Skip to main content

You Shouldn't Have To Be A Saint Just To Live

That's what Candace Owens is missing. Eric Garner died for selling loose cigarettes. George Floyd apparently used a counterfeit $20 bill. Michael Brown apparently stole something. How "savory" do you have to be, to keep breathing?

Frankly, it's the defensive reaction of white people at the mention of the protests against these excesses that clues me in to a racial dimension to the discussion. I either have principles, by which I say, "these actions in these situations permit uses of force x, y, and z," or I justify my own comfort after the fact. Some of us would frankly just rather not deal with the fact that someone entrusted with the public safety probably murdered a man in cold blood.

As I saw a video of a Black Lives Matter protester invited to speak at a Trump rally,--this is as weird as it sounds--I nevertheless thought about how easy it is for someone to justify the death of Michael Brown, or Trayvon Martin, and others, by pointing out that they were not heroes. Very few are; should they die when the police--or others who arrogate that authority to themselves--decide arbitrarily to kill them? I suppose I'm glad that dialogue even at certain extremes is taking place, but it probably has the effect once again of normalizing Donald Trump, and making his movement seem acceptable. If you're asking if I think we have more to fear from Donald Trump than (most of) Black Lives Matter, the answer is yes. Take that or leave it; I don't care if it makes you angry.

This is how fascism advances: the steady normalization of state-sanctioned violence. This entire discussion is constructed--at least on social media--as a false binary. We either back the blue, so to speak, or we back lawbreakers and killers. How about a free people stands up and says, "neither!" At least not unconditionally.

I think it generally fair to say that white people who wanted their politicians to be tough on crime were not thinking about what it meant for the black community. The legacy and inertia of our racist past meant a racist result, even if it was not intended. Some of the woke brigades aren't even cutting black Democrats any slack, perhaps rightly so.

And at worst, we knowingly intended to keep black people away from us, away from our quiet, comfortable lives in the suburbs. They can entertain us, or serve us, but they dare not begin to think that they have equality and dignity. I put it in stark terms, so that we can look at it, and really think about it. Is this vicious racism lurking in our hearts? Maybe it does more than lurk.

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