All of us are guilty of making contradictory statements. We try to avoid them (unless we are politicians), and try to correct ourselves when possible. However, increasingly, I am seeing contradictory statements that are clear enough that it should not be necessary to point out that they are contradictory statements. Worse, there is even a regular denial that there is any contradiction at all going on. And, at its lowest, there are even statements that a person is simply bringing up a contradiction because they believe in the “other side.” This is true, even if the person is otherwise a fellow traveller with the person making the contradictory claim. The cartoon above points out but one contradiction making the rounds:
“So let me get this straight, requiring an ID at the voting booth is protecting our freedoms, but requiring an ID at a gun show is violating our freedoms?”
Let me point out another one that came up just this week. Since the military draft was ended in the 1970’s, we have been comfortable with telling male graduating seniors that they must register for Selective Service. We were even completely comfortable years later with passing laws that automatically registered a youngster for the Selective Service at the time that they applied for their first driver’s license. We even force youngsters to affirm that they have registered for the Selective Service as part of a job application of an application for any state or federal benefit.
And, yet, this last week an uproar broke out about another simple suggestion. Since our male youngsters already have to register for the Selective Service, why not expand that to insure that both male and female youngsters are registered to vote upon high school graduation or at first application for a driver’s license. One would have thought that illegal or immoral mayhem would be the result of that suggestion. And yet, are we saying that it is OK to force our male youngsters to sign up with a Federal bureau that is NOT part of the USA Constitution, but it is wrong to sign up our male and female youngsters so that they may be able to vote, something which is a right enshrined in the Constitution?
In fact, what appears to be more and more true is that many in this nation are quite comfortable with the idea of putting blocks in the path of people exercising their right to vote while removing all blocks from those who wish to own guns and removing all blocks from forcing males to go fight a war simply because the government says to do so. There appears to be some contradiction here, an illogicality here, that I suspect many cannot even see.
But, you know, the same is also true among us Christians. The Our Father has us pray to God, “… forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” And, yet, how often do we assume that God will forgive us while pledging to forever remain offended, or hurt, or unable to forgive, those who have sinned against us? The person will often go on to state, almost cheerfully and with anticipation, that there will be justice some day and that the person will get their just desserts. Given that the justice some day will lead to either Heaven or Hell, it appears that the hurt person is assuming that God will send the one who hurt them to Hell. You see this most clearly in those victims of crime who are interviewed and who are certain of the coming punishment. Even if the person converts to Christian, the conversion is denied and the victim has the self-assurance that Hell awaits the perpetrator.
As a priest, I hear all too many confessions in which the person claims to be eternally hurt, and completely unable to forgive the person who hurt them. Why, then, do all these people automatically assume that God will forgive them for sins that they have committed against others, even if the other is unable to forgive them? Have they never hurt anyone deeply? Have they never sinned? In fact, all these people assume that God will treat them differently than the person who hurt them. Somehow, they just made a mistake from which they have repented. God has/will forgive them because he loves them. If the person they hurt is unable to forgive them, why that just shows their lack of Christian maturity. Somehow, they do not link their behavior with the Our Father. Can you see the illogicality there?
Can you see the contradiction here? Yes, we Christians contradict ourselves every bit as much as the two cases I cited above. I am sure that I have engaged in many contradictions. And, most certainly, in confession I get to hear other people’s contradictions. What bothers me is when Christians refuse to learn about their contradictions and continue in them.
May God give me the grace to see my contradictions and to repent of them.
Apples to Oranges
The question suffers from a category confusion error.
Not all rights are expressed in the same manner nor with the same qualifications.
For example, would you argue that requiring an ID before publishing an article in the press was permitted? If not, then why require one when one makes a purchase of constitutionally protected property?
On the other hand, “one person one vote” requires a modest bit of oversight that SCOTUS has found minimally intrusive because voting a second time, unlike publishing an article or buying a gun violates the rights of all citizens.
Buying a second gun doesn’t violate your neighbor’s right to vote…. voting a second time does. Different categories.
In short…. these things are in contradiction only if one believes that voting a second time (or non citizens voting, etc) in an election is not a crime we should be concerned with preventing by application of modest means. After all, we DO require ID for gun purchases. The meme is 180 degrees from sound.
Well, let me make a couple of comments. The first one is a bit of scratching my head, because that meme was one of two examples I used in order to point out that we Christians are ourselves contradictory and need to be aware of that. The point of the article had little to do with guns per sé, and much to do with recognizing our sins.
But, second, the meme is not alluding to current reality, but to the well documented fight by groups as diverse as the NRA and various state groups to remove any licensing requirements (already true in a couple of states) and to remove even ID requirements. At the same time there is a current and ongoing fight to increase the requirements to vote, to decrease the possibility of absentee balloting, or of pre-voting day voting, to decrease open voting site hours, etc.
So, the meme is true if you think in terms of current efforts rather than in terms of current law.
But my point was that the meme didn’t make a contradictory point. It made a point that actually argues in favor of voter ID if one pauses to consider it.
Here’s how. 1) we require ID to exercise a right that cannot interfere with another’s.. buying property. 2) voting a second time can interfere and diminish the rights of others. Because we require ID for exercising a right that does not interfere with others it is reasonable to require ID to prevent a person from interfering with and diminishing the rights of others.
I’m not seeing anything in your explanation that invalidates my point. It isn’t true for the reasons I gave.
As for current efforts… I presume you mean the NRA opposing requirements that one be licensed to own a gun and efforts to require voter ID.
I see nothing in those efforts that contradicts my points. I do see how requiring a license to own a gun violates the constitution. I do see how the court has rule that voter ID requirements do not. These are facts and arguments turn on facts.
To follow the theme of your article, sometimes we don’t let logic get in the way of a good and amusing snipe…. even if it fails to live up to your own standards in the cold light of day.
I do fail to see how it is inconsistent to think that one either ought to require ID for both gun purchases and voting or require no ID for either.
But, let me reverse your argument. It is very easy for me to make the argument that is actually made by many police chiefs. That is, registering guns does not prevent anyone from owning guns. But, it allows law enforcement to track down more perpetrators faster with more successful prosecutions. The small inconvenience in registering a gun is less than the inconvenience caused to a victim whose rights are violated by a perpetrator. No right is being violated with gun registration since nothing in the Constitution speaks to gun registration only to gun ownership, and ownership is not being restricted by such a measure. Meantime the common good is increased in that it is easier to stop perpetrators who indeed have violated citizen rights.
Notice that (to use your language), the courts have not stricken down gun registration laws in states that have them, only unconstitutional prohibitions on owning guns. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the idea of going state to state to lobby for voter id laws and the idea of going state to state to lobby for gun registration (or ID) laws.
The crime rate is significantly higher than the double-voting rate by an extremely long shot. Therefore, the harm of failing to require ID and gun registration is greater than the harm of failing to require voter ID.
As you can see, I can make the case for requiring ID for both or no ID for either. I cannot logically reconcile arguing that one is wrong and the other is right.
In passing, notice also that I am not advocating for ID for both or for no ID for either. I can go for either option. I just have problems with a mixed option.
To whoever made the meme: Go try and buy a gun or even ammo without an ID. There are age restrictions. In regards to voting, there are *identity* restrictions (vote only once, vote only in one place, must be a citizen).
That meme is failed and flawed logic; deceptive and dishonest. A lie.
See my reply above. You assume that I am referring to current laws rather than to the current efforts to change the law. The meme is accurate from that frame of reference.
Also, there’s been nearly (as in less than 100) zero cases of impersonation fraud, which is the supposed rationale for strict voter ID laws. As others have explained before, attempts to steal an election using impersonation fraud are both inefficient and highly likely to get discovered when the real voters show up. Fraudsters would have to pretend to be someone else registered, line up, cast a fraudulent ballot, and repeat such enough times to make a difference. (Immediately getting back in the voting line means getting caught.) When the real voters show up and are told “you’ve already voted,” an investigation will be launched, especially if such happens en masse.
The types of IDs considered acceptable also tip the hand of the real motives. Why are gun carry permits OK, yet college student IDs not OK? Why is a Memphis library card not OK? At some point, one suspects that it’s partisan – people who tend to vote Democratic are being singled out.
Back to the point of the article. As Christians we deplore the sins of others while defining our own sins as “respectable”. We are proud of our humility. We are a walking contradiction which is precisely why we continually need a Savior. And I include myself in the “we”.
It is amazing and humbling how often we find our beams interfering with attention to others’ motes, and not paying attention to Matthew 5:23, ome of the more difficult statements in the Sermon on the Mount.