Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Guns and me and Senator Whitmire

Yesterday was the day I made the drive down to Austin to speak to the Criminal Justice Committee of the Texas State Senate about guns on campus. As anybody who has been reading this blog knows, I'm against the idea of allowing concealed weapons anywhere near a college classroom, office or dormitory. In an ideal world, I would just stop there, because I would assume that any reasonable person would immediately understand why.

I have yet to live in a place, however, that has only reasonable people, and Texas, being bigger than most states (you knew that, right?), has more than its share of loonies. That's why I spent nearly five hours in my car yesterday and over four hours sitting in a hot, packed committee room waiting to testify. Whatever you might have imagined that experience would be like, it was more so. Grade A lunacy was on display, as were passion, conviction, eloquence and human witness to unspeakable tragedy.

The first instance of the latter occurred shortly after I arrived at Capitol Extension E1.016 at 1:45. Under discussion was a bill extending the reach of the death penalty so that it would be easier to execute people who had murdered children. The mother of a girl who was murdered 24 years ago at age eight spoke against it. She described the twelve years of ongoing criminal proceedings waiting for her daughter's killer to be executed as being far worse than the loss itself. I have never had a loved one murdered, so if I were to say that I can't imagine ever hating anyone so much as to desire that person's death, my words, though true, might ring hollow. When this woman made the same statement, she had the moral authority of a prophet.

She also set the tone for the rest of the afternoon. Every single victim of gun violence whom I later heard speak to the committee testified against extending the right to concealed carry. (I define a victim as someone who has actually been shot, not just threatened.) It seems clear that the more actual experience of gun violence a person has, the less likely that person is to believe that defensive weapons are helpful, and the more likely to want to reduce the number of weapons in play, not increase it.

This was not immediately evident, because when the gun bill finally came up at around 3:30, the "fors," following what is apparently standard procedure, were allowed to speak first. This was when the real lunacy came out for public viewing. The first person to speak was a student who wanted to make it clear that he was talking about defending his own body, and that his right to do so was absolute. He did not care in the least if the way he chose to defend himself made other people uncomfortable. Being comfortable isn't a right. Having guns is.

Several others offered similar opinions, including one man who appeared to truly doubt whether his 21-year-old daughter would survive until her 22nd birthday without the right to carry a gun with her at all times. He became deeply emotional as he begged the committee to save his daughter's life.

The real prize, though, went to a young man who spoke, he implied, for the honor of the State of Texas itself. We all knew, he assured us, that Texas is not like the rest of the United States. We value families. We believe in God. We don't let gay people get married, and we sure as heck need our God-given right to own guns in order to make it clear what good and moral people we are in the midst of a country rapidly descending into damnation. Let "them" defeat this bill, he told us, and "they" will stop at nothing until they have taken away every single right that makes us good, noble and human. Those who want to take away our guns clearly have no faith in God, no morality, don't care about marriage or families, and are determined to turn our entire country into a hellish Sodom of state-mandated atheism. Only Texas is good enough to stand up to this Satanic conspiracy, and the people must seize the moment before the devil can start sneaking into our homes at night and slitting our children's throats while they sleep. OK, he didn't actually use some of those words, but that was the gist of what he said.

Meet Senator John Whitmire, the balding, domineering committee chairman who alternately coaxed, chided and interrupted witnesses throughout the hours of testimony that were to follow. There was no doubt that Senator Whitmire and most of the rest of the committee were for this bill, but they were legally obligated to listen to everybody who wanted to testify, and they knew they were in for a long evening. Senator Whitmire's solution to being stuck front and center seemed to be entertaining himself by being alternately sarcastic and condescending, especially to the people who spoke against the bill. However, the testimony I just described was too much even for him, and he chided the young man for not acknowledging that not everyone who disagreed with him on this issue was a family-hating atheist. The man said he understood that, but did not retract any of his testimony. Several other witnesses also spoke of the God-given right to defend themselves with deadly force.

By the time I finally had a chance to speak, around 5:45, I had been observing Senator Whitmire long enough to have a pretty good idea what to expect. I had come with a carefully prepared written statement which I had timed to take exactly three minutes: the length of time that any citizen is allowed to testify. The good senator was remarkably capricious in enforcing this time limit - some speakers went on for what must have been ten minutes or more - but from time to time he cracked down and announced that everybody who had yet to speak should plan to stop after two minutes. This is what he told me as I took my seat at the witness table. I responded, politely but firmly, that I had written a three-minute statement and I intended to read the whole thing. Mock surprise on the senator's part: There was no need to read a statement; I should just tell them what I thought. It's so much more natural that way. I told him that I had a three-minute written statement and that I was going to read it, and proceeded to do so. After a couple of sarcastic interruptions that I barely acknowledged, he seems to have given up. I didn't hear another word from him, even though virtually every previous witness, no matter how well- or poorly-spoken, was praised for giving good testimony.

Just to make the good senator happy, though, I made a statement at the end that was not in my written speech. "In response to what was said earlier: My God told his disciples to lay down their weapons. It may be in the Second Amendment, but calling it a God-given right is blasphemy." I spoke the concluding word with what I hope was the appropriate degree of gravity, then left the witness table with absolutely no acknowledgment from anybody on the panel. I did get a fist bump or two on the way back to my seat.

At this point, I had to leave, since as it was I didn't get back to Waco until 9:30, and I still had a class to prepare for this morning. The "against" testimony went on for several more hours, and at the end the committee took no action on advancing the bill, apparently because they no longer had a quorum. At this writing it's not clear what their next move will be or when it will come.

During this process, I went through the extremes of nervousness, anger, stunned appreciation and, ultimately, deep-rooted spiritual calm. My words were my own, and I meant them all. I faced down a bully and left with my head held high. I don't know if I made any difference at all, but I'm glad I went.

36 comments:

  1. I'm glad you went too, Robin. Well done.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well done. I just had to share something I heard this week, "if Jesus returned to earth, I'm sure he'd be packing heat." Libertarian lunacy!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just curious what your thoughts are on the words of Christ in the gospel of Luke to his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword if they did not already have one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr. Wallace,

    I want to thank you for speaking out against these activists. They are simply capitalizing on the fear of The tragic shooting on Virginia Tech’s campus and the violence in Tucson. Gun violence should not lead us to seek solace in our guns. These acts of violence should lead us to reform our mental health institutions and to recognize that dialogue promoting paranoia and vigilante justice coupled with increased gun ownership will, without a doubt, cause more even more bloodshed than it already has.

    I attended the Baylor Student Government meeting a few weeks ago and heard many of the same "arguments" for this measure. If the advocates of this bill are worried about a violent gunman taking aim at defenseless students, (which is a rather rare occurrence) then why aren’t they calling for an increase in the number and presence of professional security officers and/or TSA-like security screenings?

    The contradictions are stunning.

    All colleges and universities, including Baylor University, should serve as safe, peaceful and civil forums. Conversely, the supporters of these measures seem to think that we study on a frontier settlement which we must protect from perceived hordes of lawless bandits, who need to be rounded up by a student posse comitatus.

    I am saddened to hear that the name of the Christ was invoked in defense of arms and not peace. Rational discourse must prevail.

    Thank you for your testimony.

    -Brent Johns

    ReplyDelete
  5. My thoughts on that will not satisfy the gun enthusiasts, but it seems obvious to me that Jesus was being sarcastic. "When I sent you out with only your sandals, did you lack anything?" The obvious answer is "no." However, since they apparently didn't understand, he replied that they might as well sell their cloaks and buy swords. They responded that they already had two swords (for twelve people). Jesus responded "It is enough." In other words, "You still don't understand, do you?"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks, Brent. The good news for us is that private schools like Baylor will be allowed to opt out, and I can guarantee you that Baylor will do so regardless of what the student government says. I went as a gesture of solidarity with our colleagues at public universities, who will not have that option.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Also, Rob, the scripture from Isaiah that Jesus says must be fulfilled is "And he was reckoned with the transgressors." Full reading: "Why don't you just go out and buy a bunch of swords so we all get arrested? What? You already have two? Well, then, we're doing just fine, aren't we?" Then it's off to the Mount of Olives and impending arrest.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I was under the impression that because he was no longer going to be with them and sending them in to the world, then they needed to be prepared for the hostility of the world. He instructed them to take a purse and a bag and the then the sword.
    Was all of this sarcasm, as well?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I support the bill, but granted, there is emotional sensationalism on both sides. My position is and always has been, look at the facts and the historical evidence and make a logical assessment of what has transpired.
    I have 10 years on the street and have carried for the better part of 20 years. Not to take lives but to defend them. The same reason I carry today is the same reason I carried as an officer.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Bible is wonderfully ambiguous, isn't it? Here is the annotation in my copy of Luke: "The sword apparently meant to Jesus a preparation to live by one's own resources against hostility. The natural meaning of v. 38 is that the disciples supposed he spoke of an actual sword, only to learn that two swords were sufficient for the whole enterprise, i.e. were not to be used at all."

    It would be against the spirit of everything I said yesterday to insist that either this or my interpretation is correct and yours is wrong. I hope I've given you some food for thought, though.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I always listen and in most cases learn something. I greatest hope is that education prevail and fear fail. That (at least in my opinion) God allows men to defend the life he gave to them. The tool used to defend that life is of no importance, but that one man is willing to defend the gift of his own life and as a result may save the life of another, how that can be wrong I fail to follow that logic. If this were the case, even our officers and soldiers are condemned and guilty of blasphemy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. One further thought: The makhaira, which is the word used both here and by St. Paul for sword, was more a symbol of authority than a weapon.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rob, I'm not a pacifist. I believe there are circumstances where taking up arms is justified. I can't think of any such cases that would require concealed weapons, though.

    But this issue here isn't whether citizens under certain circumstances should be allowed to carry arms. The issue is whether firearms should be allowed on college campuses. Colleges and universities are currently some of the safest real estate in the country. I see no evidence that they will be made safer when undergrads are allowed to carry. My experience with college-age kids gives me reason to believe that they will become less safe.

    ReplyDelete
  14. With all the biblical scholars here, I should take the opportunity to be educated.

    Robin and Rob: I'm familiar with the advice Jesus gives in, e.g., Matt 5:39, that we should not resist an evil person but rather turn the other cheek when struck. But I'm unfamiliar with the advice Jesus gave us on when and where lethal force against evil persons is acceptable. Could either of you point out, say, two or three such passages in the bible?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Joel - There are none. That's why I think an ironic reading of the passage in Luke is overwhelmingly likely.

    Rob - I have no problem with a police officer carrying a gun and using it with discretion. This is not blasphemy unless you start claiming that you are acting for God, rather than for the government. Not that governments don't go wildly wrong in this regard too...

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm really glad you went and spoke up. I had a written statement prepared as well but was unable to make the trip down. I'm a survivor (of threatening, not being shot) and I too oppose this bill

    ReplyDelete
  17. We are so thankful to you and the others that took their time to stand in front of this committee and stand for what is right. Your strong words about faith and God make your words even more compelling. You are an inspiration, sir, and we hope you don't give up this fight anytime soon. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dr. Wallace,

    Given your careful and, I would suggest, correct exegesis of the intent of Jesus's words, I'm surprised that you find it necessary to "define a victim" as someone who has actually suffered a gunshot wound, rather than someone who has been "just threatened."

    I wonder how your distinction would hold up alongside a comparably perceptive reading of the Sermon on the Mount. If hatred is morally and -- at least for the hater -- existentially equivalent to committing murder, what can we say of brandishing a weapon and threatening someone's life with it? To hold someone at gunpoint is to commit an act of violence by mercilessly wielding coercive power over the one standing at the business end of the barrel.

    So I'm a little bemused by why you felt the need to make that distinction. Are you worried about some slippery slope towards claims of victimhood? Judging from the state of the debate in Texas, I would suggest that there are other things to worry about.

    Or could it be that you're making the distinction for apologetic purposes, to gain a hearing among people who, if you suggested that even threatening to shoot someone is murderous in intent and in effect on the spirit of the person being threatened, would laugh you out of the room?

    Anyway, it's good that you took the time and the trouble to express your views and re-frame the morality of the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thank you for your testimony. The pro-gun movement is populated by people who are extremely passionate about their side, very active, and, often, very condescending about those, like myself, who fight gun violence. You should see the comments I get on my blog (newtrajectory.blogspot.com). We need to work hard to overcome them, and it gives me great joy to hear of some, like yourself, who are willing to stand up for what is right and make sure our legislators hear our side.

    ReplyDelete
  20. LD - It's not an absolute distinction. The main reason I said that is because a couple of people who had been threatened by guns testified for the bill, while those who had actually been shot all spoke against it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanks -- the context helps. Sounds like you were drawing the distinction for something along the lines of "apologetic purposes" (or maybe heuristic purposes).

    ReplyDelete
  22. This is a wonderful blog post and thank you for what you wrote and what you did. I do love Robin's interpretation of what Jesus meant when he was talking to his disciples. The gun nuts who comment on my blog are quite sure that God him/herself gave them their rights. That makes them so much more moral than the rest of us. They interpret Bible verses and the Constitution as well as the writings of the Founding Fathers the way they choose to interpret them. We are watching as the gun lobby is going too far and even the extreme right is getting a little nervous at what the most extreme among them are saying and doing. They support them at their own peril. If the majority who believe in common sense figure out what these guys are up to, they will get more involved and activated. That is beginning to happen. We all need to work to make sure that it does. From one blogger for common sense concerning guns to another, keep up the good work and thank you. www.commongunsense.com

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dr. Wallace
    I feel the need to address the distinction as well. Though I was not shot, the trigger of the gun was pulled while it was pointed straight at my chest. I was lucky that either the gun was not loaded or that it jammed (I will never know) but I assure you that I still have scars and I still suffer. Having a physical scar does not mean that non physical (psychological) scars do not matter. The psychological repercussions that I have experienced as a result are painful. I am not saying that they are more or less than the suffering an actual physical shot, but they are there nonetheless. Each person is different, and therefore, each person reacts differently.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks for sharing that, Gavran. Let me assure you that I completely understand. In my teenage years I was bullied constantly, often in very physical ways. I also know that the psychological scars can be just as deep if not deeper. I in now way mean to make light of anybody's experience. Having a gun pulled on you has to be terrifying. I do appreciate the witness that there are different ways to react.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Not to be contrarian, but perhaps those who assert that the right to carry (and potentially use) firearms is "God-given" are referring to a non-Christian God. The God of the "Old Testament" is certainly a vengeful God. While the "Old Testament" fails to explicitly endorse the use of firearms, it does allow for God-endorsed violence against other products of divine creation.

    Perhaps we should re-assess Robin's charge of blasphemy. The God(s) of Dirty Harry, Sarah Palin, Chuck Norris, George W. Bush and Meir Kahane apparently answer to a different God.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You would bring that up, Joel. Since I'm half Jewish, I'm not about to write off the Old Testament. In fact, my understanding of the New Testament is at least as much shaped by my understand of the Old Testament as vice versa. The OT is an extraordinary collection of different views of God and philosophical attitudes. Even the nihilism of Ecclesiastes and the sensuality of the Song of Solomon are central.

    That said, I believe the most fully realized understanding of God in the OT is presented by prophets like Isaiah, who foresaw the fulfillment of God's kingdom on earth as peaceable and non-violent. Even the Genesis creation story, which is often cited by fundamentalists who lack the slightest understanding of what it means, witnesses to a very different God from the "vengeful" one you mention. It is important to understand that during the Babylonian captivity, when Genesis was actually written, the Israelites confronted the religion of Babylon directly and defined themselves in distinction to it.

    Babylon's creation myth was a sanctification of violence. The god Marduk murdered his own mother and stretched her carcass out to form the universe. Violence was thus vindicated as an essential component of the world order. Israel deliberately chose to worship a completely different God: one who created without violence and saw his creation as good.

    I would suggest that Dirty Harry, Sarah Palin, Chuck Norris et al. are still worshiping Marduk, not the God of the Old Testament.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Israel deliberately chose to worship a completely different God: one who created without violence and saw his creation as good."

    The Israelites fought battles and killed others with God's sanction. They were not a "turn the other cheek" people. I would suggest that the Dirty Harry/Sarah Palin/Chuck Norris worldview, insofar as it endorses violence to achieve its ends, is well-aligned with the OT tradition of justice.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Robin Wallace said...

    Well, see, here's the thing: There is no single OT tradition of justice. Scholars recognize that the Genesis creation stories were among the last parts to be written - long after Joshua and the other books in which the God-sanctioned wars are fought. Even after the return to Jerusalem, though, Ezra represents a completely different conception of national identity than the later prophets.

    One can understand this either as showing that God changed and developed over the centuries between Joshua and Isaiah, or as showing that the OT writers gradually and circuitously approached and developed a more accurate, meaningful understanding of God.

    You don't have to wait until the New Testament, though, to find a God who is non-violent. The moral essence of Christ's teachings is already present in the later prophets.

    ReplyDelete
  29. My point is a belief that the right to use lethal force for self-defense and the defense of others is "God given" is not necessarily blasphemous if one's God is the Yahweh of the OT.

    While we apparently agree completely about the role of firearms in civil society, I'd be a little more circumspect in the use of the "b" word.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Fair enough, I guess. You would have had to be there to understand why it appeared so appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Correction - *was* so appropriate. I stick by my words.

    ReplyDelete
  32. It was blasphemy if the speakers were Christian. I trust you knew this to be the case, or were playing the odds.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Given the context, it was a safe bet.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I can't make this into a hyperlink, but paste it in your browser's URL line and read the article that comes up. It seems the pro-gun people may have been cooking the books.

    http://motherjones.com/politics/2003/10/double-barreled-double-standards

    ReplyDelete
  35. Robin,

    Good job standing your ground under pressure and putting yourself through an ordeal for the common good.

    Best wishes and thanks,
    Greg Karl

    ReplyDelete