The Interpretations of George Floyd’s Murder
Every human being interprets life! And, every human uses a value system to make those interpretations. If you choose God’s values to interpret life, i.e.the Judaeo-Christian ethic—you find truth. If you use man’s value system to interpret life, you find lies, destruction, and death! It’s that simple!
God cannot lie(Num23:19), so He expects and demands we tell the truth. When interpreting George Floyd’s murder, it is critical to use truth…not feelings. Feelings are rarely truth, and can be influenced by personal experience, media, friends, majority voices, and many other factors. However, because truth originates in God(Jn14:6; Jn17:17; Ps119:142)…nothing can influence it!
Following are several interpretations of George Floyd’s murder:
1.Derek Chauvin put his knee on George Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and he died. I have read differing reports of what killed him. Either he died of asphyxia or a heart attack, with heart disease and drug use as contributing factors. However, all who saw his death agree—black, white, brown, red, and yellow--that Officer Chauvin is responsible for George Floyd’s death, which means Derek Chauvin will be charged with murder.
However, moving past this initial fact, I have heard/seen the following interpretations of George Floyd’s murder:
2.Police target black people
3.Police are racist
4.America is a racist nation
5.White people are racist
6.America has systemic racism
7.Blacks get no justice in America
8.Black lives don’t matter
There are presently no conflicting facts with point 1 above, but there are many conflicting facts with every interpretation thereafter. Let’s get to it!
1.The Washington Post, a liberal newspaper cites the facts of police fatal shootings: 2015: white–497; black-258; Hispanic-172. 2016: white-468; black-234; Hispanic-160. 2017: white-459; black-224; Hispanic-179. 2018: white-454; black-229; Hispanic-165. 2019: white-405; black-249; Hispanic-163. 2020: white-185; black-97; Hispanic-61. Totals for 5 years: whites-2468; blacks-1291; Hispanic-900. Fact1- police kill more whites than blacks by almost double. Fact2-Police often kill more whites than blacks and Hispanics combined.
How do YOU interpret these facts?
2.Roland Fryer, a black Harvard trained researcher did a 2016 study of police shootings:
“It is the most surprising result of my career!”
“Mr. Fryer found that in such situations, officers in Houston were
about 20 percent less likely to shoot if the suspects were black.”
"Mr Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot of
there was no difference between blacks and whites"
“In shootings in these 10 cities involving officers, officers were
more likely to fire their weapons without having first been
attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white
civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have
been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial
bias in police use of lethal force.” Here Here
How do YOU interpret these facts?
3.The most recent study on Police shootings in August of 2019 is from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS). Their study concluded: “We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers.” And, “We report three main findings: 1) As the proportion of Black or Hispanic officers in a FOIS increases, a person shot is more likely to be Black or Hispanic than White, a disparity explained by county demographics; 2) race-specific county-level violent crime strongly predicts the race of the civilian shot; and 3) although we find no overall evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities in fatal shootings, when focusing on different subtypes of shootings (e.g., unarmed shootings or “suicide by cop”), data are too uncertain to draw firm conclusions.”
How do YOU interpret these facts?
4.In 2012 here are the leading causes of death for Blacks:
Police shootings -123 (CDC, 2012)
Homocides-8,206 (22 per day) (6,000 through guns)
Abortion 363,705 (996/day)
Do Black Lives matter, other than when taken by white police? I’m sure these figures were different in 2019, but it’s certainly not going to be by much. How do YOU interpret these facts?
5.In 2016, African-American Keith Lamont Scott was killed by police in Charlotte, North Carolina, and subsequently riots ransacked the city. Keith Lamont Scott became a household name across America, and remains so, to this day. I repeat, the media broadcast his tragic death as another instance of police brutality and racism—against blacks! However, there are two further interesting facts. First, it was a black officer who shot him!! And two, five white men were killed by police that very same day(9/20/16), yet not one of them made national news!!! How do YOU interpret these facts?
6.If it is true that police target blacks; or that police are racist toward black people, how do you account for the LA police force being 64.6 percent minority, i.e.non-white…since 2013? In other words, all across America, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, and minorities are part of policing. Minority involvement in policing has been increasing for decades. In the statement “police target blacks”, does this consider the blacks shot by black police? If so, why is the statement “police target blacks” used to prove police are racist?
As “police target blacks”, does it mean the black policemen(or other minorities) who shoot black people are racist against blacks? If not, why not, considering police shooting blacks is racist? Or, does it mean “only white police target blacks”? If white police target blacks, why do police shoot more whites? If police “target” blacks, why do they shoot Hispanics? The word “target” means focus, intent, purpose. Is it possible for a white policeman to literally target blacks, but shoot whites or Hispanics instead?
In the statistics in point 1, if you add the numbers of white and Hispanics police shootings together, it is often double, and almost triple the number of blacks who are shot. If white policeman “target”, “focus”, “intend” to shoot blacks, and then shoot that number of whites and Hispanics instead, then we absolutely need police reform!!!! How do YOU interpret these facts?
7.Let’s examine the assertions: “America is a racist nation” or “American has systemic racism”. In 1970, there were 1500 blacks in politics, today there are over 10,000!!! America is the only nation, not only in the world, but in the history of the world, to ever elect a man president from a group it formerly enslaved…Barack Obama. And…he was elected twice. If all the blacks and Hispanics of America combined voted for Obama, he would not have been elected president. Therefore, because whites are by far the majority group in America, it was fundamentally white people who elected Obama…both times!
In addition, America is the only nation in the history of the world to elect a member of group it formerly enslaved within 150 years of abolishing slavery!
If America was a racist nation, how foolish would ‘brown’ Mexicans be to literally bum-rush the border to get into America?!?! Why would “people of color” from Cuba literally risk their lives, and many have literally died, to cross shark-infested waters to get into racist America? How about the hundreds of thousands of black Africans; not including the Trinidadians, Bahamians, Haitians, etc.—all black; all ‘people of color’, whom are presently either citizens of “racist” America; or trying get into ‘racist’ America! How do YOU interpret these facts?
8.Researcher Dr Inan Dogan, along with the Washington Post, compiled a list of the ‘25 Most Racist Nations In The World’. Guess what nation did not make the list? Ahhhh…America! They also did another list of the 13 Least racist nations of the world. Guess who was number 1? Ahhhh…America!!! Here Here
How do YOU interpret these facts?
9.American blacks are the most prosperous blacks…in the world!!! Ahhhhhh….let me rephrase that…in the history of the world!! Blacks in America crossed the Gross Domestic product (GDP) mark of 1 trillion dollars in 2013. That figure makes American blacks, whom are not a nation, float between the 16th to the 18th most productive ‘nation’ on the planet!! What’s even more incredible, is that this figure represents a GDP that exceeds the GDP of the top four Black African Nations---combined! Nigeria 408; South Africa-370; Angola-119; Kenya-88!!!!
Black Economist Walter Williams says the rise of economic gain among American Blacks--from slavery to this present day--is the greatest among any ethnic group in the history of the world!
Is it possible for American blacks to produce these kinds of results in a “racist” nation?!?! While being oppression?!?! While being slaughtered by the police?!?! If blacks can produce over a trillion in GDP, making them the 16-18th largest nation in the world--under such oppressive circumstances, than Hitler’s Aryans are not the SUPERRACE…American Blacks are!!!! How do YOU interpret these facts? Here
10.Are you aware what a “racist nation” looks like? Nazi Germany is one example. Under Hitler’s regime did Jews create businesses? Did they prosper in media or academia? Did Jews prosper in entertainment? Did they become political leaders in Nazi Germany? Did they prosper in sports? In the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, America originally had 2 Jews on its 4x100 relay team, and at Hitler’s demand, America removed those 2 Jews! By the way, that relay team won Jesse Owens’ his 4th gold medal!
Or, how about bringing this illustration a bit closer to home--the 1855 American south is another example of a racist nation. Did Blacks prosper under the laws of the 1855 American south? In 1860, the south actually named their nation “Slave Holding Confederate States of America.” The Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stevens said, “the Confederate states of America is founded upon… its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the White man. Slavery, the subordination to the superior White race, is a natural and moral condition of the Negro.”
Here are the million dollar questions about “racist America”: 1.Do you see the laws of Germany, or of 1855 America, part of the contemporary American penal code? Can you honestly say, Blacks are not prospering in America? Not in the media? Nor academia? Politics? Entertainment? Sports? etc? How do YOU interpret these facts?
11.Last but not least. The number ‘1’ reason, i.e.the most important reason, America is not a racist nation is God’s call on the nation. God raised up America to be a light to the world. To call America a racist nation is to attack God’s very calling. When Israel was going through the 400 years recorded in the book of Judges, as they sinned, God sent them into captivity as judgment; and when they repented, God delivered them from their captivity. As far as I am aware, God did not ‘call them by their sin!! In other words, God never identified Israel with its sin! On the contrary, He called them to turn away from their sin! When the statement is declared: “America is a racist nation”, it means America is identified with the sin of racism! This is why when liberals make this statement, they support it using the history of slavery. What they mean is, “America is presently racist, because it has always been racist, and therefore will always be racist”—and then cite America’s racial history as their evidence! I repeat—God never did this with Israel! On the contrary, God does not believe America is a racist nation! He created it to be part of His providential plan to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world!!! How do you interpret this fact?
While it is a present fact that Officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd…none of the remaining previous interpretations are true!!
Democrat vs Republican, Liberal vs Conservative; and all four vs The Word of God-4
For exact contemporary Democrat and Republican positions, please visit their webpages: democrats.org and GOP.com. However, to do so, will get you the ‘Candy Cane’ version, which is the ‘mask’ offered to the public. The authentic ‘face’ of these two parties can be found in a combination of at least four places. Below is the list from least to most important:
4.The people who support the respective parties
3.The authentic history of the parties
2.The adoption of liberalism and/or conservativism
1.The implementation of the Judaeo/Christian ethic
First, because everyone has a bias, you must understand mine. I am a Christian, a pastor, an author, and a part-time historian. Therefore, because my desire is to glorify God(Col3:23), my ultimate objective is rooted in the Providence of God. Providence means God working in the past and present to bring about His divine purposes. This means, at a ‘practical’ level, my views will emerge from asking some very simple questions: What does God think? What does God think about what I think? What does God think about a political party position or action? What is God attempting to accomplish in the near, and distant future through a particular person or political party’s position or action?
Because political parties are comprised of men who have sin natures, it is impossible for any one party, or group of people, to ever have a monopoly on God’s will and purposes. This means there has been both good and evil coming from all American political parties…from the beginning of this nation! A cursory study of 1Samuel through 2 Chronicles verifies this very point. To be true to the title of these tidbits, and my readers, I must begin somewhere; whether the following is the beginning, middle, or end, only you can decide.
The Bible declares:
-the “government shall be upon His shoulders” (Is9:6)
-“the increase of His government, there shall be no end” (Is9:7)
-“of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Lu1:33)
-“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and
he shall reign forever and ever.” (Rev11:15)
-“He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords” (1Tim6:15)
These verses teach, God is obviously…what we would call…political! In other words, “every knee…”--in every arena of life, including politics—“shall bow” to Jesus (Phil2:10)…from kings to slaves! No exceptions! In other words, my three previous sentences are not only theological statements, but political! The God who reigns over the universe, by default, reigns over politics!!
Therefore, when the Bible declares:
-“all the gods of the nations are idols” (Ps96:5)
-“Blessed is the nation who God is the Lord” (Ps33:12)
…means those in the political arena are subject to the Sovereign God! Now, here is the grand ole question: If it is true that God reigns over politics, and the men and women who are involved--He must have a will for politics or nations. A will that man must use to determine right and wrong; and good and evil! I repeat, some things must be God’s will, while other things are not His will! How do we know God’s will for politics? There are two ways to determine God’s will:
1.God’s word(scripture/Bible). God’s will is His word, and God’s word
is His will! (Jn17:17;Ps119:142)
2.The Creation. God wrote His law/ways into the creation (Rom1:20)
1.There are two ways to determine God’s will from scripture:
a.Biblical. This could also be called Positive
b.UnBiblical. This could also be called Negative
“Biblical” means you find a text like John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” If one interprets this verse to mean: ‘God loves the world’, or ‘God loves humanity’; we call these statements ‘Biblical’. It’s also called Positive because it offers something God supports; He’s in favor of; He desires; His will!
“Unbiblical” means God does not support it. It is most often identified as sin. For example, God says it’s wrong to lie (Ex20:16; 1Tim1:10). Therefore, it’s negative because it instructs us what God determines wrong, or what not to do.
2.There are two ways to determine God’s will from the Creation:
a.Examine how the creation works, and you will discover
b.Determine the purpose of the created thing, and you
will discover God’s will.
In the following weeks, I will examine a few of the beliefs, actions, and history of the parties, and those who support those parties, and contrast them to the Bible!
Your personal philosophy is the greatest determining factor in how your life works out. -Jim Rohn
Democrat vs Republican, Liberal vs Conservative; and all four vs The Word of God-3
What is the definition of ‘liberal’? Dictionary.com gives 13 points, I cite 6 of those points:
2.(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
4.favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression:a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
7.free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant:a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8.open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9.characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts:a liberal donor.
How about ‘conservative’? Dictionary.com gives 12 definitions, I cite 5:
1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
3.traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness:conservative suit.
7.having the power or tendency to conserve or preserve.
9.a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
10.a supporter of conservative political policies.
These are generic definitions, which means at best, they are superficial! As you can plainly read, both definitions are excellent, neither liberal nor conservative definitions reject Biblical principles. Does this mean the two groups have the same values? This can be answered only when we understand the definitions of both groups change when applied to actual people. In other words, the two groups do not have the same values. On a practical level, which means how these definitions are actually fleshed-out, i.e.viewed in people’s actions or lives, the people of these two groups could not be more different! As a matter of fact, their actions are as different as day from night. Yet, this is why the actual philosophy, not the actions/behaviors, of the people who call themselves Liberals and Conservatives is so tricky! I repeat, on the philosophical level, both groups possess--at least what appears to be--godly practical principles; yet, on a practical level, they are as distant from one another as East is from the West!
First, on the most fundamental philosophical level ‘contemporary’ Conservatives, desire to conserve or preserve the principles in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Why do I use “contemporary Conservatives”? Because this has not been true, and is still not absolutely true, of ‘every person’ who elects the title of ‘Conservative’. I repeat, this is what makes these ‘political’ titles so tricky!! For example, historically, Southern Democrats were a.k.a. “Conservative Democrats”. They were totally different from ‘contemporary’ conservatives because their desire was to conserve their ‘way’ of life, which meant White supremacy, such as Jim Crow laws. Therefore, Conservative Democrats and Contemporary Conservatives are complete opposites. Remember, because these are political titles and not Biblical titles, they can change over time!
Second, the ‘historical Liberal’ has two names:
The two are synonymous, and at face value, both claim the previous Dictionary.com definition of liberal. On the other hand however, if we examine the ‘1828 Webster’s Dictionary of liberal’, we find nine entries:
1.Of a free heart; free to give or bestow; not close or contracted; munificent; bountiful; generous; giving largely; as a liberal donor; the liberal founders of a college or hospital. It expresses less than profuse or extravagant.
2.Generous; ample; large; as a liberal donation; a liberal allowance.
3.Not selfish, narrow on contracted; catholic; enlarged; embracing other interests than one’s own; as liberal sentiments or views; a liberal mind; liberal policy.
4.General; extensive; embracing literature and the sciences generally; as a liberal education. This phrase is often but not necessarily synonymous with collegiate; as a collegiate education.
5.Free; open; candid; as a liberal communication of thoughts.
6.Large; profuse; as a liberal discharge of matter by secretions or excretions.
7.Free; not literal or strict; as a liberal construction of law.
8.Not mean; not low in birth or mind.
9.Licentious; free to excess.
Like Dictionary.com, the first eight entries of the 1828 Webster’s dictionary are wonderful, any authentic Christian could claim these principles-—for they are Biblically sound. However, the ninth entry is ‘THE’ actual, literal, spiritual--behavior of the liberal/progressive. In reality, considering the 9th entry of “liberal”, it is perfectly described in Galatians 5:13: “For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” This verse teaches that every human aspires to freedom—which is God’s freedom, the Creator of all freedom. Yet, freedom requires direction. In other words, without direction, we can become so enamored with the word freedom so as to use it to promote the flesh. This is what Galatians 5:13 means by the words: “opportunity for the flesh”. On the contrary, Scripture teaches that ‘the flesh’ is driven by the sin nature(Rom7:17,18,23), and must be kept in control daily(1Cor9:27). But…it cannot be controlled apart from the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit(Rom8:5-8). Very simply, because humans have a sin nature, we do not have an absolute freedom! What does that mean? God has given mankind the freedom to choose anything but sin! Incredibly, the choices of God are infinite, because He is infinite. Yet, when a man uses his freedom to choose sin, he becomes blinded and enslaved, which ironically, unwittingly, and dramatically, reduces, and even destroys his freedom!
Therefore, the definition for ‘Liberal’ in Webster’s Dictionary is actually correct.
The only thing worse than not reading a book in the last ninety days is not reading a book in the last ninety days and thinking that it doesn't matter. -Jim Rohn