Author Archives: tom

Boston Strong and Proud

Posted on by
Reply

A few weeks ago I went to see one of my hospice patients. It was an ordinary visit, and the fact that she had the TV on wasn’t much of an issue: she often mutes the TV when I see her. That day the mute TV caught our attention. I hadn’t paid much attention to the fact that the Boston Marathon and Patriot’s Day was April 15th.

Now I’ll never forget it. On that day, in that place, two men decided to strike a blow. Tamerian and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev planted two bombs that exploded about 3:00 PM at Copley Place, the finish line of the marathon. The bombs were intended to kill as many people as possible and were scheduled when the largest number of runners were crossing the finish line. On one level it worked: the bombs killed Martin Richard, Krystle Campbell, and Lingzi Lu. A few days later Sean Collier died in the line of duty during their capture.

No doubt the brothers thought this would bring Boston to its knees. Clearly they didn’t fully understand Boston. It’s a tough city: it was here that the Sons of Liberty started. They survived the Boston Massacre and the closing of Boston Harbor after the Tea Party.

I lived in Watertown in the early 1980s and I can tell you that no attack can do what they intended to do. The people of Boston are more resilient than anyone can imagine; they are stronger than anyone can imagine; they are more stubborn than anyone can imagine.

Of the two suspects, one is dead and the other is in custody. We are going to understand what happened and why, and we are going to judge the remaining suspect. We are going to move forward.

Boston will go on. Terrorism will not.

Thoughts at the End of the Conclave

Posted on by
Reply

It is, perhaps, funny that I’m writing my thoughts on the end of the conclave a week after the conclave actually ended. I’ll be more timely after I retire.

Last week at this time many of us were glued to our electronic devices. I was at a meeting at work and I got word shortly before noon that we had white smoke. It was a long hour or so before I heard the name Jorge Marion Bergoglio of Buenos Aires (who I had never heard of). My first reaction was hopeful that a non-European was chosen.

I continue that hope. When the Cardinals entered the conclave I was more than a little concerned because all 115 of them had been chosen by either Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI and I feared that they would choose yet another leader who was well liked by that group but not well suited for the job. I was also concerned that they would choose someone who would continue to reinforce fortress walls at the expense of the people of God.

The election of Pope Francis has calmed many of my fears. By all accounts this week he is determined to bring a renewed sense of simplicity and preferential option for the poor. I was impressed that he took the bus with the rest of the Cardinals back to his hotel to pay his hotel bill. I wonder if the airline will refund his plane ticket back to Buenos Aires.

As someone born in Georgetown Hospital (a Jesuit hospital) and educated at Boston College I’m fairly fluent in Jesuit. I’ve had countless discussions with dozens of Jesuits on a host of subjects. I’ve always been impressed with their emphasis on education and reason; I haven’t always agreed with their conclusions but I’ve always felt that I was heard and respected and more often than not I’ve learned something from the discussion.

I’m also encouraged by his choice to be named Pope Francis. There is no way around the knowledge that he chose his name after Francis of Assisi (1182-1226) who left an easy life and chose poverty as a spiritual value. In his life before last week, Cardinal Bergoglio did the same: he eschewed a palace and chose an apartment. He declined a limo and rode the bus to work. He dressed simply. All this points to an understanding of the world through the eyes of the poor and marginalized.

I hope this continues. This is no secret for readers of this blog, but I believe the Church needs to update its teaching on birth control and celibacy. The prohibition on artificial birth control may make sense among elderly celibate men, but among the poor it enslaves families (and primarily women) to children who overwhelm available resources. It’s easy to claim that married men should respect their wives in matters of sexuality, but allowing women control over their fertility is the only realistic way to make this happen.

In terms of celibacy, I’ll eagerly confess my bias here. Sixteen years ago I found myself a Catholic priest who loved being a priest but no longer felt called to (or capable of) celibacy. I left active ministry not because I didn’t like being a priest, but because I couldn’t imagine a God centered life without Nancy. I still can’t.

My name is legion. The shortage of priests lands directly on the demand that priests be celibate males. This has little or no impact on the number of priests in the Vatican but it dramatically impacts most of the rest of the world. Simply put, the sacraments that are reserved to priests (Eucharist, Reconciliation, and Anointing) are denied to large areas of the faithful who feel the priest shortage most acutely. In other words, the Church is choosing celibacy over the sacraments.

Francis is getting some pushback from the LGBT community who is unhappy that he has opposed gay marriage. To be fair, none of 115 Cardinals would have progressed this issue. The dragon of discrimination is difficult to slay; hopefully Francis will elect the Cardinal who will succeed him and slay this homophobic dragon.

In the meantime I remain hopeful that Pope Francis will carry on the prophetic word of his namesake.

Thoughts on the Beginning of the Conclave

Posted on by
Reply

Not only has this been an interesting winter for me with San Diego Hospice, it’s also been an interesting winter for the Catholic Church.

On February 11, 2013 Pope Benedict XVI announced he would resign his position on February 28th. It’s not entirely without precedent but it hasn’t happened since 1415. In that year Gregory XII resigned to end a schism where three different men claimed to be Pope. We have to go back to 1294 and Celestine IV to find the last pope to resign for personal reasons. Celestine was, in his heart, a monk who was not suited for the job; he spent the last two years of his life living as a hermit.

There are some parallels to Benedict. He was elected in 2005 shortly after the death of John Paul II and was, frankly, not ever well suited to the job. Benedict is a scholar and theologian, not an administrator or the public face of the Church. It doesn’t take much to see how these last 8 years have taken a toll on him.

It’s also been devastating to his health. We have learned that he had a pacemaker and had gone blind in one eye. His increased weakness and decreased stamina prevented travel and made day to day administration virtually impossible. I believe he made the responsible decision to pass the torch. I’ve always been concerned about the possibility of a pope’s resignation out of fear that a good but unpopular pope would be pressured to resign. On the other hand we’ve seen in the last century that it’s possible to be very sick, and even nonresponsive, for a long period of time. In 2006 Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke and has not been able to effectively communicate since. Since there is procedure for replacing a prime minster but not a pope this would have been unprecedented had it happened to Benedict.

And so the Church moves on. On Tuesday the eligible Cardinals will enter the Sistine Chapel and choose the next pope. There are lots of people making predictions, but I was so completely wrong last time that I won’t try again. What should we look for in the next pope? That consensus is easy:

  • He needs to be an able administrator. Never before has the Roman Curia been so faithful to Jesus’ command of Matthew 6:3 that we not let our right hand know what the left is doing. The highest offices of the Church operate like silos don’t know what the other offices are doing, let alone cooperate. No organization works well if the oarsmen are not rowing in the same direction.
  • He needs clean hands on the issue of pedophilia. The scandal has enveloped the Church in the US, and to a lesser extent Canada and Europe and healing can’t happen if its leader has a history of covering up. Think it’s not that bad? One of the cardinals of the conclave, Roger Mahoney is my exhibit A. In a story in last month’s Los Angeles Times it was reported that Fr. Jose Ugarte sexually abused a boy and then prayed the prayer of absolution (given by a priest at the end of the sacrament of confession). He was sanctioned by Mahoney, not for the abuse of the victim, but for the abuse of the sacrament.
  • He needs to be someone who embraces the 21st Century. Both John Paul and Benedict came of age in the middle of the 20th Century during the Nazi occupation of central Europe and this dramatically informed their view of the Church in the world. Much as their countries (Poland and Germany) were under siege by evil forces in the 1940s, they saw the Church under attack for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately they often saw the attackers as fellow Catholics in search of a progressive understanding of the Church in the world. The Church will live its best future with a leader who embraces the creative spirit of the Holy Spirit and take seriously the Vatican II document on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes). This is perhaps the best argument for looking beyond Europe for the next pope.

The College of Cardinals needs and deserves our prayers.

San Diego Hospice: 1977 – 2013

Posted on by
2

On February 14, 1977 San Diego Hospice opened its doors to care for people with terminal illnesses. On February 13, 2013 we announced we were closing our doors forever.

I say “we” because since February 14, 2005 I have been an employee of San Diego Hospice.

So what happened? That’s a good question and I’m not sure we’ll ever completely know the answer. Perhaps it was Medicare who claims we were treating people who were not terminally ill. Or a disgruntled ex-employee who claimed to warn us of this but was fired for her efforts. Or mismanagement at the highest levels.

Or maybe it was a combination of all of these. On some level it doesn’t matter. The bottom line is that we are shutting our doors and asking our patients and employees to look elsewhere.

It’s been a hard road. For those of us on ground level (the ones with boots on the ground) we’ve done extraordinary work. We’ve come into peoples’ lives (and homes) and brought order to chaos, hope to despair, and calm to panic. We’ve taught people to die with dignity and we’ve taught caregivers to be miracle workers. We’ve shown countless people that while death is inevitable, suffering is not. Pain is not. Despair is not. I’ve cared for patients from age 3 days to 102 years and I’ve shown them – all of them – that their lives have meaning and their deaths have value.

Now we have to show that as an organization we can die with dignity. We are feeling our patients’ feelings and experiencing their experiences. The uncertainty, the bewilderment, the fear.

In 1950, while accepting his Nobel Prize, William Faulkner said this:

I believe that [we] will not merely endure: [we] will prevail.

He wrote this in the shadow of the Cold War where the United States and the Soviet Union were both building weapons of global destruction, but they speak to us on this day.

Hospice will prevail. Palliative medicine will prevail. Death with dignity will prevail.

Most importantly the smart, dedicated, committed and imaginative geniuses I work with will prevail.

When I am on hospice (hopefully decades from now) I will benefit from the work that was done at this place, in this time, with these people.

An Odd Twist in the Gay Marriage Debate

Posted on by
Reply

This March 26th the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases on the issue of gay marriage: Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor. The two cases bring different issues to the Court but both deal with the issue of gay marriage.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear these cases; lower courts in both cases ruled in favor of gay marriage and if the court had not taken the cases it would have cleared the way for gay marriage.

Opponents of gay marriage have consistently argued that marriage has been, is, and always should be between one man and one woman. A group called Protect Marriage outlines these views.

A few days ago they appeared to change tactics; I say “appeared” because I’m still scratching my head over this. You can read the article in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times, and a follow up article in today’s paper.

As far as I can tell, this is what happened: Both cases put government in the role of defendant (the state of California in Hollingsworth v. Perry and the federal government in United States v. Windsor) and in both cases the governments refused to defend the laws. Several groups have taken that role, including a group of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives. This group hired a former Solicitor General under President Bush, Paul D. Clement, to argue on their behalf.

He filed an argument that said this (my interpretation): Heterosexual unmarried couples live with the possibility of an unexpected pregnancy. Children do better when raised in a home with two parents, and societal pressure for the couple to get married (known colloquially as a “shotgun marriage”) benefits everyone. Homosexual marriage has no possibility of an unexpected pregnancy. Therefore, if we allow gays to marry, we turn marriage from “have to” to “want to.” This will remove the pressure on a heterosexual pregnant couple to get married, and they won’t. This will harm society as children raised by one parent don’t do as well as children raised by two parents.

I can only hope I’m reading it wrong.

President Obama's Second Term: Grateful We Made It

Posted on by
Reply

Once again Nancy and I were on the road to Yosemite during the inauguration. It meant we heard most of it on the radio and missed the visuals. That’s OK: the oratory was more than enough. Even the president’s strongest opponents must admit he’s a brilliant and articulate speaker.

Some of the highlights for me:

  • The fact that he was reelected. The Republican Party and several incredibly wealthy people spent obscene amounts of money to defeat him, and yet our votes could not be bought or intimidated.
  • While the crowds were not nearly as large as they were four years ago it speaks volumes that nearly a million people showed up.
  • And now for some quotes: “[W]e, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.”
  • “The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative. They strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers. They free us to take the risks that make this country great.”
  • “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal, as well.”
  • The elegant symmetry that we celebrated this on the day we celebrate Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The part of his speech that I found the most moving and surprising was his words on our gay brothers and sisters. He and I have both been prodded in our support of gay marriage by brave gay men and women who cared about us enough to challenge our prejudices. Now we both support for them what we have been blessed to take for granted for us.

Though not quoted directly in this speech, President Obama has often quoted Dr. King’s “fierce urgency of now.” Dr. King used it initially in his opposition to the war in Vietnam but it’s a quote for the ages. It counters the argument that while what you want may be valid, we’re not ready for it. If it’s right, it’s right now. It is that time for full gay equality.

The Republican response was as expected as it was tiresome. They claim that he did not reach out to those who did not vote for the president. This after their candidate claimed it was not his job to care about people who don’t support him. This after his predecessor George W. Bush famously said on his reelection: “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.”

My advice to the president is this: Take off the gloves. The Republicans took the gloves off the day you announced you were running for president and all your attempts to negotiate with them were fruitless because they never intended to negotiate with you. The debt ceiling, gun control, the promises we’ve made to our veterans and the elderly: they never had any intention of working for a solution. All they ever wanted was your defeat and they failed at that. In the last 20 years there have been 6 presidential elections and they received the majority of the votes in one of them.

The Trouble With Satire? We've Become Too Dumb to Recognize It

Posted on by
Reply

On December 28, 2012 Daniel Akst wrote an op-ed piece for the Los Angeles Times entitled: Hey Kids, Don’t Forget Your Guns. He began the article by talking about the NRA’s proposal that we make our schools safe by posting an armed law enforcement officer in every school. Daniel suggested that the best way to make schools safe is to give the students guns and train them in how to shoot.

My thanks to Mrs. Farris, my 12th grade English teacher who had us read A Modest Proposal by Jonathon Swift. Swift suggested in 1729 (in response to large numbers of his fellow Irish in poverty) that their 1 year old children be sold to the rich to be eaten. We learned in reading this about satire.

Daniel was doing the same thing. Several of us caught the meaning, but I’m amazed at how many didn’t. The responses of shock and outrage caused the Times to publish a postscript on January 5th that you can read here. In the article Sue Horton wrote: “Should we have made it more obvious that Akst was writing tongue-in-cheek if clearly intelligent readers didn’t get the joke?” At the end of the article she wrote: “We do like to run the occasional piece of satire on the Op-Ed pages, and we intend to continue to publish it. But we will also continue to look for ways — through headlines, say, or visual presentation — to better tip the readers to the joke. If we fail occasionally, as we almost certainly will, we apologize.”

We apologize? WE APOLOGIZE? C’mon man. I don’t expect that everyone who reads this article will make the connection to Jonathon Swift, but it scares me to think that we’ve gotten to the point where we can’t recognize satire. Last May I wrote an article about a column that claimed President Lincoln filed the first patent in 1845 for what would become Facebook. It was picked up by several news organizations who assumed it was true.

How does this happen? I have a few theories:

  • We are bombarded by too much information. We hear so much each day about so many things that we simply can’t keep up. No longer do we have the time to step back and ask: “Does this make any sense?” The media used to filter out the crazy stuff, but now they amplify it. Our 24 hour news organizations are so hungry for new content that they no longer filter but put everything out and tell us we decide. We’re not good at it.
  • Organizations that we think should be mature or reasonable are neither. My best evidence of this is the NRA itself. Their answer to gun violence is the need for more guns. Is is so much of a stretch to think that if 1 gun in a school is reasonable, 600 isn’t?
  • Finally, we’ve never been good at identifying satire. Indeed, in 1729 Swift’s essay was met by outrage in some circles by people who thought he was serious. On October 30, 1938 Orson Wells produced a radio show called War of the Worlds. Even with disclaimers before, during, and after the show, people thought that Earth was being invaded. Within days of the attacks of 9/11/2001 we began hearing that this was caused by the US government. Really. You can read about it here.

So where do we go from here? Me, I’m praying for the people who fall for these stories, and still vote.

Blue Christmas and the Incarnation

Posted on by
Reply

My colleague at San Diego Hospice, Lori Leopold, is a Methodist minister and has been a hospice chaplain for a little over 8 years. For the 2nd year in a row she has presided over a liturgy called “Blue Christmas” at La Jolla United Methodist Church. Their description of the liturgy is this:

The Blue Christmas Service is designed and offered especially for those who struggle during the holiday season. For anyone who has suffered a loss – the loss of health, the loss of a loved one or a pet, the loss of a job or a relationship – the holidays can be an especially difficult time of year. Just when our culture tells us we are supposed to be “merry and bright,” we can find ourselves feeling most lost and alone. It is an important time to draw close to God and allow God to draw close to us in a quiet, reflective service that acknowledges the reality of our wounds and the graciousness of God who comes to meet us there.

This year Nancy and I attended and I’m grateful we did. I expected this to be akin to “I know it’s a hard time of year but it’s going to be OK.” Lori’s preaching turned it into something much more. She spoke about how during times of despair, loneliness, and separation the Incarnation (birth of the Savior) is all the more poignant. Christ came for all of us, but most importantly for those in most need. The pastor of the church read from 1 Kings 19:1-16. Here is the text of Lori’s homily:

I love this passage from 1 Kings. It has intrigued me for as long as I’ve been familiar with it. It feels deep and rich, whispering of something profound and holy. And while this section is a small piece of a much larger story, I want to focus just on this small piece tonight. The prophet Elijah, fleeing for his life, becomes overcome by despair. He finds himself deep in the wilderness, sitting beneath a solitary broom tree and is so overwhelmed that he asks God to take his life. An angel encourages and enables him to continue on his journey and he winds up at Mt. Horeb where he is told to go out and stand on the mountain because the Lord is about to pass by.

The scripture says that as Elijah stood there, a great wind came up, so strong that it broke rocks into pieces, but that God was not in the wind. And the wind was followed by an earthquake, but again, God was not in the earthquake. And the earthquake was followed by a fire, but God was not in the fire. But after the fire, came the sound of sheer silence – and God was in the silence. And it was out of that silence that God spoke to Elijah about where he should go from there.

Can you imagine? There was Elijah, waiting, probably breathlessly, for the Lord to come, for the Lord to pass by. And all of these dramatic things began to happen – wind and earthquake and fire. But each time we hear that God was not in the dramatic event. That God was not contained in the wind, the earthquake or the fire. Now that’s certainly not to say that those dramatic events were coincidental, because it was the coming of God that set all of those things into motion. They wouldn’t have happened if God weren’t passing by. But they did not contain the holy – they were not the way that God chose to reveal Godself. God revealed Godself not in the flash of those happenings, but rather in the pure silence. In fact, the scripture goes on to show that God revealed Godself to Elijah in a way that was gentle, in a way that was understandable, in a way that was personal and in a way that was purposeful.

And I think that this scripture passage holds a lot of meaning for us as we contemplate the Christmas season, maybe especially if we, like Elijah, find ourselves in a time searching, struggling, despairing. It’s easy to identify the flash, the flurry, the whirlwind, the dramatic and out of the ordinary things that happen around Christmas. The decorations and lights and card writing and baking and singing and shopping and holiday parties. All of those cultural Christmas traditions are something akin to the wind and the earthquake and the fire. They are the things that happen around Christmas. And as it was with the wind and the earthquake and the fire, our Christmas flurry is, in some way, set in motion by God’s coming. Because, chances are, we wouldn’t be doing all of this if the Christ child hadn’t come in the first place. It is to God’s coming, to the incarnation, that we have attached 2000 years worth of tradition, layers of stuff that, in some way, shape or form, point back to the heart of Christmas.

So when we peel away the layers of activity, when we peel away all of the stuff that’s accumulated around Christmas, we return, really, to the heart of things. We come down to the stillness, the silence of one holy night. A night when God came, so like God, not in the furiousness of a wind storm, not in the dramatic shaking of an earthquake, not in the searing heat of a fire, but when God came into the world in a way that was gentle, in a way that was understandable, in a way that was personal and in a way that was purposeful.

When I think about it, I always imagine that the vast darkness of that night swallowed up the sight and the sound of that small family in that small place. Or maybe I should say that I imagine that the night seemed to swallow up the sight and sound of them. Because we know that ultimately it did not. It could not. We know that the birth of that child – so small, so subtle, birthed into the holy stillness of that night was a flicker of light that would burn bright and eternal, changing the world and changing us forever.

There have been times in my life when despair has darkened the doorstep of my spirit. Despair over personal circumstances, despair over the violence that wreaks havoc in our world. I can’t imagine that there is one among us that wasn’t shaken to the core, shattered in some way, by the shootings in Connecticut last week. There have been times in my life when I have found myself beneath the proverbial broom tree. Perhaps you have been there too. Times when I wanted and prayed for a sign – a big, bold catastrophic sign, to assure me of God’s presence. I never got one. But what I’ve come to believe is that God is not forceful or showy, especially with those who feel particularly tender or wounded. Rather God reveals Godself lovingly and sometimes surprisingly in those precious moments of stillness and silence. God provides an unexpected angel or some small sustenance, strength for the journey, even when we may have many miles of wilderness left to go.

It is a great irony to me that those who are grieving oftentimes find themselves feeling utterly disconnected from Christmas. I was talking with a friend the other day and she said, “I hate Christmas.” She’s dreading it, can’t wait until it’s over. And it’s true that against the backdrop of all of the more superficial merriment, our grief can make us feel alien, alone, out of step with everything and everyone around us. But in reality, when we go back to the heart of things, peel away all those layers of fluff around Christmas, it is that aspect of all of us, the part of us that is wounded, that is broken hearted that God most wants to reach with the miracle of Christmas. How much we might miss if we tuck those aspects of ourselves away as if they’re somehow inappropriate in light of the holiday season. I believe, with all my heart, that what God wants from us this Christmas is to make those parts of ourselves available – to God, maybe to one another – that, resting in silence, we might receive the blessing of the One who came to love us, to encourage us, to heal us, to set us free.

Thank you Lori: it was an evening well spent. I have ahead of me many hours of thinking and praying on this.

America, Stop Listening to the NRA

Posted on by
Reply

After the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School the National Rifle Association went silent for a few days. Many of us were hoping they would either remain silent or consider a dialogue about gun safety. So much for that hope. NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre responded by saying that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The NRA is now calling on Congress to put an armed guard in every school in America.

That’s right: the answer to gun violence is more guns.

Years ago one of the NRA’s tag lines was “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Clearly gun violence happens only in combination of guns and people; I used to joke that the difference between the NRA and me was that I wanted to eliminate the guns and the NRA wanted to eliminate the people. I didn’t realize how right I was until now. They argue that the world is divided into good people and bad people, that bad people will always have access to guns no matter what we do, and (we) good people have to make sure we’re not outgunned.

Their “reasoning” is silly (and dangerous) on so many levels. First and foremost, we simply can’t divide our nation between good people and bad people: it’s not that simple. The overwhelming majority of us would never dream of turning a gun on anyone and I’ll admit that even nations that have restrictive gun laws haven’t completely eliminated gun violence. But we have way too many murders in this country only because there is easy access to guns, and guns that are too powerful for any other use.

Sandy Hook is a good example. We still don’t know the shooter’s motive but we do know what happened. His mother legally owned a number of powerful weapons. He had access to them and used them to kill 26 people and himself. If assault weapons were illegal there is no indication that he would have had the interest or opportunity to obtain them illegally. Whatever rage, loneliness, or other demon lived in his soul may have found a violent outlet, but it wouldn’t have killed 20 children and 6 adults.

Second, the NRA “solution” likely would not have worked. The shooter shot his way through the front door of the school. Had there been an armed guard in school he would have had to be at the entrance the shooter used (did your elementary school have only one entrance?) and be able to accurately fire the first shot. In my previous post I spoke of Texas Congressman Louie Gohmer’s suggestion that if the principal had been armed she could have prevented this. Yes, but only if she was carrying the gun and was able to outshoot an assault rifle.

And finally, we need to stop listening to the voices who insist that more guns equal more safety. The shooter’s mother was killed by her own weapon, and any gun in a school has the potential to be used accidentally. Lock it up? Sure, but that makes my point: any gun that is secured won’t be instantly available if needed.

We don’t need more guns. We need to get rid of the these “personal weapons of mass destruction.” Yes, I made that up.

And again, we need to tell our representatives that the NRA may target their seats, but they cannot target my vote.

It's Time to Stop the Moment of Silence. It's Time To Do Something

Posted on by
Reply

You would have to live in a cave not to hear about the events on Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. It’s been an awful weekend for anyone with a conscience.

I have lots of feelings about this, but I have to confess I keep coming back to the issue of gun violence and the Second Amendment. I’m one of the people who believe that the 2nd Amendment mandates only a National Guard. Alas, the Supreme Court found in the case of District of Coumbia vs. Heller that there is an individual right to private gun ownership.

I’m willing to concede the right to own guns for hunting or protecting your home and family. I don’t have any desire to hunt and I worry that a gun for my own protection could be used against me (as it was with the shooter’s mother Nancy Lanza). But this allows for a fairly narrow slice of the guns we own. If you want to hunt you will probably use a rifle or a shotgun. Rifles normally carry 5 rounds before needing to reload. Shotguns need to be reloaded after one or two shots. If you’re hunting game this makes some sense.

If you have a gun for personal protection your needs can be met with a simple revolver. If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night it’s hard to imagine that 6 shots won’t do what needs to be done.

I’m troubled by the proliferation of assault weapons. The last few decades have shown us rifles and handguns with incredibly high firepower. Adam Lanza showed up at Sandy Hook Elementary School with three guns: a Bushmaster Assault Rifle, a Glock 9mm pistol, and a SIG Sauer 9mm pistol. According to news reports he had hundreds of bullets and could have killed every teacher and child in the school. He shot himself only when he heard the sound of sirens. There are variations but the Bushmaster clip holds 30 rounds and is easy to reload.

Is this what our founders had in mind? I don’t think so. High power guns with huge clips are not designed for hunting or protecting. They are made for mass violence and they are incredibly successful. Had the shooter needed to reload after only 5 or 6 shots someone might have been able to disarm him.

We keep having the massacres, and yet we keep having these weapons. Why? The NRA and other gun lobbies are incredibly successful in convincing a small but powerful number of us that banning these guns won’t solve anything. They are also successful in telling our lawmakers that they will defeat any candidate who opposes them. The Sunday news shows covered the massacre and had no trouble finding people like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California Senator Dianne Feinstein talking about the need for sensible gun legislation. The pro gun lobby was largely silent; the exception was Texas Representative Louie Gohmer who said that if the school principal had been armed she could have stopped the massacre.

Talk radio was not silent. Rush Limbaugh said this on his show Monday: “[P]art of the [liberal] agenda that was being advanced was, of course, gun control. And there was glee, there was excitement at the opportunity that was presented here.” Sorry, I can’t bring myself to link to Rush’s page. You can find it on the transcript on his web page.

I’m pretty outraged at being told that my reaction to this massacre was glee. This is not an opportunity to talk about sensible gun control, the massacre is reason we need to have this discussion.

For those of us who favor sensible legislation about guns, it’s time to move. It’s time to write to our representatives and tell them that we will support sensible legislation, no matter how much the NRA tries to block it. We need to tell them that we will not vote for NRA backed candidates, no matter how much money they spend.

We need our legislators to know that our vote is safe.

My prayers are with the victims.