Guns & God

Barack Obama got it wrong.

As a presidential candidate, Senator Obama found himself in hot water over remarks he made about guns, religion, and the people of Pennsylvania. He said, ‘…it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.’

What he had hoped would be an insightful statement about how people cope when they feel abandoned by their government was lost, drowned out by the furor over what was perceived as a statement of arrogance and elitism. For the next few days, network TV’s talking (bobble)heads went into overdrive, endlessly debating whether these were the words of yet another outsider attempting to tell regular folk how they should live their lives. The other candidates couldn’t wait to join in, of course, each seeking to build up their (and I cringe to use this term even now) “Joe Six-Pack” street cred and capture what was perhaps President G.W. Bush’s most attractive attribute as a candidate and Commander-in-Chief.

Not surprisingly (because it happens every time a Democrat is elected President), gun sales in the days and weeks leading up to President Obama’s inauguration skyrocketed. It would seem that even in the harshest of economic times, we love our guns. Some even seek the right to bring them into church.

The issue of guns in church isn’t a new one. It’s been under debate in a number of states for a number of years now. However, the Arkansas House of Representatives recently took a first step in making it a reality.

The prospect- to say the least- is a little unsettling.

Church should be the place people go to worship and seek spiritual edification. I shouldn’t have to wonder whether some random guy off the street or former congregation member is going to wander in one Wednesday evening or Sunday morning and start shooting up the place like a saloon in the Old West. I should be able to worship without worry, without concern for whether the usher or person next to me packing a piece can keep a cool head in a crisis. Church should be the place people go if they are at the end of their rope and need to find a little peace and purpose.

All too often, however, this is not the case. A stream of seemingly ongoing offense and endless scandal across the board regardless of brand, denomination, or affiliation has made the church as likely a place of retribution as contribution.

And that’s truly unfortunate.

Though I am not currently a gun owner, I’m not a jumpy guy around them. From an early age, I knew where my Dad kept his guns in the house. Also, I come from a military family; my father and two of my uncles were career Army men. There exists among the three of them a combined total of 70+ years of service to this nation. Some saw tours of duty in Vietnam and returned to their families changed men, yet still served for decades afterwards. My sister was in JROTC in high school, ROTC in college, and was a Captain in the Army before retiring a few years ago. No, I am not averse to guns or gun ownership. One day, I’ll stop talking about it and finally have my friend Cindy teach me how to shoot. The skill will almost certainly come in handy right around the time my daughter becomes a teenager.

Yet I can’t help thinking that something gets a little lost in the translation when we Christians advocate relying on the Bible and God’s awesome power on the one hand, but say that it’s okay for practically anyone with a permit to bring a gun into His House on the other. Matthew 6:3 comes to mind.

Perhaps my sentiment would change if I or a church member carrying a concealed weapon were to use a gun to save a member of my family’s life. Perhaps. But it’s equally possible that the person seeking to save me might also unintentionally kill me. If the concept of friendly fire is a reality for our military- the finest and most highly trained in the world - then I suppose it should also be a reality for my church in Lakeville, Minnesota, too.

Now that this particular Pandora’s Box has been opened, it cannot be closed. Guns in church- even to save lives- will only soothe the symptom at best. And maybe that’s all we can ask of a gun. But what about curing the condition? What about more outreach to those suffering (and there are a great many these days), more forgiveness, more compassion, and less judgment? “Never leave a man behind” is a common military creed. We should all strive to follow that creed whether we’re in the Army of the United States or the Army of God.

No, the problem isn’t that people cling to their guns and religion in times of trouble. It’s that they don’t cling to them hard (or long) enough.

The Curious Case of Nadya Suleman

I love a good mystery. I have since I was a child. I still wonder whether Oswald was the lone gunman, if Amelia Earhart will ever be found, and what really happened in Roswell, New Mexico on July 7, 1947. Nothing keeps me humble like knowing that there are still so many things I don’t understand.

These days, I can always count on the news media to bring me new things to ponder. My latest mystery involves Nadya Suleman, the woman who gave birth to octuplets last month. When the story initially broke, I marveled at this particularly rare occurrence. But that feeling of wonderment quickly shifted to bewilderment and bewilderment morphed into disbelief and disbelief into something else entirely: curiosity.

Curiosity is an essential element of all good mysteries. Curiosity is what compels us to read books by Sue Grafton and play board games named Clue and watch television shows called Lost.

Lost is perhaps one of my favorite indulgences. It is a serial drama about a group of plane crash survivors who live on a remote island. The characters have hidden, intertwined pasts and strange things tend to happen to them on this odd island. While Lost is a compelling (and albeit confusing) drama, it is also a mystery and with any good mystery, there are always questions.

In the Lost world, answers are doled out sparingly and for every question that is answered, at least two new questions arise to supplant the previous one. The truly remarkable part of the show, however, is its ending. Each week, an episode will end with a cliffhanger, plot twist, or some other paradigm shift the viewer cannot always anticipate. Some of the endings are genuine WTH moments that leave me speechless.

The Suleman story plays a lot like an episode- if not an entire season- of Lost. There are certainly enough plot twists and WTH moments:

• As the result of in vitro fertilization (IVF), a mother gives birth to 8 children. It is later revealed that she already has 6 children, each conceived via IVF.
• The mother, who is single, hasn’t held a full-time job since 1999. Yet all 6 of her children are less than 8 years old.
• The mother is diagnosed with a “depressive disorder” and believed to be “at some risk for suicide”.
• Although the mother was awarded over $167,000 in disability payments stemming from an injury sustained in 1999, her parents (in whose house the mother and her previous 6 kids all live) recently filed bankruptcy.
• The mother is on record as saying that she has not and will never accept welfare, yet receives $490 a month in food stamps.

Equally fascinating to me are the questions. I find myself wondering if it’s medically ethical to implant 6 embryos in a woman who already has so many children. I mentally debate whether a parent (single or married) can raise 14 children and not go clinically insane or broke. I consider the probability of two or more Suleman kids making an appearance on a future episode of Jerry Springer or Oprah. And I try to imagine the thought processes of this soon-to-be overwhelmed mother.
There are three things, however, that are more certainty than mystery to me with this curious case:

1. Nadya Suleman should not be permitted to have any more kids artificially. Ever.
2. No matter how noble the intention, a dysfunctional childhood is not an excuse to create what will likely become 14 more dysfunctional childhoods.
3. Ms. Suleman will receive millions of dollars from book deals, television interviews, a reality show or two, and at least one Lifetime movie. Some organization might even name her Mother of the Year. It sounds funny, I know, but stranger things have happened.

Hmm. Maybe I should give up on the Lindbergh baby kidnapping and start thinking about whether it’s possible to impregnate a man with 6 embryos? Not that I have anyone in mind or anything…

Let them eat cake, indeed

It’s been a tough week to watch the news and keep my blood pressure in check. No, I’m not referring to the escapades of Rod Blagojevich, the buildup to the Super Bowl, or even the debates over Jessica Simpson’s expanding waistline.

For me, it’s been all about the bailout.

I wasn’t crazy about the first bailout from the second former President Bush and I like this high-octane sequel from our new President even less. I get a little wary when elected officials clamor for action ‘because we’ve gotta do something’. Time has taught me that when everyone says something needs to be done now, it is precisely the time when nothing should be done beyond getting a precise bead on the problem. Hasty action makes a bad situation worse.

‘If something’s worth doing,’ any good father will say, ‘it’s worth taking the time to do right.’

I haven’t heard that with either bailout iteration. I hear people saying we need to act now before it is too late. It’s a rationale that makes for bad policy no matter the issue or the White House occupant.

So I was not surprised to hear of Wall Street executives awarding themselves more than $18 billion in bonuses last year.

Why? Because I believe that the idea of a bank bailout fails to account for a key tenet of human behavior: self-preservation.

The American people have ponied up billions for banks under the assumption that giving money to Wall Street will pull it out of insolvency, grease the tracks and permit it to freely issue loans again. This, in turn, will make us feel better about spending money on big and not-so-big ticket items like cars, houses, and…well…food.

My understanding of the concept, however, contradicts this. Self-preservation makes the human animal less likely to be altruistic and more likely to look out for Number One as the first, last, and general order of business. In fact, the urge for self-preservation in a crisis is so instinctual and hard-wired into our genetic code that it requires a conscious, sometimes Herculean, effort to override.

Self-preservation applied to financial matters dictates that we human (and capitalist) animals will- even if money is given to us- keep far more than we give. We may give out just enough to keep our most vocal creditors at bay or perhaps engage in some emotional spending from time to time, but there will always be a great deal of what the Bible calls hoarding (economists call it saving).

My theory is that with or without a bailout, banks will continue to issue loans only to those they deem virtual locks for repayment. And even then, banks will- like a Harvard admissions committee- exercise extreme selectivity. That’s the principle of self-preservation in action.


The news of last year’s fiscal stupidity, even as the proverbial Titanic known as the financial sector took on water, didn’t surprise me in the least. Come to think of it, the Titanic analogy is apt; wealthy Wall Street executives seem to be frantically engaged in finding seats on lifeboats, while the rest of us Main Streeters are stuck in steerage. And there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. That’s self-preservation in action.

Darwin would be so proud. I, however, am just plain pissed.

Fortunately, while self-preservation is difficult to overcome, it can be rerouted. We have one time-honored practice available: a big stick. If someone holds a big enough stick either over our heads or to our backsides, we will change our behavior.

I work for the state of Minnesota, where we face a record deficit. To fight it, Governor Tim Pawlenty has adopted what I call the “Minnesota Doctrine”. The Doctrine is simple: freeze everything. For state employees, that means freezing new hires, salaries, and pay raises. It means budget cuts so deep, they would cause a human to exsanguinate. It also means the resurgence of an education policy buzzword under George W. Bush: accountability.

I think accountability is the big stick we should hold to Wall Street’s backside. If John Thain is stupid enough to spend a million dollars redecorating his office when nearly 130,000 people were laid off by Wall Street companies in 2008, then he should be fired on the spot- no golden parachute, severance package or reference letter allowed. If AIG decides to throw a posh retreat for its executives the day after it receives a bailout from Congress, it should be forced to make immediate restitution and lose two to ten times that amount in bailout funds. And so on. Sooner or later, these companies will get the idea and turn over a new leaf.

“A hard head makes for a soft behind”, my Mom would say. I say it’s time someone went outside and got a switch; we have a Financial Revolution to get underway.