Race, Guns and Delusions
By Monte Sahlin, June 19, 2015: Some issues seem to never really get solved. It seems like only yesterday Americans had elected the first black president and there was brave talk about a “post racial” society. And now it seems like the clock has been set back nearly 50 years.
A young white man walks into a prayer meeting in a church and announces to the group of older black women and men, “You are taking over our country; you must go.” And proceeds to shoot many of them, killing nine people.
What kind of an America lets a young adult use his birthday money to buy a semiautomatic pistol, go to a black church, walk in the with the concealed weapon, sit in the back for an hour and then massacre a group of old people? What kind of an America allows a young white man to grow up thinking that because some equality and justice has finally been realized that it means other ethnic groups are “taking over” the country?
There is only one possible answer to these questions and I hope that this terrible event shakes enough white people to their core to get this lesson into their minds. This is the result of attempting to hold on to the privileges that members of the white majority had in America through centuries of slavery and “Jim Crow” (American Apartheid).
We didn’t give the freed slaves “40 acres and a mule” in the late 1860s to provide them with a little capital to get started in a new life. We lost interest after a few years of Reconstruction and left widespread poverty among whites and blacks in the South. We never paid reparations for generations of unpaid labor. We tolerated the Civil Rights Movement for a period of time and then began to grumble about “playing the race card” and “PC” and a lot of other stupid things that simply show that down deep we still resent any kind of level playing field.
The common idea among whites of a “color blind” society really means, “I don’t want to think about ethnicity.” And it is to the benefit of whatever remains of majority privilege to claim that it is not necessary or good to be observant of the culture of others that we interact with.
American society has regressed in recent decades. Political machinations have forced a situation where guns are simply too easy to get. In many places there are no restrictions on someone suffering from the worst kind of mental illness obtaining a gun. It is generally less difficult to purchase a gun than it is purchase a car.
Politicians make coded references to ethnic tensions and dislike of immigrants for the sole purpose of manipulating the masses into voting for them. The policy proposals of many in Congress would mean removing the Statue of Liberty and returning it to France if those politicians were honest.
The criminal justice system in many places appears to be simply a tool to oppress non-white citizens. As has been shown by the investigation after the police killing and resultant riots in Ferguson, Missouri, fines and policies are contrived to make money off the backs of poor people of color and give those on probation no real opportunity to turn their lives around.
All of this is simply delusional. It is a kind of mass hysteria. It is no wonder that some simple-minded 21-year-old took things into his own hands, bought a gun with his birthday money and walked into a black church on Wednesday night during prayer meeting to murder as many people as he could. He simply “drank the kool-aid” that is floating around in our society.
Is This Important to the Gospel?
For both practical and theological reasons it is absolutely essential for Adventists in America (and around the world) to address these issues. The Adventist denomination in America has already crossed over the threshold into a minorities majority church. White people make up only about 45 percent of the membership. We cannot survive as a faith community if the delusional ideas around us are allowed any space whatsoever.
It is really a matter of our heritage and the core of what it means to be authentically Adventist. James and Ellen White, Joseph Bates and the others in the founding group of Adventists were all antislavery activists. John Byington, the first president of the General Conference, defied Federal law and hid runaway slaves on his farm in upstate New York. Edson White, son of James and Ellen, built a boat and sailed it down to the South when Reconstruction was running out of gas to educate former slaves. The reason for the boat was so he could leave town quickly when mobs of angry whites came after his mixed-race team of teachers and Bible workers.
Revelation 14:6-12 says that the Remnant is made up of “every ethnic group, tribe, culture and people group.” The multicultural nature of our faith is part of its God-given identity. It is one of the prophetic marks of the people of God in these times. God’s tribe is made up of all kinds of people. It is inclusive, accepting, open and grace-filled. That is the mark of authentic Christian community. If it is not tangible in your local church, small group Bible study or Sabbath School class; that group lacks the fullness of the Holy Spirit.
Real Adventists will take a decided stand against the delusional stuff floating around in American society. They will do what they can to prevent tragedies like the one this week by speaking up when they hear whining about loss of white privilege, by voting against politicians who promise unfettered access to guns and by reaching out to neighbors and fellow church members of other ethnic groups than their own to make friends and accomplish useful projects in the community.
We must all ask God to forgive us for narrowing the Adventist message, seeking to make it only about “spiritual” things, disconnected from the realities of life. Authentic Adventist faith connects with the pain and suffering of women and men, and especially children, buffeted by the turmoil of contemporary society and preyed upon by the unscrupulous, the violent and the delusional.
“Whatever you did for one of the least of these … you did for me.” And, “whatever you did not do for the least of these, you did not do for me.” (The words of Jesus in Matthew 25:40, 45 after He was asked by the apostles, “What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”)
Monte Sahlin has served as a Seventh-day Adventist minister for more than 45 years at all levels of the denomination. He retired from denominational employment last year and is executive director of the Adventist Today Foundation and executive editor of Adventist Today.
It is a comprehensive problem that can not be solved by a simple solution. Part of the American freedom is the right to discriminate. This is not a dirty word as modern concepts in America and the church has attempted to make it one.
Political correctness will never solve the human dilemma of sin and its effects. The church is not the avenue to correct all the issues concerning civil righteousness. Jesus never even tried to do this. He clearly stated, “My kingdom is not of this world.”
A bible believing Christian is a citizen of two kingdoms at one and the same time. And we need to understand the parallel and contrast of how we relate to both. So a Christian can defend civil righteousness as a member of the civil community. Not solely because he is a Christian, but because somethings are “self evident” that “all men are created equal (under the law).”
This means civil law both duty and priviledges apply to everyone and there are no “entitlements” for any special group. There is to be no elitist group that makes laws and administrates civil government for others, and excludes themselves from the same laws. If our politicians who run the civil government recognized this reality, we would have a more consistent government “for all people”.
But a Christian also acknowledges a higher level of accountability to God based on the bible and the kingdom of God. Thus, a true Christian is also the best civil government citizen.
Separation of church and state demands that we don’t claim to administrate authority in civil government in the name of God. The parallel and contrast between civil righteousness and bible morality must be understood and defended on two different basis. One is God’s authority, the other is man’s self government authority. God ordains human governments and approves civil righteousness. Self government by the individual and corporate humanity is commendable. But we must define and maintain separation of church and state as each has a sphere of authority independent of the other.
In the end, whether it is the church or civil government, those who can not govern themselves have no qualification to administrate and govern anyone else.
And this is the real problem today in both the church as well as the civil government. Elitism in both the church and civil government can not create a viable functioning community on any level.
Monte, you are shooting a rabbit with a shot gun. Calm down! There is no reason to believe this singular racist psychotic aberration is a sleeper of multiple events awaiting expression.
The church (Adventist)I grew up in, and the part of it which I never left and which never left me, is the part you speak well of. That is, the view and the practice that we are all one. In the thirty years I was a member, ten of which a minister, two as an Academy Bible teacher in Missouri, I never heard one instance of racism expressed or saw it remotely demonstrated on the institutional level. I saw and experienced the opposite. You allude to the early anti-slave core of Adventism. I think that was part of the heart-beat that did and does permeate the faith to its credit.
Your visceral response to this hideous crime implies that a bit of guilt rests on SDA’s for not doing more that might have stopped this, or similar events. Now, you certainly are much closer to the sources than I and from that you probably have very good reason for your references to such as whining about “white privilege.” Nevertheless, the verbal Band-Aid you suggest isn’t helpful. It is a guilt trick. Electing different people, eliminating guns, renewed efforts at reaching out to “neighbors and fellow church members of other ethnic groups” are only marginally achievable, mostly failure prone, idealism extended, reality ignored.
Monte, I don’t have a clue how to stop this stuff. My point is I have always and still think Adventists in the main are good, kind hearted, generous people, less racist inclined than the general public and generally heartbroken over this kind of evil. Blessing them rather than cursing them with underserved neurotic guilt them is more productive at this time.
I have the utmost respect for Monte’s opinions however I think he has taken a giant 5 gallon can of gasoline and put it on the fire with this articlel. He is the one being delusional, and drinking cool aid.This may simply be an overreaction to the tragedy we’ve all witnessed. Liberal democratic political ideas are appropriate in other forums but I don’t think they are appropriate in this one. To claim the only “real” adventists are the ones who agree with your liberal philosophy is delusional. the founding fathers, who knew something about Liberty, put the Second Amendment in the constitution for a reason. Leaving that issue asside, this article drips with me white guilt that is typical in the Liberal community, and may be somewhat racist itsel. We should share the gospel with all people period. I can understand and join with you in the mourning and pain and share your sorrow at the loss of innocent life. These are complex issues and the idea that if everyone shared your views political it would fix it is naive.
Ditto
Tom Hughes: “Liberal democratic political ideas are appropriate in other forums but I don’t think they are appropriate in this one.”
What forum are you talking about Tom? Is it the AT forum in general, or is it any forum in which this specific tragedy is discussed in particular?
“To claim the only “real” adventists are the ones who agree with your liberal philosophy is delusional. the founding fathers, who knew something about Liberty, put the Second Amendment in the constitution for a reason.”
Yes, the founding fathers did put the Second Amendment in the Constitution for a reason; a reason that is stated therein. It is placed in the context of a well regulated Militia being necessary to maintain the security of a free state. The Supreme Court interpreted it correctly in 1876 (Cruikshank) and again in 1939 (Miller); but has lately disregarded the original language.
“Leaving that issue aside, this article drips with me white guilt that is typical in the Liberal community, and may be somewhat racist itself.”
What do you mean? What is “white guilt” in your words? Do you think that, based on his words, Mr. Roof was quite dismissive and resentful of any notion of white guilt?
Could not agree more, Tom and Jim. Was political violence committed by and against oppressors unknown in Christ’s time? Why do we find in the Gospels such a startling absence of direct moral engagement by Christ and Paul with the political events and forces of their time? Christ’s answer to oppression and indifference was acts of love and compassion toward the hurting and the suffering – not moral commentary or bandwagon, politically correct handwringing toward society, or beliefs, for the violent acts of crazed lunatics.
I suspect the New Testament tells us pretty much everything pertaining to the who and what of Kingdom living. Beyond Christ, and Him crucified, even the most noble of our passions tend toward divisive distractions.
It is disconcerting of how the right in this country have commandeered the 2nd amendment. Recently retired Supreme Justice Stevens wrote that if the amendment were properly interpreted by the “orginalists” on the court they would be bold enough to find and admit that the framers meant the right to bear arms was held by a properly constituted “militia” not the populace in general. As a result, guns have become so prolific that killing has become easy. Statistics show that in countries such as Canada and England, gun violence doesn’t begin to approach what it is in this country because people don’t have guns or feel the need to get armed for their own protection because so many citizens are now carrying guns. When will this vicous cycle end?
Global statistics about gun violence show that where the people do not have guns they become much easier victims of those who do have them. Plus, incidents of multiple-murder are not isolated to America and have happened in virtually every nation around the globe.
Why did the shooter in Charleston pick a church as his target? Apparently his growing mental inllness combined with the racist rhetoric of national leaders in recent years and his taking powerful psychotropic drugs that drove him into deeper mental illness until he went hunting for an easy target.
The problem is not gun ownership because the overwhelming majority of gun owners in America (99.99%) are law-abiding citizens who do not use them for acts of violence. For criminals and the mentally unstable who are bent on committing acts of violence, guns are a convenient tool empowering them to do what they are intent on doing. But where the law-abiding are armed, or criminals think people may be armed, crime of all types goes down. This was well documented by the research of Dr. John Lott in his book “More Guns, Less Crime.” No, liberal politicians don’t want you to belive that, but it is true and I have been eyewitness to how a single act of resistance by one armed citizen confront in one neighborhood resulted in a drop in the crime rate for a considerable distance around the area.
The far bigger problem this latest incident highlights but liberals don’t want to deal with is the issue of mental illness and how society deals with it. Look at virtually every incident of multiple murder in world history and you will find a mentally ill person, usually someone who has been over-prescribed a psychotropic medication or who has recently decided to quit taking it without a monitored period of tapering-down their dosage. Mental illness it is the single largest common factor in multiple homicides globally. The warning signs of it are often obvious but people have become conditioned against intervening out of fear they will be accused of being prejudiced. Also, liberalism has neutered laws related to dealing with mental illness, often making treatment unavailable to those who need it most.
Liberal philosophy has further worsened the problem of mental illness by promoting the prescribing of psychotropic drugs that often increase mental instability if they are over-prescribed or if a person quits taking them. According to some news reports this is what happened with the shooter in Charleston and he was taking one of the worst drugs.
No, guns are not the problem and I’ve seen enough criminals stopped by armed citizens that I’m again considering buying a gun.
Mental illness? Come on, it is just plain sin caused by a sinful nature. If you want to relate sin to a disease, OK. Jesus is a doctor and a lawyer. But to simply call it “mental illness” is a liberal idea and often cured with drugs according to their convoluted reasoning.
Until the doctrine of original sin is clearly defined in the SDA church, and accepted as a fundamental Christian doctrine just like the Trinity, the possibility of Adventism being helpful in this sin sick world is somewhere between slim and none.
We are born guilty, condemned and lost by way of a legal definition, and filled with sin and moral corruption in a moral perspective. Both aspects of sin must be understood, defined and accepted as the problem of all humanity. Only then will the atonement be valued and understood for all its implications to deal with the sin problem.
Adventism has always been a novelty religion and will never grow up into a mature and full grown community of bible believers until this issue is dealt with clearly and biblically. And any elements of “legalism” found in the church today is by those who deny this foundational Christian doctrine, and their number is not a few.
Sinful man must be legally pardoned, and morally healed by way of the cross. Any Sabbath doctrine that does not include these two aspects of redemption is either legalism, or a false view of the function of the moral law. The moral law is not a legal code or legal mandate. It is a moral code and moral mandate. To not discern or understand the difference means a person can not and does not understand the bible or any aspect of God’s kingdom and/or government. Without it, in theology, you are either a legalist or antinomian. There is no other option in the context of a biblical theology.
So, Isaiah says, “The head is sick……” Meaning, sin corrupts the mind.
Yes, mental illness is a result of sin, and there are spiritual solutions to many things that are considered “mental health issues.” But I’ve had to deal with it in a variety of ways for a lot of years so I’m telling you there is a lot of good that can result from competent, well-managed mental health care, but when it is neither competent or well-managed, the results can be tragic, as we saw this week in Charleston.
Mental illness a result of sin? Do you really believe that? You are entitled to your belief. Sorry, in my estimation that is voodoo, dark ages, baloney. Purposeful ignorance. Stupidity. That is my opinion.
I spent four years as a hospital chaplain. Thank goodness, I never saw one doctor subscribe to that malarkey. In any ward. Yes, we had a psyche ward there and shrinks. No, just as in the medical wards, they couldn’t account for the cause of every symptom. It once was thought that epilepsy, fits, was punishment from God for some family sin. Guess what. Wise men didn’t subscribe to that idiocy. Instead they looked for real world solutions. Symptom relief was their first goal.
It came, not by prayer, baptism, being born again, proper thinking, casting out demons or such, but through modern medications without knowing causation. Sin wasn’t considered a cause. No known medicine could ameliorate sin. So no pharmaceutical company would have invested a penny to go that direction! But relief was gained for countless people because wise, scientific people left the concept of sin at church where it belonged.
Crooked teeth, bad looks, short stature, bad breath, migraines, far sightedness, myocardial infractions, pleasant personality, generosity, feminine beauty, obesity, and thousands of others all “just plain sin caused?”
Bill, the world eagerly awaits your anti-sin cure for mental illness and feminine beauty and all the other stuff.
Bill: The current state of mental health treatment in large part represents a reaction to cruel and unusual institutional practices some time ago, visited on those judged to be insane. The Soviets in turn used such institutions to intimidate and silence rational citizens who protested the policies of the Communist regime. The cry “Never Again” is not at all inappropriate. Shutting away the mentally ill was once the only avenue to treatment, but with medication the restraints need not be as severe. What we may be seeking is a middle ground where the mentally ill can live in semi-autonomy, without absolute confinement, and coached with therapists skilled in administering drugs that can prolong mental normalcy. I understand that such a program exists in Europe, for hardcore drug addicts, in which the drugs are administered to the patient in a way that keeps the patient from having to commit crimes to find relief from their obsessional, addictive cravings.
“The problem is not gun ownership because the overwhelming majority of gun owners in America (99.99%) are law-abiding citizens who do not use them for acts of violence.”
I would ask if we might care to document that statement and specific percentage; except that I know that we can’t. (Obviously whereas general referencing or recommendation to ‘FBI statistics’ is not documentation of anything; precise sourcing of that statistic would be.)
I have now come to realize that guns are part of a certain culture in America, as is the confederate flag. Generally I would bet that the people who most ardently support one have no problems with the other, regardless of which. Of course I can’t document THAT either.
Since you like statistics, go to the Department of Justice crime statistics and start digging. The last time I looked their estimates of the number of guns in the hands of non-criminals in America vs. criminals was 99.9994%. Also, the number of guns in the hands of criminals seems far larger than actual because the criminals who have guns and use them typically commit a large number of crimes before they are caught and the arrest of single offenders often ends a “crime wave” in an area.
The problem is NOT guns, it is the mindset of the user and whether that person is determined to commit acts of violence. The long and growing list of now-redeemed criminals who once used guns to commit acts of violence is evidence of this.
By the way, if you study those DOJ crime stats, you’ll quickly see that guns are used in only a small portion of violent crimes and many times more people are killed using blunt objects (golf clubs, hammers, etc.) than guns. Since I own a set of golf clubs and have not less than eight different hammers in my tool boxes and they are used to kill far more people than guns, does that mean I am potentially more dangerous than you if you own a gun? Not at all because I am a follower of Jesus and not a criminal. I have a different mindset.
Speaking of knives, I know I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer; and while Bugs and I have some fun occasionally, neither am I stupid enough to go down a hole, a la Elmer Fudd, in search of a non-existent rabbit—especially when history has revealed the rabbit to have normally come from a hat. Therefore I won’t be “digging” for any “estimates” of 99.9994% (which sounds pretty exact).
You’ll have to forgive me but your history with facts, and with documentation of statements made as facts, is rather dubious. Guns in the possession (and hands) of people who shouldn’t have them is the essence of the problem. But we can’t trust 99.9999% of human beings (at least); so from my perspective, guns—which human beings have invented to end the lives of other human beings—are the problem. More precisely, guns and human beings—and human beings with guns—are the problem.
I recognize that a big part of the culture with which you may or may not relate is enamored with guns. But I would much prefer our (American) rates of gun deaths and homicides to rival those in Western Europe, Japan, and Australia rather than those of Pakistan, Iraq, Russia, or a number of African countries.
Mr. Foster,
I must take exception to your comment, “I have now come to realize that guns are part of a certain culture in America, as is the confederate flag. Generally I would bet that the people who most ardently support one have no problems with the other, regardless of which.” My friend, you would lose that bet. I am assuming that you mean the Southern states by your remark. I live in Texas and own a gun, as most of my neighbors do. I live on a farm, and a gun is a necessary tool out here. However, I don’t fly a confederate flag, nor sport it on my license plate. My family fought for the Union in the Civil War, and I can assure you that war is over for the majority of folks here. I have good African American friends, and for that matter, some of my friends are also Muslim, just to mix things up a little more.
It saddens me to see the intolerance expressed in these comments.
M Stevenson,
The culture to which I refer is not only found in “the Southern states.”
If you re-read my exact words (relative to my “bet”) you will note that it was an admitted generalization. You may or may not be an exception, as you will determine by answering whether or not you have a problem with those who display the confederate flag. Your ancestors fought with the Union, that war is over as far as “the majority” is concerned down there, and you don’t fly or display the confederate flag—I get and applaud all that; but you know whether or not you have a problem with the displaying of it.
How about telling me if you do? (I can tell you that I do. Now I wonder, does that me intolerant?)
I assumed Stephen was referring, by “gun culture” to certain parts of cities like Chicago – no? I’ve never fired a gun, and don’t care much for guns. But we have to deal with reality as we find it – not as we wish it to be. Why is it that the same folks who tell us it’s impossible to locate and deport 11 million people illegally in the U.S. seem to have no problem with the notion that strict gun laws, like the ones in Chicago will magically lead to the eradication of 300 million handguns?
I may sound curmudgeonly on these boards, but I’m really a ‘low maintenance’ guy. I don’t have many pet peeves; but one I do have is being misquoted.
Nathan, I wrote no “gun culture” phrase. In reality, I said that guns are part of a certain culture in America (and haven’t heard anyone hint anything about the eradication of 300 million hand guns).
I would note that the rates of deaths by firearms in the United States per 100,000 people are highest in the states of Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Montana, Wyoming, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Tennessee, South Carolina, Missouri, West Virginia, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Kentucky, Indiana, Georgia, and Utah (top 20, including ties; pretty much in that order). Those states probably have gun laws that are not as restrictive as those in states such as Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Minnesota, California, Iowa, Illinois, Washington, the District of Columbia, Nebraska, Vermont, Wisconsin, Maryland, South Dakota, Virginia, and Delaware; which just happen to be the bottom 20 including ties, pretty much in that order; notably inclusive of Illinois—which happens to include Chicago.
Les,
You’ve offered cogent and well-considered remarks. The misreading and misapplication of the Second Amendment is an underreported ongoing American tragedy.
The reasons for it are stated in it (a well regulated militia is pretty specific), yet so-called ‘originalists’ find it irrelevant/meaningless. If they didn’t find it irrelevant/meaningless, then the freedoms or lack of infringements would all be in that particular (militia/military) context.
Former Justice John Paul Stevens is right.
Bravo Monte!
I see why it is difficult to speak truth…those whose toes it pinches…cry ouch! Continue to be liberated to speak truth…for “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.” Continue to be imbued with His Spirit, and allow it to speak thru you. There is plenty of delusion…but it does NOT rest in you…I applaud your bravery.
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.-IICor.3:17
Monte,
While I generally respect and appreciate what you write, in this case I think you’ve been dining at the table of Liberal confusion for too long and the shock in your belly is just the painful flatulence and cramping that results when the sweet-sounding promises of Liberalism have a harsh encounter with real nature of evil. It is painful having the total failure of popular social philosophy exposed by the harsh light of reality.
Acts of shocking violence as we witnessed in Charleston are the symptoms of sin and a powerful demonstration of both the true nature of evil and how powerless modern Christianity has become to deal with it effectively because of the absence of the power of God in our faith and ministry to our communities. The issue is not guns or poverty, but whether we as professed believers in God will lay aside our pride in how much we think we know about God and actually get to know God so he can empower us to minister in our communities and redeem people from the clutches of the evil that leads them to do such horrible things. As the power of God has declined in Christians, the churches have turned increasingly to pursuing the illusion of solutions in more laws and more enforcement, which is proving just as ineffective at preventing such events as the professed followers of Christ who called for the laws. We can let such incidents as happened in Charleston keep us focused on what does not work. Or, we can let this incident turn our attention back to seeking the power of God so we can become effective in creating the social change that only comes when the hearts of people are turned to God by having encounters with His power.
Several news reports I have seen seem to be illustrating Paul’s statement in Romans 8:28 about God making all things work together for good. I have seen reporters from liberal-leaning TV networks struggling to explain how it could be that the people of Charleston, both black and white, are joining together to support the members of the church and to stand unified in the face of the great evil they have seen insead of dividing and sinking into racial violence. So it seems this incident is shining a light to the world about the power of God to bring people together instead of dividing them and to heal great wounds instead of deepening them.
Mr. Noel,
Thank you for your great insight. I always enjoy reading your comments. Thank you, too, for always holding up Jesus as the solution to all of our problems, if we will but let Him be so.
“It is generally less difficult to purchase a gun than it is to purchase a car.”
Could you please state facts that back up this ludicrous statement?
As usual, the left goes nuts every time one of these tragic shootings happen. The fact is, there are more people killed by hammers, knives and baseball bats every year than by guns. (FBI stats)
More Blacks are killed in Chicago every month, mostly by other Blacks, than were killed in Charleston. Why don’t the president and his media go nuts over that?
Every month 22 people in uniform commit suicide. Why don’t we hear anything about that?
And it’s not about violence or the children. The left could care less about either. The two are just vehicles for the left’s agenda. If they really cared about violence and the kids, they’d oppose abortion and support the death penalty for heinous crimes.
It’s because the left and the progressives hate guns and are determined to make them illegal. They won’t be happy until every gun is confiscated. Then the government can be just as tyrannical as it wants to be. Remember Hitler and the Jews?!
There are plenty of people who are alive today because they defended themselves with again against a would-be rapist and/or murderer.
It’s better to have a gun and not need it than to not have one and need it.
Bob, is the solution to violence really more violence? If we all live in an armed camp that will make us safer? What does “well regulated” mean in the 2nd amendment?
What kind of thinking other than critical would have one conclude that “hammers, knives and baseball bats,” all of which have and are DESIGNED for purposes OTHER THAN killing human beings (and/or other animate life), are no less menacing to civil society than are weapons DESIGNED for NO OTHER purpose THAN the cessation of human/animate life?
The drug and gang-related deaths in Chicago have been occurring since those of other ethnic persuasions—who were then and are now characters of mythic and folk legend (Al Capone, et al)—were committing murder. What does that have to do with the wanton and repeated slaying of ‘civilians’ for no reason at all; or for reasons of mindless racial animosity (toward ‘others’)?
If individuals who commented upon such evil “cared about” deterring it, left or right, they would support aggravated sentencing for committing violent crimes against anyone BECAUSE the victim differed ethnically, racially, religiously, or in gender or sexual orientation from the convicted perpetrator. This would of course include anyone of any race, color, creed, gender or orientation insofar as such criminal/terroristic activity is concerned; and include victims of any race, color, creed, gender or orientation just the same. (In this particular tragedy the motives were allegedly expressed before and during the incident.) Opposition to such sentencing represents tacit protection (against such sentencing) of classes or groups of individuals who engage in such terrorism.
This is what the eloquent “Never Again” refrain of holocaust victims and survivors means. The only way for it to “Never Again” happen is a united determination and vigilance to ferret and eliminate such terrorism. An absolute intolerance for it is necessary.
When we hear the inevitable chorus of criticisms and/or blame of the POTUS in circumstances such as this, it tragicomically reveals who it is who actually “goes nuts.”
“More Blacks are killed in Chicago every month, mostly by other Blacks, than were killed in Charleston. Why don’t the president and his media go nuts over that?”
It’s not politically correct to recognize reality when it bumps up against the PC enforcers.
Neither the President or the media “go nuts” over murders of blacks in Chicago every month (whereas by implication they have gone nuts over the latest Charleston tragedy) is that the Chicago murders are gang and/or drug-related, just as the so-called organized crime murders were that have occurred in America for a century; it’s that uncomplicated.
Never mind the salient hate crime aspect, why would say President Herbert Hoover have been more disturbed by gang-on-gang murders in Chicago or New York in the late 1920’s than he would have been over the gunning down of innocent worshippers somewhere?
Corrections: THE REASON THAT neither the President…just as the so-called organized crime murders ARE…
Back in 1973 when I bought my first car it was more difficult to buy a car than a gun because of the time it took to process the bank loan and legal paperwork as compared to there being no laws restricting the sale of guns. How times have changed! Today you can drive-off the car dealer’s lot in under an hour with your loan and licensing paperwork finished but have to wait three days to take-home your gun!
The folks who think taking-away everyone’s guns are quick to overlook a serious lesson from history: the governments that have put serious effort into doing that were able to do so only by becoming the most oppressive, liberty-hating, brutally torturous and murderous in history.
It is interesting how though no one has advocated the confiscation of all guns, Christians—SDA Christians—in this discussion insist that that prospect is somehow being considered, are critical of those who “hate guns,” and think that their freedoms will somehow, someday perhaps be preserved by presumably them or their like-minded neighbors having sufficient weaponry. (As if they are in the “Militia.”)
Seventh-day Adventists sure have a big tent. Or the larger culture trumps denominational culture.
I know that some of you read other forums. If you want to see a real demonstration of the total confusion in the SDA church, go to ADvindicate and read the responses by the posters about cultural Adventism being wedded to the world.
The discussion is about sinlessness both pro and con. Do church members in general have a clue of how to define this issue in its total biblical context? Obviously not.
Banning of stuff has limited success as prohibition demonstrated. And what is to be banned? The Federal Building in Ok. City was destroyed with diesel fuel and fertilizer. Homes and cars are burned to hide murders. Where is the line of prohibited things? Diesel, gasoline, matches, fire, knives, hammers?
And no matter the constitutional side one takes on the gun issue, it is a done deal and the terror storm to be released by any act of confiscation, by those so powerful and politically inclined, is their fearsome restraint. To paraphrase on old country song, The pain of having them here (guns) is less than the pain of having them gone (that is, to try to make them go away).
In 1900 there were 36 auto deaths. In 2013, 32,719 (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety). Starting in 1925 never less than 25,000, peaking at 54,000 in 1972. How many of those were murder or suicide or murder by car? Regardless, think how many lives would have been saved had cars been banned in 1899! Hysteria over guns is an enjoyable sport by the anti-gun crowd. But it conveniently overlooks massive deaths by other means. What about the silent massive deaths by overeating? How many of the gun control advocates will have lives cut short not by lead but by calories? If the dead by obese were lined up and each body shot with a bullet at the local cafeteria some interest might be aroused!
These mass killings (the subject here) are a stain on the American scene. They interrupt our senses partly because they are bizarre, but mostly because they are rare, unimaginable. The immigrants rush to our country appears not to be retarded, not even a little bit. First, the rushers don’t see it as a threat to them, and second, conditions are much worse where they just left.
Let’s grieve and mourn. Let’s participate in efforts to identify potential psychos so they can be interdicted. Most of all, let’s be thankful we recoil in horror in a country of shared high values when these kind of events stain our days.
Hypothetical solutions and hysteria are useless and both divert from reality.
Did I advocate a ban on guns? The Second Amendmen clearly states a “well regulated” context for the right to bear arms. How is screening gun purchasers to prevent the mentally ill from getting one the same thing as “banning” guns?
Monte, I reread your article and you didn’t advocate a ban. My remarks were aimed at some replies that are in favor. I think we agree that every effort needs to be made to keep them from the hands of psychotic personalities. Easy to advocate, not so easy to achieve, obviously. Darrel touches, below, on the problem that I watched develop years ago when the state hospital mental health systems were dissolved and the mentally ill were placed in the virtual limbo of the street. The defining rules and regulations were neutered at the same time, for the worse overall, and to this day, being mentally ill is a murky diagnosis because being “crazy” isn’t illegal. Wackos, the seriously disturbed, have serious legal power as a result and keeping them from firearms isn’t necessarily a clear-cut enforceable prohibition particularly if there is no police record.
Monte, you should look up what the meaning of the second amendment is. It is not some kind of obscure thing unless one is an obscurantist and wants to pretend it is. see: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
Second how does one classify someone as mentally ill? If you are going to use that standard for a background check and I agree it should be considered but in fact there is little chance of it happening. Consider the recent press about trans-genders. Would Bruce Jenner be classed as mentally ill. There certainly was a time in the Western world where both trans and homosexuals would be classed as mentally ill. Now people who don’t want to see marriage as redefined away from one man and one woman are considered haters or homophobes. They are treated as the new mentally ill! There was a time when in America we could take the mentally ill out of society and place them in special hospitals. But the climate changed and the freedom to be different became too important to allow the reduction in a person’s freedom. Which of course greatly increased the numbers of homeless on the streets. Lots of problems there but lots of problem taking peoples freedom away and calling them mentally ill. I think you need to consider these kinds of things and it would probably keep you from writing such articles as well. Because I don’t think you have thought out very much of the above statement or article itself.
In the U.S. (in 2013) there were 3.55 homicides by firearms per 100,000 people. By comparison from 2007-2011 Canada averaged only 0.51 homicides by firearms per 100,000 people. As of 2010 the United Kingdom averaged 0.04 homicides by firearms per 100,000 people; as did both Romania and Norway incidentally. And Zimbabwe averaged only 0.03 such homicides by firearms per 100,000 as of 2007.
So in the U.S. which imprisons more people than any other nation on earth, there are from seven to 118 times as many homicides by firearms per 100K people as there are in nations ranging from Canada and the UK to Zimbabwe.
So then, why would you term “anti-gun crowd” reaction to such incidents as hysteria? Tell me Larry, when was the last time you heard or can document anyone in the anti-gun crowd advocating gun confiscation? If you can’t name it and/or can’t identify the “replies” on this thread “that are in favor” or have called for confiscation; haven’t you engaged in pro-gun “hysteria”?
What if the Supreme Court were to decide Second Amendment issues based on language/English—wherein all gun rights would be in the context of a well regulated militia; and Congress was to enact gun control accordingly? Should the so-called law enforcement community then be intimidated by people with guns?
Why would you compare the unsafe and lethally dangerous operation of a motor vehicle to the effective operation of weapons designed to kill animate and mainly human life?
Interesting discussion guys. As a therapist I have had unfortunate experiences with guns and our legal system in the last two years. Two individuals (with Schizophrenia SADS, one of which I brought to the ER on twice, explaining to the Doc that the gentleman was Psychotic and Homicidal/Suicidal. One Doctor ask my client if this was true, which the man explained the voices coming out of the carpet at his house. He went on about other things I cannot mention but did not say ‘yes I am Suicidal or Homicidal.’
The Doctor smiled at me and said, Well, we can’t help him. It not illegal to be crazy you know!” One year later this man bought a gun and killed himself. This happened a few years ago. I had his funeral at his church. So sad!
Three weeks ago I learned that another previous client got a gun to kill his family, but killed himself with it.
For the se
For the severely mentally ill, be it caused by the addiction or genetics, we need not liberal but conservative approaches to limiting the availability of drugs and guns. It’s true this approach will not stop the problem; we have a crisis on our hands morally. But, “Limiting” availability will begin to bring healing
Whatever suggested solutions are offered, I would hope such are in line with the laws of this land. Negating any law for immediate gratification places ALL the law on tenuous standing. The 10 Commandments are absolute in the Church realm, as is the Constitution in the civil realm.
While we cannot change the 10 Commandments, the civil laws can be changed by Amendment or Convention of States. In this,country that requires convincing a majority to agree with the change.
But we must be consistent – if guns kill and must be banned, then so must automobiles, knives, baseball bats, drugs, doctors, electricity, propane and natural gas, flammable items, and need I say it, abortions!
Let’s add the biggest killers of all to your list: heart disease and cancer. Let’s outlaw them, too! It would be so nice to get rid of them! Oh, that we could do it just by passing another law! Just leave hammers, golf clubs, kitchen knives and baseball bats off your list of potential murder weapons to ban, OK?
The staggering non sequitur of comparing “automobiles, knives, baseball bats, drugs, doctors, electricity, propane and natural gas, flammable items, and …abortions” to guns in order to be “consistent” is inane and juvenile in the extreme.
With the exception of abortions, none of the other things listed were invented and designed for the sole purpose of killing—and doing so in an efficient manner. When properly utilized for the purposes for which they were invented and designed automobiles and golf clubs enhance and expand life.
Doctors and pharmaceuticals are purposed to relieve human pain and suffering and/or extend life. Guns end life when properly utilized for the purpose for which they were invented and designed; and do so quite abruptly.
What kind of thinking, other than critical, would have anyone compare or lump doctors and electricity or natural gas with guns? How nonsensical and foolish is such ‘reasoning’?!
What do solution do you propose, Stephen, on the firearms issue, that would solve the problem, avoid confiscation, and otherwise reorganize the crooked thinking of us idiots who mismanage facts and statistics, unlike you,?
Monte,
One correction to your story! The boy did not use birthday money to go buy a gun. He was already banned from purchasing a gun by a previous conviction on a drug charge. Actually, his father gave him the gun as a birthday present.
Michael – you are letting facts get in the way of Truth. For a liberal, facts are simply moral tools. Only details which advance the greater truth count as reportable facts, whether they actually happened of not. I call it the “Ratherization” of truth, in honor of Dan Rather.
When the government advocates and sponsors sin like gambling, homo-sexuality, and a host of other evil ideas and programs, how do you suppose some band-aid fix will take care of the problem?
Do we think the influence of Hollywood is of little import or influence on society and the sickness it has gendered on many levels? Crime, sex, and a host of perverted agendas are glorified on TV. So you think you can “cure” mental illness with some drug solution?
So, the solution by many is simply take away any possibility to kill someone, and the problem is solved. NOT.
A billion laws will not cure the sin problem. Laws and more laws have been legislated to curtail sin and human evil. And what is even more disconcerting is the SDA church is in many ways no better in dealing with the sin problem because of biblical illiteracy.
You can not deal with a problem you can not diagnose nor have a clue of how to deal with it, since you can not identify it in its full perspective and context. Superficial understanding always ends up with a superficial cure. And this is what we have today on every level of world problems. Civil, financial, and spiritual.
Novices in high places in the church make superficial decisions based on ignorance of the bible. And we come up with political agendas to solve spiritual problems. The bible has been abandon along with EGW. And this fact is becoming more and more apparent as time goes on and the result is being manifested more and more, for as Jesus has said, “By their fruits, ye shall know them.”
Confusion in the world is equally reflected by confusion in the SDA church.
This is one hot topic that can be guaranteed to receive lots of comments. Should we give credit to LaPierre and the powerful gun lobby.
In Pres. Obama’s remarks on this, a replay of all his previous ones each time a similar incident occurred. He then mentioned that of all the civilized nations, the U.S. by far, has more violent gun deaths than all the rest combined. Something to think about.
When Eve and Adam intended to commit the sin, they didn’t have guns. They had their hands. God didn’t cut their hands in order to prevent sin.
As Ben Carson said: “The heart of the matter is not guns. The heart of the matter is the heart, the heart and soul of people.”
That’s right, Ervin. The only cure to prevent a sinner from sinning is for them to be either “born again” spiritually, or dead.
So its either motivation by law and gospel in a biblical context, or in the end, God will stop sin by destroying the sinner. It is the only way that even God can stop sinning by sinners who refuse His kingdom and its principles.
The Jews thought civil law justice was adequate for salvation. But Jesus understood that only a change in the heart would heal the problem. So the Jews made more and more laws to control sin. How much good did it do? NONE. All it did was gender self righteousness by those who compared themselves to civil law and convinced themselves they were ready for heaven.
There are two requirements to sinlessness. One, marriage to Jesus that satisfies the legal requirements of the law, and two, keep the commandments of God that satisfies the moral requirement for heaven. As John Wesley said, “The first is our title (legal) and the second is our fitness (moral).”
There is no “sinlessness” outside Christ. Even the angels who have not fallen into sin are only sinless because they were created “in Christ”. There is no inherent sinlessness in any created being. And it can not be maintained nor attained by simply keeping the moral law. But a violation of the moral law is also grounds for a “divorce” by God. Thus, the moral law has legal implication. Even though the moral law is not a legal code in itself.
Adventism has always been suspect as a system of legalism because of the affirmation that the saints live in the sight of a Holy God without an intercessor during the time of trouble. But they are not “outside Christ” nor does their obedience merit the favor of God.
Jesus ceases to plead for them because they are now enlightened enough to plead the merits of Christ in their own behalf and they are no longer ignorant of what sin is in all its ramifications.
God purpose is to restore man to the self government He originally intended for Adam and Eve. But this self government was always under the authority and rule of Jesus the creator.
So, as EGW has well said, “In ourselves we are sinners, but in Christ we are righteous.” This principle applies to all moral beings including the sinless angels. But they are never considered “in themselves”. They are always, “in Christ”. So, they are sinless and we can be too. But only by understanding this principle.
There is no inherent sinless perfection in any created being, only Christ as a man is inherently sinless because He is both man and God in one person.
So, after reading the comments above, am I correct in assuming that no one believes that this young man killed the people just because they were black? And if I think he did, I must be a liberal left leaning wacko? What about Sahlin’s comments about “white privilege”?
Anybody who claims “white privilege” is obviously ignorant of the volume of laws in America that define specific privileges on the basis of a person being at-least 1/32 black. Some of those laws define racial discrimination as existing only against blacks and assume that just a claim of discrimination by any non-black person (some laws specifically say “white”) against a black is sufficient evidence upon which to convict them of crimes or to impose sanctions and penalties on them without an examination of the evidence. No other nation on the face of the planet has so many detailed and specific laws written specifically to define and protect privilege for any single racial or ethnic group.
Now, you tell me who has real “privilege” in the eyes of the law.
Re: “…the volumes of laws in America that define specific privileges on the basis of a person being at least 1/32 black,” I ask: Is it possible to be ignorant of that which doesn’t exist?
Referencing anachronistic and unenforceable hypodescent ‘one-drop’ laws as if they were disadvantaging white people in the 21st Century represents pure prevarication. This “1/32 black” nonsense is yet another in a stream of undocumented ‘talking points.’ It is nonsense in that the suggestion that white privilege is a nonexistent myth, but that the nation’s legislation is currently riddled with unconstitutional measures giving blacks unequal protection under law, is prima facie ridiculous. Not only is it ludicrous, but it resembles the sentiments expressed by Mr. Roof (that black people are taking over America). (Hopefully not even the more ignorant of our participants/readers will not believe that Mr. Noel was referring to affirmative action, since the assertion was that with “some of those laws…just a claim of discrimination by any non-black person (some laws specifically say “white”) against a black is sufficient evidence upon which to convict them of crimes or to impose sanctions and penalties on them without an examination of the evidence.”)
This is the kind of rhetoric that has me absolutely convinced that there is a nexus between certain ideological ‘thought’ in America and the hatred of non-white people.
Women’s ordination is nothing compared to this. This is the real divide among Adventists. (Women’s ordination is but a smoke screen.) Thankfully, among a number of enlightened leaders of varying ethnicities, our church continues to be led by the Dan Jacksons and Monte Sahlins of the world; which is providential.
In case you think this is hyperbolic, I would remind that there has been a call for the genocide of black people on these boards (by an individual named Hansen)—and now this utter nonsense. The silence, defense, and tacit or explicit endorsement of this stuff are telling.
You wrote: “I ask: Is it possible to be ignorant of that which doesn’t exist?”
Do you also claim that the wind does not exist because you have not seen it? That God does not exist because you have not seen Him?
Are you equating the existence of the wind and that of God to things that you have claimed and have written? (You may have just topped yourself. This may be the chutzpah of all time.)
Thank you Anna for asking the question I was thinking. All of the discussion on guns is taking away from the reality of someone choosing to kill others just because they were black. As is often the case this is a great smoke screen. White privilege is astronomical and until we at lest acknowledge it we can expect only continued racism. Those who were part of the founding of Seventh-day Adventist were – as Monty stated – abolitionists and understood the horrors of one race being treated as superior to another. Somehow we now look the other way or blame something other than racism and white privilege. I hope the discussion comes back to these points. And it can not just be glossed over with discussion of sin etc. God calls us to a higher standard in dealing with humanity.
Yes, Celeste, there is White privilege. There is also Black privilege and female privilege, depending on the context with which you are dealing, just as there is Christian privilege, LGBT privilege, and secular privilege, depending on the context. “Privilege” as a slogan for politcal distribution and enforcement of power and resources, is a meaningless, divisive slogan. Most of the political identity rhetoric I hear makes me feel that if I am opposed to Black privilege, female privilege, LGBT privilege, anti-Christian privilege – you name – then I believe in White privilege, especially White male privilege. I don’t buy it.
If God calls us to a higher standard, as you suggest, then why do we keep returning to the spoor of human avarice, envy and greed to separate classes of humans by wealth, gender, ethnicity, race, etc., in the delusive hope that we can, through a secularized justice system realize that higher standard ?
This is why I am part of a faith comunity – to find refuge from rhetoric which privileges certain behaviors and attitudes in order to turn the “higher calling” of which you speak into divisive political rhetoric and action. There is nothing wrong with trying to legislatively address evil in society. But there are no panaceas this side of The Second Coming. For every legal, regulatory “solution” there are unintended negative consequences. Even Monte’s “self-loathing,” self-righteously directed toward the larger community of which he is a part, while it may provide moral thrills, at no personal cost or sacrifice for those who agree with his ideological agenda, imposes misplaced guilt on those who do not, can not, and should not bear personal responsibility for this reprehensible act.
When Monte starts writing non-P.C. columns about minority and counter-cultural community responsiblity for anarchistic out-of-control, destructive life styles, and violence that destroy innocent lives, I will at least give him credit for being “fair and balanced,” a credit I suspect he would not appreciate, given its media connotations.
Nathan,
Please tell me about black privileges. First, let me guess; and then I’m sure you can (and will) correct me. You must be talking about the “privilege” of ‘affirmative action,’ and perhaps even the relative inoculation you perceive that black Americans have received from the mainstream media against any charges of racism. Am I on the right track, or in the vicinity?
Since you’ve acknowledged that there is white privilege and perhaps even white male privilege, I would certainly like to know what some of those are from your perspective.
I am interested in exploring this with you for a number of reasons; not the least of which is that I consider you to be the most articulate albeit (perhaps) reluctant spokesperson for the ideological views on race, class, and society that you share with many others like you; some of whom participate on these boards.
I should take this opportunity to applaud Monte Sahlin and a few others in this discussion for the courage to speak things to your own as though swimming upstream (against the flow of the stream). It takes very rare courage for whites to speak to whites about white racism; and I am beginning to see why. I’d spoken with another former denominational employee who told me how difficult it is; but now I’m seeing it more vividly.
(Interestingly, I would have much more respect for the likes of Ben Carson, Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, et al if they had a history of speaking primarily with blacks and to blacks about things which go against the flow of the black stream of thought; but they do not. Instead they have a history of telling ‘conservative’ whites what they want to hear. Then they personally benefit from doing so; not exactly profiles in courage. I digress.)
Monte:
You say: “There is only one possible answer to these questions and I hope that this terrible event shakes enough white people to their core to get this lesson into their minds.”
For years I wrote to GC administrators, editors, conference, union leaders, etc. and public newspapers, magazines, etc. about the treatment of ethnic groups, especially Black Americans. I lamented our lack of a stance during the civil rights era. I said equality should be on our baptismal vows and now in our fundamental beliefs.
But today, Monte, I don’t believe in the white privilege that is now popular among the academics and which they use to divide the country and arouse hostility. This is/was a different world in the 2000’s but that has suddenly erupted in violence, hatred, from poor areas that just happen to be Black/African American.
I socialize and go to church with Black people all the time, and none of them are like those we have segregated in urban areas with poor education, no jobs, drug dealing, gangs, immorality and the like. And with quick access to guns.
You take a very racist view that paints all Black citizens with the same brush of being oppressed, discriminated against, etc. And this feeds on victimization and pushes the poor Blacks down even more and makes them angrier. And it may be making enemies among “white” people who are growing tired of being blamed for it.
I do agree with your opinion of fire arms. There is absolutely no reason they should be readily available or that assault weapons should be accessible for any but soldiers and law enforcement.
Now for the mentally ill man who shot 9 persons, if this were common we would see killings everywhere, but most killings are being done in poverty areas. Does anyone get excited about the Blacks killed in these areas?
This incident is on the same page as the shootings in New England, and to try and make them racial is like saying the other kid shot the students because they were young.
This paranoid man would have killed anyone he had an inkling might be a threat. Let’s get real and logical!
SDA’s are skilled in passing the buck when it comes to social issues. Mass murder is mentioned at Sabbath potluck. Response: “One more sign that end time prophecy is being fulfilled. Hay stacks again? Oh well, the peach pie looks “peachy.”
“We must all ask God to forgive us for narrowing the Adventist message, seeking to make it only about “spiritual” things, disconnected from the realities of life.”
A faith that doesn’t translate into how we treat others or get us involved in practical ministries in our communities is powerless and worthless. Even worse, it deludes us into thinking we’re doing we’re doing “God’s work” when we’re not doing any of the things Jesus told us to be doing.
What do Matthew 7:21-23 and 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 have to tell all of us?
How are you bearing fruit for the Kingdom of God as Jesus described in John 15:5-6? What evidence can you show us of God blessing what you are doing for God? When will the focus of your remarks here give us a hint that doing the works Jesus told His followers to be doing is a higher priority in your life than just arguing political philosophy?
My mission/calling insofar as God’s work is concerned is to tell you the truth. (Actually that is my calling to everyone.) I also have a corollary calling to demand the truth from you (and others). I would say it is bearing fruit; but while I should certainly examine myself, I’m not my judge. But then again, neither are you (nor is anyone else).
What do Matthew 7:21-23 and 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 have to tell all of us?
Yes, Monte,
The sign of the coming of Jesus is not what ‘they’ do, it is what the disciples do … not what they believe but what they do … the doing of which of course is contingent of belief.
It’s both, Bill. It is not an either/or situation. The bible tells us what the wicked will do and also, what the righteous will do.
Some of us may have experienced the difference between tolerance and acceptance in the church. The church may tolerate me, without really accepting me.
Just so, the same principle may apply to race relations on many levels. I am sure more than a few feel more like they are tolerated than accepted. And it’s true.
But like a person’s relationship to the church, if all you do is “cry baby” all over the church about how bad you are treated and not accepted, you really don’t know the gospel. And this works both ways. So I can tolerate many things the church may do without accepting it as a definition of my own spirituality. But eventually, if this situation continues, there will necessarily be division either by my decision or theirs.
As to civil righteousness, the issue of tolerance vs. acceptance is more open ended. But for any group to “cry baby” all over the county about how they are mistreated is counter productive to obtain a more harmonious end. Just like religion. It won’t help your cause.
People in the secular community will more likely “accept” anyone who becomes a responsible citizen and does not “cry baby” for entitlements as a right because of any past abuse. I don’t care of you are oriental, black, latino, or whatever. Get a job and be responsible, and people for the most part will not only tolerate you, but accept you.
“Life is not fair”. It never has been and never will be in this world. And no amount government meddling will solve the issue. Civil righteousness is commendable and should be supported by all citizens. But it will not remove nor cure all prejudice and bias in this world. So, get over it, find a job at McDonald’s if that’s all there is and move on until you can find something better.
There is not a soul on earth who can not “cry baby” about some inequity on some level.
So our SDA answer to racism should be to ignore it? Whoever is mistreated should just man up? Very confusing coming from a follower of Christ.
Guns don’t kill!! PEOPLE KILL. Knives, hammers, auto’s, H bombs
don’t kill!! PEOPLE KILL. A guy in Scandinavia on a vacation isle shot and killed, “WITH GUNS”, APPROX fifty (50) people mostly blonde, young people. Some guy in New England murdered a group of toddlers and teachers in a nursery. i could enumerate many other instances where wanton mass murder has been committed, but you know of all of them (that is those reported). Every country in the world has these mentally sick people, who kill. MENTALLY SICK PEOPLE KILL. With the billions and more people now on Earth, these senseless horrific events are happening with greater frequency,and mind numbing distress.
The executions in South Carolina was the result of mental illness, coupled with racial hatred. This murderer was a coward, by entering a sanctuary of peaceful God loving people praying for their neighbors, and slaughtered by a lowly piece of Earthly SCUMBAG. There is no reason for this vile creature to be given any mercy. (Oh, the poor soul was maltreated and abused by his parents, and bullied by his classmates).
He should be taken to trial immediately, tried and convicted, and executed within one year, with a ruling of “NO APPEALS WILL BE HEARD”. The current policy of 15 plus years on Death Row, at a cost of a Million $$ a year per, to the tax payers is totally unacceptable. Political Correctness for murderers
is not biblical, not acceptable, to post modern society. The bleeding hearts will have to find a new issue to lavish their guilt upon.
Every soul of all colors is precious to our God of LOVE. And is paramount to us fellow creatures. No special privileges, but fair and equal appreciation for all.The living generations
are responsible for their actions, not for those of past generations. Unless we accept that all souls are equal, there will never be peace in our communities.
It appears we (MANKIND)are definitely in this Earth’s final struggles with destiny, wheather or not we know Bible prophecy.
Class hatred, haves and have nots, and national cultural differances, develops hatred and desire to rid the Earth of “OUR ENEMIES”. The wipeout weapons are in our hands. Some frenzied nut will push the button soon. Those who have faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, will not be fearful. We expect a singular event to happen to this Earth, SOON. Bless each one of you as you pray for peace for each of those loved ones surviving the victims of this horrendous evil event.
We do not protest the necessity of getting a license before someone can legally drive. Yet the NRA protests any restrictions on gun sales: no proof of gun training or the necessity to carry arms. In many states anyone can walk in a store and immediately purchase a gun, nothing but payment required.
With so many (much more than every individual in the U.S.), guns are easy to buy on the street or steal. More innocent people, often toddlers, are killed by guns that are not safely stored in a locked case. They are as available as ordinary cabinets are drawers in a home, and often laid out on table or desk with toddlers in the home! Because they are so casually acquired, they are treated casually, not like the killing instrument they are intended to be.
Too many have even shot family members who were instantly thought to be intruders because the first thought is to shoot. When there are more guns on the street, there will be more homicides.
Elaine, please educate yourself on the NRA before accusing someone else of stating unsubstantiated information. You can start here: http://mic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear
Driving a car is not a constitutional right, but gun ownership is. Also, far more people die each year in cars and from being hit by cars than die from gunshots.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2010 4.86 people died each second from either heart disease or cancer but 4.7 people per hour will commit suicide, a difference of 3,722 times! In contrast, the number of people killed by someone else using a gun is so small that the CDC no longer reports it as a statistically significant cause of death in America. So, why do people get so upset over incidents like the killing of nine people in a church in Charleston, SC? Because it is shocking that such a thing could happen. But even more, it allows the politically powerful to deceive us into thinking the problems posed by the extremely few is a threat of such magnitude that the only solution is for the masses to surrender more of their liberty to the government. History gives us huge examples of the incredible oppression and suffering that has resulted in nations where the people allowed this to happen. Do you want America to turn into the Soviet Union of Stalin’s time, or Nazi Germany under Hitler? That’s where the surrender of liberty to “progressive” leaders takes once-free nations.
“We never paid reparations for generations of unpaid labor.”
Monte- have you made your first payment?:) I once heard a guy who promoted the cause of Indians say he would give up his land to the Indians. Why didn’t he?
I believe you have stoked the fires of racism with some of your comments, unfortunately. I surmise that Kevin Paulson would agree with some of what you said.
And certain leaders of our great land have played the race card.That will never solve the racial problem nor will the likes of Sharpton or the Black leaders of Baltimore.
Noel: “While I generally respect and appreciate what you write, in this case I think you’ve been dining at the table of Liberal confusion for too long and the shock in your belly is just the painful flatulence and cramping that results when the sweet-sounding promises of Liberalism have a harsh encounter with real nature of evil. It is painful having the total failure of popular social philosophy exposed by the harsh light of reality.”
Wow, what a statement.
If we are talking root causes, let’s talk about the Democratic librrsl policies that have totally wrecked Chicago, detroit, Baltimore, Atlanta, and Washington DC. Lyndon Johnson’s Ear on Poverty destroyed the black families by subsidising women only if the father would leave the home, and paid unwed mothers subsidies for each child they have out of wedlock as long as they don’t marry the boy that got them pregnant. 70 percent of crime and poverty are directly related to the cycle of unwed mothers having babies to get on financial subsidies. These are all liberal policies that have destroyed the Black family and caused too much of the heartache and crime that they have to live with.
It has been reported that about of 70% of births to Black women are out of wedlock and that about 30% of births to White women are out of wedlock.
The woman whom both the liberal and conservative press praised for hitting her big boy to get him home during Baltimore riots has 6 kids and the news indicated there were 6 fathers.
Please substantiate your statement: “70 percent of crime and poverty are directly related to the cycle of unwed mothers having babies to get on financial subsidies.”
The “crime and poverty”, plus illegal prescription drug use is most prevalent in the “Bible Belt” which claims to be the most religious, church-going in the nation.
What affect does this have on gun violence?
Guns are simply one tool among many that criminals may choose to employ in committing their offenses. The same screwdrivers or hammers in my tool boxes become “burglary tools” when they are used to force open a door and burglarize a home.
According to the 2010 US Census, 82% of black youth lived in a single-parent home where no father was present. In some inner-city areas that number is well over 90%. Prison statistics for decades have shown that the #1 factor violent criminals have in-common is having been raised without a strong father figure in their life and only very small differences are found in that statistic when sorted for race or ethnicity.
Elaine asked a question about the relationship between the high rate of illegitimate births and poverty and crime and I was adding illustration on that question. While it explains much about the disproportionately high number of black youth who become involved in crime it had nothing to do with the Charleston church shooting.
Would anyone, anyone at all, care to please draw the connection between the black out of wedlock birthrate (and/or whatever other indication or measure of social pathology in the African American community which might come to mind) and the white American terrorism that was visited upon the worshippers who were murdered in Charleston last week?
Of course the answer to this is “no.”
The note above answering your question got posted in the wrong position.
Well, since neither the high out of wedlock birthrate among African Americans nor the poverty rate, or any black social pathology is in any way related to the Charleston shooting, what in the world was Tom Hughes talking about when he commented “If we are talking about root causes, let’s talk about the Democratic liberal policies that have totally wrecked Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore…”?
Of course he had previously criticized Monte, saying that “Liberal democratic political ideas are appropriate in other forums but I don’t think they are appropriate in this one.”
It appears that he is talking about, or willing to talk about “root causes,” but the root causes of exactly what? It appears he is willing to talk about “Democratic liberal policies” in this forum, but deems it inappropriate to talk about “liberal democratic political ideas” in this forum.
So I’m trying to decipher the agenda. It would appear that he wants to have it both ways in this discussion.
The legal safeguard designed to block questionable people from getting a gun worked in this situation, according to the available information. The kids personal application was denied. What didn’t work was his dad’s evaluation of his son’s mental condition and a wise assessment of his propensity to commit such a crime.
So this isn’t, at its core, a liberal or conservative issue, a gun rights issue, or a religious one, but a parental one. Except for the supplying the guns a similar child-parent dynamic occurred a few years ago in Littleton, CO, at Columbine High School, where two sets of parents had no clue their sons harbored such evil in their hearts, much less the willingness to perpetrate a horrible massacre.
Handwringing is a common exercise for moments like this, but in this case it is pretty useless. It appears only the dad could have stopped this, at least momentarily, by not being the supplier of the weapon. What that dad is now experiencing is unimaginable. He deserves our prayers, too. Every parent can look back, or at the present, and give thanks that the cues missed weren’t on this scale. There, but for the Grace of God, goes us.
Larry,
Your observation about the father’s inaccurate evaluation of his son’s condition is critical to the issue of managing mental illness. I say that from having been in that role dealing with a mentally-challenged child who had some serious, even dangerous, behavior problems in her younger years. There were a number of times when her behaviors were so familiar that I did not perceive how dangerous they were and did not realize it until a crisis situation erupted. What ripped the blinders off my eyes was the day she was waving a large knife at us and others and in a standoff in our yard a deputy sheriff used a Taser to subdue her. That’s when I really started listening to the therapists at the hospital when they told us what they were seeing in her behavior. I am immensely thankful to God for the changes we have seen in her since. She still has problems and may never be able to live independently, but she has been taking progressively increasing ownership of her life and making great strides to where she now works full-time in a nursing home.
From that experience I understand intimately how a parent can miss the danger signs that are sometimes obvious to others, so I have great sympathy for the parents of the young man who killed those people in the church in Charleston. I have additional sympathy for them after watching friends go through a similar difficult time. They worked hard to raise their sons to love God, but one fell under the influence of a youth gang, became a drug abuser and killed someone during a robbery. I watched them struggle through the trauma of all the media attention during his trial and then for many years under the emotional weight of having their son on Alabama’s death row and then executed. While in prison he surrendered his life to God and took ownership of what he had done to the point of willingly accepting that he would one day be put to death. He was so changed by God that the guards who took him to the death chamber were deeply moved by the forgiveness he offered them. So all of this has made me very appreciative of the forgiveness that the families of those killed in Charleston have offered to both that young man and his family. They are giving America a view of how sharply and greatly God’s love and forgiveness contrasts with the illusions and gross deceptions of political correctness.
Well, it’s about Race, Guns, and Delusions. And without a doubt, sin is delusional. We are all afflicted with this same disease. Born with a “God-ego” it is very difficult to find our true identity and give up the one we are born with. It is a “God size” problem that He has been dealing with for six thousand years with the human family.
When the devil said, “Ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.” It was a temptation that deluded Eve and eventually persuaded Adam. Self justification is the final result. And it means man will be the final judge of good and evil and no one has any ultimate or final authority over humanity.
Self government apart from any accountability to any higher authority. God has ordained self government. But not apart from accountability to His higher authority and His ultimate call to accountability to the rules and principles He has stated and the framework of law He has ordained for man to govern himself.
And if we come short, or make an honest misstep, then what? Jesus has always been the “safety net” for all creation since all “come short of the glory of God” and this includes the unfallen angels.
The unpardonable sin is to reject God’s system of government of law and grace based on Jesus. Jesus is the final authority, Jesus is the “safety net” of grace. And so the devil hates Christ and the whole system of government God has ordained that we might have a sense of value and meaning in all our decisions and actions.
Sin is delusional. It makes us equal to God. It places us above law. It negates any need for grace. It releases us from any accountability except to ourselves. It breeds a life that has no value and genders young people who do the things this young man did to find some “self identity” and “self affirmation”, but in the end is a cry of “Help, I don’t know who I am and no one can tell me.”
There is no stability in sin. There is no absolute standard or absolute reality. There is no ultimate meaning. And like Solomon has well said, “All is vanity and emptiness.” All ends in oblivion.
This young man needs a knowledge of who he is in Jesus. Civil law solutions are as useless as the people who make the laws. They have no authority except that which God ordains and/or approves. And unless the true God of the bible is a factor in the whole scheme of life, the result is what we see in all of society in general and manifested in this young man’s experience. Modern society has created this monster but will not admit it nor deal with the real cause, but continue to avoid the reality and remain delusional about the problem and solution.
Bill, I confess, I fell asleep trying to read your exposition. Could you summarize in a couple of sentence please?
OK, Bugs, I will. The angels of heaven and the whole universe is over whelmed by the fact that God was/is willing to make an atonement for man who committed the unpardonable sin.
Sinful man, on the other hand, is under whelmed by the same reality and sinful man denies that he needs any atonement. Sinful man claims God is responsible for everything that happens both positive and negative, and thus no created being should be held accountable for anything they do.
Satan is selling this universalism doctrine to the human family, and we are buying it, hook, line, and sinker.
Was that understandable?
Sorry Bill, off to snooze at “unpardonable.” Are you sure keeping me asleep isn’t part of your sinister plan?
Bill, I just had a dream while snoozing. It told me what you said. Here it is.
Man is bad. God is good. That darned devil hides at-one-ment from man.
I guess that’s pretty close as you perceive it, Bugs.
Remember, my constant chiding of Adventism is the failure to understand the doctrine of original sin and its meaning and implications. If the devil can obscure this truth so that people either don’t understand and accept it, or even attack it like Kevin Paulson, Dennis Priebe and others who advocate a theology of legalism do, there is no hope of the SDA church being useful to God in the end to accomplish what He intended for the SDA church in the beginning.
Their view of “sinlessness” is so far outside the biblical definition it has no affinity to what sin is and its affect on the family of Adam after he sinned.
They refuse to admit that we are born guilty, condemned and lost by Adam’s choice and not our own. They limit sin to willful and deliberate disobedience and deny sins of ignorance. They claim if you are ignorant, what you do is not sin.
This superficial definition of sin can only gender self righteousness that parallels the Jews in the rejection of Christ and will end in the same result.
The bible teaches again and again that Adam opted out for the whole human family, but God has provided an atonement in Christ so that “whosoever will may come” and opt in by their own choice. Rom. 5.
This is so fundamental to bible Christanity that if the SDA church accepts or even tolerates those who deny it, then the SDA church is in the process of becoming the final antichrist movement.
It simply affirms the total confusion of those who hold positions of authority and influence in the SDA church and will not stand for bible truth on something as basic as sin and atonement. It is a virtual denial of the gospel and how it functions and is applied to the human family.
And these guys don’t represent a small number of theologians in the church. They have massive support by more than a few. I don’t care how much the church pontificates and blowhards about the wonderful advancement the church is making in the world.
They affirm that God is leading the church, all is well. But God leads the church by way of the bible, and when the bible is abandon, then God is abandon, and He is no longer leading the church.
Talk about “delusional”. Adventism today is more than a little delusional as is clearly demonstrated by the incessant and ongoing confusion demonstrated by men like Paulson and Priebe.
Male headship vs. WO is childish compared to the issue of sin and atonement. It is a diversion from an important issue to ignore an even more important issue.
Yes, “delusional” is a good word to explain the SDA church of today.
I’m sure that Dennis Priebe can defend himself. I have heard him talk more than once and read some of what he has written. To accuse him of legalism is far off the mark.
I’m wondering whether those who make such accusations are doing to:
1. Discredit his message.
2. Diminish the requirements of the Ten Commandments.
3. Imply that Adventism does not have the liberals’ idea of big tent Adventism where no one stands for anything and almost anything goes.
“They refuse to admit that we are born guilty, condemned and lost by Adam’s choice and not our own. They limit sin to willful and deliberate disobedience and deny sins of ignorance. They claim if you are ignorant, what you do is not sin.”
This is Priebe’s theology, and it is antichrist. If you have read his book on this subject, you would know that his theology is not biblical. “Face to Face with the Gospel” is a sad commentary on sin and the atonement. Doug Batchelor will eventually be forced to confront this false doctrine he supports and advocates that claims we are not born sinners. We only becomes sinners when we violate our conscience and willfully transgress God’s law.
This is such a superficial definition of sin, we could wonder how anyone could be deceived by it. It denies any need for atonement for sins of ignorance. It is blatant heresy and not endorsed either by the bible, or EGW.
Concerning the final atonement she states….
“The third angel closes his message thus: “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” As he repeated these words, he pointed to the heavenly sanctuary. The minds of all who embrace this message are directed to the most holy place, where Jesus stands before the ark, making His final intercession for all those for whom mercy still lingers and for those who have ignorantly broken the law of God. This atonement is made for the righteous dead as well as for the righteous living. It includes all who died trusting in Christ, but who, not having received the light upon God’s commandments, had sinned ignorantly in transgressing its precepts. EW 254.1”
Sins of ignorance must be atoned for by the blood of Jesus. When we sin, we are guilty whether we know it or not. Our knowledge of guilt is not the determining factor of whether we are guilty.
Guilt is objective beyond human knowledge. Dennis Priebe, Kevin Paulson and others who attack this truth also attack the atonement, its value and full application.
All fundamental Christian denominations endorse the doctrine of original sin. And just because the Catholic church pervert the doctrine does not negate its validity. Many in the SDA church who hold positions of influence and authority are woefully ignorant of the bible and the atonement and its full value. They not only deny the bible, but EGW as well as clearly revealed in the statement above.
Wake up Larry!! And Bill, please explain to me in shortened explanations how SIN got into the protected Garden of Eden. When God created it He said it was “very good”!! Yet He let loose inside Perfect Paradise, a monster to entrap His special creation!! His special man, Adam,had not a chance of a snowball in August of overcoming the wiliest of God’s creatures!! Why would God “knowing the end from the beginning” do that????
Whoa Earl! Me thinks you misunderstand! In my dream-state I was translating what Sorenson said. Didn’t say I agree. I don’t.
I feel so bad for Sorenson and his buds because J. Christ’s missing words are so longed for and so elusive: “I came to die for you losers, all of you, from the history of this miserable world, because you are sin infested low life human, you stealth besmirchers of my perfect Garden of Eden; my father is really teed off, needs some blood, those Hebrews didn’t slaughter enough harmless animals, will toast you in hell unless mine gets drained, so let’s get mine spilt, get this over with you wretched ingrates, and when this is all over, a few of you might live in one of my apartments in heaven, but only if you believe in the heavenly sanctuary and keep the seventh day Sabbath and all those other commandments perfectly (I don’t care about the rest of you).”
If they could just locate this verse somewhere they wouldn’t have to do mental gymnastics, write long boring incomprehensible sermons, twist in theological circles, speak circumlocutions, live in soundproof chambers and suffer endless neurotic guilt for being human, and apparently feel so superior about their “knowledge,” in a nutshell, be theologicrats.
What Jesus did say, “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another like I love you.” He explained that with his life and his stories. He couldn’t have been on a mission to save mankind because he never heard of them being lost so he never said he was on such a mission. The concept of “lost” humanity survives only on human brain waves buttressed by weak scriptural interpretation, second hand inferences (Baptist John), but nothing concrete from Jesus own words. It’s an invention of the Catholic Church (who still practices the magic of consubstantiation, a form of re-killing Jesus) the only Christian one for about the first twelve hundred years after Jesus lived.
And oh, if that text I’m quoting above in my first paragraph could just be located! That would shut my trap! Maybe?
Larry,
You should write your own Bible. Don’t know how that will go, though.
So, as to your “never lost” philosophy, what do you say about the following Scripture passages?
“6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
“24 But He (Jesus) answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
“11 For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost”
4 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it? 5 And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!’ 7 I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.” Luke 15:4-7
The question is: Who is a “sinner” and who is the “just person who need no repentance”?
Of course all the problems in this world are sin related. And the more people resort to human intervention, like laws, medicines, etc, they will only be band aid solutions; whitewashed tombs, wolves in sheep skins; brainwashed souls destitute of God’s healing and saving power.
I concur with Bill and William.
Why would I write my own Bible, Daniel? Yours is perfectly fine with me. Yours doesn’t openly say what you want it to, but that’s your problem. The lost sheep metaphor is just that, a metaphor. You want it to mean one thing, it can mean many others. Metaphors extend into hyperbole often since they have no specific meaning. It is a might leap to draw from a couple of texts (Luke 15:4-7, and others) that the moral economy of the world defined as sinful is described as a problem and then cured somehow within the obscurity of those verses.
In other words, there meaning isn’t clearly defined. Daniel, it boils down to opinion. You are satisfied with yours. You like the Catholic version. That is fine with me. I like the Scriptures like they are, no improvements or fine tuning possible or necessary. They are open to interpretation. That’s why it doesn’t say explicitly what you want it to. Christ’s mission was to be a living underscore of God as love. That was the intention of the original Teacher.
Curious that you would refer to “whitewashed tombs.” That is the record of what Christ called the theologicrats, those wise fools of his day.
Pontificating words have nothing to do with the event Monte addresses here. Sinful world blah blah. The prayer wheels endlessly spinning in the Himalayas are at least as efficacious and could well be joined by analysis and prescriptions of being born guilty. Why it happened doesn’t matter. It can’t be undone and little can be done to prevent another one. What does matter is our response to the love of God touching our lives so that we reach to our circle, extend that love to them and review our efforts to read all we know who might be a risk.
Larry,
“Yours doesn’t openly say what you want it to, but that’s your problem.” No, I only see it as well as my blind mind can see it. One day I hope to see it as it really is.
“The lost sheep metaphor is just that, a metaphor. You want it to mean one thing, it can mean many others.”
Yes, we can “want” it to mean many things, but what is the correct way to read these passages? I could say: No one is lost as far as God is concerned; after all, how can one hide from God? We can’t. But we can all be lost in ways which we deny. What about this: Lost in our delusions; selfishness; hatred toward God and mankind; lawlessness toward God, man, animals and nature; deceptions; and much more. So, how do we get found? Or freed from this “sinful”, sorry, I mean, imagination, which we have in our minds? In other words we are blind, cannot see because we deny we need someone greater than us to save us from ourselves. But wait, “God saves those who save themselves”. That’s a lie, why would God save those who can save themselves? God saves those who cannot save themselves.
No, I wasn’t quoting those Scripture passages in relation to this article, I was responding to your “never lost” statements.
The whitewashed tombs? The blind leading the blind. Same thing. If the “whitewashed tombs” are leading the blind then they also become “whitewashed tombs”; “twice the sons of hell as themselves”, because they glory in outward appearance. If you know what I mean?
When I said you should write your own Bible, I meant it. Because you have or know something everyone else seems to be missing.
One thing is for certain, we will all be judged according to our works; and how we build. I hope I am building on that “sure foundation”—Jesus Christ.
Peace.
“God saves those who can save themselves”.
It actually goes like this, but it all means the same: “God helps those who help themselves”.
People will always blame God, Earl, to avoid their own accountability in the sin issue. The fact is this, if God had not given Adam and Eve sufficient warning and knowledge to resist and deny the false teaching of Satan, then yes, God was to blame.
The value of life is based on various options. If there is no option, then neither is there any value in a decision. The consequences and penalty of making a wrong decision intensifies the value of making a right one. And the reward for making a right decision is also equal to the penalty of making a wrong one.
Take away this fact, and you devalue the meaning of human choice and the results of making the choice one way or the other.
You can chide God for allowing a test of loyalty with such a high level of consequence for making the wrong choice. But you devalue humanity by doing so.
Adam and Eve had adequate knowledge and thus were culpable when they chose to disobey. If you don’t believe this, then you will necessarily side with Satan in his attack on God and His kingdom. The same principle applies to us today.
While no one has all knowledge of God, God has revealed Himself in nature, society, life experience and ultimately the bible so that we are all accountable on some level. And this is why God takes into account all the circumstances of our life including any viable knowledge we have attained, as well as to what we may have rejected and even refused to learn.
If we respond in a positive was, then more and more understanding comes our way by all the means of grace God has ordained in this world. If we choose to reject knowledge, and then accuse God because we make a wrong decision, once again, we side with Satan.
But, God is long suffering and patient with us because of the influence of sin and the delusion it creates about God and ourselves.
Never allow a violated conscience keep you from God. It is the devil’s tool to turn us on God and claim freedom from guilt and blame God for our dilemma. First, we must confess and believe that sin is not God’s fault, no matter what we may think about any given situation. In this world of sin it is natural for us to consider this possibility especially because we are born into this situation.
Sin is Satan’s fault and our own. Only if we accept this reality can we make any progress in a viable and dynamic relationship with God and be restored to a higher and higher level of value for ourselves and those we may influence.
Bugs is correct in his comment below. We in no way speak for each other as we consider the others view totally outside the scriptural norm.
I never said what i said.
Earl,
May I?
“…please explain to me in shortened explanations how SIN got into the protected Garden of Eden.” With a lie. How’s that?
Daniel, that doesn’t answer Earl’s question. Earl wants to know why God allowed the devil to get into the garden. Of course Satan lied. But that is not what Earl asked.
“Earl wants to know why God allowed the devil to get into the garden.”
Where is the “Garden” and where are the rest of the angels who followed Satan?
William Noel,
Too many car, knife, screwdriver and hammer crimes and murders going on.
Tools are used for what ever purpose they were invented. But guns were specifically designed to kill humans and animals. So there is no competition here. People kill and that’s how it has been for thousands of years. Only now it is more prevalent because there are more people. Guns only make it easier. How much easier is it to pull a trigger than line up your car and run over your assailant?
I concur with Bill Sorensen.
What gets used typically depends on what is available to be used as a weapon. I once reported a newspaper story about a man whose daughter was raped and when the father found out he drove to the offender’s house with a gun and intent to kill the man. Only when he found the man out in his front yard the father may have had his foot hard on the gas pedal when he swerved off the street and across the man’s front yard to strike him. The offender was not killed but severely injured and recovered to face trial. The father was charged with attempted murder but acquitted by a jury, several of whom told me that they wished the father’s aim with his car had been more accurate.
Monte,
You went on a long-but-cheap screed. I’m certain you were sincere, but in my judgment misguided by your interests in three matters:
[1] To endorse an interminable and unproductive collective guilt over the very sad and despicable actions of one deranged and very misguided man;
[2] A proclivity to promote race as an underlying framework to see the world we live in, when it is precisely that perspective that has not worked and sustains a them-versus-us mentality irrespective of what side of the fence you live on; and
[3] A quick trigger to blame the device–in this case, guns–when there is a long noted list of ways people harm and kill others [alcohol and swimming pools to name two obvious ones you’d likely not rail against] that are substantially dangerous to a very large number of innocence victims, ones it would be naive to think the banishment of is called for, even appropriate, forget feasible or reasonable. Heck, gun-owners have a homicide rate 1/4 of the general population.
It’s unfortunate that you went political when in my view that’s not a very promising way to get crazy people to refrain from engaging in regrettable actions nor the rest of us love and accept each other the way good and decent people should.
“Also, liberalism has neutered laws related to dealing with mental illness, often making treatment unavailable to those who need it most.”
Very appropriate, Noel. Mainstreaming everybody as though there aren’t persons with “special needs” has resulted in more persons running loose who should be confined. Once it was too easy to commit a person and now the do-gooders have made it too difficult. With the rancor now between the left and the right one wonders whether we will ever find the golden mean.
Liberalism not so much, more of follow the money, and follow the development of effective pharmaceuticals. The basis for mental care were the state hospitals, very expensive to maintain. Drugs arrived that treated symptoms with varying degrees of success. And mental hospitals popularly to be came to be seen, correctly or not, as virtual prisons, with tinges of abuse. For many, as the state hospital closed for whatever reason, the street became their abode and the laws changed to favor them, often without offering course of care.
It is a complicated matter not easily described or explored in the space we have here, but definitely needing attention. Unfortunately, anyone who expects improved mental health care will reduce or prevent incidents such as the Charleston church shooter will be disappointed because it is impossible to measure what doesn’t happen.
Exactly. My knowledge, what there is of it, came from my CPE training (Clinical Pastoral Education), a program for hospital chaplains, taught and experienced at a state hospital in Denver CO just prior to the demise of the state hospital systems, and other experiences as a Chaplain and having worked in a state hospital while in college. I know of no systematic interdiction program and know of no reason why there ever will be. Cost/benefit, clouded by legal issues, are perpetual, serious limiting factors.
William Noel,
Do you think Christians should have guns to protect themselves against violent people?
I leave that decision to individuals to make for themselves because I respect both the scriptural responsibility of fathers to protect both their families and property and their constitutional right to arm themselves.
You suggest, Monte, that if we as Adventists are to be “real Adventists” (channeling Ted Wilson) and survive as a faith community, we must “allow space” to confront and challenge what you obviously think are the delusional conservative political views responsible for the hideous actions of Dylann Roof. I will resist the temptation to delve into the delusional progressive political views that have allowed the murder and genocide of untold millions of innocent lives…or to ask the obvious “Why would God allow…” questions that make Roof’s atrocities appear, in the words of President Obama, junior varsity by comparison.
I would prefer to ask a different question: What kind of delusional political ideas and rhetoric permeated First Century Judean political culture, and the culture of its Roman oppressors? Tell us, Monte, about how Jesus and His faith community survived? What do you find in Jesus ministry to suggest that He “allowed any space” to acknowledge and affirm the claims and metanarratives of the grievance mongers who sought to use Him as a “useful idiot” to advance their earthly kingdom agendas? Oh, that’s right…Jesus and His followers really didn’t survive as a faith community did they? Maybe Jesus just wasn’t courageous enough. Maybe if He had had the guts to courageously stand up to Roman privilege and ethnic oppression. Maybe stricter sword control laws. How about reparations for the Jews? How about railing against denial of Roman citizenship…
Continued: But really…”Don’t worry about, food, clothing, shelter, economic and social injustice… the ‘realities of life’?” What was He thinking? How could a few personal miracles, healing the broken-hearted, binding up wounds, personal acts of love and mercy, possibly make a difference in the context of monstrous institutional evil? No wonder they killed Him. He was delusional – failed to engage with the realities of life. And worse yet, people were actually taking Him seriously.
Anger is the human response to evil, hurt and suffering; Compassion is the divine response. Thank you for so articulately sharing with us your humanity, Monte. But what are you doing on a self-sacrificing personal level to bind the wounds and heal the broken hearted who have been left by the Charleston Emmanuel AME Church massacre? And what would you have us do to model the divine response?
And all this simply affirms the necessity of church morality and civil righteousness in the name of the state as being two separate issues. Jesus simply refused to get involved with civil righteousness because He knew that bible morality transcends any human endeavor to solve the sin issue.
Apparently, many Christians today don’t get it and assume it is a Christian duty to advocate church and state working together to solve the sin problem.
“The government under which Jesus lived was corrupt and oppressive; on every hand were crying abuses—extortion, intolerance, and grinding cruelty. Yet the Saviour attempted no civil reforms. He attacked no national abuses, nor condemned the national enemies. He did not interfere with the authority or administration of those in power. He who was our example kept aloof from earthly governments. Not because He was indifferent to the woes of men, but because the remedy did not lie in merely human and external measures. To be efficient, the cure must reach men individually, and must regenerate the heart. AG 16.2”
Apparently, many in the SDA church don’t agree with this evaluation of Jesus and how He evangelized and supported His Father’s kingdom. We need to follow His example.
Nathan,
Have you considered the prophet Amos? Or have you considered the prophet Micah? Who is it that inspired their messages? The Bible is a big, comprehensive book. Its message is NOT that either God is, or that His people should be, dismissive of injustice when they see it. Do you think Jesus thought that Amos and Micah should have minded their business? Aren’t silence and apathy among our evils?
Surely you don’t have a problem with Christians getting involved in the abortion debate. In your view, should Jesus not doing or saying much about social wrongs guide those Christians involved in that controversy too?
I understand your concerns, Stephen, and they are valid. But I don’t believe Amos and Micah are good models for how educated, informed Christians should should deal with defining justice or finding the best ways to minimize injustice in a liberal democracy. Their rhetoric provides a better model for 12th Century theocratic Muslim jihadists than for contemporary Christians living in constitutional democracies. For Amos and Micah, Israel was morally responsible for its plight. And its enemies would be made to suffer and pay for their oppression of God’s people. Think Jerry Falwell after 9/11.
I don’t know what Jesus thought about the imprecations of Amos and Micah. But I don’t think He foresaw, as they did, the restoration of Israel’s glory days. The cross and the resurrection changed everything.
Christians should feel free, as citizens of earthly kingdoms, to advocate for whatever legal policies they feel are best, including throwing out the Constitution and embracing communism. But the church, qua church, is not about de jure empowerment of identity groups in earthly kingdoms. Its role is not to define, restore or perfect some kind of idealized theocratic justice in the name of Christ. It is about one reality cluster – Christ and post-resurrection Kingdom living.
I respect and accept Monte’s views on social justice. Unlike Monte, I do not believe that our differing views should be a litmus test for our faith or a barrier to brotherhood in Christ.
Since I didn’t make myself very clear, you appear to have missed my point. I realize, of course, that Amos and Micah were not 21st century Christians.
Their speaking truth to and their advocacy of justice in their society and culture provides a timeless template for all God’s people. (In my view, the thing about the so-called Old Testament that is underappreciated is that it is that which Jesus declared is what testified of Him; and when Paul said that all scripture is given by inspiration, he basically had reference to what we now call the Old Testament.)
(Needless to say, we could have done without the red-baiting line about embracing communism.)
I’m from Australia. We largely solved our gun violence problem a decade or more ago. President Obama (and other politicians in the US) sometimes cite us as an example. He recently did:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us
We have plenty of crazy people down here too. I don’t think the church killer was any less crazy than what we have. We also have plenty of racism here as well. It is just that crazy people find it hard to get guns and kill people in massacres.
The proof is we have had no large-scale massacres since the Government gun reforms, since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.
Stephen Foster rightly made this point above. Can you try to twist the statistics all you want, but the truth is you can be pretty confident of not dying in a gun-related homocide in Australia. And I don’t believe it is because we are somehow nicer people. In all honestly, Americans are on the whole far more Christian than Australians – as a general rule.
Sorry, Steve, I think you make the case for the U.S. doing what Australia did all too glibly. I read the Prime Minister John Howards narrative
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?_r=0
and it was interesting to learn about but hardly a template for what Monte or you are contemplating. First, the Charleston shooter’s gun would not have been banned by the Aussie legislation [as I understand the Prime Minister’s account], since it was not a semi-automatic, high-powered device; [2] an equivalent buy-back of 40 million guns in the U.S. would net a little over 10% of the number presently in circulation, really making it hard to believe that the genie realistically, materially could be put back in the bottle; and [3] the ignoring of America’s Bill of Rights is likely much easier to talk about than obviating [as acknowledged by Mr. Howard], if even from a practical, political, grassroots level.
Mr. Howard was likely a good guy for Australia on this matter–but the issue here is a lot more complicated than what he had to work with and work from there.
Keith you are quite right. In relation to your three points:
“[1] First, the Charleston shooter’s gun would not have been banned by the Aussie legislation [as I understand the Prime Minister’s account], since it was not a semi-automatic, high-powered device”
Quite true. But pretty sure buying a handgun in Australia is pretty difficult as well. I am comparing the totality of US versus Australian gun laws.
“[2] an equivalent buy-back of 40 million guns in the U.S. would net a little over 10% of the number presently in circulation, really making it hard to believe that the genie realistically, materially could be put back in the bottle”
I find it interesting the world’s biggest, most powerful nation on earth, with the largest military and police force, can de-arm itself. If there was a will you could do it.
“[3] the ignoring of America’s Bill of Rights is likely much easier to talk about than obviating [as acknowledged by Mr. Howard], if even from a practical, political, grassroots level.”
True, but that is more a problem with your constitutional system. Your elected monarchy and lack of majoritarian parliament are also killing your country’s ability to govern effectively.
Perhaps if you had never rebelled against your lawful king you wouldn’t be in this sort of mess. I note in the parts of north America that remain loyal to their king, in Canada, things are much better? 🙂
Comparing the different systems of government in Australia and America is a fool’s errand because there is no practical or possible way to transition from one to the other without destroying the structure of one and enforcing that change through the brutal and totalitarian use of force.
Another way to look at this would be that a little over 10% reduction in the number of U.S. guns in circulation (via a buy-back program) just might result in a reduction of some significance in the number, or rate, of gun deaths in the United States as well. These are after all lives we’re discussing.
Furthermore more restrictive gun laws and more comprehensive background checks and longer waiting periods would not require “the ignoring of America’s Bill of Rights;” rather an accurate interpretation of the original language/intent of the framers, who put the Second Amendment within the expressed context of “a well regulated Militia.”
It’s fascinating how the rhetoric about Chicago gangland murders (of blacks against blacks) ends once it is pointed out that the gun death rate per 100,000 is much higher in states like Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, and Oklahoma—where there aren’t very many such gangs—than it is in Illinois.
Stephen – You said it is fascinating how your argument ended the rhetoric about Chicago gangland murders. It is bad form to act as your own cheerleader or to simply repeat points you have previously made. You shouldn’t assume, because someone doesn’t comment on your every point, that you have offered the final, irrefutable argument.
Go read John Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime” for a thorough discussion of this topic. Like most public policy debates, gun control doesn’t readily yield to feel-good slogans. Having said that, I’m not fond of the Second Amendment as seen through the eyes of the NRA. If it should be properly interpreted as they view it (I haven’t really studied the issue enough to have an opinion), I would favor modifying the Constitution as provided for in its text rather than updating it through “enlightened” judicial fiat.
Lots of cities have tried gun buy-backs in the hope of reducing crime and they have universally failed. Dr. John Lott’s research shows not a single place where the expected results were delivered. Data from the University of Florida Department of Criminal Justice Studies showed that in four Florida cities where buybacks were tried that the rates of gun crimes actually rose afterward because criminals felt like their probability of facing an armed victim had been reduced, so they used their guns more boldly.
As for the “well regulated militia” please remember that when the Constitution was written the typical soldier who was called to military service took their personal hunting rifle with them to use because the military didn’t own very many guns. According to the Historian of the US Army, the combined purchases by the Continental Army through the entire Revolutionary War amounted to less than one-third of the number of soldiers who were in service when the British Army surrendered at Yorktown and over half of them had become unserviceable along the way. Add that the militias operated under the authority of the states to perform law enforcement functions and some states did not have state police forces until after the Civil War. The law enforcement role of the state militias was generally not reduced or disbanded until they were replaced by the appointment of sheriffs and state police.
In other words, the “well regulated militia” spoken about in the Constitution was just armed citizens operating under a command structure to provide law enforcement and national defense services to their communities. Armed citizens provide this same function in a similar way today because of the deterrent effect they have on crime because the citizens are so often in a position to deter or apprehend a criminal when the police do not arrive until some time later.
Yeah, I may have broached blogging etiquette by shushing everyone for the chirping crickets; but then who would have done it.
Nathan, John Lott has little/no credibility except as a shill for the gun lobby. Some of his ‘research’ has been (widely) discredited. Since you claim neutrality and objectivity on this topic (which I do not claim), Lott is a curious source to recommend. Perhaps you just might consider the fact that the male death rate from guns in Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, and Oklahoma—to name but some—(per 100,000 people) is much greater than it is in Illinois, where all those Chicago murders occur. In fact the male gun death rates per 100,000 in Alaska and Alabama are about twice what it is in Illinois. The point that hasn’t been emphasized is that the gun laws in states such as Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut—the states with the lowest gun death rates—are likely quite different (stricter) than they are in Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, and Oklahoma—which have high gun death rates. For someone who hasn’t formed an opinion, such information should be at least intriguing.
I’m not sure you meant“[you] would favor modifying the Constitution as provided for in its text rather than updating it through “enlightened” judicial fiat;” but you might’ve—if you agree with John Paul Stevens. It doesn’t make much sense to “[modify] the Constitution as provided for in its text.” It does however make sense to interpret the Constitution as the framers wrote it.
W. Noel: “As for the “well regulated militia” please remember that when the Constitution was written the typical soldier who was called to military service took their personal hunting rifle with them to use because the military didn’t own very many guns.”
Exactly, that is the point that former Justice John Paul Stevens makes in saying that the Second Amendment should be amended itself to undue what former Chief Justice Warren Burger has properly identified as “the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat, fraud—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen I my lifetime.”
Stevens suggests that to undue this fraud, this amendment should be amended—which is what I believe Nathan may have actually meant—to say “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.
W. Noel also wrote: “Armed citizens provide this same function in a similar way today because of the deterrent effect they have on crime because the citizens are so often in a position to deter or apprehend a criminal when the police do not arrive until some time later.”
This couldn’t be further from the truth. Armed citizens do not constitute a well regulated militia. George Zimmerman is Exhibit A of the menace that an unregulated armed citizen “deterrent” can be. George Zimmerman is not what the framers had in mind.
Correction: …the point that former Justice John Paul Stevens makes in saying that the Second Amendment should be amended itself to UNDO what former Chief Justice Warren Burger…”
Correction: …I may have BREACHED blogging etiquette…
Stephen, when the subject is guns, very few facts can’t be twisted. The United States has a different background, a different constitution, and a different mindset than Australia. When it comes to guns this is a violent country. That is about it for straight talk. Internet search engines guide one into the labyrinth of numbing numbers, many twisted, or at least twistable, to favor a viewpoint. For instance, it is reported that legally armed people kill more crooks than do cops!
The death rate by firearms is about the same as that by automobile, approximately 30,000 per year with a population of about 300,000,000, .01%. When visiting here, best bet is to stay in airplanes!
We have banned ‘roos here, so no threat of dying from a wicked whack in the head from one them!
I have challenged (above) the other Stephen to provide some proper alignment to my mismanaged thinking! I eagerly await!
If you are referring to me Bugs, please repeat your question or the “challenge” wherewith I can realign “[your] mismanaged thinking.” While I’m trying to respond to as many of these comments as I can, undoubtedly I will not catch them all.
I’ve tried to point out the inanity of comparing gun deaths to automobile deaths; which is something you may have missed.
Inanity? It is simply a measure of risk and what threats to your life and health you may face. Your probability of being shot by someone is extremely small and outnumbered by a long list of other items. Each year the US Centers for Disease Control publishes a list of causes of mortality in America and if you care to download the data table and actually read it instead of just listening to the pathological liars of the political left, you’ll find death by gunshot at the hands of another dead last on their list of causes of death. You are more likely to die from from taking over-the-counter pain killers such as aspirin or acetominophen than being killed by gunshot.
Comparing gun deaths with gun deaths is apples to apples whereas comparing gun deaths to automobile deaths is apples to oranges. Since we’re discussing apples, an insistence that an apple to oranges comparison is equally illuminating as comparing apples to apples represents either obfuscation or inanity; take your pick.
The fifty states of the United States represent laboratories of democracy among other things. Comparing gun deaths per 100,000 people in those 50 states reveals what works best and where gun laws are most efficacious. It’s comparison of gun deaths to gun deaths. To compare gun deaths with automobile accidents is silly on any number of levels. To compare gun deaths with taking aspirin is pure obfuscation. What else is new?
Gun deaths are higher in the United States than in most other modern industrialized western democracies; and such deaths are higher in certain parts in the United States than they are in other parts (states). The rate of gun deaths in Illinois is dwarfed by the rates of gun deaths in Alabama or Oklahoma for example. This is an inconvenient truth for some.
Clearly and understandably you are either conflating or confusing political correctness with factual correctness. Thankfully there’s no false choice between them.
What isn’t clear or understandable is what is ‘politically correct’ about being factually correct. (Frankly you make ‘political correctness’ look good.)
How about addressing or refuting the fact that where guns are less prevalent and/or the possession of same is more restricted, fewer people happen to die from them?
These facts run counter to the pathological narrative that has gun enthusiasts and gun lobbyists—some of whom say that they’re led by the Holy Spirit (“love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance”) and are professed followers of Jesus Christ—desperately, hilariously, embarrassingly, and illogically comparing golf clubs and Excedrin (or Tylenol) to guns.
Did anyone grow up thinking that Jesus would be ‘strapped’/packing if He was engaged in His earthly ministry in our day? (Who said Adventism isn’t a big tent?)
Guns are a manifestation of evil; but they remain a necessary evil now. Fact: where guns are less prevalent or more restricted, fewer people die from them. But for those who insist on inanity, imagine how unsafe it would be if no one had to pass a drivers’ exam; or if/when over-the-counter medications weren’t childproof.
(Typically, here comes the question about my ministry or some other subject matter evasion/avoidance.)
As fearful as your politically-correct views make you about guns, do you also fear the sky is falling?
Clearly and understandably you are either conflating or confusing political correctness with factual correctness. Thankfully there’s no false choice between them.
What isn’t clear or understandable is what is ‘politically correct’ about being factually correct. (Frankly you make political correctness look good.)
How about addressing or refuting the fact that where guns are less prevalent and/or the possession of same is more restricted, fewer people happen to die from them?
See Steven, I do need help, I was addressing you about Stephen in my last line.
“Comparing the different systems of government in Australia and America is a fool’s errand because there is no practical or possible way to transition from one to the other without destroying the structure of one and enforcing that change through the brutal and totalitarian use of force.”
How about change your constitution. Pretty sure you’ve done it before, like over slavery.
While the Constitution provides a mechanism for changing it, doing so requires considerable political will and motivation that has been absent from the Congress and the state legislatures for a considerable period of time. Instead of focusing on amending the Constitution, Liberalism in America has been focused for a century on simply marginalizing it and not blatantly ignoring it and have succeeded to a large degree. The President now routinely issues executive orders that ignore the lines of authority written in the Constitution, the Congress fails to consider the limits in it when writing laws and the judges on courts ignore with greater frequency. This is the process at-work that is progressively fulfilling a prophecy made by a little lady more than a century ago that America would turn its’ back on the Constitutional principles upon which the nation was founded.
Wowie! If one can discern anything from this debate, the thing that comes through most clearly is this:
Even greater than all the delusional thinking in the USofA about Race (from different sides), is all the delusional thinking about Guns (from different sides). And the delusional thinking on these topics does not stop at the US (land or water) borders.
Having in my youth lived in the Northern Suburbs of Windsor Ontario, where the best political commentary (not to mention Hockey Night in Canada) was beamed across the waters by CKLW, and being eligible for membership in both the Sons of the American Revolution and also the United Empire Loyalists Association of Canada, I feel qualified to respond to Steve Ferguson, Esquire, regarding historical and political delusions.
First, I am wondering who might be the present King of Australia, Canada, and even England itself, that Mr Ferguson seems to feel we Yanks should embrace? And for those who earnestly espouse Male headship, one could make a fair case that in general England and her colonies have fared far better under her Queens than under her Kings (the brief reign of Bloody Mary excepted).
[more to follow]
Second, regarding our own Rebellion where my few British ancestors fought (and in one case died) in Militias on BOTH SIDES (so much for our well regulated militias preserving the domestic tranquility), our ancestors’ monarch, the Hanoverian King George III was mentally ill (whether medically induced or due to natural causes), a circumstance not anticipated in Magna Carta. Now there is a document that could use a few amendments.
And a slim majority in the British Parliament was determined to deny the North American provinces Home Rule. At some cost in lives and the bounty of the French Treasury we gained the right of Home Rule, which we successfully defended in the War of 1812 to 1815 (excepting the defenders of Detroit who surrendered to an invading force from Windsor, whose Northern Suburbs subsequently flourished).
And it was not until the British Parliament confronted the prospect of the world’s strongest Army once again invading the Northern provinces, after the conclusion of our Second Rebellion or Civil War (take your pick), granted Home Rule to what became the Dominion of Canada. There is a fair case to be made that Australia would have gained Home Rule much sooner as well, had not the waterway between you and the USofA been much broader than the Great Lakes and the rivers that drain them.
[more to follow]
“There is a fair case to be made that Australia would have gained Home Rule much sooner as well, had not the waterway between you and the USofA been much broader than the Great Lakes and the rivers that drain them.”
The historian Nial Ferguson (no relation) makes the interesting observation that the colony founded by free Christians ended up in armed rebellion as the most unloyal colony, whilst the colony started as a place for convicted criminals ended up the most law-abiding and loyal colony of them all.
We could make the same observation about guns. We were the place founded by criminals; you by pacifist puritan Christians. Yet who has the gun crime?
“There is a fair case to be made that Australia would have gained Home Rule much sooner as well, had not the waterway between you and the USofA been much broader than the Great Lakes and the rivers that drain them.”
But would Australia want it? Great Britain wanted to give us full constitutional independence in the 1930s but it was until 1986 that we took up the offer.
It’s different in my home state of Western Australia. We didn’t want to join the Australian federation in 1901, and successfully voted yes in a referendum of succession in 1933. We’re a cross between Texas and South Carolina.
However, this is Australia not America. So there was no violence. Both the Federal Government and Britain said no to idea of succession so everyone pretty much went home and had a couple of tea. No one took up arms like your Confederate Americans did but in an earlier rebellion in the state of Victoria, an armed uprising resulted in 22 people dead. It was called the Eureka Stockade and was the closest thing to an Australian civil war.
Hey Stephen, on our one visit to Australia we found things very much to our liking. Other than feeling upside-down because the sun tended to be in the North rather than in the South 8-).
Our eldest son spent a year as a Student Missionary Youth Pastor in Australia and loved the place.
Still I think you missed or ignored my main point. There is a very good case to be made that the more sanguine attitudes of the English Parliament towards Home Rule (in its various guises) in Canada and later Australia, was very much informed by what happened in the North American colonies when they taxed us and quartered troops in our homes, etc.
Basically the First Rebellion started over the belief that Parliament was trampling the rights of English Citizens who lived overseas. Had they treated my ancestors like Citizens rather than like Serfs we would doubtless have some more formal ties to the Crown today.
Regarding gun violence I basically agree with you. Canada and Australia are arguably safer places than are some parts of the USofA. Not so much England itself. Not a simple subject. No simple answers. But in reality most places in the USofA are quite safe. Though you would not know it from the broadcast media who make their ratings off sensational stories, the violent crime rate in the US has been steadily falling for decades.
Regarding treatment of indigenous peoples, from the presidency of Andrew Jackson onwards, the US government and the US Army ran roughshod…
Whether or not Canadian and Australian Home Rule is better or worse than United States independence, is much in the eye of the beholder. Home Rule was granted by Acts of the English Parliament, and presumably could be revoked at any time by said body.
On the other hand, amending the US Constitution requires by design a broad political consensus. This one of its strengths but arguably also one of its weaknesses.
Slavery was abolished by political consensus of the States on the winning side of the Second Rebellion. Women gained the right to vote by political consensus. Prohibition was repealed by political consensus.
There is no political consensus regarding regulation of firearms in this country, so Mr Ferguson’s suggestion to amend or repeal the Second Amendment to the US Constitution does not appear to be viable.
Jim: “the Hanoverian King George III was mentally ill”
True. Which is why I’ve never got why you Yanks are always going on about the tyranny of the king. What, George III’s relentless buttoning an unbuttoning of his waist coat scared you into armed revolt against your rightful ruler?
The truth is provincial parliaments were in rebellion against the “mother” parliament. Kings had not much to do with it.
“The truth is provincial parliaments were in rebellion against the “mother” parliament.”
The truth is that there was NOT a single “provincial parliament” in North America prior to the establishment of the Dominion of Canada. Most of the Colonies were ruled by Royal Governors who were answerable only to the Crown. Virginia had a House of Burgesses. Most of the other Colonies had no elected legislative assembly. Though most of the town officers and militia officers were directly elected rather than appointed.
“Kings had not much to do with it.”
True enough regarding George III who was gradually drifting-off into la-la land. But somebody was persuading him to appoint those Royal Governors whose actions so inflamed the baser passions of the Colonists.
Several of my own Revolutionary ancestors lived in what is now Vermont, which was not itself a Royal Colony, but was at the time claimed wholly or in-part by the Royal Governors of New Hampshire and New York and Massachusetts and Quebec. (You might want to study the history of Ethan and Ira Allen and the Green Mountain Boys and their Vermont Republic.)
If your monarchy had their act together, they might yet retain control of Fort Ticonderoga which they had captured from the French.
“Home Rule was granted by Acts of the English Parliament, and presumably could be revoked at any time by said body.”
True until the Australia Act of 1986. Australia now is not merely a creature of the Parliament of Westminster because the Parliament of Westminster itself said so. Australia shares a sovereign in the person of Queen Elizabeth but has no other legal links with the Parliament of Great Britain.
Britain could now no more try to legislate for Australia than Australia could legislate for Papau New Guinea or the Pacific island of Naura (two previous Australian colonies).
I’m trying to remember Australian constitutional law from law school, so it is a bit blurry. On other tangent topics, you know Great Britain doesn’t have a written constitution. Neither does New Zealand or Israel.
“On the other hand, amending the US Constitution requires by design a broad political consensus. This one of its strengths but arguably also one of its weaknesses.”
Jim I share your pain. Amending the Australian Constitution is also very hard. We need a yes vote by the general public (not a mere vote in Congress), and it has to be a yes across the whole continent and a yes in a majority of states. Since 1901, only 8 of 44 attempts to change the Australian constitution have succeeded.
So I wasn’t being flippant in saying you should amend the US constitution. I get how hard that would be. Yet you did it for something as obscure as the prohibition of alcohol?
Jim loved your analysis – very sage and true (from your particular Yanky point of view of course) 🙂
The present King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia and some other 14 nations is as you know Queen Elizabeth II. It was of course a king at the time of your American rebellion.
I suspect women have done better as monarchs, both in British and general world history, Bloody Mary notwithstanding. None have gained the title “the Great” as yet though. Hungarian noblewoman, Elizabeth Bathory, who literary drank the blood of her victims didn’t do much for the female cause but she was admittedly not a monarch. Then there is Chinese Dowager Empress Cixi, who spent the money set aside for a navy on a summer palace outside Beijing, and destined her country to a century or more of European colonisation, didn’t do much for the cause either.
But we do love our Queen Elizabeth II. I suspect you Yanks still consider the British monarchy “your” monarchy too. When you say “the queen” I suspect you mean the British one, not the monarchy of Bhutan.
However, the British royals better not sit on their laurels. Crown princess Mary of Denmark is an Australian (from Tasmania no doubt), so the House of Windsor has some run for their money Down Under.
Being myself 50% Frisian and 30% Dutch (other provinces) and only 20% British in ancestry, I probably have more affinity for the Dutch royals than for the British royals.
The Dutch handle royalty in a more sensible manner. The reigning monarch simply abdicates in favor of her (or potentially his?) offspring at an opportune time. No need for royal death watches there. No worries about the Prince of Wales going senile before he ascends to the throne. Which is worse for your monarchy – a senile King or one who is mentally ill?
And no pretense that your head of state is also the head of your church. You can thank Henry VIII (or was it V-8?) for this bit of English nonsense. Whereas the Dutch were the first to grant religious liberty and free speech and a free press, while England was still in the throes of civil wars over religion and royal succession. Some of my early “Dutch” ancestors in Nieuw Netherland were actually French Huguenots who fled to the Low Countries and then emigrated to the New World.
On the other hand the first African slaves were imported to North America by the Dutch. Which somehow brings us full circle in this discussion.
I think your notions of American history ignore the fact that many of the early settlers here were refugees from the various religious and civil wars of England. So they were used to fighting over anything and everything before they got here, and brought that attitude with them.
“The Dutch handle royalty in a more sensible manner.”
Very much agree. The Dutch actually found Australia – they called it New Holland. They failed to grab it though.
“Which is worse for your monarchy – a senile King or one who is mentally ill?”
Ha ha – very true. Of course it won’t make much difference for we Aussies, as our monarch is on the other side of the world and only comes to visit slightly more often than Jesus. It isn’t so much the monarchy but the threat of monarchy, with its “reserved powers” that holds the constitution together. Monarchical power is best in breaking constitutional deadlocks, as occured in Australia in 1975 or in 1981 by the King of Spain in preventing a military coup. It is why on the whole constitutional monarchies are bizarrely the strongest democracies in the world whilst Presidential Republics so much more despotic – your country nothwithstanding.
“And no pretense that your head of state is also the head of your church.”
Only in England, not in Australia – not even in Scottland. We share the same head of state as Great Britain but have no legal links whatsoever. Similarly, when the Queen visits Canada she really is fully the Queen of Canada, not merely the queen of Great Britain. It’s a hard concept for foreigner to understand.
Section 116 of the Australian Commonwealth Constitution explicitly prevents there being an official church. The Anglicans were still historically the biggest but not so much anymore.
“I think your notions of American history ignore the fact that many of the early settlers here were refugees from the various religious and civil wars of England.”
Oh I don’t discount that very true aspect at all. World renown historian Simon Schema makes the point you can’t look at the history of North America without looking at the English Civil War. In fact, he says the American Revolution was really the English Civil War part II.
As you might remember, the Puritans led by Oliver Cromwell won the Civil War in England and established the short-lived Republican Commonwealth of England. However, when the monarchy was restored under Charless II, many of the puritans left England for North America instead.
The American war-like and rebellious mindset was indeed something your English ancestors brought with them. It is just as you Americans are descending (whether genetically or culturally) from that lineage, but ancestors were ironically descended from a very different stock – convicted criminals!
In this way, we are really cousins. Our older posher relatives stayed in England, yours are the rebellious up-and-comings, chaffing at the bit, and mine are the rat-bag criminal younger relatives, who the family long disowned.
So a microcosm of Great Britain has been transferred out of a small island and across the whole English-speaking world.
Thus, back to the original question, was Oliver Cromwell right in taking arms way back in the English Civil War?
“you Americans are descending (whether genetically or culturally) from that lineage”
Likewise for our Constitution which was very much in reaction to that lineage, and our Bill of Rights which was framed to prevent what had happened in England from happening here. Though considering the Second Rebellion (arguably unfinished business from the First Rebellion and its aftermath), there were and remain some flaws in our Constitution.
House of Windsor you say? They were the House of Hanover before they changed their name a couple centuries ago.
Here be the official history of your monarchy:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/HistoryoftheMonarchy.aspx
Basically England has been ruled by outsiders since the Romans. With a turnover in royal families every few centuries (more or less).
If you want stability in your royalty you should look to France – every King of France was a direct descendant of the original Kings of the Franks who took charge of the place after the Romans left. Well over a millennium of hereditary royal succession. Now there is a track record that few monarchies can match.
“House of Windsor you say? They were the House of Hanover before they changed their name a couple centuries ago.”
Ha ha very true. I think you failed to mention the house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which the house of Windsor used to be called. The British royals had to change it in WW1, given it was a thoroughly German names. You know, on account of being almost completely of German blood.
“Basically England has been ruled by outsiders since the Romans.”
Sounds pretty good to me. The Christian people are also ruled by an absentee monarch. We’ve been waiting for him for about 2,000 years. Having your head of state live on the other side of the world isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I bet a few people in the US wish it were the same!
“Now there is a track record that few monarchies can match.”
I belive the Japanese is the longest continual dynasty, going all the way back to the first emperors, about 2,000 years ago.
But the point of constitutional monarchy (note the constitutional part)is to ensure a non-democratic check against the potential tyrany of the majority – much in the same way both judges and academics have tenure, or even your electoral college. As a monarch is extremely rich, they rarely can be bribed with money. And because they are bound by royal conventions, they are unable to act with the impunity as Presidential dictators.
But as an Australian I want an Australian head of state. So I would prefer Prince Harry as my king, or the…
As a general question for you Yanks, why should a citizen think to obey the laws of your elected monarch (Barack Obama) if your forefathers disobeyed their own? Isn’t like that saying to women of ill repute, ‘Darling, if he cheats with you he’ll cheat on you?’
How do you Americans read Romans 13:1-7:
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honour.”
There is even a bit in there about paying your taxes. Did the Boston tea party read this passage before pouring the tea over the side of the ships?
To be elected president of the USofA one must be a natural born citizen. That stands in marked contrast to the British royal houses, who were neither elected nor in many cases natural born citizens. Like most British autos, most British dynasties are imports.
“To be elected president of the USofA one must be a natural born citizen.”
You mean like Ted Cruze (or Obama)?
“That stands in marked contrast to the British royal houses, who were neither elected”
Again, you are missing the benefit of constitutional monarchy. The point of constitutional monarchy (note the constitutional part)is to ensure a non-democratic check against the potential tyrany of the majority – much in the same way both judges and academics have tenure, or even your electoral college. As a monarch is extremely rich, they rarely can be bribed with money. And because they are bound by royal conventions, they are unable to act with the impunity as Presidential dictators.
The proof is Great Britain and New Zealand, both of which don’t even have a written constitution yet are extremely peaceful, stable democracies with the rule of law.
Monarchy is not really about the person (who in a constitutional monarchy is mostly a figurehead) but the institution. The monarchy’s main benefit is in: holding “reserve powers” to break constitutional deadlocks and prevent coups, as occured in Australia in 1975 and Spain in 1981. If a Government refused to obey a Supreme Court decision, who is going to force them?
In UK/Aus/NZ/Can, the Government could be dismissed by the monarch. In the US, who is going to make the President step down if he refuses?
In UK/Aus/NZ/Can, soldiers swear an oath to the monarch, who is above politics – in the US to the head…
As a monarch is extremely rich, they rarely can be bribed with money”
Someone forgot to tell this to the royal family of Spain?
“who is going to make the President step down if he refuses?”
Congress can do this and has indeed done so in the case of Richard Nixon. Had he refused, the courts and the various police powers would have enforced the decision.
“Like most British autos, most British dynasties are imports.”
We’re all imports, unless you are a member of the indigenous population (i.e. Native American or Australian Aboriginal etc.)
At least New Zealand has a Maori King.
This is an aside from Monte’s blog, but it’s interesting that Jim and Steve would broach the “natural born citizen” subject. We’re starting down a path that could eventually lead to a bigger constitutional fraud than what late former Chief Justice Warren Burger said about the Second Amendment’s interpretation.
During the ‘birther’ controversy years ago, the reason that not even the most ardent supporters of Barack Obama never said much about it not making any difference whether or not Obama HAD a birth certificate confirming his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii; and the reason that not one of his supporters said that he may as well have been born in Kenya or Indonesia, is that is wouldn’t have been true.
The so-called birthers were right—in that there is a distinction or difference between a natural born citizen and a legally born citizen—and practically everyone understood that. If it could have been proven, or it had been discovered, that Obama was indeed born in Kenya or Indonesia, we would have had a full-blown constitutional crisis.
Cruz, not having been born in the U.S., is not a natural born citizen; just as Obama wouldn’t have been had he NOT been born in Honolulu, Hawaii. Cruz owes his American citizenship, as do all those born overseas to American citizens, entirely to an (immigration/naturalization) act of Congress. Congress changes immigration/naturalization law as it pleases. The citizenship of natural born citizens is independent of anything that Congress can…
do. I digress but it is rather interesting.
Perhaps the best answer to your question will be found if you read the American Declaration of Independence. It was written by a group who for the most part were deeply religious.
Religious or deist? Written by a religious sceptic?
You’re correct Steve; Jefferson was a deist. He is largely credited with authoring The Declaration of Independence; and wasn’t “deeply religious.”
Jefferson also advanced the principle or notion of a separation between church and state.
You seem to be hung-up on Jefferson being a deist as if that somehow disproves all religious foundation for the concepts in the Constitution and the intent of the American Founding Fathers when that concept is simply not true. In his own words, Jefferson did not become a deist until after the writing of the Constitution.
Jefferson’s advancement of the concept of separation between church and state was for the purpose of preventing the Church of England from using the power of government to make itself the official state church in the colonies and then the nation. The royal charter establishing the Virginia colony specified the Church of England as the official state church and granted it the right to extract tithe from everyone, including seizure of property from those not attending the church. His particular complaint was that after independence, the church used the power of government to continue this practice and prohibited other churches from owning property or having meeting houses. They used taxes and seizures of land to extract that tithe plus a penalty from offenders. Only the ratification of the Bill of Rights ended this in Virginia, where Jefferson had been forced to forfeit more than one-third of his land holdings to the church because he attended the Disciples of Christ Church instead of the Church of England.
Any notion that such unquestionably important and influential founders as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine (for example) were “deeply religious” is of course revisionist agenda-driven fantasy.
And I’m only teasing you Americans. You have a very nice country with very nice people – much nicer than most people in the world I’ve met on the whole (which is about 44 countries). It is just that travel insurance costs as much to travel to the US as it does to a failed state, on account of your horrendous homocide rate and obscenely expensive health care system.
I do wonder though from a Christian and political point of view, if how you got started has somewhat warped your collective thinking just a tad. I’ve travelled from Japan, to Korea, to Germany, to Croatia, to England to Ireland, and no other western nation quite thinks like you do. Take that as a compliment it is.
It is just if you start your nation with a violent insurrection against your rightful ruler, then is it any wonder you will have legacy issues about violence? If I stab Caesar with a knife on the Senate floor, then of course I’ll be spending the rest of my life looking over my own shoulder too. And giving up my own blade, to put trust in the blade of Caesar (as Rom 13:1-7 suggests one do) is never really an option is it? So goes over two hundred years of American history.
We, the older generation, saw Hitler and Stalin and the horrendous evil systems they built to enforce their regimes and then the WWII. Now we see ISUS and the atrocities it advertises and the threats it may be, not to mention another shouting in their parliament “death to America.” Yes, we were taught the values of the American revolution and the resolve empowered with guns that gave us our freedoms and we haven’t forgot and we won’t.
We do also harbor a fear of internal deviants, in some ways more threatening, who may challenge, even from Washington DC, our freedoms even now. So forced removal of our guns from our closets, safes, and drawers, will literally be done, if ever, over countless dead bodies. Violence, the reputation of it, and the experience of it, is the price we willingly pay for our internal wariness of what we value more than life itself. Freedom. Evident by the stampede to our borders it appears we have something worth living and dying for.
Religious belief isn’t part of the equation.
“We, the older generation, saw Hitler and Stalin and the horrendous evil systems they built to enforce their regimes and then the WWII.”
Is this analogy comparable to the American founders? Was the sort of genocidal regime imposed by Hitler and Stalin equivalent to George III, who compulsively unbottoned and bottoned his waist coat?
How does a group of people decide when it is time to disregard the message of Jesus about loyalty to Caesar and Paul in Romans 13:1-7 to take up arms? Can we do it merely over taxes, when the Paul explicitly tells us to pay rulers taxes due?
Can we do it in the name of liberty when we deny the liberty of others? Why is it not legitimate for preppers not to take up arms against the current Government of the US or any state then? Where does the moral legitimacy lie?
My, my, Steve, you have dived off the rhetorical diving board into an empty pool! Ouch! And “preppers” and “moral legitimacy?” Your questions aren’t questions. Are you hiding a serious case of American envy? I’m just trying to figure out what you are up to!
Stephen,
Thanks for the compliment. There are a lot of very nice people in America and I think they far too often are overshadowed by the minority who behave otherwise. I have been both amazed and incredibly blessed many times to see the fantastic things people will do for total strangers just because of the love God has put in their hearts.
The potential for Caesar to be stabbed exists in all societies and some measures must be taken to limit that possibility. At the same time, a certain amount of risk must be accepted because life is filled with risks, evil exists in our world and liberty does not come without the risk that evil will seek to destroy it. But the far worse option comes when we allow that evil, under the disguise of promoting “the good of the people” to overcome because of the extreme brutality it brings when the powerful begin seeing offenders everywhere and claiming that it must be outlawed so the offenders can be punished, not even for what they have done but for what they think or say, or what false accusations the politically-correct bring against them.
“violent insurrection against your rightful ruler”
Well is this not the pot calling the kettle black?
During the time when the North American colonies were settled, the English monarchy transitioned from the Tudors to the Stuarts, to oblivion, to the House of Hanover? And not without a fair amount of violence in the Mother Land.
So the Americans who rebelled against the House of Hanover, were acting in the true spirit of their homeland. Not to mention the many French, Dutch, Scottish, Irish and German settlers who felt little love for the English monarchy anyway.
On the other hand, since the first settlers arrived in Australia there was only the House of Hanover. So you Aussies have had a stable monarchy, whereas the North American colonies have not.
Yes no doubt very true. Which is part of the distinction between our countries.
For example, your country actually has a monarchy – an elected one. Your elected President is closer to the form of Government the UK use to have before it fully transitioned to a proper constitutional monarchy.
A US President is more akin to how say the William of Orange operated as King, before the useless Hanoverian monarchs caused the rise of Prime Ministers as de facto heads of Government.
I’m not casting blame, just saying that is why you Americans love guns and won’t give them up. You all think it is still the English Civil War or Jacobinite Rebellion. The British themselves long gave up that sort of thinking.
The Australians never had that thinking to begin with. We came to our country in chains. Our ancestors never had the lofty Enlightenment ideals of your ancestors. We are your younger cousins who were crushed from the outset by the realities of an unfair and cruel world.
Thus, whilst almost every American can have the “American dream” of rugged individualism, of working hard to make oneself President, no Australian is raised to think that way. We are taught that life is inherently unfair, so our collective job is to make it fairer. Your friend in chains can’t pull himself by his boot straps, so you need to help him to do it.
It’s why we have universal health care – and no guns.
“It’s why we have universal health care – and no guns.”
A bargain I would gladly make.
Now I must head-off to visit our dual-citizenship offspring in our Northern neighbor, where they have publicly-funded health care and strictly regulate firearms.
Someone has to play with grand-children while their dad ventures off to Texas for two weeks of Adventist clerical and governance exercises. Tough duty but I think I can rise to the challenge 8-).
The role of guns is deeply-rooted in American history because it was a rapidly-growing nation where two significant factors combined: the need to hunt for food and the absence of law enforcement, so you had to protect yourself. That second condition still exists to a large degree because of the time that expires between when a confrontation with a criminal begins and the time the police are contacted and then arrive. You can wish for a police officer to be just around the corner and waiting for your call, but the chances are they will be at least six minutes away, if not longer. How many bullets can someone fire in one minute? Many years ago I did a newspaper story about the local police getting new weapons and went through their qualification course. I emptied six 14-round magazines in under one minute with every shot in the target.
I haven’t seen an estimate of how long that shooter in Charleston was pulling the trigger, but I seriously doubt the police were near enough to prevent him from doing what he did. Had someone in the church been armed they might have been able to stop him and save lives. Such armed citizens save lives every day by intervening when there are no police around. Indeed, the most potent deterrent against crime is the criminal’s fear of being confronted by an armed citizen who knows how to use it and where citizens arm themselves, crime goes down.
But how is this different from other English-colonised countries, such as Canada? Our country continent is just as sparse wilderness. Our pioneers also all had guns and used it to catch food. Many lived through the Depression that way.
New Zealand was such a brutal lawless place it was colonised to stop the wakers killing themselves and everyone in it. And the indigenous Maori were so fearsome, the English colonists had to call for reinforcements from Australian militias.
Moreover, surely the time taken to call the police is just the same. Australian cities are just as low density urban sprawls as US ones. Yet we don’t have the gun related homocide problems.
It again seems the major difference of the US from the other English-speaking colonies is your history and type of colonists. You got the “good ones”, the puritans searching for liberty. We got the dregs, people better than slaves who came in chains. Yet history is ironic in its outcome.
By such tragically twisted and tortured logic, every church and every school wherein we have known of such terrorism as in Charleston, NC or in Newtown, CT; or every crowded theater as in Aurora, CO should be chock full of previously-armed citizens. By this ‘reasoning’—instead of the documented and incontrovertible reality that, either in the world as a whole or in the United States, where there are fewer guns or more restrictions on gun ownership and possession, fewer people are killed by guns—the MORE prevalent guns are, either in the world or in the United States, the fewer people are killed by guns.
Such ‘reasoning’ runs counter to documented reality. This is of course why neither William or any other Adventist who like William is contemplating purchasing a gun, and has reported his proficiency at shooting a gun, and has a vacuous, warped, and non-contextual interpretation of Luke 22:36 (in which he thinks that Jesus actually recommends such purchase) has or can challenge the statistics that counter every similarly delusional pro-gun ever made.
The sound of crickets is actually eloquent in comparison to the nonsense I’m encountering. I agree with former United States Chief Justice Warren Burger who called the contemporary interpretation of the Second Amendment as having “been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in [his] lifetime.” December 16, 1991
William,
“I leave that decision to individuals to make for themselves because I respect both the scriptural responsibility of fathers to protect both their families and property and their constitutional right to arm themselves.”
You have answered my question with utmost political correctness. I know my question was difficult to respond to without upsetting someone. But the main thrust of my question is whether Christians should resort to violence when in the New Testament we read many instances where Christians were confronted by violent people but overcame simply because God’s protection was over them. Jesus also avoided being stoned or thrown over a cliff only because His time was not up. But some apostle we killed, namely, Stephen, because their time was up. What we are talking about here is our faith in God’s sovereign rule and protection over our lives compared to taking matters into our own hands. Do we as Christians demonstrate our faith and Love toward Jesus Christ and our fellow man, being fearless of those who can kill the body but not the soul, trusting in God for all our needs, or possess firearms, which is the way of the world?
You ask a good question that I think must be considered with a larger set of inputs and factors than most allow in their personal viewpoints.
First is the concept of liberty itself and the liberty that God gives us. Each individual is free to decide whether to follow God or Satan. My task as a follower of God is to reflect His love to them so they will want to follow Him, but I must respect their liberty to decide otherwise.
Second, it is easy to omit factors from consideration. Jesus told His disciples to buy swords and the proportion of the population carrying swords in that day probably was more than the number who own or carry guns today. You don’t hear that mentioned in discussions about guns.
Third, you can depend on God’s protection, but many times that protection comes in the form of a person who is armed. When the Philistines attcked Israel, did God send angels to protect them? No, the people rose-up, took-up arms and went to war.
Fourth, in my flight training I was taught to not criticize the mistakes of another pilot because I might do the same thing in the same situation– and I learned by hard experience the value of that counsel. So I am slow to criticize those who choose to own and use guns while quick to defend their right to make their own decisions despite the attacks of the politically-correct.
That’s the first time in ages anyone has associated me with being politically-correct! As I’ve thought more about your remarks I’ve been reminded of a couple things I think deserve deeper thought and perhaps larger exploration than we have space for here.
First is the assumption that God will protect us in all situations. That’s an illusion because the number of times God obviously or even apparently protects us from life-threatening dangers are few compared to the far larger number of times people have been injured or died, even as some of them thought God would protect them. I’ve had times when God protected me in dangerous places, sometimes even with angels, but it may be the will of God to not protect us from a particular danger.
Second is scripture where we find a number of heroic stories about God’s followers using weapons to defend themselves, their property, their family and others. So self-defense has a basis in spiritual history. Indeed, throughout all of history, peace and prosperity have been defended by those who were equipped, capable and willing to inflict mortal harm on those who threatened them.
Third, guns are the modern version of the ancient sword. The difference is whether they are used for evil, or good. Only the politically correct who ignore the lessons of history can see benefit in disarming citizens who are on the scene and able to protect and save others instead of waiting minutes for the police to arrive.
Bugs: “Yes, we were taught the values of the American revolution and the resolve empowered with guns that gave us our freedoms and we haven’t forgot and we won’t.”
As an outisder, this is where I see the origin of it all in the US. You took up arms in a violent revolution and so have been living by the sword ever since. I agree and lament with those who think the prospects of doing such entrenched cultural history are pretty difficult, if not impossible.
The irony of the link between race and guns for revolution is that it has historically be the “evil” central Government that has been kindest to racial minorities. In both the US, Canada and Australia, it is usually colonists who have been most active in genocide of indigenous peoples, or the enslavement of others. Ironically, it is the central governments (whether the Government in London or Washington) who have usually being the restraining hand.
Yet it is the central Governments (again in either London and then Washington) that are potrayed as the tyrants. I bet to those African American slaves given freedom by the British Governor of Virginia, Earl Dunmore, in 1775, would probably have a different view of where tyranny lay.
To me, those who advocate gun rights seem to have learnt little from history. The tyrant is not the Governor, it is often my neighbour who enslaves me. It is this reason why Paul says it is right and proper for Caesar to hold the sword.
I don’t disagree with you, Steve, over the track record of central governments having been the guardians of racial equality over the past several centuries. And I agree that we haven’t seen an “evil” central government in our country, or any in western Europe (post-war), the US, or Canada, or Australia, or many other places, for that matter.
Your opinion is: “To me, those who advocate gun rights seem to have learnt little from history.” Their opinion is different, I think. They learned from a different history, the one from which this country was born. That is that those who forget history (why people came to this land to begin with, that is, to escape tyranny) are destined to repeat it. Is there a blatant misuse of the Second Amendment attached to what amounts to only a psychological non-issue? Possibly. I’m trying to explain the present attitude, not necessarily defending it.
You say: “The tyrant is not the Governor.” In the US there is an electorate-gun wall of reinforcement reminding him not to be. Not necessary, but there, just the same.
More concerning, it seems to me, is a growing tyranny of the minority in Western culture, increasingly codified at the expense of freedom of religion and speech. Example, gay marriage has made criminal businesses out of those who refuse service on faith grounds. Approaching Supreme Court decision could exacerbate the problem in multiples. Black and white pastors may become criminals.
To Stephen Foster,
The opinion of a Supreme Court justice bears no more weight than the opinion of any other citizen unless his words are written above his signature in a majority court opinion. The difference between his words in a minority court opinion, or at any other time, is merely that they are recorded for posterity.
The root issue with gun violence is the disrespect for law (which is promoted by the Liberalism to which you are so loyal) and the mental instability of those who commit the shooting incidents you listed. Address those problems and you’re treating the disease instead of the symptoms.
If you wish to continue disputing on the topic, I suggest you consider the views of Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. He “documented reality” is that he wishes more citizens were armed and trained to use their weapons because, according to him, they are the far more effective than the police at preventing crime and gun violence. Since he took office his department has actively promoted citizen gun ownership and training with the result of crime rates in several parts of the county are now significantly lower. His views are echoed by a number of associations of law enforcement professionals including, for example, the Association of Retired FBI Agents.
No crickets here.
William, there is now a Supreme Court opinion in regard to gay marriage. I will be first in line to say it, on the surface, is a civil issue since states authorize marriage licenses. But it is more than that and now there is a heavy hand of law enforcement with un intended consequences that rattles the gun issue. Rhetorical Steve gains a little ground here via the question of when is forced intervention morally acceptable? I don’t know that this issue will ever rise to the level brought by that question, but there is the specter of strange jailbirds, conservative Christians, Moslems, Orthodox Jews and surely others opposed, not to people, but refusing to be forced to honor gay unions, singing in unison Kumbaya in their adjoining jails cells for refusing to obey laws requiring them to do so. What will their followers do?
We will just have to wait and see. In the midst of the sights and sounds of American shotguns being cocked, handguns snapped for firing, rifles raised, “prepper” rhetoric, conspiracy theories proclaimed, worry about the billions of metal clad bullets the US government has recently purchased, most of it rests dust covered, brandished at harmless firing ranges, all in readiness of course. But, except for psychopathic outburst headlined here, peaceful solution is the American weapon of choice.
And William, I support your outlook as far as the peaceful effect of good people bearing arms. Walk softly with a good firearm.
William,
(I’ve indicated that the sound of crickets is actually MORE eloquent than this.)
Documented reality is not comprised of “wishes.” You can’t circumvent fact with anecdotal opinion. The factual reality is that there simply are FEWER gun deaths per 100,000 people where the gun laws are MOST restrictive; and MORE gun deaths per 100,000 people where the gun laws are LEAST restrictive.
There are some reasons why the gun death rate per 100,000 is lower in New York than it is in Alabama; but you’re not particularly interested in them. Inconvenient truths are inconvenient for a reason.
The larger point of course is that it’s wholly and completely nonsensical for those who follow Jesus’ example and adhere to His teachings to advocate for more guns; yet it speaks volumes as to the power of the influence of cultural correctness. The cultural milieu in which you live includes an admiration for guns and firepower. It clearly doesn’t have to make sense on any other level (other than anecdotal).
Guns in times of trouble are like cell phones when there is no coverage.
5 Thus says the Lord:
“Cursed is the man who trusts in man
And makes flesh his strength,
Whose heart departs from the Lord.
6 For he shall be like a shrub in the desert,
And shall not see when good comes,
But shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness,
In a salt land which is not inhabited.
7 “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord,
And whose hope is the Lord.
8 For he shall be like a tree planted by the waters,
Which spreads out its roots by the river,
And will not fear when heat comes;
But its leaf will be green,
And will not be anxious in the year of drought,
Nor will cease from yielding fruit.
(Jer.17:5-8)
1 “Woe to the rebellious children,” says the Lord,
“Who take counsel, but not of Me,
And who devise plans, but not of My Spirit,
That they may add sin to sin;
2 Who walk to go down to Egypt,
And have not asked My advice,
To strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh,
And to trust in the shadow of Egypt!
(Isa. 30:1, 2)
Revelation 20:7-10
Huh?
Daniel, not one word you pulled and pasted willy-nilly from Scripture has any meaning whatsoever in this discussion. Pull something from the Beatles, the Star Spangled Banner, the phone book, or Superman comic. Why bother?
Where do you find anything in those verses about owning weapons or using them for self-defense?
God expected the Israelites to trust Him, but He also told them to take-up arms and kill the evil nations surrounding them and some of the instructions He gave them seem unreasonably severe by today’s standards. For example, if your child was murdered, you had not just the right to kill the offender, it was expected that you or some other immediate relative would kill them to make an example of them and so their death would dissuade other potential offenders.
Do you believe the popularity of a view on a social issue such as gun ownership entitles using the force of public law to compel compliance with that view? Liberalism uses that approach on every issue. It is also how the Beast of Revelation will use try and enforce things like Sunday worship. So by supporting forced compliance to address social issues a lot of Adventists are allowing Satan to deceive them, and while thinking they are doing good they are actually becoming Satan’s servants and helping create the conditions that will cause terrible evil and help the public embrace such ideas as forced worship on Sunday.
It is so-called thinking like this that has many people scoffing at Biblical belief and makes people of faith appear deranged.
Christ of course gave a completely divergent set of marching orders to His followers than were given to the Israelites with regard of what to do with enemies.
No, it announces to the world Christians will never be herded without a fight into gas chambers, or otherwise be treated as helpless sheep at the hands of exterminators. Pick and choose the version of Christ you like, there are alternative views based on his role as an agitator/messiah in the popular conscience.
“God” has never, not once, never in history, intervened to save helpless people claiming dependence on deity.
The important scoffers I perceive are those laughing at dead, murdered pacifists.
Stephen,
You’re prone to dismissing the views of others with nothing more than your opinion or political correctness and you’ve been quick in the past to demand documentation, so it’s your turn to deliver. To be specific, how does using the instructions of God recorded in scripture make people who believe in God “appear deranged?” What “completely divergent set of marching orders” did Jesus give that would prohibit a person from owning a gun and using it for self-defense? In a comment above you claimed that the research of Dr. John Lott has been “generally dismissed.” I’m not talking about some politically-correct talking head, but someone who has actually reviewed his research and can provide data to document or refute it.
But of course whenever I have asked for documentation, I am invariably told by you William to go look it up. That’s that sense of entitlement once again. Your version of documentation is to tell me to go look it up myself.
Besides, I’ve repeatedly presented you with specific statistical information in terms of the comparative gun death rates per 100,000 of numerous states—and asked anyone for commentary; which is obviously more than just my opinion.
However in the interests of doing what I would like to be done (whenever I ask you for to document something) I will indulge you, and offer this:
Q.: “To be specific, how does using the instructions of God recorded in scripture make people who believe in God “appear deranged?”?”
Using the instructions of God that are recounted in the historical chronicling of an ancient people who were in an ancient theocracy as if those same instructions applied to and are given to 21st century Christians living in a constitutional republic—when in fact those ancient instructions are historical and inspirational—makes 21st century western Christians who believe them to be instructions for them, look like and sound like crazy persons.
God was the commander-in-chief in the battles and wars in which He Himself commanded. Barack Obama is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces in the nation in which we reside—which constitutes an unspeakable difference.
If the instructions for feasts, and sacrifices, and offerings, and ceremonies, and rituals given to those same people are no longer applicable or appropriate for 21st century Christians, then how/why should instructions for battles and warfare given to people then somehow be considered applicable and appropriate now?
Q.” What “completely divergent set of marching orders” did Jesus give that would prohibit a person from owning a gun and using it for self-defense?”
Of course this is a disingenuous straw man attempt because it only partially quotes me and then injects something I’ve never implied: that Jesus said anything “that would prohibit a person from owning a gun and using it for self-defense.” Those of course are your words and your attempt to misconstrue what I did say, which was (and I quote) that Jesus “gave a completely divergent set of marching orders to His followers than were given to the Israelites with regard of what to do with enemies.”
The instructions He gave for how to handle one’s enemies is to love them of course. You can find documentation for this in Matthew 5:38-48 and Luke 6:27-36. This isn’t about the straw man of “[prohibiting] a person from owning a gun and using it for self-defense,” but about what is the most effective public policy for minimizing gun deaths and about what Christians should do with enemies in light of these instructions given by Jesus Himself.
As for John Lott, there’s a lot of information. I quote the following from a June 20, 1999 (LA Times) article “In analyzing the Lott Report, the Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Policy and Research and criminologists concluded that the claims were unsubstantiated, the conclusions were implausible and the report used “incorrect and discredited methodology” and included errors in stating when concealed weapons laws were implemented in various states.
It continues: “The truth is that violent crime has decreased by almost 20% nationwide since 1992. Compared to states with liberal laws to carry concealed weapons, those with strict and no-issue laws had decreased crime rates of approximately 11% and 25%, respectively.”
Stanford Law and former Yale Law professor and economist Dr. John J. Donohue III (J.D., Harvard, Ph.D., economics, Yale), past president of the American Law and Economics Association and is yet another person “who has actually reviewed his [Lott’s] research and can provide data to document or refute it.”
Again I say, the gun laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts are somewhat different than they are in Alaska or Alabama, and so it the gun death rate per 100,000 people—that is not my opinion.
William,
“Where do you find anything in those verses about owning weapons or using them for self-defense?”
That is exactly the point. Those verses show trust in God and how we should not put our trust in flesh, or in our own understanding; in armory, in the worldly view of how civil law protects its citizens and the worldly delusional view how God will not protect His people.
I take it you didn’t read the Revelation passage? The whole wicked world will attack the Saints; where would their so-called guns and fleshly strength get them in that situation? The Christian life now is a process in preparation for trusting in God who delivers and not in our own worldly delusional self-defense ideas.
You say you have had angels protect you, well, I question that. Because I have had the power of God work in and through me to divert a murderously violent man from doing me serious physical harm; and I know without any doubt that, had not God intervened, I would have had my head caved in with a rock. And he wanted to do that without even knowing who I was. Talk about Christian persecutions? It happens in everyday life, only people don’t see that.
So, had you experienced that supernatural deliverance from the wicked and the violent, you would have had the testimony in your heart to trust in your God, and not in your own strength.
Daniel,
Your thought process conflates two wildly different situations: individual self-defense against criminals and the attacks of an organized and well-equipped military. Since no one here is proposing something so ludicruous as individuals armed with self-defense weapons trying to stand-up against an organized and well-equipped military, let’s stay focused on self-defense.
You pay taxes to hire police to protect you. That’s defense by proxy and different from both the instructions God gave His people and the practice of nations since the beginning of time. What could make you think that self-defense is improper or immoral? Only the idea that the government will protect you. As a result you’re stretching scripture to mean things far outside what it says while believing promises of protection that are rarely delivered in a timely or effective manner.
I note with interest that confusion over the definition of “natural born citizen” under US law seems to be as prevalent among liberals as among conservatives.
So let me give you a brief review of what every US school child should have learnt in the Civic class (I hope you did take Civics?).
There are two ways to become a natural born citizen of the US of A:
1) Every person born in a State or Territory of the US of A is a natural born citizen. So my daughter-in-law who was born in Puerto Rico is a natural born citizen is a natural born citizen of the US of A, even though both her parents were at the time citizens of the Dominican Republic.
2) Every person who at birth, had at least one natural parent who was a citizen of the Us of A, is a natural born citizen of the US of A. So my two grandchildren born in Canada are natural born citizens of the US of A because my son is a citizen of the US of A.
Where Obama or Cruz or any other candidate for US President was born is totally irrelevant as long as one of their natural parents was, at the time of birth of said candidate, a US citizen. In fact there is good evidence that Chester Arthur was actually born on the Canada side of the Vermont border.
This has been the law of the land since shortly after the end of the US Civil War (or Second Rebellion for you who claim loyalty to the English Crown).
Jim,
You have actually made my case. The operative phrase is”the law of the land,” which is why confusion exists. The phrase “natural born citizen” does not appear in legislative language anywhere at all. What you have stated in that second way a person can “become a natural born citizen of the US of A” is indeed the second way that a person can become a citizen or a legally born citizen of the United States. (You can’t “become” a natural born citizen.)
You can of course be born a citizen if you “had at least one natural parent who was a citizen of the US of A;” but that is at the pleasure of immigration and naturalization law, which has been enacted by Congress and can likewise be changed by Congress. (In other words, if Congress and the President agreed to change this, then persons subsequently born under such circumstances wouldn’t be citizens.) The rub is, while Congress does have the Constitutional authority to enact immigration/naturalization legislation, it does not have the authority to legislatively affect either Constitutional language or requirements. “Natural born citizen” language, status, and requirements only appear in the United States Constitution.
The first way that you have correctly identified of being a “natural born citizen” is the only way IN THE Constitution. That cannot be changed by anything that Congress can do because it is Constitutional. That ‘second’ way IS a way to become or be recognized as a legally born citizen of the United States ONLY because of standing immigration and naturalization law.
(The best indicator of this is to note the CHANGES made in the wording of THIS provision in the first two immigration and naturalization acts passed by Congress, in 1790 and 1795 respectively; having to do with “considered as natural born citizens.”)
The SCOTUS has never been asked to rule on this, which is ALMOST incredible; but goes to show you how precarious constitutional jurisprudence is, including the First Amendment. The misapplication and misreading of the Second Amendment—the fraud that Warren Burger insisted had been perpetrated—is another example of how the Constitution can easily be nullified.
Too many people conflate “native born” (ie someone born here) and “natural born” (ie someone who is a ctizen by birth). They are not the same thing.
The US Constitution does not define “natural born”. it is entirely a matter for Congress to determine.
Herewith is a complete set of the laws in-force today for “natural born” US citizen:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
I submit that my summary although slightly oversimplified was basically correct.
“The US Constitution does not define “natural born”. It is entirely a matter for Congress to determine.”
While it is true that “natural born citizen” is not defined, it is however described in the ‘Citizenship Clause’ of the14th Amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” All persons born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are “natural born” U.S. citizens. The question is whether others are included.
It isn’t true that Congress gets to define “natural born citizen” or determines or interprets or decides who these ‘others’ are. Congress doesn’t have a Constitutional interpretation/interpretive function. Only the judicial branch has that responsibility.
What you have cited Jim is immigration and naturalization/nationalization law, duly passed by Congress. But Congress can only determine who will legally be considered a citizen at birth, not who is a natural born citizen. The citizenship of a natural born citizen is independent of any possible congressional action. The citizenship of persons born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction is not subject to or dependent upon legislation. There is nothing Congress can do about the citizenship of a natural born citizen.
This is why, if you’ve noticed, the “natural born citizen” phrase in the 1790 Naturalization Act was removed in the superseding 1795 Act and never again used anywhere—and it represents distinction between a natural born citizen and a legally born citizen.
To Stephen Foster,
Donohue has been a consistent advocate of increased restrictions on private gun ownership up to and including the forced confiscation of them. When questioned by the Washington Post about his opinion of Lott’s research, Donohue admitted that he had basically spent only enough time looking at it to see that it disputed his own opinions before criticizing it. The only detail Donohue was able to provide in his criticism of Lott’s research were items which Lott included and evaluated in his research and shown to be statistical outliers. In other words, while Donohue sounded like he knew what he was talking about, he didn’t and he admitted it.
Nice try, but you missed. Find someone who has done more than glanced at the data and dismissed it because they didn’t like it.
Have you ever read Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime”? I know, asking a Liberal like you to read it is about like asking a Christian to read “The Satanic Bible” but facts are facts and Lott provides a whole lot of them that critics of gun ownership have only been able to dismiss, but not dispute.
Stephen,
Apparently you confuse disputing and refuting. Donohue disputed Lott’s research by expressing his contrasting opinion and making a claim to diminish the substance and reputation of the research. Did he present any substantive evidence to show that Lott lied, miscalculated in his statistical evaluations, or distorted the evidence? No. But you attribute authority to his statement based on his position. Well, you also believe Paul Krugman and he’s accumulated a shameful track record of making pronouncements on all sorts of things where he’s been shown to be wrong. So you should know by now that you can’t trust a person just because they seem to be authoritative.
Refutation is not just an “I don’t like it, so I don’t believe it” statement. It is a careful analysis testing a statement or body of research by comparing it to similar and more recent bodies of information. To date not a single person has been able to do this with Lott’s research on guns because no one else has ever done such a large scale study on the topic and the few that have tried produced supporting evaluations with, at most, minor criticism.
It is obvious that you love to dispute and there are plenty of disputing opinions available for you to quote. But you need to dig deeper if you’re going to refute with credibility.
Donohue has not been discredited; Lott has. The Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Policy and Research hasn’t been discredited; neither has criminologist Otis Dudley Duncan, nor Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, nor journalist Julian Sanchez. (In fact Sanchez provided evidence of mendacity.) They have not dismissed Lott; but have all either disputed or discredited his work.
But, come to think of it, statistics that have been repeatedly cited relative to gun death rates in various states per 100,000 haven’t been challenged, disputed or discredited. You (and others) have had to ignore the reality that even in Illinois—with all those many black on black gang and drug related killings in Chicago—there are fewer gun deaths per 100,000 people than there are in Alaska or Alabama. You know that to be statistical reality. Simplistic labeling of reality as “political correctness” obviously doesn’t make it any less real. (Monte’s reference to delusion was spot on.)
Now then, please provide the date of or link to or exact excerpts from the Washington Post article that you’ve referenced.
Once again, you have accepted the published opinions of Liberals as fact without question or testing. They’ve been telling so many lies for so long that it seems only those opinions are true, when they are easily disproved.
Discussions with you remind me of a Bible study about the Sabbath that I once had with a Baptist and when I invited him to make a decision to obey God, he answered, “I see what you’re telling me from the Bible, but I don’t believe it because that isn’t what my preacher says and my preacher wouldn’t lie to me.”
Just as I suspected, no date for, or link to, or exact excerpt form the Washington Post article that you’ve referenced. All I get is some unrelated anecdote. (FYI BTW, Sanchez is not a liberal.)
You haven’t even given me any information from even the discredited John Lott that would in any way dispute or explain why the rate of deaths from guns is so high (per 100,000 people) in states like your own Alabama or in Sarah Palin’s Alaska as compared to those rates of gun deaths in states like (my native) New York, Connecticut, or Massachusetts. And, with apologies to Nathan, no one has mentioned anything about the murders in Chicago now that they have the facts.
Tell me William, why are the rates of gun deaths per 100,000 lowest in states that have the most restrictive gun laws, and highest in states with comparatively less restrictive gun laws, as in Alabama? Deal with facts and document your information. (You cannot and therefore you will not.)
It’s lucky for you that this venue constitutes a sympathetic audience (people like Bugs; and I’m not exactly a sympathetic figure)—because the facts are all against you. Unlike the Baptist friend of yours, I know that even what you’ve told me from the Bible is not correct. What we know is that you literally are part of a gun ”clinging”(/slinging?) culture; and that the facts only represent a nuisance.
If you (and/or John Lott) were right, the gun-death rates per 100,000 would be inverted on a state by state basis; and America would have a lower rate of gun deaths per 100,000 than other western industrialized nations—but then again, you’re not.
Apparently you don’t read what people actually write.
Alan Dershowitz did not refute John Lott on guns. Instead, after Newtown, he wrote that the people rushing to enact new gun laws were making a mistake because, as Lott’s research showed, more laws would be totally ineffective. (Found on his website.) That’s not refutation as you claim, that’s endorsement.
A search of the index of Duncan’s published works does not show that he wrote on gun control. Neither did he address Lott’s work, as you claimed. But he did advocate for euthanasia as a way of removing the mentally ill from society. The Nazis did that in World War II. Do you also support that? (Found on the library website for the Univ. of CA Santa Barbara.)
That “research” center at Johns Hopkins was established with the stated purpose of producing research that could be used to promote gun control. So everything they publish is prejudiced from the beginning. (Found on the university’s website where they list received grants and endowments.)
You were challenged to document your statements, but you’re unwilling to do that and instead asking me to do it?
Two facts remain undisputable here: 1) gun control laws would not have prevented the Charleston church shooting; and 2) Where more citizens are armed, total crime rates and death rates from guns go down.
The following posts are excerpted verbatim from a CNN Transcript from July 23, 2012 (the participants in the excerpt were Piers Morgan, John Lott, and Alan Dershowitz:
MORGAN: America has 8,775 on average murders a year from guns.
LOTT: Right, OK —
MORGAN: At what point does your premise, more guns, less crime, look ridiculous?
LOTT: Look. Guns make it easier for bad things to happen. But they also make it easier for people to project themselves and prevent bad things from happening. You look across the country. There are lots of things that affect crime rates. I don’t — you probably don’t know the distribution of murders in the United States.
MORGAN: I know you count more than most countries in the world. Let’s turn to Alan Dershowitz — LOTT: There’s 75 —
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: Wait a second. Alan Dershowitz, am I —
LOTT: I thought you asked me a question.
MORGAN: Alan Dershowitz, am I going crackers here? I mean there are nearly 300 million guns in circulation in America. Nearly 9,000 murders from those guns a year. Mayor Bloomberg, mayor of one of the great cities of America, says it’s completely out of control. And that we’ve got to do something. No politician wants to have the debate. Mr. Lott insists we need more guns because there’ll be less crime.
You have been a great criminal attorney for a long period of time. What is your view?
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, we just heard the worst kind of junk science that’s being pushed by the most extreme lobby group in the United States, the National Rifle Association, which if it had its way, there would be no restrictions at all. People could literally own nuclear weapons if they had their way.
And this is the worst kind of junk science. It just makes no sense at all. Use just a little bit of common sense. Obviously, if you look at countries all over the world, from Japan to Great Britain to India, you see a direct correlation between the ease of obtaining guns and the ease of using the guns to kill other people. It doesn’t take a lot of intelligence or social science to understand this.
This is the worst junk science. If he ever tried to introduce this in a court of law, he would not only be laughed out of court; he’d be held in contempt and probably cited for obstruction of justice. There is no truth to anything he’s saying, zero.
William Noel wrote: “Alan Dershowitz did not refute John Lott on guns…” (“…That’s not refutation as you claim, that’s endorsement.”)
Obviously I could go on, but why?
Stephen Foster,
Please, I must beg your forgiveness, oh great master and owner of all knowledge, protector of all things factual and decider of what is truth, for I have committed the sin of using sources other than you. Worse still, I have failed to provide bibliographic references when I was merely doing the same as you. Nor have I watched every interview with Alan Dershowitz on CNN, but have limited myself to reading his syndicated column, including the one he wrote AFTER the CNN interview and AFTER he actually read Lott’s book. Most of all, please forgive and be merciful unto me because I have committed the almost unpardonable sin of being an independent thinker instead of memorizing the wisdom found in that holy book “The Thoughts of Barack.” Neither have I prostrated myself at the Altar of Liberalism or joined in that worship. Instead I have studied at the secret fountain of political incorrectness. I have allowed myself to ask questions and sought truthful answers. Neither have I joined in the condemnation and discrediting of what is good and honorable and true. So I come to you seeking your great mercy and forgiveness for I now see the error of my ways!
Now, can you make change for that $9 bill you gave me last week? Maybe give me some ones this time instead of the three $3 bills you gave me last time?
Here’s ‘the game’ now, instead of dealing with facts, the ‘out’ is to simplistically label facts as “liberalism” or “political correctness;” or when all else fails, invoke the name of the ‘evil one’ (Barack Obama).
Do you really want to continue this? If you do, what is “liberal” about comparative state-by-state gun death rates per 100,000?
I WOULD ask you to document and specify that column that Dershowitz wrote, etc. (you know, the “endorsement” of Lott—so that everyone could read it themselves); just as I have previously also asked you to document and specify the Washington Post article to which you had referred; just as I have previously asked you to explain why the death rate from guns per 100,000 is so much greater in the states with least restrictive gun laws than it is in states with the most restrictive gun laws—but WHY?
Would you nevertheless like to see similar documentation for what the others (who have refuted and/or discredited Lott) have said? Yes!
This simultaneous sense of entitlement and denial is as inexplicable as it is breathtaking. Might someone (else), preferably someone who agrees with William about this, dare to make some sense of THAT? (But then…WHY would you?)
Stephen,
You really need to learn the difference between demagoguery and facts. All you provided in that CNN text was demagoguery, an angry outburst making inflammatory accusations that are utterly void of fact. It was not different than one child on the playground at school accusing another child of being ugly and having cooties to make them go away instead of just saying they really don’t want to play with them.
Apparently you’ve been swallowing a whole lot of demagoguery over a long period of time because you seem to believe any claim of racism that anyone makes and then vigorously you try to refute any disputing information. If it comes from the mouth of Al Sharpton on another black activist, you believe it and defend it. Claims like Trayvon Martin was a cherubic, innocent and pure-as-the-drive-snow teen who was hunted down by a black-hating white (who was actually hispanic). Or that Michael Brown was shot-down by a trigger-happy police officer when he was trying to surrender. Then when you’re confronted with evidence you charge that it doesn’t exist or just isn’t credible because it doesn’t match the demagoguery you believe.
Demagoguery substitutes emotion and falsehood for facts and you really need to learn to distinguish the difference.
Unfortunately, very unfortunately, this is a situation in which actual, factual, documentable, and documented statistical information is resented yet not refuted.
However, before submitting even more detail, it might be advisable to correct more falsehoods. I have not once on these boards defended or repeated anything that Sharpton says. Since I comment on this site as frequently and as prolifically as anyone, and since it is all archived, I would challenge the individual who stated otherwise to prove what he said about me is true. It is obvious that both of us cannot possibly be telling the truth. I have either defended/supported Sharpton, or not.
Furthermore I have not once on these boards ever written about or mentioned the fatal and tragic Michael Brown incident in Ferguson, MO in terms of Mr. Brown being the victim of any injustice whatsoever. I challenge the individual who stated otherwise to prove that I have done this. It is again obvious that both of us cannot possibly be telling the truth. I have either done so, or not.
In checking the intentional homicides globally
according to several studies at Google, including
the United Nations, of homicides per 100,000
in 2112 are as follows:GLOBAL AVERAGE 6.2
NATION HOMICIDES BY FIRE ARMS
HONDURAS 90 64
VENEZULA 50
EL SALVADOR 46
BELIZE 45
GUATEMALA 40 36
JAMAICA 39 39
ST KITTS&NEVIS 34
COLOMBIA 31 28
SOUTH AFRICA 31
PUERTO RICO 27
BRAZIL 25 19
MEXICO 22 11
USA 5
The above do not include suicides or accidental
deaths, of any type, by any means.
Here’s an example of why no one who is sympathetic to the American gun culture has dared commented on the statistics of gun death rates per 100,000 that have been repeatedly cited on this thread.
This list of countries that Earl has furnished has the United States looking good—in comparison to a number of so-called Third World nations and so-called ‘banana republics.’ Of course wherever Earl got these numbers of intentional homicides by firearms per 100,000, we can be sure that the list also included western industrialized democracies as well, including Canada, the UK, France, Germany, etc.
So, Earl, you being a fair-minded sort, please furnish us with these numbers insofar as Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Japan, and Australia are concerned, if it’s not too much trouble.
We should also include Italy and Spain.
So? How does that deal with present reality?
The problem isn’t the overwhelming number of gun owners who are law-abiding, but the mindset of those who commit crimes and acts of violence. Numerous law enforcement agencies and associations of law enforcement professionals advocate for citizens arming themselves and learning to use their guns because armed citizens are so effective at interrupting and preventing crime. Where the word gets around that criminals might face an armed homeowner or citizen on the street, they look for easier targets.
At the root of crime and acts of violence is disregard for basic morality, including respect for the property of others and no one should be surprised that Liberals would want to take guns away from the law-abiding because at the foundation of Marxism and Liberalism is the teaching that it is wrong to own more than another person and that their excess must be taken away and redistributed to those who have less and a person who is willing to defend their life and property against that with a gun endangers the ability of Liberals to control society. Worse still, Liberalism legitimizes theft, the same crime of taking from others that thieves commit individually, by justifying taxation to redistribute wealth. So Liberalism is promoting disregard for God by attempting to legitimize the specific violation of the 8th and 10th Commandments.
Of course if any of this was actually true, which it isn’t, states like Alaska, Alabama, Wyoming, and Oklahoma which are ‘conservative’ states with relatively less restrictive gun control laws than more ‘liberal’ states such as Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Hawaii, would have smaller rates of gun deaths per 100,000 people instead of much greater rates of gun deaths per 100,000 people. Instead, the reality is, the former states are among the leading states in the rates of gun deaths per 100,000 people; and the latter (more ‘liberal’) states mentioned above have the fewest gun deaths per 100,000 of all the states in America.
You seem obsessed with seeing everything as “liberal vs. conservative” when the issue with guns is the criminal-minded whose disrespect for the property of others, which is promoted by the “tax it away from them” policies of Liberalism. You are promoting taking guns away from the law-abiding who are exercising their constitutional right to gun ownership and are defending themselves and their property from the criminal-minded instead of dealing with what leads criminals to use guns for acts of violence. The power to positively change the minds of criminals comes not from the promotion of Liberalism, which you advocate here with far greater vigor than God, but from knowing the power of God in your own life so that you are able to share that hope and power with them so they can be changed. So societal change and the solution to what you see as a problem comes not from what you are promoting, but from God. Show criminals the love of God and they will be transformed into disciples. Keep promoting liberalism as you do and you will always be denying the root nature of the problem.
Let me get this straight, since you are now telling me that everything is not “liberal vs. conservative;” nor therefore (I suppose) would every problem necessarily then lend itself to a “liberal vs. conservative” solution, nor therefore does every problem necessarily originate with a “liberal vs. conservative” policy approach.
If this is true, why do you equate political “Liberalism” with that with which you personally find wrong with the world? If political “Liberalism” is the problem, then in the 50 laboratories of democracy otherwise known as the United States of America, where there are varying laws and regulations, the states that are the most liberal (or have comparatively liberal public policy approaches) would have, for instance, higher rates of gun deaths—and other measurements and indicators of life quality, e.g. population health and educational achievement, etc., would be similarly substandard in the liberal states—in comparison to the more conservative states. In other words, the facts would demonstrate your perception to be accurate on any number of fronts.
But since the facts actually demonstrate your perception to be fantasy, you inevitably resort to preaching about and challenging or comparing your religious commitment and connection to someone else’s; which is of course both the ‘tell’ that your position is tenuous and that you are aware that it is.
While I do strongly disagree with the contemporary interpretations of the Second Amendment and do strongly believe that it was obviously originally drafted with a military, state security application; I have otherwise merely presented facts that you have found to be inconvenient.
Straw men like “You are promoting taking guns away from the law-abiding who are exercising their constitutional right to gun ownership and are defending themselves and their property from the criminal-minded instead of dealing with what leads criminals to use guns for acts of violence,” are laughable since you cannot find where I have promoted taking guns away from the law-abiding. I’ve instead presented incontrovertible statistical reality that proves, both on a state-by-state basis and on a national basis that more guns basically means more gun deaths. You cannot refute it but have retorted with statistical information to the effect that the presumably law-abiding primarily lethally use guns to kill themselves.
Why is it “Liberalism” to point out and advocate for the more demonstrably pragmatic approach to what is obviously a problem?
Yes, the root problem of everything is of course sin and greed, and the deceitful and desperately wicked heart of man. Guns are but its symptom and symbol.
Hi Guys. The Americas have developed over the past 5 centuries a love a need for better weaponry to defend it’s territory, and freedom from subjection and tyranny. First against the
nation’s Indians, then the French, Spain, and England. Then the Civil War etc. In earlier centuries, every home and village were protected by having several guns in every home. In arming every citizen the militias could be quickly formed up in hours, to protect their turf, as well as being mobilized as at the Civil War. The framers of the Constitution were definitely thinking every man should have guns for hunting food and for protection
Here is further info requested,data of 2012:
NATION HOMICIDES PERCENT FROM FIREARMS
ARGENTINA 1198 52
BANGLADESH 1456 42
BRAZIL 34678 70
COLOMBIA 12539 81
ENGLAND 41 6
GUATEMALA 5009 84
INDIA 3093 7
MEXICO 11309 55
SOUTH AFR. 8319 45
USA 9146 60
VENEZEULA 11115 79
FRANCE 35 10
GERMANY 158 26
SPAIN 90 21
ITALY 417 66
AUSTRALIA 30 11
RUSSIA NO REPORT
It appears that the gun is the preferred weapon of choice. It permits murder at a distance from the victim, less chance
of retaliation. Quick and simple for the intentional slayer.
Here are recent comparative rates of homicides by guns per 100,000 inhabitants per year; including most of the nations listed in Earl’s most recent post, and (the rates of intentional homicides by guns per 100,000 inhabitants) in the other nations I’d asked to see.
Argentina – 5.5 (2010)
Australia – 1.1 (2012)
Austria – 0.9 (2012)
Bangladesh – 2.7 (2012)
Belgium – 1.6 (2012)
Brazil – 25.2 (2012)
Canada – 1.6 (2012)
Columbia – 30.8 (2012)
Denmark – 0.8 (2012)
Finland – 1.6 (2012)
France – 1.0 (2012)
Germany – 0.8 (2011)
Guatemala – 39.9 (2012)
India – 3.5 (2012)
Italy – 0.9 (2012)
Ireland – 1.2 (2012)
Japan – 0.3 (2011)
Mexico – 21.5 (2012)
Netherlands – 0.9 (2012)
New Zealand – 0.9 (2012)
South Africa – 31.0 (2012)
South Korea – 0.9 (2011)
Spain – 0.8 (2012)
Sweden – 0.7 (2012)
Switzerland – 0.6 (2011)
USA – 4.7 (2012)
United Kingdom – 1.0 (2011)
Venezuela – 53.7 (2012)
So we see that the United States has from three to five times to 15 times as many intentional homicides by firearms per 100,000 as do nations such as Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom; which are free nations.
There is but one reason for this: The United States of America, although the most prosperous nation in the world with the largest economy, has more guns per capita, at about 89 guns per 100 residents as of 2014, than any other nation on the face of the planet. The next closest nation is Serbia (not including Kosovo) at about 70 guns per 100 residents as of 2014 (not close). If MORE guns meant FEWER gun deaths, we would have the FEWEST gun deaths.
What does it matter that you are X number of times more likely to be killed by someone using a gun in one country than another if you are more than 1,400 times more likely to be killed in a car wreck? It doesn’t matter. Your obsession with numbers becomes more nonsensical when you consider a couple more factors. First is that roughly 80% of gun deaths in America are self-inflicted. Second is that non-suicide gun deaths are concentrated in geographic areas and most often directly related to certain types of criminal activity. Until you’re willing to factor-in factors such as those you’re promoting an illusion.
Noel writes: “Your obsession with numbers becomes more nonsensical when you consider a couple more factors. First is that roughly 80% of gun deaths in America are self-inflicted.”
Of course the reality is that “the roughly 80%” figure is not at all true; but then what else is new?
According to CDC statistics, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms in the U.S. as of 2010; distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. So, 61.3% was the actual (truthful) suicide percentage of gun deaths in America (as if that is somehow more palatable).
Immediately following this, Noel then writes: “Second is that non-suicide gun deaths are concentrated in geographic areas and most often directly related to certain types of criminal activity.”
As if homicides being concentrated in “geographical areas” or most often being related to certain types of criminal activity mitigates the carnage or puts it in some ‘context.’ Besides, isn’t the U.S. a geographical area? Besides that, even given the concentration of homicides due to certain types of criminal activity, the gun death rates in Illinois are dwarfed by those death rates in Alaska or Alabama or Arizona or Arkansas.
If you would take the time to read the kids manifesto—he wasn’t racist to begin with—nor knew any–UNTIL–he got into this stuff because of the T. Martin case in the news—& who highlighted that? Liberals for political reasons. Zimmerman didn’t shoot Martin because of race (fact) nor was M. Brown shot in Ferguson because he was black. He was shot because (after robbing a store –on tape) he attacked a police officer and went for his gun. A white kid doing the same thing would be shot by the cop too.
It was your side politically that caused this racial divide by ginning up stories with a racial component on purpose. Truly liberalism is a HATE-FILLED ANGRY IDEAOLOGY.
To be honest—you seem like a mean spirited person.
Now an anonymous individual has written that Zimmerman was Hispanic; presumably meaning ‘as opposed to being white,’ or something like that—begging the question how the President is considered black, yet Zimmerman isn’t considered white.
Further still, it is FACT that Trayvon Martin was followed by George Zimmerman because Martin fit the physical descriptive profile of people who had either in fact or allegedly been engaged in criminal activity in that neighborhood; and that one of the descriptive characteristics of these individuals were that they were black. Therefore had the late Mr. Martin been a white teenager, male or female, in that same time and place, it is quite reasonable to suggest that he would likely be alive today. Never mind that we now know Zimmerman to be a threatening and troublesome individual. Of course, since there was no videotaped or cell phone recording of that particular tragic incident, we are left largely to depend on the survivor’s version of events.
And incredibly, in what is unquestionably the most bizarrely convoluted reasoning imaginable, this same anonymous individual indicates that the alleged murderer of the nine worshippers in Charleston was somehow instigated to action because of the liberal coverage of the tragic Martin-Zimmerman incident. This as if to suggest that since the so-called liberal media motivated him to hate black people, that this was therefore…what?!
I hear what the author is stating and long for justice with him. However, the author’s recommendations for dealing with issues raised will only compound the problem of injustice, and not resolve it.
The Bible gives us the source of the problem, which is our selfish natures in ALL humanity (no group or classification of humans is exempt.
Frederic Bastiat states it this way: “Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people…”
“But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.” – The Law ( http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G004 )
This desire of human nature is true for the citizen, and for the government official working on behalf of the citizen. All to often the law is perverted and used for injustice, based on the mutual reward segments of citizens and rulers can achieve together.
What is needed is justice unpervert. This is what I find in God’s Law, it is trustworthy, and Right.