Moderated Thoughts

No man thinks himself irrational. Each man deems himself reasonable. One is reasonably left, while the other is reasonably right. No compromise is reached, no discourse is given, no solution is in sight, precisely because each man thinks the other a fool.

I am generally for gun control. I can't imagine a scenario where Jesus Christ might pass out swords to The Twelve. Indeed, the one instance in the gospel where a disciple acted with the sword, he was swiftly rebuked. "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." 

Obviously a sword is not a gun, nor a gun a sword, but the distinctive similarity is there - that both items are exaggerators of violence, force, and aggression. Granted, there are legitimate ways to use swords and guns (aka the military, self-defense, etc)... but even with this recognition, it should be noted that to be for gun control doesn't necessarily mean to be for the absolute exclusion of guns. 

From a Christian standpoint, I can't see the link between Christianity and freedom in using guns. Certainly, the fixation between these two ideas - that Christian means being for guns - is a exclusively American idea. I'd dare say no where else in the world would you find Christians justifying convenient access to guns based on the Bible.

The gun activist must look elsewhere in his justification for liberal access to guns. The chief justification, indeed the justification that formed the Second Amendment, had to do with the Brits ousting Americans out of their homes and subjecting them to rule. There are modern parallels to this scenario, so it is a legitimate concern, more or less. Take, for example, the race riots of LA, when Korean Americans fended off mostly African American looters with the help of assault rifles and other powerful weapons. But gun control doesn't mean the absolute exclusion of guns in society; it just means introducing more accountability and responsibility in the current system of gun distribution. 

So - I'm not arguing for the absolute exclusion of guns in society. I'm merely saying we ought to introduce a system of more accountability and responsibility in gun-access. 

Anyway. Tylenol. Why did I mention Tylenol (or Advil or Ibuprofen). I think gun control is sort of a pain killer, a pain dampener. The real cause of violence and senseless killing will still be there, with or without gun control. Guns are the 'but for' cause of school massacres, but certainly not the only cause; a sane, emotionally-stable boy with supportive friends and a loving family doesn't go on gun rampages.

Guns are the convenient scapegoat, the exaggerator of violence, but even when they're taken away, the root cause of violence wil still be there. The mentally unhealthy young man who lives in a broken family, neglected by his father, keen to get attention and to disturb society, can still inflict violence and massacre through other means. He can make bombs, make poisons, or simply go on a knifing rampage (which is what happens in China). 

Gun control will dampen the effects of his violence, dampen his potential for violence, but the violence and the root cause of violence will still be there. Sure, let's have more gun control, but let's do more than just that. Let's work on our communities, let's reach out to the hopeless, let's bring light to the darkness. We need more open discourse on mental health problems, more access to mental health resources; we need churches that are less insular, churches that actively reach out; we need to nurture stables home for which boys and girls may grow up in, promoting familial well-being in various ways. 

The goal is noble. It’s noble to help the underprivileged, to help the victims of past discrimination. But lowering the standard to accomodate for students who have not proved their academic capabilities just doesn’t make much sense to me. Harvard is Harvard because it’s the definition of academic excellence; Harvard is Harvard because the students at Harvard are the very best. It makes little sense to me to lower the standard of excellence in order to accomodate for those who have not proven that they can compete at that level of excellence, especially when such biased favoritism ends up discriminating against other deserving minority groups (namely Asians). 

Think about it in terms of the NBA and the NFL. Suppose I support AA, but only if it’s applied over all spectrums of life. You see, I’d really like to see more Asians in the NBA and the NFL. I believe Asians are the victims of systematic discrimination; the dominant majority have decided that Asians are nothing but computer science  and math nerds, and because of this forceful stereotype, the noble asian people have been systematically denied of athletic opportunities. In response to this, the NFL and the NBA set up asian quotas - something small, like 10% - for the NBA and the NFL. Mo’ Jeremy Lins on the court. Yay. 

I hope the above proposition sounds as absurd to you as it does to me. AA tarnishes the standard of excellence and cheapens the success of those who have achieved excellence by their own accord. A policy that empowers a minority group at the cost of hurting another is not good policy. 

I woke up to this image yesterday morning. I reactively thought, 'Wow, what a b*tch.' 

I knew very little about Ann Coulter. I briefly wiki-ed her once back in undergrad because she was supposed to make a speech at UofOttawa, and my super liberal former Residence Assistance littered her facebook with anti-Coulter statuses. When I looked her up I thought it was curious that someone who claims to live by the tenets of Christianity could be so ... mean, and generally unlikable. At the same time I felt a little, just a little, sympathy for her for defending, admittedly improperly and perhaps disgustingly, some aspects of a seemingly dying worldview of the western world, a worldview that I relate to, to an extent. 

I am deeply disturbed by Ann Coulter's message coupled with her vocal allegiance to Christianity. I do not think this is how Christians should function in the political world. The central theme of Christianity is one of embrace and acceptance - that anyone can now be adopted to God's family, that Christ came and died not for the righteous but for the sinful. Jesus came to love on social outcasts, not to shun them nor to belittle them. 

Christ's desire to adopt all of us into His family contrasts sharply with the 'disowning' that Coulter speaks of. 

It is a curious thing to see so many fierce advocates fighting for the rights of guilty men to live. These men have killed, stolen, and destroyed, yet the justice of our time demands that they should continue to live. It is all the more curious to see these same advocates fighting against the rights of children to live. These living entities have not killed, stolen, nor destroyed, yet the justice of our time demands that their lives be subject to the whims of their mothers. 

The guilty man is freed from the fear of lethal needles. The child in her mother's womb is not freed from the fear of a metal claw that would gnaw and mangle her up.