Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Pleading the Third

People who have a deep-seeded and passionate feeling against homosexuality will inevitable reference the Bible as the justification for their prejudice. More specifically, they cite the book of Deuteronomy, a book of codes of conduct that makes the reader want to claw his eyes out.

To use Deuteronomy to justify homophobia requires keyhole vision, since the issue of homosexuality is just one of many issues covered in Deuteronomy. Most of the other codes have to do with dietary laws, hygiene, clothing, and so forth.

The ban on homosexuality is always spoken of in isolation, because to put it into the context it was actually written in makes its ridiculousness tangible and palpable. Here are some of the jewels that are also in Deuteronomy:

If a woman enters the home while menstruating, the house must be burnt down. If a person wears clothing made of 2 types of cloth, that person must be put to death. If a person digs a hole on the Sabbath, that person will be put to death. And on and on and on.

The Bill of Rights was passed into law 219 years ago today. And just like the Old Testament, it is subjected to a keyhole vision by fanatics and idiots. The Bill of Rights is infinitely more just, humane, and relevant than the Old Testament, of course, but both are used for similar ends by similar people.

The equivalent to the homosexuality ban in the Bible is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.

The 2nd amendment guarantees protection for a "well regulated militia". For some people, this means protection for "individuals to own handguns and assault rifles". To suggest that this code was written for a world that no longer exists is a conversation stopper in the circles of power.

If there is ONE issue that is destroying our society, it is guns. All societies have young men. All rich societies have young men with penises, alcohol, and cars. But our society alone insists on allowing guns into this equation of youth, testosterone, and recklessness that is universal among young men.

And because we insist upon our citizens having the "freedom" to buy guns, we murder 20,000 of each other each year, while less "free" countries are not free to kill each other. In this country, we slaughter each other and jealously protect our "freedom" to do so.

How out of context is this insanity? Just like Deuteronomy, context is key. With all the obsession about the 2nd amendment, we would do well to ask ourselves, "what is the 3rd amendment?"

Here it is: "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house". When was the last time this was relevant? Around the same time the 2nd amendment was, I would argue.

When was the last time a "well-regulated militia" protected the United States from foreign invasion or a tyrannical government? When was the last time the government forced citizens to let soldiers live in their houses? When was the last time you burned down a house because a woman menstruated in it?

Nobody talks about repealing the 3rd amendment. Instead, we just did what we should do with the 2nd amendment: let it drift into irrelevance and die an ignored death.

1 comment:

Mr. Dickerson said...

"When was the last time a 'well-regulated militia' protected the United States from foreign invasion or a tyrannical government?" - during the War of 1812. So, maybe in two years, when there's two centuries of daylight between "now" and "the last time the 2nd Amendment was relevant," we'll begin to see the light. Of course, you'd be betting against a gun-buying frenzy to prepare for the Mayan Doomsday....

Here's an idea. How about in order to be eligible to own a gun of any kind, you must participate in war games and drilling with your militia at least one weekend of every month AND volunteer to patrol the nearest crime hot spot (with, say, an emphasis on urban areas known for handguns & rural locales with meth labs). After all, the Constitution also promises "domestic tranquility." I'd sleep better at night knowing that rough men stand ready to do violence on my behalf, wouldn't you?