Go ahead with your question for Trent. Yeah, my question is: what's the best way
to explain these riots and stuff, with the looting and everything, when Jesus
came to the temple and overturned tables, grabbed the cord, chasing people out...
how can we...separate.... So is your question: some people say—
right, so are you saying that some people say that because Jesus tipped over the
tables of the moneychangers and engaged in violence against them—it just
says he made a whip of cords and drew them out, it doesn't say that he
inflicted violence on their persons, per se, but he may have, he certainly
inflicted violence on their tables, he might have broken certain things in
driving them out of the temple. Is the question that, because Jesus flipped over
the tables of the moneychangers and drove them out, that because Jesus did
that, why can't people engage in riots and looting today if Jesus started a
little riot in the temple 2,000 years ago? Is that kind of the nut of the
objection? Yeah, sort of, because my account on Facebook, a family member posted
a painting of Jesus flipping a table, and
she's all "Here's for my religious folks," you know, kind of expressing what's
happening right now, she's kinda not...she doesn't read the Bible...
Yeah, and I would say this is a bad argument, saying: "Here, Jesus
destroyed property here, therefore it's always okay to destroy property,
including in the looting that is taking place during these protests related to
the killing of George Floyd." That's a bad argument. That would be like saying, "Well
here's a police officer who killed George Floyd—" and I know there hasn't
been a trial yet, but let's just assume for the sake of the argument that that
was an unlawful, unjustified killing, and for all intents and purposes, it appears to
be an unjustified use of force that led to manslaughter and the unjustified
death of another human being—that'd be like saying, "Well, look, here is a picture of a
soldier killing someone in in wartime, so therefore this police officer could kill
someone." Just because killing is okay in some contexts doesn't mean it's okay in
all contexts. Likewise, just because destroying property is okay in some
contexts, it doesn't mean it's okay in all contexts. So I would say, well, what
are the differences between Jesus driving out the moneychangers and the
looting that is going on in the riots that have happened? These are— when
looting occurs, we don't have a peaceful protest anymore, we have a riot. What's
the difference? Number one, the reason that Jesus overturned the tables and
drove out the moneychangers was because what they were doing was wrong. They
should not have been turning a sacred place in the temple into a place of
commercial activity. Notice that Jesus did not go outside of the temple and
then continue to tear apart the many shops that were in Jerusalem. He didn't
do that, he just said "It's wrong for you to be doing this here in my Father's
house." So if anything, Jesus was defending his own property against
people who were unlawfully there. So when people bring up that example of Jesus
turning over the tables, it doesn't correspond with the looters; it would
correspond more with property owners using force to repel those who are
unlawfully there. So actually, the argument of Jesus flipping over the
tables does not support the looters—it supports the right of shop owners to use
proportionate force to defend their property from people who are unlawfully
there and are violating that space. So Jesus was
defending his Father's house and the space that was being violated. He didn't
go out and just, in a righteous anger, attack innocent businesses in Jerusalem
or traders or merchants that had nothing to do with what was going on. Also
another point: Jesus didn't take the money from the moneychangers and keep
it and then run off and do whatever he darn well pleased with it. The looters
are taking property and keeping it to enrich themselves. So, I mean, I would say
it really does annoy me when people will see this activity and try to
condone all of this violence against innocent people by saying these are
individuals who are just aggrieved about racial injustice. And that's not true,
I've seen interviews with people, with looters who've been arrested, who said
they barely heard about the killing of George Floyd, and they just wanted to get
free money. They wanted stuff. A lot of these people, I think, are criminals.
They're people who normally would operate as criminals in the dark
secretly, and have now had a chance to come to the light. I mean, everyone
condemns what's going on with the looting. It amazes me there are some
people who still won't condemn this. It's condemned by the leaders of the Black
Lives Matter movement, it's condemned by George Floyd's family, it's been
condemned by political figures who are sympathetic to this; everyone realizes
you ought to peacefully protest against police brutality and against racism. That
is obvious. But nothing justifies looting and destroying the livelihoods
of stores, many of which, in these instances, are stores that are owned by
persons of color who are already members of marginalized communities! So it really
does confound me a bit. But is that a helpful reply,
Noah? That's very helpful. I pretty much answered that already towards her post,
but at the end, she just said, "Well, my point is that he was angry."
Right, and you could say to her: "Does being angry mean it's
always okay to hurt other people?" No, of course not. Being angry—you could say,
"Yeah, it's okay for Jesus to tell people 'Get out of my Father's house with your
sacrilegious practices,'" but—and so it's okay to be angry. Paul's letter to the
Ephesians, in his letter to the Ephesians, he says "Be angry, but don't let the sun
set on your anger." So it's okay to be angry, to have a righteous anger; but it's
not okay to fall into the sin of anger and vengeance and go out and hurt
innocent people. And that just can't be justified. And you could say to her,
"Would it be...." who are you speaking with about this? Did you say it
was a relative? Yes. Okay, you could ask her:
"Would it be okay for someone, because they're angry about the killing of
George Floyd, would it be okay for them to break into your house and take your
stuff and hurt or kill you?" Obviously, if it would be wrong, if you would be
outraged at them doing that to you, you should be outraged at them doing
that to other people. So I would just recommend saying that to them, and also I
recommend my new podcast episode that just came out, just go to
trenthornpodcast.com, though you can listen to it for free at iTunes, Google Play, just
search for the Counsel of Trent, C-O-U-N-S-E-L, and just go the most recent episode
that's come out, it's called "Racism, Riots, and a Catholic Response." You can get it
at Counsel of Trent on the iTunes app, or it's available at Catholic.com as well.