The George Zimmerman's acquittal of murdering Trayvon Martin has caused more than a disturbance across the country. Why? It is because this acquittal is seen as being a part of an ugly pattern, a pattern where Blacks continue to get the short end of the stick of justice and many in the Black community righteously want that to end that now.
How should the Christian respond to all of this? The answer is not that simple since there are multiple ways Christians could and are currently responding. So this post will be about reflecting on two different Christian responses to see what we can learn about each one.
Here, we will compare John Piper's response with that of Cornel West's. Please note the degree of inaccuracy this post is inviting by using only two sources for John Piper (click here for an audio interview and there for a blog post) and an interview with Cornel West by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now (click here for both the interview and its transcript). I should add that John Piper has a book on racism called Bloodlines. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the book for writing this post.
Both Piper and West are distraught over both the killing of Trayvon Martin and the acquittal of George Zimmerman. In his article, Piper questions the total innocence of Zimmerman as he notes Zimmerman's stalking behavior despite the instructions given him by the 911 operator. He also notes Zimmerman's size and age advantage over Martin and that he was carrying a gun. In addition Piper reflected on Martin's response of "they always get away"to the 911 operator. We should consider that despite Zimmerman's history of having positive race relations with Blacks, his comment lends weight to fact that Zimmerman's stalking of Martin could have been the result of what West calls the criminalization of poor people and the Black poor.
Neither Piper nor West have isolated the killing of Martin and Zimmerman's acquittal from the racism that Blacks have suffer here. Piper goes on to assure those who are distressed by Zimmerman's actions as well as other racist actions by reminding us that justice will be accomplished during the final judgment. Piper goes on to say that either Zimmerman himself will receive God's full justice for whatever he did wrong against Martin or that justice will be transferred to Jesus on the cross if Zimmerman repents and believes. At the same time, both advocate working for social justice. Piper makes a point of saying that our hope in the full justice of God being satisfied is not an excuse to refrain from working for social justice here.
What are the key differences between Piper and West with regard to the Zimmerman killing of Martin and his subsequent acquittal? One key difference is in their urgency to establish justice here on earth. Most of Piper's hope for the restoration of justice lies in the future and thus he, despite his exhortation to Christians to work for social justice, lacks energy and focus when talking about what to do on earth. It is just the opposite with West. Saying nothing about the final judgment, West's total focus is on rectifying our problems with racism and poverty here and now. And not only is West zoomed in on changing the present, he includes continuing the rich traditions of past activists in battling today's evil.
What can we gain from this? We can gain if we do a version of the Miller-lite combination of "tastes great" and "less filling." What we should want to do is to combine strengths of both--we should note that synthesizing two different views is an approach that Martin Luther King sometimes took. Piper's strength is his hope in God's judgment as restoring justice. Of course, that idea should strike fear in everyone because we have all practiced injustice against others. At the same time, not only should our hope in God's final justice not excuse us from being involved in reversing the injustices of the world, we need to work for this justice with all of the grit and energy that Cornel West so naturally demonstrates. In other words, our hope for the future should give us more energy, at least more than those who have no hope, to work to bring justice now rather than act as a distraction.
Another difference that exists between what we have of Piper's material and that of West is the scope of their vision. Listening to and reading Piper, we see his deep concern for Blacks and what they have had to endure in America. But West immediately links Zimmerman's attack on Martin with Obama's drone attacks on the children of color in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Obama is, according to West, a "global George Zimmerman" he justifies the drone killing of children claiming self-defense. West brings the drone attacks on these children up because he wants to be concerned with all of God's children, all are made in God's image. Their blood is no less important than ours or the blood of our children. Here, West follows the example King set when he spoke out against the violence suffered by the Vietnamese people during the war.
What we see here is that West's vision is wider than that of Piper's. This larger vision allows West to challenge Obama's words of sympathy for Trayvon and identification with young Black men by stating how Obama has not only worked to change their plight in this country. West continues by criticizing Obama's praise and choice of Ray Kelly for director of Homeland Security because, as police chief of New York City, he defended and supported New York City's Stop And Frisk procedures. On the other hand, Piper can only celebrate Obama's exhortation that we should appreciate our current system of justice. He cannot look beyond Obama's words to see if he is walking the talk.
There are other things on which we can compare Piper and West, but let's stop and speculate why there are the above listed differences. Some of my fine fellow flaming fundamentalists friends and family might point to Piper's preaching of the traditional gospel, of redeeming those who repent and the judgment that awaits those who do not believe as the key to understanding the difference between the two. The problem with this line of thought is that the Gospel of individual salvation which Piper preaches, which seems to be absent in West's rhetoric, does not contradict West's concern for social justice. West's caring for all people regardless of race and nationality is very consistent with Galations 3:28, James 2:1-7, and the Scriptures that tell us we are all made in God's image.
Another factor that could explain the difference between Piper and West is their primary congregation and on which end of the whip each congregation lives. This is speculative and I could very well be wrong but it seems that Piper's congregation consists of a White majority. That does not mean that he does not preach to minorities, quite the opposite is true. And this does not imply any kind of racism on his part. We should note that Piper is just as opposed to racism as West. But, if this country is still mired in White supremacy, we should note that Whites will generally feel less urgency to change the status quo than Blacks because they don't live on the receiving end of the whip. Thus, generally speaking, Whites not only live in more comfort than Blacks, they have less reason to worry about their children and the future.
On the other hand, West's listening seems to consist of a Black majority. This does not imply that no Whites are included in his congregation--I listen to him. We are simply talking about which group makes up the majority of his audience.
As both Piper and West tailor their respective messages for their audiences, it would be quite natural for West to speak about changing the status quo and for Piper to pay more attention to keeping one's faith and the coming Kingdom of God. Generally speaking, Whites who live in a White supremacist society, do not feel the dire need for things to change that Blacks feel. And we should note that we are talking about generalities here.
Finally, West sees himself as a revolutionary. From all appearances, Piper does not. This means that West wants a new system while Piper wants the current one to be repaired. Again, both are strongly opposed to racism. But both experience the world differently, something Piper readily acknowledges though not referring to West specifically, in part because of their race, and they have different immediate needs to address because of their primary targeted audience.
As was written before, what we can do is to take the best of what both men have to offer and see what kind of mixture we can create that helps us to better apply God's Word to faith and to the world's problems with racism.
www.flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com
(Only one person pictured is a Christian Fundamentalist. And so which one pictured is not like the others)
Showing posts with label George Zimmerman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Zimmerman. Show all posts
Friday, July 26, 2013
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
The Judge Made Them Do It With Zimmerman, Alexander and CeCe
When we look at the puzzling and disturbing series of recent court decisions, it is tempting to focus on the jury and the possible errors or even biases they might have had. It is tempting because it is the jury that touches the case last. The judge is only following the jury's vote when he/she reads the verdict. However, it is not just the judge's instructions that the jury must follow in reaching a verdict, it is the judge who limits which can be used by the defense and what evidence is allowed in the courtroom.
As the Miami Herald pointed out, Zimmerman's conviction was unlikely because the only eyewitness who could contest Zimmerman's account, Trayvon Martin, was dead (click here for the article). We had no chance to hear the other side regarding who started the altercation and whether Martin had a legitimate reason to feel threatened. We do know that the judge in the case had no problem with Zimmerman's lawyers using the "Stand Your Ground" option though Zimmerman carried a gun into a potentially confrontational setting.
Now compare Zimmerman's case with that of Marissa Alexander who was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in jail for firing a disputed warning shot to fend off an allegedly abusive husband during an argument. The judge prohibited Alexander's lawyer from using the "Stand Your Ground" defense because Alexander, in the judge's opinion, could have fled the house where she was living rather than return from the garage with a gun. We should note that Alexander claimed that the door exiting the garage could not opened but this could not be proved. Here, we can think of what happened to Alexander in this way, if you feel threatened by someone who has entered your house, you are legally obligated to leave the place where you stay to be secure in order to avoid defending yourself. Alexander was convicted on 3 counts of aggravated assault with a firearm and was sentenced to 20 years. She was convicted because the prosecution persuaded the jury and the judge into believing that Alexander fired the shot in anger in order to kill rather than out of fear.
Of course there are some other complications here. Alexander was cited for domestic abuse later on at her husband's house. This incident might have sold the jury on believing that she fired the gun in anger rather than out of fear. But, again, why should a person be legally compelled to hit the streets during a threatening situation when our homes should be considered a safe place?
We could also consider the judge's actions in the case of CeCe McDonald, a Black man who has been undergoing a chemical transgendering process. McDonald accepted a plea bargain in the stabbing death of Dean Schmitz. On June 5th, 2011, McDonald and some friends were involved in an argument in a group of people that resulted in hate speech and then violence. McDonald was struck in the face and Schmitz was fatally stabbed. And though this case had complications, such as McDonald's changing testimony over who actually stabbed Schmitz, the real concern was over the evidence that the judge prohibited from the hearing. The forbidden evidence included, Schmitz's swastika tatoo (deemed irrelevant because McDonald was unable to see it), Schmitz's record of violence, and questions to an expert witness regarding the rate of crimes being committed against transgendered people which could have proved that McDonald was experiencing fear more than rage (click here for an article).
So here we see why when the accusation of racism comes into play regarding the Zimmerman case, we cannot be content with just examining Zimmerman himself. What we need to know is whether we have a systemic racism, that is a racism practiced by society's institutions--in this case, the courts. Though no broad statement can be made using a sample of 3 cases, these cases show that different standards can be used by judges possibly depending on the race of either the accused or the victim. And when we consider performances of the judges in these three cases, the incarceration rate of minorities, the race of those targeted by Stop And Frisk procedures, and race of those targeted by voter verification laws, we need to consider whether systemic racism is in play here rather than just personal problems exhibited by some troubled souls?
When we return to the above three cases, we might have a deja vu experience. For with each minority person above, there were problems that could rationalize, in the minds of some, the ends each person suffered. Trayvon Martin allegedly assaulted George Zimmerman. Marissa Alexander attacked her husband. And McDonald gave contradictory reports as to who stabbed Schmitz as well as lived a questionable lifestyle.
Thus, in the minds of many Americans, Martin, Alexander, and McDonald, might have brought problems on themselves. And the reason for this interpretation could be because many of us White Americans require that any victims of our system qualify for sainthood before we are willing to listen to their grievances. This is why the philosophy and actions of people like Martin Luther King is given lip-service by many Whites who are apathetic about the plight of today's underclass. By requiring that King and his fellow activists remain nonviolent, both externally and internally, we took for granted the Herculean accomplishment they achieved. BTW, please realize that this is in no way a criticism of King. King's approach to overturning unjust laws was both morally and practically correct. What is being pointed out here is that our system and even many of us, make society's victims jump through so many hoops that it becomes nearly impossible for them to gain relief.
For the most part, King and those with him were relatively without fault so that many of us White Americans felt safe and compelled to acquiesce to some of their demands. Had they failed in remaining nonviolent or had they shown too much anger, we would have concluded that the then current discrimination would be nothing more than Blacks getting what they deserved. However, this requirement for superhuman ethics and the feeling that non-angelic Blacks were getting what they deserved might have been nothing more than camouflage for the guilt we suppress for our active or passive participation in racism and other offenses. Here, we must hide from our consciences otherwise we would have to admit our shame with regard to racism. We would also have to acknowledge that we deserve our victims' wrath. This might be one of the reasons why King's emphasis on love and nonviolence appealed to so many Whites. It allowed many of us to obtain a get out of jail free cad for past sins while giving the appearance that we were addressing current problems.
Unfortunately, much of that racism went into a temporary remission only; it was never eradicated. So what we are seeing today is the reemergence of a cancer that we thought was gone. Though economically speaking, racism in America never took a rest, there occurred important changes in the legal system that told us things were improving though how much things improved is debatable. But now we seem to reverting to a previous state for minorities while we comfortably live in denial of the abuse of others because we can find fault with these victims.
History shows that we find differences to be threatening and thus we seek to suppress them. We want to keep those who are different under our thumbs so that their deviation does not become a communicable virus. That is why we prefer those who are different to have faults. We prefer this because when they become victims, we don't have to care or even listen. After all, beggars can't be choosers and sinners can only beg for mercy.
But is such an attitude Biblical? Does such a mentality come from the mind of Christ who came to serve not to rule and to give His life for His enemies? Does either persecution of or ignoring the needs of the oppressed imitate Christ in any way? Is pointing to the faults of others an excuse for not caring and what we should have learned from the parable of the two men praying?
For way too long a time period, American Christians have controlled others through laws and punishment and they have done so in the name of love and the other person's best interests. At best, this is called paternalism. And the trouble with paternalism is that the "good intentions" that serves as its basis blind us from our abusive practices and the harm we cause and this occurs while we enjoying the benefits of our domination. And the only way to escape paternalism's siren song is to imitate our Savior who came for those outside of His gang. He came for us who, at the time, were His enemies. And that means we need to investigate and, if necessary, do what we can for the all of the Trayvon Martins, Marissa Alexanders, and CeCe McDonalds whom we come across realizing that helping includes challenging the system.
As the Miami Herald pointed out, Zimmerman's conviction was unlikely because the only eyewitness who could contest Zimmerman's account, Trayvon Martin, was dead (click here for the article). We had no chance to hear the other side regarding who started the altercation and whether Martin had a legitimate reason to feel threatened. We do know that the judge in the case had no problem with Zimmerman's lawyers using the "Stand Your Ground" option though Zimmerman carried a gun into a potentially confrontational setting.
Now compare Zimmerman's case with that of Marissa Alexander who was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in jail for firing a disputed warning shot to fend off an allegedly abusive husband during an argument. The judge prohibited Alexander's lawyer from using the "Stand Your Ground" defense because Alexander, in the judge's opinion, could have fled the house where she was living rather than return from the garage with a gun. We should note that Alexander claimed that the door exiting the garage could not opened but this could not be proved. Here, we can think of what happened to Alexander in this way, if you feel threatened by someone who has entered your house, you are legally obligated to leave the place where you stay to be secure in order to avoid defending yourself. Alexander was convicted on 3 counts of aggravated assault with a firearm and was sentenced to 20 years. She was convicted because the prosecution persuaded the jury and the judge into believing that Alexander fired the shot in anger in order to kill rather than out of fear.
Of course there are some other complications here. Alexander was cited for domestic abuse later on at her husband's house. This incident might have sold the jury on believing that she fired the gun in anger rather than out of fear. But, again, why should a person be legally compelled to hit the streets during a threatening situation when our homes should be considered a safe place?
We could also consider the judge's actions in the case of CeCe McDonald, a Black man who has been undergoing a chemical transgendering process. McDonald accepted a plea bargain in the stabbing death of Dean Schmitz. On June 5th, 2011, McDonald and some friends were involved in an argument in a group of people that resulted in hate speech and then violence. McDonald was struck in the face and Schmitz was fatally stabbed. And though this case had complications, such as McDonald's changing testimony over who actually stabbed Schmitz, the real concern was over the evidence that the judge prohibited from the hearing. The forbidden evidence included, Schmitz's swastika tatoo (deemed irrelevant because McDonald was unable to see it), Schmitz's record of violence, and questions to an expert witness regarding the rate of crimes being committed against transgendered people which could have proved that McDonald was experiencing fear more than rage (click here for an article).
So here we see why when the accusation of racism comes into play regarding the Zimmerman case, we cannot be content with just examining Zimmerman himself. What we need to know is whether we have a systemic racism, that is a racism practiced by society's institutions--in this case, the courts. Though no broad statement can be made using a sample of 3 cases, these cases show that different standards can be used by judges possibly depending on the race of either the accused or the victim. And when we consider performances of the judges in these three cases, the incarceration rate of minorities, the race of those targeted by Stop And Frisk procedures, and race of those targeted by voter verification laws, we need to consider whether systemic racism is in play here rather than just personal problems exhibited by some troubled souls?
When we return to the above three cases, we might have a deja vu experience. For with each minority person above, there were problems that could rationalize, in the minds of some, the ends each person suffered. Trayvon Martin allegedly assaulted George Zimmerman. Marissa Alexander attacked her husband. And McDonald gave contradictory reports as to who stabbed Schmitz as well as lived a questionable lifestyle.
Thus, in the minds of many Americans, Martin, Alexander, and McDonald, might have brought problems on themselves. And the reason for this interpretation could be because many of us White Americans require that any victims of our system qualify for sainthood before we are willing to listen to their grievances. This is why the philosophy and actions of people like Martin Luther King is given lip-service by many Whites who are apathetic about the plight of today's underclass. By requiring that King and his fellow activists remain nonviolent, both externally and internally, we took for granted the Herculean accomplishment they achieved. BTW, please realize that this is in no way a criticism of King. King's approach to overturning unjust laws was both morally and practically correct. What is being pointed out here is that our system and even many of us, make society's victims jump through so many hoops that it becomes nearly impossible for them to gain relief.
For the most part, King and those with him were relatively without fault so that many of us White Americans felt safe and compelled to acquiesce to some of their demands. Had they failed in remaining nonviolent or had they shown too much anger, we would have concluded that the then current discrimination would be nothing more than Blacks getting what they deserved. However, this requirement for superhuman ethics and the feeling that non-angelic Blacks were getting what they deserved might have been nothing more than camouflage for the guilt we suppress for our active or passive participation in racism and other offenses. Here, we must hide from our consciences otherwise we would have to admit our shame with regard to racism. We would also have to acknowledge that we deserve our victims' wrath. This might be one of the reasons why King's emphasis on love and nonviolence appealed to so many Whites. It allowed many of us to obtain a get out of jail free cad for past sins while giving the appearance that we were addressing current problems.
Unfortunately, much of that racism went into a temporary remission only; it was never eradicated. So what we are seeing today is the reemergence of a cancer that we thought was gone. Though economically speaking, racism in America never took a rest, there occurred important changes in the legal system that told us things were improving though how much things improved is debatable. But now we seem to reverting to a previous state for minorities while we comfortably live in denial of the abuse of others because we can find fault with these victims.
History shows that we find differences to be threatening and thus we seek to suppress them. We want to keep those who are different under our thumbs so that their deviation does not become a communicable virus. That is why we prefer those who are different to have faults. We prefer this because when they become victims, we don't have to care or even listen. After all, beggars can't be choosers and sinners can only beg for mercy.
But is such an attitude Biblical? Does such a mentality come from the mind of Christ who came to serve not to rule and to give His life for His enemies? Does either persecution of or ignoring the needs of the oppressed imitate Christ in any way? Is pointing to the faults of others an excuse for not caring and what we should have learned from the parable of the two men praying?
For way too long a time period, American Christians have controlled others through laws and punishment and they have done so in the name of love and the other person's best interests. At best, this is called paternalism. And the trouble with paternalism is that the "good intentions" that serves as its basis blind us from our abusive practices and the harm we cause and this occurs while we enjoying the benefits of our domination. And the only way to escape paternalism's siren song is to imitate our Savior who came for those outside of His gang. He came for us who, at the time, were His enemies. And that means we need to investigate and, if necessary, do what we can for the all of the Trayvon Martins, Marissa Alexanders, and CeCe McDonalds whom we come across realizing that helping includes challenging the system.
Monday, July 22, 2013
ONIM For The Week Of July 22, 2013
Christian News
- Have We Become Too Comfortable To Share The Gospel -- Christian Today (U.K.)
- Can We Trust The God Of Genocide -- Christianity Today
- First Amendment 'Goes Too Far' On Freedom, Say Record Surge Of Americans -- Christianity Today
- Rick Warren Returns To Preaching After Son's Death -- Christian Post
- John Piper Weighs In On Zimmerman Verdict -- Christian Post
- Is Your Life Defined By A Ladder Or A Cross -- Christian Post
- Capitalism And Christianity -- Religion Dispatches
- What's Really Killing The Church -- The Christian Century
- Fighting Neighborhood Crime Nonviolently -- Waging Nonviolence
- Stand Your Ground: White Shooters With Black Victims -- OccupyWallStreet.net
- Dangers Of The Zimmerman Mindset -- Democracy Now
- Chris Hedges Responds To Court Ruling That Allows Indefinite Detainment -- Truthdig.com
- US Threatens Freedom Of The Press: Appeals Court Rejects Reporter's Privilege In Leak Case -- Popular Resistance
- White House Threatens Russia Over Snowden -- Antiwar.com
- California Prisoners Challenge Prison Conditions With Hunger Strike -- Democracy Now
- Setbacks For Women In Afghanistan -- Human Rights Watch
- Mission Creep: Where Everything Is Terrorism -- Information Clearinghouse
- The Mass Protests In Brazil -- Znet
- Chicago Schools Layoff 2,100 While City Puts $55 Million Into College Basketball Arena -- Daily Kos
- Bradley Manning Wins Peace Prize -- Let's Try Democracy
- OccupyHomes Rallies Around Homeowners Facing Foreclosure -- Truthout.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)