Responding to David Watson on Christians, Ferguson and the issue of Race
David Watson recently wrote concerning the controversy over the deaths of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, and Trayvon Martin that, “We are seeing again and again a great travesty–the killing of African-American men without consequence. If we as Christians don’t call this out and commit ourselves to doing something about it, then we are not living into our high calling as people who claim the name of Jesus.” He goes on to write about the lack of indictment, “I believe that most Christians, regardless of their race, know this is wrong.”
Now I do believe that Christians should be concerned about injustice, but we should also be concerned about truth. Nor are our concerns for Justice limited only to certain groups, but should be a concern for Justice for all. This includes police officers. So while we are in agreement that something is wrong here, we disagree over what it is.
Watson wrote that “we should not convict people before they receive a fair trial” but it is hard to see this as anything more than an empty platitude, for the rest article takes their guilt as a given. After all, Zimmerman did have a trial, and was acquitted. Yet that did not stop Watson from including him. Watson says of the officers in the other two cases that they cast, “a pall over the reputations of many good and honorable law enforcement officers.” What casts a pall are those whose prejudices lead them to rush to judgment before the facts are known and then to ignore the facts when they come out.
A lack of a trial does not preclude due process. The Grand Jury system is part of due process and is there to protect people from needless prosecution. Being charged with a crime and put on trial is not an inconsequential event in a person’s life. Given the evidence in these cases the only hope of a conviction would be from persuading a jury to ignore the evidence so as to placate those with a vocal, and at times violent, agenda. This would hardly be an example of Justice.
Watson’s main argument seems to be based on the false premise that unarmed equals innocent. Consider the case of Officer David Smith who in March responded to a report of a disturbance and was attacked by an unarmed man before he could even get out of his car. The unarmed man was able to grab Officer Smith’s weapon and then proceeded to shoot him to death. Nor is police officers being killed in the line of duty rare. In 2013, 105 officers were killed in the line of duty, 30 were shot to death.
So when Michael Brown similarly attacked a police officer in what reasonably could be construed as an attempt to obtain his weapon he lost any claim to be innocent. When he charged head down toward the officer, Brown left the officer little choice but to use deadly force. This was not a Hollywood western where the hero can just wing the bad guy. Nor is it hard to imagine how this could easily have gone the other way, leaving Officer Wilson dead. Had that been the case, few outside of the area would know of Ferguson, and Officer Wilson would have quietly been added to the list of officers killed in the line of duty in 2014.
Even if you have some questions about the evidence, given this set of facts, the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, and a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, there would be no way consistent with Justice to get a conviction. To put the officer on trial would itself be an injustice.
The circumstances of Eric Garner’s death, while tragic and troubling, hardly call for the officers involved to be put on trial. It is troubling as most of us thankfully can ignore the government most of the time. For those on the left the government is the dispenser of all that is good. But as the Romans 13:4 says, “for it is not without reason that they bear the sword.”
We may not like it; we may even wish it was different; but when a police officer says you are under arrest either you go quietly, or the situation will escalate until you are in custody, even the act of resisting being itself a crime. There is no right to resist arrest. As things escalate, so does the chance for a bad outcome.
In the case of Garner, his resisting arrest and his underlying health problems were major factors in his death. While Garner was black and the arresting officer white, it is hard to see how race played any significant role given that the arrest was supervised by a police sergeant, who happened to be a black woman. But that his arrest was conducted under the supervision of a black woman does not fit the political agenda and so is conveniently left out of most reports.
The simple fact is that when citizens are put into confrontation with the government, the government is going to win, at least in the short term. Last year New York City logged 228,000 misdemeanor arrests. That tragic outcomes such as Garner are so rare is a testimony to the service and professionalism of Police Officers across the country.
The real problem with focusing on these rare events and trying to cast them to fit a racial agenda is that since it is not grounded in truth it is bound to divide people, which has clearly been the case here. While some will focus on the agenda, and others will focus on what actually happened. This will make things worse, not better.
In addition, as I have written in the past, it diverts attention away from the very real problems that face many of our communities: the breakdown of family life, failing schools, crime, and lack of economic opportunity. These are the real problems we should be focusing on.
The Reliability of the Gospel stories on Google Hangout
Join me tonight from 7:00 – 8:00 PM CT as I will be discussing the Reliability of the Gospel stories with Thomas Hudgins (translator, Aprenda a leer el Griego del Nuevo Testamento), and missionary Rev. Mike Bradley, just in time for Advent!
The Ten Commandments
Prager University has just posted a wonderful new set of short videos (about 5 min each) on the 10 Commandments, why they are the best moral code ever written, and why they are relevant for today. I highly recommend these.
Ferguson and the Dark Side of Social Justice
In my previous article on Ferguson, I wrote that a “serious problem with Social Justice is the potential for harm because, unlike justice, it is not connected to reality. It may line up with reality sometimes, but at other times it won’t and when that happens bad things can occur.” This has sadly been the case in Ferguson.
From the very beginning, supporters of Social Justice assumed the worst. They cast the shooting of Brown into a political framework of white racism and black victims. In doing so, they increased tensions and built up anger; anger that exploded into violence when the facts did not correspond to mythology that they had created, and that they had been encouraging.
Of course, after the riots that they helped inspire left parts of Ferguson in ruins, many will say all the correct platitudes about not wanting violence. These, however, will quickly be followed up by claims that we should not let a violent few, or I might add the facts, get in the way of the bigger issue of systemic racism in our culture.
Yet the fact remains that all those who prejudged this, who were prejudice against the police officer, and who fanned the anger and resentment, bear a moral responsibility for the results of that anger that was released on Ferguson.
Again this highlights a key difference between Justice and Social Justice. Justice is grounded in objective truth, while Social Justice focuses on subjective feelings, feelings that are often contrary to reality, as they were in this case. Face it! If you attack someone who has a gun, much less a police officer, and then charge at them as Michael Brown did, you are very likely to be killed. The facts are clear that the police officer acted in self-defense and thus the Grand Jury had no legitimate choice other than to reach the conclusion they did. To do otherwise would have been a miscarriage of Justice.
So when President Obama said that the anger of those displeased with the results was “understandable” he raised the question of in what way was it understandable? It certainly was not understandable in the sense that there was any legitimate criticism of the Grand Jury’s conclusion. So just how was their anger understandable? The only way is if you ignore the law, ignore the facts, or both.
This is the dark side of Social Justice as revealed in Ferguson. But the problem goes well beyond the destruction of Ferguson. It sows the seeds of future unrest. While advocates of Social Justice speak of healing, because it is not based on reality, Social Justice only exacerbates the problem and creates even more division. It makes things worse, not better.
Supporters of Social Justice constantly say we need a frank discussion on such issues. Yet, because its aims and goals are not grounded in truth, Social Justice acts as a barrier that hinders such discussions. To point to the truth often results in angry charges of racism aimed at shutting down any who would disagree. The results of the Social Justice mindset can be seen in that now that the facts are known, supporters want to move quickly past the facts so to get back to their agenda.
Ed Stetzer, writing in Christianity Today following the Grand Jury’s decision wrote, “White evangelicals must listen because there is a context to this tragedy, we must listen to feel the pain behind the problem and finally we listen so that we might acknowledge that injustice really exists.” There is a context. It is a context built up by well-meaning advocates of Social Justice, and by not so well-meaning race hustlers. It is a context that focuses on racism; one that divides and isolates communities; one encourages hatred, fans anger and builds resentment.
It is a testimony to the lack of clear thinking on this issue that here I am obliged to make the otherwise obvious statement that of course I believe there are racists in this country. I simply reject that it plays anywhere near the role that advocates of Social Justice or the race hustlers claim.
My view is not just based on my own experience, as I have encountered very few racists, nor the false claims of racism such as at Ferguson. It is also based on the fact that those who make such claims frequently have to resort to talking about hidden and subconscious racism. The simple fact is that Occam’s razor works very well in eliminating these tortured and complex rationalizations that seek to find racism everywhere, even where it does not exist.
This is not to say that everything is well and good and that we can move on. There are serious and complex problems here. There is the breakdown of the family, failing schools, lack of economic opportunity, and crime, just to name a few. But the misplaced focus on Social Justice in general and race in particular hinders, not helps in addressing such problems. In fact even honestly talking about these can get you labeled a racist, as Rudy Giuliani recently discovered when he cited some statistics concerning black on black crime.
If we really want to prevent future Fergusons we need to focus on Truth, Justice, and individuals, not on groups, Social Justice and agendas. Only then can we address the actual problems, rather than perceived grievances. A lot will have to change and it will take a lot of time and effort, but at least we would be working on the actual problems and going in the right direction.-
Interview with Doc Thompson on the Morning Blaze
Here is the interview from the Morning Blaze:
https://podcast.energion.co/2014/10/elgin-hushbeck-interviewed-the-blaze/
