Tradition is Self-defense. The Novel Idea Is Gun-control

Many thanks to the The Armed Lutheran for bringing this to my attention. It seems that the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS), a traditionally conservative church body, is trying to go woke. I suspect that if it does, it will eventually mean the end of the LCMS.  It has published a rewrite of the Large Catechism, (which didn't need to be rewritten. But I digress.)

The Large Catechism is for the teaching of the faith to students usually 12-13 years old.  This teaching usually lasts 2 years, at the end of which students are confirmed and take their first Communion.  Communion is the center of our worship services, so it is important that students understand what it means to be a faithful Christian. 

Included in the Large Catechism is a discussion on the meaning of all the 10 Commandments.  But the discussion on the 5th Commandment that is truly egregious. Unfortunately, the LCMS got someone to write that section who doesn't believe in the right to self-defense.  But T. R. Halvorson has an excellent rebuttal to the article that is well worth reading:

What – the right of self-defense did not arise without the exercise of reason? It did not exist before the Enlightenment? That is historically inaccurate and jurisprudentially incompetent.

When I read that, I recalled off the top of my head what we were taught in my law school by Dean Robert Sullivan in his two, four-semester hour “Introduction to Law I & II” courses. The right of self-defense historically and jurisprudentially has existed, insofar as written history shows, in nearly every time, place, culture, and society. Today, self-defense is a recognized tenet of international law, which of course is not dependent solely on the European Enlightenment.

Halvorson then goes on to cite examples of laws both ancient and relatively modern, and in various cultures that include a right to self-defense. These include the ancient Hebrews. Indeed, Exodus 22:2 states:

If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall beno guilt for his bloodshed.

Note that if a thief attacks at night, the householder has no way of determining if the bad guy is armed, or if he seeks to take his life. In the day, one can make such assessments which is why there is a difference. But clearly, self-defense is admitted. This is but one example, but it shows that the Lord does not condone pacifism. Halvorson cites others from ancient Greece, ancient Rome, Islamic law and Canon law. The idea of self-defense is as old as written law, and probably older.

Self-defense is not new. What is "new" and novel is the notion that we should depend on the police to defend us. But of course, the job of the police has never been to act as bodyguards. The police are paid to provide over all law enforcement for the community. But everyone who has ever speeded in traffic must be aware that the police do not ticket every speeder every time. What the police do is to investigate the homicide and attempt to catch the killer. I would also point out that rarely do criminals commit a crime right in front of a police officer. So, despite the advertisement that the police and fire men are first responders, the actual first responder is the one being assaulted. Shouldn't he or she have the tools necessary to defend himself or herself effectively?

Then, there is the moral objection to the idea of the police being your bodyguard. You are asking someone to potentially take a bullet for you for a modest sum of money, like say $50,000. Is your life infinitely precious, but his is only worth $50 grand? No, that is not right. Every life is infinitely precious. Therefore, it becomes incumbent on each and every one of us, indeed it is a civic and religious duty, to defend ourselves and those in our care. Don't even animals use whatever means at their disposal to defend themselves? How much more should we?

The article by T. R. Halvorson is about the error involved in teaching young skulls full of mush that to defend themselves and to carry weapons to do so is somehow wrong.  We have seen though that God himself expects us to do so.  To do otherwise is to spit on His great gift of life.

But what about laws, also very modern, that make entire areas of cities so called "gun free zones."  We see university students held hostage to monsters that snub the "gun free zone" laws and attempt to commit mass murder there.  We see it in malls, airports, churches, movie theaters, indeed anywhere that people are prevented by law from carrying a gun.  Recently, although New Mexico has permits for people to carry concealed, the governor tried to declare an entire county a gun free zone.  But the governor when questioned admitted that criminals would continue to carry.  With that admission by the governor herself, one has to ask if the people who make and enforce such laws do not have blood on their hands?

Just asking...