Well, not so much “responding”. \u00a0But we’ll come back to that.<\/p>\n
I have received several angry replies to my \u201cStomping Stand Your Ground\u201d blog. The writers deserve a response.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Although they don’t get a “Response” so much as getting “tut-tutted” by someone who really doesn’t know much about the issue.<\/p>\n
One writer called the blog \u201cshameful and disgusting\u2026politically motivated crap. If my church supported this, I would be looking for a real church.\u201d Another wrote \u201cWhat load of crap! This Lutheran group ought to be ashamed of themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n
The ELCA has been supporting this \u201ccrap\u201d about actions in support of gun violence prevention (GVP) since 1989.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Since the right to keep and bear arms is one of the things that separates a “citizen” from a “subject”, then yes – the ELCA should be ashamed of their pro-authoritarian stance, and anyone who believes that we, The Peoplle (of\u00a0all\u00a0<\/em>faiths) are supposed to be citizens, not subjects, in our\u00a0secular, political life,\u00a0<\/em>should\u00a0<\/em>have some pointed, acerbic questions for the ELCA’s temporal leadership. \u00a0(And so should you Catholics and PCUSA Presbyterians and Episcopals and Methodists, too).<\/p>\n
Churchwide Assembly action happened in 1989, 1993, 2013 and 2016. Furthermore, the Church Council acted in 1994, the Social Statement \u201cFor Peace in God\u2019s World\u201d calls for the need to create peaceful environments, and the St. Paul Area Synod passed two strong GVP resolutions in 2013 and 2016. The ELCA must be a \u201ccrappy\u201d church.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
If you believe that the best way to secure Peace in God’s World is to keep authoritarianism, dictatorship and tyranny at bay – and I do – then yes. \u00a0Those resolutions, as they relate to disarming the law-abiding citizen – are\u00a0prima facie\u00a0<\/em>evidence of a church that is, if not “crappy”, at least more suited to life under an authoritarian regime than a pluralistic democracy founded on the idea of self-government.<\/p>\n
I would argue that the will of God and the ethics of Jesus are unabashedly nonviolent in focus. Violence is the result of the Fall and not God pulling the triggers of violence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
And it’s here that the writer – knowingly or not – gets insidious.<\/p>\n
All violence is not the same. \u00a0Invading Normandy to free Europe is not the same as invading France to enslave Europe. \u00a0Freeing a concentration camp through force of arms is not the same as driving people into a camp via force of arms. \u00a0 Shooting someone who is threatening to kill you or your family is not the same as threatening to kill someone or their family. \u00a0To slop them all together under an intentionally-vague label is rhetorically shoddy – and morally repugnant.<\/p>\n
The gun in the hands of the law-abiding citizen\u00a0deters\u00a0<\/em>violence; the gun in the hands of the would-be victim of violence turns them, often, into non-victims.<\/p>\n
Jesus\u2019 disgust at weapons is clear in his words \u201cEnough!\u201d, \u201cNo more of this!\u201d and \u201cThose who live by the [gun] shall die by the [gun].\u201d The Sermon on the Mount is his \u201cmagnus opus\u201d on nonviolence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Sermon on the Mount\u00a0decried revenge killing<\/em>; some religious leaders at the time were preaching that the doctrine of “an eye for an eye” meant that revenge killing was acceptable. \u00a0Jesus corrected those false teachings and put the kibosh on that with his sermon. \u00a0(Too bad Mohammed never had such a sermon, huh?). \u00a0It was\u00a0not\u00a0<\/em>a foreclosure of self-defense.<\/p>\n
God and Jesus must be crappy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
No, but the writer’s interpretation of scripture is a tad, er, \u00a0fecal.<\/p>\n
The Bible also endorses self-defense in several places: \u00a0in Exodus 22:2-3 we are told\u00a0“If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”. \u00a0Which reads a lot like Minnesota’s case law on self-defense; you can defend yourself from an\u00a0immediate\u00a0<\/em>threat to your life and health. \u00a0If you do it later, as revenge, then you are in huge trouble.<\/p>\n
Proverbs 25:26 says\u00a0“A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well.” \u00a0 Allowing wickedness – whether street crime or political tyranny – to oppress the faithful is wrong. \u00a0 LIfe – ours, and those of our fellow humans – is a gift\u00a0from God; to allow the wicked to destroy them is an affront to His creation.<\/p>\n
Anyway – you gotta figure that even if the learned scribe from the ECLA can’t do theology, they’ll at least have some Old Testament evidence and logic on their side.<\/p>\n
Right?<\/p>\n
You actually\u00a0read\u00a0<\/em>this blog, right? What do you think?<\/p>\n
Another called the article \u201cmisleading and false.\u201d The sources for my comments are Protect Minnesota, <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!<\/p>\n
As I’ve shown in this space for the past fifteen years, “Protect” Minnesota has never – not once – made a substantial, true, original statement about guns, gun owners, gun laws, the Second Amendment and its legal history, the law-abiding gun owner’s affect on crime, or anything else.<\/p>\n
Among the informed, using “Protect” Minnesota as a source is tantamount to admitting you know nothing about the subject.<\/p>\n
…The Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, State Health Facts, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Center for Health, plus Harvard, Stanford and Johns Hopkins Universities. I will trust these sources immensely more than those quoted by the gun lobby.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Let’s ignore for a moment the “Appeal to Authority<\/a>” \u00a0– the logical fallacy of using the provenance of your sources as evidence, rather than the actual facts. \u00a0Saying “my sources are better than your sources!” are the mark of the seventh-grader who hasn’t learned debate, or logic, yet.<\/p>\n
Leaving aside the risible “Protect” Minnesota, the other sources – I’m familiar with all of them – have deep flaws in the information they present.<\/p>\n
What are those flaws? \u00a0We could go through them point by point, study by study, and systematically refute their applicability and authority. \u00a0 \u00a0Indeed, we have, and do, do that; it’s one of several reasons the good guys have been winning this debate for the past twenty years; the facts are on our side.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Screen-Shot-2017-04-06-at-12.11.11-PM.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n