Religion and Self-Defense

[Danieljoe1]

Hmmn, Thank heavens for the document “The Family: A Proclamation to the World" given to us by a living prophet. This scripture states, as a man, it is your responsability to provide for and PROTECT your family. This LDS member has no issues with self defense.

 

[thornton8000]

Religion and self defense

Me personally as a "christian" will always protect my family of 6 kids and my wife. I personally dont care about what my old pastor had to say about bearing arms, I've had a firearm since I was 8yrs old, and that was 22yrs ago. I'm geting my CCW in jan. And in Mn it's only a concealed carry and will OC when and if its ever passed, (unless i'm wrong and Mn has an OC) and I personally will use it to protect my family. Yes I believe in God and heaven and hell.nut my 2nd amendment rights come before my faith that I found after knowing about firearms and the benefit and allowing me to understand that they taught me disicipline and responsibility more than my "faith". So in MHO I'd rather carry than worry about what a church thinks.

Thornton8000

 

[mbass]

And a good one. But I really liked what Ringo had to say too!

I don't completely agree, in that I think there are spiritual ramifications "turning the other cheek." Strictly from the Christian perspective, it seems inarguable that we should strive for the same love and consideration for our fellow man that Christ did. Jesus "gave" his life on the cross, but he "did not give" it up before then. To turn the other cheek when good can come of it is always noble. To die a senseless death is, well, senseless. And even worse, to allow someone else to die a senseless death because one has "issues" on the topic of self defense is just sad. I would not stand between a man and our God over his if someones "issues" cost me my life, but I can tell you that no one will have the chance to do that if it be up to me!

I'm here to serve God, and as a corollary to that, I'm here to serve mankind. Protection, safe-keeping, and the like are all just part of the job. I might lay down my life to allow someone a real opportunity to change theirs for the better. I say may because, obviously, I haven't done that. I hope that I would. But, as a rule, there is no spiritual ground to be gained by allowing a gross act of immorality terminating in death to continue unchecked. If Jesus taught that the Sabboth "should" be broken under the old law in order to save a lamb from "possible" danger, then how the more so we must be responsible for the safe-keeping of our fellow man, saved or not.

I must say though, for those that just aren't up to it, I would never wish you harm for that anymore than I'd wish you harm in general. Just please be gentle with me as I continue to look out for the both of us to the best of my ability!

Excellent post, Strider...

 

[-06]

since all of these religious paths spring from comman roots.........Beg to differ on that point sir. All religions do not spring from common roots.
Back to the topic of the thread: Will stir the pot here a bit--only ignorant(without adequate knowledge) "Christians" will not protect their family or person. Jesus Himself said to be gentle as a dove but wise as a snake. He also said that He did not come to break the law(of Moses/prophets) but to fulfill them(and the Old Testament). When the walls were being rebuilt around Jerusalem the workers kept their weapons on them. There were watchmen who would blow their horns if danger arose. David kept his bow arm strong. In the Garden of Gethsemane the guards ear was cut off by a sword wearing disciple. He did not chide him for wearing the sword but by an attitude that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. In Luke @ 22 Jesus gives clear orders to not go out unarmed. The Bible also tells us that a man that will not provide for his family is worse than an infidel. Protection is part of "providing". Why let someone injure/kill a family member or yourself but make sure you feed them. We are to "provide" for the family.
God wants us to live at peace with our neighbor-to treat them as you would want them to treat yourself. He does not intend for us to be slaughtered by some demon possessed minion of the devil.
I have absolutely no qualms about defending myself/family/friends even to the point of deadly force. I had rather ask for forgiveness than to be a "notch" on some scumbag's pistol handle.

 

[-06]

Sorry "G". Some of those are not "western" religions. They are on the rise but based on far eastern and mid eastern roots. Even "Christianity" as we understand it today springs from the Eastern end of the Mediterranean basin. I am so very thankful that the Protestant Reformation took the "church" back closer to where it should be. America sprang largely from those seeking religious freedom.

 

[prodigy17]

Pov

So it seems that most are quite familiar with Christianity based arguments for and against self-defense. Does anyone have any insight as to how Hindus and Buddists deal with the issue? Perhaps with references rather than conjecture? :yu:

 

[weekendskp]

Not trying to hijack this wonderfully enlightening thread, but would someone answer a question? Why do most States CCW laws restrict carrying in churches? It's a valid question. Does being in church provide some safe haven from a criminal trying to rob the collection plate at gun point?

 

[ldsgeek]

IMHO, writing into law that you cannot carry in a church is a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state. The state should not be telling me what I should wear to church, or how much I should put in the collection plate, or whether or not I should look at that female member of the congregation who is showing a lot of cleavage. These matters, along with whether or not I carry a gun in church are matters for the church and I to settle between ourselves without the government interfering.

HK4U says half of his church choir carries on a regular basis. Good for them, that's their right if they choose to do so. If you want to carry in a Galco or wear a Speedo under your robe, that's fine with me.

There is no constitutional separation of church and state. That phrase was taken, out of context, from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist association in response to questions concerning the formation of a NATIONAL religion. Most states, when the constitution was ratified, had some form of state (sponsored or recognized) religion. The concern was the federal government mandating a national religion similar to the Church of England. This is forbidden by the first amendment, of course. What is also forbidden is the making of a law RESTRICTING religion in any form, including a state religion. The current use stems from SC Justice Hugo Black and has been taken as gospel (and wrongly considered to be constitutional law) since 1947. If it were truly so the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) would not have had a state sponsored (Illinois) extermination order issued, or been officially disbanded by the US government in 1890 for their beliefs. Please study some history and the constitution before claiming these things.

 

[Cocked _and_Locked]

Please study some history and the constitution before claiming these things.

Oh c'mon now! That's half the fun of these Internet forums: coming on sites like this and stating opinions or misinformation as fact. :laugh:

 

[6shootercarry]

Being told you can't do something or being told you have to do something against your will, is a violation of God Given Rights. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness... Our founding fathers recognized that and wrote it down so it was that clear and simple...

My happiness is different from yours and I'll be the first one to recognize it when I find find it. I'll not need the assistance of any other to identify it and enjoy it...

Anyone here on this earth telling me God didn't give me that right or God would not want me to do it, is second hand information and interpretation. Not even hearsay... When God and I meet we'll discuss it at length and I'll be the wiser for it, first hand...

I carry mine to church and so far it's been uneventful. Thank the Lord...

 

[strider]

My state allows carry in churches, & I can't imagine why others do not. I don't feel a church building should be labeled as "a place of nuisance!"

There seem to be many twists on how "separation of church & state" came about, and what it means. I certainly have an opinion. But .... .

For those of us who ascribe to the bible, there is surely one politician who was looked forward to, wanted, and fussed over more than all others. Jesus was predicted, desired, cried for, etc., but refused any such office. He condoned the submission to government (a barbaric one at that!), but refused to have any part of it. He did not give his followers any specific instruction regarding their use of government to further the word, or to control other's morality. He did not make any promise whatsoever about the political comfort of his people here, quite to the contrary! He was king alright, of another place, as we are citizens of another place. He was surely one of the most sought after politicians the world has known, but refused.

Jesus was the King of the Jews, but in a deeper & larger sense. The Jewish people were a theocracy, a "completely" unique situation, of which there is on comparison. Jesus "is" King of us all, and for those who follow, we must do things in the manner that He did, or by definition we are "not" following.

I congratulate anyone, especially christians, who wish to enter the world of politics to do good. But it is my firm position that christians have no right to "impose" their views, only suggest, as I've done here. As Jefferson did. As Jesus did. Please think hard about this before so firmly deciding that we have no separation between church and state, for I believe that whether we have it or not in our current state, that such a separation is certainly in our best interests simply because that is the condition God's bible suggests.

 

[6shootercarry]

Two things God gave us...

Free will and 10 simple laws... The rest is up to us...

Death is the constant. How, when, and where are the variables. Judgment day will come...

 

[brolin1911a1]

:wacko: As I have read the newspapers, magazines and the Net, listened to the TV and radio and it seems that today's judeo-christian beliefs are more passive than anything else.

I have had discussions with religious leaders and almost everyone of them state that having a weapon and defending yourself is wrong if you use deadly force.

When I grew up the church I went to expressly stated that defending yourself and your family was demanded in the bible. They often quoted chapters and verses to back up their statements.

After I got out of the Army and got married, I started attending a local church and almost all of the local churches no longer advocate this belief.:fie:

With all due respect, you're attending the wrong churches. :biggrin:

My pastor is a CCW instructor. He obtained his CCW and then his instructor's credentials the first summer that CCW was possible in our state (Missouri.) Then, since CCW in church here is prohibited without permission from the church minister or governing body, he announced that not only was anyone with a legal CCW permitted to carry in his church, they were INVITED to carry in his church. I know at least four other CCW instructors who attend that church; one of them has taught the county SERT team for more than two decades. The church has a discreetly armed (concealed carry) picked security team who have all trained under that SERT instructor. There's no way to be certain but I'd guesstimate that on any give Sunday somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% of the congregation is armed.

 

[Pokey]

I am really surprised there is even a dedicated section like this......seems much of this could be covered elsewhere already? Political views and religious beliefs just don't seem to be a good topic of discussion on any forum, just my simple observation though.

This will be my 1 and only post in here by the way, which has nothing to do with my political views or religious beliefs.:no:

 

[Cocked _and_Locked]

I am really surprised there is even a dedicated section like this......seems much of this could be covered elsewhere already? Political views and religious beliefs just don't seem to be a good topic of discussion on any forum, just my simple observation though.

And right you are, Pokey. But you see the problem comes in when the religious whackos wear their beliefs on their sleeve, trying to inject it into every conversation, regardless of the topic. (see 6shooter, above)

This lead to such angst in this particular forum space awhile back, Luke tried to appease them by providing an aside area where the activity would hopefully proceed with minimal disruption elsewhere. At one point the true believers supposedly conducted a mass defection to another site where their bigoted and hateful discussions would be more generally accepted.

Unfortunately it seems a few of them stuck around. Oh well. :to_pick_ones_nose:

 

[CapGun]

There is no constitutional separation of church and state. That phrase was taken, out of context, from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist association in response to questions concerning the formation of a NATIONAL religion. Most states, when the constitution was ratified, had some form of state (sponsored or recognized) religion. The concern was the federal government mandating a national religion similar to the Church of England. This is forbidden by the first amendment, of course. What is also forbidden is the making of a law RESTRICTING religion in any form, including a state religion. The current use stems from SC Justice Hugo Black and has been taken as gospel (and wrongly considered to be constitutional law) since 1947. If it were truly so the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) would not have had a state sponsored (Illinois) extermination order issued, or been officially disbanded by the US government in 1890 for their beliefs. Please study some history and the constitution before claiming these things.

Yaah! What you said. I always try to tell people there is no such thing as separation of church and state! Since people do insist that there is, it can be used to defend a point on the other side! So therefore
what GA50AE said is very valid and I agree with him. That is to say for those that believe there is a separation can use this as a defense.

 

[CapGun]

I actually clicked on this thread by accident.
For those that believe that life is a gift from..fill in the blank...and some believe you should never take your own life because it is not yours to take...
then it seems to me that you don't just have a right to preserve it you have an obligation not just to preserve it but to protect it!

 

[Cocked _and_Locked]

The issue is not so much there exists any official or documented separation of church and state, but on the contrary, the insistence on the part of the radical religiously warped that their religion applies to every facet of life, public and private, whether the subject of their spiritual views likes it or not.

 

[CapGun]

The issue is not so much there exists any official or documented separation of church and state, but on the contrary, the insistence on the part of the radical religiously warped that their religion applies to every facet of life, public and private, whether the subject of their spiritual views likes it or not.

There are two parts to your comment and I don't think either part is what was intended for discussion here by the OP

 

[Cocked _and_Locked]

I always try to tell people there is no such thing as separation of church and state!

Hmmmm. Like I said in my first reply in this discussion, there is no seperation to the religiously preoccupied. Doesn't matter the subject, thus the OP's original question and your steerage to the separation issue. So I reiterate:

The issue is not so much there exists any official or documented separation of church and state, but on the contrary, the insistence on the part of the radical religiously warped that their religion applies to every facet of life, public and private, whether the subject of their spiritual views likes it or not.

There will never be any separation between anything and the religiously preoccupied's beliefs. Every aspect of living consciousness is in some way relevant to the belief system and subservient to it. Guns and their use for the purpose of self defense is just another facet of this self-asserted illusion.

OP's intended discussion? Why don't we encourage more application of deadly force philosophy in the faith-based domain these days?

Puhleeeez.