Can’t wait to see Jesus – The right to defend oneself
For many people in the United Sates and many in other countries I have visited, there is a fierce belief in a life which follows this earthly life. Some call this heaven, the promised land, Eden, nirvana, paradise or Shangri-La. Many of these same people strongly believe that it is important that they have the right to protect themselves from those who they perceive to be a danger to them.
As a young child, I often got confused. No place was more likely to find me confused than when I was sitting and listening to a Southern Baptist or a member of another fundamentalist or conservative religion. (Growing up I was only vaguely aware of other religions and, thus, did not always know that the seemingly confusing belief that one could protect the sacredness of life by killing was not limited to one religion.)
At any rate, I was sure that as I aged I would become an adult and all the confusion would fall away thus allowing me to understand the synchronicity of what seemed to the child opposing beliefs.
At age 76, I continue to await enlightenment. I am still convinced that one day the good fairy will smite me on the head thereby jarring together the pieces of my brain which will allow me to understand how increased use of violence will lead to less violence. Don’t get me wrong. I do understand that if a person opens fire in a crowded airport and someone else whips out a firearm and kills the person who opens fire that person will not kill anyone else in this life journey. I also understand that the thinking is that the next person who considers packing a loaded gun or a gun and ammunition in their checked baggage with the intent of shooting people after they claim their baggage will think twice and, perhaps, not do that. The assumptions seem to be:
· The person who believes it is his or her duty or right to kill or shoot at others is fearful of dying.
· The person who believes it is his or her duty or right to kill or shoot at others is able to think logically.
· The person who believes it is his or her duty or right to kill or shoot others will learn via the threat of violence that the use of violence to deal with one’s fears, frustration, perverted sense of duty to God/Allah or other higher power is wrong.
I again started thinking about this issue when reading the morning newspaper and discovering that a Florida State Senator, Greg Steube, used the example of the mass shooting by a lone gunman in the baggage area of the Fort Lauderdale airport as a reason why his colleagues in the Florida Senate should support SB 140 which would allow Floridians with a concealed weapon permit to have guns with them in non-secured areas of schools, courthouses and airports. He is quoted in an article on snntv.com:
“Every one of these shootings in recent time,” Steube said. “Have all occurred in gun-free zones. They don’t occur in a Walmart or a Publix where people are carrying. They occur in gun-free zones like bars, in college campuses and in airports.”
His argument seems to be that if people can defend themselves with guns then everyone would be safer. In fact, he seems to be saying that when guns are allowed in areas there is less violence.
There are studies the results of which seem to support the argument. There are also studies which seem to suggest the opposite.
The armedwithreason.com web site quotes Mr. Robert Heinlein:
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. “
In my mind, behavior which is the result of fear, may be polite but does not make me feel more trusting and will not lead to a society in which I want to live. I would like to think that there are other and better reasons to treat each other with respect – to treat human life with respect.
It seems to me that once one has decided to use violence or the threat of violence as the primary deterrent to violent behavior that one has eliminated the possibility that a more trusting and cooperative society can be attained.
The argument can be made and has been made by many philosophers and theologians that an action done out of fear does not result in mutual respect. We know that when parents use fear as the primary method of teaching, children learn to be fearful and are more likely to use threats and fear as a primary tool for dealing with others. Children who are violently punished learn to avoid the offending behavior because they do not want the violent consequences and not because they learn to believe the behavior is morally wrong.
Certainly, the threat of violence has done little to deter the suicide bomber who is convinced that the God of their understanding will be pleased with them and they be rewarded in an afterlife.
Prisons are not known to be non-violent although prisons who house primarily white collar crimes or other non-violent offenders generally have less violence then those which house non-violent offenders. I suspect that this is because staff at such prisons are not as fearful and are able to more closely identify with the inmates. Inmates are also less fearful and less likely to mistreat the staff. It would seem as if respect engenders trust and violence engenders distrust and more violence. It may be true that in those institutions which house violent offenders and which are maximum security the violence may be more often directed at other inmates than it is the guards.
My confusion in this instance (there are many other instances) is that the argument to use violence to reduce violence sidesteps more basic questions such as:
· Is it our belief that humans can only occupy the same space if they are fearful of the consequences of their behavior?
· Is it our belief that survival of a society at any cost is preferable to the time-limited society?
· Is violence only wrong if it is directed at those in power and right if it is directed at those without power?
· If the goal is to stop violence why not use non-lethal means?
· If we kill all the mentally ill, those who have lost faith/hope and those who believe that the God of their understanding wants them to kill the sinners, who will be left. I am again reminded again of Martin Niemöller famous statement/poem:
(United States Holocaust Memorial Museum quotes the following text as one of the many poetic versions of the speech.) (Wikipedia)
“First they came for the Socialist
And I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade
Unionists, and I did not speak
out-
Because I was not a Trade
Unionist
Then they came for the Jews, and
I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me – and
There was no one left to speak for
Me.”
It is, I am sure, obvious why this quote, once again, came to my mind. Either there is the humility to know that I could be that person with the gun in the Fort Lauderdale airport – that my mind could be that confused or convinced that violence is the answer to one angst; that I could be Dylan Root; that my head could house the demented brain of Charles Manso; that I could be the psychiatrist, Dr. Hasan; that I could be the drug dealer; that I … or there is no hope for the human race.
In my confused mind, using violence or the threat of violence as a road to peace does not make sense; it does not allow for humility – for respect for the fragility of this human brain and the many factors which determine whether or not which person with the gun I will be – the peacekeeper or the one threatening peace. It does not allow for the possibility that fear cannot be the basis for peace. It does not allow for the possibility that it is only how well I love that counts in this very brief journey.
Written January 7, 2017
For many people in the United Sates and many in other countries I have visited, there is a fierce belief in a life which follows this earthly life. Some call this heaven, the promised land, Eden, nirvana, paradise or Shangri-La. Many of these same people strongly believe that it is important that they have the right to protect themselves from those who they perceive to be a danger to them.
As a young child, I often got confused. No place was more likely to find me confused than when I was sitting and listening to a Southern Baptist or a member of another fundamentalist or conservative religion. (Growing up I was only vaguely aware of other religions and, thus, did not always know that the seemingly confusing belief that one could protect the sacredness of life by killing was not limited to one religion.)
At any rate, I was sure that as I aged I would become an adult and all the confusion would fall away thus allowing me to understand the synchronicity of what seemed to the child opposing beliefs.
At age 76, I continue to await enlightenment. I am still convinced that one day the good fairy will smite me on the head thereby jarring together the pieces of my brain which will allow me to understand how increased use of violence will lead to less violence. Don’t get me wrong. I do understand that if a person opens fire in a crowded airport and someone else whips out a firearm and kills the person who opens fire that person will not kill anyone else in this life journey. I also understand that the thinking is that the next person who considers packing a loaded gun or a gun and ammunition in their checked baggage with the intent of shooting people after they claim their baggage will think twice and, perhaps, not do that. The assumptions seem to be:
· The person who believes it is his or her duty or right to kill or shoot at others is fearful of dying.
· The person who believes it is his or her duty or right to kill or shoot at others is able to think logically.
· The person who believes it is his or her duty or right to kill or shoot others will learn via the threat of violence that the use of violence to deal with one’s fears, frustration, perverted sense of duty to God/Allah or other higher power is wrong.
I again started thinking about this issue when reading the morning newspaper and discovering that a Florida State Senator, Greg Steube, used the example of the mass shooting by a lone gunman in the baggage area of the Fort Lauderdale airport as a reason why his colleagues in the Florida Senate should support SB 140 which would allow Floridians with a concealed weapon permit to have guns with them in non-secured areas of schools, courthouses and airports. He is quoted in an article on snntv.com:
“Every one of these shootings in recent time,” Steube said. “Have all occurred in gun-free zones. They don’t occur in a Walmart or a Publix where people are carrying. They occur in gun-free zones like bars, in college campuses and in airports.”
His argument seems to be that if people can defend themselves with guns then everyone would be safer. In fact, he seems to be saying that when guns are allowed in areas there is less violence.
There are studies the results of which seem to support the argument. There are also studies which seem to suggest the opposite.
The armedwithreason.com web site quotes Mr. Robert Heinlein:
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. “
In my mind, behavior which is the result of fear, may be polite but does not make me feel more trusting and will not lead to a society in which I want to live. I would like to think that there are other and better reasons to treat each other with respect – to treat human life with respect.
It seems to me that once one has decided to use violence or the threat of violence as the primary deterrent to violent behavior that one has eliminated the possibility that a more trusting and cooperative society can be attained.
The argument can be made and has been made by many philosophers and theologians that an action done out of fear does not result in mutual respect. We know that when parents use fear as the primary method of teaching, children learn to be fearful and are more likely to use threats and fear as a primary tool for dealing with others. Children who are violently punished learn to avoid the offending behavior because they do not want the violent consequences and not because they learn to believe the behavior is morally wrong.
Certainly, the threat of violence has done little to deter the suicide bomber who is convinced that the God of their understanding will be pleased with them and they be rewarded in an afterlife.
Prisons are not known to be non-violent although prisons who house primarily white collar crimes or other non-violent offenders generally have less violence then those which house non-violent offenders. I suspect that this is because staff at such prisons are not as fearful and are able to more closely identify with the inmates. Inmates are also less fearful and less likely to mistreat the staff. It would seem as if respect engenders trust and violence engenders distrust and more violence. It may be true that in those institutions which house violent offenders and which are maximum security the violence may be more often directed at other inmates than it is the guards.
My confusion in this instance (there are many other instances) is that the argument to use violence to reduce violence sidesteps more basic questions such as:
· Is it our belief that humans can only occupy the same space if they are fearful of the consequences of their behavior?
· Is it our belief that survival of a society at any cost is preferable to the time-limited society?
· Is violence only wrong if it is directed at those in power and right if it is directed at those without power?
· If the goal is to stop violence why not use non-lethal means?
· If we kill all the mentally ill, those who have lost faith/hope and those who believe that the God of their understanding wants them to kill the sinners, who will be left. I am again reminded again of Martin Niemöller famous statement/poem:
(United States Holocaust Memorial Museum quotes the following text as one of the many poetic versions of the speech.) (Wikipedia)
“First they came for the Socialist
And I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade
Unionists, and I did not speak
out-
Because I was not a Trade
Unionist
Then they came for the Jews, and
I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me – and
There was no one left to speak for
Me.”
It is, I am sure, obvious why this quote, once again, came to my mind. Either there is the humility to know that I could be that person with the gun in the Fort Lauderdale airport – that my mind could be that confused or convinced that violence is the answer to one angst; that I could be Dylan Root; that my head could house the demented brain of Charles Manso; that I could be the psychiatrist, Dr. Hasan; that I could be the drug dealer; that I … or there is no hope for the human race.
In my confused mind, using violence or the threat of violence as a road to peace does not make sense; it does not allow for humility – for respect for the fragility of this human brain and the many factors which determine whether or not which person with the gun I will be – the peacekeeper or the one threatening peace. It does not allow for the possibility that fear cannot be the basis for peace. It does not allow for the possibility that it is only how well I love that counts in this very brief journey.
Written January 7, 2017
RSS Feed