Christ and the Second Amendment

Eric Andersen Eric Andersen 45 Comments

Share

I’m surprised to see widely respected theologian/pastor John Piper challenge Christians not only on the natural right of self-defense but to go so far as question one’s intent when calling the police.

piper 2“I realize that even to call the police when threatened — which, in general, it seems right to do in view of Romans 13:1–4 — may come from a heart that is out of step with the mind of Christ. If one’s heart is controlled mainly by fear, or anger, or revenge, that sinful disposition may be expressed by using the police as well as taking up arms yourself.”

I have always respected Piper. I still do. I admire any individual, Christian or otherwise, who is willing to challenge the status quo with an idea no matter how unpopular – and follow it through to its logical conclusion. Piper has done that here much to the delight of the Washington Post who ran it despite it being five times longer than their normal word limit for an op-ed.

Unfortunately the Washington Post has not published a Christian counter argument, although they can be found here and here.

The question of the hour is how can Piper look at the Bible and come to this position while others, looking at the same come to another? (Muslims aren’t the only ones with intrafaith disagreements.) While Christians must agree on the essentials of the Christian faith (deity of Christ, bodily resurrection and salvation by faith), they have freedom to disagree on non-essentials. Self-defense falls into the category of  a non-essential.

I believe the genesis of this disagreement has to do with Piper’s “hermeneutic.” Fancy word for the method one uses to interpret the Bible. Piper appears to view some of the moral law of the Old Testament as obsolete and having ended with the state of Israel in 70 A.D. Evangelicals using this biblical framework can have a tendency to major on grace at the expense of the Law.

Others hold that while the civil and ceremonial law of the Old Testament became obsolete at the cross the principles of the moral law (do not murder, do not steal) continue unless abrogated in the New Testament (constitution).

My bias is with the latter. Jesus said there is still a place in the believer’s life for the moral law of the Old Covenant,

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”

Truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

Biblical exhortations to leave vengeance to the Lord and love your enemy exist side by side with biblical imperatives such as “If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him”  and “Whoever sheds man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed” and Christ’s exhortation to his disciples to purchase swords.

These are difficult questions which good men may disagree. I think the challenge for believers such as myself is to properly discern between vengeance and self-defense, between petty theft and lethal danger, between an individual criminal act and state sponsored persecution. We respond differently based upon the circumstance.

The ideal for the believer is to glorify Christ in whatever circumstance he finds himself  by properly applying Christ’s commands. Obviously the Christian life is not an easy one and Christ was the only one to fulfill the law perfectly. The rest, such as the author of this post, stumble like a lame, deaf and blind man.

*****

Eric Andersen is a member of the Central Committee of the San Diego County Republican Party and is the Co-Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus of San Diego County and im2moro.com. He is a former Rock Church Citizen of the Year.

Share

Comments 45

  1. There are several biblical traditions from which to draw an answer. There is the long tradition of natural law that supports the right of self-defense. While natural law has many contributors, its roots reach back to the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

    Your discussion is timely. I meet many men who refuse be be Christians because of the pacifist tradition in some Christian sects.

  2. Wonder how he’d answer…

    Romans 13King James Version (KJV)

    “13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

    2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

    3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

    4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

  3. Do you folks seriously need a biblical justification for your gun fetish? How many of you gun lovers have ever in your life had a situation where you were compelled to draw iron on another human being? That being said, I don’t think we have a gun problem in this country so much as a cultural problem that is the result of decades of exposer to violent movies and t.v. shows that are somewhat unique to U.S. culture. How else can you explain our statistical dominance in gun violence? Why does the NRA and their compliant congressmen refuse to allow a study of this?
    The NRA used to be a great organization that promoted gun safety and sportsmanship. Now they have become a blatant anti-government freak show. BTW I am a gun owner.

  4. Paul, Guns are used by Americans to stop violent crime between 100,000 and 2 million times a year. The huge gap is due to the different interpretations of “stopping violent crime” is different surveys.
    What is statistically certain is that the violence stopped by guns far out paces the tragic homicide committed with guns (the vast majority of which are illegally obtained guns by repeat offenders).

  5. And….if you live your life to worship the creator of the universe who left an instruction book…I’d say you better have Biblical justification for everything you do. (Or don’t do it)

  6. The beauty, and the bane, of religion is that one can always find biblical justification for his/her opinion no matter on which side of the issue that opinion falls.

  7. Paul Therrio, you may have a point. But one you liberals won’t touch.

    All those violent movies and TV shows seem to influence one group FAR more than others. With 13% of the population, blacks committed over half the murders in 2015. Given this dramatic disparity in effect, perhaps it’s not the violent movies so much as the gangsta’ veneration by the black community — reflected in the rap music and the dearth of criticism of black crime.

    Couple that with 70% illegitimate birth rates among blacks (single parent families seldom including a dad) and an aversion to “acting white” (seeking an education — which actually should be “acting Asian”) in school, and perhaps progressives should get cracking on addressing THESE more obvious factors that are driving violent crime in America.

    Fat chance. To do so would be “racist.” Indeed, I’m deemed a racist for even revealing these straightforward facts.

    Just keep repeating “Black Lives Matter” — as thousands of blacks are annually slaughtered by other blacks annually — and no civil rights leader will speak out against the carnage. No profit in doing so, apparently.

  8. Post
    Author

    Yes Hypocrisy like the Devil in the Garden of Eden we too can quote Scripture out of context. Nothing new there. The challenge is to identify when such is taking place. If the Bible is being interpreted in a way that contradicts itself the interpretation cannot be true. “A” cannot be non “A” and therefore we lack a “biblical” justification.

    We have the freedom to disagree on non-essentials, Piper, myself and millions of believers remain in agreement on the essentials.

  9. Richard,

    Fret not. You have very little chance of being murdered by an African American. According to the FBI statistics for 2014, 1.8 per million Whites were killed by Blacks. In contrast, more than 5X that number, 10.1 per million, Whites were killed by Whites.

  10. Eric,

    I am not sure I understand your point about contradictory interpretations. There are clearly passages in the Bible (as you pointed out in your column) that, at a minimum, could be interpreted to be contradictory to other passages.

    The point I was trying to get across is that is that faith is what you make of it and that neither passages from the Bible, nor the Torah, nor the Koran should ever be used as the basis or the justification for secular law.

  11. Uhhh, HQ, did you note what I said about who was getting killed by blacks? I wasn’t worried about ME or my family getting killed by blacks. I’m concerned about blacks killing blacks — unlike liberals (aren’t you a liberal??) who apparently don’t give a rat’s ass about the black-on-black slaughter.

    I’ll again provide salient stats on the matter:

    Blacks constitute about 13.1% of America’s population.
    http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

    Yet when it comes to crime, the FBI reports that in 2012 blacks committed:
    49.4% of all murders
    32.5% of all forcible rapes
    54.9% of all robberies
    34.1% of all aggravated assaults
    28.1% of ALL crime
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf

    Are whites a major murder threat to blacks? Of course not. 90.8% of all murdered blacks are killed by other blacks. The remaining 9.2% black murder victims were killed by ALL other races, or “unknown” — which doubtless includes some additional blacks.
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6

  12. Post
    Author

    “The point I was trying to get across is that … neither passages from the Bible, nor the Torah, nor the Koran should ever be used as the basis or the justification for secular law.”

    “You shall not murder” – Ex 20:13
    “You shall not steal” – Ex 20:15
    “You shall not bear false witness” – Ex 20:16

    You have just discarded the foundation of tort and criminal law. I defer to hypocrisy.

  13. Eric,

    Your first two examples have obvious secular reasons for being law and the third is only a crime when under oath, also an obvious secular need.

    I doubt that you would want the remainder of the Ten Commandments to have criminal penalties applied to anyone who violated them (adultery, working on the Sabbath, etc.)

    Moving beyond the Ten Commandments, should it be a crime to eat pork or mix meat and dairy?

  14. Richard,

    “90.8% of all murdered blacks are killed by other blacks.”

    Was that supposed to be a revelation? 82.4% of all murdered whites are killed by other whites. So what? Homicides are most often committed by someone close to the victim and we still tend to self segregate by race.

    As for the higher percentage of homicides committed by blacks, there is also a higher percentage of blacks living in depressed economic areas. I think you will find that socioeconomic status is much better than skin color as a predictor of violent behavior.

  15. HQ, the point of the 90+% of black deaths at the hands of other blacks is to refute the “whites are murdering us” nonsense unleashed when a white person (well, Hispanic person) DOES kill a black (the Trayvon Martin death).

    As for socioeconomic status being the driving force in black murders and crime, I DID look into that (not much academic research on this verboten topic out there), and found your assumption doesn’t stand scrutiny.

    Here’s some salient facts about the city of Chicago, primarily from the Census Bureau. Consider:

    RACE:

    White 45.0%
    Black 32.9%
    Hispanic 28.9%

    Murderers’ race:

    White 8.3%
    Black 68.8%
    Hispanic 11.1%
    Rest are other races or unknown race

    Critics indicate that racist cops are the reason blacks get caught but others don’t. Let’s look at the “racist” Chicago PD.

    Officers by race:

    White 49%
    Black 29%
    Hispanic 19%
    Other 3%

    Of course, they MIGHT hire only self-loathing blacks and Hispanics. Yeah, that’s gotta explain the pigs’ racism, right?

    Finally, apologists assert that blacks kill (other blacks primarily) because they are poor (as if that were an excuse). Really?

    Median Chicago income by race:

    White $38,400
    Black $25,500
    Hispanic $21,900

    BOTTOM LINE — do the Chicago math.

    Rate that per capita blacks commit murders vs. whites: 11.6 times higher

    Rate that per capita blacks commit murders vs. Hispanics: 5.5 times higher

  16. Richard,

    So the fact that Whites in Chicago have a median income 50% higher than Blacks did stand out as significant to you?

    As for the Republican’s go-to city for any argument about race, crime or guns, Chicago isn’t even in the top-30 cities in murders per capita (www.neighborhoodscout.com/top-lists/highest-murder-rate-cities/) and statewide, Illinois trails a number of conservative Republican states including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Lousiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina and Tennessee (www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRalpha).

  17. Post
    Author

    HQ,
    The third scripture forms the foundation for contract law and fraud. Even without an oath my promises in business are binding.

    The 4th Commandment is religious and not secular and therefore not in the jurisdiction of the government.

    I am not aware of any Christian teaching that the Old Testament dietary laws, which became obsolete at the cross, should be reinstated. That after all is counter intuitive as Christ died to make those practices/law obsolete.

  18. Eric,

    Just as there were laws prohibiting murder and stealing before Christ was born, there were also contracts and laws to enforce them from Babylon to Ancient Rome long before the birth of Christ.

    As for “Keeping the Sabbath” being a religious commandment, I was under the impression that all of The Commandments were of equal importance and that all were religious. That is the point. Is it not?

    Finally, are you really saying that Christ died to make a Jewish law (Keeping Kosher), a law still adhered to by many Jews, obsolete? I hope this statement makes clear to those of the Jewish faith that when a Conservative says that we have to uphold our Judeo-Christian values, he really only means the latter part.

  19. Post
    Author

    So that we are clear, I am not upholding the political philosophy of the Christian Right. I am a classical liberal, a position I find more consistent with Christianity. Perhaps like yourself, the Christian Right and certain Republican Presidential candidates give pause for concern. The Christian Right is comfortable with combining church and state and using the sword to accomplish it’s religious agenda. Nowhere in Scripture is the church given the sword. This was the mistake of the 16th Century church in Europe. God only allows the church to accomplish it’s agenda via the gospel and the Spirit.

    I respond to your three part comment below.

  20. Post
    Author

    HQ,
    Part I – “Just as there were laws prohibiting murder and stealing before Christ was born, there were also contracts and laws to enforce them from Babylon to Ancient Rome long before the birth of Christ.”

    We both know that to be true but I don’t think that advances our discussion. The laws I shared were a response to your statement that biblical law should not be the basis for secular law. What you and I both desire is that believer and unbeliever “co-exist” in peace and respect. I demonstrated the two are not in conflict if presented in proper biblical context.

    In a pluralistic society that necessarily requires a law system in which believer and unbeliever can agree. I think Jefferson accomplished this with seven words “the laws of nature and Nature’s God.” What the unbeliever sees in nature (murder and theft being evil) the believer sees specifically revealed in Scripture (Exodus). My point is that when Christianity is properly upheld the two are opposite sides of the same coin as both have the same Author. They are consistent and not in conflict.

  21. Post
    Author

    HQ
    Part II – “As for “Keeping the Sabbath” being a religious commandment, I was under the impression that all of The Commandments were of equal importance and that all were religious. That is the point. Is it not?”

    To the Christian Christ is sovereign over all areas of life including the political sphere. To put it another way – everything I do has a religious purpose. But we remember that the Ten Commandments have two parts. The first four are Godward and the last six are towards our neighbor. I cannot expect my unbelieving neighbor to care about the first four. Why would he?

    The other six embody the principles of a just society as seen by the Creator himself. Scripture never requires the civil magistrate do anything other than defend natural rights. Christ’s nature is defensive not progressive. That is why the Christian can only use love and not force/law/sword to change his neighbor. God only gave the sword to the government. The church can only use the gospel and the Spirit. Christ makes that distinction clear. Give unto Caesar … and give unto God. Two separate governments.

  22. Post
    Author

    HQ,
    Part III “Finally, are you really saying that Christ died to make a Jewish law (Keeping Kosher), a law still adhered to by many Jews, obsolete? I hope this statement makes clear to those of the Jewish faith that when a Conservative says that we have to uphold our Judeo-Christian values, he really only means the latter part.”

    You are correct in referring to me as a “Conservative”. I think it is the definition of such that may not be clear. I am a “Conservative” because I conserve the truths of Scripture and our founding ideas. Not to be confused with an individual that only conserves the status quo.

    Judeo-Christians values are one in the same. They are synonymous because the Patriarch of the Jews and Christians is the same, Abraham. Judeo values are Christian values.

    Romans 9:6-8
    “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” – Apostle Paul

    Hope that clears things up a little.

  23. Eric,

    Thank you for your well thought out explanations. They did clear things up quite a bit, yet I still have some concerns/questions. I will take them in reverse order of your responses:

    1. I am still concerned about your original statement concerning “Christ died to make these practices/laws obsolete.” The practices/laws you refer to are the laws of keeping kosher, a law that is still integral today to the faith of many Jews. I do not know how you can make that statement and then state that “Judeo-Christian values are one and the same.”

    2. I appreciate your desire to keep Church and State separate and that you pointed out that the first four commandments are of a religious nature while the final six are directed to creating a just society. That being the case, I wonder if you believe that adultery (commandment #6) should be criminalized.

    3. “A pluralistic society necessarily requires that believer and non-believer can agree.” Maybe we are saying the same thing, maybe not. I would say that the individual has every right to live according to the laws of his faith but in a pluralistic society, the laws of man must be paramount. Like you, I would hope that these laws would seldom be in conflict, but when they are, The Constitution must trump The Bible if our society is to survive.

  24. Post
    Author

    HQ,
    1.”I am still concerned about your original statement concerning “Christ died to make these practices/laws obsolete.” The practices/laws you refer to are the laws of keeping kosher, a law that is still integral today to the faith of many Jews. I do not know how you can make that statement and then state that “Judeo-Christian values are one and the same.”

    Judaism and Christianity have the same values or moral principles because they share the same text, the Old Testament. The difference being that those practicing Judaism do not recognize Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy. Because they don’t recognize Christ they still practice parts of the OT (Kosher Law) that Christ fulfilled and made obsolete.

    The purpose of the Law was to demonstrate God’s holiness, God’s desire is that we be holy like Him, and to demonstrate our sinfulness and need of a Savior. The idea being that not only is following the Law impossible – but it doesn’t make one holy.

    The Jews were given “good news” and a better way to become holy – faith in Christ, the Lamb of God, a new covenant which superseded the old. Some Jews like the Apostles accepted it. Others rejected it.

    The values, principles, morals of Judaism and Christianity are synonymous although the Jews still practice a part of the OT that Christians can now look to Christ for.

  25. Post
    Author

    HQ,
    2. “I appreciate your desire to keep Church and State separate and that you pointed out that the first four commandments are of a religious nature while the final six are directed to creating a just society. That being the case, I wonder if you believe that adultery (commandment #6) should be criminalized.”

    Ideas have consequences. Poor theology has consequences.

    This question highlights why our theology, proper biblical context, categories and having a proper understanding of the jurisdiction of church and state are so important. Your question exposes the consequences of the theology of the Christian Right, Robertson, Falwell and LaHaye from that of Martin Luther and John Calvin.

    From the Garden of Eden until about 150 years ago, marriage was a covenant made before God. The state had nothing to do with it. Neither George and Martha Washington nor John and Abigail Adams needed a marriage license.

    Where did licensing originate?

    When an individual wished to marry someone of a different color. Those wanting to do so were required to get approval – a license.

    Black’s Law Dictionary defines “license” as, “The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal.”

    We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission?

    Marriage should be a private contract and adultery should be handled as stipulated in the contract.

    Scripture is clear. The Kingdom of God is only to expand by Word and Spirit not the sword/coercion (Romans 13). I stand with the Apostle Paul, we are not allowed to do evil that good may result. (Romans 3:8)

  26. Post
    Author

    HQ,
    3. “A pluralistic society necessarily requires that believer and non-believer can agree.” Maybe we are saying the same thing, maybe not. I would say that the individual has every right to live according to the laws of his faith but in a pluralistic society, the laws of man must be paramount. Like you, I would hope that these laws would seldom be in conflict, but when they are, The Constitution must trump The Bible if our society is to survive.”

    I have stated above that I believe the two are not in conflict. Let’s pull this one down from the theory level to the kitchen table. If you want to share an example where you think the two come into conflict I will do my best to address it.

    Thank you for your thoughtful questions.

  27. HQ, a breathtaking response. You’re saying that the fact that whites on average have a 50% higher median income than blacks in your mind explains the fact that blacks murder at a rate 11.6 times higher than whites. I’m speechless.

    Well, not really. Let’s start with the fact that most black murders are murdering other blacks. What, to steal their lunch money?

    More important, how do you explain that blacks, who have a median income 16% higher than Hispanics, also have a murder rate 5.5 times higher than Hispanics. According to your socioeconomic “thinking,” Hispanics should be murdering people more frequently than blacks. I guess you overlooked that aspect.

  28. HQ, funny you should bring up the murder frequency of cities. Look at the 30 worst murder cities in your source.
    http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/top-lists/highest-murder-rate-cities/

    Now go check out the percent of black population in those cities. While there surely might be a couple exceptions, CLEARLY these are predominantly black cities. THAT’s the correlation I’m pointing out — not who is in charge.

    But since you bring it up, how many of those 30 high murder rate cities are GOP controlled? 2? Probably not that high.

    Methinks this is a URL reference you’ll want to conveniently ignore in future discussions when trying to put blame on local GOP politicians.

  29. Since we can’t edit what we write, I must modify my above statement. I asserted that almost all the 30 cities were “predominantly black,” which infers at least a plurality, if not a majority.

    The proper assertion is that almost all the cities (I suspect ALL of the cities) have a black population above the 13.1% national black average. Most of the cities are WELL above the black population average. And yes, a number are indeed “predominantly black.” I daresay that the worst ten cities are all predominantly black (at least a black plurality), though I haven’t looked up the demographics for each city.

  30. Richard,

    OK. I give up. You win. Blacks are murderous thugs. (Remove sarcasm)

    Bowing to your superior wisdom (ok, now remove sarcasm), I ask guidance with two questions:

    1. Why do African Americans murder at a higher rate?

    2. What can/should we do about it?

  31. Eric,

    It still bothers me that you believe that Jews rejected a”better way” to become holy. I find that very condescending toward another’s faith, but I do understand that everyone believes that their religion is the only truth.

    As for potential conflicts between secular law and the Bible, I am no biblical scholar but here are a few possibilities:

    1. Abortion
    2. Gay Marriage
    3. The Death Penalty
    4. Any criminal statute (“Let he who is without sin…”)

  32. HQ,

    “It still bothers me that you believe…”

    I just wanted to note that what Eric is describing is the very essence of the New Testament, in black and white — and red. Eric is much more learned on the subject than I, but I do believe it’s safe to say that most Biblical scholars — Christians or not, believers or not themselves — do agree this is the bottom line of Christ’s teaching in the New Testament.

    A very brief primer is Romans 7:6. I also found the following to be a fairly good layperson’s description, although I hope Eric will let me know if it’s lacking:

    http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html

    By the way, this discussion has been enlightening. I thank you both.

  33. Barry,

    Note that I said “I do understand that everyone believes that their religion is the only truth.” I do know that Christians are not beholden to the laws of the Old Testament, but I also know that Jews are and I do find the insinuation that the Jewish belief is a rejection of a better way to be bothersome.

    My main point was that with many different religious beliefs and differences even among scholars of the same religion, it is dangerous to use religion as the basis for secular law.

  34. Post
    Author

    HQ
    “It bothers me that you believe that Jews rejected a “better way” to become holy. I find that very condescending…”

    If my statements misrepresent anything in Scripture I am willing and thankful to be corrected.

    There are two types of law systems. Natural/Common Law and man-made (i.e. case or precedent law).

    One posits God as Creator & Law Giver and the other posits man as god (i.e. humanism).

    One conserves higher law (the laws of nature and Nature’s God) and uses law defensively. The other is progressive and makes man the law giver. In a progressive system law is used as an instrument of plunder. See Divine Right of Kings or Marxism.

    I have presented a law system that allows believer and unbeliever to co-exist in peace based upon a transcendent. If we desire a law system based upon our own opinions then every area of our lives will continue to be politicized and law will continue to be based upon power and not natural rights, something greater than ourselves. It is my desire that the world we leave for our children be more like the former than the latter.

  35. Eric,

    “If my statements misrepresent anything in Scripture I am willing and thankful to be corrected.”

    I am quite confident that nothing you said misrepresents anything in the New Testament and that is precisely the problem.

    How can a society that claims freedom of religion as a major tenet make law based on one religion’s scripture? The New Testament has areas of disagreement with the Old Testament and both certainly have their differences with the Koran. When you start passing laws based on one group’s belief that they have a “better way,” what you have is a recipe for sectarian conflict, so while I don’t believe that man is God, until we can all agree on God’s intent, I do think that we are better off with the law of man.

  36. Post
    Author

    HQ,

    I think we do so by learning from history rather than forgetting it. We recognize the difference between the jurisdiction of the state and the jurisdiction of the church. We have conflict because we are not properly restraining each to their proper jurisdiction.

    The classical liberal restrains the federal government/force to the eighteen clauses of Article 1, Section 8. Limited government.

    The state addresses issues of external government … when an individual encroaches on his neighbor. The church addresses issues of internal government for members of their own congregation.

    The Muslim is free to practice their faith (First Amendment) until the practice of their faith encroaches on their neighbor’s natural rights. See Cargill in MN. The religious freedom of the Muslim does not supersede the property right of his employer.

    If you see a conflict please share. I have already addressed your gay marriage question above.

  37. Eric,

    “The state addresses issues of external government … when an individual encroaches on his neighbor. The church addresses issues of internal government for members of their own congregation.”

    I can certainly agree with that. My concern is when the “religious” want to force their beliefs on those outside their congregation. I think you earlier said something similar when referring to “The Christian Right” so we are probably in agreement. It just took a lot of dialogue to get us there, but I certainly enjoyed the discussion and the education you provided.

  38. Post
    Author

    We are in agreement. As I stated above there is no theological basis for the church using the sword of the state. Christ does not give it to them.

    Thank you HQ. The pleasure was mine.

  39. Actually HQ, you pose TWO (I re-counted to make sure I get the total correct) VERY intelligent questions.

    1. Why do African Americans murder at a higher rate?

    2. What can/should we do about it?

    To begin with, we (and especially the black community) have to ADMIT it’s a problem — an INTERNAL problem — not a whitey-caused problem.

    Because this is a highly inflammatory matter, it’s a verboten research topic. No academic wants to delve into the factors resulting in the high ON AVERAGE propensity for blacks to commit violent crimes. This DE FACTO ban must change.

    What we are left with is conjecture, such as you writing off such bad behavior to poverty. Granted, that’s a widely cited reason, but as my Chicago example suggests, that’s not the major reason for high black violence.

    So, ADMITTING THAT THE FOLLOWING IS CONJECTURE, here’s my thoughts on what drives this violent trend. And I gladly concede that these suggestions constitute just my personal opinion — research is needed into the causes. My list of factors to consider:

    1. Very high percentage of single parent families. Over 70% of blacks are raised in single parent families — higher in urban areas.
    2. The black community/culture is dominated by rap and hip-hop — which glorifies gangsters and violence, while denigrating women. The black Establishment refuses to criticize this obsession with angry, violent rap songs and idolizing thugs.
    http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2015/09/gangsta-raps-grim-legacy-for-urban.html?
    3. A widespread black anti-education mentality, disdaining those who try to “act white” in school. BTW, the role model stereotype SHOULD be to “act Asian.”
    4. Lousy urban inner city schools. Give the teacher unions their due for stifling effective education (including school choice) – thus “keeping blacks in their place,” albeit unintentionally.
    5. The disaster of the ongoing War on Drugs.

    Until we pin down the primary causes of this tendency, it’s unlikely solutions will be at hand. But whatever those solutions entail, they have to be implemented from WITHIN — government can’t do it (except continuing to lock up the dangerous criminals).

    Sadly, the black community and their money-motivated “civil rights leaders” are focused on police brutality, a very real but FAR smaller problem than the widespread internal violence within black communities. I’m not optimistic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *