THE FOUNDATION: ARMS

“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.” —Thomas Jefferson

FOR THE RECORD

“It is not hyperbole to describe [the Supreme Court’s] decision in [District of Columbia v.] Heller as the most significant opinion of this century, and likely, of the last two generations. Two particular thoughts immediately come to mind. First, the extent to which [the] decision effectively opens the door for future litigation regarding the Second Amendment to further clarify the extent of the now confirmed, but long understood, individual right to keep and bear arms. Second, this is an election year. This decision, closely divided as it is, will likely provide a rallying cry for the millions of the Americans who recognize that their Second Amendment rights came down to a single vote. In reading Justice Scalia’s opinion, there is an overwhelming theme that to interpret the Second Amendment as not protecting an individual right would gut the amendment of meaning and defy logic. It is, after all, the Second Amendment, not the two hundredth. This is not an obscure line buried among thousands of pages of text. It is inconceivable that the framers would have given it the priority they did, placing it ahead of so many other critical rights, if they only meant it to apply to militias as the dissenting justices suggest.” —David Schenck

Find the Spirit of Humility

The Rev. Jeri Gray-Reneberg
For the Times-Standard

There is a cherished plaque on my wall, made for me by a calligrapher friend in Iowa, that says “He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” This bible verse is found in the book of Micah, Chapter 6, Verse 8.

Even apart from their historical context, these words present an ethical position that appeals to me. Each of the exhortations is perfectly balanced with the other two – and, together, they seem to be an unmatched tool to deepen spirituality.
. . .
Rest of article from Joe Blows Report:

We all know what it means to do justice. When we are focused on justice-doing, we look at the human-made structures that oppress people, animals and the Earth. We may be looking at an individual situation, but there are elements of the general, even the political. Some of us would prefer not to have to deal with these situations. They are often messy and controversial, and they demand effort -- even our life's blood. For this reason, we sometimes find that we are able to focus on only one or two areas that we are especially passionate about.

Regarding kindness: I think many of us love kindness when it is directed at us, but maybe not when we are asked to be kind to others. We are kind mostly in individual situations. And those who prefer the “justice mode” of ethical response are sometimes uncomfortable with kindness. It feels too mushy, too based on feelings – but there it is, we are asked to respect, and even protect, each others’ feelings.

Walking humbly with our God … I am reminded of the old Chevy Chase saying from “Saturday Night Live”: “Hello. I’m Chevy Chase – and your not!” This phrase invites us to remember that God is God – and we are not. Remember that “We are dust … and to dust we shall return,” in the words many congregations hear on Ash Wednesday. “Humble” is related to “humus,” or dirt. In other words, we are no greater than anyone else. We are all on the same level, being kind and striving for justice while we worship our God, who is greater and more wonderful than we are able to imagine.

Distortions of these three ethical positions are all around us, and impact us every day. We are unjust when we refuse to look at systems and attitudes that contribute to racism, sexism, ageism, heterosexism and anthropocentrism (when we see humanity as the center of the universe). We feel free to apply a double standard, and we keep new models of leadership from becoming widespread and generally accepted because we prevent women, people of color and those whose voices have not been dominant from holding positions of influence.

We are unkind when we become angry and speak one word too many. We are unkind when we see only our own needs. We are unkind when we allow our prejudices to determine the degree of empathy we feel for others. We are unkind when we refuse to care that a felling creature, human or animal, is be hurt.

And finally, we don’t walk humbly with God when we make sure that ours are always the loudest voices, drowning out all the others. We show a shocking lack of humility when we believe that others are put on this Earth to serve our needs, and that we are justified in isolating, abusing and controlling them. We commit spiritual abuse against others, and God, when we threaten people with excommunication or hell because they refuse to be victims or the believe our narrowly constructed theology.

Let us all pray, within our own traditions, that we might recover the spirit of humility is all of our interactions, that we might be reoriented toward God, the rest of creation, and each other.

Dave Berman . . .

1 comments:
Dave Berman said...

Hey Joe, thanks for the critique. I haven't been writing much lately, but I think like most people, when I find out someone's talking about me I like to know what's being said. And I appreciate your thoughtful comments so I'd like to respond in kind here.

You cite textbook definitions of revolution, but do not quote the definition of revolution that I have used, borrowing from Rebecca Solnit's "Hope In the Dark": revolution is a change in the relationship of power between the people and the government.

I have given many examples of how this can occur peacefully, though the one I focus on most often is establishing the legitimacy of elections. It would be a revolutionary shift in the relationship between citizens and government if we go from having no say in choosing leaders, as is the case now with phony unverifiable "elections," to transparent and verifiable actual elections where citizens count the votes in public with the media documenting the counting process to establish the credibility of the results reported. Currently, media report election results as fact, even though the unverifiable results are inherently uncertain.

I have also advocated rejecting the results of the current faux "elections," hoping to see citizens refusing to consent to the transfer of power to candidates claiming victory when no such proof of entitlement to power exists. In saying this I want to make clear that, as you suggest, we should treat an illegitimate government as such. It is not We The People who have decimated the rule of law, though we have mostly passively accepted the consequences of this manifest injustice perpetrated upon the world by "those currently claiming to be the legitimate U.S. government."

Given that my "Blueprint" was written more than two and a half years ago, I have grown more pessimistic that we will see the reclamation of the voting process as the path to peaceful revolution. Alternatives toward this same end will be elusive until we see what we accept as our local government stand with the citizens against the higher levels of so-called government. Without support for our cause at the local level, we are left with no representation whatsoever. Before we can deal with revolution, peaceful or otherwise, our society is going to have to come to terms with being subjugated subjects of a fascist empire rather than free people.

Finally, you say it should be "clearly understood that any interaction with the police is inherently violent." What a sad statement of our current condition as a society. Your assertion may be true more often than not, but it is not universally true. I'm not one to be defending the job done by our local police of late, but I would encourage you to be more precise by avoiding such generalizations.

Welcome to the blogosphere. Peace.

Dave