Skip to main content

I Will Be The Bearer Of Reasonable Bad News

I was over at Power Line blog. Every political conservative has read something good from there at some point in the last dozen years, give or take. Those are smart guys, good guys. Here's my thought, re: Freddie Gray: Can I have one human thought about a guy that died under circumstances that he shouldn't have, before I take my position on the highly-polarized battle-lines of American politics?

I mean, really. The comments. I just feel so dirty.

I'm not even averse to believing:

A. Gray was a really bad guy;

B. The prosecutor is trying to do more than the evidence warrants;

C. She is incompetent;

D. So is Obama.

But let's take a step back, because we're missing one key point. Feel free to sit down. You'll need to. Are you ready?

People aren't supposed to die in the custody of the police. Ever. If the Boston bomber now convicted died while awaiting trial, wouldn't you be alarmed? This is America, right? Let's take another example, shall we?

Atticus Finch. Let us forget a couple of things, firstly, that Atticus acted heroically in a completely righteous cause, and that he's fictional. Isn't part of Atticus' heroism not only that he'd defend the dignity of a black man in the cause of justice, but that he would do it in spite of the fact that most everyone thinks he shouldn't? He is willing to sacrifice his own name among men, because justice is more important than reputation. We're not supposed to be OK with the vigilantes that come to kill Tom Robinson, even if he were guilty as sin.

So...

What relevance does Freddie Gray's police record have for the fact that agents of the US government have killed someone in their custody? And your grievance against the relative influence of left-liberalism has no bearing on the dignity of this person. It just doesn't.

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

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un