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.

The Dread of the Assassination Attempt

Like many of us, the attempted assassination of Donald Trump sent my mind racing.  Who was the shooter?  Why did he do it?  Was security inadequate?  Would former President Trump be OK?  What does this mean for the election?  For Republicans?  For Democrats?  For the...

Praying for Biden and Trump

For a good stretch of my early years, prayer was a confounding exercise.  My family regularly went to church – where the congregation prayed while I dealt with itching legs from my flannel pants.  We said grace before dinner, which invariably became a contest over...

A Debate of Egos; the Need for the Soul

Last week I attended a debate watch party.  It was held in the Carthage College chapel in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on the first night of the Braver Angels Convention, an annual event that brings equal numbers of red (conservative) and blue (progressive) and yellow...

The Ten Commandments: Laws or Guidelines

Last week the governor of Louisiana signed a law mandating that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public school classrooms.  In some ways I get it, in spite of the fact that like so many it challenges the constitutional separation of church and state.  The Ten...

Mistrust and Trust

It was the spring of 1970.  The United States had just announced that it was expanding the war in Vietnam by authorizing bombing campaigns in Cambodia.  Campuses across the country erupted in protest.  On May 4, four protesting students at Kent State were shot and...

Challenges to Trusting the Process

Trust the process. This was a phrase I often heard when a strategy session or a problem-solving meeting bogged down.   The group would get stuck, and in frustration someone would either suggest we scrap the whole enterprise, or would start accusing a participant of...

Ep 13 – “A Common Humanity” with Wilk Wilkinson

Wilk Wilkinson joins me to discuss his journey from political apathy to toxic political engagement, followed by the epiphany that since led him on a mission of bettering the world, one attitude at a time, by charting a course toward understanding, bridging divides, and fostering a community where wisdom prevails over discord.

Time and Space Needed for Grief and Mourning

“In war, death interrupts nothing.  Time doesn’t stop; it seems to accelerate.”  So wrote David French, in a New York Times column on May 25, 2024.  A veteran of the Iraq War, French goes on to say that in battle there is no time or space for mourning the loss of a...

Whose Land is It?

A couple of weeks ago, I came across this passage from my daily reading:     “From the wilderness and the Lebanon as far as the great river, the river Euphrates,all the land of the Hittites, to the Great Sea in the west shall be your territory.   No one will be able...

Ep 12 – “The Church Cracked Open” with The Rev. Canon Stephanie Spellers

Canon Spellers shares her journey from being a skeptic and critic of the Church to becoming a senior leader with a deep faith and a commitment to social justice. We explore the themes of mission, evangelism, the power of genuine curiosity in bridging divides, and ongoing efforts to address systemic issues like white supremacy within the church.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join my mailing list to receive the latest blog updates.

You have Successfully Subscribed!