Debate between Black conservative and Black nationalist shows both have more in common than they care to admit!

I took a deep breath before answering the early Saturday morning call. On the other end was ‘AE,’ a former Community Journal employee calling from D.C., where she has survived and prospered, even though she is an unapologetic Black conservative.

My moment of reluctance wasn’t premised on that dichotomy, however.  Instead, it was rooted in our history of debates–some of which ended with an impasse, others with ill feelings.

And that expectation took the passenger seat to the probability that the conversation would last upwards of several hours. The ‘discussions’ were frequently engaging and entertaining but, more often than not, excessively long.

Those who remember AE (despite my masking of her name) know her as an intelligent and uncompromising sister who rarely allowed emotionalism to taint her arguments.

Some will suggest her sociopolitical philosophy is outdated and inconsistent with today’s ever-evolving culture.

After all, she is an old-time Black Christian who believes in such antiquated concepts as marriage, gender roles (a man is the head of his household), and chastity outside of marriage.

As such, there are some Democrats who would have her tarred and feathered, as they would Martin Luther King, Jr. or Malcolm X had they lived today.

AE frequently points out that African Americans voted Republican until the mid-1960s, and those antiquated concepts held the community together. If nothing else, our parents knew the difference between being poor and being ‘po.

But that’s another flavor of Kool-Aid that most millennials have never tasted.

I hadn’t talked to AE in years, knowing that she settled in our nation’s capital, serving in various government positions.

Two minutes into our conversation, I also realized she hadn’t wavered from her sociopolitical platform, a fact reinforced when she revealed the reason for her call:  she wanted to know my position on the two hottest cultural controversies of the day—abortion and homosexuality.

AE could be forceful and seemingly overbearing at times, which for chauvinists, poses a threat.

Having been the lone voice of ‘moderate’ reason on Sunday Insight with Charles Sykes television show for two decades, I learned the value of research and logic. I also learned the importance of keeping a ‘hole card’ up my sleeve just in case the wind shifted.

I’ve used that card frequently when discussing politics and theological issues with people, explaining that I view the world through cultural and spiritual prisms and, as such, cast a much more comprehensive shadow over the trivialities of (wo)mankind. Rarely is a subject merely black and white?

With AE, for example, when she takes the position that African Americans should focus on the future instead of the past, I pull out the Sankofa bird and remind her of dozens of leaders who posited that you’ll never know where you’re going unless you know where you came from.

Or, as the African saying goes: a tree without roots can easily be decimated by wicked weeds. (Throwing an obscure word—like decimated—in a sentence is also a good distraction.)

On Saturday, AE wasted little time announcing her ‘disdain’ for Black clerics who had skirted their responsibility as Christian leaders when they rejected biblical scripture to appease their political patrons.

She said she was sickened when listening to Black preachers acknowledge the sanctity of human life but support abortion.   And while you can debate whether that so-called  ‘life’ is a fetus—like a chicken egg– or a human being and whether the bible, in fact, denounces abortion, there is no clarity needed on the subject of homosexuality, she said.

I won’t bore you with the nuances of our debate on those two subjects, aside from admitting I thought I was winning the battle until I misquoted scripture and mistakenly asserted that Paul was the first pope.

Even my ‘black ace’ was ineffectual at that point. However, I regained ground when I revealed my late mother was a learned CME minister who taught us that even if a person ‘sins’—including the biblical prohibition against same-sex activities—’ hate the sin, but  love the sinner.’

Moreover, I posited that America is not a Christian nation, as some claim. It’s not written in the constitution. And most Americans are not Christians anyway.

Based on the template I grew up with and using my mother as a shining example, I would suggest less than 15% of those who claim they are Christian are instead deists or agnostics.

Or, to put it in political terms, while most African Americans vote for Democrats, I know of only a handful who are card-carrying members of the party and, as such, have no say so in the platform of that ‘corporation.’

You can call yourself Christian,  a follower of Christ (which wasn’t his last name, no more than Jesus was his first), but if you don’t follow the church’s tenets or his lifestyle, you ‘ain’t no Christian.’

I told AE that I had pondered a column on abortion within days of the revelation that the U.S. Supreme Court was leaning toward reversing an earlier court’s ruling on Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion in America.

I gave up on the article after meeting ‘political resistance.’

Six out of 10 ministers I contacted displayed their bi-lingual proficiency by ‘speaking in tongues’ when I asked about their positions on abortion.

Three started whooping until they broke into a gospel song.

The lone accomodating cleric admitted she was in conflict…refusing to deal with absolutes and acknowledging that Nyame is in charge.

From that experience, I had to admit I, too, was disappointed that so many Black clerics could keep their balance while straddling that political/religious fence without falling off or down. (Which would make any future discussion about sexual activities moot.)

AE, however, didn’t mince words. She called those Black ministers ‘cowards.’

She was looking for much stronger adjectives for homosexuality because she said her bible specifically identified it as a sin.

My question to that statement was seen as blasphemous in her eyes:  is all scripture the word of God? Or was some written by man? Christ vs. culture.

I recall a college theology instructor who once explained that the more research you conduct on Christianity (notably, the Old Testament), the more confused you’ll become. Particularly if you’re open to third-party analysis.

I can attest to the validity of that statement.

I’ve never been one to take everything in the bible literally.   I don’t’ believe in a great flood that cleansed the earth of all of mankind.

Nor can I reconcile with scripture that posits God (Nyame) told Joshua to kill every innocent woman, baby, cow, and dog in Jericho. If you take the bible literally, God endorsed genocide to pave the way for a small plot of land.

And most assuredly, I have not, nor will I ever believe Nyame supported slavery and genocide.

At that point, AE and I reached an impasse because her understanding of the bible led her to believe the bible does not sanction slavery. I beg to differ.

The bible does, and I can’t think of any character in the bible who even challenged it. But I take that with a grain of salt (think of Lot’s wife, who God turned into a ‘pillar of salt’ for looking back at the sinful city of Sodom as she was leaving it) in that I believe the institution was born out of culture and not God’s edict.

The question before us today, I posited,  is whether the bible, like the U.S. Constitution (which also allowed for slavery and White Supremacy), is an evolving document. In essence, do they change with the times or to fit man (and women’s) lifestyles or cultural dogma.

Almost 90 minutes into the conversation, we began to find a consensus. The tide turned as we ventured onto the sociopolitical battleground paved with images of liberal missionaries and members of the Negrocracy who put their parties before the people.

Neither of the corporate parties has our best interests at heart, mainly when the subject turns to empowerment vs. appeasement.

For her part, AE expressed confusion about Black Americans continuing to follow the same Democratic Party script, even though we criticize the lack of progress under their ‘leadership.’

I agreed.

I used my time-tested analogy to validate my position that we’ve stayed on the same ‘Freedom’ train route for 50 years and still haven’t figured out why we keep seeing the same landmarks every four years.

We should have figured out long ago that the conductor keeps steering the train in circles.

There was also unanimity between AE and I on the reason for that dichotomy. Black leadership—the Negrocracy—long ago gave the keys of the Freedom Train to White liberals who have a vested interest in our remaining culturally impotent and poor.

The truth is that both parties enrich themselves off Black misery, from the devolution of the Black nuclear family, the miseducation of the Negro (as Woodson explained a century ago), and the slave chains of criminality and poverty.

I could all but see the smile on AE’s face when I revealed I had written a column a year ago in which I provided the perfect example of that gullibility:

I could sense her nodding in agreement when I used the example of how the missionaries and liberal conductors used the George Floyd demonstrations to advance a political agenda, specifically the election of Joe Biden, leaving our concerns about police accountability on the side the track.

Who but the most credulous could not figure out that a presidential campaign would not result in local police reforms needed to advert similar public executions like Floyd’s?

AE and I also sneered in unison when I expressed my disdain for White Democratic Party leadership wearing kente scarfs at a press conference following the Floyd murder.

“I found it insulting for these so-called liberal White politicians to wear something uniquely African, linked to royalty.

I doubt if Nancy Pelosi and her peons fully understood the significance of kente, what the colors represent, or who traditionally and historically wore it. And if they did, that’s doubly insulting. From my perspective, it was a pimp slap that should have reverberated throughout the land.

But it didn’t because the Black Democrats gave their ‘leaders’ cover and comfort.

“Imagine these folks wearing a Native American feather headdress? Or would they dare, I asked?”

As our lengthy conversation came to a close, I discovered AE and I shared similar positions on issues we fought over decades ago.

From a Black Nationalistic perspective, some issues transcend politics, religion, and culture.

The nuclear family constructs, marriage, and spirituality are the centerpieces of African culture. Those are not Republican or conservative paradigms, and I fear for a future without them, which I sadly see on the horizon.

AE and I will probably never see eye to eye on some subjects.

I have no problem admitting I am not now or will I ever join the dominant political parties.

Moreover, I am more spiritual than religious.

Within that paradigm, I have buried two sons, one of whom was heterosexual and one of whom was gay.

Based on what they sought to accomplish in this dimension, I assume both pleased God.

They had the opportunity to do so because their mother didn’t believe in abortion.

Hotep.