Gun-loving pastor to his flock: Piece be with you

[gatorboy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090604/ap_on_re_us/us_guns_in_church

LOUISVILLE, Ky. – A Kentucky pastor is inviting his flock to bring guns to church to celebrate the Fourth of July and the Second Amendment.

New Bethel Church is welcoming "responsible handgun owners" to wear their firearms inside the church June 27, a Saturday. An ad says there will be a handgun raffle, patriotic music and information on gun safety.

"We're just going to celebrate the upcoming theme of the birth of our nation," said pastor Ken Pagano. "And we're not ashamed to say that there was a strong belief in God and firearms — without that this country wouldn't be here."
-------------------------------------------

I think the fundies have now officially jumped the shark.

Maybe at the end of the sermon they can shoot up in the air cowboy style!

[liberalmuse]

1. It's time to start taxing some of these churches.

I think we could use the revenue right now.

[jgraz]

7. or all of the churches

We can start right here in CA. We need the money and they've proven themselves to be anything but benevolent charities.

[onehandle]

2. There's this dude. He was stabbed with a spear about 2000 year ago.

Don't think he'd approve. Somebody should give them a copy of a book he's in.

But do some highlighting first.

[jgraz]

5. If only Jeezus had gotten a CCW.

That would have totally kicked ass.

[pipi_k]

27. oops...duplicate n/t

[pipi_k]

28. Clint Eastwood stars in a new movie

as Dirty Jesus...

"Go ahead, thou unholy punk...maketh my day"

[jgraz]

39. Or "The Good, The Bad and The Pharisees"

A Fistful of Nails? :hide:

[pipi_k]

52. bwahahahah!!! how about...

"The Outlaw Judas Iscariot"

[rl6214]

70. It's Jesus, not jeezus

[jgraz]

71. Really? I did not know that.

I'm assuming the judges will also not accept Jeez, Jeebus, or Jesus H fucking Christ on a pogo stick.

[spin]

72. Actually it's Yeshua...

Mis-Translating the Mis-Translation

Yeshua is a Hebrew name which has been transliterated into Greek as Iesous (IhsouV: pronounced "ee-ay-SUS"). The English "Jesus" comes from the Latin transliteration of the Greek name into the Latin Iesus. Now Greek has no "y" sound, but the Latin "i" is both an "i" and a "j" (i.e., it can have a consonantal force in front of other vowels), the latter of which is properly pronounced like the English "y" (which explains the German Jesu, "YAY-su")That is why we spell Jesus as we do, taking it straight from Latin, but we pronounce the name with a soft "j" sound because that is what we do in English with the consonantal "j".
http://www.thenazareneway.com/yeshua_jesus_real_name.htm

[Callisto32]

66. Yeah, like Luke 22:35-36. n/t

[nc4bo]

3. God is not their god. Guns are.

Reminds me of a scene in Planet of the Apes where the mutants worship a nuke.

[Soylent Brice]

40. agreed:

[NewMoonTherian]

65. From the story, it appears they aren't worshipping guns.

They're celebrating their role in American history. It isn't a worship service. The pastor even explicitly said that, as you can read in the article.

[margotb822]

4. Is it legal to raffle handguns?

That seems insane!

[Hoopla Phil]

6. Yes, so long as the background check is done and the yellow sheet filled out

by the winner.

[patriotvoice]

8. Though you provided no link, the pastor has asked that weapons be unloaded.

While I think it's unnecessary that a church specifically celebrate Independence Day and the RKBA, I do think carrying to and in church is a good idea. Especially if you're a UU member, since whackos like to whack your brethren.

[jgraz]

10. Unloaded? What is he, some kinda COMMUNIST?

[gatorboy]

14. Fixed.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. And I am just sure that all of the gun nuts at this church will carry unloaded weapons

After all, the pastor told them to unload their guns!

:sarcasm:

[patriotvoice]

18. "The guns must be unloaded and private security will check visitors at the door, Pagano said."

Which will serve to disarm those who abide by the law, while giving power to those who scoff at it. The only defense to illegal carry is unobstructed legal carry.

[spin]

20. Guns are common in many churches in this country...

as many states do not forbid a licensed person with a carry permit from having one in a church.

Of course, most people never know that the person in the pew beside them is carrying a loaded firearm. And they never realize that when they go to Walmart after church they may walk by several people with legally concealed weapons.

You just never know.

[Recursion]

53. Umm... yes, they will

That seems like a pretty simple idea to give you such conceptual difficulty.

[chaplainM]

9. Here's the benediction prayer

"O, Lord, we beseech thee, sprinkle upon thy faithful the gunpowder of Thy grace, laden us with the Holy lead of Thy truth, jacket us always in the righteous copper of Thy word, close our ears to the temptations of Satan with the pure cotton wadding of Your divine love, and shower our hearts with the incandescent spark of Your most holy redemption."

[baldguy]

11. WWJCCW?

[Hoopla Phil]

19. I see by your signature line you like Gandhi. How about this one?

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn." Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Chapter XXVII, Recruiting Campaign, Page 403, Dover paperback edition, 1983.

[baldguy]

21. And to think India now requires licensing of all gun owners & registration of all guns.

That must be some kind of fascist dictatorship then, huh?

[Hoopla Phil]

22. Yep, Gandhi would be appalled.

[baldguy]

23. You think India is fascist? He would be appalled at Indians murdering Indians? I don't think so.

Perhaps you should refresh yourself on the meaning of the words "fascist" and "pacifist".

[Hoopla Phil]

24. My posts only deal with Gandhi's views on firearms and their government restriction.

[baldguy]

25. Gandhi's quote is about the BRITISH COLONIAL govt's TOTAL DENIAL of gun ownership by native Indians.

Britain was a foreign imperial army imposing their will on the local Indian population without its consent. Today, the Republic of India has no such ban. They are widely regarded as the world's largest democracy and they have reasonable licensing & registration laws in place - and you're ascribing views to Gandhi which he did not have.

[Hoopla Phil]

26. Yep. Gandhi was against the government denying the masses arms

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

31. Your personal insults aside; Gandhi believed in the people's right

to keep their arms. He did not believe in the governments power to disarm the citizens. I agree with that. Do you?

[baldguy]

33. Do you think licensing & registering guns is exactly the same as a total ban?

[Hoopla Phil]

36. Tell ya what. You answere my question that I already asked and I'll answer yours.

So I repeat: Gandhi believed in the people's right to keep their arms. He did not believe in the governments power to disarm the citizens. I agree with that. Do you?

[baldguy]

41. I think the Indian people have the right to determine their own laws

and how to properly interpreted Gandhi's words

THEY are able to own firearms, with licensing & registration.

[Hoopla Phil]

44. I repeat: Where/when did Gandhi say that registration and licensing was ok?

[Hoopla Phil]

45. Gandhi believed in the people's right to keep their arms.

Gandhi believed in the people's right to keep their arms. He did not believe in the governments power to disarm the citizens. I agree with that. Do you?

[baldguy]

46. How is a requirement for licensing & registration equivalent to disarming citizens?

3rd time: Do you think licensing & registering guns is exactly the same as a total ban?

[Hoopla Phil]

48. I love your evasions. I have asked numerous times and tried to even

make a deal with you only to have you evade and change. Please go back up-thread a little and re-read.

[baldguy]

55. Are you unable or unwilling? I'm guessing p'robly a little of both.

Tell you what - I'll help you. And I'll be sure to type slowly 'cause you p'robly can't read too fast.

Reasonable restrictions under a free & democratic government - like licensing & registration - are not equivalent to a ban. Never have been, never will be. This frees people to responsibly own and use firearms, while prohibiting irresponsible people. The fact is India allows its citizens to own firearms - even when faced with persistent home-grown terrorism from several fronts, each of which is much worse that anything America has seen in living memory.

I've purposely refrained from using the phase "the right to keep & bear arms" because we've been discussing India, and this is a uniquely American legal phrase. (The patriotic Indians I've met would be appalled that anyone - even an ignorant American - would think that the US Constitution applied to their home country. I hate to break it to you - but it doesn't.) Whether or not Gandhi believed it did, I can't say - and neither can you. Since his quote refers only to British Colonial law it's never addressed, but being an American legal concept, he probably never encountered it in conversations about British Colonial law and how it may or may not apply to the laws of the Republic of India.

Finally, reasonable minimum restrictions like licensing & registration are perfectly acceptable under the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. Since "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." and each adult male is historically part of the local militia, at a minimum licensing & registration is adequate regulation (and that we've since removed the gender restrictions.) If a state, local or municipal community wishes to place further restrictions on gun ownership that's their prerogative. We've kept the legal framework embodied in the 2nd Amendment to regulate private gun ownership, we should follow it. Local militias are under local control. The federal government has no business stepping in to change it. (But please note that since we, as a nation have determined that local militias are not sufficient for the security of our free State & we have kept a standing armed force, the 2nd Amendment is in fact obsolete.)

Thank you for coming. Class dismissed.

[Hoopla Phil]

56. Wow have you strayed off topic. Since you will not go back and read I'll

point you to it. Just click

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x227259#227291

[baldguy]

57. Reading comprehension, Phil. Try again.

You:

Gandhi believed in the people's right to keep their arms. He did not believe in the governments power to disarm the citizens. I agree with that. Do you?

Me:

I've purposely refrained from using the phase "the right to keep & bear arms" because we've been discussing India, and this is a uniquely American legal phrase.

and

Whether or not Gandhi believed it did, I can't say - and neither can you. Since his quote refers only to British Colonial law it's never addressed.

Nowhere does Gandhi offer an opinion on US domestic policies on firearm ownership. Here's Gandhi's quote to refresh your memory:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x227259#227281

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation (of India) of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we (the Indians) want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes (of India) render voluntary help to (at the time, the British Colonial) Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn." Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Chapter XXVII, Recruiting Campaign, Page 403, Dover paperback edition, 1983.

It should also be noted that the original edition of his autobiography is from 1927 - long before Independence. And I'll repeat: the "Arms Act" referred to is the British Colonial-era Indian Arms Act of 1878 which was a total prohibition of firearm ownership by native Indians. This was repealed & superseded in an Independent India with the Arms Act of 1959 which granted licensing for the manufacture, sale & possession of firearms.

[Hoopla Phil]

59. LMAO You really cannot help it can you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x227259#227291

Please answer the question.

And as you so eloquently quoted, I've never said Gandhi made a comment on U.S. police. I have said, based on Gandhi's quote, that it is apparent to me that Gandhi believed in the people's right to keep their arms. He did not believe in the governments power to disarm the citizens. And I have asked whether you agree with that. Do you?

You, in your insult laced, deleted post somehow claimed that Gandhi would not appose registration and licensing of gun owners. I have asked several times that you provide some sort of citation for that claim but you steadfastly choose to ignore all those requests.

So please, answerer the questions.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

37. Still waiting on your response on where Gandhi said

that he believed in registration and licensing.

[Hoopla Phil]

32. Could you please cite where Gandhi was in favor of registering guns and

licensing the owners?

[Hoopla Phil]

38. Care to respond to the above question?

[chollybocker]

12. And Moses was The Original Waterboarder.

[LiberalFighter]

13. It's not true that there was a strong belief in God and firearms in the 1770's

[rusty charly]

15. I'm afraid of the

"kiss of peace" section.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5783580

[Initech]

30. Isn't "Thou shalt not kill" one of the ten commandments?

[paulsby]

61. no, it isn't

as any biblical scholar will tell you, the more correct translation is "thou shalt not murder"

feel free to research that.

[Callisto32]

67. What he said. n/t

[dorkulon]

34. They're all "responsible gun owners" until they get drunk. /nt

[konnichi wa]

42. Are they serving Bloody Marys there?

:shrug:

[proteus_lives]

54. and so on....

They're all "safe drivers" until they get drunk.

They're all "safe pilots" until they get drunk.

They're all "safe knife/baseball bat/spear/crossbow/heavy rock/sharp stick owners" until they get drunk.

and so on and so on.

[Euromutt]

80. You can tell the responsible ones quite easily

They're the ones who've unloaded and locked away their guns before they start drinking.

[Orsino]

35. What would Jesus pack?

And why doesn't this church just put a phallus up on the wall instead of the Cross?

[paulsby]

60. penis canard alert!

didn't take long

[spin]

73. There has to be some interesting psychological background...

to the anti-gun view that firearms = penis.

[Euromutt]

75. You do have to wonder

Let's face it, anything that's straight, and longer than it is wide can be interpreted to be a phallic symbol. I mean, some of these people would think a penis was phallic symbol!

Then again, it's not like gun prohibitionists are the only ones to make the connection...

Pull my trigger, I get bigger
Then I'm lots of fun
I'm your gun
I'm your gun, gun, gun
Rub my barrel
Straight and narrow
Dress up like a nun
I'm your gun
I'm your gun, gun, gun
Load my clip and lick your lips
This is gettin' fun
I'm your gun
I'm your gun, gun, gun
Hold on steady, always ready, yeah!

Alice Cooper, "I'm Your Gun"

Still, I like the rejoinder that if guns were penis substitutes, there wouldn't be a market for two-inch snubnoses.

[spin]

77. Actually my carry and home defense weapon is a 1 7/8 inch snubbie...

and a very popular choice among shooters.

Smith & Wesson Model 642
By Syd

It was the best selling firearm offered by Smith & Wesson in 2006. Tradition holds that the original design emerged from the creative mind of Col. Rex Applegate. Among the small revolvers, it has been called a personal favorite by Walt Rausch, Massad Ayoob, Jim Wilson, Stephen Camp, Ken Hackathorn and many others. Jim Supica, author of The Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson, said that it was possibly the finest pocket revolver ever made. It is the Smith & Wesson Model 642 Airweight Centennial.
http://www.snubnose.info/docs/m642.htm

However, firearms are not the only objects that often are labeled as penis substitutes.

Are sport utility vehicle drivers compensating for personal inadequacy?
by Liz Langley

It takes big balls to tell a total stranger they have a small penis. To look at advice columnist Amy Alkon, at least the picture of her I saw on the Web, she doesn’t look like she has large cojones at all. She looks like somebody you might meet at a really good party who would be charming and funny and hurriedly on her way to an even better party that you weren’t invited to. And yet, something she did recently to express her disdain for the ravenous American appetite for SUVs took more brass than you’ll find in your average high-school marching band’s horn section.

What she did was print up little cards that read: "Road-Hogging, Air-Fouling, Gas-Guzzling Vulgarian! Clearly you have an extremely small penis, or you wouldn’t drive such a monstrosity. For the adequately endowed, there are hybrids or electrics." The message concluded with a phone number, which led to her answering machine, on which callers received further abuse — and were invited to leave a message. Then she ran around sticking the cards on the windshield of SUVs. Makes those of us who just roll our eyes at the steely mammoths look like passive-aggressive little wusses.
http://www.consciouschoice.com/2002/cc1507/sizedoesmatter1507.html

[konnichi wa]

43. Yeah, lets demonize a guy for proposing to give gun safety information.

:eyes:

[Recursion]

47. My God DU has a bizarre gun fetish

I count 6 OPs about this and no end of handwringing.

This kind of chicken-with-its-head-cut-off knee-jerk fear and ignorance about guns is why they think we want to come take their guns.

[X_Digger]

51. Two great whipping boys in one lame story!

Two for the price of one- get to make fun of christians and guns at the same time? Of course it gets a lot of play here, c'mon!

:sarcasm:

Personally, I'm un-religious, bordering on anti-religious, but I think this whole thing is silly. (DU's response, not the OP).

[Owl]

49. Such crap.

[Blue_Tires]

50. i'm having a hard time reconciling

christianity's universal theme of peace, love and understanding among all men with "bring your gat to church day"

clearly these men know nothing of the religion they claim to hold dear...great job of not playing up the bass-ackwards red-state hillbilly bumpkin stereotype, guys...

[spin]

63. While few would consider me religious...

I do enjoy studying religions and the effect they have had on civilization.

One of the big problems with reading and understanding the Bible is the number of translations involved. The true meaning of the words used can become very confusing.

Many people will quote the King James version of the sixth commandment, Thou shalt not kill as proof that the Bible is against self defense, however:

There are several strong arguments for the case that the sixth commandment should be translated as "Thou shalt not murder." First, the verb used in the Torah commandment is "ratsah," which generally is translated as murder and refers only to criminal acts of killing a human being. The word "kill" generally refers to the taking of life for all classes of victims and for all reasons. This generalization is expressed through a different Hebrew verb "harag."

Another compelling argument against the "Thou shalt not kill" translation is that there are many places in the Hebrew scriptures that command or condone warfare, the sacrifice of animals, and several methods of capital punishment. While there is much in the Jewish tradition that attempts to limit war and capital punishment, and the biblical prophets indicated that God prefers justice and mercy to animal sacrifices, it can’t be denied that some forms of killing are acceptable according to Judaism.

If "Thou shalt not kill" were the proper translation, no person who took the Ten Commandments seriously could kill in self defense, even if it meant loss of the threatened person’s life, or could kill in warfare, even if his or her country were attacked. There could be no capital punishment no matter how horrible a person’s crimes were. Clearly there are cases where the Torah permits the taking of a human life. And, if it is sometimes permissible to kill another person, most people would agree that there are circumstances when it is also permissible to kill an animal. Judaism does not consider that the sixth commandment refers to animals.
http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/killormurder.html

Further:

Exodus 22:2 seems to contradict the idea that Christians should not kill in self-defense: "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed." At first glance, this seems to support the "self-defense in one's home" argument, but like Numbers 35:16-28, the distinction is accidental versus intentional. The next verse, Exodus 22:3, explains this: "If the sun has risen on him , there shall be guilt for his bloodshed."

This statute illustrates that God differentiates between a killing committed when it is dark and one done when it is light. The meaning is not that darkness gives us license to break God's law, but rather that in the dark it is more difficult to determine what level of force is necessary to restrain an unknown intruder. The law gives the homeowner the benefit of the doubt in assuming that he would not deliberately use lethal force, since that falls under intentional or premeditated murder (Exodus 20:13).

Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law, and James also exhorts us to "fulfill the royal law" by loving our neighbors as ourselves (James 2:8). Jesus teaches that murder begins in the heart and has everything to do with intention, even if the act of killing is not followed through: "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment" (Matthew 5:21-22).

This instruction reiterates that murder is either accidental or intentional, based on what is in the heart. When applied to Exodus 22:2-3, Christ's words show that when a thief is killed in the dark, there is a good chance that the homeowner acted without animosity or premeditation. But if a homeowner kills a thief when nothing in the circumstance hinders his judgment, he is without excuse—the act was intentional, and he is guilty of murder.
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/RA/k/776/Does-Scripture-Allow-for-Self-Defense.htm

My belief is that if you are attacked you have every right to use reasonable force to stop the attacker. If the attacker dies because you used said reasonable force, so be it. Killing a person after he has been rendered harmless and incapable of further attack is murder.

[Callisto32]

68. Christianity, I my experience with it, is not a religion of pacifism.

It does not require you to never use violence or have the means to do so, it does require you to not initiate violence. Jesus rebuked Simon Peter not for having a sword, but for using it wrongly. This is an important distinction.

[paulsby]

69. correct.

there are christian sects that are pacifist (quakers, etc.) but it certainly is not par for the course for christianity, nor for its parent religion - judaism.

[Blue_Tires]

74. didn't Jesus also say to 'turn to the other cheek?'

[Callisto32]

76. Not if the other guy is trying to kill you. n/t

[spin]

78. The comment refers to a backhand slap...

If this text is not speaking about self defense, what does the Lord mean when He says "not to resist an evil person" and then adds "But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also"? Admittedly this appears to be a pacifist text. H.N. Ridderbos does help us out in this area when he says:

Jesus specifically mentions the right here , even though a blow from a right-handed person would normally fall on the left cheek. This probably means that the blow is delivered with the back of the hand, since then it would indeed fall on the right cheek. We know for certain that such a blow was considered particularly insulting. The injustice that is willingly accepted here is therefore not so much a matter of body injury as of shame. (H.N. Ridderbos. "Matthew": Bible Students Commentary. Zondervan. p. 113)

At a closer look this passage deals with how one must respond after being insulted. This is not a passage dealing with what one must do when being physically attacked and having one’s life being threatened. It is, however, one that reinforces the idea that "revenge" is not to be left in the hands of the individual victim. Personal revenge and even "lynch-law" is certainly out of the question. The Lord has already set up the means to deal with punishing the offender by the sword of the state. It is a passage that teaches one must have patience when wronged. As the great Reformer John Calvin says:

When wrong has been done them (believers) in a single instance, he (Christ) wishes them to be trained by this example to meek submission, that by suffering they may learn to be patient. (John Calvin. "Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke" Calvin's Commentaries. Baker. p. 299)

Do these passages forbid self-defense? They do not deal with it nor do they forbid it....
http://www.gac.20m.com/self-def.htm

[Blue_Tires]

79. i see your point

but ultimately i still find the concept of a man of god hosting a gun celebration in church incomprehensible and more than disturbing....especially with all the thinly-veiled rhetoric in recent years from preachers inspiring their flocks to 'take action' against certain kinds of people...

[spin]

81. Religion has been misused many times in history...

by people who want power and wealth.

It may be possible that the Kentucky pastor hopes to gain national publicity by this event and increase his church membership or be invited to talk shows and to give speeches etc.

I don't believe that Kentucky restricts concealed carry in a church. And open carry is allowed in Kentucky according to this article:

Open carry simply means "openly carrying a firearm in public." In the United States the laws concerning open carry vary from state to state. In Kentucky, open carry is permitted without a license or permit. Don't get this confused with concealed carry where it is required to have a license. With open carry you can carry into any place of business (as long as it is not clearly posted that carrying is not allowed) with full protection under Kentucky Law. Of course you can't carry into a bank or courthouse and a few other government buildings, but even those buildings are required to post that you aren't allowed to carry so it's always important to check if you are openly carrying a firearm.
http://kentucky-preppers-network.blogspot.com/2009/05/can-you-open-carry-in-kentucky.html

My question is not if it is appropriate to carry a firearm in a church, but rather, why make a big deal out of something that is already legal?

[Deadric Damodred]

58. Cowboy Style?

Since it is a church, and not a gun club, shooting a gun for any reason other than self-defense would be a crime. It's even more of a crime to "shoot up in the air cowboy-style" as the bullet could easily come down ten blocks over and kill somebody in their yard. Since these are law-abiding folks, I'd imagine that your "cowboy style shooting in the air" is not going to happen.