This post is more of a rant/reflection on yesterday and my thoughts about the current status of our government and nation.  You are free to disagree with me, but if you want to respond, do it in a civil, respectful manner.  I won’t take you seriously otherwise.  Thanks!

————————

Yesterday’s shooting resulted in the deaths of 26 individuals (20 children) at an elementary school in Connecticut.  This another shooting to the line of recent shootings that have been rocking our nation in the past few years.  It’s a tragedy and it’s something that I think could have been prevented in one way or another.

The issue surrounding guns is a very polarizing one and this recent shooting has brought out a lot of bitter feelings coming both ends of the spectrum (those who oppose gun regulation and those who are for it).  I think gun regulation is definitely something that needs to be looked at again.

My view on gun regulation is that it is definitely a necessity.  I don’t believe in easy, widespread access for people to firearms in any shape or form.  I believe the need for screening processes and stricter requirements clearly present themselves everytime one of these shootings occurs.  What I DO NOT believe is in a widespread revoking of said right to own firearms.  The second amendment, as outdate as many people point it out to be, has been interpreted, time and again, that it gives the right to bear arms to any citizen of the US.  With that said, I think  additional layers of requirements are needed to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of an individual who might be capable of carrying out another shooting.

First, I think there needs to be a evening of the playing field among states.  These shootings often occur in the midwest, south or very north states.  You rarely, if ever, hear about mass shootings that occur in the northeastern region that includes NY, NJ, PA, MD etc…This is because the requirements to own/purchase firearms are vastly more strict when compared to states like OH or CO.  There needs to be more than just a simple background check.  Depending on the history of an individual, their mental health should be evaluated.  Somehow there needs to be a way to determine who might be more at risk to do something to endanger others.  What that is, I’m not sure.  I’m simply stating what needs to be done.  The needs to be a serious reconsideration about the polarity of this issue.  A compromise between regulation and ownership needs to be found that maximizes the safety of the nation while still retaining the freedom that is often lost with increased regulation.  Until we, as a people, are able to come to agreement about what has to be done, there will never be a “sweet” spot.

I also believe there needs to be a requirement for education and safety training of some sort.  Too many people disrespect what it means to own a firearm.  Shooting has been a large part of my life, and it has taught me a lot safety, respect for others, respect for firearms, and help me develop a lot of my personality qualities in leadership, self-respect/confidence, discipline etc…Shooting is just like any other sport, if taught and practiced in the right manner, it can teach you a lot.  With that said, there is a major disconnect between how people perceive firearms and how they should be perceived.  Today’s culture has desensitized us to violence.  It’s made us forget that life is precious and fleeting.  And it’s only when someone dies, does this issue come back to the forefront.  Firearms take away lives and that trigger, once pulled, can’t be undone.  People need to be reminded of that through safety education and training.  I think if we can somehow change the way our culture views firearms as more than a killing tool, but something that can lead to much more positive outcomes, many of these problems will solve themselves.

Additionally, firearm regulation brings up another point about access and why people might resort to violence for their problems.  I think most people can agree that there was some mental instability in some respect with all the shooters who were involved in any shooting in the past.  Some of you might not agree, but I think this problem is connected to the problem with our healthcare system.  Costs are so high for access to help (in the form of counseling, psychiatrists etc…) that we can’t address underlying emotional or mental issues that an individual might have.  With firearms being so much cheaper and easier to access, sometimes pent up problems can lead to undesirable outcomes. This sort of reinforces the fact that so many problems in this country are a result of a multi-factorial set of causes.  Solving one issue won’t fix any single problem.  We have to address multiple things to fix just a single issue.  Sadly, this is a lot harder to do in practice, simply because there are so many overlying and underlying obstacles to accomplishing that goal.

When will it be time to finally act?  Everyone need to show a willingness to work with everyone else to help address gun regulation, healthcare etc…This polarization on all levels is poison to this nation.  Compromise is the only way this country can survive and eventually get back to the great country that we once were.  Our government has since lost its meaning as serving its constituents and been corrupted to politicians who only care about their own agendas.  This country could have a bright future, but right now, that horizon looks mighty dark.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/09/should-churches-get-tax-breaks
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchestaxexemptions/a/whatarethey.htm

I just want to take a moment to rant about the influence that religion has been gaining over the past years and especially the past months in our government.  This NYT room for debate topic really brings to question what kind of role does religion and churches truly play in our society?  In law they get special tax breaks that other secular non-profits do not benefit from.  Yet they are able to effect so much influence on how their members vote and spend that same tax free money on trying to spread their beliefs and prevent certain legislation from being passed (or helping negative legislation pass i.e. NC and the anti-gay marriage bill).  When I think about this issue a few things come to mind:

- What exactly was the logic in providing special tax breaks to religious groups/churches?
- What defines a group as “non-profit” and “charitable?”
- At what point does an organization lose its right to be considered a non-profit/charitable organization?
- Should these tax exemptions be made available to everyone or completely abolished?

I won’t necessarily argue that churches and religious groups provide some sort of “service” or benefit to society.  In this sense you can call them a charitable organization because they don’t expect payment for their services.  In the same sense, they are non-profit as in they don’t receive payment for their services.  So I guess I could understand why and how certain tax breaks could be applied to churches, but then why can’t they be applied to other organizations in the same vein?  Isn’t it unfair for secular groups to not be eligible for those tax breaks, simply because they are not part of the category that churches fall under?

So what exactly defines a non-profit?  Technically you could look at it in two ways, similar to what I had mentioned just now.  1) A nonprofit could simply be defined as an organization that retains no net income for its members (i.e. uses funds to better the organization) or 2) A nonprofit can be defined as an organization the provides a certain service free of charge, or rather without expecting to be paid, that is of benefit to the public.  If we follow definition #1, which is how the law defines a non-profit organization, churches naturally would fall under as a non-profit charitable organization.  Churches use the money they make from donations and other sources to improve church facilities, fund activities etc…  Under definition #2 is where the water muddies a bit.  Obviously this is not the legal requirement (which is where some of the issue arises from), but I don’t really see the services that churches provide as a benefit to the greater whole of the public.  I’m not seeing any benefits from it, nor are other non-affiliated individuals.  So why should the church be considered in such a different light as a typical non-profit?

One of the individuals arguing for religious exemptions in law said the following:

“Religious exemptions are an essential part of our democracy. They provide breathing space for religious individuals and institutions to exist. They benefit all Americans, regardless of religion or lack thereof.”

The first thing I don’t get is how the exemptions are needed for those groups to exist?  Secular groups exist perfectly fine without these tax exemptions.  Religious freedom and the right to your beliefs is more than possible without tax breaks.  If we were to go along the same lines, I could argue that a non-profit for reducing environmental impact is able to provide breathing space (no pun intended) for clean cities and communities to exist.  Or how about a non-profit to bring education to disadvantaged communities provides the meas for smarter and more driven individuals to exist and grow.  Wouldn’t that be the same thing?

This brings me to third issue I mentioned.  When does an organization lose its right to be called a non-profit/charitable organization.  Or rather, the more specific issue is, what exactly makes a church special compared to secular groups?  Let’s assume that there is some inherent benefit to society for churches.  That same argument can be made for MANY other groups, such as environmental non-profits and civil rights groups.  In this essence, churches and those groups are the same, so shouldn’t they be subject to the the same tax rules?  Some people might argue that secular groups lobby the government to advance their agendas.  Okay.  I won’t argue that.  But have they been seeing the news?  There are ministers and religious groups who publicly endorse politicians and try to advance their own agendas as well.  Again, shouldn’t the same rules apply if both groups have a benefit for the greater of society and try to advance their own agendas?  So why are churches so special?  Because they are religious?  That’s simply an irrelevant reason.

The other supporter of religious exemptions said the following:

“Religious exemptions allow progressive churches to survive and thrive, and to shape our nation’s political culture.”

That’s exactly the thing that they SHOULDN’T be able to do.  Wasn’t the original intention of the Founders to separate church and state, in ways that they are isolated, but at the same time can keep certain tabs on the other?  I’m in no way arguing that religion is bad.  I personally am not religious, but I can see the appeal and benefit that many will see in practicing faith.  But being able to force certain legislation or sway the vote by encouraging their members to vote a certain way, doesn’t that destroy the separation that should be present between church and the government?  Wouldn’t that make churches THE SAME as secular non-profits?