During the American Revolutionary War, the Black Regiment was a unit composed of pastors who defended freedom with a Bible in one hand and a musket in another. Had these patriots lived in our day rather than in a time when liberty was taken a bit more seriously, they would no doubt been defrocked and possibly turned over to police. If a ceremony held at the Hispanic Baptist Church of Laurel is to serve as any kind of template, these actions could all be carried out in a single, sweeping act of casearopapism.

According to the March 24, 2005 edition of the Laurel Leader, Miguel Reymaga stood before the congregation of the Laurel Hispanic Baptist Church to profess his new found faith in Christ. But instead of engaging in a traditional Christian ritual such as baptism or communion as an outward testament, Mr. Reymaga surrendered his shotgun and rifle.

Mr. Reymaga confessed he wanted the guns out of his home because of his tendencies towards temper and booze. While he is to be commended for his dedication to his family, he is ultimately being manipulated by authority figures whose primary interest is not the welfare of this particular individual but rather their own social agenda designed to accrue power unto themselves and to further curtail what few God-given freedoms we have remaining.

The Leader article chronicles that Reymaga went to his pastor to arrange for him to turn the guns over to police. But couldn’t this be done without turning the transaction into a public spectacle with the mayor, chief of police, and the editor of the newspaper himself all there to exploit the situation for the benefit of their own anti-Constitutionalism?

Interesting, isn’t it, how liberals yammer incessantly about the Separation of Church and State but don’t mind conspiring in league with religion and using its powers of persuasion when there is common cause between the politically inept and the theologically confused? This congruence is especially dangerous to life and liberty when this alliance attempts to extend its control into areas over which neither was meant to influence.

At this ritual rendering homage to the omnipotent state, the chief of police said, “You made the right decision...We are very much concerned about gun safety in this community. I think all of you are aware of the danger of drinking...and having a gun somewhere in the house.” Is anyone else concerned about a law enforcement officer in an official capacity at a public function enunciating policy preferences in no way backed by law?

Though the opponents of human liberty constantly labor to alter the statutes, it’s still legal to own guns in America. Are the police going to pressure us into giving up other things we are within the bounds of legal propriety to use or enjoy?

The Chief tried to buttress his position by emphasizing the danger of drinking while there is a firearm in the house. So why not have a service where the convert hands over his liquor instead --- guns are just as legal as booze, after all. But such a suggestion wouldn’t go over to well in an Hispanic church since most of the congregation probably have refrigerators full of Coronas and enough glass in their recycle buckets to make Robert Schuller blush.

Obviously, Reymaga is not the smartest bean in the burrito, yet he is merely parroting a number of misconceptions rampant throughout contemporary Evangelical social theory. Reymaga said, “I don’t need these weapons because I have God in my heart...Take your weapons out of your homes.”

If we are to apply his logic and that of his ecclesiastical overseers that we don’t have to protect ourselves since God will do that for us, then why did he come here from Mexico --- initially as an illegal --- to provide for his family since God is ultimately the one we look to to provide for our needs?

Those more opposed to firearms than they are in favor of commonsense will counter --- if they are not yet totally warped by the welfare mentality --- that the Bible tells us to work to secure provisions but to turn the other cheek when faced with assault.

While that might be the advice of the limp-wristed girlie-man Jesus of pop religion, it is not that of the Jesus of the Bible there in the black and white (or red letter edition) who commanded His disciples in Luke 22:36 to acquire a sword if they did not have one. If we want a complete Christology, don’t we have to incorporate this axiom into our view of Jesus as well?

The right to bear arms also entails its opposite in that one does not have to own a firearm. But this is a personal decision the individual must make for themselves. To borrow and modify a line from the abortionists: if you don’t want a gun, don’t buy one.

For if members of the congregation find themselves in a situation where they are forced to protect themselves, will the pastor come riding to the rescue as the masked clergyman? Laurel is not the town it use to be; Islamic extremists, Hispanic gangs, and other run-of-the-mill human debris now crisscross this once respectable middle class neighborhood as they foment destruction and mayhem.

Perhaps these radical pacifists --- instead of promoting proper firearms safety --- would rather stand over a child’s coffin and tell parents they did the right thing surrendering their own better judgment on the church altar and allowing the dregs of society to get away with shedding innocent blood. Unless the pastor is willing to do so, let the parents decide.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins </body></html>