Black Lives Matter???

A lot of Christians are confused about #BlackLivesMatter, and what it is. Some point to the violence and the looting, while others point out that BLM claims to be a peaceful organization designed to raise awareness about police brutality against African Americans. Some, like myself, originally heard the phrase "black lives matter" and said "Hey, that sounds like something I could really get on board with." After all, this is probably one of most profound three-word phrases ever spoken in the English language. My dad, a retired military police officer, once lamented the fact that the news media is all over it when a rich, blonde white girl disappears, but had she been a poor black girl in the inner city, no one would care.

This page is designed to give a basic overview of this organization, and what they stand for. I am going to be critical, yet factual and honest. I wrote this page particularly for people in Intervarsity Christian Fellowship. They are my primary audience, and the people I am designing this for, but I wanted to share this with everyone who wants to learn more about BlackLivesMatter.

BlackLivesMatter is an organization that claims to raise awareness of racially-motivated police brutality in America. The organization was founded in 2013 by Alicia Garza and two other women, Opal Tometi, and Patrisse Cullors, after the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman (a civilian whom BLM regards as a vigilante).

As Christians we might look at a group like this and say "Hey, these are important issues that need to be discussed." And they are. We also might look at some of what the group says and say "Hey, I don't necessarily agree with everything that's said here, but I want to build dialogue."

In 2015, a Christian ministry called Intervarsity Christian Fellowship invited Michelle Higgins of BlackLivesMatter to come and speak at a large event known at Urbana. As a member of Intervarsity who graduated several months earlier, I had declined to go to Urbana, because I was not sure what my job situation was going to look like in December.

Yet I've watched the video online. I found it to be racist, and demeaning. At this point my relationships with my friends from Intervarsity are strained. I care about the black community, and have been involved in several ministries that seek to reach out to this community in particular. Since race issues have been a part of my outreach for many years (although they are not the only issues) I have a unique perspective that other white Christians may not have. I've also lived a few doors down from what was formerly one of the most violent streets in America. Once every two days, I got to play everyone's favorite inner-city game "Firework or Gunshot?" (no exaggeration). 

A bit about me, and why this matters

My dad also is a retired military police officer, and when I found out that InterVarsity decided to promote an organization such as this, I decided enough was enough. I was originally planning on financially supporting a particular staff worker or two, but because of Intervarsity's approach to this issue, have decided not to.

My main hesitancy with financially supporting IV originally was due to Intervarsity's promotion of a "Chrisitan" organization called BioLogos that amongst other things, publishes articles saying that based on Evolution, Jesus death had nothing to do with paying the price for sin. The reasoning being that because death and suffering are a part of the Evolutionary process, substitutionary atonement can't be a thing (hey, at least they're honest), which completely rejects the Gospel message. I know that human beings are prone to exaggerating, and this might sound too bizarre to be true, but I am not exaggerating, and will cover this issue in the near future.

In spite of my history living in the inner city, being involved in urban-focused ministries, and seeking to refute racist beliefs, a black staff worker in Intervarsity Christian Fellowship accused me of being too lazy to care about black people and to drive from my white suburban community down to the hood to volunteer to help black people. He also accused me of not understanding what BlackLivesMatter was about, and insisted that BLM is not a violent organization, despite showing him the information that I am presenting here.

This was a person who did not know anything about me. He made this personal accusation, based simply on the color of my skin and the fact that I do not support BlackLivesMatter.

If Intervarsity is going to complain about racism, then they should start by taking the logs out of their own eyes.

As I've pointed out in my Newsletter, other leaders in Intervarsity Chrsitian Fellowship have said that those of us who support police officers and oppose the calls to kill police somehow don't care about black people, or about police transparency.

"When you say Blue Lives Matter you’re saying that Black Lives don’t because no one says Blue Lives Matter unless you’re shouting down people fighting against police brutality and abuse of power."

Yet this is a huge sweeping generalization. BlueLivesMatter arose in response to the very real threats against police, and the very real movement against police, regardless of whether one thinks BlackLivesMatter is to be blamed for this sentiment or not. As I've pointed out, I say "Blue Lives Matter" because I care about police, and because I care about black people, and because I care about my family. For this Intervarsity leader to say that I am somehow in the wrong to support the rights of police is shameful, and does nothing to build bridges or bring people together.

Had I been one of the leaders in BlackLivesMatter, I would have reached out to BlueLivesMatter and to AllLivesMatter and tried to build that bridge. I would have united and said "Hey, let's work together and show people that cops and black people both have value, and try and repair the divides within our communities." But instead Alicia Garza and other leaders within the organization took offense at these other phrases, and decided that "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter" are somehow offensive. But if you are not anti-police, then how is "Blue Lives Matter" offensive?

My request to my fellow brothers and sisters in Intervarsity, who are reading this article is this: When you are done reading this, please ask yourselves why is it appropriate for Intervarsity to demean the value of my father's life. Why does my father's life matter less than that of a criminal who attacks police officers? 

You might find this pointed, and offensive, but it is not undeserved. Please keep reading.

Here's the problem with Black Lives Matter in a nutshell:

1.) BlackLivesMatter, as an organization, is going around spreading false accusations about the police. 

These aren't claims that are merely controversial, these are claims that are just plain false. They do this in order to spread the narrative that police are evil/racist and that there is a massive police conspiracy where they are out to get black people.

They claim that Michael Brown was murdered by police ("hands up, don't shoot") but eyewitnesses and forensic evidence proved that this was a lie. Even Eric Holder's Justice Department said that this was false. Michael Brown did not have his hands up. Eyewitness testimony and the forensic evidence showed that Michael Brown was attacking the police officer, forcing the officer to shoot him in self-defense.

They claim that every instance of a police officer shooting a black person is the result of "racism". They even make these claims when a black suspect is killed by a black police officer (think Sylville Smith). They make these claims, even when it is proven by video, eyewitnesses, and forensic evidence that the police officer shot the suspect in self-defense.

So a black police officer shoots a black suspect in self defense, and this is "racism"???

Police officers are assumed to be evil racist bigots, regardless of the evidence. If a black person dies, "racism" is the ONLY possibility.

They then say that police officers know that their fellow officers are going around hunting black people, but refuse to say anything, because of some "code of silence". In other words, they are saying that all police officers are complicit in the murder of black people. 

The only way their views make any sense is if ALL police officers, every single one, including those who are African American, are out to hunt down black people. This is what people who live in the real world call "insane"! 

(i.e. They spread verifiable lies about police, that anyone can prove wrong with the tiniest bit of research.)

2.) Their rallies aren't peaceful protests. They're calls for violence, looting, and murder.

They go around burning down predominantly black neighborhoods, looting businesses etc. They also chant that they want to kill the police. "What do we want? Dead cops!" and "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!" - A reference to police officers in body bags.

3.) Their leaders refuse to condemn the violence.

I have seen a lot of white people, particularly people in Intervarsity try and defend Black Lives Matter with the claim that maybe these are just a few rogue people that have nothing to do with the organization as a whole. Sure there are massive riots where they are burning down cities, but after-all Black Lives Matter has a little blurb on their website saying that they don't condone violence, and that they aren't anti-police.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but this approach is not only naiive, it is completely stupid. It represents a complete lack of discernment. It's like a grown adult approaching the sketchy white van, cause, hey "This Skaggs guy has candy!"

When the leaders in the Black Lives Matter organization have been approached about the violence, the looting, and the calls to kill police they have refused to condemn this behavior.

After the famous "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!" rally, news reporters approached the official Black Lives Matter leader heading the protest to respond to the chants. But instead of condemning the behavior of those in his party, he shrugged it off, and chastised others for focusing on just that one part.

That is so out of control, I can't believe it. If Intervarsity had a chapter that began to riot saying they wanted to kill all "towelheads" Greg Jao would be condemning this chapter from the rooftops, and a lot of people would be banned from the ministry. No one would be making these childish excuses for them, or ignoring the behavior.

Yet he ignores this behavior. Why? I don't know if this is what's happening, but a lot of Liberals regard black people as children. They excuse the behavior of black people, because they honestly don't see black people as being on the same level as white people.

The claim that this is only a few rogue people is completely false. Anyone who isn't willfully ignorant of the evidence can plainly see that the anti-police rhetoric is rampant in the Black Lives Matter "movement". A blurb or two on a website doesn't change that.

But what of the leaders? Who defines what a movement is "about"?

Alicia Garza, the primary co-founder of BlackLivesMatter was asked about the lootings in an interview. She had a full opprotunity to condemn the lootings and violence. She had the full opportunity to say that these rioters are absolutely disgusting, and that police and the men and women in uniform as a whole, are here to protect us. If they hated black people as a whole, they wouldn't be putting on uniforms, risking their lives, and running towards bullets to protect black, men, women, and children. (Like I said, Real World vs Insantiy.)

Instead Garza dodged the question, giving a non-answer, and seemed to possibly even be praising the looting of black businesses. In fact, I can't imagine a person as intelligent and well-spoken as Garza merely failing to actually condemn the violence time and time again.

[Anyone can watch both the response to the interview, and the original video here. Pardon the language in this video. I did not make it, but it is more than worth watching.]

This wouldn't be an isolated incident, or a case of misspeaking. Garza has repeatedly stood in front of Black Lives Matter audiences and told them that America's police officers are racist, and that they are out to kill black people. She even praises known terrorist Assata Shakur who murdered a police officer, and escaped from prison. (This evil woman is still on the FBI most wanted list.)

A lot of police officers have already been murdered by Black Lives Matter followers. If Alicia Garza were really interested in peace, she would condemn the anti-police violence at every opportunity. Instead she's more interested in fanning the flames.

Black Lives Matter speaks out of both sides of their mouths. Like most terrorist groups, they say they are peaceful in little sound bites here and there on one hand, but then they lead violent riots on the other. The PLO and the KKK feign peace in the same way. Idiots even gave the head of the PLO a Nobel Peace Prize.

4.) But but, they say they are non-violent?

BlackLivesMatter has tiny quotes on the back of their website about being non-violent, but this is clearly not true. These little blurbs are so passive by comparison to everything else that the leaders say, and refuse to say, as to be irrelevant. (Just watch the video of the interview with Garza.) Amazingly they know this is all it takes to fool gullible people!

Here is a quote from a commentator on the Black Lives Matter website:

"By not publicly condemning vigilante violence or the chants of wanting police dead, the general public perception is that BLM is condoning this behavior." (This is from a supporter of the organization)

Alicia Garza, and every other leader in the BlackLivesMatter organization, are morally obligated to get on every platform and repudiate the calls to violence and the lies that they've spread about police. They are morally obligated to condemn the riots, the lootings, and the murders. Yet they refuse to do this.

Black lives DO matter. But so do police lives, and so do all lives, and despite what the leaders of Intervarsity Christian Fellowship or Black Lives Matter say, there is nothing racist about saying this. Leaders in Intervarsity who say that supporting police is somehow racist are wrong.

"And until law enforcement and those in power chant Black Lives Matter and come alongside communities of color to acknowledge the pain, suffering and death there will be more murders. Not because there have to be but because sadly, those on the margins don’t know what else to do." - A leader from Intervarsity Christian Fellowship

Clearly the author here is justifying the murder of police officers. If you are not willing to chant "Black Lives Matter" and fall in line, then it is your own fault if you get murdered. The irony here is that if communities that are predominantly African American were really being targeted by the police, they could easily go to their elected officials, and get a different police force. That's the beauty of living in a Democratic Republic, rather than under a Marxist regime. (The leaders of Black Lives Matter are Marxists, but more on that in a bit.) This makes the whole notion that black people are somehow oppressed by the police complete nonsense.

If black people are being so oppressed by police officers in their communities, if police are so evil, if police are going around hunting black people like it's open-season, then WHY... WHY the heck do black communities continue year after year after year to VOTE for that same police department???

If your Democrat overlords are sending racist cops after you, then vote them out of office!!!!!!!!!!

As for not acknowledging the pain of communities of color, or this disgusting, arrogant accusation by this Intervarsity Christian Fellowship representative that police somehow don't care about black communities, I have a lot to say.

Number one, you (the author of this quote) are a disgusting human being. IV members have criticized me for saying this about one of God's creations, but somehow they are okay with people like him justifying the murder of police.

When bullets fly in black communities, it is police officers who run towards the bullets, risking their own lives to defend the communities that they have sworn to protect and serve. They could be making twice as much money or even more working in a nice quiet office somewhere, but instead they patrol the ghetto trying to protect black families from gang violence and shootings from drug dealers.

And the only thing that this sorry excuse for a human being from IVCF can seem to say is that police officers just don't care about black people.

Police give so much for our communities, and this is how InterVarsity's leaders behave? Disgusting. It's really something to know that Greg Jao, and InterVarsity's leaders are completely okay with this.

The transgender nonsense, Marxism, and Global Warming, but not black-on-black crime?

BlackLivesMatter has spoken out in favor of Marxism, spoken out about Global Warming, and spoken out AGAINST the nuclear family, but when asked about black-on-black crime, their answer has been that this is not an issue that they deal with. Sometimes this is an important issue, sometimes this is an issue that "black people" DO address (note, we didn't ask about black people, we asked about BlackLivesMatter), or sometimes black-on-black crime isn't an issue and doesn't exist, you racist! (Which should leave us wondering, "Whatever happend to the first answer?")

The organization has been criticized for refusing to speak out against black-on-black crime. We live in a country where thousands of black people are murdered every year by other black people. Supporters of the organization have responded that "black on black crime, isn't a thing" and pointed out that most white murder victims are killed by other whites. This denial of facts is stupid to the highest degree. There are far more white people than black people in this country, but in 2013 the FBI stats showed that black people were about six times more likely to kill each other than white people. The stats were pretty consistent in other years as well, but now, thanks to BlackLivesMatter forcing police to withdraw from high-crime areas, the murder rates are getting worse.

It's been pointed out that It would take cops 40 years to kill as many black men as have died at the hands of other black men in 2012 alone. Please note that these cases are NOT equivalent. When police officers shoot suspects, it is almost always due to the fact that they had no other choice. (A fact that BlackLivesMatter is intent on denying.)

If I didn't know any better, BlackLivesMatter's goal would seem to be to destroy black communities, and send the murder rates through the roof.

The number one cause of murder for a young black man in this country, is at the hands of another black man. Yet BlackLivesMatter has said that as an organization, they don't deal with this issue.

BlackLivesMatter riots when proven thugs are killed by police, screaming "RACISM!!!!!" Regardless of the facts, even when the officer is black, but they are NOWHERE to be found when a nine year old little girl is murdered by a drive-by shooting.

One caveat to this. Because of the huge wave of criticism, BLM has an article on their website deflecting this core issue faced by black communities (a problem which BlackLivesMatter seems to be intent on making worse).

"The idea that black-on-black crime is not a significant political conversation among black people is patently false." This is of course, a straw-man response. No one said that there aren't black people working to solve this issue, they've pointed out that BlackLivesMatter has refused to seek to find solutions for this issue, as I've already addressed earlier in this article.

One rather ... (I am having trouble finding words in response to this intense level of stupidity.) This defender of BlackLivesMatter tried to say that black-on-black crime isn't a thing, and tried to deny that there is a huge problem with black people killing other black people, because after all, most whites are killed by other whites. 


Instead BlackLivesMatter is demanding the one thing that is guaranteed to get more black people killed: Force police to withdraw from black communities. 

After all, without the police, black urban communities will become a shining utopia where the drugs, violence, and prostitution will magically disappeare. Young men will pull their pants up, stop getting their girlfriends pregnant, graduate from high school, go on to college, and build a paradise where the evil white man can't force black people to wear their pants around their ankles, drop out of high school, and get their girlfreinds pregnant. Garza will be their new empress, and we can call it "Afrotopia" or maybe even "BlackLivesMattertopia". (Some people will undoubtedly call me a racist for my sarcasm, but if there is to be change in the black community, we have to stop ignoring the problems, and we have to stop pretending that Whitey is to blame for every problem in the black community.)

If police wanted to kill black people, the ONLY thing they would have to do, is withdraw from black communities, and this is exactly what BlackLivesMatter is forcing them to do.

Are police perfect? No. Do they always treat black people fairly? According to studies, no. Black people are MORE likely to be treated in a rough manner by police than whites, HOWEVER police are LESS likely to shoot black suspects in equivalent situations.

In other words white people are MORE likely to be shot by police under the same circumstances. These findings are controversial, and more work needs to be done. After all, you can't randomize race, but the findings are really telling.

As for Black Poverty

Black folks have been voting Democrat for decades. This is the same party that has been responsible for virtually all of the anti-black racism in the history of America. They promoted slavery, Jim Crow, and in this day and age, they are making black people dependent on the welfare state. To make matters worse, Democratic politicians tend to oppose school choice (a proven method of raising black families out of poverty). They force black families to send their kids to failing schools, effectively keeping segregation in schools alive. This prevents black people from getting a proper education, keeping them poor, keeping them dependent on welfare and ergo keeping them voting Democrat. These same Democratic politicians also do everything they can to over-regulate businesses and play games with minimum wage to keep young blacks from being able to get jobs. Businesses (and therefor jobs) are driven out of black communities with over-regulation, and any opportunity to climb the ladder is intentionally destroyed with minimum wage laws. 

You can't climb a ladder as a young man if the lowest rungs are constantly being taken away. Contrast this with the wealthy who are able to provide more resources for their sons to find work. After all, when the economy isn't destroyed by over-regulation, young men in the suburbs can find low-paying jobs after school to start out in life. They get some money for college and a car by working a part time job, and they also get some money from their medium or upper middle-class parents.

I am not saying that it is impossible for young black men to "make it" in America. After all, as Brigitte Gabriel has pointed out, if you can't make it in America, you can't make it anywhere! But what I am most definitely, and most emphatically saying is that the oppressive white people are none other than the Democrats that black people keep on voting for.

Thomas Sowell, one of the greatest economists on the planet, himself and African American who grew up in poverty, has a lot to say about this.

What can we learn from this?

EVEN IF we are gullible enough to buy into the lie that BlackLivesMatter, as an organization, doesn't have anything to do with violence, they STILL are going around spreading lies about police that they know are untrue. They also support a lot of things that Christians should NOT be a part of, like promoting tansgenderism, and opposing the nuclear family.

If Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, and other Christians want to destroy the black community, then they should just keep on supporting BlackLivesMatter, and keep on endorsing similar racist organizations.

But IF Intervarsity cares about black people. If WE want to see change in this country, then we need to stop promoting this organization. We need to start working with groups that seek to build bridges between the African American community, and the police. We can and should consider ways in which the police can be more respectful towards the communities in which they serve, but BEFORE we do that, we need to learn to respect the police and their families. As it stands, the anti-police rhetoric coming straight from Intervarsity Chrsitian Fellowship's leaders shows that we have not done that.


My recommendation for IVCF and other Christian organizations is to distance themselves from groups like BlackLivesMatter. There are plenty of organizations in American that are working to help the black community, defeat racism, and combat urban poverty. I have a lot of resources here, on to help people with all of these issues. There are also pastors and ministries throughout the urban community.

In other words, there are no lack of options. Not only is promoting BlackLivesMatter not helpful, it's the most harmful thing anyone could possibly do to the black community.

Intervarsity has already promoted BlackLivesMatter and it was a terrible decision, yet they continue to promote and endorse this organization. The BEST thing that they can do right now is to post a statement that while they support the black community, they cannot in good conscience support this particular organization. IV should include a statement that they will continue to work to help urban communities, and try to build bridges between police and black communities, but that they cannot, in good conscience support a group that has openly called for violence, engaged in spreading verifiably false anti-police information, and failed to condemn the violence they passively claim not to support.

Like I said, if IV wants to build bridges between police officers and the black community, they should do that, but they can't do that if they are promoting those who call for violence against the police.

We should reach out to other groups, and seek to build bridges, but we need to have discernment. InterVarsity has shown an extreme lack of discernment with promoting groups like BlackLivesMatter and BioLogos. As an analogy, if a young Christian man were to walk into the office of a staff worker, and confess that he were struggling with homosexual desire, I would hope to God that InterVarsity would know enough not to give him a book by Matthew Vines.

In the same way, InterVarsity has exercised gross negligence on this issue.

I've heard people from Intervarsity saying things like "freedom of speech" and "open dialogue", but the nonsense of this is amazing. We can be in favor of universities promoting academic freedom, but that doesn't mean that we throw out brains in the garbage can and give every Tom, Dick, and Harry a platform.

It's been pointed out to me that BlackLivesMatter needs Jesus. Yes they do, but that doesn't mean that we give them a platform to speak. The Ku Klux Klan likewise needs Jesus, but we would never give them a platform from which to speak (I hope). Just because someone (an unbeliever) needs Jesus, doesn't mean that we support and endorse their organization.

I ask that everyone reading this pray for Intervarsity Chrsitian Fellowship, and pray for Greg Jao, that he makes a good decision about this, and that in the future, IV exercises better judgement than this.

If anyone is interested, I have sections of this website that deal with racism, urban poverty, politics, and whole bunch of other issues.

After initially writing this section of this website, I came across this video. It goes into the history and philosophy of BLM in some detail. The video points out a lot of the unsavory goals that BLM openly publishes on their website. The author does not go into BLMs opposition to the nuclear family, or their goal of promoting transgenderism. Personally, I think they are too generous to the leaders of BLM with regards to the violence, but the point here is that EVEN IF you disregard the violence and the looting, BLM is still not a good organization.