Behind every idea, every trope, and every slogan is a set of beliefs that either have the weight to build it up or are a bunch of empty promises that leave it hanging. In the wake of 2020’s ongoing unrest, a “sign of justice” has become a ubiquitous fixture in yards across America, which avow to passersby that "as for me and my house, we will serve"...well, a variety of politically correct, Critical Theory-approved, and “socially responsible” cliches. Let’s consider the art behind these ideas, one by one, and try to find out just what it is each of these households are really standing for.
“Black Lives Matter”
What they want us to believe it means: That all human beings are created equally, but there has been a perpetual inequality that persists to this day that leaves black people unable to succeed, escape from police brutality, and sometimes even survive. The time has come to insist that the playing field be leveled among whites and blacks. All reasonable, compassionate, and just people should agree, the same way those same people would agree that the 1960s Civil Rights Movement was just.
What it actually means: The statement, that all human beings matter, is of course true, in a Christian worldview. But as this phrase is not intended to be divorced from the aims of the Black Lives Matter organization, we must look deeper for its intended meaning. What the words mean is that Whites have hegemonically dominated Western Civilization by imprisoning, enslaving, and murdering people of color. So it is high time to destroy every identifier of the West so that true justice can (finally) be available to all. Therefore, it is time to burn down cities, demand reparations, defund the police, destroy capitalism, tear down historical monuments, and eliminate Jesus from every possible corner of our society. Then, and only then, will it be possible for black persons to matter as much as others.
Right and wrong: While it is true that black lives matter, it is not true that America is systemically racist and that a complete overthrow of Western Civilization is needed for black persons to thrive.
“No Human is Illegal”
What they want us to believe it means: Human beings are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and hence no one can be deemed to be illegal by their nature. We should look beyond national boundaries and the human rights they possess as citizens of any one nation when assessing the value of a person.
What it actually means: Open borders yesterday, today, and forever. Every would-be immigrant should be allowed into America in order that their dependence on government goodies will make them a reliable vote for one party.
Right and wrong: It is true that human beings do indeed possess honor and dignity because they are made in the image of God. And while it is also true that no human being is illegal, the phrase really is completely useless because no one has argued that any human is illegal! However, when a human breaks a law, his actions are illegal and he, therefore, forfeits certain God-given rights in that particular jurisdiction. This is true of thieves, rapists, and murderers, as well as criminals of every other sort. If I were to try to emigrate to Mexico, for example, without following the country’s protocol, it is a fact that while that government would not consider my humanity illegal in and of itself, they would surely deem my criminality illegal and seek justice.
“Love is Love”
What they want us to believe it means: Love is a universally accepted good, an uncontrollable impulse that is beyond judgement. All loves are equal, be they between people of the same or different ethnicities and the same or opposite genders. Love as an ideal is above reproach and no one has the right to question the ways in which two people love one another.
What it actually means: As human beings, we are slaves to our passion. We refuse to distinguish between different kinds of love and ask whether our passions ought to be obeyed or denied. Even though only certain kinds of love can come together to create life and form families that consist of mothers, fathers, and children, that doesn’t matter because we don’t believe in something like the “nuclear family” anyway. In fact, we think it should be destroyed and we will destroy it in the name of love.
Right and wrong: Like most of these statements, “love is love” is a circular tautology that is logically meaningless. What we must do is ask what love is in the first place. Which kind of love are we speaking of: erotic love, brotherly love, spiritual love? Does love have an end (the family, for example) or is it only an attraction between two people? Are there limits to love like age, consent, monogamy, marriage, or the ability to reciprocate? Of course there are, but none of that kind of discernment will fit in such a dumb slogan. All loves are not equal. In fact, some are downright evil, which renders the phrase either useless or a puppet to a diabolical cause.
“Women’s Rights are Human Rights”
What they want us to believe it means: Women have been oppressed for so long and at times they have not even had the same human rights as men. (You know, like the right to vote, own property, etc.) But women are due the same rights as men and one of those rights is autonomy over their own body.
What it actually means: Mothers should be able to end the live of their own children in utero in the name of “freedom,” “autonomy,” and “rights.” In other words, we seek to use the good will of causes like suffrage to advance even more “rights” for women, namely the right to abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason, and at any stage of a pregnancy.
Right and wrong: It is, of course, true that because women are human beings, they possess human rights. However, those rights, at least in America, are limited to all human beings in the form of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Murdering your own child is not now - and has never been - a right. Is it possible that discrimination and unfair treatment against women in the workplace continues and should be fought against? Most certainly. But your right to liberty end when another person’s life begins, and a fetus is most certainly another person. So if this is a coy defense of abortion (and surely it is), then it utterly fails.
“Science Is Real”
What they want us to believe it means: Science is an objective, neutral practice which is only denied by those who cannot face the truth. Science has proven, for example, global warming is a reality and its damage is horrible, or that Covid-19 is deadly, transmissible, and requires complete lockdowns to destroy. To deny that is to deny, well, reality.
What it actually means: Anytime we have a political aim and we can use science to prove it, we will. If we want to lockdown the country in the name of “following the science”, we will. And if we want to impose draconian economic restrictions in the name of science, we will. It isn’t just a matter of acknowledging that “science is real,” you see, but that scientists can and should dictate social policy, even if and when other scientists disagree. Because some science is more real than other science.
Right and wrong: Again, while there may be a total of three human begins who deny the reality of science, it is scientism that we may object to, or certain scientists themselves. Science, especially in new terrain, is as much art as it is science, especially since some scientific truths took years or centuries to discover and prove. So while science is certainly real, the claims of all scientists are surely not. One has to ask which claims are made, by whom, with what evidence, and the way in which that evidence was evaluated.
“Water is Life”
What they want us to believe it means: Human beings cannot live without water. It is a travesty that some Americans, like those ins Flynt, Michigan do not have access to clean water.
What it actually means: Black people are once again targeted and ignored by the American government.
Right and wrong: I know of no one who denies the importance of clean water. But the fault lies with a deplorable municipal government and they should be held responsible. But, by and large, no one argues with this point.
“Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere”
What they want us to believe it means: Our cause is, anywhere and everywhere, a fight for justice itself. We will fight for all injustices as they are all equally important.
What it actually means: Non-proto Marxists need not apply. We define justice using the language and ideas of Critical Theory, which means we are not actually worried about the injustices Whites, Christians, or Jews may face. This way, we can lump all of our causes under one bit roof.
Right and wrong: Perhaps the statement is true in as far as it goes, but I’m pretty sure Martin Luther King, Jr. may have been assuming a kind of Christian understanding of justice. My issue is not with the concept of justice, but with the definition of justice the phrase assumes. That is, whose justice? By what standard? That is where the argument really lies.
Photo Credit- WTVR.com