Over the past few years my Facebook feed has been inundated with posts from a small number of vocal, politically liberal pastor type people. They've been profligate in posting links to every article referencing the shootings of black men by various police officers. They've also been quick to jump on supporting the various protests, riots, and violent actions undertaken against the police.
But two events have happened recently which have evoked a different reaction, namely silence. The first was the cold blooded assassination of an innocent African American police officer in New York by a black thug. The second was the shooting of a white woman by a Somali American Muslim police officer.
The thing that surprised me about the silence on the first incident was the fact that it was an amazing opportunity to gain some goodwill and improve the image of the BLM folks by acknowledging that black police officer lives are equally important as the lives of black criminals (I know Castille is considered to be saintly, but the lengthy criminal record is out there for all to see). Yet these folks posted a grand total of zero posts acknowledging this brutal killing. Our very own Dan couldn't even muster us a pro forma expression of respect.
The other incident is more interesting. There was certainly the initial jumping in with both feet, until the officers name and background came out. Then all of a sudden, the issue jumped from police shootings to the systemic failures, poor training, and lack of body cam video.
To be clear, these folks voted for the mayor, the city council, and celebrated the hiring of the lesbian police chief. (Kind of makes one wonder about the influence of affirmative action on that hire.) They've actively supported the elected leadership of the city, county, and state that is responsible for the very systems they now decry. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess they've never even consider (and won't for the upcoming election), voting any differently than how they have in the past.
Of course, this highlights the problem that people have when they pin everything to a narrative instead of reality. When reality goes outside of the narrative you are left with two options. Silence, or reconsider the narrative. Until now, it's clear that the narrative is too dear to reconsider, hence the silence.
As an aside. Is there really any situation in which a Christian can support the threat of violence if events don't turn out the way they believe the events should turn out? Is there any way a Christian can embrace a concept of Justice that doesn't allow for Truth and facts?
10 comments:
There are far too many people invested in the "racist America" narrative that incidents such as those you've referenced interfere greatly. And of course, to these people, racism is a one-way street, flowing from white people only...as if that isn't racism itself. Indeed, white people are racists merely because they were "unfortunate" enough to be born white.
So, there are nothing but "crickets" following every incident of black mob violence, suppressing details about crime on BART transportation lines and apoplexy when faced how to report crimes committed by blacks without mentioning the race of the perpetrators.
As to your final aside, I'll have to weigh in later on that. I have my thoughts, but no time at present.
Looking forward to further comments.
It's just really hard to reconcile how differently the agitators handle these things based entirely on race. Especially the jumping to conclusions.
One of the folks in question has now launched into a rant against the fact that the police union contract allows the officer to decline to answer questions about the incident.
Of course the irony of a liberal complaining about this is the fact that the police union and the city government who negotiated the contract are and historically have been bastions of liberal political power. So, if the person (people) in question voted for the administration(s) who negotiated the contract, don't they bear some responsibility for the situation.
We're starting to see evidence that the officer was unqualified to be on the street and that the experienced officers in his precinct didn't want to ride with him. If this is true, then doesn't that suggest that the liberal commitment to diversity killed an innocent woman.
I'm assuming you're referring to the case involving the police shooting of the Australian woman, correct? I haven't been following the story, but your final question would be a "yes" if this particular cop was hired...and kept on the force despite objections of fellow officers...due to racial/ethnic considerations. In areas such as police, fire, the military...all outfits where lives hang in the balance, there should only be one criteria for hiring. That would be, is this person fully qualified and capable of performing the tasks demanded by the position? Race, sex, ethnicity, "orientation", how one "self-identifies"...none of that has any value whatsoever where lives are on the line. Social experimentation has no place in any of these fields.
Yes, that's the story. There's nothing confirmed and probably never will be, but it seems reasonable to conclude that the data suggests affirmative action.
And a degradation of readiness and effectiveness in life saving/protecting departments is the only outcome one can reasonably expect by assuming "diversity" is as beneficial to those qualities as ability. Even if one wishes to assume that matching races or ethnicity to that of a neighborhood will benefit law enforcement, for example, it can't be at the expense of ability. It should only be because the "same race/ethnic" candidate successfully completed all training requirements first and without regard to race or ethnicity, and then, because of the candidate's race/ethnicity was placed for service within a community of like race or ethnicity.
Requirements must always remain high or pushed higher, so that only the best are certified. In the military and law enforcement, for example, sex matters, as women are ALWAYS weaker than men and far less capable of handling the worst case scenarios where lethal force is inappropriate. The same would be true in fire-fighting and to some extent in paramedic service. One may wish to serve, but no one has the right to expect that he/she must be given the opportunity.
"Is there really any situation in which a Christian can support the threat of violence if events don't turn out the way they believe the events should turn out?"
Absolutely. There is nothing in Christianity that prevents such a possibility if events turn out in a manner that is extremely harmful. But way before things come to that, to support the "threat" of violence is pretty much mandatory if one hopes to provide for a peaceful existence of one's own. My personal position is as follows: I prefer to be as peaceful as possible, to treat everyone as Christ teaches us...but I will unleash all manner of pain and suffering should anyone choose to take advantage of that preference. Let us live together or apart in peace. But don't take that to mean I will allow you to attack without response.
Some have the absolutely idiotic and unBiblical notion that this is an example of returning evil for evil. This notion demonstrates a woefully inane and childish idea of what constitutes evil. But defending the innocent and vulnerable is never evil when there is no doubt that the innocent and vulnerable is at risk...even if it means using violent means to do so.
"Is there any way a Christian can embrace a concept of Justice that doesn't allow for Truth and facts?"
Is it really justice if truth and facts are not present? I can't imagine it. I'm not even sure I could come up with an actual example of justice that ignores facts and/or truth. Do you have something specific in mind?
I'm not suggesting that violence is never appropriate for Christians, I'm suggesting that to threaten violence in the attempt to influence the outcome of an event is problematic. More so when the desired outcome doesn't line up with the facts or is demanded before the facts are known.
I completely agree that calls for justice absent a desire for truth and following the facts is absurd. Yet that's exactly what some Christian pastors are doing, not to mention the non pastor progressive christians. Any one who chants "no justice no peace" will find justice without truth hard to reconcile with Christianity.
Post a Comment