Monday, November 03, 2008

Lynching for Jesus

“Imagine the reactions if David Duke showed up as a visitor in the typical white church of today. The humble end of the spectrum would greet him with a expectant puppy-dog expression, ready to welcome him with open arms immediately upon his public confession of his ‘sin,’ which they would with expectant hope wait for him to give forth. Never mind that they would be unable to state what Duke’s sin is in a sentence that would be both coherent and factual. But those are the good people. At the other end would be the many who would simply turn away in icy silence until the apparition passed, whereupon a torrent of gossip and abuse would be unleashed in their ranks that would not be tagged as sin at all — quite the contrary. It would be taken as a mark of piety all of a sudden, accompanied by appropriate eyes lifted heavenward and shaking heads. And too many pastors and elders would, I fear, be right in the vanguard.”

I wonder if Michael Butler would be able and willing explain in a coherent and factual sentence or two why it’s sinful to be a Grand Wizard of the KKK. Or does he agree with his coblogger?


  1. Steve,

    Why don't you actually comment on Butler's actual site with some sort of cogent argument (rather than, say, a series of rhetorical questions) so that there can be some give and take? Do you actually want to debate the man or would you rather simply throw around buzz words on your own turf?

  2. You have an odd fixation on “where” an electronic debate is supposed to take place, as if it takes more courage to post comments on one web server than another. The whole notion of “where” is morally and practically vacuous when we’re talking about an essentially illocal medium like the Internet. Who cares what piece of virtual “turf” is the site of the exchange?

    I began with a question. What is there to debate before he states his position? I asked if he agrees with his sidekick about David Duke.

    He can answer that question at my blog, or his blog. “Where” one responds is a matter of complete inconsequence.