Jesuit-Catholic Reporter writer touts specious 'logic' to subvert a broader-based political movement
Mike Jordon Lansky - senior communications manager for the Jesuit Conference in Washington, D.C.
Claira Janover - Harvard graduate, video poster child for jesuitical social division
How people thus respond has its implications, e.g. whether they respond more wisely or foolishly.
Such is evident with the spin by a Jesuit writer for National Catholic Reporter
Saying 'All Lives Matter' misses the markAug 11, 2016Almost every day, I drive past an auto repair shop that has a huge banner covering its street-facing side. It reads, "All Lives Matter / God Bless & Protect Our Police Officers."
People hug after taking part in a prayer circle July 10 following a Black Lives Matter protest in the wake of multiple police shootings in Dallas. (CNS/Carlo Allegri, Reuters)
On the surface, there's nothing about these two sentences I disagree with at all: I believe that each and every person matters because all are created in the image and likeness of God, and that it is good to pray for the protection of police officers in the line of duty. But each time I pass the banner, I catch myself feeling angry and sad.
The phrase "All Lives Matter" has appeared over the past few years as a direct retort to the Black Lives Matter movement, which itself was launched in response to the repeated killings of unarmed black men, women and children by law enforcement around the country. The movement is laser-focused on this injustice and our collective inability to address it in any meaningful way.
This systemic killing and abuse of power is wrong, the movement asserts, and in the face of this unimaginable injustice, it is essential to proclaim that black lives matter.
"All lives matter," some reply, most often in defense of police officers, who are also the targets of violence. So what's wrong with the wider scope of this phrase?
A few weeks ago, I saw this viral comic strip by Kris Straub floating around the internet.
Further, "All Lives Matter" misses the point because it suggests that saying that black lives matter is the same as saying that only black lives matter. The movement is intentionally narrow, shining a spotlight on one horrific injustice. Of course every person matters, and of course there are so many other injustices that require attention, including violence directed toward police officers. But as Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson said in a recent interview with CNN, you don't go to a breast cancer rally and shout, "Colon cancer matters!"
No. The proper analogy would be Cancer Matters.
Prioritising something is hardly saying that something else does not matter.
So would we thus see breast cancer victims shut down conversations for not dealing exclusively with their form of cancer? That we should not discuss matters of diet, environment, medicine, relevant to cancer in general, because we should be simply focused upon ourselves than broader society?
Or, given the Kris Straub cartoon's "logic"- as one would simply aim the
water at the house on fire, while not forgetting the need for a reliable
water supply infrastructure- a topic mattering to all.
So how and why would we even see some sort of intrinsic conflict between saying "Black Lives Matter" and saying "All Lives Matter"?
Why would we want to shut down conversation between people of differing ethnicities and situations, like say the hypothetical example of breast cancer victims shunning communication regarding cancer in general?
All means all, and thus includes Blacks.
Unless of course it is less about people and more about hindering the Black Lives Matter movement from developing into a broader movement encompassing a greater segment of society. More about keeping people more divided, in order to protect the status quo.
A strategic means of shutting down potential conversations about oppressive laws in general.
Such is what can be expected by those more in the know about some of the political history of the Roman Catholic Church and its Jesuit Order.