"Blacks are more likely to be involved in crimes... has nothing to do with race as a physical characteristic, but rather it is more of a culture issue." Yes, it is a cultural issue. That issue is racism, and it is an issue that involves all Americans, including White, Black, and mixed.
"By far the greatest danger to Blacks are other Blacks, who kill each other 17 times as frequently as cops kill Blacks." What you are saying is criminals kill more people than cops do. Is that unusual? I am sure you do not mean to imply that the police kill more Whites than White criminals do, and I wonder what the equivalent number is for White people.
What does this statistic say about the effectiveness of all the so-called "over-policing" that Blacks have been subject to all these years?
"There are standards..." Yes, but there is no single, uniform standard, and no requirement to report any information to a central agency for analysis.
"Additionally, the CDC tracks them via coroner reports." Poring over coroner reports, trying to figure out which reports actually refer to police shootings, does not strike me as a method for producing accurate and reliable statistics, particularly as coroners do not report on non-lethal shootings.
But, not to worry. Some congressmen are planning to introduce legislation to fix this situation.
"There are no reliable statistics on police shootings because there is no federal law requiring local police departments to keep such statistics."
There are standards and nearly all departments comply with them. Additionally, the CDC tracks them via coroner reports. Don't confuse these numbers with In Custody Deaths, which can include things like a detainee dying of a heart attack. The "every 28 hours" claim that has been floating around is completely and utter bogus.
"Either way, it looks like police kill Blacks at a higher rate than Whites, as a percentage of their total population"
Per capita (actually usually expressed as per 100,000, roughly twice as many as Whites. And of course statistically, Blacks are more likely to be involved in crimes which put them in conflict with police and are more likely to become confrontational and assaultive with police -- has nothing to do with race as a physical characteristic, but rather it is more of a culture issue.
Regardless, cops kill far more Whites than Blacks. By far the greatest danger to Blacks are other Blacks, who kill each other 17 times as frequently as cops kill Blacks.
"In other words, in up to 49% of cases there was no weapon. "
About 44%. Which, by the way, does not mean that lethal force on the part of the cops is not justified being as unarmed people kill more than twice as many people every year as do attackers armed with rifles like AK-47s and AR-15s and seriously injure thousands more.
"The NAACP has bigger fish to fry"
The NAACP conveniently ignores things where they can't play the race card.
And I have not known Dave to be condescending or arrogant. You, on the other hand, frequently are.
"When looking into police actions..." There are no reliable statistics on police shootings because there is no federal law requiring local police departments to keep such statistics.
"...2.5x more Whites are shot and killed by police than Blacks..." I am not sure what this is supposed to prove, but there 5.7 times as many Whites as Blacks in America, counting only those who identify as Black alone. There are 3.3 times as many Whites if you add mixed race to the Black side of the equation. Either way, it looks like police kill Blacks at a higher rate than Whites, as a percentage of their total population--that is, if we can place any trust in these numbers at all.
"...the majority of the Blacks that were shot and killed by police actually had a weapon..." In other words, in up to 49% of cases there was no weapon. Besides which, possession of a weapon is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Mere possession of a weapon is not enough to justify a police shooting.
"...but the NAACP did not want to address that." The NAACP has bigger fish to fry. Personally, I did not want to address this either, but I did anyway.
"...when I mentioned that to some folks... out came the 'racist' epithets against me." Perhaps they mistook your gracious politeness for condescension and your constructive criticism for arrogance.
Dealt with Rosemary Lytle in the past. She did not make a positive impression.
As a human, an American, and a minority, I support MLK's vision. I don't necessarily support the way the NAACP goes about it, I don't support those who constantly "play the race card", and I sure as hell do not support the race baiting actions of people like Al Sharpton.
I remember a few years ago when a fellow minority was trying to explain to the local NAACP (and the author) that there is no federal holiday called Presidents' Day, that it is actually Washington's Birthday and that the state holiday is Washington - Lincoln Day. You know what he was told? That he was a racist. Yep, all he did was politely inform a few folks as to what the law actually said and people started throwing the race card at him.
When looking into police actions against Blacks, what I found out was that 2.5x more Whites are shot and killed by police than Blacks, but that the NAACP did not want to address that. And I found out that the NAACP also did not want to address the fact that the majority of the Blacks that were shot and killed by police actually had a weapon are were threatening and even attacking people. And when I mentioned that to some folks you know what happened? Yep, out came the "racist" epithets against me, just like happened to my friend.
So, as usual, I will observe MLK Day in other ways and continue to avoid the NAACP.
I am reminded of Niemoller's poem/statement, "First They Came..." We like to use the word "community", but what weight does that carry, what relevance in our lives if we do not sincerely act as a community? If we do not stand up and speak out for each other? And not just so that there is someone there to speak for us, for me, in the end should I need it, but for the enriching and often beautiful and inspiring experiences, stories and wisdom to be shared with each other. Yes, people: stand up. Let's stand together.
I am reminded of Niemoller's poem/statement "First They Came". We like to use the word "community", but what weight does that carry, or true relevance in our lives if we do not sincerely act as a community? If we do n
As a member of the NAACP, as a clergy person, as a father and husband, I will go to the MLK Breakfast. Why? Because I believe in the vision represented here. A vision of full equality. A vision where every human life might flourish. A vision of peace and harmony. We need a new version of the poor people's campaign, because far too many people on the margins are invisible, do not have a voice in our public square, do not have lobbyists on K Street that will represent them. I await the message that Rev. Benjamin Reynolds will give us, that we might be inspired to courageous action, in the direction of full equality, full participation, a beloved community where all are valued and all might flourish.
This was an excellent and informative read. Thank you, Independent. The government should honor the work of individuals whom our country relies upon.
I have been missing Sudoku "X" for several weeks.
please bring it back!
No, it does not make sense for you to make me live by your beliefs. As an American citizen, I have the same right as you to legally marry whom I want. Changing the marriage laws do not affect your marriage, they don't threaten your marriage, they don't change your marriage in any way. If you don't believe in Marriage Equality, then don't marry a same sex person period. It is as simple as that, but denying me the right to marry is WRONG! You are denying my right to follow my beliefs within the laws of our great nation. That is why to deny Marriage Equality is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You may do as you wish in your church, but don't tell us what we can do in ours. Plain and Simple.
Guru...in my church we don't grade sin. The bottom line is we are all guilty, but receive forgiveness in the midst our our attempts to repent, or somehow make the best of what we have been given. And Christ has mercy on us for balance due. I think on this we can agree and move forward.
Now, that does not mean we should call what is sin not sin, or develop liturgies to bless what we might call our best efforts, but bless only what God has directed. Does that make sense?
SIN IS SIN, TT. SO IS MY SIN GREATER THAN YOUR SIN? IS YOUR SALVATION GREATER THAN MY SALVATION? ALL ARE FORGIVEN IN CHRIST.
We are not to take the Bible out of context of to whom and when it was written: "Much of the idol worship in the Old Testament was associated with sexual immorality...." Todays LGBTIQ doesn't go to church to have sex with sex slaves for sexual worship to other gods. And this is why gays want marriage equality, so we can also be within a commitment to love and honor one another. Is that not why you got married?
Federal Judges Now Seeing The Simple Truth About Gay Marriage:
It's A Matter Of Love And Equality
North Dakota Is Now The Only State With An Unchallenged Gay Marriage Ban
SIN IS SIN, TT. SO IS MY SIN GREATER THAN YOUR SIN? IS YOUR SALVATION GREATER THAN MY SALVATION? ALL ARE FORGIVEN IN CHRIST.
We are not to take the Bible out of context of to whom and when it was written: "Much of the idol worship in the Old Testament was associated with sexual immorality...." Todays LGBTIQ doesn't go to church to have sex with sex slaves for sexual worship to other gods. And this is why gays want marriage equality, so we can also be within a commitment to love and honor one. Is that not why you got married?
Sunday Evening Sermon: Romans 1:18-25 The Description of Mankind’s Need for Salvation, Part One
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Now we get our first therefore. This is a stronger word than “for,” which is kind of a connecting word. Therefore is a strong break a big connection giving the result of the idolatry of the hearts of the people. Notice that God gave them up. He didn’t cause them to sin but He did deliver them over to their sin. It gives the impression that God took His hand of common grace off of their lives to some extent. He let them go their own way. Whenever Paul says God gave them up he is pointing to the results of idolatry, the refusal to make God the center. Practically, the creature is exalted over the Creator. So there is a way in which you can say that all sin ultimately comes from a failure to prize and praise God as the giver of every good thing. So as we give ourselves over to sin, it is clear that God also gives us over to that sin.
It is very interesting to see where this turning away from God immediately goes . . . To sex. This is not surprising. Much of the idol worship in the Old Testament was associated with sexual immorality and clearly when we give up the worship of God we will seek to go to the place where we think we can find the next greatest and highest life, within sexuality. This is why pornography and affairs and romance novels and all the titillating TV shows and movies are so popular. They are promising something great. They are promising something worthy of worship.
Our sexualized culture holds out to us the promise of wonder and mystery and beauty and blessing but it is a hollow promise because it is divorced from the giver of beauty and blessing and sexuality, the Lord. So people are hurt, lives are ruined, relationships are broken and the whole thing sits before us as a shambles, as a memorial to our God-hating idolatry. There is something about sex that is supposed to be honoring. When we step outside of God’s design through lust or through acting on some sexual temptation, we dishonor our bodies and we are further down the road of darkness. And this is the great example of idolatry Paul gives, as we see in verse 25 . . .
25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
The context of this verse is sexuality, both from verse 24 and the verses that follow. So Paul will is pointing to this self-worship through sex as the great lie. We turn for life to one another physically and sexually rather than turning our spirits to God and in so doing we serve the creature rather than the Creator. What could be such a wonderful gift in the right context has become incredibly corrupted through our idolatry. I just don’t see how biology alone could explain the massive sexual dysfunction in our world. Only the kind of description we see in Romans 1 is truly accurate.
So, is there any hope for us? The hope lies in verses 16-17. “The gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith.” In other words, because we are unrighteous, and in our unrighteousness suppress the truth, our only hope is that the righteousness God demands from us would be freely given to us, namely, God’s own righteousness, to be received by faith.
Ancient Roman custom saw nothing wrong with sodomy, or pederasty for that matter, and, so far as I know, this was a feature of Roman civilization from its very birth. Blaming the decline and fall of the Roman Empire on its sexual mores (or lack thereof) makes just as much sense as attributing the rise of Rome to those same values.
On the other hand, beginning with Constantine the Great, Rome underwent a significant transformation, from paganism to Christianity, which must have introduced the Biblical restrictions against sodomy and pederasty to Roman society. A sophist could make the argument that Rome fell as a direct result of rejecting these ancient customs.
My translation of Ezekiel reads, "This was the sin of Sodom, your sister: pride, surfeit of bread, and undisturbed peace were hers and her daughter's *but* the hand of the poor and the needy did she not support. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me, so I removed them when I perceived it."
I emphasized the word "but" because it changes the meaning of the passage dramatically. Furthermore, no Hebrew-English dictionary defines "toh-ai-vah" as "taboo." The Hebrew for "taboo" is "ah-soor." I do not know on what authority Michaelson adopts his definition.
All of today's events | Staff Picks
Submit an Event
All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation