# Donald Sterling "Punished"?



## bookslover (Apr 30, 2014)

Regarding Sterling's NBA "punishment": (1) a $2,500,000 fine? He's a billionaire - he'll cut that check and not even blink. (2) a lifetime ban? The man's 80 - so what is that "lifetime" ban really worth? (3) possibly being forced to sell the team? If he does - that just means another major payday for him.

Hard to see how he's being "punished"...

UPDATE: OK, _now_ I'll bet Sterling feels punished: some guy who owns six brothels in Nevada says he's banning Sterling for life. So, there's that...


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Apr 30, 2014)

Donald Sterling banned for life for being a moron in the privacy of his home, meanwhile in America.........baby murderers, fornicators, and blasphemers continue to enjoy the undying love and affection of the American media.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 30, 2014)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Donald Sterling banned for life for being a moron in the privacy of his home, meanwhile in America.........baby murderers, fornicators, and blasphemers continue to enjoy the undying love and affection of the American media.



Pretty much my thoughts, too. He said stupid things he thought were private. Now the rest of culture can satisfy their need to impose righteous judgment on the man.

It makes me nervous to see such piling on--how many of his accusers could stand up to scrutiny over every private word?

Not that I like the guy--exactly the opposite. It just seems so obvious that even secular culture needs a scapegoat--everyone knows there is a judgment, and perhaps by heaping coals on someone else, we might evade it, or at least not have to think about it for a little while longer.


----------



## Justified (Apr 30, 2014)




----------



## jwithnell (Apr 30, 2014)

The whole situation makes me quite nervous. The guy is rude, but the US Constitution protects the right for a person to say or write something rude, particularly in a private situation when the words cannot be misconstrued as a false alarm or threat.


----------



## Marcus417 (Apr 30, 2014)

jwithnell said:


> The whole situation makes me quite nervous. The guy is rude, but the US Constitution protects the right for a person to say or write something rude, particularly in a private situation when the words cannot be misconstrued as a false alarm or threat.



This is actually false. The constitution protects our right to say what we want and protects us from government persecution. "Congress shall make no law." It does not protect us from the consequences others might impose on us due to the stupid stuff we say. The NBA and its other owners have freedom to not associate with Sterling or do business with him if they chose just like Sterling has the freedom to say what he wants.

Here is a similar example (its overexaggerated for teaching purposes)
A person works at Christian bookstore
The same person in his private time burns Bibles 
This same person's girlfriend films doing this private free speech protected activity and posts it on youtube
The Christian Bookstore has the right to exercise its freedom in firing that person even though he did not break a law or burn the Bibles in public.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 30, 2014)

Yes, but how can the NBA impose a 2.5 million dollar fine on anyone. The're not a government agency. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out from a legal perspective. The actions taken by the NBA have far-reaching legal implications. A man makes morally objectionable comments in a private conversation in his home that are recorded secretly and illegally and subsequently published to the media after which a the NBA sets out to make a public example of him. For me this all goes back to the distinction between what's immoral and what's illegal.


----------



## ZackF (Apr 30, 2014)

Marge Schott could make this guy sound like a choir boy. People just left her alone in the stands to be angry and smoke...maybe pose for the occasional photo.


----------



## ZackF (Apr 30, 2014)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Yes, but how can the NBA impose a 2.5 million dollar fine on anyone. The're not a government agency. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out from a legal perspective. The actions taken by the NBA have far-reaching legal implications. A man makes morally objectionable comments in a private conversation in his home that are recorded secretly and illegally and subsequently published to the media after which a the NBA sets out to make a public example of him. For me this all goes back to the distinction between what's immoral and what's illegal.



The government can enforce the fine.


----------



## Marcus417 (Apr 30, 2014)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Yes, but how can the NBA impose a 2.5 million dollar fine on anyone. The're not a government agency. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out from a legal perspective. The actions taken by the NBA have far-reaching legal implications. A man makes morally objectionable comments in a private conversation in his home that are recorded secretly and illegally and subsequently published to the media after which a the NBA sets out to make a public example of him. For me this all goes back to the distinction between what's immoral and what's illegal.



When a player, owner, coach, or any other employee of the NBA or any sports franchise signs their contract they agree to be fined based on the rules of the collective bargaining agreement between the Players Union and the Owners. The maximum fine that was agreed to beforehand was 2.5 million and he was hit with the max penalty. He signed a contract saying he would pay a fine deemed appropriate by the commissioner if he broke league rules. The rule he broke was "Conduct detrimental to the league."


----------



## Claudiu (Apr 30, 2014)

I'm not racist, but the thought police are out. You can't even think an "evil" thought (from their perspective) or else the thought police will get you.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 30, 2014)

Marcus417 said:


> The rule he broke was "Conduct detrimental to the league."



Of course that is right. The NBA is a franchise organization, as far as I know.

But, the mass hysteria is a warning. I can imagine a franchise owner who has signed a contract with a similar clause being punished for saying something to his family along the lines of: "gay marriage is an abomination," and then having his young child repeat what he has said in school.

"Conduct detrimental to the franchise...." Kick him out.

Pretty interesting times when agendas and private bad behavior can be enforced through social media and shunning like we have never seen before.


----------



## augustacarguy (Apr 30, 2014)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Donald Sterling banned for life for being a moron in the privacy of his home, meanwhile in America.........baby murderers, fornicators, and blasphemers continue to enjoy the undying love and affection of the American media.



Agreed.


----------



## Andres (Apr 30, 2014)

I don't understand where most of you are coming from. What's the problem with Sterling being fined by his private company for doing something wrong? My employer has social media policies that limit what I can say/post in social media. I choose to abide by their policies because I want to work here. No big deal. And since when is racism to be given a pass anyway? It's certainly an evil in our society, so I'm glad to hear that people are reacting and opposing Sterling's hateful ways, which he has a long history of, btw.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 1, 2014)

Andres said:


> My employer has social media policies that limit what I can say/post in social media.



My point is that he did not post this on social media, someone else did.

I have no problem with contractual or social sanction for bad behavior. I'm just observing the remarkable frenzy that is occurring over this, but not other overt bad behavior.

I think he should have been fined for his adultery, for example, because it was open and public.


----------



## Andres (May 1, 2014)

VictorBravo said:


> I have no problem with contractual or social sanction for bad behavior.



Is this not exactly what happened? (See post #11) 



VictorBravo said:


> I'm just observing the remarkable frenzy that is occurring over this, but not other overt bad behavior.



So you're surprised that the media only reports on that which is sensationalized, rather than being completely objective?!!  And again, racism is sinful and should be opposed so I'm all for anyone decrying it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 1, 2014)

Andrew,
The point is to take accurate note of who is defining "sin" in the culture today. This dude finally sinned-to-the-max according to the PC Police, in a very public way; nevermind that he was openly consorting with his (backstabbing) GF. *That* was no-problemo to the elites, as was his ability to maintain "plausible deniability" about his Plantation mindset previously, when he was rubbing shoulders with NBA execs and owners in the private LUX-BOX suite at the arena. A number of his peers who will likely give him the boot are going to play the hypocrite.

And before we Christians happily jump aboard the latest-thought-crime bandwagon, and "pile-on" the latest PC-victim, we should be fully conscious that the next schlep may be another BrendanEich(Mozilla).

We need to defend our own rights to hold unpopular opinions without being thrown to the lions of the day, and we do that best when we (even as Christians) offer a brief for the 1st Amendment: "I disagree vehemently with your opinion, but will vehemently defend your right to say it."

By the rules of the game he signed, he should button his lip, and pay his fine, sell out, and walk away an octogenarian billionaire who still can't take it with him. And he may decide to spend a good bit of someone's inheritance on obnoxious litigation. That's also his Constitutional right.

Do we as Christians need to line up behind the rock-throwers, when next week those very same hurlers will turn and have orthodox believers in their sights?


----------



## Andres (May 1, 2014)

Contra_Mundum said:


> And before we Christians happily jump aboard the latest-thought-crime bandwagon, and "pile-on" the latest PC-victim, we should be fully conscious that the next schlep may be another BrendanEich(Mozilla).





Contra_Mundum said:


> Do we as Christians need to line up behind the rock-throwers, when next week those very same hurlers will turn and have orthodox believers in their sights?



See this is the thing I take issue with - the Sterling situation is being made out by many, and regrettably many on this board it seems, to be an overreaction by the media and the NBA. No, racism is wrong! Christians, of all people, should take a stand against racism in every occasion, whether it be said in private or public. This story is a big deal so lets not make it out to be an overreaction. To say we must defend a person's rights over their sins seems like a very R2k type thing to say so I'm struggling to understand this.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 1, 2014)

Andres said:


> No, racism is wrong! Christians, of all people, should take a stand against racism in every occasion, whether it be said in private or public.



I'd hope we'd be a bit more circumspect than this. Somewhere in our 9th commandment duties is an obligation to avoid promoting exposure of every private sin. I think that includes cheering on others who expose it.

I grant racism is a sin. Nobody is willing to publicly defend it--I'm not even trying. But should we rejoice in the exposure and publication of someone who privately sins this paticular sin? Especially when we remain silent about his open and notorious sins? He is deemed a disgrace to his league only because of bad words said in private. 

Nobody cares about his open and public bad conduct? (not just adultery, but general disrespect for agreements and duties, etc.)

In our culture it appears to be close to the unpardonable sin. We now can congratulate ourselves on how we can effectively and universally hate a detestable man who says detestable things to his girlfriend. We are indeed progressive.

But does the punishment fit the actual negative effect of the private sin? Why should someone almost lose an empire over this particular sin (thinking of Paula Deen), and not another, more public sin?

And, repeating what I mentioned before, homophobia is skyrocketing to the top of the list of our culture's ultimate sins. I imagine it will be equal to racism for censure in a few more months. This technique of privately sanctioning behavior will remain a threat to even little people hanging on to jobs or businesses.


----------



## moral necessity (May 1, 2014)

What happened to their cry for "toleration"?
We are told to tolerate the gay basketball player, but they won't tolerate the racist.


----------



## Tyrese (May 1, 2014)

Lets look at it this way: Donald Sterling is an 80 year old man sitting next to a I don't know 20 something year old women and not with his wife. I think there's bigger problems with this man than what he thinks about black people.


----------



## whirlingmerc (May 1, 2014)

A person should not be characterized by their worst mistake

There appears is a tendency for progressives to law down a liberal Mosaic law of their own, complete with a politically correct stoning. They insist they want seperation of religous fervor for a world view from policies but by thier actions seem to show they don't mind a religion substitute
Chic Fil E appeared to get up after their 'stoning' and carried on


----------



## whirlingmerc (May 1, 2014)

In part there's a religions view replacement by some secular views, secular views held with religious fervor, going on

I was listening to Bruce Watke on Ps 73 yesterday and he pointed out that in the French revolution they moved to 'free themselves' from the church but soon after appointed Napoleon as their emperor with disastrous results


----------



## ZackF (May 1, 2014)

VictorBravo said:


> And, repeating what I mentioned before, homophobia is skyrocketing to the top of the list of our culture's ultimate sins. I imagine it will be equal to racism for censure in a few more months. This technique of privately sanctioning behavior will remain a threat to even little people hanging on to jobs or businesses.



You're right. I wrote about this on another thread. 

Furthermore, I also think all of the sappy public mourning when some, usually debauched, celebrity dies. People line the streets to ball their eyes out for a complete stranger.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 1, 2014)

Andres said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > And before we Christians happily jump aboard the latest-thought-crime bandwagon, and "pile-on" the latest PC-victim, we should be fully conscious that the next schlep may be another BrendanEich(Mozilla).
> ...


Andrew,
You seem to be interpreting a Christian attempt at a balanced and full-spectrum engagement of ALL the issues here--which _consequently_ seems a "dull" response, compared to the general-public hysteria, led by the PC-media, with their laser-like focus on outing the private evils (which they determine for themselves!)--as soft-pedaling of sin. That just doesn't follow.

Don't unethical methods of bringing shame and penalties down on wrong[-]doers[/-]thinkers themselves deserve excoriation? As much as the racism those methods expose? And who made these media-apologists for all sorts of wickedness the kind of people Christians should be taking their lead from? In court, evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible. It's called the "fruit of the poison tree." This is actually a biblical principle: that no one may do evil, that good may come.

What the public--including Christians--is showing is how susceptible to propagandizing we are. If we fail to call it out, even if we agree with what is being cried down, then when we are on the receiving end of this treatment, we can hardly play the "fairness" card in our favor.


----------



## SRoper (May 1, 2014)

I think I'm with Andrew. The idea that because the media ignores certain sins that when it actually gets something right we should bring up everything they do wrong is exactly the tactic that people use against the church when it attacks homosexuality but misses some other sin like divorce.

I also think minimizing the sin by calling it a private thought crime is inaccurate and unhelpful. Words that are calls for action to the harm of another are hardly private or merely thoughts. If it was publicized that a member of your church was saying that we shouldn't encourage blacks to attend your church I would hope you wouldn't dismiss it because it was originally said in private or it only reflected the person's thoughts. No, such a person ought to be investigated for schism.


----------



## rbcbob (May 1, 2014)

Andres said:


> See this is the thing I take issue with - the Sterling situation is being made out by many, and regrettably many on this board it seems, to be an overreaction by the media and the NBA. No, racism is wrong! Christians, of all people, should take a stand against racism in every occasion, whether it be said in private or public. This story is a big deal so lets not make it out to be an overreaction. To say we must defend a person's rights over their sins seems like a very R2k type thing to say so I'm struggling to understand this.




Andrew I am not insensitive to your moral indignation over Sterling's racial prejudice. What I think we need to be able and willing to do as Christians in 2st century America is to distinguish what, in our neighbor's behavior, is both ungodly and illegal from that which is merely ungodly but legal. It is a fact, however lamentable to some, that we live in a nation which affords Constitutional protection to freedom of religion, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression. The contemporary liberal, God-hating elite have become vociferous in their intolerant denunciation of every thought and expressed view that their ever-changing verboten list places on the wrong side of the ledger. The ignorance and bigoted worldview of the Sterlings of this world are, still to this day, permitted in this land. We will soon see the day when Christian thought and expression will be equally shut-down by these same elite thought police. 

To aver that Sterling has a right to his perverse worldview is not at all the same as affirming that view. Better that we can still have a civilized discussion over these differences under protection of law than to live in a police state where Big Brother enforces GroupThink on the entire population.


----------



## Edward (May 1, 2014)

Andres said:


> No, racism is wrong! Christians, of all people, should take a stand against racism in every occasion, whether it be said in private or public. This story is a big deal so lets not make it out to be an overreaction.



Please define racism so I can engage as to a word where the meaning seems to be a bit elastic these days. I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.


----------



## Marcus417 (May 1, 2014)

if the nba is not able to exercise its freedom to disassociate with him per the rules of the agreement he signed with them then how can a church be able to fire a pastor for things said in private? we need to protect the right of sterling to be an idiot but also protect the right of the NBA to legally dissolve their business relationship with sterling.


----------



## PhillipJLee (May 3, 2014)

This forum has been an great source of theological wisdom and encouragement but I have to say, in reading some of the posts in this thread, I am literally stunned by how short-sighted some of these comments have come off. I can't help but hear the voice of so many of my non-Christian friends reading some of your responses and saying, "This is exactly why I am not a Christian." And the unfortunate reality is that some will read that and think it is their fault for basing their belief on something so nominal as behavior instead of looking inward at what is quite honestly, in my humblest opinion, borderline ignorance of Biblical principles and Spirit-filled living.

(1) If a man says, in the privacy of his home, "I want to murder children for fun," regardless of whether or not the comment is made public, Christians ought to be upset because we believe (a) murder is sin and (b) children are a blessing. On any given Sunday, do we only preach against sins that have surfaced or do we preach against private and public sin? If you tolerate the sin because it was in secrecy, I can only wonder what private sins you might be struggling with yourself that you'd like to protect in similar secrecy.

(2) If a public franchise that has historically been a battle ground for fighting racism in the U.S. discovers racism in any of its employees or employers, it has the obligation to bring such racism to light and administer the maximum punishment it can through its own corporate by-laws. If it does not, then the decades spent fighting for equality in the NBA (and perhaps all major league sports teams in general) are forfeit.

(3) If you do not know what it is like to be a minority in the US, you have literally zero grounds for understanding the emotional response Sterling's behavior surfaces. Your one token mission trip does not do justice to a lifetime of living with a history that has been said to be over but clearly isn't -- and each instance wherein racism surfaces, whether you are a Christian or not, you will feel the pain, anger, and powerless frustration of being reminded that no matter what, you are still different and unaccepted. If I was working in the media sphere and I knew this, I would make sure to publicly condemn Sterling's behavior -- not simply because of what he has done but what he stands for and what his principles do to those I deeply care for. In other words, you can't say "I'm not a racist but..." because anything that comes after those few words is going to be racist -- you don't know what it's like so instead of putting in your two cents, maybe ask a few questions about what it's like to be a victim of racism and then you let me know if you're ever going to use the phrase "I'm not racist but..." ever again.


----------



## Marcus417 (May 3, 2014)

PhillipJLee said:


> This forum has been an great source of theological wisdom and encouragement but I have to say, in reading some of the posts in this thread, I am literally stunned by how short-sighted some of these comments have come off. I can't help but hear the voice of so many of my non-Christian friends reading some of your responses and saying, "This is exactly why I am not a Christian." And the unfortunate reality is that some will read that and think it is their fault for basing their belief on something so nominal as behavior instead of looking inward at what is quite honestly, in my humblest opinion, borderline ignorance of Biblical principles and Spirit-filled living.
> 
> (1) If a man says, in the privacy of his home, "I want to murder children for fun," regardless of whether or not the comment is made public, Christians ought to be upset because we believe (a) murder is sin and (b) children are a blessing. On any given Sunday, do we only preach against sins that have surfaced or do we preach against private and public sin? If you tolerate the sin because it was in secrecy, I can only wonder what private sins you might be struggling with yourself that you'd like to protect in similar secrecy.
> 
> ...



Amen.


----------



## a mere housewife (May 3, 2014)

Racism is indeed a grave sin. And we can't have double standards about sin. Either it's always good thing when sin is punished, or the qualifications that make certain punishments of some sins less than just and problematic should apply to all sin. I think this is what some have been trying to say here. The sin of racism should never be tolerated as anything other than wicked. That doesn't mean that singling it out for punishment while ignoring many other sins occurring at the same time is just. A society that does so is dangerous, not righteous.

Several people (including Vic) tried to make this point recently on a different issue (homosexuality) and I think most participants in that thread disagreed. I can't help thinking that if the behavior in question in this instance had involved one of our own favorite scapegoats, we would be cheering the penalty. We may be no more righteous than the world in this regard, just on a different wavelength?


----------



## VictorBravo (May 3, 2014)

PhillipJLee said:


> If a man says, in the privacy of his home, "I want to murder children for fun," regardless of whether or not the comment is made public, Christians ought to be upset



I actually was thinking of using a similar hypothetical to make my point. If someone says something like that in private, but does not, and never has, given an indication of actually acting on the sentiment, then the response ought to be private, shouldn't it? 

If the fellow says I want to kill little children for fun and looks like he is planning on it, I agree, all bets are off in terms of official intervention.

Put in our context, if a church member is experiencing urges to sin but does not act upon it, should we broadcast that to all the world?

It seems I am being accused of encouraging private sins, or at least hiding them. That is not the case at all.




PhillipJLee said:


> (2) If a public franchise that has historically been a battle ground for fighting racism in the U.S. discovers racism in any of its employees or employers, it has the obligation to bring such racism to light and administer the maximum punishment it can through its own corporate by-laws.



Perhaps, but I never viewed the NBA's purpose as fighting racism. I wonder if the bylaws place the owners under an obligation to actively search the hearts of the other owners. 




PhillipJLee said:


> (3) If you do not know what it is like to be a minority in the US, you have literally zero grounds for understanding the emotional response Sterling's behavior surfaces. Your one token mission trip does not do justice to a lifetime of living with a history that has been said to be over but clearly isn't -- and each instance wherein racism surfaces, whether you are a Christian or not, you will feel the pain, anger, and powerless frustration of being reminded that no matter what, you are still different and unaccepted. If I was working in the media sphere and I knew this, I would make sure to publicly condemn Sterling's behavior -- not simply because of what he has done but what he stands for and what his principles do to those I deeply care for. In other words, you can't say "I'm not a racist but..." because anything that comes after those few words is going to be racist -- you don't know what it's like so instead of putting in your two cents, maybe ask a few questions about what it's like to be a victim of racism and then you let me know if you're ever going to use the phrase "I'm not racist but..." ever again.



Brother, I know these topics stir up emotions. I hope you will be able to see that this comes across as an argument by intimidation. In essence, it sounds like you are telling some of us to remain silent because we lack the moral right to speak. So it goes--that's a pretty effective method to stop debate, but it does not win people's minds.

For what it is worth, why is it important to know what it is like to be a minority "in the US," as opposed to some other country? And why the assumption of token mission trips? A lot of bitterness seems to be cast in some of our directions.

BTW, I know better than to use the phrase "I'm not a racist but...." after having lived through race battles of the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s.... That's kind of a passe trigger phrase. The rule has been in effect for a long time that, as you have emphasized, if you say certain phrases, you expose yourself as a racist. But if you can avoid those phrases, or somehow speak the right phrases, you are golden.


----------



## Gforce9 (May 3, 2014)

PhillipJLee said:


> This forum has been an great source of theological wisdom and encouragement but I have to say, in reading some of the posts in this thread, I am literally stunned by how short-sighted some of these comments have come off. I can't help but hear the voice of so many of my non-Christian friends reading some of your responses and saying, "This is exactly why I am not a Christian." And the unfortunate reality is that some will read that and think it is their fault for basing their belief on something so nominal as behavior instead of looking inward at what is quite honestly, in my humblest opinion, borderline ignorance of Biblical principles and Spirit-filled living.
> 
> (1) If a man says, in the privacy of his home, "I want to murder children for fun," regardless of whether or not the comment is made public, Christians ought to be upset because we believe (a) murder is sin and (b) children are a blessing. On any given Sunday, do we only preach against sins that have surfaced or do we preach against private and public sin? If you tolerate the sin because it was in secrecy, I can only wonder what private sins you might be struggling with yourself that you'd like to protect in similar secrecy.
> 
> ...



Phillip,
For the record, my position on Donald Sterling is that he uttered foolishness, sounded quite drunk to me, and may well be a crotchety old goat who is thoroughly racist..... I would never defend what he said. I think, however, your comparison of the comments of Mr. Sterling and someone talking about murdering children for fun is not the same. One can utter a racial slur without intent to kill another or without having real harm on his mind (in the context of how you used the phrase). Also, it is not the same as yelling "fire" in a movie theater with a risk of someone getting trampled to death. As an aside, all these crusaders of truth in the media and sports (the honorable(s) Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, et al) I bet never used the term cracker or something worse. A microphone in Jesse Jackson's house would be a TV Soap Opera to supplant all others!

To your point #3, this is not entirely correct. "Zero grounds" is flat out wrong. I was never a slave, interred during war, nor was my family "ethnically cleansed" here in Illinois, so I will grant that much. I do, however, frequently work in the Englewood, Back-of-the-Yards, West Lawn, & Near West Side neighborhoods in Chicago. Folks like me are not welcome and sometimes don't come out of those places when they go in. It's getting warmer out and the warmer it gets, the more risk I take going there. There is racism for sure and _my_ safety and possibly my life is at risk......all for being white. I would not repeat here the things that have been said to me.
Racism is wrong. Donald Sterling was wrong. In "fairness", though, we need to install secret microphones in the homes of all those honorables (mentioned above) to see what noble words about other races have been slipped passed their lips and issue the same sentence or we are the same brand of racist they are..............


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 3, 2014)

The hypocrisy of this particular incident is that Donald Sterling has *publicly*, by his actions and his own words, shown himself to be a "racist" for decades, yet there was no public or private outrage. It is only when some folks in the public media realized there were ratings to be won and money to be made and fame to be created that the outrage police made a big deal over an illegally obtained and illegally distributed recording by his mistress. 

Just because the "right thing" is spoken against doesn't mean that the means by which that is done is above criticism. If a mob lynches a murderer are we to be ok with it just because, hey "justice was done"? 

Sin doesn't excuse other sin.


----------



## Elizabeth (May 3, 2014)

"whether you are a Christian or not, you will feel the pain, anger, and powerless frustration of being reminded that no matter what, you are still different and unaccepted."

You are a Christian, you will feel the pain, anger and powerless frustration of being reminded that no matter what, you are still different and unaccepted.

Cast that pain, anger and powerless frustration at the feet of your Lord, where all injustices will be made right.


----------



## PhillipJLee (May 3, 2014)

a mere housewife said:


> ...



Indeed, very true!



VictorBravo said:


> I actually was thinking of using a similar hypothetical to make my point. If someone says something like that in private, but does not, and never has, given an indication of actually acting on the sentiment, then the response ought to be private, shouldn't it? If the fellow says I want to kill little children for fun and looks like he is planning on it, I agree, all bets are off in terms of official intervention. Put in our context, if a church member is experiencing urges to sin but does not act upon it, should we broadcast that to all the world?



I am seeing a non-sequiter here so I may need some clarification: is your argument against the fact that his comments were made public or that his comments were made period? I am arguing against the latter to make one, singular point: racism ought not be tolerated and our intolerance of it, as is with all sin, ought to be clear. I do agree that the circumstances surrounding the sin itself, however, can be discussed more thoroughly (thus I didn't mention the fact that his comments were made public by so-and-so, just that the comments were made and what such comments articulate in our day and age).



VictorBravo said:


> It seems I am being accused of encouraging private sins, or at least hiding them. That is not the case at all.



Pardon me for being facetious for the purpose of ethos. It is not my intent to accuse, brother.



VictorBravo said:


> Perhaps, but I never viewed the NBA's purpose as fighting racism. I wonder if the bylaws place the owners under an obligation to actively search the hearts of the other owners.



I didn't mention the purpose of the NBA but I did mention that the NBA has been a historical battleground for racism. You're welcome to do a quick internet search on how significant the NBA's decision to permit African-American players was for our culture and society. The same goes for baseball and the MLB, of course.



VictorBravo said:


> ...



I appreciate your empathy and that quote wasn't directed at one particular individual -- it was intended to engage a general premise that may or may not author the thinking of some. To be clear, however, I am not talking about Political Correctness and the socially constructed "golden standard" of tolerance. Tolerance and equality are, in my opinion of what Scripture teaches, insufficient. To demean on another person because of his or her race fails to celebrate the diversity of culture, color, and character that God has personally authored in different people groups.

Having said that, I see your frustration and am not trying to establish a meta-argument that discounts your opinions -- I am simply placing a rock in the shoes of some who may think they understand what it is like to be a minority and, from their hypothetical viewpoint, resolve the undermining of minorities themselves to conclude that perhaps "it's not that big of a deal."

The boat, however, is not the same and not every person is in the same one. To acknowledge that much, in my opinion, is the beginning of understanding why I said what I said. If you cannot, then you simply cannot. No harm. No foul.



Gforce9 said:


> Phillip, For the record, my position on Donald Sterling is that he uttered foolishness, sounded quite drunk to me, and may well be a crotchety old goat who is thoroughly racist..... I would never defend what he said. I think, however, your comparison of the comments of Mr. Sterling and someone talking about murdering children for fun is not the same. One can utter a racial slur without intent to kill another or without having real harm on his mind (in the context of how you used the phrase). Also, it is not the same as yelling "fire" in a movie theater with a risk of someone getting trampled to death. As an aside, all these crusaders of truth in the media and sports (the honorable(s) Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, et al) I bet never used the term cracker or something worse. A microphone in Jesse Jackson's house would be a TV Soap Opera to supplant all others!



I see your point and agree, my illustration wasn't poignant enough so let me try to clarify: If an African American calls a Caucasian "cracker," there isn't the same response as a Caucasian calling an African American the N-word because Caucasians do not associate the word "cracker" with 400+ years of unlawful slavery and abuse. So, you may think yelling "Fire!" in a theater is meaningless unless it actually harms another person -- until you meet the child whose entire family was burned alive before his very own eyes and the very thought of fire brings back haunting memories and stories of pain and hardship.

But again, I do see your point and I think we agree on the conclusion, even if we haven't arrived at it in the same ways.



Gforce9 said:


> To your point #3...



I'm disheartened to hear about your own experience of what it's like to be disenfranchised simply because of the color of your skin -- their hostility against you is no different and your circumstance certainly requires and can only be remedied by the power of the Gospel.



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> ...



Not sure if this was directed to my post but I've responded above that there is a non-sequiter between my response and what some may be interpreting my response as.



Elizabeth said:


> "whether you are a Christian or not, you will feel the pain, anger, and powerless frustration of being reminded that no matter what, you are still different and unaccepted." You are a Christian, you will feel the pain, anger and powerless frustration of being reminded that no matter what, you are still different and unaccepted. Cast that pain, anger and powerless frustration at the feet of your Lord, where all injustices will be made right.



Amen Elizabeth! Amen.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 3, 2014)

Here is a link to an excellent discussion on this matter between Voddie Baucham and the folks at the Reformed African American Network. Roundtable: Processing Sterling With Voddie Baucham | RAANetwork


----------



## VictorBravo (May 3, 2014)

PhillipJLee said:


> I am seeing a non-sequiter here so I may need some clarification: is your argument against the fact that his comments were made public or that his comments were made period? I am arguing against the latter to make one, singular point: racism ought not be tolerated and our intolerance of it, as is with all sin, ought to be clear. I do agree that the circumstances surrounding the sin itself, however, can be discussed more thoroughly (thus I didn't mention the fact that his comments were made public by so-and-so, just that the comments were made and what such comments articulate in our day and age).



Well, I've sort of obliquely addressed a lot of issues, and I was trying to work on just one that came up. I'll clarify:

Saying racist words in private indicates a state of the heart, no question. Just like saying angry words against someone else, but in private, indicates a state of the heart. Certainly if I call a neighbor a fool, even privately, I am committing the sin of murder. Our Lord taught this plainly. Same thing goes for lusting in the heart, etc.

In the context of church discipline, we would first address private sins privately, and I'd think that we would not cheer the exposure of someone's private angry words, or the resulting gossip, even if the words are sinful (and, as murder, they certainly are!).

So I was trying to draw an analogy, probably without explaining enough. If I am not openly and publicly rebuked for private words of anger or mocking, why should private words of racisim be treated differently?

And when I talk about "treated differently," I am speaking of Christian responses to events like this. I am not making a statement on the moral obligation of the NBA owners deciding among themselves about what to do about this revelation, or the news media promoting it. To the extent I may have implied that, I retract that. (Although I do have a pretty good idea of the legal issues that will arise from all this).

My primary observations are:

(1) It is notable to see how interested people are in condemning the heart-thoughts of a man as revealed by his private conversation while ignoring and tolerating the heart-thoughts of the same man as revealed in his public conduct. This tells us something about our culture: we do need scapegoats and we do, collectively, understand the reality of condemnation, but apply it very selectively as a culture.

(2) Christians have a higher duty to be careful about condemning matters of the heart. Racism is indeed a heart matter, as noted above. No amount of public ridicule or shaming will change the heart. And, quite frankly, we are all guilty and deserving of death for our many similar sins. I desire to tread lightly in such matters, lest I become overly self-righteous primarily because I have the agreement of culture on this particular issue.

I have more to say, but I've a lot else to do. Thanks for the gracious tone of your response.

And one other thing, Phillip, now speaking as a moderator: please add a signature to your profile. You can click the link below my signature to see what to do.


----------



## Claudiu (May 4, 2014)

PhillipJLee said:


> In other words, you can't say "I'm not a racist but..." because anything that comes after those few words is going to be racist -- you don't know what it's like so instead of putting in your two cents, maybe ask a few questions about what it's like to be a victim of racism and then you let me know if you're ever going to use the phrase "I'm not racist but..." ever again.



I was waiting for this.


----------



## BJClark (May 5, 2014)

I guess having listened to the conversation that has been posted on youtube, I don't hear his comments to be 'racist' I hear her comments accusing him of feeling and thinking a certain way about blacks and other minorities implying he's a racist, but his comments seem to be referring to her relationships with other men. 

The conversation refers to people calling him and commenting about her posting pictures of herself w/ Magic Johnson--where she assumes it's because he's black, (could it be that he is HIV positive and not because of his skin color??)

He refers to the 'culture in which he lives' well, if that is one of racism..then who are his friends who are doing the commenting?? And what are THEY saying??

He tells her, "he" doesn't care who she hangs out with, or who she does whatever with..just don't post it all in public where people are calling him..to tell him about it..and don't bring these men to his games..(she filled in the word black, he never said that)


So it 'sounds' (to me) like they are talking around each other and not discussing the same thing..

but what does the NBA now do with say Larry Johnson, one of the Chief executives of the Lakers who is calling for an ALL Black Basketball Organization? Isn't that just as bad as what they are accusing Mr. Sterling of??? Or does he and will he get a pass because he happens to be black??

Here is a really good article--of what some see America becoming..

Donald Sterling should be flayed alive!


----------



## BJClark (May 5, 2014)

Bruce,




> And before we Christians happily jump aboard the latest-thought-crime bandwagon, and "pile-on" the latest PC-victim, we should be fully conscious that the next schlep may be another BrendanEich(Mozilla).
> 
> We need to defend our own rights to hold unpopular opinions without being thrown to the lions of the day, and we do that best when we (even as Christians) offer a brief for the 1st Amendment: "I disagree vehemently with your opinion, but will vehemently defend your right to say it."
> 
> ...




The owner that comes to mind here to be attacked on the "Traditional Marriage/Homosexual Marriage issue" is DeVos', who owns Orlando Magic, he and his wife are devout Christians who stand in Support of Traditional Marriage..

Will society and the NBA now start a head hunting expedition against him?


This man explains the subtext I am hearing in the conversation much better than I can..


http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/donald-sterlings-remarks/


----------

