A Dark Night in Aurora

As many of you know, last week, during a midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises, a man named James Holmes walked into a theater in Aurora, Colorado and began shooting people in the audience. He killed 12, and wounded 58 others in this barbaric act.

I think what Holmes did was unbelievably evil, and my thoughts and prayers are with all those impacted by his actions. I can’t imagine what sort of thoughts were going through Holmes’ mind that would allow him to do such a thing. And I can’t imagine the level of horror those in that theater must have felt, nor the sadness and anger that the families of those who were wounded or died now feel. My heart aches for all involved.

It saddens me too, though, that so many have already brought politics into focus so soon after the shooting. I personally think it is shameful that the liberals and those in favor of more gun control laws would so quickly use this incident as ammunition for their cause. Since they have, I suppose there is little anyone can do in their opposition but to go ahead and get into such a debate in order to hopefully spread some sense of calm and reason before rights and freedoms start getting stripped away arbitrarily.

I’ve never been a very big fan of guns. I had a bb gun as a kid, and I did play with it out in the yard for maybe a couple of years. I still have it. And I do own a shot gun that my grandpa gave me a few years ago, which I’ve only fired once just after I got it. So, I am a gun owner. But I’ve never much cared for guns just in general. I do, however, care very much about my right to own and use guns. It is a right given by our constitution, which I will always choose to defend.

Using what happened in Aurora to justify abolishing this right, in my view, is not only uncalled for, but inexcusable as well. Guns are not responsible for what happened in Aurora. Nor were they to blame for what happened to Gabrielle Giffords, or at Virginia Tech, or at Columbine, or even in Norway. They are objects, no more dangerous than chainsaws, power drills, pick axes, crow bars, sticks of dynamite, knives, blow torches, gun powder, or even baseball bats, all of which can be used as weapons when put in the wrong hands. Even hands can do a lot of damage when their owner wants them to.

What happened in Aurora was not the fault of any particular weapon, useless on its own. Rather, James Holmes, a very sick and immoral person, should be held solely responsible. What happened is on his shoulders alone. I say this, because he obviously had intent to cause harm to others. Having that intent, it wouldn’t have mattered if guns were banned or not. He would have still attacked others, one way or another, gun or no gun.

People seem to forget that explosives and tear gas were also used to terrorize in this situation. Why do the ones who dislike guns not also care about getting rid of these other things? It seems a bit curious to me, but that aside, I say that we have to look at Holmes’s intent. He planned murder, pure and simple. He planned on shooting people, as well as blowing people up. It was his intent to cause harm to others. And the question we should ask, before banning guns and overreacting, is that if guns had been banned, would he still have ended up doing something to hurt others? Instead of shooting people, would he have planted explosives in the theater? Would he have went in there and just began stabbing people? Would he have run in there all Texas Chainsaw Massacre like on everyone? Seeing the harm he caused and the total lack of respect he had for human life, I’d say yes. But that doesn’t seem to matter to some. Their response is just to put a band aid over the problem, throw blame in the wrong direction, and lock the restroom doors.

Let me explain that last part.

When I first started high school, students were allowed to go outside to a designated area out back of the school to smoke. Laws later changed which prohibited all smoking on school grounds. When that happened, the designated outside smoking area was no more. But, people still wanted to smoke, so they took up smoking in the restrooms. To put a stop to that, school officials began locking the restroom doors and put up cameras outside. You couldn’t get into the restrooms without first going to the office, getting a key, and being timed. But, people still wanted to smoke, so they took up smoking in the hallways instead, using groups of friends to hide them from view of the teachers, which led to the hallways being constantly full of smoke. What I learned from this was that no amount of prohibition worked. Those who were intent on smoking always found a way to do so. But, instead of them smoking in public, in a safe, teacher monitored, outside smoking area, they were smoking in hiding, out of view of teachers, right in the middle of the school. Getting rid of smoking areas did absolutely nothing to stop students from smoking. In fact, all that I saw it accomplish was to anger those who smoked and to threaten the health and safety of all those who didn’t smoke. It just didn’t work.

If you want to prevent people from smoking, you have to do more than just lock the restroom doors. You have to teach and convince them that smoking is wrong. It is the same for evil acts like the shooting that happened in Aurora. Taking away guns will not prevent gun related crimes, and most statistics prove this. Doing that is only a band aid to the problem. Teaching and convincing people that shooting and killing others is wrong might actually make a difference though.

Instead of talking about banning weapons, we should be talking about teaching morals. We put violence in everything these days, from movies to video games, even in songs, and yet so many of the youth in this country never hear that it is wrong to actually commit such evil acts, and, even if they do, they know there is usually little or no real accountability for what they do. In fact, we almost glorify evil by the way we excuse it. But when do we ever teach that these things are wrong? Teachers are told not to teach morality, a lot of parents are too wrapped up in themselves to ever teach their kids anything valuable, politicians can’t tell the truth without being accused of being politically incorrect, and so called role models tend to be far less than ideal for kids to look up to. We do not do a very good job of teaching people the difference between right and wrong these days, nor do we adequately teach the consequences of such actions.

Find a liberal willing to admit any of this.

The problem is not that we have weapons. Weapons will always be around, in one form or another. The problem is that we do not teach proper values and morals anymore. We’ve pushed both of those things to the side in our society, glorifying so much that is wrong, and putting band aids on all of our problems hoping that they’ll cover the sores underneath.

And then I don’t believe we do nearly enough to help those who are disturbed or troubled. For some problems a person can face, there really is very little, if any, help that is ever offered for them. And if help is offered, they don’t know where to get it.

I can use myself as an example here. I went for years too scared to ever admit to anyone that I was gay, and yet being gay was eating away at me. I didn’t know how to process and manage all of the feelings I was having, and yet I didn’t know who to trust, who I could talk to, or what I should do in order to get help. I honestly just thought there was no help and I was all alone. Thankfully, after some time, I did manage to find help. I found Exodus International and a counselor through them who helped me more than I could ever have imagined. Looking back though, I wonder why I couldn’t have found help in any of the local churches, from a good school counselor, or even from family. I think, to a great extent, it is because too many people—Christians included—would rather bury their heads in the sand and pretend that there aren’t any real problems in the world (out of sight, out of mind). And when people do this, those who need help don’t get it. I needed help so badly that I nearly killed myself. I was suicidal for about a year, contemplating ending my life to the point I was literally making myself sick. That was how I handled my problem at the time. I knew things were bad, I couldn’t figure them out on my own, I couldn’t find help, I felt all alone, and so death seemed like the best way out of it all. I just thank God for grabbing hold of my steering wheel and guiding me back to a better place in life.

But you know, not everyone deals with their problems the same way. I didn’t blame others for my problems when I was considering suicide. The weight fell solely on me. I wanted to take out my anger, frustrations, loneliness, stress, and misery on myself. Others may want to take theirs out on others.

I’m reminded of the students at Columbine. Both were described as loners and outcasts. I think it is obvious that they were troubled. And, I wonder, did either of them ever try to get help? If they did, were they unsuccessful? Did they get help and it not matter? Did they just finally decide that they’d had enough and couldn’t take their problems anymore? Was that why they decided to murder their classmates?

You see, we never talk about these things. Because if we do, then we have to admit that we have some very real, deep seeded problems, and that we might actually have to do some work as a society to improve things.

There again, as long as people continue to exist, evil will always exist. It is in us to commit evil acts. There will always be some mad man out to destroy the world (or watch it burn). Some people just get off on such things. And that being the case, no degree of weapons bans will ever prevent them from bringing about some form of harm to others.

Now, let me make something clear. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be waiting periods and background checks and other regulations regarding the purchase and usage of guns. I’m also not saying that we shouldn’t probably ban or limit the usage of certain very dangerous weapons, such as AK47’s and the like, which are really designed for nothing more than combat use. But I will never be in favor of doing away with a person’s right to own and use guns, be that for self defense, hunting, or for just outright enjoyment. Here is where I draw the line.

Again, I think what happened in Aurora was a really terrible thing. It shouldn’t have happened. I just wish that people would actually worry more about the people than playing politics. I wish they’d learn from this experience that, yet again, all of their previous band aids have failed to actually take care of a problem. And that this problem will continue to happen so long as people would rather turn a blind eye instead of doing something right that might honestly create a more solid prevention—guns or no guns.

I feel saddened by the whole thing.

Separation of Church and State

Merry Christmas, everyone! I know this note doesn't exactly fit the Christmas theme or season, but it's something that's been on my mind for awhile now, which I've only recently had the time to write. I'll apologize up front for it's length, but I hope you'll all read this and respond. And again, have a very merry Christmas.

I've long believed that to attempt to separate church and state to it's fullest extent possible would be nothing short of a complete catastrophe. Just as having the church and state united to its fullest form has proven foolhardy whenever attempted in the past, so would having the two completely separated, as was the case, in part, with the communist Soviet Union. As many would guess, I am not in favor of the complete separation of church and state. However, I do agree with a great many liberals that there should and must be some degree of separation between the two.

When Rome fell, it was the church for which people turned to for authority and leadership. For a time, this was perhaps a very good thing. The church, being the embodiment of Christ, can do a lot of good when given such a good degree of power. However, the church being comprised of flawed and sinful human beings, despite its strong connections with Christ, can still do a great deal of evil when given unlimited powers. It does not take much to corrupt a man's actions when their actions are left unchecked and unquestioned. There has been a great deal of evil done throughout the course of mankind's existence in the name of God and Christ and goodness. I'll bring your attention to the Inquisition, which took place due to the authority given to the church. Many innocent people were not only tortured but murdered because of their rightly or wrongly believed beliefs against the church. To control its masses, the church provided fear to the people in order to retain their power over them. And their desire was to enforce Christian beliefs upon all peoples.

This is foolhardy. And this is why it is not good for the church to have total authority over the state. You see, the state itself is a secular institution. Whenever the two are united to become one, one may be improved, the other degraded, but both corrupted by their unity. Whatever people may hope to believe, the answer to an improved state is not for it to be governed or put in the hands of the church to control. That has been proven well not to work.

Having said this, I do not believe the two, church and state, can, nor ever should be, completely separated. For when that happens, the two can very easily become enemies. The state wanting to condemn the church for what it wants and the church wanting to condemn the state for its wants, neither working with the other for the good of their people. That is why the two should never be entirely divided. To eliminate all connections would be just as incomprehensible and as destructive as the other extreme.

In our modern times, as we foolishly call them so, we have been presented with this particular dilemma again. How far should the church and state be divided, and to what extreme measures should we take to achieve this? Some would argue that Christians have no place at all within the political sphere. Some would attest that any public acts of worship be completely forbidden. And still, some would insist we have only secularism, without any church or religion at all. Within our society, the extreme toward secularism is already proven its way forward. Just as the total control of the church has proven foolhardy, so has the total control of the state. I do not doubt we are heading in a very grim direction. For just as the church has tried to enforce its ways through acts of violence, so has and will a completely secular state try to enforce its ways upon those of faith (persecution). I personally believe it can be a very good thing when men and women of faith enter the world of politics. If they remain governed by their Christian values and morals then they should prove to be decent politicians who truly do good things for the people they represent. I will always vote in any election for the man whom I believe holds to these values and morals above anything else. That is the man or woman I will most likely trust to be honest, good, kind, and moral when in office. Now, though that is the person I would want in office, I would not expect that person to create or enforce laws, which would impose certain Christian beliefs upon others. It is not the business of the church to attempt forcing others to believe as it does. Being tyrannical never wins anyone over for the Lord. All that does is promote fear and hatred of the church, and in consequence, towards Christ.

This, I believe, is a moderate view. It is the view that people of faith should be allowed a part or place in the workings of the state, so long as they do not attempt, once allowed into that place, to force Christian beliefs onto other people. Influence should certainly be allowed, but enforcement, no.

One other reason for why I believe this way is because of what I already mentioned about enemies. When the two become completely divided, or separated, they naturally become inclined to distrust and dislike each other. If all people of faith are excluded from politics, then that naturally means all people of the secular state are excluded from the church, religion, or faith. Or, we will have no politicians and be governed by who knows whom. As Christians, we should not want this. As secular beings, we should not want the church excluded from the state either. Men of high morals will do far better than those with very little. Now this is not to suggest men of faith always act morally. Far too often they do not act morally at all. But this is just to suggest they are perhaps more likely to act moral. So, it is good for the two to be united to some extent. Not completely united, but not completed separated either.

What's more, if a Christian does enter into politics, to ask them, or to demand of them, not to consider their faith in making decisions is quite impossible and impractical. If a Christian man is elected to the office of the president, of course he should govern as the Christian man he is. He should not attempt to be something he is not just to prove separation of church and state. To separate a man in such a way is to make him two-faced, and able of doing very little good to satisfy anyone in such a state. I tend to believe to some extent our current president, George W. Bush, has at times faced this dilemma. He has had to decide whether he should be a Christian president or a secular one. Depending on the situation and the company around him, he has made his decisions, but in doing so, I believe he has obviously separated himself into two people. There is the Christian president who upholds most Christian values and morals, helping with AID's causes in Africa and implementing additional tax breaks for churches that provide a public service, and there is the secular president who seems to favor war to diplomacy and fights for measures which allow the rich to get richer and the poor poorer. Granted, speaking of President Bush, he has made his decisions of his own accord. No one has forced him to be the sort of president he has been. Influenced, perhaps, but not forced, I do not believe. But clearly, he is a president who at times has acted very Christlike, while at other times, very non-Christlike. His presidency proves many things though. One is that even a Christian man can do a bad job in office and do a lot of potentially immoral things while in that position. Two, he is a Christian who I believe has genuinely tried to follow his faith while in office. At times this has proven both wise and unwise. As a Christian, he has attempted at times to push his faith down others' throats. For instance, he has said on many occasions that he would support an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage. Now, as a Christian, I am not in support of gay marriage. However, I strongly disagree that it is the governments place to tell two people how they should or should not live their lives in such a way. If two gay men, or two gay women, wish to be united in a secular marriage, it's their business to do so. And so, I believe this is one regard where the Christian President Bush has overstepped some. Three, President Bush, as a Christian, has given in to many secular demands. The call to war, for instance, could be an example of this. Likewise, his less than always truthful, or moral, means by which he got elected and then reelected as president are certainly in question here.

But let's say a man unwilling to compromise his Christian beliefs becomes president of the United States. Should he be asked to compromise? If he does not compromise, should he be forced out of office? Here is the conflict. How can a truly Christian man become the leader of a secular institution? For if he becomes its leader, will he have to compromise, ask others to compromise, or will he completely rule by tyranny to promote his ideals or beliefs onto others? Or, another possibility, will he do nothing?

A solution to this problem can be summed up by one phrase spoken by Jesus, which is, “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's”. In the realm of politics, I should think this would mean that a Christian man should do what he can through that office for the Lord, but likewise handle those secular issues as best he can without infringing on those of secular beliefs and without disregarding his own conscience. This was a solution brought forward by the famous World War I hero, Alvin C. York. When drafted to fight in war, he knew he'd be called to kill other human beings. Being a man of faith, a Christian, he believed killing people was a sin against the Lord. After several attempts for exemption as a conscientious objector, and being denied that request, he had no choice but to become a soldier. Before going to Europe, however, his superiors, knowing he'd objected to fighting in that war, confronted him about his decision. He explained his side of things and then they explained theirs. From their standpoint, fighting for the freedom, defense, and security of their nation and others made the killing okay (perhaps not okay, but justifiable). It was killing only in defense. York thought upon this and still struggled with his thoughts. His superiors sent him back home to think about his beliefs. If after a short time he still couldn't agree to fight, they would allow him to leave the army.

York went home and thought about what he should do. He believed in the defense of others and in securing freedom and his nations right to exist, but he also believed the Lord was against violence and against people killing others. He became very torn between serving his country and serving his God. In the end, he came upon the passage I referred to in the Bible, where Jesus is asked about paying taxes. The response from Jesus was for people to give unto their country, unto the secular institutions by which they were bound, those things that belonged to them, and to likewise give unto God the things that are God's. The answer was to do both. And so York went back to the army, fought as a Christian man in defense of others, and became perhaps the hero of World War I, capturing a great number of German soldiers and doing so almost completely by himself. Now, did he act as a Christian, or did he act secularly? The answer is, in a way, he did both. He had to act secularly to defend his and other's Christian way of life, which if not defended, may not have lasted. He defended and protected others against a grave threat, while simultaneously fighting for the country, the secular institution to which he belonged, and fighting to preserve the ways of God.

Concerning President Bush, had he followed this way of thinking, he'd have done the good for the Christians and those of faith which he has done, but would have ignored the gay marriage issue and other similar issues that serve more to restrict people who do not believe as he does or that divides us as Americans. He would have therefore done good for both Christian and secular, tearing neither one down above the other. There are things for which a Christian can do for both his God and his country without being immoral about either. Those are the things that should be fought for by the Christian politician.

I will agree that it is probably best for the Christian to remain out of politics altogether though. At least it might be best for him. Politics is a world of compromising. One may be able to do so to a certain extent and still be okay, but if tempted to overrule all previous Christian convictions while in office, they may very well be doing themselves a great deal of harm concerning their spiritual lives, and perhaps physical as well. If a Christian wishes to enter politics, it may very well be best that their political aspirations remain small and they fight only for a few good causes that work against no one, but only to the benefit of everyone.

But still, I do not see justified the claims of those who believe in a total separation of church and state. When they are separated completely, or united completed, no one is benefited. But when you have the two working together, side by side, keeping the other in check, that is when the greatest good comes about.