[For the brain-impaired, I agree with the guy.]
http://www.guntruths.com/Puckett/christianity_versus_the_second_a.htm
Christianity vs. the 2nd ammendment
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.
---
All inventions or works of authorship original to me,
herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public
domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose,
without permission, attribution, or notification.
