Since Trump’s inauguration, we’ve seen the spectacle of liberals with “intersectional” causes marching for everything under the sun. Climate change, abortion, women’s rights, abortion, science, abortion, and abortion. Did I mention abortion? Because that one seems to be the linchpin of the “intersectional” causes, that pro-life groups are not allowed under any circumstances.
It’s a shame, because, you know, every single one of these abortion-rights marchers is alive, while just about every aborted baby is dead (there are some notable exceptions). But the quality of these marches is called into question, because I’m pretty sure a large number of marchers have no real idea why they’re there. Maybe they’re there to see Leonardo DiCaprio, or the Macy’s Thanksgiving Parade balloon of AlGore (oh that’s actually AlGore, my apologies), but not because they believe in a cause worth dying for.
In June 1767, the British Parliament passed the Townshend Acts, taxing most products imported into the Colonies. The colonists were already required to use only British tea, paper, and other staples, and the new acts added more tax load to pay down a massive war debt from the French and Indian War. This made the colonists less than happy and ready to resist.
So they marched in Boston. On October 1, 1768, British troops arrived in Boston to restore order. Unlike the #Occupy movement, Bostonians already lived there. They greeted the troops by taunting them, insulting them and even spitting at them and throwing a few punches. It was a genuine uprising–and they continued to march.
On March 5, 1770, a group of marchers at the Customs House was met by the Twenty-Ninth Regiment, led by Captain Thomas Preston. The crowd chanted to the armed redcoats, “Fire and be damned.” Preston ordered his men, “Don’t fire!” but in the din they didn’t hear him and fired into the crowd, killing five men.
Preston and eight of his soldiers were charged with murder and tried. The trial was delayed more than 6 months to give time for emotions to cool, and jurors were brought in from outside the city. Preston, defended by a legal team led by John Adams (lawyers have to earn a living, after all), was acquitted, as were six of his men. Two soldiers were convicted of murder.
Today we call the event the Boston Massacre. But it was the revolutionary resistance, ready to march and die for their cause. Six years later, they would die on Lexington Green, and continue to die until victory was won.
In the 1960’s civil rights activists marched. They braved police brutality, dogs, and the KKK, which actually did murder them. They marched, and they were willing to die to win liberty. You see, they already had the rights, given to them by God–they were there to throw off oppression, not to advocate some “intersectional” cause.
Some of the original marchers were the first disciples. They went out in pairs, proclaiming the Good News, and shaking the dust from their feet where they weren’t welcomed. After Jesus’ resurrection, thousands were added to the church, many of whom died for the cause. Every single one of the twelve Apostles, save John the Revelator, died by execution or torture or both. They gladly died for their Lord.
Today’s marchers don’t seem like they’re willing to die. At best, as we saw at Berkeley, they’re willing to give cover and aid to thugs who commit violence from the anonymity of the crowd. But if someone began shooting into the group, not one of them would run to the sound of gunfire. Today’s marchers use violence as a justification to march, not a logical sacrifice to give all for a cause.
Do the so-called “Resistance” marchers today really believe that it’s worth their lives to give someone the right to kill an unborn baby? Do they believe that the earth is truly doomed to a future of cities sunken beneath swelled oceans and sweltering heat? (Because they’ve been saying it for over 15 years, and their predictions have been uniformly not just wrong, but antithetical.)
I don’t think any of them is wiling to die for the causes for which they march, provided they even know why they’re marching. I think they’re marching because they’ve been told that Donald Trump is a terrible person and against everything they believe–even though he’s for many of the things they actually hold dear. I think they’re marching because celebrities are marching.
I think they’re marching because they don’t like Christians and feel that their lifestyle would be inhibited if Christians (whom many of them don’t know a single committed churchgoer) set the moral standard for life in America. I think they’re marching without a real commitment to their causes. I think they’re marching like it was a social club.
That’s fine. The marchers can continue to gather, walk up and down the National Mall, visit Washington D.C. tourist sites, dump a ton of garbage, and then go home. At least the March for Life and other conservative gatherings in D.C. clean up after themselves, but park employees get paid either way.
These marchers do need to hear that their marches and hashtags and “resistance” don’t amount to a hill of beans, because they have no commitment. They’re not willing to die for the cause.
There’s not a lot of things I’d be willing to die for. My family–my wife and kids, absolutely. My God? I hope so, with His strength, if my life were required. Would I die to defend liberty and freedom? If the threat were great enough, I think so.
Would I die to repeal Obamacare? No. But I wouldn’t march for that either.
These marchers are so quick to advocate laws that by definition give the government power to enforce by the barrel of a gun. But they’re not so quick to offer up their own lives for their causes. That’s because they don’t really believe (or even know) what they’re marching for. That’s a shame.
Here’s a novel concept. Why not, #InsteadOfMarches, these marchers go home and figure out what they really believe, what they value above all other things. Then, #InsteadOfMarches, they put their lives on the line for that cause. That way, if they do end up marching, it will at least be for something they’re willing to die for.