NEVER WASTE A CRISIS: Did Donald Sterling’s Adultery Expose His Racism? (by Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr)

Did Donald Sterling’s Adultery Expose His Racism?
By Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

Donald Sterling’s racism is well documented and has been appropriately redressed by Adam Silver, the NBA Commissioner. But his adultery has gone largely unaddressed.  No one of stature has related the impact of his adultery to this crisis.

Wasn’t Sterling’s adultery the precursor to him receiving the death penalty, as a result of his racist rant? Wasn’t it a recorded conversation with a female friend—that his wife was suing for having interfered with her marriage—the conversation that resulted in his life-time banishment from the NBA? Would he have been punished for his racism, had his racism not been revealed by his adultery? Would we even know about his racist views, if it were not for his adultery? At the root of this racial crisis is an adulterous affair.

A practical lesson that could and should be learned from the Sterling fiasco is that not only is racism unacceptable in American Society, but adultery is also damaging, destructive, and deadly to American families, and consequently society.  Those of us who are married need to steer clear of adultery. When we fail to do so, a host of other issues often surface—that are often irreversible—as a result of our willful disobedience to the laws of God, the dishonoring of our marital vows, and the disloyalty to our spouses. Sterling’s adultery is just as evil as his racism.

The decision to commit adultery has far-reaching consequences beyond the moment in time that one makes that decision. It is not just the racism that America is reeling and rocking from, that fell from the lips of Donald Sterling; but the adultery that preceded the racist rant, is also what America is now having to collectively process in our national psyche. Their private affair has caused a public nightmare. It is time for the healing to begin.

While viewing the “Jackie Robinson” recent movie, I was awestruck by the fact that Branch Ricky fired one of his team managers—Leo Durocher—for engaging in serial adultery in the 1947 era. The Catholic Church supplied pressure on Branch Ricky to dismiss Durocher because he was viewed as a poor role model.

Why is it that we had a high tolerance for racism in ’47, but a low tolerance for adultery? And, now we have a high tolerance for adultery, but a low tolerance for overt, blatant, in-your-face racism? Could it be that while we are judging the racism in the Sterling case, God is judging the adultery? Could the plight of Sterling be the plight of America if we don’t repent before it is everlasting too late?

During the Jackie Robinson era, Donald Sterling’s racism would have been accepted without much controversy. Sterling’s racism is rightfully judged as intolerable today, by many. But his adultery is accepted, or ignored, as if it is a non-issue. America and the NBA have judged his racism and rendered a verdict. But God may be judging his unrepentant adultery, in addition to his racism. The Bible says, “Be sure that your sins will find you out.”

Sterling’s sin of adultery exposed his sin of racism. America accepts Sterling’s sin of adultery, while rejecting his sin of racism. God rejects Sterling’s sins of adultery and racism.

Richard Land, Ann Coulter, and several Fox News Commentators have argued that racism is a myth. Land later apologized for his racial remarks. Sterling should do the same.

Clearly, Donald Sterling’s remarks reveal that racism in America is not a myth. Racism is alive and well. Donald Sterling, Paula Deen, and Cliven Bundy—the infamous Nevada Rancher—have painfully reminded us of this. Paula Deen also repented of her racist remarks, for which she is to be commended.

“Never waste a crisis,” is a quote often attributed to Rahm Emanuel , who served as Chief of Staff in President Obama’s first term, and currently serves as Mayor of Chicago. There are lessons to be learned about adultery from this crisis, as well as the obvious racism. If we don’t learn lesson(s) about adultery from this crisis; and if we continue to believe that racism is a myth, this could prove to be a wasted crisis.

Sterling’s adultery is equally as reprehensible as his racism. God pulled the covers off of Sterling’s racism, because Sterling would not repent of his adultery. He flaunted his adultery, and God has now judged it.

America applauds Michael Sam’s homosexuality. America gives silent approval to Donald Sterling’s adultery. Yet, we deplore Sterling’s racism.

God stands against adultery, racism, and homosexuality. Although, we give Sterling a pass on his adultery, God does not. The Sterling Case reveals the fact that America has an increasing lower tolerance for systemic racism, but a high tolerance for sexual sin. If we are going to see a change in America for the betterment of society, we are going to have to start abhorring adultery and sexual sins as much as we do racism.

Perhaps and prayerfully, Sterling will go back home to his wife, where he belongs. Had he been there all along, we would have been spared this crisis? But, Rahm Emmanuel is right: Now that we have it, we shouldn’t waste it. Everybody involved can seek and receive forgiveness, and go their way and sin no more.

Starting with me, it would do us all well to remember the words of Proverbs 6:25, 27, 28, 32, 33:

”25Do not lust after her beauty in your heart,
Nor let her allure you with her eyelids.

27 Can a man take fire to his bosom,
And his clothes not be burned?
28 Can one walk on hot coals,
And his feet not be seared?

32 Whoever commits adultery with a woman lacks understanding;
He who does so destroys his own soul.
33 Wounds and dishonor he will get,
And his reproach will not be wiped away.”

May God forgive, help, cleanse and deliver all of us who struggle and sometimes fail to live lives that are morally and mentally pure! May God help us to practice sexual restraint and to relate to and view others racially righteously and without any hint of racism!


  1. says


    Overall good point here. One point and one question.

    Question, I remember the Paula Deen story but I must have missed it being about her being a racist. What made her a racist in all that was revealed?

    Point. You said, “Would we even know about his racist views, if it were not for his adultery? At the root of this racial crisis is an adulterous affair.”

    Actually his views on race have been known in the media and by the NAACP for years. His views are not really new. But the political correctness climate has never been riper for stringing up a guy like Sterling.

    Blessings brother.

      • says


        I went and refreshed my faded memory on Paula Deen. I wouldn’t at all call her a racist. She testified to having used the n word in her past but not in the recent present. If that qualifies one to be a racist then I guess I’m one as well as probably many commenters here. A commonly accepted definition of a racist is:

        1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
        2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
        3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

        Incensitive terms or joking don’t really qualify. And as to the event she helped set up with waiters and waitresses, while maybe ill advised, doesn’t qualify either IMO.

        What I think is sadly instructive in the Sterling case is that the NBA knew of his past, the NAACP knew and many in the public knew. But we are now in a time where the slightest slip up on race and gay issues will lead to one’s destruction.

        As for the lack of outcry over his adultery, well that train left the station a long time ago. The culture generally doesn’t care.

        Blessings brother.

        • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says


          I appreciate your response. However, I told you that what constitutes racism on my side of the fence, may not constitute racism on yours. There are many Whites, including those in the SBC that believe that racism is a myth. Therefore, I am not surprised that in your mind her calling Blacks the ‘N word, and wanting to emulate or reenact the old White Supremacy Days is are not acts of racism from your vantage point. They are from mine and 99% of all Blacks. I am not suggesting that she is currently a racist. As a matter of fact I acknowledged that she had repented of her racist acts. But, her statements and desire to celebrate a racist past and culture, certainly qualified her a racists while she was engaged in those actions.

        • says

          Dwight I won’t belabor the point. We do see things differently brother.

          A larger concern with the Sterling case (recent insensitive remarks, in private only to be perhaps illegally recorded and if so illegally leaked) and the Deen case is the culture of thought police. I made that comment yesterday on Dave’s post.

          Fear is driving much of this. Advertisers fear a backlash. Network execs and media types fear a backlash. In Paula’s case, pressure of such magnitude and fear caused her sponsors to drop her like a hot potato. Or is it potatoe? Over what? Something she said and did a long time ago.

          Sterling while recent, expressed his thoughts in what he thought was a private conversation. Now all he double hockey sticks breaks loose. “We can’t have a guy like that owning a team. He’s got to go.” Why? He has different thoughts (no one has shown he has actually discriminated. Maybe he has, just not shown yet) that are unacceptable.

          Brothers as I said yesterday, buckle up. They are coming after you preachers.

          • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says


            Are you suggesting that Sterling should remain the owner of the Clippers?

          • says

            Dwight, yes I am suggesting that. I don’t think he broke any laws. I’m not sure if he broke any league rules. But why should he be forced out of his ownership because he thinks and apparently sometimes privately says stupid and hurtful things? I think the NBA erred in banning him for life from the NBA.

            BTW, I also think Al Sharpton should be able to remain at MSNBC even after the shameful race baiting Tawana Brawley case. He was extremely unwise in that one. But if someone wants to hire him, that’s their business.

            Now some may think I’m stupid for my views on this. Some may also think I’M a racist. But I suggest such ones learn something of my background and track record before going there.

            Blessings brother.

          • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says


            If you believe that Sterling could remain an owner and it not destroy the NBA, or dramatically hurt it, you are fooling yourself. No self respecting Black player or coach would play for Sterling given his unrepentant racial views. It would be a PR nightmare for the NBA and the nation. If you were a team owner you would have one vote and it would go to retain Sterling. You would then destroy the team that you owned. Larry Elder a Black lawyer/journalist holds your position as well. I certainly, would not call you a racists based on your expressed viewpoint here, although I vehemently disagree with you. But, you could never make me believe that Sterling, or you, would have the best interest of the NBA at heart, if you all insisted that he remain as owner knowing that it has the potential of destroying the league.

          • Tarheel says


            I personally think that people like Sterling should be outcasts/….BUT….

            Stripping someones property (in this case a basketball team) from someone based solely on their unpopular speech…..

            Surely you see where that is heading don’t you?

            If America loses property ownership and freedom of speech as fundamental rights…..freedom of religion goes with it.

          • says

            Dwight, I doubt it would destroy the league. But unless he violated league rules for his speech, he should remain. If people quit attending games and playing for him (thus forgoing their lucrative contracts and all that $$ he has been paying them) then he would make a business decision to get out.

            But forcing him out because of his speech? Where does this all end? BTW the NBA has a few PR nightmares in the past.

            Also BTW, I don’t have the NBA’s best interest at heart. I have the interest, in these cases, of civil liberty and freedom of thought and speech. I have the interest of American citizens having the freedom to live and conduct their business in the open marketplace with freedom to think and say things that are sometimes unpopular. This is not a color thing with me. I don’t see color. It’s much bigger than color or any one segment of society.

            Blessings brother.

          • Tarheel says

            Less and Dwight,

            I think the lifetime NBA ban is fine…..they can do that…its their business and they can socialize with whomever they want or don’t want.

            I also think that the fine (the most the NBA could do under their rules) was fine too…

            I just part with them (and the NBA constitution actually does not allow it) in the “forced sell” of his team…at least while it is not insolvent…the NBA can only force a sell if it becomes financially insolvent.

            I tend to agree with you that the free market will take care of it….the value of his team is going no place but down…he would be wise to sell and quick…but the ‘forced sell’ is what I oppose and very strongly so.

            For the sake of discussion, Dwight…lets take race out of it….what if the NBA did these sanctions against a coach who said in reference to homosexual/heterosexual adulterer players that “marriage is between one man and one woman for a lifetime and I do not want adulterers on my team.”

            Would you support all the sanctions, including a forced sell, then?

            If not…intellectually – do you not have to reconsider supporting them here….

            (Remember culturally – “homophobic” comments are just as incendiary as racism.)

          • Tarheel says

            What he said was offensive, immoral and wrong….

            But, I contend that there is bigger picture to be considered than punishing one idiot for his stupidity.

            I think these actions are short sighted and racially pandering on the part of the NBA….and that also offends me.

          • says


            I’ll over the two ss in my name since I referred to Dwight as Donald in my first comments.

            Sure the league can associate with whomever they want. I just don’t think it was the right decision to ban him for life. It’s highly hypocritical and not only is the NBA hypocritical here, but the NAACP and all the other owners if they vote to strip him of his team (if that can be done) and players as well. All hypocrites. His views have been well publicized for years. Why now?

            I do like your analogy about the gay marriage issue. What would be the reaction?

          • says

            The NBA owners can, as a whole, vote to require him to sell the franchise. That’s part of doing business–just as McDonald’s can force a franchise owner out, even if they are all paid up. It’s in the overall contract.

            Now, Sterling would have options, including keeping his ownership of a basketball team and trying to start a new league, I think, if they voted to boot him out. But the other NBA owners have the right to determine association as much as any other private entity and group ought to have. We can’t want the freedom to do business only with like-minded people and deny that to others.

            If, and this is a big if, the *government* seized his business for his speech, that’s the 1st Amendment. But if private individuals want to cut him out for being a racist, that should be their freedom. It’s a freedom that, had more people exercised it in prior years, might have mitigated the need to pass laws against racial discrimination. Imagine where we would have ended up had we all refused to do business with racially discriminating businesses in the 1940-1960 era? Isn’t that exactly what the Montgomery Bus Boycott was, or some of the sit-ins that said “You’ll do business fairly with all of us or none of us.”?

            I think it’s an interesting mess, though: if the owners force him out, expect to see one of two issues. He’ll either contend in court to keep from selling below market value until he’s dead (and then it is his heir’s team, not his, so are they banned? no.), or he’ll managed to soak Oprah and Magic Johnson for an above market price since he’s selling against his will.

            Either way, he laughs all the way to the bank. That $2.5 million? It’ll come from his businesses and be taken in such a way as to harm his tenants or his employees. The NBA made a statement here, which was right. But are they going to either truly punish Sterling or change his ways? Unlikely.

            Maybe, though, it will spark a few more conversations that will cause people to think more clearly.

          • Tarheel says

            Doug, I’ve heard and read in Multiple places that they cannot force him to sell it unless the team is insolvent which it clearly is not.

            I’m also not sure that your analogy concerning private businesses works as the NBA does not own the clippers Donald Sterling owns the clippers. It’s not like McDonald’s. McDonald’s can prohibit the use of the name McDonald’s because they own that name but they cannot make make a franchisee sell their actual property ….likewise the NBA cannot tell him what to do with his team… Can they strip all NBA insignia and all of that …possibly….but can they make him sell his team that belongs completely to him I’m not so sure.

            if we value private property rights we can’t support this. If we’re going to throw private property rights to the curb then so be it.

          • Tarheel says


            My misspelling in no way indicates you being a less of anything….lol.

            I agree it’s hypocritical….but the NBA has freedom of association rights too.

            They can strip the logos , insignias, etc. but I do not believe they can force sell his property out from under him.

          • Les Prouty says

            Ok Tarhill see what in did there? :)

            You may be right about what the NBA can do. I don’t know the league rules. My concerns are larger than that. All this moral outrage? Over speech?

            Did you see my quote about the congressman? I’m hearing crickets about that. But wait. He is untouchable.

          • says

            Vol (Oh how I wish my AU Tigers played your Vols more than once every 6 years),

            This quote in the article about DeVos is so salient:

            “Think about it: How does the NBA decide what an owner can and can’t say or do? For instance, why is it OK for DeVos to say two men or two women should not be married, but Sterling gets his franchise stripped away for saying a white woman should not be seen in public with a black man?”

            There you have it. And why can the congressman use “Uncle Tom” referencing Justice Thomas and no backlash?

    • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says

      Paula Deen used the ‘N word in reference to her Black employees and wanted to celebrate an era past and gone at her brother’s wedding of an all Black wait staff dressed in uniforms of the antebellum South days, reminiscent of the days in America’s history that clearly recognized a hierarchical construct with Whites at the top-otherwise known as White Supremacy. That may not constitute racism on your side of the fence, but it does on my side.

      Yes, his views on race have been out there for a while, but it was the adulterous affair that has exposed it to the public’s eye in a way more pronounced, and with wider attention than before.

      • says

        I suspect that what the adulterous affair (or, more accurately, the recording) provided was an easily understood sound bite. It doesn’t take much thinking to get from “this guy has been sued for racial discrimination” to “this guy is a racist”, but apparently even that level of thinking hadn’t been applied by the general public until they had a sound bite available. It paints a picture of a culture that doesn’t so much think as respond to sound bites, but that may not be a surprise.

        What confuses me is that the NAACP is usually listed as one of those who knew about Sterling’s racism *before* the sound bite, but until the sound bite they were preparing to give him a lifetime achievement award? What’s up with that?

        • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says


          Money buys a lot of things, including overlooking a multitude of faults. Sterling has donated $45,000 to the NAACP according to some News Accounts. Pimps, dope dealers, race hustlers, and racist have been known to donate “strategically” to certain charities because it buys them good PR. Sterling would pay for ads in the LA Times publicizing the gifts he had given to charities, in order to buy good will. Apparently, and unfortunately, the NAACP in LA sold themselves to a known racist for $45,000. Given his history, it was and is a crying shame that they would do such.

        • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says


          If anyone finds the Congressman’s speech unacceptable, they can ban him from office at the next election. Your point is well made about protecting and honoring the American constitutional principle of freedom of speech, no matter how dishonorable and offensive that speech might be. But, no one is trying to take Sterling’s freedom of speech. The NBA is saying to Sterling: say whatever you please; but, you can no longer own a NBA team and use this offensive racist language. Yes, you can have freedom of speech, and use this language if you must; but not while owning a team. Surely you see this distinction.

          • Les Prouty says

            Dwight I agree that the voters can have their say at election time. But does it concern you that there is little to no outrage and calls for his ouster by the black community? Where are the Christian black leaders on him? Until the likes of a black congressman like this are equally condemned this divide will persist.

            As to the NBA I can see the distinction. Again, I think the NBA is wrong on this even if it is in their rights to do what they’re doing. And I think the bigger picture is what concerns me most. The hypocritical sharks come out to devour him. Now. What not before? And will the same sharks seek to shout down the congressman? Not holding my breath on that one. They’re hypocrites and their moral outrage is fake.

            Remember the Google exec? Over gay issue beliefs? The cow towing needs to stop.

          • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says


            I don’t want to spend a whole lot of time discussing the Congressman’s speech. But, if you specifically state what exactly it is that you are troubled about with regard to his speech, and why it troubles you, I will offer you one response. BTW, because the Congressman is an elected official and not a business owner, I don’t think that you can compare what he said with Sterling. Again, O don’t want to respond to everything that the Congressman said. State in a sentence or two what your beef with the gentleman is, and I wil give you a brief as possible response.

          • Tarheel says

            The same could be said about sterling….if consumers wanna ban him they can do so by not buying tix…..

            Players can refuse to renew contracts.

          • Tarheel says


            If we wanna end racism don’t we have to call it out in ALL it’s forms?

            Or do, as the congressman said, blacks get a pass on saying racist things?

          • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says


            I really think that it is unfair in these conversations that you get to hide behind “Tarheel”.

            Having said that, my question to you is this: what exactly did the congressman say that was racist? I am not saying that he has not said anything that was racist. I’m am saying I just scantily and hurriedly read what he had to say. So, do me a favor and specifically tell me what he said that you believe is racist. Thanks.

          • says


            I hope you’ll read what the congressman said in more detail. But here are my concerns about what he said, things that are racially charged.

            First, he said the remarks “on outburst in an interview with a program sponsored by a hate group,” Nation of Islam radio. Could that venue be likened to “KKK Radio” if there was such a program? Imagine a white congressman appearing on a white supremacist program.

            The article says that the congressman “claimed that all opposition to President Obama was rooted in racism and that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is an example of this.” Racially charged remarks.

            It says he said that “Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is “an Uncle Tom.” Racially charged remarks. From Wikipedia:

            “The phrase “Uncle Tom” has also become an epithet for a person who is slavish and excessively subservient to perceived authority figures, particularly a black person who behaves in a subservient manner to white people; or any person perceived to be a participant in the oppression of their own group.”

            The article foes on, “Thompson isn’t backing down and, in an interview with CNN, even suggested that he could say such things because he’s black.”

            The article says, “The facts of political life are such that minorities can get away with making statements that would end the careers of whites.”

            You have any problems with his remarks?

          • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says


            I read the congressman’s remarks to make sure that I could respond properly. Politically, the congressman and I are different. The last Democrat that I voted for was Jimmy Carter. I consider Justice Thomas a hero. I am quite thankful and proud of him. I genuinely admire Justice Clarence Thomas. He is truly a role model in multiple ways to all young people, but particularly minorities.

            I do believe that some of the opposition to President Obama is rooted in racism. The “you lie” statement will forever be sketched upon thew collective psyche’s of African Americans as an example of how some Euro-Americans disrespected the first Black President. The Governor of Arizona shaking her finger in his face is also a vivid memory that will never be forgotten. That is probably also unprecedented.

            The Congressman gave his opinion concerning a lot of issues. He did not categorically write off an entire race of people as Sterling did. There is no comparison to Sterling’s biologically based racist rhetoric, and the congressman’s politically based opinions. I hope that I addressed your question adequately. If not, I will try again.

          • says

            Dwight, no doubt that “some” opposition to the president is racially based. No one knows how much. But all? I dare say it isn’t even most. People I know who oppose the president base their opposition on his policies, not his color. He mad a broad sweep.

            Sterling in no way dismissed a whole race. In fact from what I’ve read, his girlfriend is partially black.

            In any case, no white politician, and I mean no white politician, could say anything close to what the congressman said and last more than a few days.

            You said, “There is no comparison to Sterling’s biologically based racist rhetoric, and the congressman’s politically based opinions.”

            I beg to differ. Sterling’s words were just his opinion. The congressman’s were his opinions. And, they were most certainly race based. One gets run out of town. The other will run and get reelected.

            The black community loses credibility to be taken seriously when the double standard is so apparent.

            Blessings brother.

          • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says


            “Sterling in no way dismissed a whole race”? Did we read and listen to the same remarks by Sterling to his lady friend? Sterling said that he did not want Blacks to attend his games. The Congressman made no such sweeping race based remarks. If he did, please point it out to me. Thanks.

          • says


            Yes he said that. But he also said she could do other things blacks. That is not a total dismissal such as the congressman who called all whites racists.

          • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says


            Would you please point out or place in quotes the congressman direct words calling all Whites “racist”? Thanks.

          • Tarheel says

            I point out that no one has ever linked that “you lie” congressman is racist and to be precise he was right….Obama was lying.

            Just sayin’

            I think Americans citizens and members of both houses of Congress have a long, long storied history of showing and speaking disagreement and disdain for Presidents and until our current one….they’ve all been white.

          • says


            First, let me stipulate that I’m quoting someone’s account of what the congressman said. Here is what the writer said he said,

            “he not only claimed that all opposition to President Obama was rooted in racism ”

            Note the word “all.”

            As to my statement about losing credibility, no I see no need to rephrase it. It is a true statement. I did not say the black loses all credibility. I said they lose credibility. And they do. And I didn’t say to whom they lose credibility. I don’t have a community. I’m not the one who says that blacks vote this way or that way because of past mistreatments. I don’t think in color groups. But since many blacks do think that way and apparently vote that way, and have “representatives” and organizations, that is why I said they lose credibility. Many of us see it. I know because I am one and I know many other fine Christian, non racist folks who also dismiss many complaints by blacks because of the double standard.

            The day that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and such denounce the Uncle Tom (a perjaorative if there ever was one) comments and denounce black’s erroneous attribution to all white opposition to the president, then we can have some real dialogue.

            BTW, many non blacks are fearful of saying some of these things. Guess why? They’ll be labeled racists.

            Blessings brother.

          • says

            From the Miami Herald on the congressman:

            “Of Thomas, the only African-American on the high court, Thompson said that “it’s almost to the point where this man doesn’t even like black people, he doesn’t like being black, because every decision where color had something to do with it, he was against it.”

          • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says

            Les and Tarheel,

            I bow out of this conversation. The unrepentant comments about “the credibility of the Black Community” are so off base and in my judgement racist and evil to the core, ’til I would have to disrespect myself and my community to remain in the conversation with both of you on this topic.

            For the record, I am not calling either one of you racist. I have never even met either of you. But the comment about the “Black Community’ having no “credibility” is a Sterling like comment. I refuse to dialogue with anyone who has such disrespect for me and my people on this particular subject, by making and defending that comment. You did what you falsely accused the congressman of doing. You made a categorical sweeping indictment of a whole race of people as lacking “credibility” because many of them don’t share your thinking on this subject. I have been misrepresented through reporters summaries of my statements on several occasions. If the congressman actually made such a statement, for certain the reporter should have, or would have provided a verbatim quote to document this spurious accusation. Les you are basing your whole argument off of an unsubstantiated claim. That is not wise or biblical.

            I am calling your statement regarding the “Black Community lacking credibility” as racist, unkind, untrue, without merit, and insensitive, but not surprising. Most Blacks believe that this is how most Whites feel about them. Thus the deep racial divide in this country.

            Les, I do appreciate your openness and honesty though. I also appreciate the fact that you are willing to use your real name. As I recall, you no longer claim to be SBC. That provides me with a great sense of relief. I am sure you are also grateful to discontinue a dialogue with a member of a community that has in your false judgement: “no credibility”. Your remark here is a 1000 times more insensitive and offensive than anything the Congressman or Sterling uttered, because of who you are. Good Night.

          • says


            My brother, here is what I actually said re the credibility issue:

            “The black community loses credibility to be taken seriously when the double standard is so apparent.” – See more at:

            At the risk of being mis quoted again, notice I did not say that that the “Black Community’ [had] no “credibility.” You inserted the “no” into what I said. There it is in digital ink.

            As to what the congressman actually said, I made clear that I was quoting from a report on his remarks, other than the direct quote about justice Thomas.

            I’m sorry that you are offended at my candor and my opinions. However, I do not think I have anything to repent for on what I said, especially on a misquote of what I said.

            Blessings brother.

        • Tarheel says

          You most certainly did call us racist. The playing of that car makes me no longer want to discuss the matter with you either so have a good day.

          As long as you continue to play the race card every chance you get you never have a good dialogue with anyone on any racial issue.

          • Tarheel says


            Also I take offense to your comment saying that continuing to talk with us would be an offense to “my people”. That is not language of unity, but rather division and quite honestly racism.

            As a Christian your people are the people of God. those people are made up of every nation, tribe, and tongue.

            As a human being you and I are both members of the same race, the human race.

            As long as people speak in terms of division ad in “my people” and “your people” we will never half racial unity.

  2. volfan007 says

    Donald, I mean, Dwight,

    Here’s the money quote from your OP, IMHO, “A practical lesson that could and should be learned from the Sterling fiasco is that not only is racism unacceptable in American Society, but adultery is also damaging, destructive, and deadly to American families, and consequently society.”

    Thanks for making us all think, today. I don’t always agree with you, but I love and appreciate you, Brother.


    • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says


      “The Black Community loses credibility to be taken seriously when the double standard is so apparent”? Really?

      Not taken serious by whom? The only double standard here is in your mind. The Sterling-Congressman analogy simply does not fit.

      It is the above kind of statement in quotes that drives a deep wedge between Blacks and Whites. Surely you could have communicated your point without saying that your community–whoever that might be–does not take the Black Community seriously–because of your communities misperception of a some kind of “double standard”.

      You may want to rethink and rephrase that statement.

      • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says

        Note to all,

        “The Black Community loses credibility to be taken seriously when the double standard is so apparent.”

        >>The Black Community has no credibility to be taken seriously where the double standard is so apparent.>>

        Is there a substantive difference between these these two statements? In my judgement, No!!! Both statements suggest that Blacks loses “credibility” for political thoughts that differ from a certain unnamed community. Both statements indicate that Blacks aren’t to be “taken seriously” because their political opinions are not in sync with some other community’s opinion. The notion of stating that the Black Community “loses credibility to be taken seriously” in any context is an extremely divisive, alienating, and racist statement in my judgement.

        • Tarheel says

          Les can take care of himself… So I’ll just speak for myself…

          Dwight, you lumped me into your diatribe against his point and called me a racist.

          I do not appreciate that.

          I’ve been arguing from a position of personal property and freedom of speech defense. I stand by that. I deplore Sterlings comments but I think there’s a bigger picture here….if that makes me racist in your eyes then whatever.

          It’d be nice if you would equally speak against racist comments made by this congressman.

          If a white congressman said such … What would be your response?

          Shouldn’t the standard be the same…it’s equality we want, right?

        • says

          Is there a substantive difference between these these two statements? In my judgement, No!!!

          On this part, I have to disagree with you (I’m not for the moment going to get into the rest of this). The difference lies in whether you see credibility as an all-or-nothing thing, or as graduated (e.g. from %100 credibility down to %0 credibility). I believe when Les says that he thinks that the congressman’s statements, combined with the black community’s response (or lack thereof) to those statements, causes the black community to ‘lose credibility’, he is saying e.g. that their credibility went from 90% to 85% (I’m pulling those numbers out of thin air, don’t nitpick on them). Dwight, you seem to be seeing credibility as an all or nothing thing (I could be quite wrong, you could have an entirely different perspective on this, but this is how it seems), and taking that as though he said their credibility went to zero. I’m not going to argue here over which perspective on credibility is correct, but I think you need to recognize that what you’re hearing is not what he’s saying.

          That latter condition is not at all unusual – the vast majority of people, of any race, are actually pretty lousy listeners, yet think they’re good listeners.

          • says

            “I think you need to recognize that what you’re hearing is not what he’s saying.”

            Thank you Ben. You have gotten it just right.

          • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says


            The problem is that he provides no evidence that these statements deserve some kind of response of outrage from the Black community. Just because in his judgement, some type of response is merited, does not mean that it is apparent to all that a response is merited. Secondly, he provides zero evidence–nada–none–that the congressman made a racist statement–and that’s the heart of his claim. By labeling the congressman remarks as racist, and providing no logic, rationale, reasoning, or documentation for doing so, he is falsely accusing the congressman. Whether “losing credibility” means gradual or absolute, is a moot issue. Because another party does not process reason as he does, it not indicative that they have loss credibility “gradually,” or “absolutely’. To suggest such, again, is very problematic from my vantage point. I gladly and willingly acknowledge that he did not say “no credibility,” that was my paraphrase that I should not have placed in quotes. For that I apologize. But, the major point is, the credibility of a race of people is being called into question either gradually, or absolutely, based on a difference of opinion. That to me is a non-starter. It certainly is not a good step toward healing and mending an obvious existing racial divide. Be Carson has spoken at my church He is my first choice for President. That’s why this talk of losing credibility for not seeing the congressman statements as racist are so unnecessary and until he explains what makes his statements racist–the allegation of losing credibility is untrue. If what he is saying is not what I am hearing, I stand corrected. But of he is going to make such a bold, inflammatory, and racially charged accusation; shouldn’t he at least have to first prove the substance or foundation of his claim that the congressman’s statements are racist? I don’t agree with much of what the congressman said. But, I see his statements as one man sharing his political opinions. I certainly don’t agree that Justice Thomas is an “Uncle Tom”. But, it does not make the congressman a racist because he feels that way. I am baffled as to exactly why some conservatives see the congressman’s statements as racist. Perhaps you can explain it in a way that makes sense to me. Thanks for intervening here. I appreciate what you have offered in your commentary/contribution here.

          • Tarheel says

            Dwight, do you see the term “uncle Tom” when spoken in the context of the congressman’s comments as perjorative and rife with racist overtones?

          • says

            From a report on Buzzfeed (so far I have not been able to find a transcript of his remarks in Nation of Islam radio)

            “A Mississippi Democratic Congressman says Clarence Thomas is an “Uncle Tom,” Mitch McConnell is a “racist,” and that Republicans are only anti-big government and anti-Obamacare because President Obama is black. Rep. Bennie Thompson made the comments over the weekend while appearing on a New Nation of Islam radio program.
            “I’ve been in Washington. I saw three presidents now. I never saw George Bush treated like this. I never saw Bill Clinton treated like this with such disrespect,” Thompson said. “That Mitch McConnell would have the audacity to tell the president of the United States — not the chief executive, but the commander-in-chief — that ‘I don’t care what you come up with we’re going to be against it.’ Now if that’s not a racist statement I don’t know what is.”
            Thompson adds at 2:40 in the video that the governor of Mississippi was against expanding Medicaid through Obamacare “just because a black man created it.”
            At 3:00 into the video, Thompson adds opposition to Obama is “all about race” and “when a black man comes with an idea [for Obamacare] there’s something wrong with it. Again, it’s race creeping into the picture.”
            At 4:47 in the video, he says the anti-government attitude has only been around since Obama was president.
            “Now all of a sudden, government is the worst thing in the world since a black man became president.”
            Discussing the Supreme Court and affirmative action, Thompson refers to Justice Clarence Thomas as an “Uncle Tom,” adding, “it’s almost to the point saying this man doesn’t like black people, he doesn’t like being black.”
            Thompson’s office didn’t immediately return a request for comment.”

            These are, as I said earlier, “things that are racially charged” that he said. I don’t think I called him a racist.

          • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says


            “Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi unwittingly provided evidence that race-based hate is alive and well…”

            Where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that what he said is untrue? To reference the congressman’s commentary as “race-based hate” is an incredible charge again without providing factual credible information that what he said is not true. This man is simply expressing his opinion. His opinion interfaces with some racially sensitive issues; but he never said one disparaging word categorically, about or against another race. The only thing that the congressman said that I disagree with was his statement regarding Justice Thomas. Therefore, I guess I qualify to be labeled as one who provides evidence that “race-based hate is alive and well”.

            The allegation that the Black community loses credibility gradually or absolutely because we don’t speak out against the congressman’s statement is simply Republican posturing against Democrats, just as the congressman speech was a lot of public posturing against the Republicans.

      • says


        If I had wanted to say “The Black Community has **no** credibility to be taken seriously where the double standard is so apparent,” I would have typed it that way. I did not. Brother you are reading more into what I said than I actually said. And in doing so, after I have repeatedly stated that is not what I wrote or meant, you are bordering on bearing false witness against me.

        I am scheduled to be at an event tomorrow night where the keynote speaker is Dr. Ben Carson. Based on what I know right now, if he runs for president he would get my vote. By the way he is black. So it makes no sense for me to say that no one in the black community has any credibility. My fellow ruling elder who is also black would beg to differ with you as well.

        Blessings brother.

      • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says


        You may not want to engage yourself in this discussion. But, my only question is, I wish that somebody would provide me with the Congressman’s exact words in quotes that they consider to be “race-based hate”?

        Justice Thomas has made some judicial rulings that are not popular with the majority of African Americans. It is unfortunate and unfair that anyone would label him an “Uncle Tom” because of his decisions, yet, I don’t see this as evidence of “race-based hate,” but political and judicial philosophies in conflict; and a very insensitive and politically incorrect way to voice opposition. If the Black Community is expected to voice outrage every time political opinions are expressed that someone disagrees with, many of us would get absolutely no sleep. Justice Thomas chose not to respond to these inaccurate and unfair allegations, and that is probably the best way to respond, by not responding. A non-response does not deserve the criticism of “losing credibility”. It is simply a wise strategy at times to employ. One must pick his or her battles wisely.

  3. cermak_rd says

    I don’t think American culture does approve of adultery. It’s still considered sleazy to cheat on your spouse. Even among atheists and agnostics. It’s considered that one ought to at least have the decency to divorce one’s spouse first. Adultery, because it involves breaking a promise and has the innocent spouse as victim, is a different case from fornication and homosexuality.

    • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says


      If American culture does not silently approve of adultery, where are the voices of angst against Sterling’s adultery, as there has been against his racism?

      Adultery adversely impacts families of this nation and world, as racism adversely impacts families of people of color, in this nation and world. Adultery and racism are twin evils that need to be eradicated from American society. Thanks for your comment.

      • volfan007 says


        Not only was adultery going on with Sterling, but he also told his mistress that she could have sex with Black men, if she wanted to. He just didn’t want her to be seen with Black men in public. But, he told her that she could have SEX with them ANYTIME she wanted. So, he didn’t mind his girlfriend having sex with other men! ANd, the media hasn’t said much about that either….as if that was something normal and okay.

        This whole situation is just weird and strange and ungoldy….and yes, you are right, our society seems to be okay with all the sexual sins that were happening.


  4. Tim B says

    “Richard Land, Ann Coulter, and several Fox News Commentators have argued that racism is a myth.” If you are referring to Land’s comments and apology regarding the Martin case then this is revisionism and needs to be corrected.

    • Tarheel says

      I wanted to address this too…

      I have never heard anyone say racism is a myth. I’m sure it’s happened but I’ve never heard it.

      In fact, the way I remember it, Land didn’t even say that in th comments he apologized for.

      • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says

        Tim B., and Tarheel,

        Go back and read a transcript of the the original radio commentary that Land spoke, that he later admitted that he plagarized. Clearly, he refers specifically there to racism being a “myth”.

        • Tim B says

          Land’s words from the transcript that you appear to be referring to: “They need the Travyon Martin’s to continue perpetuating their central myth: America is a racist and an evil nation. For them is always Selma Alabama circa 1965. Notice that the Nation has changed.”

          Do you believe that “America is a racist and an evil nation?” Does anyone else agree that there is a difference between saying “racism is a myth” and saying that the idea that “America is a racist and evil nation” is myth?

          • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says

            Tim B.,

            Do you remember Michelle Obama saying in the aftermath of either a particular state, or primary victory that her husband had won in the 2008 election, that for the first time in her life she was proud to be an American? Here we go again…..

            Blacks intuitively and based on historical experiences understood that statement. Many Whites were offended by her statement. Blacks and Whites view the world through a different set of lenses. Based on historical evidence and experience, 99% of Blacks would agree with the statement that you quote above: “America is a racist and evil nation.” Most Whites would not agree with that statement. This is truly a case where truth is a matter of perspective, experiences, and background. It is not a myth to the majority of Black Americans that America is a racist and evil nation. That is a myth to many White Americans, including at one point: Richard Land. That though is one of the remarks that he apologized and repented of.

            Tim B., Do you believe that it is a myth that America is a racist and evil nation?

          • Tim B says

            Dwight, do you believe we’re still living in the days of selma? That is the context of his statement?

          • Les Prouty says

            Dwight you didn’t directly ask me, but no. America is not a racist nation. There are racists of all colors. See my quote below about the congressman.

          • Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr. says

            Tim B.,

            I will answer your question as soon as you answer mine. Tim, I am asking you to give an answer to the very question that you posed. I answered your question; now will you answer your question? I will then be glad to answer your question regarding “Selma” after you answer the question that you raised, or if you prefer the one similar to yours that I raised. Thanks.

          • Tim B says

            The following statements do not convey the same meaning.

            Land: “They need the Travyon Martin’s to continue perpetuating their central myth: America is a racist and an evil nation. For them is always Selma Alabama circa 1965. Notice that the Nation has changed.”

            Dwight McKissic, Sr. “Richard Land…. have argued that racism is a myth.”

            I encourage you to edit your post so as not to besmirch a good man and a brother in Christ’s character with a characterization of what Land said.

          • says

            Tim B.,

            Richard Land in your quote referred to referred to their “central myth” that “America is a racist and evil nation”. I stated that Richard Land stated and later apologized for having stated that racism in America is a myth. Now exactly how am I mischarecterizing what he said?

            I also asked you earlier do you believe that racism in America is a myth? I answered your question specifically and succinctly. Would you please answer mine?

            I am grateful that you posted his statement and mine. You prove my point, rather than disproving it. Thanks.

          • says

            Tim B.,
            Land issued a very lengthy statement of apology. If my memory serve me correctly, in his apology statement, he specifically apologized for saying in his radio commentary that racism was a myth in America. Question: if he did not say this, why did he apologize for having said it?

          • Tim B says

            Here is the text from Land’s letter. I’ve read it twice and I can’t find what you are saying he said. I’ve read the transcript from the radio show and I can’t find any text that affirms what you are saying he said. I do not deny that his words were hurtful to many and believe his apology was in order but you have placed him in the light of someone who is utterly ignorant of the world around us by falsely suggesting that he said “racism is a myth.” I believe we need to be accurate when we attribute words to someone.

            Richard Land:
            “I am writing to express my deep regret for any hurt or misunderstanding my comments about the Trayvon Martin case have generated. It grieves me to hear that any comments of mine have to any degree set back the cause of racial reconciliation in Southern Baptist or American life. I have been committed to the cause of racial reconciliation my entire ministry. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister has been a personal hero of mine since I surrendered to the ministry in 1962.

            When I was elected president of the then Christian Life Commission in 1988, I made it clear to the search committee and board of trustees that I was going to make racial reconciliation a top priority. I assumed office in October of 1988 and the first conference held under my administration was a racial reconciliation conference in January of 1989. As you know I was one of the progenitors of the racial reconciliation resolution our convention passed at our sesquicentennial in 1995.

            I have rejoiced in the tremendous progress that has been made in racial reconciliation both in our convention and in American life. I rejoice in the prospect that one of our most admired leaders and pastors, Dr. Fred Luter, will in all likelihood be elected president of our convention in June.

            I look forward to the day when our convention membership reflects the ethnic and demographic diversity of the general population, with no difference between Southern Baptists and the nation.

            Clearly, I overestimated the progress that has been made in slaying the ugly racist ghosts of the past in our history. I also clearly underestimated the extent to which we must go out of our way not to be misunderstood when we speak to issues where race is a factor.

            Please know that I apologize to any and all who were hurt or offended by my comments. I will certainly recommit myself to seeking to address controversial issues with even more sensitivity in the future.”

          • says

            Tim B.,

            Dr. Land wrote three letters of apology. That’s one of them, and not the last one. The last one was I believe ’bout five pages. My assistant is off today, but if I remember Monday, I will have her to find the last Land apology, that I believe us in my files.

            I played fair and answered the question that you asked me. I kindly and respectfully ask that you do the same. Thanks.

          • says

            Tim B. here below is from the transcript where Mr. Land used the word “myth.”

            “They need the Travyon Martin’s to continue perpetuating their central myth: America is a racist and an evil nation. For them is always Selma Alabama circa 1965. Notice that the Nation has changed.”

            Looks like to me that Land did not say that “America is a racist and an evil nation.” He said that it is THEIR idea that “America is a racist and an evil nation,” a notion that he calls a myth. He did not state that racism existing in America is a myth. There is a huge difference.

            Now here is the second apology he issued after the one you cited from BP. Excerpt:

            “Fourth, I must clarify another poor choice of words. I most assuredly do not believe American racism is a ‘myth’ in the sense that it is imaginary or fictitious. It is all too real and all too insidious. My reference to myth in this case was to a story used to push a political agenda. Because I believe racism is such a grievous sin, I stand firmly against its politicization. Racial justice is a non-partisan ideal and should be embraced by both sides of the political aisle.”

            Tim B. you are absolutely correct. Land did not apologize for saying that “America is a racist and an evil nation.” He apologized (really clarified) for his poor choice of words.

            The second apology can be found here.

          • says

            Tim B.,

            Also obviously Land didn’t state that racism in America is a myth. Also obviously he didn’t apologize for saying that racism in America is a myth.

          • says

            Tim B.,

            I sat on a panel where those words were looked at carefully, and where it was determined that Dr. Land stated in the passage already cited that were lifted from an article written by a birther(without attribution), that I consider birthers and racist as synonymous. It was a poor choice of words. I believe that had Land been speaking his own words, he wouldn’t have chosen the words we are debating here. But, he chose to repeat the words of a birther/racist, referring to “a central myth” regarding America being a racist and evil nation. Try as hard as you must, but those words have meaning. And a panel of Blacks and Whites, some with PH.D’s determined that those words meant that racism in America is a myth. So, defend it all you like, but the truth is there for any objective person to see. Again, no apology would have been necessary, if those words did not mean what I purpor to you they meant. The LA Clippers released a statement saying, Sterling’s words did not mean what we take them to mean. It is quite interesting to me that people will look at you with a straight face and tell you 2 + 2 = 6. So, I will allow you to be free to believe whatever you want to about this.

            I am in no wise trying to “besmirch” Dr. Land’s name. I am in no wise suggesting that he is racist. Dr. Land has preacher in my pulpit. He was received warmly and gladly. He apologized for his “poor choice of words, ” which indicate that something about those words were inappropriate. You fail to acknowledge that. I want try and convince you further. I only pointed to those words in my post as a prelude to point out that, although there are persons in America who believe that racism is a “myth,” Sterling, Bundy, Paula Deen and others remind us that it is not a myth. Land apologized and repented for his words, so his words were not the point. His words simply documented the fact that there are persons in America who believe that racism is a myth. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

        • Tim B says

          I have never have in this conversation or any other and am not defending what Land said. He, the rancher and the bb team owner are on their own as far as I am concerned. I am making the point that it is a leap from what Land said to saying that he said that “racism is a myth.” Land was arguing that the idea that America is by and large evil and racist a myth. (You have every right to disagree with that statement.) To say what he said does not to suggest that he believes that there is no racism at all. I believe we need to be careful and accurate when we attribute words to someone else. If asked and if they were honest about what they said, would they agree that we have characterized correctly what they said? I can’t imagine that Land would agree that he said that racism is a myth. There is no evidence either in the radio transcript or the apology that contradicts that. That’s all I’ll say on the matter.

          • Les Prouty says

            Tim B.

            You again are correct. Land never said, unless I’ve missed something, what Dwight is attributing to him. I think almost everyone reading this can see that as plain as day.


          • says

            Tim B.,

            “Land was arguing that the idea that America is by and large evil and racist a [is] myth.” (brackets mine)

            Precisely!!!!! At last we have reached a point of agreement. I totally agree that is what he was arguing. We all agree that is what he was arguing. That is obviously what he was arguing. And that is what we all found highly offensive and erroneous.

            You must admit that the qualifying terms “by and large” were not a part of Lands original quote. That substantially changes the meaning. His statement as is says, what you say it says and that is: “the idea that America is[“by and large”] evil and racist a myth.”(brackets mine) We are essentially now in agreement ’bout what Land said. He said that it is a “myth” that America is evil and racist. The majority of Black America believe that it is not a myth that America is racist, but an everyday reality. The reason the two races feel differently about this statement is because we live and experience two different worlds. I recently read an article about a White couple who adopted a Black baby. The thesis of the article is in essence, prior to adopting the Black child, they would have signed off on Land’s “myth” statement. But after experiencing racism in heretofore unknown and unprecedented ways after the adoption, because of the child, they would now sign off on the statement that it us not a myth that America is a racist nation. I enjoyed the exchange and dialogue. I am grateful that we kept the conversation goin ’til we reached an agreement about what Richard Land said.

          • John Wylie says

            Dr. McKissic,

            I just wanted to express how deeply I appreciate your comments on this subject. It shows the age old lesson of walking a mile in someone else’s shoes. I am seeing the power of perspective in this comment stream. When one considers that less than a generation ago, in fact in your lifetime, blacks were not allowed to drink from the same water fountains, eat in the same cafes, or sit in the same section of bus as whites in South it’s easy to see why the subject is still fresh and relevant. I mean my goodness you were the first black man to stand in the pulpit of the church that I pastor. While I do believe that racism is on its way out in our nation, the vestiges of it are still embedded deep and we must root these things out. Thanks my brother.

        • says

          John Wylie,

          As usual, you provide wholesome, balanced, helpful, and insightful comments here. Your last one was no exception. Thanks for understanding and acknowledging both sides. Your comment made my day. Thanks again.

  5. Tarheel says


    It’s a sad culture in which adultery has become so commonplace that it doesn’t even appear to raise eyebrows, much less bring about comments.

    It’s even sadder when that happens in the church. I think chronic ignoring of the issues relating to adultery, divorce and remarriage is pervasive in the church.

  6. says

    Good Word Dwight (Not you donald)
    Thanks for this. And I missed the ‘racism is a myth’ comments but I don’t doubt them. What I do note from time to time is racism is an devastating thing to accuse someone of and is occasionally used without sufficient support. I’m talking about talking heads on TV etc. A guy can be accused of racism if he doesn’t like poor people, or fails to hire a person of color even if the decision has nothing to do with race. That happens. BUT, when ugly things get recorded and made public, like Sterling’s rant or Mel Gibson’s or any others, its hard to not believe there is a measure of hatefulness in our society that is aimed at different ethnicity just because of their color, heritage etc.
    That being said, it makes the lack of criticism for adultery a scream of silence.

  7. says

    Let me share what i see as a real problem with the events of the last few days. Racism is still very much of a problem in out nation. However the real issues are not in the NBA they are in the housing areas, in the job markets, and in a dozen other places where every day people do life, raise families etc. When we have a situation like this that is all over the news, we say we have taken a bit out of racism. No we have not! There is a mega-dollar billionaire who cannot go to a pro basketball game. So he will console himself by going to the Bahamas or whatever an sulk.
    My point: This does nothing for the real issues of racism. They are still very much a part of our culture an the hurt and problems are still there.
    I agree with the penalty exacted on the Billionaire, but let us not assume we have done much to help the situation just because it is highly publicized.

      • says

        The best perspective and response would have been outrage when he was discriminating in his housing rental. This is where people live and where they hurt.

  8. Les Prouty says

    And here you have the glaring example of the hypocrisy of the left and the one sidedness of the racial issue in these days. Where’s the outrage from the black community and demands for this guy to resign? A long quote but with it.

    “Commentarymagazine Culture and Religion / by Jonathan S. Tobin / 50min ago
    As we noted earlier this week the controversy over the racist comments of Los Angeles Clippers’ owner Donald Sterling demonstrated conclusively just how much American culture had changed in the 50 years since the civil-rights movement put an end to Jim Crow laws. Expressing hostility to African-Americans in that manner was enough not only to cause Sterling to be banned from the National Basketball Association but to make him perhaps the most reviled person in the country. Though the unanimity with which every sector of the country denounced Sterling proved how marginal such prejudice had become, many on the left–and especially among those who seek to keep organizations dedicated to pretending that America is still a racist nation alive–preferred to see it as evidence of the endemic hate that still lingers in the hearts of Americans. But it turns out that the proof that they weren’t entirely wrong came from an unlikely source: a member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

    Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi unwittingly provided evidence that race-based hate is alive and well when, in an interview with a Nation of Islam radio program, he not only claimed that all opposition to President Obama was rooted in racism and that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is an example of this but that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is “an Uncle Tom.” Thompson isn’t backing down and, in an interview with CNN, even suggested that he could say such things because he’s black. Given the lack of outrage about this, especially from liberals who take it as an article of faith that political incivility is strictly a conservative problem, he may be right. But the outburst in an interview with a program sponsored by a hate group does raise an interesting question: Which is more dangerous? A racist NBA owner or a bigoted member of Congress?

    Thompson’s defenders, if there are any willing to publicly engage on this subject, will no doubt claim that his exemption from the racist charge is not only due to his being black but because what he was doing was complaining about racism. But this is an argument that doesn’t hold water.

    There is nothing that is more pernicious to democracy than efforts that seek to divide the country on racial lines. That’s exactly what he was doing, not only by lending his presence to extremists like the Nation of Islam but by claiming that criticism of President Obama’s policies is inherently based in prejudice against his race. Seeking to smear all Republicans and Obama critics as racist is not only false but clearly an effort to set up a permanent political war between blacks and whites. Moreover, his attack on Thomas, which was based on the fact that the Supreme Court Justice is black and not just on the content of his decisions, is just as unreasonable. It goes beyond incivility and crosses into the realm of racial epithet. Thompson’s rant can’t be defended as the complaint of a racial minority when it is, for all intents and purposes, as a manifesto of intolerance, racial division, and hate.

    The facts of political life are such that minorities can get away with making statements that would end the careers of whites. Given the inherent advantages that accrue to being part of the majority perhaps this is an understandable tradeoff. Yet it’s worth asking even as we all join in the national disgust-fest about Sterling whether it is far more dangerous for the country to have a person like Thompson spouting hate speech in Congress than for the owner of the Clippers to be a bigot. Sterling’s statements were outrageous and rightly earned him a permanent exile from his team and decent society. But so long as people like Thompson are crowding the public square, it appears the greater threat to both civility and the growing sense of racial harmony in American society are bigots like the Mississippi congressman.”

  9. Bill Mac says

    My question is: Is there a good outcome of this situation? Have race relations been improved? Yes, a racist has been punished. So racists have learned to be more careful to keep their racism to themselves. A racist has been rooted out, publicly humiliated and ostracized. OK. Is that a victory?
    The NAACP has been embarrassed. I never expected anything good to come out of Bill Maher’s mouth, but he said this situation gives a lot of people an opportunity to feel good about themselves by denouncing Sterling. Should we be happy about that?

    In other words, who has this situation helped?

  10. says

    Bill Mac,

    I think your commentary and questions are spot on. God gave the truth to the church by giving us His Book. The church ought to be the moral guardians of society and as Paul said in 1 Timothy, we are to be “the pillar and ground of truth.”

    But because the church-both Black and White-has so much dirty laundry on the race question, we lack the moral authority to address the race issue with conviction, clarity, boldness, truth, and by example. Therefore, we are in a mess. But, the Scripture says, “Let the redeemed of The Lord say so.” The church should try and take the lead to heal this racial divide, while admitting to our own guilt, complicitness, and failure in this regard.

    Russell Moore may want to consider assembling a group to address the race question, just as he assembled a group to address the sexual landscape in America.

    Finally, the solution I believe is to plant interracial churches whose DNA is interracial. Hopefully, they will continue to grow in that vein. Then, and only then, will the church be the light of the world, and a city sitting upon a hill. NAMB could lead the way in launching an interracial church initiative. That’s when real and lasting change will come.

  11. Tarheel says

    I wonder where the real societal goal posts are in those whole debate…

    Is equality what we are after? Is genuine interaction with others irrespective of skin color what we are after?

    It seems to me that if these things are really what we are after that the divisive comments like “my people” and “your people” and “black people” and “white People” and “people of color” and on and on….must stop.

    We must look at ourselves and other people as people and not people groups. We must learn to ignore skin color completely…until that idea begins to take hold the ugliness of hatred and racism will continue to fester.

    I agree with Clearance Thomas who has said that affirmative action, quota’s and the like are the highest form of racism.

    When we start talking about quota’s for people groups (whether based on race or theological disagreements within orthodox theology by the way) then we are exacerbating and not reducing the problems we call ourselves addressing.

    I long for the day when we look at ourselves and at other people as just that …people…people with different cultures, likes and dislikes but people…I long for a time when the word race used exclusively in the sense of the human race and not by skin color…I desire to see where people get jobs, go to college, whatever not based on any sort of quota – but on character and qualifications. I join in chorus with Dr. King in dreaming of a world where people are not judged (or grouped whether by others or by themselves) by the color of their skin.

    I long for a time when the people of God couldn’t care less about “their people group” and care much more about who they are in Christ and care for the people of the world who need a savior – who died in the place of all who believe – regardless of that person’s skin color.

    That is what I long for.

    I am so glad that God does not see people in skin colors or our self defined people groups. Colossians 3:11

  12. Jerry Smith says

    Mt 7:12 ¶ Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

    Lu 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

    Why not all of us Christians live by “The Golden Rule.” treating everyone as we would have them treat us.

    • says


      That is a good question. Why do we not treat others…? It is Biblical,it makes good sense, it is logical, it is honorable. Why do we not do this?

      Any answers!

      • Tarheel says

        I live my life, as best I can, without racist and discriminatory action. I assess my thoughts and motivations regularly, I study scripture so The Holy Spirit can reveal to me ways to more align myself with God.

        What is so frustrating, and even yes- infuriating is to have my motives, intents, and heart called into question so flippantly…as it has been in this thread.

        Honest to goodness my opposition to Obama and his policies are in no way related to his skin color. I detest progressive and liberal political positions and policy….that is the root of it nothing more and nothing less.

        The race card is used all too often…quotas are suggested….reparations are demanded….it is annoying. Some are given passes on being and saying racist things (the congressman we’ve been talking about is a perfect example) so long as the person is not of lighter skin color.

        Dwight, you have spoken of “perspectives” yet I have not seen any recognition of the perspective I just espoused as being a reality and working heartily against a goal I think we share…a day when people are recognized, appreciated and treated as people without any reference to skin color.

        • Les Prouty says

          Tarheel, amen! I was at a Vitae Foundation event last night where Dr. Ben Carson was the featured speaker. The place was overflowing. My estimate is that 99% there were white. Dr. Carson is often mentioned as a presidential candidate. I suspect he would get a huge number of votes from whites. The notion that white Americans largely oppose our president because of his race is stupid, demonstrably wrong and frankly offensive.

          • Tarheel says

            You’re right, Les…Carson is appealing to conservatives of all skin colorsin many ways.

            Herman Cain was gaining ground fast too among conservatives of all skin colors…that is until character assassinations took him out. (it was between he and Santorum for my vote in the primary)

            Likewise, Col. Allen West is highly favored among many who are accused if being racist in opposition to Obama’s agenda.

            All three of the above men are favorites of conservatives….yet the race card accusations still ring out…

            Justice Thomas is a favorite justice of conservatives.

          • Adam G. in NC says

            I guess if evangelicals wont vote for a catholic or a mormon, I guess they’ll vote for a seventh-day adventist.

            The qualifier looks to be hitting all your socially conservative marks. Getting the gospel right sure isnt.

          • Tarheel says

            Adam I wasn’t speaking evangelically…but conservative politics.

            Cain is a Baptist, btw.

        • says

          I can identify. I was raised in inner city St. Louis at a quadrangle of Blacks, Jewish, Italian, and white. My high school was 50% black and 50% White and Italian. I will admit that there were some turf questions in early teen years , but I do not see color. The inter play of races was a way of life.

          You are correct we are too quick to see agenda and play the race card.

          • Les Prouty says

            DL, I’m hoping we can meet when you come to St. Louis. You could even attend church with me at

          • Adam G. in NC says

            Mr.DL, saying “I do not see color” is called “white color-blindness” on this blog. Check out some of the past articles on here about it and you’ll see it is a form of passive, subconscious, racism that you (if you are an american white person) are born with. Some folks are born black, brown, yellow…others are born racist.

          • says

            I need some clarification. Unless there is some kind of poetic meaning here that I am missing, you are totally wrong. Because “this blog” and “past articles” states something that does not mean it is true. I was not born a racist. I do not see the word through the lens of skin color. Because this blog says there is “white color blindness” doe not make it a fact. It is a big world with many ideas.

          • Tarheel says


            I guess it means that there’s a “subconscious racism” too. But only by “white people”.

          • Dave Miller says

            Adam, attempting to play the race victim as an American white borders on the absurd. And we will never advance the cause of racial reconciliation with such tactics.

            Racism and discrimination are a substantial part of our American history. To deny it is dishonest. To demand that black people be (to use your word) “colorblind” approaches that line of the absurd again.

            Our forbears created centuries of slavery, discrimination, racism, ostracism, marginalization and oppression by their sinful actions. To think we can simply wave a magic wand and demand that American blacks just forget it all instantaneously crosses that line.

            We (white America) created the problem by treating people like animals. We need to solve the problem by bending over backwards, going the second mile and whatever else to make sure minorities know that things have changed.

            To whine that a few black pundits are “playing the race card” is unproductive. Better to examine all our actions and make sure that we are doing what is necessary to trump that race card by valuing them as partners in the work of Christ.

          • says

            Once when I was kid I used a word the meaning of which I was not aware. My mother washed my mouth with soap. I think the same thing has happened here.
            Evidently when I said “I do not see color” I hit a “buzz word” of which I am not familiar. I simply meant when I as a pastor knocked on a door I was not concerned with the color of skin when it opened. When I sit down at a counter in a diner I do not look to see what color the person is next to me. When I rent an apartment I do not ask what color the skin is etc. etc. etc.
            You don’t know me, but any attempt to paint me a racist consciously, sub conscientiously, or unconsciously is totally absurd.
            Questions: (1) Adam have I misunderstood you (2) Dave to whom were you speaking at 8:24

          • Bill Mac says

            This is an important question, that seems to be getting two different answers. Please don’t take this as a snide question:

            Do blacks or other minorities want whites to treat them like they treat each other, or do they want whites to treat them differently because of their race?

            It seems to me, if the answer is “differently”, whether positive or not, that is a form of racial discrimination. I can’t see that it hurts whites much to do so, if that is what minorities want. But I wonder if it is really the best thing.

          • says

            Good question, Bill. It wouldn’t surprise me if the answer isn’t that some blacks want to be treated the first way, and some the second. In either group, you may have some who in taking that position, will claim to be speaking for all blacks. Which means that no matter what you do, there will be some who will tell you you are wrong, and will slap the ‘racist’ label on you.

          • Adam G. in NC says

            Mr.DL, yes, you hit a “buzzword”. No, my comments were not directed to you as an individual. Merely pointing out the fact that (according to some) being a “color-blind” white person isnt enough to absolve ourselves of a latent racism that comes along with being born into an american white family. Now we have to be “color-conscious” and treat people of other races differently because of it. A sort of holistic affirmative-action. Again, that is what some now believe.

            Dave, I think you explained what I was talking about pretty well. I agree, I agree, I agree that we should go the extra mile in showing that things have changed…I just dont believe that “going the second mile” means treating the races differently. I think where we break down is while you identify yourself with the racist white supremacists of the past, I do not. That seems so superficial. How can we not hope to see “content of character” instead of skin-color? How can we not desire that for people of other races as well?

          • Tarheel says

            Dave Miller,

            “Racism and discrimination are a substantial part of our American history. To deny it is dishonest. To demand that black people be (to use your word) “colorblind” approaches that line of the absurd again.”

            No one has denied that racism is alive and well, at least no one on this comment stream. To assert so is dishonest.

            As far as being “colorblind” …. Wasn’t that the very dream of Dr. King? Isn’t the goal of ending both preferences and discrimination on the basis of race a lofty one? If everyone viewed people as people and not “us (skin color) vs. them (skin color)” wouldn’t we be better off?

            “Our forbears created centuries of slavery, discrimination, racism, ostracism, marginalization and oppression by their sinful actions. To think we can simply wave a magic wand and demand that American blacks just forget it all instantaneously crosses that line.
            We (white America) created the problem by treating people like animals. We need to solve the problem by bending over backwards, going the second mile and whatever else to make sure minorities know that things have changed.”

            You’re right. It was our for bearers….did I do it? No. Do I condone it? No. Do I deplore those dark days of our nations history…you bet I do. However-history is just that history and t some point must be treated as such. I only wonder that time is?

            But I must ask again. Where are the goal posts? When will the past history you speak of, and I concur with, atoned for? Will there ever be a time when “white America” can no longer be judged for the actions of (for some of us here) our grandparents and in some of our cases great grandparents?

            “To whine that a few black pundits are “playing the race card” is unproductive. Better to examine all our actions and make sure that we are doing what is necessary to trump that race card by valuing them as partners in the work of Christ.”

            A few? Really? The charlatan race baiters are a plenty – those want to keep racism alive so hey can engrandize themselves with power, notoriety and Benjamin’s.

            If you think it’s in any way possible to “trump the race card” you’re being incredibly naive. It’s the kiss of death. Calling someone that without total and justifiable cause is character assisination. Its wrong and unchristian and sinful to frivilously throw the card around. It’s a weapon only afforded people with certain skin tones who get passes for racist comments and attitudes, and it’s a deadly weapon at that….one that defies any movement toward real unity.

            As believers real unity and peace is only found in Christ – not on the basis of skin color. Until the “we owe them” and the “they owe us” mentality is ended – Sadly racism , hatred, and rivalry will continue and grow.

          • says

            Thanks for the input. I certainly agree that color blind does not absolve us from the situation. I would add however, that while that is important it is secondary IMO. We can work on who needs to apologize be absolved etc. at some point in time. Now I think the issue is making sure that acts of discrimination in housing, jobs etc is attacked and eliminated.
            I have to work on the idea of being born into racism for awhile. Perhaps my birth neighborhood weights in here at this point. Right now I am not willing to affirm I was born a racist. I need to think awhile about that.

  13. Tarheel says

    Are Carson, Cain, and West racist in thier opposition to Obama policies….or are they just “uncle Tom’s”.

    Is Obama racist because he opposes Boehner and McConell?

    Is Obama racist because he opposes many of the ideas of Marco Rubio?

    In fact is anyone who opposes Rubio’s policies doing so because they are anti Hispanic?

    See how stupid throwing the racist card can get?

  14. dr. james willingham says

    Dwight, I came late to this discussion, but as a white who caught some of the brunt of taking a stand on the issue of racism I am aware of how some whites will make other whites pay for their adherence to what is right. Add to it the fact that often there is no recognition of God’s forgiveness of sins that are past (like a second marriage) or that one can differ on the issue of women in ministry while holding to a verbally inspired, inerrant, and infallibly written word, and you will find that there are many reasons why we have made so little progress on the issue, despite all claims to the contrary. God seems to work a little, an inch at a time, if you please, painful as it is. I have often wondered what the folks who do not forgive on the issue of second marriages due with David who winds up being, in spite of his committing of adultery and murder, a Patriarch of Israel. Some folks have done a lot of suffering for being of the wrong color, for having failed and come short, and for allowing God to have the last laugh on women and their ministry…like the lady who gave to Southern Baptists a nice sized church in a resort town out in the Middle West and who was told that it would never be acknowledged that she founded the church. Man, are they in shock, when they get to heaven, if they get there. Thinking of all the folks who have been driven from the ministry who did not jot the i or cross the t like others demanded.

  15. Ron West says


    Excellent post. It brings up questions that should be considered by all of us. It is amazing how fast Americas view of what is politically correct changes. Especially in the area of sexual sin. Adultery is a problem that is growing and becoming more accepted. Hopefully racism in all its forms is becoming less accepted. I am sorry but I got lost in all the give and take that followed you post but I wanted to get back to your original thoughts and thank you for your willingness to bring thoughts to us we sometimes over look.