Last week the Roman Catholic Church elected Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to be its new pope. Cardinal Bergoglio chose the name Francis to honor St. Francis of Assisi. Reportedly, as it became clear that the vote was going his way, the cardinal next to him leaned over and advised Cardinal Bergoglio, "Don't forget the poor." The pope-to-be immediately thought of Francis of Assisi. "[F]or me he is the man of poverty, the man of peace, the man who loves and
protects others," said Pope Francis to an audience of journalists on Saturday, March 16th. As a cardinal and archbishop of Buenos Aires, the man who will forever be known as Pope Francis lived humbly and pursued a ministry of helping the poor. He now has an opportunity to re-shape a global church long captivated by pomp, power and vast wealth into something that would be more recognizable to its founder.
Scripture tells us that in the early church, "all the believers were together, and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." (Acts 2: 44-45, NIV). The choice of early Christians to give up their wealth for the benefit of the Christian community meant, "There were no needy persons among them." (Acts 4: 34) In fact, in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, we learn that selling one's possessions and holding some of the proceeds back for personal use had severe consequences. (Acts 5:1-10).
Why did the early Christians choose to live this way? The four Gospels contain multiple stories of Jesus preaching about giving up wealth and helping the poor. As an example, in the Sermon on the Mount he preached, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven where moth and rust do not destroy and thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." And, "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." (Matthew 6:19-21, 24, NIV).
Also in Matthew's Gospel is the story of the rich young man who asks Jesus how he might obtain eternal life. After hearing that he has kept the Commandments, Jesus tells him, "[G]o, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Matthew 19:21). There are a number of other stories in the four Gospels where Jesus preaches a gospel of sharing one's wealth and helping the poor. However, search as you might, you won't find any stories where Jesus admonishes a beggar to get a job. Nor will you find any instances where Jesus advises his disciples that before you give to a beggar, make sure he will not waste the money on wine or other foolish pursuits.
The tension between those advocating a message of sharing and those unwilling to part with their wealth has been a constant in the Christian Church ever since the Roman Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity by the Edict of Milan in 313. As Christianity became the established religion in Europe and church leaders accumulated vast wealth, orders like the Franciscans appeared to re-emphasize the need to give up one's wealth and help the poor.
While many have called the United States a Christian Nation, today there is a wide political gulf between Christians who believe government should have a role in helping the poor and those whose philosophy might best be described as "I've got mine; to hell with the rest of you." The poor are perceived by many as lazy, stupid and undeserving of help. The rich, on the other hand, are celebrated for their ambition, resourcefulness and entrepreneurial abilities. Many appear to consider it a greater sin to ask the wealthy to contribute more to the needs of our nation than it is to take away assistance provided to the poor. Many consider it outrageous to raise the legislated minimum wage to $9 or $10/hour, but have no problem with CEOs and other corporate officers earning millions of dollars/year. In both cases, they are getting what they deserve, or so believe many who profess to be followers of Jesus.
It will be interesting to hear what Pope Francis has to say about what it means to be a Christian in a society like ours - an affluent society, but one with many, many poor. Will he support Bishops and priests who tell their flocks to not vote for politicians because they support gay marriage or a woman's right to choose? Or will he tell his church leaders to begin supporting politicians who support programs to help the poor, even if it means higher taxes for the rich?
Only time will tell if this new pontiff will stick to his message, the message of his namesake, and the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
A Gun Like Mine
I am a gun owner. There, I said it. I like my gun. I've had it ever since I was a young boy. I haven't used it in a while, but I wouldn't want to give it up even if President Obama knocked on my front door and told me to hand it over. My rifle has a 50 shot magazine, and I used it to teach my daughter and son how to shoot. I don't think there should be any government restrictions on the kind of gun that I have. In fact, I wouldn't have a problem if everyone beyond the age of 12 in the US of A had a gun like mine. What kind of gun do I have? I have a Daisy 50-shot, pump action BB gun. I've used it to put away many a tin can over the years, nicked a few trees, and in a weak moment may have even stung a few denim-covered butts.
My brother-in-law is also a gun owner. I'm not talking about my blind brother-in-law who thankfully chooses to not exercise his Second Amendment rights. I am talking about my other brother-in-law - the one who wears cowboy hats. In all honesty, I would have to concede that there shouldn't be any restrictions on his gun either. He is a Revolutionary War re-enactor and has a muzzleloader similar to what a well-regulated militia would have had around the time the Second Amendment was adopted. Unlike my gun, his can actually kill people. Unlike modern military rifles, his only holds one bullet at a time, and it takes a while to re-load and get off another shot.
On December 14, 2012 twenty-eight people died from gun violence in Newtown, Connecticut, including the perpetrator of the crime. The fact that 20 of the victims were young children gave renewed vigor to those advocating some controls on guns. I am among those who believe there should be reasonable controls to restrict access to guns designed for no other purpose than to kill people. The controls proposed by the Obama administration in the wake of the Newtown massacre included universal background checks for all firearm sales, reinstatement and strengthening of the ban on assault weapons, limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds and banning the possession of armor-piercing ammunition by anyone other than the police or military.
Despite the proposed limits on the size of magazines, I don't think these controls would cover a gun like mine. Nor would they affect guns typically used by hunters. None of the weapons covered by the proposed controls are used to kill animals, except those of the human variety. Unlike my brother-in-law's gun, the ones covered by the President's proposal could kill many people in very little time.
Gun advocates intent on resisting any controls seem to be focusing their arguments on the use of the covered weapons for self-defense or to resist a government takeover by a tyrant. These arguments are born of fear - of the unwelcome intruder, or of a government takeover - something that hasn't happened since our nation was formed over 225 years ago. It's hard to argue against fear. Those favoring some controls are left with arguing that the fear is irrational. They argue that a shotgun should be sufficient for self-defense, and that the government is not likely to be taken over by a dictator. However reasonable these arguments may sound to the one making them, the person motivated by fear will not be convinced. Franklin Roosevelt was right when he said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Fear can paralyze us from taking any action to control potential gun violence.
Meanwhile, as Newtown fades into the distance in our nation's collective rear view mirror, the likelihood of inaction increases and people continue to die from gun violence. According to the Slate.com website, over 2,605 people have been killed by gun violence in the 3 months since Newtown. That's approaching the number of people killed in the 9/11 attacks. We took prompt action and started two wars to avenge those deaths. Why are we not motivated to act promptly to do something about the thousands that die each year from guns?
Perhaps gun control advocates are simply taking the wrong approach. Rather than restrict the possession of certain firearms, perhaps we should simply impose a tax on their sale. The proceeds could be used to fund our healthcare system. At the same time we might consider requiring gun owners to obtain no-fault insurance against personal injury or property damage that might be caused by the guns they possess. The insurance market would determine the size of insurance premiums, but logically, the more dangerous the gun, the higher the premium. Victims of gun violence or their survivors would at least receive some compensation for being shot at.
A gun like mine is not going to provide much protection for anyone using it for self-defense and won't be of much use in resisting a government takeover. On the other hand, you can get off 50 shots pretty quickly, and I don't think it would cost very much to insure. So instead of buying an AR-15 or AK-47, consider getting a gun like mine.
My brother-in-law is also a gun owner. I'm not talking about my blind brother-in-law who thankfully chooses to not exercise his Second Amendment rights. I am talking about my other brother-in-law - the one who wears cowboy hats. In all honesty, I would have to concede that there shouldn't be any restrictions on his gun either. He is a Revolutionary War re-enactor and has a muzzleloader similar to what a well-regulated militia would have had around the time the Second Amendment was adopted. Unlike my gun, his can actually kill people. Unlike modern military rifles, his only holds one bullet at a time, and it takes a while to re-load and get off another shot.
On December 14, 2012 twenty-eight people died from gun violence in Newtown, Connecticut, including the perpetrator of the crime. The fact that 20 of the victims were young children gave renewed vigor to those advocating some controls on guns. I am among those who believe there should be reasonable controls to restrict access to guns designed for no other purpose than to kill people. The controls proposed by the Obama administration in the wake of the Newtown massacre included universal background checks for all firearm sales, reinstatement and strengthening of the ban on assault weapons, limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds and banning the possession of armor-piercing ammunition by anyone other than the police or military.
Despite the proposed limits on the size of magazines, I don't think these controls would cover a gun like mine. Nor would they affect guns typically used by hunters. None of the weapons covered by the proposed controls are used to kill animals, except those of the human variety. Unlike my brother-in-law's gun, the ones covered by the President's proposal could kill many people in very little time.
Gun advocates intent on resisting any controls seem to be focusing their arguments on the use of the covered weapons for self-defense or to resist a government takeover by a tyrant. These arguments are born of fear - of the unwelcome intruder, or of a government takeover - something that hasn't happened since our nation was formed over 225 years ago. It's hard to argue against fear. Those favoring some controls are left with arguing that the fear is irrational. They argue that a shotgun should be sufficient for self-defense, and that the government is not likely to be taken over by a dictator. However reasonable these arguments may sound to the one making them, the person motivated by fear will not be convinced. Franklin Roosevelt was right when he said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Fear can paralyze us from taking any action to control potential gun violence.
Meanwhile, as Newtown fades into the distance in our nation's collective rear view mirror, the likelihood of inaction increases and people continue to die from gun violence. According to the Slate.com website, over 2,605 people have been killed by gun violence in the 3 months since Newtown. That's approaching the number of people killed in the 9/11 attacks. We took prompt action and started two wars to avenge those deaths. Why are we not motivated to act promptly to do something about the thousands that die each year from guns?
Perhaps gun control advocates are simply taking the wrong approach. Rather than restrict the possession of certain firearms, perhaps we should simply impose a tax on their sale. The proceeds could be used to fund our healthcare system. At the same time we might consider requiring gun owners to obtain no-fault insurance against personal injury or property damage that might be caused by the guns they possess. The insurance market would determine the size of insurance premiums, but logically, the more dangerous the gun, the higher the premium. Victims of gun violence or their survivors would at least receive some compensation for being shot at.
A gun like mine is not going to provide much protection for anyone using it for self-defense and won't be of much use in resisting a government takeover. On the other hand, you can get off 50 shots pretty quickly, and I don't think it would cost very much to insure. So instead of buying an AR-15 or AK-47, consider getting a gun like mine.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Are You Optimistic?
In "It's About Time," I planted the guideposts for this blog - write something that could change the world, and be funny at the same time. Changing the world is one thing, but being funny - now that's going to be a real challenge!
My wife has a strange idea of changing the world. Her idea is helping individuals. For example, she often visits a young man, who as a result of a kidney ailment and several strokes, is confined to a wheelchair. She watches movies with him and his family which is one of the young man's favorite activities. He telephones our house nearly every night just because he enjoyes talking with her. My wife also has dinner each week with a young lady whom she has been mentoring for 7 or 8 years. The young lady was experimenting with drugs as a teen and was pregnant at 17. Now she's gotten her GED, has a steady job and as doing a good job of raising her son while maintaining a stable relationship with a responsible young man. But is that really changing the world? Come on. Really. I mean, what if everybody did that sort of thing?
In this blog we've got bigger fish to fry - or broil or poach depending upon your perspective. We need to talk about the need to make this world a better place. No, don't think that I just made my wife's point. She can write her own blog.
I suppose there has always been resistance to changing the world regardless of the issue. After all, we fought a huge war in this country over whether it should be legal to own human beings. At the time, all sorts of arguments were made to justify the continuation of slavery, including reference to the Bible to prove that it was part of God's plan. By comparison, the things we talk about changing now seem pretty trivial.
Having been an environmental lawyer for many years, protecting the environment is an important issue for me. Global warming or climate change may be the most important environmental issue of our time. The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere over time can lead to increases in temperature, severe weather events, melting ice caps and rising sea levels that can inundate low lying coastal areas. There appears to be a strong consensus among scientists that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, has accelerated climate change. Consequently, many people see the need to change how we generate energy to reduce the amount of carbon that is emitted. On the other hand, there are many people that simply don't believe global warming exists. They think everything is fine.
Protecting innocent victims of gun violence is another topic that has gotten a lot of recent discussion, particularly since the Newtown slayings. Many believe that reducing gun violence means passing new laws requiring background checks on gun purchasers and limiting the number of bullets that can be loaded at one time into an automatic or semi-automatic gun. They see the need to change. Others believe existing laws are sufficient. The only change necessary in their view is to encourage more good people to carry guns so they can shoot the bad guys before the bad guys can shoot innocent people. In other words, everything is fine.
On nearly every important topic of the day there are strong opinions. One the one side, people see the need to change. On the other side, people sincerely believe that everything is fine. The problem, however, is that what passes for discussion between these two sides all too often amounts, at best, to a reiteration of talking points from special interest organizations. More typically it consist of insults and name calling. The world cannot change - for the better - on any subject if there cannot be a true dialogue between those holding contrary opinions.
Regardless of the issue, I suppose there will always be those who see the need for things to change and those that believe that everything is fine. In that vein, I refer to the 1972 song Dialogue Part I from the band Chicago:
Terry (Kath): Are you optimistic 'bout the way that things are going?
Pete (Cetera): No, I never ever think of it at all.
Terry: Don't you ever worry when you see what's going down?
Pete: Well, I try to mind my business, that is, no business at all.
Terry: When it's time to function as a feeling human being, will your Bachelor
of Arts help you get by?
Pete: I hope to study further, a few more years or so.
I also hope to keep a steady high.
Terry: Will you try to change things, use the power that you have,
The power of a million new ideas?
Pete: What is this power you speak of and the need for things to change?
I always thought that ev'rything was fine, ev'rything is fine.
Terry: Don't you feel repression just closing in around?
Pete: No, the campus here is very very free.
Terry: Does it make you angry the way war is dragging on?
Pete: Well I hope the President knows what he's into, I don't know.
Oooh I just don't know.
Terry: Don't you see starvation in the city where you live,
all the needless hunger, all the needless pain?
Pete: I haven't been there lately, the country is so fine,
but my neighbors don't seem hungry 'cause they haven't got the time,
Haven't got the time.
Terry: Thank you for the talk, you know you really eased my mind,
I was troubled by the shapes of things to come.
Pete: Well, if you had my outlook, your feelings would be numb,
You'd always think that ev'rything was fine.
Ev'ry thing is fine.
I am optimistic that by talking and listening to each other - by having a real dialogue - we truly can change the world. Are you?
My wife has a strange idea of changing the world. Her idea is helping individuals. For example, she often visits a young man, who as a result of a kidney ailment and several strokes, is confined to a wheelchair. She watches movies with him and his family which is one of the young man's favorite activities. He telephones our house nearly every night just because he enjoyes talking with her. My wife also has dinner each week with a young lady whom she has been mentoring for 7 or 8 years. The young lady was experimenting with drugs as a teen and was pregnant at 17. Now she's gotten her GED, has a steady job and as doing a good job of raising her son while maintaining a stable relationship with a responsible young man. But is that really changing the world? Come on. Really. I mean, what if everybody did that sort of thing?
In this blog we've got bigger fish to fry - or broil or poach depending upon your perspective. We need to talk about the need to make this world a better place. No, don't think that I just made my wife's point. She can write her own blog.
I suppose there has always been resistance to changing the world regardless of the issue. After all, we fought a huge war in this country over whether it should be legal to own human beings. At the time, all sorts of arguments were made to justify the continuation of slavery, including reference to the Bible to prove that it was part of God's plan. By comparison, the things we talk about changing now seem pretty trivial.
Having been an environmental lawyer for many years, protecting the environment is an important issue for me. Global warming or climate change may be the most important environmental issue of our time. The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere over time can lead to increases in temperature, severe weather events, melting ice caps and rising sea levels that can inundate low lying coastal areas. There appears to be a strong consensus among scientists that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, has accelerated climate change. Consequently, many people see the need to change how we generate energy to reduce the amount of carbon that is emitted. On the other hand, there are many people that simply don't believe global warming exists. They think everything is fine.
Protecting innocent victims of gun violence is another topic that has gotten a lot of recent discussion, particularly since the Newtown slayings. Many believe that reducing gun violence means passing new laws requiring background checks on gun purchasers and limiting the number of bullets that can be loaded at one time into an automatic or semi-automatic gun. They see the need to change. Others believe existing laws are sufficient. The only change necessary in their view is to encourage more good people to carry guns so they can shoot the bad guys before the bad guys can shoot innocent people. In other words, everything is fine.
On nearly every important topic of the day there are strong opinions. One the one side, people see the need to change. On the other side, people sincerely believe that everything is fine. The problem, however, is that what passes for discussion between these two sides all too often amounts, at best, to a reiteration of talking points from special interest organizations. More typically it consist of insults and name calling. The world cannot change - for the better - on any subject if there cannot be a true dialogue between those holding contrary opinions.
Regardless of the issue, I suppose there will always be those who see the need for things to change and those that believe that everything is fine. In that vein, I refer to the 1972 song Dialogue Part I from the band Chicago:
Terry (Kath): Are you optimistic 'bout the way that things are going?
Pete (Cetera): No, I never ever think of it at all.
Terry: Don't you ever worry when you see what's going down?
Pete: Well, I try to mind my business, that is, no business at all.
Terry: When it's time to function as a feeling human being, will your Bachelor
of Arts help you get by?
Pete: I hope to study further, a few more years or so.
I also hope to keep a steady high.
Terry: Will you try to change things, use the power that you have,
The power of a million new ideas?
Pete: What is this power you speak of and the need for things to change?
I always thought that ev'rything was fine, ev'rything is fine.
Terry: Don't you feel repression just closing in around?
Pete: No, the campus here is very very free.
Terry: Does it make you angry the way war is dragging on?
Pete: Well I hope the President knows what he's into, I don't know.
Oooh I just don't know.
Terry: Don't you see starvation in the city where you live,
all the needless hunger, all the needless pain?
Pete: I haven't been there lately, the country is so fine,
but my neighbors don't seem hungry 'cause they haven't got the time,
Haven't got the time.
Terry: Thank you for the talk, you know you really eased my mind,
I was troubled by the shapes of things to come.
Pete: Well, if you had my outlook, your feelings would be numb,
You'd always think that ev'rything was fine.
Ev'ry thing is fine.
I am optimistic that by talking and listening to each other - by having a real dialogue - we truly can change the world. Are you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)