Black Lives Matter

Stop Policing My Language

Apologies for my failure to create a timely response but racism is quick and fluid and it’s hard to stay on top of its every move and formation.

Again. Or, I am Tired

Last week, once again, whiteness (a term I will use interchangeably with evangelicalism in this piece) proved that it is more committed to holiness and purity than justice. A black professor at a Reformed evangelical college wrote about the steadfast refusal of white evangelism to examine its own white supremacy on Twitter. This is nothing new, he has been speaking on the subject for decades.

However, this time, his tweet was responded to by prominent white Baptist pastor, who, instead of examining the content of this man’s argument, chose to dismiss all of it because the thread contained the word “Oreo” as a descriptor. Instead of engaging in a much-needed dialogue, the entire conversation was destroyed because white people insisted that the language -- the word Oreo -- used was too crude to to warrant actual discussion of the subject at hand.

This got me thinking about all the tactics white Americans, especially Christians, employ to deflect and avoid engaging on the actual subject of racism. To avoid naming the harm caused, in detail, and coming up with a good faith plan to make restitution for said harm, white Americans will pull out all of the stops. And using red herrings or other distracting fallacies is just one of many ways whites will try to sidestep collective accountability.

When Dr. King wrote Letter From Birmingham Jail, the favorite avoidance tactic for white America was timing. Black Americans were demanding too much too soon after the Civil War, after Reconstruction, the white argument went. Negros needed to slow down, progress was being made too quickly for white sensibilities, everyone was going to be traumatized by too much change so quickly. As a result, there was no opening for a conversation about restitution, about black dignity and autonomy and white injustice and terrorism, because black people just WANTED TOO MUCH.

Now, in 2019, four hundred years after the first black slaves landed on this continent’s shores, have we not waited long enough? The old argument is irrelevant now, we have waited over three generations since the end of slavery. But, justice delayed is justice denied. White people have convinced themselves that our language is vulgar, so now they have a new reason to ignore our our pleas for justice, to say that our needs are questionable. We are still deemed wanting.  

Why is this, besides sheer white belligerence? When can we get to the actual substance of the matter, the harm caused and the restitution thereof? That is the conversation here.

Why are we still not allowed to have it?

How It Usually Happens

Step one: I call out white supremacy.

Step two: Instead of engaging with the subject at hand, you obsessively deride me over my language. Spend hours telling me my language is not acceptable. Tell me my words are harmful, disrespectful, and inappropriate for me to engage while frustrated. You refuse to let it go until…

Step three: I walk away.

Step four: Voila, you’ve won. The issue which I was attempting to draw attention to doesn’t even get mentioned.You’re too busy trying to protect the purity of your ears with your red herring deflections, and we don’t get around to fighting for justice for the oppressed.

Of course, any therapist worth their salt will tell you that this (evasion) is an effective method for getting people to shut up, but it is equally effective for getting someone to blow up.

Black anger, you may have noticed is NOT something white evangelicals are keen on. It is also something that gets black people killed STILL. Frankly, they don’t even allow the idea of it to exist in their minds or presence. Whiteness requires dehumanization of us. In order to even exist in the presence of white evangelicals, we must be calm, patient, kind, reserved, cool, concise, articulate. We are not allowed to be angry. Anger is a sin for the oppressed and  privilege reserved for the fully human. Anger is for white people. Not for us.

Watch Your Mouth, Boy

Black language (known as AAVE), much like black clothing in the 90s, and the timing of civil rights protests in the 50s and 60s, has become the favorite respectability goalpost for white Americans who refuse to engage in a good faith discussion about to how mitigate the harms of racism. Of course, this is hardly a debate about racism but rather a debate about restitution for the structural and systemic theft and destruction of black lives and bodies.

Respectability policing is a swift way to undermine the entire debate, which is exactly why white people use it. White righteousness, white holiness, white purity must be protected at all costs from vulgarity. That the two million lives massacred on the Transatlantic and the tens of millions of lives stolen from living bodies is actual vulgarity seems to be lost on them. Somehow the word Oreo is worse than slavery because it is newer, and must be stopped.

To police our language is to pull the rug, once again, out from under us. Whiteness refuses to without even acknowledging the bruises we carry from yesterday first. Because whiteness dictates reality - pain, suffering, love, legitimacy - to black America, they are able to cause harm and claim it was not in fact harm.

We know that since before the founding of the country, white comfort has been the utmost priority and respectability has been its primary defense. Speak properly. Dress properly. Engage properly. Protect white feelings sufficiently. And whatever we do, we do not make whiteness uncomfortable, because by it you will live or die. Unless you’ve counted the cost, which many black Americans have.

Black Americans have been asking you to have this same conversation with us since the beginning. From John Punch and Dred Scott, to Ida B. Wells and WEB Du Bois to today. And we can never seem to get the conversation past an introduction before it goes off the rails. Because, as whiteness tells us, there is something wrong with us. So wrong, in fact, that restitution cannot be made until we make ourselves right before God and whiteness, that we cannot discuss the terms until we correct our fundamental misunderstanding of our place in them. And, among one hundred thousand other demands, we must stop using the word Oreo.

Now What?

My ask here is twofold. First, stop policing the language of people of color when we are angry. And stand up to other white people who engage in this behavior. There are so many reasons why it’s horrifically abusive.

Second, stop making the conversation about racism and white guilt. What we need to talk about is restitution, not repentance. Don’t let your guilt lead you to policing the language of the unheard.

It’s white supremacy

If the average white evangelical today came across an enslaved black man in 1855 in field, yelling, “Fuck you!” at his slaver, I suspect they would be more offended by the language of enslaved man than the fact that he was a slave. I similarly suspect that most evangelicals reading this would disagree with my assessment, but I will argue that they are lying to themselves and to you.

Seeing as they are more offended by “fuck you” directed at a police officer, a judge, or the president, than they are about any of the grave injustices and atrocities happening today at the southern border, in Yemen, in Jordan, in Flint, I think my point remains valid.

Verbal abuse tossed at someone as dignified as a plantation owner would also lead them to mount a vigorous defense of the powerful. I am unaware of a time (and will gladly take receipts and be corrected!) when white American evangelicals have been more discomforted by abuse and trauma than they have by so-called “vulgar” language.

It’s entitled

When someone is in crisis, perhaps the most arrogant thing you can do is to hone in on correcting their language or their emotions. It shows aloofness, disrespect. It is completely oblivious to the pain being experienced by the other person.

It’s misplaced anger

Why do white people WANT to spend so much time policing our language? Especially white Christians. Why do they want so desperately to avoid the real conversation? All we are asking is for a fair accounting of the harm caused and a good faith effort to correct it. Why is a critical, in-depth conversation around restitution a bridge too far? Is it perhaps that they worry they themselves will be implicated? After all, black Americans are not asking for revenge. We are asking for justice. Why does that concept terrify them so much they can’t even discuss it? There is no reason to be angry about a discussion about bringing justice to a community that has been deprived of it.

In Other Words

The other day, Shannon Dingle asked folks on Twitter which word they would eliminate from the English language if given the choice. Honestly, questions like this always stress me out because white Americans seem in the habit of making sure to “cancel” all the AAVE terms that have been created in the previous 12 months. So I was reading through the replies, until someone wrote, “The n-word.”

With this essay already partially written (and fresh in my mind) and my (self) righteous indignation at white America firmly in place, I replied with something snarky along the lines of: “I’ll be keeping the word nigga, thanks!” and ran off.

To me, the word nigga is the most perfect object lesson for demonstrating the way white supremacy works. Whenever the subject of this loaded word comes up, Good Whites™ frequently respond with, “It’s such an awful term! No one should say it! Not white people, not black people, no one!”

This line, like the response to Oreo before, serves to hijack a conversation about something valid in order to avoid the real subject.

If white people can’t have it, they want to make sure no one can have it. I get an inordinate amount of joy from watching white people squirm as I get to explain to them that no, they cannot say “nigga,” and yes, black people can say it, and if you are really as “I’m not racist!” as you think you are, you wouldn’t be arguing with a black woman about what words black people are not allowed to say and don’t you see how policing my words is *cough* colonizing?

Yeah. That. It’s colonizing.

Yes, I’m DEFENDING the n-word here. Because it serves to highlight the fact that white people cannot stand it when they are not allowed to be the arbiters of morality for the rest of us, and they cannot stand it when they are not allowed in a given space. This space happens to be the word nigga. Or Oreo. Or ....take your pick from a million different words, and sentences, and tone of voice, and inflection, and, and, and…

White people who want to be allies need to do WAY better than policing black language.

LEARN TO FUCKING TRIAGE.

Many things are very important, but not vital but language is nowhere on either list. And when people are dying? Because people are literally dying. That is absolutely NOT the time to talk about language. When you start talking about language when I’m talking about saving lives, it shows you have no business being near me. Because I want to do the work, and you’re the irritating family member who won’t shut up, even though you have no understanding of the problem or how to fix it.

Conclusion

What is more vulgar? When I say the word “fuck,” or when babies in Yemen starve to death?

It’s insulting to those who are suffering to obsess over what kind of language the suffering use. Can you imagine if an EMT stopped providing aid because the person they were attempting to save said “fuck”? Can you imagine if this EMT began to lecture their patient about the importance of using uplifting, positive language, no matter how dire the situation?

All of this is I suspect, the result of whiteness historically assuming that it has the power to dictate the terms of our humanity to us. When you build an entire superpower on the idea that black and brown human beings are inherently inferior, you will inevitably build a god complex into the construct of whiteness.

White people, especially evangelicals, do all the time. It’s disrespectful and it’s time to stop. Let us have the fucking conversation.


Hey there! I’m Tori. I’m a single mama, a student, a writer, and educator. I hope you found my writing helpful. I’d love it if you would share this piece with your friends, families, colleagues, anti-racist groups, and co-conspirators. If you’re able, and you find my writing valuable, it means a lot to me if you are able to financially support my work. Daycare is expensive. :)
Venmo: @Tori-Douglass
Cash app: $toriglass
PayPal: www.paypal.me/toriglass

We Get To Be Free

We Are Our Bodies

I’ve been digging around in an idea that pervades Evangelicalism. The Evangelical belief that we merely live in our bodies. American Christianity (which consists in large part of evangelicalism) has minimized the theology and, if you will, sacredness of the body, saying that the physical body was irrelevant except to house the soul.

When framed in the evangelical American context, this twisted argument has a lot of value. It was probably the easiest theological justification for America’s beloved human rights abuses: enslavement and genocide.

By necessity of white America's devotion to these practices, the black body didn’t matter to God.

The black experience didn’t matter to God.

Black suffering didn’t matter to God.

In this theology, suffering was how God taught his people lessons. It would make sense then, according to this theological hierarchy, the European Christians God “chose” to” save and lead” the physical and moral world could use suffering to teach lessons. Conveniently, it was decided using suffering (again, to be clear, these are human rights abuses) to forcibly extract land and labor from so-called inferior humans in order to build a global empire was acceptable to God as well.

The physical and mental anguish were presented as part of God’s perfect plan.

“You are a soul, you have a mind, you live in a body.”

This is what I heard all the time in church. I can’t help but wonder if this is leftover from the theology of white oppression. The difference between the mind and the soul was never explained, but in many ways they seemed to overlap.

Evangelical theology has a functional disregard for both the body and mind, minimizing very real mental health disorders and often attributing them to personal sin or spiritual attack. It requires you to cut off parts of yourself in order to be a true believer.

In order to be a Christian, you have to engage in a form of self-colonization. You have to amputate your blackness, Latinness, Nativeness. You have to amputate your sexuality, your queerness, your masculinity if you’re female, your femininity if you’re male, your passions, your dreams, your intelligence, your critical thinking. No form of otherness is accepted within their narrow interpretation of Christianity.

Evangelicals will tell you that the resulting emotional and mental anguish and suffering are just holiness working in your life. Somehow they never have to answer for the fact that permanent pain is not positive growth.

I want to push back against this theology.

Pushing Back

Pain is not an indicator of health.

Pain is not how you judge success.

Embracing pain temporarily can have its place.

Embracing pain as permanent is not proof of personal or spiritual growth.

Surgery can extremely be painful. But the goal of surgery is to ALLEVIATE PAIN AND USHER IN BETTER HEALTH.

Exercise can be extremely painful. But the goal of exercise is to alleviate future pain and usher in better health.

Childbirth can be extremely painful. But the goal of childbirth is to alleviate pain and usher in better health. Both for the individuals and society.

Physical pain is often the first indicator of disease in the human body. Physical pain is a signal your body sends encouraging you to seek treatment.

So why should we make mental and emotional pain as an indicator of health or the end goal in the spiritual experience?


The Writer of the book of Hebrews (who was kind of a jackass) tells his readers, “In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.”

Umm, what?

While I understand that the writer’s audience was possibly fearing for their lives, trying to feed their families, under threat of the Roman Empire, I would argue that this scenario is neither aspirational nor prescriptive.

What the writer recommends is not health, but war. I would hope this is apparent. Within the context of whiteness [a construct that is inherently and inescapably supremacist] implying that this passage is prescriptive is preaching self-colonization. It’s requiring you to amputate the "other" parts of who you are in order to ensure that you are in pain. When you are in pain, you are less able to think clearly and therefore easier to manipulate and control.

In so many ways, this theology hasn’t changed much since the days it was used to justify the enslavement and torture of black bodies. For many of us, so much has been taken from us in the name of Christianity or other fundamentalist versions a host of other religions. Our spiritual selves have been decimated, while those with power claim that pain is health, war is peace, bondage is freedom. For those of us systemically and historically disenfranchised and oppressed, they preach that our minds, our bodies, our experiences don’t matter in light of eternity.

We get to be free

How easy it is for one to preach such violence against our bodies when it doesn’t affect them in the least? How easy is it for the master to gather his wealth when his slave-drivers are the ones to crack the whip?

I am choosing to confront this spiritual violence, and call it what it is.

There is still good news. Just because something has been stolen from you by fundamentalism, by religion, doesn’t mean it is permanently lost.

Humans are spiritual starfish. We can grow back whatever religion steals from us.

Yes, healing is work. Yes, it takes time. But it is possible. We can take back what was taken from us in the name of God. We have grace, power, and autonomy. If you believe in God, our full selves are more glorifying to God than some mangled version of who we are. God doesn’t require that we burn our identity on the altar of whiteness. I would remind you that Jacob fought God to a draw. Zipporah fought God and won.

It is true that identity may not be who we are on an atomic level. I understand that. But it is as much a part of us as our physical bodies. There is no mind/body split. Our mind IS our body. These are not two separate entities (or three depending on how your pastor counted!) we are one.

We get to be whole.

We get to love our neighbors, serve the poor, fight for justice as our whole selves.

Do not mangle yourself for some White Jesus who expects your marginalization to continue as proof of your piety, while those with power, privilege, and supremacy do nothing to ease your burden. Jesus did not come to oppress the marginalized and put heavy loads on their backs. In fact, he condemned powerful people who were doing exactly that.

You get to be whole.

You get to be free.

From religion or with religion is your choice.

You get to do what makes you healthy.

When you’re healthy you can do so much more for others, which I think is very much the point. We are the ones who get to bring the kin-dom of heaven, and the more of us who are healthy, the easier the job will be.

Evangelicals, Punishment, and the Case for Restorative Justice

The Case for Restorative Justice

I’m lucky enough to work in a neuroscience research lab, which has been an incredible opportunity for me to learn from some of the world’s leading scientists and research on neurodevelopment, neurocognition, and all things related to the human brain.

It wasn’t my intention to wind up working here, but my personal life and school led me to reading a significant amount on the topic of trauma, all of which very much contradicted present-day evangelical thinking.

Evangelicals love punishment

Punishment is a central theme in evangelical theology. They sincerely believe punishment works, and the data shows they are favorable to the harshest forms of punishment which are socially acceptable in any given situation.

This commitment to harsh punishment is a function of their theology. Specifically, there are two abusive punishments that they believe God is just in carrying out. The first is that that a radical prophet from the backwater of the Roman empire was brutally tortured and executed because God hates sin, no matter how innocuous. God hates sin so much that he (it, she, they, whatever) resolved that the only solution to sin was to commit horrific violence against an innocent man in the form of human rights abuses.

The second part is the belief that humans who were not privileged enough to know of this backwater radical from 1,000 or 2,000 years ago were all going to have their souls stripped from their bodies, and put into hell where they will be brutally tortured. For all eternity. All of this because someone had the extreme misfortune of being conceived. No one chooses to be born, however, according to evangelical theology, if you weren’t privileged enough to own a specific holy book, or, more likely, any book, you are going to burn forever in hell.

Long story short, the evangelical God has a THING for torture. Maybe it’s his kink? Do not ask me why, but I think you’d agree that if you saw your neighbor pull out a blow torch and use it on his child, you’d be calling Child Protective Services. This behavior is not considered remotely acceptable in most of the world. The evangelical God, if he were human, would rightly be labeled a sadist and sentenced to life in prison.

Based on these sincerely-held beliefs, evangelicals specifically, and to a large extent conservatives in general, also tend to gravitate toward extremely harsh punishments. I will give a few examples.

Children

Evangelicals, despite decades of data to the contrary, believe that they are supposed to hit their children (usually called “spanking”) in order to punish them for any infraction, no matter how minor. This is based on a few Scripture verses, in which punishment is called "painful" which, they perhaps rightly interpret as meaning that when they punish their children, it should cause physical pain.

The Poor

Evangelicals are also strong proponents of punishing the poor. They don’t generally refer to these legislative actions as punishment, it’s typically framed as teaching personal responsibility, employing the use of bootstraps, and encouraging hard work. This is typically accomplished by a concerted effort to cut welfare benefits even as the cost of living skyrockets across the country.

People who have broken the law

People who have broken the law are perhaps the favorite target of conservatives’ love of punishment. They are also the most at risk, given that the law and justice are often severely misaligned. The same neighborhoods are simultaneously over-policed and under-policed; one can be arrested for standing on the sidewalk while murders go unsolved.

The horrific and traumatic experience of being imprisoned in this country, along with the compounded trauma inflicted on children seeing their parents dragged away by cops perpetuates poor outcomes and turns what are often non-violent mistakes into intergenerational harm.

White evangelical protestants also have the highest group support of the death penalty, which is disproportionately used against people of color.

Punishment does not work

Thanks to the tireless and selfless work of neuroscientists and researchers we now know that trauma can severely reduce the likelihood of good outcomes in a person’s life. We know that hitting children doesn’t work, and we know what does work instead. We know that poverty and imprisoning people are traumatic events.

The logical response to this information would be to look for alternatives to punishment. Actions that do not perpetuate trauma and negative outcomes but which could work to support and restore that which was harmed or lost.

Unsurprisingly, evangelicals don’t seem to care for this approach.

There is no framework for restorative justice within evangelical thinking. This is rooted in the belief that an all-loving, all-powerful, all-wise Creator God uses eternal torment to punish billions of souls whose only wrongdoing was being conceived. It is rooted in the belief that God is constrained by some unknowable force he created, and this constraint left him unable to use any method other than violence to purify the world and restore it to himself. This doesn’t sound loving, powerful, or wise. It sounds like… depraved humanity.

Humans are the ones who use violence to accomplish our own ends because we incorrectly believe there are no other means available to us, or our patience runs out. If we were all powerful, all loving, and all wise, we wouldn’t feel the need to use violence because we would have more options at our disposal.

Evangelicals could reframe their beliefs if they wanted to. There is plenty of room in Scripture to support restorative justice, and as a bonus, the science supports moving away from causing pain with punishment and moving toward a way of addressing antisocial behavior that doesn’t perpetuate a cycle of trauma. Traumatic events make life harder and more expensive for both the victim and society.

Even looking at it strictly from the perspective of cost-saving, you would think evangelical conservatives would be on board with this change.

I suppose we can only hope (and pray if you are into that sort of thing) that evangelicals will one day shed their blinders and come to the light.

The Evangelical Obsession With Black Abortion

One of the ways conservative evangelicals regularly derail conversations about the value of black lives in America and the effects of police brutality is by invoking abortion rates among black women. If you’ve spent more than one day on the internet among conservatives, you know this is one of many oft-employed by those who assert they are pro-life, in order to make a racial justice appeal. “The most dangerous place for a black child is in the womb,” they say.

One of the defining characteristics of political evangelicalism is claiming the pro-life mantel, but, as has been said many times, one could make a very strong argument that evangelicals are merely pro-birth. The Republican party as it exists today is fully willing to throw me and anyone who isn’t a white man under the bus (or, in this case, Trump train) in order to stay in power. Respectfully, that’s not pro-life, that’s just power mongering.

Here’s the deal: if you don't care about black lives after they are born, caring before they are born is not only meaningless, it's violent and intellectually dishonest.

Such a stance is literally self-deception.

If you claim to be pro-life but you don’t support black lives once they leave the womb, your pro-life position is functionally meaningless.

If you claim to be pro-life but you’re unaware of or not disturbed by the fact that twice as many black babies die in the first 30 days than white babies, your pro-life position is functionally meaningless.

If you claim to be pro-life but you are either unaware of or have no problem with massive racial and socioeconomic health disparities, your pro-life stance is functionally meaningless.

If you claim to be pro-life but you’re unaware of intergenerational trauma, ACE scores, DNA damage, altered neurotransmission, and its effects in black communities, your pro-life stance is functionally meaningless.

Much like white feminism is exhausting to black women, white pro-life movement is exhausting for black women. Conservatives claim to care about black life in the womb, but their rhetoric, their policies, and their indifference to the quality of black life, in the womb and out of it, tell a completely different story.

When we can see that your words and your actions do not align, when you refuse to listen to us or acknowledge the documented disparities that take our lives on a daily basis, when you dismiss our experiences as irrelevant to your superior insight, it’s clear that “pro-life” means something VERY different to white conservatives and black Americans.

If you support the death penalty, which is disproportionately used on black and brown people, many of whom are discovered after the fact to be innocent, your pro-life position is functionally meaningless.

You can say words “I am pro-life in all circumstances” all day long but just because you say them doesn’t mean they are true.

When you believe that it is moral and just for poor people to die earlier than rich people for lack of access to equitable healthcare, you are demonstrably NOT pro-life.

When you believe that it is moral and just for black people to die younger than white people for lack of access to healthcare, you are demonstrably NOT pro-life.

When you oppose policies that allow low-income and working class white people and minorities access to quality healthcare, how can you claim to be pro-life? Do you want the poor and minorities to live but have severely diminished quality of life? Is that how you justify this untenable position? What’s your end goal for people if this is your belief? For them to suffer in poverty and die without a safety net so that you can put more money in your 401k?

This isn’t about your tax bill, this is about the fact that you claim you want people to live while simultaneously holding the position that their quality of life is irrelevant and that if and when they suffer, it's what they deserve.

I do not understand how you can call yourself pro-life when you believe new mothers should be forced to return to work three days postpartum with engorged breasts and screaming perineal stitches because she has to be able to afford rent and formula and daycare. And don’t start talking about how poor moms with no safety net and no paid maternity leave should just breastfeed to save money. You can’t breastfeed if you’re at work and your employer doesn’t allow you time or privacy to pump and a place to store your milk. God forbid poor and working class moms have access to formula paid for by taxpayers so their children don’t starve to death.

I don’t understand how you can call yourself pro-life when you would find it perfectly acceptable that black babies born to unwed mothers die of starvation while their mothers are at work so that you can keep a couple of cents in your paycheck. Without sufficient maternity leave, the time needed to establish a strong breastfeeding relationship is simply unavailable. Do conservatives and libertarians who want to slash all public assistance truly understand that before these systems were in place there were literal children dying? Is that the end goal here? Children being born so their parents can watch them slowly starve because there just isn’t enough formula for the month?

If your retort is “Private organizations and churches should be responsible for the poor,” then ask yourself why aren't said private organizations taking care of the poor right now? If evangelical churches and their parachurch organizations really did provide sufficient resources to expectant moms, these mothers wouldn’t be going through government agencies. Yet, pregnancy "resource" centers refer women to the same social programs that the conservatives and evangelicals staffing those clinics want to see slashed.

In my limited experience, most evangelicals “love” black people in the same way they “love” Nazis -- because it’s a theological mandate for anyone who claims to follow Jesus not because it changes anything about the way they live, engage with their communities, or their worldview. They do it because loving your neighbor is a theological requirement and scripture is clear that hatred of anyone is a one-way ticket to hell.

But, functionally it changes nothing about the way they live, or their worldview, or the doctrines which they espouse.

To be functionally pro-life is to affirm every person as made in the image of God, full stop. Regardless of how they behave or whether their choices meet our standards. We must recognize that there are times when specific individuals or groups need not only equal treatment, but special treatment when they have endured significant, targeted harms.

I recognize that not everyone can “help” or pitch in with every cause they believe in. That is not my standard of measurement for determining whether or not someone is pro-life. I measure someone’s pro-life position in the arguments they choose to fight and how they choose to fight them. If you claim to be pro-life, but you come and start a fight with me when I say Black Lives Matter, your effort to prove me wrong about the value of black lives tells me far more than any rhetoric that you may espouse about life before birth.

That said, if you really think it’s the responsibility of the church to assist then you should be able to tell me what you’re doing to help your church meet these needs. Giving money to your church doesn’t count since churches spend more than 90% of their income on themselves.

Insisting on making any conversation about black lives to talk about black abortion is a tell -- you do not want to discuss system racism because it doesn’t align with your preferred worldview.

When a black mother knows that pro-life only extends to the end of the birth canal, why would someone in her difficult circumstance have any desire to bring a child into the world?