Blog

Why Zionists Don’t Enthusiastically Support “Black Lives Matter”

Ali Abunimah, author of the book The Battle for Justice in Palestine and editor at The Electronic Intifada, has written a good article explaining why many Zionist supporters of Israel, including groups like AIPAC and the Zionist Organization of America, are not only refusing to support “Black Lives Matter” demonstrations but are actively repudiating the movement.

It’s not hard to understand if we understand the truth about political Zionism and the reality of Palestinian life in and around Israel.

Below is an excerpt. You can read the entire piece here.

As protests sweep the world in the wake of the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd, Israel lobby groups are struggling to appear on board with the Black Lives Matter movement while upholding their support for Israel’s racism.

While some are trying to jump on the anti-racism bandwagon, others are dispensing with subtlety altogether.

Morton Klein, the head of the Zionist Organization of America, demanded that the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization, “immediately put Black Lives Matter on their list of hate groups.”

——

The Anti-Defamation League is also no more credible as a partner against racism, especially US police brutality.

It has been a major player in the industry of bringing US police on junkets to Israel for “counterterrorism” and other kinds of joint training.

That has become a central focus of the Deadly Exchange campaign which aims to end the links between US and Israeli forces of state repression.

Militarization Has Fostered a Police Culture That Sets Up Protesters as ‘The Enemy’ — Tom Nolan

Former police officer Tom Nolan has an article at ConsortiumNews  condemning the militarization of US policing, pointing to its destructive consequences on display in the ongoing BLM demonstrations.

Below is an excerpt. Read the entire article here.

As a former police officer of 27 years and a scholar who has written on the policing of marginalized communities, I have observed the militarization of the police firsthand, especially in times of confrontation.

I have seen, throughout my decades in law enforcement, that police culture tends to privilege the use of violent tactics and non-negotiable force over compromise, mediation, and peaceful conflict resolution. It reinforces a general acceptance among officers of the use of any and all means of force available when confronted with real or perceived threats to officers.

We have seen this play out during the first week of protests following Floyd’s death in cities from Seattle to Flint to Washington, D.C.

The police have deployed a militarized response to what they accurately or inaccurately believe to be a threat to public order, private property, and their own safety. It is in part due to a policing culture in which protesters are often perceived as the “enemy.” Indeed teaching cops to think like soldiers and learn how to kill has been part of a training program popular among some police officers.

Chris Cuomo Explains Systemic Racism

Cuomo does a good job of explaining what systemic racism is, how it works, and how it continues to operate today in America.

“Confessions of a Former Bastard Cop”

Officer A. Cab has written a powerful autobiographical article at Medium confessing and repenting of his 10 years as a cop.

He describes, from the inside, why police “reform” will never work. He also makes the argument for why “defunding” (though that word is misleading and unhelpful) the police is essential if we hope to see real change.

I hope you will read the entire piece. I have excerpted select sections below. You can find the entire article here. It is worth your time.

I was a police officer for nearly ten years and I was a bastard. We all were.

This essay has been kicking around in my head for years now and I’ve never felt confident enough to write it. It’s a time in my life I’m ashamed of. It’s a time that I hurt people and, through inaction, allowed others to be hurt.

——

While every cop’s individual biases come into play, it’s the profession itself that is toxic, and it starts from day 1 of training.

Every police academy is different but all of them share certain features: taught by old cops, run like a paramilitary bootcamp, strong emphasis on protecting yourself more than anyone else. The majority of my time in the academy was spent doing aggressive physical training and watching video after video after video of police officers being murdered on duty.

——-

Once police training has – through repetition, indoctrination, and violent spectacle – promised officers that everyone in the world is out to kill them, the next lesson is that your partners are the only people protecting you.

——

The question is this: did I need a gun and sweeping police powers to help the average person on the average night? The answer is no. When I was doing my best work as a cop, I was doing mediocre work as a therapist or a social worker. 

——

Police officers do not protect and serve people, they protect and serve the status quo, “polite society”, and private property. Using the incremental mechanisms of the status quo will never reform the police because the status quo relies on police violence to exist.

Black Lives Matter in Kalispell Montana [reposted with photos]

My daughter and I attended the Justice for George Floyd/Black Lives Matter demonstration in Kalispell, MT yesterday. The organizers’ Facebook page

I am the masked man on the right

warned that members of several armed militia groups would also be there.

We both wondered what would happen.

Kalispell demonstrations are always limited to a public park at the end of main street cutting through the city center. The organizers applauded how cooperative the local police department had been in helping to plan the event. As a result, we were all instructed not to bring signs with any type of derogatory, anti-police messages.

Instead, the organizers announced, the demonstration’s intended message was “unity.”

“Unity with whom for what?,” I asked myself.

Demonstrators line main street

o, Kendra and I are going to demonstrate against police brutality in a country where unarmed African-Americans are 5 x more likely than white Americans to be shot and killed by police. The organizers have agreed with the local police department to restrict the protest to the police-approved section of the public park, where the police have also decided that we will experience “unity” with heavily armed members of local militia groups.

Let freedom ring.

On the positive side, I was happy to see the largest turnout for any protest I have yet attended in Kalispell.

Demonstrators lining both sides of the street

The Sunday morning paper estimated there were at least 1,000 people in attendance — including, of course, our semiautomatic rifle-toting, American flag waving, self-appointed, “don’t tread on me” guardians.

A small group of armed cowboys walked through the crowd carrying American flags and yellow signs calling people to repent and believe in Jesus. At one point, as they approached me I loudly reminded them that Jesus is not white.

While my fellow protesters got the point and laughed, the gang of gun slinger

Armed militia

patriot-evangelists remained totally oblivious to the mockery they were making of the gospel they came to promote.

I took time out periodically to talk with the militia members. I picked the guy with the biggest rifle and asked him why he was here? What was the group’s goal in attending this protest?

Each one repeated the same response. I got the impression that they had all been briefed on how to answer questions from the public. “We are here to protect you,” they said.

I probed further.

Armed and ready

“We don’t want to see the kind of looting and property destruction in our city that we see everywhere else these protests happen. We especially don’t want anyone defacing our veterans’ memorial,” referring to a large statue near the street.

“But,” I would say, “There is a large police presence here already. They would stop people from defacing the statue. Did the police ask for your help?”

“No. We just volunteered,” I was told.

The mass of demonstrators would periodically chant “Black Lives Matter”

Guarding the war monument, and chanting USA, White Lives Matter

while receiving a chorus of horns honking in agreement from cars passing by.

But each time we chanted “Black Lives Matter,” the militia members waved their flags more aggressively and took up a counter-chant, usually “USA! USA!” or sometimes “White Lives Matter!”

I took another break, approached a chanting militiaman and asked why he did that. Why did he respond to Black Lives Matter with USA? How was his a counterpoint to ours?

“Well,” he said. “This is America. And in America everyone is equal.”

“But I still don’t understand,” I said. “Why can’t you say Black Lives Matter with us, if everyone here is equal?”

Well, you guessed it. With that the racist damn broke. I was now listening to a heated  monologue about how “black people bring all their problems on themselves.”

It was impossible to get a word in edgewise, so I thanked him for his time and said goodbye.

As Kendra and I left the park later that evening, we talked about what we had learned. It was evident that everyone carrying a handgun and a rifle were devotees of Fox News. They had never seen any of the abundant video footage of peaceful demonstrations all across the country, nor had they seen the gangs of police attacking innocent protesters.

They had all arrived believing that every “liberal” demonstration was a riot-in-

How many semi-automatics does it take?

waiting. They stood guard believing that were it not for their armed presence, Kalispell would have been the next city victimized by looting liberals run riot.

I wish I could say that I feel encouraged this morning after Kalispell’s largest (maybe first?) Black Lives Matter demonstration. But I don’t.

I fear that America’s deepening divisions will never be bridged, much less mended, as everyone remains comfortably ensconced in their preferred information bubble. Between the alternate realities of Fox News and MSNBC (not to mention the others), our segmented mass media has destroyed the possibility of any truly national conversation.

We don’t live in the same world. We live in different worlds, different universes separated by contrary “facts,” alternate realities that too many of us meekly accept without challenge, investigation, or alternate, independent thinking.

It’s too easy to grab another beer in a self-assured, reaffirming world where confirmation bias goes unrecognized. Not a one of my armed conversation partners would believe that the vast majority of the nation’s recent protests were peaceful, that the looting was marginal — graphic but marginal.

And why should they? After all, Fox News told them otherwise.

I am too old to be surprised by racism. But it is still depressing to hear the stream of ignorant words pour from the mouth of a man immediately in front of me. I can’t imagine what it must be like for African-Americans to repeatedly hear from ill-informed, prejudiced lips that all their problems are of their own making.

Sure, we all make many of our own problems. But asymmetrical police brutality is NOT one of them.

How often can any person tolerate being told that when the police attack you, kneel on your neck, and choke the life out of you, it is because something is wrong with you; that you create your own problems? That if you were a better citizen, the police would not be murdering your friends and family at 5 x the rate of everyone else?

Racism is endemic to the human heart. I saw that again last night. We will never be rid of it till Jesus comes.

Sadly, the young ensemble of armed patriots qua evangelists provided vivid witness to the fact that “confessing and repenting of sin” is no guarantee of a transformed heart or a renewed Christ-like mind.

White Evangelicals Must Think More Deeply and Engage More Practically

Grayson Gilbert, a regular blogger at Patheos, has written another white evangelical “analysis” of the protests sparked by the death of George Floyd. He repeats the shallow message of evangelical individualism that I recently criticized here.

As I read more and more examples of this gospel of American individualism (and become increasingly aggravated by their frequency and continuity) posted on Facebook, blogs, and chat boards, I decided to offer a more detailed critique of this white, evangelical gospel, using Mr. Gilbert’s piece to illustrate my points.

Below is an excerpt from his Patheos post to give you an idea of what he says. Or you can read the entire post here, but please come back to digest my criticisms and reflect on what the church needs to do differently.

Unfortunately, Mr. Gilbert expresses many of the theological and practical failures endemic to white evangelicalism in this country.

As a result, he also sadly illustrates why white evangelicalism has so little to offer in the way of practical solutions to many of America’s deepest problems.

A good deal of my thinking on these subjects is also explained in my book, I Pledge Allegiance: A Believer’s Guide to Kingdom Citizenship in 21st Century America. I wish Mr. Gilbert and others would read it. I certainly encourage you to do so, if you haven’t already.

Here is the excerpt:

“…This leads me to perhaps the most important point that I can make: if you want to see what needs to change, take a look in the mirror. It is not a system that needs to repent or be overthrown by human hands. It is not a single people group. It is not a minority or a majority ethnicity that needs to repent. It’s everyone. Every tongue, tribe, and nation is called to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Every individual on the face of the planet needs to bow before their Maker in repentance and call upon Christ as Lord for the forgiveness of their sins and the simple reason for this is that every man is a sinner.

“Until sin is seen for what it truly is and actually dealt with at the cross; until repentance and sanctification ensues, nothing will change in the heart of men at large. They will do what they do best: sin. Yet on that Final Day, God will do what no man can do: bring about complete and utter justice that is consistent with His covenant. If you’re not in Christ, you don’t want that kind of justice because it’s not good news for you. You want the gospel. And yet many professing Christians seem to think the gospel is incapable of doing anything at all to solve the issue, mainly, because they want results now…”

  • Do more research. Mr. Gilbert appears to limit his news exposure to watching the Fox network. He needs to think more deeply about how he is being manipulated by the corporate media, as I mention here.

Yes, looting, property destruction, and violence have occurred in many places. But Gilbert doesn’t seem to be aware of the many protest leaders who have condemned the looting, condemned the instigators exploiting their demonstrations, and turned out with volunteers to clean up and repair the damage done.

Like so many others, Gilbert paints with a crude, broad brush when he condemns the whole for the sins of a few. This is a standard tactic used by demagogues whose knee-jerk reaction is to defend the status quo rather than to honestly confront the social sickness that needs to be cut out of America’s body politic. I also recently wrote about this issue here.

Over the past several days, I have watched many videos showing (a) the police assaulting peaceful, unarmed demonstrators without provocation, sometimes causing serious injury; and (b) massive, peaceful demonstrations with no apparent mayhem anywhere.

To speak only about the looting while ignoring the core message animating the thousands upon thousands of black, brown, and white citizens marching peacefully through our streets, demanding social justice, is reprehensible.

In this way, Mr. Gilbert displays an obtuse disregard for the black experience in America.

Such willful ignorance typifies the majority of white evangelicals that I know. (Check out John Fea’s survey of Twitter comments from leading, evangelical Trump supporters for more examples of this ignorance parading itself as leadership).

  • Become self-critical. Gilbert is utterly unaware of his personal investment in defending the political powers-that-be. In effect, he writes as a stooge for the establishment status quo. But this is not surprising. It is what a majority of white evangelicals normally do.

The first step in healing this particular blindness requires grasping what it means to be a Christian disciple who lives as a citizen of God’s kingdom first, last, and always. (Again, check out my book!) No Christian’s primary allegiance is ever to American law and order.

Our allegiance is to Jesus Christ. And he does NOT teach us to obey the laws of wickedness.

The second step in overcoming such blindness requires an honest reappraisal of oneself. Mr. Gilbert talks about the need to confess our sins if we want society to change. I agree. Let’s all “look in the mirror,” as he suggests, and confess our need for Jesus and his salvation each and every day.

But that is where Mr. Gilbert abandons us, implying that once you’ve come to Christ, your problems with sin are over. Here is where his theological individualism becomes a trap.

As Mr. Gilbert elaborates his interest in sin and confession, he quickly shifts the responsibility for such confession onto the protesters. When, in fact – in this historical moment – confessing our collective failure to confront systemic racism and the habitual police brutality suffered by our African-American brothers and sisters is what white evangelicals ought to be doing.

Pointing fingers at the looters is an immoral, arrogant evasion of the real issue. As Jesus says, “Take the log out of your own eye before picking at the splinter in your neighbor’s.”

Remember, it was the slave masters who condemned slave revolts. It was the white, evangelical elders and deacons who accused their slaves of ingratitude for failing to appreciate the benefits of the white, Christian slave-owner’s “benevolence.”

How is Mr. Gilbert any different?

  • Confusing the world with the church and the church with the world. Gilbert’s very confused discussion of Micah 6:8 slyly insinuates the common evangelical shibboleth of imagining that America is God’s covenant nation.

But there is one covenant now – the New Covenant — established by Christ with his church. Applying covenant language to anyone else (like the crowds of demonstrators) is not only bad theology, it allows Gilbert to deflect attention away from the real problems of racism and police violence.

Gilbert’s cultural misappropriation of God’s covenant with Israel is the unspoken presumption at the root of white American privilege, not only at home but throughout the world. America habitually abuses, exploits, bombs, invades, occupies, and kills people of color without compunction on an international scale.

Slaughtering illiterate brown people around the world is an American right. Or so we are told.

That is the operative assumption underlying US foreign policy. We shouldn’t be surprised, then, to see increasingly militarized police departments executing similar, draconian values at home.

Gilbert illustrates how bad theology, combined with a lack of critical thinking (I cannot help but notice that he received his master’s degree from Moody Seminary, a Mecca for American fundamentalism), leads to bad public practice and anemic discipleship.

Such tunnel vision can only see “unruly” protesters in need of reproach, blinding the evangelical critic to the all-pervasive American violence unleashed at home and abroad through our infamous military-police-industrial complex.

Yes, I realize that this is too large a mouth-full for any one instance of protest to address, but Gilbert’s narrow individualism, together with his failure to engage the world as a citizen of God’s kingdom, blinds him to the cultural and political issues at stake.

Don’t follow in his footsteps.

  • You can’t tell God’s people to endorse their government’s injustices. Gilbert trots out the predictable evangelical calls for “law and order” by telling his Christian readers that they must “obey the authorities instituted by God.” (Cue the national anthem and America the Beautiful).

Here Gilbert uses another classic, demagogic argument slung about like a blunt ax by unthoughtful people making religious arguments in defense of deeply entrenched injustice.

Such demagogic rationales – based in flawed interpretation, by the way – are intended to demonize the anti-establishment “enemy” while pacifying God’s “law abiding” church-folk into a drowsy acceptance of the unacceptable. THIS is the true opiate of the masses, as Karl Marx would say.

But, of course, in this instance of obedience to the powers-that-be, what Gilbert and his Christian cronies judge to be acceptable and unacceptable has more to do with the color of one’s skin than it does with whether or not anyone is obeying the law.

It is the classic argument drawn from white privilege. Think about it. When was the last time we saw a video of an unarmed white person being choked to death by the police on a public street in broad daylight while politely pleading for relief?

This is the point being raised by the popular upheaval we are witnessing in our streets. Unjust actors, whether they are cops, lawyers, judges, criminal justice systems, or entire governments, are unjust because they do NOT “protect the innocent while punishing the guilty.”

THAT is the problem my evangelical friends fail to grasp.

[By the way, I exegete these New Testament passages in my book, I Pledge Allegiance, and show (conclusively, in my mind) that allegiance to God’s kingdom requires that Christians not obey governments that impose injustice on its citizens.]

I struggle to understand how people like Mr. Gilbert can continually fail to apprehend this dynamic. When citizens protest against unjust policing and systemic injustice in high places, God’s kingdom citizens should be leading the way as the most vocal critics of the status quo and most vehement defenders of the oppressed.

Misapplying scripture, as Mr. Gilbert does, in order to condemn demonstrations against injustice and oppression is merely a continuation of the scriptural arguments deployed by Christian slave- owners defending their ownership and abuse of other human beings.

  • A failure of empathy and critical thinking. Historically, evangelical foreign missions have been in the forefront of finding creative ways to meet human needs. While I don’t entirely agree with the old saying, “You can’t share the gospel with a starving person,” (personally, I think that this way of thinking was a major shortcoming of Mother Teresa’s), it does contain a kernel of truth.

Western missionaries have made major contributions to developing countries everywhere. Often, the earliest literacy programs, schools, health-care initiatives, hospitals, irrigation systems, and more have been developed by evangelical missionaries whose compassion and empathy inspired them to do much, much more than simply “preach the gospel” to the lost.

So, why does Christian compassion and creativity wither and die on the vine when discussing social disruption at home?

No, I am NOT suggesting that evangelicals need to suit up and put on a colonial savior-complex by resurrecting a domestic version of “the white man’s burden.” But I am struck by the absence of both empathy and critical thinking among my white, evangelical brothers and sisters.

Frankly, we need to sit down, shut up, and listen.

We need to hear the stories of our black brothers and sisters. We need to believe them and take them seriously. We need to ask ourselves, “How would I feel if I were in their shoes?” Then, before offering our thoughts on solutions, we need to ask what they think should be done. And we need to listen some more.

We need to ask the Lord Jesus to forgive us for our persistent indifference to the pain and struggle of African-Americans in this country – pain and struggle often inflicted by a system that criminalizes black people for the color of their skin.

I have never been nervous about the threat of being arresting for the crime of “driving while black.” And neither has Mr. Gilbert. Neither of us knows what that is like.

My mother always told me that the policeman was my friend; that he was there to help me.

African-American mothers must educate their children in how to avoid antagonizing a policeman so they won’t get shot.

That is the American reality, a reality that white evangelicals like Mr. Gilbert appear to know nothing about. And they don’t seem to want to know. But if they really don’t know anything about this version of our racial reality, it can only be because they have plugged their ears and closed their eyes to the plight of their fellow human beings.

Such inexcusable ignorance is testament to the strangulation of sympathy within America’s white evangelical churches. And it is inexcusable.

As I have said before, citizenship in God’s kingdom not only requires that we share the gospel of Jesus Christ as widely as possible, it also requires us to think as deeply as possible about how we can contribute to making this world a better place for everyone, equally.

If our missionaries can build schools for boys and girls in countries that frown on educating little girls, then why can’t we also think, plan, and act in ways that will make our society more just, more fair, and less dangerous for its non-white citizens?

Yes, racism is a sin. And sin is rooted in the human heart. Sin can only be uprooted through the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ. But suggesting, as Mr. Gilbert does, that mass evangelism is the only solution to racial injustice is the lazy pietist’s way of shirking responsibility.

Sure, people may come to Jesus one at a time, and Christian individuals certainly ought to work for truth and justice wherever they find themselves, but changing systemic evil demands systemic solutions. On this front, too many white evangelicals appear to take pride in their ineptitude.

God’s people are called to be “salt and light” to the surrounding society, to exemplify the righteousness, mercy, justice, and equality of God’s kingdom come. We do this, first, among ourselves, as living, breathing examples of God’s new, multi-racial creation here and now.

Then we simultaneously engage our society, working practically to create a reflection, the semblance, an approximation of God’s kingdom in the broken society we now live in.

But that, my friends, is the cross-cultural component of Christian discipleship that white, individualistic, American evangelicalism rarely seems to grasp.

Why Evangelical Pastors Have Little Help to Offer in the Public Square

Apparently, best-selling evangelical author, Max Lucado is writing editorials for Fox News. He recently wrote a piece entitled “What is the Answer to Racism: This profound yet simple promise.”

While I know that his numerous books have been helpful and encouraging to many Christian people, his advice on overcoming racism illustrates why evangelical thinking is a dry well when it comes to promoting the public good in society.

Here is an excerpt. I have a brief analysis at the bottom.

Recent racially charged incidents including the tragic death of George Floyd have stirred ensuing riots and torn open the rawest of wounds – racism. Judging a person according to skin color is an ancient sin. For that reason, God gave this ancient solution.

In the earliest words of Scripture, God spoke: “Let us make human beings in our image, make them reflecting our nature so they can be responsible for the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the cattle, and, yes, Earth itself, and every animal that moves on the face of Earth” (Genesis 1:26).

Embedded in these words is the most wonderful of promises: God made us to reflect his image.

No one is a god except in his or her own delusion. But everyone carries some of the communicable attributes of God. Wisdom. Love. Grace. Kindness. A longing for eternity. We are made in his image.

There you have it in a nutshell. Evangelicalism’s basic problem —  individualism.

And this individualism keeps evangelical leaders speechless on matters of systemic evil, problems that require changes in such things as law, government, and public policy.

Lucado invites his readers to believe in Christ — and I hope many will — as if that is all that needs to happen for the world to be a better place. But calling more individuals to repent and convert offers nothing to relieve the racial distress facing black communities today. Such global transformation won’t happen until Jesus returns.

Besides, a good number of people in the African-American community are already in Christian churches looking for Jesus to come. And they still can’t feel safe in their own neighborhoods when the police drive by.

What does Lucado have to say to them? “Keep praying for the cops to repent so they’ll quit choking your husbands to death”?

I don’t think so.

Revving up the evangelistic engines is great for addressing personal salvation more broadly — something every church should do — but waiting for society to change one soul at a time is a counsel of despair for people suffering beneath a corrupt system of racial discrimination right now.

Besides, a good many of the people who serve the corrupted ends of our corrupted systems of government and policing already profess their Christian faith even as they dutifully play their assigned role in the rotten machine of systemic discrimination.

I wonder how many of the cops who are mistreating demonstrators across this country would tell Mr. Lucado that they have already “asked Jesus into their heart”?  I’d wager a good number of them.

Life is not that simple.

When society needs both/and solutions to its problems, too many evangelicals offer nothing but one-sided answers to complicated questions. And this is our great failure. It is a failure of spiritual maturity, a failure of intellect, a failure of compassion, a failure of cultural acuity, and a pathetic expression of down-right laziness.

 

Now a Word From Our Blasphemer-in-Chief

Not long before this blasphemous photo-op Trump gave a speech in which he expressed his support for every American’s right to protest. (As if the constitution needs any president’s endorsement).

Then, shortly before he spoke on the steps of this well-know church, D.C. police fired tear gas into a nearby group of peaceful protesters, dispersing stragglers by force. I watched the video.

Now, safely rid of those pesky, peaceful demonstrators, the president awkwardly waves a Bible like an unfamiliar talisman and utters the basest expressions of civil religion for the feverish media.

All in all — another disgusting episode from a wicked man who needs to repent, yet is enabled by so-called evangelicals blinded by secularism, self-centeredness, and power politics.

How Media Framing Shapes the Public’s View of Protests

Danielle Kilgo, journalism professor at Indiana University, presents the

Prof. Danielle Kilgo

results of her research into the way journalists present, or frame, protest movements depending on the issues at stake. Her article at Consortium News is entitled, “Riot or Resistance: Media Framing Shapes Public View.”

Her data demonstrates the inherent bias of reporters depending on the issues being protested and the effects of reporter bias on public perception. Below is an excerpt.

My research has found that some protest movements have more trouble than others getting legitimacy. My co-author Summer Harlow and I have studied how local and metropolitan newspapers cover protests. We found that narratives about the Women’s March and anti-Trump protests gave voice to protesters and significantly explored their grievances. On the other end of the spectrum, protests about anti-black racism and indigenous people’s rights received the least legitimizing coverage, with them more often seen as threatening and violent.

Decades ago, scholars James Hertog and Douglas McLeod identified how news coverage of protests contributes to the maintenance of the status quo, a phenomenon referred to as “the protest paradigm.” They held that media narratives tend to emphasize the drama, inconvenience and disruption of protests rather than the demands, grievances and agendas of protesters. These narratives trivialize protests and ultimately dent public support.

You can read the entire article here.

Whose Law, Whose Order?

The predictable mantra has begun – “we have to maintain law and order.”

Calls for law and order in the midst of nation-wide demonstrations against police brutality and in favor of racial justice are as predictable as the sunset.  It always happens.

Well timed calls for law and order always served the purposes of the powerful who pretend to care.

Keith Childress, shot for carrying a cell phone

It is always the great “BUT” working to obscure the issue at hand; to distract from the problems of racial injustice and police violence.

Law and order is the subversive language deployed by people who are not at risk as they feign comradeship with those who are. It allows the bogus compatriot to say, in fact, “I am with you as long as you keep your objections within my boundaries of safety.”

When members of the establishment say things like, “I believe in peaceful protest, BUT…I believe in racial equality, BUT…I support the protests, BUT I condemn the looting…BUT we need to maintain law and order,” they merely repeat the establishment code for defending the status quo.

Defending law and order has always been the message of the establishment,

Bettie Jones, shot and killed for helping a neighbor and opening the door to police

allowing it to maintain its mask of humanity while tacitly supporting acts of inhumanity.

We have seen it all before.

Law and order was the message of pro-segregationist governors and mayors in the deep south who believed that ANY expression of civil disobedience, no matter how peaceful, especially when committed by black people and other civil rights advocates, was a dangerous act of lawlessness demanding brutal, police suppression.

Lester Maddox, the racist, segregationist governor of Georgia, always insisted that he accepted black people as equals. He just didn’t want them living next door. And he would gladly sic the police on any black person who tried to move into his neighborhood. (Watch his racist confessions with Jim Brown on the Dick Cavett show here. I recall watching a different Cavett show where Maddox walked off the set).

It was also Richard Nixon’s Republican party code for keeping black people

Jamar Clark, witnesses say he was shot and killed while handcuffed and unarmed

in their place at the height of the civil rights movement in 1968. It was also a very successful code language that spoke volumes to conservative America and led to his presidential victory that year.

But every reactionary plea for “law and order” must first answer the question, “Whose law, and whose order?”

Because the fact is that, in America today, there are two difference types of law and order, one for white, middle/upper-class communities, and another for (poor) communities of color.

As the repeated, public murders of African-Americans demonstrate, law and order for black people in America is unlike law and order for white people. For African-Americans, law and order means (1) people of color are born guilty; they are always suspect, which means that (2) the police are free to treat them as they wish.

Law and order for black people in America includes breaking down their doors for no good reason; shooting them dead inside their own homes, even when police are at the wrong address; planting evidence while making

Michael Marshall, suffered from mental illness; died after being “restrained” into a coma

illegal arrests; and the list goes on.

That is the “law and order” enforced in America’s black neighborhoods today.

So, whose law and order are the public pearl-clutchers advocating and defending when they condemn protesters for violating the norms of “law and order”?

Where were these easy-street advocates of public order when black neighborhoods were being patrolled by cops who viewed community residents as the enemy to be controlled rather than as citizens to be protected and served?

Where were the white marches launched in defense of black communities when they needed defending against a local, militarized police force eagerly searching for excuses to deploy their new body armor, armored vehicles, stun guns, rubber bullets, 4-foot batons, rubber bullets and tear gas?

George Floyd, Sandra Bland, Michael Brown, and Ahmaud Arbery are only the tip of the iceberg.

Unarmed black people are 5x more likely to be shot and killed by police than

Ahmaud Arbery, shot and killed for jogging in a white neighborhood

are white people in America. That shocking statistic alone tells us that murdering unarmed black people (although possessing a weapon is not a significant distinguishing factor) is completely acceptable and well within the bounds of American law and order.

Concerning the present protests, an overwhelming amount of video evidence proves that the police themselves regularly instigate violence where protesters were behaving peacefully.

The police are masters at escalating violence needlessly as an expression of their own presumption of authoritarian privilege. (Watch this compilation video of cops attacking peaceful demonstrators with impunity).  I have personally experienced how the police use excessive force to instigate violence during an anti-war protest in Chicago in 2012. I then watched as the establishment media turned the facts upside down to accuse the demonstrators  of attacking the police!

By condemning these calls for law and order, I am not condoning violence.

Sandra Bland, arrested during a routine traffic stop; supposedly (and unbelievably) committed suicide in jail

Rather, I am highlighting the fact that we must learn to insist and to resist.

First, we must insist that the public spot light remain focused on the central issues: racism and police brutality. We cannot be distracted.

Second, we must resist the power of corporate media to socialize us into (a) complacency and (b) collaboration. The problem being exposed by protesters right now is not some tendency for peaceful rallies to be exploited by chaotic troublemakers. Don’t allow the media to suggest otherwise.

The problem is white America’s sleepy indifference to the daily mistreatment of our black brothers and sisters – an evil with which God’s people can never collaborate or become complacent.

The problem is white America’s indifference to the fact that a separate code of law and order is applied to communities of color every single day.

The problem is not the disintegration of law and order but the historic

Eric Garner, choked to death by police while pleading, “I can’t breathe.”

application of arbitrary, dehumanizing law and order at the whim of our dehumanized police force.

Here is a basic Christian principle: God’s people must always stand with the oppressed and the disadvantaged, just as we must always stand up for equality and justice. This is God’s way, and it must always be ours.

Thus, the ethics of God’s kingdom demand both pacifism and civil disobedience whenever cultures work to shape kingdom people, both black and white, into ungodly configurations.

Resistance is difficult but essential if we hope to become more like Jesus. Which means that the church cannot lazily mimic cultural mantras, whatever they may be.

Instead, God’s people are obligated to INSIST on justice and to RESIST falling in line.