Skip to main content

Missing The Point On Ferguson

The death of Michael Brown isn't just about the life lost; it's much bigger. This story is the epitome of what we mean when we lament that "everything is political." This young man is now a symbol, a rallying point for causes on all sides, whether for police brutality, racism, media bias, the lack of black assimilation to someone's definition of "mainstream" American culture, whatever. And as important as any or all these discussions may be or may become, we're missing the point: Whether the killing of Michael Brown in the given circumstances was legally and morally justified. The first point I want to make is that almost no one commenting on it--myself included--can actually answer this question, nor are we tasked with doing so. That may seem obvious, but more than a few people need to really think about that, and encourage others to do it, too. That is not to say that wider sociopolitical trends, problems, and impacts should not be discussed, but it is to say that, at the end of the day, it still comes down to Michael Brown and Darrell Wilson, and what each is owed in justice, followed by whatever is owed to communities, and to the common good.

Secondly, I appreciated reading this today, because his fears are legitimate, and worthy of discussion quite apart from the facts or final result of this case. The fact that some of us read this almost automatically through our pre-conceived notions of what he hopes to gain from this is very sad. My bottom line here: Let's hear what this man says, even if what we think we know is wrong (or right).

Personally, Michael Brown could have been the worst person on the street that day, and it's still not directly pertinent to his death, if the shooting was not justified. If it was, he could have been a choir-boy until then; it wouldn't change the heart of the question.

I do know that the other crimes are stupid, counterproductive, and not at all justified. Why hurt others in anger? It won't bring justice at all.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con
My wheelchair was nearly destroyed by a car last night. That's a bit melodramatic, I suppose, because it is intact and undamaged. But we'd left my power chair ("Red Sam" in the official designation) in-between the maze of cars parked out front of Chris Yee's house for Bible Study. [Isn't that a Protestant Bible study?--ed.] They are good friends, and it is not under any official auspices. [Not BSF?--ed.] They're BSF guys, but it's not a BSF study. Anyway, I wasn't worried; I made a joke about calling the vendor the next day: "What seems to be the problem, sir?" 'Well, it was destroyed by a car.' As it happened, a guy bumped into it at slow speed. His car got the worst of it. And this only reinforces what I've said for a solid 13 years [Quickie commercial coming] If you want a power wheelchair that lasts, get a Quickie. They're fast, obviously, and they're tanks. Heck, my old one still would work, but the batteries ar