Challenging America's Gun Culture

Public safety requires that we set limits on guns

The enormous power of the gun lobby in the United States, and the pervasiveness of its gun culture, makes it almost impossible to put a dent in the number of guns out there. Even if bans were enacted, hundreds of millions of guns would remain in the country. It would not be enough merely to prohibit new sales. We would have to take and destroy the guns already out there, an implausible move for the reasons already stated. Because a ban would leave so many weapons still in existence, it would take a long time before such a law would significantly reduce gun violence. A ban would still be worthwhile, though, even if we had to wait years to see a major decline in gun deaths. Because so many Americans prioritize individual liberty over public safety (about which more later), even modest gun control measures remain difficult to implement.

Yet there is a more serious problem: the focus of gun-ban discussion is on assault weapons, which account for only a small fraction of gun deaths. Most gun deaths involve handguns. If we were serious about greatly reducing gun violence, we would have to eliminate handguns. That’s not even on the table. It would be hard enough getting the assault weapons ban through. Too many people are convinced they need military-grade weapons in order to be safe and free. Handguns, by contrast, have at least a plausible claim for self-defense. The most we could conceivably do, therefore, is reduce the availability of weapons like the AR-15, perhaps forcing the next Adam Lanza to resort to a less powerful gun. We would save some lives, but we would leave most gun violence untouched.

Of course, there is more to gun control than bans. We could finally require criminal background checks for all gun purchases, closing the gun-show loophole. We could strengthen reporting requirements for mentally ill people who present a threat. We could enact waiting periods and limit the number of guns purchased at a time. But as long as our laws still make it relatively easy for almost anyone to get their hands on a weapon of mass destruction, we won’t even prevent massacres like Sandy Hook, let alone reduce the daily handgun killings in American cities.

So does that mean it’s pointless to go after assault weapons? Surely not – a ban would, over many years, make it harder for killers to get the weapons most convenient for mass murder. Shootings might not become less common, but they would cause fewer deaths. Maybe a killer brandishing a less powerful weapon would take longer to shoot through a locked school door, giving people more time to call the police and hide. Or maybe the need to stop and reload more often would slow down the killing, reducing the body count.

In any case, the anti-gun-control argument claiming that laws are useless for keeping guns away from criminals is false. In countries with restrictive gun laws, such as the U.K., criminals normally do not have guns at all, let alone high-powered ones. The laws make it hard to get them, so fewer people (including dangerous people) have them. Which explains why the U.K. has a lower murder rate despite having a higher overall violent crime rate: the weapons available to criminals are less deadly.

The moral of the story is that moderate gun control most definitely would reduce gun deaths, though not nearly as much as in countries with more comprehensive gun control. Note (from the last post) that the U.S. has a far higher murder rate – especially gun murder rate – than countries with stricter gun laws. If the gun-rights absolutists were right, the opposite would be true: we should have less homicide because we have more guns for self-defense. All those guns should be making us safer. Instead, they make us more likely to be killed.

Lest you object that this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, remember: those countries do not necessarily have less violent crime in general – it’s just that their crime kills fewer people because high-powered guns are generally unavailable. Moreover, the countries to which I compare the U.S. are much like ours in terms of political and economic systems. The biggest difference between us and them is that we have a lot more guns in circulation – and not coincidentally, a much higher murder rate.

This exposes another flawed argument for guns: the argument from self-defense. If guns were so useful for self-defense, we would have a much lower gun murder rate. Instead, a person is statistically much more likely to be killed with a gun than saved by one. But even if you don’t concede this point, you can still support moderate gun control measures. The implausibility of banning handguns means that Americans will always be able to keep a handgun in the unlikely event that they need one for self-defense. Of course, with more comprehensive gun control, most predators wouldn’t have guns to threaten people with, so people would have less need to have a gun for protection.

Even if gun-rights advocates could be persuaded of this point, though, they would still reject gun control. For Americans of a libertarian mindset, security is more an individual responsibility than a collective one. Instead of people surrendering some of their individual liberty for the greater security of all, they would prefer to retain maximum individual liberty even at the expense of public safety. Besides which, having a weapon can make a person feel more secure, even if the overall effect of permissive gun laws is to make him more likely to be killed.

The deeper philosophical basis for gun rights sees security as an individual prerogative rather than a public good. (This mindset tends to see many other things, such as access to housing, health care, and basic economic security, the same way – hence the link between gun-rights enthusiasm and conservative politics.) A perfectly valid argument, but not one that many gun-rights proponents are prepared to make. Instead they mostly persist in denying, against overwhelming evidence, that more guns means more killing. It would be more convenient for them if widespread gun ownership increased safety as well as liberty. If they cared more about intellectual honesty, though, they would simply argue that liberty trumps public safety.

Until or unless the prevalence of gun fanaticism abates in the U.S., the most we can realistically do is set limits on things like assault weapons, ammunition, number of guns purchased at a time, and the ability of criminals to evade background checks. As I argued in previous posts, our rights have limits. Every reasonable person admits this, even as they disagree on where those limits should be set. Setting limits on guns means overcoming an extreme, zealous, and well-funded gun lobby and its supporters. But it’s a goal worth the effort. 

No, really: Gun control works

9,369

Gun murders in the U.S.

14

Gun murders in the U.K.

Okay, the U.K. has a lot fewer (not less, fewer) people: 60,609,153 to America’s 298,444,215.

(Statistics from http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/People)

That’s four times the U.K.’s population.

Our gun murders are 669 times the U.K.’s.

But guns are supposed to keep us safer. Doesn’t the definition of safer include alive?

What’s wrong?

The Newtown massacre has breathed new life into the gun control debate. Proposed legislation in Congress would ban certain assault weapons as well as require criminal background checks for gun show purchases. Discussion of even the most modest gun control laws, however, infuriates many of America’s gun enthusiasts, who see the freedom to bear arms as an absolute right. They insist that laws can do nothing to prevent gun violence anyway, that taking weapons out of legal circulation serves only to disarm law-abiding people when they need a gun to defend themselves.

Gun control opponents cite evidence purporting to show that gun control leads to more crime victimization, while permissive gun laws prevent crime. While some of the common arguments against gun control are easily exposed for absurdity (see previous post), arguments citing crime statistics require more serious attention. If we really were endangering innocent people by placing restrictions on gun ownership, gun control proponents would have to reconsider their position. I certainly would.

A recently posted Internet video presents the crime-statistic aspect of the case against gun control. I frame my response as a follow-up to my last post. In it, I argued that the easy availability of guns contributes to America having a higher murder rate than countries that are otherwise much like ours. I maintain that position but have to amend the reasoning to account for the good points made in this video.

The speaker observes how strange it is that national leaders largely ignore the 50 percent reduction in violent crime in the U.S. over the past 20 years. Indeed, the statistics suggest we’re considerably safer (at least from violent crime) than we were 20 years ago. He validly questions the notion that Americans are extraordinarily violent, noting that the U.K. actually has a higher rate of violent crime than the U.S. (I assume for the sake of argument that his data is accurate and correctly interpreted.) He suggests that this demonstrates the fallacy of the argument for gun control laws like those in the U.K.

Yet then he makes a critical mistake. He acknowledges that despite its higher crime rate, the U.K. has a lower murder rate. That is not a problem – but he fails to account for the discrepancy. (He rather glibly elides the issue at 4:11.) As I will explain, that’s the flaw in his argument – indeed, a fatal flaw. It is hard to believe he just forgot to explain the discrepancy. More likely he understands the reason for it, but knows that mentioning it would undermine his argument.

But since he rightly cares so much about exposing deceptive interpretations, I will do my part to support his cause here.

How can a country have a higher violent crime rate than another country, but also have a lower murder rate? Because violence doesn’t have to mean death. Why does it just so happen that violence in countries with strict gun control laws produces fewer deaths? Because assailants in such countries usually have less-deadly weapons at their disposal. More people get assaulted, but fewer get killed – because, contrary to the anti-gun-control dogma, gun control does indeed make the deadliest weapons harder for people, including the bad guys, to get.

If it weren’t so, we’d see as many or more gun crimes in the U.K. (and other gun-control countries) as we see here. After all, they're just as (or more) prone to violence, right? Indeed, we’d see more gun deaths – according to gun-rights proponents, banning weapons means leaving innocent people in greater danger from armed criminals, meaning that gun-control countries should have higher rates of gun deaths. They don't. Instead, we find that attackers in countries with stricter gun laws often have to resort to weapons such as clubs and knives. You simply can’t kill as many people (at least, not as quickly) with such weapons as you can with a bullet-spraying firearm of the type favored by most of America’s mass killers.

So the fact that strict-gun-control countries may have higher crime rates does not mean gun control is a bad idea. Yet by no means does gun control alone resolve the problem of crime. It merely renders crime less deadly. As I argued in my last post, violent crime doesn’t happen just because of guns, and no serious person says otherwise. The problem is rather that the easy availability of weapons that make killing easier and faster means that when violent crime occurs, it is more likely to be deadly. I noted that the recent knife attack in a Chinese school wounded many but killed none. (Other knife attacks have indeed killed people, but probably not nearly as many as would have been killed had something like an AR-15 been available.)

This message is as important for gun-control supporters as it is for the opponents. When you hear a gun-rights advocate claim that crime increased after gun control, think: He could be right. But not murder. Even if we could convince them, though, the argument would not be over. Who says murder is the most important consideration? Perhaps the weight of all those other violent crimes – occurring because people can’t defend themselves by gunfire – adds up to more suffering than the gun murders our permissive laws encourage?

I suspect that gun-rights advocates understand, at some level, the dangers posed by the saturation of society with guns. I even suspect they know very well that more guns doesn’t mean fewer deaths – perhaps even that it means quite the opposite (as the evidence – fully examined and understood – suggests). I further suspect that they don’t care: that their ideology, not their understanding of murder statistics, drives their defense of gun ownership as an absolute right; that no argument from public safety, even a sound one, can override what they see as the fundamental good of liberty by firearm. This is a perfectly coherent argument. If you believe individual liberty takes priority over all other values, you can validly support a robust conception of the Second Amendment.

But just a second: don’t people who believe in gun control also believe in liberty? Do they not support free speech, freedom of religion, the right to vote? What’s their problem with guns? Their problem with the gun issue (as I explained briefly in the last post) is the same as the problem with any absolute notion of freedom: that it interferes with other people’s rights. That I enjoy freedom of speech does not entitle me to say anything I want, anywhere, anytime. That I enjoy freedom of enterprise does not entitle me to pollute the air that others must breathe. And that I enjoy the right of self-defense embodied in the Second Amendment does not entitle me to own any weapon and carry it anywhere. Our rights carry limits.

Setting those limits is necessarily a difficult task guaranteed to convince people on both sides that their core interests are undermined. But those limits must be set. And, unless we align ourselves with the militia movement, they must be set by and through government – yes, government. That word we hear uttered with the same dread evoked by words like leprosy or Black Death.

That is to say, we must necessarily negotiate our freedoms if we are to have democratic government at all; we cannot have absolute freedom. Those who deny this necessity – the ACLU, the NRA – are demanding something even they would not (I have to believe!) be prepared to follow through with: the abolition of government entirely.

Gun control does not deny the value of liberty. It doesn’t even deny that gun control limits liberty. It merely balances liberty with other values, such as safety from death by gunfire. Gun control does not demean the choice between liberty and death; it merely insists we need not choose death by liberty. 

Finally, a point just to get it off my chest:

That a celebrity acts in a movie in which gun violence takes place does not negate that actor's moral right to be outraged at killings that actually happen. Just like the fact that Al Gore's houses and modes of transportation are carbon bombs does not negate the validity of pollution control. I could cite more examples of this infuriatingly flawed reasoning by otherwise intelligent people, but I think my point is made. Stop, people. Just stop.

No matter what anyone says, gun control works

Another gun massacre: Now, can we finally make mass killing a little harder?

The Newtown massacre has revived the gun control issue. Whether or not the discussion leads to policy change remains in doubt. For many years, it has been almost taboo for any political leader to discuss the subject. President Obama ignored it completely in both his presidential campaigns. Congress allowed the assault weapons ban to expire. Democrats – among whom most gun control sympathizers can be found – would not risk touching the issue. No matter how many gun massacres occurred, nothing was done to make the deadliest weapons harder to get. The next deranged mass killer can, therefore, easily walk in to a gun store and come away with as many weapons of mass destruction as he wishes. That is how successful the NRA has been in scaring people into thinking any gun regulation threatens their liberty. But a gun massacre on elementary school children might just scare us back into rationality.

            

Of course, people’s fundamental freedoms were never at issue in the gun control debate. No one would, because of any American gun control law, be unable to use a gun to hunt or defend their home. The issue was whether or not certain types of weapons could be restricted because of the extraordinary danger they posed. The Brady Bill banned certain assault weapons, whose great power and speed make mass killing easier. Other laws limited the number of guns a person could buy within a certain amount of time. Other laws required safety locks on guns. A proposed law would have required background checks for guns purchased at gun shows, but the NRA made even that modest measure impossible – while attacking (mostly successfully) the other laws.

            

The NRA’s campaign against moderate gun regulations was so successful that most politicians stopped talking about the issue in the 2000s. When guns were discussed at all, the discussion concerned laws allowing people to carry guns anywhere they went. The assault weapons ban expired. The Supreme Court nullified Washington D.C.’s gun ban. Any disturbed person could (provided he had not yet committed a felony) easily get almost any weapon he wanted. The political culture, controlled by extremism, made his evil designs easy to carry out.

            

“Easy” is the key word here. There is no denying that a committed person could always find a way to kill, gun or no gun. The issue is how easily he can carry out his plans. Making it harder to get weapons doesn’t necessarily prevent a shooting. But it means less killing in the aggregate. Gun rights advocates often miss or ignore this point. They insist that banning weapons simply won’t prevent crime. People could still get weapons illegally, they say. If people couldn’t get assault weapons, they would still use handguns. Or hunting rifles. Or knives. The (implied) point is, you can’t absolutely guarantee that weapons won’t fall into the wrong hands, so don’t bother trying.

            

This is nonsense. Just because you can’t prevent all gun deaths doesn’t mean you can’t prevent some. Indeed, that is what most countries do. They restrict guns and, sure enough, have much lower rates of gun deaths than we do. If we can’t ensure the next mass killer won’t carry out his plans, we could at least make it harder for him to get weapons that enable him to kill so many people so quickly. We could at least force him to resort to a less powerful gun or a knife, which would probably result in fewer deaths than if he uses a weapon that fires six bullets per second. Granted, no law could ever make us perfectly safe. But we could at least try to make it harder to kill so many people so quickly.

            

What would we lose in doing so? What fundamental freedom would we lose in saying no to weapons that spray bullets? What possible need does a person have for such a weapon? Does he need it to hunt deer? (Didn’t people manage to hunt before these weapons existed?) If he faces an intruder in his home, does he need to riddle the man’s body with dozens of bullets? The only purpose of these high-powered assault weapons is to kill the greatest number of people in the shortest amount of time. Why should we believe the Constitution prohibits us from stopping this?

            

Having dealt with one clearly fallacious objection to gun control, we can turn to the more serious concern about constitutionality. Doesn’t the Constitution establish a right to bear arms? True, some gun control advocates deny that it does so. But you don’t have to accept their position to accept gun regulations. You only have to accept that our rights come with limits. There are limits on our First Amendment freedoms: you don’t get to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, you don’t get to threaten the president’s life – I won’t bore you with the whole list. The point is, some things people may say are indeed not covered by the First Amendment. For the same reason, some weapons are not covered by the Second Amendment.

            

Sometimes an extreme example helps illustrate a point. You don’t get to buy a nuclear weapon. To my knowledge, no gun control opponent has said otherwise. But why not? Because, of course, constitutional freedom does not mean we can do anything we wish. Practically everyone understands this at some level. We exercise our rights within certain limits: limits determined by concerns such as public safety, concerns such as protecting innocent people from massacre. So yes, we can say no to some weapons and still respect the Constitution.

            

Some other fallacious anti-gun-control arguments demand rebuttal. One goes like this: “Cars kill thousands of people each year! So we should ban them too, right?” Of course not. Cars are not like assault weapons that fire six bullets per second. Cars are something we need for modern daily life. They’re a risk we have to take. Weapons that fire six bullets a second are something we don’t need, a risk we don’t have to take. We can easily live without them. We can even hunt and defend ourselves without them. So it’s erroneous to compare guns to cars in this context. We can have car safety standards, of course – although by the logic of extreme gun rights proponents, we really shouldn’t – but there are certain things we can’t do to protect public safety. Restricting the deadliest weapons is one thing we can do. 

Sometimes the heat of debate stifles the most basic elements of good argument: the propositions upon which positions are founded. We expose ourselves -- leave ourselves vulnerable -- when we admit our assumptions or suppositions, perhaps fearing ridicule or, worse, refutation. Or maybe we assume that since our beliefs are self-evident to us, our opponents must be aware of them too. Don't be so sure. In any case, it would seem easier to resort to name-calling, attacking straw men, or other ways of avoiding substantive debate. But if you're wrong, isn't it best to find out now and get it over with before you continue making an ass of yourself? Or perhaps you're making a bad argument for a good policy. Wouldn't you rather know your argument is bad? So at the risk of ridicule or refutation, I explain some of the core beliefs behind gun control. Doing so probably won’t change hardened minds on either side, but it might help people in the middle make up theirs. I'm sure these propositions can be disputed. I welcome that. So here we go:

The propositions behind gun control

1. Guns are extraordinarily dangerous. Guns, especially high-powered ones called assault weapons, make killing, especially mass killing, easier than other means of killing – easier than killing with a less powerful gun, easier than killing with a knife, easier than building a bomb.

2. Liberal (as in non-restrictive) gun laws make guns easier to obtain. True, outlawing certain weapons won’t eliminate them completely. Some people could still get them if they tried hard enough. But it’s easier to get them when they’re legal. So, yes, having less restrictive gun laws means it’s easier for a disturbed potential killer to get the deadliest kind of firearm.

3. Easy access to guns contributes to more gun deaths and more violent deaths generally. Because guns make killing easier, more guns means more killing. This shouldn’t even be a controversial proposition. But it is. So here’s the reason. Widespread availability of guns means more guns in circulation. Since guns are extraordinarily dangerous means of killing, having more of them in circulation creates more danger, more risk of killing. More risk of killing means more deaths overall.

            This does not mean a person couldn’t save his life (or others’ lives) by shooting a shooter. It can happen. It surely has happened. But that’s not enough to override the effect of more guns making killing easier and therefore more frequent. That is, having a weapon to defend yourself is no match for not having to defend yourself in the first place – because an assailant is not as well-equipped to threaten you. Having armed staff in schools – and potentially a shootout, causing collateral damage to children and adults in the building – is no match for preventing a deranged killer from having such a powerful weapon in the first place, so that there is no need for a shootout.

            Why would it be valuable to keep a shooter from having an assault weapon? He can’t kill as many people – at least, not so fast – with a less-powerful weapon such as an ordinary handgun or rifle. Nor can he do so with a knife. (It’s no coincidence that the recent stabbing in a Chinese school wounded 22 people but killed none.) The reason he can kill so many people so fast is that he has a more powerful weapon. A slower rate of killing means more time to take him down and stop more killing. More time for the police to arrive before 26 people – or many more – get killed. Or perhaps an armed guard will take him down. Fine. He’ll be able to do it before so many children are killed. (No one’s arguing that no one should be armed or that guns should never be used for protection. The point is, we should make it less likely to need protection.) If we can keep even some killers from getting such a powerful weapon, we can prevent some deaths. More deaths than we can prevent by arming the kindergarten teacher.

4. Therefore, laws should be passed to reduce the number of the deadliest guns in circulation. Doing so would mean fewer people would die violently.

Two cheers for Justice John Roberts

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act survives judicial review

John Roberts surprised many (including this writer) in voting not to nullify the Affordable Care Act, which expands access to health insurance, bars discrimination against the sick, and requires that everyone have insurance (the dreaded mandate). Instead, the chief justice sided with his more liberal colleagues in upholding the law based on respect for Congress’s power to tax. While he erred in thinking that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce does not justify the mandate, he at least declined to overturn a law passed through the democratic process within the legislature’s constitutional powers. By upholding an act that probably contradicts his own political preferences, Justice Roberts acted in a way that was authentically conservative rather than connivingly partisan. 

Whatever you think of Obamacare, the place to decide on it is the legislature. Taxing the population to provide broader access to health care could be good policy or not, but it is a policy decision that falls within Congress’s power to levy taxes for the general welfare. Nor do the taxes have to be uniform across the population. Congress has already enacted many laws that effectively tax people for not doing something, i.e. laws that grant tax relief to people engaging in certain activities, such as ethanol production. Some of these subsidies are arguably bad policy, but the fact that they mean higher taxes on citizens who decline to engage in the subsidized activity has not moved the court to strike then down.

For the same reason, Congress is allowed to tax (or penalize, or whatever you call it) people who decline to purchase health insurance, just as it could provide tax credits for people who chose to purchase health insurance. The mandate is really a tax, which, despite the fact that the word tax has the same connotation as nuclear holocaust in our political culture, is allowed under our Constitution. Justice Roberts improved the integrity and legitimacy of the court by eschewing the predictable partisanship that has marred many of his court’s decisions. For that he deserves two cheers.    

Nanny Bloomberg?

Government should have a role in regulating processed foods

A now-widespread debate has been amplified by Mayor Bloomberg’s attempt to curb obesity by restricting the size of sweetened beverages sold by certain vendors in New York City. The policy will probably have less impact than expected both by its proponents and its critics. There are reasons to doubt that the restriction will have significant effects on obesity rates or public health. People could easily buy two small sodas instead of one large one. The law’s critics on the hard-core libertarian side can calm down: the government is not, nor will it be, prohibiting people from eating as much sugar (or fat or salt or whatever) as they desire. That said, a larger ideological question lurks beyond the particulars of Bloomberg’s policy: does the government have a legitimate role in regulating unhealthy contents in food and drink?

It is clear that food and drink manufacturers put in a ton of ingredients that, when consumed in large quantities, cause serious health problems for many people. Sugar-laden beverages are at least as much a part of the problem as growing food-portion sizes. One 12-ounce can of Coke contains the equivalent of nine teaspoons of sugar. Many people, especially kids who don’t know better, routinely consume 20-ounce bottles of soda. There is evidence that the way the body metabolizes sweetened beverages is such that people do not eat less after consuming all those extra calories. (See Dr. Robert Lustig's lecture.) This makes sweetened beverages especially obesogenic. Soda (and fruit juice – which has just as much sugar) does not fill you up. It just adds unnecessary fat to your body, contributing to diabetes and heart disease. That the government necessarily pays for much of the resulting medical care suggests it has a legitimate interest in nudging people toward less obesogenic habits.

This debate is not about whether people should be allowed to eat and drink whatever they please. Say the government limited the salt in certain processed foods. Nothing prevents people from putting more on if they really wish to. Simply buy a container of salt and sprinkle it on until your blood pressure makes you burst. The problem is that much of the hyperconsumption of such problematic ingredients occurs unwittingly. People can read labels, but do they understand the significance of those numbers as they chow down food that has been practically engineered to promote overeating? Studies have shown that people eat more when they’re given more, without realizing it. For example, by having a machine fill up a soup bowl from underneath the table, unbeknownst to the diner who proceeds to eat however much is pumped in. Does this suggest that people are making an informed, rational decision of the kind that libertarians extol? Do people really desire to be eating this much sugar, salt, and fat? That seems doubtful. They eat what tastes good. Yet what tastes good is largely a matter of habit. Serve people soda with half the current level of sugar, and after awhile they wouldn’t know the difference. Their health would be better, though.

If people could eat much less unhealthy ingredients and still enjoy their food and drink, then why hasn’t the industry voluntarily cut the levels of these ingredients? In large part, it’s about competition. Food manufacturers use tons of salt to make their foods more appetizing. Call it hyperpalatable. If one manufacturer cuts salt while others don’t, people will find the lower-salt food less appealing. If all manufacturers cut the salt (to, say, the level that people might naturally sprinkle on food they made from scratch), eventually people probably wouldn’t know the difference. Voluntary reform will not work.

To the extreme libertarians who are so incensed by any such discussion, these arguments are irrelevant or worse. It should be up to individual choice, full stop. But individual choice didn’t create this problem, and individual choice won’t solve it. The staggering quantities of unhealthy ingredients in processed foods amounts to a social problem, both because of the corporate nature of its development and the widespread effects on public health. The government could well regulate the fat, salt, and sugar in processed foods, and people could still be free to add as much as they wish, or prepare their own food, from scratch, to their liking. There is no need for this to be an either/or question. Bloomberg’s policy will probably have little effect, but his motivating premise cannot be lightly or glibly dismissed.

Declaring War on the Sign of Peace

Correction: I should not have described the Sign of Peace as one of several "inappropriate practices in Church." I simply personally dislike the Sign of Peace and find it distracting. Only the other things I mention are truly inappropriate.

(And Other Inappropriate Practices in Church)

I feel the anxiety rising within me when I hear the priest say, “Jesus took the cup and said, ‘My peace I give you.’” I know what that means. We are approaching that part of mass at which the priest will say, “Let us offer one another a sign of Christ’s peace.” The people will turn and embrace family, friends and strangers. Some will shake hands; others will exchange hugs. There is no set order for the direction in which the hand shaking, “peace be with you” saying, and/or hugging is to take place, so you may be left standing there with your hand out, waiting for someone who has no intention of receiving it. You may wonder how many hands you are expected to shake. Do you turn around for the person behind you, or do you only do so if the person taps you? How far down do you go – as far as you can reach, or do you greet only the people closest to you?

            All reasonable questions – and all questions a person should not have to be thinking about during the solemnity of mass. The problem is not simply the annoying and unnecessary ritual of the Sign of Peace. The deeper problem is the relatively casual and borderline irreverent atmosphere created by changes made to the mass in the 1960s and then exaggerated by secular cultural changes. Such changes led people to treat the church as less sacred: another place to meet and greet while fulfilling their obligation to attend mass. We are faithful people, but we are not so faithful that we will leave our worldly concerns at the door while we go to worship at the altar of Christ.

            People will enter the nave – the part of the building where the people congregate for mass – and make a perfunctory, half-hearted bow toward the altar, and proceed to socialize with the people around them. Before mass begins, a layperson will take the microphone, say, “Good morning,” and make housekeeping-type announcements. During mass, the priest may crack wise about goings-on in the material world. The people will laugh.

            I will laugh, too, but then I will remember: this is supposed to be mass. This is supposed to be a sacred place. We should be treating this place with the reverence and solemnity it deserves. This is not about certain perfunctory gestures such as bowing, genuflecting, or making the Sign of the Cross, although such practices make a nice start. This is about an attitude of reverence. The sight of the altar should humble us. It should make us silent and prayerful. The sanctuary is not a place for the priest to talk lightly about matters such as football. Even if I particularly liked the sport, I would consider mention of it during mass inappropriate.

            I understand that housekeeping-type announcements have to be made. Must they be made in the sanctuary, though? I understand that the priest may share with the people a passion for football. Must the game be mentioned during the homily, though? I understand that people wish to socialize with friends they may seldom get to see. Must they do so in the nave, though? I understand that shaking hands and wishing people well is a nice and polite act. Must it be done during the mass, though? Mass is a time to worship and pray. Mass is a time for interaction between the people and God. There is plenty of time elsewhere for interaction between the people and one another.  

            I could say plenty of good about today’s Church. Recent changes to the mass have made the language more faithful to the Latin, the official language of the Church. Pope Benedict has allowed any parish to follow the Tridentine Latin Mass, the mass practiced in every Catholic church prior to the Second Vatican Council. Conscientious priests will remind people about the importance of relative quiet and solemnity in the church as well as rituals such as bowing and genuflection. At yesterday’s mass, my parish priest took care to correct the people nicely when they said the old (sometimes very loosely translated) responses instead of the new (more literal) ones. He devoted much attention in his newsletter to proper church behavior, including matters such as the bow that is to be taken during a certain part of the Creed recitation (something that tends to be ignored and can leave a scrupulous person somewhat embarrassed when he actually does it).

            The point bears repeating: this is not about going through the motions, although some would only do so. This is about taking a special, reverent attitude in church. We indicate such an attitude through how we speak, act, and yes, dress, when we enter this most solemn of places. Intrusions such as the Sign of Peace we could well do without, and I regret that the authorities of the Church did not make such a change along with the welcome changes in language.   

Responding to Charles Krauthammer's cheap and insulting op-ed

Read the op-ed piece here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-scapegoat-strategy/2011/10/13/gIQArNWViL_story.html

Relevant excerpt:

“Exhibit C. To the villainy-of-the-rich theme emanating from Washington, a child is born: Occupy Wall Street. Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over.

“These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now marching — to the applause of Democrats suffering acute Tea Party envy and now salivating at the energy these big-government anarchists will presumably give their cause.”

Krauthammer implies that people who protest corporations are hypocritical if they use these corporations’ products. It is possible, however, to be against corporate influence in politics and still appreciate the value of the corporations’ products. To criticize a corporation’s practices is not to consider the entity inherently evil. The problem is not that big corporations exist but that they exercise so much power with so little accountability, while ordinary people without so much money struggle to have their voices heard.

As for “indignant indolents,” Krauthammer is surely correct that the protestors are quite angry. To call them indolent is a cheap insult, though. It is not as though good employment opportunities are plentiful. It is not a sign of indolence to join a protest against those who have contributed to the prolonged economic crisis (which is a major cause of the unemployment Krauthammer seems to attribute rather to personal vice).

Nor does Krauthammer acknowledge any of the reasons people are angry at Wall Street. Some powerful corporate officers behaved very recklessly and irresponsibly and have not been duly punished for it, nor has enough regulatory tightening been implemented. Big business still enjoys great political power and privilege even after its irresponsible practices helped create a profound recession and massive unemployment. People have a reason to be indignant about that.

It is not clear what Krauthammer means by referring to $50,000 student loans and English degrees, except that he clearly does not think much of those who have those things and are protesting Wall Street. It is true that many people borrow a lot of money to obtain a degree that most well-paying jobs require. Presumably, some of these people do indeed major in English, not in itself a contemptible action. I suppose Krauthammer thinks they would be better off if they had majored in something more like business, but even that is not clear in this economy.

Krauthammer is probably correct that Democrats envy the success of the Tea Party movement. The Democrats might be thinking, “The other side is proving effective in promoting their agenda; we had better do the same.” If Krauthammer means to disparage them for this, he should explain why instead of dismissing protestors inaccurately as “big government anarchists.” People calling for government to tighten financial regulations can hardly be called anarchists. These are people who indeed believe in strong government, but a government that uses its strength to serve and protect ordinary people rather than an elite few.