Both Ways

There has been another tragic shooting in a public place (this time in Arizona). One of the people shot was a Democratic congress woman who had been the subject of much of the Republican attack rhetoric in November. The shooter was a man with mental problems. The combination of events has produced a great deal of hostile discussion as to whether or not the attack language in politics has any responsibility for the shooting. Democratic talk show hosts have attempted to put the blame on the vicious kind of talk that Beck, "Rush," and others constantly put forth. The Republicans talk hosts have been denying responsibility and pointing to the same kind of language in the Democratic campaigns. Of course, both sides want to blame the other side.

Such events, at a minimum, ought to remind both sides that speech, words, language has consequences. Neither side can blame the other and not accept the their own share of blame. Words have power. The Dr. King speech has left a tremendous beacon of hope for a whole half a century. But if a positive speech like that can have that kind of good, then certainly it must be possible for a constant barge of negative, hostile, mean, incendiary speeches to have negative and horrible consequences. There were good reasons why Jesus says our speech should be rather simple. Our "Yes" yes and our "No" no, and there should be no swearing or expansion on the answers. James talks about the evil that can come from the tongue and how hard it is to control the tongue.

The current debate about the impact of vicious language in the shooting in Arizona is not going to have much effect for it is now clearly wrapped up in the two sides aggressively blaming the other, and neither side willing to see that the claims the make against the other applies to them as well. The arguments that are made cut "both ways." Words have consequences and the words from both sides have been less that sane, reasonable, and limited.

The other issue that comes up is the whole question of gun control as Arizona has almost no gun controls. No license, no waiting period, no background check. To suggest that such rules might have helped prevent this event immediately draws the old maxim, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." But surely society has a responsibility to its citizens to try to protect the citizens from those who are not able to be responsible for themselves. The shooter's past might well have been revealed in a background check. The obstacles in his way to getting a gun may have prevented this event.

In a much broader discussion there is a major division in our society. No one denies that personal responsibility is where blame ought to be placed. Sex education ought to be taught at home. Parents ought to discipline their children. Two parents ought to be raising a child. Those are all agreed. That is the way we think it SHOULD be done. The division in our society comes when it is finally admitted that it is not that way for all people. There are children who learn about sex on the street. There are children who have no parents to teach them. There are single parents. Then the question is does society as a whole have a responsibility for doing what has not been done?

Does society have a responsibility to protect the citizen from a person with mental problems from getting a weapon? Does society need to teach in school sex education. Who provides and gives discipline when parents fail to do the job? Are we our brothers and sisters keeper?

In Arizona, I have heard them saying that we need to get back to "Frontier Justice." Everybody with a gun on her hip and the right to use it as quickly as possible? Somehow I am not sure that is what Jesus has in mind for the kingdom of God.