Guns in Church
 

I know there's a few ppl here who CCW and open carry, but what do you think of this?

Valley Station church to hold gun service | courier-journal.com | The Courier-Journal

This is in the part of town closest to Fort Knox, so I expect to see it be a big hit. I have a few friends who might go. I posted this on another gun forum I visit, and there were all kinds of people there who talk about carrying in church for protection with all of the church related and abortion related violence lately. Granted I've never really felt the need to be armed for church, but I can see the point.

Funny, I always thought guns were a separate religion unto themselves.

Religion is a life policy system based on hope. Guns are more of a power tool for reality.

I don't go to church, but if I did, I wouldn't see it as any different than carrying to the store or the movies.

...Their church, their rules. I don't see the problem.

I definitely have no problem with this, I assume this is private property and conforming to state laws. Though it is odd the guns will be 'unloaded.'

On an aside though, I find bringing weapons to a religious location to be somewhat paradoxical. After all, isn't the purpose of the religious site to supplicate and communicate with certain gods? If so, these gods should protect their followers from harm. Or, if danger were to arise, it would be the will of the gods and the followers should not intervene.

i thought guns in a church was against geneva conventions. i did it anyway, but it was just a 9mm, concelaed in my backpack, and i was an occupier, and i'm sure the locals were packing as well.

If this was true and I was religious... I wouldn't need to wear pants.

i see the logic in that.

The problem is it's NOT "their" rules It's "Jesus' rules".

Carrying a gun is the ultimate symbol that you will not turn the other cheek, that you will not be humble in the face of adversity, threats, and violence.

For a pastor of any denomination to encourage (or even tacitly allow) the congregation to come into the house of God armed with a lethal weapon is totally contrary to specific guidance given in the gospels by Jesus himself - not interpretation, not commentary by the authors of the gospels, but the actual recorded words of the man the pastor claims is his saviour and the son of God.

I would go so fr as to say you cannot be a Christian (as I was taught it is defined) if you go armed, or if you advocate the carrying and use of deadly weapons.

Where?

"But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword."

Douay-Rheims Bible, Luke 22:36. Other translations are much more explicit; "he that hath no sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one."

Here we see Jesus instructing His followers to go armed. Not to carry dual-use tools such as axes or knives, but single-purpose weapons. Moreover, His instruction to sell the CLOAK to pay for the sword is indicative of the importance He places upon this: in the Middle Eastern world at the time a person's cloak was among their most important possessions; -so- important, in fact, that Old Testament law required that if a cloak was taken as collateral on a loan, the cloak had to be returned to the owner before nightfall of the same day (Exodus 22:26) so that the owner would not have to face the freezing desert night without a covering. And -this- is what Jesus says to sell, if needed, to buy a sword.

Woah, wait. It's misleading to take stories out of context to justify certain ends. At this point in the story, Jesus is warning specific followers about tough times ahead. He's suggesting they be prepared for an enemy that will make things tough for them. He's not suggesting all his followers to sell their cloaks to be sure they have their swords to bring to church.

You're quoting passages about Jesus speaking of his apprehension. And even so, these words perhaps should not be taken literally. It has been said this was Jesus' way to suggest that this was a time of extreme danger. As we know, Jesus didn't intend to start a rebellion or fight to the death to resist arrest. He even told Peter to put away his sword when he cut the High Priest's ear.

I think it's quite ridiculous that a church is encouraging it's 'flock' to wear paperweights in open carry holsters. just ridiculous.

You know, Ive been in bother for making moralistic statements in the gun forum previously... but carrying weapons into church is something that should not be permitted and should not even enter the mind of a person. Whether you have faith or not, to those that do this is a house of God... it really troubles me that to some people that doesnt mean anything. I wont make a further contribution to this thread I think.

The right to bare arms, whether you support it or do not, surely is a secular matter... I yearn for an age when no one would consider it necessary to walk into the presence of God with a metal tucked under their belt. I wont make comments about any individual, but its a sad world when any people feel they need to take a gun to church.

ie Christians, such as those attending this particular Church

And times aren't tough now? They haven't been tough in the intervening 2000-odd years? There are no enemies out there now? I beg to differ.

Not -all-, no, but I never said anything about -all- of -anything-, so drop the strawman. I posted in direct rebuttal to Danial's statement that Jesus condemned going armed (which he clearly did not) and that one could not be a Christian while being armed (which one clearly can, since Jesus Himself instructed his followers to arm themselves).

Why not? They seemed a literal instruction to the Disciples, who responded by declaring that they already possessed some swords.

Because it was His place to be arrested and crucified in order to effect Salvation.

Not the High Priest's ear, that of one of the High Priest's servants. His instruction to Peter to put away his sword was because;
1: Peter was interfering with the plan for Salvation, and
2: The servant was innocent, not being in a position of power to advance or impede Jesus's arrest, and therefore not a legitimate target. If Peter had taken a chop at one of the Sanhedrin, or the Temple Guard, or one of the Roman soldiers accompanying them, the result might have been different.

Regardless, if that congregation feels it is appropriate to carry in church, who are you to tell them otherwise?

I thought we were free to worship (or not) as we feel fit, and if it suits them to do so while standing on their heads juggling waterballoons, so what?

And DKsuddeth: I feel the church's decision is one of personal responsiblity, and carrying a pistol is far less irrational than relying on superstition for personal well being.

So long as it's following the law, it's no business of mine. Some people would probably think it in bad taste—I might raise an eyebrow—but that's not a legality issue but a societal issue.

God and guns. Guns and God. What better life is there?

I'm all for it. Besides, it's not like they're going to have a shootout in the church.

I think carrying concealed to churches is great. I read a story once a long way back about a retired cop that decided not to carry when he went to church...there ended up being an incident where he wished he had carried that day. Nothing massacre-ish, but one of the perishoners(sp?) got shot.

However I'd be against open carry in churches...people go to church for peace of mind, someone openly carrying would not be conducive. It's like talking loudly in a library.

My point, Dunedan, to address your charge of a strawman (which was not the intent), is that the passages you quoted refer to a specific situation that Jesus and those close to him were facing. These verses have very little to do with whether Christians should carry weapons to a house of worship. You were quoting these out of context. If this wasn't your intent, you should have offered an explanation. Could you explain how Jesus advocates going to church services armed? If you don't believe he does so, then simply say it.

Now, the world was never a perfectly safe place. I admit that. But are you suggesting we should all be worried about the Unseen Enemy?

Fuck it, if the Church of Scientology can sucker people into taking risks, spending their money, and making them act irrational and possibly dangerous, I don't have a problem with a church that lets insecure men carry unloaded penis extenders while praising the lord.
This is not about Jesus' law. In this world, there's really no such thing except in the Vatican. Even there, it's men's interpretation of an alleged set of "God's laws".
There's only the law of man, the legal system made by society. Granted, it might be inspired by the Bible sometimes, or even quote recurring characters in it (God), but it's still up to people to decide what they allow other people to bring in their buildings, since they built the buildings.

I think it is a bit paradoxical to bring a weapon to a place of peace and worship, but I've seen weirder things, and I certainly think other places of worship have had far worse rules.

You don't have to sugar-coat it. Tell us how you really feel. :expressionless:

do people still try to use this bullshit argument?????

Look, another comparison: I'd rather have a religion that allows empty guns in church then one that encourages people to take up arms against other religions. This is no longer crusading time (for most people, at least I hope not), and whatever they want to allow is cool.
dksuddeth:
I don't see anything bullshit about my argument. I used well known facts about the dangers of an ill-reputed religion, and compared them to the potential dangers of the church in the OP. I don't see a major difference. Maybe the comparison was some kind of exaggeration or far-fetched, but I don't feel that way, so please tell me what you feel is wrong with my post.
That way I can understand your perspective better.

Why not chew gum in church?

Oh, I think I misread the title.

GGBot may have stumbled upon something here! :thumbsup:

Why don't you chew gum in church? Why don't you wear a hat in church (other than religious head wear)? It's generally considered to be disrespectful behavior. Most people in churches believe with certainty that they're in the house of the creator of the universe, the savior that sacrificed himself to save you. Bearing that in mind, you want to show that creator and savior the maximum respect possible. You're there to humbly worship. Why would you want to bring a weapon into the house of god? Don't you respect your god enough to leave your killing device out in the car?

I was actually referring to this "insecure men carry unloaded penis extenders" as if the intimation is that men with small dicks carry guns to make them feel more manly. THAT is the bullshit argument I was talking about.

---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------

wouldn't that same 'savior' want you to do whatever is necessary to protect the life you have, that he gave his own life for?

You'd have to ask him.

I wont make comments on individuals.

But if a society creates the conditions that a sane and rational person desires to carry a weapon when they step into the presence of God, society has failed utterly, is corrupt.

OK, I guess maybe I see how I could have offended some gun owners, seeing as this is the weaponry section. However, I think I do have a point about the types who feel it's necessary to carry a weapon to church. Their idea of when it's appropriate and necessary to carry a gun is ass-backwards. I'm certainly not calling all gun owners irresponsible men with issues.. I support gun ownership where owning one is not too dangerous, and has a legitimate reason to be owned. If you live alone, are a safe citizen, and don't live in the middle of a big city, then I don't see why not you can't own a weapon, as long as you're responsible about it.

thanks guys,
now that Billy Idol song,
'White Wedding'

is stuck in my head.

sorry for the thread heist.

http://imgur.com/8db06.jpg

---------- Post added at 12:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:55 PM ----------

More directly on topic reply: There are many (many!) examples of pastors/preachers on the keltec forums discussing which guns are best to wear for pocket carry in their suit coats and slacks while they are preaching.

Gee, ya think? You made absolutely no effort to distinguish between the "penis extenders" and "non-penis extenders" in your snide little comment, and we (gunowners) have been harassed with that inane, insane, bullshit canard for long efuckingnough. If guns actually -were- phallic substitutes, why would subcompact pistols be so popular? "Hey, by dick's too small, so I'll buy a tiny lightweight .38 to make it feel bigger!" Right, I wanna buy a gun 1/2 the length of my prick to make myself feel well-endowed? I think not. Besides which, what do you figure's up with female gunowners (30% of total nationwide)? Are they buying "clit extenders," or are you falling for that outdated bullshit about "penis envy?"

Nope. Wrong. Sorry, you don't.

Why? Has nobody ever been murdered or attacked in a church before? Dr. Tiller would disagree.

Care to elaborate upon "too dangerous" and "legitimate reason?" Oh, that's right; "not scary to me personally."

Because nobody's -ever- had to defend their families, oh no...

Define please...oh, right, "not scary to me personally."

Where the majority of violent crimes occur, and where a defensive firearm is most likely to be needed...


Let me see if I've got this straight: you're fine with gun-ownership so long as the owner
A: Doesn't scare you for some reason,
B: Has what you consider to be a "legitimate" reason (which does not seem to include self-defense since)
C: Lives in the middle of nowhere, and not in an area where they're more likely to need to use the weapon defensively.

Hah, I've got an Enfield from WWI with 25" tube. What does that say about my penis?

Smooth spot'd!

...

I think true blue religious types may carry guns because they're educated enough to understand that not everybody is as religious as them.

Good show, Dunedan.

Uh, well, no. That's your interpretation of my words, and quite a step away from what I said.
Sorry, but I do believe many people don't need guns. I do believe, people often own big houses, big muscle cars, unnecessarily huge pickups and humvees to show something. It might not be what I pointed to, like penis envy or feelings of inadequacy, but what genuine use does a businessman have of a pickup that can hold hundreds, or thousands of pounds of heavy equipment, when he's never taken it to the country.

I know many people do need things.
I never said anything about "someone who would/wouldn't scare me." That's casting me as a paranoid person. If I do describe a certain section of people as guys that own and carry to feel more like a man, it's because they exist. Just like some women are sluts, even though it's wrong for someone to say, and most aren't.
Maybe I did go strong in my first post, and without thinking, made no distinction between those that used it responsibly and those that didn't. The truth is I don't think most gun owners are dudes who want an extra Extenze in the form of a .45
I'm sorry if I offended you.

Another opinion that, yes, I do have, is I don't think guns necessarily belong in big cities, unless you have a business to protect or something else that justifies.
But I didn't say I only wanted guns in the middle of nowhere. But if a city has a low enough crime rate and the Police seem to be doing their job well enough, then I think it's more individual risks taken by gun owners (accidents etc) then potential benefit. But that's just my opinion.
I'm sorry if my explanation takes this thread off track a little bit. The truth is I didn't realize most gun owners here would take it personally, I hadn't thought to make the distinction, in my mind it was a bit self-evident.
Again, apologies.

nice scripture, however, that doesn't refer anywhere close to having another TAKE YOUR LIFE. just a minor assault. I'm confident Jesus was talking about someone having no reason to get upset over being 'dissed'.

---------- Post added at 07:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:18 PM ----------

you don't read alot of news then, do you? stories that talk about church shootings, or mall shootings, or the murder rate in big cities like chicago where, incidentally, handgun ownership is practically forbidden to non law enforcement personnel and city aldermen/women?

Meh. Christianity is as violent as any other group of people. From the Crusades to the Inquisition to W's "God told me to do it" war with Iraq, Jesus's religion has been used as an excuse to kill people since not long after people killed him.

Jesus also told us not to judge people, and to love our neighbor, yet it is the Christians who are so eagerly persecuting gays. If you're saying that guns in church means the church and its congregation is hypocritical, you might be right. . .But it's not like Christians haven't been hypocritical long before the gun-in-church issue came up.

For my part, I think it's pretty silly that we supposedly have a right to bear arms, yet can't actually take the gun anywhere practical. Stores, churches, government buildings, all ban guns. What's the point of having one for personal protection if you have to rely on violence only being done to you in the city park? If a criminal goes after you inside or on a sidewalk (where you won't be carrying your gun because you'll have nowhere to store it when you get to whatever building you're going to that doesn't allow guns), then you're just as screwed as if you didn't go to all the time and trouble to legally acquire a gun in the first place.

Additionally, you seem to be saying it's ok for people to carry guns as long as they don't carry them into church, because the church teaches them to turn the other cheek. In effect you're saying we only have to follow church teachings while we are actually in the church, which means it's totally fine for me to cheat on my wife as long as I do it at a seedy motel and not in the rectory.

And finally, I really don't think "turn the other cheek" is a suicide pact. I have trouble believing that Jesus would want us to just let a crazed gunman mow us down.

If I punched you in the face, you'd punch me back. I know you would. The same thing works for "if you shoot at me, I'll shoot at you right back." It's self-defense either way.

If you ever get the chance, you should check out by Tolstoy. It's an incredible read and it covers this a lot better than I can.

I do read a lot of news actually. Maybe not the usual alarmist reactionary "be scared" news, so it has less about individual shootings/murders than world events, but I like to think I keep up sufficiently to have an opinion. Mine is that guns don't belong in big cities.
Now, I can be wrong about this, and there's no real way for me to know whether (increased) licensed gun ownership would increase or decrease gun-related deaths, but I think it wouldn't help.
Chicago is not violent because handguns are too few, I think it has more to do with history, corruption, and poor funding for an effective police force.


As for guns in churches, well, I'd say that should be the church's choice. Their interpretation of a divine entity's rules about weapons are none of my concern, and I can choose not to go there.

no, you don't know that I would. I might ask you what the hell you did it for, and if there was no good cause, you'd best be buying me quite a few damned beers. now, if you continued to throw punches, then that's another issue.

---------- Post added at 10:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 PM ----------

With the kind of cops they have in chicago, if they funded more, y'all would be in serious trouble. That and it's been ruled many times that the police have no obligation or liablity to provide any protection to any one individual.

It's the equivalent of someone shooting at you, so I'd assume that just as if bullet 1 missed, bullet 2 would be on its way, if punch 1 missed... you get the point. Depending on who you ask, turn the other cheek either means don't respond to violence or it means don't allow violence to make you violent (those do mean slightly different things). I don't want this to get too theocratic, though. Leave us say that shooting someone in church for shooting at you isn't turning the other cheek.

I'll try to stick to the point. I don't see the big deal with this. A church is a building no different than any other. God is everywhere, so how is taking your strap to church any different than taking it to the gas station? Don't you know that Jesus and Moses used guns to slaughter the egyptian army?

Well, shit. Sort of related: Shooting at US Holocaust museum
This really sucks.

What I can't help but wonder is whether a change in gun laws could have affected the outcome of this incident.

Sorry all - been away from the PC for a couple of days.


People who self identify as Christians, whilst not following the teachings of Jesus are at best misguided, and at worst hypocrites. The rules are clear (and frankly rather odd - I'm not even sure that they can all BE followed) and not up for negotiation - it's not supposed to e easy to follow them, it's supposed to be a test of faith.

As far as I'm aware, Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuality - there's things in the old testament that can be interpreted as condemning it, but then there's equally damning strictures against prawns, bacon, and haircuts, and congress hasn't ruled on barbers shops or surf & turf.

I was taught that we can now ignore the rules of the Jews, because Jesus died for our sins. Therefore, we can eat bacon, wear our hair how we like, have a prawn cocktail, and be as gay as we want.

The right to bear arms is clearly stated to be in order to raise a millitia to prevent the tyrany of government. That is unlikely to happen to you suddenly in a carpark.

Not at all - I'm saying that if you are a Christian you should not carry guns in church OR elsewhere. The point is that the people with guns outside Church may well not think of themselves as Christians, but those IN Church probably do. I think that it should be the Pastor's duty to educate the congregation in what the rules actually are, not to tell them that the rules are flexible to fit their desire to call themselves Christians whilst hanging onto their weapons.

Jesus was in favour of passive resistance - he said turn the other cheek, he said if under duress do DOUBLE what you are forced. I'm not saying it's something I can do, but it worked for Ghandi.

Final question: in the beatitudes who did Jesus say would inherit the Earth?

Was it the armed who defend themselves, or was it someone else?

not sure what other laws would have prevented a felon from obtaining a rifle.

---------- Post added at 09:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 PM ----------

taken a bit out of context, don't you think?

the right isn't there in order to raise a militia. the militia should already be there, that's why they called them minutemen. The rest of it is to ensure that no government entity can restrict the right to arms by citizens period.

Maybe I missed something - there always seemed to me to be a clear link that makes the permission to bear arms conditional on the ability to form a militia.

You commented that the militia should exist. I agree. If this is the case, maybe you should say "If you have joined a milita organisation for civil defense, you can bear arms". That would prevent anyone saying "I need it for home defense" or "I want to go hunting". The point should be (to me) if you're not in a milita, the right to bear arms doesn't apply to you.

I happen to agree with your interpretation of the intent of the 2nd. The supreme court does not. They ruled that we can have guns. They didn't say we can have guns as long as we sign up for a militia. So, by judicial review, we are free and clear to have guns, and my original point stands.

Regarding your other comments to my post, you pretty much said what I am saying. Yes, I suppose having a gun in church if you believe that Jesus told you never to fight is hypocritical. But christianity as a whole is hypocritical as hell. You are correct when you say that Jesus never said anything about persecuting homosexuals, but he did say, as I mentioned, to love thy neighbor and to avoid passing judgment on people. A sizable percentage of American christians are vehemently anti-gay, and therefore are hypocritical. And if we want to get technical, you are judging this church and its congregation over the gun issue, and therefore so are you.

The point is that assuming Jesus existed, it is highly unlikely that he expected his words to be followed to the exact letter. It is further unlikely that what is written in the bible is exactly what Jesus actually said. If you synthesize Jesus's teachings down to their core, they work out to something along the lines of "Don't be an asshole, and treat people nicely to the extent possible." That's a better way to approach his teachings, I think, than to take the verbage literally and as-rote. After all "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" could be twisted to justify rape. "I'd sure like her to have sex with me so. . ."

All this boils down to the point that as long as these churchgoers are living their lives to the moral standard they believe their church requires of them, they are not hypocrites. Obviously the church does not include as part of that moral standard "don't carry any guns." We don't know how literally that church interprets the new testament, and so we can't really pass. . judgment. . on them on the hypocrisy question.

This 'interpretation' would require someone to think that they only have the rights that are afforded to them via the constitution or the government. This is not correct. The 'people' have all, every, unlimited rights. The constitution only provides specific enumerated powers to the federal government.

So, while the 2nd Amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, it provides, as it's only singular textual limitation, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

this doesn't say that the right of the militia, or the right of those enrolled in a militia, or even that the right shall not be infringed as long as you enroll in a militia. It say 'the right of the people', plain and simple.

I think that places where mass murders typically occur (by someone with a firearm) are the ones who could use a few non-mass murder people being armed. Then there would be a chance of putting a stop to the mass murder from going as far as it could have, or discouraging it completely before it even happens. If some religious places don't want firearms there, then that's their problem. No one is forced to go there to begin with.