Have you ever heard these phrases and others to deny being a racist? 

• “I’m colorblind. I don’t see color.” 
• “Some of my very best friends are black.” 
• “Like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated, ‘I believe people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.’” 
• “I am not a racist. I don’t hate black people.” 

Depending on the audience, these deflective and defensive phrases invoke a sense of community or trigger frustration for lack of awareness. These statements rarely address the motives underlying racist behaviors, but attempt to shift the conversation to the character of the offended party, instead. 

In a press release dated March 11, 2026, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination warned that “racist hate speech by political leaders, including the president, combined with intensified immigration crackdowns in the United States, notably near schools, hospitals and faith-based institutions, has sparked grave human rights violations.” 

The United Nations cited human rights violations as “right to life and liberty, freedom of speech and assembly, fair trial, and protection from arbitrary detention.” When these rights were violated, we saw the repercussions of ICE agents deployed in Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Portland and Washington, D.C. through traditional and digital media. 

Further, the impact of “racist hate speech” is seen in the elimination of diversity, equity, inclusion programs, and voter suppression. 

“We elected President Barack Obama. We no longer need diversity, equity, inclusion, or voting rights protection.” 

“Affirmative Action only benefits black people. It’s reverse discrimination against white people.” 

According to a 2025 study by the League of Women Voters, the overwhelming beneficiary of affirmative action DEI for both college admissions and jobs are women, specifically white women. 

Through racist hate speech, we detect misinformation, dog whistles, repeating of lies to insist they become the truth, intimidation, and always giving people someone to blame in the media. Absent of facts, racist hate speech casts doubt about the integrity of our election process, empowers the judging of immigrants from certain countries as being undocumented, and embraces civil discord through various media reports. Racist hate speech forces you to question the motive behind this behavior. Is it because of hate or self-interests? 

“When policies aimed at producing racial equality and justice are proposed, the opposition is, in part, due to racism or prejudice,” said David C. Wilson, co-author of “Racial Resentment in the Political Mind” and dean of the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkley. “But the stronger factors are tied to uncertainty about how the politics will disrupt a way of life that most whites have learned to navigate and benefit from.” 

Self-interest favors the status quo. Self-interest resists changes. Self-interest causes anxiety. Self-interest fails to consider what is best for society as whole. Self-interest represents greed. Self-interests drives racist hate speech. 

In Nancy MacLean’s book, “Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan,” MacLean cited Chester D. Morton (a white man) as one who joined the Klan for self-interests to eliminate his Jewish competitor in the funeral business. Morton knew the Klan despised the Jews and would never allow them to join their organization. As a result, Morton obtained a competitive advantage by joining the Klan for his funeral business. His motivation had nothing to do with hate but was driven by self-interest. 

We can apply this same motivational principle of self-interest at the expense of humanity for the racist hate speech we’re hearing today. 

EDWARD WOODS III is the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty director for Lake Region Conference and the Conscience & Justice Council chairperson. 

This article is part of our 2026 July/August Issue
Subscribe –>

Public outrage surrounding the death of George Floyd and Operation Metro Surge puts Minneapolis, Minnesota at the epicenter of the conflict between civil liberties and law enforcement abuses of power. This outrage critiques influential Evangelicals for being culturally-centered rather than Christ centered. 

“In short, American religion has become an ‘all or none’ proposition— conservative evangelical religion or none at all,” said Ryan P. Burge, professor of Practice at the Danforth Center on Religion and Politics at Washington University and author of “The Vanishing Church.” “This leaves tens of millions of theological and political moderates with no place to find community and spiritual edification, or to work collectively to solve societal problems.” 

Consequently, Christianity now reflects partisanship rather than being the unadulterated gospel of Jesus Christ. Discipleship is translated to mean having a “conservative” perspective rather than followers of Christ’s principles. Through critical and unbiased thinking, it may cast doubt as to whether the Bible is the inspired word of God or a launching pad to form “conservative evangelical religion.” 

It begs us to answer two questions: What does “evangelical” mean? How do we identify “conservative evangelicals?” 

“To be evangelical is to respond to God’s call into deeper faith and greater humility,” states Mark Laberton, editor of “Still Evangelical: Insiders Reconsider Political, Social, and Theological Meaning.” “It also leads us to repudiate and resist all forces of racism and misogyny, and all other attitudes and actions, overt and implied, that subvert the dignity of people, who are made in the image of God.”

For those who believe in the Ten Commandments, we could sum this up by our love of God, the first four commandments, and our love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, the last six commandments. 

At the 1992 Republican National Convention, Patrick Buchanan, former presidential candidate and noted conservative commentator, outlined what he thought should be the key elements of a Christian conservative’s values. 

In this address, he defined cultural wars as pro-life regarding abortion, using state funds to support private religious schools to ensure Judeo-Christian values in kids, advocating for justices who will follow the constitution and not their policy preference, and limiting marriage as between a male and female. 

In framing it as a cultural war over the above listed moral values, Buchanan provided a litmus test to describe “conservative evangelicals.” 

“The historical significance of this new axis (“conservative evangelical religion”) has been evident in the ways in which it cuts across age-old divisions among Protestants, Catholics, and Jews,” James Davison Hunter, author of “Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America.” 

“The orthodox traditions in these faiths now have much more in common with each other than they do with progressives in their own faith traditions, and vice versa.” 

Although they agree on the tenets of their faith, we can cite this example. Conservative Southern Baptists have more in common with conservative Seventh-day Adventists than non-conservative Southern Baptists. Consequently, conservative Seventh-day Adventists have more in common with conservative Southern Baptists than non-conservative Seventh-day Adventists. 

For openness and transparency, it would be a mistake to link “conservative evangelical religion” with Christian Nationalism. “Christian Nationalism is not synonymous with Evangelical Christianity,” said Scott A. Leadingham, Staff writer for the Freedom Forum, an organization whose mission is to “foster First Amendment Freedoms for All.” Christian Nationalism represents an ideology and not a theology. It is not a denomination, or a sect with rules and doctrines. Nevertheless, Figure 1:1 identifies adherents to Christian Nationalism by various denominational groups. 

In considering Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s book, “Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?,” we need to present this question to us: where do we, as evangelicals, go from here: Christ-centered or cultural-centered? 

EDWARD WOODS III is the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty director for Lake Region Conference and the Conscience & Justice Council chairperson. 

This article is part of our 2026 March/April Issue
Subscribe –>

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence both lack any reference to the United States being founded as a Christian nation. The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli specifically stipulates that we are not a Christian nation when it said: “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” And, it was clear to Martin Luther King Jr., our history — bright in some respects — was notably marred by human stealing and genocide, emphasizing this fact.

“We are perhaps the only nation who has tried, as a matter of national policy, to wipe out its Indigenous people.” 

Further, unlike England and some of the American colonies, the framers of the U.S. Constitution declined to require a religious test for any public office or public trust. Article VI specifies that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification  . . .” 

In 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower inserted “under God” into the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. This represented the first time the pledge had a reference to God or Christianity. 

The push to add “under God” to the pledge gained momentum during the second Red Scare, according to a History.com article, “Why Eisenhower Added ‘Under God’ to the Pledge of Allegiance During the Cold War.”   During this time U.S. politicians asserted the moral superiority of the U.S., and capitalism over Soviet communism, which many conservatives regarded as “godless.” 

“In using God for propaganda and influence over the American people, U.S. politicians depicted Soviet communism as inferior and atheist in nature.”

One year after placing “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, Congress passed a law to place on currency “In God We Trust” in 1955. Despite legal challenges of the separation of church and state, this slogan appeared and still appears on currency today.

“Today even ardent separationists seem to agree with retired Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, who wrote in 1983 that slogans such as ‘In God We Trust’ have ‘lost any true religious significance.’” This questioned the piety of America then and the question still lingers to this day through Christian nationalism.

 “Our country is facing an authoritarian threat from far-right extremists and Christian nationalists in a new, unique, and frightening way,” said Global Project Against Hate and Extremism co-founder Wendy Via. “Voters, political figures, and the media must be on alert that Project 2025 is an authoritarian roadmap to dismantling a thriving, inclusive democracy for all.” 

That’s why the actions to disband the civil service and replace them with conservative personnel are integral in executing Project 2025. The Project 2025 website indicates that through “properly vetted and training personnel to implement them (right conservative policy recommendations), we will take back our government.”

Politico reported 37 ways in which Project 2025 mandates are directly reflected in the current presidential administration’s Executive Orders. Project 2025 thus influences everything, from social issues and immigration to government staffing, energy, foreign affairs, and economic policy. Fear that Christian nationalism is instilling its ideology in the public sphere grow more real every day.

Mahatma Gandhi stated, “I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Gandhi recognized that even some who call themselves Christians are not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

This article is part of our 2025 March/April Issue
Subscribe –>

Over the last five years, the Death Penalty Information Center identified concerns raised by governors in California, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Arizona, Ohio, and Tennessee that caused them to place or continue a hold on executions. These governors question whether there was due process in death penalty cases, and they critique the lack of  equal treatment for individuals sentenced to death. 

If recent history bears a pattern, the governors have a valid and grave argument. During the week of September 20-27, 2024, America witnessed five executions. Three of the executed individuals were black.   Khalil Allah aka Freddie Owens in South Carolina, Marcellus Williams in Missouri, Travis Mullis in Texas, Emmanuel Littlejohn in Oklahoma, and Alan Eugene Miller in Alabama received the death penalty from their state with questions unanswered and concerns unaddressed surrounding due process and equal treatment. 

Aside from racial disparities, death row also tends to hold a disproportionate population of individuals with functional disabilities and debilitating backgrounds.

“The overwhelming majority of those facing execution today have what the court termed … to be diminished culpability,” said Harvard Law professor Charles Ogletree. “Severe functional deficits are the rule, not the exception, among the individuals who populate the nation’s death rows. Many other…offenders endured unspeakable abuse as children.” 

How well do courts address functional deficits when placing someone on death row? The 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case, Atkins v. Virginia, declared as unconstitutional the execution of inmates with “mental retardation.” 

The case of Marcellus Williams, who was executed on September 24, stands out the most. The Prosecutor’s Office led the charge to vacate Williams’ conviction. Through a court filing, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell wrote the following, “This never-before-considered (DNA) evidence, when paired with the relative paucity of other, credible evidence supporting guilt, as well as additional considerations of ineffective assistance of counsel and racial discrimination in jury selection, casts inexorable doubt on Mr. Williams’s conviction and sentence.” 

How can due process and equal treatment take place when the government fails to consider new evidence? Why would a prosecutor’s office who won the initial conviction seek to vacate the conviction, and cite ineffective counsel and racial discrimination in the jury selection, if there was not reasonable doubt as to Williams’ guilt?

In his brief, pleading for a stay of execution to the United States Supreme Court, Bell cited concerns raised by Eighth Circuit Judge Jane Kelly that she was “deeply troubled.” The proceedings surrounding Williams’ conviction bothered her. Further, the wife of the deceased victim in the case objected to the imposition of the death penalty. The Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and the Missouri Supreme Court, however, rejected efforts to stay the execution for Williams. Ultimately, reported Time,  Missouri Governor Mike Parson and the United States Supreme Court also rejected efforts to stay the execution for Williams.

The Innocence Project, and organization that uses “DNA and other scientific advancements to prove wrongful conviction,” offered the following statistic;

For every 8.2 people executed in the United States in the modern era of the death penalty, one person on death row has been exonerated.

 One person represents one life too many. Let’s ensure justice for everyone on death row.

SCAN BELOW FOR RESOURCES:

EDWARD WOODS III  is the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Director and Chairperson of the Conscience & Justice Council. Sign-up for the Conscience & Justice Council Convention at www.cjcouncil.org

This article is part of our 2024 November/December Issue
Subscribe –>

The Montgomery riverfront brawl triggered the past and current realities of privilege and fragility emanating from this State Capitol that appears to be embraced by Alabama and an ongoing challenge for America and, in some cases, the church.

Dubbed the “Montgomery Riverfront Brawl” and “Montgomery Melee,” it started when a group of white, rowdy boaters failed to move their illegally docked pontoon boat for the return of Harriot II, a riverboat dinner cruise, on the Alabama River.  When the black dock worker attempted to move the pontoon boat after approximately 45 minutes of repeated requests, he was attacked by the boaters. CNN reported that racial epithets were used, and witnesses believed alcohol may have played a factor. 

However, no one is disputing that this incident could have been avoided. “They just didn’t think the rules applied to them. It was so avoidable. This never had to have happened,” a witness, Leslie Mawhorter, 52, who was aboard the Harriott II, said in an interview. 

“What was hard is we were all on the boat and witnessing our poor crewman being attacked by these guys, and we couldn’t do anything about it,” Christa Owen, 47, said. “It was really difficult to watch, and, like I said, we felt helpless because we were forced to be spectators.”

Montgomery Mayor Steven L. Reed said, “The Montgomery Police Department acted swiftly to detain several reckless individuals for attacking a man who was doing his job.” 

“It was just absolutely unnecessary and uncalled for,” Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey said. 

During the Conscience & Justice Council virtual broadcast titled, “Montgomery: Brawling Democracy,” Kelli Dulan, social justice advocate and Alabama native, changed the narrative from a brawl or melee to love in action. Instead of targeting the evil displayed in words and unprovoked violent assault, Dulan focused on how the community came to the aid of the defenseless dock worker. From a 16-year-old white colleague to the one dubbed “JaMichael Phelps” to those who recorded video to provide police evidence, people were motivated by love to support the dock worker and ensure justice was served.

Against the historical backdrop of the Montgomery Bus Boycott nearly 70 years ago and the Selma to Montgomery march for voting rights almost 60 years ago, Alabama’s capital city hosts the Rosa Parks Museum, Legacy Museum: From Slavery to Mass Incarceration, and the National Memorial for Peace and Justice as a reminder of the atrocities of injustice. It’s also the state’s epicenter for sustaining racial gerrymandering, questioning the truth about systemic and structural racism, and silencing the realities of white privilege fragility that resonates in America and the church, even in the Bible Belt. 

In Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Our God is Marching On” speech, which he shared to kick off the Montgomery Bus Boycott, he said, “We are determined here in Montgomery to work and fight until justice runs ‘down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.’” In protesting the right to vote at the state Capitol in Montgomery, Dr. King proclaimed, “We must come to see that the end we see is a society at peace with itself, a society that can live with its conscience.”

As a takeaway from this incident in Montgomery, we witnessed the words of Dr. King as love in action. We saw where people seemed more concerned about protecting a defenseless man and seeing perpetrators brought to justice. That’s a lesson for America and also the church.

……………………………………………………………………………….

EDWARD WOODS III  is the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Director and Chairperson of the Conscience & Justice Council. Sign-up for the Conscience & Justice Council Convention at www.cjcouncil.org

This article is part of our 2023 September/October Issue
Subscribe –>

IN contemplating the senseless violence hailed on school children in Uvalde, Texas, this quote by Mamie Elizabeth Till-Mobley rang resoundingly clear in sharing her reason for an open casket funeral for her son: “I think everybody needed to know what happened to Emmitt Till.” After another mass shooting of children in school, these children need open casket funerals to spur America into action.

At Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, nineteen children and two adults died in a mass shooting by an 18-year-old. News reports detailed how the shooter purchased the assault rifles legally, shot his grandmother in the head, and how students heads were blown off and only identified by their DNA. America needs to see the carnage, and maybe a change will come.

As of June 6, the Gun Violence Archive reported 247 mass shootings in 2022. These mass shootings represent the deaths of 402 children ages seventeen and under. Still, America continues to embrace the Constitution’s second amendment as a fundamental and non-negotiable right in the face of ongoing slaughter of innocent lives. No place shelters these innocents, not houses of worship, grocery stores, or hospitals. Since the mass shooting at Columbine High School in 1999, congressional leaders stuck in partisan gridlock seem content kicking the can down the right from one tragedy to the next

In response to a mass shooting that killed thirty-five people Australians passed the National Firearm Agreement within 12 days. Major provisions of the National Firearm agreement included “tight control on semi-automatic and fully automated weapons, a national registry of firearm owners, and a buyback program so that Australians could sell guns back to the government.”

Noted public health researchers, Elena Andreyeva and Benjamin Ukert from University of Pennsylvania and Charles Branas from Columbia University concluded that the National Firearm Agreement led to a decrease in firearms homicide since 1996. Yet, America failed to see a sense of urgency.

At the Dunblane Primary School mass shooting in Scotland that killed sixteen students and a teacher, National Public Radio reported June 1, 2022, that Britain “banned private ownership of most handguns, as well as semi-automatic weapons, and required mandatory registration for shotgun owners.” Since 2016, there have been no mass shootings at schools in Britain. Yet, America embraced the historical right of the second amendment, despite the purpose of the second amendment in 1791.

Americans are content representing self-interests at the expense of life when it comes to mass shootings. America is satisfied blaming mental illness as the death toll continues to rise from mass shootings. And the faith-based community at large advocates more for the unborn child than children whose voices are silenced from mass shootings. 

Open the caskets of these children and instead of stubbornly remaining numb for more than 20 more years, maybe more Americans and members of the faith-based community will do something. 

….....……………………………………………………

Edward Woods, III is the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty director for Lake Region Conference and the Conscience & Justice Council chairperson.

This article is part of our 2022 July/August Issue
Subscribe –>

In comparing and contrasting the Capitol Riots with the protests affirming Black Lives Matter Too or the Civil Rights Movement, it triggers the realities of racism and its impact on mental health. 

Mental Health America states, “Racial trauma, or race-based traumatic stress (RBTS), refers to the mental and emotional injury caused by encounters with racial bias and ethnic discrimination, racism, and hate crime.” Consequently, these encounters or triggers come directly or indirectly. As it relates to directly, it references being on the receiving end of a racist attack. This can occur indirectly or vicariously by watching videos, hearing stories, or through reading books, articles, or blogs.

The memories of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Jacob Blake, Mike Brown, Laquan McDonald, Sandra Bland, Philando Castille, Medger Evers, or Emmitt Till continue to trigger concerns about law enforcement. The lies that affirmative action benefited blacks at the expense of whites linger, even though white women remain the greatest beneficiary of affirmative action according to Diverse Education, Huffington Post, and the New Orleans Advocate. Incendiary rhetoric and dog whistles spewed by religious and political leaders perpetuate a divisive and dismissive culture, such as former President Trump, and his administration repeatedly referred to COVID-19 as a Chinese virus.

During the Civil Rights Movement, the Black church served as the foundation and refuge for those engaged in protests to ensure civil rights. The Black church espoused and exemplified the principles of nonviolence that actuated Christ. The Black church raised its voice and spoke truth to power. Despite the trauma of racism, the church had a calming, soothing, and prophetic voice in inspiring faith in God and peace of mind. This seems like a fitting role for the black church, and any church for that matter; can we agree that the church does play a role in mental health?

“The most racist institution in America is the Church,” says Spencer Jones, a Chicago-based evangelist and U.S. missionary with Intercultural Ministries. “If racism occurs in a church, nobody is going to deal with it. We believe if we ignore it, it will go away.” To take it a step further, this is not only appropriate at the local church level, but throughout any denominational structure. When the church fails to address and apply biblical principles to eradicate racism, it emboldens the perpetrators, decimates the victims, and destroys the mental health for both the perpetrators and the victims.

In his book, The Woke Church, Eric Mason laments that the Black Lives Matter organization did not have its foundation in the church. The failure of the church to respond to issues affecting society allowed a secular organization to fill its void, despite the moral and prophetic role of the church in speaking truth to power. 

As critical as regular, individual therapy and counseling is to one’s mental health, we cannot excuse the role of the church when it comes to mental health and ensuring the trumpet has a certain sound on conscience and justice issues.  

……………………………………

Edward Woods III serves as the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Director for Lake Region Conference and the Conscience & Justice Council Chairperson.

Half a million kids plan to wake us up.

Can we find solutions by seeking the interests of others?

Even in the painful aftermath of the February Parkland, Florida school shooting, the gun debate has gone nowhere. The reoccurring cries of proponents and opponents of gun control continue to rise again. Instead of seeking a policy solution, Americans seem numb.  From Columbine to the present, we have failed to find meaningful solutions to reduce mass shootings at schools through gun control.

This weekend’s March for Our Lives, with its expected turnout of at least 500,000, hopes to jolt Washington out of the cycle of rhetoric, soundbites, and inaction.

Embed from Getty Images

2018 Mass Shooting Deaths, By the Numbers

According to the Gun Violence Archive, as of March 21, 2018, America has had 48 mass shootings. Those shooting led to 63 deaths and 189 injuries. The Archive defines mass shootings as four or more killed or injured, not including the perpetrator. The Parkland Shooting remains the most devastating mass shooting this year, 17 deaths and 17 injuries.

Known for its unyielding fight in the right to bear arms, The National Rifle Association (NRA) is a leader in firearms education training. The NRA website includes more than 125,000 certified instructors that train more than 1 million gun owners a year. The group began as a firearms training and education association for marksmanship. It has strengthened its focus to defend Second Amendment through the years. With the “right to bear arms” central to its cause, has the NRA become numb to its roots?

“Ineligible” Voters, but Eligible Voices

For nearly two decades, the NRA has fought challenges to gun control legislation at the federal and state level. The NRA faces its toughest test in the survivors of the Parkland Shooting. These survivors, the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, show no signs of letting up, though most of them are ineligible to vote. Through social media and mass protests across the nation, these survivors demand support in forcing national and state legislatures to pass meaningful laws to reduce gun violence.

Embed from Getty Images

Although these survivors are ineligible to vote, they do have a window of opportunity to make change. According to the independent Quinnipiac University National Poll, American voters support stricter gun laws 66-31 percent. This represents the highest level of support conducted by this organization. In addition, the Quinnipiac University National Poll cited support for universal background checks as 97-3 percent among gun owners, 67-29 percent for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons, and 75-17 percent that Congress needs to do something to reduce gun violence.

Twenty-two years ago, Australia banned rapid-fire guns after 35 people were killed in Port Arthur. According to a 2016 Journal of American Medical Association article, Australia has not had a mass shooting incident, a single incident in which five or more people are killed, since. Could the United States reap the same benefits if we banned rapid-fire guns the way Australia did, or are we content remaining numb?

Embed from Getty Images

Serve the Interests of the Vulnerable

In light of the Parkland Shooting, The Giffords Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence identified three policy solutions that relate to this incident: prevent access to guns by enacting laws for safe storage, raise the minimum age from 18 to 21 to buy semiautomatic weapons, and disarm dangerous people.

From a biblical perspective, I found our motive and policy solution to reduce gun violence in Philippians 2:3-4, “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interest of the others.”

In considering the victims family and the survivors, I support conducting universal background checks.  We should require training for anyone who wants to purchase a gun, at age 21 years or older. I also support banning rapid-fire guns as they did in Australia, and enacting laws for safe storage.

It’s hard to be numb when you look out for the best interest for others, more than yourself.

Ready to do something constructive?

My complexion resembles that of Mike Brown, Freddie Gray, Alton Sterling, and Philando Castile. To a police officer who does not know me, I benefit–or suffer from–their experiences and/or lack of experiences in dealing with people who look like me.

The Castile tragedy raises serious concerns. How can an officer shoot someone who is complicit with his directions? Why, if the officer feared Castile because of his possession of a gun, did he not wait for backup? Why did the officer fail to immediately provide first aid to Castile after shooting him?

From the continual tragic and untimely death of African-American males by police officers, I still hear the resounding echoes for calls to action, statements that express regret, protests that are carried out responsibly or irresponsibly and then it all happens again. At this point, who does not know that Black lives, or even Human lives, matter?

The question really becomes: Who cares?

Angry? I am beyond angry.

Frustrated? I am beyond frustrated.

Safe? I don’t’ know the police officers around whom I should feel safe.

Beyond Venting

I want solutions. I want answers. I want changes. Instead of a Congress seeking to find compromises in the best interest of Americans, we have partisan gridlock that makes it virtually impossible to provide solutions to the deaths of all people while under police custody and mass shootings.

According to the Minnesota Star Tribune , nearly 150 people have died while under police custody in Minnesota and not one police officer was charged in any of those deaths. Does this encourage or discourage Minnesota police officers from using excessive force? How comforting is this for the Castile family in seeking justice for their son? Should the federal government lead the investigation as they are doing in Baton Rouge?

I do not want to die like Castile at the hands of police. As President Obama emphasized, I know I am more vulnerable to these types of incidents.  As a father, brother, uncle and son, I am not interested in anyone else losing their his or her life to a senseless act of excessive force. We need to do something now to change the culture of police-community relations and institutionalize it as a part of our local community for a national impact.

We don’t have any more time! We don’t need any more victims! We can’t tolerate any more populous messages or dismissive tones! It’s time to do something now to prevent senseless acts of excessive force. It’s time to do something now.

Do Something Now

1. Know the police leadership and officers serving your church. This requires an investment of time; make it a perpetual priority because personnel changes.

2. Present a Know Your Rights seminar on a semi-annual basis in relationship to local or national events involving misconduct by police and/or citizens. Make sure you get both sides and various perspectives for a mutually rewarding discussion.

3. Join and actively participate in the Neighborhood Block Club in your church neighborhood. There is no reason why church members should not participate in the crime watch efforts surrounding God’s house, or host a meeting.

4. Assess and ensure the role of the Police Review Board in your municipality. They assess and review citizen complaints, as well as departmental policies and procedures. If you do not have one, advocate starting one. The timing could not be better.

5. Identify and recognize police officers annually who connect well with residents in your church neighborhood. At this annual community celebration event, you present awards to police officers and others who model appropriate behavior to reinforce it and institutionalize it.