Re: [asa] Creation Care Magazine

Have you ever seen "Hotel Rwanda"? If not watch it and then tell me if you think the right to bear arms should morally apply to individuals or not. Not what you think the constitution says, but whether you think that is something that individuals morally should be allowed to do. If you have seen it then please tell me what individuals are supposed to do to protect themselves from an evil government.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: John Walley
  Cc: drsyme@cablespeed.com ; Janice Matchett ; asA
  Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:46 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Creation Care Magazine

  Without getting into too many details, I think this clause relates to official state militias, and I don't think such government entitites in themselves violate any teaching of Jesus or scripture. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this issue this term, as there is a case on this very question (of whether the right to bear arms if individual or relates to government militias).

  On Dec 27, 2007 5:27 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:

    David,

    The example of an intruder with intent to do violence to your family is a red herring. As a lawyer, you know that clause refers to a "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ".

    To use a "turn the other cheek" argument to debunk the right to keep and bear arms, you have to establish that Jesus no longer intended national governments, national defenses and the concept of righteous governments, which I don't think you rationally can do.

    Thanks

    John
      -----Original Message-----
      From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of David Opderbeck
      Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 3:46 PM
      To: drsyme@cablespeed.com
      Cc: Janice Matchett; asA
      Subject: Re: [asa] Creation Care Magazine

      Well now I think your paraphrase is inaccurate Jack. Sure, if the intruder is in the act of murdering the family and there's no other alternative, violence against the intruder might be justified. And yes, it's easy to Monday morning quarterback, and the exigency of any situation has to be part of an ethical determination. But I think my original point stands -- it simply is not the case that this principle offers moral support to a private right to bear arms. The case in which "the most effective means available" to prevent violence against one's family requires the private use of weapons is exceedingly rare.

      On Dec 27, 2007 3:39 PM, <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:

        Ok thanks for the reference. But again your paraphrase was inacurrate. It was Geisler, not Moreland. And you changed the quote: "Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder with the most effective means available to him
        fails them morally."

        I think Geislers point is simply to say that if you watch someone murder your family, and you choose to do nothing about it (assuming there is something that you could do about it,) is immoral.

        On Thu Dec 27 14:11 , Janice Matchett sent:

          At 01:44 PM 12/27/2007, drsyme@cablespeed.com wrote:

            Interestingly enough Janice was paraphrasing not JP Moreland but Ron Rhodes who misquoted Moreland: "Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that "to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally." He gives no reference. http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qselfdefense.html ~ Jack

          @ Not so.

          I just did a search and found the page from where I originally saw the quote - it was on the "Karate for Christ" page :) I just forgot that Geisler was involved with writing that book, also: http://www.karateforchrist.ca/EssEades.pdf

          Geisler wrote:

          "To permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails http://www.amazon.com/Life-Death-Debate-Moral-Issues/dp/027593702X

          ~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 27 22:04:44 2007