A Christmas Reflection

I prayed this week over the readings for Mass at Midnight, because I have always loved the midnight Mass. There is just something about it.

As I was listening to God's word in scripture and praying, the fact that Jesus is our Savior kept coming back to me over and over again. This is something I don't think we as Catholics think enough about. At least, we don't verbalize it as explicitly as our non-Catholic brothers and sisters do. I imagine many Catholics today hardly ever think about the fact that Jesus came to save us. Yet it is explicit in our readings.

In the fist reading from the prophet Isaiah, Isaiah describes how the Lord has come to remove the yoke under which we have been enslaved, the rod of the taskmaster that beats us down. This child that is born has come to set us free.

The responsorial pslam, which is called "responsorial" because it is a response to the first reading, rejoices, "Today is born our Savior, Christ the Lord."

The second reading, St. Paul knocks us right between the eyes with it, "The grace of God has appeared, saving all..."

The angels rejoice in the Gospel according to St. Luke as they proclaim to the Shepherds, "For today in the city of David a Savior has been born for you who is Christ and Lord."

Savior. In the Gospel according to Matthew, the angel told Joseph that Mary had conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and to name the child, "Jesus, because God has saved his people from their sins." Even his name literally means, "God saves." So why don't many Catholics, and indeed many Christians, think more about the fact that Jesus has come as Savior? I would wager that most, when presented with the idea that Jesus has come to save us, would respond, "Save us from what?"

Sin, my friends. Seems like a weird message for Christmas, but we can't get around it. I think that we in our culture have lost sight of our sinfulness. The whole broo-ha-ha over Phil Robertson's comments these past couple of weeks...I believe the real reason that so many people were offended is because Phil Robertson dared to express his belief that there is sin. He called homosexuality sinful. Whether it is or it isn't is irrelevant to this reflection. The bottom line is, we don't like being told that we are sinners. Alcoholics and addicts could have just as easily been offended because he pointed out that drunkenness is listed. He also mentioned heterosexual promiscuity, which is a large number of Americans in these "sexually liberated" times. He talked about the swindlers, adulterers, and slanderers, which should have offended most folks in politics these days.

Nobody likes to be called a sinner.

Let's take a moment to look at what sin is in its essence. To do this, let's go all the way back to Genesis, chapter 3, in which we see that first sin.

Sin, first and worst, seperates us from the God who created us and has given us all good things. This is symbolized in the story of the original sin by Adam and Eve hiding from God when they heard Him walking in the garden. God must have walked with them in the garden before, because they were familiar with the sound of His movement. This time, rather than going out to greet Him, they hid. They were now separated from the God who lovingly created them.

Sin also separates us from each other. We were created to be one with all humanity, to share in each others' burdens and joys. This unity is expressed in the creation story by the sharing of the rib in the creation of the woman from the side of the man. It is also expressed in Adam's and Eve's nudity. They were able to be with each other, and though they were both naked, they felt no shame. The first thing they did after sin was create clothes for themselves. Sin caused them to be separated from one another, a division between them that would create strife. Rather than living in equality as a harmony and melody are equal in a song, the woman's desire would be for her husband, but he would rule over her.

Sin also separates us from all of nature. We were created to live in perfect harmony with creation, to care for and cultivate the garden in which God placed us. Instead, all of creation is touched, so that to bring forth food is a toilsome activity, and the earth often rejects us. Instead of living in harmony with nature, we are expelled from that perfect garden, and must get bread through the sweat of our brow.

Lastly, sin creates a disunity within the person, a lack of integrity, which is most explicitly experienced in death, when the soul leaves the body. In a much less obvious way, this lack of integrity is experienced through sickness and suffering.

Jesus is our Savior, having come into the world to save us from our sins. His birth, life, death and resurrection is the cure for the disease of sin that we bring into the world through our disobedience of God's holy will. We no longer need fear death, because of Jesus. Death has simply become our pathway to eternal life, where we will be reunited with a glorified body that can never become sick and never die again.

Jesus calmed the storms and brought forth fish from the sea for food. Jesus came to restore that relationship with nature that we have broken.

Jesus came to restore us to one another, too. During the time of Jesus, sickness wasn't just something for which you went to an urgent care clinic. Sickness often meant ostracization from the community. The death of a loved one meant isolation and poverty for many. When Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead, it wasn't just to restore the integrity that sin has so damaged in us. Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead to restore these people (and their loved) ones to the community. He saved the person from death, and saved the community in the process.

We also know that Jesus is our Emmanuel, a name that literally means, "God with us." We are no longer separated from God. The veil to the Holy of Holies has been torn down. All people can come to the Lord God of Hosts now. No one who wants Jesus is rejected, condemned or abandoned by Him. No one.

No one.

Jesus has brought us back to God. Jesus has saved us from our sins.

The birth of that baby in that manger 2,000 years ago are not just nice stories that give us warm fuzzies in the dead of winter. That birth has cosmic implications. What God wanted originally, and we rejected in sin, that birth in that manger 2,000 years ago has restored. The pain of life, the pain of death, the pain of isolation and ostracization, the pain loneliness and sadness and sickness and grief...Jesus saves us from it all.

This Christmas and Christmas season, when you look on that manger scene, I challenge you to look a little beyond that quaint little creche. See instead your salvation. See the cosmic meaning of that baby's birth.

That baby's birth changed THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, and if you open your heart and mind to HIM, it can change you, too.

Thoughts on This Sunday's Readings

      I've been looking at this coming Sunday's readings for Mass, and something has struck me enough to finally write a post reflecting on them.

    What struck me is the juxtaposition of Ahaz in the first reading from Isaiah to Joseph in the gospel according to Matthew. Some context might help this be more apparent.

     Ahaz was King of Judah, and was beginning to feel the pressure of being between two growing superpower nations, Egypt and Assyria. Israel and Judah were centers of trade and commerce, so they were actually quite wealthy. Think of it this way, any trade activity, whether it was from North to South (Assyria to Egypt and back again) or from West to East (the Arab world to the Helenized world and back again) would have passed through Israel and Judah at some point. King Ahaz feared Egypt and their intentions, and so had decided to make an alliance with Assyria.

     The alliance, however, would have subjugated Judah to Assyria, making Judah a vassal nation. Judah would have had to pay dues and taxes to Assyria, and in return Assyria would offer its protection from Egypt.

     The problem, however, is that God did not want His nation to be subject to anyone but Himself. God did not want Ahaz putting his faith in any superpower but the Power of the God of the Hosts. Isaiah the prophet comes to Ahaz and tells him this, and says that God wants Ahaz to ask for a sign as proof that the Lord is willing to protect His people, "Ask for anything," Isaiah says, "Let it be deep as the netherworld or high as the sky!"

     At first glance, Ahaz's response seems to be a good one, "I will not ask. I will not tempt the Lord." We all know that we're not supposed "to tempt the Lord." I mean, even Jesus said this, right. The reason, though, that Ahaz did not want to tempt the Lord, is because he had already made up his mind about what he wanted to do, and didn't want a sign that would cause him to change his mind. He didn't care anymore about what God wanted.

     It reminds me of that Simpson's episode where Homer goes to prayer about something. I don't remember what, but basically he tells God what he wants, and then says if it's ok, that God should give him "no sign whatsoever." Homer waits about 2 seconds, and then says, "Thy will be done." Then he offers God a plate of cookies as a thanksgiving sacrifice and says, "If you want me to eat them for you, give me no sign whatsover." Again, he waits about 2 seconds, and ends his prayer with, "Thy will be done." He scarfs the cookies.

     Ahaz didn't want to know God's will. He didn't want a sign that would make him change his mind from what he had already decided to do. Then, in the gospel, we get Joseph.

    Jewish law stated that Joseph had the right to have Mary stoned to death, because she was pregnant with a child that was not his prior to their wedding date. Joseph, however, did not want Mary to die, so he made up his mind to go through with the marriage, and then divorce her quietly. That way, people would think the child she carried was his, conceived on the wedding night. Her life would be spared.

     The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, and confirmed what Mary had told him, that the child she carried was in fact conceived of the Holy Spirit, and that Mary remained pure. Unlike Ahaz, Joseph was not so set in his ways that he would not consider the will of God. Joseph changed his mind, and obeyed.

     This message of the need for obedience is repeated in the 2nd reading. Paul describes himself as "a slave of Jesus Christ," which brings the images of an obedient servant. Paul also says that his mission as an apostle is to bring us, the Church of Christ, into "the obedience of the faith."

    The message of obedience to the will of God is a wonderful Christmas message. Zachariah and Elizabeth obeyed God, and John the Baptist was born and named. Mary obeyed God, and Jesus was conceived. Joseph obeyed God, and provided Mary and Jesus with a home. Even Jesus's incarnation was an act of obedience "in fulfillment of scriptures."

     The bottom line is that we are called to obey, too. I don't mean in some non-committal way that tries to explain away the harder things we may be called to do. "Obedience means to listen." That's true etymologically, but just listening to God is not enough. My kids listen to me all the time, and occasionally, they actually turn off the Wii or the DVD and DO WHAT I ASK THEM TO DO. We are called to obey the will of God, in heart, mind and action. We are called to do what God asks us to do.

     "But how do we know what God is asking us to do?" Well, I'm glad you asked.

     The first answer is through the Church, and more specifically, through the office of the Successors of the Apostles, the Bishops. We may not like them, shoot, we might have outright disdain for some of them, but they are the Bishops, the Successors of the Apostles, who have been given Authority by Jesus Christ himself to help us discern the will of God. If we're not listening and acting on the teachings of the Apostolic Office, we're not obeying Jesus. Jesus said to the Apostles, "Whoever hears you, hears me." That authority has been passed down for 2,000 years now.

     The second answer is through personal prayer. God wants to speak to you, just as He spoke to Ahaz through Isaiah, and just as He spoke to Joseph in a dream. God wants to make His will known to you in your heart. In order to do that, we must return to the etymological definition of obedience, "to hear." We must spend time listening to God in prayer. God wants to speak to our very hearts. The only time I find myself loathe to listen is when I am more like Ahaz than Joseph.

     I know this, though: the times in my life when I have listened most closely and acted on the promptings of God that I feel stir in my heart, I have known only peace, strength, goodness in my life. The times when I have been headstrong, not listening to God, are the times that I have hurt those around me, and deeply hurt them.

     Advent is a wonderful time for listening. Even in all the hussle and bussle of Christmas time preparations, the earth seems to be a little quieter this time of year. But don't "just listen," do the will of God. I promise you that whatever He has in store for you is more wonderful than anything you could plan for yourself.

Where the Rubber Meets the Road

I read an op-ed piece on Pope Francis recently that was very interesting. It centered around the writer's concept of Pope Francis's "practical theology." It suggested and got me to thinking about how theology is so often debated on an ethereal level, and that this theoretical theology is so often what has been the source of divisions within the Church. The first real division in the 11th and 12th centuries between the Catholic and Orthodox rites of the Church was a debate about whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or proceeds from the Father through the Son. The theology of the Protestant Reformation and the split that occurred among Christianity then, and continues to occur today, has a lot to do with people's understanding of the nature of salvation. This article reflected on how Pope Francis has put all of this theoretical theology to the side to show the practical nature of our faith. Pope Francis greets the people in the street. Pope Francis washes the feet of the prisoners, even women and non-Christians. Pope Francies kissed the feet of people dieing of HIV-AIDS. Pope Francis refuses to live in the Papal Palace, but instead chooses a 2 suite hotel room with nothing but a bed and a desk.

I've also been re-reading Henry David Thoreau's Walden and Civil Disobedience. In the midst of my reflection on the article named above, HDT makes a remark right at the beginning of Walden in which he reflects on the necessity of having a "practical philosophy." What good is it, he rhetorically asks (and I paraphrase), to have a philosophy of life that one can not or perhaps does not live?

Practical theology.

Practical philosophy.

Mnsgr. Greg Higley is the pastor at St. Andrew Parish in Holts Summit, where my wife and I attend Church. His homilies throughout the Easter Season have been reflecting this same theme. It's nice for us to say we love Jesus. It's important to go to Mass on Sundays. But at some point, our Christian faith has to be put into practice. We have to love that co-worker that is so grating to our nerves with that philial, Christian love. We have to show charity in thought and deed to our own family members. We have to live Christian, not just say we are one.

So while all this has been going on, a good friend, Pastor Ron Zamkus of Southridge Baptist Church, has been faithfully sending out what he calls his "Daily Power Pills." Pastor Zamkus sends these emails out, which often are quotes from spiritual reading that he does. One of the texts he has been quoting lately is a book entitled Not a Fan. I have not read this book, but the jist of it that I get from the exerpts that Pastor Zamkus sends out makes the distinction between Christians who are "fans" of Jesus, and Christians who are true disciples. A fan is someone who listens to the words of Jesus, hangs out in the stands, and cheers whenever something good happens. A disciple is someone who lives the teachings of Jesus, who makes the self-sacrifice to follow him. I am challenged by these not to be just a fan, but to be a disciple.

So you probably get where I am going with this.

It occurred to me tonight when we were at Mass, "I don't want to be a 'practicing' Catholic Christian. I want to be a 'practical' Catholic Christian." I want to be someone who actually lives out my faith in my actions. And, man, do I have a long way to go. A looooonnnnnnnnngggggggg way to go. But I'm on my way.

At least, if I can quote St. Joan of Arc, "If I am not, I pray God make me so; if I am, I pray God keep me so."

Our faith is not a set of ideas. Our faith is not a canon of ethereal, philosophical truths. Our faith is not a set of traditions and fancy clothes and art.

Our faith is, first and foremost, a living relationship with God that is actualized in how we treat each other. For me to control my anger and not say a harsh word out of charity (true caritas) is my faith. For me to be patient with my children is my faith. For me to let someone in front of me in line is my faith. For me to give time, talent and treasure to charity and organizations is my faith.

In this perspective, the whole "faith vs. works" debate (another ethereal, philosophical twisting of words that has divided the One Church of Christ) becomes moot. In this perspective, there is no difference between faith and works. Maybe this is what St. James (listen up now, it's JAMES we're listening to) was talking about when he said,

"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,' but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

"Indeed someone might say, 'You have faith and I have works.' Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,' and he was called 'the friend of God.' See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." (James 2: 14-26)

I got a little carried away there quoting this, but I couldn't help it. As I read it, it sums up what my thoughts have been for several weeks. "You believe that God is one. You do well." An ethereal truth, a statement of belief, but then James really socks it to us, "Even the demons believe that and tremble." Knowing that God is one is not enough. We must live out our faith. Our faith and our works must be one and the same.

Maybe this is where we can begin experiencing the unity of the Church again; not in trying to resolve our theological differences on the nature of God, but in standing side by side regardless of denomination at a soup kitchen. Maybe instead of debating over the succession of the Apostles in the ordained ministry, we can pray with each other for the success of a Pregnancy Help Center to offer an alternative to abortion in our community. Maybe instead of endless debates on the nature of salvation, we can work with each other to provide shelter, clothing and food to the strung out addict or the prisoner who is released after years of incarceration with nothing but the shirt on his back and a train ticket away from prison.

Maybe we can DO our faith on Monday through Saturday, and not just profess it on Sunday.

This idea has crystalized for me, and captured my imagination. I have begun asking myself, "How might I better live out my faith?" This is not an ethereal question that ends in "pray more and be nicer." This is practical.

I need to get rid of my cell phone plan. There is no reason for me to be spending that much money on something that I don't need. Get rid of cable television in the house. What do we do with it that we can't do with regular television anyway? Look in my closet. How many pairs of pants do I actually need? Might someone less fortunate benefit from those clothes that have been hanging my closet for years now and never get worn? I'm constantly looking at iPads and other fancy gadgetry that would lead to nothing more than wasted time and distractions. Stop looking at those things. All that does is create a desire for something that is completely unnecessary.

It goes back to those simple questions meant to get at my priorities. On what do I spend my time? On what do I spend my energy? On what do I spend my money? The answers to those questions tells me a lot about my priorities. And I'll admit that some of my priorities are way out of whack. It's time to get serious about doing my faith.

Will you join me?

"This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)

Let's be practical Christians, not just practicing ones.

Freedom, Responsibility, Civil Disobedience and Pacifism

Some conversations I've had recently have got me thinking about the various topics I've put in the title of this post.

If you've read my blog at all before now, you will know that a consistent refrain of mine is that we cannot have freedom without personal responsibility. We simply cannot have one without the other. Period. Bottom line. To give up one is to lose the other.

This is why when I entered my new employment, I chose the Health Savings Account rather than a more traditional insurance "plan." With a high deductable health savings account, I pay for everything until I have met that high deductible. EVERYTHING. I pay for the entire doctor's visit. I pay for whatever lab tests the doctors may need to run. I pay for whatever prescription medications I may need to get well. I pay for everything. I set aside money each paycheck into the health savings account to cover the medical costs. When I chose this, I was betting on not getting sick for about 9 months, until I had enough in the account to cover the costs of getting healthcare.

I'm not going to lie, it's a huge gamble. The reason I did this, though, was because we cannot have freedom without responsibility. A traditional insurance plan has limitations on what they will pay for, who they will pay it to, and what I can do to get well. With the HSA, I don't have to follow a prescription plan. I can choose any medication I want based on my doctor's recommendation. I don't need to seek approval for lab tests or other procedures. If I want it done, I get it done. I'm paying for it. By increasing my financial responsibility for my healthcare, I have increased my freedom.

Another example of this is the recent situation with our vehicles. The 12 year old hunk of junk minivan I drive around blew up. We needed to get it fixed, and the amount was SIGNIFICANT. The decision was: Do we pay more than the van is actually worth to get it fixed, but not have to get it financed? or Do we go get a "new" vehicle, and take out a loan? We chose to get it fixed. The deciding factor? Getting a vehicle financed would have meant that someone else, most likely the bank, would tell us what minimum insurance coverage we would need. Getting it financed meant that the loan holder would be telling us how much out of every paycheck we need to give away as a payment. Getting a vehicle financed meant that if something were to happen and we could no longer make those payments, they could come and take "my" car away from me. By keeping the responsibility of paying for the vehicle (as opposed to having a bank pay for it), we kept our freedom to decide how much insurance coverage to carry. We get to decide the size of our "payments" back into our savings accounts. We don't have to worry if one of us is out of work whether we lose "our" vehicle or not.

Freedom and Responsibility...two sides of the same coin.

So what does this have to do with Civil Disobedience and Pacifism?

Let me start by saying something that I think everyone, conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Rustafarian, Mediterranean, or whatever other label you like, can agree on: The political, financial, and taxation system in our country is broken. Whether you believe more government intervention is neccessary to fix it, or if you believe government has broken it to begin with so government should get out of the way, we can at least agree that the system as it exists today is broken.

Hendry David Thoreau, the grandfather of Civil Disobedience, believed that the system of his era was broken. Mahatma Ghandi recognized the injustices of the British colonial system, and saw it as broken. Martin Luther King, Jr. saw the racial inequity in the United States and recognized it was broken. The original labor unions saw the unfair and unjust labor system as broken. All of these systems were broken.

Here's the kicker.

These individuals or groups never demanded that others change. They did not attempt to exert control over any other person to force their agenda on them.

What Thoreau, Ghandi, King, and the original labor unions did was to express their freedom and take personal responsibility not to participate in these broken systems anymore. Thoreau purchased a small piece of property on Walden Pond and practiced total self-sufficiency in order to separate himself from what he perceived to be a broken system. He did not do this to change the taxation policies of his era. If that were his purpose, he was wildly unsuccessful. He freely chose not to participate in what he perceived to be a broken system. He also took responsibility for his choices, spending months at a time in jail for not paying his taxes. He exercised freedom to resist what he saw as unjust taxation by not participating in it, and he took responsibility, getting irritated with his friend Longfellow, who would come in, pay Thoreau's back taxes for him so that Thoreau could get out.

Ghandi never demanded that the British change their policies and practices towards governance of their colonies in India and Africa. He simply made a free choice not to participate in an unjust system. He also accepted responsibility for his choice, spending much of his time incarcerated for not carrying the proper documentation, receiving brutal beatings, and eventually giving his life. One of my favorite images of this concept is from the movie Ghandi. The scene shows the pomp and circumstance of celebrations at the partition of India and Pakistan, something with which Ghandi disagreed. Juxtaposed to those images of the divided nations raising their flags in celebration is the image of Ghandi sitting in his home with no flag at all raised on the flagpole. Ghandi did not attempt to enforce his will on others, but he would not participate in what he saw was a broken system.

Rosa Parks did not demand that the bus company change the practice of blacks giving up their seats to whites. She simply decided that day not to participate in that system anymore. By doing this, she sparked a revolution. Of course, she went to jail for it. She knew that was the consequence of her decision. She was willing accept responsibility for her refusal to participate in a broken system.

Martin Luther King, Jr. did so much to bring social justice to the minorities, and particularly blacks in the United States. He never demanded that others subject themselves to his will. He simply chose not to participate in what was a broken system. Martin Luther King, Jr. spent a significant amount of time incarcerated due to his refusal to participate in the institutional racism.

That's what civil disobedience and pacifism have to do with freedom and personal responsibility. One sees that a system in broken. Then this one makes a free choice not to participate in that system anymore. This one is not taking from others their free choice, or forcing others to subject themselves to this one's will. This one is simply stating, "I will not participate in this anymore." This refusal to participate in a broken system becomes an act of Civil Disobedience.

Pacifism, as it was practiced by Ghandi and King, refuses to enforce the pacifist's will on another. To force you to subject yourself to my will is not an act of pacifism, but aggression. I am attempting to wrestle control and power over you. The Pacifist recognizes that the pacifist has no power over another, and does not attempt to gain control over another, even through non-violent means. The pacifist does not demand that others change. The pacifist simply establishes what the pacifist will do and will not do. The pacifist leaves the other free to do whatever he or she chooses to do. Personal responsibility, eschewing control and power over another, and exercising the freedom not to participate in something that I don't believe in is the pacifist's means.

Those means can be perverted. This is what I believe happened to the labor unions, that at one time did so much to advance the dignity of the American worker. When the labor unions realized that strikes were effective means of change, the labor union leaders began using the tools of civil disobedience to impose their will on others. This happened to their own detriment. Hostess had to shut down because they could no longer meet the demands of the labor unions. The car industry in the United States has gone bankrupt only to be bailed out by the government, because they could no longer meet the demands of the labor unions.

I see this as an important key in understanding why the "Occupy" movement is doomed to fail. The "Occupy" movement is made of those who are demanding change from others using the tools of civil disobedience, like picket lines and sit-ins. This never works. Never.

You cannot create change in the world and expect that you will stay the same.

The great men and women who used pacifism and civil disobedience were not out to change the world. They looked within themselves, and changed what they were doing. By changing themselves, they changed the world. They did it by exercising their freedom and by taking responsibility for their exercise of freedom.

We cannot change the world and expect that we will stay the same. If we start by changing ourselves, the world around us begins to change with us.

Thinking About Thinking: Thinking Errors Part II

In my earlier post about thinking errors, I mentioned several logical fallacies and attempted to give examples of how they are used in modern political rhetoric. This is important. Learning these helps us to know how to ask the right questions to hold people accountable for their assertions. For example, I've been told, "The only reason Christians oppose government assistance to the poor is because they are racist." This is a classic Argumentum ad Hominem, or attack against the person. This statement, given as a response to my assertion that perhaps we should reduce federal spending in entitlement programs, and move to a state centered solution that supports private charities, did not respond to my argument, but in a round about way, attacked me. The response to an argumentum ad hominem is not to get defensive, "I'm not a racist." This shifts the focus of the debate away from the topic at hand. The response properly is, "Ok, assuming that what you say about me is true, it has nothing to do with whether or not reducing government spending on entitlemnet and shifting the responsibility to states and private charities is a better use of our resources when it comes to helping the poor. What do you have to say about that?"

Understanding logical fallacies helps us ask the right questions.

I've decided to name a new logical fallacy. Are you ready? Yes, I know, I 'm not some great philosopher of history who has made a careful study of these things. I have, however, noticed that people will often try to win an argument with what I've decided to call the "Fallacy of Opinion." People, when asked to defend an assertion that they make, will fall back on the statement, "Well, it's just my opinion." After making this pronouncement, the person then assumes an air of invincibility, as if they have solemnly declared from the Chair of Peter an incontrovertible truth.

And, after all, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Ok. That's fine. People are entitled to their opinion. What seems to have been forgotten, however, is that opinions can be wrong.

This takes me back to when Blessed Pope John Paul II was in St. Louis. There were people who were venomously anti-Catholic passing out pamphlets and brochures on the streets outside the dome where Blessed John Paul was going to be celebrating Mass. I collected a few of these pamphlets, which were filled with assertions about what Catholics believe that were not true. I approached one of the young men passing these pamphlets. He greeted me cordially, and asked me if I would like one of his brochures. I explained to him that I already had one, had read it, and that the information that was inside of it about what Catholics believe is wrong. I pointed to 3 specific examples of statements it made about what Catholics believe, things that we really don't believe. His response, "Well, this is just our opinion."

I said, "Yes, but it's not correct. We don't really believe these things."

"Well, it's just our opinion," he said again.

"I understand that," I said, "but you are passing out misinformation. Your brochure says things that are not true."

"It's just our opinion, man." He said...again.

"Your opinion is wrong." I said, and walked away recognizing that this individual was invincibly ignorant.

Having an opinion does not shield one from questioning. The reason is because an opinion is an interpretation of something. If I have an opinion about something, what that means is that I have looked at something and formed an individual interpretation of the matter. It is possible that I am looking at the thing wrongly. It is possible that I have misinterpreted something, or missed something, or been in a bad mood. Anything can affect my opinion of something. That's why stating that something is simply my opinion is not a logical defense of an assertion.

There is also a qualitative difference between the opinions, "vanilla is better than chocolate," and "Christians hate gays." One is a matter of personal preference. The other is a statement of sweeping generalization. Ok, you like vanilla better than chocolate. That's fine. But I'm not going to let you get away with characterizing an entire group of people with a sweeping generalization without proof that it's true. People used to make sweeping generalizations like this, we called it racism and prejudice.

The response to someone, when they have finally been backed into a corner and have to punt their indefensible position by saying, "Well, it's just my opinion," or, "Well, that's just what I think," is to ask them on what they are basing their opinion. I often assume a stance of ignorance: "I just want to know what facts, or polls or any other proof your basing your opinion on, because I have a different opinion based on what I've seen, and I want to know whether what I've seen is accurate or not."

It really is ok to point out to someone that their "opinion" probably is not based on any fact or logic at all. Just because it is their "opinion" doesn't make it immune from questioning.

But then, that's just my opinion.

Thinking Errors in Modern Political Rhetoric

I've been reviewing a lot of philosophy lately. A Facebook "conversation" in which I was engaged with a Facebook friend inspired me to review the basic rules of logic. There are some fundamental logical fallacies that I've found, one of which I wrote an extensive piece on not long ago.

As I listen to modern political discourse, I hear conservatives and liberals making the exact same logical errors. The difference is in the conclusions that are drawn from the logical errors. I've decided to list some here in this blog post, with examples, so that hopefully you can identify these logical fallacies when they are used.

This is important.

This is very important.

These logical fallacies are fundamental to critical thinking. Without understanding these, we become people who accept things at face value. Not knowing them, we become sheep who simply chant the slogans of political ideologues on the right or left. Without them, we make foolish choices in our government leaders, because we have not stopped to think for ourselves about whether the content of their campaign messages have merit.

So here are some basic thinking errors:

Argumentum ad hominem: I've written about this one already, as I noted in the first paragraph. Basically, this is when someone responds to an argument with a personal attack against the person who is making the argument. When talking to liberals, I've been called a racist, a mysogynist, a homophobe, an "angry, religious, white man," and any other number of names. The conservatives are as guilty of this as the liberals. Anne Coulter has written books that insinuate that liberals are akin to terrorists. People accuse liberalism of being a "mental illness," which is a very subtle attack against the person who espouses liberal ideals. These are all personal attacks that do not address the problem. I've decided from now on that if I get into a conversation with someone, and their response is that I'm racist or anything else, I will not become defensive. That is a distraction to the point of the argument. From now on, if the response is an argumentum ad hominem, my response is going to be, "Ok, assuming that what you say about me personally is true, what does that have to do with the point I just made?"

Fallacy of False Alternatives: This one is used A LOT in modern political rhetoric. Some of the liberal uses are: "If we defund Planned Parenthood, women will not have access to needed medical care and will die." That's not true, there are multiple, multiple resources out there for women of low income to access medical care. Forcing PP to survive off of private donations will not result in the death of women due to lack of medical care. Another liberal use we hear in the gun debate today: "Allowing assault weapons will result in the deaths of many innocent people." A quick look at crime statistics will tell you that this is not the case. I've written about this before, too. The number of so-called "assault weapons" used in crimes is actually quite low. You have more of a chance to be stabbed by a kitchen butcher knife in a crime than of being shot with an "assault weapon." Conservatives use this: "Any regulation results in a socialistic style government, and goes against the intentions of our founding fathers." This is not true. The fact is that the federal government is charged in the constitution with regulating interstate and international commerce. The founding fathers saw the need for this type of regulation from the federal government. So the question is not whether there should be regulations, but what should be the scope of the regulations.

Ambiguity Fallacy: This fallacy, and its close cousin, The Fallacy of Equivocation, occurs when a word that is used is not clearly defined. The best example of this that I've come across in modern political discourse is the liberal left's cry that, "The rich should pay their fair share." There are two sets of ambiguous terms in this sentence. First, the word "rich." Who are the rich? What income level or tax bracket should be considered rich? President Obama has said on occasion that the "rich" are those making more than $250,000 per year. Of course, on other occasions, he has said that the "rich" are those who make more than $200,000 per year. Then on other occasions, he has defined it as those making more than $150,000 per year. Even the President's varying definitions demonstrate that "rich" is a highly subjective term. For example, a child whose parents bring home a collective $35,000 per year may think that a family that brings home $75,000 per year are rich. This word is too ambiguous to mean anything. Even more hard to define are the words, "fair share." What is a "fair share"? Should that be defined as an amount of money that "the rich" are allowed to keep out of their own annual income? What percentage of their annual income should they be forced to pay in order to be considered "fair"? Or should "fair share" be defined as a percentage of the total of tax revenue the government receives? For how much of the total tax revenue that goes to the government should the "rich" be responsible before it is considered to be their "fair share"? Another example is in the gun control argument, when people toss around the term "assault weapon." What is an "assault weapon"? Under Senator Feinstein's proposed legislation, the adding of a plastic pistol grip to certain guns would make that gun an "assault weapon", and therefore illegal. The fact that this very same gun is legal without the pistol grip, which is a cosmentic feature that has no effect on the functionality or lethality of the weapon, is irrelevant. Ambiguous terms are tossed around all too often.

Straw Man Argument: This occurs when someone tells you what you believe, and then proceeds to tell you why what you believe is wrong. Usually, in my experience when this happens to me, the person has no concept at all of what I actually believe. They have constructed arguments against an opponent that they have also constructed. Liberals and conservatives do this regularly. The most famous recent example is Clint Eastwood's "empty chair" speech that he gave at the Republican convention. Straw man arguments are easy to recognize. They usually begin with the words, "Well, you believe that..." or "The only reason you think that is because..."

Poisoned Well Argument: This is closely related to both the Argumentum ad Hominem and Straw Man Argument. The poisoned well argument states that there is something wrong with the source of information one uses to back up the points of an argument. This is what happens when people discount entirely a news organization, like the mainstream media, MSNBC, or FOX NEWS. If it came from MSNBC, it must be just more liberal jargon. If it came from FOX NEWS, it must be just more conservative crap. This argument does not address the issue or information, but rather states that because of the source of the information or issue, the information or issue has no merit.

"No True Scotsman" Argument: This argument, again, is closely related to others. This argument comes from the old statement, "Angus eats quiche. No true Scotsman eats quiche. Therefore, Angus (despite the fact that he is born and raised in Scotland) cannot be a true Scotsman." You set up the argument in such a way that any exception to your statement is dismissed automatically. Certain Christian denominations use this logical fallacy when they discuss their concept of salvation. "Once you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, you have gained salvation. A true believer cannot lose salvation. Person A professed his faith, but is no longer a Christian. Therefore, Person A was never a true believer." This argument is used by people trying to desparage the Christian Conservative movement. "One of Christianity's mandates is to help the poor. The Christian Conservative movement opposes government assistance to the poor. Therefore, those who oppose government assistance to the poor are not true Christians." This argument depends on the fallacy of false alternatives. The person has stated that the only alternatives are government assistance to the poor or no assistance to the poor. The person does not recognize that there are multiple private charities who provide assistance to the poor. The person making this argument also conveniently overlooks the fact that the majority of Christian Conservatives donate more time, talent and treasure to charitable organizations privately than any other sector, and significantly more than members of the liberal left who make this argument criticizing the Christian Conservative movement. There are multiple ways to help the poor without government mandating it through the tax funded entitlement programs. This means that someone could be a true Christian and still oppose the government entitlement programs, because the person uses personal time, talent and treasure to support private charities.

Appeal to Popularity: This logical fallacy is exactly what it sounds like. In an argument, it occurs when someone states, "Well, the majority now support (proposition A). Therefore, (proposition A) should be our course of action." Whether or not the majority support a proposition or stance is irrelevant to the merit of that proposition or stance. Remember, the majority of Americans once supported slavery. This was used when Bush invaded Iraq. Public support was garnered to help justify the war in Iraq. This is also being used in the gay marriage debate. It is irrelevant whether the majority either support or reject gay marriage. The merits or demerits of allowing homosexuals to marry stand independent of public sentiment.

Lastly, the Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The person whom I mentioned at the beginning of this post told me in one of our conversations that, "If Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in America, believes the rich should pay more in taxes, I listen, and you should too." That's an appeal to authority, plain and simple. "This authoritative or famous person said it, therefore it must be true." Conservatives do this just as often with their frequent appeals to Ronald Reagan. As a conservative, I'm about to commit heresy. It is possible that Ronald Reagan was wrong. The facts and soung logic of an argument have to hold the argument together, not the arguer or the authority who first advanced the argument.

And there's the crux. There is too much rhetoric these days that is based on emotion, not on fact and sound, philosophical reasoning. It's really irritating to me. I mean really irritating. It's so irritating that I've made a personal decision not to engage in political conversations with people who demonstrate basic thinking errors in their conversations. Conservative or liberal, doesn't matter to me. At the point I realize you are just spouting the mantras of your political side, I will not talk to you about politics anymore.

In my opinion, these basic, fundamental rules of logic should be taught in schools, starting at an early age. This type of knowledge helps people be prepared to vote. This is information that can help us hold our politicians accountable for their actions and words.

Don't be a sheep. Learn to think for yourself. Learn the basic rules of logic. Then we, as a people, might be able to think our way out of the mess our politicians, held unaccountable and unquestioned, have led us into for too long.

Thoughts on My Work in the Prison

I’ve been at the prison working for over a month now. As a good friend put it when I said it was interesting work, “Interesting, a word that condemns with subtle praise.”

It is interesting though. I have about 81 guys with varying degrees of mental illness on my caseload. The system has 5 classifications of what they call Mental Health scores. MH-1 are those guys with no history of needing any mental health intervention other than an occasional visit with a therapist due to circumstantial situations. MH-2 means that at some point in the person’s history, he has been on mental health medication or had more involved mental health interventions. MH-3 means that the person is currently involved in the mental health programs, taking psychotropic medications and/or seeing a therapist, but the person is probably pretty stable at this point. MH-4 means the person is actively psychotic, or perhaps in an active episode of depression or a bipolar manic phase, or otherwise engaged in a serious, debilitating mental health episode. MH-5 means the person has completely lost touch with reality to the point where he is a danger to himself or to others

We have only one MH-5 in our prison. Most MH-5 individuals will be found in the state hospital. The one gentleman who is an MH-5 level inmate is in a special “Secure Social Rehabilitation Unit,” or SSRU, which is a separate program than the normal mental health programs we run. The SSRU has a large number of MH-4 level offenders, and the purpose of the SSRU is to teach basic living skills like hygiene and communication techniques to the inmates there. The SSRU is trying to get the inmates functional enough to be able to live within the normal population of the prison. I’m not involved in the SSRU.

Also, within the prison system, there is a special unit called the Enhanced Care Unit (ECU). You can think of it as the nursing home for the prison. These are offenders who have gotten old, whose health is failing, and who need special assistance in activities of daily living, i.e. mobility (confined to wheelchair), or need specialized medical equipment like oxygen tanks. This unit is full of elderly men, most of whom are barely mobile. I’ve been asked to work within this unit with these men, in addition to the 81 guys on my normal caseload. The ECU raises interesting moral questions for me about the nature of our justice system. The men in this unit would probably be confined to a nursing home if they were not in prison, or perhaps be living with a family member because their medical needs would keep them from being active in society. I philosophically believe that the purpose of prison is to protect society against those who would violate the rights of others. The men in the ECU have committed heinous crimes. Some of them committed their crimes at a young age, and have been in prison 30, 40 or maybe even 50 years. Some of them committed their crimes at an older age. I’m currently working with a guy in the ECU who did not go to prison until he was 57 years old. These men pose no threat to society at this time. Why do we keep them incarcerated? There is a fine line between justice and revenge.

The majority of my normal caseload is MH-3 level inmates. There are those on my caseload who have legitimate mental health needs. There are also those on my caseload who have figured out that in prison, drugs are currency. These men claim to have mental health problems, and have spoken loud enough and long enough that they have gotten to see a doctor. They are now being prescribed medications, which they “cheek.” This means when they present to take their medications, they will put the pills in their mouth, but not swallow them. When they leave the medication area, they spit them out and store them to sell to other inmates. The problem is, a fairly intelligent individual with a little time on his hands could study mental illness enough to be able to say the right things to get a diagnosis. In prison, you have a community of some highly intelligent individuals with a lot of time on their hands. They figure out quickly how to work the system. But, as Mad Eye Moody said when discussing the Imperius Curse, “How do you sort out the liars?”

There is a gut feeling I get when I think someone is lying about their mental health condition. The litigious nature of medical care and the litigious nature of inmates in prison (a lot of time on their hands with nothing to do but sue people), however, conspire together to make us at times more interested in covering ourselves from liability than challenging criminal behavior. If someone isn’t lying, but my gut feeling says he is, I can set myself up for an awful lot of trouble.

The other piece of this is a lesson I actually learned from Nathaniel. Nathaniel has a distinct advantage over me when he and I go toe-to-toe on something. He’s not afraid that he’s going to get hurt. This is the same advantage that inmates in the prison have over us. They’re not afraid of hurting or even killing themselves to make a point. If someone claims he is suicidal for secondary gain (claiming to be suicidal, not because he actually is, but because he wants something else), and we know this, we will not call his bluff. The reason is because most inmates are not afraid of hurting themselves to prove us wrong. In other words, if someone claims to be suicidal for secondary gain, and I call his bluff and send him back to his cell, he will break his own arm or fall backwards off his sink causing a possible head injury or tie his sheet around his neck and secure the other end to cut off his oxygen, just to show me that he’s willing to go further to get his perceived need met than I am to address his criminal behavior.

Then you have the guys who legitimately are suicidal. They’ve lost hope. They’ve lost purpose. They don’t care anymore. So we treat all these criminals as if they are telling the truth, because some of them are.

In JCCC, there’s another classification according to housing unit. Houses 1-5 are what are known as the General Population houses (GP). These houses are divided sort of…more or less…according to the level of threat the inmates pose in terms of becoming violent. For example, the ECU that I discussed above is in Housing Unit (HU) 1. These guys aren’t young enough, spry enough, or healthy enough to become violent. It sort of goes up from there. HU 5 is the exception, which contains the Intensive Therapeutic Community (ITC) program. Wow. Different world from the rest of the prison. These guys are intense about challenging each other to become better people. I can tell the difference within the first 5 minutes of talking with an inmate whether he has been through the ITC program or not. I would trust an ITC graduate to babysit my kids. Well, some of them. The drug addicts and murderers I would, but probably not the child molesters.

HU 6, 7 and 8 are what are known as the “adseg” units. That’s Administrative Segregation. These guys are violent. They’ve gotten a bunch of minor conduct violations or have gotten a major violation and are now segregated. This is “the hole.” HU 6 are the guys who are getting ready to get back into GP. They’ve gotten most of their privileges back, and have gone a significant amount of time without further violations. HU 7 are the hard cases in adseg. They have no privileges. They are in their cells 23 and a half hours of the day, most with a cell mate, with no TV, no radio, nothing but a pen and a piece of paper a day to keep themselves occupied. They eat, sleep, exercise, and do everything else in their cell. HU 8 are those guys who are such a danger that they can’t even have a cell mate. They are completely isolated because they will hurt whoever they are around.

Two-thirds of my 81 guys on my caseload are in HU 6, 7 and 8. That’s where I spend the majority of my work week. Good times. Yeah.

What makes it worth it? I go back to what I wrote in a previous blog. The relationship is the key. Being present in the life of someone who has been so wounded that lying and manipulation is first nature to the person can be difficult at days. In that rare moment when someone realizes that there are other ways to go about life, I see the value of my work. I was reminded this week while working with 2 gentlemen who were sentenced to multiple life terms without possibility of parole of how important hope is. These 2 men know they will die within the gray concrete walls of the prison. They have both lost hope. They both asked me the question, “What was the purpose of my life?” Notice they said, “was”, not “is.” They referred to themselves in the past tense. They had lost sight of any bigger hand or greater plan beyond the gray walls of “the camp.” It was sad, sad, sad to be in the room with them. Helping them develop a sense of hope and a sense of purpose is an intimidating thought to me.

I believe, though, that’s the very purpose of this “therapeutic” relationship. That’s where the challenge and the reward come. I believe that’s the mud into which Jesus wants me to wade. I believe in hope. I believe in purpose, even within the gray walls of JCCC. I believe in these men.

Yes, I believe even these men, who have done horrible things, have inherent dignity and purpose. These men have done horrible things, but I believe that God’s image is within them. Faith is the conviction of the reality of that for which we hope, and the belief in the reality of those things we cannot see (Hebrews 11:1).  I guess I have faith in God’s image in these men.

I believe that even these men can become the beautiful creatures God intended all humanity to be.

I believe in God.

So I believe in Man.

So I believe in these in these men.

This Joyful Season: Part 1

I can't remember what prayer it is during the season of Lent, but one of the prayers at some point (might have been out of a daily mass collect) refers to "this joyful season of Lent." I remember hearing that "for the first time." I put that in quotes becaus the fact is, I'd probably heard it dozens of times throughout my life, but this was the first time I HEARD it.

It struck me as so weird.

I mean, I had always thought of Lent as a season of repentence, sorrow for our sins, a time when we should be experience discomfort in our practices of penance, fasting, extra prayer, and sacrificial almsgiving. I had never thought of Lent as a season of joy. But it makes sense, really.

As St. Augustine so eloquently put it, "Our hearts are restless until they rest in thee, oh Lord." God is our one true source of happiness, peace, joy. We cannot experience these things apart from Him. So it makes sense that the season of Lent should be a season of joy. What are these practices of fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, if not practices that are meant to rid ourselves of everything that separates us from the Lord?

I know that I have too often thought of these things as punishments. I deserve to be punished for the sins I have committed, and so I fast, spend extra time in prayer, and sacrificially give alms as a way "to make up for the sins I've committed."

The fundamental truth is this: we cannot make up for the sins we've committed. Sin separates us from God, from each other, and from creation. We do not have the power within ourselves to bridge that separation, to heal that wound. No matter how severe our fast, no matter how much time we spend in prayer or how calloused our knees become, no matter how much we give to another, we cannot make up for our own sins.

The fundamental truth is also this: "while we were still sinners Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). We do not have to make up for our sins because Jesus did. Jesus bridged that gap; Jesus healed our wounds. So the practices of Lent are not acts for me to perform so that I somehow make myself righteous through my own works. The practices of Lent are acts that rid me of those things that keep Jesus from acting in my life. When I rid myself of those things so that I can be more open to Jesus, I experience true joy.

The practices of Lent are not to rid my life of all the things that make me happy. The practices of Lent are to rid my life of things that keep me from being truly happy in Jesus.

Through Lent, I'm going to be posting some practical applications for fasting, prayer, and almsgiving. How can these practices improve our lives as followers of Jesus? How can these practices fill us with joy during this season of Lent? Before Lent begins this coming Wednesday, I want to focus on how prayer, fasting and alsmgiving can help us heal one of the primary wounds that causes us pain: forgiveness of others and letting go of resentments.

Forgiveness of one another is a foundation to the bridge that Jesus built over the gap that separates us from our God, and thus from our own happiness. It is so important, that it made its way into the prayer the Lord taught us, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" (Matthew 6:12). It is so important, as a matter of fact, that it is the only line in this prayer our Lord taught us that he thought bore commentary: "If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions" (Matthew 6:14, 15).

There is an ancient Buddhist saying that I love: "Holding on to anger is like holding on to a hot coal in order to throw it at someone else. You are the one who gets burned." Who in your life do you need to forgive? The anger and resentment that we hold makes us miserable, but ultimately has little if any effect on the person against whom you hold it.

So how does fasting come into play here? There is a story I like that comes out of the Native American traditions. A grandfather explained to his grandson that inside each of us are two wolves. One wolf carries happiness, peace, serenity, tranquility, joy, and love with him. The other wolf carries hatred, anger, bitterness, resentment, and sorrow. These two wolves, explains the grandfather, are constantly at war with each other, fighting to overcome us. The grandson asks his grandfather, "Which one wins?" The grandfather responds, "The one that you feed." Perhaps fasting this Lent doesn't mean giving up food or drink or TV or radio or music. Perhaps fasting means giving up gossip, slander, or maybe it means watching and giving up your own thoughts of anger and resentment. Perhaps, if you hold anger and bitterness toward someone, fasting means that you stop feeding that anger and bitterness with the things that keep it alive. This may mean giving up a person entirely. If everytime you come into even virtual contact with someone, you feel anger and resentment toward that person, maybe it is better for you to stay away from that person all-together. Fasting from those things that feed our anger and resentment will help us forgive over time.

Praying comes into play to move us toward forgiveness. The 12 Step recovery community has an interesting approach to this. Knowing that resentment and anger can lead to relapse, the recovery community also knows that forgiveness is important to maintain recovery. A person in recovery is encouraged to pray for those whom he or she needs to forgive. What if, though, you don't want to forgive the person? This question comes up in the 12 Step recovery literature. The answer is simple: don't pray that you will forgive the person, but pray that your Higher Power will help you develop the willingness to forgive the person. Perhaps if there is a resentment that you or I hold and nurture, and we are not willing to give it up, then we should pray for the willingness to let go of the wrong that person has done us.

Connecting this to our liturgical prayer, we should make a special effort to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation during Lent. Perhaps this year, in confession, we should confess any resentments which we have held against people. Acknowledge the difficulty we have had forgiving others, and ask for forgiveness for that in this sacred moment of confession. How often do we ask forgiveness for our own inability to forgive others? Yet, Jesus thought it so important to forgive others that he included it in the prayer he taught us and commented on it afterward.

Almsgiving plays a role in forgiveness, too. Perhaps this year, instead of increasing our donations to Church or to some charitable cause, almsgiving means giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Jesus spoke directly to this, "“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna. Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift" (Matthew 5:21-24).

Is conversion possible? Is it possible for a person to recognize that he or she has done wrong, agregious wrong in the past, and change? I hope so. Maybe this year, our almsgiving means giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Maybe this year, almsgiving means being generous enough to give someone the opportunity to show that he or she is different now than he or she used to be. This doesn't mean we have to be buddy-buddy with someone that has hurt us. This doesn't mean we ever have to be friends with someone who has broken our trust. Forgiveness ultimately is not about the other person at all, even if the other person hasn't changed. Forgiveness doesn't mean that I allow someone who has hurt me in the past to hurt me again. Forgiveness means that, while I may never speak to a person who has hurt me again, I don't have to carry around the anger or resentment over the hurt that person caused me. Forgiveness doesn't mean I set the other person free from the wrong he or she has done. It means I am free from the wrong that person has done. Can you be that generous to yourself? Can you give yourself the alms of letting go of hurts that others have caused you?

Perhaps our almsgiving will take the form of live and let live. Let us all seriously ask ourselves this question: Can I be generous enough to let those who have wronged me get on with their lives without my brooding over the wrong that they have committed against me? Can I give that alms this Lent to those that have hurt me, and more importantly, to myself?

Using prayer, fasting and almsgiving to bring us to forgiveness of those who have wronged us makes us free of the chains that bind us. Using these Lenten practices this way can free us from the anger and resentment that keeps us from experiencing the true joy that Jesus has in store for us.

This Lent, let us use prayer, fasting and almsgiving to free us toward JOY in union with the Lord.

It Is Not Good For Man To Be Alone

This isn't going to be some religious post, or reflection on the creation story in Genesis. This is more of a personal reflection on why I was so miserable while I was working from home on policies and procedures.

Let me start at the prison, though.

I recently started working at Jefferson City Correctional Center, the maximum security prison in Jefferson City, MO. It's really frustrating right now. I've spent two days there, and have not been able really to get started because I don't yet have access to the state computer system or documentation system to review records and create therapy notes. So right now I'm spending a lot of time sitting around, twittling my thumbs, and wondering when something interesting is going to happen.

Tonight is one of those sleepless nights that I have every couple of weeks. Just can't seem to sleep. I was laying in bed thinking about how frustrating it is, when I realized the reason I'm frustrated right now is the same reason I was so miserable when I was working from home on the policies and procedures. I crave the therapeutic relationship that exists when I engage with people who are hurting. In every altruistic offer, there is a hint of selfishness. It is part of our fallen nature. Would Blessed Theresa of Calcutta have been who she was if she didn't believe she could get to heaven? Maybe eventually we overcome that and do the work of God out of pure love, with no thought of reward. That's not where I am.

I have always wanted to help people. I have also felt compelled in my career, for some reason, to work with those with whom no one else wants to work. I find myself drawn to the jobs to which others go because they just need a job. Those are the ones I want to do. Even when I was young, I didn't mind cleaning the toilets in the seminary.

I began in the addiction/mental health profession working in an adolescent rehab unit in Columbia, MO. It was ok. But when I learned that there was an opening in the community psychiatric rehabilation program, working with those who had severe, chronic mental illness, like severe schizophrenia, severe bipolar or depression, severe anxiety disorders, that was for me. Working with those that others feel are hopeless causes. Then I learned of the opportunity to work with opioid addicts on methadone. That was for me, too. Working with those whose dependence on illicit substances had become so severe that their brains literally could no longer function without the presence of that substance, which is provided in controlled doses so that they do not get high but are able to live normal lives. The stigma against these people's physical dependency on opioids and the treatment with methadone makes these addicts in medication assisted treatment the black sheep of the recovery family. These were the ones with whom I wanted to work: the ones that were rejected even by other recovering addicts (not all those in recovery reject those who need medication assistance).

Now here I am working in the prison, working with people whose mental illness is so severe that they committed a crime that was so serious that they now have to be secured in the highest level of prison facility available and in the highest level of security within that prison. It seems altruistic, but it's really not. I'm drawn to this. I crave the relationship that can be built with these men. I do it because it is fulfilling to me. Sometimes it's entertaining, which I have had to curb these first two days on the job. For example, I sat in on an involuntary medication hearing with a patient with severe schizophrenia. He started the meeting by protesting that he should not be there because he is in fact a Supreme Court judge. He then asked if his Petitioner Hardin was going to be there, who was his other half. You see, Petitioner Hardin needs to have a say in whether or not this gentleman receives medications, because Petitioner Hardin is his other half, and Petitioner Hardin may have an allergic reaction to the medication this inmate is given. At one point during the hearing, this inmate mentioned that he is the nuclear holocaust. He also mentioned that he is the one responsible for escorting people to heaven.

The interview piece of this involuntary medication hearing concluded with this inmate asking the panel, "Is there something wrong with me?" It took every ounce of self restraint I could muster not to respond, "Yes, you're crazier than an outhouse rat." I didn't though, because I'm new.

Scientific study and research demonstrates over and over again that the number one factor in a person's mental health improvement is not technique or theoretical approach or the skill level of the counselor or even the readiness or ability of the person in treatment. The number one factor in a person's mental health improvement is the relationship that exists between the one receiving care and the one providing it.

Different theoretical approaches of counseling have stumbled across this, even if those developing that approach did not have the empirical evidence of this that we have today. Rogers's Person Centered Approach discusses the need for radical authenticity in the care provider and radical acceptance of the patient. Both of these ideas revolve around the idea of relationship, and have become foundational to every counseling theory that has developed since Carl Rogers developed this philosophy. Transactional Analysis goes even further by stating that a person's problem really isn't within the person, but exists in the interpersonal transactions that take place between people. In other words, if a problem exists, it exists in the relationship between people. Motivational Interviewing states emphatically that if a patient in counseling is resistant to change, the resistance is not centered in the individual patient or client, but occurs because of a complication in the relationship between the care provider and the patient.

My own personal theoretical foundation for working with people draws from Victor Frankl's Logotherapy. This has to do with meaning making. The words we use to define ourselves have meaning, whether that word is father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, friend, employee, employer, boss. Whatever word we use to describe ourselves has a meaning for us, and we live out in our actions that meaning. I am a father based on the way I define that word. I am husband based on how I define that word. The other piece of this, though, is that all of these words imply relationships. To say I am husband means that I am in a relationship with a wife. To say I am a father means that I am in some kind of relationship with my children. The same is true for son (relationship with parent), employee (relationship with employer), friend (relationship with other friends). I act out my definitions of those words. Conflicts arise when the way I define myself in a relationship or define another in a relationship does not match the other's definition of me or definition of the other's self. In other words, when Lesley and I argue, it is because I have a definition of what it means for me to be husband and for her to be wife and she has a definition of what it means for me to be husband and her to be wife, and our definitions are not matching up. The point is, the relationship is key to these definitions.

The relationship is key. That's why I got into this work, and that's why I've been so frustrated. Staying at home working on Policy and Procedure did not allow me to engage in that relationship with those who are hurting emotionally or psychologically. I wrote policies and procedures...alone...at my kitchen table. That sucked. I wasn't able to engage people in therapeutic relationships.

I've been at my new job in the prison for 2 days now, and haven't been able to start engaging these men, building relationships with them. I'm hungering for that, craving it really. It's really frustrating that I haven't been able really to get started doing my work yet.

I don't know why I have this innate desire to build relationships with these type of people (currently men in the prison) who are nuttier than squirrel poop. It's just there. Maybe it's because so many others have rejected them, even family and friends. Don't get me wrong, if these men have been rejected, it is for good reason. They have committed heinous crimes. But then, I've committed heinous sins. Maybe the reason I want to reach out to them is karma, pay back for those that reached out to me when I felt the most unlovable. Maybe I want to build relationships with them because they have no one else who even wants to understand them.

Maybe I need to feel that salvation is real. Maybe God is calling me to love the ones who are most unlovable. Blessed Theresa began by hugging a leper. I won't be hugging any bat-dung crazy killers, but I will spend time with them and treat them with respect and dignity and unconditional love. The severely mentally ill men in segregation in a level 5 prison are America's lepers. I'm no Mother Theresa, but maybe building relationships with them, relationships that hold the potential for their healing, will make me a better Jamie Smith.

Argumentum Ad Hominem

Some time ago, I posted part of a "dialogue" I was having with someone who does not share my fiscally conservative views. This person and I continued our conversation through private messages. The conversation ranged from the merits or lack thereof of government funding for Planned Parenthood to gay marriage to whether education should be privatized.

 

This person, whom I considered to be a lifelong friend, began to get more and more personal in the attacks made against me. This person told me I was ignorant, angry, brought in the race element by pointing out that I'm white, and therefore couldn't possibly understand the plight of minorities, and said that I was intolerant because I have strongly held religious beliefs (none of which I demanded this person to accept). Our conversation finally concluded with this person saying I am a hypocrite because I have committed sins in my past. This person told me I was "absolutely ignorant" and that I simply would not understand the real issues at stake, and that there was nothing this person could do to help me because I refused to see the truth.

 

I pointed out that the personal attacks this person made against me had nothing to do with the topics at hand. I told the person that there was something this person could do, which was to prove my positions wrong. I asked the person either to offer facts, statistics, or logically sound arguments to prove my positions were wrong and to refrain from the personal attacks against me, or to end the conversation. This person ended not only the conversation, but our friendship, telling me that this person could not be friends with someone as ignorant, angry, and intolerant as I appeared to be to that person.

 

I bring this up, because I recently had another experience of someone with whom I was having a conversation about a political hot button. The person had posted a meme on facebook with the words, "If you are pro-life, why are you against universal healthcare?" I responded first by asking whether the person actually wanted an answer, or if he was just expressing himself. He said he would indeed welcome my thoughts on the matter. I responded (a summary) that I am both pro-life and against universal healthcare because there are other ways to make sure that people, and in particular pregnant women, receive healthcare other than universal healthcare, and that I feel those ways may be better. I pointed out that the debate about universal healthcare really isn't about whether people who are in need should receive healthcare, but about the best way to pay for healthcare for those who can't afford it themselves. I'm copying and pasting his response to me here:

 

"Healthcare should be paid for by middle class and wealthy and anyone who can afford it. White people dont' want to pay for the insurance of anyone brown colored. Ironically, since most Americans claimed to be Christians, we aren't very Christian at all. It's all about discrimination, hate, and its passed on through the generations of families, a lot of the Christian families. The white person says, I'm not paying for a brown persons healthcare, but I sure will make it to church on Sunday. Even though my life is much better than most brown people. Even though my opportunities are far better than most brown people. My education, my family, my upbringing.......and thank you lord for all your blessings. But I'm not giving a damn dollar to that Mexican or that African."

So basically, his response is that any white Christian who opposes universal healthcare does so because the white Christian is racist.

 

In philosophy in the study of logic, this is called an ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM, or an ad hominem attack. An argumentum ad hominem is a response in a debate in which a person does not respond to the actual point of the opponent, but responds instead with a personal attack against the opponent. It is recognized as a logical fallacy in the practice of debate, because the personal attack is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

 

In logic, the person promoting a point of view is irrelevant to whether the facts back up the point of view being expounded. In other words, if you were debating a mass murderer about the year that Christopher Columbus first sailed across the Atlantic Ocean, it is irrelevant that the person is a mass murderer. That doesn't change the fact that "in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue." If the mass murderer stated that it was actually in 1495, and you responded, "Well, you’re a mass murderer, so what do you know?" Your response doesn't make him more wrong. If he correctly reports the year, pointing out that he is a mass murderer wouldn't change the fact that he is right. The personal attack is irrelevant to the argument.

 

This is important to remember in today's political discourse. The reason is because these types of attacks have become so commonplace that they are overlooked by nearly everyone. I remember finally getting fed up with being called racist during the 2008 election cycle. I have never supported Barack Obama. That's obvious to anyone who consistently reads this blog. It is not because I am racist. It is because I believe that the government is bound by the constitution, and therefore the powers of government are strictly limited, and therefore the government has way overreached its authority under both main political parties. It has nothing to do with race. I believe George W. Bush and his Republican cronies in their 8 years of office were just as guilty of this as Barack Obama and his Democrat cronies have been.

 

In 2008, I was a student at Lincoln University in the counseling graduate program, and the professor of one of my classes stated quite boldly, "If Barack Obama doesn't win the election, it's because of all the racists out there opposing him." I couldn't help myself. I pointed out that I oppose Obama, and I was fed up with being called a racist because I have a different philosophy of government. I also pointed out that those who oppose abortion based on the scientific fact that the embryo and fetus are human beings from the moment of conception are called mysogynists; those who oppose gay marriage due to deeply held religious beliefs about the nature of the human person and the role of gender in relationships are called homophobes; those who disagree with the "tolerant" are called ignorant and unenlightened.

 

This logical fallacy, argumentum ad hominem, has become so commonplace in our political discourse that we don't even realize when we've bought into it. It's sad really.

 

It's coming out now in the gun control debate. People in the liberal left media are making statements that those of us who believe in less gun regulation are paranoid and unhinged. This is an ad hominem attack. It is irrelevant that the FBI statistics and studies conducted by the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security demonstrate that increased gun regulation has no effect on gun violence. The impression from the liberal left is that I'm just a paranoid, backwoods redneck for wanting to own a gun for personal defense. I might be a paranoid, backwoods redneck, but that is irrelevant to the facts of gun violence and its relationship to gun control laws.

 

The conservative side of the aisle is by no means innocent. You've got people like Anne Coulter out there writing books that characterize the liberals as "Demonic" and akin to terrorists. You've got people out there still casting stones at Obama by promoting the idea that he is a Muslim. Anne Coulter's name calling nad Obama's religious beliefs are irrelevant to the problems that face our nation right now. 

 

Getting past the rhetoric of the ad hominem attacks is hard, because they are so many and so deeply ingrained into the political discourse. It takes a high level of critical thinking to separate the two. For example, in the facebook response I quoted above, that person truly believes that the reason “white Christians” don't support universal healthcare is because white Christians are racist. For him, these two are so intimately intertwined as to be indistinguishable. It takes a high level of critical thinking skill to see that the means by which healthcare should be funded is a separate topic from racism. It also takes a high level of critical thinking skill to see that even if a person is racist, the person’s own prejudices are irrelevant to the facts of what universal healthcare does to a national healthcare system, whether or not our government is financially able to sustain a universal healthcare system, and what effect a universal healthcare system would have on the quality of health service an individual would receive.

 

Until we all stop attacking each other, and start focusing on the actual issues, there won't be any progress made in the problems that face our nation today. We have been too busy slinging mud to do anything really constructive.

 

How sad if this is all we have left.

My Thoughts on Gun Control

In August, 2010, a man holding a gun went into Sullivan Central High School in Blountville, TN. He was confronted by the school resource officer, Carolyn Gudger, who pulled her weapon and held him at bay. Other Sullivan County Sheriff Deputies arrived. When the gunman was cornered, he made an aggressive move with his weapon toward Officer Gudger, and was promptly shot to death by the officers at hand. Other than the shooter, no one was killed.

In December, 2012 (2 days after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary), a man went into a restaurant in San Antonio, TX with a gun. He began shooting. People fled into the movie theater adjacent to the restaurant, followed by the shooter. The shooter ran into the bathroom. An off duty Buxar County sheriff deputy was working security at the movie theater. She followed the man into the bathroom, where she shot him. Two people were shot (including the shooter), but no one was killed.

On January 4, 2013, a woman in Loganville, GA was at home with her 9 year old twins when she noticed from an upstairs window a man trying to get into her home. She took her children and hid in a crawl space. The man broke into her home with a crow bar, and eventually found her and her children in the crawl space. She shot him with the .38 caliber handgun she was holding. She fired 5 rounds before escaping with her children. Her husband, with whom she had been on the phone during the entire incident, called 9-1-1 from his office, and heard his wife shoot the man. Police arrived, and took the man to the hospital. No one was killed.

Gun control has been in the news a lot lately. It was sparked by the Sandy Hook School shooting in Connecticut, in which a young man went into Sandy Hook Elementary School and shot and killed 26 people, including 20 children. This story has a very strong emotional impact on us. I remember the day it happened. I was working at home when I heard there had been another school shooting. I was in my car later that afternoon listening to the news when I learned the full scope. I was on my way to pick up my kindergartner from his school, and I wept thinking of my own son.

Incidents like Sandy Hook, Columbine, the shootings at Virginia Tech, the theatre shooting in Aurora, CO, and the attempt on Representative Gabby Giffords’s life are highly emotionally charged. The conversation about gun control, however, cannot be one that is based on emotions. All of these incidents are anecdotal. They can neither be used to provide support for stricter gun control nor as reasons why less gun control would be advantageous, because not one of these single incidents tells the whole story. If we’re going to have a legitimate conversation about gun control, we need to be aware of the facts.

Factcheck.org did a great piece reporting statistics and taking on the exaggerated claims made by both sides of the argument. According to Factcheck’s valid research, the number of gun murders was down in 2010 (2011 statistics were not yet available). As a matter fact the number of gun murders, 3.59 people per 100,000 people, was at its lowest since 1981. Likewise, gun aggravated assault was at its lowest rate since 2004 at 50.8 people suffering a gun aggravated assault out of every 100,000 people. Robberies that involved a gun were also down at their lowest rate since 2004, at 45.8 per 100,000 people.  At the same time, gun ownership and gun manufacturing have both increased in recent history. That means there are more people owning guns in the United States than ever before, but fewer guns being used for murder, assault and robbery.

These statistics support those who say that low levels of gun control is a more reasonable stance.

Nonfatal gun injuries during assault have increased in the United States, being at their highest rate since 2008. 17.8 people per 100,000 were nonfatally wounded in an assault involving a gun in 2011. What this means is that while it is less likely due to the decrease in gun aggravated assaults reported above that you will be involved in an assault in which a gun is used, if you are, it is more likely that you will be injured in the event. The total number of events has decreased, but the incidents are becoming more violent. In 2010, there was an increase in suicides involving the use of a gun, reaching its highest rate since 1998. In 2010, 6.28 people per 100,000 killed themselves using guns.

It’s definitely a mixed bag.

There’s two important points in Factcheck’s article that I think bear repeating.

1.       The argument that concealed-carry laws reduce crime is dubious. The fact is that in states and counties where concealed carry is allowed, crime has gone down. The problem is that crime is down universally, even in states and counties that do not allow concealed carry. There is insufficient evidence to make the causal claim that concealed carry causes crime to decrease. In other words, allowing concealed carry may have an effect, but it is too difficult given the fact that crime is down universally to show that concealed carry causes the decrease. Statistically, you can say that places that have allowed concealed carry have seen a reduction in crime. Statistically, you can also say that places that do not allow concealed carry have seen a reduction in crime.

2.       The second point is that the claim that increased access to guns would cause an increase in crime is simply wrong. In places where gun access has been further deregulated (guns are more accessible), there has still been the reduction in crime that we discuss in point number 1. Allowing greater access to guns does not increase gun crime.

I think there is an important question to ask when considering a gun law that limits a person’s 2^nd amendment right to own and bear arms: Will this law have the effect that is intended?

The shooter in Sandy Hook had a history of hospitalizations and mental health problems. There is currently legislation that precludes those who have a similar history from owning or using guns. He didn’t own the guns. He stole them. The existing gun law preventing him from having guns did not deter the crime.

Connecticut has some of the most strict gun laws in the United States. The so called “assault weapon” that the shooter had in his possession at the time of the shooting was actually illegal to buy, sell or own in Connecticut. His mother possessed that gun illegally. Again, he stole it from her. The existing gun law did not prevent his mother from buying and owning the gun. The existing gun law did not deter him from using it. The existing gun law had no effect on the crime.

The shooter in New York who set his house on fire to lure authorities to his home and then shot two firemen was not allowed to own guns due to his criminal history. He manipulated his neighbor’s daughter into buying the guns for him. It was illegal for him to have the guns he used. The existing gun laws did not deter him from obtaining and using the weapons.

In Columbine, it was illegal for those teenage boys to have the guns they used in the shooting. The existing gun laws (again, Colorado has some of the most strict gun laws in the U.S., and this event occurred while the so-called “assault weapons” ban was in effect), did not deter this tragedy.

The shooter at Virginia Tech had a history of disruptive and bizarre behavior. He had a history of mental illness, but under Virginia law at the time, it was not reportable to the information bureau that would have alerted those who performed background checks during the purchase of guns. The sellers were not alerted to his possible mental health problems. Since then, the laws have been tightened in Virginia concerning this.

Jared Lee Loughner, who shot Representative Gabby Gifford and 18 others, killing 6, bought his firearm legally from a business, not an independent, private dealer. That means he had to have submitted to a background check that failed to recognize his prior legal problems, including misdemeanor drug use charges. Loughner had never submitted to a mental health evaluation, although anyone familiar with his history can easily recognize the symptoms of the onset of schizophrenia in his history. He had no history of violence, only bizarre and occasionally disruptive behavior. Arizona has some of the most liberal gun laws in the U.S., but it was illegal for him to carry the weapon into that mall. The existing gun laws, such as they were, did not deter his actions.

James Holmes, the shooter in the Aurora, CO theater owned his guns legally and handled them legally, until he took them into the theatre, where he was not allowed to have them. He had no prior history of mental health treatment and no prior history of violent crime. Do we discriminate on who can own a weapon and who can’t based on the possibility that the person might do something illegal with the guns? How do we make that determination?

Instead, we have 2 primary types of legislation that people want to introduce. The first is legislation that will make it more difficult for people to obtain guns, for example, by tightening the process of background checks. That doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked. It didn’t work for the shooter in Connecticut. It didn’t work for the shooter in New York. It didn’t work for the teenagers at Columbine High School. The laws would also create greater restrictions on the purchase of guns at gun shows from private vendors, a method which does not require background checks. Notice that none of the guns used in any of these crimes were purchased from private vendors. They were all originally purchased through sellers who would have had to run a background check on the buyer. Laws don’t matter to criminals, or those intent on doing evil. They will get around those laws. Making it harder for people to get guns isn’t effective in deterring gun crime.

The second type of gun control legislation proposed is based on the type of gun, making it illegal to own certain types of guns. For example, some say we should ban “assault weapons.” I would like to know, from someone who believes this, what their definition of an “assault weapon” is. It’s obvious to me that many people who are proposing to ban certain types of weapons don’t really know what they’re talking about when it comes to guns.

To get really, really, REALLY basic, you have 3 types of guns: revolvers, semi-automatic weapons, and fully automatic weapons. I’m sorry for all my gun expert friends out there, because I know that’s not all there is.

Owning a fully automatic weapon is illegal in the United States. What that means is that if you legally purchase a gun in the U.S., it is either going to be a revolver or a semi-automatic. You can have a semi-automatic handgun, more commonly known as a pistol, or a semi-automatic rifle. Functionally speaking, no matter what the gun looks like, there is no difference in the mechanism of operation between a semi-automatic handgun and a semi-automatic rifle. What does it mean that the gun, handgun or rifle, is a semi-automatic? Basically that means that when you pull the trigger one time, one bullet is fired, and the next bullet is fed into the chamber. Semi-automatics do not fire several rounds with 1 trigger pull. You have to pull the trigger each time you fire the weapon. 1 trigger pull, 1 bullet.

Banning so-called “assault weapons” is to ban a gun, not on its functionality (it works through the same mechanism as every other gun), nor on its lethality (I don’t think it would matter if you got shot in the head with a handgun or a rifle), but on its looks. That’s it. This gun looks scary, so let’s call it an assault weapon.

The argument that a person can fire with a high capacity clip 30 rounds in less than a minute is ridiculous to anyone who owns a gun. I own semi-automatic pistols. With normal capacity clips of 7 rounds, I can fire a full clip, pop it, replace it, and be ready to fire in 15 seconds or less. My normal clips hold 7 rounds, but with the first clip I usually hold 7 rounds and 1 in the chamber (for a total of 8 in the first clip). That means in 60 seconds, with normal capacity clips, I can fire at least 29 rounds, probably more if I didn’t care about aim. High capacity clips do not make a gun more dangerous. A gun is only as dangerous as the person who is holding it.

And that’s the crux of the matter. Gun control isn’t about controlling guns; it’s about controlling people. Nobody, including gun owners, wants guns in the hands of bad guys. The fact is that guns are going to be in the hands of bad guys no matter what laws are passed. That’s what makes them bad guys. They don’t follow the laws. So by making gun ownership harder, impinging on the right of the people to bear arms, we take the guns out of the hands of people who are responsible, law abiding citizens, like me, who keeps his guns under lock and key when I’m not carrying or using them at the firing range.

One can see that the issue is not as simple as creating more gun laws that will be disregarded by those intent on doing harm. It’s also not as simple as creating more databases that people can get around, or that are ineffective against those who would not meet the criteria for a red flag. A better conversation to have is about mental illness.

How these shooters got their guns is not the common denominator.

What types of guns these shooters had is not the common denominator.

That all of these shooters had mental illness in varying types and degrees is the common denominator.

So why aren’t we talking more about mental illness, since that’s what really linked all of these shooters?

When I was thinking about getting a gun for protection, I talked to a retired police officer about it. He told me something I’ll never forget. He said, “The question you need to ask yourself before you buy a gun is whether or not you would be able to kill another human being. The time to decide that you can’t do that is not when you are standing in front of a person who has broken into your home and you have the gun pointed at him. If you decide at that moment that you can’t pull the trigger, then you’ve just given that guy your gun, and he’ll use it on you. Before you buy the gun, decide whether or not you will be able to use it.”

I made that decision. If someone threatens the safety of Lesley and my children, I’ll shoot him. I have no doubt in my mind. Not everyone can say the same. Those who don’t make the same decision as me, that’s fine. I have no problem with you deciding that you do not want to own a gun. You take your chances on the situation. I will use my gun to defend my family.

I will keep my gun to defend my family no matter what laws are passed. Bottom line. It’s used so often that it’s become cliché, but I can’t get around it: “If you outlaw guns, you will make law-abiding gun owners outlaws.” I don’t want to be an outlaw, but I will be. If I have to make the choice between defending my family and letting them be victims of a crime, I will always choose defending my family.

There is so much more that can be said, and I’m willing to have the conversation with anyone who wants to have it, but this is my stance.

I have the right to defend myself with a gun. It’s guaranteed by the 2^nd Amendment. I will not give up that right. I hope and literally pray that I will never have to use my gun. I will not hesitate to do so if I have to protect my family.