“ALL LIVES MATTER!”
Did any of you deem this statement to be offensive? Racist? Hateful? Bigoted? If so, based on what rationale? If insinuating any other race (brown, red, yellow or – heaven forbid – white or blue) into this tagline devalues the lives of blacks, how? Note that the fact that “all lives matter” does not exclude any race and is empirically the most inclusive and affirming assertion one could make in terms granting dignity and respect for all. In what I can only call the demise of common sense, this claim based on objective morality is now offensive in some circles; and even deadly as one young mother discovered.
Since we are all about dispelling false narratives here, it would be absurd to pretend this sentiment was created out of thin air. Everyone is aware of the historical wrongs committed generationally against the black community. Slavery, segregation and racism in its various guises has never been defensible. It is also decidedly unchristian. In fact, I addressed in an article “Race to the Bottom” at “Faith Beyond Belief” the Christian response to racism. This can be found here. There will be some minor overlap, but I want to deal with some more specifics here.
What was troubling about the racial sins of the past it that they were perpetuated courtesy of some perverse premises. First, that some segments of society were inferior based on arbitrary attributions (in this case, skin colour). Secondly, claims made by whites in power were given assumed legitimacy, thus making a lie of the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty and that all equal under the law. Finally, heinous acts committed by privileged whites were justified based on the reduced status afforded to the victims and unimpeachability and integrity granted based on lighter skin tone. BLM doesn’t condemn this dynamic, but merely switches up the team colours to give cover for their racist views. The reaction to George Floyd’s death at the hands of police is a sterling example.
Let’s consider the following scenario. A black police officer kneels on the neck of a white suspect who repeatedly states that he can’t breathe and the man subsequently dies while fellow black and/or minority officers stand by. The officers involved are immediately fired and face charges. Sources of all political persuasion uniformly and justly condemn the actions of the officers. Regardless of these measures, large protests under the banner “white lives matter” take to the street to demonstrate their outrage. They block traffic and otherwise cause some inconvenience; but for the most part the earliest WLM protests are peaceful. Over time, there is growing violence, looting, vandalism, and setting fire to businesses. A segment sets up blockades; creating their own mini commune. They even partition an area off where strictly whites can congregate. White protesters insist that blacks kneel before them in penance for the actions of the officers. Within weeks, the death count from these activists reach upwards of 25 including whites, blacks, police officers a child and an infant. They demand that black police be removed for their systemic racism.
I believe that any decent person reading this would be deeply troubled and uncomfortable with such a scenario. The question is then, does reverting the race of the participants back to what really occurred make these actions virtuous or even justifiable? Isn’t it appropriate to ask why it is that so many leftists, democrats and “mainstream journalists” defending these actions? How about if instead of “Black Lives Matter” these were the actions of a group calling themselves “Christian Lives Matter?”
Former Democrat Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was attributed with uttering the phrase, “the soft bigotry of low expectations” when speaking of how blacks are demeaned through lowering the bar. Leftists like Lawrence O’Donnell have been determined in claiming this reference originated from President Bush in 2000. My question is: Why does it matter? Shouldn’t we be more interested in determining if this is a fair point regardless? There is good reason to link Moynihan to this remark since he spoke a great deal about the damage resulting from the breakdown of the black family and the resulting devastation. It should be noted that promoting a Marxist philosophy, commitment to the most radical views on gender, and advocating for the breakdown of the traditional family unit are core tenets of the BLM organization.
While BLM is free to advance what their ideology; shouldn’t we ask if it benefits the black community. If they see blacks as perpetual victims and excuse “bad actors” and absentee fathers, whose interests does that serve? If black lives really mattered, shouldn’t the uptick in deaths and violence to blacks as a result of their rioting be a source of outrage? How about the fact that 90% of black murders are carried out by other blacks? What about the massive number of babies aborted which far outstrip rates for all other racial groupings? In fact, the massive rate of absentee fathers and single-mother headed households track with the expected rates of poverty, school drop out rates, gang activity, substance abuse, and the countless other deleterious outcomes. How is this the fault of whites? In truth, the agenda of BLM could be seen as a wish list for the demise of the black community.
This brings us to the cases of Jussie Smollett and Nascar driver, Bubba Wallace. We all know the fraudulent race crime Smollett invented to suggest his “blackness” and the fact that he was homosexual made him a target violence at the hands of Trump supporters. Bubba Wallace, jumped to conclusions based on his hypersensitivity to victimization to the point where his imagination fashioned a garage door pull cord into a noose. These are but two of myriad “false flag” race crimes that seem to grow by the day. For further reference, see here.
When such incidents emerge, the journalists on the left almost consistently take these accounts at face value. Then, once the incidents are discovered to be false, we are told they represent a deeper truth. I believe this to be true – but not in the way they mean.
Such episodes tend to align with caricatures the left generates of who Christians and conservatives are. It affirms their narrative while not actually representing either our hearts or actions. What is really being exposed is the fact that the hard-core left holds us in such contempt that they are willing to believe and even perpetuate the worst stereotypes to further their agenda. What this tells us is that leftists use a “ends justify the means” approach to smearing and pummeling their ideological opponents. Conservative Christians are both innocent of what they are accused of and do not return the favour by smearing their opponents. I can’t argue it never happens, but given the climate, I don’t doubt such incidents would hit the front page of all the mainstream media sources.
I maintain Christianity has the best response to racial attitudes for several reasons:
- It accurately describes our human nature. The racists will always be among us, but they are always wrong. Utopian attitudes, re-education and overcorrecting to “even the score” are not remedies and make the situation worse.
- Christianity doesn’t see people as part of identity groups. Our identity is rooted in Christ and we know each person is created in God’s image and therefore has inherent worth.
- We are taught to love our neighbour as ourselves as a mandate. We know our neighbour includes everyone as Jesus gave the parable of “The Good Samaritan” when asked to define one’s neighbour. The Samaritan was looked down upon, yet meeting the needs of others is what constitutes being a neighbour.
- We are victors, not victims in Christianity. Our circumstances don’t define us, but how we respond to our circumstances. “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” is arguably one of the most unabashedly Christian novels, not because Tom was passive as the progressive left suggests, but he showed virtue despite his circumstances. There was no question who had or who lacked integrity.
- We are told to expect persecution and behave in a Christlike manner in the face of adversity. It may be related to race or any number of subjective factors, but the duty of the believer is to show honour to all and not advocate for deferential treatment for ourselves.
- Jesus calls us to not seek redress for ourselves or some form of “social justice.” God’s justice takes precedence and we should not accept any system that deigns to make excuses for some and place unearned guilt onto others.
For any who would rightly admonish self-identified Christians for their role in these racial sins of the past, I invite you to read my article linked above where I deal with that troubling issue. Whether or not you adopt the Christian perspective I present, I believe reasonable people can consider that racial division, demeaning stereotypes, and switching instruments of manipulative power into new hands may not be the best approach to racial and relational harmony. It is also obvious that the Christian alternative should not be construed as an effort to exert privilege. Nor is it guided by bigotry and animus toward “those who are different.” Stereotyping one’s enemies is the disease and turning over the controls to a new master will never be the cure.
I’ll just quickly make one more point. I oppose BLM because they use a slogan to cover up a dark agenda. I don’t care if they want to peacefully protest (this was the way of MLK), but making allowance for bad behaviour as “not characteristic” of who they are is only relevant if the BLM founders and organization denounce the violence. They don’t. Their objectives are to promote Marxism, break down the family unit and promote transgenderism. Not only do these ambitions have nothing to do with black rights or the treatment of blacks, but many blacks oppose this agenda.
Also, the issue isn’t that BLM has had “bad publicity.” In fact, covering up the rioters, vandals and violence and even killing is part of the problem. It is actually the police who are tarnished with bad publicity with the misdeeds of a few overzealous or just bad cops leading to stereotyping the police collectively as racist. Do you disagree with how police are characterized and, if not, can you explain why anecdotal incidents are treated as evidence of a systemic problem while vast numbers of invented hate crimes are promoted as proof of how racist society is?
I’m going to take the words of a wise man, his name is George. “Know when to keep your mouth shut, and keep it that way” ✌
Oh, and I would get rid of that triple x link comment below, looks like trouble
I don’t understand what I’ve said that’s troubling, but I certainly don’t want conflict.
It might be helpful for you to walk in the shoes of a black person. Have you ever had to tell your child how to behave in front of law enforcement for fear of being hurt or any of the other things black parents need to warn their children about just because of the colour of their skin? Saying All lives matter is correct but instead of being correct how about be kind and not loop yourself in with problems you have never had to face because you want everyone to matter. It white privilege ignorance that you cant realize their problems are far from over. You should understand how hard people work to get out of welfare situations only to see their kids continue this way, lots of white people have this problem too. Anyway, all the right answers are here if people could get over themselves and try and help minorities instead of getting mad because BLM have had bad publicity, there would be no need to protest if something wasnt wrong
Hey Gail. I so appreciate you taking the time to read and respond.
I have several thoughts and much of it I want to get clarification from you so will ask some questions. As to walking in the shoes of black people; I feel like a far more worthy objective is to have empathy and compassion for all people regardless of any category. I think that the premise of needing to walk in the shoes of blacks is a different type of stereotyping and stereotypes are almost always detrimental. How much commonality is there between the black small business owner, the black superstar talk show host, the black homeless person, the black neurosurgeon, the black gang member, the black police officer, the black conservative…? Part of the problem is viewing people as part of a demographic instead of as individuals. I can guarantee you that conservative blacks (who I expect you largely have little exposure to) have much the same outlook as I do on issues because their identity is linked to their faith and principles. I could offer you numerous examples – just let me know. Do their experiences matter and are they too out of touch despite their blackness because they don’t hold to the leftist or liberal view of race and racial policy? This would be to say that white liberals have more insight into the black condition than those who are actually black.
I don’t believe in treating or deeming all blacks to be victims as healthy – not only because it is not true and it is dis-empowering. I want to give you time to respond without overwhelming and will add more on my night shift. I would like you to read my other blog on race – Blogging While Christian – because it summarizes my stance based on Christian principles for responding to the race issue. It also lists a vast number of leftist approaches to race that I maintain are objectively racist.
I fully advocate empathy and compassion for the plight of individuals. Keep in mind that I have counselled people and families throughout my life. Not only was it vital for me to have empathy, but I knew that validating their feelings of anger or powerlessness would have absolutely been crippling to their success in overcoming. Like the parent who tells their child hard truths and disciplines them, we know homes that don’t create children that are spoiled and/or miserable. Having compassion and having reasonable expectations are not incompatible. I was also a support worker to foster homes that were almost all black or minority homes. I can assure you that the vast majority believe as I do. To defend leftist views of race would be odious to them.
Please read the other article and between these two posts and all you know about me, tell me anything you know to be racist in what I’ve said so we can debate it. Also, please look through my list of premises from the left about race and let me know why these are not absurd and offensive on their face.
I look forward to your response.
Tom: “Please read again. I didn’t say you said Christians were inflexible. I was referring to your comments on MY post where I stated Christians were inflexible. You invoked “no true Scotsman to deny a specific Christian worldview. You then identified there was a Christian response to race. You can’t have it both ways.”
I thought that might have been the case, but I didn’t understand your meaning. So, is there a Christian view (or Christ’s view) on race, & if so, what is it? Is it flexible?
If you are willing, please take the time to listen to this talk. It brings in the statistics I don’t have time to research and brilliantly deals with this subject.
https://youtu.be/qbMkYZGFVw0
It’s thoroughly covered in the blog. There is no distinction in treatment. The Good Samaritan deals with calling out prejudice to recognize everyone is our neighbour and worthy of our love. Deferential treatment and expectations is dishonouring.
So many assumptions I can’t address them all.
Tom: “You just undermined your arguments in this post and the one about Christians being inflexible.”
??? I never said Christian were inflexible.
Tom says: “This is what troubles me about your comments. You insist as a fact that poverty, lack of education and harassment by officers makes blacks victims unable to stop the behaviours that are devastating them as individuals and a community.”
I never said that either. Many do rise inspire of discriminatory headwinds, but it’s a percentage game – X% more lack of opportunity leads to Y% more crime, broken families, etc… (It happens to white people too). The more X goes down, Y goes down – just like the more we wear masks/social distance, the more transmission rates go down. It doesn’t mean that if you don’t social distance or wear a mask you will get covid, or that it’s impossible for you to get covid by wearing a mask & social distancing, but it will conclusively bring down the rate of transmission. The world I see runs on cause and effect that produce out comes, all in percentages, (which is why I find it hard to follow your reasoning when you virtually always portray things in a black & white world view). Much of what a functioning society/political system tries to do is debate and implement different opinions of solutions to address underlying problems and bring percentages down in the input to improve positive percentages in the outputs.
Tom: “If you are capable of reading anything but compassion and concern for blacks into this then that’s on you and it shows how much of the kool-aid you have imbibed.”
Again you are jumping to conclusions. There’s lots of opinions of what works or doesn’t in addressing a problem. If I disagree on a solution proposed or taken, it doesn’t mean I make a moral judgement on the motivation – the facts & numbers will speak for themselves. Please try to stop assuming things, because it makes an… (we’ll you know the rest).
Please read again. I didn’t say you said Christians were inflexible. I was referring to your comments on MY post where I stated Christians were inflexible. You invoked “no true Scotsman to deny a specific Christian worldview. You then identified there was a Christian response to race. You can’t have it both ways.
I set out the stats of broken homes specifically to counter the notion that blacks were uniquely violent, inexplicably poor, etc. I was drawing the causal relationship by saying the disproportionate number of broken homes among blacks accounts for these rates and working to strengthen families would remedy the worse of the problem; not allowing criminal behaviour in response to real or perceived wrongful treatment. My position does not disempower or attribute a right to act badly by blacks and suggest whites control their destiny.
To verify why my explanation (one leftists don’t ever speak of) makes much more sense can be found in the context of black crime. When blacks were treated their worse and victimized, they were not engaged in widespread violence but were undeniable victims of the worst in genuine systemic police abuse and racism. This was the period were the character was tested and MLK united huge swaths of courageous people to undergo violence to combat racist policies. Since then we saw the rapid dissolution of the black family. The more friendly the laws were toward the blacks, the more violent they became.
This perfectly illustrates the Christian principles of love, forgiveness, perseverance, withstanding persecution, etc. Character is tested and refined through adversity. On the other hand, whites became abusive when they enjoyed privilege. Our current approach extends privileges to black in some spheres superior to whites (as compensation) but does nothing to promote their independence and moving past grievances. They are given a safety net and perpetual fawning difference for past abuses. This has made their situation and behaviour far worse.
First, I’d like to point out that after you said that Christianity can be anything you want, you let me know that your belief that failing to “lead by example” against racist attitudes was behaviour not befitting a Christian. You just undermined your arguments in this post and the one about Christians being inflexible.
You are claiming that poverty and one’s educational or life circumstances makes blacks victims. I have several thoughts here and I’d really love for you to address each one.
Do you believe poverty and low education CAUSES one to commit violence and, if so, why is this a protest for black lives and not poor lives?
If you believe the problem is that blacks are violent because of these realities, why blame the police for intervening more in their communities since you are stating that they are naturally violent because of their circumstances and pulling over poor blacks would therefore be preventative?
Based on research, Dr. Galston establishes there are 3 rules to prevent the likelihood of living in poverty. These are to finish high school, marry before having a child and get married after the age of 20. Statistically, 8% of those who do all three are poor while 79% of those who fail to do all three are poor.
This is what troubles me about your comments. You insist as a fact that poverty, lack of education and harassment by officers makes blacks victims unable to stop the behaviours that are devastating them as individuals and a community. Those responsible for “saving” the blacks from this fate is the response of white people and white officers. I genuinely find it a racist and wrongheaded view. I don’t think you are a racist, but I believe you’ve bought a false narrative.
You claim that poverty is the underlying cause. I’m saying that broken families and failure to follow these 3 rules is the problem. Each one is the fault of the left.
The left creates government dependence and fulfilled LBJ’s plan to have “n*****s voting Democrat for the next 50 years. They keep women living on a stipend at poverty level replacing income of the father.
They demand that kids attend schools in their area and fight against school choice which disproportionately helps black children get out of failing schools and fulfills the one area we both hold in common – the need for an education.
They insist on a minimum wage which predominantly prevents unskilled blacks from getting jobs thus inhibiting their prospects of earning an income.
They teach that sex is a recreational pursuit and waiting for marriage is for chumps. This creates the trends of absentee fathers, single mothers and high rates of abortions.
They tell blacks they are victims and set the bar low for behaviour which robs them of personal agency and the prospect of breaking free of their situation.
They focus on the relationship between police and criminals rather than the plight of black victims and communities where blacks trying to manage are stuck in violent communities and even if they try to get ahead (i.e. starting up a store or business), they are more likely to be held up, vandalized, etc. This plays to the lowest common denominator and ignores those whose influence and profile should be elevated.
They lower the bar through affirmative action that means they aren’t as qualified for their chosen career path. Blacks accepted through this process are vastly more likely to drop out and not be successful as they don’t have the requisite skill set while they could have managed much better in other lower skill jobs.
If you are capable of reading anything but compassion and concern for blacks into this then that’s on you and it shows how much of the kool-aid you have imbibed.
Tom says: “If you admit (unlike what appears to be most of the left)”
If you’re implying that I aline myself with the ‘left’, (whatever you define that as), I don’t.
Tom says: “that blacks are reacting to current treatment and not still reeling after being many generations removed from slavery, do you grant that the Jews have suffered far worse treatment especially up to 1945 and are thriving and not given to crime? Can you explain the discrepancy?”
I’m sure Jews are just as given to crimes, (no more & no less), as any other racial or religious group you can name. (As to “suffering far worse treatment” – these are historical differences that make comparing apples and oranges an understatement – I wouldn’t attempt to evaluate, it’s above my pay grade). The important thing you overlook is the ‘visible’ part of visible minority.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-2018-fbi-data-jews-were-2-7x-more-likely-than-blacks-2-2x-more-likely-than-muslims-to-be-hate-crime-victim/
Tom says “Regarding pulling over more blacks, etc., if blacks are a much smaller segment of the population and commit vastly more crimes (primarily against other blacks) would a higher police presence be a detriment or a benefit? Could it be prevention instead of racism? Is the best thing for officers to do to just wait and respond after a crime is committed?”
I posted my view on this on the wrong thread, so I’ll repost it here:
andy says: “If you have a group that’s discriminated against, fewer opportunities are available to you. You’d therefore tend in higher numbers to be less educated and poorer, and therefore more likely to resort to crime. Also with less education and less resources, the more difficulty you’ll have defending yourself in court, resulting in a still higher rate of incarceration. (Well funded, well connected white collar crime is rarely prosecuted due to difficulty of conviction & therefore not counted as a crime, even when not just counting convictions). Add to that the higher likelihood you’ll be targeted by police – further skewing the statistics – it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.”
Unfortunately, the policing you suggest is addressing a symptom, not the cause -, which is ingrained societal discrimination. Racial profiling by police only exacerbates the situation and can’t address the underlying problem. The only thing that can do that is for each individual to look to their own thoughts and actions on the subject, denounce prejudice & act accordingly, and teach by example. I would particularly expect this of someone who professes themselves as ‘Christian’.
Tom says “Looking at things through the lens of an identity group (i.e. race) is divisive”
I agree it often is, yes.( BTW, you’re writing from the lens of an identity group of your own choosing yourself (i.e. Christian)). Society at large lumping people into identity groups, and giving different treatment is what causes underlying situations such as these. It’s systemic division that’s what’s being protested. ‘All lives matter’ would have been more inclusive name, but would a lousy name for a protest movement – it gives the impression that everything’s fine, (a bit like slave-owners writing ‘all men are created equal’)
Tom says “Protesting can be a vital form to highlight a problem, but this looked more like exploiting a crisis that otherwise should have united all sides”
The unfairness and the protest against it has been going on for centuries. Every now and then an incident brings it to the front pages. Again, if reality, (society in general), was united in the first place, there wouldn’t be a crisis. It does appear that progress is slowly being made over time.
Tom says “The tacit and/or overt support for BLM and failure to denounce the riots and destruction played into the divisive narrative”
There’s always bad actors in any organization/movement. Some are members of the group themselves, some as infiltrators to disrupt the movement, (age old tactics). Again, this has been marginal in what’s been happening so far. Protests since the dawn of time have the same dynamics. From what I see, by far most protesters are just standing around or carry signs – like just about every protest you’ll see.
“The violence, looting, burning, vandalism, tearing down of statues, and deaths were passively accepted based on, what appears to me, lower standards of behaviour for blacks”
Why single out blacks for that behaviour?
“The protests and riots shifted blame to the police and whites and ignored the realities of the greater risk posed by black on black crime and violence, destruction of the family and abortion that are far more devastating to the black community”
There’s a long history in America that lead to the situation you point out. Keeping people chronically disadvantaged creates a self fulfilling prophesy.
“Hypersensitivity, fabricated crimes and calling Christians and conservatives racist for not adopting the social justice/critical race theory view is offensive and needlessly divisive”
Who is saying this?
“Christianity does not allow for excuses for bad behaviour for any reason and doesn’t hold to double standards; but sees all as equal and valuable” & “The Christian view is not racist or unreasonable and even if you reject the view, premise and conclusion, reasonable people should be able to unite over perspectives that help end the divide in the culture”
As any one can call themselves a Christian, and can practice whatever interpretation they like, then Christianity allows for all sorts of bad behaviour, unless you wish to commit the ‘no true Christian’ fallacy. You’re a sensible fellow, I don’t know why you often offer up absolutes like these that are very easy to find counter examples if you wanted to.
//I agree it often is, yes.( BTW, you’re writing from the lens of an identity group of your own choosing yourself (i.e. Christian)). Society at large lumping people into identity groups, and giving different treatment is what causes underlying situations such as these. It’s systemic division that’s what’s being protested. ‘All lives matter’ would have been more inclusive name, but would a lousy name for a protest movement – it gives the impression that everything’s fine, (a bit like slave-owners writing ‘all men are created equal’)//
Christianity is unifying and respects the individual. The division over the actions of BLM were not based on race lines, but group identity – thus many white liberals took part. Consistently, black and white conservatives Christians on my social media consistently condemned BLM. As an example, a black Christian woman was arrested for painting over a street painting of Black Lives Matter” raising the same type of concerns about the problems in the black community I did. Christianity, as MLK called for, focuses on character instead of skin colour. If you think that loving your neighbour and praying for those who persecute you is divisive, I’m fine with it but believe it is a far healthier ideology to follow.
And that’s my point. The divisions are created by leftist grievance peddlers. That’s the very issue I’m trying to address. One of the assertions you have not backed up is that there is systemic racism in society. Please give a concrete example of systemic violence within the police force or other institutions (other than many celebrated as “woke” and promoted as noble by academia and its various allies – which I’ll cover in a future post. Remember, systemic means it is intrinsic and or a requirement placed upon the police officers.
So do you think an effective slogan that highlights a race is better than one that promotes the value of all based on selling an idea even if it divides? Would you have a problem with “white lives matter” to highlight that far more crimes are committed by blacks and illegals than by whites – especially as a percentage of the population – or do you support the differential standards knowing the reverse would be viewed as racist, divisive and likely to promote violence? How about Babies Lives Matter outside an abortion clinic? Your opinion that this gives the impression that all is fine is just that – your opinion. I say blacks and whites uniting on “all lives matter” would be far more uniting. Do you deny this? Doesn’t the outrage over “all lives matter” including assault and murder for saying “all lives matter” reveal this is toxic?
I happen to be fully acquainted with the specifics of the founding of the U.S. Slavery was begrudgingly accepted because the southern Democrats refused to join with the North unless slavery was accepted. They violated the self-evident Christian truth that all men are created equal to save the vision of a United States. The law did not permit founders like Washington and Jefferson who inherited slaves to set them free although they were opponents of it. In truth, if there is a source for all the woes of the blacks, it most accurately deservedly belongs with the Democrats as they fought tooth and nail against recognising the humanity of the black.
//The unfairness and the protest against it has been going on for centuries. Every now and then an incident brings it to the front pages. Again, if reality, (society in general), was united in the first place, there wouldn’t be a crisis. It does appear that progress is slowly being made over time.//
As I stressed, the triggering incident was not evidence of societal racism. It’s not even known that the police was racist as opposed to overzealous and out of control in abusing his authority and the victim happened to be black. Incidents like lynchings, cross burnings and rocks through windows were also protests that made the front pages but these were wrong. What I see is the same kind of attitude that arises when militant Islamists commit horrendous murderous crimes. All the leftist sources go out of their way to deny it has anything to do with Islam instead of calling out the rouge actors in the religion who are actually following their writings and are as much enemies of moderate Muslims as they are of the rest of society. Again, excusing bad behaviour in certain groups while going out of their way to draw tenuous connections to vilify Christians and conservatives as a group (like the fake hate crimes I linked to).
//There’s always bad actors in any organization/movement. Some are members of the group themselves, some as infiltrators to disrupt the movement, (age old tactics). Again, this has been marginal in what’s been happening so far. Protests since the dawn of time have the same dynamics. From what I see, by far most protesters are just standing around or carry signs – like just about every protest you’ll see.//
Yes, there are bad actors, but videos show they were numerous and their actions were excused by leftist groups as I’ve already addressed. Bad actors and their crimes should get the full-throated support of every respectable person and there should be universal condemnation and a call to arrest and reign in these bad actors. Instead, several Democrat mayors are outraged and angry that Trump has called in federal agents to put down the riots they were not dealing with. Also, there has never been a known incident of a Christian conservative infiltrating a leftist group to cause or even stoke violence. If you have one, please send it along as well as all the CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, NPR, ABC, etc. denouncing the riots.
//Why single out blacks for that behaviour?//
I fully admit that many – if not more white leftists – participated in the riots, but it was permitted because it was calling for black rights. I am not the one singling them out. I am pointing out the double standard on the left that makes allowances based on critical/critical race theory and social justice views. It was done under the guise of a black protest. It was activists on the left exploiting a crisis.
//There’s a long history in America that lead to the situation you point out. Keeping people chronically disadvantaged creates a self fulfilling prophesy.//
So, do blacks and white liberals lack personal agency? Are they so guided by emotion and how they feel they are treated that they are perpetual victims? I think that is racist. I can point to the efforts of the left to create the welfare state that promotes fatherless homes, government dependence and keeping blacks in poverty for creating this “self-fulfilling prophecy.” I say it was orchestrated and continues to be and it is, as Lynn and I have shown, integral to the BLM objectives. I want you to tell me how whites – especially Christian conservatives – have caused the blacks to kill 90% of their own people, fathers to walk out on their families and black women to abort at the abortion clinics of which 80% of Planned Parenthoods are within a few miles of predominantly black communities. Does this also mean that whites are victims that are inextricably linked to their antebellum roots and it is wrong to condemn their white privilege and second class treatment of blacks because it is bred into them? Again, double standard?
//Who is saying this?//
Did you check out the links? I can send many others. Blacks putting up their own nooses. Blacks graffitiing their own vehicles. False charges of rape (i.e. Tawana Brawly). Falsely insisting Tea Partiers called a black politician the “n” word repeatedly. The media assault on Nicholas Sandman using edited video to try to claim he was getting in the face of an innocent aboriginal (for which he is winning serial defamation lawsuits). They are endless – unlike the reverse being perpetrated by Christian conservatives or genuine examples not proven to be fake.
//As any one can call themselves a Christian, and can practice whatever interpretation they like, then Christianity allows for all sorts of bad behaviour, unless you wish to commit the ‘no true Christian’ fallacy. You’re a sensible fellow, I don’t know why you often offer up absolutes like these that are very easy to find counter examples if you wanted to.//
Please read the article I posted yesterday that addresses this – as I promised. Also, I would want you to concede that Jodi Foster was responsible for the assassination attempt on Reagan, the Beatles provoked the Manson murders through their music and a dog caused the son of Sam to kill. Also, please give me the definition of “unchristian” – then, the definition of “unatheist.”
Regarding pulling over more blacks, etc., if blacks are a much smaller segment of the population and commit vastly more crimes (primarily against other blacks) would a higher police presence be a detriment or a benefit? Could it be prevention instead of racism? Is the best thing for officers to do to just wait and respond after a crime is committed? Do you think all black are angry with and don’t want the police, or primarily black criminals? Why is there so little talk about black victims and so much advocacy and excuse making for black criminals?
If you admit (unlike what appears to be most of the left) that blacks are reacting to current treatment and not still reeling after being many generations removed from slavery, do you grant that the Jews have suffered far worse treatment especially up to 1945 and are thriving and not given to crime? Can you explain the discrepancy?
Tom says: “…etc. are all tools (or weapons) of leftists to silence conservatives and Christians.”
Clearly no entity is silencing you right now, so this statement is untrue.
“…You did not challenge this and did not give examples of Christians and conservatives imposing our values. This begs a couple of questions:”
Sounds like the fallacy of ‘begging the question’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Just because I don’t ‘challenge’ things you say, doesn’t mean you should assume my position, (or that I even have a position) on a topic. My own view is freedom of speech for all, (with potential caveats – like erroniously shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre). I can see variations on all the things you list I see as being used by both extremes, (right and left) – so my view is a pox on extreme houses.
“If you want to number yourselves among them, then I say you are part of the problem.” – I haven’t and don’t number myself with any group. Are you implying I do?
“As for the courts and politicians, can you please identify a single area where politicians hold social and economic views they advance or rule in favour of that shows deference to conservatives and Christians…”
Courts shouldn’t show deference to anyone, or they’re no longer courts. Every individual is equal before and under the law. As for politicians, in a democracy such as ours, they’re elected by the most votes based on the platform they put forward, (and wish to stay elected), so more likely than not, most policies address the concerns of the largest number of people – hence ‘mainstream’.
I have to be honest that I’m getting a bit bored. So far am having a hard time figuring out what your position is, as you seem mostly against positions – that I think are either overstated or misinterpreted. Here’s hoping the next topic is clearer and more focused, and rely on your own thoughts/beliefs.
Yes, I feel like you are missing the point. Here is a summary:
• Looking at things through the lens of an identity group (i.e. race) is divisive
• Protesting can be a vital form to highlight a problem, but this looked more like exploiting a crisis that otherwise should have united all sides
• The tacit and/or overt support for BLM and failure to denounce the riots and destruction played into the divisive narrative
• The violence, looting, burning, vandalism, tearing down of statues, and deaths were passively accepted based on, what appears to me, lower standards of behaviour for blacks
• The protests and riots shifted blame to the police and whites and ignored the realities of the greater risk posed by black on black crime and violence, destruction of the family and abortion that are far more devastating to the black community
• Hypersensitivity, fabricated crimes and calling Christians and conservatives racist for not adopting the social justice/critical race theory view is offensive and needlessly divisive
• Christianity does not allow for excuses for bad behaviour for any reason and doesn’t hold to double standards; but sees all as equal and valuable
• The best way to move beyond past sins is to view each other as peers
• Seeing yourself and wanting to be viewed as a victim is dis empowering, harmful, and will only perpetuate the problem you claim to want to repair
• The Christian view is not racist or unreasonable and even if you reject the view, premise and conclusion, reasonable people should be able to unite over perspectives that help end the divide in the culture
Andy, you don’t get the agenda of BLM – check out their website. Non-violent civil disobedience- you’ve got to be kidding me?!?!!? Too much Communist Network News Bro.
https://youtu.be/-tLZ-cBBTss
You note again that all sorts of ideas are lumped together under the name the ‘right’, so I don’t know why you can’t see that you’re doing the same to the so called ‘left’. Academia, Hollywood, media, courts, government – that’s a very wide swath of society (made up of individuals with their own unique reasons for their thoughts, beliefs, actions… just like you or I). That you see society at large as holding ‘fringe views’, may give you pause to reflect on how ‘fringe’ your own views might be.
Tom quote: “Please clarify for me whether you think the peaceful protests were addressing some justifiable outrage.”
– You must be aware that African Americans are pulled over, arrested, shot, at a much higher rate, (not to mention dealing with all sorts of other types of day to day racism) than whites. Unaddressed underlying systemic racism builds in tension like stress in a fault line, and can only take one event to trigger an earthquake. The George Floyd incident was a heart wrenching, dramatic and unambiguous example of that – so triggered an honest world wide reckoning of long unaddressed wrongs. (Which has happened many times in history – Rosa Parks, Rodney King…). If it weren’t for non-addressed unfairness in society, the event would have instead been an unfortunate one-off. In a world where power often holds on to status quo unfairness in the name of stability – peaceful protests are about the only way that when a large number of citizens who have had enough can effect change. If it weren’t for (largely) peaceful protests, votes for women, the end to the Viet Nam war , and Civil rights movements would have been delayed (perhaps indefinitely) to name a few. What did BLM achieve? – Sports teams are finally rid of insensitive names, Confederate names, flags & monuments are finally coming down, and police forces are finally taking systemic racism more seriously. Any looting, violence, calls for defunding police… I would propose are on the fringe of where society at large is & will therefore in the long run just be seen as a footnote or a distraction.
“Also, please show me anywhere BLM condemned the actions of the rioters and looters.” – First hit on google:
“Salt Lake County, Utah (KUTV) — Leaders from the Utah Black Lives Matter movement are condemning the violence and vandalism at Saturday night’s protest in Salt Lake City.”
Or this from the top of the BLM wikipedia page:
Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized movement in the United States advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against African-American people.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/05/31/celebrities-bail-out-rioters-arrested-in-violent-protests-n2569794
As I set out in my first article, cancel culture, banning speakers, shadow banning, milkshaking, violent protests, safe spaces, victimology, diversity trainings, Hollywood blacklisting, social justice, speech codes, free speech zones, etc. are all tools (or weapons) of leftists to silence conservatives and Christians. You did not challenge this and did not give examples of Christians and conservatives imposing our values. This begs a couple of questions:
1) If the left use all the above with great success then either they have the endorsement and power ceded to them to do so in which case, not only is the radical left real, but they are controlling the debate. As they say, to know who holds the power, look at who cannot be criticized.
2) If there are these coercive measures being applied to control debate, how can you argue that people are merely following the culture? As Ravi Zacharias would say to the comment about the growth in Islam, he said, first have the state take the boot off the citizens and let them freely choose and announce their beliefs and see what happens to their numbers.
Here are the stats on school teachers, the media, and Hollywood. Conservatives and Christians are also consistently denied tenure.
Note that the stats on media reflecting the values of the culture and me being on the fringe are belied in their polling.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/26/democratic-professors-outnumber-republicans-10-to-/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/01/27/dear-mainstream-media-why-so-liberal/?arc404=true
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/487640-hooray-for-hollywood-unless-youre-a-conservative
Do you believe that they are unbiased because they agree with you (or you agree with them)?
As for the courts and politicians, can you please identify a single area where politicians hold social and economic views they advance or rule in favour of that shows deference to conservatives and Christians or do they track with the schools, universities, and “mainstream media.”
Once again I will state that I am referring to those with an “liberal ideology” they seek to impose on the public. The evidence is in all the methods above used to silence conservatives and Christians and lead the debate. From the beginning I’ve made clear THEY ARE THE PROBLEM. If you want to number yourselves among them, then I say you are part of the problem. It is no different than if Christians were mandating school prayer and forcing girls to wear chastity belts. Any books that did not promote Christianity would be banned. The question then is – are Christians and conservatives the problem or the segment that are radicalized and making everyone live under their rules? I am encouraging live and let live and pointing out that they are not. They will silence or cancel those who aren’t on board. I say this is illiberal and needlessly takes free speech rights from some and imposes an ideology that leads to punishment for any who stray from it. I am very clear on who I am calling out – not those who don’t think like me, but those who insist I should be marginalized, censored and force fed their ideology or punished for straying. I hope this makes clear who I refer to as “the left” or “progressives.” I don’t want to keep revisiting this. You may call me out if I do generalize it to “liberals.”
Might examples of racist attitudes include:
Blacks should have affirmative action because they cant compete on their own
There should be no voter ID because this would somehow disadvantage blacks
Telling blacks they should support Democrats because otherwise they are an “Uncle Tom” or “Aunt Jemima”
Holding “black only” graduations, proms, events and having “black only” schools
Going out of your way to call protests “mostly peaceful” when done under the banner of Black Lives Matter when your job is to report the news?
Telling people that not supporting Obama was proof that you are racist
Counting the number of blacks in various positions to determine fair hiring practices rather than finding out if this was based on how was best for the job
Putting abortion clinics in primarily poor black communities and claiming that this helps to reduce the rates of crime (in what I believe is the worst form of racial profiling – bringing it into the realm of pre-crimes
Just a few questions.
Can you provide examples of “mainstream media” expressing that this is a concern?
Can you explain what Christians have done to evoke their wrath?
What would the response be from Muslim’s and the media if Korans were being burned?
This goes to the issue of belief bias that I hear you denying.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-protesters-burn-bibles-in-portland-rip-protective-boarding-off-buildings?utm_campaign=dw_newsletter&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=92469594&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9K2OkJXoUw2n2Xf_C3NwkH3pPMBabI24GPAz8aR6QFSM0Y3QJneYVPfm5YWQUF2oKKAOBWtLKRoOpP893SmLQdrUjqvg&utm_content=non_insiders&utm_source=housefile
Here’s another little gem. Please tell me whether this is a group dedicated to the welfare of blacks or a political activism group for the left and Democrats. What would you think if the donor list instead was a list of evangelical churches. Would their motives and objectives be construed as promoting an agenda?
Oops. I forgot the attachment.
https://www.facebook.com/100011673978017/posts/1209723749426746/?
I have also very clearly not made reference to liberals. It is the activist left or progressives. These people and groups are decidedly illiberal. My whole point is they hold fringe views but have the clout to impose their ideology because they hold the prominent platforms in academia, Hollywood, the media, the courts and government.
Those referred to as on the right for no apparent reason (white supremacists, bro-Nazis, etc.) are condemned by everyone and therefore are kept on the fringe where they belong.
Please clarify for me whether you think the peaceful protests were addressing some justifiable outrage. I certainly had the impression you were fine with the peaceful protests but not those engaged in mob violence. My argument was there was no rationale for either – the latter is merely qualitatively and objectively worse. The former was merely needlessly divisive.
Also, please show me anywhere BLM condemned the actions of the rioters and looters. If not, the claim that they don’t represent BLM is a strawman and a “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
BLM is a Marxist organization that wants to tear apart the family and the American system. I understand what Tom is saying but can’t grasp
Andy’s argument. Living in the middle of this mess just reminds me that we are living in a Romans’ 1 world – God has given us over to our sin. America is at a great divide right now and we need to wake up, be united as a people and turn to HIM. I have had discussions with a friend of mine who has a great deal of melanin and we disagree as sisters in Christ over this whole idea of systemic racism. What we have here is not a skin problem, but a sin problem! The Democratic Party in the US is becoming more and more socialist and they are using race to divide us. There is one race – the human race. The Bible lays out for us the problem (sin) and the solution (Jesus). Come Lord Jesus!!!
I’m very surprised that you aren’t aware of the full-throated support for BLM and their actions by the all the primary sources on the left. Hollywood actors raised funds to bail out rioters. Democrat governors and mayors as well as Senators and Congressmen have routinely voiced their support. The BLM activists themselves are made up of at least as many white leftists. In interviews they spout the dogma pushed in colleges. I could send many examples but here’s one clear example of the media. I invite you to provide examples from these sources decrying the actions of BLM and antifa. Also the leftist call to defund the police.
https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/28/media-double-standard-protests-donald-trump-rally/
Whatever you’re trying to argue is based on a viewpoint that sounds like you’re attributing to some nondescript entity, hence it’s the opinion of a ‘straw man’.
For instance, when you write: “My argument is that there is no reason to extend different standards of behaviour to one group of people than another.” – I doubt there are many who don’t agree with this sentiment, but you’re implying that someone holds the opinion that you should ‘extend different standards of behaviour to one group of people than another’. You don’t attribute this sentiment to an existing entity. Who’s holding this opinion? – are you quoting somebody. To attribute it to ‘liberals’, whatever group that is lazy, and becomes just a caricature of an organized entity who you perceive as holding an opinion different than yourself.
If you want a robust discussion, you’ll have to either quote someone or some entity, (which no-one would defend unless they held the same opinion), or much better – state your opinions on their own merits for discussion and not against a fictionally held position.
For example, taking your line “…explain why protests of any kind were valid? ” (ignoring the implication that I said they where – I didn’t). If you had just stated a position you hold, like perhaps: “I believe the BLM protests aren’t valid because…”, without pitting it against an upheld position, then you’d have something up for discussion.
I am comparing apples to apples. My argument is that there is no reason to extend different standards of behaviour to one group of people than another. I merely reversed the racial makeup to show that I find the deference given to blacks committing violence would never be (nor should be) granted to others. I am claiming this it is hypocritical if the very same scenario played out and another demographic was involved. Therefore, if you want to explain why the standards of conduct should be lower for blacks or any group or that rioting, looting, setting fire to businesses, etc. is a reasonable form of protest, then you would need to make that argument for me as I don’t see the rationale. If you permit different standards of behaviour based on race, then why is racism, slavery, or any other bigotry wrong? The only other argument is that I am distorting the facts and I’m open to hearing on that.
Can you also explain why protests of any kind were valid? Since you can’t prevent bad actors, you can only respond to their actions. What part of the response to Floyd’s killing was insufficient? Would it have warranted the same response if the races were different? If so, why would you see black protests to this incident as warranted but not for other races?
You are also making your own evaluation of “reasonable BLM organizers.” Who defines this? Where did the media or BLM call out the violence, looting, kneeling, burning businesses and churches and segregated areas for blacks wrong? If this was not called out and you think it was wrong, then this should mean you side with me in condemning it as wrong which demonstrates that this is not a strawman argument.
I refer to the left or progressives as being the radicals because it would be insulting to call them liberals. Liberal is best classified as Libertarian which adopts a “live and let live” attitude. The laundry list of weapons used to censor that I mentioned in the first post (doxing, banning, de-platforming, milkshaking, blocking speakers, designating speech zones and demanding politically correct speech, etc.) is decidedly illiberal. I am attempting to respect those who genuinely are liberal.
Christianity can only be understood in terms of scripture. That is the baseline. If I insist a point that is not clearly defended based on biblical Christianity, then I am violating the rule I set. My next article is on the essentials that define Christians and that will drop Monday morning.
I’m really interested in hearing where the strawman is here.
Hey Tom, you have lot’s of words & different ideas so I find it hard to follow, so am not quite sure what your point is.
From what I think you may be trying to get at is your WLM analogy in paragraph 4, which looks like a classic straw man to me (& right in your first post too).
In reality, there’s all kinds of protests, and that complexity is missing in your example. For example I would argue is that:
a) many protests/protesters stay peaceful and
b) many looters probably aren’t even epart of the protest, (or at least disowned by any sensible BLM organizer).
Of course there’s other nuances that can be added as well, but all the complexity is lost in your caricature. Once you set up your straw man, I had to ignore the rest of your points, as the original premise is flawed, I & can’t really catch the drift of what you’re trying to say.
I would also not use labels such as “the left”, (unless you can define it for us), just like you can’t just use the label ‘Christian’, unless you define it, as you know, there’s many varieties. To me it sounds like another straw man, (ignoring complexity/nuances…). Just a suggestion – stick to one idea per posting, simplify, & argue ideas, not straw men.
https://youtu.be/aRjhJ_TmJlc
https://gellerreport.com/2020/06/geller-lawsuit-cuomo-de-blasio.html/