This page was last updated on February 23, 2012.
Gun violence should be focus of church; Oren M. Spiegler; Beaver County Times; February 23, 2012.
Mr. Spiegler is such a prolific letter writer the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review gave him a little tribute back in 2003. Google “Oren M. Spiegler” and you’ll get more hits than you know what to do with. Unfortunately, prolific is not a synonym for competent. Mr. Spiegler claims to be a Republican. In my critique of “Breathing more freely,” I cited reasons why I was “beginning to believe Mr. Spiegler is simply another Republican impersonator,” but he sealed the deal with “Greatest foreign policy debacle.” Subsequent letters have been more confirmation, including this one. The group of local Republican impersonators also includes Messrs. William A. Alexander, Arthur Brown, William G. Horter, Edward J. Hum, Bill Ralston, and George Reese, all claiming to be disgruntled Republicans.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“The intensity of the furor that has been fomented by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church over the issue of whether organizations linked to the church will somehow be required to make contraception available to employees at no cost would cause one to believe the president has proposed seizing churches and disbanding the faith.”
[RWC] Before I proceed I want to note the BCT thought so much of this letter the BCT waived its 200-word limit for Mr. Spiegler’s 363-word piece.
Mr. Spiegler seems to believe the “no cost” aspect is relevant. The Catholic Church opposes contraception, period.
“I am not sure that it is the government’s place to mandate insurance coverage for contraception, however I wonder why there has not been a national outcry from bishops on a legitimate matter of life and death, the ability of virtually any individual to secure an arsenal of lethal weapons and the ensuing gun homicide epidemic that is unique to the United States.”
[RWC] To be comparable, the feds would need to force church-related organizations to make “lethal weapons” available to employees and patients.
Mr. Spiegler is “not sure that it is the government’s place to mandate insurance coverage for contraception?” That Mr. Spiegler appears to have an open mind that the Constitution may grant the federal government the power to mandate medical insurance for anything tells us just about all we need to know about his ideology.
In any case, Mr. Spiegler’s premise is false and he likely knows it. It took me no more than a minute to find the following link: “Gun control: Church firmly, quietly opposes firearms for civilians.” That said, I suspect Mr. Spiegler would find the Church doesn’t push gun control hard enough for his taste.
“The National Rifle Association owns virtually every legislative body, prominently including Congress, causing the Second Amendment to have become twisted into the vehicle to mandate no inconvenience or to impose any significant regulation on the individual who wishes to be able to outgun even law enforcement officers, something we have seen again and again when police are slaughtered by madmen armed to the teeth and when men who are unable to deal with life’s ordinary challenges believe that they should massacre everyone they can at their place of employment to get back at society.”
[RWC] Once again, Mr. Spiegler’s premise is false.
“Who are the bishops afraid of offending if they were to call for sane gun laws such as limiting the number of firearms one can acquire over a certain period of time, requiring that gun owners promptly report lost or stolen guns, ending the gun show loophole, enabling states and local jurisdictions to set their own firearms laws, requiring individuals to undergo mental competency tests before being able to take possession of firearms, requiring that they attend a class to ensure knowledge of how to safely use a gun, and banning assault weapons that are designed to mow down human beings in rapid fire.”
[RWC] When did making guns more difficult to buy legally ever work? For many years, Washington, DC, banned handguns completely yet DC still had one of the highest handgun crime rates in the country.
Folks like Mr. Spiegler would like us to believe the Second Amendment is about hunting and maybe personal defense in our homes. That is not true, however. The reason for the Second Amendment is so citizens can protect themselves from the government. Read the Constitution and most of our founding documents and you find our Founding Fathers were very distrustful of what government could become. That’s why the powers granted to the federal government are explicitly enumerated and all other powers are “reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people” (10th Amendment). Our Founding Fathers also knew the American Revolution would have been impossible had the British prohibited civilian gun ownership. Implementing rules like those advocated by Mr. Spiegler is like putting a fox in charge of a hen house.
“When the bishops take on the gun massacre issue, I will know that they are serious about protecting the human life that they would purport to hold so dear. I believe that the lives of walking, breathing thinking human beings are every bit as important as the fetus.”
[RWC] This is a variation on the position that it’s hypocritical to support capital punishment for convicted murderers while opposing the killing of unborn children.
Let’s ignore the fact Mr. Spiegler’s premise is false. I wonder if Mr. Spiegler places a similar requirement on gun-control activists. That is, would Mr. Spiegler write, “When the gun-control activists take on the killing of unborn children, I will know that they are serious about protecting the human life that they would purport to hold so dear?” I think I know the answer.
© 2004-2012 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.