How can they believe that? How can they say that?

The national gun debate has become more intense, if not strident.  Some proposals for gun reform, already passed in the House of Representatives, are soon to come before the Senate.  There is an array of potential provisions in the various drafts of the Bill:  red flag laws, limit on magazine capacities, restriction on manufacture and sale of assault style weapons, raising the minimum age of purchase.  Sorting through the details can leave people feeling dizzy.  One of the most recent sticking points is the getting agreement on what constitutes a boyfriend, which refers to men with violent pasts who have relationships with women who feel threatened and want their “boyfriend’s” guns be taken away.  How many dates constitutes a boyfriend?  Does he need to be a live in partner?

Almost every day I hear from either a friend or a national figure say “enough”.  There are common sense steps that can be taken to reduce gun violence, but there are forces and voices that refuse to budge on reforming or restricting the use of guns.  Enough already.  And the other thing I hear nearly every day from friends or national figures is — How can they believe that?  How can they say that?  How can they believe that an AR-15, which was used in the massacre in Uvalde — and which literally decapitated kids, is a needed and necessary weapon?

A few years ago I participated in a  debate on the second amendment sponsored by Braver Angels, a national movement organized after the 2016 election to depolarize America. The presenting question was: The second amendment should not be challenged or changed.  The format invited people in favor of the question to speak for four minutes, after which questions could be asked — but needed to be presented to the debate chair (this minimized “how can you believe that?” questions.) After the affirmative case was made, a negative presentation, which was allotted four minutes, was offered. Questions directed to the chair were invited after the presentation.  This rhythm went on for over an hour.  Initially, when I heard someone speaking in favor the the second amendment, I wasn’t really listening:  I was fashioning my response.  Not exactly “how can you believe that”? But pretty close.  I had data, and examples — and a moral argument.

But as the back and forth debate continued (which wasn’t exactly a debate, given that the process was designed to have opposing sides express their views), I began to have a change of heart.  Because I was listening.  To what was being said, without filtering it for a rebuttal. And as I was listening, I was learning — that the people on the pro second amendment side really believed what they were saying.  They really believed that more guns make people safer.   And from that realization I was able to regard people speaking on the other side not just as avatars of an ideology, but as people who had concern, hopes and fears.  And need to be dealt with accordingly.

Twenty years ago I was invited to participate in a day long discussion on homosexuality with a group of clergy who were divided on the issue.  A few hours in, after hearing a remark made by a colleague, who was a trusted friend, and who was resistant to gay marriage and ordaining gay clergy, I couldn’t contain myself.:  “I can’t believe the arrogance of what you say and how you say it.”  And he immediately responded,  “you have been arrogant since the moment you walked in.”

It was only when we could name — and each of us claim, our respective arrogance, that the conversation could move forward.  We moved beyond arguments, which were and are important, to connect on a deeper level.

For the past dozen years I have been actively engaged in the process to reduce gun violence.  After all the recent shootings, and the proposed Bills before the Senate, I am more committed to reducing gun violence than ever before.  But I m also aware — in myself, and in others — that saying “enough”,  and “I can’t believe they believe that” is an expression of arrogance, if not shaming.  And causes people on the other side to double down by buying more guns and being even more resistant to what they perceive as assaults on the second amendment.

Naming arrogance is hard.  Letting go of it is even harder.  It is a process, if not a discipline — to be committed to reducing gun violence and at the same time to hold people who disagree with methodology with respect and understanding.

Emerging Moral Obscenity

It is a moral obscenity.  It is said by some that white Afrikaners in South Africa are the victims of genocide, but there is no data to support the claim. It is said that the cohort of Afrikaners coming to America are refugees, but there are indications that they are...

The Ordering of Love: a New Debate in the Culture Wars

Several decades ago, a national debate raged over a question that helped launch America’s ongoing culture war:  who can you love? One side was insistent that love – which would involve intimate sexual expression – should be confined to a man and a woman. A popular...

Make America Great Again: A Clamping Down on Paradigm Shift

In April of 1970 the United States decided to invade Cambodia, thus expanding the Vietnam War. I was nearing the end of my freshman year in college. Campuses around the country rose up in angry indignation. Protests were planned, strikes were proposed, marches were...

Teach Us to Care and Not to Care: T.S. Eliot

It is becoming harder and harder to achieve emotional, spiritual and in some cases physical distance from what is happening in this country.  I hear more and more people saying that they are reluctant to buy, sell or make changes to their home because the economy is...

Ep 22 – “The Greatest Unifier” with Rick Joyner

In this episode, I welcome Rick Joyner, a prominent Evangelical leader, author, public speaker, and founder of Morningstar Ministries. We explore how to respectfully build mutual understanding and work together across differences. Rick shares about his life-changing conversion, his strong support for President Trump, his belief in God as the greatest unifier, and the challenges and hopes that he sees for the country. We also discuss finding unity in diversity and the ongoing pursuit of liberty and justice for all.

Fossil Fuels, Easter, and Pope Francis

For more than two hundred years we have been pulling former life out of the ground to heat our buildings, power our cars, run our machines, illuminate our lights. Fossil fuels, so named because they are the remnants of plants, animals and living microbes which, over...

Palm Sunday: Two Very Different Demonstrations of Power

They came into the city through separate gates, almost at the same time. The first was a procession that demonstrated power: Pontius Pilate’s power, backed by all the forces of the Roman Empire. The second procession was smaller, feeble by comparison, and it...

Personal and Systemic Racism: A Critical Difference

“Personal racism has gone down”, a wise colleague told me recently, “but institutional racism has gone up.” This is both good and bad news.The good news is that over the decades of my lifetime more and more people have become increasingly sensitive to the issues of...

Privilege Can Drown Out Pain

“The secret to white privilege is that if you don’t want to hear something, you don’t have to,”  my mentor Ed Rodman said in a video retrospective:  “A Prophet Among Us”...

Dealing with Psychic Lactic Acid

I was about six strokes from the finish of a 100 yard butterfly race in an age-group competition this past weekend when my arms gave out.  The last two strokes looked like I was drowning. I could barely get my arms out of the water.  Fifty-five years ago I was a...
Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join my mailing list to receive the latest blog updates.

You have Successfully Subscribed!