It’s become customary to refer to the Black Lives Matter movement, without much challenge, as one of the civil rights movements of our time. In other instances, it’s suggested that it’s the progeny of the civil rights movement itself.

But to say or imply that Black Lives Matter is the offspring of the civil rights movement of the 1960s is to misunderstand the history and character of that great moral revolution. It is to also misunderstand, or outright ignore, the intentions of Black Lives Matter while disregarding or rationalizing its tactics, agenda, and its aims. Black Lives Matter is in no way a civil rights movement and it’s certainly not an heir to the civil rights movement. The conduct consistently displayed and condoned by far too many Black Lives Matter members, in combination with the agenda expressed by its leaders, disqualifies Black Lives Matter from any consideration of being an extension of the civil rights movement.

The civil rights movement, all things considered, had a moral authority that the Black Lives Matter movement demonstrably lacks. The civil rights movement was centered in, and had the backing of a considerable portion of, the black church. Despite the lack of religious unification and support by both black and white churches, the activists in the civil rights movement were determined to appeal to the moral conscience of the nation by showing the world the egregious reality of segregation by exposing the violent actions of its defenders. This was successfully accomplished through a program of nonviolence, redemptive suffering, and civil disobedience. These direct actions applied Christian principles on one hand, and the aspirations of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution on the other. Civil rights activists deliberately refused to respond in kind to the treatment they received by those who opposed their mission. This meant that taunting and aggressively confronting the police, characteristic of Black Lives Matter militants, weren’t permitted.