Volume 5, Issue 39
Most recently the situation was exacerbated when Stephen Curry indicated that he would not accept the White House invitation to attend a ceremony with his teammates honoring their NBA championship. President Trump responded by withdrawing the invitation. Further, in a speech at a campaign rally, he exclaimed that any NFL player who kneels during the National Anthem should be fired. Professional athletes across all teams of the NFL took this as a direct challenge to their rights of freedom of speech and expression.
The debate, then, as to the ultimate meaning and intent of both the players involved and the president, enraged. Were the players actually defying the President of the United States as an institution, or were they simply showing contempt for Donald Trump? By demonstrating defiance during the playing of the National Anthem, were they challenging the entire moral value of the United States? Or, were they specifically showing concern for continued, unchecked injustices? Before all these questions could be answered the debate and discussion became personal. Rather than focusing on police brutality or the plight of the downtrodden, all dialogue has streamed towards individual animosity and the leadership of President Trump.
Once again, the national press is not helpful. Their questions are repeated ad nauseam in interview after interview. “Isn’t the President divisive and isn’t he divisive by design?” Said correspondents refuse to incorporate into their intellectualism that America is divided on the definition of Government process, its infringement on individual freedom, and results in culture manifested from historical injustice.
The question should be: “How did we arrive at this point of societal context, wherein a certain segment of citizens feel oppressed and the solutions proposed threatens other segments of citizens?” The exchange of ideas that should be facilitated by the talking heads include, “How do we pursue answers that raise the future hopes of all segments?”
One example of such a moral strategy was demonstrated by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Reverend King never attacked the United States of America as a country flawed in construct. He respected the flag and the National Anthem. There is one difference in Martin Luther King Jr.’s confrontation with injustice and the current kneeling controversy. He believed in God and his principles. He believed in God and his principles. He believed in a purpose, ordained by the creator, wherein all peoples, black or white, were loved equally and respected by one another. Rather than protest the symbols representing the United States, he in fact called on all Americans to reach their potential of a greater good, laid down by Jesus Christ and codified in the Constitution of the United States of America. He believed that America, in its foundation, was the hope for racial equality in the world.
He preached nonviolence, and yet there was violence. He preached brotherly love, and yet there was hatred. Yet, he never gave up on the greater calling. His purpose was to address the injustice personified, not the country or the state in which it existed.
Demonstrating during the National Anthem to protest unrighteousness is akin to demonstrating during the singing of the Lord’s Prayer in a church service to protest sin.
Unrighteousness and sin in Christian mindset are part and parcel of a fallen world. Christians stand by the bible as the truth and the light to cure sinful egregious nature. Christian theology sets out the protocol for Christian attitudinal perspective. Seek knowledge. And with knowledge get wisdom. With wisdom mature to understanding. And with understanding, exercise brotherly love. Knowledge is knowing the Lord’s word. Wisdom is fearing the word and coming to the conclusion to obey it. Understanding is the revelation that the administration of the Lord’s word is complete in hope for all mankind. And brotherly love is wanting and committing to that hope realized for all brothers and sisters, even at the cost of one’s own personal sacrifice.
These ideas and principles are embedded in the drafting, construction, and manifestation of our great Constitution. Regardless of the founding fathers’ religious beliefs, they sought a higher calling for all citizens. These founders believed, as Martin Luther King Jr., that there was a greater purpose in life, in brotherly love, than in perpetuating societal divides.
Our hearts should go out to the professional athletes, particularly our African American brothers who are caught in seeking the Equilibratory piece of mind. Equilibrium is defined by dictionary.com as a state of rest or balance due to the equal action of opposing forces. Most of these athletes rose from poverty. Many professional players have experienced either racial prejudice or insecure racial environments. Each have now realized an incredible level of achievement. They are of the 1% who plays on Sunday. Now they are respected. Now they are adored. But, they can personally relate and have empathy with those still struggling. What then do they do about this situation? Remaining silent does not bring equilibrium of piece of mind.
What is missing is the declaration that there are thousands of law enforcement officers, black and white, risking their lives every day to protect all citizens. They perform their duties with exemplary courage. The members of our armed services can never be repaid for the sacrifices they make for our freedom. Schoolteachers, first responders, and volunteers at every level work tirelessly to advance and protect the next generation.
To advance the debate about social progress, we should celebrate all that is good in America, while recognizing all that which is still yet to be cured. It is imperative that we as a people believe that our foundational moorings are bedrock for the support of societal solutions.
During the 1960’s demonstrators burned the American Flag. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is their constitutional right to do so. In committing such an act it was their intention to defy the United States of America as corrupt and flawed in its moral construct. Nothing could be further from the truth. No citizen in America needs to fear personal destruction, as a Jewish individual feared in Nazi Germany. Yes, it has been a long historical struggle. Civil rights and religious freedom continue to be moral projects in progress. But, like the principles of the Bible, the principles of the Constitution, when respected and applied, righteousness will rise.
Last night the Dallas Cowboys got it right. Collectively, at the center of the field prior to the American flag being unfolded, they took a knee to protest injustice in the United States. Then they stood arm in arm for the playing of the National Anthem. Several covered their hearts. This demonstrated that it was the injustice they detested, not the foundational principles of our great country.
To be united as a country and a light for the world, it is imperative that we believe in guiding laws greater than ourselves, laws that lift all individuals in both equality and respect. No country can stand on principle without believing in a principle to defend greater than itself. A principle that is binding universally in application injures to the benefit of all humanity. In commitment to such principle, we realize Equilibratory piece of mind. For such principle advances the concept of brotherly love not mastered by self-interest.
For the founding fathers, such eternal principles were God-given.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?