Commentary
Thou shalt not pack,
saith the preacher
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
According to a report published last week by Christianity
Online, leaders from the National Council of Churches
have decided to push for more gun control legislation in
an effort to end the "scourge" of gun violence in the U.S.
The report said the "(NCC) has come out in support of
legislation in the US Congress aimed at limiting the
ownership of guns," vowing to spend the next legislative
session "(making) the issue one of its top advocacy and
legislative priorities. ..."
Robert Edgar, the NCC's new general secretary, said,
"We are aware that new laws alone will not end the wave
of gun violence sweeping the nation, but we are
convinced that the number of shootings will be reduced
by making it harder for individuals to purchase the kinds
of guns which have no function except to injure and kill
humans."
There are a number of things wrong with the NCC's
position and Mr. Edgar's comments specifically, but
taken at face value a couple of them are more glaring
than others.
First of all, it is unimaginable that a national organization
of churches would risk entering the fray of politics over
any issue, considering that "a separation of Church and
State" is a cornerstone of American society. Individual
denominations have often come out in support of or
against certain social issues (gays, abortion, family values)
but rarely do you see one that takes a position on a
purely political or politicized issue (like guns).
Denominations make appeals to Congress to change
laws, but it sounds like the NCC is set to enter the
lobbying business -- and that's a no-no for a church
group.
Secondly, the new leader of the NCC has no new
information to justify his false claims that "more guns
equal more crimes." His statistics, which he stole from
President Clinton, are absurdly incorrect, even by Uncle
Sam's own numbers:
Edgar said, "Every day in the US an average of 87
people, 12 of them children, die as a result of gun
wounds, a figure which is rapidly approaching the rate of
deaths through car accidents." That's just plain wrong; I
know -- I wrote the story disproving these "facts." Gun
deaths for adults and children are nowhere near what
cars claim every day, and the child death rates he cites
are ludicrous (and incorrect).
His use of "the children" to justify more gun control is also
reprehensible in and of itself, but statistically speaking it
has been proven time and again that removing guns from
American society only leads to more violent crime. And,
shootings in schools -- Edgar's primary "reason" for more
gun control -- are similarly rare. Too rare to justify
punishing law abiding people again.
Third, and most important, is the issue of constitutional
precedence: How is it that a national church organization
can call for further subjugation of a constitutional right
without realizing the hypocrisy of using one constitutional
right to call for the limitation of the other?
The nation's churches, protected under the First
Amendment, have no business calling on Congress to
limit a citizen's right to practice, uphold, believe in, and
defend the Second Amendment.
My guess is, however, that Mr. Edgar doesn't see his
pretense of piety. Using the well-worn and tired excuse
that his group's actions are "for the children" just doesn't
wash with me anymore; it is simply an excuse to disarm
more people. There is no doubt in my mind that my kids
and my wife, along with the family dog, are better
protected because my house is equipped with firearms
and I know well how to use them.
The NCC's "Interfaith Call" for all churches to support
this new assault on the law-abiding, church-going
Americans who happen to believe in their right to be
armed, is a mistake that is sure to backfire.
But it won't be Uncle Sam, via the Clinton administration,
that makes the NCC pay for their hypocrisy. And it
won't be the establishment media either because, after all,
this is an anti-gun message and that's "politically
correct." If, however, NCC was calling for an end to
abortion or speaking out in support of the Second
Amendment, rest assured that there would already be
calls from "on high" demanding to know why a religious
organization dares to venture in the domain of the "state"
-- politics. The IRS comes to mind.
As a practicing Catholic, I go worship God Almighty in
the local church of my choice because, unlike in
totalitarian societies:
I'm allowed to worship as I please
It's my right
It's a right protected by the Constitution
The right to keep and bear arms is a right that is equally
protected, equally a "right," and equally available to be
practiced (or not) by Americans who are allowed to
make their own choice.
NCC and Mr. Edgar are, however, abusing one
constitutional right in order to effectively stymie or
eliminate another constitutional right. This is so
hypocritical it's obscene.
Edgar, a former U.S. congressman from the state of
Pennsylvania, ought to know better than this. But then
again, when have most congressmen been accused of
knowing too much about the Constitution that they
swear to uphold and protect?
Jon E. Dougherty is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
Thou shalt not pack,
saith the preacher
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
According to a report published last week by Christianity
Online, leaders from the National Council of Churches
have decided to push for more gun control legislation in
an effort to end the "scourge" of gun violence in the U.S.
The report said the "(NCC) has come out in support of
legislation in the US Congress aimed at limiting the
ownership of guns," vowing to spend the next legislative
session "(making) the issue one of its top advocacy and
legislative priorities. ..."
Robert Edgar, the NCC's new general secretary, said,
"We are aware that new laws alone will not end the wave
of gun violence sweeping the nation, but we are
convinced that the number of shootings will be reduced
by making it harder for individuals to purchase the kinds
of guns which have no function except to injure and kill
humans."
There are a number of things wrong with the NCC's
position and Mr. Edgar's comments specifically, but
taken at face value a couple of them are more glaring
than others.
First of all, it is unimaginable that a national organization
of churches would risk entering the fray of politics over
any issue, considering that "a separation of Church and
State" is a cornerstone of American society. Individual
denominations have often come out in support of or
against certain social issues (gays, abortion, family values)
but rarely do you see one that takes a position on a
purely political or politicized issue (like guns).
Denominations make appeals to Congress to change
laws, but it sounds like the NCC is set to enter the
lobbying business -- and that's a no-no for a church
group.
Secondly, the new leader of the NCC has no new
information to justify his false claims that "more guns
equal more crimes." His statistics, which he stole from
President Clinton, are absurdly incorrect, even by Uncle
Sam's own numbers:
Edgar said, "Every day in the US an average of 87
people, 12 of them children, die as a result of gun
wounds, a figure which is rapidly approaching the rate of
deaths through car accidents." That's just plain wrong; I
know -- I wrote the story disproving these "facts." Gun
deaths for adults and children are nowhere near what
cars claim every day, and the child death rates he cites
are ludicrous (and incorrect).
His use of "the children" to justify more gun control is also
reprehensible in and of itself, but statistically speaking it
has been proven time and again that removing guns from
American society only leads to more violent crime. And,
shootings in schools -- Edgar's primary "reason" for more
gun control -- are similarly rare. Too rare to justify
punishing law abiding people again.
Third, and most important, is the issue of constitutional
precedence: How is it that a national church organization
can call for further subjugation of a constitutional right
without realizing the hypocrisy of using one constitutional
right to call for the limitation of the other?
The nation's churches, protected under the First
Amendment, have no business calling on Congress to
limit a citizen's right to practice, uphold, believe in, and
defend the Second Amendment.
My guess is, however, that Mr. Edgar doesn't see his
pretense of piety. Using the well-worn and tired excuse
that his group's actions are "for the children" just doesn't
wash with me anymore; it is simply an excuse to disarm
more people. There is no doubt in my mind that my kids
and my wife, along with the family dog, are better
protected because my house is equipped with firearms
and I know well how to use them.
The NCC's "Interfaith Call" for all churches to support
this new assault on the law-abiding, church-going
Americans who happen to believe in their right to be
armed, is a mistake that is sure to backfire.
But it won't be Uncle Sam, via the Clinton administration,
that makes the NCC pay for their hypocrisy. And it
won't be the establishment media either because, after all,
this is an anti-gun message and that's "politically
correct." If, however, NCC was calling for an end to
abortion or speaking out in support of the Second
Amendment, rest assured that there would already be
calls from "on high" demanding to know why a religious
organization dares to venture in the domain of the "state"
-- politics. The IRS comes to mind.
As a practicing Catholic, I go worship God Almighty in
the local church of my choice because, unlike in
totalitarian societies:
I'm allowed to worship as I please
It's my right
It's a right protected by the Constitution
The right to keep and bear arms is a right that is equally
protected, equally a "right," and equally available to be
practiced (or not) by Americans who are allowed to
make their own choice.
NCC and Mr. Edgar are, however, abusing one
constitutional right in order to effectively stymie or
eliminate another constitutional right. This is so
hypocritical it's obscene.
Edgar, a former U.S. congressman from the state of
Pennsylvania, ought to know better than this. But then
again, when have most congressmen been accused of
knowing too much about the Constitution that they
swear to uphold and protect?
Jon E. Dougherty is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
)...
