Buzz Words

 I have always had a desire for people to get along. Perhaps it's the middle child in me. I remember in high school there being animosities between "jocks" and "stoners" and I felt a deep sadness at the notion that they couldn't get along, loving people from both groups and wishing they could love each other too. This sounds corny, but it's true! I feel very upset whenever someone is a neigh sayer on the issue of unity. I also feel very upset when people accuse others without having evidence. 

What I am seeing is that there are certain buzz words that trigger so much more than just the word. Just as wearing a certain color can identify you with a certain gang, instantly creating friends and enemies, but more so enemies than friends, buzz words can do something similar. This is an extremely oversimplified way of thinking, and it promotes division instead of unity. 

These buzz words are also often fear based. If the group you affiliate with can convince you that a certain buzz word is bad, just hearing someone else mention it can provoke a fear in you and an automatic judgment of the person or situation, placing him, her, or it in a box that you think you understand and have some control over. I am the type of person that sees opportunity and potential in everything and everyone. I guess that would make me an optimist. When I see people full of fear and caution, avoiding other people or situations because they've mentally put them in such a box, I see unmet potential and lost opportunity.  

God apparently will not allow such division in his kingdom. Galatians 5:19-21 includes enmity, strife, rivalries, dissensions, and divisions as works of the flesh and says they will not inherit the kingdom of God. The list also includes jealousy, fits of anger, and envy, which could perhaps be included in the category of division. In fact, I count 15 topics in the list of works of the flesh in this passage, five of which directly relate to division, plus three more that are affiliated. I think this says a lot! It looks like this is the English Standard Version that I randomly am examining here. 

Let me give an example of how the same word is used by two different Christian voices to mean two different things. This first video I found after reading commentary under a Holy Post podcast (Phil Vischer). The guest that day was a pastor of a multi-ethnic church and he spoke about how he likes to address race, talk about race in his sermons, and such things are quite present in the bible. He finds that discussing it helps unify his church. In the comments under this podcast, it was clear that many people really appreciated the podcast, as did I, but some saw it as politically charged, when in reality, it was not at all. The simple topic of race is being overly politicized, which is sad. 

One person suggested that everyone watch an Alisa Childers podcast, which I did. Afterwards, I came across another one of hers where she broke down signs that a church is becoming a progressive Christian church. I had not heard the exact term before. Here is that video. In case the video is not showing up in your device, here is the link. 

I am glad to have been introduced to Alisa and that she dedicates her time to sharing God's word. I watched the video to see not only how she defined progressive Christianity and what she was the warning signs were, but also to see where I stood on the issue. The five signs she outlines are:  

1. Lowered view of the bible, such as people picking and choosing which parts of the bible to believe. I watched this shortly after I wrote this blog post where I declared my belief in the bible at face value, while I know some illustrations such as parables were examples, not to be taken literally, and that there is discussion over the actual amount of time that the Bible spans.  

2. Feelings are emphasized over facts. She observes that progressive Christianity relies on people's feelings over topics, rather than facts. In this blog post, I shared verses that a charasmatic, self-declared prophet posted and applied to modern day politicians. No factual examples were used to support the claims. Many of these modern day prophets (or self-proclaimed prophets), several of whom believed that Trump would serve a second term, interpret dreams on a regular basis and seem to use those interpretations as equivalents to biblical truth. So I suppose this warning sign goes in all directions, but it seems to highly apply to charismatic Christians during this time. I also made basically the same point she is making here in this same post, valuing an intellectual rather than emotional approach, but was referring to Eric Metaxas and Christianity along the lines of Pentecostal, which charismatic Christianity is. 

3. Core essential doctrines are questioned. She brings up the question of an actual hell, saying that questioning that is questioning a core essential doctrine of Christianity. I would argue that this is not a progressive issue as Jehovah's Witnesses have taught against the doctrine of an actual hell for over a century. I also talked about this in this post. As someone who does believe the bible at face value as a the sacred word of God and will take any biblical verse into consideration in all things, I do not see how the existence of an actual hell where those who fail to repent are tortured for eternity is a definitive biblical doctrine. I see a more clearer illustration in the book of Revelation of those whose names are not in the book of life being thrown into the lake of fire, but no mention of torture, as we can conclude that a lake of fire would quickly destroy anything that enters it. Please feel free to share your thoughts on that!  

4. Historic terms are redefined. She didn't really use many examples on this one, except for the word love. I agree that a biblical definition of love is very important and that there is plenty of biblical evidence to follow, with Jesus' sacrifice being the prime example. I also shared this in another post, saying it is my offering to God. These are the verses that guide me in my mission, starting with the greatest commandment to love God and love others, then verses that define love.  

5. The heart of the gospel shifts from sin and redemption to social justice. I agree that the gospel is about Jesus dying for our sins and reconciling us to God. That should not be compromised. But she says, "This is the message that will truly bring freedom to the oppressed." I agree that the gospel gives strength to overcome the impossible and that ultimate power comes from the Holy Spirit, which Jesus says he baptizes his followers in. But oppression wouldn't actually exist if it weren't for oppressors. So the gospel doesn't just magically free the oppressed. But it should, if applied sincerely, convict the oppressors in addition to empowering the oppressed. And in that way, it should bring about social justice. I don't see why this would be an either/or. The gospel and social justice should simply go hand in hand. A thirst for social justice is the perfect opportunity to remind of or share about the solution Jesus' sacrifice is.

Alisa ends by saying, "Identifying the signs are not always obvious. Sometimes they're subtle and mixed with the truth." She then says to watch out for false prophets. Well, we've seen a lot of them lately with this last election, haven't we?! But they didn't fall into the category of progressive Christians.  

In conclusion, she gives some good points to watch out for. But the optimistic unifier in me says that if something is subtle and mixed wtih the truth, then let's focus on the truth and try to identify what is not of the truth, rather than fearful of what falls outside of the truth. Also, is it dangerous to look at some things through a different lens? Is it dangerous to ask whether there is really enough biblical evidence to confidently teach about eternal torture as a punishment? If someone or a group of people do seem to highly align the gospel with the issue of social justice, can you not run with that and reel it in? 

My prayer for Alisa is that she would be careful and intentional with her witness, as she is, but additionally, be filled with fearless love (1 John 4:18). I also pray that she would continue to question and seek and consider, as perhaps not all historical doctrines or even notions and ideas linked to Christianity are as biblically sound as we may have thought, just as not all leaders are. What should we fear when we have the bible to compare them to? I see she attributes a lot of her adulthood learning to Ravi Zacharias, Ironically, I just read an article about him that shows how human/flawed he was. I believe these confirmations of abuses he committed are just now coming out as this article was published yesterday. 

Next video. I came across this one by mistake, looking for the pastor who was the guest on Holy Post podcast who pastors a multi-ethnic church and likes to talk about race. It's called Transformation Church, but so is this other church whose video I stumbled upon. I didn't realize it was the wrong church until I got through the whole thing, although I did realize that this pastor wasn't the same one as I listened to on the podcast. I just assumed they were on the same team, and I believe they are, whether they know each other or not.  (One is in OK and the other in SC). This second Transformation Church, led by Michael Todd, also identifies as a multi-ethnic church. In case it's not working on your device, here is the link. 

This sermon celebrates Todd's sixth year as lead pastor at the church. He is extremely energetic, honest, transparent, righteously confrontational, funny, welcoming... I was impressed! I also would say that he nicely displays a mix of intellect and emotion. The core of his sermon surrounds Jesus calling Peter to go out where it's deeper in Luke 5:4 and let down their nets to catch fish. They caught nothing the first night. Jesus said to do it again. "If you say so". He said that Peter's response is bathed in faith. "If you say so". And they were blessed. 

He said that the dynamic only happens in the deep. This is where development takes place. And it all comes from obedience. He talks about how although now he's now a successful pastor with quite a following, he struggled and remained obedient previously. I related to him so much when he said, "Y'all didn't wanna see me the 10 years before that when I was leading youth. I was saying all kindsa things you shouldn't say to young people". Even just looking at this blog, you can see where I sort of disappeared for around 10 years. Check out the sidebar on the right that shows the year and how many posts I wrote that year. I used to be addicted to writing, especially during my teenage years. But over the past 10 years plus, I've been literally getting my butt kicked in the deep. I didn't have much to say or time to say it. Finally I've seemed to come out on the other side with some words to share. 

God was developing Michael Todd and Todd himself was preparing his net. Jesus didn't give Peter the nets. Peter was already prepared. When you don't have a big catch, you just keep preparing your nets. He said he continued to work on his communication skills, his leadership skills, etc. until God started using him in big ways. He was preparing his nets. He goes onto say that their church had so much financial overflow recently that they were able to gift $100,000 US to 20 different churches!!! 

 The reason I share this in this post is because he speaks about when he gave his life to Christ. He confessed that he previously was a liar who was addicted to pornography, and that committing his life to Christ didn't make him a perfect man, but it made him a progressive man. In the same sermon, he exclaims that he will never be politically correct but will always be biblically correct. Therefore, he did not mean progressive in a biblical way. He meant that his life was always progressing to reflect Christ, to reflect the image of God in which he was uniquely created. 

So there we have Alisa Childs using the buzz word progressive in a scary and dangerous way. Michael Todd uses it in a much different way. Over the past several months I've seen an argument surrounding diversity training at the elementary, middle, and high school level. Some see this as liberal indoctrination in children, while others see it as necessary to avoid social injustice and civil unrest that could easily be prevented by deeper understanding on the topic. 

I won't get into it too much, but my prayer is that the fear of the buzz words and the placing of ideas in boxes that we think we understand and can control would subside. I don't think Jesus would want himself  forced upon anyone, but is pleased when his heart be shared with everyone. We know that social justice is of utmost important to him, so why don't we use the opportunity to celebrate all image bearers and figure out how we can coexist. Starting in elementary school is a great way to do that. May all fear and buzz be removed from the topic and may the opportunity be seized. May it not be a discussion as to whether or not diversity training is necessary, but simply an argument of how it should be presented. Christians should have no opposition to the topic in general, and certainly no fear or disdain towards it.  

I'm going to share one more video that hits the nail on the head regarding diversity. A friend shared this eloquent TEDx talk the other day by Chandra Arthur. She tells about how she learned to code switch being bussed from her neighborhood to a school of different demographics in the next town over, as part of a gifted program. In case the video isn't showing up on your device, here is the link. 

Here are some highlights from the video. 

"The expectation of code switching threatens true diversity."

"I learned to behave and speak in a way that made me a non-threatening person of color." 

"There have been countless incidences in recent history where a person's ability or inability to code switch has been the difference between life and death." 

"For the person who is expected to code switch, to exist almost simultaneously in two or three different worlds constantly presenting a slightly edited version of self, the pressure can be immense." 

"What about a truer diversity where people are praised for their uniqueness and the cultural capital they bring to places and situations as opposed to being disciplined or shamed for it?"

"Most of us understand that by exposure to people and places and ideas that are different from us, we actually end up being better, smarter, more compassionate people." 

"The cost of code-switching on society is huge because it means that those of us that belong to minority groups spend a lot more time learning the language of cultural compatibility and less time doing the things that matter to all of us."

"As the tides of acceptance change in our nation and cultures continue to shift, I challenge all of us to really give every person, regardless of who they are, the space to really be and exist as their true selves. Because it's only when each of us can really live in our truth that we all gain the incredible benefits of true diversity." 

So let's be careful with those buzz words. As Jennifer Eivaz said, a prophet quoted in the New York Times article I linked previously in this post and here again, "social media rewards buzz and sensationalism" over wisdom. Those image bearers that mention those buzz words that cause you to put them in a box probably have more to them than you think. Let's give each other credit and dig deeper! 

Two Eighteen Year Old Boys

 I have recently seen an argument stating that you can tell if a leader is a God given authority when he or she punishes what is bad and praises what is good. Romans 13:3 was referenced, which says, "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad." 1 Peter 2:14 was also referenced, which says, "punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good". These verses were used to argue that Donald Trump has God given authority and Joe Biden does not. It was stated that during his first few weeks as president, Joe Biden has praised those who do wrong and punished those who do good. Donald Trump did the opposite, this person argued, praising what is good and punishing what is bad.

No specific examples were given so I don't actually know what exact acts were being referred to, but I thought that this person was very bold to speak with confident discernment on all presidential decisions, classifying them as either good or bad without even an inside position for further insight. I also thought that to claim that one president discerned good and bad 100% of the time, whereas the other did the opposite 100% of the time seemed extremely oversimplified and biased.

Anyway, I don't want to continue in a discussion about Donald Trump forever, but I do want to share rebuttals when I think the Bible is being applied in a flawed way. The Bible shouldn't be anyone's tool to use politically. I believe that if it is applied accurately to all situations we face in life, then all will have the chance to see the true character of God, and his kingdom will reign.

I shared two articles in response to this claim. The first was about how Trump reinstated the death penalty at the federal level during his last months of his presidency. This article from DeathPenaltyInfo.org explains how beginning July 14, 2020, Trump pushed for more executions than had been completed at the federal level during the past 50 years to take place during his last six months as president.

In addition to that, I shared an article about the death row prisoner who people most rallied to save, from what I saw.

Brandon Bernard was executed by lethal injection on December 10, 2020 at 40 years of age. He was sentenced to the death penalty when he was 18 years old for destroying the evidence of a murder that a fellow gang member committed. He apparently did not take part in the abduction or murder but was tried beside the 19 year old who did. The young man who committed the murder was executed previously.

This article and others tell about how Brandon had not had one complaint filed about him while in prison, but showed deep remorse. Five of the nine living jurors who convicted him also asked that he be spared. Brandon's legal team tried to delay the decision, but were not given any grace.

On the other hand, we see situations like Kyle Rittenhouse who shot and killed two protestors and wounded another at a racial protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin was released on $2 million bail that people fundraised for. Now 18 years old, he is on tape drinking at a bar and posing with white supremist symbols.

So at the end of 2020, we saw that one reformed man, despite the guilty consciences of the jurors that convicted him, was rushed to the death sentence for the crime of destroying the evidence of a murder he did not commit at age 18. On the otherhand, another 18 year old boy that shot and killed two people is supported with enough money to run 100 schools in Haiti for a year, or do a ton of other important things, so that he be free, at least for awhile. You call that punishing what is bad and praising what is good?

Perhaps it wasn't Donald Trump who got Rittenhouse out on bail, but his stance on this subject is no secret. In fact, I first learned about the hand guesture that represents white supremacy when I read about a man Trump pardoned, who was, like Rittenhouse, pictured celebrating with friends, posing with that hand guesture right after being pardoned.

Around May 2020, I read an article about one of the men Trump pardoned who was in prison for committing war crimes. The article shared interviews of the officers under his lead, reporting that he ordered them to kill innocent civilians in Afghanistan and then celebrated, saying how awesome it was. They had done the right thing, turned him in, testified against him at trial, and now he was released, despite them doing what they knew was right and having him convicted via a fair trial. This article claims that this was a pattern Trump engaged in, using his power to pardon war crimes, and it caused controversy.

This is what I am seeing. To me, it does not look like Donald Trump was a God appointed leader by those standards stated in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. Using these examples, it looks like he does not honor the claim that everyone is made in God's image and used his power to pardon people who are members of his gang only, regardless of their crime, while displaying a desire to judge and show no mercy for those he did not relate to. I wonder what the Christian leader who first shared these thoughts sees and how, when held up to the Word, we can come to see eye to eye.

What Eric Metaxas Got Right

I have seen a lot of talk these days questioning how people can believe conspiracy theories that are going around, like QAnon type stuff. I see comments like, "Well they even believe that donkeys can talk", referring to Numbers 22 where Balaam's donkey actually talks, asking what he has done to deserve being struck three times. I even see Christians saying similar things, making it sound silly to believe the Bible at face value. 

And then there is the discussion revolving around science vs. faith. Especially during the first few months of the coronavirus, some people seemed to feel as though quarantining because of the virus or wearing a mask were fear-filled, faithless actions. However, others reminded that such protocols are just based on an understanding for the natural world and how viruses spread, just as other practices no one questions are based on science, and not challenged by fearlessness or faith. Examples include brushing our teeth, wearing seat belts, using birth control, and refrigerating meat. Why would this be any different? 

Well, I am 100% confident in claiming that science actually proves the existence of God the creator as described in the Bible more than it disproves him. I love the study of science and find it at no way interferes with my faith. At the same time, I believe the Bible at face value, although some parts are to be considered in context, such as parables where Jesus exaggerates to make a point, or uses an illustration to portray an idea. I guess there is also a question as to how many years the Bible actually spans. But do I believe that Balaam's donkey talked and that God literally split the Red Sea for the Israelites to walk through? Yes, I do! 

Before you think I'm gullible, I should maybe mention that I'm a pretty educated person. I was an interview away from entering Virginia Tech vet school before I followed my heart and dedicated my life to serving Haitian immigrant youth in the Dominican Republic. I got my Bachelor's degree before moving here, having received just one B throughout my years at Virginia Tech. While I took that path and moved to another country, I went onto get my J.D. from Concord Law School and my M.Ed. from Regent University. If you doubt the quality of the law degree I completed through an online program, (Purdue Global), in order to move through the program, students are required to travel to California to take the baby bar exam, which I passed on my first try. I also became fluent in Spanish and Haitian Creole along the way. I did this while raising more than a handful of children, three of which I birthed, and living in challenging conditions, one could say. 

I say none of this to brag. I only say it to give glory to God and value to my claims. So how could I believe in miracles such as the Red Sea splitting when they go against the laws of science? If you've read my other recent posts, you've probably seen me refer to Phil Vischer and his children's program Mr. Phil TV. I'm kind of a fan. Well, Mr. Phil explained to my kids recently in one of his programs that miracles are supernatural acts, which means they are beyond the laws of science, and science cannot explain them. Science only explains what is natural. The tools we use to understand the supernatural are revelation and testimony. The Bible is a book full of this. But after the Bible times ended, the testimony and revelations have continued. We can hold modern day testimonies and revelations up to the Bible as a reference to see if they align. As far as these recent conspiracy theories floating around and the divine favor over Donald Trump, I've tried to apply the Bible to these in this post and this one. 

Mr. Phil TV bible and science lessons together

I wrote in a post several years ago that I disagree with humanitarians who tell Haitians that magic does not exist in an effort to get them to accept a scientific explanation for their ailments. I definitely agree that magic (voodoo) is given credit for way more than it probably should be in the Haitian culture, but I would not tell someone that it flat out doesn't exist. I have had plenty of supernatural experiences that I will never forget and no one will ever convince me that they did not happen. So why would I flat out negate someone else's experiences? I would try to give them a better understanding of science, but not try to convince them that the supernatural does not exist. This post is a small testimony on my part as to why I will never doubt, but there is much more where that came from. 

When I was a student at Virginia Tech, I listened to a speaker named Lee Strobel who wrote a book called A Case for a Creator. He was an atheist journalist who set out on an investigation to disprove Christianity, but was converted in the process, and published a few books as a result. Then when I graduated from Regent University just eight months ago in May, 2020, the graduation speaker was Eric Metaxas. He impressed me as he excitedly spoke about how the more science develops, the more we see how specifically created the earth was to be able to support life. You can read a Wall Street Journal article he wrote about this here, but I'll also share this quote:

"Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life - every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart... Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn't assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?"

Eric Metaxas is a graduate from Yale University and has made the New York Times bestseller list several times. The article that I just shared is said to be the most shared Wall Street Journal article of all times. I highly appreciate his faith and his intellect. However, if you Google search his name, you'll see that his reputation has taken a blow lately because he displayed unwavering amounts of belief in God's favor over Donald Trump and confidently stated that God would intervene. Trump would remain president for another four years. Obviously that didn't happen. I know some Christian voices who now are saying that their timing was off and believe that Trump will serve a second term in 2024. Nonetheless, let this not speak anything about the existence of God or the gift of Jesus, but about the validity of the revelations of these Chrisitian voices.   

This article provides more details, but Metaxas is quoted saying, "We have enough evidence in our hearts" referring to proof of voting fraud during the 2020 election. After saying something like that and being incorrect, I think we can rightfully conclude that the person's heart was not actually in alignment with God's heart on that issue. I am not saying that my heart perfectly reflects God's heart by any means. I pray that he is always protecting it and cleansing it so that it does to the best of its ability, no matter what it takes to do that. Proverbs 4:23 says, "Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it." 

If there is one thing I have learned from my Jehovah's Witness friends, it is the value of studying the Bible with an intellectual approach, as opposed to an emotional one. I would say that they have an opposite approach when compared to Pentecostal or charismatic Christian churches. They believe the Bible at face value, but are very reserved about even praying and worshiping, as they feel they are often used for show and perhaps monetary gain. I studied with my friends for years, per their invitation, but remain non-denominational. I feel as though they have many interesting, bible-based theories, but I am not going to bet on any of them because I don't know the right answer. I am also not going to judge other denominations or keep a distance from them, as they feel is necessary. What I do know clearly is what Jesus responded when he was asked what the greatest commandment is. This is what I offer to God through Project Esperanza: to love him and love others. And these are the verses that help me to understand what that means and how to do that. 

In conclusion, faith and science are not enemies. God is for everyone. We are all lovingly created in his image. He can spread the Red Sea if he wants, when he wants. But even if he doesn't, miracles happen every day. As Eric Metaxas got right, our existence and ability to discuss this is proof of that. May his kingdom come. 

Nobel Peace Prize?

I see many are discussing the nomination of Black Lives Matter for the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course some are saying that BLM is a national terrorist group. This stirs up some thoughts in my mind. 

When I first found out about George Floyd, it was via scrolling through Facebook. I didn't talk to my husband or kids about it for a few days, although it quite consumed me when I wasn't busy doing anything else. I was watching closely to see if arrests were made and what was going on. 

My kids found out from my husband's cousin, which led to a great conversation and series of conversations that I shared here. I figured my husband had seen news about it, but I guess I just didn't know how to bring it up, and he hadn't either. He broke the ice by standing behind me as I was sitting behind my computer a few days following Floyd's death and saying in Creole, "Did you hear about the black guy the police killed in the U.S.?" (My husband is black and is Haitian. He has never yet traveled off this island. I'm primarily of European/Irish descent and am originally from Virginia, but have been here in the Dominican Republic for thirteen years, since college). I replied with a simple, "Yeah". I won't quote him verbatim here, but in few words, he let me know in a joking way that he'd heard it communicated as an act of war with brewings of something similar to the Haitian revolution in 1804. I laughed slightly at his joke and he walked away. 

I felt relieved that he broke the ice, and also was slightly startled, yet amused by his half-hearted comment. All my family are white people in the U.S. so of course there was a bit of sting to the joke, but I got over it quickly, knowing that it was nothing more than that. He did not actually have access to secret intel. It's not funny, but neither is history. 

True, we didn't have an in depth conversation at that time, but my brain started spinning. I mentioned in another post that my husband doesn't really talk about racism and is one of those people who doesn't let it get to him. He in no way made that statement from a place of personal anger or hate. 

If you aren't familiar with Haitian history, Haiti was a French colony that employed a very brutal slave system, compared to the U.S., for example, where there was a 10:1 slave to slaveholder ratio. It is said that extra measures were taken by the French to be able to control the slaves, as they were so outnumbered. 

Well, in summary, they lost control, militias were formed, and the slaves led a genocide against all the French that didn't manage to flee. This happened in 1804, 28 years after the U.S. declared independence from Great Britain, and made Haiti the second colony in the New World to gain independence. This is also said to have made Haiti the first free black republic in the world, although I have to admit I don't

Toussaint Louverture,
Haitian Revolution leader

understand the details to that and the situation of other black republics around the world. 

I talked in my last post about how in the years following independence, France then continued to threaten to attack and overtake Haiti again, extorting enormous amounts of money from the young republic. Other countries were reported to have done similar types of bullying. Anyway, this history is what floated around in my mind following his comment. I then posted these thoughts on May 29. 

"Here's some food for thought. America gained independence in a bloody revolution against England, right? And we celebrate and honor that. It is honorable to die while defending the freedom of your people, even if you're not in the bondage of slavery, but your freedom is even threatened somehow.

What if descendants of slaves in the United States, facing unjust treatment still, God forbid, put those same principles into action? With the extreme availability of guns, what if secret militias were already forming? I'm not saying this to encourage any such thing, but to invite reflection about potential consequences of actions. Hoping and praying that those in power listen to Jesus by treating others as they would want to be treated. Since when does cold blooded murder caught on tape require an investigation before arrest?"

Some friends and family chimed in and I appreciated the dialogue. Again, I was in no way trying to condone violence by posting that, but to ask "what if" questions to make us think of best ways to avoid violence in our reaction to situations, but also in what we teach and celebrate. I also poured my thoughts into this post during those first few days, which shares a plea for people to take a knee and listen. 

And then what happened? Wikipedia provides a wealth of information that seems reliable. The numbers at least match up with what I've read in other sources. Protests in all fifty states, plus D.C., (plus other countries, but these stats apply to the U.S.). 93% of protests were considered to have no violence or destruction involved and therefore were deemed peaceful. 25 people dead, over a billion dollars in property damage, tens of thousands of people arrested, tens of millions of participants.

The article also says, "it is partially initiated by the nationwide Black Lives Matter movement". These stats cover the racial unrest, but not events or protests specifically organized by the organization Black Lives Matter. Pick a war that the U.S. was involved in and do a Google search. You'll find that the casualties were hundreds of thousands, some into the millions. And what have the causes of war been? Does the video of George Floyd being suffocated by a police officer for eight minutes while handcuffed and motionless, and what that represents to the African American community rank among such motivations?

We should mourn the lives of those 25 (and more if there are) people whose lives were lost. It's surely sad that businesses were damaged, and I hope that they were or will be able to recover with insurance, and other means, such as community support. I used my voice to urge peace throughout. But when you put it in this perspective, these protests look pretty peaceful by comparison, don't they? A different approach could have been taken. Violent acts could have been planned and executed, as that is what is taught as the heroic response to violations of freedom. In fact, it might just be a successful example to the world of how to communicate and work through problems without using violence toward other humans.

The name Black Lives Matter surely is a humble and peaceful one, although people still somehow found ways to find it offensive. Their website displays no aggression or hate. And when have you ever seen a cause so unified and widely spread? Black Lives Matter may or may not win the Nobel Peace Prize, but they should at the very least, earn the respect of anyone who has ever tried to motivate, organize, lead, or motivate literally anything, from a large conferences to group assignments.

With that being said, let me also say that I think BLM's role in their cause is an easy one compared to groups like Equal Justice Initiative who has been fighting for criminal justice reform and educating the public about their work for over thirty years. And then there are groups like Big Brothers, Big Sisters, and Teach for America, which give basically anyone the pathway to mentor directly into the lives of vulnerable youth. I volunteered with BBBS throughout college and still keep in touch with my little sister and her family.

If BLM would use their audience (and maybe they do and I'm unaware) to not only drive change through petitions and protests, but also convince people to give their resources to groups like Equal Justice Initiative, and to give their time to directly investing in the life of a vulnerable young person through groups like Big Brothers Big Sisters, then I think this chapter of history could truly come to a close, and racial statistics in the U.S. could become a thing of the past.

I am in no way trying to display insensitivity to people who were innocent victims of violence or property damage that did take place during these protests. I am putting the effects of it all into perspective, considering the alternative methods of warfare that have been used throughout history when groups of people are unable to come to an agreement.

As for the argument that BLM is a domestic terrorist group, we actually have the insurrection on the Capitol on January 6th to compare it to. Five people were killed during a four hour attack in one location. Compare that to 25 deaths from several months of protesting all over the country. Again, not trying to support violence or destruction in any way, but to simply put things into perspective.

Thanks for reading and please leave your thoughts in the comments!

Edited March 31, 2021.