Getting back to the aforementioned
events, what might be a connection between Lincoln and Newtown, you may
ask? Well it’s a bit convoluted; bear
with me as I outline my thoughts.
A. Divisive Constitutional Issues
I see some parallels between contemporary
times and the Civil War era, and divisive constitutional issues regarding property
rights-personal life and liberty-community welfare and way of life are at the
forefront:
1) Contemporary Times. Today two controversial questions are, a)
whether the average American, i.e., excluding an active military citizen, government
security agent, or a police official, has the “unalienable” right to bear not
just arms but rapid-firing assault weapons with high capacity magazines that
clearly increase firearm lethality?, and b) should private citizens be allowed
to carry concealed weapons of ever increasing lethality in all manner of public
settings?
Clearly, these issues move beyond
individual self-defense and into the realm of community standards and values,
that is, does your liberty and way of life threaten my life and the safety (and
sanity) of my community? Beware false
dichotomies from some gun advocates:
this is not an issue of creating a “police state” where only the
government has weapons; the right to bear arms is part of our nation’s
historical and constitutional heritage.
What I find appalling is when a mentally troubled or disturbed young
man can snatch an assault weapon from his mother’s house and go on a domestic
and public killing spree; what I find beyond the limits of reason and sanity is
average Joe or Jane citizen, in some communities, being permitted to publicly
or secretly pack a weapon when I might be watching football in the neighborhood
sports bar. Packing and drinking is a
volatile mix!
2) Civil War Era. In the mid-19th c., the divisive
and explosive issue, of course, was the protection of property rights, even
when the “property” was a human being, i.e., the states in the South were willing
to secede from the Union and go to war not simply to keep the institution of
slavery in place (which was protected by the Constitution), but to insure that
slavery would have the unfettered federal right to expand into new states and territories,
despite existing state or territorial policy or objections. The issue was no longer simply defending
regional “honor” or the “Southern way of life” but a determination to export and
propagate it as well! (Before becoming
president, Lincoln extensively researched and persuasively argued that the
intention of the Founding Fathers was the gradual dissolution of the institution
of slavery once and for all time; while not fully ready to walk their talk, the
original signers nonetheless declared that in the eyes of God, that is, as
avowed by Natural Law, “all men are created equal.” Also worth noting, as a state politician, Lincoln
even supported enfranchisement for Illinois women.)
3) Comparative Analysis. In my perception, the advocates of
practically unlimited gun rights, akin to the supporters of slavery, see
themselves as defenders of a cultural cornerstone and a “way of life” under
attack by outside, unpatriotic, misguided, or radical elements – today, “Blue
State” liberals and Obama socialists, PETA-files, etc.; back then, Bleeding
Kansas zealots, free state Abolitionists, etc.
Any limits on private ownership of weapons and on the freedom to possess
and use such property not only are contrary to their constitutional guarantees;
such restrictions are an infringement on individual liberty and sense of personal
control, not to mention an affront to one’s personal honor.
NRA: No Rationality Allowed
When the National Rifle Association
CEO Wayne LaPierre’s primary critical safety recommendation to the Newtown
Massacre is the posting of armed guards at
school doors, (not more thorough security checks and gun registration
requirements, not closing down gun show sales background loopholes, not
improved mental health services, not state or federal programs to buy back
these “loose cannons,” i.e., assault weapons, etc.), then what’s being offered
is simply self-promoting, “good man with a gun” vs. “bad man with a gun,” liberty vs. lunacy gospel. Oh, btw, armed guards weren’t such a blazing
success at Columbine!
However, to be fair LaPierre did note
how our culture is awash in violent electronic media. (Upon turning eighteen, the average child has
likely witnessed and participated in 200,000 virtual murders via TV, film,
music videos, and video games. The
average male has logged 10,000 hours playing video games.) And with the impact violent video games have
on brain functioning, including shutting down emotional awareness and
sensitivity, muting the reality of loss of life, while yielding
sociopathic-like brain scans in teens (playing as little as two hours a day)
this is a critical piece of the mass killings puzzle. (One suspects the NRA has made the link
between the younger generations’ passion for video games and their declining
pursuit of real life hunting.)
But for NRA fans, games, like guns, are
merely a tool (more precisely, “only a fool blames the tool,” to quote some
pro-gun country singer); it’s a damaged human problem, stupid!
Ø
Register
the Loonies. While the NRA said nothing about strengthened
background checks on gun buyers they did propose blanket database registration
for all people with mental illness. When
the arrogance of power is not a sufficient bullying tactic, hey, you can’t beat
throwing around dangerous stereotypes as a diversionary manipulation. And this idea will surely encourage folks who
need support to seek mental health treatment.
Not!! Guess I better give the FBI
a call…I’ve been on anti-depressant medication for years.
Ø
Registering
– Then. Come to think of it, my deviant mind
perceives another parallel. The Constitutional Founders had to devise a
comprehensive system of registration for “human property.” “The slaves states wanted to have their cake
(slave representation in congress) and eat it too (no taxation value on
"property" slaves.) Non-slave
states wanted full taxation value and no representation for slaves. This led to
the Three-fifths Compromise. This
compromise counted each slave as three-fifths of a person for both purposes –
representation in the lower chamber and assessment of taxes for each slave” (American Freedom 1776 – Constitution).
Ø
Registering
– Now. With equivalent ingenuity, I’m sure the NRA
can devise a system where, a) people with certain “safe” DSM/mental illnesses/diagnoses
would be allowed – if not encouraged – to buy weapons, b) while other diagnostic
categories must undergo a waiting period; I’m pretty certain an NRA
psychiatrist can provide certification of readiness as a free service; (of
course, a waiting period is unreasonable for all prospective buyers); and c) some,
alas, will never have the privilege to “be a real man or woman” and purchase a
weapon.
Ø
Distraction,
Disease, and Dysfunction. Clearly, certain segments of society are
branded as inherently inferior, damaged, or dangerous – people with mental
illness, people of color hijacked from Africa, etc. – and are easily
scapegoated. Odious in its own right,
this strategic 3-“D” tactic diverts attention from the true source of the
problem – the diseased and dysfunctional culture and power structure.
Taking my own advice, let’s get back
to the issue at hand. Obviously, there
is a constitutional right to bear arms.
However, bear in mind, when the Second Amendment was written into law,
the Continental Army was mostly composed of individual militia who of necessity
had to provide their own weapons. Today,
some gangs, drug cartels, and domestic terrorist groups have weapons caches
that surpass the firepower of local government enforcement groups. (In fact, the first police responders in
Newtown did not have the firepower possessed by the lone, deranged shooter, Adam
Lanza.) And perhaps debunking the myth
of self-protection, the states with the highest numbers of gun owners have the
highest murder rates; of course, this data includes domestic violence and
suicide statistics. Hey, that’s their personal
business; sometimes the pursuit of life and liberty are simply on a collision
course.
While the Declaration of Independence
asserts we have unalienable rights, (which in practice did not apply to all human
beings at the birth of our nation), I’m not convinced that all Americans are
endowed by their Creator or by the Constitution with the inherent or “natural”
freedom to possess military style, rapid fire automatic weapons under the
“protective” cover of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
B. Controversial Supreme Court Decisions
And in both the present and past,
controversial Supreme Court decisions curtailed “states’ rights,” fueling
national tensions.
1) Contemporary Times. In 2008, the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in
the landmark gun-rights case known as District of Columbia v. Heller struck
down Washington’s sweeping ban on handguns.
While this ruling applied to federal jurisdictions, a subsequent Supreme
Court ruling in 2010 extended the Second Amendment reasoning to limit what states
and localities can do.
Legal,
Political and Practical Consequences:
Ø
Some state and local gun-control
measures already have died
over the past four and a half years, done in by the high court’s 2008 ruling
that recognized expansive constitutional protections for firearm ownership (“Supreme
Court rulings limit options of gun-control task force,” Michael Doyle, McClatchy Newspapers, Dec. 19, 2012 -
3:06 pm).
Ø
“The
Supreme Court has decided that the Second
Amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important
outside the home as inside,” Judge Richard Posner of the 7th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals noted in a ruling last week.
The Supreme Court’s 2008 decision also has confining power. Judge Posner struck down an Illinois law that
prohibited most individuals from carrying firearms in public.
Ø
Fortunately,
there appear to be some limitations in
the Supreme Court ruling: “laws
imposing conditions and qualifications” on firearms sales may be permitted.
For instance, according to Doyle, this might
allow more background-check requirements. The court further indicated in 2008 that “an important limitation on the right to
keep and carry arms” extends to
“dangerous and unusual weapons.” That
might include military firearms such as the M16 assault rifle, which the
Supreme Court specifically cited. (The
Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle is a civilian version of the M16. Having fired an M-16 in Army Basic Training,
believe me, this is not a weapon used solely for self-defense; it’s a killing
machine, firing bullets that are designed to cause maximal mutilation on
impact.)
2) Civil War Era. In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court made a
landmark ruling restricting life and liberty in the states and territories –
the Dred Scott Decision. Dred Scott was
the name of an African-American slave taken by his owner, an officer in the
U.S. Army, from the slave state of Missouri to the free state of Illinois and
then to the free territory of Wisconsin. He lived on free soil for a number of years. When the Army ordered his owner to go back to
Missouri, he took Scott with him back to that slave state, where his owner
died. In 1846, Scott was helped by
Abolitionist (anti-slavery) lawyers to sue for his freedom in court, claiming
he should be emancipated having lived on free soil for a substantial period of
time. The case went all the way to the
United States Supreme Court. The Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, was a former slave owner from
Maryland. (Cited in The History Place: Abraham Lincoln
– The Dred Scott Decision.)
As described in Wikipedia, Dred Scott v. Sandford, held that the federal government
had no power to regulate slavery in the territories, and that people of African
descent (both slave and free) were not protected by the Constitution and were
not U.S. citizens. Since passage of the
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the decision has not been a precedent
case, but retains historical significance as it is widely regarded as the worst
decision ever made by the Supreme Court.
Ø
The
decision began by concluding that Scott, as a person of African ancestry, was
not a citizen of the United States and therefore had no right to sue in federal
court. This holding was contrary to the practice of numerous states at the time,
particularly Free states, where free blacks did in fact enjoy the rights of
citizens, such as the right to vote and hold public office…The Court went
on to hold that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal
territories because slaves are personal property and the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution protects property owners against deprivation of their property
without due process of law.
In reaching this decision, Taney had
hoped to settle the growing controversy surrounding slavery in the United
States, but it had the opposite effect. The
decision was fiercely debated across the country, as perhaps best exemplified
by the Lincoln–Douglas debates of 1858. Abraham Lincoln, the second-ever
Republican nominee for President, was able to win the presidential election in
1860; the stopping of the further expansion of slavery was a key Republican Party
plank. The decision played an important
role in the timing of state secession and the Civil War, although it is extreme
to say the decision "caused" the war. The Dred Scott Decision is acknowledged for
the influential role it played in altering the national political landscape: the decision is credited with launching
Abraham Lincoln’s national political career and ultimately allowing for his
election.
3.
Comparative Analysis. It’s
ironical that for years so many of the political rightwing persuasion have
excoriated the liberal left and an activist Supreme Court for reinterpreting in
Orwellian fashion the sanctity and literal scripture of the Constitution. These Constitutional Conservatives are often
outraged by federal overreach along with the suppression of states’
rights. Yet now, many in this Strict
Constructionist camp want to use the Second Amendment to: a) prevent individual states from establishing
some limits upon the indiscriminate
purchase of military style weapons and b) disallow state jurisdiction for
regulating who can carry firearms in public.
Akin to the protection of chattel property provided by the Dred Scott
Decision, the NRA leadership and their weapons industry ilk want expansive
constitutional protections for firearm ownership and blood-soaked profit, no
matter the consequences to communal life and liberty.
C. Economic Incentives for Arms Sales and
Slavery
1) Contemporary Times. The NRA and its corporate partners have more
at stake in their fight for looser gun laws than the mere protection of a
constitutional right. With an estimated
$4 billion in annual sales, firearms are very big business…which means big
money is spreading its tentacles:
Through its lobbying and campaign efforts, the NRA is generous with its
largesse. In addition to its 4 million members – a sizable voting bloc – the
NRA also has a lot of money to offer friendly candidates. In the 2012 election cycle, it contributed
almost $19 million to political campaigns.
Ø
Critical economic and public safety note – the U.S. consumer firearms market
has undergone a seismic shift in recent decades, away from bolt-action hunting
rifles, shotguns, and revolvers, and toward military-style semi-automatics like
the M&P15, according to industry analysts.
In February 2006, Smith & Wesson, the storied gunmaker founded in
1851, unveiled its first-ever semi-automatic assault-style rifle. The company dubbed it the M&P15, for
"military and police," but the gun was very much aimed at the (general)
retail market.
Consumer response was
"overwhelming," Mike Golden, the former S & W CEO, told investors
in a conference call the following year. Sales of the M&P15 and other military-style
weapons were playing a crucial role in pulling the company out of a deep sales
slump, he said.
Ø
The
boom in assault weapons has more than
offset dropping sales of traditional firearms caused by a declining national interest in hunting, said Rommel Dionisio,
a securities analyst at Wedbush Morgan Securities who follows the gun industry. "That category of firearms has been a
primary growth engine and profit driver for firearms companies for the last
seven or eight years," Dionisio said.
Ø
However,
the profits are not limited to gun
manufacturers. Assault weapons have become big sellers for national retailers like
Walmart and Dick's Sporting Goods, Dionisio said. "You also have to
look at the retailers," he said. "Firearms have certainly been very
profitable for them." (Alas, along
with the profits there have been some losses:
For example, in July 2012, James Holmes, a disturbed 24-year-old
graduate student, was accused of opening fire in a movie theater in Aurora,
Colo., using an M&P15 fitted with a high-capacity magazine, killing 12 and
wounding 58. Holmes bought the gun at a
local sporting goods store two months earlier.)
It is easier now to buy firearms than
firecrackers: While 31 states place
limits on the types of fireworks that one may buy without a permit, only seven
require gun owners to register their arsenals.
Ø
Consider this frightfully closing
summation by Garen
Wintemute, a national expert on gun violence and public attitudes about guns as
well as an ER doctor at UC Davis Medical Center: "We've made policy decisions that have
had the impact of making the widest array of firearms available to the widest
array of people under the widest array of conditions."
a. Lethal Consequences. For gun-control advocates, the proliferation
of military-style weapons – and high-capacity ammunition clips that greatly
increase their lethality -- is directly responsible for the rising frequency of
high-casualty mass shootings. Semi-automatic
rifles like the M&P15 are modeled on 20th century battlefield weapons and
are designed to quickly spray high volumes of bullets, making them a weapon of
choice for mass shooters.
Ø
Another ignoble statistic, the number
of deaths caused by guns in America – whether from domestic or gang
violence, robberies, accidents, or suicides, in addition to mass killings – in three years, is expected to exceed the
number of traffic fatalities for the first time in modern U.S. history (“Gun
Deaths Will Exceed Traffic Fatalities By 2015, Study Says,” AOL Autos, Dec 19, 2012). The number of shooting deaths is expected to
rise to 32,929 in 2015, according to a 10-year average based on Centers for
Disease Control Data. By contrast, the
number of traffic deaths is expected to continue its fall and decline to 32,036
thanks to advances in safety technology.
2) Civil War Era. As noted in, “Slavery in the United States,” EH.Net Encyclopedia, by Jenny B. Wahl,
Carleton College, “Slavery is fundamentally an economic phenomenon. Throughout history, slavery has existed where
it has been economically worthwhile to those in power. The principal example in modern times is the
U.S. South.” Nearly 4 million slaves
with a market value of close to $4 billion lived in the U.S. just before the
Civil War. [Ed. note: Ironically, as cited above, the arms industry
today also generates about $4 billion in sales.]
“At the time of the American
Revolution, slavery was a national institution; although the number of slaves
was small, they lived and worked in every colony. Even before the Constitution was ratified,
however, states in the North were either abolishing slavery outright or passing
laws providing for gradual emancipation. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 barred slavery
from the new territories of that period, so rather quickly, slavery effectively
existed only in the South and became that region's “peculiar institution” (CliffsNotes, “Slavery, the Economy, and
Society”).
The image of the South as a place
where plantation adjoined plantation and the entire white population owned
slaves is a myth. Three quarters of the
southern whites owned no slaves at all, and among those that did, most owned
fewer than ten. Although the planter class, those individuals who
owned twenty or more slaves to work plantations of about a thousand acres, was
extremely small, it comprised the southern elite.
Slave owners enjoyed rates of return
on slaves comparable to those on other assets; cotton consumers, insurance
companies, and industrial enterprises benefited from slavery as well. Such valuable property required rules to
protect it, and the institutional practices surrounding slavery display a
sophistication that rivals modern-day law and business.
3.
Comparative Analysis. In January 1961, at his end-of-second-term
farewell address, President Eisenhower, a WW II war hero and quintessential
moderate Republican, warned the American people of the steadily growing,
corrosive influence on democratic institutions and processes by the
“Military-Industrial Complex.” On a
smaller (though far from small) scale, and still potentially cancerous to the
welfare and spirit of the country, is today’s “Military Style
Weapons-NRA-Industrial Complex.” This
axis, like many other lobbying groups on both sides of the political aisle, not
only buys and sells influence but will intimidate and ultimately target for
removal legislators who do not toe the gun party line.
Of course, as powerful as it is, the
NRA-weapons complex can’t truly compare or compete with the formation of the Confederate
States of America (CSA). (Still, following
the Obama election, I suspect significant numbers of gun alliance members were
among the tens of thousands who recently petitioned for their states’ secession
from the Union; and while the four year Civil War left six or seven hundred
thousand dead, during an equivalent span of time, in contemporary America, guns
only result in about one hundred and twenty thousand deaths.) Formed in April 1961, the CSA consisted of eleven
states that had seceded from the Union (seven originally in January after
Lincoln’s election; four more after the South’s attack on the federal garrison,
Ft. Sumpter, SC). However, fiery
determination to protect assets and insure financial profit, including all arms
and property rights (no matter the consequences), using the Constitution and
the Supreme Court as a bully weapon to override state jurisdiction and local discretion,
while also maintaining honor and a distinctive “way of life” are common
denominators of both past and present alliances and cultures.
And once again, such a national
schism, I believe has us engaged in a “colored” if not “off-colored” Civil War:
instead of Blue vs. Grey it’s “Blue
States vs. Red States; it’s reactionary “Teas” vs. radical “Commies.” Of course there is precedent. As Jeff Greenfield, noted author and ABC-TV
Political Commentator, observed the other night, throughout our nation’s
history there have been many watershed moments involving violence among
regional, demographic, or political adversaries. Invariably, crisis collisions ignite movement
and action affecting life, liberty, and legislation along with communal
security and status, starting with, of course, the American Revolution. The last fifty years have brought us such
legal-cultural movement-markers as the Vietnam War protests, Kennedy and King
Assassinations (the latter followed by urban rioting), the Civil Rights protest
and police riots at Selma Alabama and, over the years, other cities throughout
the country, street and police protests-riots at the Stonewall Tavern and the
1969 formation of the Gay Liberation Front, 9/11, and perhaps now, on the backs
of an ever-growing number of violent tragedies, Newtown, CT.
Closing
Summary – Lincoln’s Oration and God’s Intention
Will we find leaders with both the
brain and backbone to navigate between the political extremes – outlawing or
restricting almost all weapons other than handguns, sport shooting, and hunting
weapons vs. the ability to purchase any and all kinds of automatic weapons, as
well as to carry handguns wherever and whenever desired? Will we strike a healthier bio-psychosocial
equilibrium that recognizes constitutional freedom of expression and personal
pursuits while rationally monitoring indiscriminate availability, excessive
usage, and cultural worship of media violence, especially for those under
twenty-one, when an individual’s constitutional brain-body cells are still
rapidly developing? (Some believe the
Newtown shooters hours of video game playing helped him strategically prepare
for his assault.)
Is there a leader who can be guided by
the Constitution and recognize the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness, including the right to bear reasonable arms, but also
recognize when one group’s liberty and property rights are seriously
endangering large segments of society – both individually and collectively.
1. The Chosen Leader.
The leader that I will turn to for guidance, of course, is Abraham
Lincoln. During the Civil War, Lincoln
managed to anger both the Secessionists and the Abolitionists, because he took
steps within the bounds of the Constitution. For example, Lincoln did not initially
advocate the freeing of all slaves, but was determined to prevent the spread of
slavery to new territory. (Lincoln was
also aware that if he attempted to free all slaves prematurely, slave-holding
border steps would also likely secede, thereby jeopardizing the North’s
strategic chances for victory.) However,
when the timing was right, Lincoln declared slaves emancipated in the Slave
States but not in the Free States.
Belligerents in the South both detested and feared his proclamation;
(most African-Americans rejoiced); many in the North belittled his seemingly
hollow action – he had freed slaves in a region where he had no power, and refrained
from doing so in states where he did. Keeping
his eye on the prize, once again, employing the Constitution as guiding star,
and after the recent Union victory at Antietam, Lincoln strategically decided
that Presidential War Powers enabled him to take unprecedented action in
declaring “Emancipation” in the states with which the Union was at war. And, of course, as the recent movie depicts, shortly
after his second election Lincoln strategically moved and maneuvered the
Congress to pass the 14th Amendment abolishing slavery.
2. Lincoln’s Strengths.
Perhaps two of Lincoln’s greatest strengths were his capacity for
complex and nuanced thinking and a determination to stay the course of “right
makes might.” “Honest Abe” and “Father
Abraham” insisted that the battlefield slaughter continue to the only possible
conclusion for the sanctity of Union, the integrity of the nation’s founding
principles (a democratic government “of, by and for the people”) both at home
and in the eyes of the world, and the unalienable rightful free citizen status of
African-Americans.
In addition to prudence and
persistence, another uncommon strength was Lincoln’s profound humility,
especially when it came to understanding the inscrutable ways of
Providence. While Lincoln’s belief in
Natural Law, that all men are created equal in the eyes of the Lord was
unshakeable, he did not presume, to grasp definitively the ways of the Almighty. Most of the Civil War
adversaries, to quote Bob Dylan, loudly declared having “God on their
side.” But Lincoln’s intense and ongoing
pondering, led him to postulate that the horrific Civil War just might be the
Lord’s punishment on a nation that had allowed the institution of slavery to
long stain a nation’s moral fiber and soul.
3. The Second Inaugural – Pondering Providential
Purpose. On March 4, 1865, in his Second Inaugural
Address, Lincoln approached the mysterious ways of the Almighty and, in the
process, by oratorical and historical consensus, gave one of the most overwhelming pieces of political prose ever crafted in
any language. Consider his words and
ways:
Ø
Both
read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against
the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's
assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let
us judge not, that we be not judged. The
prayers of both could not be answered. That
of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses;
for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the
offense cometh." If we shall
suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence
of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed
time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this
terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern
therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a
living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly
do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily
pass away. Yet, if God wills that it
continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty
years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn
with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three
thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord
are true and righteous altogether."
With
malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God
gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to
bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle
and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a
just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Comparative
Analysis. What if, somewhat akin to the right to
own slaves,” one of the offenses is our enslaved mentality towards “weapons of
mass destruction” – less WMDs possessed by international terrorist groups and
more “homegrown” WMDs, that is, military style-rapid firing assault firearms, that
seem to possess a certain segment of Americans.
Might there be a need for some spiritual exorcism – as in a “ceremony
that seeks to expel an evil spirit from a person or place?” (The Free Dictionary). Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, recently pondered: "Is the need for sensible gun control a
religious issue?" His answer: "Indeed it is, for our
worship of guns is a form of idolatry."
(Adelle M. Banks, “Clergy Push Congress On Gun Control,” Religion News Service, Dec 22, 2012)
Putting this issue in a
psycho-religious context, I’m not sure you have to be a Freudian to ask the
following: Just as the definition of and repressed presence of slaves helped many
whites feel superior as individuals and as a race, might there be an illusory
and inflationary impact on an owner’s ego and sense of power from possession of
(and possession by) military style weapons?
(I suspect video game addicts have some of the same “possession”
issues.)
In addition to calls for changes in
laws – banning assault weapons, restricting ammunition sales and conducting
stricter background checks – some are also calling for changes of heart. "We need a conversion," said the
Rev. Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common
Good. "American evangelicals need to be born again on this issue."
On Friday, leaders of the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a "call for action" on gun
violence, telling lawmakers that "guns are too easily accessible" and
calling for parents and producers of violent entertainment to acknowledge its
negative effects.
Speaking outside the National
Cathedral in Washington, DC, retired Cardinal Theodore McCarrick said the
unified response of faith officials reflects a national sense that "we
can't take it anymore" after previous massacres in Colorado, Wisconsin and
Arizona. "I think the religious
leaders of our country have often said after these things we've got to do
something, but now there have been too many of them," he said. "We
have reached a moment that we cannot wait anymore."
I shall give the Honorable Mr. Lincoln
the last word – helping us unite the spirit of two small towns – Gettysburg and
Newtown – in this Nation’s quest for a more perfect Union:
Ø
Four
score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new
nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are
created equal.
Now
we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation
so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that
war. We have come to dedicate a portion
of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives
that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should
do this.
But,
in a larger sense, we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not
hallow – this ground. The brave men,
living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor
power to add or detract. The world will
little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what
they did here. It is for us the living,
rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here
have thus far so nobly advanced. It is
rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that
from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they
gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these
dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a
new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for
the people, shall not perish from the earth.
With Lincoln’s reflective wisdom in
mind, when communication-entertainment systems too often reflecting and shaping
a culture of violence, awash in brutal and bloody media and military style
weapons, continue to rain down upon the heads and hearts of Americans,
triggering repeated and repeated executions, both public and private, both real
and virtual, perhaps there is a Providential price to pay until getting a
divided and destructive house in order. Let
us fervently hope, pray, and work for a speedy passage.
Amen and women to that!
Mark Gorkin, MSW, LICSW, "The
Stress Doc" ™, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, is an
acclaimed keynote, kickoff and webinar speaker as well as "Motivational
Humorist & Team Communication Catalyst" known for his interactive,
inspiring, and FUN programs for both government agencies and major
corporations. In addition, the
"Doc" is a Team Building and Organizational Development Consultant as
well as a Critical Incident/Grief Intervention Expert for Business Health
Services, a National EAP/Wellness/OD Company.
He is providing "Stress and Communication,” as well as “Managing
Change, Leadership and Team Building" programs for a variety of units at
Ft. Hood, Texas and for Army Community Services and Family Advocacy Programs at
Ft. Meade, MD and Ft. Belvoir, VA as well as Andrews Air Force Base/Behavioral
Medicine Services.
A
former Stress and Violence Prevention Consultant for the US Postal Service, the
Doc is the author of Practice Safe Stress and of The Four Faces of Anger. The Stress Doc blog appears in such platforms
as HR.com, WorkforceWeek.com, and MentalHelpNet. His award-winning, USA Today Online "HotSite" – www.stressdoc.com – was
called a "workplace resource" by National Public Radio (NPR). For more info on the Doc's "Practice
Safe Stress" programs or to receive his free e-newsletter, email stressdoc@aol.com or call
301-875-2567.
