Did De-Emphasis on Christianity Create Columbine?

[Editor’s note: The following speech was given to a House subcommittee by Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado. Comments about the speech have been edited, but the speech itself remains intact. What was expressed 24 years ago seems related to the article on the front page (“Good Friday” Versus “Spring Holiday.”)

Concerning what follows, some have thought that it should be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words, spoken by Darrell Scott, are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. The following is a transcript of that speech (so far as we know) in its entirety.]

Since the dawn of creation there has been both good and evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence.

The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA—because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore, I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder, I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy—it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc.

Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence.

And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs, politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties.

We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

Political posturing and restrictive legislation are not the answers.

The young people of our nation hold the key. There is a spiritual awakening taking place that will not be squelched!

We do not need more religion. We do not need more gaudy television evangelists spewing out verbal religious garbage. We do not need more million-dollar church buildings being built while people with basic needs are being ignored.

We do need a change of heart and a humble acknowledgement that this nation was founded on the principle of simple trust in God.

As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school.

I defy any law or politician to deny him that right!

I challenge every young person in America, and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain.

Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him.

To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!

My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"

Twenty-Four Years Later

Of course, one could argue whether or not the removal of God from the public school system created the situation at Columbine—and several other schools since. It certainly seems possible when one considers the Bible reading and prayer cases the Supreme Court decided upon in 1962-63. When one considers the aftermath of the Scopes Trial in 1925, what one witnesses is the ascendency of evolution and the decline of emphasis on things Divine. Many school districts want to do away with religious holidays, period.

Some of us can remember being told that we came from monkeys in grade school—and how we thought that was one of the stupidest ideas we had ever heard. No, it had nothing to do with the Bible. Most of us were not that familiar with it, and we had never heard of such a thing as Christian evidences. The theory just flat out contradicted common sense. And it still does.

But what are students today being taught in the public schools and in universities? They are being taught that there is no other viable position than evolution. Furthermore, they do not want anything but evolution to be presented in the classroom. After all, it is dangerous to allow students to think, compare, and analyze!

Is your congenial editor making these things up? Or is he exaggerating? What possible motive could anyone have for doing such a thing? The fact is that people have a right to know the truth. To say the least there’s no financial reward for opposing evolution—unlike there is for college professors for upholding it. The following words are from the University of Tulsa, which has “a historic affiliation with the Presbyterian Church.” They cite the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). No one has any objection to true science, but their aim is to advance the theory of evolution.

“Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education.”

The fact is: Evolution has been defeated in robust debating for nearly 50 years, beginning with the Warren-Flew Debate of 1976. The AAAS continues by worrying about “legislation and policies recently introduced in a number of states and localities that would undermine the teaching of evolution and deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens in an increasingly technological, global community.” In other words, students would hear a different view. They would be shown that God creating the world is just as valid a theory as evolution. They continue.

Although their language and strategy differ, all of these proposals, if passed, would weaken science education. The AAAS Board of Directors strongly opposes these attacks on the integrity of science and science education. They threaten not just the teaching of evolution, but students’ understanding of the biological, physical, and geological sciences.

No one is attacking the integrity of science—only the validity of evolutionary theory. Some of the greatest scientists the world has ever known, including Werner von Braun, believed in the Creation.

The AAAS states: “Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called “flaws” in the theory of evolution or “disagreements” within the scientific community.” They do not want to admit that the theory has any legitimate objections, but many legitimate objections can be raised. The AAAS also claims “there is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution.” This is a half-truth; the reason so little controversy exists is that evolutionists refuse to acknowledge someone as a legitimate scientist if he believes in Creation. In fact, they will do all they can to get such an individual fired from his university position.

Many of the proposed bills and policies aim explicitly or implicitly at encouraging the teaching of “Intelligent Design” in science classes as an alternative to evolution. Although advocates of Intelligent Design usually avoid mentioning a specific creator, the concept is in fact religious, not scientific. In an October 18, 2002 resolution, the AAAS Board underlined the inappropriateness of teaching Intelligent Design in the science classroom because of its “significant conceptual flaws in formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentation of scientific facts.” Judge John E. Jones III of the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania firmly reached similar conclusions in the Dover Area School District case.

Is one court case supposed to decide the issue? This was not even a Supreme Court decision—and even they can be overturned. After objecting to intelligent design, they have the nerve to say, “The sponsors of many of these state and local proposals seem to believe that evolution and religion conflict. This is unfortunate. They need not be incompatible.” Really? Gentlemen: True or False. God created the world in six days, each of which had an evening and a morning. Your answer will belie your claim.