This is a three part series that takes a deep look into this topic of guns and religion and the role that they play in politics. The topic, itself, looks at American history, the Second Amendment, a Christian nation, and gun sales. The continuing parts of this post will be labeled in corresponding posts seen as “Part 2”, “Part 3”, etc., etc.

Click here to view the embedded video.

So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre…I think they’re misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to ‘white working-class don’t wanna work — don’t wanna vote for the black guy.’ That’s…there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today – kind of implies that it’s sort of a race thing.

Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But — so the questions you’re most likely to get about me, ‘Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What’s the concrete thing?’ What they wanna hear is — so, we’ll give you talking points about what we’re proposing — close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama’s gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we’re gonna provide health care for every American. So we’ll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you’ll find is, is that people of every background — there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you’ll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I’d be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing.

The portion selected was immediately picked up by Obama’s opposition, both from the right and the left.  Again, this was during the 2008 campaign where EVERYTHING is documented and scrutinized by all.  The response by the conservative media and conservative pundits was the usual disappointment (source).  The usual retaliation of such a blunt statement made deserves the reaction it received.  The statement minimized a great deal of the nation into a static, discriminatory cult of mindless drones and believe what is told to them by religious leaders.  The statement could be compared to a stereotype on every level.  He might as well have said, “Women are bad drivers.”  Brutal and obtuse, hu?

The lack of vision for the statement that is obvious and his apologetic attitude afterwords was warranted and admittedly in poor taste.  Obama is known to be a cooth orator and understand the importance of an effective speech.  The mistake may have been made on many accounts and we must accept the apology as it is, and was.

As a skeptic, I have to ask myself the question that I heard very little about when the media reported this misstep; “Is he correct in saying this?”

I have asked myself this for over a year now and it has put new thoughts into my head about our country.  Has this been a political blunder? Or is there truth to it?

Some history…

It’s been a volley of sort, going back and forth, on whether religion is a weapon of mass destruction or not.  The debate on religion and war, where violence and religion intersect, and why they clash could fill a book.  Why is it that the ethics of religion comes into question when politics that distances itself from any religion takes control?

I think it would have been silly not to predict a Democratic victory in the 2008 Presidential election.  The President is a person who is not above the law, so I think we can all say that anything that the he does, just shy of being a constitutional revisionist, is under the umbrella of the law.  In the past few months, there has been rumors that Barack Obama would go above or around the law to change law(s) to his liking.  To be specific, our Second Amendment is in question, which has protected the right to own guns in our country since its conception in minds of old, bright men.  In 1791, Congress ratified the amendment in which it says, “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.”

Part of early colonial life was based around religion, where little violence existed.  Few were hanged for their beliefs and even fewer were burned at the stake for their beliefs.  Many groups and a few colonies were set up on a certain type of Christianity was practiced.  The origins of the religious freedoms were based off the need for a more pure and properly educated Christianity.  At the cusp of The Enlightenment, liberalism seeped into colonial society in a very quiet fashion and soon a liberal Christianity took place with a competing scientific view.

This led to a reaction called “The Great Awakening”.  Johnathan Edwards led this Christian uprising which came to a high in the mid 1740′s.  The Awakening has been said to be the proto-revolutionary event.  It crossed all doctrinal lines and empowered many to take a stand against Europe.  After the American Revolution, John Adams said, “The Revolution was effected before the War commenced.  The Revolution was in the mind and hears of the people: and change in their religious sentiments of the duties and obligations.”  Popular enthusiasm came from The Enlightenment’s elitism and the zeal of Awakening (Paul John – A History of the American People – p.116).  This created the perfect setting for the Revolution.

Our country’s history glorifies the leaders (Deists) and creators that came not only from The Enlightenment, but also from the Great Awakening.  The moderates that they were, the founding fathers of this nation had the opportunity to capitalize on the rigorous hold that Europe had on the colonies.  The religious freedom sought after nearly one hundred earlier translated into political and secular freedom.

Less than twenty years later, the Second Amendment was signed.  The origin of “the right to bear arms” has been traced back to the 12th century in England.  The true popularity of the right came to light during the Protestant overthrow of the Catholic King James II.  At the end of the Glorious Revolution, William and Mary signed the English Bill of Rights that included the right to bear arms with the intent to give (even non-land owning citizens) the people the opportunity to oppose a national army or standing local militia.

In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:

• deterring undemocratic government;
• repelling invasion;
• suppressing insurrection;
• facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
• participating in law enforcement;
• slave control in slave states.

(source for this list and previous paragraph)

Colonists were resistant to Europe and the King because of the English Bill of Right’s declaration of the right to bear arms.  The contradicting English government had a difficult time containing the colonists and Revolution proceeded from there.

Though the Revolution itself was mildly fought with only 50,000 dead (the American Civil War topped 500,000), those who initiated the schism  had the backing of a religious establishment of nearly one hundred years old.  Puritan, Presbyterian, and conservative Catholicism in the 17th century could quite possibly be the reason that the Revolution took place.  Is it possible then to say that Barack Obama’s statement has truth to it?

-

Other information:

U.S. Gun Laws: A History

Keeping that in mind, we proudly congratulate our new friends at Transparent CCU.

Transparent CCU is a site with the intention of keeping a critical and theological eye on my alma mater, Colorado Christian University.  Like myself, the administrators of Transparent CCU are alumni and have taken to heart the changes in the last five years on campus.  I can only speak for my own experience when I say that during my attendance, CCU churned out well rounded graduates, no matter their major.  As a youth ministry major, I went into CCU excited to be given the education from both the left and right, religiously and politically.

The problem started with the firing of a prominent, liberal Biblical Studies professor.  The university claimed it was due to the local Christian community’s outcry of the liberal Christianity that students were being taught.  After this, the long-time president of the school stepped down.  The major turning point for me was the hiring of an extremely unqualified retired U.S. Senator, Bill Armstrong.  Mr. Armstrong came to CCU without a degree.  Just a high school diploma and a career as a vet, business man, and politician.  No experience in education.

With this new president, so came new objectives for the school. These Strategic Objectives have pointed the school into a doctrinal Bible college with little evidence of the education that alumni had experienced.  This new shift has been made clear with the creation of the “Centennial Institute“, a Evangelical, right-winged think-tank.

Along with that, John Andrews, the lead writer at the Centennial Institute, has his own think-tank called “Backbone America“.  Named after his hometown, Andrews’ site claims to be non-partisan, but his writings tell me and others different.  In fact, his bio on the site explicitly says that they support Colorado’s Marriage Act (an anti-gay act), free-market enterprise, and the support of tax limits; it’s a Republican think-tank.  

Transparent CCU is, for lack of a better term, a CCU watchdog.  I congratulate them for their valor and focus on the lack of integrity and the illegitimate education that the CCU administration is pushing on its students.  The changes at CCU are disappointing for many of their alumni.  I look forward to their progress keeping the school accountable.

To begin, “politics” NEEDS to be understood as the process by which groups of people make decisions.  It is an emotional and ideological noun that has the tendency to be confused with “government” which is the organization that is the governing authority of a political unit.  “Politics” falls into “government” in the sovereign and administrative terminology.  I am defining and outlining these terms, so when I write them, you understand the meaning behind my words.

The Republican Party has taken many twists and turns which starts from the “Whig Party”, but soon found a different face when taking on the abolitionist’s cause. Keeping in mind that elected officials was the party’s main focus of democracy (republicanism), this led to the stance on the size of government in a citizens life.  This size is known as “small government” and can be characterized by the position it takes on business and government’s role in business. President Lincoln was the first prominent Republican leader by leading the South out of slavery and into “Reconstruction” via agriculture and business.

An example of this small government is the economic platform of the GOP, which, both now and then, is run by a “free market society”. This also known as “capitalism”, in which government is not involved in society’s market. This is thought to be the driving force of the GOP. Even though this is a focus of the party, this not always the case (example).  Again, this characterizes the “small government”. Another term for this type of government is a “weak” government.

Another piece of the Republican pie is how they approach issues to the .  Health care, oil and transportation are issues that fall directly in line with this “small government”.  Military and religious issues fall deeper in the Republican psyche and are characterized by another conservative principle; personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility and self efficacy is value of the GOP and its followers is driven, in my opinion, observation, and experience, by religion. Christianity and its well known stance on purging and excluding of sin from society. Because of the close ties of society and government, Christianity and its stance on personal responsibility is a centerpiece on their platform.  A textual and Biblical example of this would be Luke 9:57-62; Galatians 5:1, 13-25.

“Personal responsibility” is where Christianity propels social issues to the top of the Republican list of priorities. These can loosely be defined as abortion, stem cell research, and homosexuality. Because these social issues are a portion of the pie of the GOP platform, they are amplified to an enormous degree due to modern progressive movements such as legalize civil unions, shutting down all forms of abortion, and eliminating traditional methods of embryonic stem cell research (an old method now-a-days, but still under consideration).

These issues are not cited in a formal matter at all, but these are issues that are in the forefront of the lay, middle class mind, Evangelicals continually hammer these issues at American politics as the main issues. Also, I have little doubt that if anyone were to ask a pragmatic conservative “Are these the three issues that your party’s focal point is constantly on?”, that they will not at all disagree.  Again, they are not the only issues, just three that are amplified.

The GOP, currently, is in the minority with time to spare.  Partisanship keeps them at bay(example) and clings to Evangelicals.  The concrete stance on their platform could hurt their changes in future elections and hope for its current constituents.  This assumption of the GOP history that I have presented, is based off of experience and honest history (I hope, from the citations I have given). The only real reason I bring this subject to the limelight is because of the current political cartel that has established itself as the dominate, religiously correct body.  The weak, small governance and personal responsibility characterizes fear that the right wing has that they may have to pay prices (literal and figurative) on behalf others who do and don’t deserve the help. If you understand that, and the obsessive need to keep government out of your life, then you’ve understood the GOP.
This is all to say that I have not at all mentioned the interaction that Christianity plays in the politics of the Republican Party.  That requires a book’s worth of writing.

Some links to further understand the GOP:

http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/grn.htm
http://www.gop.com/
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/