Gun nuts in the name of Luther! Happy Reformation Day

No, really.

In one of those "just when you think you've seen it all moments," when nosing around for other reviews of Lyndell Roper's 2017 Luther bio, I came across Heiko Oberman's book, and one other Luther bio by an ELCA, liberal wing of Lutheranism native, and professor. (I didn't ILL it as it seemed ... OK but not fantastic.)

Anyway, I came across the name of a wingnut Lutheran who I semi-recognized on a review comment, and from there, Googled his name. Paul McCain is head of Concordia Publishing House, the publishing arm of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the leading lights of fundamentalist Lutheranism.

Sorry, sis, but they/you are. You may have DIFFERENT fundamentals than fundamentalist Reformed, per "The Fundamentals," but you do have fundamentals, and a fundamentalist mindset. But, I digress.

In a takeoff on Armed Forces Radio or something, there's Armed Lutheran Radio.

In Texas, natch.

With accompanying Facebook group.

Of which my oldest brother is a member, natch.

And a Patreon site, too, of course.

Quick glance?

The Patreon disclaimer, which surely applies to the main page, states:

(W)e discuss the right to keep and bear arms from a Christian point of view and have a lot of fun along the way. 

This is of course a lie. There is no “Christian point of view” on gun control or bearing arms and a fundamentalist should know that. There is no biblical statement about the state controlling weapons period. The closest thing to a Christian point of view on this is the oft-overused (except when I use it to punk the Religious Right) “submit to the governing authorities” of Romans 13. So, if Beto O'Rourke is right, and I am wrong, on the constitutionality of mandatory gun buybacks, and should he be elected president and be in a situation to legally do that? You'd have to give em up, Lutheran gun nuts.

(That said, as I’ve blogged before, there’s a lot of “selectivity” parallels between fundamentalist Christians and originalist constitutional jurisprudence.)

Also a lie is the website’s about page.

Since the podcast has the occasional black person on there, and since it lists Dallas PD Sgt. Bill Sivlia as a ballistics expert on podcast episodes, in the wake of Amber Guyger, rather than talk only about Botham Jean’s brother offering forgiveness, why doesn’t one of them ask Old Bill about racism in the Dallas PD?

Because, “we’re all Greeks, we’re all Jews,” right? Let’s quote the bible out of context again.

Beyond the lies above, overall, the level of wingnuttery appears to be no greater than medium — within the gunz world, that is. That, of course, is a big caveat. (Update, Oct. 16, 2024: That said, some of its members may be involved with the "Lutefash" movement, or at least fellow travelers of this band of LCMS Nazism.)

And, I've seen my brother involved with other Tea Party, or at least Tea Party lite, stuff back in Obama's first term time. 

And, the Self-Defense Radio Network that Armed Lutheran Radio has joined? Well, whenever I see "freedom" boldly displayed like that here in America, I'm sure I'm at a winger website.

Anyway, let's take Armed Lutheran Radio up on their challenge, starting from the "left hand kingdom," or Augustine's "earthly city," since he, not Luther, invented the idea.

And, let's take all ten "secular commandments," the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, one by one. (I've already tackled the Second.)

First Amendment? Assuming conservative Lutherans are like conservative evangelical fundamentalists, no, most of them don't like it when school graduations can't have prayers. Most probably thought Town of Greece vs Galloway did not roll the ball back far enough on public meetings and prayers.

Third Amendment? Probably not a biggie.

Fourth Amendment? Depending on how trusting of the government they are, per Romans 8, or how much they think only "other people" are snooped on, they're probably OK with a lot of the unconstitutionality of today's snooping-spying national security state. Maybe some of them think Snowden's a traitor.

Fifth Amendment? Might be considered as criminal coddling? After all, it's not just a prohibition against having to testify against oneself on the witness stand. Our Miranda warning safeguards come from it. I'm sure the good conservatives approve the "good faith" carve-outs to the exclusionary rule on evidence. (That connects to the Fourth Amendment as well.)

Sixth Amendment? I assume they're OK with this, other than likely blaming defense lawyers for abusing it.

Seventh Amendment? Probably OK.

Eighth Amendment? Probably hate things like the Harris County settlement to waive cash bail on many offenses.

Ninth Amendment? Like wingnuts in general, they probably repeat the myth that the Tenth Amendment — the states' rights amendment, if one will — is the constitution's most overlooked amendment, when in actuality it's this amendment, the people's rights amendment, which is the most overlooked, despite the first three words of the Preamble to the constitution.

Tenth Amendment? See above.