Sharp as a Marble - As it should be

<< You don't ask a lawyer to fix your feed ramp issues on your 1911 | Home | I command my vast minions >>

As it should be

Gun Rights , Views

Louisiana Catholic churches won’t allow guns

Concealed handguns will continue to be banned in Catholic churches despite a new state law that allows them, officials said Monday.

The decision was made by Louisiana’s Catholic bishops.

“We don’t think it is appropriate to have guns in churches,” said Danny Loar, executive director of the Louisiana Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Unfortunately, the NRA headlines this as Louisiana: Catholic churches will not respect Right-to-Carry. I could just as easily say "The NRA will not respect private property" with what they insinuate.

If my church were to explicitly ban firearms, I'd stop going. I don't personally believe God requires me to be in a particular sanctuary, and there's plenty more around here who'd appreciate my placing envelopes into their offering plate.

I believe they should have the right to make that choice as well as deal with its repercussions.

And while I believe they have every right to deny people with guns / tattoos / lisps / ingrown toenails from entering their buildings, I have every right to mock them for their stupidity. You are NOT safe in a church. God does not put down a barrier that prevents violence from crossing the narthex. And a parishioner with a gun on his hip is not a danger to the congregation unless he is there to cause mayhem in which case the No Guns rule isn't going to stop him.

I understand the desire to practice peace in God's house, but that only applies to people who believe in God, and to a point, your particular flavor of God. A gun, in and of itself, does not bring violence into a house of worship, and it's sad that even men of the cloth cannot see that.

posted @ 7/20/2010 10:59:34 AM

Incoming Links

Twitter Trackbacks for Sharp as a Marble - As it should be [robballen.com] on Topsy.com on 7/21/2010 1:19:10 AM

SayUncle » Property Rights on 7/21/2010 9:41:13 AM

Guns and Catholics « Stuff From Hsoi on 7/21/2010 10:07:35 AM

Louisiana Catholics must be disarmed to take communnion. on 7/21/2010 12:03:59 PM

Comments

Wolfwood says:

on 7/20/2010 11:38:44 AM

It would be interesting to find out what the penalty is. Some states effectively give you a free bite at the apple and say that all that can be done at first is that you be required to leave. Subsequent violations would be considered trespassing at worst.

M Gallo says:

on 7/20/2010 11:41:11 AM

It sickens me that these evil men are allowed to call themselves Catholic, much less clergy.

mike w. says:

on 7/20/2010 11:44:37 AM

I'm a firm believer in saying "carry on" so long as you're not breaking the law.

Concealed means concealed and no ones' going to notice an airweight j-frame in your pocket at church.

I routinely carry a pocketknife in places that say "no weapons."

Newbius says:

on 7/20/2010 12:14:43 PM

The Apostle Peter (the Rock that Christ said He would build the Church upon) was carrying at the Last Supper. The Catholic Church likes to claim their foundation on Peter, and yet they refuse to acknowledge this basic point of fact about arms in the presence of the Lord?
Where did I put my shocked face?

Wolfwood says:

on 7/20/2010 12:26:40 PM

"Concealed means concealed" will probably work at a Catholic church. At a Pentecostal/Charismatic one? Not a chance. Your chance of evading a hug that would detect your gun is pretty close to zero.

Cantinflas says:

on 7/20/2010 12:57:02 PM

The fact is that it's probably a liability based decision, which isn't the worst way to make this type of decision when you are dealing with the widow's mite. You don't want to fail to make a policy that could have kept the church from having to pay out a large sum just because it was unpopular. Hopefully in the tragic event of a church shooting where this type of policy is in place a court will hold the church liable for disallowing concealed carry, and it will change for the better in other churches.

Mine is a nationwide church with this ban, which is especially forceful in my state. I think if caught, since the policy is essentially canonized as state law, I would lose my permit, so I don't mess around. I just make sure I have some heavy projectiles to throw if someone comes in shooting.

Robb Allen says:

on 7/20/2010 1:02:12 PM

Cantinflas, that illustrates my point to a t.

Does the candelabra up front invite violence into the sanctuary? How about the offering plate? Hymnals? The little pencils for filling out attendance?

No, they don't. But each of them can becomes a weapon should something happen. Just like the gun, they are inanimate objects, incapable of causing intentional harm unless acted upon by a human being.

If you want to drown someone, you can do it in a public pool, a bathtub, or a baptismal. It's not the fault of the pool, bathtub, or baptismal.

Cantinflas says:

on 7/20/2010 1:08:52 PM

Why the adversary tone here? My comments weren't normative, but speculatively descriptive. I'm fairly certain that you and I agree on this point. I wish my church didn't have the policy, but don't have the benefit of believing that all churches are the same allowing me to worship anywhere. I'm just saying that since many church administrations seem to think this way, maybe we can find ourselves in a paradigm that enables the self-preservation gene of churches to allow for CCW instead of disallowing it.

Robb Allen says:

on 7/20/2010 1:17:51 PM

Cantinflas, you misread me, sorry. We are in agreement, I was simply expounding on the fact that a church does not limit violence by banning an object. That's all!

Stuart the Viking says:

on 7/20/2010 1:53:44 PM

Cantinflas,

I have always found this confusing. Your church bans firearms (I assume on church property, not totally), yet you disagree. You also say that you could not change churches because not all churches are the same. I infer from that that you believe your church to be... more correct in it's religous observances... I guess that might be the neutral way to say it (I am asking to better understand, not to condemn).

So, how do you reconsile your beliefs being differant than those of the church which you are a member to? I ask because this was my personal issue with Christianity. I was never able to reconsile what I felt was true with church doctrine and the actions of the church members.

s

markofafreeman says:

on 7/20/2010 4:00:34 PM

The previous pastor of our church probably has more guns than me. The current pastor, though not anti-gun, I don't think really gets it. As much as I enjoy the fellowship of a number of our regular attendees, if our leadership decided to ban guns, I'd looking for another fellowship as well.

Oh, and to Wolfwood, though we're not a pentecostal church, it is hard to avoid a hug at our church, too. However, I don't really care one wit if someone notices. Conceal carry, at least in my state, doesn't have any requirement of 'concealed from knowledge' only concealed from view.

Timmeehh says:

on 7/20/2010 4:17:51 PM

Psalm 144 (New American Standard Bible)

1 Blessed be the LORD, my rock,
Who trains my hands for war,
And my fingers for battle;

My fav part of the Bible!

Heartless Libertarian says:

on 7/20/2010 4:53:24 PM

I learned during my Utah CCL class that Utah state law prohibits firearms in churches.

I found this especially surprising given the Mormons' history of being on the receiving end of violent behavior by their neighbors.

And the NRA has been against private property rights in supporting all of the guns-in-cars-in-parking-lots legislative efforts, as well, so their headline is not surprising.

markofafreeman says:

on 7/20/2010 5:22:20 PM

"And the NRA has been against private property rights in supporting all of the guns-in-cars-in-parking-lots legislative efforts, as well, so their headline is not surprising."

An honest question: would also not support a prohibition on employers' who want to prohibit religious paraphernalia or porno mags stored in cars?

markofafreeman says:

on 7/20/2010 5:31:35 PM

Ugh. Hit submit too soon. Trying again:

An honest question: would you also not support a prohibition on employers who want to prohibit religious paraphernalia or porno mags in cars?

I do suppose we have some work to do. I understand the 'no government intrusion in private association' argument. But at the very least we need parity in 1A and 2A protection. I.e.: if an employer can't call law enforcement to assist with a search of employees' vehicles for 1A protected items, then involving law enforcement for the same search for 2A items should be punishable.

So private no-guns rules are fine from a freedom perspective (though deplorable), but unless specified in the employee manual AT THE TIME OF HIRE, they should never be allowed to search my vehicle or ever enforce any kind of rule against my vehicle's contents. I.e.: I consider what's communicated to me when I'm hired a contract (even if not a contract in IRS terms) and it should be enforceable in the courts.

UTLaw says:

on 7/20/2010 6:05:05 PM

You make an excellent point about the NRA's disrespect of private property. They mean well, but they are trying to use the government as a hammer against people who disagree with them. This is the same pattern that we see when a group like the ACLU sues a restaurant for racial discrimination, or the ACLJ sues a business for religious discrimination. Each group elevates a right that they hold dear above other rights.

In each of these cases, the discrimination against gunnies, blacks, or someone wearing a crucifix or turban or whatever is motivated by either fear or hatred, but it is not the government's place to step in. The proper answer, as you indicated, is to vote with your feet, and to try to get others to vote with theirs. Eventually, the group either learns the error of their ways, goes out of business, or just keeps going on until they meet some higher judgment.

Unfortunately, organized groups, especially ones lawyered up to the teeth, like the current approach, so we keep piling on layer after layer of government intervention in private property rights, winning the occasional victory on some other right.

This trade is much like the trade of liberty for security, and it has the same long term effect on all of our rights. If we want real change in our government, civil rights groups and interest groups need to look to their means as well as their ends, or we will keep trading one set of chains for another, not realizing how heavy they are becoming until it is too late.

Wolfwood says:

on 7/20/2010 6:20:21 PM

Stuart the Viking,

I hope you don't mind jumping in regarding your question to Cantinflas. I think the solution to your question is that there are different levels of what we might call doctrine. There are some things that a church will say are objectively correct and that if that objective truth is known then there can be nothing allowed to stand that contradicts it. There are others that it has where it's pretty sure all the evidence points one way to a logical answer, but short of an actual revelation it's impossible to say 100%. There are other things that are simply rules needed so things can run. How much dissension is proper depends on what level these things are on.

I'm Catholic, so I'll use examples from there:
-The belief that Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins is objective truth. It's been revealed and any statement that contradicts this is false.
-The belief in limbo was for a long time accepted as a logical solution, but it was recently announced that, logical as it may be, it doesn't actually exist.
-That priests must not marry is a rule of order. There are married Catholic priests now, and if the Vatican decided it was in the best interest of the Church it could allow all priests to marry. Catholics may properly criticize the wisdom of the prohibition, but not the authority of the Vatican to impose it.
-The arrangement of parking spaces in the church parking lot is totally up for debate and you can feel free to complain about it all you like (within the bounds of Christian fellowship and all).

Wolfwood says:

on 7/20/2010 6:31:52 PM

If I may, this also applies to laws in America. One way to divide laws is into the categories of malum in se and malum prohibitorum. Malum in se laws involve things everyone considers wrong, like murder, violent rape, arson, and even shoplifting. Malum prohibitorum laws are wrong only to the extent that they involve things disallowed for the sake of an orderly civil society. These can include things like speeding, statutory rape, and arguably even treason.

Cantinflas says:

on 7/20/2010 9:39:03 PM

Heartless Lib, you're wrong. I'm in Utah also, and you can't carry in LDS churches. Essentially they had the legislature include an opt-out option for churches, if they put their name on the list, you can't carry there...but only one church is on that list. Guess which one?

Wolfwood...what you call objective truth, I think you mean to call accepted dogma, or even orthodoxy.

Stuart the Viking, I'd be happy to answer you here with Robb's permission, since it's kind of a threadjack, or on email if Robb prefers.

Robb Allen says:

on 7/20/2010 9:41:52 PM

I'd much prefer private emails in regards to lengthy discussions on religion, if you don't mind.

Nothing against anyone's views, mind you. Just that those conversations go on and on and on and on.

Cantinflas says:

on 7/20/2010 10:29:07 PM

That's kind of what I thought. Stuart the V, email me at rxexfxaxsxux@xgxmxaxixlx.cxoxmx

Take out the x's.

Wolfwood says:

on 7/20/2010 10:59:51 PM

Ack, apologies for the discourtesy, Robb Allen!

Robb Allen says:

on 7/20/2010 11:04:19 PM

Nah, it's not out of hand yet ;)

Jethro Gibbs says:

on 7/21/2010 12:07:14 AM

I don't think that the Catholic Church's cathedral can really be called "Private Property" - don't they have a doctrine that everyone may enter? Even sinners (especially sinners!)? That doesn't sound too private to me. I think the public areas of the building should have no more restrictions than the parking lot does.

Legally, the greater Catholic Church is the owner of the building in question, but it seems to me that the parishioners also have a legal claim on that building, since their donations built it.

The fact that some guy in a funny dress has been hired to run it for them, does not give his opinion special weight. Nor does the Catholic Church's cover-up of the gay-pedophile priest's actions enhance their moral authority.

The church is by definition a "Public" building, a facility that all are entitled to enter for legal use. They can't legally refuse you entry based on skin color, religious affiliation, political party, or any other thing. So why is it right (even if it is legal) that they can refuse entry to those who are armed?

ubu52 says:

on 7/21/2010 12:27:13 AM

How would bringing a gun to church square with the Catholic policy of "turning the other cheek"?

Per the Vatican:

In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill," and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies. He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.

Also:

Jesus mentions it in Matthew 5:38-39:
"You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also..."

markofafreeman says:

on 7/21/2010 2:07:49 AM

I don't think that the Catholic Church's cathedral can really be called "Private Property" - don't they have a doctrine that everyone may enter? Even sinners (especially sinners!)? That doesn't sound too private to me. I think the public areas of the building should have no more restrictions than the parking lot does.

I don't know about the building itself, but that is most definitely my point about the parking lot. Even in my own driveway, I wouldn't claim any kind of property right to prevent people from parking in my driveway as they come and knock on my door while storing a gun in their car unless I gated it and posted a sign to that effect. Key word there is gated (though "permit-required" parking lots would qualify, too).

Personally, I don't even think a company policy against it holds any water unless the parking lot itself is gated and/or permitted. At least no legal weight in terms of bringing police into the matter. In my state, you also must post if you want it to have the force of law. So I could be fired, but not prosecuted, if it's not posted. But even if posted, unless the company told me in writing at the time of hire that my car could be subject to search to confirm I was complying with their no guns policy, I would support legal prohibitions against that search, but would prefer it simply being left in the realm of contract law, to limit government interjection into private relationships.

But, heck, if an employer attempted that kind of intrusion in a non-gated, non-permitted parking lot, I'd lie and have no guilt about it. "I sold my car and I rode my bike to work. Yeah, that's the ticket." "What kind of car do I normally drive? NOYDB."

Guess I'm just hoping that more hoplophobic company execs don't get any ideas.

AntiCitizenOne says:

on 7/21/2010 8:40:30 AM

Ubu, there is a huge difference between someone trying to kill you and someone insulting you (slapped).

But it is clear from our earlier discussion that you can't tell fantasy from fact.

And if they weren't supposed to kill, why the heck did they all have swords/weapons anyhow? Jesus maybe should have been proactive and cut off all limbs of his disciples and lobotomized them to be pro-active in preventing any sort of violence, don't you agree?

AntiCitizenOne says:

on 7/21/2010 8:42:35 AM

The Catholic Church also has the Swiss Papal Guards who are to defend the Pope if he/she under attack.

By your definition, the Pope has violated the standards you have set forth, for he has sent his minions in his place to not "turn the other cheek" against his attackers.

TennGoodBoy says:

on 7/21/2010 9:56:14 AM

"If my church were to explicitly ban firearms, I'd stop going."

Thats why I quit the United Methodists. The national organization actively supports gun control by the govt. (Or I guess they still do; havent checked back in a few years.)

One of my gread grandpas was a Methodist Circuit Preacher, riding his horse out to different country churches each week. Always with him: His bible and his 38 S&W. (He probably would have been better served with a 45 Colt.)

sevesteen says:

on 7/21/2010 1:14:23 PM

I am an atheist. I cannot understand how a government-imposed rule on guns in church can be constitutional--especially if guns are allowed at Walmart. A church should have the same right to ban or allow as any other property manager, with the same penalties for noncompliance.

With all the discussion of Louisiana's law, ignored is that it really is not "carry in churches", but rather a government-approved method of setting up a security team--the people carrying need extra training above and beyond a carry license. Louisiana churches remain legislated no carry zones for ordinary people, even where church leadership is OK with guns.

Dr. Feelgood says:

on 7/21/2010 2:02:42 PM

I'm a deacon in my church, and I'm always armed. We have other members with permits as well, and I generally know who is carrying and who is not. We have no state law, no internal policy, and no centralized authority telling us what to do; other than the Bible itself which grants liberty (I'd argue that it's a moral imperative for those of us with families to support) to men to defend life with deadly force. I do tend to keep a closer eye on new visitors, just because.

All the same, we reserve the right to ask anyone to leave for any reason. Our house, our rules.

M Gallo says:

on 7/21/2010 3:36:20 PM

ubu, you misquote; the commandment is "thou shalt not murder." Jewish law (check Duet. and Numb.) had provisions creating a moral obligation for community members to kill thieves to protect the community, so lethal force is condoned even for property protection in the old testament. Jesus did not intend to tell you to lay down and be killed no matter what; the message is to not answer or escalate petty violence. I still can't believe people put lethal force and slapping on the same place in their personal contiuum of force...

derek wessel says:

on 7/21/2010 11:43:55 PM

But then you have to square "turn the other cheek with"

Luke 22:35-36

Luk 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Comments have been closed on this topic.