Enlarge to see the text clearly.
(Here's where were talking just the other day about Wisconsin gun laws and these "no weapons" signs.)
६ फेब्रुवारी, २०१२
"Weapons are allowed inside only after they have been hammered into plowshares."
A local church uses this — citing Isaiah 2:4 — for its "no weapons" sign:
Enlarge to see the text clearly.
(Here's where were talking just the other day about Wisconsin gun laws and these "no weapons" signs.)
Enlarge to see the text clearly.
(Here's where were talking just the other day about Wisconsin gun laws and these "no weapons" signs.)
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१६८ टिप्पण्या:
So how does the pastor think people are able to peacefully plowshare?
So I can't bring my automatic through the automatic door?
Can I bring my revolver through the revolving door?
What's the point? You'd think Churches benefiting from the 1st Amendment would support the 2nd Amendment.
They work together, don'tcha know?
St. Peter kept a distinctly non-plowshare-shaped sword handy (Matthew 16:21-23).
A church over in Illinois metro-St Louis had a similar sign a few years back. During a service, a man walked into the church, walked right up the isle, and killed the pastor standing up on the dais.
Signs work wonders.
When they say hammer your swords into a plowshares, what they really mean is a sickle.
The bronze sculpture "Let Us Beat Our Swords into Ploughshares," was created by Soviet artist Evgeny Vuchetich, and presented to the United Nations on 4 December 1959 by the Government of the USSR. The sculpture, depicting the figure of a man holding a hammer aloft in one hand and a sword in the other, which he is making into a ploughshare, is meant to symbolize man's desire to put an end to war, and to convert the means of destruction into creative tools for the benefit of mankind. It is located in the North Garden of the United Nations Headquarters.
Oh that's nice.
A little nod toward peace in a country filled with people who love violence.
Although American Christians are well on their way to rewriting Jesus as their Warrior Savior.
Perhaps its been said here already in the earlier thread but this Wisconsin sign law in regard to CC just seems like a bone thrown to give some cover to those legislators who wanted to vote for CC but maintain they had protected the rights of those who didn't like CC.
What's the old saying, if concecealed carry is outlawed, only outlaws will conceal carry.
"Peace"
LOL
Would Jesus carry? Concealed? What caliber?
Right, Scott! Who is checking on the congregation to make sure everyone complies with the sign? No one did this at Virginia Tech either.
Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin out the scenery, breaking my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read my sign?
Would Jesus carry? Concealed? What caliber?
Why would he need to? He's wet-wired with the highest caliber possible.
Are you going to provide some backup to your statement that Americans are "well on their way" to turning Jesus into a warrior savior?
The return of the Quakers. So who do they pay to protect themselves with weapons that they refuse to touch?
I noticed the sign when I attended a great concert given by Con Vivo, a chamber music group, yesterday at the church where this was posted. Further they did not serve wine and cheese after the concert because they do not allow alcohol in their church (Congregational) which is just another example of how un-American these followers of Jesus can be...
That door is very red.
And oddly enough, the Obama Administration isn't ordering this belief to be set aside...
But the solution is simple -- find a church where the pastor is prepared to allow the flock to defend themselves from the wolves that appear at the door.
Violators will be hauled off by men whose weapons haven't been hammered into plowshares yet.
I fully endorse the right of property owners to refuse to let people bring weapons into their buildings.
But by posting that sign, the church has taken on the role of guaranteeing my personal safety and providing a mechanism that prevents all people from bringing a weapon into their building.
Some places actually do have such a mechanism and you can check your gun into the front desk or wear a special badge when inside. That is enough to show their due diligence when fending off a lawsuit or showing insurance companies why their liablity rates should not be raised.
Those who simply put up the sign have no such protections with regard to lawsuits or liability insurance rate increases.
These signs will gradually disappear just as many people with CCW will carry less and less as they realize what a pain in the butt it can be.
Are you going to provide some backup to your statement that Americans are "well on their way" to turning Jesus into a warrior savior?
I was going to, but if you'd like to step in and complete the task... please, go right ahead!
If you really don't want people to carry weapons into your church, you should probably make a clear, concise sign stating so.
A cutesy blurb with a cutesy picture just becomes so much indecipherable clutter.
Wasn't it just a couple of years ago that someone opened fire in a church, and a female member of the congregation (off-duty cop, I think) happened to be carrying and put the guy down before he could do much damage?
I tried to google it, but I found so many other church shootings that I couldn't sort through them all. It's their church and they're free to put up a sign like this, but it's foolish, unless this is some really extreme pacifist church like the Quakers.
""Weapons are allowed inside only after they have been hammered into plowshares.""
If you don't, what are they going to do? Fight about it?
"Would Jesus carry? Concealed? What caliber."
Don't you love it when liberals who obviously have total contempt for Christians and Christ use him to make pithy points?
It's just so cutting edge . . .
Nobody addressed my question from the previous thread:
Whether civil liability for the negligent acts of invitees with concealed carry weapons might apply to the owner of a premises who didn't post a sign excluding such weapons.
Most churches assume you wont bring a gun into the sanctuary. And they assume that any who do will keep it hidden. The sign is meant to signify that the church does not apporve of guns anywhere. It is too cute by half. Are we to think that churches that dont have such a sign welcome fun toting worshipers or that singless churches are less safe of less holy? Sanctimony is ugly on all faces.
garage - LOL? what are you 12?
roesche - yeah I think anyone who bans wine and cheese is very un-French. sacrebleu.
I dunno, Maybee. Seems to me the sign is fairly easy to spot and attracts attention. Isn't part of the problem with the "no weapons" signs in retail stores is that they're easy to miss?
Dead Julius. Do the churches in the UK have such signs? Or are they unnecesary in that there are no worshipers in the pews? Which is better?
A while back, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf poked gentle fun at spelling-challenged who asked about the rubrics for use of a beretta in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite; he also has a rubric for the contingency in which gunfire breaks out at Mass. (Fr. Z has a wicked sense of humor.)
Seeing Red said...
"So how does the pastor think people are able to peacefully plowshare?"
Other people's guns. It's a free rider problem.
Dead Julius said...
"Although American Christians are well on their way to rewriting Jesus as their Warrior Savior."
Jesus wasn't a warrior, but the image of him as a hippy is way off the mark. The "flower power" Jesus is an invention of the 1960s and 1970s; the real Jesus said both "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" and "peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful."
Peace. Through strength.
Tim said...
"You'd think Churches benefiting from the 1st Amendment would support the 2nd Amendment."
What makes you think that they don't? Explain the tension between the second amendment and the decision of an entirely private entity to refuse entry to people carrying firearms.
I dunno, Maybee. Seems to me the sign is fairly easy to spot and attracts attention. Isn't part of the problem with the "no weapons" signs in retail stores is that they're easy to miss?
If I'm looking for a legal notification not to bring a weapon into a place, that's not what I'm looking for.
If I'm looking for an announcement about the church potluck, I'll look at that sign.
Simon - I dunno it's my American right to carry my 2 Uzis into the church if I want to. As American as apple pie, cotton candy and double Western bacon cheeseburgers!
@Simon -
...the real Jesus said both "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" and "peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful."
Well, that's the post-Clovis interpretation, I guess.
Or post-Constantine, at least.
With each and every power-hungry person throughout history who has used Jesus to gain and maintain power, the authentic Jesus gets a little further and further away...
It's a slow-motion rewrite.
Also there is nothing more American then polishing off a fifth of Jack Daniels at lunch with one's buddies before heading to the 'range.
I am certainly not up on my Bible, but I don't think Jesus jaw-jawed the money-changers out of the temple.
the authentic Jesus gets a little further and further away...
So you knew him, did you? The Vatican would probably like to debrief you and there's a whole host of geneticists that would like to examine your telomeres.
@Michael -
Don't know about the UK. But I can tell you about the DK. Handguns are completely outlawed there. You can't carry, concealed or not. If the police spot aything that resembles a gun, they will send Politinspektor Sarah Lund to haul your ass in. Then the police will serve you some cheese and crackers and coffee and tell you that you shouldn't do that anymore.
And nobody goes to church there.
Whether civil liability for the negligent acts of invitees with concealed carry weapons might apply to the owner of a premises who didn't post a sign excluding such weapons.
The answer is no. The legislation specifically states:
"A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising
from its decision."
Isaiah clearly stipulates that this will happen after God arrives and establishes His earthly kingdom.
Until then, it's probably wiser to obey Jesus' advice on preparing yourself for survival in a dangerous world: Luke 22:36, "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one."
So you knew him, did you?
That's right. I died in 44 BC but my spirit stuck around for a few more decades to watch the show.
Pastafarian said...
Wasn't it just a couple of years ago that someone opened fire in a church, and a female member of the congregation (off-duty cop, I think) happened to be carrying and put the guy down before he could do much damage?
That was the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. I can see it from my house (and Focus on the Family).
The gunman shot 5 people (killing 2) before a female church security guard shot him. There is some debate as to whether he killed himself or if her shots killed him. Regardless, he was well armed and likely would've killed more people had the armed guard not been there.
Funny how those with bad intent tend to ignore silly signs about gun free zones. All those signs do is guarantee unarmed victims while making the sign posters feel good about themselves.
From what I read,.self defense laws in the UK are absurd.
Alex in case you haven't noticed some of the best wine is grown in California and the wine per resident in the US is now at 2.54 gals, so I suggest you change the vintage of your sterotypical image of wine drinkers. And yes how Un-any nation for a church to suggests it does not approve of having guns in the Sanctuary--why that would be as bad ,and probably as cute, as the Churches in Germany during the thirties suggesting that the violence of Naze movement was not in keeping with Christian values.
@Dead Julius,
considering that Jesus claimed he could summon a legion (~5000) angels at need, I suspect that he didn't feel a need to carry concealed.
There was a moment when he encouraged his inner circle to buy a weapon if they didn't already possess one. (Luke 22.36)
@Everyone Else:
Two different prophets spoke of a time when God's power would be manifested in a Kingdom of God on Earth. One benefit of that Kingdom would be that all the nations of the earth would beat their swords into plowshares, and spears into pruning hooks. (See Isaiah 2.4 and Micah 4.3)
Another prophet predicted Hard Times to come on Judgement Day, and said that the nations would rush to turn their plowshares into swords and pruning hooks into spears (See Joel 3.10).
I can see why one quote is much more popular than the other.
Have many people considered the thought that the bad times of Judgement Day would appear to come before the good times of the Kingdom? I can't think of any other order of events that make sense.
And that belief in the Kingdom of God depends on believing that God is willing and able to mete out punishment on those who disagree with His Rule?
That's the best understanding I can come to. And it's pretty scary.
Look, I understand the sentiment behind wanting to create safe havens free of threats. And I'd say a church is an obvious place for that to occur.
But at the same time, every time I read someone advocating for a weapons free zone, whether about just a building or enlarged to a city, I cringe at the thought that there's zero distinction between a responsible, knowledgeable person defending himself and potentially others, and an irresponsible, trigger/blade/bludgeon happy idiot ready to swing at any pretext. For some odd reason, too many who idealize "peaceful" zones jump to the conclusion that any weapons bearer is the latter.
That's just plain ignorant.
I understand that a shootout is dangerous to bystanders. I also understand that properly trained firearms handlers are specifically indoctrinated to be aware of the "backgrounds". Shooting back is not supposed to be automatic when being shot at. Rather, the whole situation must be judged, and appropriate action taken that includes but does not demand a return of fire.
It's just amazing that there's the notion out there that people should not attempt to defend themselves. And that weapons are demonized, yet intent is ignored. The responsible weapon holder is lumped in with the criminal, and only the police officer is considered the one who rightfully owns the priviledge of weapons use. While I respect law enforcement's need to have superiority of force in their duties, I'm at a loss as to how that translates to "no weapons" for regular people. To me, it should only mean "obey the police" when they finally get there and tell you to put it down. Not to reject its use prior to their arrival.
I sympathize with the feelings of wanting to create safe havens. But the reality is that safe havens are defended. And those who reject violence need to distinguish between those who use it to defend, and those who use it to commit crime. I just don't understand why the distinction is not made.
Maybe wrote: If I'm looking for an announcement about the church potluck, I'll look at that sign.
Funny. How about a sign that says:
"Weapons are allowed inside only after they've been hammered into casseroles."
"... All those signs do is guarantee unarmed victims while making the sign posters feel good about themselves..."
Which is what liberals seem to desire.
Usually the people who open fire are the ones like Hatman.
Or Julie.
Robert said...
Peace. Through strength.
Through superior firepower.
FIFY.
considering that Jesus claimed he could summon a legion (~5000) angels at need
Oh, Jesus Christ!
I mean... uh...
Let me start again:
Here we go with that same-old nonsense! Oh, look at me, I have armies, huge armies! I can summon legions! Put your trust in me... Pompey said the same thing and look what happened to him. Nice guy, but this blustering is just bullshit. If you've actually got the legions then there's no reason to boast about it.
Thomas Jefferson said: "Those who hammer their guns intop plowshares will plow for those who did not." Also, remember that freedom of relegion did not come by a Minister, it insured by a young man with a gun.
I don't brag about my legions.
Dead Julius: Well, the no handgun thing in the DK is working great. Only 4.03 murders per thousand versus the 5.51 in the USA. Do they kill each other with pickled herrings?
"... And those who reject violence need to distinguish between those who use it to defend, and those who use it to commit crime. I just don't understand why the distinction is not made..."
Those people are liberals and quite frankly, just aren't very bright.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Ah I see that Julius is being a sanctimonious little git…
Was the Rabbi Jesus a Pacifist or merely Obedient to his Father’s Command, i.e. Obedient….
Are Christians required to be Pacifists?
Please explain, with examples Julius. Be thorough, show all your work.
Alex said...
"Simon - I dunno it's my American right to carry my 2 Uzis into the church if I want to."
No one has any rights on private property save those afforded by the owner, the law, and the Divine Law. In that regard, the meanest shopkeeper is more mighty than the most fearsome magistrate, for what the President of the United States is absolutely forbidden to do in every circumstance, she may do in any circumstance that pleases her.
"Also there is nothing more American then polishing off a fifth of Jack Daniels at lunch with one's buddies before heading to the 'range."
I find that my aim's a little off after a little Jack. ;)
Dead Julius said...
"With each and every power-hungry person throughout history who has used Jesus to gain and maintain power, the authentic Jesus gets a little further and further away..."
If you want to see the authentic Jesus, you have only to look to the Church. It was she to whom custody of Divine Revelation was given, and the mission of preaching it entrusted. It was she who discerned the canon of scripture and who is ultimately responsible for authentically resolving disputes as to its correct interpretation.
Tibore said...
"Look, I understand the sentiment behind wanting to create safe havens free of threats. And I'd say a church is an obvious place for that to occur."
The best way to create a safe haven free of threats is to make sure that anyone who might wish to cause harm knows that everyone inside is armed. Gun-free campuses kill people—if Virginia Tech had required every lecturer to be armed and posted signs saying "all staff and faculty are armed," how many lives would have been saved at Virginia Tech? Any solution to America's gun issues that fails to start from the presupposition that guns are omnipresent and aren't going away is going to fail, and probably fail in a way that kills people.
Just to be on the safe side, they should post a No Top, No Shoes, No Service sign. Also rollerblades are not shoes and should not be allowed in church.
MayBee is right. Ineffective signage.
As "we" used to say in the late '60s ~ Jesus is coming again, and boy is he pissed!
Mayan "End of Days" prophecy, Dec. 21, 2012.
Forget it Jake, It's Wisconsin.
Weapons are inanimate objects, and must be carried in order to gain entry. It's not guns that are prohibited, it's the person who would carry a gun that is in fact being rejected from worship in their church.
The Matt. 16:21-23 reference is speaking of the kingdom age for Israel which is yet to come. During the millennial reign of Christ on earth where Christ reigns supreme weapons of any kind will be unnecessary
Essentially, a plowshare is a knife--the cutting forward edge of a plow.
So take your knives to church.
And on your way home, hope you don't run into a criminal with a gun.
Has nothing to with the topic at hand, but I found this funny as hell.
Recall election and all.
http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2012/02/tv-station-finds-massive-voter-fraud-by.html
How about "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who we think might be packin heat"
I also like the concept that it's an automatic door.
No fault religion.
Thomas Jefferson said: "Those who hammer their guns intop plowshares will plow for those who did not."
This is why slaves were not allowed to have guns.
Dead Julius' talk about bluster reminds me of a story. So Francis Cardinal George is in Rome in 2005, and the conclave has just elected Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as the 265th pope. And standing near the man of the hour, George is looking at the obelisk in St. Peter's Piazza when it occurs to him: Cæsar put Christ to death. And he put St. Paul to death. And a gunshot from this place, he put St. Peter to death; by every standard of the world, St. Peter was nothing while the emperor of Rome was a powerful guy. If you today want to see the successor of Cæsar, however, where can you go? Cæsar is dead; his thone is extinguished; his empire barely a memory. And yet here I am, standing in Rome next to the successor of Peter! More than a thousand years after the crown of the Emperor of Rome turned to dust, the miter of Bishop of Rome endures. Truly, from this vantage point, we can understand the observation of another apostle martyred by Cæsar: God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
If you today want to see the successor of Cæsar, however, where can you go?
America is the successor of Caesar's state. And since Caesar was the state, it is the successor if Caesar too.
Hoosier Daddy said...
"... All those signs do is guarantee unarmed victims while making the sign posters feel good about themselves..."
Which is what liberals seem to desire.
No worries, the police will be there shortly to make a nice report.
Maybe I have a different translation - after all, mine is in the original Hebrew - but I'm pretty sure that beating swords into plowshares is something that is supposed to happen after Moshiach has brought peace. Until then, G-d needs good people to remain armed and prepared to fight evil.
Translation: "This is a place full of unresisting targets. Feel like making headlines?"
If they just had such a sign at Columbine HS, and Va Tech! Imagine the lives that would have been saved.
It's a church so sanctimony comes naturally.
The Church of the Sacred Bleeding Heart and Jerking Knee of Progressivism. Selectively coopting the Word of God just like any other huckster, jihadist, televangelist, or false prophet. Remember, "Jesus was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor." Because duh, truthiness, 'n' stuff. Praise the Lord and pass the Obamacare.
What then to do with the heretics?
Dead Julius said...
"America is the successor of Caesar's state. And since Caesar was the state, it is the successor if Caesar too."
Not really, no.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
America is the successor of Caesar's state. And since Caesar was the state, it is the successor if Caesar too
Facile…The US does NOT = Rome and ergo there is NO Caesar, please up your game, Julius.
BTW, you haven’t answered my question in re; the Rabbi Jesus. So I will ask again, did Yhwh command his Pacifism or his OBEDIENCE? There IS a difference, please answer and provide examples or citations, be thorough show all your work.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
What then to do with the heretics
Well I can tell you we generally don’t shoot’em…..
"... America is the successor of Caesar's state..."
Not even close.
"Weapons are allowed inside only after they have been hammered into plowshares"
If they have been hammered into plowshares, then they aren't weapons anymore. Why would anybody want to bring farm implements into a church?
The sign should just say, "Weapons are not allowed inside."
All the cutesyness about hammering into plowshares just strikes me as asshole-ish.
That sign is so smug I want to slap its face silly.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
And you have to love the fact that they choose a SOVIET piece of art to illustrate their point…I mean the USSR noted for hammering plowshares INTO swords, so much so it bankrupted them! But, you can’t expect a church to know any history I guess….
That sign espouses the kind of progressivism that just got American Catholics forced to support abortion.
It's all part of the next step in the progressive playbook:
You cannot practice what you preach; that's only for inside the church.
After that, you won't even be able to do it there.
See Canada, England for the current step.
See USSR, Chicom for the next.
Don't be afraid; embrace the State.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Reading that sign makes me think of:
The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector.
(Luke 18:11)
Julius is the successor of Senator Incitatus.
From what I read,.self defense laws in the UK are absurd.
Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that:
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."
Which part of this do you find absurd?
Someone should bring a plow in there.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Julius is the successor of Senator Incitatus
No, I think you insult the good Senator…Incitatus lacked Julius’ smugness. Incitatus was a horse and pretended to be nothing else…the fact he was elevated to a station beyond his capacities was not his fault…whereas Julius spends a lot of time demonstrating his/her manifest limitations, and does so proudly, and with forethought and free will.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large
The now current interpretation of “reasonable” which, seemingly, precludes any defensive action or weapon…cricket bats, kitchen knives, batons, Tasers, or Pepper Spray, much less a fire arm…
So much for the Church Militant.
I wonder about a church that puts a photo of a naked male statue on the front door. Are they starting a Zumba class?
@Dead Julius,
Great point.
Except Jesus didn't claim his armies were a reason for people to trust him.
He claimed that those armies were a reason for Peter not to be swinging his sword around and resisting Jesus' arrest by Temple authorities.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Are they starting a Zumba class
Is there something about Zumba I should know?
Which part of this do you find absurd?
It sounds perfectly sensible...until you're facing greater force on the opposing side. Using deadly force in defense of my or my family's life seems very reasonable to me. You just have to have the right tools handy and legal.
What if you hammered them into abortion implements?
Whenever I see one of these signs on a business, I go somewhere else.
A "no guns allowed" sign is meant for the law abiding person like me, not a criminal who would actually use a gun in a criminal act. Not to be overly dramatic, but a no guns allowed sign to me is like a "whites only" sign.
My brother's liberal Lutheran church "no guns allowed" signs up. But his church does pay for the abortions of their employees.
I would have more respect for a church that has a "no abortions allowed" sign up.
Whenever I see a sign like this, I lock and load. Then I head down to the 'range and go through a couple of thousand rounds just to blow the steam off.
Freeman Hunt "What if you hammered them into abortion implements?"
You would be elected an Episcopal Bishop?
e claimed that those armies were a reason for Peter not to be swinging his sword around and resisting Jesus' arrest by Temple authorities.
You need to take another, closer look at John 18:9.
"Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and rose to strike the high priest's slave. Jesus said, "Hark, Peter. Lower thy sword. It's always funny until someone looses an ear". And there was great rejoicing and the people did feast upon the lame, the fruit bat and the orangutan."
Get it right, man.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Get it right, man
Get it right INDEED, you forgot the “sloths” and “anchovies”….Sheesh
et it right INDEED, you forgot the “sloths” and “anchovies”….Sheesh
Shh...it's secretly ironic.
America is the successor of Caesar's state. And since Caesar was the state, it is the successor if Caesar too.
Oh absolutely I think, at least in the context of "Render unto Caesar". Caesar here is just a metaphor for whatever competing earthly power you are subject to. That's how I understand it.
.
"Weapon" is a curious word. It describes how something is used rather than what it is. Exactly like bricks, golf clubs, steak knives, and baseball bats a firearm can be a weapon one moment and not a weapon the next.
The sign means to me anyway that whatever it is you bring in here, don't use it as a weapon.
.
I ♥ Willard said...
"Section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that: 'A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.' Which part of this do you find absurd?"
The problem is means. You're going to want to review the Firearms Act, 1997 c. 64. If the breathing apparatus act of 2010 bans snorkels, scuba, and other means of breathing underwater, it does you no good at all to cite the fresh air act of 1960 for the proposition that one has a right to breath whether under or above water.
Jesus espoused a peaceful philosophy, he was not by any means a pacifist as the earlier commentators have evidenced by quote and examples.
Here's another angle to consider, the humanist angle. Jesus was born to a rough life where his people were under the oppressive heel of the Pax Romana, a peace kept by threat of imminent violence.
He grew to be a carpenter by trade, and I can assure you, it takes a lot of physical strength to be a carpenter now, let alone then.
When he started his Ministry, his earliest converts were fisherman, another labor intensive trade. One of his apostles names was Peter, which is derived from petros, rock, in other words "Rocky". Another was Judas Iscariot. To those who know, an sicarii was a "dagger man", the sicarii used often in assasination. So Judas Iscariot translate roughly as Judas the Knife. Quite the sobriquet, one could almost see it in a Sopranos episode.
So you have a physically powerful man that worked in a physical trade leading other physically powerful men. And not to beat a dead horse, physically powerful men have a way of getting what they want physically, even more so way back then, because of the mayhem they can cause.
So, is it any wonder he used to talk so much about turning the other cheek, and loving your neighbor? If only to soften the image of his closest followers?
Again, there is a big difference between peaceful, and pacifism.
Communism, alive and well in Wisconsin.
Would Jesus carry? Concealed? What caliber?
He preferred open carry. A 12 gauge.
Although American Christians are well on their way to rewriting Jesus as their Warrior Savior.
You betcha!
(Matthew 10:34-39) “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace on earth, but a sword. For I am come to set man at variance with his father, and daughter against her mother, and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth (saves his own) life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.”
I'm as much of a gun nut as anybody, but it seems to me If you're going to go hauling your gun into church with you you're missing the point.
It's "A mighty fortress is our God"
not A mighty fortress is our gun
A gun undrawn is peaceful. The idea that a gun in and of itself is hostile is stupid.
That sign is heresy for those who worship the Tea Party Jesus.
Tea Party Jesus loves guns and takes money from the poor to give to the rich. He puts the money changers in the church.
Tea Party Jesus is a false prophet.
I support the church in whatever firearm policy it deems best, but the passage in Isiah refers to the world after Christ returns and establishes himself as ruler of the earth.
That has not yet happened, so I think they are misunderstanding the verse and thus, their policy.
Trey
Carnifex said...
"Peter, which is derived from petros, rock, in other words 'Rocky.'"
Yep. That's one way that I try to get folks past the translation difficulties to how Matthew 16 really sounds. You can't translate it as "you are Peter"—not for exegetical purposes. That drains all the force and immediacy from it (which is often the idea, candidly); you have to translate it as "You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church." (The Greek is the original, but the latin retains the same force and clarity of expression while being singularly elegant: "tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam.")
Alpha has become a parody on a parody.
Alpha has become a parody on a parody.
Alpha has a way to go before he's Shatneresque.
Ha ha, Alpha's defining Christianity and heresy for us now. Guess someone died and made him the Pope.
It's a widely quoted piece of scripture.
But at least one interpretation of it is that the Israelites are pleased that their enemies have been forced to beat their swords into plowshares (because there is now no need for Israel to go to war).
Ancient warriors may have lacked nuclear weapons, but they surely had the both the will and the means to subject conqueered populations to horrendous destruction and terror.
I see Alpha is still as much a hate filled bigot as ever.
Simon said...
Tim said...
"You'd think Churches benefiting from the 1st Amendment would support the 2nd Amendment."
What makes you think that they don't? Explain the tension between the second amendment and the decision of an entirely private entity to refuse entry to people carrying firearms.
What makes you think they do? Explain the tension between the first amendment as protected by the second amendment, and the decision of an entity to mock the second amendment, when that entity's first amendment rights are protected by the second amendment.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Shh...it's secretly ironic
“Ironic” is it? Next you’ll be posting with your hat at a goofy angle and “ironically” liking PBR.
"I'm as much of a gun nut as anybody, but it seems to me If you're going to go hauling your gun into church with you you're missing the point. It's "A mighty fortress is our God" not A mighty fortress is our gun."
Jim, since G-d isn't in charge only in church (or synagogue) but everywhere, the implication of your argument is that we should never attempt to defend ourselves. There are of course some of my own brethren who believe that is what it means. I think they are nuts. Well meaning, but nuts. People in Churches and synagogues have been slaughtered before, so to my mind that makes them good candidates for concealed carry (or in Israel, open carry).
This reminds me of the joke about the guy who climbs up on his roof to avoid a flood. As the waters get higher and higher, people try to save him: a boat a helicopter, etc. he keeps telling them G-d will save him. Eventually he drowns. When he comes face to face with G-d he asks "why didn't you save me?" to which G-d replies "who do you think sent the boat and the choper?"
I guess I am missing something here. A church is espousing non-violence. I think that it is their decision to make, no matter how ill-advised many here think it to be. We have had a minority pacifist strain here for decades - think, for example, of the Quakers who founded Pennsylvania. And, our draft laws long recognized that with conscientious objector exemptions to armed service.
Now, is that attitude smart? I don't think so, but many do. Is that sign sufficiently clear and visible? I don't know - and think that should bother the church.
I should clarify that I'm not denying that a church may have the right to disarm itself and advertise the fact if they want to. In Texas "places of worship" are one of the few categories that can legally ban concealed carry. That's their right. I'm just responding to the idea that in places of worship, one does not need to defend oneself.
Here is real gun control.
I have walked past my gun at least a few dozen times today, and it has yet to grab my hand and put my finger on its trigger. Good Gun!
I have walked past my gun at least a few dozen times today, and it has yet to grab my hand and put my finger on its trigger. Good Gun!
You must be using the wrong caliber.
"Beaten into plowshares?"
Oh. The violent rhetoric!
WV: painguff <--- seriously.
I'd have some reservations about going to a church whose members have to be reminded not to come strapped and heavy to a church service.....Just as a matter of curiousity, does anyone here take a pistol to church services? I'm not arguing the politics. I just wonder if anyone has ever does it.
@ William: Always. At one small synagogue I attend, about 30% carry. At a much larger synagogue, probably closer to 10%.
"Just as a matter of curiousity, does anyone here take a pistol to church services?" My fiancee never goes anywhere without it, even church.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Just as a matter of curiousity, does anyone here take a pistol to church services
Sure, you never know when some meshugeh goyim is going to stroll in…or when there might be some delightful goyim child that needs abduction for the making of our ‘special” pastries!
No really this is just a preachy, smarmy little reminder of “ how good” the people of this Church are…they want you to know just how correct they are, in regards to the issue of gun control and social violence…they “get it.” Or in the words of Tom Lehrer:
Everyone of us cares.
We all hate poverty, war, and injustice,
Unlike the rest of you squares
Peace through superior signage.
If one carried concealed, one would not ostensibly be carrying.
Maybe the picture is indicating strip searches to establish compliance.
Jim,
"I'm as much of a gun nut as anybody..."
Ummm, no.
Naked church might also fulfill any denominational relevance requirements.
William,
I am armed pretty much anytime it is legal for me to be so. Here in WA, that very much includes church. It's concealed, so in church (as elsewhere) those who would have a negative reaction to it simply don't know.
Anne, good for him... BUT what are you, a freeloader??? ;-)
wv- redos: what you get when you can't spell the WV correctly several times in a row.
(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Naked church might also fulfill any denominational relevance requirements
Would be the end of my “church’ing” experience….”My eyes the goggles, do nothing…”..It’s bad enough I have to see ME in the mirror every morning after a shower…I think of some of my fellow communicants…and *WRETCH* and I would have the same effect on THEM!
Now your avatar, makes me think that naked church in YOUR sect, might be more appealing to ME, but my presence might lessen the effect on you…
I checked out the Tea Party Jesus Alpha, and man, those things are offensive to me! But I completly agree about Tea Party Jesus being a false prophet.
Trey
"Anne, good for him... BUT what are you, a freeloader??? ;-)"
My taser is always on me.
I'm as much of a gun nut as anybody, but it seems to me If you're going to go hauling your gun into church with you you're missing the point.
My son-in-law and grandson were present at this church when when a psycho came in, killed two and wounded several others. A couple of guys might still be alive is a gun or two, or three, were present. Criminals and psychos know no boundaries. BTW - half the cops in my little town belong to my church. They come packing all the time.
Some AM radio station should give the guy a range membership and buy him a shipload of ammunition, and give him voucher for training. It wasn’t the perfect intervention but it was quite commendable.
Naked church might also fulfill any denominational relevance requirements
All will be revealed.
The congregation and choir are asked to remain seated throughout the service.
I'd give Jews and, of course, Copts in Egypt a certain amount of leeway regarding this. Notwithstanding DADvocate's example, I should hope to God that church shoot outs are relatively rare. Has a madman ever shot up a swimming pool or a steam room? Shouldn't you be on the safe side and take your weapon swimming with you and into the steam room after a work out?....Again, I'm not arguing the politics, but aren't there some situations where one would consider a firearm burdensome and/or unnecessary?
"This is a place of peace, so we make it safer for vicious people to be aggressive"...
Yeah, no thanks.
I wonder if church shootings are common or if we just notice when they happen. There was a shooting at a sikh temple in California, a couple blocks from our house, so it's not just churches. Perhaps there is something psychological going on with churches and schools?
"You must be able to hit a pie plate at 10 feet to carry a firearm in this business"
Synova - how many of the shootings are by outsiders hating on the religionists? F.e., Muslim shooting up a synagogue.
Making a point of posting the notice does seem sort of smug. Assuming that people bringing weapons to Church is an ongoing problem, maybe it's not smug, but what are the chances of that? I've no doubt that there have been guns at churches I've attended I but I've never been aware of them. Not once in my life.
Perhaps there is something psychological going on with churches and schools?
A relative who visited someone at a mental health ward said there was a sign listing banned topics of conversation. These included UFOs and religion.
Perhaps religion has a special capacity to set off crazy people.
They should make the sign bigger and more truthful: "We enforce rules to make it easier for the wicked to commit great violence here instead of elsewhere."
Inadequate notice. No where does the sign say "This Church bans guns in this premises." The permit holder is left to guess at the message.
They are setting someone up for a criminal charge not playing silly word games. In Wiscon, apparently, every sign can be different in wording, design, size, location, visibility, and, most importantly NOTICE.
We don't have "secret" crimes in America (not even, IIRC, in Wisconsin -- Right Ann?). The statute can't be vague and where the law calls for an actor to give notice, the notice can't be vague, deceptive, or disguised.
William,
Deciding when and where to carry is a balancing act. You consider the risk of an attack, the potential consequences of an attack, and the difficulty of carrying. In most environments, carrying is a very small burden. Even though the likelihood is usually very slim, the consequences are almost always very steep.
I just don't see the relevance of the swimming pool example. Are you suggesting that if one doesn't bite the bullet and carry everywhere, all the time, then it doesn't really make sense to carry at all? Or if someone is not willing to carry when wearing a towel, then they shouldn't carry at church, even if they could easily?
Perhaps there is something psychological going on with churches and schools?
A target-rich environment without air defenses.
Our company's bank has a no-weapons sign, and every October they post a notice banning face-covering costumes.
AlphaLiar is nothing but a deranged nutbag. Ignore him at your peril. Destroy him at your leisure.
William,
Why would you conflate the inherent-in-the-activity inability (no, you really can't shower or swim with your Glock) with the I-wish-I-were-safe situations like being in Church. Freeman's joking aside*, church attire isn't that different from everyday attire that one would need to alter one's carry routine based on that, so what's left besides the wishful-thinking part?
-----------------------------------
*Dude(ette), you are really on a roll in this thread! :-)
I'm not religious, but I would be very temped to attend a church if they welcomed and had attendees openly carrying. That atmosphere would just seem very authentic, honest and safe. The gun controlled church is admitting that it does not trust its teaching is very effective.
The question is: if Jesus was packing would you insist that he leave it outside or not attend?
"Synova - how many of the shootings are by outsiders hating on the religionists? F.e., Muslim shooting up a synagogue."
I really have no idea. The Sikh shooting was someone from that community but visiting from Pakistan or India (I don't remember) and I *think* that most of the Christian church shootings are by people who are unchurched but not really outside demographic-wise. That's people walking in and killing people in the US. Aren't most sectarian attacks property damage here? Doesn't make it okay, but I think it might be a separate dynamic.
Schools, churches, and I should have added fast food joints. Do those things represent family and community, perhaps?
Okay I get your point considering how many church shootings have been caused by right wingers trying to gun down those liberals, I guess the next time I take communion I will be packing heat and looking over my shoulder praising the Lord and passing the ammunition along with the grape juice.
Joel 3:10
I keep hearing all this biblical talk about beating my weapon into a plowshare. What's the difference between a plow and a plowshare?
I don't mind the sentiments--you should have the right to determine whether or not to allow weapons on your own property. What is disturbing is the lack of uniformity in signage. A simple, eaily recognizable and uniform sign/message needs to be used if the message is to be considered legally binding. After all, you don't have a miultitude of "STOP" signs on the roads.
Only 4.03 murders per thousand versus the 5.51 in the USA.
Where did you get your figures? Because they are hopeless wrong. First of all, homicide rates are reported in deaths per 100,000 not 1,000. Secondly even per 100,000, you overstated the murder rate in the U.S. and vastly overstated it in DK. It is actually 4.8 in the U.S. and 0.85 in DK. So apparently the Danish are onto something with their draconian self defense laws and lack of church attendance.
Freder
Why did you zero in on those two aspects of Danish society without mentioning the overwhelming racial hegemony (97% Scandinavian) or the 99% literacy rate for both men and women? Odd, that. I'm not insinuating anything other than you cherry-picked a couple of things about the Danes when there's a whole wealth of info to complete the picture of why Danish crime is so low.
Why did you zero in on those two aspects of Danish society without mentioning the overwhelming racial hegemony (97% Scandinavian) or the 99% literacy rate for both men and women?
Because the post I was responding to cited these two aspects of Danish society--and was apparently making the argument that these factors didn't make for a significantly lower homicide rate in DK. Obviously, the homicide rate in DK and all of Western Europe is significantly lower (generally 1/3 to 1/4) than that of the U.S.
Our loose gun laws do not make us any safer. There is no correlation between strict gun laws and higher crime or vice versa (for every D.C. I can point out a NYC and the homicide--and general crime--rates in Chicago are about the same as Dallas or Houston).
My personal decision to carry a gun has very little to do with whether gun ownership in general reduces crime. There is significant evidence that it does. "For every DC I can point out a NYC" isn't really authoritative. You need to look at the overall data. But however the evidence emerges, I carry because I am the one ultimately responsible for my family's safety.
Our loose gun laws do not make us any safer.
My ability to own and carry a firearm has stopped me from being mugged near the Loop in St Louis. I'm sure that doesn't count, but it certainly did in my case. I agree with Yiddishe, though. I'm primarily responsible for preventing and mitigating damage to my family, not the government.
Our loose gun laws do not make us any safer.
Yes, they do. Occupied-building burglary is exceedingly rare in the US compared to the UK.
There is significant evidence that it does.
There simply isn't regardless of what John Lott claims.
Freder,
The FBI disagrees with you: Chicago has a homicide rate 2.5 times that of NYC, and double the robbery rate.
Freder, how is it that Minnesota, lacking neither Scandinavians NOR "loose gun laws"---"shall issue" concealed carry permits, no registration of guns, no restrictions on buying handguns beyond the Federal ones that apply throughout the US---has a homicide rate of 1.4/100,000, only slightly higher than Denmark's?
@ Arne -
Because Minnesota has Frances McDormand watching out for it from her prowler?
Reminds me of a Unitarian church here in Oklahoma City with a bronze plaque by the door: "This is a nuclear-free zone"
...
First time I saw that, my second thought was "Gee, with all the whining about caring for the poor and so forth, how many meals could have been provided with the money they used to put this "Look how moral we are!" sign up?"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा