Guns and the People: The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is a curious one, for it is the only one in the group to state a purpose for the amendment that is above and beyond personal rights. This is the amendment in full:

    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.

Other amendments refer either to long established rights, or to the individual persons affected by the particular amendment, or to the powers granted or prohibited by the Constitution. This one places a "well regulated Militia" as a prerequisite to the right.

Where does this come from?

Let us be honest. Americans did not invent the idea of a Bill of Rights. The British did in 1689. They had just kicked out the most recent Stuart king, James II, in the Glorious Revolution (called Glorious because there was no fighting to speak of) and were casting about for a new monarch. Only this time they wanted the monarch to agree ahead of time that there were limits to royal authority, and that the people had rights, too.

Many of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights of 1689 were later incorporated into the American Constitution, such as freedom of speech and to petition the government. There was a provision about freedom to have arms for their defense, but only those arms that were suitable to their condition and allowed by law. This is what the people of the United States at the time of the drafting of the Constitution understood as a basic right: arms suitable to their class and allowed by law.

So what was a well-regulated militia in the experience of the new United States?

Number one, it was under the control of the governor and the legislature. Second, every adult male was required to drill under officers on a regular basis and be ready for active service in case of attack or if the governor or legislature called them out for general service. It was not the Minutemen themselves who initiated their own formation – it was the Provincial Council of Massachusetts. Third, they had a regular chain of command through appointed officers and were required to follow the discipline of an official body of soldiers. They were an army under the control of the authorities, and they were expected to behave like one.

The Constitution gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

In addition, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

There is no provision in the Constitution for private action or for command that is not under the control of the elected civilian government. There is no provision for personal self-defense, for hunting, or for target practice. Ownership of a gun is connected with defending the territory and laws of the United States under the authority of the government.

But does any State of the Union even have a militia today, in the sense that the writers of the Constitution envisioned?

Christian Taxation, Part 3

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21) This is among the most famous sayings of Jesus from the New Testament. What did he mean by it? Not surprisingly, those who comment on the passage have no trouble interpreting it to coincide with their own personal political views. I am no different, and my interpretation is a common one.

Jesus asked to see a coin, which was a denarius. It was the most common Roman coin at the time, but it was more. It bore the likeness of the emperor (forbidden under Jewish law), and it said: Ti Caesar Divi Avg F Avgvstus – that is, Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the Divine Augustus. Put together with the religious Imperial Cult, one can almost see this as a confrontation not between man and man but, like that of Moses and Pharaoh, between god and God.

That confrontation was not accepted by Jesus. He told his questioners that Caesar should get his fair share and left it to them to figure out what that share was. They had already accepted Caesar's money to do business with and profited through the peaceful mercantile contacts that the Pax Romana offered. Many, including the strictly orthodox St. Paul, were proud of their Roman citizenship and not shy about insisting on its attendant privileges (various places in Acts, from chapter 16 to chapter 26) Clearly, they owed Caesar a lot. Jesus told them to pay up.

Interestingly, Jesus was more conflicted about paying his taxes to God. Keep in mind that Jesus considered himself God's son. Although he never publicly said the M word, he allowed his disciples to discuss the Messiah question privately, and he said things like "I and the father are one" (John 10:30), and "He who has seen me has seen the father" (John 14:9). When asked to pay the temple tax, he said that the son of the king should not be taxed. Nevertheless, he did pay it, though he had a little help from a fish (Matthew 17:24-27).

The bottom line, however, was this. If you live under an authority and accept services and protection from that authority, you have an obligation to follow the rules, among which is paying whatever taxes the law requires.

This should not be hard for any Christian to do. After all, we are not supposed to be tied to material things nor worship Mammon. We should go around looking for ways to get rid of our money. If my tax money can be used to help the unemployed or the uninsured, I should rejoice. It is doing God's work, which is more than could have been said of the taxes paid to Caesar.

Christian Taxation, Part 2

When a Christian community pays its taxes, what should its members expect be done with that money? The Bible is not shy about telling us our responsibilities. Christ tells us (Matthew 25:31-46) that when the Son of Man separates the nations (note: nations, not individuals) into those who will inherit the Kingdom and those who will be cast into everlasting fire, he gives us a list of expectations. Not one of them involves personal belief. They all have to do with concrete actions. We must

Give food to the hungry

Refresh the weary

House the homeless

Clothe the destitute

Medicate the sick

Comfort the incarcerated

In addition (if you take your parables seriously), we must

Provide a decent wage for workers even if they cannot find a job (Matthew 20:1-16)

Now individual, private charity is a good and blessed thing. Those who can give should.  This is not, however, a totally private matter. It is the nations that will be judged as well as individuals, and we are told explicitly (Acts 4:32-5:11 and Acts 6:1-6) that the community of Christ is responsible as a community, and that we should give our substance into the hands of elected representatives to distribute to each according to his need.

There is another parable worth noting here. It is the parable of the two brothers (Matthew 21:28-32). A man asked each of his sons to do something. The first said no, but nonetheless went out and did as his father requested. The second said yes, but did not do it. Which did the will of the father? The first, of course.

The will of the Father is to act. Those who DO what the Father asks will inherit the Kingdom. Those who do NOT DO will be cast aside. The first brother is the atheist who says no to God, but nonetheless reaches out to the poor. The second brother is the self-styled Christian who neglects the poor and panders to the rich.

Who will inherit the Kingdom of God? Food stamps, homeless shelters, the new health plan, unemployment insurance… these and other programs that assist the needy all address the requirements of God. The supporters of these programs may take their place at God's right hand. Their opponents?

"Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal." (Matthew 25:45b-46)

Christian Taxation, Part 1

How should a Christian community live? We happen to know the answer to that because a Christian community was established shortly after the first Pentecost following the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. It is in the book of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 4:32-5:12 and 6:1-8). The people who made up this community were the apostles and disciples of Jesus, men and women who had followed him, eaten with him, slept under the stars with him when necessary, and listened to his words.

                              

What was this community like?

It was a prayerful community, full of the spirit of God, but also a community that had real physical needs. The way they addressed those needs was simple. Those members of the community who owned property sold it and turned one hundred percent of the proceeds over to the apostles to distribute “unto every man according as he had need.” There is also the warning example of two people – Ananias and his wife Sapphira – among the more wealthy who tried to cheat and withhold money from what they should have given to the community. They were struck down by the hand of God himself.

Then the community grew too large for this simple system to continue. Instead of appointing assistants, the apostles told the people to choose administrators from among them to regulate the proper distribution to those in need. This was done, and the community prospered.

There is your model. In a Christian community, each contributes what each is able to a common fund. From that common fund, the needy are supplied with all they require. Individuals do not decide to whom the aid should go. That is rather decided by representatives selected by the people as a group. The wealthy contribute the most because they are the ones who have the most, and the needs of all are supplied.

Sound familiar? It should.

Becoming the Enemy, Part 2

Sometimes I think that Christianity's worst enemies are the Christians, especially when they advocate positions that are counter to Christianity's true spirit. Admittedly, this is nothing new; it has been going on since at least the year 313, although it definitely got worse in the 8th century.

What has occasioned this reflection is a conversation with a colleague who is a staunch, one-issue Roman Catholic (the issue being abortion). She does not understand how anyone claiming to be a Christian can be pro-choice. She talks my ear off about it every chance she gets, and will not even allow the stray, edgewise word. I try, but usually I give up and just smile and nod my head.

Few people remember these days that the great separator between Christianity on the one hand, and Judaism and Islam on the other, is that the latter two are community religions while the former is a personal religion. When the Sinai covenant was accepted, it was the action of the entire nation of Israel, not of its individual members. Post Sinai Jewish law – keeping kosher, wearing phylacteries at prayer, observance of holidays, is supposed to apply to all the tribes of Israel as one nation. Similarly, the Five Pillars of Islam together with Sharia regulation of dietary laws, marriage, inheritance, prayer, are also meant to bind a community.

Christianity is and has always been, first and foremost, a religion of the individual. Each person accepts the faith on a private level, and each person is faced with individual and personally decided moral choices. The Law still exists, but only as a way for each Christian to judge his or her own actions, not to judge others. There is no Christian 'law,'  for example, about diet, about dress, about mandatory prayer, or about holidays. Christian holidays are a matter of custom, not of Biblical law.

So why would a professed Christian want the secular state to regulate morality? A Christian can only 'become perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect' by facing and making the difficult choices. To remove moral choice by the codification of secular law is to destroy the essence of Christianity.

How can a Christian be pro-choice...?

How can a Christian not be pro-choice?

To Write, Or Not To Write – (Not really a question.)

I have a love/mild dislike relationship with writing. I am decently adept with words and can turn out good quality writing on demand. In fact, I work best when I have a deadline and a known client. The most fun I ever had writing was in the realm of fan fiction, where over the course of the last few years I have turned out book-length works with great ease because I knew someone was waiting right there to read the next installment. I have never written anything publishable with the same fluency because the audience was not known, and no one was breathing down my neck for an update. There is, I suppose, something deeply psychologically revealing about that, but if anyone knows what it is, I would prefer not hearing about it. One really does not appreciate being dissected in public.

Who am I? The profile section of this blog thinks that I can tell you that by filling out a questionnaire concerning my favorite movie, favorite song, favorite book, favorite quote... you get the idea. As if any reasonable, thoughtful person could select one from the thousands of movies ever produced and label it somehow the 'best.' Favorite for what reason? The acting? the scenery? the artistic cinematography? the pure entertainment it gives? We and our tastes are not so easily quantifiable, not after we pass the age of twelve.

Who am I? I am a teacher, but not of the subject I love most. I have recently turned sixty and am crossing my fingers that in the next five to six years, with the economy the way it is, I shall be able to retire. In faith, I am a Christian – an Episcopalian. In politics, I am a Democrat, conservative in many things, moderate in most others, and radical from time to time on a number of issues. I am vitally concerned with how one can apply Christian values to the political world.

Mind, I do not use the label 'Christian' as a right-wing, extremist-conservative buzzword. I believe in evolution, dislike abortion but am pro-choice, acknowledge the existence of global warming, would like guns to be banned everywhere, and have no problem with either big government or higher taxes. There are some who would say that my opinions are incompatible with Christianity. One of the things I would like to do here is explain why that is not true.

This blog is my imaginary friend, my imaginary audience, waiting patiently for my next update. If all goes well, it will keep me writing – never a bad thing.

Becoming the Enemy

It is a truism of human existence that the more you associate with someone or something, the more you begin to resemble it. Our facial expressions mirror those of our friends. My aunt in the photography business would subconsciously slip into the accent of the client she was talking to. What is more striking is that we just as frequently assume the characteristics of those we oppose and become the very thing we fight against. I have no intention of elaborating on that theme right now. I mention it only to proceed to the observation that I hate blogs. I do not read them, and I certainly do not write them. And yet, here I am. Why? I have no idea. And if I cannot explain it to myself, I certainly cannot explain it to you. I suppose it is, in part, a crazy experiment. I intend not to tell anyone about this blog. No friend, no family member, no one. Who, I wonder, might stumble across it? It would be interesting to find out if anyone does.