Donald Sterling "Punished"?

[Marcus417]

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.

Amen.

 

[a mere housewife]

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]

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.

(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.

(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]

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.

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]

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]

"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]

...

Indeed, very true!

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).

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.

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.

...

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.

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.

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.

...

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.

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."

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?

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/