Recently the Church made a statement regarding the over regulated liquor laws in the state of Utah. (Here is an article reporting commentary on the subject)
Here is the church talking again about laws of the land. After Edgar's post on the church's efforts in a couple of states with the defining marriage initiatives, I took pause to consider our discussion from that blog a little further. In my opinion the church's statement starts out with a phrase that at the very least clarifies their position if not justifies their reasoning for getting into what some perceive as political issues. It reads:
One of the functions of religious leaders in a democracy is to add their moral voice to issues of public importance. This is why churches take positions on social issues.
Simple and clear and I agree with the statement. But as I was listening to the radio last night I heard a discussion on this topic of liquor laws addressed and the host said something that I agreed with. He called out Utahan's that seem okay with wanting to over regulate drinking but not want the government to get in the way of their "guns". The comparison being made because both alcohol and guns are responsible for deaths of innocent people. The defense by Utahan's here is that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Yeah, yeah, we get it. But alcohol doesn't kill people either, it is the people who drink then commit crimes while intoxicated that hurt people and in some cases kill people.
While many wouldn't disagree with the position that both guns and alcohol are bad or have a negative effects, the method of thinking here is that guns and alcohol are both inanimate objects that in and of themselves don't commit crime. So why are Utahan's okay with one thing and not another based on the same philosophical principle? It is in the abuse of these things that crimes are and have been committed. So why is it that it is okay to over regulate alcohol consumption but let every loony get a gun? I don't own a gun, nor do I condone hunting for sport. But I also believe that people have the right to own a gun. Therefore, I should, by principle alone, believe that people should have the right to drink and not have to be so over regulated and over taxed that, in effect, prohibits the exercise of their freedoms to do so.
In writing this topic I realized one important part of the chruches statement that correlated with the same sex issue that I think applied back to the beer and guns topic. They say: " The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference."
In the end the church seems to be very much into preserving personal liberties and preserving constitutional rights when they are morally correct. To that I say, Amen.
Guns, Beer, and Gays....Oh my!
ReplyDeleteGuns, Beer, and Gays....Oh my!
Sorry guys, but it had to be done.
Beer and Guns are fundamentally different - and thus a justly different approach legislatively - in that Beer/Alcohol is by its fundamental nature a mind-altering physiologically impactful substance meant to be induced primarily for this very reason, and for this reason alone, jeapordizes the very mandate of government (one of the few) to protect the infringement of my rights by the abuse of yours). Guns on the other hand are not designed with mind and body impairment as the core characteristic of the user. If it were, then we'd have a good comparison starting point.
ReplyDeleteIn the consideration given in this post, you seemed to jump right to the end result - potential death - and failed to consider the nature of the two items you considered, and for what reason these issues would be treated differently.
We often tend to 'complify' things unnecessarily and compare (pardon the cliche) apples to oranges. We often see paradox or contradictions where in fact what is missing is merely the proper vantage point or just more information.
If that doesn't sound arrogant, I must not be trying hard enough :) But in seriousness, that's just how it is.
Perhaps I overlooked the point of the post, but I thought it veered off track for a minute or two as this fundamental distinction seemed neglected.
I think the point was being made that the two (guns and beer) have similar consequences but only when understood that those consequences come as a result of someones irresponsibility or abuse of the rights of another.
ReplyDeleteDrinking alcohol doesn't mean you are going to drink and drive and kill people. Just like owning a gun doesn't mean you are going to shoot someone. You can drink in a bar or at your home and not effect anyone but yourself.
However as poor judgment is exercised in either case, there is the chance for death. It is no jump in logic to think that these two things are not mutually exclusive. Consider for a moment the logic that shooting someone and killing them could be interpreted as much a lapse of judgment due to an impaired sense of logic for any number of reasons as is someone who is drunk. The damaging effects of either are the result of misuse or abuse and both are currently legal.
People have the right to impair their bodies through alcohol consumption as much as someone has the right to own a gun.
I understand your thinking that their nature is different in that owning a gun doesn't alter your way of thinking in the same way that alcohol can. (Have you talked to a gun owner? Guns do alter one's sense of power and aggressiveness to a certain extent.)
To that point I agree but I don't feel it is sufficient enough to cancel the argument of the original post. There is still sufficient evidence to say that it is hypocritical to over regulate the one one based on certain principles when those same ideals can be applied to regulating gun control.
To assume that everyone who drinks is going to commit some abuse related crime against society while at the same time turning a blind eye to the argument that there are people have obtained guns for the sole purpose of doing harm is what I wish to point out as pure hypocrisy. If your motives for owning a gun are pure, then there should be little reason to disagree that there should be some regulation against obtaining a gun
I am not endorsing drinking and I am not advocating the over controlling of the acquisition of guns. I am simply pointing out that if gun owners want to be effective in their arguments, they need to make sure they are not calling the kettle black.
If we are to be as strict with Alcohol consumption for its potential effect on one's abilities, then we should also out law using cell phones while driving as well as it has been shown to be as dangerous and drunk driving. And to that extent, if there is no other reason to own a gun other than self protection and/or hunting (both are legal) then those same gun owners should be willing to adhere to as strict regulations in an effort to reduce abuse risks.