Does “Black Lives Matter” Represent Blacks? Read their official agenda for yourself! part 2

·        “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ the collective care for one another, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”

First of all, notice that their stated goal is to “disrupt,” which implies that black people as a whole actually desire the overthrow of the “Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.”  This assumption should require polling  every single mother as to whether they are glad about the absence of their husbands in the family challenge of raising of children.  An ACT Rochester survey indicates that 75% of black families lack a father (figures for other people groups include Hispanic 58%, White families, 37%, and Asian families, 21%,).[1]  The obvious answer is that single mothers in any culture are crying out for a companion to help in the raising of children. Notice also that the ‘village’ BLM seeks to create does NOT include fathers on the same list as includes mothers and children.  It is also very telling that in the second bullet point (above), “trans” people are encouraged to lead while in this case, by contrast, fathers are sidelined.

·        We foster a queer-affirming network.  When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexuals (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

As stated above, this bullet point too advocates, not only for the respect of members of the “queer-affirming” culture, but for undermining cisgender-affirming standards.  Yet this aspect of their agenda in reality contradicts the view of the strong majority of the black community.[2]  For these reasons, it is plain that, for most of their community, blacks do not matter!

---

[1] https://actrochester.org/children-youth/single-parent-families-by-race-ethnicity#:~:text=In%202014%2D18%2C%20the%20share,and%2021%25%20among%20Asian%20families.

[2] Gene Demby. “Crunching the Numbers on Black’s Views on Gays,” May 2, 2013. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/05/02/180548388/crunch-the-numbers-on-blacks-views-on-gays

Does “Black Lives Matter” Represent Blacks? Read their official agenda for yourself! part 1

The official agenda for “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) can be found at blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/.  Their agenda is far broader and invasive than what the media as a whole implies, which in itself, highlights the urgency of your reading exactly what it is they say, as opposed to blindly following the crowd.  I acknowledge that I don’t agree with what their title directly says for the reason that, to me, ALL lives matter, including blacks.  I make that case in my letter to the editor of the Daily American newspaper which I recently posted on this blogsite.  I hasten to acknowledge however that I agree with some of BLM’s statements.  Yet instead of rehashing them, I will highlight (in italics and boldface) other statements which I regard as potentially controversial that are each followed by my commentary.  If you wish, you may choose to initially read the boldfaced portion apart from my comments.

·        “We are guided by the fact that all Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs, or disbeliefs, immigration status, or location.”

I take NO issue here.  Every single person who is not engaged in harming others deserves to be protected and affirmed as a valued person in society, whether by officials or fellow humans.

·        “We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.”

Here I begin to take issue.  The word, “participate,” is ambiguous.  If it means simply to parti-cipate in common activities together with the rest of society, then I agree that all people should be invited to join in.  On the other hand, if it means to participate in, let’s say, committees that intend to deprive other peoples of their social rights, their presence would entail “leading” them in such a way that, to the contrary, violates the 1^st Amendment of the US Constitution.

·        “We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.”

The term “cisgender,” means, “denoting…a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex” (Oxford Languages).  My question is, on what grounds, either moral or intellectual, can any group possibly insist that transgenderism is equivalent to “strait” sexuality?  Since the attempted removal of cisgender privilege is so obviously absurd, this call entails far more than offering common respect, it is clearly a demand to overthrow not only sexual choices, but the freedom to affirm truth over falsehood in every intellectual context.

to be continued...

Antifa's Intellectual Nakedness Underneath its Black Garb part 2

It is Antifa who has the bloodied hands by their brazen murder of black leaders and business owners, together with their extensive destruction of entire neighborhoods across numerous cities, the majority of victims being blacks.  Here again, the enablers to this carnage include the majority of main-stream journalists who are chronically silent on the documentable contradiction between the tenets, on the one hand, and the actual terror wrought by Antifa.  This reality contrasts MLKJ’s “dream” (above) with the agenda of Antifa which, given its overture in the present, will surely climax into a nightmare.

Further Reflection (following its publication)

               Upon further reflection, I now resolutely renounce my approval of the “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) movement, not as though the don’t matter: they most certainly do matter just the same as every other person (see my third paragraph, above)!  I withdraw my approval for the reason that BLM’s official agenda amounts to a direct assault on our societal structure.  I don’t ask you to take my word for it.  Instead go to their official website (blacklivesmatter.com) to the section “What We Believe.”  Two matters are particularly troubling.  According to a recent ACT Rochester survey,[1] At the same time that 75% of black families are fatherless (Hispanic families, 58%, White families 37%, Asian families 21%), BLM officially states, “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement…”  With respect to sexual identity BLM states, “We are reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk…”  Please notice that this statement isn’t so much an appeal to protect certain groups of people from persecution as it is to overthrow social structures that are not only meaningful, but also functional to vast numbers of Americans.

---

[1] https://actrochester.org/children-youth/single-parent-families-by-race-ethnicity#:~:text=In%202014%2D18%2C%20the%20share,and%2021%25%20among%20Asian%20families.

Antifa’s Intellectual Nakedness Underneath its Black Garb part 1

This is my letter to the editor of the Daily American newspaper on June 12, 2020

               As a Christian, I obligate myself to a religious code which Antifa and nihilists in general (“nil,” or “nothing,” – the term denies the validity of meaning and morality) both mockingly dismiss.  But there is another moral standard that isn’t grounded on “revealed religion,” yet which renders Antifa inescapably liable to disdain on rational grounds.  It is the “Golden Rule” (treat others as you would have them treat you).  Failure to keep this principle commits the logical fallacy “the double-standard (DS)” which entails foisting one standard onto others which the imposers will not apply to themselves.  It is among most pervasive ways people do wrong to others.  Although I hold that God will highlight this ploy as one of his grounds for judging people (Rom. 2:1-3), the problem Antifa faces is that, even though entirely separate from religious authority, the DS fallacy exposes the committing of this offense as sheer hypocrisy.

               “Antifa,” means “anti-fascist.”  Yet when measured against the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of “fascism,” our country, though imperfect, is not fascist but to the contrary, the champion of individual liberties.  So, despite Antifa’s official claims, they are merely exploiting their name as a smoke-screen in order to destroy our society.  In this hypocritical act, mainstream journalists are culpable by enabling that deception.  Why, for example, do they fixate on nitpicking every “error” of our President, while altogether failing to shine a spotlight on the destruction that Antifa leaves everywhere in its wake?

               It is instead Antifa who are fascist in their goals, as is borne out by their demonstrated habit of demanding surrender to their view under threat of an array of harmful outcomes.  Indeed, Antifa proves by their track record (as witnessed on TV) that they care for no people group other than their own, not even blacks.  This puts the lie to their professed alliance with the “Black Lives Matter” movement (BLM).  For one thing, that slogan contradicts Martin Luther King Jr’s (MLKJ) “dream” of the day his children would “be judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.”  It also contradicts the methods Nelson Mandela employed in successfully bringing blacks and whites together into a united South Africa, as enacted in the historically-sound movie, “Invictus.”  So, it is instead the slogan, “All Lives Matter,” that alone unites blacks with all others as co-equals in privileges, both legal and social.

To be continued...  

Why Censorship by Secularist Social Media Voices is Utterly Irrational

            Setting legalities aside, it must be said that whenever persons and such enterprises as Facebook, You-Tube, and Google, together with far-left-of-center “alphabet” news media in general (SSMV), rush to censor views they find objectionable (instead of rebutting or refuting them) they only expose their own deep-seated cowardice.  Not only does this put them in stark conflict with the “free-speech” banner-movement of the 1960’s.  In addition to betraying their own intellectual insecurities, their suppression of “the opposition” inadvertently leads to their commission of core logical fallacies too, including:

“Begging the Question,” on account of their undermining that notion of standards which are logically required in order to justify imposing either imperatives or prohibitions onto other parties.  In a court of law for example, it is legally-codified laws of a judge’s own domain which serve to direct and legitimate their rulings.  Yet secular-minded cultures self-consciously deny legitimacy to social claims that are based on moral rightness since they dismiss as illusory the very philosophical conception of a moral grounds for discriminating between a choice of actions.  This isn’t to say that secularists totally lack any moral sense (every person has a functioning conscience, provided it isn’t seared).  So, when  secularists censor certain views as wrong, they cluelessly seek to retain their cake while eating it too.

“Employing a Double Standard” by contradicting the definition of their banner-word, “tolerate.”  That term expresses openness to differing points of view, as opposed to prejudging (prejudice) against other opinions, especially out of willful ignorance of any body of facts that they categorically shut out.

“The Fallacy of Exclusion” by their refusal to acknowledge, let alone confront and confute, evidence that they fear will undermine the validity of their own views.  Further, and to their own detri-ment, this ploy deprives them of any conceivable way to demonstrate the alleged superiority of their view of reality.  Instead their evasion leaves their own claims lying under a persisting cloud of suspicion.

They ignore the scientific method that they claim to champion.  Secularists chronically fail to appreciate that the goal of investigations (either scientific or historical) is to, by means of a proposing a hypothesis (defined as an initial explanation made on the basis of limited evidence that is useful as a starting point for further investigation).  The word literally means “a premature thesis.”  So insofar as SSMO merely seeks to silence the “opposition,” they cannot possibly advance social deliberation in a way that addresses social problems in a constructive manner.

They refuse to address highly consequential matters due to their lack of resolve to protect families and especially sexually-vulnerable children.  To the extent that censorship is appropriate, at all, the SSMO is applying restrictions to the wrong category.  Instead of suppressing certain points of view which clearly deserve to be included in the public debate, it should be censoring access to pornography in order to protect children.  Deliberation over this concern is often sidelined on the grounds that the technical details necessary to bring this about are way too complex.  This is not a credible objection.  As we are already witnessing, SSMO eagerly censors intellectual matters.  Yet the moral damage to children by internet pornography makes clear that censorship of pornography is the most urgent need of all.