Firearms

Firearms – 

One of my students wrote in his paper that the Constitution, confirmed by the Supreme Court, gave him the right to own a gun and shoot, perhaps kill, anyone he didn’t like.  I of course wrote him a three page reply (single spaced) in answer to his misinterpretation of the constitution and the Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller. But I think that most people believe that my student is correct in his interpretation. 

So let’s look at the Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The reader should note that the amendment in question is essentially a series of clauses in one sentence separated by commas.  But in 20^th century English we might reduce those clauses to two: 1) A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, and 2) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We might translate this as a conditional “Since (if) a well regulated …” (protasis), then “the right of the people…” (apodosis).  We might also interpret the middle clauses to be qualifiers and interpret the meaning of the sentence as “A well regulated militia, …,  ..., shall not be infringed.”

We often forget the protasis or antecedent clause[s] in this sentence and emphasize only the apodosis or consequent clause[s], but they go together to express the complete thought.  Until our recent political divide, most often the courts and the legislature of the various states have interpreted the “well regulated militia” to mean the National Guard the successor of the 18^th century militias.  In some cases the militia also meant the State Police of a particular state.

Now I am not against guns per se.  But I do think we need to leave our anxieties about guns to common sense.  A gun is a useful tool.  It can protect us from wild beasts, (my great, great grandmother was afraid of the howling wolves at their abode in Lake County, Indiana), it can be used as a sporting thing, like archery in terms of target shooting and skeet.   But military style weapons used in warfare should be left to the military and the militias.  If you need an AR-15 to hunt deer, you’re probably not a good shot and need more target practice. Just saying…

We restrict the sales of arms such as bazookas, flame-throwers, tanks, rocket launchers, land mines, hand grenades and other military style weapons why can’t we restrict sales of semi-automatic rifles and kits to make them fully automatic?    If we need protection from criminals who might burglarize our homes, perhaps we should look at legalizing land mines or some form of improvised explosive device.  But if you would advocate for land mines to protect your property, we would think you are nuts, yet we are perfectly willing to think you’re sane if you want an assault rifle.

I also think that anyone buying a gun rifle or other such device should be required to undergo some safety-training (be well regulated); too many people have shot themselves or have otherwise been injured for lack of safety training. In rural areas a gun might be a necessary tool, you wouldn’t want to go into the woods (forest) without one, in many cases.  You might need a rifle to protect your cattle from wolves or predator cats.  But let’s have a bit of reason when it comes to firearms. Even in the military you are trained to use your weapon safely, and in fact you learn to take it apart and keep it clean, lubricated, and usable.  The bearing of firearms should be well-regulated.

Do we want any fool to carry a firearm?  

Should we allow someone bearing a grudge against someone use his/her weapon upon whom they bear that grudge?  Surely we don’t.  But in too many cases including the most recent mass shootings the shooter bore a grudge and acted upon it.

The old saw is certainly true “what fools these mortals be!”

Sanctury

Sanctuary –

In days past the church as an institution offered sanctuary for those fleeing the “long arm of the law”.  Recently the laws of sanctuary have all but been abolished.  Yet there persists a notion common in human persons that there ought to be a sacred space for refugees to go. The US has never adopted sanctuary laws, but still many people believe that a church is such a space of safety.

The usual definitions of sanctuary are:

1:a consecrated place: such as

  a :the ancient Hebrew temple at Jerusalem or its holy of holies

b (1) :the most sacred part of a religious building (such as the part of a Christian church in      which the altar is placed)

   (2) :the room in which general worship services are held

   (3) :a place (such as a church or a temple) for worship

2 a (1) :a place of refuge and protection

      (2) :a refuge for wildlife where predators are controlled and hunting is illegal

   b :the immunity from law attached to a sanctuary

Today sanctuary is associated with the protection of immigrants from deportation.  In our nation’s past many churches and synagogues have been involved in sanctuary movements such as the underground movement for those fleeing slavery.  In Canada many Anglican, Lutheran, and United churches have specific rules about sanctuary.  Some churches deny the authorities the power to arrest an individual until such time as one their members, who is legally empowered to do so, is willing to pro bono defend the one to be arrested.  The modern sanctuary movement began in Tucson, Arizona with a Presbyterian Church there.

While we are willing to grant safe spaces to college students where they do not have to hear anything which contradicts their view of the world, we seem unwilling to accept the notion that a church is a sacred and safe space.  The recent mass shootings in churches confirm this attitude.  Guns are an instrument of power to those who feel empowered to assert their judgment on things over the peace and tranquility of a safe space – sanctuary.  The philosopher in me feels a strong moral outrage over such heinous acts as to kill those involved in worship. 

 

Where is our moral compass today?

Is there not some space in which none but God has power?

Hypocrites all...

The Gospel reading for today from the Common Lectionary:

1Τότε ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐλάλησεν τοῖς ὄχλοις καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ
2λέγων· ἐπὶ τῆς Μωϋσέως καθέδρας ἐκάθισαν οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι.
3πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν ποιήσατε καὶ τηρεῖτε, κατὰ δὲ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν μὴ ποιεῖτε· λέγουσιν γὰρ καὶ οὐ ποιοῦσιν.
4δεσμεύουσιν δὲ φορτία βαρέα [καὶ δυσβάστακτα] καὶ ἐπιτιθέασιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὤμους τῶν ἀνθρώπων, αὐτοὶ δὲ τῷ δακτύλῳ αὐτῶν οὐ θέλουσιν κινῆσαι αὐτά.
5πάντα δὲ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν ποιοῦσιν πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· πλατύνουσιν γὰρ τὰ φυλακτήρια αὐτῶν καὶ μεγαλύνουσιν τὰ κράσπεδα,
6φιλοῦσιν δὲ τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις καὶ τὰς πρωτοκαθεδρίας ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς
7καὶ τοὺς ἀσπασμοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς καὶ καλεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ῥαββί.
 8Ὑμεῖς δὲ μὴ κληθῆτε ῥαββί· εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ διδάσκαλος, πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε.
9καὶ πατέρα μὴ καλέσητε ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος.
10μηδὲ κληθῆτε καθηγηταί, ὅτι καθηγητὴς ὑμῶν ἐστιν εἷς ὁ Χριστός.
11ὁ δὲ μείζων ὑμῶν ἔσται ὑμῶν διάκονος.
12ὅστις δὲ ὑψώσει ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται καὶ ὅστις ταπεινώσει ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται.
Matthew 23: 1-12  (NA 8)

Today's Gospel is one of those interesting ones which serve as a warning to us all. Like the Grammarians (οἱ γραμματεῖς -word parsers) and Pharisees, we love to sit in Moses' Seat (ἐπὶ τῆς Μωϋσέως καθέδρας)  AND we do not practice what we preach (κατὰ δὲ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν μὴ ποιεῖτε· λέγουσιν γὰρ καὶ οὐ ποιοῦσιν).

The Philosopher looks at this and in his despair derides the religious.  The Synagogue may just as well be the church in φιλοῦσιν δὲ τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις καὶ τὰς πρωτοκαθεδρίας ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς.  Ask yourself are we any different from the Jews of Jesus time, we pretend but we too as so called Christians love to dress in fine robes and make a show of our places in Church.  Is it no wonder we hear from the youth of today that "I'm not religious, but I am spiritual."  Is it any wonder that the youth see our hypocrisy and leave "organized religion"?  Everything we do is for to be seen (v.5).  

But we ought not to despair for we are left in the end with a comforting thought if we but head it.  The lofty will become our servants and if we approach our thought, our religion, our doings in the everyday world, and are humble in our "lived experiences" (Erlebnisse), we will be alright.  We have but one Rabbi and one Father, and we ought to recognize that in our doings (ποιήσατε).

Wait for it, the punch line, because there is always a punch line (a line that punches you in the face) in Jesus' sayings:"those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." (v. 12)

But then again we already know that.  Don't we?  Perhaps we need the reminder. 
Humility is the key!

Shake the dust off your feet.

11 καὶ τὸν κονιορτὸν  τον κολληθέντα ἡμῖν ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ὑμῶν εἰς τοὺς πόδας ἀπομασσόμεθα ὑμῖν· πλὴν τοῦτο γινώσκετε ὅτι ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. Luke 10:11

14 καὶ ὃς ἂν μὴ δέξηται ὑμᾶς μηδὲ ἀκούσῃ τοὺς λόγους ὑμῶν, ἐξερχόμενοι ἔξω τῆς οἰκίας ἢ τῆς πόλεως ἐκείνης ἐκτινάξατε τὸν κονιορτὸν ἐκ τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν.  Matthew 10:14

These words, allegedly from the mouth of Jesus of Nazareth, are something of an admonition to move on, as Mathew clearly indicates, if they do not hear your words.  “Move on to where” is the critical question though, isn’t it?  Can we simply move on to nowhere in particular?  Of course not!

Many, too many years ago I was dismissed from my teaching post, and the advice I was given was directly the above quote from Matthew.  Should I have received that advice?  I am not certain it was a propos, since my third child was just born, and my wife had contracted a serious illness, which prohibited moving on to the next town.  And it was not apparent what town we were to go to.  I admit that I had made many mistakes in my teaching career, and yet I loved teaching and seeing the gears turning in the heads of my students.  Some of course were stuck and did not move because they came to class with a preconceived notion of what is, and were not willing or able to adjust their noematic structures of their consciousnesses to accept the possibility that there might just be other ways of seeing the world.  Of course the subject I taught was Philosophy, and Philosophy entails concept analysis and a skeptical treatment of our preconceptions. 

Naturally I did not follow precisely the advice given, but I did shake the dust off my feet and instead of going on to the next town, I embarked on a journey of several careers.  My first career was to work as a carpenter for the father of one of my students.  It was an exciting career, not only because one built and building is rewarding in its own way, but because the carpentry trade was in my blood, so to speak.  From my genealogical studies I learned that since the time of Napoleon my ancestors and their relatives were carpenters.  Next I embarked on building and contracting on my own, and then when the economy slowed down I went to work as a cabinetmaker for a good friend.  From there I moved on to mill-shop foreman, all of which involved the same type of work - building and wood.

I then moved on to re-educating myself in the field of computer assisted drafting, and went to work as the drafting manager for a design firm.  I had opportunity in this area to teach and that in itself was rewarding.  Having next reached the required age, I retired.  I was retired for a whole 10 days, and my wife told a dean at the college she worked at that I could perhaps fill the position of a philosophy instructor who was unfortunately ill.  So I went back to teaching philosophy – full circle if you like.  I have now been teaching as an adjunct, Philosophy, for nigh on 10 years.

Yesterday, after visiting with the oncologist and learning that, despite the ill effects of chemotherapy, the tumor is, in fact, shrinking, I met the wife of a former colleague.  She invited me to visit with her husband who was down the hall having his chemotherapy treatment.  So I did.  The people were wondering about me wandering down the hall and I told them I was going to visit a friend in treatment room 3.  It was a pleasure and privilege to visit with my former colleague.  We had such a wonderful conversation. It was as though 41 years had melted away and we were in fact again colleagues.  I guess we are and always will be.  We talked of many subjects and did not skip a beat in discussing almost anything possible in our symphony of becoming reacquainted, though ‘reacquainted’ is the wrong term for what transpired.  I felt that all the mistakes I had made while we were colleagues were suddenly forgotten and forgiven, almost as if the burden of the dust from my feet had been wiped off (see Luke quote above).  There was hope also in our conversation, and as Theognis says:  Ἐλπὶς ἐν ἀνθρώποις μούνη θεὸς ἐσθλὴ ἔνεστιν.

When reading Scripture it is advisable to not take words and phrases too literally, or you might miss the point.  Jesus taught in parables, metaphors, and similes.  We ought not to miss their meaning.  Luke tells us elsewhere that the Kingdom of God is internal (ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς  ὑμῶν ἐστιν. - Luke 17:21).  But here in Chapter 10 we not only get the message that the dust is wiped off our feet, but that the Kingdom of God is near.  Let me suggest that the tense of ἤγγικεν (perfect active indicative) gives us the force of meaning that the Kingdom is here and now, presently.

I certainly felt the presence of that Kingdom in my conversation with my former colleague yesterday.  It was there at hand and nigh unto the two of us.  We ought to thank the Lord for that glimpse into the eternity that we are both bound; I do and I will.