Here.
For Ben Witherington, gun control is not aiming your gun at the right target. This was a post from 2007, after the Virginia Tech shooting.
After last year's shooting of Gabrielle Giffords at the Tucson Safeway, where several people were killed, some people suggested that the disaster could have been alleviated by an armed law-abiding citizen. Apparently there was someone like that at the Safeway, who took a gun out to shoot the shooter. However, that person was aiming at the wrong person, and would have fired if someone hadn't told them they were aiming at the wrong guy. So, the tragedy could have been worse, instead of better, if that citizen had fired.
27 comments:
The link isn't working.
One major hurdle Witherington would have to jump is finding a way to justify the average citizen not having a gun, while police and soldiers are allowed to have them, and doing so on Christian moral grounds.
The problem there is if he walks down the policy route ('the government policy should be gun control...') he's in trouble, since parleying Christian teaching into public policy short of outlawing murder is extremely difficult. But if he walks down the moral route (let's put policy aside - a Christian should not own or use a gun), he's going to have to figure out how to square that with Christian police officers and soldiers.
And that example's questionable. You can fire back, 'If the person were responsibly trained, the tragedy would be better, not worse.' Getting into real specific examples like that is difficult, since everyone gets to imagine their ideal situation in response. The Giffords case is also difficult since it deals with a lunatic whose actions begin and end in seconds - you usually hear about 'an armed person would have helped if...' scenarios when it's more prolonged (that VTech shooter, Breivek, etc.)
Let's see:
Ben Witherington can't ... or won't ... wrap his mind around the fact that *all* human government, and *all* prescriptive and proscriptive human laws, are firmly based upon the principle of "do what I tell you to do, or I will kill you";
and
Victor Reppert seems to imagine there is a "Christian case for socialism" and that simply quoting one versse, stripped of all context, presents that case.
To put this another way, Victor Repport vainly imagines that Christianity establishes that some humans have the moral right to assert, under threat of violent death, ownership over other humans; and Ben Witherington foolishly imagines that Christianity requires the designated prey to surrender their arms to the predators beforehand.
========
Suicide cults do not last, and Christianity is not a suicide cult.
OK, I'll wrap my mind around it.
1. Society does have the right to compel its members to act in certain ways.
2. Number of tyrannies overthrown by an armed citizenry since the writing of the 2nd Amendment: Zero.
3. Number of innocent people killed by firearms in the same period of time: Uncountable.
See, that wasn't so hard!
And, of course, when it suits you, you're a utilitarian. But, ten, you always were a hypocrite.
I don't see Victor advancing a "Christian case for socialism" here, and while I know he's politically (at least economically) liberal, I've usually only seen typically fair questioning on his part. (Granted, sometimes loaded questions. But that's pretty minor, and I'm guilty of worse.)
I still would like to see Ben's actual argument, since I'm pretty sure it's going to fall prey to one of the two difficulties I listed.
And not to get in the middle of the usual Bob and Ilion shitfit, but armed citizenries have done some tremendous damage to and even have played a role in overthrowing tyrannies since the 2nd amendment. Unless he's restricting this to the US, and even there the issue's a little more complicated.
Not to mention, since the writing of the second amendment, there've been plenty of unarmed citizens slaughtered by governments. (Weird how so many people can recount the crimes of 'religion', the crimes of nobility, the crimes of businessmen, easily. But the very category 'the crimes of states' seems invisible to some - present company excluded.)
I don't believe in socialism, or capitalism as across-the-board positions. These buzz words, in addition to "liberal" and "conservative," tend to get in the way of taking each issue on its merits.
Real socialists get indignant when you call Obama one. As they should.
Real socialists get indignant when you call Obama one. As they should.
I'm probably kicking dynamite near the fireplace here, but wasn't Obama explicitly a member of a socialist organization in his youth? And I'm not sure the inability to advance a purely socialist agenda makes someone 'not a socialist'.
Granted, I'm with you on the labels thing. But I think Obama's record isn't some kind of socialism kryptonite. That's that old saying - politics is the art of the possible.
Now in my 60's, I've learned long ago to mistrust all labels that end with "ism", be it capitalism, socialism, or atheism.
A dog owner for most of my adult life, I've also learned that the strongest, healthiest dogs are mixed breeds. Same goes for economies. The best economy is a mixed economy - a fair helping of private enterprise, tempered with a leavening of state regulation, with a dollop of publicly-owned enterprises.
VR: "Real socialists get indignant when you call Obama one."
Who cares? "Real socialists" are dishonest. To the core.
"I don't believe in socialism, or capitalism as across-the-board positions. These buzz words, in addition to "liberal" and "conservative," tend to get in the way of taking each issue on its merits."
Oh, come on. Surely, you know/understand enough to realize how utterly ignorant, in the willfully ignorant and-proud-of-it manner, saying things like this makes anyone sound.
I don't believe in ‘atheism,’ or ‘theism’ as across-the-board positions. These buzz words, in addition to ‘irrational’ and ‘rational,’ tend to get in the way of taking each issue on its merits.
No matter the issue, all high-level or structural agnosticism is simply put out there as a dodge to avoid critically examining the issue, while posing as deep and thoughtful … and continuing to do/believe the position that cannot stand critical/rational scrutiny.
One *cannot* “tak[e] each issue on its merits” absent a context, which starts with, is grounded in, first principles.
The reason “liberalism” is so incoherent – and the reason why, when push comes to shove, “liberalism” always sides with moral wickedness; that is, the reason why “liberals” are such puppets of the left when the leftist decide it is time again to push against the liberal (in the old sense of the word, which generally maps to what we now call ‘conservative’) foundations of society – is that “liberals” generally refuse to admit, even to themselves, the first principles from which they operate.
" These buzz words, in addition to "liberal" and "conservative," tend to get in the way of taking each issue on its merits."
And yet, when it matters, you always come down on the side of “liberalism” and socialism. When it matters, you always dance as the puppet-strings dictate.
How many (OP) posts have you written over the years targeted at me specifically, or conservatives generally, requesting/demanding that I, or we, “explain” – which is to say, justify to your satisfaction (which makes its judgment on the basis of leftism) – some aspect or principle of conservatism and/or capitalism … and then, when I finally do notice the OP, or finally do find the time to write an in-depth response to it, you drop the matter, while still advocating the leftist pseudo-alternative?
"How many (OP) posts have you written over the years targeted at me specifically, or conservatives generally?"
Apparently, not enough.
Now in my 60's, I've learned long ago to mistrust all labels that end with "ism", be it capitalism, socialism, or atheism.
How about liberalism?
Serious question.
And so long as I'm asking - and since the thread seems to have become a socialism thread sadly fast - I'd like to hear what's wrong with socialism, in Bob Prokop's own words.
"How about liberalism?"
That one, too.
Despite misleading comments by others on this website, I consider myself to be politically unaligned.
What's wrong with socialism?
Although I have great admiration for many socialists, the ideology in practice tends to lead to too much bureaucracy. "Some" socialism is a Very Good Thing in society and economics. Too much is definitely not.
Socialized institutions also seem to have the deleterious quality of only being as long-lived as the government that gives them birth. Goes the government, goes medicine or education or what have you.
Bob,
Despite misleading comments by others on this website, I consider myself to be politically unaligned.
C'mon.
You're saying that you've never taken pride in states being "the bluest of the blue" (re: the red/blue state divide)? That you've never stated that you're aligned with the Democrats? That you've never stated that the Republicans, period, are The Enemy - much less conservatives?
I've been around here for years, Bob. We've talked about this. I remember the conversations. If you consider yourself to be politically unaligned, the only way to cash it out reasonably is with some odd caveat like, "I sometimes feel like I should vote for the Green Party instead of the Democrats."
I think I'm being fair here.
"Some" socialism is a Very Good Thing in society and economics. Too much is definitely not.
Alright. Can you name some area where you'd like to see less socialism? Some existing government bureaucracy you'd like to see eliminated or reduced?
Crude,
I can't say that I "detest" your politics, since I haven't been able to figure out what they are.
I, however, make no pretense about my being anything other than a knee-jerk, bleeding-heart, tree-hugging, snail darter saving, illegal immigrant coddling, feminist, multicultural, brie and Chablis swilling, tax and spend, proud blue state liberal!
Blast from the past right there.
And note, I'm not condemning any of this at the moment. I'm just questioning the idea of "Bob Prokop, politically unaligned guy".
"Some" socialism is a Very Good Thing in society and economics. Too much is definitely not.
Alright. Can you name some area where you'd like to see less socialism? Some existing government bureaucracy you'd like to see eliminated or reduced?
No, I can't. Because I think we still don't have enough.
I, however, make no pretense about my being anything other than a knee-jerk, bleeding-heart, tree-hugging, snail darter saving, illegal immigrant coddling, feminist, multicultural, brie and Chablis swilling, tax and spend, proud blue state liberal!
That, as you very well know, was intentional exaggeration. But, even if it weren't, if you'd met my sister-in-law, you'd realize such a description would place me only a little to the left of Mussolini (placing me squarely in the middle of the road)!
So I stand by my (very accurate) statement that I am at the center of the political spectrum. If you think otherwise, then that is merely evidence that you yourself are so far to one side that you can no longer recognize moderation. You mistake it for partisanship.
Bob,
That, as you very well know, was intentional exaggeration.
Okay, call it exaggeration. Are you going to say that you didn't mean to identify as a liberal (and therefore, partisan) whatsoever?
Do I have to pull the cheering about how you live in some 'really deep blue!' state too?
This isn't meant as an attack. But really, trying to say you're non-partisan - that you don't quite aggressively cheer on the democrats over the republicans, that you don't identify as a liberal - is such a hard sell here to anyone who's been around this place and seen the exchanges.
But, even if it weren't, if you'd met my sister-in-law, you'd realize such a description would place me only a little to the left of Mussolini (placing me squarely in the middle of the road)!
Quickly mentioning that Mussolini was, like Hitler, an extreme socialist, I'll simply point out that if you're saying "I'm non-partisan, so long as you use a tremendous political liberal as the yardstick, and anything less than that liberal counts as non-partisan", then you're right back to what I suggested would be the case: you're using a real odd special definition to pull it off.
So I stand by my (very accurate) statement that I am at the center of the political spectrum. If you think otherwise, then that is merely evidence that you yourself are so far to one side that you can no longer recognize moderation. You mistake it for partisanship.
You said you're not a partisan. I have a quote of you saying you're a liberal. You claim that was exaggeration, but your yardstick is "I'm not partisan, because my sister in law is waaaaaaaaaaaay more liberal!" - I explained why that's not a good response.
And please note: you talk about "evidence" that I'm an extremist. But the only evidence for your partisanship here have been your own words. You identified yourself as a liberal, explicitly. Not me.
As I said, if you want, I can pull more quotes. And you can keep on explaining them away, no doubt. At that point, my goal won't be to get you to admit you're partisan - but it will be to put the evidence out there, and let others make up their mind.
I suppose the result would be your discovering that very many people on here, even political liberals, are in actuality crazy extremists.
And just to pull that quote...
I heard that speech and cheered! Until we as a society realize that we are all in this together, and act upon that realization, we will continue to be in the unholy (deliberately chosen word) mess we are currently in. Makes me wish I lived in Massachusetts so I could vote for her. (But wait, I already live in the bluest of Blue States, Maryland. Hooray!!!)
From here, on a speech by Elizabeth Warren.
"Bluest of the blue states, hooray!"
Nothing partisan there, right?
Nope. Just a plea for sanity.
Nope. Just a plea for sanity.
Right. And sanity means fervently supporting the Democratic party, to the level where you feel giddy and happy at living in "the bluest of the blue states". State extremely 'blue'? That's a cause for celebration.
But, you're not a partisan.
Alright, I think we're done here. Time for me to get on the treadmill and get back to work. Kudos on your astronomy book, by the way - I'm more of a tech guy, but I admire your dedication to write such a thing and assist amateurs. (Sincere compliment, nothing hidden there.)
"Amateur" can be the greatest of compliments. In my club, the Howard Astronomical League, we have only one professional astronomer (he's helping build the James Webb Space Telescope), and about 150 stargazers (like me). But the level of knowledge of some of the people is phenomenal. Lots of tech geeks, too - software designers, systems analysts, troubleshooters, etc.
I wrote the book, because I don't like observing without a goal. For the past many months, it's been to see and positively identify every star close to our own solar system. Great fun!
But now that I've done that, I need a new observing goal. I'm thinking about switching to a Lunar theme next.
My goodness Witherington's piece is an ill thought out piece of claptrap.
In a nut shell he seems to be saying, using a gun in self-defence is akin to 'revenge' (a preposterous equivocation to begin with) and basically makes the case that Christians shouldn't defend themselves but just prey for those attacking them. There is no scriptural precedent for this and the examples he cites are opposed to vengeful killing *not* proper self defense. Which is what the whole debate is about anyway!
Post a Comment