An article in NY Times discusses a bill on the Arkansas senate floor that would allow concealed weapons in churches. Opponents of the bill argue that allowing concealed weapons would disturb the peace and tranquility of the church while supporters say that the bill is about an individual’s right to protect themselves should a situation arise. A pastor that was shot previously after a sermon does not support the bill, as he believes there would have been even more drastic consequences if other people had been armed as well.
This bill brings up the issue of how far the state can go into legislating what goes on inside the church. Is carrying concealed weapons an issue that should be regulated by the government, or should it be left up to the individual churches? By passing this law, it appears as though the state is telling a religion exactly what it can and cannot allow, which could be perceived to cross the free exercise clause by ruling that churches have to allow concealed weapons in their congregations. Carrying concealed weapons seems to be more of a governmental issue instead of a moral issue which is why the government has created this bill. I suppose the moral issue at stake is the consequences that come from gun use and the church feels that the possibilities of concealed weapons could influence their congregations’ thoughts on the matter.
It is unclear to me why the government needs to create specific legislation for churches about concealed weapons. Carrying a concealed weapon is already a very controversial issue and bringing religion into the conversation cannot help matters. By legislating on this issue, lawmakers have created an atmosphere of conflict in both the public and religious spheres. People in churches now may feel threatened by the possibility of a concealed weapon whereas before, it seems that churches were viewed as safe havens. Perhaps in today’s world, no place can be considered truly safe and thus, it is necessary for laws to be created that seek to protect individual’s rights. However, I do not think that allowing people to carry weapons will contribute to keeping people safer. Instead of creating specific legislation about guns in church, I think applying the general law of allowing concealed weapons is sufficient for people to make a reasonable and rational choice when they attend their places of worship.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I understand the author's claim and worry in this article. It is an interesting relationship between church and state. While one certainly doesn't need to really strain in looking on the private infringement of the state in this matter, I do believe that gun control is a serious issue and should be regulated nationally. Whether a specific church agrees or disagrees with the national law is irrelevant in comparison to the issue of safety. The underlying argument in this issue is the difference between private and public institutions. Regardless of the outcome, it will be interesting to see what the court rules and why.
I am surprised that this bill receives so much support from clergy, as it apparently breaches the Church and State division, as Lauren points out. The article mentions that 42 out of 48 states allow individual churches to decide their own policies, and I feel this method is the most appropriate with regards to this matter.
This issue relates somewhat to problems raised with the faith-based initiative. Some opponents of the acts want the government to regulate the hiring practices of churches in question. In both cases, I feel the church should have the discretion, and constitutionally, the state has no permission to decide whether or not people can carry weapons into a church or who the church must hire, even if they have non-profit status.
Post a Comment