Southern California churches and concealed carry...

[spin]

The genius of concealed carry of handguns is that would-be murders remain uncertain as to who is armed and who isn't. This is true for everyone interested in being as safe as they can be from future violence, because it comes to the realization of specific unalterable realities: you're on your own.

This week some Southern California Church Leaders came to that very same conclusion, and took up a position advocating not only a very discreet security presence of professionals, but also took the advice of their consultants and adopted the policy of advocating concealed carry of handguns among the congregation.

Realities are the core of solving the problem of church violence, and having the stomach to face those realities and to meet them. For too long, employers, churches, schools and others have said many different ways that they are sad to see things have to come to this, but this is a trap which serves not the people, but the killers. Fifteen Southern California church leaders refused to fall into that trap, and they sought out expert advice. It involves concealed carry of handguns in church, and they took it. Yes, concealed carry of handguns by the members who come to worship.



http://www.examiner.com/x-2323-LA-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m6d22-SoCal-Churches-go-concealed-carry

Note: California is a "may issue" state:

U.S. states such as California and New York give wide latitude to the county authorities in issuing permits. In California, the usual issuance of the permits ranges from a no-issue policy, such as San Francisco, to an almost shall-issue environment in the rural areas. Iowa has a similar distribution, but unlike California, most counties have lenient policies as most counties are rural. There is a strong movement in Iowa to change the system to shall-issue due to the nature of a county-by-county system. Recently in California a bill was introduced in the state assembly that would, if passed, make California a shall-issue state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

[Hoopla Phil]

1. Saw this in a gun related message board yesterday. In MY church

I know for a fact that the preacher carries - as do most of the deacons. While there has never been any announcement it is understood that those with state issued CHL's are all welcomed to carry if they choose. This as been the case for more than 10 years now and there has never been a problem or incident involving inappropriate gun handling. In fact, there has not been so much as a firearm every being seen, much less being handled inappropriately.

[Tim01]

2. There is about a 99% you won't need a gun at church.

And if you and your family and friends are in the 1% your life is going to suck. It will probably suck a lot more if you don't have your gun.

[iverglas]

11. woo hoo! math!

There is about a 99% you won't need a gun at church.
And if you and your family and friends are in the 1% your life is going to suck.


So that's how math is done around here.

Well, now I know.

Anybody embarassed? Guess not. No challenges to the math so far ...

[Tim01]

13. It's a joke. Chill out. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Probably needs a few more decimal places..

to reflect actual church shootings.

[katandmoon]

3. Guns + religion = perfect combination of delusion

[spin]

7. While it may be delusion, people have a right to practice their....

religion (at least in our country) and to be safe while doing so.

I enjoy studying religion and its origin and effects on civilization. Religion has had both positive and negative influences.

I haven't attended a church in many years, nor do I have any plans to do so. But if I did, I would carry.

[damntexdem]

4. Yeah, if you really want to shoot up a congregation ...

the more congregants who are packing, the more the congregation will be shot up.

[patriotvoice]

8. Any statistics to back up your claim? EOM

[iverglas]

12. yoo hoo!!

Have a word with Tim01 here, would ya?

I'm dying to see his statistics. Maybe if you ask.

[msongs]

5. religion has killed billions of people, so why not? nt

[FiveGoodMen]

6. Might discourage people from attending or it might eliminate a number of them.

Either way...

[spin]

9. On the other hand it might help to eliminate church shootings...

as mass murderers look for shooting galleries.



If they know the targets can shoot back, they just might go elsewhere.

[Tim01]

16. I wonder if this is actually the case. I just don't know.

Other criminals do what they do thinking they are not going to get caught. Stupid thinking, but it is what they think.

Somebody who is flat out crazy, I would think they would be unlikely to be planning the safest church to hit.

The gun make all the difference for the person who decides to carry it, but I am not convinced it works as a deterrence to mass murderers.

[spin]

19. True, it's hard to predict the result...

but the mass murderers often seem to be attracted to gun free zones so they can rack up a high score.

(Often they play first person shooter video games.)

[Tim01]

31. It has to be attractive to know nobody will shoot back.

There is a big difference between leisurely walking around executing people, vs trying to get on with your murdering while the good guys are filling you with holes that leak.

[iverglas]

33. oh yes indeed

When your ultimate goal is to DIE, as we know perfectly well is the case with many if not most if not virtually all of these people, then "It has to be attractive to know nobody will shoot back". Yes indeed.

If nobody shoots back, then you get to shoot yourself. Or wait to get arrested, or see how far you can run before you do. Or hell, go home and make yourself a nice cuppa and watch the evening news.


It's just so too bad that the gunhead fantasies are so often so far removed from reality.

[Tim01]

35. I'll spell it out for you.These are not fantasies you silly thing.

The shooter wants to shoot lots of people, THEN die. It screws up his plan if he gets killed before he shoots a bunch of people.
The delicate little flower has a head full of bad wiring and so he thinks his bad life is everybody elses fault. That is why he wants to punish them before he ends his own life, which sucks.
Or he has the other kind of bad wiring where he just thinks it's kind of cool to kill people.


People who just want to kill themselves do not do it by shooting a bunch of other people.


I would try to put this in a bunch of very lofty sounding words so you could understand it better, but I don't use fancy words.Sorry.
Suicide is about killing yourself. Suicide is not the goal of killing a bunch of other people.

And by the way. Active shooters almost always stop when met with force. Police are now trained to engage the active shooter as soon as possible regardless of who is doing the engaging. Police used to be trained to wait for back up, wait for SWAT, wait for 4 officers, 3 officers, whatever.No longer. It just means more time for the shooter to kill more innocents.

And a high school assistant principal retrieved his handgun from his car and apprehended an active shooter with a deer rifle in his school. Active shooter gave up when it came down to it.

The things that you thinks are fantasies, are called training by cops.

I think you don't know what you are talking about.

[iverglas]

36. You think?

I think not.

Yes, you can go ahead and pretend that means "I do not think". It will amuse me.

[Tim01]

37. Well, I'm pretty sure you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

I could be wrong. But I'm not.

Pretending you know what you are talking about and then refusing to admit it when called on it, is not the kind of thing I respect.

Amuses you, eh? Well, good. Me too.

[iverglas]

25. yes, because these mass murders plan to go home

and have a nice cuppa when they're done.

:eyes:

Speaking of Unitarians ...

http://notbeingasausage.blogspot.com/2008/07/unitarian-universalist-shootings-in.html

The reported sequence of events has Adkisson entering the UU church at around quarter past 10:00 a.m. on the morning of July 28, as the congregation’s children were staging a rendition of the musical "Annie Jr." Adkisson reportedly carried the shotgun into the church inside a guitar case, then pulled out the gun and blasted three shots into the crowd. Adkisson was then reportedly tackled and restrained by members of the congregation.

... Police say 58 year old Jim Adkisson expected to keep firing until officers killed him. Instead church members tackled him and held him for police.

Knoxville Police Chief Sterling Owen says, "It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to attain a job.. His frustration over that. And his stated hatred for the liberal movement."

Police say they are investigating the case as a Hate Crime.

Yes, people planning to commit suicide, whether directly or indirectly, really care about whether there are people with firearms among their targets.

Now -- I will not say that someone with a firearm in a situation of this nature would never prevent further harm being caused by such a person. But I would not say that someone with a firearm in such a situation would never cause further harm, either.

[spin]

26. Your last sentence is an accurate appraisal...

Now -- I will not say that someone with a firearm in a situation of this nature would never prevent further harm being caused by such a person. But I would not say that someone with a firearm in such a situation would never cause further harm, either.

[iverglas]

28. so then we are left

with people who have guns and seek out particular groups of targets in order to commit multiple murders.

Better to allow members of those groups to carry guns around or to do something to reduce the risk of people shooting at them?

Remember:

First, it is unlikely that any member of the group who is carrying a gun around is going to prevent any harm or deaths from occurring. Obviously, they would not attempt to use their gun until some harm had already occurred. The person or persons who are injured or killed at that point could be carrying guns around themselves, and that will have done nothing to protect them.

Second, if nobody in a particular group chooses to carry a gun around, then members of the group may be hurt or killed, and these may include children, for instance. Simply allowing individuals to carry guns around provides no guarantee of anyone's safety whatsoever, and will do nothing to enhance the safety of the vast majority of people in any given place.


I constantly wonder what some people bother having social/political infrastructures for.

No, I do not suggest that anyone "rely on the police for their personal safety", since I am really not the big ol' straw dog some would like.

I suggest that people support, and in fact insist on, social policies that enhance their personal safety and the safety of the public.

Some people may think that a social policy that allows them to tote guns around does that. It might enhance their personal safety in some very specific circumstances. (If they're the first person shot by a crazed gun-toter in a church, it obviously didn't.) Whatever it might do to enhance the safety of other members of the public is really very hypothetical.

And whatever potential or hypothetical benefits such a policy might provide, it is really just not debatable that they pale in comparison to the benefits of a policy that effectively reduces the risk of the crazed gun-toter being there in the first place, or of any of the other kinds of harms that are caused with firearms.

Since allowing easy access to handguns (and by "allowing", I mean "doing nothing much to prevent") obviously carries many demonstrable costs, it simply does not make sense to refuse to address that question, let alone suggest that allowing the toting of handguns in public is an effective antidote.

[spin]

30. There have been documented cases where a concealed weapon...

did stop a mass murder. I'll mention just a few.

Assam, a church security guard with law enforcement experience, fired her own weapon at the invader and stopped his attack, police say.

Police on Monday identified the gunman as Matthew Murray and said he was also responsible for an attack earlier Sunday at a missionary center some 80 miles away.

The two incidents left four people dead, in addition to the gunman, and five wounded.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html

Winnemucca Police Chief Bob Davidson says the violence erupted around 2:30 A.M. Sunday when a man entered the crowded Players Bar and Grill. He fatally shot two brothers, 20-year-old Jose Torres and his 19-year-old brother, Margarito. The shooter was later identified as 30 year old Ernesto Villagomez. All three were from Winnemucca.

According to witnesses, Villagomez at some point stopped to reload his high-capacity handgun and began shooting again when he was shot and killed by another patron - a 48-year-old Reno man who had a valid concealed weapons permit.

The Reno man was initially taken into custody as a person of interest, but later released after Humboldt County District Attorney Russell Smith determined the shooting was justifiable homicide.
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/19251374.html

And this rather odd one:

HOUSTON, Jan. 21 (UPI) -- Houston police have filed aggravated assault charges against a woman accused of shooting a man with a bow and arrow and threatening his co-workers.

Julie Parker, 33, was apprehended following a shooting incident at the Texas Components Corp. on the city's northwest side, the Houston Chronicle reported Wednesday.

Police told the Chronicle Parker is accused of shooting Armando Silva, 49, in the chest with a hunting bow and then pointed the weapon at two other employees Monday afternoon.

Those employees were licensed to carry concealed weapons and they fired at Parker hitting her several times.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/01/21/Woman-charged-in-bow-and-arrow-shooting/UPI-13341232555239/

Training and the ability to function in an extremely stressful situation are very important. The fact that a person may have access to a legal concealed weapon in no way guarantees that he will be able to hit a moving target who is shooting, or for that matter not accidentally injure an innocent bystander.

I agree with your statement:

I suggest that people support, and in fact insist on, social policies that enhance their personal safety and the safety of the public.

Some people may think that a social policy that allows them to tote guns around does that. It might enhance their personal safety in some very specific circumstances. (If they're the first person shot by a crazed gun-toter in a church, it obviously didn't.) Whatever it might do to enhance the safety of other members of the public is really very hypothetical.

People should insist on "social policies that enhance their personal safety". Policies that favor taking firearms away from criminals or at least punishments so severe that criminals avoid carrying illegal weapons. Policies that improve the NICS background check so as to eliminate sales to those with truly severe mental problems. Policies that require a NICS background check to be performed for private sales (eliminating the so called "gun show loophole"). Policies that target criminal drug gangs as terrorists (which they are).

I should also add that concentrating on improving education, job opportunity, fighting racial and religious intolerance and possibly legalizing some drugs would help reduce the violence in our society.

I differ from you as I see the value of allowing honest citizens to own firearms and if licensed to carry concealed.

But I would like to live in a less violent country and neither taking firearms away from honest citizens nor prohibiting legal concealed carry will significantly make the United States safer. But then, advocating that everyone run out and buy firearms and obtain a concealed carry permit would also be counterproductive.

More guns is not a solution. No guns might well be a solution to firearm violence, but is impossible to achieve without a Harry Potter magic wand and one hell of an effective spell to cast.

[iverglas]

32. I assume you own many rabbits feet

If your child is attending a school function or on a church outing or camping with a scout/guide troup, where you are not present, do you just cross your fingers and hope that some adult in the vicinity is carrying a gun, in case a crazed shooter shows up? And that your kid isn't the first one to get shot before anybody knows what's happening?


I should also add that concentrating on improving education, job opportunity, fighting racial and religious intolerance and possibly legalizing some drugs would help reduce the violence in our society.

Come the revolution, eh? In the meantime, we can all shrug. Nothing else we can do until utopia is achieved.


I differ from you as I see the value of allowing honest citizens to own firearms and if licensed to carry concealed.

I'm not sure whether you're differing from me or with me ...

And I'm still not sure how you intend to ensure the "honesty" of anybody with a firearm, or why their honesty makes a stitch of difference. I lie all the time. No guns for me? No guns for anybody who isn't born or naturalized a citizen, either?

Why can't you talk without using emotion-laden code words?

Anyhow, I guess you "see the value". Problem is, you haven't demonstrated it, at least not in so far as value of the policies that allow for that are not outweight by the harms that they carry with them. And of course I'm not just talking about policies regarding the toting around of guns. I'm talking about policies regarding access to guns, and specifically handguns.

If laws and policies permit widespread access to handguns, particularly in the absence of stringent controls on storage and transfer, the plain fact is that a considerable proportion of them are going to end up where they shouldn't be. Pretending that ain't true doesn't make it go away, and dismissing it as unimportant or outweighed by the "value" of being alowed to walk around with a pistol in one's pocket just doesn't cut much ice.


No guns might well be a solution to firearm violence, but is impossible to achieve without a Harry Potter magic wand and one hell of an effective spell to cast.

Like I said. All ya can do is shrug, eh?

About all I can do too, since I can never think of any better response to such straw silliness.



typo ...

[spin]

34. To be honest...

I don't spend a lot of time worrying about my grandchildren being shot at a church outing or a scout/guide group. (That could be because they don't attend church or belong to the scouts.)

And I don't worry much about their being shot at all, as the chances of that happening are extremely slim. I do tell them to come inside when a thunderstorm approaches. (But then I live in Florida.)

I don't even worry about finding myself in a situation where I might have to use a concealed weapon. Again the chances are slim.

I really don't spend a lot of time worrying about much. I do wear a seat belt when in a car. I have a fire extinguisher within 10 feet of where I am sitting right now. I'm not worried, merely cautious.

And yes, I have a concealed carry permit and I often carry. Where I live now, I don't always bother, but when I lived in Tampa it was what I considered a sensible precaution. Even there, I wasn't overly concerned that I would ever need to use a weapon.

One of my co-workers did have an incident where the weapon he had in the car worked out well. On the way to work on the late night shift, he in someway enraged another driver. When he stopped at a light, the individual pulled up behind him, got out of his car and approached my co-worker's car with a tire iron in his hand. Since he was trapped in a double line of traffic with a deep ditch on his right side, my friend was unable to merely drive away. He grabbed a 9mm pistol from his glove box and held it in his right hand resting on his steering wheel. The aggressive driver noticed the gun and returned to his car.

Two other co-workers were in downtown Tampa on a Sunday morning using a metal detectors to search a site where a building had recently been torn down. An individual walked up, pulled a knife and demanded money. One of my coworkers parted his jacket and showed the man the .45 auto he had hidden in a shoulder holster. The thief just turned and walked away muttering obscenities.

A shooter at a range I visited was a locksmith. One time, late at night, he got a call to unlock a car in a bad section of town. After he did so, his customer pulled a knife on him and demanded his money. The locksmith pulled a .22 magnum S&W revolver from a holster and jammed it up the guys nose. He got his money for completing the job and left. He did say that he didn't bother to give the guy his change.

Incidents like these are far more common than the stories that make the newspapers.

You do make a point about determining the honestly of a citizen who legally owns a firearm. They may be honest until they misuse their firearm, then they become dishonest. But statistics show that the absolutely overwhelmingly majority of good firearm owners never turn bad and misuse their firearms. Concealed carry permit holders have an even better record.

And yes, I do favor access to handguns as they are primarily defensive weapons and can be legally concealed and carried. In the three instances mentioned above, a rifle or shotgun would have been basically useless.

But to a degree you are correct when you say,

If laws and policies permit widespread access to handguns, particularly in the absence of stringent controls on storage and transfer, the plain fact is that a considerable proportion of them are going to end up where they shouldn't be. Pretending that ain't true doesn't make it go away, and dismissing it as unimportant or outweighed by the "value" of being alowed to walk around with a pistol in one's pocket just doesn't cut much ice.

We may disagree over the meaning of "stringent controls on storage and transfer". I lock my handguns in a safe My defensive handguns are locked in a safe I can quickly access. I am extremely careful on who I sell a weapon to. I have to personally know the individual and I require that they have a concealed carry permit. I would like to be able to access the NICS background system if I ever decide to sell a weapon to an individual that doesn't meet my above requirements.

It's important to insure that all legal sales of firearms are between those who have a background check and it's VERY important to interrupt illegal sales of handguns. It's also VERY important to concentrate law enforcement efforts on those who illegally carry weapons. Justice should be swift and certain for those who carry illegally.

[iverglas]

10. all of a sudden I'm seeing a lot of this "Examiner" thingy

Haven't quite figured out just what it is. Care to explain, and tell us what is so attractive about it?

I'm also not seeing anything in that article about exactly what these "Southern California churches" are. No denominations, no congregations, no names of anybody or anything at all. What an odd sort of journalism this is.

"Southern California Church Leaders". All caps. Is this the name of something??

Ah. Some real journalism.

http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-me-beliefs22-2009jun22,0,6305405.story?track=rss

"I think that we're living in a violent time and we have a duty to ensure the safety of our flock," said Fred Rodriguez, a senior pastor at Elsinore First Assembly in Lake Elsinore.

One attendee, Al Brown, of Abundant Living Family Church in Rancho Cucamonga, said the pastor at his church at first was reluctant to let parishioners carry firearms into services. But with some persuasion from Brown, the former police chief at UC Irvine, the pastor came around. "He saw what was happening around the country," Brown said.

Hmm. Oddly, I'm not seeing anything from the Episcopalians, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the Roman Catholics ... even the Baptists.

"Fifteen Southern California church leaders". Yes, 'tis a veritable groundswell.

Snickerty snickerty snork.

http://www.elsinorefirst.com/

That's a Pentecostal outfit, if I'm not mistaken. Of course, some of those are really just vanity shacks for their pastors.

http://www.alfconline.com/

Looks Pentecostally too, I dunno. Man, you guys got weird churches down there. And I speak as a former Sunday School teacher.


Anyhoo. Nothing to see here, eh? Like anybody would be surprised that a bunch of right-wing fundies think guns and God are a natural pairing. :eyes:



typo fixed

[spin]

15. Interesting...

I wonder if you are suggesting that people who practice religion outside of the mainstream are somewhat inferior to the more recognized churches. Stupider perhaps.

A personal encounter with a Pentecostal did me wondering about the intelligence of members of his church. However, religious freedom is a right in our country and so is the "right to keep and bear arms". The second may help to guarantee the first.

It is also possible that these off the mainstream churches hold fervent views on topics such as abortion and homosexuality that might make them more of a target.

My personal experience with the Presbyterian church was that they rarely mentioned controversial subjects but instead tended toward long boring sermons about obscure biblical stories. No fire and brimstone or much talk about current events. There always was some off key signing by an amateur choir with the congregation murmuring along. A plate was passed to collect money somewhere along the line. After an hour I had my watch set to beep to remind the minister to keep it short. Others caught on to the plan and soon several watches were beeping away. The congregation then filed out in relief.

True, most of the leadership of mainstream churches are very anti-gun. However some pastors are not:

..The Rev. Atlee Stevens, pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Lake Mary, shoots targets two or three times a week and has a permit to carry a weapon.

``I see no real conflict with Scripture and owning guns,'' Stevens said. ``I understand where people are coming from who don't want you to carry a weapon, but as far as it conflicting immediately with scripture, no, I don't think it does.''

Sometimes the realities of modern American society can put theology in conflict with practicality.

``Christians have a responsibility to defend themselves,'' said the Rev. Samuel Hoard, a retired Lutheran minister in Orlando. Hoard has a concealed-weapons permit and said he has carried a gun since he served as a chaplain in Vietnam.
http://www.wekivapresbyterian.org/articles/guns_jesus.htm

You were a former Sunday school teacher? Damn, everyday has a surprise.

[iverglas]

17. do you really?

I wonder if you are suggesting that people who practice religion outside of the mainstream are somewhat inferior to the more recognized churches. Stupider perhaps.

What prompted this odd wonderment of yours? Please do point to the part of my post that causes you this problem.


A personal encounter with a Pentecostal did me wondering about the intelligence of members of his church.

Well, that's you, isn't it?

The Prime Minister of Canada is a member of an outfit barely distinguishable from Pentecostal churches on many points:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_and_Missionary_Alliance

Nobody would accuse him of being shortchanged in the IQ points department. A vile and horrible man, yes. Stupid, nuh uh.


However, religious freedom is a right in our country and so is the "right to keep and bear arms". The second may help to guarantee the first.

More blank verse, I see.

I think I'll be needing to publish a collection, too.


You were a former Sunday school teacher?

Still am. ;)

Mine was an amalgam of Presbyterian and a couple of other denominations, and is and was about the most "liberal" formally Christian church in the world. It is second in size in Canada only the RC Church (remember that a huge chunk of the population is old-stock French-Canadian, plus significant immigration from RC societies). And technically, Evangelical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Canada

The United Church has been forthright in the defence of liberal social causes — often well in front of more conservative Evangelical Protestants, and often followed at greater or lesser remove by theologically more cautious but politically akin episcopal denominations such as the Anglican Church of Canada and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. Many of its historic causes which may initially have been controversial have in the long term become matters of common Canadian accord:

* The espousal of universal medical care was very early the bailiwick of outspoken United Church people;
* the ordination of women (1936 in the United Church; 1974 in the Anglican Church of Canada);
* the championing of the interests of the Palestinians (in the 1960s the United Church Observer's editor A.C. Forrest comprehensively startled United Churchpeople with his reports on the plight of the Palestinians and the question of re-assessing Evangelical Protestant uncritical support of Israel);
* the defence of GLBT rights, including equal marriage.

Where the Church of England is the Tory party at prayer, the UCC is the NDP at prayer. ;)

Me, I was precociously confirmed at 13, taught Sunday School for another year or two, wandered over to the Unitarian Fellowship for a bit when I was 16, then headed on out to the real world of atheism.

http://www.unitedchurch.ca/peace/disarmament/registry

Disarmament
Support the Gun Registry in Canada

In August 2006 the 39th General Council of the United Church passed a resolution stating its support for the Canadian Gun Registration Program. The General Council has taken this decision because of its conviction that gun registration "promotes responsible gun use, and gives a record of where guns are located, what kinds of firearms there are, and who owns them."

... For the last five years, the focus of the debate has been on the expense of gun control, but the Dawson murders are tragic reminders of the costs of violence. While no law can prevent all tragedies,

* screening and licensing gun owners reduces the risks that dangerous people will have access to weapons
* registering guns ensures gun owners are held accountable for them, reduces the chances that legal firearms will be sold illegally, and assists the police in conducting investigations and removing guns from dangerous people

... The General Council of the United Church is calling on the Government of Canada to

* end the amnesty for gun owners who fail to renew their licenses
* ensure there are adequate resources to strengthen, not weaken, the screening processes for licenses (rather than waive or refund $120 million in licensing fees to gun owners, as currently promised)
* prohibit the sale of semi-automatic military assault weapons to civilians
* support increased awareness of the real threats of firearms, the risk factors, and appropriate interventions

My kind of religion!

[spin]

18. The comment was...

"Like anybody would be surprised that a bunch of right-wing fundies think guns and God are a natural pairing."

coupled with a previous statement,

"Man, you guys got weird churches down there."

Sorry if I misinterpreted your statements. Sometimes you do tend to be obscure. Therefore, I thought I'd check.

Fundie or fundy (plural fundies) is a pejorative slang term used to refer to religious fundamentalists of any denomination, although it is primarily directed toward fundamentalist Christians. The term is intentionally derogatory, and is used most commonly by those opposed to the Christian Right movement. The term is often associated with religiously motivated conservative moral beliefs, especially those regarding social issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundie

After your answer, I can see that you use the term to describe moral beliefs not intelligence. Many people I know lump the two together when describing "fundies". They simply believe that their moral beliefs are caused by a lack of intelligence and a lack of knowledge of the Bible. I chose to believe that while they may be intelligent they simply lack understanding of the Bible.





The personal encounter with a member of the Pentecostal church was very disturbing to me. He was a co-worker in a factory where I worked, but fortunately worked in a different area than I did. Occasionally we would meet on break times.

On these breaks he would turn the subject to religion. I told him that I was primarily Christian as it was the local religion, but I believed that God manifests himself in many ways to different people.

He said, "You are going to Hell!"

I told hm that I had been baptized and had been a member of a Presbyterian church for years and still held their basic views although I had given up on attending church as it was boring.

He said, "You are going to Hell unless you become a Pentecostal!"

Slightly irritated, I ask him if he believed that there were no other people who might go to heaven. I mentioned good Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Muslims or Jews.

He answered, "No, they're all going to Hell, and you are too!"

So I decided to express my own personal theory that it is quite possible that we are merely the results of some alien species genetically altering apes to increase the intelligence level far enough to serve as workers during the time they visited our planet. (I like science fiction.)

That was fun, and caused the anticipated explosion. He said,"You are doomed to burn in Hell for eternity and YOU will SUFFER more than the average sinner".

But even that encounter failed to divert him from his mission of saving my soul. He was dedicated and determined. I had to take entirely random breaks to avoid him. He worked in a room down the hallway from my work area. I would stealthily peak around the corner of the hall to see if he was lying in wait for me to go on break.

With him around, break time had turned into Hell itself. I figured that if he was right, I needed to peacefully enjoy what time I had left.

Fortunately, he finally got moved from the 11 pm to 7 am shift. I resumed my enjoyable habit of talking to the guards about news and politics on break.

By the way, he didn't own firearms as far as I know. If I mentioned shooting, the conversation would get immediately sidetracked into religion the same as any other topic.



I did read your links on the United Church of Canada. I did find the info interesting and agree with many of their views with the exception of the position on gun control.

My daughter was married by a lesbian minister who impressed me as the smartest preacher I have ever met.

My daughter is Wiccan and her husband is an atheist, an interesting combination. He has a theory that religion is the Santa Clause myth for adults.

edited for fat fingers

[iverglas]

20. so ...

Theological discussions with fundies can essentially be boiled down to:

You go to hell!
- No, you got to hell!
No, you go to hell!

;)

When my grandfather died, my mum (with my support) arranged for the funeral in his United Church to be officiated jointly by the minister there (who didn't know him really because he'd joined the congregation when my grandfather was old and no longer the soloist in the choir), the Mennonite church music director who had spent time with my grandfather while he was in a nursing home, and the RC nun who had also ministered to him in the nursing home.

When my grandmother died, we didn't have a funeral because she wasn't religious, but at the get-together we held a while later in the church basement, catered by the church women, one of the people who spoke was the little girl who used to visit my grandparents and play my grandmother's piano, who is now a lesbian ex-United Church minister.

The UCC has always been big on ecumenism. ;)

And of course I am still quite fond of my ex church. The current campaign is about water -- ensuring that people in developing countries have clean drinking water and opposing the commodification of water in the developed world. "Stewardship" being the watchword and all. (And interestingly, there are fundie churches involved in these sorts of efforts as well.)

http://www.watercan.com/whoweare/index.htm

Two of my oldest friends met each other a while after I knew each of them. Eventually, they married. He (an anti-Zionist Jew) was a fundraiser for charities, and she (a former Maoist) was doing a theology degree and aiming at ordination. She figured the Anglican church would be cool either with her living with somebody she wasn't married to or with her being married to a Jew, if pressed; but living with a Jew she wasn't married to, well, that might be asking a bit much. Me, I just figure if somebody wants to do the marriage dance, any old excuse will do.


Anyhow, I certainly admit that my first inclination when looking at fundies is to think "stupid". But of course there are cases (Stephen Harper being one, although I obviously do not accept his conversion as being anything other than political manipulation) where "evil" is the more operative word. At bottom, though, the best explanation is almost always culture. You're born into it, it's yours for life.

[spin]

22. I've recently seen some commercials here in the states...

talking about programs to provide clean drinking water in third world nations. A very worthwhile goal and entirely in line with the basic concepts of Christianity.

The Presbyterian church I was involved with provided a lot of assistance to migrant workers in Florida. The minister was always good about providing an in depth breakdown on where church donations went. The church also provided assistance and volunteers for a local homeless shelter.

The sermons may have been boring, but the church, although it was small, did a lot of good.

[Tim01]

14. I go to a Unitarian church.Everybody knows I carry, nobody cares. nt

[iverglas]

24. forgive me

if I'd be wanting some evidence before I swallowed that one.

http://www.uua.org/socialjustice/socialjustice/statements/14420.shtml

Gun Control
1991 General Resolution
BECAUSE Unitarian Universalists affirm the inherent worth of every human life; and

BECAUSE safe coexistence within society requires reasonable compromise with the concept of absolute personal liberty; and

WHEREAS the General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association passed, in 1972, a resolution advocating mandatory licensing for the purchase and possession of all usable guns and, in 1976, a resolution urging the passage of legislation restricting the ownership or possession of handguns;

... THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Unitarian Universalist Association, its member congregations, and individual Unitarian Universalists be encouraged to petition legislators to enact and support laws such as:

1. the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1991 (HR7) in the United States, which is intended to place nationally uniform, effective limitations on individual possession of
2. handguns, including waiting periods, licensing, and registration;
3. the "Mitchell Compromise"; and
4. Bill C-80 (1991) in Canada, which is intended to make the purchase of firearms more difficult;

... BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Unitarian Universalist Association, its member congregations, and individual Unitarian Universalists in the United States be urged to petition legislators to enact and support laws banning private ownership or use of machine guns and semi-automatic and automatic assault weapons.

I hung around with the Unitarians as a youngster myself.

And I'm just feeling a little cognitive dissonance here.

[Tim01]

27. I do what I do. The fact that you don't believe me is irrelevant. Feel free to have the last word. n

[jeepnstein]

21. I have a problem...

with congregations that take on these political campaigns. It's a thinly-veiled attempt by a political party to mobilize their conservative base.

As a "conservative" Evangelical Christian I object strongly to anyone injecting the politics of the world into Christ's Church. The Christian Church has a mission statement and it goes something like this...Matthew 28:16-20 (NIV)

"16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.""

We have enough work to do without taking on someone's pet political project.

If a church feels it needs security measures, they should take them but not make it some kind of "Security Theater" just to draw in a crowd. The scriptures give us all the instruction we need on this topic in Luke chapter 22, 36-38

"36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied."

Any congregation, conservative or progressive, that takes up worldly political campaigns instead of preaching God's Word isn't much of a church.

[JonQ]

29. Comparing the number of shootings in "gun free" zones

to those of more gun friendly zones; shooting ranges, military bases, NRA picnics, etc. I'd have to say this law makes sense.

Surprisingly, and flying in the face of everything I know of human nature, people who want to go on insane killing sprees tend to do so in places where they have the greatest chance of A) killing lots of people and B) not getting killed in return. I know, crazy right? You'd expect them to announce their intentions well in advance in a place where they are likely to be shot dead immediately. But these guys are by definition insane, so who knows, maybe it makes some sense to them.