Religious Right is Wrong When it Comes to Guns

I have written before about the large numbers of Bible-believing Christians who are advocating against any governmental control (link here) of guns. Anyone standing outside the walls of the fundamentalist community might find it strange that people who strongly profess to have a loving God (Jesus) would also strongly profess their governmental right to kill people with very powerful weapons.

I have watched this debate with some interest—scanning the talking heads out there for any evidence that SOMEONE in the Bible-believing community finds the whole gun rights argument to be outside the purview of religion. I have not yet found anyone, although I am sure that they exist. However, I did hear of a Christian pastor who gave a reason why the fundamentalist community is so strongly in favor of killing people with very strong weapons.

This pastor said, “The biblical basis for this is the Golden Rule.” He then continued; “Do unto other what you would have done unto you.”

I was momentarily taken aback. I do not want someone to murder me, how could I then go out and murder someone? Surely this was not what that pastor meant.

That pastor was talking about protecting other people. The fundamentalist Christian community uses The Golden Rule as their reason for being “The Great Protector.” They want the right to carry powerful weapons because they feel that no one else is going to protect them.

This may be a philosophy, but it’s not a good religious philosophy. In fact, using the Golden Rule as the basis for killing people with very powerful weapons is the ANTITHESIS of good religious philosophy. Let me state this more clearly.

One of the passages in the Hebrew Bible which gives Christians the foundation for their Golden Rule is Leviticus 19:18—“…thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Do unto others is related to loving other people as yourself. This makes sense. But there is nothing in Leviticus 19:18 about using powerful weapons to kill people. Nothing.

Leviticus 19:18 has a sentence before "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. This sentence is even more strongly against using powerful weapons to protect oneself. The first part of the verse in Leviticus 19:18 is as follows: “Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people.” The verse also has a stunning ending: “I am the L-RD.” Thus, Leviticus 19:18 isn’t just any verse for a Bible-believing Christian. Leviticus 19:18 is a verse in which we listen to the word of G-d. This makes Leviticus 19:18 a very important verse for the Bible-believing Christian community.

Here it is in its entirety:

Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. I am the L-rd.

***

This brings us to a very big difference between The Golden Rule and Leviticus 19:18. One uses the word "other" while the latter uses the word "neighbor."

Is there a meaning of the word “other” which would lend credence to the Christian perspective of using powerful weapons to kill an “other?”

The word in Hebrew which is commonly translated as neighbor is "rei-acha." Not surprisingly, the meaning of the word "rei-acha" is not the word you would use to refer to your neighbors in Modern Hebrew. It is a word which you might use to refer to "the children of your people." 

In a society like ours, who are the children of our people? Who are the people about whom we should concern ourselves?

Do we consider all Americans to be “our people?”

or

Do we only consider people of similar religious backgrounds to be “our people?”

This is important because we must ask the Christian fundamentalist community exactly who they are protecting themselves from?

I have heard more than one gun enthusiast say they are protecting themselves against “the bad people.”

This to me seems to be the “NEW” meaning for the Golden Rule. In other words, the fundamentalist Christian community is protecting themselves from “OTHERS.”

Let’s read the Golden Rule one more time:

Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

And here's the Golden Rule as it is interpreted by the Fundamentalist Christian community:

Kill others as you would have wanted to be protected.

This doesn’t sound like good religious philosophy to me. It sounds like a bunch of really scared people who are taking the law into their own hands. It seems they are terrified that our violent culture will come for them next—that we will reap as we have sown.

But saying that G-d is on your side does not make it so.

And making our culture more violent doesn’t solve anything.

So we must work together to get rid of the guns and to search out the sources of violence in our society. We are all in this together.

Keep Guns Out Of Schools

I just got home from the rec center because my daughter and I recently started an exercise program. While riding the bike in the weight room I found myself listening to the Ed Schultz show on the television. His guest was an elementary school teacher in Utah who wants to get a concealed gun permit so she can carry a gun in her classroom.

This teacher said that she had a big emotional reaction to the Newtown shooting and wanted "options" for what she could do as a teacher to protect her students. She then said that didn't want armed guards in schools, but felt that concealed gun permits were the best option. According to this teacher, for the past 12 years Utah state law has allowed teachers to carry guns in Utah schools.

The teacher being interviewed by Ed Schultz used typical Republican terminology to refer to people who use guns to kill others. She said the shooters are the "bad guys." This of course means that she is implying that teachers are "the good guys." But this isn't always true, and things that happen at school are not always so clearly defined as this teacher seems to think.

What about all of the teachers who have sexually assaulted students over the years?

What about if an elementary school student brings a knife to school?

I can think of many concerns I have about teachers carrying guns. In one school I taught in, there was a teacher who was a little odd (my opinion). One day, the students came into my class telling me that this teacher had just become so mad at them she slammed the classroom door on them. The students said she slammed the classroom door so hard that the door's handle fell off. Days later, the students came in telling me that they had found a "huge 6 inch hunting knife" in her closet. The students said that she had told them the knife "was for cutting watermelon." Neither the students nor I were convinced that she needed a knife like that to cut watermelon and neither did the principal once she found out. The teacher was gone that day, never to be seen again in that school.

In another school, we used to have a problem with high school students circling in cars. They would do this just as school was letting out and the middle school kids were getting onto the bus. Occasionally we teachers on bus duty would see one of the high school student brandishing a gun as they drove by. Teachers are not trained in how to handle this type of violence. Teachers are trained in teaching and this is how it should stay. Asking teachers to carry guns in school is asking our society to mask a very serious problem.

It does not surprise me that we are asking schools to treat our very serious gun violence with band aids.

This is what we have been doing for years in the inner city, where gun violence has been wreaking havoc with our youth for decades.

I saw guns at almost every school I taught at. First there were the gang bangers, who would drive around at lunch time, brandishing their guns from their cars. Then there were the repeated fire drills one year. Dutifully the school would file outside and we would watch as the gang bangers drove around looking for some particular kid. The school district took care of that particular problem by changing the alarms--no longer could anybody simply pull the alarm. This stopped the fire drills but it didn't stop the violence.

Another time, there was a group of ROTC students standing in the hallway outside my classroom. They were banging their wooden rifles (fake) up and down in the hallway, making a great deal of noise. I stepped into the hallway to ask them to move away from the classroom and one of the students came at me with one of the rifles.

In this same school there was an attempted murder one day. One student, (she happened to be one of my students) beat up another student at lunch time. Reports from people in the lunch room that day said that my student threw the other student to the ground. She then held the girl's head and bashed it over and over into the ground. The girl who was beaten up ended up in a coma. I'm not sure that she ever returned to school.

Inner city violence has historically been dealt with by dress codes. Back in the early 90s (and maybe earlier) schools began issuing edicts which stated what a student could and could not wear. Sagging pants, head gear, including hats and bandanas and certain colors were prohibited as were all professional sports wear. The use of dress policies did not solve the problem of inner city violence--it simply drove it outside the school walls.

Now we are watching the white, middle class community as they are forced to look at our problem with violence. The mass shootings we have seen are committed largely by white people against mostly white people. But instead of dealing with the issue, we are once again wanting to keep it at bay. This policy is short sighted and will only lead to more violence.

Gun violence is destroying us.

Gun violence has been taking the lives of huge numbers of Black and Hispanic young men for years and now it is taking the lives of of little school children.

We should have been doing something when it was our inner city youth who were being killed--but now that the violence has spread, we must take action. We must get rid of guns. We don't need them.

We don't need to kill other human beings.

It really is that simple.

More Bad Theology from the Far Right

I have some strong observations to make on the public debate surrounding gun control. Before I make those observations I would like to share an essay and a video from Dr. Anthea Butler, a religious studies professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Butler, as usual, has stated her position in a thoughtful manner. I like listening to what Dr Butler has to say, even if I don't agree with everything she has to say. Thank you Dr. Butler!

Here is a link to Dr. Butler's comments. This link goes to an article at Religion Dispatches, December 19, 2012.

All This Talk About Rape...

It seems that everywhere there is some man talking about rape. When I read them, or hear them, I see men talking about rape as if it is something very cavalier. They stand up in front of people and give their opinions on rape.

 

Some describe rape as legitimate or not.

 

Others say not to worry about pregnancy from rape because it doesn't happen.

 

Others say just shut up and enjoy it.

 

Or, that it is just a case of buyers remorse.

 

I'm sure there are more horrible comments from public men in our society giving us their opinions on rape, but I think the above examples are enough. The above examples show that these men have been talking about rape for a while--because two of the above links are from past years. Nevertheless,

 

 

STOP IT!!

 

STOP IT RIGHT NOW!!

 

It's disgusting. And it shows that rape has something to do with these men's sense of themselves. They seem to have an entitlement to rape.

 

LET ME BE VERY CLEAR!

 

Being a man and being masculine should have NOTHING to do with the ability to rape someone! It is not masculine to rape someone, no matter what the Bible says. We need to find a new definition of masculinity. One that does not destroy people. In the meantime, all of these men should be voted out of office. They don't need public pulpits anymore. They don't need to be allowed to hurt people just so they can be leaders.

 

RAPE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!

 

And the fact that they have linked abortion to rape means that abortion must be legal and access to abortion must be unencumbered!

 





The Move to Make the United States a Christian Country Has Begun

I am watching and I don't like what I see. 

There is an organized effort to make Christian Law the law of the land. We need to understand what is happening and not simply see this as "a bunch of looney tunes." We need to claim our First Amendment rights because we in the United States are protected from being forced to live under Christian Law.

Here are some recent examples of the organized attempt to instill Christian Law as the Law of the Land...

Example 1

I took this photo off Charlie's political website: http://www.charliefuqua4staterep.com/biography

Here's the link to an article in the Huffington Post:
Charlie Fuqua, Arkansas Legislative Candidate, Endorses Death Penalty for Rebellious Children

This isn't imaginary. It's real. Charlie Fuqua has also written a book. It entitled God's Law: the Only Political Solution.

 

Example 2

I took this off Paul Boun's political website. http://paulbroun.com/about/

Georgia Representative Paul Broun makes videotaped remarks where he denounces science and calls it a lie. Representaive Broun is a federal legislator. He is not just giving us his personal beliefs. He is participating in the effort to instill Christian Law.

Here is a link to the Washington Post Article describing Paul Broun's viedeotaped remarks:
GA Rep. Paul Broun Calls Evolution, Embryology, Big Bang Theory lies 'From the Pit of Hell'

Here is a link to a utube video--it just shows you exactly who Paul Broun is. Remember, this guy is a physician. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPYxzzMem18&feature=player_embedded

Example 3

Legislative Effort to Pass HR 1179-Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011

Congressman Jeff Fortenberry--Sponsor of HR 1179. I took this photo from his website: http://fortenberry.house.gov/images/fortenberryphoto.jpg

The effort to pass the above bill has led to some interesting discussion. Here is a link to a Far Right website which explains what they are trying to do with this amendment: Opposition Continues to Grow Against Obama's Unprecedented Assault on Religious Liberty

One of the sponsors of this act is Rep. Scott DesJarlais, from Tennessee. You remember Rep Scott DesJarlais. He is the physician who is accused of trying to force his mistress to have an abortion. So he is a physician. He is a Representative, and he's sponsoring the religious freedom act HR 1179.

Here is a link to the article describing what happened: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/scott-desjarlais-abortion-pro-life_n_1953136.html

Example 4

The Dominion Mandate and the Christian Reconstruction Movement

Check out this web page: http://cicministry.org/scholarly/sch001.htm
Bob DeWaay has written a very nice summary of the Dominion Mandate. I would argue that the Dominion Mandate has influenced United States' politics and the above references I have made are a reflection of the influence of this movement.

We Need Not Be Silent About This! The First Amendment protects us from the influence of the Christian Religion!  When you see people and legislators making religious arguments to bolster their political views watch out! Listen closely! Are they attempting to have us all living under the strong arm of Christian Law?

Keep educating yourself about the meaning of the First Amendment. It is not just something that lets us speak our minds freely and its not just something that allows for religious tolerance. The First Amendment also states that the federal government will not make laws that establish a religion. That is precisely what they people I have written about here are trying to do--they are trying to establish Christianity as the basis for our laws. If we let them do this we will very negligent.

Let me know what you think! Speak up!

What is the Sound of One Hand Clapping?

Oh my...

It's no wonder we're not going anywhere--because nobody is listening any more. We have two sides of a political debate and each side only talks to themselves. The article I just read is proof of that.

Here's the link to a RedState article which calls women "stupid" over and over again: http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/24/stephanie-cutter-women-will-vote-for-obama-because-theyre-stupid/

This article is really bad, but what really gets me are the comments. The number of times that women (who do not vote with the TeaParty) are called stupid is simply astonishing. I may disagree with the TeaParty but I'm certainly not stupid.

However, I can begin to see the two sides to this debate.

The one side sees the TeaParty's efforts to control access to birth control, abortion and gay marriage as an attempt to limit freedom. The second side sees everything through the lens of jobs--therefore if jobs are being created for women that's good enough. Women should just shut up and stop complaining.

I am glad to place importance on creating jobs--I just know how badly it feels to be shut out of society's legal mechanisms. I also believe that once we figure out how to include each citizen into our societal process the jobs will begin to take care of themselves. If each person has a place, then jobs will begin to increase, no question about it. But if we continue to shut out huge segments of our population--because we think they're stupid or lazy or whatever other label we want to put on them, then our society will become smaller and smaller and the number of people who have jobs will decrease.

Calling people stupid simply because they don't agree with you does not help the situation. We need to enter into relationship with each other in order to figure this out.

I Apologize to Muslims

I am sorry.

 I am sorry the release of that movie has hurt Muslims. I think the movie is despicable as are the anti-Muslim feelings that go with it. I am sorry. I am sorry that Americans are spending so much time condemning the actions of others without first taking responsibility for ourselves.

 It is true--Americans did not release that movie--it is the act of a few individuals and not of all of us. Nevertheless, the movie comes out of a generalized fear that many Americans have of Muslims. I say that we need to declare this fear and look at what our fear is doing to us and to the world.

For those who think that Americans are not afraid of Muslims, I offer the following example--Pat Robertson.

Huffington Post Article About Pat Robertson's Hatred and Fear of Muslims

There are other examples of the same type of behavior--I have simply chosen one article to put up on this blog. I am asking Americans to examine their fear of Muslims. I apologizing to Muslims for that movie. I think it is despicable.

****

I have some ideas and opinions on the First Amendment and I'd like to add them here:



First off, the First Amendment is for the United States. One should not expect that First Amendment rights exist outside of the United States. If we run around the world being rude to people (or worse) we should not expect that First Amendment rights apply.

Second, what happened with the release of this stupid movie is hideous. And the people who put out this video are not protected by First Amendment rights because the First Amendment does not give a person the right to say lies about someone else or to defame their character. The makers of that stupid movie had no right to say what they said.

Third, I am not sure why we expect Libyans to fully understand First Amendment rights when they have recently come out of years and years under the rule of a dictator. Americans have had over 200 years of First Amendment rights and we do not understand them very well either. 

I want the people who are responsible to know that they have hurt many people and because this movie has hurt many people it has hurt me.

Dr. Barbara Bellar is Running for Office in Illinois and She Is Using Some Very Bad Theology to Do It

Dr. Barbara Bellar is running for office in Illinois. Dr. Barbara Bellar seems to be extremely outspoken, judging from her website and the transcripts of one of her recent campaign speeches. I wish more doctors shared these attributes of hers because I see doctors as a mostly silent bunch on issues of healthcare. This is why I began reading what Dr. Bellar was saying. Here is a link to a recent campaign speech she gave.

Dr. Barbara Bellar Speaks Out Against Obamacare.

Dr. Barbara Bellar is against Obamacare. From her words I wonder if she is against Obamacare as much as she is simply against  President Obama. I wonder if she is against President Obama because Obamacare is more a product of the Republican party than it is anything that President Obama proposed.

I agree that there are problems with Obamacare, but I am glad that we have begun making changes to our healthcare system. I am glad we are doing something. We can't leave our current healthcare system as it is. I have seen that in my time as a chaplain.

Dr. Barbara Bellar writes that she has seen "the slow erosion of continuity of medical care stolen from the citizens of the United States." As a chaplain it is hard for me to understand why a physician would write that access to medical care is lessened by Obamacare. As a chaplain it is hard for me to understand how a physician can think that people are receiving adequate healthcare.

Let me be clear: the United States has a problem because not everyone can access healthcare in this country. Some people can access the system but others cannot. In our system, those that can access the system complain incessantly about those that cannot, all the while doing NOTHING TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM. This is unethical behavior. If you will do nothing to change the system so that everyone may access medical care you are responsible for letting people die.

I'd like to see a physician speaking about what we can do to create a system where everyone can access healthcare. Where are all the physicians in this regard? But a physician who complains about attempts to open up our healthcare system? I certainly am not interested in going to that doctor for healthcare.

 ***

On page 4, Dr. Barbara Bellar writes, "It violates our freedom of religion to practice as we believe and not have the government say what you will and will not hold as deeply convicted principles in your life."

What?

Dr. Barbara Bellar is against opening up access to our healthcare system because it violates her freedom of religion? Nonsense. Dr. Barbara Bellar is not saying that it is against her religious belief to buy insurance. Dr. Barbara Bellar is saying that entering into a public system is against her religious beliefs because some of the money in that public system might be used to pay for someone else's abortion. This is very similar to the position the Catholic Church has taken. They don't want to pay for abortion and because of this they are claiming freedom of religion. This is a backward argument.

The First Amendment guarantees that, "government will make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free expression thereof." Our government cannot restrict access to abortion based on the religious objections of a few. If our government were to pass a law restricting access to abortion based on a certain group's religious opposition, then our government would be guilty of passing a law which established Christianity and this would be a clear infringement of First Amendment rights. 

Obamacare does not say that all women must have abortions. Government is saying that abortions are available as needed. Dr. Barbara Bellar says that government should stay out of healthcare decisions but then she says government should make the decision that abortion services will be available only to the very rich. She is speaking out of both sides of her mouth. She is being disingenuous. If government were to make the decision that abortion services are available to only a select few, then government would be making a very big healthcare decision; one that would infringe upon First Amendment rights.  

What would happen if a group came along and said that it is against their religious beliefs to access medical care on Sundays? In our current system, we allow for people to access medical care on Sundays and we even allow our insurance programs to pay for services received on Sundays. But if it against a group's religious rights to access medical care on Sundays shouldn't we prohibit medical care for everyone on Sundays? Surely it is against this group's freedom of religion to have to pay into a system which allows some people to access medical care on Sundays--a day clearly prohibited for this religious group. Nonsense. If it is against your religious beliefs to not access medical care on Sundays, then don't go to a doctor's office or a hospital on Sundays. It's that simple. But keeping me from accessing medical care on Sundays because you don't want to have to pay for it means that I have to live under your religious law--and that is an infringement of my First Amendment Rights.

***

In her sermon, Dr. Barbara Bellar then turns her attention to birth control services. I have never before heard of a physician who was against birth control. Have you? I can't imagine walking into a doctor's office and asking to be examined so that I can then receive birth control and having the doctor say, "I'm sorry. It is against my religious beliefs to provide birth control."

What country are we living in? If you had told me in 2011 that we would be discussing the legality of birth control in 2012 I would have been astonished. We should be discussing whether or not doctors who refuse to give patients birth control should still hold a medical license. I think Dr. Barbara Bellar may be surprised by the answer.

Republicans Say Rape Can Be Classified as "Forcible" and "Legitimate." So does Father Groeschel, Catholic Friar from New York.

The Republican party recently made headlines by trying to define rape as only when it is "legitimate" and "forcible." This Catholic friar is doing the same thing, but he also explains what rape is when it is illegitimate and not coerced.

                                                                                    This picture taken from the Huffington Post website.

 

Here is a link to the Huffington Post article describing the Friar's comments.
From the Huffington Post: Father Benedict Groeschel, American Friar, Claims Teens Seduce Priests

This guy is wrong. Rape is rape. Pedophilia is rape. The people who think rape is sometimes justifiable are wrong.

This guy is a mainstream Catholic Friar from New York, just as Akin, Ryan and others are mainstream Republicans who are currently in office. Shocking. I am glad that we are hearing how these guys really think. But they need to be told their view of rape is the view of the perpetrator and perpetrators do not need to be in charge of the government, nor of the Catholic Church.

Far Right Blames Hurricane Isaac on Gays, Yet Says Nothing About Republican Convention

What on earth is going on?

Here's the story that goes with the photograph, taken from the Huffington Post website:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/hurricane-isaac-southern-decadence-gay-festival-new-orleans_n_1843636.html?ir=Gay%20Voices

Blaming Gays for the world's troubles simply doesn't cut it. Once again, if God is going around causing trouble--hurricanes and tornadoes, etc., then God needs to be charged either with criminal mischief (in this case) or with murder (in the earlier case of tornadoes--see previous post.)

What would have happened if the Republicans had to cancel their convention due to Hurricane Isaac? Would God have then been on the side of Democrats? Come on! This is bad theology and we all know it!!

God doesn't punish. Let's get the story straight. We are in hurricane season.

If Pat Robertson is Telling the Truth We Must Charge God With Murder

                                                                This picture came from the Huffington Post article, original photo from YouTube.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/pat-robertson-tornadoes-prayer_n_1321686.html

If God really is responsible for the recent deaths during the rampaging tornadoes, then we need to take action. We cannot allow God to murder people as retribution for "not praying enough."

When Pat Robertson makes statements like this, what he is really saying is that God is a terrorist.

We all know that God is not a terrorist. And yet, we allow Pat Robertson to make statements like this without telling him what he is really saying. Pat Robertson is wrong.

Here's what I know to be true:

God is love.

God does not punish.

I want to participate in creating a society where we all care for one another. I want to participate in creating a society where we all can participate. This is what the religious clergy of this country should be talking about.

If clergy describe God as a murderer and a terrorist, people feel like they deserve the bad things that are happening to them. This simply isn't true.