George Floyd

[Robert]

This was written on a post on Instagram. Just changing the emphasis makes all the difference.

You keep saying, "It's horrible that an innocent black man was killed but destroying property has to stop.

Try saying, "It's horrible that property is being destroyed, but killing innocent black men has to stop."

You're prioritizing the wrong part.

Both are wrong. Both need to stop. Why prioritize one over the other? That is like saying I am beating you and stabbing you. Oh, I will stop stabbing you and just beat you to death. Stop both.

[queserasera_2]

https://www.google.com/search?q=gofundm ... UTF-8#ip=1

[MichaelPA]

This was written on a post on Instagram. Just changing the emphasis makes all the difference.

You keep saying, "It's horrible that an innocent black man was killed but destroying property has to stop.

Try saying, "It's horrible that property is being destroyed, but killing innocent black men has to stop."

You're prioritizing the wrong part.

Both are wrong. Both need to stop. Why prioritize one over the other? That is like saying I am beating you and stabbing you. Oh, I will stop stabbing you and just beat you to death. Stop both.

An innocent life is of much more value than property.

[Szdfan]

This was written on a post on Instagram. Just changing the emphasis makes all the difference.

You keep saying, "It's horrible that an innocent black man was killed but destroying property has to stop.

Try saying, "It's horrible that property is being destroyed, but killing innocent black men has to stop."

You're prioritizing the wrong part.

Both are wrong. Both need to stop. Why prioritize one over the other? That is like saying I am beating you and stabbing you. Oh, I will stop stabbing you and just beat you to death. Stop both.

An innocent life is of much more value than property.

I would say even a guilty life is more valuable than property. Even if George was guilty, he did not deserve being choked to death.

[Joy]

But what about the people dying in the riots?

[Szdfan]

But what about the people dying in the riots?

Their lives are more valuable than property too. This is a bad situation, but I think we need to be careful not to make a moral equivalency between loss of life and destruction of property.

[Soloist]

Do we as Christians believe the proper response is violence to violence? or something else?

Why then do we make room for violence in our words?

Do we follow after Martin Luther King like he followed after Gandhi was shifting to Malcom X position?
Or do we follow after Christ?


Before you object to my words on MLK, read what he actually said and the timeline.

[HondurasKeiser]

But what about the people dying in the riots?

Their lives are more valuable than property too. This is a bad situation, but I think we need to be careful not to make a moral equivalency between loss of life and destruction of property.

No one is drawing moral equivalencies between a life and people's property. Robert et al are saying the very thing that all Anabaptists have believed in for 500 years; namely that all violence is evil, wrong and ultimately fruitless. Saying things like the following comes across as a patronizing form of approval:

We shouldn't be surprised, when the "pitchforks come out" in the face of deadly and systemic oppression. Who do you go to when the cops are the oppressors? How do you call the cops on the cops? Property destruction in the face of that is as old (and ill advised) as the Tea Party celebrated in the Am History books..

Maybe there is desperation at not being heard. Maybe those doing the burning (a very tiny percentage of the black community) do not feel they "have" or "own" a community since they can't be safe where they live. Maybe they feel alienated enough that nothing in this country feels like it belongs to them.

Because what matters most is capitalism.

What's more, the suggestion that maybe some of the violence is being perpetrated by Out-of-Staters or White Supremacists seems like a ranking of the virtue of the violence i.e. POC and natives of Minneapolis can be justified in their destruction of their city (but I would never do it because Kingdom Christianity) but if they're coming in from out-of-town to foment unrest and rebellion then that's beyond the pale.

I think Boot had the best response to this entire catastrophe on page 1 of this thread:

Both are real threats to our ability to do society together.

But we shouldn't confuse all police with those who are brutally abusing people, and we shouldn't confuse all protestors with those who are damaging businesses.

Blessed are those who mourn.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.
Blessed are the peacemakers.

How can we mourn and grieve and hunger and thirst for righteousness in ways that lead to peace? How can we avoid pouring gas on these flames?

[Fidelio]

I am just sad. I'm not a big patriot, but I'm sad for this country. I'm sad for the victims of oppression that in some ways have forced all this to the surface. I'm sad for those who feel that they have no hope, I'm sad for the officers who now live under even greater danger. I'm sad for business owners who have lost their lively-hood. I'm sad for the children growing up in this mess, the children who have lost their fathers, wives who have lost their husbands, men & women who have lost spouses or children.

But I'm also sad because when I was a young man, I saw prejudice in my own heart, and as I repudiated it, and turned away from all of that, I had hopes of being a part of the solution, dreaming that we could change the world. I'm sad because I cannot tell that anything I or we did helped at all. I didn't suffer greatly in any real way, but I WAS profiled and hassled by authorities because of my identification with Black Americans. I had a vision that one day everyone would be recognized just as a human being, just another person loved by God, one for whom Christ died.

But here's a little diversion - a picture of me from that time (taken Summer of 1978). (And yes, it is all natural, not a perm.)

That hair is too tempting for an arsonist!

Hey, here is me about 1974

[Szdfan]

Do we as Christians believe the proper response is violence to violence? or something else?

Why then do we make room for violence in our words?

Do we follow after Martin Luther King like he followed after Gandhi was shifting to Malcom X position?
Or do we follow after Christ?


Before you object to my words on MLK, read what he actually said and the timeline.

As far as I'm aware, MLK never advocated the use of violence for social change. I strongly recommend Charles Marsh's theological history of the Civil Rights Movement, "The Beloved Community," which goes into King's personal struggle and wrestling with the question of self-defense and his rejection of it. As Marsh points out, King did purchase a gun to defend himself early on during the Montgomery Bus Boycott, but discarded it by the end of the campaign. I'm not aware of anything that wavered from that commitment.

I had previously posted a quote from King on this thread from March 1968, less than a month before King was assasinated.

In this quote, King upholds non-violent direct action for social change:

And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non­-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results.

I think that's an unequivocal support for non-violent, Gandhian action. At the same time, though, King also recognizes the conditions that have led to the rioting:

But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.

I don't see King approving or advocating for violent riots, but rather recognizing that violence is a natural consequence (the language of the unheard) by those who have no hope that anything will ever change. Why do people loot and burn down their own neighborhoods? Because they have no hope.

I'd like to hear more about what you believe Malcolm X's position was? My understanding is that Malcolm X did not advocate for violent revolution, but believed that African-Americans had the right to defend themselves from White violence. This position is not that different from today's Second Amendment enthusiasts who arm themselves to protect themselves from threats real and imagined. It's also a position that I see articulated on this forum as well -- gun control is bad because we have the constitutional right to defend ourselves.

And in regards to following Jesus, what do you do with the account of Jesus overturning the moneylenders' tables in the Temple? It's a passage I often struggle with when I think about non-resistance and pacifism. Jesus got angry. He destroyed property. He attacked small business owners with a whip. It's a passage that makes me deeply uncomfortable and it's not something that I have been able to reconcile yet.