|
| | | | |
|
|
Christianity
Versus the Second Amendment
by Brian
Puckett
I get angry when I consider the
utter garbage that some "Christian leaders" nowadays dump on their
followers regarding self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms.
Many of today's so-called Christians are anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, and/or
(professedly) "anti-violence". When I say "many Christians"
I mean--for example--all those local churches who endorsed the recent proposal
to restrict ammunition sales in Pasadena, California, and who endorse every
other gun-control scheme that comes down the pike. And I mean the leadership of
the U.S. Presbyterian and Methodist churches, who instruct their members to
submit to criminal acts committed against their persons, including rape, because
fighting back might harm the criminals, whom the church views as brothers and
sisters.
These people wouldn't have the luxury of sitting on their butts opposing
"violence" if violence had not been done by our forebears in the
recent and distant past to give them a wealthy, relatively peaceful country to
live in. They wouldn't have that same luxury if policemen and soldiers didn't
stand ready daily to do violence for them, thus keeping their soft, weak hands
free of blood.
Perhaps the problem originates with contradictions inherent in the foundations
of Judeo-Christian doctrine. One, for example, is the commandment "Thou
shalt not kill." Some scholars contend that the original commandment was
"Thou shalt not murder", or to be more precise, the Hebrew version of
that statement. If this is correct then church doctrine subordinate to or
predicated upon that commandment might be radically altered.
In the realm of specifically Christian doctrine, there is Jesus' reported
admonition to those struck on one cheek to "turn the other cheek".
Many Christians would say that this means we should be passive and not fight our
assailants. But another interpretation is that Jesus meant we should turn the
other cheek in order to (1) shock and shame one's antagonist, thus providing him
a moment to reflect on what he has done, perhaps to reconsider and to apologize
(2) force us to hold our temper, rather than immediately striking out and
worsening the situation, perhaps beyond repair.
This interpretation, by the standards of any religion, is sound advice. And it
is an interpretation acceptable to those who reject the idea that Jesus
advocated passivity and total submission in the face of either criminals or
tyrants. It is hard to accept that notion when one reads the words of Jesus
reported in Luke 22:36-- "...Let him who has no sword sell his robe
and buy one". And it is hard to accept passivity in the face of evil when
Jesus himself didn't behave that way, as when he drove the money changers from
the temple with a whip.
Perhaps the doctrinal problem lies in confusing Jesus' acceptance of his divine
role on earth with an implied endorsement of passivity in the face of any
assault or insult to one's person. In other words, because Jesus did not resist
events that were preordained or that were necessary in order to complete the
grand design of his life, we should be similarly passive and fatalistic in our
own everyday lives. However, the implication of this position is that mortal men
and women are on Christ’s level, which I believe is an error. Or perhaps the
problem is not one of doctrine at all. It could be argued that for centuries the
elements of Christian leadership interested in power and control have taught
Christians to be meek and submissive in all things in order to achieve the blind
obedience of their followers.
In light of the above it is interesting and instructive to note the thoughts of
the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzche in his work Beyond Good and Evil:
"There is a point in the history of society when it becomes so
pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those
who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing
somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining 'punishment' and
'being supposed to punish' hurts it, arouses fear in it. 'Is it not enough to
render him undangerous? Why still punish? Punishing itself is terrible.' With
this question, herd morality, the morality of timidity, draws its ultimate
consequence."
This is all the more interesting--or depressing, depending on one's point of
view--considering that it was written in the year 1886. Worth noting are
Nietzche's words a few paragraphs later in the same work:
"Indeed, with the help of a religion which indulged and flattered the most
sublime herd-animal desires, we have reached the point where we find even in
political and social institutions an ever more visible expression of this
morality: the democratic movement is the heir of the Christian movement."
By "democratic" Nietzche meant true democracy, direct rule by the
masses, combined with (as the context makes clear) a thoroughgoing egalitarian
socialism, where everyone is forced to be equal in all things.
One may not agree with Nietzche's analysis in order to find in them food for
thought. For example, a bit further down he says of those who espouse this
system: "They are at one in their tough resistance to every special claim,
every special right and privilege (which means in the last analysis, every
right: for once all are equal nobody needs "rights" any more)."
A huge segment of popular organized Christianity has--I am very sorry to
say--become part of this pathetic mass and is an active enemy of the Second
Amendment. This has occurred via Christian "leaders" who teach that it
is wrong to physically resist evil in this world, and their followers' mindless
acceptance of an "approved" and "politically correct" (and I
might add "politically useful") version of the New Testament.
For myself, I reject any distortion of Christian faith that advocates removing
weapons from the hands of regular citizens while letting them remain in the
hands of "super-citizens" or "authorities". I can not and do
not believe that it is immoral and wrong for me to use deadly force to protect
myself but is moral and right to allow or to appoint someone else--i.e. the
police or the military-- to do so. Such a position is contradictory,
hypocritical, and amoral.
Underlying this entire discussion lies a simple truism: A man is neither free
nor secure unless he is armed, because he may be easily coerced or killed by one
who is. This is not a matter of philosophy, but of physics and physiology.
None of this should be construed as an attack on Christianity, a faith which has
had a positive influence on so many lives, including my own. I wish more
Christians would stand up and say, "I am a Christian and I believe in the
right of self-defense and in the Second Amendment." Even better if they say
it in church for all to hear and to discuss.
The truth is that the greatest foes of our right to keep and bear arms are the
masses of timid, soft, thoughtless, fearful citizens of whatever religion who
wish to abdicate the responsibility of self-defense, who wish to remain children
forever and to turn over all guns to the "adults" in positions of
authority: politicians, the police, the military. If these sad creatures don't
grow up, we are in for very bad times indeed.
KABA Director's Note: Mr. Puckett
is a NO COMPROMISE AMERICAN running a POWERFUL organization for freedom.
If you have not yet looked into the WONDERFUL MEDIA BLITZ Mr. Puckett is
conducting through Citizens of
America, PLEASE GO LOOK. His organization is one key SOLUTION to the
media bias in our society regarding the TRUTH about guns. Not only do I
deeply appreciate, respect, and wholeheartedly believe in the COA mission, I
have come to know Mr. Puckett as a Brother of Americans I respect and REVERE
deeply. ~~ Angel Shamaya, Director@KeepAndBearArms.com
back
to the top
|
|
|
