Posted on 07/16/2013 7:27:16 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Progressive faith leader Jim Wallis joined in on issuing commentary in the wake of the George Zimmerman acquittal. In a Huffington Post blog piece entitled, “Lament From a White Father,” he alleged that, had shooting victim Trayvon Martin been white, he would still be alive today. Wallis also pleaded with Caucasians — and parents, in particular — to “listen, to learn, and to speak out” about the tragic death.
Race, he contended, was at the center of the incident from the start.
“If my white 14-year-old son Luke had walked out that same night, in that same neighborhood, just to get a snack, he would have come back to his dad unharmed — and would still be with me and Joy today,” Wallis wrote. “Everyone, being honest with ourselves, knows that is true.”
The Sojourners leader went on to call it “a political, legal and moral mistake” not to ensure that the trial focused upon race, as he believes that this was the root cause that inevitably led to Martin’s death. In fact, Wallis overtly accused Zimmerman of having racially profiled the 17-year-old victim.
“[Martin Luther] King’s dream failed on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Fla., when George Zimmerman decided to follow Trayvon Martin because of the color of his skin,” he added. “This led to a confrontation in which a child was killed by an adult who got away with it, because of the way Florida laws were written and interpreted.”
Wallis went on to say that “racial profiling is a sin in the eyes of God” and he described the “systematic injustice” that he believes is at play in American society — a system that he contended puts African Americans at a disadvantage. He described the case as providing a window into “an utterly segregated society.”
While Wallis called for the acceptance of the verdict, the faith leader also said that the case’s meaning must be explored, particular when it comes to its societal impact.
Race, he contended, was at the center of the incident from the start.
But since we can not convict Trayvon Martin for anything we only have one witness who was present at the shooting.
Although it is a case of self defense, was it necessary?
The case is closed, Trayvon Martin is dead, but could it have been handled different?
Why could,nt Zimmerman defend himself?
Was it because he had a hand in his pocket on the gun in which he did not really want to use and also did not think to let go of until the gun was the only defense left?
And what was he saying to get attacked in the first place?
We do not know that Trayvon Martin was up to anything except to exercise his freedom to walk where he pleased on a public road.
It is well established that Zimmerman was following him, any one would resent being followed even by the police.
I doubt if there is any one particular action that would have prevented this, but all any one has to do is to read of the police killings of people who did nothing for it to be justified.
So if there is any one thing, it would be police state mentality.
So, a people that judge Z to be racist because he is not black are not racists? Right. They are racists.
Not a single black person has come forward to denounce the killings of black people by black people are racist or even a problem. Over 1,100 blacks have been killed by other blacks since the Trayvon incident and not a peep about those killings.
Exactly. He has no idea the ways and thoughts of God yet he’s speaking for HIM. Jim is speaking for his father, the devil.
And using wisdom and discernment. “If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.” James 1:5
““If my white 14-year-old son Luke had walked out that same night, in that same neighborhood, just to get a snack, he would have come back to his dad unharmed”
He assumes the kid runs into Z, and has no trouble.
What if he ran into TM?
Jim who?
Wallis is one of a number of Christian leaders who signed the "Covenant for Civility", a document deploring the growing polarization in American politics. I find this rather bizarre, as he is one of the most divisive figures on the scene at the moment - his activities certainly encourage and deepen that divide. As you say, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone politically, and even with being passionate in expressing your dissent - maybe even shouting - but there should be no place for the kind of personal insult and attack that is such a feature of modern politics. Wallis is not the only person who almost always ascribes malicious motives to those who oppose him, but its something he does far too often.
I cant get my head round that either. If you think someone is wrong, you can argue the point with them. If you think they are the devil, that is never going to happen.
He did apologise, to be fair.
profiling is evil but vicious brutal assault is not
tribalism
I’m arguing they both are.
Sider --- who started off not knowing bloop about economics, and took some harmful and ill-informed positions because of that --- still strikes me as fair and sane, and able to assimilate new information. Wallis --- sigh --- at some point, just -- stopped -- listening. Does he still pray? Probably. What a mystery.
The reaction to the Zimmerman verdict makes it clear that reinstating segregation needs to be looked at as a viable alternative to what is going on now in society.
If we could just segregate Obamunists from normal people.
profiling is common sense
Perhaps we need another term for what we all do on a daily basis. How about “pattern recognition”?
It probably is true. And the reason that it's true, you moron, is that you're overlooking the inconvenient truth that your son Luke would likely not initiate a violent assault on a neighborhood watch volunteer who was just trying to do his job.
The lack of intellectual honesty and hysterical emotionalism exhibited by people such as Mr. Wallis is absolutely breathtaking. It requires willful ignorance to foment such profoundly clumsy propaganda.
This "writer's" piece is the epitome of sloppy, lazy thinking. When the facts don't fit the predetermined slant, idiots such as this simply ignore them or rewrite them.
Now, if that is what his problem is (and as I say, I dont know the man), that is a form of idolatry, because he is effectively saying that Christianity is not enough. It has to be value-added in some way. It is a very subtle temptation to all of us, and all the more dangerous when the bits added onto the gospel are in and of themselves very good things. I would suggest its very good for Christians to be socially aware. It no bad thing for Christians to want to make the world a better place. Its even ok for them to point out other people's errors - but none of those things are more important than the actual relationship with God that should be the foundation of a Christian's life.
So I'm quite sure he prays very regularly, and probably more than I do, but that doesnt matter if his prayers do not help in the transforming of his mind. If he has reached the stage where his social conscience and political outlook are his guide, and his prayers are only calls for God to rubber-stamp the decision he has already come to, he will derive little benefit from them.
a truck pulls onto my block with a trailer on which sits a lawn mower
profiled - lawn guy
a van cruising slowly down the street blaring music
profiled - ice cream truck
a man yells ALLAHU AKHBAR while pulling pin from device in his hand
profiled - DNC survey taker
Profiling in criminal matters helps catch bad guys. El-Al profiles passengers and it works.
Zimmerman did not profile. He saw an unknown person looking into windows in an area plagued with burglaries - of course he was suspicious.
I think you’re right. It’s a warning for all of us -— because all of us are similarly tempted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.