It's actually a question a real person supposedly asked the columnist. I'm not sure which is weirder: thinking "Would Christ carry a concealed weapon?!" is an appropriate counter-argument (he didn't enlist in the Roman armies, either, does that mean no one should enlist in their country's armed forces?) or writing an entire article saying that Jesus would personally have approved of carrying a concealed firearm if such had been invented at the time.
I have no problem with CCW or with someone using deadly force to defend themselves or those who are in danger, mind you, and I still think it's weird.
It's pretty bad. To many people in the US, "Christ" is just a brand name that they are loyal to, like "Coke" or "Pepsi." The idea that this particular logo goes with a set of personal and ethical responsibilities that might sometimes even override the sacred Political Talking Point (holiest of American icons)... Well, some people are able to wrap their heads around this. Others, obviously, not.
Personally I think saying 'Christ is against concealed carry!' is just as stupid. Maybe you think the problem is only that Mr. Giles has got Christ wrong. I think the problem is that he's trivializing him.
If you think I wasn't objecting to the trivialization of Christ, you didn't read my words with any particular attention. If you want to quarrel, feel free to post something on my LiveJournal; I don't want to mess up fpb's.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-05 10:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-05 06:04 pm (UTC)I have no problem with CCW or with someone using deadly force to defend themselves or those who are in danger, mind you, and I still think it's weird.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-05 07:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-05 07:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-05 10:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-05 07:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-05 10:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-05 10:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-05 10:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-05 07:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-05 07:38 pm (UTC)