Oh, look, holy PSH!
Rev. Jim Freeman is interim pastor of the Central Presbyterian Church of Pine Bluff. House Bill 1237, which is before the Arkansas legislature, would remove churches and other places of worship from the list of prohibited places for a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Congregations wishing to opt out would have to post a notice in plain sight. Proponents of the bill point to cases in recent years where worshippers have been attacked or killed while on the grounds of a church or synagogue. Nonetheless, this act feels to me more like an attempt to expand the rights of gun owners than to protect those attending worship.
Rev. Jim Freeman is interim pastor of the Central Presbyterian Church of Pine Bluff.
House Bill 1237, which is before the Arkansas legislature, would remove churches and other places of worship from the list of prohibited places for a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Congregations wishing to opt out would have to post a notice in plain sight.
Proponents of the bill point to cases in recent years where worshippers have been attacked or killed while on the grounds of a church or synagogue. Nonetheless, this act feels to me more like an attempt to expand the rights of gun owners than to protect those attending worship.
Notice how to the good reverend, it's all about how it feels. I understand that religion isn't exactly something you base off of hard evidence but that doesn't mean you have to apply the same methodology to everything else (disclaimer - I'm a Jesus lover myself).
This bill doesn't 'expand' the rights of just one group of people. All people are covered. It's not like being a gun owner has anything to do with your skin color or heritage.
If the safety of those attending worship is the real issue, then uniformed security personnel — armed or not — would be a far greater deterrent to violence than the possibility that someone with a permit to carry a concealed weapon might actually have done so at any given service of worship.
Jim may cower in obeisance to anyone in a uniform, but alas most crazies who shoot up churches aren't dissuaded by the concept of death. Most of them seem rather to embrace it instead.
In reality, this is the beginnings of the unraveling of Jim's argument. If a church is no place for weapons, it matters not one whit if the carrier has a shiny badge or not. Instead, you start to see that Jim's argument is that ordinary people have no reason to carry guns at all. He just couches it in a religious perspective to hide that little fact.
Further, if there were to be an incident inside a place of worship, what would someone with a concealed weapon do? A confrontation between armed individuals could put bystanders at far greater risk.
Magical barriers again. What makes the walls of the church (the physical ones constructed out of drywall, nails, and brick) any different than any other building? Because this simply is not the case anywhere else. Where are all the shootouts with civilians getting massacred by the gun-totin' cowboy-wannbe? If civilians were in so much danger of getting shot by people with CCWs, then there should be mountains of stories showing this to be the case.
In fact, more innocent people are shot by those people in uniform Jim puts so much faith in.
The historic significance of “sanctuary” notwithstanding, the church as a community of faith is not guaranteed greater protection from the world than any other entity. In fact Christians worship a God who, in the person of Jesus Christ, died a horrific death for the sake of the world.
OK, good, you understand that there is no magical difference between your church and the outside world. I'm a firm believer that God protects our souls, and that the rest is up to us.
For this reason Christians are called to live lives of greater vulnerability to the world, not greater safety from it. As long as anyone is at risk from gun violence — students, teachers, doctors, law enforcement officials, elected leaders, cultural or ethnic minorities — the church has a share in that risk and an obligation to demonstrate the resolve for love over violence.
...
What the fu... Huh?
So, since others are at risk for STDs, the church should promote promiscuity? Because others are at risk of malnourishment, the potluck dinner is canceled for Tuesday? Because someone is at risk of infection, the church shouldn't wash its hands?
Or does that risk only involve firearms? Don't answer that, I'm pretty sure I know your response.
I am not insensitive to the danger.
No, but you're pretty ignorant of its cause and the best way to protect against it.
But it concerns me that the bill under consideration would fundamentally alter one normative aspect of the relationship between churches and the state.
You mean the fact that you get special treatment from the State? You know, the one you need to be separate from in order to protect yourself?
Your church is no different than Geoff's Second Hand Store and Yiddish Bakery across the street. If I'm allowed to carry there, I'm allowed to carry in your building. If you seek laws to prevent that, that's not very separate, now is it?
Already those for whom it is legal to carry a firearm in plain sight may do so on church grounds. Now the state would create the assumption that legally possessed firearms may be carried onto any and all religious property at any time unless otherwise stated. That is not a decision the state should make. Churches should be assumed as off-limits to concealed weapons, not the other way around.
Yes and no. If you wish to ask your members to not come in armed, I would respect that (and find another church). But to ask the state to make an exception for you specifically is not the way to do that.
Jim, I carry to church every time I go. And if someone ever does decide to go nuts when I'm there, people will hit the floor praying for safety. I'll be the answer to that prayer.
A flock is nothing without a shepherd and a sheepdog but lunch for the wolves. If you care so little about your congregation that you would throw them to the wolves, I for one question your commitment to them.
For this reason Christians are called to live lives of greater vulnerability to the world, not greater safety from it.