To See or Not To See, That Is The Question

In case you hadn’t heard, the American Family Association is trying to force their narrow minded ideals on visitors to the Overland Park Arboretum. Apparently the AFA, on behalf of a woman with nothing better to complain about, has taken offense at one particular statue. Specifically, the statue is of a headless woman wearing nothing but a button shirt, open, bare breasts, taking a “selfie” of herself.

The story goes that Joanne Hughes (I’m giving her name because it’s emblazoned across the AFA website) was walking through the arboretum when Joanne and family “were shockingly confronted with a bronze sculpture of a headless woman with aroused, naked breasts, taking a picture of herself” (direct quote from the AFA web site).Because they are apparently afraid of the human body and only procreated through a bedsheet in total darkness, Mrs. Hughes filed complaints to have the statue removed so that nobody would have to be affronted by such a spectacle. Needless to say, the OP city council said, “BAH!” and left the statue. The AFA has tried to collect signatures for a petition and has yet to be successful in garnering the required number. I guess not enough people are that worried over a sculpture of a headless naked woman.

What I find amusing is that there are other statues there which could be considered offensive as well, but aren’t. There’s a statue of an obese woman wearing a mini skirt and behind held aloft by a thin man. The woman’s bare backside is clearly visible to anyone walking down the path.

Another is of a nude infant male, anatomically correct, standing in an oval design.

Neither of these are mentioned, just the one of bare breasts. I have a whole rant about breasts in our society, but that’s for another day. Suffice it to say complaining about bare breasts but not a naked baby or a bare behind is, in my opinion, rather petty. The above complaint is supposedly about protecting children from such obscenities, but this is obnoxious. Choosing one statue to complain about while ignoring others shows a narrow-minded fixation which makes me wonder what her problem with breasts is.

Now, to be fair, I know not everyone considers such things as “art.” There are many things I don’t consider “art” but I’m told by those who supposedly know better that it is. However, my opinion is for me. I don’t see that I have any right to tell anyone else what they can and cannot like. And I know not everyone wants to see nudity, even if it is a sculpture or painting or such and not actual real live nudity. And that’s fine. I can appreciate that. But forcing your opinion onto everyone is not the way to handle it. Instead of demanding this statue be removed, trying using it as a teaching tool. If you’re worried it will encourage children to do the same thing, use it as an example of what not to do. Just don’t tell me what I can and cannot see. Let me decide for myself what is offensive to me.

If you’re concerned with your child learning to be “of immoral character,” use it as an example of how not to behave. Rather than be afraid your child might see bare breasts, teach them the human body is not sinful or shameful. And if you can’t manage any of those, then simply avert your eyes when you walk down that path. You can have your beliefs and your version of what you consider to be moral. Teach your children to be afraid of nudity.

Weapon of choice....

There is something raging in Washington currently, and I’m not referring to Chris Matthews’ feelings for President Obama. I’m referring to the battle on gun control. Following the recent wave of gun-related violence, particularly the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, most Liberals and even some Moderates are calling for stricter gun control laws, up to and including the banning of all private gun ownership. There are a couple problems with this, though.

First, we have the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment. According to Archives.gov, this amendment reads thus:  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This means the government cannot by law take away private gun ownership. It can be restricted, certainly, and monitored, but not taken away.

Just for clarification, since this seems to be something many people are fuzzy on, Dictionary.com defines a militia as “a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers” as well as “a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.” This means the National Guard is a militia, as are the Reserves. Are these men and women required to provide their own weapons? No. Still, many do own weapons privately. And yes, those people we read about in the news who call themselves militia are in fact militia by definition.

“But,” I hear you cry, “that was back before we had a national military. We don’t need private militia now, so we don’t need private gun ownership!” True, we don’t NEED private gun ownership, and true, it was ratified in 1791 before the US had an official military service. The fact remains that many people still hunt for food to supplement what they buy, or in place of buying meat. It’s not much different from those who go fishing and eat what they catch, just on a bigger scale.

“Okay,” I hear you now saying, “but you don’t need automatic weapons to go hunting!” Again, true. And I’m opposed to using automatic guns for hunting. I find it unsporting. Also, you run the risk of doing more damage to the animal and having less usable meat. Still, who am I to force others to live by my choices? For that matter, who are you to force others to live by your choices?

“But,”  you now declare, “what about all those people, especially children, who are killed by guns? We must do something about it!” Must we? Timothy McVeigh killed 19 children under the age of 6, and didn’t use a gun. He used fertilizer and a rented truck. Those are still legal, just restricted. Anything can be used as a weapon. How many children are killed by drunk drivers each year? Yet driving isn’t illegal, only doing so while drunk or otherwise influenced.

The guns are not the problem. How they are used is the problem. Once upon a time you could walk into any gun store or pawn shop and walk out with a gun and ammunition. Then restrictions were put in place requiring a 3 day wait before one could purchase a gun. I have no problem with this. Odds are if you think you need a gun immediately, you’re probably better off without it. Yes, I know, there are cases where immediate self-defense is needed. I’m not arguing that. If you’re being abused, you should be able to defend yourself. I’m merely saying that in most cases a gun is not needed immediately.

I also have more respect for the US military than to think they would blindly follow orders to turn on the very citizens they are sworn to defend. I know it has happened in other countries, and it is not outside the realm of possibility. However, I believe it is highly unlikely that the GI’s and other regular military personnel will follow those orders. I don’t believe we will need to defend ourselves from the grunts as much as we need to defend ourselves from the politicians and those in power who never see the front lines. Most of us are familiar with the concept of management making decisions based on what looks good on paper regardless of how practical it is in application. The same principle would apply here.

When all is said and done, however, I still believe we as United States citizens have the right given to us by our founding fathers to own guns privately. I do agree there are some who should not have them, but who gets to decide? Do we say you can’t have one if you’ve been diagnosed with a mental illness? What about those who are never diagnosed, or misdiagnosed? Taking away the right to bear arms opens the door for the removal of other rights, such as the right to not suffer unreasonable search and seizure, or the right to freedom of speech. Rather than blithely take away this right, perhaps a bit more restraint should be used by those in charge, and a bit more logic and common sense. We have laws in place. Making new ones won’t force those who break laws to suddenly follow the new ones. It only affects those of us who try to follow the existing laws. So before overreacting, stop and think. If you don’t agree with gun ownership, fine. Don’t own one. But who are you to take away my right to own one?