Thoughts on the second amendment and other civil rights

Pro-life Catholic Democrats emerge as key in health reform.(ANALYSIS): An article from: National Catholic Reporter
I was recently asked the following question by a friend.   

When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1789, the arms we had a right to bear were all single-shot muzzle-loaded weapons. I have no problems with responsible people owning and using guns for sport and self-protection. But if we can keep people with epilepsy or poor vision from driving cars, we should be able to prevent mentally unstable people from buying assault weapons.

My response covers a lot of ground.

      Unfortunately there is no amendment that specifically addresses driving. Unless you think it is covered under the 9th amendment, and you could make a good case for driving as a right. There are specific reasons that the second amendment is written as it is without the caveat that as long as they res of man. Meaning that rights are not bestowed by the government but they are inalienable from the individual and it is the duty of the government to protect these rights. In fact under the natural rights of man if a government fails to protect thmain "single shot muzzle loaded." Jefferson was a great student of the enlightenment from which we get the natural rights of individuals in a systemic fashion and does not respond to petitions for redress of these breaches, it ceases to exist in other words by definition it is no longer "government."

     Our Bill of rights and the Deceleration of Independence are the first attempt to codify the natural rights of man. This is what makes the US different from other countries. This is the very thing that our brave service men and women fight to defend and die for.   So, when I was asked by my congressman Adam Schiff if I supported restrictions on the purchase of certain types of weapons and ammunition, except in cases of felons and the mentally ill, I told him no the 2nd amendment prohibits this. I told him that our Representatives would have to find another way to deal with the violence against political figures that has once again surfaced in this country. I made two suggestions
      1- indict Sara Palin she crossed the line when putting political figures in cross hairs etc. She threatened the lives of                           
          legitimate representatives of our democracy, and this is a federal offense. Had you or I built such a site you can
          bet the feds would be crawling up our you know what’s, and rightly so. Why should Sara Palin get away with a
          federal offense.

2- I suggested that more money be spent on helping the mentally ill. I even pointed out that there are many 
    wandering around homeless right here in his own district.

    So, the second amendment is written the way it is for a reason, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. So, absent a move to remove the second amendment which would take 3/4s of the states or a Constitutional Convention (which would be utter chaos) they have to come up with another way. 

     I hesitate to mention this, but with the recent scientific advances i.e, DNA evidence and the subsequent research in executions particularly in IL, it has been found that 1/3 of the people being executed were innocent. One has to wonder if this constitutes a systematic abridgment of the right to life?  But it is certainly true that capital punishment should be eliminated.

     Then we get into the area of abortion. If as science tells us now that when sperm meets egg there is a completely unique human being produced one that is more than the sum total of the parents DNA, one has to question the  denial of the civil rights of the conceiveds’ right to life through “lawful” abortion.  I am not one of those who believe that pro-choicers are murders, having been pro-choice myself I do understand the argument that one can be personally against abortion and still believe that the right to chose belongs to the woman. However scientific information and a careful reading of the roe v. wade majority decision has convinced me that civil rights should be extended to the conceived who are in fact human beings and thus covered by the Bill of rights just as the mother's rights are covered.  I believe only a well reasoned response will convince others that human life begins at conception, and that thus the conceived are covered by the bill of rights.

     America has a long history of civil rights struggles, extending civil  rights for African-Americans, and for women being two. In both cases the argument of viability was put forth.  For example black slaves were not viable without their owners Women were not considered viable without a man to take care of them.  So any concern about the viability of the conceived is easily dispensed with.  History teaches us that the US is sometimes slow in extending civil rights to some of our brothers and sisters.   I do believe that the time has come for a non-violent movement such as that started by MLK to extend civil rights to the conceived.   However, this must be a reasoned and well-coordinated response modeled after Dr. King’s civil rights movement.  I do not believe that we are going to change anybody’s mind by forcibly shoving pictures of bloody fetuses in their faces.   It is this fanatical aspect of the pro-life movement that has caused it to stall and not make any real progress.  We can change the politicians’ minds and policies with reasoned, coordinated, non-violent efforts just as Dr. King did.  Forcing people to look at depictions of bloody dismembered fetuses is violent.   We must stand together as reasonable people not fanatics, and as surrogates for the conceived, as they cannot stand up for themselves.

     As an individual Catholic our doctrine is clear.   What it means is that in any election when presented with a pro-choice and a pro-life candidate, I must vote for the pro-life candidate no matter if I disagree with that candidate on every other issue, thus I voted for John McCain in the last Presidential election. In the last gubernatorial race since both candidates were pro-choice I was free to vote for Jerry Brown. I am praying that Bishop Soto in Sacramento will call him in for discussions on this.

     Jerry Brown is Catholic or he calls himself one.  One cannot be both pro-choice and Catholic. The bishops, although slow to act, as they were taught in the Gospels, have had enough. This is the only issue upon which we as Catholics are told in no uncertain terms how to vote.  When presented with a pro-life and a pro-choice candidate we must vote for the pro-life candidate and we cannot cop-out and simply not vote. The Bishops have already told us how to vote on this issue, the next step is the excommunication of those politicians who call themselves Catholic and yet pursue pro-choice policies. And I would not be surprised if we were to see some mass excommunications of Democratic politicians who like to think they are Catholic yet pursue pro-choice policies.  One day soon I would anticipate seeing Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Brown excommunicated from the Church. Technically they are already not Catholic the formality of excommunication by their respective bishops is the next step.

     Catholic doctrine on capital punishment is also clear. The Church says it is wrong and unnecessary.  Catholic doctrine on homosexuality is also clear. Homosexuality is a disorder.  The APA is divided on this, and the current DSM IV indicates homosexuality is only disorder if the suffer believes it to be so. This is of course a cop-out and there are large numbers of psychologists who disagree with this. As Catholics we are to treat homosexuals with patient loving kindness and never with hate or judgment. However we are required to speak the truth. This of course puts us at odds with current policy of the Democratic party, which is the government sanctioning of homosexuality. If the government sanctions homosexuality then those who suffer from the disorder will be discouraged from seeking the help they need and deserve. 

     However, neither the government sanction of homosexuality nor capital punishment are salient. That is Church Doctrine does not tell us how to vote on these issues. This does not mean that doctrine is unclear. What it does mean is that abortion is salient and such an egregious moral wrong that we are required to fight it by every legal means at our disposal. In fact, as I explained above when presented with two candidates one who is pro-life and pro-capital punishment and the other pro-choice and against capital punishment we MUST vote for and support the pro-life candidate. Pro-life Catholic Democrats emerge as key in health reform.(ANALYSIS): An article from: National Catholic Reporter

     I might also like to point out that no pro-life president has used the DOJ to overturn Roe v. Wade. Thus I believe that Republicans use the issue or give it lip service in order to get our votes. This is an unfortunate situation, as I believe we Catholics fully 25% of the electorate are being used. However, I will continue to vote with regard to the abortion issue as described above.

Why I am a pro-life Democrat

A friend of mine asked me the following question:

In context, what did Jesus mean: "From the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked"?

Well, I'm a pro-life democrat and thus a big government liberal.

As a Catholic I believe that I understand scripture. Having studied it's exegeses in Catholic school and having heard it over the years with explanation by experts in it's context and meaning and having been confirmed and thus received the Holy spirit and been sealed with the holy Spirit and joined the apostolic succession.

Yes, I believe I understand the gospels. And this is one example of what Jesus was getting at here. to have been given the gifts of understanding, apologetics, and healing; and any other gifts the Lord has given me; I have the responsibility to use these, and I am expected to do so.

Metaphorically, it can be used to support the 19th Century ideal of "Nobles oblige", which means that those who have been blessed with wealth have a responsibility to help those who have not. Thus with the blessing comes the responsibility. I do not think this movement or ideal had it's roots in the scripture you are quoting, but it is certainly in the spirit of other things Jesus taught including love you neighbor as your self and the Story of the good Samaritan, not to mention the camel through he eye of the needle analogy or what benefits a man to gain the whole world yet lose his soul.. And thus this is why I say people like Bill Gates appear to to have doomed themselves. I do not believe he can give away his wealth fast enough to save his soul.

Now back to the socio-political. After the great depression the new deal and WWII, when this country experienced an egalitarianism from banding together through common calamity and war, btw war is a great equalizer; it tends out of necessity to reward talent and hard work, in the way many people think that capitalism does lol; but anyway out of that spirit of common calamity -- the great depression -- and democracy -- the war -- came a new post war era of egalitarianism. From which the ideal of "Noblesse oblige" evolved to the point where it was understood that since the wealthy had benefited to a greater degree from this country that they should pay taxes in accordance with that benefit, and the graduated income tax was implemented and accepted. This allowed the US to achieve many things including win WWII and go to the moon. Out of it was a spirit of democracy, that called for equal access to higher education, and thus was born the University of California system, the California State college system, and the California community college system (all of which having been raped and pillaged by the wealthy till their foundational origins have been destroyed).

So, the competing economic values Between the 2 parties in the US democrats and republicans are not rooted in socialism versus capitalism, as nincompoop likes rush Limbaugh etc. would have us believe, but are rooted in the wealthiest 1% wanting to benefit from this country without paying their fair share, while the rest of us who benefit to a lesser degree bear their burden ( which could be seen as biblical but does not make for good society lol). So, we see republicans like "W" with a one plank platform of lowering taxes for the wealthiest 1% and the democrats wanting to have the wealthiest 1% pay for the benefits that they have derived, and provide necessary services, for which there is no profit motive, or should not be, like defense, the space program, fighting poverty, mental health, health care in general, education ... etc.

So, yes the wealthy, having benefited more form what this country has to offer, so pay more in taxes, and yes, that money should me used to allow others equal opportunity, ie, education and health care; and thus a chance to be wealthy themselves and share in the responsibility to bring others up.

And thus we see the supply side economics of Reagan, or the old trickle down theory of Hover, and the plain old give to the wealthy of "W" because after all why should they be penalized for being rich and thus have the incentive for generating wealth which benefits us all, we see this idea turned upside down. Not in favor of socialism which the rich encourage as a form of name calling, but in favor of Democratic democracy -- the democracy or egalitarianism of the Democratic party.

This is th tension and difference between the two parties.

Catholic doctrine makes us at odds with both. The selfishness of the Republican party is out of line with catholic social teaching on the poor, capital punishment etc. They do, however, call themselves pro-life. However, they do that to get votes, ie, we did not see "W" using the full power of the justice department to overturn Roe. v. wade, although he did appoint catholics to the supreme court, and he did throw us a few bones in the form of vetoes and executive orders. HE DID NOT USE THE FULL POWER OF THE OFFICE TO FIGHT ABORTION.

the Democratic party is pro-abortion, and needs to be enlightened on this issue. They are in line with catholic social teaching in the other areas, of how government should tax and use the great wealth of this nation, ot wipe out poverty and give everyone an equal opportunity to discover, develop and use the gifts God gave them.

It is heartening to know that in this Congress there are a handful of pro-life democrats. A few years ago there were none.

In the California state legislature, "term limits" have eliminated the pro-life democrats, as David Roberti president pro-tem of the California State Senate, was their first causality.

So, the short answer to your question? Jesus was talking about the spiritual realm not the material, however, catholic social teaching, and other words of Jesus are clearly in line with "Noblesse oblige", actually go much further.

Copyright 2009 FredCelio