From North Carolina pastor John Pavlovitz:
“Ooh, I can’t wait until November! You’re going to be so sorry when he wins.”
“Boy, are you gonna be crying on Election night!”
“Can’t wait to see you lose in November, snowflake.”
Well, sure MAGA friend, if he’s reelected, it goes without saying that I’ll grieve that reality terribly.
It will mean America has failed the most fundamental test of its collective sanity.
It will mean the system our forebears constructed has irreparably failed us.
It will mean the racists and the bigots and the zealots will have run of the house.
It will mean our nation will be more cruel and more violent.
It will mean we are past the precipice of moral collapse.
It will mean this place is a planetary disgrace.
But it won’t mean I’ll have lost.
I measure my life differently than you do.
I think our good pastor should refer to Isaiah 5:20 and actually do some research on many of his inflammatory and inaccurate statements as objectively as he might be able to manage. I will continue to pray for him and other misguided Christians so inclined to follow along his misguided path.
Thank you for your comment, Darrell. Seems incomplete, though. For example, you forgot to include the scripture you mentioned.
I understand you are an important, very busy, individual who has little time for such detail.
I’ll try to help out.
If I read the prophet Isaiah correctly, he seems to be endorsing a viewpoint that would reject ripping little children away from their parents and putting them into cages, or turning away strangers who seek sanctuary from persecution. Here is what Isaiah 5:20 says:
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.
Sounds exactly like pastor Pavlovitz and unlike the self-described conservative Christians to whose cruel political standards he objects. Present company excepted, of course.
I’m glad we’re exempting Darrell from that harsh judgment.
He is a long time friend who, over the years, has stood with us in times of illness and danger, of family crisis and personal fear.
A genuine good guy with a number of unfortunate opinions.
I have to offer all due respect to Darrell. He’s now my go-to source for understanding “real racism” and “misguided Christians”. No one is his equal in understanding our Constitution, politics, government, faith, history, morality, truth and justice.
And I am most grateful for all the times he has accused me of falsehoods, misguided morals and lapses of honesty. I’ve learned the wisdom behind his not showing evidence to support his accusations and pronouncements. It motivates me to search my thoughts, question my beliefs, seek information, and evaluate my conclusions to correct my failures to comprehend matters out of my shallow depth of understanding.
Most of all, Darrell has taught me only liberals, progressives, socialists, Democrats and “leftists” should search our thoughts, question our beliefs, seek information, and evaluate our conclusions.
Conservatives are exempt from these dull duties of self examination because they, in fact, have all the answers.
How else could he claim, with such great compassion, that he cares more about Black lives than Black Lives Matter, whose only purpose is the utter destruction of America?
In his words:
“But BLM, the organization, only wants to foster hate and division…The bottom line is that this not about black lives mattering. It is about furthering a Marxist, godless agenda… Thuggish people…espouse violence and have very little to do with denouncing actual racism.”
Nowhere does BLM state these goals. They claim they are protesting racism and police brutality.
But one of its founders said she was a “trained Marxist”. So that means each and every one of them are violent revolutionaries and traitors, or “useful idiots” like Mitt Romney when he marched with them. Nothing gets past Darrell, in his profound analysis and judgment.
I guess if Marxists oppose racism, then good Americans should embrace it and call BLM a racist Marxist hate group?
How else could he proclaim “real racism” to be mostly a thing of the past and rare as hens’ teeth in the era of Trump? We all know the birther president is the “least racist person ever”.
Indeed, look not to Honest Don Trump for lies, for as Darrell notes, “Truth is the very first casualty in this socialist revolution”.
Who are we to judge, when we look at the picture of Trump’s long time advisor, close friend, and convicted criminal Roger Stone flashing the “white power” hand signal with a group of Proud Boys? Obviously this is not “real racism”, otherwise Darrell would tell us.
Shame on Pavlovitz for not voting for Trump, like all good Christians should. He needs to have his eyes opened by someone like Darrell, one of America’s best, most moral, informed, and wise Real Christians. Well, besides the president, of course.
Okay, so my friend Darrell does have a few unfortunate views.
Evidently Mr. Dubya didn’t see my response to his questions on my site. Evidently he missed the whole first paragraph of my post on black lives matter too, or perhaps it is simply not enough to agree and work towards ensuring black lives matter. One has to also support BLM (the organization) too or one is a heretic to Mr. Dubya. No worries; I’ll post my first paragraph and supporting points on the BLM organization here so perhaps he will read it this time and then can continue on with his patriotic duty.
” Black lives matter. Absolutely they do! The amount of melanin in one’s skin pigmentation does not add nor diminish to the inherent dignity and worth of any human life. Of course, black lives matter. The phrase itself is uncontroversial and inarguable to my mind. Every person is a child of God and created in His image. As such, racism is a sin and a pernicious evil that is not to be tolerated by decent people of any color. Now, the organization of Black Lives Matter is another thing altogether.” ~ Darrell Michaels
https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/
They are self-professed trained Marxists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyhy4IvkENg
“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement…”
They are for using violence as necessary to further their agenda: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6167027878001#sp=show-clips
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8384065/Black-Lives-Matter-leader-declares-war-police.html
BLM in its Own Words
“We actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia [Garza] in particular, we’re trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super versed on ideological theories.” — BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors, July 22, 2015.
“If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It’s a matter of interpretation…. I just want black liberation and black sovereignty, by any means necessary.” — BLM activist Hank Newsome, June 25, 2020.
“Stay in the streets! The system is throwing every diversionary and de-mobilizing tactic at us. We are fighting to end policing and prisons as a system which necessitates fighting white supremacist capitalist heteropatriarchal imperialism. Vet your comrades and stay focused.” — BLM Chicago, Twitter, June 16, 2020.
“There’s no such thing as ‘blue lives.’ There is no hue of a blue life. Being a police officer is an occupation. It’s a job. ‘All lives matter’— it’s like saying the sky is blue. I haven’t heard how police are on the right side of history.” — BLM co-founder Alicia Garza, ktvu.com, March 30, 2018.
“It’s hundreds of years of generational oppression and trauma and infrastructural racism that impacts our bodies and makes our bodies more vulnerable to something like a COVID-19.” — BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors, Hollywood Reporter, June 2, 2020.
“We say #DefundThePolice and #DefundDepOfCorrections because they work in tandem. The rise of mass incarceration occurred alongside the rise of militarized and mass policing. They must be abolished as a system.” — BLM Chicago, June 13, 2020.
“We are anti-capitalist. We believe and understand that Black people will never achieve liberation under the current global racialized capitalist system.” — Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), of which BLM is a part, June 5, 2020.
“‘All Lives Matter,’ is little more than a racist dog whistle that attempts to both delegitimize centuries of claims of global anti-Black oppression and position those who exhibit tremendous pride in their Blackness as enemies of the state. Well, we are enemies of any racist, sexist, classist, xenophobic state that sanctions brutality and murder against marginalized people who deserve to live as free people.” — Feminista Jones, BLM activist.
“We stand with Palestinian civil society in calling for targeted sanctions in line with international law against Israel’s colonial, apartheid regime.” — BLM UK, June 28, 2020.
“We are an ABOLITIONIST movement. We do not believe in reforming the police, the state or the prison industrial complex.” — BLM UK, June 21, 2020.
“Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down. They are a form of white supremacy. Always have been. In the Bible, when the family of Jesus wanted to hide, and blend in, guess where they went? EGYPT! Not Denmark. Tear them down.” — BLM leader Shaun King, June 22, 2020.
“We are living in political moment where for the first time in a long time we are talking about alternatives to capitalism.” — Alicia Garza, BLM co-founder, March 2015.
“Anti-racism is anti-capitalist, and vice versa. There are no two ways around it. To be an anti-racist must demand a complete rejection of business as usual. An end to racism demands transformation of the global political-economic setup.” — Joshua Virasami, BLM UK, June 8, 2020.
“BLM’s worldview is based on a mix of far-left theoretical frameworks, including critical race theory and intersectional theory. Critical race theory posits that racism is systemic, based on a system of white supremacy and therefore a permanent feature of American life. Intersectional theory asserts that people are often disadvantaged by multiple sources of oppression: their race, class, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, and other identity markers.
Black Lives Matter and other purveyors of critical race theory and intersectional theory reject individual accountability for behavior, criminal or otherwise, because, according to them, blacks are systemic and permanent victims of racism. Such racism, according to BLM, can only be defeated by completely dismantling the American economic, political and social system and rebuilding it from scratch — according to Marxist principles.
Black Lives Matter seeks to replace the foundational cornerstones of American society: 1) abolish the Judeo-Christian concept of the traditional nuclear family, the basic social unit in America; 2) abolish the police and dismantle the prison system; 3) mainstream transgenderism and delegitimize so-called heteronormativity (the belief that heterosexuality is the norm); and 4) abolish capitalism (a free economy) and replace it with communism (a government-controlled economy).” – Soeren Kern
I have already spent way too much time responding to and addressing Mr. Dubya’s points, false premises, outright lies, and unproven assertions. This too will fall on deaf ears; he hasn’t been interested in an honest discussion for years now. He simply wants everyone to fall in line with his leftist way of thinking, otherwise in his words, they are “authoritarian”, “racist”, “have an over-developed amygdala”, “hypocrites”, false or bad Christians, and unwilling to reconcile with their own consciences. Yet, he is baffled when no one wants to play with him anymore and denies that he is the one that is name-calling and poisoning the discussion. Welcome to cancel-culture 2020. It is reason enough not to engage with him anymore. It is far more productive to discuss issues with a brick wall. Cheers! ~ Darrell
Thank you for your comment, Darrell. Your thoughts have always been welcomed here.
It strikes me as unreasonable for us to expect Dave Dubya to summarize your views in a way you will find accurate and fair. He does, after all, disagree with those views. He does acknowledge your factual points, when they are factual. He agrees, for example, that an early member of BLM proclaimed herself to have been trained in marxist activism. I’m going by memory here, so forgive me if I got her wording wrong. You and Dave seem to have it down.
Dave disagrees, as do I, with your exercise in guilt by association. When you simply repeat that logical flaw, it does not deflate that disagreement.
I address it this way: BLM began after Trayvon Martin, on his way to his uncle’s home (I think it was) from buying candy, was stalked and killed by a gunman who thought he didn’t belong. The gunman got off by saying he felt threatened and was attacked by the youngster who was armed with a bag of skittles. BLM was, at the start, composed of three young folks. One of them did proclaim herself to have had marxist training.
The movement grew in a tsunami of support, way beyond those three, after we watched a police officer smirk at a camera as he casually knelt on the neck of a victim for nearly nine minutes as the dying man whispered pleas for his life. The kneeling stopped only after the man was dead. Those three young individuals have been overrun by 26 million people who were horrified by what we all saw.
I suppose you could claim that those 26 million are participating in a marxist movement in the same sense that you could claim that Donald Trump leads a pro-voting rights movement because of Abraham Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens. You could claim that Volkswagen is a Nazi corporation because Hitler once smiled at an automobile. You could claim that most Americans, for instance you and me and Dave, chant socialist slogans whenever we recite the Pledge of Allegiance because the author of that pledge was an avowed socialist.
I don’t find much to support the rest of your accusations against the BLM movement. Perhaps supporting evidence would help.
Your unsupported opinions are welcomed, however. That is not because you are my longtime friend, and not because you are a genuinely good guy, although those descriptions are true. Your views are welcomed because they deserve to be aired and examined.
Dave’s well argued vivisection of those views are welcomed as well, for the same reasons.
I am not perturbed by Mr. Dubya disagreeing with me. Such is his right. What annoys me is that he consistently claims I present no evidence is support of my positions. I just provided a bunch of quotations from BLM leaders in the comments above in their own words supporting Marxism and the overthrow of capitalism, abolition of police and prisons, and BLM’s willingness to use violence to further their causes. It is as if Mr. Dubya did not even read it. He said it is just “random people” I quoted. Nope, I quoted Patrisse Cullors and Alicia Garza, who are the TWO self-professed trained Marxists that founded the BLM movement, for instance.
Burr, I appreciate your friendship and your attempts at even-handness. I too used to always publish Mr. Dubya’s comments without moderation for years. When it got to the point of his name-calling and assigning evil motives to other commenters and myself on my site instead of arguing the points of the discussion, well I have indeed blocked such troll-like behavior. (Not unlike what he has done with a past conservative commentator JTF on his own blog.) I guess this standard should only apply to conservatives though, in his mind.
While you are indeed my friend, Darrell. there are limits.
Consider this fair warning.
I simply cannot tolerate this sort of name-calling.
I angrily deny your accusation of even-handedness.
Quotations from BLM leaders are entirely appropriate and do constitute evidence. However, I believe that Dave is looking for support for the following:
“But BLM, the organization, only wants to foster hate and division…The bottom line is that this not about black lives mattering. It is about furthering a Marxist, godless agenda… Thuggish people…espouse violence and have very little to do with denouncing actual racism.”
What you provided does not support your claim that they only want to foster hate and division. What you provided does not support your claim that this is not about black lives mattering. (Here you are, assigning evil motives to people you’ve never met with concerns you largely dismiss. And Dave was not alone in doing this on your blog; some of your fellow conservatives did the same.) What you provided does not support your claim that their agenda is godless, though it might conflict with your particular vision of divinity.
Of course, it would be silly to think that self-professed Marxists among leadership are not trying to convince others to join them or to otherwise push their agenda. But the movement and organization are not known as “Marxism Matters” and most people don’t perceive their goals as primarily anti-capitalist. This means that, despite what some among the leadership desire, many supporters would be content to simply see changes in the ways black people are treated and justice for those who were wrongfully harmed by law enforcement.
As for violence, most of us agree that it has its place, such as in self-defense or noble revolution. Republicans never forget to remind us of this when we discuss gun rights. So the moral concern here isn’t whether or not there’s support for violence, but instead whether or not that violence is justified. We are not talking about just a group of “thugs” who are arbitrarily violent. We are talking about people who believe that they have been targets of unjustified violence themselves for too long, who may believe that peaceful protests and “dialogues” have been largely ineffective in correcting this problem. If you could prove to them that they are wrong, you might find their support for violence fade away. But if they’re right, they just might have a case.
Given how quick Republicans are to declare anything from seatbelt laws to taxes to mask mandates for public health “tyranny,” I’m not sure that they’re the ones to listen to about persecution and justifiable violence…
Ryan, I agree, “Quotations from BLM leaders are entirely appropriate and do constitute evidence”, for what those individuals say and with no context. Words like “overthrow of capitalism, abolition of police and prisons, and BLM’s willingness to use violence to further their causes” are NOT in their statements or misrepresented. In his accusations, Darrell invents his own wordings and intent behind their comments.
You’re correct about expecting some evidence to support those severe, demeaning, and hateful accusations. Falsely accusing people of not valuing human lives is hateful. It is dehumanizing. When applied to only BLM, it comes off racist as hell.
All Darrell needed to say was, “I support BLM in their protests. I disagree with the Marxist ideology held by some of them. I do not support the acts of vandalism by other actors.” We could all agree with that.
But no. He takes BLM as personal threat. He hates them with such a passion that he denies they value human life. That is a lot of hate. I would never say such a thing about Darrell, even when it may appear true in some cases. I think Darrell marginally cares about SOME Black lives.
Darrell opened this discussion with his typical tactic for Pavlovitz, by making accusations that are not supported by facts or reason. “I think our good pastor should refer to Isaiah 5:20 and actually do some research on many of his inflammatory and inaccurate statements as objectively as he might be able to manage.”
This is his MO. He takes no responsibility for his accusations. What is his message? It amounts to, “That guy is wrong. I am right. And I don’t have to tell you why.”
His diatribes are based on his own emotional reaction to what he perceives as threats to him, his race, his religion and his country. He’s quite annoyed that I linked to real research that shows the primitive part of the brain called the amygdala, is different in conservatives.
But we know appeals to science meet a closed mind with the Right.
As for our side of the spectrum, we are willing to examine evidence. Even Darrell’s “evidence” and what “annoys” him.
“What annoys me is that he consistently claims I present no evidence is support of my positions. I just provided a bunch of quotations from BLM leaders in the comments above in their own words supporting Marxism and the overthrow of capitalism, abolition of police and prisons, and BLM’s willingness to use violence to further their causes. It is as if Mr. Dubya did not even read it. He said it is just “random people” I quoted. Nope, I quoted Patrisse Cullors and Alicia Garza, who are the TWO self-professed trained Marxists that founded the BLM movement, for instance.”
His summary is both false and deliberately dishonest twisting of their words. He doesn’t care to learn the context
Yes, the quotes are from random tweets and comments from BLM and related individuals. Most are NOT policy or beliefs from their websites. Much of his “evidence” is from a random Right winger. Soeren Kern is a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Gatestone Institute, the anti-Muslim Neo-con think-tank promoting far-right racism and extremism.
Darrell seems to equate supporting BLM’s protests against police violence and unequal justice under law with supporting Marxism. He cannot separate the two.
Does he also think the US supported Stalinism by siding with the USSR against Hitler? Such nuance is lost on the Right. They prefer to think Hitler was a socialist instead of an authoritarian, bigoted white nationalist, because of the NAZI acronym. Does this mean North Korea is a “democratic republic”? By the Right’s “logic”, it does.
If he examined his own “evidence” he would need to understand context.
Some examples:
He accuses BLM activist Hawk Newsome of promoting violence on FOX on June 25, 2020.
Here’s the missing context.
When asked what he “hopes to achieve through violence”, he first explained how violence has historically been the America way. What Darrell ignores is, “We’re talking about self-defense…about 4 0r 5 police officers choking someone to death, and someone from the community having the training to intervene effectively. We’re talking about saving lives. We’re not talking about ambushing police officers. We’re talking about protecting lives. There’s nothing more American than that”.
Will Darrell allow this context as “evidence”? I doubt it.
What do they mean when they say “abolish the prison system”? They are NOT saying, ”Let killers go free” at all. The words, “Abolish the prison system” are not among the beliefs at BLM’s website.
“We are fighting to end policing and prisons as a system which necessitates fighting white supremacist capitalist heteropatriarchal imperialism.”
It’s the systemic racism in an unequal application of enforcement and incarceration. Black and white drug use is the same proportionally. Incarceration is far from it. Crack v. powder cocaine sentencing guidelines illustrate the racial disparity. Does Darrell even comprehend what they mean by, “Driving while Black”?
It’s the prison industrial complex, often privatized for unaccountable cruelty, that is the issue.
What becomes obvious is Darrell’s utter lack of interest in hearing their valid complaints. He needs to obsess about “Marxism”, when none of these movements have any real political power whatsoever. The protests have nothing to do with “ending capitalism” or “promoting Marxism”.
What about all the accusations about BLM wanting to “abolish police”?
Nowhere at the BLM site do they say “abolish police”.
They say, “Defund the police.”
If the far Right had any curiosity they might learn what they mean by that term. Instead they prefer to accuse, blame and hate BLM.
Here is a summary of their position:
Divest in cops in schools, criminalized response to mental illness cases, and further militarization of police.
Invest in teachers and counselors, mental health services, and community led harm reduction.
Darrell refuses to discuss or acknowledge this. He prefers to accuse them wanting to abolish the police and not caring for human lives.
So who does he support? He supports birther Donald Trump, a man most of the country sees as a racist. A man who wanted to execute exonerated Black men. A man who refused to rent to Blacks. A man whose closest friend and adviser Roger Stone was photographed flashing the “white power” hand signal with racist Proud Boys.
These are the people he supports as he demonizes BLM. This is a position he shares with EVERY racist, white nationalist, and bigot.
If every BLM supporter is a “Marxist thug”, then by Darrell’s own guilt by association fallacy, his support of those racists tells us his true nature.
ROFL, love it, my friend!
Ryan, I appreciate your comment. First and foremost let me say that I whole-heartedly agree with your statement that, “…many supporters would be content to simply see changes in the ways black people are treated and justice for those who were wrongfully harmed by law enforcement.” I think it is safe to say that an overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with this, including me. It is a goal that all Americans should work towards ensuring its fruition by holding our leaders and police departments accountable when wrong-doing or evil is committed.
What happened to George Floyd was evil and despicable. He did not deserve death. The officers involved were fired, arrested, and will hopefully be sentenced to appropriate prison terms accordingly. Any decent American watching that tape would agree.
The resulting violence because of this did nothing to help the protesters cause against police brutality though. This outrage is something that all people, regardless of color, similarly espouse. Luckily such cases of abuse are rare. 99.9% of police and federal agents are not “storm troopers” as our Speaker of the House Pelosi grotesquely stated the other day.
“We are not talking about just a group of ‘thugs’ who are arbitrarily violent.” ~ Ryan
Aren’t we? Now I agree that not all people marching under the BLM banner are violent, arbitrarily or otherwise, but sadly there are plenty of folks getting lots of news coverage for what amounts to arbitrary violence and destruction. Burning down police stations may not be “arbitrary” in its violence, but how do you characterize the smashing and looting of business store fronts, the destruction of public monuments, including an elk statue that was evidently very offensive, and the attacking of people that are simply trying to get past closed off streets? How does that further the cause of BLM?
Further, I stand by my characterization of the BLM organization as being rooted in Marxism, wanting America to be rid of police and prisons, and against religion in general. Marxism by its very nature is incompatible with Judeo-Christian faiths. BLM’s support for BDS against Israel, countless anti-Semitic statements, and their direct or tangential ties to the burning of multiple churches and icons in the past month sure seems to suggest this is so.
And while some hide behind “defund the police” as meaning to simply divert money to other neighborhood-oriented systems, if one looks at the rhetoric from some of the leadership, one can see that is not the end game. Again, I give you the following:
“We are fighting to end policing and prisons as a system which necessitates fighting white supremacist capitalist heteropatriarchal imperialism. Vet your comrades and stay focused.” — BLM Chicago, Twitter, June 16, 2020.
“We say #DefundThePolice and #DefundDepOfCorrections because they work in tandem. The rise of mass incarceration occurred alongside the rise of militarized and mass policing. They must be abolished as a system.” — BLM Chicago, June 13, 2020.
“We are an ABOLITIONIST movement. We do not believe in reforming the police, the state or the prison industrial complex.” — BLM UK, June 21, 2020.
They want to ABOLISH the police, the prisons, and even the state according to their own statements above. I don’t see how one can twist this to mean otherwise.
Further the BLM movement is not simply about black lives mattering. That is merely a vehicle to advance a greater agenda. Again, by their own words: “We are anti-capitalist. We believe and understand that Black people will never achieve liberation under the current global racialized capitalist system.” — Movement for Black Lives (M4BL), of which BLM is a part, June 5, 2020.
“Anti-racism is anti-capitalist, and vice versa.” — Joshua Virasami, BLM UK, June 8, 2020.
The BLM organization is about advancing Marxism and all of its corollaries to fruition. Antifa is a willing partner with their violence and ironically fascist methods.
Mr. Dubya claims that BLM (the organization) is absolutely for black lives mattering since it is in the name. Well, I have no doubt that there is a component to it, but if they were truly for improving black lives, wouldn’t they be decrying the inequities in inner-city education and school choice for black children? Wouldn’t they be working to stop the senseless killing of dozens of black people in cities like Chicago that occur on a weekly basis? Wouldn’t they work to help black people rise out of poverty through education, work-training, and teaching self reliance to those families in need of it?
A name does not necessarily make something so. The Affordable Care Act hardly made health care affordable. No Child Left Behind left untold children behind. Evidently this is a fact lost on some good folks though.
As for my comment, “ROFL, love it, my friend!” That was intended for Burr’s “even-handedness” comment and was not directed laughingly at you or David. The placement of the comment suggested that I better clarify that.
“It is a goal that all Americans should work towards ensuring its fruition by holding our leaders and police departments accountable when wrong-doing or evil is committed.”
We don’t all agree on what constitutes wrong-doing, what power the police should have, when they should use force and when they de-escalate, whether or not private prisons should exist, whether or not certain drug laws are justified or applied consistently across races, etc. People don’t just have a problem with rules being broken under the status quo; they have a problem with the rules and the status quo themselves. And this is an opportunity to perhaps do something about it.
“99.9% of police and federal agents are not “storm troopers” as our Speaker of the House Pelosi grotesquely stated the other day.”
She referred to a particular group of federal agents as such due to their behavior (e.g. grabbing people off the street, refusing to identify themselves) and the manner in which (and possibly reason for which) they were deployed, not 99.9% of law enforcement. Just how many “bad apples” exist within law enforcement is hard to say, but they are not limited to officers who go as far as the ones in the Floyd case did. Since all of these protests began, many more of them have shown their true colors, captured on camera for the world to see.
It’s not random. Certain groups attract certain types of people and lend themselves to certain forms of hierarchy or groupthink that discourages otherwise good individuals from speaking or standing up when their peers do wrong. They come to believe that they have to stick together no matter what because they are the good guys in a war against evil, that they’re “just doing their jobs,” that the moral decisions aren’t theirs to make. You clearly think that Chauvin does not represent your average police officer, but what do you make of the other officers? Were they all “bad apples” that improbably were grouped together? Or is it possible that there is something about the job that changed these perhaps otherwise good people or brought out bad qualities that they already had?
“Burning down police stations may not be “arbitrary” in its violence, but how do you characterize the smashing and looting of business store fronts, the destruction of public monuments, including an elk statue that was evidently very offensive, and the attacking of people that are simply trying to get past closed off streets? How does that further the cause of BLM?”
Some of that is indeed arbitrary and unjustified. I simply object to cases of arbitrary violence being used to characterize the group, which includes peaceful protesters, as arbitrarily violent.
The destruction of certain public monuments, on the other hand, is rather tame: it gets attention and might be symbolic, yet doesn’t hurt any particular person.
What would you suggest to people who don’t see results from strictly peaceful protest and dialogue and who don’t think that their government is going to bring about change any time soon? Do you think violence is ever appropriate?
“Further, I stand by my characterization of the BLM organization as being rooted in Marxism”
I accept that characterization of the views expressed by some of its public figures. I only question to what extent its members, especially in the wake of the Floyd incident, support these views. If there is a discrepancy, there is room to disagree over the characterization of the group as a whole, especially if there isn’t a strong hierarchy.
“Marxism by its very nature is incompatible with Judeo-Christian faiths.”
That’s a common position, but can you be more specific about which aspects are incompatible? Do you think that someone who ignored those aspects and embraced the rest of Marxism could still reasonably be called a Marxist? What about the quotes you provided is fundamentally at odds with Judeo-Christian faiths? Without quoting Soeren Kern, please.
In any case, there is much in American culture that I would argue is incompatible with Christianity but is nevertheless supported by Christians, including conservative ones who are very vocal about their religion. People get by.
“[Quotes about what BLM wants regarding the abolition of police and prisons]”
There is disagreement even among supporters over what “abolition” and “defunding” should mean here. I’m not just trying to play with words. There is a big difference between the abolition of police and the abolition of police as we know them, to be replaced by some alternative. And there is a big difference between the abolition of the prison system and the abolition of the prison industrial complex. These terms are unfortunate in their most immediate connotations, but make for better slogans than their more nuanced alternatives.
“but if they were truly for improving black lives, wouldn’t they…”
Don’t you find this argument to be rather disingenuous? BLM arose in response to particular events and patterns involving the law: first Trayvon Martin, then Michael Brown. It has a focus and that’s OK. Your argument could apply to any group that states a cause but doesn’t do literally everything to advance it. It’s really not much of a criticism and it would be unrealistic for them to take on everything anyway.
I appreciate Darrell for allowing a little light to seep through his benighted views of BLM.
“Mr. Dubya claims that BLM (the organization) is absolutely for black lives mattering since it is in the name. Well, I have no doubt that there is a component to it,…
Black Lives Matter is more than a mere “component” or name. It is more than their stated mission, beliefs, and purpose. It is in their actions protesting racism and police violence on Black Americans.
For some reason, Darrell just can’t admit this is reality, and their valid cause is advancing justice beyond the brutal actions of racist and unqualified cops. Punishing racist killer cops isn’t enough. They want to be safe from this systemic racism that has been affecting them.
As long as we have racist cops flashing the white power hand sign, and as long as we have racists like Trump and his buddy Roger Stone in positions of power, BLM has a just and righteous mission.
“… but if they were truly for improving black lives, wouldn’t they be decrying the inequities in inner-city education and school choice for black children?”
If Darrell was curious, he would seek to understand why these inequities exist, and that BLM understands better than he does their situation, and what they want done about it.
For some reason he can’t do this. He’s too obsessed with some of them understanding Marxism and the deleterious effects of corporate American capitalism, racist cops, and systemic racism on Black Americans.
I think much of his anger is rooted in his misunderstanding, and lack of awareness, of what most Black people have experienced under a long tradition of racism in law enforcement.
He has no clue what it’s like “driving while Black”.
Here’s hoping he attempts to understand more of what we are saying.
Just this again:
All Darrell needed to say was, “I support BLM in their protests. I disagree with the Marxist ideology held by some of them. I do not support the acts of vandalism by other actors.” We could all agree with that.
I find it quite typical that long after Darrell has accused Rev. Pavlovitz of “inflammatory and inaccurate statements”, and after all this back and forth, he has yet to explain what was inflammatory or inaccurate. His accusations continue to wobble and flop without supporting facts or evidence.
Perhaps this means Darrell, not Pavlovitz, should “actually do some research on many of his inflammatory and inaccurate statements as objectively as he might be able to manage”?
Projection appears to be the new form of “evidence” in the age of Trump.
Can we get Darrell to admit BLM, no matter what any of their individual political opinions may be, has a legitimate grievance?
I know this is difficult for white conservatives, because they are conditioned to dismiss or minimize racism.
To support this point, Darrell has been dodging all evidence of racism in police, Proud (White) Boys, Trump, and his inner circle.
I posted the photo of Roger Stone flashing the white power hand sign with Proud Boys at my blog. I referred to it in an unpublished comment at his blog.
Also included in my unpublished comment was evidence of police brutality and wanton cruelty to non-violent protesters. Why were these important points rejected out of hand?
Part of his difficulty in acknowledging all this evidence of racism and police violence may be due to being reflexively conditioned to side with authority and the police. Through this tinted lens of bias white conservatives will never understand what it is like “driving while Black”.
Instead, one of his accusation was, “They (mainstream media) want you to believe that any violence being done is by police on peaceful protesters simply exercising their constitutional rights.
Really? This sounds like projection from someone wanting to focus on property damage rather than police brutality and injuries and assaults upon innocent Americans exercising their First Amendment rights. His outrage over property damage and the politics of a few individuals dwarfs any pretense of understanding the reason such protests are happening.
One would imagine a balanced viewpoint would condemn vandalism AND support the peaceful protests. This is high bar in the black and white world of conservatism.
That seems to require a level of understanding and compassion that is alien to the Right. They see enemies instead of Americans wanting accountable law enforcement and a less racist country.
I tried to explain the scientific basis (MRI studies showing enlarged and more readily activated amygdalas in conservatives) for this reaction, but that too was dismissed out of hand.
With expectations thus lowered, I would at least appreciate what evidence Darrell has to support his original accusations leveled at Pavlovitz.
Is that too much to ask?
“With expectations thus lowered, I would at least appreciate what evidence Darrell has to support his original accusations leveled at Pavlovitz.
Is that too much to ask?” – Dave
Yes. Because, and you know this already, there is no evidence. The accusations are feelings. They feel inflammatory to Darrell. Because they feel inflammatory and inaccurate, they are. Perhaps the Good Pastor’s words struck too close to home for him. Perhaps they dared Darrell to be a little introspective and there’s this rubber band-effect where he went, ‘No. The pastor is wrong because he’s wrong.’ And an easy, non-contemplative way of responding to the other man’s opinion is enough for him to dismiss it and not have to think about it anymore.
Remember, the anecdotal evidence of one’s feelings are enough to deny, deflect, and project anything away. That’s why it’s okay for police to kill a man for allegedly trying to pass a counterfeit $20 bill or for the police to kill a man for allegedly trying to sell individual cigarettes out on the street or why it’s okay for a rich, Caucasian husband and wife to wave and point firearms at passing protestors or why it’s okay that a man stalked and murdered a teenage boy just passing through a neighborhood after buying candy or why it’s okay the police murdered a woman sleeping in her bed or why it’s okay to send in Federal agents to protect federal buildings from spray paint and broken glass. You see, it just feels right, because counterfeit $20 bills deserve a death sentence, it’s illegal, duh! Selling individual cigarettes is a crime and running from the cops deserves a death sentence. And that boy stalked by that good Samaritan? Well, he shouldn’t have been in that neighborhood, obviously. AND HE FOUGHT BACK. The man who stalked him and initiated the entire confrontation was just defending himself! Similarly, you see it was a private street and a private community the protestors walked through so it’s right for that husband and wife to escalate and defend their property which wasn’t being tresspassed on the first place, but probably because of the guns! Oh and that woman who was killed in her bed? Her address had some sort of ancillary relationship with an on going investigation elsewhere, so of course it’s okay she was killed. Accidents happen, oops. Of course, Portland. Oh man, Portland is such a hellscape. “Peaceful” Protests? Well if they were so peaceful, then why were they wearing vests, masks and throwing things at the Federal Agents that started shooting them and pushing them around? They shouldn’t have been breaking windows and spray painting graffiti! Now, if they were armed and, I don’t know, stormed the State House or broke the law and then took over a Federal Building when Federal Agents tried to enforce the law like those Bundy boys… then maybe they wouldn’t have faceless, IDless Federal Troops straight out of Dystopian Fiction trying to keep the peace by shooting them.
Everything can be dismissed, deflected and excused when you just search your feelings to make up the truth that best fits your comfortable, privileged, apathetic life. Bonus points if you can use Jesus Christ as your shield and misrepresent his words as your weapon.