George Floyd

[Ken]

What does the Bible say about sin and evil? It doesn’t talk at all about the things the world is saying are evil (like racism or authoritarian governments).

On the other hand, the Bible says some things are very evil that the world says are OK. Covetousness is evil, but so is greed. Wealth can keep a rich man out of the kingdom of heaven. The Bible isn’t too focused on keeping the economy humming - although it does say to let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labour with his hands.

The bible doesn't address racism? The 21st Century concept of racism has perhaps evolved from what it was 2000 years go. We are a product of our histories. But there are plenty of relevant biblical teachings:

"God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right" (Acts 10:34-35).

"We were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink” (1 Corinthians 12:13).

"If you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers” (James 2:9).

In any event, plenty of mainstream denominations have declared racism a sin:

United Church of Christ: https://www.ucc.org/justice_racism_racism-declared-sin
Presbyterian: https://www.presbyterianmission.org/sto ... -humanity/
Catholics: https://charlestondiocese.org/wp-conten ... Racism.pdf
Baptists: http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/899/reso ... convention

[PeterG]

No one is drawing moral equivalencies between a life and people's property.

Why prioritize one [destroying property] over the other [killing innocent black men]?

Perhaps there's a relevant difference between non-priority and moral equivalency, and I'm not even sure that I disagree with what Robert said, but to me it looks like Robert drew a moral equivalency here. I'd be happy to see Robert explain further.

I hesitate even to say that much, because something just seems wrong with this whole discussion, this ping-ponging between "racism is evil, but so is rioting" and "rioting is evil, but so is racism." The sadness that Neto expressed is about the only thing in this thread that feels completely right to me. I don't know if my response is correct, but it is what it is.

I did not say what you posted and adding words inside my quote is dishonest. I know you were trying to explain it, but it distorts what I said.
Here is my statement:

Both are wrong. Both need to stop. Why prioritize one over the other?

Killing George Floyd was wrong. Riots killing multiple people are wrong. Riots are killing people, not just damaging property. Both are wrong. Both need to stop.

This is the entirety of the post I was referring to—

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.

QuietlyListening's post refers to the destruction of property and the killing of innocent black men; it says nothing at all about riots that kill people. When you responded with "both" and "one over the other," it was reasonable for me to think that you were referring to the same two things that QuietlyListening mentioned, not something that she did not mention. Obviously, it's understandable if you misread QuietlyListening's post and consequently miscommunicated. Not a big deal, and I'm glad your position is clarified.

[Robert]

Obviously, it's understandable if you misread QuietlyListening's post and consequently miscommunicated. Not a big deal, and I'm glad your position is clarified.

After I posted, I felt dishonest was too strong. It did distort what I was saying. Even if people were not dying from the riots, I still see them as evil and harmful. It saddens me because it becomes the focus instead of the enforcement reform that is really needed. I have been posting about it for months. What happened with Flynn and Floyd are two sides of the same sword. Abuse of power. The state needs to be reigned in.

[Szdfan]

What does the Bible say about sin and evil? It doesn’t talk at all about the things the world is saying are evil (like racism or authoritarian governments).

On the other hand, the Bible says some things are very evil that the world says are OK. Covetousness is evil, but so is greed. Wealth can keep a rich man out of the kingdom of heaven. The Bible isn’t too focused on keeping the economy humming - although it does say to let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labour with his hands.

The bible doesn't address racism? The 21st Century concept of racism has perhaps evolved from what it was 2000 years go. We are a product of our histories. But there are plenty of relevant biblical teachings:

Racism — as we understand it — is a modern concept and so of course the Bible doesn’t address it directly. How can it? Yet there are plenty of other contemporary issues that the Bible doesn’t directly address — abortion, for example, isn’t mentioned in the Bible either. One of the roles of theology, then, is to make Scripture relevant to our lives today and to interpret how it applies to contemporary issues.

But even though racism — as we understand it today — may not be directly mentioned in the Bible, Scripture is deeply concerned with justice and liberation for the oppressed. The central story of Israel, for example, is their liberation from slavery in Egypt. One of the central purposes of the Law is to actually remind Israel of their deliverance from slavery.

Deuteronomy 6:20-25

In the future, when your son asks you, “What is the meaning of the stipulations, decrees and laws the Lord our God has commanded you?” tell him: “We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, but the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. Before our eyes the Lord sent signs and wonders—great and terrible—on Egypt and Pharaoh and his whole household. But he brought us out from there to bring us in and give us the land he promised on oath to our ancestors. The Lord commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the Lord our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today.

This story of Exodus has been a central theme in African-African Christianity and theology during the past few centuries. During slavery, it represented the hope that God might liberate the slaves in America just as God liberated the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. During the Civil Rights Movement, protestors desegregated swimming pools by singing the spiritual “Wade in the Water.”

To say that the Bible doesn’t address racism is to cynically dismiss the past few centuries of a theology that has provided an oppressed community hope and resilience.

Furthermore, I think non-resistant Anabaptists need to take this history and theology seriously and wrestle with it if they want to have credibility when they denounce protests and violence in response to George’s murder. To simultaneously argue that violence against oppression is wrong and that systematic racism doesn’t exist not only delegitimizes the experiences of our black brothers and sisters, it also reads as support for the status quo that has led us to this catastrophe.

[Szdfan]

This is a very thoughtful response. I don't agree with all of it but I truly appreciate it. Thank you.

You’re welcome. I’m glad you appreciate it. I am seriously wrestling with these questions at a time when it seems that the world has gone insane and our country is falling apart. There is opportunity for new understanding and insight in the midst of this madness.

[Joy]

So ironic that George Floyd had worked for peace in two states, and in the wake of his death, they desecrated his memory by burning businesses and houses (occupied in one case, then blocked emergency workers), and smashing others' property.

The word "they" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your comment. Who is "they"?

By all accounts, there were widespread peaceful protests that got hijacked by predominantly white young thugs bent on causing destruction and anarchy. At least that' what happened in this part of the country. I haven't been following the news of what happened everywhere.

The people who committed the crimes mentioned.

[Szdfan]

Obviously, it's understandable if you misread QuietlyListening's post and consequently miscommunicated. Not a big deal, and I'm glad your position is clarified.

After I posted, I felt dishonest was too strong. It did distort what I was saying. Even if people were not dying from the riots, I still see them as evil and harmful. It saddens me because it becomes the focus instead of the enforcement reform that is really needed. I have been posting about it for months. What happened with Flynn and Floyd are two sides of the same sword. Abuse of power. The state needs to be reigned in.

You’ve mentioned before that the state should be afraid of its citizens. In that sense, aren’t the riots a positive thing if they instill fear in the government of its citizenry? Isn’t actual violence more effective than threatened violence? Aren’t smashed storefronts and burning neighborhoods more effective than 2nd Amendment cosplay? Isn’t this moment the mass insurrection and uprising against local and federal government that certain radical anti-government conservative types have dreamed for?

I suspect not.

I suspect that actual violence instills fear in the government the wrong way. A government that fears actual violence from its citizens leads to a more authoritarian and violent government. When police fear the communities they serve, they militarize and purchase military hardware, which in turn leads to more violence and distrust in the community. In German, they call this a “Teufelskreis” (Devil’s circle). In English, we call it a vicious circle. The militarized police response is escalating the violence.

Last night Trump declared himself the “law and order” president and threatened to unleash the US military on its own citizens. Today the 82nd Airborne from Fort Bragg deployed to Washington, DC. The fear of violence is not reigning the government in, it is causing it to escalate the conflict.

[Robert]

Last night Trump declared himself the “law and order” president and threatened to unleash the US military on its own citizens. Today the 82nd Airborne from Fort Bragg deployed to Washington, DC. The fear of violence is not reigning the government in, it is causing it to escalate the conflict.

You really took what I said to a massive extreme. That is a strawman. Do you really want to take me back down that rabbit hole? I lost 2 years of life last time. But it was quite funny, to me anyway.

Many presidents have had to do such things to bring civil order ie 1960 civil rights and southern states that resisted it.

Minorities want law and order. It is what gives them equal rights to the majority.

There is a difference between peaceful protests and riots. Conflating the two is dishonest. Yes, that term fits well here.

We have the right to peacefully protest. We do not have the right to damage other's property. I see few of these rioters burning their own homes and businesses. I know you see that as wrong. I do not need the riots to justify the need for peaceful protest. The riots are not really about George Floyd and Police abuse of power. They are an attack on the society we have. Some does need to change. Using violence to make that change will end in failure. It will not gain the support of the 80% that the minority needs to make those changes. It just makes them look like thugs that need to be controlled with power.

It was the wisdom of MLK that would not let the civil rights movement degrade to that. It was very hard, but he managed it and won over the support of the 80%.

I hope things change and law enforcement is improved so our civil rights are not so easily abused. I fear that the riots will do the opposite.

[Bootstrap]

There is a difference between peaceful protests and riots. Conflating the two is dishonest.

That's equally true in both directions. There are always people falsely characterizing peaceful protests as dangerous, violent extremists. There are always violent extremists posing as peaceful protesters.

[Szdfan]

Last night Trump declared himself the “law and order” president and threatened to unleash the US military on its own citizens. Today the 82nd Airborne from Fort Bragg deployed to Washington, DC. The fear of violence is not reigning the government in, it is causing it to escalate the conflict.

You really took what I said to a massive extreme. That is a strawman. Do you really want to take me back down that rabbit hole? I lost 2 years of life last time. But it was quite funny, to me anyway.

Many presidents have had to do such things to bring civil order ie 1960 civil rights and southern states that resisted it.

Minorities want law and order. It is what gives them equal rights to the majority.

There is a difference between peaceful protests and riots. Conflating the two is dishonest. Yes, that term fits well here.

We have the right to peacefully protest. We do not have the right to damage other's property. I see few of these rioters burning their own homes and businesses. I know you see that as wrong. I do not need the riots to justify the need for peaceful protest. The riots are not really about George Floyd and Police abuse of power. They are an attack on the society we have. Some does need to change. Using violence to make that change will end in failure. It will not gain the support of the 80% that the minority needs to make those changes. It just makes them look like thugs that need to be controlled with power.

It was the wisdom of MLK that would not let the civil rights movement degrade to that. It was very hard, but he managed it and won over the support of the 80%.

I hope things change and law enforcement is improved so our civil rights are not so easily abused. I fear that the riots will do the opposite.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t you said in the past that we need the 2nd Amendment in order for the government to be afraid of an armed citizenry?

You wrote earlier in this thread:

This is also a reason to be careful of a strong government/police state. When the authorities fear the populus, you have fairness. When they do not, you have abuses like this.

Could you clarify what you meant by this? What does it mean for the government to be afraid of the populous? In what ways does the populous make the government afraid?