Is Lee's Resolution Dismissive of the Protesters' Grievances?

   Our senator from Utah  proposed a resolution against violence a couple days ago. "Before we break for the Fourth of July recess, I thought it would be important to get the Senate on record condemning the rising tide of mob violence we see across the country, and the increasingly prevalent mob-mentality that is fueling it," Sen. Mike Lee said.
   Certainly, turning people from violence is a good thing. If Lee's resolution could do that, it would be good. But, consider this: If the resolution marginalizes those things the protesters are asking for, and if it only increases the divide between the two sides, and stirs up division against them, it is not so good.
   Blessed are the peacemakers. Would Lee's resolution help bridge the divide? Is it an act of peacemaking? Let us read from the resolution and wonder.
   "Whereas the United States of America was founded in 1776 on universal principles of freedom, justice, and human equality; Whereas throughout our nation’s history, Americans have struggled to realize those ideals, falling short, as imperfect human beings always do, but nonetheless making greater progress toward them than any nation on earth; Whereas the United States is today, as ever, an ethnically, racially, religiously, and culturally diverse nation, morally committed to cultivating respect, friendship, and justice across all such differences, and protecting the God-given equal rights of all Americans under the law . . ."
    Sounds noble. High-minded words, all. Consider, though, that the protesters are saying they don't have justice, don't have equity, and don't believe we are making greater progress than any nation on earth in attaining them. That is their point: that the protesting of the '60s didn't bring to an end the injustices. The resolution is a slap in the face, from that standpoint, as it basically says, No, you are wrong, we are a nation of justice and equity. They are saying, No, that's the problem, it's not a nation of justice and equity.
   Instead of  being just a call to end violence, the resolution is already becoming a denial of what the protesters are saying. "The United States is today, as ever . . . morally committed to cultivating respect, friendship, and justice across all such differences, and protecting the God-given equal rights of all Americans under the law." The protesters are saying, No, you are not committed to protecting God-given equal rights. Why do you think we are protesting?
   "Whereas America’s law enforcement officers do an extremely difficult job extremely well, and despite the inexcusable misconduct of some, the overwhelming majority of such officers are honest, courageous, patriotic, and rightfully honored public servants . . ."
    No doubt,  the officers are generally honest and good public servants. Yes, the resolution does acknowledge there are a few bad actors, but it doesn't acknowledge that those bad actors need removed from their positions. It is more or less suggesting that since the overwhelming majority of officers are good, can we just move on? And, is it true that an overwhelming majority are good? Perhaps, but until we do an audit of those officers, and search out and see how many are not, we don't know for sure how many are not. The resolution thus marginalizes the amount of police violence the protesters believe exists.
    No, vandalism and tearing things down are not good. Calling for all protesters to be as peaceful as the peaceful ones is good. But, when the resolution in an off-hand way also dismisses and marginalizes the grievances of all the protesters, it only serves to inflame them. They might well reply, You don't believe we have just grievances, do you? And, in their anger, how might they respond?