The Right to Bear Crosses

This post may seem out of place under my blog title, but bear with me if you can.

I have just finished reading more than fifty essays on gun control, or more accurately, analyses of articles about gun control. I purposely assigned an article from each side of the issue to give my students the opportunity to agree with one if they chose to do so. Not surprisingly, many of my young scholars were supportive of the position taken by Dr. Erin O’Brien, an academic from Australia, who advocates strict firearm laws as a means to reduce violent crime. She touts the complete ban her country initiated after the 1996 Port Arthur shooting which claimed 35 lives. She offers this as a solution for gun shocked Americans in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre.

What O’Brien fails to mention either by ignorance or thoughtful omission is that even the Australian government now concedes that the confiscation of citizens’ guns has not significantly reduced violent crime. Homicides, rapes, burglaries and other serious crimes remained steady or increase slightly according to a study done in 2003. O’Brien is correct to say that there has not been another mass murder since 1996, but violence against persons has continued to countless multiples of the 35 victims at Port Arthur. In Great Britain, similar gun laws resulted in dramatic increases in violent crime.

Nine out of ten students who read O’Brien simply took her at her word and praised her evidence-backed reasoning; they did not do the fact checking that would have put the lie to her argument. Unfortunately, I suspect a similar ratio would apply to average Americans who are watching the current debate about gun control in this country. Case in point: the Brady Campaign recently gave California its highest grade for gun laws, yet California has a 73% higher murder rate than the average of states which ranked below it. The same report card honored ten states with the “strongest” gun laws when those ten had murder rates 2.2 times higher than the ten states with the “weakest” laws.

There are too many people who have not yet realized there are factions in our most popular media who will twist the facts purposely to advance their agenda. It is true that America has the highest per capita gun ownership and gun violence in the world. However, it is not reported widely that FBI crime data for 2011 shows a significant decline in violent crime for 18 of the last 20 years.  Murder, the most frequently mentioned gun crime, is down 52% in that same period. This has all taken place while private gun ownership has risen concurrently.

My students lost a few points on their essay if they missed O’Brien’s glaring logical flaw. Americans will lose much more if we don’t do our homework in this Constitutional debate. This is a Second Amendment issue which has consequences beyond whether we keep our private guns or not. Tinkering with the Constitution in the manner of the anti-gun lobby is dangerous.

As one of my more insightful students pointed out, the Second Amendment came on the heels of America’s armed rebellion against British tyranny. The right to bear arms was expressly given so that tyrants would think twice about subjecting armed citizens to tyrannical measures. The anti-gun position on the Second Amendment is that “a well regulated militia” refers to government entities like police and armed forces personnel.  One must consider, however, that if only the government has guns, there will be no citizen defense against a tyrannical government. It is often said that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. What if the government becomes the “outlaws?”

And finally, I turn to the WHAMM aspect: the same forces who would alter the Constitutional right to bear arms would also like to rewrite the First Amendment freedom of religion. It is already beginning; preaching certain portions of Scripture is now considered a hate crime in some jurisdictions. If that becomes a precedent, the Supreme Court may one day dictate what can be spoken from our pulpits. Listen to the wisdom of Martin Niemoller who lived in Nazi Germany:

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

Hilariously Content

Today I am taking a vacation from politics and theology.

 

I have recently stumbled upon a delightful show on BBC America called Top Gear. The show is a cross between Myth Busters and the Keystone Kops. The word that seems best to describe the three co-hosts is jovial, and their antics with automobiles would be called irregular if one was being kind. Nonetheless, it is a hoot. Watching the show I regularly end up with pain at the base of my skull from continuous, tear-inducing laughter.  (Is that normal, or just me?)

 

One segment of the show involves brief product reviews of automobiles and related paraphernalia. In keeping with the general irreverent mood, one can expect something more entertaining than what Consumer’s Report might offer to say the least. For example, a recent comparison between the Porsche Boxter and Mercedes Benz SLK55 AMG involved racing through an abandoned village in which members of the British Army were prepared to “ambush” the fleeing driver. Naturally, rather than live ammunition modern electronic “bullets” registered hits on the driver’s vest a la Laser tag. If memory serves, the Benz won by allowing the driver to escape with fewer hits.

This is decidedly not the way most people would choose to test a high priced, high powered open touring car, but that is precisely why Top Gear keeps me coming back. It is my escape into laughter. Yet a recent episode did foster a flight of introspection (no surprise to those who know me.) They test drove the new Bentley Continental GT and compared it to the latest model from Ferrari. Not surprisingly, the Italian job felt like a race car made street worthy – barely street worthy. The Continental, on the other hand, came off like a delicious luxury sedan made race worthy – very worthy. To be wrapped in elegant leather and surrounded by fine wood and polished metal while being propelled down the road at incredible speeds is a dream of mine.

I once spent several hours with an American attempt at the luxury sport sedan (emphasis on sport.) I put a little over 100 miles on a Chrysler 300 SRT-8. With a mere 425 horse power, the Chrysler certainly doesn’t compare directly with the 616 British ponies in the Bentley. Nor did the distinctly American leather seats but plastic everything else show like the burled walnut and polished aluminum from the factory in Crewe. There is something to be said for the hand-built car; it makes an impression. But when I mashed the accelerator in the 300 and heard the subtle, yet purposeful roar and felt my back pressed into the leather as I rocketed to 60 in just 4.6 seconds, I felt the same rush I imagine the Bentley would provide. In fact, had a Bentley been racing alongside, I would have beaten it to 60 by three tenths of a second. (The Bentley carries a full ton more luxury in its curb weight.)

The sticker price on the Chrysler I drove was just over forty; the Bentley would be more than four times that. Given my reduced circumstances and slim prospects for the future, I will never have to decide whether to buy the Bentley or the Chrysler (although a good used 300 might come to live with me someday; that or its country cousin the Dodge Magnum SRT-8.) The point I am finally getting to is that I have lately begun to realize the true value of St. Paul’s remark about being content in whatever state one finds oneself. The 257,000 mile ’99 Durango I currently own is rough and rusty, but it has started and conveyed me to and fro in warmth and safety in the sub freezing snowy weather we have been enduring lately. Neither the Bentley nor the Chrysler would do any more than that. Bentley drivers may laugh at that idea. I laugh at Top Gear and motor on in contentment.

I Got Scammed

I got scammed. I thought I had enough experience to avoid the ovbious rip-offs. I was wrong.

I went to a Global Vacation Network presentation in Grand Rapids that promised a free Android tablet to anyone who attended. I have been to several of these vacation and time-share presentations. All of them have delivered the gift they promised. Global Vacations has not -- yet. I submitted my complaint to the Better Business Bureau, but I am not holding my breath. I did not check with the BBB first (as I should have) to learn that there are 191 complaints against Global Vacation Network for not doing what they promise. Caveat emptor.

Right now some of my readers are wondering how someone as intelligent as I could fall for such a scam. I must tell you that I have been the benefactor of many free gifts from similar operations. After winning a free trip to Cancun (many years ago) I sat in a time-share presentation at my beachfront  hotel and walked out with a free sarape and two free lobster dinners. The lobsters were delicious; the sarape lasted many years before it went to the landfill. I found Cancun to be a bore, but it was a free bore. We later spent two free nights in a fine establishment in Petoskey with free dinner and breakfast compliments of another time-share type outfit. There were other "sit and listen" presentations that netted free gifts.

I also bought a vacation package several years ago at one of these events. It sounded like a truly worthwhile investment at the time. In fact we did get good use from it for a couple years, but then my financial situation deteriorated and I was forced to relinquish my "ownership" in the vacation property I had purchased. I do not recommend this as sound financial practice.

I am baring my soul in this way as a warning to others who may be tempted by offers that sound too good to be true. The old saying is true: if it sounds too good to be true it is. Granted, I stumbled into a few dollars worth of something-for-nothing, but statistically the adage holds true. There is no free lunch. Despite the fact that I signed up for Mr. Steak's free trip to Cancun and won, the vast majority (like everybody but me) who entered that drawing lost. Millions of people who bought lottery tickets in the last multi-million dollar lottery lost every penny.

Something deep in the human soul wants something for nothing. Scam artists traffic on that. Whether it is the Michigan state lottery, the nearest Indian casion or the raffle down at the parish, somebody is betting that there will be plenty of people who will lay down good money for a slight (and very slight) chance to get something for (next to) nothing. Do the math. There is no way a casino or travel company or church can offer a "free gift" without having someone pay for it. If you happen to "win," someone or many someones "lost." That's just the way it works.

This may explain why so many people are confused about what the Gospel of Christ really offers. It sounds too good to be true. We are conditioned to think that we have to pay something or do something to earn anything of value. Life generally teaches us that only hard work is rewarded with cash and benefits, so anything worth having requires work. People typically don't do what I did and go to a presentation offering something for free. Most people are smart enough to recognize the scam.

So what's the WHAMM here? There actually is a "free lunch" in one sense of the word. (It isn't really free because Someone paid for it already, but it is free to the current contestant.) A free ticket to heaven has been bought and paid for by the Saviour of the world. Christ redeemed (literally "bought back") anyone who places trust in him for salvation. Winning the next Powerball will only get you a few million dollars a year for life. Life ends. Gaining eternal life from a relationship with Christ gets an eternity of "free" benefits that never end. And you don't have to sit through a time-share presentation. And the liklihood of getting what was promised is better than with Global Vacation Network.

The Meaning of Football

Vanity, vanity; all is vanity says the Preacher. Was Solomon a proto-existentialist? That old King James translation, vanity, could just as well be rendered “meaningless.” That sounds like Sartre, the father of existentialism: life has no meaning. But the really worthwhile question is whether life has a purpose. Even Sartre recommended the practice of ‘existential psychoanalysis’ that interprets our actions to uncover the fundamental project that unifies our lives.”

I am in a Bible study that is looking at Ecclesiastes, a man’s book for men I suggested. Last week, on the eve of Super Bowl XLVII, one of the bright lads at the table asked if football had any meaning. He may have been trying to justify our hour of conversation which centered more on the big game than the writings of Solomon, but it did get me thinking. Why do men (mostly) get so wrapped up in physical contests? We all know guys for whom sports seem to be the “fundamental project that unifies [their] lives.” It may not have meaning, but it gives purpose.

To have purpose is to have a reason to get out of bed every morning. Purpose can be noble or ignoble, simple or complex. Many people have no greater purpose than to go to work to earn the money necessary to provide food and shelter. Historically, most women sought nothing more than to raise their children. Male or female, few people examine the real purpose in life. Socrates believed that the unexamined life was not worth living. Thoreau thought that “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation,” at least partly because they had no purpose.

Those who would label Solomon an existentialist misread him. True, the first chapters of Ecclesiastes highlight the emptiness of life, but Solomon qualifies his observations as existing “under the sun.” Yet even there, he does observe that life can have purpose. Under the sun, that is, here on earth, man can do no better than to “enjoy his work, because that is his lot.” (3:22) But before that the Preacher had said that there is meaning to be found, not under the sun, but in the purposes of the Creator. “[God] has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done.” (3:11) Man’s meaning is found in God’s purpose.

The old Westminster Catechism asks what the chief end of man is; it answers, “To glorify God and enjoy him forever.” To glorify means to provide a positive image, a good opinion. I like to say it means to make God look good. When we fulfill God’s purpose in our life, glory redounds to him – he is justified in His work (not that he needs man’s justification.) We fulfill God’s purpose by learning to relate properly to him and to all that he has created. This alone gives life both purpose and meaning.

I am not sitting in judgment on those who would type NFL (or NHL or MLB or NBA) in the blank that asks for purpose. I would hope no one would say that the meaning of life is found in one of those. It is fitting that there should be a Super Bowl Sunday, as Solomon said there is a season for everything (unless you are a Lions fan.) The purpose of the original 49’ers was to find gold; the namesake of the Ravens said, “Nevermore.” Maybe there is meaning in that match somewhere.

Selective Amnesia

I have had enough. I can't take it anymore. What is wrong with these people in Washington? Does someone sneak into their heads and steal their brains as soon as they get into town? That Obama should nominate John Kerry as Secretary of State makes perfect sense; they are bedfellows. But why would the Senate republicans nearly unanimously confirm him?

Last week the Senate confirmed John Kerry as President Obama's new Secretary of State. John McCain even supported him, of all people. Three lone Republicans voted against confirmation for what I believe are all the right reasons. John Cornyn of Texas (huah TX) summed it up best: Kerry's "long history of liberal positions are [sic] simply not consistent with a majority of Texans." Cornyn may have grammar problems, but he's got the important stuff right.

This is the same John Kerry who dissembled about his service in Vietnam when he was running for President in 2004. The whole truth may never be known, but there is enough smoke in the air to suspect fire. Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, reported after the election that, “It’s clear that both the uniformed and civilian leadership of the U.S. Navy view the Kerry matter as a political 'hot potato.' The leadership of the Navy has failed to ensure its awards process was not corrupted. This is shameful.”

One may ask why Kerry's 45 year old service record is material to his nomination as Secretary of State. If there were only questions about the record, the mystery might be written off or blamed on any number of innocent parties. But Kerry made a point of speaking proudly of his record, when in fact he became a Vietnam War protester after he came home. Kerry also had trouble keeping his facts straight regarding this part of his past. On several occasions he told different versions of his activities at one particular protest. According to an ABC News story, in 1971 he proudly claimed to have thrown his Vietnam medals over the fence at the White House in protest. In later interviews he variously said they weren't really his or that he only threw the ribbons but not the medals. It matters little. He took an active role in protests against the war.

This part of Kerry's history is no problem for anyone who is anti-war. The problem is that he told different stories to different people. He wanted some crowds to see him as a proud former naval officer and others to see him as a war protester. He cannot have it both ways. If he had simply said that he changed his mind about the war after he got back and became active in the anti-war movement, that would be fine (for his anti-war buddies.) One might even admire his honesty.

But John Kerry is not and has not been an honest man. William Levinson of American Thinker reminds readers that Kerry is the man who admitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Commission and the media that he had committed heinous war crimes. Kerry told Meet the Press, "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that yes, I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed." He clarified what he meant by atrocities with his (should be infamous) quote, "they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."

I am a Vietnam War non-draftee. I spent my time in the draft lottery but was not called up. I would have gone had I been called, but I did not volunteer because I disapproved of the political idiocy that dictated the prosecution of the war. If a country is going to spend the blood of its brave men and women in battle, it should be spent in the best effort to win: defeat the enemy, crush the opposition, eliminate the threat. Playing nice and making war are incompatible and unconscionable. I have many good friends who did fight in Vietnam, and they are some of the most honorable people on earth. They deserve our undying gratitude and complete respect. John Kerry is not one of those people. He should never have been elected to the Senate, let alone Secretary of State.