Saturday, August 16, 2003
Everyday on my commute to and from work on 302, I am forced by geography to pass the Gunsmith's of Maine gunshop. The very fact that this place exists on the same planet as me is offensive enough. But the part that really gets me is that the owner of this shop is a card carrying Dittohead. How do I know, you ask? Am I a secret ammo fancier, you ask? uuummm...no. Actually this nutjob is the place where my dedication to Freedom of Speech runs head on into my sense of morality. He has a big sign out in front of his shop right by the road. One of those signs that you can take letters and spell things out. And instead of putting up his Lethal Weapon Special of the Week on this sign he puts up the Rushism of the week. I know. Just don't read it. Just ignore it. Just pretend it isn't even there. I don't know why I can't. It just puts me in a foul mood for the rest of the drive in to work. I harbor shameful fantasies of setting off a roman candle in the place and watching the fireworks that ensue.
Which brings me to the reason I am writing about this. There have been maybe 3 times in the 5 years I have driven past this sign where I have actually said, much to my chagrin, ok, I can see where he is coming from on that. Well this week, I didn't quite get that far but it did make me think. The big sign said "According to liberals, defending yourself promotes violence". I didn't really know what to do with that one for a while. In fact, I'm still not quite sure. I have a lot of meditating to do. Now for some of my fellow pacifists, this may be one of those no brainers. But I was raised by a violent, redneck bigot. There is still a little voice in the back of my head that says if someone is beating the crap out of you, you have every right to beat him back. If someone is raping and murdering your kid, you wouldn't think twice about killing that guy.
When I used to work with mentally ill adults and young adults they made us go through Mandt training. Which is supposed to be "Passive Restraint". It has 4 levels of "methods of redirection" from verbal to physical. You're supposed to start with verbal de-escalation and then you move through getting inside their "space" to physically restraining them. We were supposed to only use the physical restraint as a last resort if they were physically harming themselves or others. There is another school of thought in the mental health field that stems from a quote by Maslow "If your only tool is a hammer, you see every problem as a nail." In other words, if all you know how to do is restraint, passive or otherwise, you won't try to look for other methods of dealing with a situation. Now Ghandi and King were both proponents of "Passive Resistance". I wasn't around for either of those movements. But I can imagine that mothers watched their children beaten or killed and cried in anguish but stayed strong because there was a cause involved. Something that they knew was more important than the single lives they had brought into the world, however precious that life was to them. They had a tangible goal they were working toward. A prize to keep their eyes on, so to speak.
But is pacifism a goal in and of itself? Is it something worth sacrificing your children for? When it comes to war I can say unequivocally yes! War is never an answer to anything. Killing is wrong, all life is precious. Also for capital punishment. Absolutely it's wrong. Killing is wrong, all life is precious. And I can say that if someone was beating the crap out of me, I certainly wouldn't be thinking of anything but trying to get away or getting him to stop. Would I use passive restraint? Yes, because you can't talk to someone when they are in a frenzy of beating on you. But in the case of me walking into my kids room and seeing some guy raping and murdering them, can I say I wouldn't put a Louisville Slugger up side his head? Or take a kitchen knife to his hamstring? Goddess I wish I could say I wouldn't but I just don't know.
Which brings us back to the sign. Does defending yourself promote violence? The short answer would probably be yes. You're only using the hammer instead of looking at the problem as something other than a nail. I hope I am raising my kids to not have these little voices in the back of their heads. I hope they will be able to look at these things without having the violent, redneck, bigot filter applied to them. I have a long way to go before I can be the kind of person that pacifism comes easily to in all situations. But I'm working on it.
posted by Kimber
at 3:49 PM ::
~#~
Monday, August 11, 2003
Speaking of the Separation of Church and State...my friend the Jehovah's Witness forwarded me an email from the sole conservative in our organization of bleeding heart liberals that took me quite aback.
I had never heard of the phrase "Radical Separationism" and was amazed that such a thing existed. Let's start with the beginning:
BreakPoint with Charles Colson
Commentary #030708 - 7/8/2003
Historic Preservation: The 'Wall of Separation'
***
Radical separationism starts with the basics of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause -- that there is to be no official government church in the United States -- but then takes it a long step further: Government must not help religion at all, even remotely.Wouldn't that be the ideal? Wouldn't that ensure that no church/religion ever
became the state religion?
Radical separationists see themselves as heirs of Thomas Jefferson. During his presidency, Jefferson wrote a letter to a Baptist group in Danbury, Connecticut, in which he described the First Amendment as having set up a "wall of separation" between church and state.
That is the origin of the "wall of separation" metaphor: not the Constitution, or any of its amendments; not the Declaration of Independence -- just a letter from a president to the Danbury Baptists. He wrote the letter to assure them that the federal government could not set up a state church and thereby disenfranchise those, like Baptists, who would be unwilling to join that state church. This had been the history of Baptists in England, and they were concerned. The president's letter put their minds at ease by assuring them that, as religious believers, they had a place in the public square that could not be taken away from them.
Regrettably, the Supreme Court took up the "wall" metaphor and misapplied it. Thus the phrase that Jefferson used to reassure religious people became the instrument of radical separationism But...again, isn't this a good thing? Doesn't this ensure that
all religions are given their individual freedom from state interference?
However, the Court has since retreated to a more equality-based view: When the government is administering a generally available aid program, religious applicants for that aid must be treated the same as secular applicants. Discrimination against the religious applicants is not a "separation of church and state" in keeping with the First Amendment; it's anti-religious bias, a violation of the First Amendment.This is the part that burns my butt. These people want to have it both ways!!! They don't want the government mucking about in their religion or their religious practices, but yet the feel that if they don't get special treatment as a group, they are being discriminated against!!
You need to pick one, people!!! You can't take government money and then turn around and refuse government regulation!!! If you are going to take government money, you need to follow the non-discrimination laws of your state. You need to hire atheists and pagans! You need to give housing and insurance to gays!!! You need to refrain from giving sermons to applicants for services!!!
It just seriously makes me want to scream that they are running around saying that they are being persecuted becuase they can't say prayers over a loudspeaker and put copies of the 10 commandments in the hallways in public schools but try and put up a copy of the Wiccan rede in a church-run community center and see how far you get!!! And they would be right because it's a PRIVATELY RUN community center. But if they start taking government money do you think they are going to start letting folks put up Shiva idols all over the place? Or Buddhist shrines??? Or have an Islamic prayer room?? Goddess no!!! And is that right!?!?!?! HELL NO!!!!! But will the government allow that sort of state sanctioned discrimination!?!? If we don't get rid of the one we have now then the answer will be yes! They will!!
Think about it.
posted by Kimber
at 12:12 PM ::
~#~
