Let me start by saying that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never uttered nor propagated any of these phrases:
- Black Lives Matter
- Blue Lives Matter
- All Lives Matter
This is not because I disagree with the content of any of those messages. However, I think the use of these slogans is counter-productive. Those who agree don’t need to hear it. Those who disagree will not be swayed. And most of all, those who may agree with the content may be affronted at the utterance. By saying “X lives matter” you are implying to a non-receptive audience that someone, namely the person you are speaking to, does not agree that those lives have value. It is only natural for anyone to be perturbed at such an implication, even if they really shouldn’t allow that offense to dictate their response.
But this rant is not aimed at the well-intentioned who use these phrases. Neither is it aimed at protestors criticizing a system for its flaws, real or perceived. No, this rant is aimed squarely at destroying the all-too widespread image of the Black Lives Matter organization proper as a force for good. Even so, this is not aimed even at (perhaps) most rank-and-file members of this organization, though I do hope that they receive it, that they might know the sort of bedfellows they are keeping. Most of all, I hope for this to be read by those who follow both Christ and the Black Lives Matter organization.
I am not going to expose any secrets or opine about ambiguities regarding funding or ulterior motives. I am writing this simply because I finally got around to reading the Black Lives Matter website.
Black Lives Matter is not interested in truth and is founded on misinformation, whether received or produced. The Black Lives Matter About page declares in no uncertain terms that the organization is founded on the supposition that (1) George Zimmerman was guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin and that (2) his acquittal was a miscarriage of justice. I will not opine on the motives of Zimmerman, nor the correctness of his or Martin’s actions.
But I want to make one thing abundantly clear: Even if Zimmerman did murder Trayvon Martin – which is doubtful – there was insufficient evidence to overcome the “reasonable doubt” burden. It is likely that Trayvon Martin initiated the violence, perhaps justifiably so (believing Zimmerman to be a pedophile). Eyewitness testimony is conflicted, and the most condemning witness testimony (much publicized, of course) comes from relatives of eyewitnesses rather than the actual witnesses themselves! The zeitgeist version of events was not helped by a media which forsook its duty as a propagator of truth. MSNBC actually edited the 911 phone call to make it appear as though Zimmerman volunteered racial information! Couple all this with other known facts, such as Zimmerman’s Hispanic heritage and black prom date, and the confident assertion that Zimmerman was an anti-black racist who murdered a boy for no reason is simply unsustainable.
This insidious’ organization’s What We Believe page cites their “search of justice” regarding Mike Brown’s death in Ferguson as one of the first major acts of the organization. Any true seeker of justice (among the general public, at least) must conclude that it would have been a miscarriage of justice to convict Darren Wilson. Whether he should have been indicted is beyond my level of expertise, but a conviction (based on publicly available information) would have been wronging a man for his actions minutes after he sought to assist a baby with breathing problems. While Brown’s death does have a number of characteristics that are cause for concern, it is simpleminded to conclude that when a giant man reaches into a cop’s vehicle and later charges the officer (supported by the testimony of black witnesses), that the resulting altercation and any deaths are simply the result of racism. Particularly when Brown was the suspect mentioned and described in detail in a “stealing in progress” minutes before. The slogan “Hands up, don’t shoot” and the like are based upon testimony that was “inconsistent, fabricated, or provably wrong” and ignores testimony by a black eyewitness that Wilson was “in the right” or that he “would have f****** shot that boy, too.” None of this is to say that anyone was right, per se, but that to convict Wilson would have been wrong (based on what we know as members of the general public).
But these are minor quibbles for the earnest Christian seeking to address injustice. Perhaps they are merely guilty of trusting the wrong sources (though at this point, heavily involved parties like BLM™ confidently invoking Mike Brown as an innocent victim is indicative of either willful ignorance or dishonesty). And in any case, there are undoubtedly cases of police brutality, some subset of which involve racism in one form or another.
So let’s look at their goals and beliefs. There are some which give pause, but none more so than their Marxist view on the quintessentially Christian institution of nuclear families:
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
Black Lives Matter “What We Believe” page
There, in black and white, they go beyond the admirable goal of mutual assistance in the rearing of families to explicitly criticizing the nuclear family structure itself – a structure mandated for Christians who choose to procreate. Any student of the Bible would do well to avoid alliance with such a group.
Again, this is not a mark against the use of the slogan “Black Lives Matter” or of those who earnestly protest perceived injustices in good faith. But this organization does not deserve your support.
Classical Liberalism of Biblical Proportions 