The Power of Angry Words in our Political Discourse

Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you. ~Ephesians 4:29-32

"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."
~Matthew 15:11

"Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth."
~Proverbs 6:2

"The mouth of a righteous man is a well of life: but violence covereth the mouth of the wicked."
~Proverbs 10: 11

Today is a sad day for America. Shortly after 10:00 a.m. local Arizona time, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner entered a local grocery store and opened fire at a crowed that had gathered for a peaceful town hall meeting, featuring Congresswoman Gabrielle Gliffords. Sadly, Loughner (and possibly an assailant) succeeded in killing six people, including Federal Judge John Roll and a nine-year-old girl.

The early accounts from investigators is that Mr. Loughner (and a possible accomplice still at large) suffered from "some severe mental issues" that caused him to be "extremely susceptible to political vitriol." Other accounts stated that Mr. Loughner had a deep hatred for our current government, detested non-English speaking immigrants, and was upset over what he saw as monetary conspiracies (click here to see his youtube video)

Now, I want to make it clear right from the beginning that I am not interested in turning this event into a political rant. We can all rest assured that the political pundits and talk radio shock jocks will do their own bang-up job in the coming weeks. Instead I want to focus on something that one of my blog buddies has already addressed, and I hope he'll forgive my "borrowing" of his material. Over at his blog, Christian Salafia writes the following:

The rise of the TeaParty and their “ballot or bullet” style rhetoric has only made things worse. For example, Sarah Palin, in her “20 to target”, had a map on her website with 20 Congressional districts targeted in crosshairs! One of those districts was Arizona Congressional District 8, Gabrielle Giffords’ district. The website has since been scrubbed.

People who support this sort of rhetoric and support the political candidates who say things such as using “2nd Amendment remedies” to deal with your political opponents or telling people “don’t retreat…reload” or showing up to political events armed or carrying signs that say “we came unarmed….this time” bear some of the responsibility for what happened today. There is not a single doubt in my mind about this.

All the arguments about ‘free speech’ or ‘they didn’t actually tell anyone to do it’ or ‘most people know not to shoot anyone’ arguments are, in my mind, complete and utter garbage. They’re simply rationalizations used to mollify their guilt.
I’ve been saying this for over two years now. Violent words will become violent actions.

That. Is. Fact.

Now, I know that some people will be quick to anger when they see accusations being levied at their political comrades and to a point I agree. This isn't a Democrat/Republican thing. Every ideology has their nut-jobs. With that said, I do blame those irresponsible "shock jock" voices on our televisions and radios for helping to create an atmosphere of animosity that has served to incite the intellectually illiterate in the name of patriotism. When people in a position of power irresponsibly spin their rhetoric by using an aggressive tone they may not be guilty of violence themselves but they are guilty of helping to incubate it. This crazy Jared Loughner character is, no doubt, exclusively responsible for pulling the trigger, however, his motives (and all early indications point to political motives) may have deeper roots. How can we possibly expect the weakest and most polluted minds in our society to NOT act rash when they are pumped full of hateful rhetoric? When we hear pastors and pundits encouraging revolution and hatred under the guise of patriotic sanction, can we not expect to reap what we sow?




Again, I am not saying that one political ideology is better than another. I have no political leaning and no agenda in posting this. I didn't vote in the last election and doubt I will vote in the next. I don't care if Barack Obama is president or Mike Huckabee. To each their own is my creed. In addition, I don't presume to believe that we can all set aside our partisan views and join hands in perfect harmony. No generation of Americans (including the founding generation) could do that. With that said, I do believe that the current political dialogue is out of control. We've come to a point where television networks have become more concerned with ratings than with journalistic integrity. They know that violence, fanaticism, and emotionally-charged political punditry sells...and it sells BIG! Telling audiences what they want to hear v. what is true and right has become the standard, and by painting the "other guy" with wide brush strokes, they have reduced our national political discourse to little more than finger-pointing and shouting matches. Liberals are nothing more than evil, fascist, Marxist, Nazi, communist progressives, while conservatives are ignorant, Bible-thumping, gun-loving fanatics. And for the extremely simple-minded or mentally unstable, this "reality" can evolve into a personal crusade, which can become violent.

Now, am I saying that I can conclusively link the violence of today with the political rhetoric of the radio and television? No, and perhaps this nut-job was simply out of his mind. However, I sincerely doubt that anyone out there, including the fans of these various radio "shock jocks", can justify the need to continue the current trend of political fanaticism and intellectual diarrhea. In the end it makes everyone look shameful.

I am reminded of a talk I recently heard from a leader of my faith regarding the sin of pride and its dangerous impact on the individual and society at large. He states:

Pride is a deadly cancer. It is a gateway sin that leads to a host of other human weaknesses. In fact, it could be said that every other sin is, in essence, a manifestation of pride.This sin has many faces. It leads some to revel in their own perceived self-worth, accomplishments, talents, wealth, or position. They count these blessings as evidence of being “chosen,” “superior,” or “more righteous” than others. This is the sin of “Thank God I am more special than you.” At its core is the desire to be admired or envied. It is the sin of self-glorification.For others, pride turns to envy: they look bitterly at those who have better positions, more talents, or greater possessions than they do. They seek to hurt, diminish, and tear down others in a misguided and unworthy attempt at self-elevation. When those they envy stumble or suffer, they secretly cheer.

Perhaps there is no better laboratory to observe the sin of pride than the world of sports. I have always loved participating in and attending sporting events. But I confess there are times when the lack of civility in sports is embarrassing. How is it that normally kind and compassionate human beings can be so intolerant and filled with hatred toward an opposing team and its fans?I have watched sports fans vilify and demonize their rivals. They look for any flaw and magnify it. They justify their hatred with broad generalizations and apply them to everyone associated with the other team. When ill fortune afflicts their rival, they rejoice. Brethren, unfortunately we see today too often the same kind of attitude and behavior spill over into the public discourse of politics, ethnicity, and religion.

May we all be a little more careful with what we say and how we say it!

The Second Amendment Saga

Of all the amendments to the Constitution perhaps none has created as much controversy as the 2nd Amendment. The "right to keep and bear arms" has caused both grief and comfort for generations of Americans who have fiercely debated the meaning behind these 26 simple words:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What exactly does it mean? What were the Founding Fathers suggesting? Does it even apply to the 21st century? What is a "militia" and how is it to be "well regulated"? Do all guns qualify as "Arms"? And if not, where do we draw the line?

These are just a few of the many questions that have hovered around the Second Amendment for the past 200 years, and depending on who you ask there are different answers to each of these aforementioned questions. So how are we to make sense of this issue? How can we separate the political/pop-culture jargon from the actual substance? Well, let's look at a recent Supreme Court decision, which I believe helps to illustrate the division that exists between pro and anti-gun advocates, and how they both appeal to history to defend their respective positions.

As you all know by now (unless you have been hiding under a rock) the U.S. Supreme Court passed a very important ruling just a couple of years ago that dealt with one of the basic questions surrounding the 2nd Amendment: do average citizens have a right to own a gun, in their own home, for the purposes of protection? In the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court ruled 5-4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun in your personal residence for self-defense. This ruling overturned the D.C. handgun ban, which was one of the strictest gun-control law in our nation's history.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote for the majority opinion, stated that the justices "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country...But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table...It is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

In his dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the Second Amendment applies only to a militia, and that the Constitution’s framers were afraid that the new federal government would disarm the populace, as the British had tried to do. Thus, the current understanding of the Second Amendment needs a modern interpretation and revision:

The Second Amendment was not written to grant citizens a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons, and prohibitions on dangerous and unusual weapons is well within the scope of this court's power to enforce and poses no attack on the Constitution.

Ok, fair is fair. Justice Stevens is right when he mentions that the United States no longer has a need for a militia...at least not in the way our founders envisioned. But does that close the door on the Second Amendment? Do we as citizens have no right to bear arms simply because there is no need for a militia in the 21st century?

I say no. Citizens still have a right to keep and bear arms and here's why:

Like every other anti-gun advocate, Justice Stevens tries to argue that the right to keep in bear arms in an archaic law that was established by our founders to ensure that their new colonies had a well armed militia. And now that we have no need for a militia, this law is obviously outdated. He is wrong. The establishment of the Second Amendment was not done for the exclusive purpose of maintaining a militia.

During the debates of the Constitutional Convention, several key founders (most noticeably James Madison) argued that a Bill of Rights was a necessary component for the new American government, a component that would ensure that certain basic rights would never be infringed upon by a local, state or federal government. And when creating the Second Amendment, men like Madison didn't pull their words out of thin air. They relied on other important documents that helped to blaze the trail for America's Second Amendment. In the 1688 English Bill of Rights we read the following:

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

In addition,our Founding Fathers (particularly Madison) appealed to the works of one William Blackstone, who, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, wrote the following:

"That it is a fundamental right of the people to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property...and the right of the individual to keep and bear arms to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law...is the surest way to ensure our liberties."

So why are these sources significant? Because neither one makes any mention of a "militia." In fact, they both speak of personal protection and the right to "keep and bear arms."

If that's so, then where did this "militia" talk come from? Well, it's actually more simple than you might think. Recent experience had told the colonists (now Americans) that citizens keeping and bearing arms was both a good and prudent thing to do. The experience of Lexington and Concord, where the British tried to disarm American colonists, had struck fear into the hearts of many. It was only natural that such a fear would make its way into the law. The important caveat to note here is that whether or not there is a militia is irrelevant to the issue of keeping and bearing arms. It's simply an argument over semantics.

In my opinion, the Second Amendment is much more than a simple law to create a militia. As Justice Scalia notes, the right to keep and bear arms is not a suggestion, a good idea, or an outdated law. It's a RIGHT!

And our Founders knew it.

Dueling: A "Sport" of "Honor"

If you were to ask any average American about what terms such as "honor" or "gentleman" meant, chances are they would give you a definition that is far different from the one shared by our founding generation. Our 21st century social conceptualizations are incapable of recreating the world of early America, and as a result, are incapable of fully understanding just how important words like "honor" and gentleman" were for men of that time. For this reason, when we think about the practice of dueling, most of us in the modern world shutter at the apparent stupidity and insanity that would be required to participate in such a practice. For colonial America, however, opinions were quite different.

To understand dueling, we must understand what the revolutionary generation (not that dueling was limited exclusively to this time period) understood about its practice. First off, to be a "gentleman" meant much more than good manners. It was the social standing of an inherently "superior" individual. Gentlemen were educated, sophisticated, and brave. They worked tirelessly at cultivating the highest of social graces. Being a gentleman was almost like being a colonial version of a knight from the Medieval ages (though not as dramatic). It was an obsession that infected the entire upper class of colonial society. As Gordon Wood put it, to be a gentleman meant “having leisure in an era of labor, being educated in a time of semi-illiteracy, and above all else, defending one’s honor.” Defending one's honor was at the core of dueling. For example, the most famous duel (that of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton) was due to the fact that Hamilton had undermined Burr's campaign to become Governor of New York, while Burr attempted to brand Hamilton as a wannabe British noble. The feud lasted for months. At the conclusion, Burr was defeated in his political bid for New York, while much of Hamilton's reputation had been damaged almost beyond repair. To settle their grievances, both men agreed to a duel.

In reality, the overwhelming majority of duels ended without incident. First off, the weapons of the era were terribly inaccurate. Since pistols and muskets lacked rifling it was almost impossible to get an accurate shot off. The most important reason why duels rarely ended in tragedy was because most participants purposely missed or never fired. This was because honor, not death, was at stake. The mere attendance of both participants at a duel served to demonstrate how "honorable" the individual truly was. In essence, merely showing up at one's duel was sufficient evidence of the person's "gentleman" qualities and was more than a satisfactory defense of one's honor. Usually this act of "bravery" would end the feud between rival parties.

This does not mean that dueling never ended in death. As we all know, America's first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, lost his life by participating in a duel with Aaron Burr. Hamilton's oldest son was also killed in a duel five years prior to his father's death. Usually those responsible for killing another in a duel had their reputations tarnished. They were rarely seen as "gentleman" of "honor." Just look at Aaron Burr. Killing Hamilton was the worst thing he could have ever done for his reputation. In fact, he lamented it for the rest of his life.

In conclusion, let us not forget the social aspects that went into dueling. Instead of seeing it as a barbarous practice we must recognize its influence on a society that was literally obsessed with honor and status. Though we have (thankfully) moved past dueling, the practice wasn't totally irrelevant. It served to settle grievances (I guess simply setting down and talking was out of the equation), it defended honor and it settled old scores.

Truly the "gentleman" thing to do! =)