The Constitution will still be here later. But lo, and behold, there's another tragedy that needs mourned, actually there are several that have gone down recently that don't necessarily get the press that Brussels or another Western nation might have gotten: Ankara, Nigeria, Iraq, people died at the hands of terrorists, lives were ended and families torn apart. Lord, have mercy. None of this is okay, all of them deserve a proper notice, but it was Easter week, and I had a funeral to prepare on top of everything else, so the blog got bumped out of the list of things to do.
Never fear though because the toxic phlegm blob has graced us with yet more senseless acts of violence, and this time it is in a time and place that demonstrates how clueless and benighted they actually are: they blew up a bunch of Christians in Lahore Pakistan as they celebrated Easter. Don't get me wrong, I am not, in any way negating this as a brutal act of violence and evil. And I understand that many Christians have become so enamored of the empire, power and privilege of Christendom that they may still react with violent speech and maybe actions of their own, but for those of us who actually pay attention to the actual Jesus story, this is absolutely not surprising.
First of all, let's start with the nature of Christian faith in Pakistan. None of the people who were gathered to celebrate the resurrection in Lahore were doing so in the bubble of security that we in the west enjoy. At best, they hoped to be left to their observance in peace, but they knew that, even with non-terrorist Islam (which is most of Islam) they are still on the infidel list. Culturally that puts them in a minority, religiously, it means they really understand what it means to believe despite the threat of being "hated by the world." If you have any understanding of world Christianity and the history thereof, you will know that this attack, far from dissuading or diminishing Christian community in Pakistan, will strengthen it and give it more power and credibility among the people there. The church in Lahore needs our prayers, they need our expressions of shared faith and hope, they do not need us to save them, especially not by taking vengeance or trying to kill their persecutors. That's not how this Jesus thing works, so put away your sword.
Second of all, I want to talk to you 'Merican Christians. I want you to look at the pictures from Lahore, that is what persecution looks like. It is not being forced to make cupcakes for a gay wedding or having the ten commandments removed from the courthouse lawn, or anything of the sort. I also want you to go behind the surface stories, and pay attention to how the church in Pakistan responds to this. I don't even know what exactly they're going to do yet, but I guarantee it won't be saber rattling and calling for vengeance. Do not take your eyes off of Lahore after our news cycle leaves it, use this thing called the internet and continue to pay attention to them. Watch what they do, watch how they heal, watch how they live into the resurrection that they were celebrating. Pray for them sure, but also keep watching to see what the crucified Lord does in the midst of their suffering. I'll bet you dollars to donuts it will be amazing, and it will shame the fear mongering, violence ridden sort of propaganda you are liable to see from so-called Christians in their comfortable western bubble. But watch those hairless talking monkeys too, and compare and contrast.
Pay attention to how those who grasp at worldly power and security react to this tragedy, and pay attention to how those who genuinely hope and trust in the power of the crucified and resurrected Christ do it.
This is where genuine Christian faith shines. This is where the families of the Mother Emmanuel church victims stand up at the arraignment and forgive Dylan Roof. This is where we as a people of faith show that we know something that the rest of the world fails to apprehend: that love is stronger than death. The way of the cross can be bloody to be sure, and things can seem dark, but for those in Christ that tomb always ends up empty, as it did yesterday, and as it will continue to be by the power of God in Christ Jesus.
Monday, March 28, 2016
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Side Track
I'm halfway through the Bill of Rights, but I have to take a moment to comment on Brussels. Congratulations Belgium, you have now joined the club that no one wants to join. It's sort of like the parents who have lost children club or the HIV positive club, it's utter crap, but once you're in you just need to learn to deal with it.
Let me just say Belgium, that you're really like the last country I thought would be joining this list. I mean, who is next? Amsterdam? Switzerland? Seriously, these ISIS clowns are now just picking on the little kids on the block. Seriously, maybe Lichtenstein or Monaco is more your size you band of festering rapist bullies.
You know what? I'm tired of treating Daesh like a serious thing, I think treating them like a serious thing is counterproductive. The more seriously we take them, the more our fear builds up, the more power they have over us. So let's take stock here, the basic reality is that we are not going to be able to defend the entire civilized world from these goat-buggering fools, because they are terrorists and cowards and they attack theaters and trains stations and airports, and places where normal people do normal things, and they can look like normal people doing normal things, but with bombs and guns under their windbreakers and in their fanny packs.
Also, everybody hates these guys already, everybody condemns these perfidious anal warts already. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists and Hindus alike, all say that Daesh is scum, even the Buddhists and probably the Hare Krishnas think they deserve to be cast off of the wheel of existence, but here's the thing, hate feeds them. Fear makes them strong. If we let our hate and fear run us, they win.
We have to be better than they are, and I'm not talking about military might. There is no doubt in my mind that we could, with the proper exercise of political will and military strategy, utterly destroy Daesh, wipe them off of the face of the earth. We could do it without using nukes, or we could just take that shortcut. Whatever, we've got the muscles, but guess what? If we do that we lose. We lose our humanity, we have let the subhuman filth of Daesh take our humanity, and that will not easily grow back.
In case you can't tell, I would like to spit on Daesh, but they're probably not worth the saliva.
The internet is exploding with the same sort of impotent rage and hopeful but useless platitudes about thoughts and prayers and such. Here's an idea, let's take away their platform. Let's not call them anything anymore, not ISIS, not ISIL, not even Daesh (which I understand they don't like), let's not allow them to take credit for this stuff anymore.
Let's pay attention and report what really matters: people died today in Brussels Belgium as the result of a bomb. People were shot in a theater in France in November. Lives ended tragically and senselessly. Deal with that, don't pretend that knowing who did it or why makes any difference. It doesn't, treat it like an earthquake or a tsunami: a tragedy. Let's treat them as an inhuman problem, because they are exactly that: inhuman.
I'm not saying they're a different species, I'm saying that they have given up any claim to basic humanity. Their actions cannot be justified by the rules of their own religion, or by their political aims, or by their suffering and poverty, they have gone way past that line and become sadists and psychopaths. They are profoundly immoral by the standards of Islam. They are brutal to everyone in their path, even the ones with whom they used to share racial, ethnic and national identities. They have left behind almost every marker that would identify them as a part of the human race, every bond of fellowship and commonwealth has been abandoned for rabid hatred and brutal violence.
My greatest fear is not that we will suffer more savagery at the hands of these cretinous deposits of phlegm, we certainly will. My greatest fear is that we will allow them to define us, and suck us into the primordial ooze of hatred and violence, and we will become like them.
To defeat them, we must remain better than them, we cannot take the fight to their level, because once we go there, we have lost. When we commit to the killing of innocents, even if we call it collateral damage, we have lost. When we lash out in anger and fear, we have lost. When we torture and violate human rights, we have lost. When we distrust our neighbors because of their race or their religion, we have lost. If this enemy drags us into any of those situations, they will have won, even if we succeed in wiping them off of the face of the earth.
Let me just say Belgium, that you're really like the last country I thought would be joining this list. I mean, who is next? Amsterdam? Switzerland? Seriously, these ISIS clowns are now just picking on the little kids on the block. Seriously, maybe Lichtenstein or Monaco is more your size you band of festering rapist bullies.
You know what? I'm tired of treating Daesh like a serious thing, I think treating them like a serious thing is counterproductive. The more seriously we take them, the more our fear builds up, the more power they have over us. So let's take stock here, the basic reality is that we are not going to be able to defend the entire civilized world from these goat-buggering fools, because they are terrorists and cowards and they attack theaters and trains stations and airports, and places where normal people do normal things, and they can look like normal people doing normal things, but with bombs and guns under their windbreakers and in their fanny packs.
Also, everybody hates these guys already, everybody condemns these perfidious anal warts already. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Atheists and Hindus alike, all say that Daesh is scum, even the Buddhists and probably the Hare Krishnas think they deserve to be cast off of the wheel of existence, but here's the thing, hate feeds them. Fear makes them strong. If we let our hate and fear run us, they win.
We have to be better than they are, and I'm not talking about military might. There is no doubt in my mind that we could, with the proper exercise of political will and military strategy, utterly destroy Daesh, wipe them off of the face of the earth. We could do it without using nukes, or we could just take that shortcut. Whatever, we've got the muscles, but guess what? If we do that we lose. We lose our humanity, we have let the subhuman filth of Daesh take our humanity, and that will not easily grow back.
In case you can't tell, I would like to spit on Daesh, but they're probably not worth the saliva.
The internet is exploding with the same sort of impotent rage and hopeful but useless platitudes about thoughts and prayers and such. Here's an idea, let's take away their platform. Let's not call them anything anymore, not ISIS, not ISIL, not even Daesh (which I understand they don't like), let's not allow them to take credit for this stuff anymore.
Let's pay attention and report what really matters: people died today in Brussels Belgium as the result of a bomb. People were shot in a theater in France in November. Lives ended tragically and senselessly. Deal with that, don't pretend that knowing who did it or why makes any difference. It doesn't, treat it like an earthquake or a tsunami: a tragedy. Let's treat them as an inhuman problem, because they are exactly that: inhuman.
I'm not saying they're a different species, I'm saying that they have given up any claim to basic humanity. Their actions cannot be justified by the rules of their own religion, or by their political aims, or by their suffering and poverty, they have gone way past that line and become sadists and psychopaths. They are profoundly immoral by the standards of Islam. They are brutal to everyone in their path, even the ones with whom they used to share racial, ethnic and national identities. They have left behind almost every marker that would identify them as a part of the human race, every bond of fellowship and commonwealth has been abandoned for rabid hatred and brutal violence.
My greatest fear is not that we will suffer more savagery at the hands of these cretinous deposits of phlegm, we certainly will. My greatest fear is that we will allow them to define us, and suck us into the primordial ooze of hatred and violence, and we will become like them.
To defeat them, we must remain better than them, we cannot take the fight to their level, because once we go there, we have lost. When we commit to the killing of innocents, even if we call it collateral damage, we have lost. When we lash out in anger and fear, we have lost. When we torture and violate human rights, we have lost. When we distrust our neighbors because of their race or their religion, we have lost. If this enemy drags us into any of those situations, they will have won, even if we succeed in wiping them off of the face of the earth.
Thursday, March 17, 2016
1, 2, 3, 4, FIFTH
Amendment V:
This is where the rubber hits the road in our world today. The television series Law and Order and its spinoffs have been on TV for decades near the top of the ratings heap in part because the interpretation and practice of Amendments IV and V, produces a stunning array of dramatic possibilities.
And here, as in so many other places, we need to acknowledge the fundamental wisdom of these principles, in that they can be applied as well as they are in a world that would have been absolutely unimaginable to the authors. They have that in common with Biblical law. But it is also necessary to acknowledge the very different worlds of the late 18th century and the early 21st century.
First of all, the majority of crimes that our legal system handles are not the "capital or otherwise infamous" type. Traffic violations, drug offenses (possession and small time distribution), parole violations, DUI cases, debt default, I could go on, but the point is that the massive machinery of our legal system has and does function with these guidelines in place. It has adapted and changed and will continue to do so.
For instance, in the early days prisons were few and far between. Jails were temporary modes of punishment for people with bad debts or who got a little drunk and disorderly. Long term "storage" of criminals was rendered unnecessary by the gallows and the hangman. The bar for capital punishment was lower than it is now. Over the years we have raised that bar, for the better in my opinion, to a place where we can now honestly and truly consider whether depriving an individual of life is ever justified. The arc of justice is bending towards a place where the savagery of the death penalty is no more.
In recent years voices have begun to raise around the issue of incarceration, or rather the inordinate level of incarceration we have here in these United States. This gets into some rather muddy water though, because society relies on the rule of law and the ability to enforce those laws. As much as I would advocate for restorative justice, I am not so naive as to ever believe that we can completely do away with retributive justice. The problem with the system, as it now stands, is that we often deprive the poor of their life and their liberty, where we mostly just hit the wealthy in their wallets. White collar crime is usually lightly punished while the crimes most often committed by poor people result in lengthy incarceration, which often and consequently perpetuates a cycle of crime and punishment that is very hard to escape. A few years back Dave Chappelle did a sketch where he put the shoe on the other foot, he humorously illustrated a crack dealer getting the treatment that white collar criminals get.
Now that is funny, but there is a real human tragedy behind this reality. As Bob Dylan's Lonesome Death of Hattie Caroll points out, justice is not always blind. The due process of law is not yet a level playing field, and so we still have work to do. But "due process" and ideas of justice and the seriousness of depriving our citizens of life, liberty and property are still things that are worth holding on to tightly. True justice is a lofty goal indeed, and an ever shifting one at that. As much as I hate to admit it, this is probably why we need lawyers (just kidding lawyer friends, I love you folks).
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or an indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising on the land or naval force, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.And the award for skillful use of the semicolon goes to Amendment V! Everybody give her a big hand! Seriously, given the gravity of the rights presented above, it really probably deserves more than one sentence, especially given the fact that at least a few of these things can and are probably open to rather wide interpretations. "Capital or otherwise infamous crime," but not all crime, because that would be ridiculous, but where do we draw that line? What makes us so sure that Grand Juries are some sort of safeguard nowadays, when mostly they just rubber stamp the recommendations of the prosecutor? Does this Amendment V really protect us in practice?
This is where the rubber hits the road in our world today. The television series Law and Order and its spinoffs have been on TV for decades near the top of the ratings heap in part because the interpretation and practice of Amendments IV and V, produces a stunning array of dramatic possibilities.
And here, as in so many other places, we need to acknowledge the fundamental wisdom of these principles, in that they can be applied as well as they are in a world that would have been absolutely unimaginable to the authors. They have that in common with Biblical law. But it is also necessary to acknowledge the very different worlds of the late 18th century and the early 21st century.
First of all, the majority of crimes that our legal system handles are not the "capital or otherwise infamous" type. Traffic violations, drug offenses (possession and small time distribution), parole violations, DUI cases, debt default, I could go on, but the point is that the massive machinery of our legal system has and does function with these guidelines in place. It has adapted and changed and will continue to do so.
For instance, in the early days prisons were few and far between. Jails were temporary modes of punishment for people with bad debts or who got a little drunk and disorderly. Long term "storage" of criminals was rendered unnecessary by the gallows and the hangman. The bar for capital punishment was lower than it is now. Over the years we have raised that bar, for the better in my opinion, to a place where we can now honestly and truly consider whether depriving an individual of life is ever justified. The arc of justice is bending towards a place where the savagery of the death penalty is no more.
In recent years voices have begun to raise around the issue of incarceration, or rather the inordinate level of incarceration we have here in these United States. This gets into some rather muddy water though, because society relies on the rule of law and the ability to enforce those laws. As much as I would advocate for restorative justice, I am not so naive as to ever believe that we can completely do away with retributive justice. The problem with the system, as it now stands, is that we often deprive the poor of their life and their liberty, where we mostly just hit the wealthy in their wallets. White collar crime is usually lightly punished while the crimes most often committed by poor people result in lengthy incarceration, which often and consequently perpetuates a cycle of crime and punishment that is very hard to escape. A few years back Dave Chappelle did a sketch where he put the shoe on the other foot, he humorously illustrated a crack dealer getting the treatment that white collar criminals get.
Now that is funny, but there is a real human tragedy behind this reality. As Bob Dylan's Lonesome Death of Hattie Caroll points out, justice is not always blind. The due process of law is not yet a level playing field, and so we still have work to do. But "due process" and ideas of justice and the seriousness of depriving our citizens of life, liberty and property are still things that are worth holding on to tightly. True justice is a lofty goal indeed, and an ever shifting one at that. As much as I hate to admit it, this is probably why we need lawyers (just kidding lawyer friends, I love you folks).
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Protection of the Law
Amendment IV:
All of these questions have been asked and answered numerous times through the evolution and revolutions of case law, but none of them has been answered once and for all. And in many ways this Amendment is violated on a daily basis, often by statutory exceptions (cough: Patriot Act). Most of the violations have been deemed "necessary" for the public safety. Some have been recognized and proven to be violations: Stop and Frisk. But the thing about it is that, far too often, the government, and law enforcement have been caught with their hand in the Amendment IV cookie jar. It's funny (not in the ha ha way) that the very people who often defend the violation of Amendment IV in the name of safety are also the biggest Constitution huggers around.
The fact of the matter is that, if you're going to have this as a right for the members of your society, you are going to inherently increase the danger that one malefactor can do to your society. You are going to have to turn drug dealers and maybe even murderers loose if the police botch the warrant procedure. You are either going to have to violate everyone's rights or you are going to have to let terrorists operate under the protections of this Amendment.
What is it going to be America?
Over the past 15 years (and probably longer than that in the "war on drugs") the answer has been: forget about Amendment IV, we want to be safe. Now, I'm sure that there are legal types who can probably make an argument that exceptions need to be made and "extenuating circumstances" blah, blah, blah. I'm not a lawyer, and I've basically been making the point that our laws of the land are indeed a work in progress, in need of constant vigilance and evaluation. I get it.
I am just pointing out that Amendment IV is the place where we are faced most regularly with the dilemma of trying to balance freedom and security (No, I'm not going to use the Ben Franklin quote, because apparently it has been taken out of context, and I freaking hate that.) A society where everyone was totally free would be anarchy of a dangerous sort. Here's a good quote about that:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.This is where things start to get complicated. There are all sorts of things that are rather open to interpretation in this Amendment. What does it mean to be secure? In the electronic age what is the definition of papers and effects? What is unreasonable? What is probably cause?
All of these questions have been asked and answered numerous times through the evolution and revolutions of case law, but none of them has been answered once and for all. And in many ways this Amendment is violated on a daily basis, often by statutory exceptions (cough: Patriot Act). Most of the violations have been deemed "necessary" for the public safety. Some have been recognized and proven to be violations: Stop and Frisk. But the thing about it is that, far too often, the government, and law enforcement have been caught with their hand in the Amendment IV cookie jar. It's funny (not in the ha ha way) that the very people who often defend the violation of Amendment IV in the name of safety are also the biggest Constitution huggers around.
The fact of the matter is that, if you're going to have this as a right for the members of your society, you are going to inherently increase the danger that one malefactor can do to your society. You are going to have to turn drug dealers and maybe even murderers loose if the police botch the warrant procedure. You are either going to have to violate everyone's rights or you are going to have to let terrorists operate under the protections of this Amendment.
What is it going to be America?
Over the past 15 years (and probably longer than that in the "war on drugs") the answer has been: forget about Amendment IV, we want to be safe. Now, I'm sure that there are legal types who can probably make an argument that exceptions need to be made and "extenuating circumstances" blah, blah, blah. I'm not a lawyer, and I've basically been making the point that our laws of the land are indeed a work in progress, in need of constant vigilance and evaluation. I get it.
I am just pointing out that Amendment IV is the place where we are faced most regularly with the dilemma of trying to balance freedom and security (No, I'm not going to use the Ben Franklin quote, because apparently it has been taken out of context, and I freaking hate that.) A society where everyone was totally free would be anarchy of a dangerous sort. Here's a good quote about that:
I don't believe in anarchy, because it will ultimately amount to the power of the bully with weapons. Gandhi is my life's inspiration: passive resistance. I don't want to live in the Thunderdome with Mad Max -John Lydon, the older and wiser persona of Johnny Rotten, writer and performer of the most famous Punk Rock song ever: Anarchy in the UK, by the Sex PistolsPrefer a little more erudite source? Here is Henry Ward Beecher:
The worst thing in this world, next to anarchy, is government.And Aldous Huxley:
The worst enemy of life, freedom and the common decencies is total anarchy, the second worst enemy is total efficiency.So here's where we are: no law is perfect, and no guarantee of rights under those laws is infallible. Our society, including the rights and principles we hold sacred, are a work in progress. The work of lawyers, legislators and judges, as I understand it, is largely beholden to following the train of precedent, which makes the progress often times painfully slow, but necessarily so. Sometimes we get scared and rush to give up our freedom too easily. Sometimes we are arrogant and cling to freedoms that are damaging to our neighbors. I see no evidence that we have advanced beyond either one of those tendencies, and so laws will always have the unenviable task of protecting us from ourselves.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
The Thing About Laws
Amendment III:
So what is important about this? Is it just a historical lesson? If I remember my history classes correctly a lot of what went into this document was a response to the excesses and over-reaching of the British Crown. The Quartering Act was one of the four "coercive" acts passed by Parliament to crack down on the disagreeable belligerence of the colonies (like wasting all that perfectly good tea, never get between a Brit and their tea). In order to flex their imperial muscles a bit, and to kill two birds with one stone, they said that the Empire had the right to occupy public houses and unoccupied space in order to shelter the increasing number of redcoats that were necessary to maintain decency and order in the colonies.
As is usually the case with such things it rather quickly exceeded it's intended scope, and as antagonism grew so did the danger to the safety of the colonists. To people trying to make a go of it in the harsh New World, life was precarious enough without having to shelter and feed a platoon of soldiers who you didn't particularly want there. Not to mention the rather predictable assaults on the virtue of wives and daughters, and maybe even sons, by armed men far from home. Now I'm not sure of exactly how all this played out, but we have stories, and I'm guessing that behind all of those stories is some kernel of truth, and it probably wasn't rated PG.
At any rate the people who lived through this were rather keen on making sure that this new Government didn't start down that road, so they added this to the Bill of Rights. This also foreshadows the principle of the sovereignty of the individual that is going to shape many of the coming amendments. Statutory protection of the people from the abuse of those in power is rather important principle for a democratic-ish republic to have. They had had enough of kings and emperors, and their armies. In fact, there was this idea, in the beginning, that maybe we didn't even need a standing army, in fact the colonists tended to distrust such things for reasons that might be apparent above. Watching the British burn Washington DC to the ground in the war of 1812 brought an end to that nonsense. Nation states need armies, militias are not going to cut it, as we talked about yesterday. They need men (and women now) who are trained and supplied and thoroughly prepared to engage in disciplined combat against other trained and supplied forces.
The maintenance of such a force requires a professional and perpetual effort, not ad-hoc enlistment of gun-ho yokels with muskets. You cannot and should not maintain this force by imposing upon the citizens directly, so as much as we hate taxes, they are a necessity. The alternative is having poorly trained and disciplined militia staying in your den and harassing your women folk en route to losing whatever skirmish they got in rather badly.
As much as I dislike war, I understand the necessity of the military, and I am thankful that those who serve are well trained and well equipped, and I'm glad they're not camped in my back yard.
Okay, so that's that right? Well, there's another important thing that I think Amendment III demonstrates: laws are meant to address certain things at certain times. Some, like Amendment I tend towards universal "self-evident" truths, but most of them are going to live their lives and maintain usefulness in perpetuity primarily as mileposts and markers in history. That is good and right, but it throws up a challenge to those who seem to want to hit the rewind button and go back to the original intent of the Constitution and govern according to the Bill of Rights (which is something I believe I heard Ted Cruz say in one of the debates). There are only ten of them, and Amendment X says that there absolutely should be more coming (but I'm getting ahead of myself).
Next up: Secure Persons.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.I almost skipped over this one, because let's face it, this just doesn't come up very much nowadays. We haven't had a war on U.S. soil in over 150 years, so the reality of roaming brigades of soldiers commandeering the family farm and making demands on the citizenry is not really a thing that anybody worries about. Even if we did have a military deployment in this country, we have an extensive infrastructure here already, and as the military has demonstrated more than necessary lately, they can build their own houses even on foreign soil.
So what is important about this? Is it just a historical lesson? If I remember my history classes correctly a lot of what went into this document was a response to the excesses and over-reaching of the British Crown. The Quartering Act was one of the four "coercive" acts passed by Parliament to crack down on the disagreeable belligerence of the colonies (like wasting all that perfectly good tea, never get between a Brit and their tea). In order to flex their imperial muscles a bit, and to kill two birds with one stone, they said that the Empire had the right to occupy public houses and unoccupied space in order to shelter the increasing number of redcoats that were necessary to maintain decency and order in the colonies.
As is usually the case with such things it rather quickly exceeded it's intended scope, and as antagonism grew so did the danger to the safety of the colonists. To people trying to make a go of it in the harsh New World, life was precarious enough without having to shelter and feed a platoon of soldiers who you didn't particularly want there. Not to mention the rather predictable assaults on the virtue of wives and daughters, and maybe even sons, by armed men far from home. Now I'm not sure of exactly how all this played out, but we have stories, and I'm guessing that behind all of those stories is some kernel of truth, and it probably wasn't rated PG.
At any rate the people who lived through this were rather keen on making sure that this new Government didn't start down that road, so they added this to the Bill of Rights. This also foreshadows the principle of the sovereignty of the individual that is going to shape many of the coming amendments. Statutory protection of the people from the abuse of those in power is rather important principle for a democratic-ish republic to have. They had had enough of kings and emperors, and their armies. In fact, there was this idea, in the beginning, that maybe we didn't even need a standing army, in fact the colonists tended to distrust such things for reasons that might be apparent above. Watching the British burn Washington DC to the ground in the war of 1812 brought an end to that nonsense. Nation states need armies, militias are not going to cut it, as we talked about yesterday. They need men (and women now) who are trained and supplied and thoroughly prepared to engage in disciplined combat against other trained and supplied forces.
The maintenance of such a force requires a professional and perpetual effort, not ad-hoc enlistment of gun-ho yokels with muskets. You cannot and should not maintain this force by imposing upon the citizens directly, so as much as we hate taxes, they are a necessity. The alternative is having poorly trained and disciplined militia staying in your den and harassing your women folk en route to losing whatever skirmish they got in rather badly.
As much as I dislike war, I understand the necessity of the military, and I am thankful that those who serve are well trained and well equipped, and I'm glad they're not camped in my back yard.
Okay, so that's that right? Well, there's another important thing that I think Amendment III demonstrates: laws are meant to address certain things at certain times. Some, like Amendment I tend towards universal "self-evident" truths, but most of them are going to live their lives and maintain usefulness in perpetuity primarily as mileposts and markers in history. That is good and right, but it throws up a challenge to those who seem to want to hit the rewind button and go back to the original intent of the Constitution and govern according to the Bill of Rights (which is something I believe I heard Ted Cruz say in one of the debates). There are only ten of them, and Amendment X says that there absolutely should be more coming (but I'm getting ahead of myself).
Next up: Secure Persons.
Monday, March 14, 2016
Second Amendment Illustrated
Amendment II:
Anyhow, with such a fresh picture in my mind of the state of gun ownership in America, I'm going to do this with pictures. First of all, when the Second Amendment was written, gun looked like this:
Not this:
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.No, Obama is not coming to take your guns. The Government is not going to pry them out of your hands, cold and dead or otherwise, but that is actually because of Amendment V not Amendment II, so let's leave that for now. Let's talk guns. I just completed my Maryland hunter education course on Saturday, so I spent the day with a fairly broad cross section of the American public, who were learning how to go out in the woods and hunt without shooting each other in the face (former VP Cheyney? Did you pay attention in class?). People who use firearms for sport, and as I found out, police officers and game officials, are required to take this class to ensure that they have a basic level of firearm safety awareness. So good on us. There were people in class with all levels of experience, from people who have never held a gun before to people who had been hunting and using firearms since they were kids, but still need that little yellow card. There were also some NRA types there, who could be nudged into spouting the usual rhetoric about the second amendment right and issuing dire warnings about the need to complain to your legislature about the "blah, blah, blah, they're gonna take our guns."
Anyhow, with such a fresh picture in my mind of the state of gun ownership in America, I'm going to do this with pictures. First of all, when the Second Amendment was written, gun looked like this:
Not this:
Now I understand that technology is cool and all, but you just can't go on a shooting rampage with a muzzle loader, but you can with a semi-auto long gun with a 15-30 round magazine. The second gun is supposed to be wielded by people whose job it is to fight people, most likely people that have guns of a like character. If you want to hunt, you use guns like this:
Those are shotguns. They are, hands down, the most useful sort of firearm for putting food on the table. If you really need a rifle, and you are allowed to use one (meaning you don't live in the flatland where a rifle bullet can travel like 5 miles). You might perhaps need the venerable 30-06 with a scope to take out Bambi. That looks like this:
Still looks cool, you still feel mad, bad and dangerous to know carrying it through the woods, it still makes a big old bang. Those are pretty much what you need to kill any animal it's legal to kill. And those don't look much like the guns that are used in most of our alarming mass shootings.
But what about self defense? Okay, let's talk about that. Most people thinking about defending their castle from the bad guys think about this:
Which looks pretty nice, and would certainly win you the scary award. But the thing is, the gun pictured above is not very effective, self defense wise, because, even under the best of conditions, a capable marksman is going to have to practice and train regularly to be able to hit the broad side of a barn with a handgun. Add the adrenaline and stress of an actual home invasion and, well... good luck. For defense, I would much prefer this:
Yup, that's a shotgun again. This time dressed up in his "get the hell out of my yard," costume. Notice the snub barrel and the reliable pump action that really doesn't jam without some serious help. Also notice how you would hold that thing, with two hands and an intuitive aiming stance. Also note how you can buy non-lethal rounds, from bean bags to rubber pellets to rock salt that will definitely put a hurtin' on your would be violators, but which will let them live until the police get there to take them to the pokey. And I can't think of a single piece of legislation or regulations that would "infringe" on my right to own and use one of these in a safe and reasonable manner.
But the second amendment says militia right, so it technically doesn't even deal in any of this common sense. It's actually talking about the units used during the American Revolution, farmers and other civilians who took up their muskets to help fight the British. Now we believe a lot things about the Militia, most of them are not true. See combat is a tricky thing. During the American Revolution, the Militia were primarily used as a distraction so that the regular Army of actual trained soldiers could do it's thing. In other words our dear General Washington wrote to his nephew:
I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worthy of the bread they eat.Hmm. that leads me to a thought about one of the more propagandist positions of the NRA and others who are against reasonable gun control, which is that the citizens of this free nation need to be ready to take up arms, if (the implication is usually actually when) the government decides to take away all our freedoms, rather than sitting around writing up papers that guarantee it. Now I have several pieces of news on this front. The first is that, thankfully, the government has never been over-run by maniacs who decided to impose military rule. Good for us, because the second piece of news is that if these guys:
Are sent after you, you are in big trouble, I don't care how many of these:
these:
or even these:
you have in your basement.
Know why you're in trouble? Because those guys have more training, even if you have the same gear, they know how to use it better, and they know how to work together, and they have been conditioned to do so to rather devastating effect. Oh, and they have these:
So, if you want to "defend" yourself against your own government, you know, good luck with that.
Friday, March 11, 2016
The Big Daddy
Amendment 1: Freedom of religion, press, expression, Ratified December 15, 1791
There were people here who had come as refugees from persecution, real persecution too, not the type that is often felt when a privileged group all of the sudden has to face a level playing field.
It was remarkable for these men, of this era, to see that religion, any religion, must not be declared illegal, and that no religion should ever become the "official" religion of the nation. For men of this era, every bit as beholden to the status quo as Old King George III, to understand that free speech, problematic though it might be, must be guaranteed in a free society. For these men that now held the reigns of power in a new world to believe that the press can and should be allowed to function as more than just the mouthpiece of the principalities and powers. For these crafters of the Republic to allow those very people they honestly and rightfully feared to assemble and protest. These things were all remarkable. To endorse them as the law of the land was borderline miraculous.
These men were not commoners, nor were they particularly charitable to each other or to the huddled masses. They feared the very people they had stolen from Africa to help forge their empire as slaves. They feared the restless indigenous population. They feared the common farmers and publicans, they were not, in any sense, truly democratic, but they were the first to really take on the idea that government could be for the people, by the people, as Lincoln would say in the Gettysburg address almost 70 years in the future, after this grand enterprise almost came apart at the seams.
But the wars of religion, the naming of heretics, the suppression of the masses and the brutality of governments that brooked no dissent had worn thin. So these imperfect men recognized their imperfection. They saw within themselves the germ of tyranny and decided to limit the growth of the infection by naming and delineating more fully the "unalienable rights" that their Declaration of Independence had first introduced.
These days it's easy to forget what these words about freedom really mean. It's easy to think, after two centuries that freedom of religion is just a code that was used to mean Christian hegemony, but that is not what they meant then, and it is certainly not what a living law could possibly mean now, where self identified Christians are well on the road to being a minority, and actual Jesus followers have been a minority for a long, long time.
The guarantee, to be able to worship how you will, to say what you will, and to be able to stand up for yourself (and others, we probably forget that too often) against the powers, is essentially a Christian dream, and it is all we should ever ask of our government.
When Satan tempted Christ with the promise of worldly power, Jesus said, "No Thanks." I don't think he has changed his mind. I think the thing that we ought to want as a people is a place where the Government does not try to get between us and God, and certainly one where the Government doesn't try to represent God, it will do it badly if history is any teacher.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.As I mentioned in the last post, it is rather telling to see what gets put first on the list. What's the first limit that the newly minted United States Congress chose to put upon themselves as a government? Don't mess around with religion. Contrary to what you might have heard, there was never an idea that this nation was supposed to be 100% Christian. If there is any way in which these United States can be called a Christian nation it is because, as one of our founding principles we have given our citizens the right to be otherwise. These freedoms: religion, speech, press, assembly and petition, are in fact a result of the rather sordid history of Christendom, and the realization by many that witch trials, hundred year wars, crusades and inquisitions were rather not what Jesus was talking about.
There were people here who had come as refugees from persecution, real persecution too, not the type that is often felt when a privileged group all of the sudden has to face a level playing field.
It was remarkable for these men, of this era, to see that religion, any religion, must not be declared illegal, and that no religion should ever become the "official" religion of the nation. For men of this era, every bit as beholden to the status quo as Old King George III, to understand that free speech, problematic though it might be, must be guaranteed in a free society. For these men that now held the reigns of power in a new world to believe that the press can and should be allowed to function as more than just the mouthpiece of the principalities and powers. For these crafters of the Republic to allow those very people they honestly and rightfully feared to assemble and protest. These things were all remarkable. To endorse them as the law of the land was borderline miraculous.
These men were not commoners, nor were they particularly charitable to each other or to the huddled masses. They feared the very people they had stolen from Africa to help forge their empire as slaves. They feared the restless indigenous population. They feared the common farmers and publicans, they were not, in any sense, truly democratic, but they were the first to really take on the idea that government could be for the people, by the people, as Lincoln would say in the Gettysburg address almost 70 years in the future, after this grand enterprise almost came apart at the seams.
But the wars of religion, the naming of heretics, the suppression of the masses and the brutality of governments that brooked no dissent had worn thin. So these imperfect men recognized their imperfection. They saw within themselves the germ of tyranny and decided to limit the growth of the infection by naming and delineating more fully the "unalienable rights" that their Declaration of Independence had first introduced.
These days it's easy to forget what these words about freedom really mean. It's easy to think, after two centuries that freedom of religion is just a code that was used to mean Christian hegemony, but that is not what they meant then, and it is certainly not what a living law could possibly mean now, where self identified Christians are well on the road to being a minority, and actual Jesus followers have been a minority for a long, long time.
The guarantee, to be able to worship how you will, to say what you will, and to be able to stand up for yourself (and others, we probably forget that too often) against the powers, is essentially a Christian dream, and it is all we should ever ask of our government.
When Satan tempted Christ with the promise of worldly power, Jesus said, "No Thanks." I don't think he has changed his mind. I think the thing that we ought to want as a people is a place where the Government does not try to get between us and God, and certainly one where the Government doesn't try to represent God, it will do it badly if history is any teacher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)