What Black Lives Matter Believe

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paddy1989
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
childinthefaith said:
40.png
ThinkingSapien:
People that say “BLM” are not necessarily part of the organization and don’t necessarily share the beliefs that you see on the “what we believe” page. BLM can refer to a movement or the organization.
Click to expand...
I did not post this regarding people who simply say the words “Black Lives Matter.” I was specifically referring to their “What We Believe” statement on their home page. So, movement or no, if someone at a protest is holding up a BLM sign, i must think they agree with those beliefs.
Click to expand...
Why must you think it though, given that you know many people simply support the slogan and sentiment without being part of the organisation and without ever having read their statement of beliefs?
 
Last edited:
EnglishTeacher said:
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.
Click to expand...
No. This is not about advocating for stronger extended families so the nuclear family is more supported and not alone. I don’t know of anyone who would oppose that. They are seeking to disrupt the nuclear family because Marxism acknowledges the hold that marriage (1 man, 1 woman and their children) has on forming the social and religious ideas of the next generation. This family model, they claim, supports the oppression of the lower classes by upholding a consumerist mentality that supports capitalism and benefits the wealthy. This helps new generations accept the hierarchy of authority as normal.

What these new Marxists are looking for is to dismantle the nuclear family in favor of the community group. But the community group now decides the morals and structure of the family because the whole community is considered the family. They aim to take authority over children out of the hands of the natural mother/father family structure so the community is in charge of teaching children what to think and how to behave.

Marriage isn’t needed in this social system because without marriage what claim to authority do the parents have? Everyone will have to assent that there are all kinds of families - two moms, two dads, single parents, trans parents, etc and anyone who dares question that these “family” structures are not also good and normal will be cast as haters. They aim to weaken the bonds of the natural family through all kinds of sexual promiscuity, contraception, abortion, divorce. This we have already seen the effects of in our culture. They want to dismantle the patriarchy by discouraging traditional marriage as well in favor of defining family as any group of people who choose to live with or associate together. Notice how they leave out the word father from their belief statement. It’s mothers and parents.

Let’s not be blind in thinking they just want to support the nuclear family by encouraging the natural extended family to have more of a role. By not coming out with a hard definition of what they mean by “disrupting” the nuclear family, we get these more benign speculations and it softens people to their cause which is anything but benign. They are more than happy for people to think anything they want about what they mean but they won’t come out and define it explicitly. This is on purpose. Many people will support the movement monetarily if the beliefs are nebulous enough to be open to interpretation. They don’t realize they are supporting something that does not mean what they think it means.
 
Last edited:
On gun control no, every new law that those who support gun control laws are actually infringing on that particular right, and to me they are being unpatriotic - they know exactly what they are doing. On police reform that can be supported by people who could still be seen as patriotic as long as they work within the system and not try to get what they want by overthrowing it as these BLM/Antifa types want to do. They want to destroy our past and take us into a nightmare of a future with themselves or like minded people in charge.

These people are the Democrat Party’s Brownshirts, with nary a word of condemnation of all the violence by them from likes of Pelosi or Schumer - not one peep!
 
Last edited:
Do you believe in egalitarian police brutality, that is, that some police act in an inappropriately brutal way not only toward Blacks and other minorities but also toward Whites? Or do you believe there is no such thing as police brutality at all, that police officers are just doing their job, and doing it well, given the stressful circumstances?
 
My intention is not to divide the body of Christ. I am merely pointing out that the Black church, in particular, has a history of helping families that need help, serving as a refuge. Surely you are aware that some churches have consisted or still do consist of mainly or all Black parishioners. I added, parenthetically, White churches to show that these churches also function as a resource for families that are having internal problems. Of course there are many churches which are composed of believers of all races as well.
 
Last edited:
Do honestly believe that most of the supporters of the BLM movement are not happy members of nuclear families themselves, either a mother, father, or child? If they are, why in the world would they want to destroy the nuclear family?
 
Lea101 said:
It’s all looters and rioters here, but ‘wait not all of them were racist’ there.
Click to expand...
Here is my point, explained very simply.
  1. Trump rally: Group of people, same “uniform”. One person being stupid. That person is the problem. We cannot correctly assume the entire group is racist. Despicable behavior from that one, yes, but being a racist is not breaking any law. (1st Amendment speech)
  2. Group of people, different “uniform” with a large number of individuals visibly committing crimes. Personal judgement not required here. What those people think is irrelevant. It is obvious what they are doing. Perpetrating crime is not justified because you are angry.
    Color of skin has nothing to do with this. Your group affiliation has nothing to do with it either.
    Before someone gets tempted to bring out the “racist” card for me, I am of “lightly mixed” heritage. I find the actions of both sides embarrassing, and flawed.
    Dominus vobiscum
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Do honestly believe that most of the supporters of the BLM movement are not happy members of nuclear families themselves, either a mother, father, or child? If they are, why in the world would they want to destroy the nuclear family?
Click to expand...
  1. What does this question have to do with not being duped by the statement of belief on nuclear family put out by the BLM organization? It doesn’t matter whether most of the people who support the movement came from a happy nuclear family or not. I would question that anyway with the rates of divorce and out of wedlock births in our country. What matters is those who support the nuclear family and think what the BLM organization means is just some nice statement about the community or “village” helping the nuclear family. It’s not. These organizations never just come out explicitly with what they believe. They use seemingly benign statements and then inch-by-inch work towards making horrible social changes that people blindingly support along the way because they think it’s “loving” and kind.
  2. There are plenty of people from nuclear families who still fight for "families of all kinds’ to be accepted as the norm. They may say they just want all kinds of families to be accepted along with the nuclear family but if and when that is ever achieved, the nuclear family will lose most of the rights they have now to make the best decisions for their family. Most of those decisions (teaching certain morals and religious views) will be viewed as hate speech. The state will teach the children what to believe. They’ll concede that the nuclear family can still exist but the social structure in which it exits will be hostile to anyone who doesn’t conform. Parents will lose their children for educating them in what they deem as hate but which in reality is just fundamental as in marriage is 1 man, 1 woman and their children.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
Surely you are aware that some churches have consisted or still do consist of mainly or all Black parishioners.
Click to expand...
Not in my country, where everything’s mixed (although by happenstance some areas will have high Asian populations, and there are more Asians in church than Europeans. But we don’t call those ‘Asian Church’). At least, so far as I know. Maybe there’s a ‘Black Church’ in my country and I’ve just never heard of it? The thought makes me uncomfortable though, as it suggests segregation.

I take your point though, I have heard of the phenomenon of something called ‘Black Church’ in the USA. I honestly thought that was just a Baptist thing though. (Like, those Protestant churches with the fantastic gospel music.) I didn’t realize that the Catholic Church in the USA literally considered itself divided between ‘white church’ and ‘black church’ in certain areas. That’s sad to hear.
 
Last edited:
I think you are overanalyzing this and being too pessimistic. Most people who support BLM are simply protesting for the equal rights of Black people, in particular with regard to treatment by the police. They have no intention of destroying the nuclear family. Maybe some of the leaders of the movement are more radical, as leaders of movements tend to be, but I would wager that the followers are oblivious to the manifesto.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think it involves the Catholic Church in the United States but rather Baptist, and perhaps Methodist, churches. So no need to worry on that score.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
but I would wager that the followers are oblivious to the manifesto.
Click to expand...
That’s the problem. I’m not overanalyzing. Many aren’t thinking or looking hard enough at what is behind this movement. People ignorantly supporting a movement/organization without knowing what all that may entail is not good. If there is a large portion of the “movement” who isn’t aware of any distinction between the nebulous support of a slogan and the organization by the same name, they by word, deed and donation are unknowingly contributing to the advancement of that organization. I refuse to use the phrase Black Lives Matter. It has nothing to do with not caring about racism or supporting it. It has to do with giving implied support to the organization who is working very hard to make being a Catholic and living Catholic truth and doctrine a crime.
 
ALL LIVES MATTER. All murdered on the street. All murdered in the womb. ALL LIVES MATTER.

Nuff said. Just checking in after a week and a half offline. I’ll be back in a week or two.
God bless.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
I don’t think it involves the Catholic Church in the United States but rather Baptist, and perhaps Methodist, churches. So no need to worry on that score.
Click to expand...
There are some Catholic churches in which most of the parishioners are black, and this is due to the physical location aspect of the Church, similar to the ethnic parishes from before WW2.
 
I was talking about the Unite The Right rally, not the trump rally. It was branded as a white supremacist rally by the mainstream media and public but many Conservatives kept saying that not all of them were racist, which led to Trump saying ‘very fine people on both sides’.

I wasn’t talking about race, but ideology here.

My opinion, that rally was definitely racist. The moment you choose to be in a protest that yells racist stuff or commit crimes in front of you, and you didn’t do anything about that, I would lump you in with them.

If you started chanting anti racist sentiments or if you stop people from vandalising (there’s videos showing black people immediately pulling white protestors/antifa perhaps away and screaming at them about how it ruins their cause), I don’t think it’s fair to lump them in. Even more so when there’s one peaceful protest in Town A while there’s a riot in Town B, yet they all get lumped in together because they were protesting the same thing

Because both things were true at the same time (riots and peaceful protests), it’s hard to talk about it as a whole movement. It would be better to zero in on the region imo
 
Last edited:
Elizabeth3 said:
That’s the problem. I’m not overanalyzing. Many aren’t thinking or looking hard enough at what is behind this movement. People ignorantly supporting a movement/organization without knowing what all that may entail is not good.
Click to expand...
Nah. People are supporting the idea that Black lives matter i.e. acknowledging there’s something wrong in the way things happen with regards to Black lives currently. I have never looked at that website and don’t plan to and I don’t think other people are that different from me who support BLM. It’s self-explanatory. We’ve seen the videos and some of us have read what the statistics say and we simply assert that Black lives should matter as much as other lives. It really is that simple. So simple, many people around the globe get it. It’s not difficult to say, I support Black lives not the BLM org, if someone asks, but since most people have that more basic understanding, they don’t need to, typically.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top