Obama from the Oval Office: August 31, 2010

Obama just finished his address from the Oval Office moments ago. There are a few things that stood out to me as I sat and listened to his speech.

First, Obama wanted to make very clear his follow-through of things he promised in the past. The whole address was framed in the context of; "I said I would do it, and here it is." From referring to Bush declaring war from the same desk, to the story of Americans coming home, Obama wanted to spell out in no faint terms that he has made good on his promise of the 2008 election.

Second, Obama tactfully and preemptively dealt with Conservative or Republican backlash with his emphasis on the soldiers' narratives and accomplishments. Most proponents of the conservative political perspective follow a "Bring the troops home" with the accusation of "you don't support them." Obama wanted to make clear that he simultaneously supports the troops and their efforts while also ending their hardship in Iraq. He wanted to hold two seemingly opposed perspectives in his hand at the same time. The "Support our Troops" messaging with the "Bring the Troops Home" messaging were effectively melded in his words. In this way, Obama steals the wind from the sails of opponents as they might have criticized his lack of appreciation for the uniformed duties. Now, they cannot.

Third, the phrase of the speech that most stood out to me; "War is the darkest creation of humanity." Really? Can Obama really get away with saying this after claiming that we need to be on the offensive in Afghanistan. My response to President Obama would be this: If war is the darkest creation of humanity, then why do we spend so much money on it? Why do we support it so?

All in all, the President did a good job of gracefully ending the violent military presence in Iraq. Now, repeat soon with Afghanistan.

Gun Control, Rights vs. Safety

It seems that in the history of our country, some debates have never gotten old. To be honest, some debates will probably never get old, but they do cycle in and out of style. One of the debates that is back in style right now is the 2nd Amendment; “the right to bear arms.”

One thing about this debate that makes it so tenacious is the strong arguments on both sides.

The “right to own a gun side” has the Bill of Rights at its back, word for word supporting the very thing they want to maintain. Any opponent would have a difficult time with this because, let’s face it, you would have to amend the amendments, and that is not so easy. Also, many proponents of this perspective believe the world would be safer if everyone had a gun. The logic is: if everyone had a gun, no one would risk shooting anyone else.

The “gun control” side has the social, personal and emotional backing of all the violent crimes that happen in America. These people say, “look, guns would be okay, but the track record is we suck at using them responsibly, so we have to take them away.” This side argues: if no one had a gun, no one would be able to shoot anyone else.

Obviously, each side would have responses to the arguments I just gave as their examples, but in my opinion, these are the foundational assumptions of each perspective.

The interesting thing about these arguments is that under close inspection we see that each side actually wants the same end; namely, to keep people safe, they just have different ideas about how it should be achieved. Despite the differences, there is room for opponents to come together on this issue.

The inherent goal of each side is SAFETY. They both believe their plan of action, followed unwaveringly to the end, would lead to safety for all citizens.

What I say to the “right to own a gun side” is this.

If you want to keep your right to own and shoot your gun, then you must become the most ferocious advocate of responsible gun ownership. You must encourage people who own guns to use them responsibly and educate them in how to do it. You must encourage legislation that requires safety courses and training in how to use a gun. You must be the most dedicated voice to create a new perspective of guns, that they are not weapons, but rather tools and must never be used against another human being. If you spend your energy doing this, rather than clinging tightly to your right to own a gun, then you will eliminate the debate and gun control legislation will be a thing of the past. If everyone were using guns responsibly, no one would be bothering to control them.

What I say to the gun control side is this.

You must also seek to teach people to responsibly utilize their freedoms before you take those freedoms away. Until you have restlessly walked our country teaching people about the usefulness and power of firearms and also encouraged them to be responsible about their gun ownership, then you cannot wrench them from the hands of their owners. If you spend your energy doing this, rather than working to pass legislation to take guns away, you will eliminate the debate and gun control legislation will be a thing of the past. When everyone is using guns responsibly, then no one will need to fight to control them.

I realize that people will argue that we are past this point and that this cause would be a lost one. But no cause is lost when people come together to achieve it. And before I would seek to discipline or hinder, I would seek to empower and educate. No person is past the point of being taught how to use a gun responsibly.

If both sides of the debate pool their resources to make this happen, I firmly believe that we would see a world where guns are owned and responsibly used.

No one would have to give up their rights; no one would have to give up their safety.

Oppression: Some Thoughts

A few days ago, I read on the BBC that a white South African man was lynched for killing a black man. The scene in the news video was madness; a large mob of black South Africans celebrating, and an equally angry mob of white South Africans crying for revenge. Before the death of the white man, the roles had been reversed: the whites were celebrating and the blacks were crying for revenge. Apparently, the black man who was killed was a prominent leader in South African equality rights. I don’t know the details, but it was clear that the white man who killed him had racial motivations. The black man who was killed was not your Nelson Mandela nonviolence-type of leader. He was more like Malcom X; “any means necessary.” Evidently, his past had been marred by racial violence towards white South Africans.

This story got me to thinking: Where does oppression end and reconciliation begin? From my consideration, it seems that moving from oppression to equality takes a HUGE amount of trust and forgiveness. That may seem obvious, but I believe that it starts with the oppressed.

At first glance, it may seem that oppression ends with the oppressor. The tyrannical power that is holding their boot to the neck of another people group must simply let up and change their ways! However, this is not so. Before the boot of tyranny will be lifted, the oppressor needs to be convinced that the oppressed is ready to forgive and will not seek revenge. This is a difficult task by any evaluation. The hurdles you face are few, but gigantic. First, it is not a simple task to get oppressed people to agree to forgiveness. Who wants to forgive when they have had a boot on their neck for so many years? Second, it is no simple task to get oppressors to believe that they will be forgiven. What boot-pressing superiority is going to believe in forgiveness towards them?

The larger problem on top of all this is what oppressor is going to give up the position of superiority without the threat of some kind of punishment? The truth is, not many. However, IF the oppressors ever do decide to lift the oppression and work for equality, the only way they WILL follow through is if they know there is no threat of revenge from the oppressed. When they feel safe in loosening their grip, then they will be in a good position to do so.

In the South African example, Nelson Mandela was able to convince many black people to forgive and many white people to feel safe in that forgiveness. And it lasted for a while. However, now on the BBC you see an interview with a black South African woman saying, “he (the white man who killed the black man who was then killed by a mob) deserved what he got.” Well, of course he deserved it. And now the white people are yelling that the mob deserves to be killed for their actions. And next the black people will be yelling that the white people deserve…. Anyway, it goes on and on.

The key to redemption is not giving what is deserved. The key to redemption is giving what isn’t deserved. The Christ story is all about this. Mercy on those who deserve it least. Forgiveness for those who shouldn’t be given it. Grace for those who are not gracious themselves. It sounds crazy and radical, because it is. If we want to see violence and oppression end, we must embrace forgiveness and toss aside our retaliation. If you feel wronged by someone and cry out for justice, it will come from you giving to others what they don’t deserve; forgiveness, mercy, and grace. It certainly is not easy, but we must do this if we want to see a world of redemption instead of a world of oppression.