Legislators in Arkansas do no want to have to chose between god and guns. They are pushing legislation to allow citizens to pack heat in the house of God. Grant Exton is a gun owner and president of the state’s Concealed Carry Association insists that they are simply trying to give all churches the right have armed congregationalists. Gun owners can then lock and load for Jesus.
This does not go over well with Little Rock pastor John Phillips for good reason. In 1986, he explained: “A gentleman came into the church. He was mentally deranged, and at the end of the sermon, pulled out a gun and shouted something about baptism and proceeded to shoot me in the back a couple of times. I still carry one of the bullets embedded in my spine.”
This week is the 23rd anniversary of the shooting.
This could pose a difficult choice for gun owners of what weapon is best suited for a particular sermon. A Glock might be suitable for a New Testament sermon, but the Old Testament is strictly non-automatic weapons only. Easter might call for something cute like a derringer while Christmas deserves a MAC-10.
For the full story, click here.
This is sick. If God/Jesus/Allah, etc. stand for anything, it is peace. A gun does not belong in church or any public place. A stupid accident becomes magnified when it goes off in a crowd. I am thinking an AK-47 would be the appropriate choice for a baptism and his and her Deringers for a wedding would be ideal. Can’t we be without firearms in Church or temple? Arkansas is going on my must avoid list, just below Texas and Florida.
had someone been armed during that sermon 23 years ago maybe the preacher would not have been shot.
Our Lady of Smith & Wesson.
Careful now. If Jesus shows up he might end up throwing you all out of the temple instead of just the money changers. Talk about missing the point . . .
I’m thinking celebratory gunfire for Easter!
Oh God,
As bullets rise into the air, we remember that Christ too is risen.
Holy Smokes! Onward Christian Soldiers are at war too and they gotta have guns ‘cause the Father/the Son/and the ‘Holey’ Ghost caint take care of all them thar’ varmints in ever’ pew across this great christian nation ever’ Sunday. The cross of Jesus don’t pack the punch that a Glock do…
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see his banners go!
Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane,
but the church of Jesus constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never gainst that church prevail;
we have Christ’s own promise, and that cannot fail…
God needs to preach to his (or is it her; or it it a combination thereof?) followers this sermon while visitin’ church and Sundee skool:
Guns? We don’t need no stinkin’ guns.
Bron,
Or maybe 2 people would have been shot, or three, or four.
Personally I think churches that own their own property should be able to choose if they want guns in their congregation or not. Assuming of course that it wouldn’t break any local\state\or federal laws. I also think that in the vast majority of situations hand guns are terrible for self defense, and usually just increase the probability of an innocent bystander getting hurt.
Gyges,
Copy that.
I’ve stated before that I support the right to bear arms because my sense is the Founding Fathers (Jefferson at least) felt that the citizenry should have possible recourse against a tyrannical government. When I see stories like these though I also realize how many really ignorant people have their own weird needs supported by their weapons. Why would any person with religious feeling want to go into a house of worship packing a weapon? The answer has to be that they are so afraid of the world (and life) that they are paranoid about danger everywhere. Their weapons enable them to live somewhat normal lives, but at what cost?
I’m not immune to the fact that there are real dangers in life, but like most people I’ve come to trust myself to be able to avoid or escape them and leave it at that. Having once been hit full on by a car as a pedestrian I’m aware of how danger can come out of nowhere. The thought though of a gun on my hip and constantly scanning my surroundings for potential threats is to me a life not worth leading. The statistics not only back up Gyges’ thoughts, they overwhelmingly show that carrying a gun is often most dangerous to its’ possessor.
I wouldn’t have a problem with my fellow church members being armed.
Is there some law against having a gun in church?
This may be TOO progressive, but here me out.
Maybe arming bears could solve a lot of ecological problems.
I’m pretty sure the park would belong to Yogi if he sported body armor and a computer controlled .50 cal. Perhaps give them big shots of adrenalin before returning them to the wild. Conservation? This could be a self-policing solution. “Hey hey hey, Boo Boo! Blast tha’ Ranger!” Or anything else that threatened their habitat.
Again, it’s not about the animals. It’s all about the humans.
It is axiomatic that not all ideas are good ideas. Shades of PETA?
Thought Blackwater Christian soldiers had that market covered.
I have a little expansion on JT’s list of the weapon of choice for various feast days:
St. Christopher (saint of lost travelers) phosphorous tracer rounds
St. Peter ( upon this rock…etc.) trebuche, sling
St. Vitus (patron against dog bites) rottweiler
St. Bridgid of Ireland (patron of cows) electrical prod
St. Hubertus of Liege (patron of archers) crossbow
St. Adrian of Nicomedia (believe it or not patron of arms dealers) worshipers choice, bigger is better!
Michael the Archangel (patron of swords) gladius
mespo,
St. Adrian of Nicomedia? That’s a new one to me!
That’s almost worth changing nicks for.
mespo,
Those are great. Who’s for tasers?
Jill,
Saint Leibowitz, or is that a little to blatantly fictional?
rofl
I think Saint Leibowitz may be the patron of large format cameras. Unless there’s something about her I don’t know. There could a secret behind those celebrity photos.
Gyges,
Do you mean this book? I haven’t read it. Is it good? It sounds like it’s great!
“Set in a monastery in the desert of the Southwestern United States after a devastating nuclear war, the story spans thousands of years as civilization rebuilds itself. The monks of the Albertian Order of Leibowitz take up the mission of preserving the surviving remnants of man’s scientific knowledge until the day the outside world is again ready for it.” (wikipedia)
Not to put words in Gyges’ keyboard, but that’s the one, Jill. Walter Miller. I’ve heard several times it was going to film, but nothing has ever come of it. Sorry, I collect 1st Ed. S/F.
Oh, and the book is excellent!
Jill,
That’s the one. I like it, there’s some very interesting commentary on the roles of religion and science in society. The second book is good too, but you can tell they were written years apart.
Buddha,
Have you ever seen the anthology Miller edited? I’ve been looking for a couple years now, and it seems to be MIA.
Thanks for telling me about this Gyges and Buddha. Book ‘em Danno! I’ll get it.
Gyges,
No, I haven’t. I only rarely go for anthologies but I have a few. I’ll keep an eye out though. Have you looked at abebooks.com?
Cramer the Often Wrong?
On a practical level, let’s look at his record of analysis. Wrong about Lehman just ahead of their stock dropping like a rock, in his own voice:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=845526259
This cost investors millions. This was not long after similar predictions cost investors dearly for bad advice on Bear Sterns. This was shortly before he had the audacity to suggest that viewers hound AIG employees about inappropriate behavior and then promptly bowed to kiss their ring when Big Daddy AIG demanded an apology. Not only often wrong, but a tower of gelatin. I won’t say Jell-o as it is not only copyrighted, it would be an insult to a product I love. Hmmmmm . . . jiggle-y.
Here’s a nice summation of why Jim Cramer is an entertainer, not a source for serious financial news or analysis:
http://www.markets.com/story/SpecialReport-6152008-JimCramerBadMoney.php
The Arkansas proposal is simply part of a trend among the paranoid. I have heard anecdotal stories that the sale of arms increased significantly following the election. The people who wish to arm churghgoers are part of the bunch who have convinced themselves that the election of Barack Obama marks the beginning of a concerted effort to disarm citizens. I have even seen blog posts to that effect. We are going backward. Even in the old west, people had enough sense to ban handguns within the city limits in many areas. If we want guns in churches, shouldn’t we be permitted to carry them into saloons? After all, there are people who repair to those establishments while others are fulfilling their Sunday obligations.
Doh!
Sorry all! I was countering since removed spam with that last post. My bad!
Jill:
“Those are great. Who’s for tasers?”
*********************************
How about Saint Amabilis of Auvergne, patron of lunatics?
Want to see more go to:
http://saints.sqpn.com/patronage-groups/
Hey! Now there’s a great new nick for someone! I wonder who?
Thanks you All for a reminder,
I read “Canticle for Liebowitz” when I was about twelve and remember it as being great. Had long forgotten about it and certainly who authored it. It’s more than time for a re-read since I’m a long time SF reader. Incidentally, my favorite book from that time was “The Stars My Destination” by Alfred Bester. It’s in my collection and I’ve re-read it in the past year and it still stands up as a good read and cogent social commentary.
Another Bester that holds up well is “The Demolished Man”. It also has some interesting social commentary about criminal punishment.
Buddha,
Those two were the best of his output.
Mike and Buddha,
The Stars My Destination is my favorite Count of Monte Cristo re-telling. That and Cities in Flight are the two books responsible for realizing SF could actually be good literature.
“… for me realizing…”
Gyges,
If you appreciate literary SF, might I suggest Gene Wolfe. His works are grouped into “Books” but he has stand alone novels as well. I suggest:
The Book of the New Sun – “Shadow of the Torturer”, “Claw of the Conciliator” (now sold in one volume “Shadow and Claw), “The Sword of the Lictor” and “Citadel of the Autarch” (now sold in one volume “Sword and Citadel”).
The stand alone novels I suggest – “The Fifth Head of Cerebus”, “Free Live Free” and “The Urth of the New Sun”.
Buddha/Gyges,
Wolfe is a great writer. My favorites these days are Neal Stephenson, Steven Brust, Dan Simmons and Richard Morgan. Though my all time favorite, more story teller than a social commentator, is the late/great Roger Zelazsny. “Lord of Light” and “The Amber Chronicles” are sublime. There are really so many good writer’s about that the characterization of SF as a “genre” rather than in some instances great literature is the work of intellectual snobs.
In that respect most of the work of Thomas Pynchon can be considered SF and the critics don’t complain. This is true when they praise the work of the “magical realists.” In the end my definition of a good, or great book is whether it moves me emotionally, gives me insights about the world and makes me care about its’ characters. No excitement in my chest, no tears in my eyes, no stimulated thought as I drop off to sleep, serves me as a better judge of literature that the NY Times Book Review, or the NY Review of Books.
Vonnegut. Don’t forget Kurt. He personally felt uncomfortable with being grouped as S/F as he himself was not a scientist (he told a great story about being on a panel discussion with Asimov), but his work has undeniable S/F elements in addition to being often hysterical social commentary and satire.
Buddha and Mike,
I think that it’s a shame Lem always seems to get left out of these discussions. I know that sometimes the translations are a little “off” but if you’re looking for social commentary and black humor, few do it better. “Memoirs Found in a Bathtub” is my one of my favorite books of any Genre. I’m not a huge fan of Solaris, but the book is far superior to the American Re-making of the movie.
There’s a new(er) writer I’ve discovered recently, Jeff Vandermeer, that might be worth checking out. He’s still a little “fresh” but his books are definitely getting better as he goes. I’m not sure that I’d call everything he writes SF, but a lot of it is.
As a side note, I think that some of Borges’s short stories could be called SF as well.
Gyges,
Lem was a great, but I agree on the movies/translation issue. I’ll look into Vandermeer. The only “new” guys I’m reading at the moment are Ken McLeod and Alistair Reynolds, but they are hard S/F. I don’t know what they put in the water in Scotland, but they are making some fine S/F writers these days. I suspect the secret ingredient is Scotch. I also recently read my first Stephen Baxter. I need to catch the rest of those too.
I knew I liked you guys for more than just politics!
What part of “Thou Shalt Not Kill” do you self-righteous brain-dead right-wing wingnuts not understand? And you guys call yourselves Christians? Jesus wept!!!
Mike,
FYI, long ago when I first starting countering propaganda as a hobby, one of my first nicks was PrinceRandom. I love the Amber books. Talk about a set of books ripe for film!
Gyges & Buddha,
Lem and Vonnegut are no doubt great writers of literature, forget genre. I must admit though as my life goes on they are a tad too dark for me. My favorite Vonnegut incidentally is “Sirens of Titan,”
definitely SF and a mordant commentary of what could be the Sysyphusian nature of life. As I’ve gotten older I have tried to move away from the nihilism I felt in my youth, it makes my getting up in the morning easier. I want satisfying (happy) endings even though realistically life is at best bittersweet. That’s why I’ve seen most of Ingmar Bergmann movies, they were great but I won’t watch them anymore. Please check out richard Morgan “Woken Furies”
which I re-read last week and think you’ll enjoy. I’ll check out some of those new writers you’ve mentioned.
Since when does the Bible, the Koran or most other “religious” texts lay a claim to peace? Speaking strictly from my 35 years as a student of scripture, the God of the Bible is perhaps the most violent, petulant, duplicitous, murderous, jealous, insane being ever conceived by man. In fact, man created god in his image, not the other way around.
To find it strange that followers of the Bible are also violent, self-aggrandizing, deeply conflicted misanthropes is, in itself, strange. Bringing guns to a worship service fits perfectly into the disturbed world view of the “guns and god” crowd. Violence has long been a staple of the “christian” tradition (see, Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, The Great Flood). If christians can win hearts and minds, do as the missionaries did, kill the heathens; or at least beat them until a conversion takes place.
What I find most odd is that “christians” have been cast as peaceful sorts. The church has a rap sheet as long as my arm.
Mel D,
I find I have to agree with you. When Christians act in a kind, peaceful manner, they are often following, not scripture (or at least they are ignoring hugh portions of scripture) but the goodness that is within them. They attribute this goodness to god but I think it is really them.
I am humbled in the face of superior intellects. I defer to such great thinkers on all maters. I have now been converted, I am a socialist. The state is all, I am nothing, I live for the state and my brothers, what is mine is theirs. I shall have no thoughts save what the state requires me to think. I am now at peace with all mankind. The state is my father and my mother, I shall be blessed by the will of the people for the collective is all knowing and good.
My desires matter not if they do not align with the greater good of the collective. I will henceforth be We98.
Sincerely,
We98
Jill,
Psst. “[T]hey are often following, not scripture . . . but the goodness that is within them”? I think that’s what Jesus was getting at, Jill. Just because some of the gospel have ridiculous cultural relics hampering them, don’t discount Christ’s fundamental teachings that God is love and to find Him, seek Him in your heart. The Council of Nicaea did a number when they assembled the New Testament from the multitude of gospels. Sometimes they lost touch with Christ’s appeals to the angels of our better nature out of their own more earthly considerations. In many ways, this message of seeking inside is quite consistent with tenets of Buddhism that the way to enlightenment is to seek the Buddha within although Buddhism works on the paradigm of desire being the root of all suffering, not original sin. The problem with Christianity is not Christ, but misapplication and understanding of gospels that often only capture part of the lesson and all of the third party writers non-enlightenment related agenda(s). Just like there are many moderate Muslims who wouldn’t dream of forcing their beliefs on others, there are Christians who feel the same way. In my experience, these people are usually looking for their peace of mind by self-examination, taking to heart the lesson that God helps those who help themselves, instead of seeking external approval from an invisible sky father that by all rational observation is indifferent to humanity. Not hostile. Not unloving. Indifferent. An Aristotelian prime mover. The engine of reality. And He will not be rescuing anyone. None of us are special or chosen. We’re all on the same spaceship. Rescuing humanity is OUR job. All of us. And we can all start by looking inside and putting our inner demons on a leash while freeing the angels of love, compassion and mercy. If you can’t eliminate or reduce hate and fear from your motives, how can you expect to fight those evils in the world? The only thing in life one has absolute control over is your internal reality (barring psychosis) and a limited influence on the world immediately around them. Want to make the world a better place? The starting place seems obvious. And let’s be honest, we’ve discussed ego as a root cause for evil behavior before and what would be the largest impediment to self-examination? Ego. It is axiomatic that not all advice obtained in a religious context is bad advice. I will agree that a LOT of it is though. Sorting through what’s gold and what’s garbage just may be the death of us all.
Buddha,
We don’t really know that much about what Jesus really said and did. The Q documents are sparse. The gospels are written after the eyewitnesses to Jesus died. So it seems we are back to good people, looking to the good things Jesus was said to have done, as a guide in their life.
There are some decidedly mixed things that Jesus was said to have done (again, we really don’t know that much about what he actually did) so following Jesus’ example may not always be the best policy when trying to live a good life.
I understand what you are saying about the philosophy of Buddhism. I don’t share the beliefs of Buddhism– for example, I don’t think people should be afraid of feeling hate or fear. These are feelings that are telling us something. In some cases they are a call to self-examination especially when we are constantly hateful and afraid. In others, they are feelings telling us something in our life is dangerous–to look out! It’s important to know if something is dangerous so that we may take action to avoid/counter/protect ourself and others. I definitely agree that we should engage in self examination. People who don’t are usually cruel and do many bad things. Whether one is religious or not, a careful look at our own behavior is always a good idea!
I may be misunderstanding what you said and if so, I apologize. But based on my understanding, this is how I feel
Jill,
I’m not suggesting hate or fear don’t have valid evolutionary functions, just that letting them control your thinking is bad. It clouds judgment. It’s an issue of inform vs. control. Acting or reacting.
It’s a given I have no interest in converting you. I’m not a religious Buddhist. Philosophical. I was merely providing context.
Buddha,
I agree that those emotions can definitly cloud our judgement. I didn’t think you were trying to convert me!
I think you see the good things in Jesus because you are good hearted. I think someone like Sara Palin sees some really ugly things in Jesus because she isn’t good hearted. The Bible can support both views, so I say, people should just own up to the fact that it’s them making the choice to be good or cruel and not worry about what any religious text has to say on the matter.
Jill,
Then we are in agreement. And thank you. You are very kind.
Mel D.,
As a 35 year student of scripture you are no doubt aware that most of the Torah part is metaphor. It was understood to be so by those who wrote it and as such the meanings are open to interpretation. It is those that take it as literal historical fact that are embroiled in its’ seeming violence. You and I agree that all 3 bible based religions have perpetrated hateful violence under the pretense of it being the will of God. I stand with Rabbi Hillel who roughly said of the Torah, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you…all the rest is commentary.” Jesus framed this as the Golden Rule, but as you are probably aware Jesus was most probably a Pharisee Rabbi.
Not being a fan of Christianity itself and being of a people who suffered harshly from the Crusades, you won’t find me forgetting the evil that they wrought. It is interesting though that in mentioning the Crusades it is always forgotten that were it not for Charles Martel all of Europe might have been forcibly converted to Islam four centuries before the First Crusade. Using them as a metaphor of religious intolerance is weakened when the other side of the issue is not mentioned.
Buddha,
The Amber series would make for at least a series of 10 great films and I’d pay good money to see them King Random.
Also your response to Jill, especially referring to Nicaea expressed my feelings/thoughts and then went beyond them eloquently and accurately. I’m with you in believing we must start with ourselves and the ego that motivates us.
Jill,
you’re right the Q documents reveal only a skeleton and the Gospels were written after Jesus death, but somehow I think a nugget of the actual man was revealed and he probably was of the same line of thought as the Buddha and all the like philosophies floating around the Earth in the five centuries before him. I think Buddhism is more about following a correct life path and getting beyond fear and hatred, than it is about fearing them.
We98,
I’m sorry but you are blissfully ignorant if you think anyone commenting on this site believes in the drivel you espouse with
poor sarcasm.
Buddha,
As are you.
I genuinely appreciate attempts by christians (or apologists for them) to lay claim to a peaceful legacy. Sorry. The very book(s) upon which the christian church is based is a brutal accounting of just how bizarrely cruel and unjust the ostensibly just god is. The god of the bible is a monster created for no other purpose than to control the masses. There is a perverse pride exhibited by the “faithful” in how god dispatches his “enemies”. There is a gleeful assurance that if one disobeys the almighty, there will be hell to pay…literally.
My point about guns and god is to expose the true character of the nutcases who make up the majority of those professing to be peaceful christians. Christianity is not a peaceful myth. Since it cannot possibly win the hearts and minds of those who care to think for themselves, it’s rife with fear mongering, plagues, murderous deities, stonings, and all manner of depravity parading as god’s holy hand. The only way to keep the flock in the corral is through the sheer terror of the consequences of disobeying god.
We should welcome guns into churches. Then, as the faithful encounter irreconcilable differences even amongst themselves (see Anglican Church, Baptist Church, Episcopal Church, et al) we can at least hope a full scale battle erupts every Sunday in every church across this deranged land of ours until the brethren eliminate themselves to the betterment of our tiny planet and the universe in general. Amen.
MikeS:
I dont know Buddha is Laughing said that he was a collectivist in the model of Rousseau. Seemed pretty clear to me.
Lets meditate on this thought – John Locke and the American Revolution or Jean Jaques Rousseau and the French Revolution. Hmm thats a hard choice, one the rights of man the other rule of the mob (collective).
Although I do apologize for what you consider poor sarcasm.
Fundies and their literal beliefs… even shotgun weddings.