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