Recently I had the opportunity to listen to a roundtable discussion on originalism. I had no idea what this meant and it was hard to concentrate because this one man was chomping his ice.
I do not have the emotional capacity for this. Praise Jesus I don’t “conceal and carry” because while I’m confident I wouldn’t have shot him, I might have been tempted to hit him over the head just to shush the chomping.
It’s empty. For the love, man, just order another iced tea.
Anyway.
If I’m running for president I should surely understand this big word, so I read several articles online.
One.
I read one article.
Most of it.
It quickly occurred to me that no-one truly knows, but the idea is that it would cause judges to better separate law from their own personal beliefs.
But it sounds more like a way to “politicize” judicial races in favor of conservatives.
But I’m not a lawyer so I can’t say for sure.
Anyway. The Constitution.
I can’t help but think that in our forefathers’ wildest and most horrific nightmares, they could never have foreseen how we would interpret our right to bear arms.
Back in the day, people had duels. Best I can figure, we don’t do that anymore.
Yesterday on Facebook, a high school classmate wrote, and I quote, “you can keep your Q*eers and we’ll keep our guns and flag and churches.”
What the What?
First of all, totally watering down his argument since I’m pretty sure we can all agree that homosexuals have nothing to do with the right to bear arms. Second of all, he used hate speech (freedom of speech, also a constitutional issue. I’m so smart to remember that) that is so horrific, he wouldn’t even spell it out.
Seriously. If you are going to call someone that you disagree with a queer, man-up dude and at least spell it out.
And then re-read your sentence. You’re going to keep your flags and churches? Uhm, Ok. Also, not a gun issue.
One argument that makes sense to me is that criminals are going to find a way around the law and get their hands on guns anyway.
My Grandmother Pearl used to say that “you can’t legislate morality”.
Which I believe to be true.
So let’s use that same argument for the Pro-life movement. If we reverse Roe v. Wade (i’m starting to feel like I actually went to law school) doesn’t the same hold true?
Women who want an abortion will find a way?
But couldn’t we make it harder?
Couldn’t we make it harder to shoot up a classroom of children?
With the brilliant minds that penned (fancy-word alert) our constitution, and the brilliant minds that exist today, couldn’t we find a way?
To make it harder.
I don’t know. I’m not one of the brilliant minds of today, so I’m only asking questions. I just find it weird (and maybe a little bit lazy) how we shape the argument to fit our opinions.
What if we shaped the argument to fit our faith.
What if we re-shaped the argument into a conversation.
Into an opportunity. To be heard.
When we were growing up, my family of five had a square table. My brother and I had to share one side. I’ll never forget when we got a round table. We all fit. Such a little thing but I remember being so excited.
What if, instead of sitting on opposite sides of a square table, we joined together.
In a circle.
There’s this wonderful book about written by Mark Batterson called “The Circle Maker”. The story goes that this man drew a circle in the sand during a drought and cried out to the Lord for rain. The man refused to leave the circle until God sent rain.
What if we refused to leave the circle. Until —
Until we find a way to shape the next generation of youth by sharing the Gospel of Jesus and offering them hope instead of guns.
Criminals will get guns and frightened young women will get back-alley abortions? Really? And what if we don’t settle.
For that.
“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face..”
God, teach me how to humble myself and pray and seek your face.
I don’t have the answer. But since I’m running for President, I think I better start looking for one.
Raising Magnolias 