The trouble they cause recoils on
them; their violence comes down on their own heads. (Psalm 7:16)
Definitions – they are key. If you’re going to discuss
something, you need to define your terms. This is a problem I’m facing on
multiple fronts at the moment. One of those, I am addressing with the specific
individual, so I’ll leave it alone for the moment. The other is a general
movement within the population. So, let’s begin with a definition.
Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to
hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. (Law) the unlawful exercise of
physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.
According to CNN[1]
about 93% of racial protests have been peaceful and nondestructive, as opposed
to the rumors that BLM protests are spawning violence and destruction of
property. Do you notice what CNN is doing? I’m sure they’re not alone – because
I’ve had discussions with people who have done the same thing. Something can be
peaceful and nondestructive, meaning that something can also be peaceful
and destructive. Protests can spawn violence and destruction of property,
meaning that the destruction of property is no longer considered violence. If a
protest doesn’t result in the murder of a person, it’s not violent. A city may
lose 95% of its buildings due to arson, and people could die in the fires, but
it wouldn’t be violent. Ambulances may be prevented from reaching hospitals and
the victims in the ambulances may die as a result, but the protest wasn’t
violent.
This isn’t new. A decade ago (more or less) people were
being taken to court, and given business and life destroying fines for refusing
to provide services or products that would violate their consciences. The “customer’s”
sole purpose in going to that merchant was to intimidate or otherwise force the
merchant to violate his/her conscience, to submit to the customer. Sure, there’s
no threat of busting kneecaps if the merchant doesn’t pay protection money, but
if they fail to do as they’re told – to turn over the goods (whatever the goods
may be,) their livelihood, their family, and the lives are in jeopardy. Oh no,
not murder – no violence will be committed against them. Just legal
proceedings, just the destruction of their place of business, just protests
that will prevent anyone else from accessing the business… a life destroyed,
but no “violence.”
Today’s passage
speaks to this – not only to this, but definitely to this. If Mr. Biden wins
the election in November, no doubt there will be an attempt to reverse this
idea. Those now saying that violence and destruction of property are separate
will try to bring them back together. Then, we will be told that to say
something that makes someone uncomfortable is violence against them. That’s
what was being said during Mr. Obama’s administration, after all. That’s the
basis for cancel culture - that words are violence.
But the trouble they cause will come back to haunt them, as
others destroy what they wish to build, and they dare not call it violence.
This is one of many cases in which we must stand strong, not opposing the
people, but firmly rejecting their idea that destruction of property and theft
of goods is not violence.
I’m reminded of The Lord of the Flies by William Golding.
We have rejected the idea that our lives have meaning. We are rejecting the
idea that words have meanings except as we choose them to mean in the moment.
There is grave danger in this. We are doing violence to the things that preserve
us – to ideas. And it will come down on our own heads.
Comments
Post a Comment