thestream--2020-09-21--Yelp: 60% of Business Closed During Pandemic Will Never Reopen

A new economic impact report from Yelp shows that a majority of businesses on the platform that closed during the COVID-19 pandemic will not be reopening .
Data show a total of 163,735 businesses on Yelp closed between March 1 and August 31 , when state-enforced lockdowns across the U.S. began forcing businesses to close their doors .
According to Yelp ’ s figures , 97,966 of those businesses ( 60 percent ) will not be reopening .
“ Overall , Yelp ’ s data shows that business closures have continued to rise with a 34 % increase in permanent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Justin Norman , vice president of data science at Yelp , told CNBC .
The closures have not impacted all sectors of the economy equally , however .
Yelp ’ s report shows that some professions — lawyers , architects , accountants , physicians , and real estate agents — have been able to weather the pandemic storm more effectively , representing just two to three businesses closed per thousand .
Demand for some local services has also remained high .
Auto service providers , plumbers and independent contractors have closed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — representing six to seven business closures out of every thousand — but far lower than the five business sectors hit hardest : restaurants , bars , retail , fitness and the beauty industry .
Here are highlights from the report : Restaurants — particularly Mexican restaurants , breakfast and brunch joints , burger and sandwich shops and dessert places — continue to get pounded by lockdowns .
A total of 32,109 restaurants on Yelp had closed as of the end of August , 19,590 of which were permanent ( 61 percent ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivery have fared a little better , including coffee shops and bakeries , delis , food trucks and pizza joints .
Bars and nightlife , an industry six times smaller than restaurants , have suffered an especially high closure rate .
As of August 31 , there were 6,451 business closures on Yelp , 3,499 of which were permanent ( 54 percent ) .
“ The share of permanent closures within bars and nightlife have increased by 10 % since our Economic Average Report in July , ” the report said .
Shopping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in total closures , with 30,374 , 58 percent of which are permanent ( 17,503 ) .
“ Both men ’ s and women ’ s clothing , as well as home decor , have the highest rate of business closures , ” the report found .
A total of 16,585 beauty businesses on Yelp have closed , 7,002 of which won ’ t reopen ( 42 percent ) .
The fitness industry , meanwhile , has suffered a 23 percent increase in closures since July , and a total of 6,024 closures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Small businesses , which comprise the bulk of Yelp ’ s business revenue , have suffered tremendously under the lockdowns .
Meanwhile , big businesses not typically found on Yelp have fared much better .
Indeed , many have benefited from the response to the pandemic .
While we ’ ve heard phrases like “ in this together ” and “ we ’ re all in the same boat ” throughout the pandemic , the reality is Americans didn ’ t suffer through lockdowns equally .
Some have been destroyed by forced closures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stock guru and TV personality Jim Cramer wasn ’ t wrong when he observed this summer that the pandemic resulted in “ one of the greatest wealth transfers in history.
” Cramer noticed that while small businesses were “ dropping like flies , ” corporations were growing stronger and their stock prices were swelling .
Greg Buzek , the founder and President of IHL Group , wrote that smaller retailers saw about a quarter of a trillion dollars shift to large retailers during the first three months of the pandemic .
“ IHL @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shifted from smaller retailers ( with 50 or fewer locations ) to larger retailers due to lockdowns in North America alone , forcing over 285,000 small businesses out of business , ” Buzek wrote .
This confirms what Dan Sanchez and I wrote in June : America ’ s small businesses have been horribly abused throughout this pandemic .
Through no fault of their own , many small business owners saw their dreams go up in smoke as bigger retailers and online stores thrived .
What ’ s perhaps worse is that for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while their basic freedom — the ability to earn a living — was violated .
Meanwhile corporate America grew fat .
Companies like Target set new sales records as their market share swelled from the sidelined competition , and a flood of capital flowed to the largest corporations , which appeared to be the safest havens for investors ’ cash .
As Peter R. Orszag of Bloomberg News observed , it was the corporate version of the Matthew effect : The strong got stronger .
Meanwhile , as they were benefiting from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a steady stream of pro-lockdown mass messaging , played to ( obligatory ) somber piano and containing predictable phrases — “ rise above , ” “ stay apart , ” “ we ’ re in this together.
” Catchphrases can not mask the reality that economic lockdowns made inequality in America much worse .
Tens of millions of Americans lost jobs and millions of businesses were closed or forced to the brink of closure .
The solution to the problem , we were told , was Washington , D.C .
Trillions of dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federal Reserve to finance bailouts and send checks to Americans .
The bailouts were a huge success — for the rich .
Six months into the pandemic , Wall Street keeps setting new records .
It turns out lockdowns were not just inhumane ; they were deeply unjust .
It would be easy to look at the stock market and think America has weathered the pandemic fine .
This would be a mistake .
There is a concept in economics known as regime uncertainty .
Coined by Robert Higgs , the term describes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investors in their ability to foresee the extent to which future government actions will alter their private-property rights.
” Capital investment — whether by an entrepreneur starting a hardware store or a venture capital group investing a sum in a business — is the source of wealth creation .
But people are less likely to invest their capital in places their property rights are insecure .
Higgs argues that one of the reasons the Great Depression lasted so long was regime uncertainty .
Depression-era Americans did not have much faith that Franklin Roosevelt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FDR , after all , tried to pass a 100 percent tax rate via executive order .
That lends itself to a high degree of uncertainty .
Uncertainty can range from erratic tax rates to regulatory barriers to outright property confiscation .
While some uncertainties are more harmful than others , few would argue that unilateral state-enforced lockdowns inject a high degree of uncertainty into the American economy .
It ’ s not just the fact that businesses were shut down , it was also in the nature of the shutdowns , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly became indefinite in nature .
“ Fifteen days to slow the spread ” quickly changed to “ We ’ ll let you know when it ’ s safe to open.
” Fortunately , the checks and balances embedded in the American system may help return a degree of economic certainty that has been lost in 2020 .
A federal court recently ruled that Pennsylvania ’ s economic lockdown was unconstitutional , noting that an economy is not “ a machine that can be shut down and restarted at will by government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of free people each pursuing their dreams.
” The court ’ s ruling comes too late to save the 97,966 businesses on Yelp that will never open again after closing during the COVID-19 pandemic .
But it could offer protection to the businesses of tomorrow — and return a degree of certainty to an economy that needs it .
Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org .
His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine , The Wall Street Journal , CNN , Forbes , Fox News , and @ @ @ @

A new economic impact report from Yelp shows that a majority of businesses on the platform that closed during the COVID-19 pandemic will not be reopening.
Data show a total of 163,735 businesses on Yelp closed between March 1 and August 31, when state-enforced lockdowns across the U.S. began forcing businesses to close their doors. According to Yelp’s figures, 97,966 of those businesses (60 percent) will not be reopening.
“Overall, Yelp’s data shows that business closures have continued to rise with a 34% increase in permanent closures since our last report in mid-July,” Justin Norman, vice president of data science at Yelp, told CNBC.
The closures have not impacted all sectors of the economy equally, however. Yelp’s report shows that some professions — lawyers, architects, accountants, physicians, and real estate agents — have been able to weather the pandemic storm more effectively, representing just two to three businesses closed per thousand.
A new Yelp report says that 60% of 163,735 businesses closed on its platform will never open again. Here's a look at the business sectors that have been most affected (the ones in red). pic.twitter.com/lGmYLOr5kp — Jon Miltimore (@miltimore79) September 17, 2020
Demand for some local services has also remained high. Auto service providers, plumbers and independent contractors have closed at higher rates than doctors and lawyers — representing six to seven business closures out of every thousand — but far lower than the five business sectors hit hardest: restaurants, bars, retail, fitness and the beauty industry.
Here are highlights from the report:
Restaurants
Restaurants — particularly Mexican restaurants, breakfast and brunch joints, burger and sandwich shops and dessert places — continue to get pounded by lockdowns. A total of 32,109 restaurants on Yelp had closed as of the end of August, 19,590 of which were permanent (61 percent).
Places that offer foods conducive for delivery have fared a little better, including coffee shops and bakeries, delis, food trucks and pizza joints.
Bars
Bars and nightlife, an industry six times smaller than restaurants, have suffered an especially high closure rate. As of August 31, there were 6,451 business closures on Yelp, 3,499 of which were permanent (54 percent).
“The share of permanent closures within bars and nightlife have increased by 10% since our Economic Average Report in July,” the report said.
Retail
Shopping and retail businesses followed close behind restaurants in total closures, with 30,374, 58 percent of which are permanent (17,503).
“Both men’s and women’s clothing, as well as home decor, have the highest rate of business closures,” the report found.
The Beauty and Fitness Industries
A total of 16,585 beauty businesses on Yelp have closed, 7,002 of which won’t reopen (42 percent). The fitness industry, meanwhile, has suffered a 23 percent increase in closures since July, and a total of 6,024 closures, 2,616 of which are permanent.
Lockdowns Exacerbated Inequality
Small businesses, which comprise the bulk of Yelp’s business revenue, have suffered tremendously under the lockdowns. Meanwhile, big businesses not typically found on Yelp have fared much better. Indeed, many have benefited from the response to the pandemic.
While we’ve heard phrases like “in this together” and “we’re all in the same boat” throughout the pandemic, the reality is Americans didn’t suffer through lockdowns equally. Some have been destroyed by forced closures while others have benefited from them.
It turns out lockdowns were not just inhumane;
they were deeply unjust.
Stock guru and TV personality Jim Cramer wasn’t wrong when he observed this summer that the pandemic resulted in “one of the greatest wealth transfers in history.” Cramer noticed that while small businesses were “dropping like flies,” corporations were growing stronger and their stock prices were swelling.
Data bear out these claims.
Greg Buzek, the founder and President of IHL Group, wrote that smaller retailers saw about a quarter of a trillion dollars shift to large retailers during the first three months of the pandemic.
“IHL estimates that over $250 billion alone shifted from smaller retailers (with 50 or fewer locations) to larger retailers due to lockdowns in North America alone, forcing over 285,000 small businesses out of business,” Buzek wrote.
Lockdown Inequality
This confirms what Dan Sanchez and I wrote in June: America’s small businesses have been horribly abused throughout this pandemic. Through no fault of their own, many small business owners saw their dreams go up in smoke as bigger retailers and online stores thrived. What’s perhaps worse is that for months they were told to be quiet while their basic freedom — the ability to earn a living — was violated.
Meanwhile corporate America grew fat. Companies like Target set new sales records as their market share swelled from the sidelined competition, and a flood of capital flowed to the largest corporations, which appeared to be the safest havens for investors’ cash. As Peter R. Orszag of Bloomberg News observed, it was the corporate version of the Matthew effect: The strong got stronger.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Meanwhile, as they were benefiting from the pandemic, corporate America inundated us with a steady stream of pro-lockdown mass messaging, played to (obligatory) somber piano and containing predictable phrases — “rise above,” “stay apart,” “we’re in this together.”
Catchphrases cannot mask the reality that economic lockdowns made inequality in America much worse. Tens of millions of Americans lost jobs and millions of businesses were closed or forced to the brink of closure.
The solution to the problem, we were told, was Washington, D.C. Trillions of dollars were pumped into the economy by the Federal Reserve to finance bailouts and send checks to Americans. The bailouts were a huge success — for the rich. Six months into the pandemic, Wall Street keeps setting new records.
It turns out lockdowns were not just inhumane; they were deeply unjust.
The Lingering Effects of Lockdowns
It would be easy to look at the stock market and think America has weathered the pandemic fine. This would be a mistake.
There is a concept in economics known as regime uncertainty. Coined by Robert Higgs, the term describes “a pervasive lack of confidence among investors in their ability to foresee the extent to which future government actions will alter their private-property rights.”
Capital investment — whether by an entrepreneur starting a hardware store or a venture capital group investing a sum in a business — is the source of wealth creation. But people are less likely to invest their capital in places their property rights are insecure.
Higgs argues that one of the reasons the Great Depression lasted so long was regime uncertainty. Depression-era Americans did not have much faith that Franklin Roosevelt would secure their rights of property. FDR, after all, tried to pass a 100 percent tax rate via executive order. That lends itself to a high degree of uncertainty.
Uncertainty can range from erratic tax rates to regulatory barriers to outright property confiscation. While some uncertainties are more harmful than others, few would argue that unilateral state-enforced lockdowns inject a high degree of uncertainty into the American economy. It’s not just the fact that businesses were shut down, it was also in the nature of the shutdowns, which were often arbitrary, unfairly applied and quickly became indefinite in nature. “Fifteen days to slow the spread” quickly changed to “We’ll let you know when it’s safe to open.”
Checks and Balances
Fortunately, the checks and balances embedded in the American system may help return a degree of economic certainty that has been lost in 2020.
A federal court recently ruled that Pennsylvania’s economic lockdown was unconstitutional, noting that an economy is not “a machine that can be shut down and restarted at will by government. It is an organic system made up of free people each pursuing their dreams.”
Even in an emergency, the authority of government is not unfettered. The liberties protected by the Constitution are not fair-weather freedoms — in place when times are good but able to be cast aside in times of trouble. There is no question that this country has faced, and will face, emergencies of every sort. But the solution to a national crisis can never be permitted to supersede the commitment to individual liberty that stands as the foundation of the American experiment. The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a ‘new normal’ where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures.
The court’s ruling comes too late to save the 97,966 businesses on Yelp that will never open again after closing during the COVID-19 pandemic. But it could offer protection to the businesses of tomorrow — and return a degree of certainty to an economy that needs it.
Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.
Originally published on FEE.org.


thestream--2020-09-21--BLM Doesn’t Care About Black Lives: My Interview With Leo Terrell, Part 2

No one I know today is more passionate about Civil Rights than Leo Terrell .
He is a true “ @ @ @ @ @ go deeper in our discussion about BLM , racial equality , justice reform , education @ @ @ @ @ in the perfect Father .
Find out more about Leo Terrell on his website and @ @ @ @ @ And be sure to watch the first part of our interview , “ The Left @ @ @ @ @ ” James Robison is The Stream ’ s founder and publisher .
He is co-founder @ @ @ @ @ co-host of LIFE Today .
He ’ s the author of many books , including @ @ @ @ @ ) and Living Amazed .
You can view all the videos in this interview series @ @

No one I know today is more passionate about Civil Rights than Leo Terrell. He is a true “freedom fighter.” Today we go deeper in our discussion about BLM, racial equality, justice reform, education, freedom, and faith in the perfect Father.
Find out more about Leo Terrell on his website and follow him on Twitter. And be sure to watch the first part of our interview, “The Left is Hurting the Black Community.”
Please watch and share.
James Robison is The Stream’s founder and publisher. He is co-founder of LIFE Outreach International and co-host of LIFE Today. He’s the author of many books, including Indivisible (with Jay Richards) and Living Amazed.
You can view all the videos in this interview series here.


thestream--2020-09-21--Did Justice Ginsberg Endorse Eugenics? Was She a Racist?

“ Frankly , ” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2009 , “ I had thought that at the time Roe was decided , there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don ’ t want to have too many of.
” She was speaking to the New York Times Magazine in an article on women on the court .
Readers understood that those “ populations ” included racial minorities .
Many people saw this as a “ gotcha !
” moment .
Finally , a leading liberal admits what they really want by pushing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eugenicists , they ’ re racist eugenicists !
It seemed like a gift from the sky .
Many people have brought it up in talking about her death .
Was it a gotcha moment ?
And what do her words tell us about the pro-abortion movement ?
And about her own pro-choice legacy ?
The reaction made sense .
Some people who supported legal abortion wanted to reduce the number of the poor and disabled , a group disproportionately including black people .
For example , in 1992 , pro-choice lawyer Ron Weddington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion pill ( RU-486 ) into production as quickly as possible .
He had been one of the lawyers arguing the pro-choice case in Roe v. Wade .
“ I don ’ t think you ’ re going to get very far in reforming the country , ” he wrote , “ until we have a better educated , healthier , wealthier population.
” Social programs will work slowly , he warned .
But Clinton could speed it up .
“ You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated , unhealthy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Push contraception .
But since people are going to have sex no matter what , “ government is going to have to provide vasectomies , tubal ligations and abortions … RU-486 and conventional abortions.
” ( The dots are his . )
Abortion , he insists , has been good for the country .
“ There have been about 30 million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade .
Think of all the poverty , crime and misery … and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario.
” Weddington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans .
He probably didn ’ t realize it , but he let that out in his example .
“ For every Jesse Jackson who has fought his way out of the poverty of a large family , there are millions mired in poverty , drugs and crime.
” Was Justice Ginsburg as big a creep as Weddington ?
Was she saying what he said when she spoke to the Times ?
Here ’ s the background .
The interviewer , a Times editor named Emily Baselon , asks Ginsburg if she wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion is rooted in the constitutional promise of sex equality.
” In other words , that the right to abort one ’ s child expresses not just a woman ’ s “ right to privacy , ” as Roe v. Wade had it .
It would be seen as necessary to ensure that women could be fully equal to men , as the Constitution demands they be .
Ginsburg says she wants that .
She then notes that women with money can always get abortions , but poor women can ’ t .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We have a policy that affects only poor women , and it can never be otherwise.
” She had expressed the same concern in a lecture given in 1984 .
“ [ F ] or poor women , however , a group in which minorities are disproportionately represented , access to abortion is not markedly different from what it was in pre-Roe days.
” In the Times interview , she goes on to explain that the way the court ruled in Harris .
v. McCrae in 1980 surprised her .
The court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t stop a woman from getting an abortion , but it doesn ’ t have to help her get one either .
Then Ginsburg says the much-quoted line : “ Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided , there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don ’ t want to have too many of .
So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion .
Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The McCrae decision showed her she had been wrong .
So did Ginsburg mean what her critics said she meant ?
Did she admit that she and her peers wanted legalized abortion to reduce the number of poor and minority people ?
No .
It ’ s clear from the interview itself that she thought the court wanted to reduce the number of poor people .
She was retelling a history , not giving her own view .
As her defenders noted , nothing in her writings and decisions suggests she thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s often forgotten that she criticized how broad a decision Roe was . )
She was then a 39-year-old lawyer who had nothing to do with arguing the case , just looking at it from the outside .
She had guessed at the justices ’ mindset .
It was a reasonable guess .
The political mainstream then spoke about “ the population bomb ” the way they speak about climate change today .
Six of the 7 justices who voted for Roe were Republican appointments and Republicans had long been active in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the eugenicist movement .
Interviewed again three years later , Ginsburg told Bazelon that the line “ was vastly misinterpreted.
” She was surprised that the court ruled as broadly as it did and thought it might want more women to have access to abortion by having the federal government pay for it .
She mentions the widespread concern at the time about overpopulation .
The critics ’ reading — Ginsburg admits it !
Liberals want to get rid of poor people !
— was unfair .
It wasn ’ t the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a cost to dishonesty .
You miss the thing you must see .
You don ’ t see how clever and how radical Ginsburg ’ s promotion of abortion rights really was .
Ginsburg wanted to drive legal abortion into the Constitution .
She wanted to make it a right equal to the First Amendment rights , even though the text never mentions it .
Indeed , she even wanted to make it a superior right , in that the government should fund it , because the government has to make sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t fund newspapers just because the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press .
But it should fund abortions because without them women can ’ t be completely equal to men .
She explained this to the Senate in her confirmation testimony , back in 1993 .
Any law against abortion “ controls women and denies them full autonomy and full equality with men.
” Pregnancy puts women at a disadvantage compared with men .
“ It is essential to woman ’ s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you impose restraints that impede her choice , you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.
” Ginsburg didn ’ t like basing abortion in the woman ’ s right to privacy , as the Roe court did .
That leaves open the possibility of balancing her right to privacy with her unborn child ’ s right to live .
She wasn ’ t proposing abortion as a tragic necessity , a way out for women who just can ’ t have a child .
She didn ’ t talk about abortion being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” as the Clintons once did .
Those arguments also allow for restrictions .
None of that halfway stuff .
She offered a simple argument : The Constitution demands women have complete equality with men ; the inability to free themselves of a fetus keeps them from that equality ; therefore , the Constitution demands that abortion be completely legal .
She implied , at least , a second argument : The Constitution demands women have complete equality with each other ; any inability — being poor , being too far from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keeps them from that equality ; therefore , the Constitution demands that the government ensure every women ’ s ability to procure an abortion , paying for the abortion if necessary .
Simple arguments .
Elegant arguments .
Clean , neat , without the practical messiness of the halfway arguments .
Based on an ideal of equality that nearly everyone agrees with .
Recognizing a reality everyone knows .
Arguably respectful of the Constitution itself in a way Roe wasn ’ t .
And justifying the killing of tens of millions of human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ project will outlive her .
If it succeeds , American law will become completely pro-choice .
The unborn child will have no right to live till birth .
David Mills is a senior editor of The Stream .
After teaching writing in a seminary , he has been editor of Touchstone and the executive editor of First Things .
He edits the site Hour of Our Death and writes a weekly column for The Catholic Herald .

“Frankly,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2009, “I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” She was speaking to the New York Times Magazine in an article on women on the court. Readers understood that those “populations” included racial minorities.
Many people saw this as a “gotcha!” moment. Finally, a leading liberal admits what they really want by pushing abortion! They aren’t just eugenicists, they’re racist eugenicists! It seemed like a gift from the sky. Many people have brought it up in talking about her death.
Was it a gotcha moment? And what do her words tell us about the pro-abortion movement? And about her own pro-choice legacy?
Eugenic Precedents
The reaction made sense. Some people who supported legal abortion wanted to reduce the number of the poor and disabled, a group disproportionately including black people.
David Mills’ last article on life issues was Joe Biden’s Not ‘Truly Pro-Life.’ He’s Not Pro-Life at All.
For example, in 1992, pro-choice lawyer Ron Weddington urged president-elect Bill Clinton to get the abortion pill (RU-486) into production as quickly as possible. He had been one of the lawyers arguing the pro-choice case in Roe v. Wade. “I don’t think you’re going to get very far in reforming the country,” he wrote, “until we have a better educated, healthier, wealthier population.”
Social programs will work slowly, he warned. But Clinton could speed it up. “You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country.” How? Push contraception. But since people are going to have sex no matter what, “government is going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions … RU-486 and conventional abortions.” (The dots are his.)
Abortion, he insists, has been good for the country. “There have been about 30 million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade. Think of all the poverty, crime and misery … and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario.”
Weddington seems to be thinking specifically of black Americans. He probably didn’t realize it, but he let that out in his example. “For every Jesse Jackson who has fought his way out of the poverty of a large family, there are millions mired in poverty, drugs and crime.”
Necessary Abortion
Was Justice Ginsburg as big a creep as Weddington? Was she saying what he said when she spoke to the Times? Here’s the background.
The interviewer, a Times editor named Emily Baselon, asks Ginsburg if she wants to see that “the right to abortion is rooted in the constitutional promise of sex equality.” In other words, that the right to abort one’s child expresses not just a woman’s “right to privacy,” as Roe v. Wade had it. It would be seen as necessary to ensure that women could be fully equal to men, as the Constitution demands they be.
Ginsburg says she wants that. She then notes that women with money can always get abortions, but poor women can’t. Roe didn’t change that. “We have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise.”
She had expressed the same concern in a lecture given in 1984. “[F]or poor women, however, a group in which minorities are disproportionately represented, access to abortion is not markedly different from what it was in pre-Roe days.”
In the Times interview, she goes on to explain that the way the court ruled in Harris. v. McCrae in 1980 surprised her. The court ruled 5-4 that the government can’t stop a woman from getting an abortion, but it doesn’t have to help her get one either.
What Ginsburg Said
Then Ginsburg says the much-quoted line: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them.” The McCrae decision showed her she had been wrong.
So did Ginsburg mean what her critics said she meant? Did she admit that she and her peers wanted legalized abortion to reduce the number of poor and minority people?
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
No. It’s clear from the interview itself that she thought the court wanted to reduce the number of poor people. She was retelling a history, not giving her own view. As her defenders noted, nothing in her writings and decisions suggests she thinks like this. (And it’s often forgotten that she criticized how broad a decision Roe was.)
She was then a 39-year-old lawyer who had nothing to do with arguing the case, just looking at it from the outside. She had guessed at the justices’ mindset. It was a reasonable guess. The political mainstream then spoke about “the population bomb” the way they speak about climate change today. Six of the 7 justices who voted for Roe were Republican appointments and Republicans had long been active in the pro-abortion movement. And before that in the eugenicist movement.
Interviewed again three years later, Ginsburg told Bazelon that the line “was vastly misinterpreted.” She was surprised that the court ruled as broadly as it did and thought it might want more women to have access to abortion by having the federal government pay for it. She mentions the widespread concern at the time about overpopulation.
The Cost of Misreading
The critics’ reading — Ginsburg admits it! Liberals want to get rid of poor people! — was unfair. It wasn’t the most honest of readings.
And there’s a cost to dishonesty. You miss the thing you must see. You don’t see how clever and how radical Ginsburg’s promotion of abortion rights really was.
Ginsburg wanted to drive legal abortion into the Constitution. She wanted to make it a right equal to the First Amendment rights, even though the text never mentions it.
Indeed, she even wanted to make it a superior right, in that the government should fund it, because the government has to make sure everyone can enjoy it. The government can’t fund newspapers just because the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. But it should fund abortions because without them women can’t be completely equal to men.
She explained this to the Senate in her confirmation testimony, back in 1993. Any law against abortion “controls women and denies them full autonomy and full equality with men.” Pregnancy puts women at a disadvantage compared with men. “It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling. If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.”
A Simple Argument
Ginsburg didn’t like basing abortion in the woman’s right to privacy, as the Roe court did. That leaves open the possibility of balancing her right to privacy with her unborn child’s right to live. She wasn’t proposing abortion as a tragic necessity, a way out for women who just can’t have a child. She didn’t talk about abortion being “safe, legal, and rare,” as the Clintons once did. Those arguments also allow for restrictions.
None of that halfway stuff. She offered a simple argument: The Constitution demands women have complete equality with men; the inability to free themselves of a fetus keeps them from that equality; therefore, the Constitution demands that abortion be completely legal.
She implied, at least, a second argument: The Constitution demands women have complete equality with each other; any inability — being poor, being too far from an abortionist, and so on — keeps them from that equality; therefore, the Constitution demands that the government ensure every women’s ability to procure an abortion, paying for the abortion if necessary.
Simple arguments. Elegant arguments. Clean, neat, without the practical messiness of the halfway arguments. Based on an ideal of equality that nearly everyone agrees with. Recognizing a reality everyone knows. Arguably respectful of the Constitution itself in a way Roe wasn’t. And justifying the killing of tens of millions of human beings.
Justice Ginsburg’s legal project will outlive her. If it succeeds, American law will become completely pro-choice. The unborn child will have no right to live till birth.
David Mills is a senior editor of The Stream. After teaching writing in a seminary, he has been editor of Touchstone and the executive editor of First Things. He edits the site Hour of Our Death and writes a weekly column for The Catholic Herald.


thestream--2020-09-21--Military Photo of the Day: Thanks for the Fill-Up!

Two U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt IIs depart after being refueled by a U.S. Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker over the @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 .
Have a happy and safe week , everyone !

Two U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt IIs depart after being refueled by a U.S. Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker over the Middle East on September 4th, 2020.
Have a happy and safe week, everyone!
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.


thestream--2020-09-21--How to Pray for Our Enemies in These Troubling Times

At last !
I finally accomplished one of my life ’ s goals this weekend .
I emailed the other Stream editors , so they could enjoy the moment with me .
In that email I pasted in a link to a page at Right Wing Watch , a project run by the stridently activist left-wing group People for the < cough > American Way .
I ’ d made their list at last .
It was the first time they ’ d mentioned my name as someone to watch out for .
“ Ahh , to have arrived !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple colleagues wrote back to “ welcome ” me to the club .
We Really Do Have Enemies It was all very tongue-in-cheek , of course , but that doesn ’ t change the fact that Christians and other conservatives have real enemies .
Up until a few weeks ago I ’ d have said it was all very social , rhetorical , and political .
They ’ re not shooting yet , I ’ d have said .
Now the best I can say is , they ’ re still not shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it seemed more than providential that my daily reading in the Psalms that day put me in Psalm 59 .
We ’ ve got enemies ; David had them a whole lot worse .
The superscript there says he wrote it “ when Saul sent men to watch his house in order to kill him.
” David was in a whole lot more danger than I am .
If you already know the story , try to forget it a moment .
Put yourself in David ’ s place .
When he prayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the story would play out .
Read it that way , and maybe you ’ ll be struck , as I was , by what a model prayer it is for us to pray for our enemies today .
It ’ s an honest prayer , first of all , nothing “ spiritualized ” about it , nothing brushed under the rug .
David has enemies .
They want to kill him .
It ’ s not his fault , either .
He doesn ’ t claim to be faultless , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deserving the kind of threat he ’ s under .
These enemies are godless , and they ’ re evil .
Verses 6 and 7 sound all too familiar : “ Each evening they come back , howling like dogs and prowling about the city .
There they are , bellowing with their mouths with swords in their lips — for ‘ Who , ’ they think , ‘ will hear us ?
’ ” They sure don ’ t think there ’ s any God paying attention to what they do .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( verses 8-10 ) he calls on God for victory .
He even expects to win , as God protects and fights for him .
But what does this victory look like ?
What did he pray for his enemies ?
Here ’ s what I see in it : He prayed that they would lose so they might win .
What to Pray for Our Enemies Win ?
How ?
What could that even mean ?
I have to jump ahead in order to answer that , starting with two jumps all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jesus famously taught us ( Matt .
5:44 ) to love our enemies , and pray for those who persecute us .
That instruction would be horribly confusing if we thought it meant we should pray for their success , or even their wellbeing ; not while they ’ re dead set against God and His ways .
There ’ s just one ultimate blessing we can be absolutely sure God would want for them : that they would “ know … the only true God , and Jesus Christ whom [ He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
How to Pray for Our Enemies David lived centuries before Christ , yet amazingly , that ’ s exactly what he prayed for his own enemies .
We have to jump just a little forward in the psalm to see that .
In verse 13b he prays that “ that they may know that God rules over Jacob to the ends of the earth ” ( verse 13b ) .
It sounds a lot like John 17:3 to me !
He ’ s praying a blessing on them : That they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who created and loves them .
That would be true victory for them .
That ’ s the ultimate destination he prays they ’ d reach .
That They Might Lose The path getting there isn ’ t so pretty , but it ’ s instructive , too .
Let ’ s run it backwards from there .
“ Consume them in wrath , ” he says in 13a ; “ consume them till they are no more.
” Ouch !
Sounds like he ’ s calling for fire to fall on them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He ’ s not , though .
He ’ d just finished asking God , “ Kill them not , lest my people forget ; make them totter by your power and bring them down , O Lord our shield.
” He wanted them to live .
There ’ s no contradiction here with “ consume them.
” We do this psalm ’ s author a real disservice if we think he thought “ kill them not ” was consistent with , “ burn them to a crisp.
” No , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their strength , their power , their advantage would be consumed , until it was no more .
That They Might Win Then possibly , they might recognize ( from verse how “ the sin of their mouths , the words of their lips , [ had caused them to ] be trapped in their pride.
” Then they , too , might “ know that God rules over Jacob.
” David ’ s own people would remember , too ( see verse 11 again ) .
This is a blessing we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are fighting against God , they need to lose .
They need to lose the public battles , and they need to be chastened in their pride .
If they ’ re fighting us because we legitimately represent God and His ways , they need to lose there , too .
We should pray for them to experience all those losses .
We may have to suffer necessary losses of our own along the way , too , as none of us is perfect in following our Lord .
But we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ losses .
It ’ s perfectly consistent with our Lord ’ s instruction to love them , to pray for them , to bless them .
But only if we keep in mind the victory we still want them to experience : the eternal life that comes from knowing God the Father , and Jesus Christ whom He has sent .
Tom Gilson ( @ TomGilsonAuthor ) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books , including the recently released Too Good To Be False : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reality .

At last! I finally accomplished one of my life’s goals this weekend. I emailed the other Stream editors, so they could enjoy the moment with me. In that email I pasted in a link to a page at Right Wing Watch, a project run by the stridently activist left-wing group People for the American Way. I’d made their list at last. It was the first time they’d mentioned my name as someone to watch out for.
“Ahh, to have arrived!” I closed my email. A couple colleagues wrote back to “welcome” me to the club.
We Really Do Have Enemies
It was all very tongue-in-cheek, of course, but that doesn’t change the fact that Christians and other conservatives have real enemies. Up until a few weeks ago I’d have said it was all very social, rhetorical, and political. They’re not shooting yet, I’d have said. Now the best I can say is, they’re still not shooting at very many of us.
So it seemed more than providential that my daily reading in the Psalms that day put me in Psalm 59. We’ve got enemies; David had them a whole lot worse.
The superscript there says he wrote it “when Saul sent men to watch his house in order to kill him.” David was in a whole lot more danger than I am.
If you already know the story, try to forget it a moment. Put yourself in David’s place. When he prayed this prayer, he had no idea how the story would play out.
Read it that way, and maybe you’ll be struck, as I was, by what a model prayer it is for us to pray for our enemies today.
Enemies? David Had Them.
It’s an honest prayer, first of all, nothing “spiritualized” about it, nothing brushed under the rug. David has enemies. They want to kill him. It’s not his fault, either. He doesn’t claim to be faultless, but he sure hasn’t done anything deserving the kind of threat he’s under.
These enemies are godless, and they’re evil. Verses 6 and 7 sound all too familiar:
“Each evening they come back, howling like dogs and prowling about the city. There they are, bellowing with their mouths with swords in their lips — for ‘Who,’ they think, ‘will hear us?’”
They sure don’t think there’s any God paying attention to what they do. But David knows. And in faith (verses 8-10) he calls on God for victory. He even expects to win, as God protects and fights for him. But what does this victory look like? What did he pray for his enemies?
Here’s what I see in it: He prayed that they would lose so they might win.
What to Pray for Our Enemies
Win? How? What could that even mean? I have to jump ahead in order to answer that, starting with two jumps all the way into the New Testament.
Jesus famously taught us (Matt. 5:44) to love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us. That instruction would be horribly confusing if we thought it meant we should pray for their success, or even their wellbeing; not while they’re dead set against God and His ways.
There’s just one ultimate blessing we can be absolutely sure God would want for them: that they would “know … the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom [He has] sent” (John 17:3).
How to Pray for Our Enemies
David lived centuries before Christ, yet amazingly, that’s exactly what he prayed for his own enemies. We have to jump just a little forward in the psalm to see that. In verse 13b he prays that “that they may know that God rules over Jacob to the ends of the earth” (verse 13b). It sounds a lot like John 17:3 to me!
He’s praying a blessing on them: That they might know the truth of the God who created and loves them. That would be true victory for them. That’s the ultimate destination he prays they’d reach.
That They Might Lose
The path getting there isn’t so pretty, but it’s instructive, too. Let’s run it backwards from there. “Consume them in wrath,” he says in 13a; “consume them till they are no more.” Ouch! Sounds like he’s calling for fire to fall on them and leave them a pile of ashes.
He’s not, though. He’d just finished asking God, “Kill them not, lest my people forget; make them totter by your power and bring them down, O Lord our shield.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
He wanted them to live. There’s no contradiction here with “consume them.” We do this psalm’s author a real disservice if we think he thought “kill them not” was consistent with, “burn them to a crisp.” No, what he certainly must have meant was that their strength, their power, their advantage would be consumed, until it was no more.
That They Might Win
Then possibly, they might recognize (from verse how “the sin of their mouths, the words of their lips, [had caused them to] be trapped in their pride.” Then they, too, might “know that God rules over Jacob.” David’s own people would remember, too (see verse 11 again).
This is a blessing we can pray for our enemies. Insofar as they are fighting against God, they need to lose. They need to lose the public battles, and they need to be chastened in their pride. If they’re fighting us because we legitimately represent God and His ways, they need to lose there, too.
We should pray for them to experience all those losses. We may have to suffer necessary losses of our own along the way, too, as none of us is perfect in following our Lord.
But we can pray for our enemies to suffer those losses. It’s perfectly consistent with our Lord’s instruction to love them, to pray for them, to bless them. But only if we keep in mind the victory we still want them to experience: the eternal life that comes from knowing God the Father, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent.
Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books, including the recently released Too Good To Be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality.


thestream--2020-09-20--Foundations: Why Should Christians Support Limited Government?

The easiest answer to this question arrives in two words : Original Sin .
Mankind fell .
Our reason skills were darkened and our wills became bent away from our Maker .
The first human society on record ?
The family of Adam and Eve .
Despite their intimate contact with God , with unfallen wills and intellects , they still chose sin .
One of their sons murdered another .
In Genesis we read of an early civilization , that of Babel .
No sooner had it organized itself and gotten prosperous , than it dared to build a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and challenge God .
So God scattered its inhabitants and fragmented their languages .
Hence our first clue about God ’ s will when it comes to government .
America ’ s founders , reflecting on millennia of tyranny all around the world , adopted a comparable solution .
The separation of powers , which James Madison crafted , seems almost modeled on God ’ s answer to Babel .
Our Constitution slows down , frustrates , and counters the hot ambitions and heaven-scaling schemes of powerful politicians .
Many have found this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wilson , who ’ d traded the genuine Gospel for the Social Gospel , denounced the Constitution .
Even before he took office , he called on Americans to substitute Darwin for St. Augustine , and adopt a “ progressive , ” “ scientific ” government .
In other words , one that would grant the executive branch almost unlimited powers .
He took advantage of the First World War to grab such power , throwing anti-war critics into prison — the First Amendment be damned .
Of course , the long history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countless governments agglomerating power and kings mistaking themselves for gods .
In the process , they rode roughshod over the one truly sacred thing we know on earth : the individual person , as the image of God and the brother of Jesus Christ .
As Christians , we ’ re taught to revere our fellow man , to treat him as we ’ d have him treat us .
But layers of government block our perceptions of people as people .
We learn to see them as digits and statistics .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we vote to have the state forcibly seize wealth from us and from others , to solve “ social problems ” far away from us .
Worse , when we are seduced by glittering images of Utopian reforms or national glory , we stop thinking of individual human beings at all .
We imagine ourselves as tiny cells of an earthly god , which is remaking Creation according to new , “ improved ” human models .
Socialism offers us the promise that we can reverse the fall of man , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dispose of our work and wealth .
Communism , put simply , promised to lash , brainwash , and starve the human race till it beat the selfishness out of us .
It kept its promise to use violent means , all right .
But it delivered on none of its impossible , science-fiction visions .
Democratic socialism , still inspired by Marx , promises to accomplish the same results by slow-motion coercion , a vise turned gradually but inexorably .
Its outcome usually doesn ’ t entail concentration camps .
Instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government agencies ( like Britain ’ s National Health Service ) .
And slow or stagnant economic growth , since hard work isn ’ t rewarded and laziness doesn ’ t get punished .
Worse than any of its economic effects , socialism teaches adult free citizens to think and feel like perpetual adolescents , dependent for their well-being on the all-provident government .
In turn , they come to lean on it instead of themselves , and trust in it rather than God .
We must remember what government is , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permission to use violence against our fellow men .
We license police to do what if one of us tried it would amount to assault and kidnapping , under the threat of death .
Since our fellow man is the image of God , redeemed by Christ , in what direction should we err when we think about how much of his life we want to control using such coercion ?
It only makes sense to say : We should control and coerce our neighbors as little as possible .
No , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that just hands over power to local warlords and gang leaders .
We ’ ve seen in 2020 what happens when mayors handcuff the police and let mobs rule the streets .
But the far , far greater danger comes from the organized violence of governments .
As genocide scholar R.J. Rummel documented , some 170 million human beings , images of God , were murdered by their governments in just 90 years — not including tens of millions of casualties of war .
Most of these civilians had previously been stripped of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of self-defense . )
Clearly the modern state is the worst pandemic that has ever faced the human race .
It only makes sense — both common and Christian — to impose on our governments strict limits .
To oppose one power center to another , so no one branch of government , or pack of bureaucrats , or legislating judges , can do too much damage too quickly .
And to cling to the Second Amendment ’ s guarantee of our own power to defend ourselves and our loved ones against aggressors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the momentary madness of a disorganized mob , or the Tower of Babel fantasies of a government that mistakes itself for a god .
This article is part of a new Stream series called Foundations .
As we approach this year ’ s election , it appears that the most fundamental principles upon which the American republic was founded are being called into question .
Foundations is a tool for pastors , teachers , leaders and all people of faith to learn why , from a Biblical view , we should continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the First and Second Amendments and wise policies that promote freedom .
Visit the Foundations page to see all the articles in this series .

The easiest answer to this question arrives in two words: Original Sin. Mankind fell. Our reason skills were darkened and our wills became bent away from our Maker. The first human society on record? The family of Adam and Eve. Despite their intimate contact with God, with unfallen wills and intellects, they still chose sin. One of their sons murdered another. In Genesis we read of an early civilization, that of Babel. No sooner had it organized itself and gotten prosperous, than it dared to build a tower to try to reach Heaven, and challenge God.
So God scattered its inhabitants and fragmented their languages. Hence our first clue about God’s will when it comes to government. America’s founders, reflecting on millennia of tyranny all around the world, adopted a comparable solution. The separation of powers, which James Madison crafted, seems almost modeled on God’s answer to Babel. Our Constitution slows down, frustrates, and counters the hot ambitions and heaven-scaling schemes of powerful politicians.
The Social Gospel, Progressives, and Socialism
Many have found this separation frustrating, even infuriating. Woodrow Wilson, who’d traded the genuine Gospel for the Social Gospel, denounced the Constitution. Even before he took office, he called on Americans to substitute Darwin for St. Augustine, and adopt a “progressive,” “scientific” government. In other words, one that would grant the executive branch almost unlimited powers. He took advantage of the First World War to grab such power, throwing anti-war critics into prison — the First Amendment be damned.
Of course, the long history of man between Babel and Wilson yields countless governments agglomerating power and kings mistaking themselves for gods. In the process, they rode roughshod over the one truly sacred thing we know on earth: the individual person, as the image of God and the brother of Jesus Christ. As Christians, we’re taught to revere our fellow man, to treat him as we’d have him treat us. But layers of government block our perceptions of people as people. We learn to see them as digits and statistics.
Instead of reaching out and serving the poor, we vote to have the state forcibly seize wealth from us and from others, to solve “social problems” far away from us. Worse, when we are seduced by glittering images of Utopian reforms or national glory, we stop thinking of individual human beings at all. We imagine ourselves as tiny cells of an earthly god, which is remaking Creation according to new, “improved” human models.
Reversing the Fall by Force
Socialism offers us the promise that we can reverse the fall of man, by granting the state almost God-like powers to dispose of our work and wealth. Communism, put simply, promised to lash, brainwash, and starve the human race till it beat the selfishness out of us. It kept its promise to use violent means, all right. But it delivered on none of its impossible, science-fiction visions.
Democratic socialism, still inspired by Marx, promises to accomplish the same results by slow-motion coercion, a vise turned gradually but inexorably. Its outcome usually doesn’t entail concentration camps. Instead, you get huge, sclerotic, non-responsive government agencies (like Britain’s National Health Service). And slow or stagnant economic growth, since hard work isn’t rewarded and laziness doesn’t get punished.
Worse than any of its economic effects, socialism teaches adult free citizens to think and feel like perpetual adolescents, dependent for their well-being on the all-provident government. In turn, they come to lean on it instead of themselves, and trust in it rather than God.
A Monopoly of Violence
We must remember what government is, at its very essence: an institution with permission to use violence against our fellow men. We license police to do what, if one of us tried it, would amount to assault and kidnapping, under the threat of death. Since our fellow man is the image of God, redeemed by Christ, in what direction should we err when we think about how much of his life we want to control using such coercion?
It only makes sense to say: We should control and coerce our neighbors as little as possible. No, we don’t embrace anarchy, since that just hands over power to local warlords and gang leaders. We’ve seen in 2020 what happens when mayors handcuff the police and let mobs rule the streets. But the far, far greater danger comes from the organized violence of governments.
As genocide scholar R.J. Rummel documented, some 170 million human beings, images of God, were murdered by their governments in just 90 years — not including tens of millions of casualties of war. Most of these civilians had previously been stripped of their firearms, and hence the power of self-defense. Clearly the modern state is the worst pandemic that has ever faced the human race.
It only makes sense — both common and Christian — to impose on our governments strict limits. To oppose one power center to another, so no one branch of government, or pack of bureaucrats, or legislating judges, can do too much damage too quickly. And to cling to the Second Amendment’s guarantee of our own power to defend ourselves and our loved ones against aggressors’ violence — whether it’s the momentary madness of a disorganized mob, or the Tower of Babel fantasies of a government that mistakes itself for a god.
This article is part of a new Stream series called Foundations. As we approach this year’s election, it appears that the most fundamental principles upon which the American republic was founded are being called into question. Foundations is a tool for pastors, teachers, leaders and all people of faith to learn why, from a Biblical view, we should continue to support the Constitution — with an emphasis on the First and Second Amendments and wise policies that promote freedom. Visit the Foundations page to see all the articles in this series.


thestream--2020-09-20--Ginsburg Leaves Liberal Legacy After Decades on the Court

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , a champion of equal justice under the law who became only the second woman ( and the first Jewish woman ) to serve on the Supreme Court , died Friday evening after a long battle with cancer .
She was 87 .
During her 27 years on the high court , Ginsburg became a liberal cultural icon who was dubbed the “ Notorious RBG ” as if she were a rap star .
Her early life and career inspired a movie released in late 2018 .
The Supreme Court announced that Ginsburg died of metastatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home in Washington .
The movie abut her came during a year when Ginsburg frequently had to take time off from the court for health reasons , but regularly returned .
“ I think people of all ages are excited to see a woman in public life who has shown that , even at the age of 85 , she can be unflinching in her commitment to equality and justice , ” Irin Carmon , co-author of Notorious RBG : The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , told the BBC in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have enough figures like her , ” Carmon said .
“ Each time she ’ s returned with just as much determination and resilience .
She has been at this work for at least a half-century , and she ’ s not done yet.
” “ She led an amazing life , ” President Donald Trump told reporters when he learned of Ginsburg ’ s death from them after making a speech Friday night in Bemidji , Minnesota .
“ What else can you say ?
Whether you agreed or not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an amazing life.
” “ I ’ m actually saddened to hear that .
I ’ m saddened to hear that , ” Trump added before turning and walking toward the waiting Air Force One .
The president , who has appointed two Supreme Court justices in his first term , had taken the stage less than 10 minutes before news of Ginsburg ’ s death broke .
President Bill Clinton announced on June 14 , 1993 , that he had picked Ginsburg — then a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his first nominee to the Supreme Court , replacing retiring liberal Justice Byron White .
“ Ruth Bader Ginsburg can not be called a liberal or a conservative , ” Clinton said at the time .
“ She has proved herself too thoughtful for such labels.
” The Senate seemed to agree .
In what would seem impossible today , senators confirmed Ginsburg by a 96-3 vote that August .
Ginsburg , born March 15 , 1933 in Brooklyn , would go on to be considered a leader of the liberal wing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , she was known for her affectionate friendship and mutual respect with conservative Justice Antonin Scalia , who died in February 2016 .
One of her better-known majority opinions came in 1996 in United States v. Virginia , in which Ginsburg wrote that the male-only admission policy at Virginia Military Institute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution .
Carrie Severino , president of the Judicial Crisis Network , a conservative legal group , noted that Ginsburg also condemned the conduct by some senators during the fierce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 .
She referred to Ginsburg ’ s comment on the divisive Kavanaugh confirmation battle : “ I wish I could wave a magic wand and make it go back to the way it was.
” “ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a trailblazer who dedicated her life to public service .
Her intelligence , hard work , and commitment brought her to the pinnacle of her profession , ” Severino tweeted , adding : “ Following the Kavanaugh confirmation where liberal activists made a circus of the hearings , Ginsburg was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had become.
” Ginsburg ’ s record of advocating the equality of the sexes inspired the movie On the Basis of Sex , in which Felicity Jones portrays Ginsburg as a law student and lawyer before she became a judge .
The movie looks at her personal life and how she helped her husband ’ s struggles with cancer .
The film also delves into what turned out to be a landmark discrimination case in 1972 .
Though a strong advocate for abortion rights as a lawyer and on the federal bench , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade , which legalized abortion across the nation — something that previously was a matter for states to decide .
On legal grounds , Ginsburg said the ruling was too sweeping and should have invalidated only the Texas statute being challenged .
She said the question should have been one of gender equality that would have evolved — rather than a broad right to privacy .
“ Roe seemed to have stopped the momentum , ” Ginsburg said in 2013 at a University of Chicago School of Law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40.
” “ It mattered that Roe went as far as it did , ” she said .
Referring to the annual March for Life in the nation ’ s capital , Ginsburg added : In December 1992 , before joining the high court , Ginsburg said in a lecture at New York University : However , Ginsburg reliably voted against the constitutionality of state and federal laws restricting abortion .
She was in the majority when the high court struck down Nebraska ’ s ban of partial-birth abortion in 2000 , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal ban on partial-birth abortion in 2007 .
Both cases were 5-4 rulings .
In a 2009 interview with The New York Times , Ginsburg seemed to indicate that her initial impression of the Roe decision was the abortion on demand would reduce unwanted populations .
She said a 1980 Supreme Court ruling upholding a federal prohibition on funding abortion with tax dollars surprised her .
“ Yes , the ruling about that surprised me , ” she said of the decision in Harris v. McRae upholding the Hyde Amendment , which prohibits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , adding : Ginsburg stirred controversy as a justice when , during a 2012 visit to Egypt , she suggested that the U.S. Constitution — which every justice is sworn to uphold — was not a good model for a new government .
“ I would not look to the U.S. Constitution , if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012 , ” Ginsburg said in an interview for Egyptian TV .
“ I might look at the constitution of South Africa .
That was a deliberate attempt to have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human rights , have an independent judiciary .
It really is , I think , a great piece of work that was done.
” Ginsburg delved into the political realm in a June 2016 interview in The New York Times , when she said she “ can ’ t imagine ” then-candidate Donald Trump becoming president in the upcoming election because he “ has no consistency about him.
” She asked : “ How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns ?
” “ For the country , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ For the court , it could be — I don ’ t even want to contemplate that.
” She not surprisingly walked back the comments in a written statement .
“ On reflection , my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them , ” Ginsburg said in the statement .
“ Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office .
In the future I will be more circumspect.
” Ginsburg , a graduate of Columbia Law School , was a longtime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Union .
In 1977 , Ginsburg was co-author of a 230-page report titled “ Sex Bias in the U.S. Code , ” which was paid for by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission .
The report ’ s multiple controversial proposals included integrating prisons that separated inmates based on gender ; raising questions about the exclusivity of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts ; challenging laws prohibiting prostitution ; and questioning the celebration of Mother ’ s Day and Father ’ s Day on separate dates .
In 1980 , President Jimmy Carter named @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where she served until Clinton tapped her for the high court in 1993 .
“ Many admirers of her work say that she is to the women ’ s movement what former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall was to the movement for the rights of African Americans , ” Clinton said in announcing his nomination of Ginsburg .
“ I can think of no greater compliment to bestow on an American lawyer.
” Though she would go on to be a staunch liberal , at the time Ginsburg was considered a consensus candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ R-Kan. , called Ginsburg “ a good choice , ” while then-Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah , the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee , predicted that she would make “ a very excellent justice.
” Fred Lucas is chief national affairs correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of The Right Side of History podcast .
Lucas is also the author of Abuse of Power : Inside The Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump .
Send an email to Fred .

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a champion of equal justice under the law who became only the second woman (and the first Jewish woman) to serve on the Supreme Court, died Friday evening after a long battle with cancer. She was 87.
During her 27 years on the high court, Ginsburg became a liberal cultural icon who was dubbed the “Notorious RBG” as if she were a rap star. Her early life and career inspired a movie released in late 2018.
The Supreme Court announced that Ginsburg died of metastatic pancreas cancer while surrounded by family at home in Washington.
The movie abut her came during a year when Ginsburg frequently had to take time off from the court for health reasons, but regularly returned.
“I think people of all ages are excited to see a woman in public life who has shown that, even at the age of 85, she can be unflinching in her commitment to equality and justice,” Irin Carmon, co-author of Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, told the BBC in December 2018.
“We don’t have enough figures like her,” Carmon said. “Each time she’s returned with just as much determination and resilience. She has been at this work for at least a half-century, and she’s not done yet.”
Liberal Leader on High Court
“She led an amazing life,” President Donald Trump told reporters when he learned of Ginsburg’s death from them after making a speech Friday night in Bemidji, Minnesota. “What else can you say? Whether you agreed or not, she was an amazing woman who led an amazing life.”
“I’m actually saddened to hear that. I’m saddened to hear that,” Trump added before turning and walking toward the waiting Air Force One.
The president, who has appointed two Supreme Court justices in his first term, had taken the stage less than 10 minutes before news of Ginsburg’s death broke.
President Bill Clinton announced on June 14, 1993, that he had picked Ginsburg — then a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia — as his first nominee to the Supreme Court, replacing retiring liberal Justice Byron White.
“Ruth Bader Ginsburg cannot be called a liberal or a conservative,” Clinton said at the time. “She has proved herself too thoughtful for such labels.”
The Senate seemed to agree. In what would seem impossible today, senators confirmed Ginsburg by a 96-3 vote that August.
Ginsburg, born March 15, 1933 in Brooklyn, would go on to be considered a leader of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court. At the same time, she was known for her affectionate friendship and mutual respect with conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016.
One of her better-known majority opinions came in 1996 in United States v. Virginia, in which Ginsburg wrote that the male-only admission policy at Virginia Military Institute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative legal group, noted that Ginsburg also condemned the conduct by some senators during the fierce Senate confirmation fight over Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.
She referred to Ginsburg’s comment on the divisive Kavanaugh confirmation battle: “I wish I could wave a magic wand and make it go back to the way it was.”
“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a trailblazer who dedicated her life to public service. Her intelligence, hard work, and commitment brought her to the pinnacle of her profession,” Severino tweeted, adding: “Following the Kavanaugh confirmation where liberal activists made a circus of the hearings, Ginsburg was critical of how contentious the confirmation process had become.”
RBG in Pop Culture
Ginsburg’s record of advocating the equality of the sexes inspired the movie On the Basis of Sex, in which Felicity Jones portrays Ginsburg as a law student and lawyer before she became a judge.
The movie looks at her personal life and how she helped her husband’s struggles with cancer.
The film also delves into what turned out to be a landmark discrimination case in 1972.
Questioning Legitimacy of Roe
Though a strong advocate for abortion rights as a lawyer and on the federal bench, Ginsburg questioned the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion across the nation — something that previously was a matter for states to decide.
On legal grounds, Ginsburg said the ruling was too sweeping and should have invalidated only the Texas statute being challenged. She said the question should have been one of gender equality that would have evolved — rather than a broad right to privacy.
“Roe seemed to have stopped the momentum,” Ginsburg said in 2013 at a University of Chicago School of Law symposium called “Roe v. Wade at 40.”
“It mattered that Roe went as far as it did,” she said.
Referring to the annual March for Life in the nation’s capital, Ginsburg added:
Roe became a symbol for the right to life movement. They have an annual parade now every year on the day in January when it was decided. … The [abortion] cases now are all about restrictions on abortion, and not about the rights of women.
In December 1992, before joining the high court, Ginsburg said in a lecture at New York University:
Suppose the [Supreme] Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force. Would there have been the 20-year controversy we have witnessed?
However, Ginsburg reliably voted against the constitutionality of state and federal laws restricting abortion.
She was in the majority when the high court struck down Nebraska’s ban of partial-birth abortion in 2000, and in the minority when it upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion in 2007. Both cases were 5-4 rulings.
In a 2009 interview with The New York Times, Ginsburg seemed to indicate that her initial impression of the Roe decision was the abortion on demand would reduce unwanted populations.
She said a 1980 Supreme Court ruling upholding a federal prohibition on funding abortion with tax dollars surprised her.
“Yes, the ruling about that surprised me,” she said of the decision in Harris v. McRae upholding the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits use of Medicaid funds for most abortions, adding:
Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
Stirring Controversy
Ginsburg stirred controversy as a justice when, during a 2012 visit to Egypt, she suggested that the U.S. Constitution — which every justice is sworn to uphold — was not a good model for a new government.
“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg said in an interview for Egyptian TV. “I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.”
Ginsburg delved into the political realm in a June 2016 interview in The New York Times, when she said she “can’t imagine” then-candidate Donald Trump becoming president in the upcoming election because he “has no consistency about him.” She asked: “How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?”
“For the country, it could be four years,” Ginsburg said. “For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
She not surprisingly walked back the comments in a written statement.
“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in the statement. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Ginsburg, a graduate of Columbia Law School, was a longtime lawyer for the liberal American Civil Liberties Union.
In 1977, Ginsburg was co-author of a 230-page report titled “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code,” which was paid for by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.
The report’s multiple controversial proposals included integrating prisons that separated inmates based on gender; raising questions about the exclusivity of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts; challenging laws prohibiting prostitution; and questioning the celebration of Mother’s Day and Father’s Day on separate dates.
In 1980, President Jimmy Carter named Ginsburg to the D.C. Circuit, where she served until Clinton tapped her for the high court in 1993.
“Many admirers of her work say that she is to the women’s movement what former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall was to the movement for the rights of African Americans,” Clinton said in announcing his nomination of Ginsburg. “I can think of no greater compliment to bestow on an American lawyer.”
Though she would go on to be a staunch liberal, at the time Ginsburg was considered a consensus candidate.
Then-Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., called Ginsburg “a good choice,” while then-Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, predicted that she would make “a very excellent justice.”
Fred Lucas is chief national affairs correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of The Right Side of History podcast. Lucas is also the author of Abuse of Power: Inside The Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump. Send an email to Fred.
Copyright 2020 The Daily Signal


thestream--2020-09-22--VIDEO: 40 Days For Life Starts Wednesday, September 23

“ We need to take a stand for certain things , ” said Randy Robison Monday on LIFE Today .
@ @ @ @ @ are to be that light that shines and I think one of the most critical @ @ @ @ @ is the issue of abortion.
” Robison hosts 40 Days For Life CEO and President @ @ @ @ @ and why the 40 Days For Life event is necessary .
“ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ Carney .
“ It ’ s 40 days of prayer for an end to abortion @ @ @ @ @ days of fasting and it ’ s 40 days of a non-stop peaceful vigil outside @ @ @ @ @ United States of America and in over 30 countries.
” Nancy Flory is an associate @ @ @ @ @ You can follow her @ NancyFlory3 , and follow The Stream @ Streamdotorg .

“We need to take a stand for certain things,” said Randy Robison Monday on LIFE Today. “As Christians, we are to be that light that shines and I think one of the most critical things in our society today is the issue of abortion.”
Robison hosts 40 Days For Life CEO and President Shawn Carney to discuss abortion and why the 40 Days For Life event is necessary.
The event begins Wednesday, September 23 and ends November 1, 2020.
“It’s very basic,” says Carney. “It’s 40 days of prayer for an end to abortion, it’s 40 days of fasting and it’s 40 days of a non-stop peaceful vigil outside of abortion facilities across the United States of America and in over 30 countries.”
Watch:
Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream. You can follow her @NancyFlory3, and follow The Stream @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-09-22--Three Reasons Christians Should Not Speak the Slogan, ‘Black Lives Matter’

It should go without saying that Christians believe black lives matter .
Christians believe all lives matter .
It should also go without saying that any true follower of Christ thinks racism ( pervasive , systemic , or otherwise ) is an affront to the Gospel .
If only things were that simple in our present societal chaos .
At a time when people are “ canceled ” for not putting black squares on their social media , and when they ’ re harassed by mobs for not raising fists in the air at outdoor eateries , it can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mantra , “ Black Lives Matter.
” Should we , though ?
I had the privilege recently of helping my alma mater ( and current employer ) Southern Evangelical Seminary and Bible College ( SES ) write a statement on Racism and Social Justice .
Given our classical natural law approach to moral issues — unique in the evangelical world — we felt we had something different and important to offer to the conversation .
Our desire was to be bold but gracious , and clearly explain why SES values all black lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but will not say , “ Black Lives Matter.
” I think this phrase is inadequate , even dangerous , when uttered from the lips of Christ-followers , for at least three reasons .
1 .
Christians Must Promote Love and the Good God calls believers to love Him with their whole being .
Part of loving God well is loving our neighbors well ( Matt .
22:37-40 ) .
Classically understood , love means to will the good of another .
This obviously rules out any form of racism ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ For it is God ’ s will that you silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good .
As God ’ s slaves , live as free people , but don ’ t use your freedom as a way to conceal evil.
” So the question is , Is it “ good ” to implicitly or explicitly support the Black Lives Matter ( BLM ) organization by reciting the mantra ?
To answer that , we must know what it means for something to be “ good.
” As we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Something is good to the extent that it is perfect , and something is perfect to the extent that it fulfills the end/purpose towards which it is directed according to its nature ( i.e.
, what it is ) .
” We can apply this thinking to human beings specifically , and derive classical natural law morality .
This includes a robust defense of natural rights — the very same natural law argued for by Dr. Martin Luther King , Jr .
True freedom or liberty , we find , is the ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to whatever is objectively good .
This contrasts with a false view of freedom , that one can do whatever one happens to desire .
Further , real justice is giving someone whatever is owed them .
This means equal opportunity , not necessarily the equal outcomes that many “ social justice ” advocates desire .
SES applies this thinking to the BLM organization , and points out , “ Holding to mis-defined notions of love , freedom , and justice , BLM stands against the nuclear family , promotes homosexual and transgender @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization.
” Such ideologies are anti-Gospel and contrary to the good humans are to pursue .
Therefore , it is objectively unloving to promote or endorse the BLM organization or their ideologies .
2 .
Christians Must Avoid the Appearance of Evil But what about those who are simply trying to support black people in general , not the organization ?
I recently saw a Facebook meme posted by a fellow believer that read , “ When we say Black Lives Matter we aren ’ t talking about an organization .
We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was a bit taken aback and very saddened by this post .
In all honesty , I wonder at what point many of my black friends began to feel that others do not think their lives matter .
Nevertheless , for those who do not support the BLM organization , what should we think of simply saying “ Black lives matter ” ?
The reason is simple .
Words and phrases can be co-opted to mean very different things from their original meanings .
Imagine if a Christian friend told you they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t assume they meant a very festive or lively wedding ceremony .
Confusion is Very Difficult to Avoid The same holds true for “ Black Lives Matter.
” Like it or not , it is very difficult to separate this phrase from the BLM organization .
The BLM organization is nothing short of anti-Gospel .
SES notes , “ The ‘ black lives matter ’ mantra has been so tied to the BLM organization that one is hard pressed to recite the words ‘ black lives matter ’ without providing implicit endorsement for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
” 1 Thess .
5:21-22 makes clear we must “ test all things .
Hold on to what is good .
Stay away from every kind of evil.
” Just like someone saying they support gay marriage would be presumed to support homosexual relationships , a Christ-follower holding a “ Black Lives Matter ” sign can very easily be presumed to support the BLM organization .
Certainly , black lives do matter .
Given BLM ’ s anti-Gospel platform , however , such implicit support of BLM could serve as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other , and better , ways to say what needs saying .
3 .
Christians Must Do Better Than Mere Slogans Both the “ Black Lives Matter ” phrase and the BLM organization assume that a large portion of society and its institutions do not care about black lives .
Many Christian leaders have assumed racist motives behind recent police shootings .
Too many have drawn that conclusion ahead of any evidence could come in or investigations be done .
Actual data about racial issues is often tossed out , replaced with personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to conclusions is not the righteous judgement Jesus commands in John 7:24 .
Yes , individuals have suffered real racism at times .
That is a sad fact , and no doubt it will continue to be true .
However , one dare not draw systemic conclusions from personal experience or appearances alone .
Righteous judgments can only come by way of seeing facts truly , and by appealing to the true and the good .
This is how we truly love our neighbors and those who either are , or feel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come by way of placing black squares on social media .
It won ’ t come by reciting catchy mantras .
We need tough conversations , the sort that can lead to genuine solutions .
To do that we must learn to put truth over perception , facts over feelings .
We won ’ t get there by sacrificing truth and goodness on the false altar of “ woke ” ideologies .
As SES summarizes , “ The truth is , [ ‘ black lives matter ’ ] is woefully inadequate .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ministry partner Ratio Christi , observed , ‘ All black lives are sacred.
’ In fact , all human lives are sacred , whatever their ethnicity .
Why ?
The fact that Jesus Christ , the Son of God , died on the cross to purchase eternal salvation for every human being who will accept Him as their Lord and Savior makes every human being sacred.
” That is the truth that will shine light into this dark and desperate culture .
Adam Tucker holds an M.A .
in Philosophy from Southern Evangelical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Recruiting and Admissions and also coordinates special events and ministry partnerships .

It should go without saying that Christians believe black lives matter. Christians believe all lives matter. It should also go without saying that any true follower of Christ thinks racism (pervasive, systemic, or otherwise) is an affront to the Gospel. If only things were that simple in our present societal chaos.
At a time when people are “canceled” for not putting black squares on their social media, and when they’re harassed by mobs for not raising fists in the air at outdoor eateries, it can be very tempting for Christians to repeat the mantra, “Black Lives Matter.” Should we, though?
I had the privilege recently of helping my alma mater (and current employer) Southern Evangelical Seminary and Bible College (SES) write a statement on Racism and Social Justice. Given our classical natural law approach to moral issues — unique in the evangelical world — we felt we had something different and important to offer to the conversation. Our desire was to be bold but gracious, and clearly explain why SES values all black lives (and all lives in general), but will not say, “Black Lives Matter.”
I think this phrase is inadequate, even dangerous, when uttered from the lips of Christ-followers, for at least three reasons.
1. Christians Must Promote Love and the Good
God calls believers to love Him with their whole being. Part of loving God well is loving our neighbors well (Matt. 22:37-40). Classically understood, love means to will the good of another. This obviously rules out any form of racism). Peter tells us in 1 Peter 2:15-16, “For it is God’s will that you silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good. As God’s slaves, live as free people, but don’t use your freedom as a way to conceal evil.”
So the question is, Is it “good” to implicitly or explicitly support the Black Lives Matter (BLM) organization by reciting the mantra? To answer that, we must know what it means for something to be “good.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
As we explain in the SES statement, “Something is good to the extent that it is perfect, and something is perfect to the extent that it fulfills the end/purpose towards which it is directed according to its nature (i.e., what it is).” We can apply this thinking to human beings specifically, and derive classical natural law morality. This includes a robust defense of natural rights — the very same natural law argued for by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
True Freedom and Justice
True freedom or liberty, we find, is the ability to do what one ought, according to whatever is objectively good. This contrasts with a false view of freedom, that one can do whatever one happens to desire.
Further, real justice is giving someone whatever is owed them. This means equal opportunity, not necessarily the equal outcomes that many “social justice” advocates desire.
SES applies this thinking to the BLM organization, and points out, “Holding to mis-defined notions of love, freedom, and justice, BLM stands against the nuclear family, promotes homosexual and transgender ideologies, and is an admittedly Marxist organization.” Such ideologies are anti-Gospel and contrary to the good humans are to pursue. Therefore, it is objectively unloving to promote or endorse the BLM organization or their ideologies.
2. Christians Must Avoid the Appearance of Evil
But what about those who are simply trying to support black people in general, not the organization? I recently saw a Facebook meme posted by a fellow believer that read, “When we say Black Lives Matter we aren’t talking about an organization. We are talking about our LIVES.”
Admittedly, I was a bit taken aback and very saddened by this post. In all honesty, I wonder at what point many of my black friends began to feel that others do not think their lives matter. Nevertheless, for those who do not support the BLM organization, what should we think of simply saying “Black lives matter”?
The reason is simple. Words and phrases can be co-opted to mean very different things from their original meanings. Imagine if a Christian friend told you they support gay marriage. You wouldn’t assume they meant a very festive or lively wedding ceremony.
Confusion is Very Difficult to Avoid
The same holds true for “Black Lives Matter.” Like it or not, it is very difficult to separate this phrase from the BLM organization. The BLM organization is nothing short of anti-Gospel. SES notes, “The ‘black lives matter’ mantra has been so tied to the BLM organization that one is hard pressed to recite the words ‘black lives matter’ without providing implicit endorsement for the organization (whether intentional or not).”
1 Thess. 5:21-22 makes clear we must “test all things. Hold on to what is good. Stay away from every kind of evil.” Just like someone saying they support gay marriage would be presumed to support homosexual relationships, a Christ-follower holding a “Black Lives Matter” sign can very easily be presumed to support the BLM organization.
Certainly, black lives do matter. Given BLM’s anti-Gospel platform, however, such implicit support of BLM could serve as a serious source of confusion. There are other, and better, ways to say what needs saying.
3. Christians Must Do Better Than Mere Slogans
Both the “Black Lives Matter” phrase and the BLM organization assume that a large portion of society and its institutions do not care about black lives. Many Christian leaders have assumed racist motives behind recent police shootings. Too many have drawn that conclusion ahead of any evidence could come in or investigations be done.
Actual data about racial issues is often tossed out, replaced with personal experience and media narrative. Such rushing to conclusions is not the righteous judgement Jesus commands in John 7:24.
Yes, individuals have suffered real racism at times. That is a sad fact, and no doubt it will continue to be true. However, one dare not draw systemic conclusions from personal experience or appearances alone. Righteous judgments can only come by way of seeing facts truly, and by appealing to the true and the good. This is how we truly love our neighbors and those who either are, or feel, oppressed.
Lasting Change
Lasting change won’t come by way of placing black squares on social media. It won’t come by reciting catchy mantras. We need tough conversations, the sort that can lead to genuine solutions. To do that we must learn to put truth over perception, facts over feelings. We won’t get there by sacrificing truth and goodness on the false altar of “woke” ideologies.
As SES summarizes, “The truth is, [‘black lives matter’] is woefully inadequate. As Dr. Corey Miller, President of SES ministry partner Ratio Christi, observed, ‘All black lives are sacred.’ In fact, all human lives are sacred, whatever their ethnicity. Why? The fact that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on the cross to purchase eternal salvation for every human being who will accept Him as their Lord and Savior makes every human being sacred.”
That is the truth that will shine light into this dark and desperate culture.
Adam Tucker holds an M.A. in Philosophy from Southern Evangelical Seminary where he serves as the Director of Recruiting and Admissions and also coordinates special events and ministry partnerships.


thestream--2020-09-22--Military Photo of the Day: Training in Kuwait

U.S. Marines fire an anti-tank weapon during a recent training exercise in Kuwait .
Thank you to these brave Marines @ @ @ @ @ .

U.S. Marines fire an anti-tank weapon during a recent training exercise in Kuwait.
Thank you to these brave Marines for serving our country overseas.
React to This Article What do you think of our coverage in this article? We value your feedback as we continue to grow.