The Gun Violence Solution: Part Two
If you haven’t done so, READ PART ONE
Given the sensitivity of the subject, I felt it necessary to write a clarifying piece to accompany the last one without explicitly spelling it out for you that it’s entirely satirical. I want to trust that readers aren’t all idiots and do have some degree of critical thinking skills. However, writing that piece was nothing short of frightening on a few levels.
One such level is that some people actually will believe everything written therein with the utmost sincerity; specifically, evangelicals, who already are more likely to own guns, will take it for a fact. The mixed messaging of The Bible lends itself well to schisms both great and small, and largely they have always been political as well as theological. We have that in America amongst the Christians with 25.4% of our population as part of evangelical Protestantism concentrated in conservative areas and influencing policy on a large scale
This isn’t a new phenomenon in religion, it’s been happening for millennia. During the time of Jesus, there were theological differences amongst sectarian Jews in Israel and the Diaspora. Among them were the Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, Essenes, and those who followed Jesus, referring to themselves as follows of The Way.
In Christianity, widespread and colonial under Emperor Constantine, there were also schisms occurring as far back as the mid-second century, long before Martin Luther’s 95 Theses in 1517; the first big schism before that was in 1054 when the Eastern Orthodox Church split from the Catholic church. The differences were in the organization of the church, and other dorky shit like whether or not the eucharist should contain leavened or unleavened bread, among other things. Then came the Anglican Church, and then came Martin Luther. All this to reiterate that this is the evolutionary process of a given religion and it should come as a surprise to nobody that culture and politics also influence these interpretations. The fright is resultant of the fact that there are people in power, with influence, who take things not only out of context but all too literally.
The second and maybe more frightening point combines two things: bending statistics to your own will along with the ease at which we are susceptible to such a slanted belief. During the writing of part one, I got in the zone of spouting this rhetoric that I in no way agree with. My only advantage is that I can snap myself out of it and realize how ridiculous it is. There are a lot of gifted and intelligent people who can’t. In some ways, whether the rhetoric is secular or not, this is a lot like how all religions operate. The word “religion” likely comes from the Latin root “religio” which means to bind. Religion inherently needs a community to spread and thrive. The Roman Empire was a big community, and it had an established religion, ergo, mission accomplished. Whether state-imposed or not, we have a need to belong. Yeah, I know you’re an “introvert” and “hate people” but you still have friends. Probably.
Third, it was frightening because that inherent need to belong allows us to be duped by inflammatory rhetoric. Rhetoric is fine. This piece is rhetorical, as was part one. The part many people miss, however, is that when reflecting on rhetoric, you have to think. If the previous piece were delivered by a fire and brimstone preacher, in earnest, the emotional component of it is designed to sweep you off your feet into action without deep thinking. When you stop thinking about the memes, the writing, the books, the sermons, the TV shows, and all the information you take in, that’s when we have collectively lost. Ultimately, words matter. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the anti-abortionists call themselves “pro-life.” It takes about a half-second to realize that the opposite would be “anti-life.” The line of logic that takes place so quickly in our heads would run like this: Well, I’m not anti-life. “Anti-life” sounds pretty dickish.” When you’ve arrived there, without thinking about the words and their meaning, you’ve already severed a viewpoint and therefore the entirety of the picture. Knock that shit off. Some of you reading this haven’t witnessed a vitriolic hell fire-spewing preacher, and it’s definitely engaging. They have charisma about them and some of them actually believe in similar things to what I wrote about. And they can lead communities. Perhaps that fact is the most frightening of them all.
