Congressman Tim Huelskamp (R- KS) writes on his page that: "The Second Amendment is non-negotiable. The right to bear arms is a right, despite President Obama's disdain for the Second Amendment and the Constitution's limits on his power. Congress must stand firm for the entirety of the Constitution – even if, but particularly so, when President Obama seeks to ignore his obligation to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.' Taking away the rights and abilities of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves is yet another display of the Obama Administration's consolidation of power."
Rick Perry, governor of the once (and hopefully future) Republic of Texas, claims that “Specifically ( . . . ) instead of enacting tougher gun control legislation, Americans should simply pray for protections.” (www.huffingtonpost.com)
Bryan Fischer, an executive with the American Family Association, says “God did not protect the victims of one of the deadliest school shootings in American history because children and teachers were not allowed to pray for protection in the classroom.” (www.huffingtonpost.com)
I sit here, aghast. Once again, members of my species have managed to completely disgust me. Not by miscalculations of logic, ethics, or knowledge, but by gross misrepresentations of all three.
First of all . . . the second amendment is negotiable. It’s an amendment, which means that it was a renegotiation of that holiest of documents, the United States Constitution. Its very existence says that “the United States Constitution was either wrong or incomplete.” Let me see, how can I back this up? Hmmm. Oh yes, it’s the second amendment . . . out of a total of twenty-seven. So (follow me here, congressman), that means that the United States government, on twenty-seven different occasions, decided that the original document that our country is based on needed augmentation. So they—get this—negotiated. Not only is the second amendment negotiable (such is the crux of the nature behind the idea of (here’s yet another vocabulary word to write down) democracy), but so is every other law on the books.
You’re a congressman. You are supposed to have at least a basic knowledge of the laws and machinations of the government of the United States. Hell, to be a teacher in New York State I had to take a government civics class. I can recommend a good one if you’re interested.
“Pray for protections.” Okay, I was raised catholic, and without going into a whole list of reasons why I decided to separate myself from the earthbound catholic system (maybe later, stay tuned), I find it hard to understand how anyone can simply shovel off a poop pile of canned rhetoric, faith-based or not, in the face of the recent tragedies our nation has suffered. Basically Perry echoes the third of the clowns on today’s rant-barbecue, Mr. Fischer, when Fischer condemned the victims of Newtown for not being of the Christian faith. Let me rephrase: this sad, pathetic, narrow-minded, xenophobic, bigoted son of a bitch claims that twenty children and six adults were sacrificed because the community did not actively embrace the prayer rituals endorsed by Mr. Fischer.
I find it impossible to see the logic here. First of all, that prayer works. Ask any parent whose child has died in a hospital from some disease. Ask any war victim whose home or village was napalmed. Ask anyone who has truly needed divine interference and was left without relief.
Regardless of that . . . It is said the Lord helps those who help themselves. There’s a lot of wisdom in the Bible. I do not follow it to the letter, nor do I use it as a life-guide. I take what I find to be useful and beneficial. So (according to the Bible), should God be moved to assist, he first looks to see who truly deserves it. Help is best given to those who deserve it, those who truly desire betterment and are working towards it. My question is this: where in said document does it define what “helping themselves” is? Is it working three jobs to get oneself through medical school or feed three daughters? Or can deservance of divine assistance be simply because one lives ecologically frugally and sustainably? One can argue that caring for the living being that allows us all to live is worthy of beneficence.
On a more basic level, is it not truly Christian to offer help to anyone who needs it, regardless of who they may be? I seem to remember a “That which you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me” kinda thing going on that book somewhere.
It seems that we are beset by a cabal of forked-tongued snake oil salesmen who have discovered the Bottle Imp, and that imp manifests itself in a system of mass media that allows such horrific drivel to filter out to the scared, the simple, the willfully ignorant; to those who, without exercising their capacity for logical, critical thought, readily kneel before a flag, a reverend of dubious origin, or a purveyor of obvious hatred and fear.
Maybe those who need the help are the ones who allow these despicable hypocrites to proliferate.
Comments