of child abuse, but simply parenting.

The solution to child abuse begins with prevention, because if the problem can be prevented then it will eventually be phased out. According to the National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse, there are two major points that justify the implementation of a prevention program; the realization that the “underlying deficiency of most parents are having serious problems interacting with their children stems from major developmental deficits that occurred when these parents were growing up,” as well as the identification of “crucial periods” in a child’s life which can not be replaced (Helfer). The solution to this horrific problem has multiple facets, much like the definition of child abuse itself. In today’s society, 33.7 million are enrolled in elementary school, which is over one in every four Americans over the age of three (“Education”). Each public school in the United States is equipped with a school nurse who is on-hand not only to care for ill children, but also to perform the dreaded lice checks of every student. It would only seem logical that in addition to these free lice check-ups, there would also be mandatory abuse check-ups. School nurses have a nursing degree and are licensed registered nurses, and according to the National Association of School Nurses they are mandated reporters of child abuse and neglect and must be actively involved in creating a safe environment for children to thrive in. It is expected that upon hire, school nurses are educated and are able to educate others on the signs and symptoms of child abuse and the laws which protect every child (“School”). Nurses must already posses knowledge of child abuse and how to assess it, so there would be no additional training necessary for them, costing the government no money.

During these mandatory check-ups, if a child appears to have suffered abuse a higher course of action will take place. This is the point at which the money that currently funds the Child protective services unit is key. On average, a child protective services worker earns about $40,000 annually and is employed by the government (“Child”). Child protective service agents focus primarily on caring for a family after the abuse has been discovered, however much of their time is spent trying to prove that a child is in fact being abused. Intervention of child protective services has many steps: reporting, screening, and investigation. Often, families are “screened out,” meaning that there is no substantive evidence allowing CPS to continue an investigation (Waldfogel). This process takes time and money, both of which are very valuable in today’s economic crisis. When public schools begin implementing their mandatory checks for child abuse as well as the education about mental abuse, children suffering child abuse will be identified. This act of the public schools will cut down on the need for CPS agents to prove that a child is being abused, and so fewer agents will be necessary.

In the 21^st century, money is time and time is precious. Everything must be time and cost efficient, and many people may argue that checking every child in every public school and teaching them about child abuse is not the best use of the schools money or time. Due to major budget increases, school days are getting increasingly shorter, putting a strain on working parents. Any excuse to keep children in the school environment longer should be welcomed, and not condoned. The cost of this program is negligible but the results will be major. In addition to this, students are already subject to a similar type of mandatory check. Schools are a breeding ground for common diseases and illnesses, such as lice, which can spread extremely quickly. As mentioned earlier, these abuse check-ups would be no different than these lice checks, and overall, much more important to the safety of a child. Regarding the education of the children, teaching them about mental abuse, it is not too drastic.

The next step in preventing child abuse is through education. Often children hide their wounds with normal school clothing, but in the presence of a trusted school nurse, these wounds could be made known. This would prevent the child from having to physically say that he or she is being abused, and often times the child does not realize that he/she is even being abused. Of course there are the instances where a child has fallen off a bike, tripped and fell, or even been sucker punched by a rambunctious friend or sibling. Most of the time the difference between these common childhood scrapes and abuse is strikingly obvious, especially to a nurse trained to observe signs and symptoms of abuse. Physical abuse is not the only type of abuse that children suffer, but unfortunately it is the only type that can be observed in an isolated environment. Children are often mentally abused, and usually unable to understand that they are victims of abuse due to their small perspectives (Pelton). In order to combat this form of abuse, each child would be educated on what mental abuse actually is. This way, they will have the knowledge to decipher between abuse and merely being reprehended. This course in mental abuse will be taught by the school nurses, who possess the skills to educate others on the affects of child abuse.

Children are exposed at a young age to ‘sex-ed’, a lecture discussing the ins and outs of puberty and sex. Educating children on child abuse will be taught in a similar fashion, with a focus on the child’s view of abuse. This will help children to understand what abuse is, and how to differentiate abuse from being reprehended. This education is simply more classroom hours for the students, and it will not cost much to implement because the nurses already possess the skills to educate the children. There is no way to argue that checking students for abuse and educating them on what abuse is is not a valuable use of the public schools systems’ time. Not only are students being monitored for signs of abuse, educated on what mental abuse actually is, but in suspect cases cameras are being installed so that evidence can be collected and used against the abusive parent.

The problem with actually condemning an abusive parent, is that there is usually no substantial evidence of the abuse that can be used against them. Despite the efforts of child protective services (CPS), there is still no way to actually prove that a child is being abused. The CPS agents waste valuable time trying to decipher whether they can gather enough evidence to make a stand against the parents. With this solution, the profits that would be made during these time wasting hours will be used to install cameras in the homes of the children who are suspected of being abused. In this way, abuse can either be prevented via fear of getting caught, or via hard evidence of abuse. Either way, the programs that are implemented currently to help children who have been abused can be more directly targeted to the children that actually are being abused, and not the ambiguous case via the use of cameras.

The huge issue that arises with the proposal is infringement of privacy. The cameras that will be installed in people’s homes could be seen as a major breach of privacy, and that is a valid point. The right of privacy will be disregarded, and the household will be monitored for as long as it takes to prove or disprove that child abuse is taking place. However, child abuse is a crime. Criminals lose their right to privacy when they commit a crime. Nobody complains that people who are on house arrest are tracked every moment of their sentence, or that people who are in jails are monitored extremely closely. Parents who abuse their children do not deserve the right the privacy, and therefore it is justifiable to record their homes. If there happens to be cameras installed in a home in which abuse is not taking place, then the camera’s will be removed as soon as the household is deemed “safe”.

The cover story in Time magazine at one point was the case of Elisa Izquierdo, a six-year-old girl who died from the abuse she suffered from her mother. Her case had been reported multiple times, yet could never be acted upon due to lack of substantial evidence. In the conclusion of the case, one sentence stuck out, “somehow nobody managed to stop it.”(Waldfogel). Elisa, and so many other abused children, could have been saved had this proposal been implemented sooner. This proposal suggests that with the trained eyes of nurses, check-ups, education and installation of cameras child abuse can be prevented No child should have to suffer abuse, and often children cannot or do not say anything about it and it goes unnoticed. The only social cost of implementing this solution is the infringement of privacy, which is completely justifiable in the name of the safety of children. The abused children will not be the only ones who will be helped by this solution, parents will also be set at ease. Parents often fear reprehending their children because they do not want to seem like abusive parents. This solution makes sure that children who are actually being abused and helped and the parents who are actually abusing their children are punished appropriately. Perhaps people have been too frightened to implement something as drastic as this solution in the past, however, child abuse is still rising in the world and something needs to be done to stop it. Someone needs to stop it.

Works Cited

"Child, Family, and School Social Workers." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. .

"Education - American FactFinder." Fast Facts for Congress. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. .

Giovannoni, Jeanne M., and Rosina M. Becerra. Defining Child Abuse. New York: Free, 1979. Print.

Helfer, Ray E. Child Abuse. Chicago: National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse, 1978. Print.

Justice, Blair, and Rita Justice. "Primary Prevention of Child Abuse." The Abusing Family. New York: Human Sciences, 1976. 229-68. Print.

"National Child Abuse Statistics | Childhelp." Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse | Childhelp. Childhelp. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. .

Pelton, Leroy H. The Social Context of Child Abuse and Neglect. New York, NY: Human Sciences, 1981. Print.

Waldfogel, Jane. The Future of Child Protection: How to Break the Cycle of Abuse and Neglect. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1998. Print.

“What Is Child Abuse and Neglect?” Child Welfare Information Gateway. Web. 17 Nov. 2011.

.

Bibliography

Gray, Ellen, and Joan DiLeonardi. Evaluating Child Abuse Prevention Programs. [Chicago, Ill.]: National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse, 1982. Print.

Stop the Violence-Christian Teske

The crisis over the last decade with the increasing number of cases involving violence in the media and the results of people committing cruel crime needs to be stopped. Events where students go to their schools with guns shooting who ever in range, and people going out in society killing others because they watched someone on television do it are accounts media violence demonstrates. Children are playing violent video games and are exposed to brutal real life representation of violence, which gives them the idea that violence is acceptable. Violence in society has been around for centuries, back to Roman Times, but over the last decade violence has been brought to a level unmanageable for people allowing them to do more violent behavior, and think violence is conventional. The average American child witnesses over 200,000 acts of violence on television including 16,000 murders before the age of 18 (Jackson, pg. 1). The continued acts of violence is changing human behavior letting our society to kill each other, hence blocking out all violent acts persisted in the media would solve this problem with restrictions to one’s age enforced by the law.

Violence has been a natural part of human society and has been around dating back since gladiator times. The ones who disagree that violence in the media is not a problem are the ones in charge in the entertainment business. The producers and creators of the violent shows on television are played every day. They would believe that violent actions have been presented in the media for a long time, and that if there were a problem a solution would have happened some time ago. The people in charge would argue that violence is part of the human society and nothing is wrong with people viewing violence. Violence has been practiced and openly viewed for people since ancient times dating back to old Roman Times and gladiators. The people that invent the inconsiderate television shows with violent conduct, and are watched daily by public viewers are unfamiliar with the effects it leaves behind in society to people.

Even though the people believe violence is a part of humanity and we have been using it as entertainment for some time, one needs to understand the effects it has on younger generations to obligate to violent behavior. The fact violence is commonly presented in today’s media leads to the case that viewers see this all the time, and the value and meaning of it decreases to them. “The daily repetition of media violence helps to normalize and legitimize the acts being portrayed. Most crucially, the influence of media violence needs to be understood in the relation to structural inequalities of everyday life” (Carter and Weaver, pg. 56). For over centuries violence has been displayed to society as a custom; however the fact crime and acts of violence increased to level not before seen until recently. The best solution to put an end would be to blare out all violence in the media, for all people to lessen crime and stop vicious behavior. Others who would deny the solution would be supporters of all violent material.

The followers of violent video games packed with real life killing and violent actions, and the ones who buy violent toys for their children would believe it is their own choice to decide what they want to see towards violence. They would believe that it is their right to choose what they please to see concerning violence, because their thrill of entertainment. They would disagree that they are limited to view what they wish in the media of their homes. They have their own right to pick what toys or playful forms of violence they wish to keep or amuse one with. They believe what is presented in the media that has violent actions does not effect or increase aggression towards people leading to violent crime. On the other hand, violent actions in video games, television, or in the society do affect one and can lead to tragedy.

It would seem right that no law should hold one’s right to view what is in the media because how people are use to the media and violence being shown in it. One would say that violence is not a problem and does not effect one’s attitude, however test have been given specifically about violence in the media and if it leads to increase aggression in one and the results found proved. “Violence in video games appear to have similar negative effects as viewing violence on TV, but more harmful because of the interactive nature of video games… Playing video games involves practice, repetition, and being rewarded for numerous acts of violence, which may intensify the learning”(Carll pg. 1). It would seem right to have free choice of what one would view in the media or play, but when the playing of violent video games gives people the practice to be a expert killer and then lead to brutal consequences there needs to be a solution to prevent this. Blaring out violent material would be best, because if the continuance of violent media increases the result of crime would increase. The solution is the only line of attack we can take to stop the violent activities.

The key to end this is no more than blaring out violent performance in the media and society. All acts on the television that retain violent material suggested by the government would be blocked out, and other forms of entertainment would be developed to trade out the violent shows before. Anything violent talked on the radio would be cut out from listeners. In video games violent actions will be taken out and not have killing or carry out any action of it. The media would possess fewer forms of violence and shows without anything harmful to another person. If one wanted to receive the full representation of violence and acts of it he or she would have to be eighteen years of age, and would have to go to a public theater nearby to acquire what they wish. One would have to be of age, because this is the age of maturity for people to understand that violence is real life aggression created in the human mind and a natural part of life, and not what is displayed in the media. The theater would have workers to check people’s identification cards so only people of age would be able to get in. In the public media the FCC, Federal Communications Commissions, Child agencies studying research, and government officials would gather and agree to what constitutes as violent. For that reason, they would choose what would be acceptable for people under eighteen to observe. This possibly will bring to an end or declination of violence in society and people, though there are setbacks to this solution.

The predicament this brings about trouble for the solution would be the in the media programming, but not to a huge extent. Other forms of entertainment would be created for the substitute of violent shows shown before. This could create competition among producers and creators of television shows for other entertainment. In addition the people will know little of it, and that would slow the process of selling violent material to society. Others would agree and believe the solution would stop violence in the younger generation. “It’s also a revelation to younger people when they realize that no one sees the same media production. How we respond to a film, a song, a video game or TV series is colored by our own personal package of attitudes, values and experiences- including past exposure to media violence” (Media Awareness Network, pg. 1). This provides evidence of younger people witnessing violence leads to the insincere thoughts and attitudes to violence. As well as the positive feature of income coming from the public to the government, because people would be more willing to see violence and go out to public theaters to glimpse bloodshed for their own entertainment. People that play violent video games and once were exposed to public media would feel that their freedom and rights would be taken from them, because they would not be able to witness any violence on regular media even though one was shown it before. The reduction of violence in the media can be compared to other cultural forms of media in today’s society.

The comparison of European media to the United States media today gives evidence of how less violence displayed to society helps have a safer and less violent civilization to live in. The media displayed in European cultural would have less violence, because it is presented to a certain group of people who do not have an inspiration towards violence. “Because the media has less access of violence to these communities. This gives people less power to influence the framing of the incident of violence. Between 1997 and 2000...media coverage of street violence one can speak of media hype”(Vasterman, pg. 508-515). As a result the lessening of violence portray in the media can conduct better behavior and less violence in society. Measured to the United States media the more frequent sight of violence displayed in the media results to more violence and higher crime rates. “The highest proportion of violence was found in children shows. Of all animated feature films produced in the United States between 1937 and 1999, 100% portrayed violence, and the amount of violence with intent to injure has increased through the years. American media, in particular, tend to portray heroes using violence as a justified means resolving conflict and prevailing over others”(AAP Policy, pg. 1223). The numbers provide great evidence that violence in the media is a crisis that needs to be discontinued for a safer society, and that the media attracts certain individual’s interest on violence whom may lead to the source of violent behavior in society. Delivering the solution to end violence in the media would best work by means of not showing it in the media.

The social problem may seem easier for people to handle because it is something that can be manage by one’s own rights, but that is not enough to put in order to stop violence. If people were able to choose what they wish to watch violent material on the media it would lead more crime and normalize representation, but simply blocking out the violent material would give guide to less crime and aggression within people. One may believe it is he or she own right to select what violent material one wishes to observe, however the acts of it increase anger from an individual leading to violence among the people. Dave Grossman, Lt. Col. United States Army, studied the first person killing games and violent demonstration in the media to see how violence effects individuals and now teaches classes about the repetitive stimulus response of violence matches the military’s method of images humans’ aversion to killing other humans while it hones reflexes. “I teach them what we know about killing what enables killing, what our psychological response to killing are. How we turn it on and off in our soldiers… and how we’re doing the same thing to our kids”(Grossman, pg.1). The best approach to end the violence would be to cut it strictly out, because the acts and depicts give such real life emotion to viewers of real killing and young kids are examining this leading to the awful behavior in our society. The solution will be set through the law and provide a safer society and less killing.

Despite the fact that decreasing the number of violence in the media government officials, the FCC, and child agencies will decide what makes up as violent and ought to be allowed in the media for people to see. More often than not anything that has a person physically getting hurt similar to; killing, murder, glorious blood aftermath, and even situations to bank robberies. Money would be gained through the public theater, because more people would go out to see violence. The government would place more theaters in communities for the people to get there trouble-free. Different theaters would have a video game section were people of age could pay. All other genre in the media would change the culture of it people will either like it or not, and find other ways of entertaining themselves. This would affect groups of people in the entertainment business whose main art was violence they could lose their jobs. Children’s programming and regular programming would not change dramatically, because there would be more other forms of entertainment in the media. As a result competition inside the industry will develop among producers and keep people interested. This would take a years process from eliminating all the violent material filtered around and all objects of it. The government would employ police to go around and enforce decency law. From now society will be more secure and a change for good will stem in the entertainment business.

This violence we see in the world today must be stopped and the solution requirement must take action, because people are killing and becoming mad from it. The concern for this is of high matter because, younger generations are going corrupt from the continue acts of violence in the media. This gives way to people to consider doing violence and committing violent action as a way of life. The solution is simply blaring out all violent media, because violence will not be shown and understood that it is only a feeling created among the human mind of an individual until later a adult. This will save younger generations to come and people in society, because their will be no violent representation or feelings for it. This is worth the reason for having a more peaceful and safer environment in social order for the people. The cost of taking a favorite source of entertainment from people would have them distressed, and may have once wealthy people out of businesses for a healthier reason.

It is stated for a safer, more dependable, and prevent further situations of brutality the need to stop violence is the achievement. The issue is that the media is filled with disorderly material and is available all day for people to view leading to their cruel ways in society. The concern that violence is increasing and the material in our media is not helping to end that.

If this takes action kids will be safer in our schools and so will people in society from the media not corrupting people’s minds from the violent material. Doing so one can help fight the violence in our nation by writing letters and getting word out to the FCC and public for non-violent television and media. People will be more satisfied and secure in society knowing that the people in it are not mad and violent.