Quick Question

For any one problem we face in our world there are a variety of solutions that are suggested. One very real problem in our society is crime, more specifically violent crime. As I stated in my post entitled The Second Amendment: Ensuring Freedom  it is not beyond my realm of understanding when people connect violent crime with firearms. Someone shooting another person doesn't leave us much of an alternative. Either it was firearm related or it wasn't...end of story. The solution to said problem, from gun control advocates and the media, is usually that we should get firearms out of the hands of criminal. Now, I'd like to say for the record that I agree wholeheartedly with that notion. If we could find a way to give the honest citizen an upper hand on the criminals then that would be GREAT! Now for the question, how do you suggest we disarm the criminals without disarming the honest law abiding citizenry? Yes ma'am, you had your hand raised. Do you have an idea?

"I sure do. What if we had strict regulations defining what types of firearms are legal for the average citizen?"

Well, that is an interesting idea. In fact, it is an idea that our legislators had several years ago and we do have strict regulations regarding types of firearms that citizens are allowed to own. For instance, unless we are actively in the military we are not allowed to have fully automatic firearms. Even in the military those are kept under lock and key unless they are needed. Furthermore, we only recently came out from under a restriction on the capacity of magazine that we could have for our firearms, and of course this can vary from state to state. Does anyone else have an idea. Yes sir, go ahead.

"What if we just outlawed all firearms that are not used for hunting. You know, like hunting rifles and shotguns."

Okay, sir, that is another plausible idea. Let me answer your question by asking you one. Are hunting rifles any less dangerous than any other kind of weapon?

"No, of course not. Okay, then how about we outlaw handguns and stop allowing paranoid gun nuts to carry concealed."

Fair enough. I suppose if we did some research we would find that the majority of crimes are committed with handguns. So it seems reasonable to go ahead and outlaw those. What about the Second Amendment?

"Awwww, you know that was meant to protect our ability to have a national guard. Duh."

So you're saying that we should leave the gun handling to trained professionals. By the way, even the National Guard doesn't get to take their weapons home with them. Just like the regular military they are kept under lock and key. Furthermore, unless they are going to the range most Guard armories don't even have ammunition. Okay, let me ask you this; is there always a law enforcement officer around when you need one? Are they able to stop 100% of the violent crime because they are ever present? Does a police officer live in your house and follow you around wherever you go?

"Well no. I don't guess they can."

Would you like to live in a police state?

"No." 

Alright, now its my turn to ask some questions. What makes a criminal a criminal? Is it that they have guns?

"No, a person is a criminal if they break the law."

Very good, breaking the law is, and should be, what defines someone as a criminal. Now, if someone is willing to break the law by robbing a store, breaking into your house, raping a woman, or dealing drugs don't you think they would be willing to break the law and get a gun? Furthermore, if gun ownership does not define criminality don't you think they could find some other weapon to use for their purposes. Let me say it this way, are guns the only dangerous things? Did the hijackers of 9/11 have guns? Did they use guns, or even bombs to carry out their criminal acts? Maybe we should outlaw airplanes.

"That's ridiculous! What are you getting at anyway? Are you saying everyone should have a gun? This isn't the wild west RV. That would be an uncivilized and chaotic society."

Would it be? Let's just think about that for a moment. I know that if I have in my mind that I'm going to go pull a gun in Walmart in order to get what I want but I realize that a high percentage of the other patrons are armed, I know my chances of getting out of their uninjured or alive are mighty slim. I absolutely agree that known criminals should have an exceedingly hard time getting firearms because we have a pretty good idea what their going to do with them. The fact of the matter is that if someone wants a gun they are going to get one whether or not it is through the legal channels.

"Fine then, let's just collect all the guns and toss them into the ocean. Then no one will have any."

Well, that's one solution but there are several problems with it. First of all, that's going to cost a lot of money. Secondly, how are you going to know you got them all. If someone purchased a gun illegally then there isn't going to be any paper trail to let the authorities know they have it. Then, once 90% of the guns are gone they will know that the chances of success for their criminal activity have just gone through the roof. You can mark my words, if you tried something like that violent gun crime would skyrocket. You will have just let the wolves in with the sheep and removed the shepherd's staff and sling. Finally, why are you going to punish the millions of law abiding gun owners and sportsmen that use their firearms for perfectly legal and just things like hunting, self defense, sport shooting and collecting?

"RV, asking some people to give up their freedom for the protection of society is perfectly fine with me."

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Did you say "Heil Hitler"?

RV

Altruism, Ayn Rand and Christianity.

Photo courtesy of eddie60

One of the more controversial authors in our time has been Ayn Rand, in particular her book Atlas Shrugged. To call her work "conservative" would almost be an understatement. In fact, it may be closer to libertarian but in the end I'm not sure any particular label would fit. No matter what you call it, it is clear that the world that Rand pictures in Atlas Shrugged is strikingly similar to the one in which we find ourselves today. Government had grabbed far more power than it was given in the Constitution and personal achievement and success were demonized.

To be sure, Rand intended this book to be an opus of her philosophy and how it fit into American society and the free-market system. One of the ideas that caused so many ruffled feathers at the time, and still today, was that of the virtue of selfishness. My understanding of this idea is that it is good and right for you to want to live life on your own terms and enjoy success and achievement that allows you to live that life. One could almost sum this up in the phrase from the Declaration of Independence, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." As a side-note I have no doubt that Ayn Rand was patriotic and loved the United States. In fact, her ideas were very closely aligned with those of the Founding Fathers.It was this love for freedom and her country that led her to write such a volatile warning of what could happen if we are not careful.

Lest I get bogged down in other matters I need to move on so that the main point of this post will be addressed.

One of the root problems that Ayn Rand saw in our collective philosophy was the notion of "altruism." This could be understood to mean that other people are more important than I am and, thus, I am willing to sacrifice my own well-being on their behalf. This is seen in the act of a soldier falling on a grenade in order to save his comrades. It is also seen in giving sacrificially so that others who are suffering may have what they need. To Rand this conflicted with her philosophy of selfishness because it hindered you, the productive and creative member of society, from reaching your full potential for success and achievement.

Herein lies the problem. As a committed Christian I am convinced that altruism is a virtue. In John 15:13 Jesus tells us that there is no greater love that laying one's life down for his friends. We are commanded to take care of those who are marginalized by society or cannot otherwise take care of themselves. On the other hand as a constitutional patriot I firmly believe in the ideals of freedom, liberty and the individual's right to pursue their own destiny. So for that part, I am a fan of Rand's political philosophy. The question then is this, "Can Ayn Rand's philosophy cooperate with the Biblical Christian worldview?"Personally, I believe the answer is "Yes," and that is the position I want to defend in this post.

It is no secret that Ayn Rand was NOT a Christian. In fact, if my understanding is correct, she was an avowed atheist. This in and of itself would appear to pose a significant problem to Christians. However, I believe the truth is quite the opposite and here is why:

1) All truth is God's truth. Truth is not something that is relative, a moving target, or completely out of the reach of humanity. If something is true, then it is true for all people, for all time, everywhere. Furthermore, truth relates to the way things actually are. This is called "Correspondence Theory." That is, if I say something is true then it must correspond with the way things actually are. God, as a result of who He is, knows all truth and according to His Son Jesus, He is the Truth. Therefore, it does not matter what type of person discovers a particular truth, if it is true, then God agrees. This opens the door for Christians to glean truth from multiple sources like Greek philosophy, etc. Of course, the ultimate source of truth for humanity is found in the Bible and any so-called truth that contradicts what is revealed in the Bible is not truth. However, truth that is found outside of the Bible that corresponds with, or is not contradicted by, the Bible is fair game. For our purposes here, if Ayn Rand proclaims a truth it doesn't matter if she doesn't believe in God, it is still truth.

2) Altruism itself is not the problem. Because Ayn Rand was a promoter of freedom and liberty I have a hard time believing that she would fault anyone for giving or sacrificing by their own freewill. The problem is that because it is a commonly held virtue, it has now become a nationally mandated virtue. Here is where we really run into problems on the governmental level. The reasoning runs something like this: It is right and good to give and sacrifice for those who are less fortunate (altruism). You have achieved success and prosperity unlike many others. Therefore, since you will not give of your own freewill to help others we will take it from you because you are greedy and selfish. Then we will distribute it as we see fit. In Rand's mind the virtue of altruism had led to governmental thievery and quenching of personal achievement. This is where I see my Christians convictions and the political philosophy of Ayn Rand coinciding. I too believe that mandated altruism is wrong. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is not altruism at all. The Bible is clear that God wants us to give out of a heart of love for him and for other people, and to do so cheerfully; not out of obligation. The virtue of altruism is no virtue at all if it is no longer voluntary but forced. John Wesley has given us a great model that I think speaks to this subject. In paraphrase, he said that we should make all we can, save all we can, so that we can give all we can. The message of the virtue of selfishness is not that people should not help other people. In that case it would be categorically wrong. The message is that people should be allowed the freedom to pursue life as they see fit, to achieve personal success and then do as they see fit to help other people without the interference of the government.

With all of that being said, I do believe that the political philosophy of Ayn Rand coincides well with the Biblical Christian worldview. While I do not agree with everything that Rand stood for I do believe she stood for the same principles that our country was founded upon. She promoted freedom to be creative, freedom to succeed, freedom to believe what we want to believe and freedom to live our lives according to our desires and convictions.

RV

"Conservative Vision" by Dan Jarvis

Please take a look at this link and download and read this short paper by Dan Jarvis. It is as clear and concise as one could possibly make it.

http://danjarvis.us/?p=46

RV

Oath of Allegiance

Photo courtesy of somadjinn

Throughout our lives we often find ourselves swearing allegiance to one thing or another. For instance, when I was in elementary school we said the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. If, by chance, we are called to jury duty we are made to take an oath of honesty that is often said with the Bible as witness. For those of us who have served, and are serving, in the US military we take an oath of enlistment. The example which follows is for the National Guard but the only difference is the inclusion of the state and governor. 

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

The Naturalization oath that some makes when becoming a US citizen is strikingly similar;

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

Do you notice something unique about these oaths? To help you out let me show you the Oath of Allegiance from the British military;

I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me. So help me God.

Do you see it now? We, in America, swear allegiance, not to a person but to an idea laid out over 200 years ago on a piece of paper. Yes, we are to obey the orders given to us by our superiors and the president but only as far as they conform to the law, the Constitution. The number one thing that we are to defend in this nation is the Constitution. Why? Because it contains everything this country stands for and it outlasts any particular elected official. It secures for us the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

Notice too that we are to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. We can see this idea even as far back as September of 1776 when this oath was approved for the armed forces;

I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them.

"All enemies opposers whatsoever." Why put this in the oath? Surely there would be few, if any domestic enemies. I believe the Continental Congress understood that those who oppose the ideals of liberty and freedom were not limited to outside forces. The same is true today. There are plenty of people within these United States that stand against everything our country was founded upon and everything that has made it great. 

So what do we do? First and foremost, I do not believe that I have been relieved of my oath. No where in that statement is it understood that I will stop defending the Constitution and our country when my enlistment ran out. Furthermore, I have not released myself from the oath. I still love my country as much as the day I signed up for the National Guard. Therefore, I believe the following actions are consistent with the oath and my Christian convictions.

1) Vote: This is the easiest and most readily available form of opposition to those who are enemies of the Constitution. It is my right as an American citizen and squandering it would be tantamount to surrendering in war. The founders of our country put this right in place to provide the citizens with a peaceful and fair way to ensure our liberty. One of the great testimonies to our form of government is the peaceful transfer of power for over two centuries, always because of a vote.

2) Petition: The 1st Amendment insures many things, one of which is our right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Our government is not above the law, the people or fault. If we sense an issue needs to be addressed then we have the freedom to bring that to the attention of our elected officials. Along with the petitions to representatives we are allowed the freedom to petition with our presence, in a peaceful manner, through assemblies and marches. This is a visible "show of force" that can be seen by the government and the media. Finally, and again thanks to the 1st amendment, we are free to petition our God for the healing of our land. 

3) Speak: Again, the 1st Amendment comes to our rescue on this subject. Praise God that in our nation we are free to express our views and opinions without fear of imprisonment or persecution from the government. We can share our views in the public forum with relative liberty, whether it is through speeches, videos, blogs, books or other forms of communication. 

4) Resist: Please do not misunderstand me on this point. Resistance is the last and most extreme form of defending the Constitution. Every effort must be made to find peaceful solutions to our grievances. There is no excuse or justification for jumping to this point. However, my allegiance is first to my Lord and King Jesus Christ and secondly to the Constitution of the United States of America. I have never, and will never, swear allegiance to any one person outside of Christ and the vows I have made to my wife. The result of that would only be tyranny and that is something God and our nation strongly oppose. As Americans our rights are delineated in the Constitution and most of those rights come directly from the Author of all rights, God Himself. These cannot be usurped or denied by any earthly entity. The Declaration of Independence sums up this idea far better than I ever could;

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

Notice, though, that this powerful statement at the heart of the Declaration is preceded by this equally important statement;

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 

Again, resistance is the last of all courses of action but it is one that our nation was founded upon. 

My goal is not, and never will be, to sabotage our nation. I love these United States and freedom that it has afforded to so many throughout the years. Despite our problems I still believe we are the greatest nation the world has ever seen. However, this greatness is at risk and we have strayed far from the ideals and principles that made us that way. My call is not to rewrite the Charters of Freedom, but to return to them so that we can enjoy future security, prosperity and freedom.

RV 

The Second Amendment: Ensuring Freedom

Photo courtesy of jaz1111

Most of us are aware that in addition to the Constitution there is something called the Bill of Rights. These amendments to the Constitution were added because of some concern that the federal government might overstep the bounds of their authority and our nation would, once again, live under tyranny of the few. The Bill of Rights, as I understand it, was written to ensure certain liberties for the individual and the states. At this point in the game centralized government was limited while the states still retained a great degree of authority. Sadly, the 10th amendment seems to have faded along with the ink with which it was written. The federal government now holds nearly absolute power to trump any state law that is deemed, by way of constitutional review, to be "unconstitutional." As our ideology shifts from liberty and freedom to control and authoritarianism we have seen the legislative, judicial and executive branches of the government grasp more and more power. In part, I believe this was part of the reason that the southern states broke from the Union during the Civil War (Of course, slavery was a major issue but lets be honest there were other reasons too.) 

One of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights is the citizen's right to bear arms. It should not be news to anyone that this right has come under heavy fire in the past few decades, and sometimes not without reason. To the average person it looks an awful lot like there is a connection between violent crime and firearms. Therefore, it would seem like the logical thing to do would be to eliminate firearms. Let me say, I am not angry with people who believe this way, I just think it is a misguided solution to a serious problem. 

Currently, many people try to reinterpret the second amendment to say that it was meant to allow for a National Guard of sorts. For those unfamiliar, the National Guard is the military force under the direct control of the individual states. These are part-time soldiers and airmen who serve "one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer." Now, I can tell you from first hand experience that the federal government can, and does, use the National Guard for its purposes. Again, I have absolutely no problem with this. If it were not for the National Guard we may not have had the manpower to engage in both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

However, there is a problem. The National Guard of today bears little to no resemblance to the militia that fought the Revolutionary War. These were men who went about their daily lives and business until the need arose for fighting men, citizen soldiers, to defend their land and communities. At that point they would gather their own arms and gear, go fight and then return home as the situation allowed. One of the greatest problems that faced the British, and has kept enemies at bay for years, is the fact that everyone was armed in America. It is one thing to engage and defeat a standing army, it is something completely different to defeat an entire nation of armed citizens. We have seen the truth of that in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There is certainly no formal army in either theater but there is an armed insurgency that has proven very difficult to defeat. 

With all of that being said, it is clear that the right to bear arms has great importance when it comes to national security. In effect, it is a very real deterrent to those unfriendly nations who would like to do us harm.  The last war we fought on our own soil was 150 years ago and it was between ourselves! 

The second important part of the 2nd Amendment has to do with protection from tyranny. The Founding Fathers knew all too well what it was like to live under tyranny and fight for freedom. Without freedom of arms it would have been like shooting fish in a barrel for the British during the revolution. This amendment is one of the most daring checks established by our founders. It is a built-in check against the government they were establishing to help keep that government from violating the freedom of the citizens. The last thing they wanted was for their government to overstep its bounds like the one they just fought for freedom against. Thus far, it has worked fairly well.

The third aspect of the 2nd Amendment is that it ensures the individual's right to self-protection. I am in no way a promoter of senseless violence, but rest assured that if violence is brought to my family and those I care about I will exercise my God-given right of defense. Just as an armed citizenry has kept foreign invaders at bay it also keeps would-be evil doers at bay. The bottom line truth is that criminals that will break the law and commit violent crimes will also break the law and find illegal sources for firearms. Furthermore, guns are not the source of criminal activity, evil hearts are. Crime has been alive and well since the beginning of time. Brutus didn't kill Cesar with a pistol, he stabbed him with a knife and Cain didn't have an assault rifle when he killed Abel. Firearms may make violence easier and more impersonal but disarming the good people only gives the criminals an advantage. 

The Swiss give us an interesting example of exactly what I'm talking about. They are required to train with the military and once their training and service is complete they are required to take their military firearm home with them to keep. "Crazy, right-wing gun toters" you say, peaceful country with almost no violent crime says I. Check out this interesting article for more on the issue. Machiavelli said it in 1532, "The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom."

I believe that the 2nd Amendment is one of, if not the, most important freedoms our Founding Fathers insured for us because it protects the rest. Properly understood and carried out it helps ensure our freedom from foreign invaders, it protects us from the tyranny of our own government, and it protects our families and communities from evil doers.

RV

Opening Volley

This is not my first foray into the blogosphere. However, instead of trying to fit my posts into a certain category or genre I am now going to simply post what I want to post. This is, of course, is what blogging is supposed to be about.

Let me start by telling you a little bit about myself. First of all, you can call me RV and I am a Christian. There are many other things that I may be called and many other ways I might identify myself but Christian trumps them all. This is, in the truest sense, who I am. Beyond that I am a pastor. A pastor Southern Baptist pastor if you must know. However, my allegiance lies with Jesus Christ over and above any denominational label or doctrine. Thus, I may stray from the typical Southern Baptist (Great Commission Baptist now) line from time to time but my theology does line up best with the Convention. I love being a pastor for several reasons: 1) I was called to do it by the Lord, 2) I love preaching more than just about anything else in the world and 3) I love people and God's Church. While my emotions and passion may get the best of me sometimes as I write, I do pray that in the end God is honored by what I do here.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly than my role as a pastor, I am a husband to the most wonderful wife in the world. She is my sweetheart and I am ever grateful that the Lord brought us together. We are like two separate pieces of a puzzle but we fit together in a way that only God could design.

Beyond these things I do consider myself and American patriot. I served my country for 6 1/2 years in the NC Army National Guard and spent one of those years in Iraq. Just so there is no misunderstanding later on, I was not in the Special Forces, infantry, a helicopter pilot, or anything else like that. I was a heavy wheeled vehicle mechanic in a transportation company whose mission was to "transport heavy equipment across the battlefield," and that we did. Some guys like to make a big deal about their exploits in the military and, essentially, tell "fish stories" about what all they did. I vow never to do that. What happened, happened and I did what I did. I know, God knows, and my comrades know. What some arm-chair Ranger thinks about me is of very little importance.

That being said, I love my country, "these United States." I believe in the principles set forth in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. I believe we have strayed dangerously from those founding principles and we have paid, and are going to pay, the price for it. Our freedom is eroding at a rapid pace and I fear what it will take to bring us back, but I do believe we can return to a greatness that may even surpass the greatness we have seen in the past.

While I can't say for certain what all this blog will contain I envision that topics such as politics and religion, will find their way into my writings. As the blog description indicates, I see this as a kind of miscellaneous bin for my writing so who knows where it will take us. I am open-minded enough to welcome discussion but will not tolerate hatred, foul language or down-right orneriness so comments will be posted at my discretion. If you don't like it then either don't read it, or start your own blog...this one is mine :-).

RV