What Black Lives Matter Believe

[Rubee]

So here is what it says:

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

Indeed. Many people don’t realize this “model” of two people struggling alone with their kids without ready help from extended relations is less than a century old and by no means “the natural way to be” since no one lived that way for like forever! I’ve heard very good talks about all the pressures this model puts on couples and the idea some of it might explain some of the high divorce rates in modern times.

In the old days, people did not depend on ONE person to fulfill all their relational and familial needs like happens these days. There were grandparents, aunties, uncles, cousins to distribute a lot of the need-fulfillment and relating. A lot we take for granted about how we live these days is a far cry from how humans have lived forever; as part of large groups and not just tiny units of two people only and their children (who too often grow up and forget they have duties to the people who raised them as well).

 

[Rubee]

We must note that “collective” “collective good” etc. is marxism. It is contradictory to Catholicism. For example, one may feel they are doing a good work by voting for a progressive who wants to over tax the rich and redistribute to the poor. That is not charity and is not an act of charity on your part if you support this. It is theft which is one of the Ten Commandments. . .

This is not true. The church quite explicitly teaches about “the common good” in her social doctrine. Please do not get libertarianism and its hyper-individualism mixed up with Catholicism.

The church condemned atheistic communism and the total disregard of the individual it practiced. Unless you’re saying there’s no way to be collective without being an atheist or completely disregarding the individual’s rights, nothing you’ve written here bears any resemblance to the Catholic teaching on society/social doctrine. In fact, taking away abortion, it’s Libertarians and corporatists who are most removed from that teaching.

BOTH the individual and the society (collective) matter, not just one: That is Catholicism. That’s why the same church that was so critical of the big 19th century communist regimes has always been HIGHLY critical of capitalism as well.

 

[puer.dei]

If you (generally) are standing in a group of people wearing the same “uniform” as they are, do not be surprised when you are recognized as part of that group.
You put the label on yourself willingly.

And yet, I suspect you’d be really offended if someone suggested that everyone who wears a Trump t-shirt should be recognized as a white supremacist, just because some Trump supporters yell “white power.”
Does “guilt by association” only apply to those you don’t agree with?

 

[Dan123]

So, apparently, there is also a difference between Catholicism the organization and Catholicism the movement, as well?

Many Catholics stopped donating to churches at least temporarily during the height of the abuse scandal, because the organization had done things that went against the principles of the “movement”, “religion” being a more apt word here.

The zealousness coming across by several posters here reminds me a lot of those who will forever define the church by the mistakes and actions of some within the church, instead of the rich millennia spanning traditions and history.

 

[Dan123]

For example, one may feel they are doing a good work by voting for a progressive who wants to over tax the rich and redistribute to the poor.

What’s the appropriate tax for the rich? How have you determined what is ‘over tax’? Do you have a Catholic source for it, as you’re using over-taxation as an anti-Catholic indicator?

 

[Salibi]

Perhaps some people believe these protests against racism are either unjustified o

This is fair, however, this does not make the protests unjustified. Someone’s opinion that “racism does not exist” or “white supremacism is not an issue” does not delegitimise the protests or make racism disappear. Rather, when an entire group of people, such as Blacks in America, tell you that there is a racism problem, then there’s a racism problem, whether you like it or not. Majority groups in general don’t tend to notice it since they don’t experience it but minority groups do because it’s the reality under which they live. This isn’t limited to Whites and Blacks in America but to every country, historical or current, where there are minority groups and majority groups (meaning every human country).

not really protests against racism but a vehicle for a much deeper goal, or both?

This is your defence for not supporting anti-racism? A conspiracy theory? I just cannot.

Perhaps white folks are sick and tired of hearing phrases like ‘abolish whiteness’, which suggests whiteness is the reason that racism exist

I have literally never seen or heard this phrase in any of the protests I’ve followed, and I read the news daily. Perhaps you are referring to “abolish white supremacism”, but managed to conflate the two in your head, for any number of reasons. Perhaps you percieve any attempt to dismantle exploitative systems that oppress non-Whites to be direct attacks on whiteness itself?

No matter-racism is wrong no matter how you want spin it, or how many conspiracy theories you want to absorb and propagate. There was a time when anti-Semitism was endemic in a certain region of Europe because people believed the Jewish people were collectively responsible for Communism, perhaps you would like to revisit that time period before attaching the same conspiracy to Blacks?

 

[Polak]

This is your defence for not supporting anti-racism? A conspiracy theory? I just cannot.

Conspiracy theories? All you have to do is look at the Black Lives Matter ‘what we believe’ page to see this goes far beyond just race. Not much of a conspiracy theory when it’s right there for you to read.

I have literally never seen or heard this phrase in any of the protests I’ve followed, and I read the news daily. Perhaps you are referring to “abolish white supremacism”, but managed to conflate the two in your head, for any number of reasons.

Nope, I mean ‘abolish whiteness’. You’re not looking hard enough. Just type it into the search on social media and you’ll see many supporters of these ‘protests’ repeating this. Some of them also like to say ‘White Lives Don’t Matter’ and ‘White Silence is Violence’. Do you believe white silence is violence Salibi?

 

[Lea101]

Again there has been no proof of this but plenty of evidence of the contrary. There has never been a time when this has been less of an issue. I believe the social issues caused by radical secularism beginning in the 50s and then 60s has created issues we now find so intolerable (crime,poverty, indifference, hatred) such as the removal of God and the destruction of the family and rather than admit to this leading to all of society’s problems we instead create a scapegoat (white patriarchal society).

What’s your response to the claims made by 13th (netflix documentary on how the prison system affect the black population/systemic racism in the prison system)? It explains how the black community’s fabric was torn in the time periods you were talking about and its effects today, but it points to both republican/democrat policies.

 

[Agnus-Dei]

You presume much. If all the people had white power shirts, it would be pretty obvious. One person in the group acting in that way not so.
Everyone with BLM shirts fairly or not will be seen as “supporters” of that movement. Many or most in the group looting, breaking things, and/or hurting innocents is equally as obvious.
I will not concern myself with addressing your last question, due to it’s absurdity.
Dominus vobiscum

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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

We see how well it’s working in black communities where some 70% of black children grow up without a father in their lives.

 

[Lea101]

We see how well it’s working in black communities where some 70% of black children grow up without a father in their lives.

Out of curiosity, why do you think they meant preventing children from having fathers? That sentence was always suspicious because they said ‘mothers and parents’ , but they never written down what they actually meant by it

That 70% refers to fathers within the household I believe, not those who have no consistent relationship with their father at all (or at least that’s what I heard)

 

[Maximian]

I can also assert that Black Lives Matter more to me than to BLM which uses black people to further an evil agenda.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It takes a father to make a child

However, we have two generations of now adult children in black communities who did not have a father present in their lives. Many children from the same mother had different fathers and the fathers were not involved with their children nor did they even know they had them.

The welfare state set that situation up

 

[Lea101]

Would you say that everyone in that Unite The Right rally were racists?

I feel like everyone, myself included, flirts with the whole ‘fine people on both sides’, and the sentiment you brought up.

It’s all looters and rioters here, but ‘wait not all of them were racist’ there.

Your sentiment would be valid, but there’s enough evidence to show that majority of the protestors weren’t looting (if they were the country would be in worse shape). People have been saying that to discredit MLKs marches in the past, but i think we have the clarity now to see that it wasn’t true then.

 

[Lea101]

However, we have two generations of now adult children in black communities who did not have a father present in their lives. Many children from the same mother had different fathers and the fathers were not involved with their children nor did they even know they had them

Why do you think we see this now?

War on drugs? Policies that were put in place that we now know were done to intentionally attack the community (see Reagan/nixon)? Clinton too.

The idea that women could receive minimal help from the government so marriage is now irrelevant seems way too unrealistic. I’m not denying in correlation but that would be useless if there were other things that were happening at that time.

The idea that a woman went ‘hey why settle down when I can have the government as my hubby’ seems like a fictional narrative at this point. Everyone sees the value of having a partner that contributes financially, does chores, handles childrearing equally and provides affection. The reasons why they’re not getting that is cultural views about sex and high incarceration rates, poor education budgets and the damage it does to the community psychologically.

The only argument I can see is that these women won’t marry certain men out of financial need, and even then…is that bad? It just shows that they’re not going to trap themselves in potentially harmful marriages just for money (which Catholics don’t recommend anyway, marrying someone just for money). How is welfare preventing women from marrying men they love? I’m rambling, so I’m going to stop here.

 

[blackforest]

Unfortunately, a Catholic school in Bakersfield CA recently fired a high school theology teacher for raising questions about BLM. This, just months after the school community expressed its enduring solidarity with the family of that same teacher whose daughter (one of six children in the family) had just undergone extensive brain surgery.

I don’t have enough context to know specifically what he said in “raising questions about BLM.” But the firing would have ultimately been the bishop’s decision, which I’m gathering you don’t trust.

I don’t think that this is evidence that the BLM as a 501-C3 organization is actively working to break apart nuclear families. There are plenty of predominantly Catholic cultures with stronger community support for nuclear families. I don’t think that makes them ebil Marxists.

The vast majority of BLM activity is in protests. If you bring up the riots trying to discredit BLM, I can bring up anti-abortion violence and claim that it represents the pro-life movement. Doing so simply takes your logic to its natural conclusion.

So, apparently, there is also a difference between Catholicism the organization and Catholicism the movement, as well?

How can you be part of a Catholic “movement” without being Catholic? I suppose if you don’t go through baptism and confirmation in the Catholic Church, you can call yourself whatever you want. I just wonder how many people out there are doing that.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Why do you think we see this now?

We saw it 25 years ago and warned about what it would do to the family

Today we have a subculture of gang leaders running the streets and youth of inner cities.

The crime rate on a week-end alone in Chicago, out does the death rate of Americans serving in Afghanistan, a war zone.

 

[Odilon]

What in the world is “cisgender”? These people are looney, completely off the wall!

 

[Usige]

Every group has enemies.

Yes, but they don’t continually redefine their enemies as a means to split people to gain power.

The common tactic is to identify a group and show how another group is oppressing them so that they raise up to tear down their oppressors. Once you defeat one enemy you turn and define a new enemy, some of the oppressed might now be the oppressors who must be torn down. Justice is not defined by righting wrongs, but in overthrowing existing institutions even when it means wronging other classes of people. All of it is right out of Saul Alinsky’s play book; especially the idea that domination without compromise is the only option.

 

[MNathaniel]

The community, such as the Black Church (or White Church), can serve as a back-up to bolster the nuclear family.

Question: Why are you artificially dividing up the body of Christ into a ‘Black Church’ and a ‘White Church’?