Up for Debate: Mt. Zion faces clergy malpractice claims

Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at 2:02am

What do you think of the allegations levied against Mt. Zion Baptist Church as well as the larger question of clergy malpractice?

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

78 Comments on this post:

By: Loner on 4/24/12 at 12:34

Back to the topic of the day...I thought that the Zionists had a copyright on the the word, "Zion"....the Jews should sue Bishop Joseph Walker III for copyright infringement.

Maybe the Bishop and his flock of 20,000 black sheep will emigrate, Jonestown style, en masse, to Israel?

They already are Zionists, so why not make aliyah, convert to Judaism and swell the ranks of the IDF with thousands of young black Americans...ready to whup ass for Zion?

Shall we take up a collection to help finance their relocation to the Promised Land of Zion?

By: BenDover on 4/24/12 at 12:39

Have a great day guys. I've got to check out.

By: Loner on 4/24/12 at 12:42

See ya, Ben...sorry if I spooked you with my 1:25 comment. The facts do speak for themselves on who spooked whom in Sept., 2008.

By: Loner on 4/24/12 at 1:05

I Googled it, Hillary Clinton suspended her presidential bid on Saturday June 14, 2008. Obama was clearly the Democratic nominee at that point in time...if the specter of an Obama presidency is what spooked the markets and caused the crash of 2008, why the three-month delay between cause & effect?

Palin was selected on Aug. 29, 2008...the market crashed on Sept. 15, 2008...a 17-day period is much more plausible than a three-month delay in any cause and effect scenario.

McCain caused the crash by selecting an air-headed bimbo as his running mate....that's a much more reasonable allegation, than what Ben Dover has been claiming.

By: pswindle on 4/24/12 at 1:20

The Bush tax cuts are in place because the GOP has enough members to fillibuster as they have done on every job that would put people back to work, and just about everything else that he wants to do to help the Ameican People. At one time, the GOP said if the presidents cuts the Bush tax cuts, they put into a bill that would take from the poor and middle class.

By: yogiman on 4/24/12 at 1:43


Have you ever considered the market crashed because of their fear an ineligible person had been picked by the Democratic party and they were wondering what was going to happen?

By: gdiafante on 4/24/12 at 1:59

Have you ever considered the market crashed because of their fear an ineligible person had been picked by the Democratic party and they were wondering what was going to happen?

No, because (1) he's eligible and (2) to even consider such a ridiculous excuse is to ignore basic economic theory and the facts leading up to the crash.

Don't trip over yourself trying to blame him for everything, you may break a hip.

By: Loner on 4/24/12 at 2:06

Right now, the US is spending 120 billion dollars every month in the Afghanistan adventure.

We have been there for ten years or so...spending like fools....the withdrawal date is at the end of 2014. That's 32 months from now....do the math. 32 x 120Bn = 3,840 Bn.....that's 3.84 trillion dollars in additional money to be spent on mission impossible.

According to a new security agreement, the US will continue to give the Afghanis aid through 2024....estimates of that long term aid are approx. 3 billion a year, after 2014....that's another 30 billion dollars...at least.

I got my stats here:


Let's not forget how much we have already squandered on the Bush-Cheney holy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.....that's estimated to be upwards $1.3 trillion dollars since 2001...source on that:


How can this republic withstand a financial drain like that for much longer? The War Super Lobby is ruining the nation, as they line their pockets while they still can....I'm talking about Defense, Israel & Energy, DIE, the War Super Lobby.

The Taliban listed what they consider to be the real reasons for the long-term aid pact, according to the NYT source. Here is a cut/paste:

The goals of the agreement for the Americans, the Taliban statement said, are: “First goal: securing routes to the Central Asian and Caspian oil fields. Second goal: prevention of a movement in favor of a true Islamic government. Third goal: Bringing secularism and liberalism to Afghanistan. Fourth goal: establishing an army hostile to Islam that protects Western interests. Fifth goal: Continuous threats to Islamic countries in the region and the prevention of political and military ties between them and Afghanistan.”

You know, I think the Taliban outlined the reasons for the adventure in Afghanistan very well....they nailed it....things are bad when you learn the real reasons for the conflict from the "enemy".

No...the US does not do empire very well, do we?

By: Loner on 4/24/12 at 2:12

Thank you, Gd, for responding to the trolls wild theory...Obama was the apparent Dem nominee on June14, 2008...McCain selected Palin on August 29, 2008...the crash started on Sept 15, about 17 days after McCain made his earth-shaking announcement....if anybody spooked the markets it was McCain & Palin, not Obama & Biden. Yogi and Ben's theories are without substance.

By: yogiman on 4/24/12 at 2:15

Tell me, gdiafante, going by Obama's autobiography where he made the statement about being adopted by his Indonesian stepfather into Indonesian citizenship so he could go to school in a nation who would not allow a child in their schools who weren't Indonesian citizens; where in the Constitution does it authorize a person to become president after they have given up their American citizenship, even if he was born as a natural birth citizen? If he actually did repatriate to American citizenship after becoming an Indonesian citizen, he could not get that natural born status back. He could only have become a naturalized citizen. That, and that alone, would deny him of qualifications for the office and he knows it. Otherwise, he would have quickly shown his papers and saved himself millions of dollars.

But he refused to show his qualification when he insisted on John McCain showing his. Why?

By: gdiafante on 4/24/12 at 2:26

Seriously, do you (Ben and yogi mostly) not understand or comprehend that the housing bubble bursting caused most, if not all, of this? Do you even know what that is?

Here's a brief summation, and though I thoroughly don't expect you to comprehend or even acknowledge that anything other than Obama caused this, please try to follow.

First, home/land values became overvalued beginning in 2004 (not Obama's fault). Then, due to lax government policy and completely horrendous business processes by banks (not Obama's fault), lenders began giving sub-prime mortgages out like candy. When the low introductory interest rate expired, many people could no longer make/afford their house payment, causing a run of foreclosures. Then, the market began to correct itself, causing home values to decrease substantially (not Obama's fault). When home values go down, people can't pull equity out of their homes. When people can't pull equity, they don't spend money. When they don't spend money, the economy starts to contract.

Sidenote: our housing bubble coincided with similar bubbles in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Spain, Poland, Hungary and South Korea (not Obama's fault).

Now, back to the bubble...this particular bubble effected the housing market, mortgage lenders, home builders, real estate, home supply retail stores, hedge funds and foreign banks.

Following it so far? Now, the mortgage market meltdown began to result in a marked reduction of earnings for Wall Street investment banks (like Lehman Bros.), which caused solvency issues...banks ran out of money. So, they stopped lending (even to companies like GE, who had trouble maintaining their daily business).

Then, the house of cards really began to crumble.

Now, pray tell, how that can be pinned on Obama? I'll wait.

By: bfra on 4/24/12 at 2:27

Ben & yogi are in the same boat, Ben just twist his words a little better.

By: gdiafante on 4/24/12 at 2:28

The theories are, for lack of a better term, batsh!t crazy, Loner.

By: yogiman on 4/24/12 at 2:28

gdiafante, how about you and Loner checking out a case on citizenship qualifications. Look into the Minor v. Happersett case. I believe you can bring it out by going to nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-voices/debate-mt-zion-faces-clergy-malpractice-claims?page=1

In that case it was determined to be a natural born citizen both parents had to be citizens.

By: Loner on 4/24/12 at 2:32

Why insult the feces of bats, Gd?

By: gdiafante on 4/24/12 at 2:33

If memory serves, isn't Minor v Happerset about women's suffrage?

By: gdiafante on 4/24/12 at 2:36

Maybe we should start callling yogi guanoman instead...

By: yogiman on 4/24/12 at 3:03

That was the reason for the case but the reason for the decision. Look into puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

By: gdiafante on 4/24/12 at 3:04

Keep grasping at straws guanoman...lol

By: gdiafante on 4/24/12 at 3:17

Points to ponder...


By: Captain Nemo on 4/24/12 at 3:25

What has yogi been licking today; dog, goat or pig?

By: Captain Nemo on 4/24/12 at 3:31


This is too much for the yog’nut to understand even if he could understand. It is obvious that he never spent a day in a real school.

By: BenDover on 4/24/12 at 4:33

Geezzz... leave you guys along for a few hours and you go off the deep end.

Read Reckless Endangerment with a full list of characters and culpability with respect to the sub-prime housing crash (this book actually includes the policy players in addition to the cronyism you find so comfortable hanging the whole albatross around) . It was the CRA and subsequent well intended programs gone wild just like the problems with the justice department are because of the War on Drugs gone wild.

By: BenDover on 4/24/12 at 4:40

My point though was we maintained that razor edge balance with respect to the bubble until it became apparent we were going to elect the guy who promised to bankrupt the coal industry, pass a cap and trade VAT on every transaction in America based energy consumption, was going to nationalize health care; and DOUBLE capital gains taxes out of fairness.

Obama was giving that bubble a full shove to the left and investors, business owners and others with something to lose were paying attention.

Let your predispositions blind you to it... fine. I've only suggested you look at it from another perspective that doesn't simply reinforce your existing views.

By: Loner on 4/24/12 at 5:20

Obama was the obvious Democratic nominee on June 14, 2008...90 days later the market finally reacts? I don't buy that, Ben...and really, you don't either, IMO.

By: BenDover on 4/24/12 at 5:41

If you follow the S&P 500 matched to Obama's Intrade numbers you will find that they are inversely proportionate Loner... and then it fell off the cliff from there when it was final.

By: Loner on 4/24/12 at 5:54

I am unconvinced.

By: BenDover on 4/24/12 at 6:53

How could you be... your reason here is the slave of a deeper moral conviction that cannot accept it and will easily rationalize it away with sharp and fine-tuned experience.