Yeah you’re getting off topic. And why-because of my timid defense of Sharpton and Jackson, and my overt criticism of Lowery? Those conservative cats you bring up have absolutely nothing to do with the topic, or what I was addressing.

So what-I can’t highlight some liberal black cats, without it automatically giving you a knee jerk reaction, to where you felt duty bound to throw these conservative/libertarian cats up in my face? I’m not impressed with these folks, and?

Likewise, I’m not really all that impressed with the liberal black cats, as it relates to their walk with the Lord, so again-AND?

So what’s your context?

What are you trying to hear from me?

Are you sure you really want to take the discussion there?

Naw man, the best thing for you to do is to clarify why you are coming at me with these individuals, before I answer this question of yours.

As I told someone on another site-not all quesions are worthy of a reply, and I’m beginning to think this may possibly be one of those questions.

Oh trust me Ex, I will give you my opinions on these three individuals, as soon as you clarify why you would even ask such a question from me.

So until that clarification comes, I will reserve my judgment, and/or discernment, which is kind of going in every direction.

I’ll just leave it at that for now…

Fair enough seekerman. Just wondering. Just from your last comment you don’t think much at all of Sowell,Williams,or Parker. I’ve been told by people that they think Thomas Sowell is a bigot. I don’t. I think he’s a brilliant thinker. Respond if you want. But this is my opinion. BTW I think comparing Limbaugh to Duke is a bit of a stretch.

(MN: Perhaps a better comparison would be David Duke and Senator Robert Byrd - since Byrd was actually a Klansman. But we digress. )

-BTW I think comparing Limbaugh to Duke is a bit of a stretch.

*David Duke and Rush Limbaugh are on the same page on matters of race, and are cut from the same ideological cloth.

The only difference between the two is that Duke focuses more so on Israel, and believe black folks to be genetically inferior, whereas Limbaugh feels that way (but will never admit to this), however he feels that if we are imbued with enough civilization, we can become productive human citizens, unlike Duke.

(MN: Just out of curiosity, if Rush has never said this, how do you know he believes this? As a follow-on - What is it Rush has said that could be qualified as racist. Be specific. )

Why do folks consider Sowell a bigot? And no, I don’t care all that much for that Parker lady, for I don’t care for how certain black conservatives like Parker speak ill of black folks (regardless of whether she’s telling the truth or not), so as to ingratiate herself with conservative whites.

(MN: Again we go to motive. How do you conclude she is saying these things in order to ingratiate herself with conservative whites? )

Too many black conservatives engage in such disingenuous malarkey, to where that’s one of the primary reasons why I don’t classify myself, or affiliate myself, with the label of “republican.”

(MN: You do understand that “Republican” and “Conservative” are not the same, right? )

(For example, Ken Hamblin, a black conservative and republican, in the late 90’s, was going to put out a book entitled: “Don’t Feed The Blacks,” but his WHITE publishers felt that the title was a little too harsh, so they asked him to change the title, and tone it down a bit. He did release a book around this same time period (on the cover, he’s sitting on a motorcycle), but I don’t know if the book he released, was the toned down version of the book he was going to initially release.)

As far as Melvin’s comment concerning Byrd being a former Klansmen, well-I hear this a lot. Folks must appeal to and understand social history, in that the Democratic party of the mid 60’s on down, isn’t the same party that you see today.

You see, Byrd was indeed a former klansmen in his early days, but he has then repudiated his prior membership, and has worked on behalf of civil rights for all people, while maintaining his affiliation with the Democratic party. (MN: He and nearly one hundred percent of the Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Bill. Nearly all Republicans/conservatives voted for it. Democrats consistently keep inner city [read here "predominately Black] children trapped in rotten public schools, refusing to enable the parents to send their children to the school of their choice. Democrats fought tooth and nail to keep people trapped in Welfare [a Democrat policy and program that has effectively destroyed the Black family].

So, looking at the social history you mentioned, tell me again why it’s racist to be Republican/Conservative. )

Duke on the other hand, was once a Democrat, who really didn’t denounce his past affiliation with the Klan, but has just moved on from the Klan to “bigger and brighter things,” and in the process, well-HE BECAME A REPUBLICAN. (MN: And the Republicans rebuffed him. Crazies are a part of every organization. But they don’t DEFINE the organization. )
-

(MN: Seekerman, no offense I hope, but this is going to be your last comment on this aspect of this topic. We’re really getting off subject and you are very long winded. My apologies to the readers. )

I said:

David Duke and Rush Limbaugh are on the same page on matters of race, and are cut from the same ideological cloth.

The only difference between the two is that Duke focuses more so on Israel, and believe black folks to be genetically inferior, whereas Limbaugh feels that way (but will never admit to this), however he feels that if we are imbued with enough civilization, we can become productive human citizens, unlike Duke.

Melvin asked:

Just out of curiosity, if Rush has never said this, how do you know he believes this?
As a follow-on - What is it Rush has said that could be qualified as racist. Be specific.

My response:

Because in his book and on his now defunct television show (especially on his television show), he said that afrocentric scholars are stupid to believe that Egyptian civilization came from tribal black Africa with it’s cultural paradigms, which is code for saying that black folks are not intellectually capable of producing such an ancient civilization as Egypt.

(MN: Actually the words in “The Way Things Ought to Be”, Pocket Books, 1992 [page 205] are as follows:

Hmmm. IF you can’t quote something written in a book accurately, why should I trust your memory in quoting a now defunct TV show from almost fifteen years ago? )

From this, and his other sayings and writings (yes, I’ve bothered to read two of the man’s books), and associations , I surmise that he, unlike Duke, doesn’t believe that black folks are perpetually inferior, because according to his belief, all black folks have to do, in order to get out of their cultural rut, is to adapt certain principles and abide by these principles. This will in turn promise that black folks will be successful. Whereas Duke feels that any black person that is upright, is basically a fluke, for he feels that black folks basic genetic nature is savage. (MN: Then how is he a racist and how is he the equivalent of Duke? )

He (Limbaugh) also said on his now defunct talk show, that black folks and others complain about the oppression from the white man, because they are jealous of white men’s successes. (MN: Also, you couldn’t get a written quote right. You need to produce a tape, YouTube, or something. )

Plus he called Obama during the primaries: A MAGIC NEGRO. Now I realize that you came along during a time when the word “negro” may have been acceptable, but too many thinking black folks nowadays, this word has a very derogatory connotation, seeing as how its’ flavor closely resembles the “n” word.

(MN: So is Ehrenstein a racist? He actually brought the phrase to our attention. Rush read the article to the audience. And Ehrenstein is Black, by the way. On the other hand, the new vice president referred to Obama as a CLEAN and ARTICULATE Black man. To use your argument style, everybody knows that the only people who describe Blacks as articulate are the ones who think most of us are incapable of expressing any kind of thought coherently. And that’s just down right racist. I guess that makes Joe Biden a racist - - if I were to use your brand of “proof”.

With all that said, Rush is a racist, and really don’t particular care for black folks. Look, someone doesn’t have to call me the “n” word, or a monkey, in order for me to get the picture of where this cat’s heart, truly lay. (MN: So far I’ve seen a lot of hear say and repeating of media accusations. Nothing of any substance. )

(This cat, on his now defunct talk show, talked about how in the early 90’s, the U.S. was supposed to invade Haiti, but that the invasion didn’t occur, therefore he said this incident was similar to the “Bay of Pigs,” however it should be called, or rather, he called it-the “Bay of Reneges.” When he said that, he paused, and there was a certain, “I get where you’re coming from” type of chuckle from the crowd, and the look he had on his face after that brief and timid applause, was: YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND ME, AND WHERE I’M COMING FROM, DO YOU.

Get it, “Reneges” sounds similar to the word “nigs,” which is something his audience caught, for he used it within the context of discussing a very black looking nation: Haiti.

Uh, okay…let’s move on…)

I said:

And no, I don’t care all that much for that Parker lady, for I don’t care for how certain black conservatives like Parker speak ill of black folks (regardless of whether she’s telling the truth or not), so as to ingratiate herself with conservative whites.

Melvin said:

Again we go to motive. How do you conclude she is saying these things in order to ingratiate herself with conservative whites?

My response:

You mean an old black man like you, really have to ask that question? This woman was at the Republican National Convention, either in this century, or in the late 90’s, at the podium, talking about how her white guidance counselor told her that just because she’s black, she doesn’t have to worry about being responsible, and holding yourself accountable for the wrong she does, simply because she’s black (I think her white guidance counselor came out of hiding and rebuked Parker’s statements about her, as being lies). (MN: Actually, as an old Black man, I can corroborate this. My guidance counselor told me I should apply to Georgia Tech because I wouldn’t be able to come up to the standards. She even told me I shouldn’t take pre-calculus in 12th grade. ) While she was spewing such dung, the predominantly white audience was lapping it up, and clapping somewhat hysterically, and at times she would pause so that her words can sink in. And the look she had on her face was that of someone saying a particular thing, in order to knowingly get a rise out of the people.

Hence the ingratiating factor, where she caters to a certain type of white person, so that she can become marketable within that conservative arena.

I can cite you plenty more examples and I realize that you may think I’m saying this as an argumentative tactic, but just ask me to cite you some more examples, and I will gladly do so, with that said, let’s proceed.

Oh, and I will explore that whole “motives” thing with you, more fully, in the next post (I say that for a reason).

I said:

Too many black conservatives engage in such disingenuous malarkey, to where that’s one of the primary reasons why I don’t classify myself, or affiliate myself, with the label of “republican.”

Melvin said:

You do understand that “Republican” and “Conservative” are not the same, right?

My response:

I’m educated on the distinctions that folks try to make between the two, but when it all boils down to it, those two terms are oftentimes content bedfellows…

I said:

You see, Byrd was indeed a former klansmen in his early days, but he has then repudiated his prior membership, and has worked on behalf of civil rights for all people, while maintaining his affiliation with the Democratic party.

Melvin said:

He and nearly one hundred percent of the Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Bill. Nearly all Republicans/conservatives voted for it.

My response:

Melvin, again, I appeal to your age because you, a black man from the south, ought to know better. This is why I said in the previous post:

“As far as Melvin’s comment concerning Byrd being a former Klansmen, well-I hear this a lot. Folks must appeal to and understand social history, in that the Democratic party of the mid 60’s on down, isn’t the same party that you see today.”

Many of those democrats who voted against the Civil Rights act SWITCHED PARTY AFFILIATIONS BY THE LATE 60’S AND EARLY 70’S, BY BECOMING REPUBLICANS-especially those democrats from the south, which is something you should be greatly familiar with.

Not only that, back in the day (right after slavery and onwards) many black folks were Republican, including my grandfather who voted for Eisenhower and Nixon. Why? Because that was the party of Lincoln. Back during reconstruction, and the early part of this century, those whites who were affiliated with the klan, were good democrats and the like, HOWEVER, nowadays, if you had to poll the klan, and others of their ilk, in the attempt to find out their political affiliation, many of them would classify themselves as republican/conservative/libertarian, etc.

This is why I mentioned David Duke, for he was a republican, and a former klansmen, who feels that black folks are genetically inferior, whereas Byrd is a former klansmen and remained a democrat, unlike his former dixiecrat colleagues like Helms and Thurmond, and have fought on behalf of black folks civil rights.

(MN: You still haven’t addressed the fact that almost all of the Republicans supported the Civil Rights bill and nearly all of the Democrats fought it. )

In other words, the parties names remain the same, not the type of people that filled those respective parties. So what- are you going to tell me that it was liberal democrats that voted against the Civil Rights act? (MN: If Byrd is liberal, yes. )

Some conservative black folks kill me with their revisionist interpretation of history, for the sake of political, and/or ideological purposes, or agenda…

(MN: So far, you are the only one who has revised history. )

Melvin said:

Democrats consistently keep inner city [read here "predominately Black] children trapped in rotten public schools, refusing to enable the parents to send their children to the school of their choice. Democrats fought tooth and nail to keep people trapped in Welfare [a Democrat policy and program that has effectively destroyed the Black family].

My response:

There is no correlation between liberal views and ideals, and that of racism or black oppression. In other words, you guys act as if it were liberal democrats who opposed the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s.

Was Falwell a liberal democrat, for if I’m not mistaken, back in the day, he opposed King, and was a democrat, HOWEVER, when he, along with other “disenfranchised” white southerners decided to find some type of political affiliation, by way of Nixon’s southern strategy-THOSE DEMOCRATS THAT THOUGHT LIKE FALWELL, BECAME REPUBLICAN, AND TOOK THEIR CONSERVATIVE VALUES WITH THEM.

So what I am saying in essence, is that bad social policy, doesn’t necessarily equate conspiracy against black folks, per se, for there are plenty of black folks who believe in heightening the welfare state, besmirch school vouchers, and the like. Furthermore, welfare became somewhat of a quasi racist thing, especially during the late 60’s and 70’s, where many liberal minded ideologues, albeit culturally insensitive, and latently racist, who were white social workers and policy wonks, hoisted pure liberal ideals and values into the collective psyches of the black community with the net effect being the eventual dissolution of the black family.

Remember, the welfare system wasn’t originally started for black folks, under FDR’s administration, but for poor folks in general, especially white folks, suffering during the throes of the great depression.

(MN: Actually, social security was started by FDR. LBJ launched welfare as a part of the Great Society. )

So again, the net effect of many liberal views is detrimental, to not only the black community, but the total society in general, whereas it had its greatest negative effects on the black community, because of our history, and mental conditioning…

Melvin said:

Democrats promote supporting Planned Parenthood activities, activities that destroy several hundred thousand Black children each year. Margaret Sanger, a Democrat and Liberal/Progressive, would be thrilled since she thought many Blacks were the equivalent of weeds in the garden of society. And gee, of the 1.5 million children aborted last year, 37% (or 550,000) of those children were Black. That’s over half a million in layman’s terms

So, looking at the social history you mentioned, tell me again why it’s racist to be Republican/Conservative.

My response:

I never said being a Republican/Conservative equates being a racist. Remember, I was addressing your implied assertion from the previous post, that somehow suggested that Democrats, or liberals, in the main, are racist, or that their racism nowadays is equivalent to those on the right, like the klan. (MN: The klan never got to kill 550K babies, and have the state pay for it. )

(MN: None of what you said addresses the issue of what the Dems and Liberals promoted and promote. And yes, you have been saying Republicans and Conservatives are racists - otherwise, why the relating of David Duke? )

And as far as the abortion thing goes, well-you can be black, or white, or whatever, and still believe in abortion, and not be racist, even though Sanger was a racist. (MN: That’s my point. Planned Parent Hood kills a lot of Black babies, just like Sanger wanted. She thought we were inferior. Certainly you can get an abortion without being racist. But you can’t run a program founded by a racist that you KNOW kills 550,000 Black babies a year without some thought of Race. ) Likewise, you can be against affirmative action, whether you are black, or white, or whatever, and not be a racist, even though you have folks like Limbaugh, Duke, Jesse Lee Peterson (intra-racist), who are racist, and are against affirmative action.

I said:

Duke on the other hand, was once a Democrat, who really didn’t denounce his past affiliation with the Klan, but has just moved on from the Klan to “bigger and brighter things,” and in the process, well-HE BECAME A REPUBLICAN.

Melvin said:

And the Republicans rebuffed him.

My response:

Yeah, but the fact that he was able to find a home in that party, since the late 80’s, all the way up to the late 90’s, or early part of this century, to where he was president, or in charge of the Louisiana Republican Party, says a lot about the Republican party, even if they did “rebuff” him for political convenience…

(MN: So tell me again why the RNC, that racist organization, backed Bobby Jindal for Governor. )

Then again, in all fairness, I’m not going to say that the rebuff was totally politically driven…

Melvin said:

Crazies are a part of every organization. But they don’t DEFINE the organization.

My response:

They may not define an organization, but they can potentially say a lot about an organization, in that a certain ilk can find a home there.

(MN: Seekerman, as much fun as this was for me, I’m afraid this is going to have to be the last posting on the political aspect of the discussion. )

Holy impenetrable rhetoric, Batman!

Um, there’s only one thing I want to address here, and that’s the “magic” or “magical Negro” comment.

Put that phrase in quotes in any search engine and it will land you on Spike Lee. As a student of culture, Lee observed that, even in modern filmmaking, black actors often play the character that, in some amazing or supernatural way, bail out the white characters. The word “negro” is used intentionally to indicate that the character is an offensive throwback.

The prime example of this would be “Bruce Almighty,” but there are countless others (the blind seer in O Brother Where Art Thou, Morpheus in The Matrix, etc., etc.).

I’m not going to defend Rush on everything he says because the man drives me up a wall, but you’re barking up the wrong tree with this one. He’s applying a well-known filmmaking phenomenon to Obama, and the parallels are striking. It’s actually a pretty clever analysis.

That’s all. Carry on.

(MN: Seekerman’s not in right now. His body is here but his mind is someplace out by Jupiter. I only posted the first couple of sections of his response since he didn’t in any way address our response about the origins of the term “Majic Negro.”

Seekerman - Rush didn’t come up with the term. It was here long before Rush and it was brought up again by a Black man out of Los Angeles. )

Well, my last post wasn’t posted, so I’ll make this brief:

1) No offense Laura, but I didn’t underestand your statement/explanation.

2) Rush Limbaugh was being his racist self when he referred to Obama as a “negro,” and a “magic” one at that.

He was implying that white liberals, possibly jews, and minorities, were given this Obama fellow the benefit of the doubt, even though he’s an unqualified “negro” vying for the presidency and residing in the white house.

(MN: The rest of the paragraphs continued to ignore the facts. )

OK, let me try to simplify this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_negro

If you don’t understand that… well, I don’t know what to tell you.

(MN: A little long, but I will go ahead and post. This time. )

Kyle said:

seekerman,eucatastrophe,

Are you understanding me?

My response:

Yes. I’m just not agreeing with you. Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn’t mean they don’t understand you…

- Arabic Christians use the term Allah in a generic sense when referencing God.

My response:

I realize this, so what’s your point?

Kyle said:

However, your missing the point about Rick Warren.

My response:

Break it down…

Kyle said:

How can You or eucatastrophe not see that this man has consistently embraced Muslims and has spoke in front of Islamic groups in an ecumenical setting?

My response:

Within the context of my declaration that muslims use Isa, to refer to Jesus, even those who are christian arabs, Rick Warren’s embrace of muslims is of no use to me, and the obvious truth: THAT ARABIC CHRISTIANS REFER TO JESUS AS ISA.

I’ve heard them with mine own ears, refer to Jesus as Isa.

Kyle said:

So the answer is NO to thinking that Rick Warren used the term “Isa” to refer to the Biblical Jesus regardless if Arab Christians do mean Jesus.

My response:

Where did I ever say that Rick Warren referred to “Isa” as the biblical Jesus? Again, where in any of my posts on this thread, have I declared that Rick referred to “Isa” as the biblical Jesus.

If you’d calm down, you’d see that I am emphatically stating that the translation for the name “Jesus” in arabic is ISA, and that both christians who are arabs, and muslims who are arabs, use this term.

Kyle said:

He on the other hand is suspect due to his past engagements with Muslim groups.

He also said:

The argument regarding “Isa” being used by Arab Christians is mutually exclusive from the topic at hand.

My response:

Then why are you addressing me with this angst of yours, seeing as how I really don’t have a dog in the fight you’re trying to construct, other than to say that Jesus in arabic, is Isa, and that arabic christians refer to Jesus as Isa?

What? Are you telling me that I shouldn’t have said this?

Kyle said:

The issue is what “Rick” meant, not what Arab Christians meant.

My response:

Now you’re beginning to repeat yourself, but in all fairness to Rick, this is what he said concerning Isa:

“humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life – Yeshua, Isa, Jesus, [Spanish pronunciation], Jesus – who taught us to pray:

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name.”

Need I go further? I don’t think so. So what do I see here, after I’ve been steered in the direction of this prayer of Rick? Well, I discovered that you Kyle, are blowing a lot of hot air, over much ado about nothing, because Rick contextualizes the Isa that he’s referring to, and it ain’t the Isa from the Quran.

How so, because according to Rick, this same Isa “taught us to pray”. Pray what, according to Rick? He (Isa) “taught us to pray:”

“Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name.

Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.

Amen.”

Now, I wasn’t even going to go there with this, but seeing as how I’ve been dragged into defending Rick, where praytell, does the Isa of the Quran teach us to pray this way?

Again, this Isa, who “taught us to pray,” according to Rick Warren, gave us these words:

“Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name.

Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.

Amen.”

Again, no Isa of the Quran ever gave us these instructions, and not only that, Rick Warren further contextualizes who he is focusing on, by prefacing his prayer by saying:

” I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life – Yeshua, Isa, Jesus, [Spanish pronunciation], Jesus – who taught us to pray:”

Who changed his life? I’m sure he would claim that it was the Isa/Jesus of the bible, and not of the Quran.

In the end, with all that is said and done, I personally believe that the Isa/Jesus of the bible, is what Warren was referring to, and not the Isa of the Quran, despite his associations with muslims in the past.

I understand the connection you’re trying to make here, but the context just doesn’t fit. The man was referring to the true Jesus-any other claim is highly dubious.

Kyle,
Both of your points are right. Because BO calls himself a Christian, but wants to kill kids and have gay marriage, we aren’t to have anything to do with him. I Cor. 5:9–13. Rick Warren prays with him.

And your point about “it’s what Rick meant”–that’s called authorial intent, the basis for interpretting spoken or written communication.

So, your absolutely right. Good thinking. Biblical thinking. Spread it. Don’t let anyone shake you.

Phil Perkins.

Phil Perkins,

Thanks Bro!

As sure as I’m typing here you can bet that Ricky will start to slide down even further on the slippery slope once he sees an opportunity to expand his influence.

Under Obama he will have that very opportunity. In fact let me go out on a limb. Barrack Obama is in the process of passing anti hate speech. You and I both know what that really means. It’s code for Christians shut up! Ricky has protected himself well in three ways. First, the speech at Obama’s inaugural. Next, His ecumenical tone of the speech. Lastly, his embracing of gay singer Melissa Ethridge.

Warren has accomplished the perfect tri-fecta for maintaining his mega Pastor status during the coming hate crimes legislation which he will be immune from because he WILL protect his interest. Mark my words the three afore mentioned examples were done on purpose.

Kyle

-Because BO calls himself a Christian, but wants to kill kids and have gay marriage, we aren’t to have anything to do with him. I Cor. 5:9–13. Rick Warren prays with him.

*Likewise, any of the reformers, or founding fathers, who were men stealers, murderers, or slave owners, we oughtn’t revere them, or if they were living amongst us today-HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM.

Whooooah, there, Seekerman, my brother.

We oughtn’t revere the theology of anyone in the past who did something wrong? That is fundie separation taken to a kinda crazy level.

If you keep going with that, you probably shouldn’t have anything to do with ME. Or Gary. Or Mel. Or yourself, for that matter. Because one day, all of us are going to have our theology corrected and our besetting sins exposed.

Except Mel. He’s durn near perfect.

Laura, my specific comment addressed Phil’s assertion that just because Obama believes in gay marriage, and abortion (which he does), therefore he’s not someone who ought to have fellowship with true believers, despite his claims of being a christian; whereas I responded by saying that if you take that logic to it’s umpteenth hardcore extreme, then those who referred to themselves as christians from back in the day, with the “right” theology (I place quotation marks around “right,” for I myself don’t believe in some aspects of their theology), but yet were men stealers, slave owners, murderers, and the like- shouldn’t have fellowship with true believers if they were living today.

(MN: I’m always fascinated to hear people defend a lack of standards by presenting the “if we take it to the extreme, we’re all sinners” argument. If we take it to the extreme, there is no law. There is no church. There is no civilization. After all, we all break the law in some way so why should we serve on a jury? That fellow murdered [let's be extreme] six million Jews, hundreds of thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses, thousands upon thousands of Christians and a big smattering of Gypsies, Poles, and malcontents. But since all of have held hate in our hearts for our fellow man, none of us should judge Hitler [if he had survived his bunker], or Stalin, or the Khmer Rouge. And if a person claims to be a Christian [since we're going to be extreme] and is an active and professing homosexual, no one in that congregation should say anything to that person, since we all have some doctrinal deviation no matter how small. After all, choosing to have sex with your mother is pretty much the same as me believing sprinkling is enough when some other folks believe you have to get the man wet.

If you really want you contributions to be useful to the readers, how about avoiding the “extreme” situations. Yes, sometimes extending an idea out to its logical conclusion can be useful, but that is not always the case, especially something as specific as Christianity, doctrine, fellowship, and holy living. )

Why? Being a man stealer, slave owner (within the context of how slavery was practiced in this country) and murderer of those who disagree with your theology, is sinfully egregious as well.

Now having said that, I personally don’t believe that Obama was really preached the Gospel, or the biblical Jesus, while being a member of Jeremiah Wright’s church-I’ll give you that.

I’m just putting forth the notion that someone may be a legitimate believer, but have views that many Christians will consider abominable, or sinful, whether it be abortion, gay marriages, slavery (as practiced in this country), forced segregation, murdering those fellow believers who don’t hold to your view on theology, etc.

(MN: Again, we’re not talking about murdering those who differ with our theology. Rather, it is about separating ourselves, in terms of Christian fellowship, from those who promote what we believe to be sinful or Obaminable behavior. )

That’s all I’m saying. No more, no less…

What a helpful response!!!…

Dear me…us poor negroes (and coconuts like me).