NPR briefly reported this morning on legislation in the Arkansas legislature that would allow concealed weapons to be carried into churches and bars. Currently concealed weapons are allowed in Arkansas everywhere else (except maybe schools and Federal government facilities, since I think Federal law prohibits those, but I'm not certain).

According to the report, proponents of the bill claim that this will allow church-goers to defend themselves should the church come under attack. Opponents, NPR says, claim that taking guns into church violates the sanctity of the venue. What do we do with a debate in which both sides are arguing plain foolishness? First, while attacks on churches are extraordinarily rare, even when they do occur you don't need concealed weapons for the defense. Unconcealed weapons will do the trick just as nicely — maybe moreso, since the evidence of an armed defense might well discourage the attack in the first place. (A "speak softly and carry a big stick" kind of thing.") As for sanctity, that's for the churchgoers to decide for themselves. At a Quaker church, you betcha, guns violate the principles of that version of faith. But there's nothing universal about that. The primary monotheistic religious texts run red with righteous bloodletting from start to finish, so why can't some group of likeminded What Kind of Heat Would Jesus Pack faithful have a congregation of their own where gun totting is part and parcel with prayer? Just cuz I don't want to go to that church doesn't make the church any less sanctimonious.

And in other news, Ezra "Alice Waters is not as pretentious as Tom Lee says she is" Klein runs down the 8 principles of the Obama health care reform effort. Since I would like health care reform to become a reality, I find this stuff interesting.

Share

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 26th, 2009 at 10:54 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.