The Beam in Your Eye: Sex Crimes and Protestant Clergy

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?-- Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)

“Let Him Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone,” is a well-known quotation from the Bible. In many neighborhoods, the equivalent advice was “people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.” Both adages have approximately the same meaning. In the United States and possibly in the world, almost no one with access to news is unaware of sexual abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic Church. News media outlets raced almost daily to find another abuse cover-up. However, during that time there was no national comparison of Protestant scandals of similarity. Many assumed that Protestant churches escaped that stigma because they operated differently from Catholic Christians.

In many cases, those who believed this were right. For instance, although the Southern Baptist Convention represents a large number of Baptist churches, those churches operate as autonomous entities. In fact, many Pentecostal and Evangelical churches operate at the behest of their leader. Traditional Protestant churches such as Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian and Anglican all have some type of central governing body. Nevertheless, none of these faiths is rarely, if ever, examined as a group.

This small enquiry is broken into multiple categories based on type of crime. The first section covers just a small number of cases for 2014 and 2015. After that, clergy crimes are listed by type. Understanding that this report is in no way extensive in depth, it does represent the various crimes involving Protestant clergy, which is extensive. Nevertheless, there is no way this short piece could capture in depth the extent of clerical crime among Protestants.

With that lack of examination in mind, the following is a high-level examination that skims the surface of the same crimes perpetrated by the Catholic Church. All though the cases listed stay focus mainly on convictions, plea agreements, sentencing and guilty pleas. Included in the scrutiny are such crimes ranging from murder to bank robbery. However, judging from even a shallow analysis, it appears that Protestant clergy are just as bad as their Catholic counterparts are if not worse.

Interestingly, going through the cases sentencing for similar crimes punishment varied widely from state to state and city to city. The lopsided application sentencing is disturbing. Sentences in this investigation ranged from as little of 6 months probation to 133 years. In some cases, the maximum sentenced was applied, but as mentioned often it seems the punishment didn’t fit the crime. Nevertheless, perpetrators in the sexual offense did receive punishment. Whether it was appropriate can only be determined by the judge issuing sentences and the victim’s family.

NOTE: Some of these cases have not been adjudicated. Nevertheless, they are public record and are available as such on line. The report mention above is available by following the link below.

The Mote In Your Eye

Mad Max: Fury Road—Don't Believe the Hype

Don't-don't-don't don't believe the hype. Mad Max has it all except for two things: a story worth following and characters that anyone cares about with the noted exception of Imperator Furiosa played by Charlize Theron. The main character Max Rockatansky played by Tom Hardy doesn’t really speak until nearly the middle of the movie after the initial spectacular and epic chase scene.

The movie takes place in the remains of a world after civilization collapses with insufficient resources, such as water food and oil to subsist. The people remaining live a life of slavery for bits of food and water, provided to them by Immortan Joe, played by Hugh Keays-Byrne ruler of The Citadel where he acts as a virtual God to its inhabitants, except for his warriors.

The new rendering of Mad Max delivers on its cast of freaks, geeks, kooks and weirdos. It also produces on its collection of strange cars and trucks that only Dr. Frankenstein could love. It even has a musician with a flame throwing double neck guitar standing in front of a wall of speakers who provides thunderous music for the chase scenes. The chases are wild, action packed and filled with dangerous stunts just as the trailers promise.

Hardy does an incredible job with the anorexic script he has to work with, which may not even reach that level. Theron’s character, Imperator Furiosa, has a more fleshed-out role that lends some credibility to her character. The rest of the characters are bad Hollywood rip-offs of this particular genre of movie.

Although he has the sufficiently noxious outfit, the required irritating voice and high quality ugliness, Immortan Joe just doesn’t cut it as a villain, especially for this comic book escapade. Villains must inspire disgust, revulsion and even hatred. They must have no socially redeeming value as a human being even as an organ donor. Even though Hugh Keays-Byrne tries valiantly, Immortan Joe couldn't raise enough hatred to qualify as a true villain like the T-1000 in The Terminator.

If you’re looking for a story, you’d have better luck playing “hide and seek” with The Invisible Man. However, for those with a craving for explosions, fire and crazy stunts, this movie might be for you. Tom Hardy is certainly no Mel Gibson in his role as Max, but I think it is more a problem of an unserviceable script and a movie hoping to cash in on action.

I am certain that Max will be the box-office winner, but for me I wish I had waited for pay-for-view version. Most critics liked it, but I was not riveted, disgusted or cheering the good guys. For me it was blah! On a five star rating system, I give Max two and a half stars part of that score is the one and half stars I gave it for big screen spectacle. The rest? Drivel. 

Skin Politics: Propaganda and Reality

Do You Know Any of The People Above?

Skin politics in the African American community is dirty laundry rarely discussed in public forums. For years, skin color has been the proverbial millstone around black American's neck. Yet, discussions of skin color and the role it played in societal organization and community standing is a touchy subject. For instance, few ever speak about the "paper bag" test, which was used by upper-crust blacks to determine if a person was white enough to gain acceptance. If your skin was darker than a brown paper bag, you did not merit inclusion.

Most would never know that thousands from some of the country's storied black institution, such as Howard University, had fraternities and sororities that practiced discrimination against their own people.  Just a glance through most black university yearbooks during the 40’s provides all the proof necessary to see the color dividing line. Many believe the practice finally died a natural death, but in reality it still exists much to the community's embarrassment.

Years ago, a strange saying circulated throughout the black community illustrating the skin politics that lingers from slavery. "If you're white you're all right. If you're brown stick around, but if you're black stay back." It may surprise some, but the doggerel poetry originated in the black community long ago and reflects the unsubtle preoccupation with skin color among African Americans.

History

Although skin color among Africa slaves was predominately dark brown to nearly black, concern about color came about as a direct result of miscegenation. Although the term is commonly associated with African slavery in the United States, it came about much sooner than the kidnapping of blacks from Africa as the first blacks arrived in 1619 as indentured servants. Black and white indentured servants worked for a specific number of years and were then freed. The lives of black and white indentured servants were similar at this time. They worked side by side; they lived together in the same dwellings and fraternized after their labors. They also married and had children together.[1]

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, miscegenation is defined as a mixture of races; especially: marriage, cohabitation or sexual intercourse between a white person and a member of another race. During slavery, miscegenation between white and blacks was strictly prohibited. Although forbidden, instances of sexual intercourse between white and black occurred and usually without black female consent.

In the United States, whites saw themselves as superior and all others as subordinate or inferior. This practice was termed hypodescent. During American slavery, the word meant the automatic assignment of children of a white union between members of different ethnic groups to subordinate status. Progeny of these usually forced incidents became mulattos. However, as the children of forbidden relations matured there was intermarriage between mulattos producing quadroons (a person of one-quarter African ancestry and a Caucasian parent). Octoroon meant a person with one-eighth African ancestry and one white parent.

Perceptions and Reality

Focus on skin color came early during slavery as mixed children of slave owners received better consideration than slaves with pure African blood. The difference was not lost on unmixed slaves as the children of slave master often received hostile treatment from regular field hands. The politics of skin came early for African slaves. Many slaves were children of well-to-do white fathers and many were recognized and sponsored by their fathers. Once free, Negroes of lighter skin color came to dominate the free black community both in numbers and influence.

Because of the better treatment, former slaves often focused on marriage to a lighter skinned black in order to have a lighter child, which was seen as an asset in the black community as fair-skinned Negroes seemed to obtain better jobs and treatment. Even black sexuality did not escape the effects of skin politics as lighter skinned men and women tended to have their choice of marriageable partners. Whether it was the benefit of better jobs or prized romantic interests, skin color has long been an issue in the black community.

Self-Hatred

Many psychiatrists are of mixed opinion when discussing skin-lightening among African Americans as a form of self-hatred. There are those who see the choice to lighten one’s skin as simply an extension of personal freedom especially considering the many shades of color in the African American community. However, there just as many who believe that changing one’s skin color is a sign of dissatisfaction with one’s appearance, in particular, dark skin. Adding to the conflict are the models depicted in the media, black and white, that highlight lighter female models and movie stars. Whether there is self-hatred there is truly unknown, but obviously there is something that drives a person to make such a drastic change, especially one that might cause them serious medical harm.

Skin Lighteners

Skin lightening or whitening creams have met with controversy in the black community where many claim that such products lead to confused identities and devaluations of traditional cultures. With portions of the black community “skin lightening” is considered to be brought about by a combination of self-hatred, European ideas of beauty and a desire to be accepted by greater society to create better opportunities. How much of this is true remains open to question, but the reality of skin bleaching is tangible and often produces unexpected results.

The skin lightening industry is a multi-million dollar industry, but the economic leads many to give legitimacy to the business of changing skin color, as most creams are a dangerous concoction of chemicals such as steroids, hydroquinone and tretinoin. The long-term use of these drug cocktails can lead to permanent pigmentation changes, skin cancer, liver damage, mercury poisoning and many other side effects.

Yet, the formulations of these products are shrouded in mystery and awareness of their hazardous effects is low. Nearly 30 per cent of long-term users report adverse effects as most skin lightening creams contain mainly two chemicals, hydroquinone or mercury.[2]Mercury is poisonous and can cause permanent damage the nervous system. Mercury poisoning is still known today as 'Mad Hatter's disease as it used to be used in the making of hats. The chemical affected the nervous systems of hatters, causing them to tremble and appear insane. Toxic levels of mercury can also lead to kidney damage and may lead to psychiatric disorders. In addition, it can lead to severe birth defects.[3]

Other chemicals include topical steroids, which can cause hypertension, elevate blood sugar and suppress the body’s natural steroids. The steroid corticosteroid used in some bleaching creams can result in Cushing's disease, a malfunction of the adrenal glands leading to an overproduction of cortisol. Other side effects include increased appetite and weight gain, deposits of fat in chest, face, upper back, and stomach, swelling, slowed healing of wounds, osteoporosis, cataracts, acne, muscle weakness, thinning of the skin and more.[4]

Consumers wrongly assume that all ingredients are disclosed on labels. “There’s a basic assumption that there’s some truth in labeling,” said Dr. David McDaniel, a dermatologist in Virginia Beach and a director of the Skin of Color Research Institute at Hampton University (a historically black college). “That’s a false assumption for the skin-lightening market.”[5]

Skin lightning is not relegated to the African American community as countries as diverse as Senegal, India and the Philippines skin lightning is promoted as a way to elevate one’s social standing. India has a thriving fairness industry and fairness creams are reportedly the most popular in the unfettered skin care market. In 2003, Dr S. Allen Counter of Harvard Medical School reported that the high levels of mercury found in people, but particularly women, from Mexico, Saudi Arabia and in Tanzania in East Africa related to the use of skin lightening creams.[6] Allen also reported that 96% of over 300 patients in the Southwestern United States that have higher than normal mercury levels were female and all had used skin lightening products; likewise 90% of women tested in clinics in Arizona who were Mexican-American had been using the same products.[7]

Discrimination?

It’s not some fantasy. There is prejudice against dark-skinned people, especially women in the so-called marriage market. Interestingly, prejudice often surfaces among members of the same ethnic groups and races. For the longest, in the African American community light skin was considered more attractive, better accepted and led to superior opportunities. Fairer, lighter skin is highly valued in some countries such as Asia and India.

Men

A small percentage of men also use bleaching creams. Former Chicago Cubs slugger, Sammy Sosa, has a noticeable change of skin color. Sosa, a Dominican-born American citizen, told a reporter from ESPN that he had used a cream nightly to “soften” his skin and that it had bleached it, too.[8]

Given that chemical skin lightening has a range of serious side effects, the best advice would be to stay clear of such products and be happy to be in your skin.[9]

---

^[1] Linda Allen Bryant, Slavery and Miscegenation in America, The Legacy of West Ford, http://www.westfordlegacy.com/History/slavedoc.html

^[2] Nalini Ravichandran, Skin whitening creams can cause long-term damage, doctors warn, Daily News, August 4, 2013,http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2384456/Skin...

^[3] Dr. S. Allen Counter, Whitening skin can be deadly, Boston Globe, December 16, 2003, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2003/12/16...

^[4]  Lynn Berry, The Dangers of Using Skin Lightening Creams, March 27, 2008, http://www.naturalnews.com/022893_skin_dangers_products.html#ixzz37...

^[5] Catherine Saint Louis, Creams Offering Lighter Skin May Bring Risks, New York Times, January 15, 2010

^[6] Lynn Berry, The Dangers of Using Skin Lightening Creams, March 27, 2008, http://www.naturalnews.com/022893_skin_dangers_products.html#ixzz37...

^[7] Dr. S. Allen Counter, Whitening skin can be deadly, Boston Globe, December 16, 2003, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2003/12/16...

^[8] Enrique Rojas, Sosa: Cream has bleached skin, Sports ESPN, November 10, 2009

^[9] Simon Pitman, Medical research highlights dangers of skin lightening, Cosmetics Design, February 15, 2008,

http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/Formulation-Science/Medical-r...

Who's Listening Anyway

I still find myself doing it. My right hand will shoot out to the volume knob or my thumb will start tapping the button on the steering wheel. It's an old habit and a silly one at that, but sometimes the silly ones are the hardest to break. I'm ashamed to admit I ever did it, but I bet I'm not the only one that turned down the music when you showed up at your friends or a car load black folks pulled next to you at the stop light.

What could be so terrible? Absolutely nothing, but whenever I listed to some of my favorite white groups from the Beatles and the Stones to Led Zeppelin and the Eagles, I automatically turned down the volume out of embarrassment. When you're raised listening to Rhythm and Blues, Stax-Atlantic and Motown it was difficult to admit that any other music was worth the listening.

It was especially difficult when your goal is to be seen as cool. Of course, I know better now because I was never cool no matter what I listened to or where I listed to it. I listened Eric Burdon, The Rolling Stones as well as the Lovin' Spoonful and Pink Floyd. During the 90's Don Henley wrote and played some songs that appealed directly to me like "The Hotel California," "Life in the Fast Lane," "Dirty Laundry," and more. Sometimes, I'd blast the songs so loud that you had to notice it when I pulled up with the last notes still painting the air.

I can truly say that it was silly, but group think sometimes makes you forget that you are an independent person with your own likes and dislikes. Of course, now I jam to anything that makes my foot pat. I laugh to myself when a carload of young folks pull up next to me jammin' their boxes with hip-hop blaring only to find that I have Don Henley blasting with "Life in the Fast Lane" drowning out their beats.

It's not a competition of styles. It is people playing the music they like and at an obscene volume. One of my favorite joys in life is to be shooting down the highway, top down and my favorite music attached to the accelerator. Moral: Like you're music for the music, not for what others will think. By the way, I like classical and country music.

Sick and Tired:Women Beware!

I was sitting within hearing distance of a show my wife watched on television when I heard something that sent me to the keyboard if for nothing else, to let off steam. I don’t remember what show it was and it doesn't really matter. It was the subject that lit my fire. 

For the umpteenth time, I heard a group of women describing their ideal man. The man they described sounded absolutely incredible and wonderful even to me. In fact, if I weren't a flaming heterosexual I'd marry him myself. As I listened to the women describe their ideal man, I thought to myself—what is it any of these women had that qualified them for such a man. 

Usually, in a relationship, there are two people unless it‘s a business arrangement, which qualifies it as something else. Nevertheless, I'm not foolish enough to believe that I remotely met any of their requirements in any way. I’m not a troll, and neither am I tall and handsome. I have plenty of degrees, but I don't think that's what makes me smart. I've held important positions in the corporate world. Money? I'm not broke, but I'm not close to being rich either. My best attribute is my personality, of which I think I have plenty. After that quick inventory, I quickly surmised I didn't have a thing these women wanted.

On the other hand, almost all of them had something that caught my attention and it wasn't good looks because all of them were very acceptable. Nevertheless, that is not what caught my attention. What reeled me in was that at least half of them were what I politely refer to as "bitches." I wouldn't have gone out with most of them unless they two $500, 000 bags propped on their breasts. 

In reality, the breasts would not have even a small effect on my libido. The only thing that would remotely matter, is if I couldn't lift the bags and had to share the money with anyone who helped me lift it off the supporting titties. Even then, breasts would be a miniscule bother. 

Am I educated? If they mean do I have a college degree, the answer is yes, several of them. However, it not something I care to mention, because it seems like it bragging unless I am speaking at a scientific convention where it is expected.

Rather than education, this man would prefer an excellent conversationalist, comfortable and capable of discussing topics on the spur of the moment. I’m not looking for the most beautiful woman in the world. So, for me a conversationalist is worth her weight in gold.

When it comes to looks, attractive is just fine, especially when comes without attitude and overconfidence. Now, I must confess that I am a big fan of Malaysian women. Why? Who knows? Of course, if I can trick a world class beauty into my bed (ain't gonna happen) I won't kick her out for eating saltines.

If I were dating, I’d probably go out with white women, black women Asian women, Indian women, Mexican women and females. I also heard that powerful women, executive women or beautiful women intimidate many men. They go on dates with these intimidated men and when they aren't asked out again they cover up their disappointment saying that men can’t deal with a professional or educated women.

Personally, I think they don't come back because they can't deal with a bitch, egoist and worthless human being, unless it is for a night and flight. Personally, it makes no difference to me. In addition, I think far too many women overvalue and give themselves credit for something they aren’t.

Yes, men tend to be shallow in some instances not deep enough to cover a dime. However, for the most part, if we've had any type of upbringing at all, we tend to be overly courteous and try to avoid certain situations, especially those that may require hurting someone’s feelings.

Now, for the bottom line. I’m not all of that as a date especially if you're going by looks and height. If it has to do with how many pieces of paper I have, more than likely I will never mention it unless we've had several dates. As far as my tastes in women, I like tall women. I also like short women, as well as big women and skinny women or just females. I’m not too picky.

However, I don't like arrogant women, belligerent women or impressionable women. I’m not a big fan of heavy makeup, fake hair or titties. Homemaking? I really don’t care. I'm a damn good cook; I can wash and iron my own clothes. I can make a bed. In fact, my house meticously clean. Perhaps, even too clean. In other words, I don’t need a woman for any of those things. Sex? That might be the easiest on my lowbrow list. Sex? Too Easy.

I admit I am notoriously shallow, ill-behaved and generally a silly person. However, I am also smart, determined and driven. That’s it. I don't have a long list and anything on my list can be replaced, forgotten or forgone. I want nothing more than an interesting and mysterious woman. That’s it. If I can’t get that, I’ll resort to a trophy girlfriend, tall and tanned, long flowing hair and several college degrees. However, any of that can be overridden by truckloads of money and extreme generosity toward me. Yes, I am that shallow.

By the way, this is my list from long ago, and since I have been off the market for some time, some of this doesn't apply as I'm sure that standards for dating have changed dramatically. On the other hand, I might not be the only man that feels this way even today.

Stupidectomy Doomed to Failure

Most of us know that you can’t fix stupid and I saw another tired example of it last night in response to making English the official of the United States. Most of those seeking such status aim their exclusivity at Spanish speaking people oblivious to the fact that more than 30 languages are spoken daily in the nation.

“Language racists” as I call them fail to see the importance of speaking another language in their own country. For instance, speaking another language could improve business opportunities and produce better community relations. I call the “language racists” because their tunnel vision reasoning is similar to the myopic vision of bigots who miss the entire big picture of the benefits of “diversity.”

“America”, which is used incorrectly to refer to the United States, extends from the far reaches of Alaska to the hinterlands of Chile. The number language spoken in that vast area is also just as varied as it is in the United States. There is a lot of the land “south of the border” and only a small portion of it is Mexico, nor are all the people below the border Mexican.

There is no reasoning with such stupidity. Hundreds of thousands of people from other countries visit the United States regularly and rarely do they run into anyone speaking their language unless it is a relative or friend. Is it arrogance, ignorance, or indifference? In my opinion it is a little of each. We travel to other countries and expect English understanding, but we seem unaware that we don’t do the same.

For “language racists,” the answer is ignorance. They are so offended by “brown people” that they are blinded to the realities surrounding immigration, including benefits. US marketing firms “get it” as entire advertising campaigns aim at Spanish speakers. Almost every major city television media outlet has affiliations with Spanish equivalent.  Going even further, some US hotel chains offer Japanese, Arabic and Vietnamese.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a stupidectomy and even if there were, those in need of the procedure would be unaware because of their ignorance.

Sayin' What You mean Ain't Always Meaning What You Say

I grew up in a middle-class black family in a little town named Independence, Kansas. Being middle-class in those days had little meaning other than some degree of education accompanied the appellation. As children we were taught to speak "proper" English at home and Catholic School, but what we heard on the block was a mish-mash of Spanish, slaughtered English and jive By the time I began traveling on the road as a professional musician I could walk in both worlds without thinking about it.

 

Collective Pronoun

 

Normally, "we" is considered a collective pronoun, meaning an entire group, congregation or gathering. During those days if someone from the white community shouted, "We need to leave,there would be no doubt the speaker meant the entire group. However, in the black community "we" became a singular pronoun because whomever shouted "We gotta get up out of here," was already far in front of the rest of the group which would be divided into sub-groups according to speed.

 

Grammar

 

It's not always like that, but it's a piece of information that has little bearing on anything except bringing a smile to your face.