I was going to post it, WTL, but thought that was your draft rebuttal. To be honest, given that the piece was offensive by design in order to provoke -- and get people to think outside the box -- I expected more criticism, but the response, as noted above, was very positive. Most "got" the satire and took it in that context. There was one negative comment left by a woman actively defending McKnight against any criticism to this day -- even after abortions and being relegated to fall back position for years. Other than that, yours was the only negative feedback. I'm sorry you misinterpreted the piece, as I know your intent is to do good here. As is mine. We may not always agree with the others approach, but let us try to be respectful of one another as we work towards a common goal.

Precisely. That was and is the point. From time to time we will disagree here. It's human, particularly when emotions are high. I know for a fact Jesus is My Pimp Daddy motivated and emboldened more than a few women to speak out -- against McKnight. WTL is obviously a bright and passionate person, but there are those out there that allow religious doctrine to blind them -- and blind them to the less than honorable behavior of those that cloak themselves in its vestments. The McKnights, Swaggarts, Bakkers and Haggarts of the world. Lets keep McKnight and his hypocrisy the focus here. And making Madam X whole again. Amen!

CHARLIESANGELS, you are Jason? I thought that you were one of the WOMEN who contributed to the PIMP DADDY article, however, I did not know that you are actually a MAN and the author of the article. This whole time, I thought you were sharing your position as one of the women here who were betrayed by Claude. Clearly, I misunderstood.

I do not see any evidence where Claude is invoking a correlation between his treatment of women and Jesus' and Mary M.'s relationship. As I am sure you are aware, I felt that the article read as an attack on Christianity - period...and that Claude's exploits are buried in it and just thrown in for good measure.

I don't know how this would be a catalyst for people to "think out of the box." I would think that going after people's Faith so incessantly and in such a hateful manner, would cause people to put up walls and shut down more than become more open minded. As an INTERFAITH Minister, we study, participate in and honor ALL Faiths and believe in respecting everyone's right to choose Christianity or any other Religion or Spiritual School of Thought they believe brings them closer to God and honor their Divinity (or whatever classification of honoring their highest self they use). Your school of thought, when it comes to Jesus, seems to be to villify Jesus (as if you could) and simply make it up as you go along -- sensationalizing it wherever you can. Clearly, in your article, by suggesting equating Jesus as being pimp. I don't know what your beef is with a Christianity, however - I absolutely disagree with the presentation. I think that in its present form it will turn more people against MADAMX's position than in favor of it and I can see no way that it supports her cause - for Christianity, as a whole, to be attacked.

Because we may disagree or the approach is critiqued, it does not mean there is disrespect. However, I do find the presentation disrespectful in itself - albeit deliberately offensive (as you have shared here). I believe that you will lose most of your ground support if it is left in its present form. This is sure to prove counter-productive for the "common goal" -- which I am not sure what your goal is here if you are not one of the women who were betrayed by Claude, CHARLIESANGELS.

May I ask, what is it that you see as the "common goal" - CHARLIESANGELS? I thought I knew what the common goal is here amongst those of us who are "survivors" of having been entangled with Claude or women who empathize, sympathize or are being warned off from trading places with where we've been. However, since you are a man and so you don't fall under these categories -- I would be interested in hearing what you see as the "common goal" here.

LOLLOLY - I appreciate your position, however, I do not believe that there is a correlation between what Claude did and the Bakers and the Swaggarts, etc. It is an undeniable stretch and in trying to tie it all together it becomes quite muddled and only takes away from the severity of Claude's actions. I believe that MADAMX's position would be much better served with an article which focuses on her situation. I also believe that to properly represent all that she has endured, the objective should not be to offend the public (i.e., CHARLIESANGELS says that the piece was offensive by design), but rather to garner support from the public.

It is my opinion that the piece should begin with the section about Claude and the rest of that is a different/separate article OR should be eliminated all together.

Best,


WithThisLight

WTL, I would say the common goal -- or perhaps better stated as "a" common goal -- is to expose McKnight as one who preys on women and uses his faith decisively towards that end. Not to dictate to any woman whether to associate with the man or not, but to present enough factual history about past "relationships" so that they make that decision fully informed.

Yes, I'm Jason -- author of the article that was cited in the OP. And you are? It's nice to have a fellow writer active in the thread. I'm a professional writer too. Lawyers are wordsmiths, so that's at the core of our work. I'm also a published author. Your assumption that my essay would work against Madam X's campaign is fallacious and not based in fact. It's just that, an assumption, and one that has been proven wrong by the positive response both to the essay, itself, and the support it has generated for X's platform.

While I'm not Madam X's agent or mouthpiece, when I was first approached with this story some months ago, I found it yet another interesting instance of a purported man of the cloth using his faith in abusive fashion to perpetuate a personal, not so X-tian agenda. It's not just men that do so, by the way. That remains my position. There is a direct corollary between McKnight's actions and that of Swaggart, Bakker and Haggart. All used organized religion and their office within their respective denominations decisively to satiate sexual and pecuniary agendas.

The essay stands as a solid piece of writing and has shown a good measure of utility in reaching and uniting a sympathetic audience. It has not alienated the Christian readership. But like any good bit of writing, it necessarily is the source of some controversy. And that's a good thing.

I think that if MADAMX approached you to write something on this and it has been helpful to her, then I am very happy about that.

CHARLIESANGELS, you posted to me ... "Your assumption that my essay would work against Madam X's campaign is fallacious and not based in fact." What I said is that I believe that your essay would alienate more people then it would unite them. To categorize what I posted as "fallacious" is in itself "fallacious" -- which means deceitful or deceptive. That is inflamatory. It isn't simply an assumption. As it is my area of expertise, it is an educated assessment.

We don't KNOW what the response has been to your article because as witnessed by me, you don't post ANY of the responses which are not in agreement with your article. AND, that article has been up there for months, has it not?... and there are only a few comments listed. So, does that mean that there have only been 5 or 6 comments? If not, what happened to all the other comments? [I am certain that there were many comments condemning the article. That is how I first came to know of the article - however, when I pulled a version of it up I didn't realize it wasn't the complete version - which I first read today.] I don't really need an answer to that. Clearly, you have your own agenda going on with that. You are not able to even entertain the possibilty that the article may be in need of some tweaking in order to better support the position of MADAMX. So be it. It's your article.

Claude isn't a man of the cloth. He/his Group are recognized as a singer(s) on the Gospel circuit. There is a huge difference there.

Listen, I am not interested in going toe-to-toe with you. I have clearly stated how I feel about the presentation of your article - both directly to you on that site and here on this site. My opinion stands. Clearly, so does yours. Enough said on "that" subject. Please. Enough.

Thank you.


WithThisLight

"Fallacious" is also defined as "misleading" and "disappointing". Not exactly an inflammatory descriptor, and appropriate here, as your opinion, expert or otherwise, was proven wrong on this occasion by the reality: the fact that after several months online, the essay has not proven divisive, but has united many of the victims in dialogue. One additional correction: as noted previously, there were only two negative comments left in response to the essay. Yours was one of two. That you would like to believe there were other such comments does not make it so. Please do not cast aspersions without -- once again -- any factual basis.

By the way, you were keen on my introducing myself, and I'm happy to do so, as I've never kept that a secret, but you have failed to properly introduce yourself to the class. My website and professional and personal profiles are all linked from within the OP. Perhaps a link to your website and body of work would provide some common ground.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming . . .

Does anyone else look back and feel like they've dated a cartoon character? I look back and think about all the times I "thought" we were having fun, all the good times I "thought" we shared, and it was all entirely one-sided. That he was not having fun at all except in the fact that he was stringing me along. That they were not good times to him because he was only thinking about the previous or next girl and I was just another to get out of the way. I feel like I was dating Fred Flintstone or Homer Simpson...just a character, not a real thing. And unfortunately, Fred and Homer probably would have been better lays.

Also....not that this is at all important, but I am a writer too! Always fun to meet others.

The dynamics of this McKnight family seem very similar to The Jacksons family. Except the Jacksons were a lot more talented.

To be honest, BOTH WithThisLight and Charlie'sAngels have a valid point... it was very brilliant writing to say the least and it also has a direct correlation on Claude Mcknight's life... WTL, Claude did use his status, position, and the reputation of his so called "ministry" (as that is what they have referred themselves to, i believe, and so do their fans), young boys look up to him as a role model, churches actually call him that.. I have seen it all over the internet!! He knew he would gain a little extra trust at the very least and that he sure did... what he did not count on, was someone, I should say, a few someones to make him accountable since he had been getting away with it for soooo very long. It had never ever happened to him before. He admitted all of this himself. The article did precisely what it was designed to do and that was to create controversy about the situation in whole and it finaly got the word out about him. Thank you to Jason for that! You have to admit it is very well written..Before that, all you could find about him was -how great a role model he is, blah, blah, blah... well, now there is a new light on him - a factual one. I understand what you are saying and agree with you a bit... But, I ask you this - once you have read it, it is a bit hard to forget it, is it not.?

Tell me, why does this man think he should get away with deceiving sooo many women, put their lives in danger, etc and then run to God and claim that he is healed from God only two weeks later?? -all, at the same time as he has a brand new ad on a dating site?? I call that hiding behind religion or trying to... and that is EXACTLY what he did. He was still calling some of us while he was in supposed recovery!! Until I found out that recovery was some religious course online and not proper addiction counselling - I had stayed silent. Well, no more!! and certainly not until this woman gets her money back. Then and ONLY then, he can send God and I will decide then at that point to leave it alone or not. Since he had sooo much time on his hands to sit on internet all day and night webcamming before this came to light, why doesn't he take ALL that time he had and use it to- I don't know.... say, get a second job so he can START paying back the money? At least that would show some intent rather than his blithering quoting of God all the time? Just a suggestion..

LOL. Too funny. Similar physiques, though! It's good women, by and large, aren't as superficial as men in that way. Although I know women like their eye candy too.

I guess one could say that Claude Mcknight did not count on someone coming up with a better marketing campaign than the one he had going on - ya, the one he used for the past 20+ years deceiving women!! The best part of it is, is that his was not as good as the new one which was apparently done using the same tools that he used on the women, such as the internet, phone calls, emails, chatting, Myspace, Facebook, etc -LOL - looks like it anyways... only this was done in reverse, awwwww - too bad, sooo sad!!

As Claude would always say.....XOXOXO - Amen

Exactly LaLaLand....Claude Mcknight is a shell of a human. I think I was dating the "invisible man". Actually, my memories are a blur. What was real? Are my photos real? Are the cards real? Was the conversation real? Are my emails real? Were any of the laughs real? Were the xoxoxox's real?

WTL, I am sorry to inform you of this, but, pls see this article describing them as a "ministry" - only one example of many- can be found anywhere -took me about 5 minutes......it is taken directly from their interview with a man from gospelbites regarding the Dove Awards....and even more alarming - it was just done while this was all going down....

Here is the link if you like....
http://www.gospelmusicbites.com/2009...ke-6%E2%80%8F/

Christopher Heron: Take 6 has been together for about 25 years. Was there ever a period that the men considered taking a collective time off, or has it always been clear that Take 6 would be committed to this ministry for life?


Alvin Chea: It’s always been clear that the group had a specific, directed, anointed ministry. There have been times when individuals go through something, or where you’re overwhelmed, or you feel like you need a break, that kind of thing. But that happens in any job, any lifestyle and any career. You sometimes get burned out. But there’s never been a serious discussion collectively as a group or in ministry that maybe we need to call it quits. We’ve always been clear that we were placed in this world to be a ministry, to enjoy and to share with others.

I'll save the love letters he sent me for a separate thread.

Hi LADYIS - I have seen him say that his singing is their Ministry - but it is not literal. I have heard Celine Dion say the same thing. He is not a man of the cloth and my point was simply that it was a huge stretch to liken Baker and Swaggart and their history with prostitutes to this situation. Apples and oranges. AND, I do NOT think that any WOMAN would believe that the two were akin to one another...I also feel that it was not necessary for Jason set out to attack those who believe in Jesus by equating him to a pimp who looked for the young naive girls of his day to pimp out and peddle for sex etc. It is a filthy analogy clearly made by a man who is willing to stoop to any depths in order make a point. In doing so, he misses the point and takes the reader away from the point. There was no need for Jason to attack Christianity as a whole in order to make a point of what Claude did. The story would have stood on its own - without the ugly false take on Jesus.

Although they have a following in the Gospel circuit, they also have one in the Jazz sector.

LALALAND, what you offered about wondering what was actually REAL, YEP, me too. I am trying to commit myself to the fact that none of it was real. For some months I thought I had put all of it with him behind me and then I was made aware of this a month or so ago and until then, I had no idea what had really happened. It is like I am needing to heal from it all over again.

ONE2MANY, last night I found myself going in and pulling up all the old emails because something said in MADAMX's post struck me as so familiar and reading them, it was more of a blur. It was surreal. I remember wondering about the X's and O's too. Maybe that is the place where the healing begins - when we can fully acknowledge that it wasn't REAL. It is hard to do that when it was quite real for each of us. Wow. That made me feel sad again. OMG. *Sigh* There is so much and just so many of us.

HUGS,


WithThisLight

CHARLIESANGELS, I never asked you introduce yourself. You made it clear that you were the writer of that article. I simply asked you if that was what you were, in fact, saying -- since I came on here to converse with WOMEN who had been caught in the same web, etc. and I was startled to find out that although I believed you to be a woman, it turned out you are a MALE hanging out here. Hmmmmm.

As a matter of fact I have properly introduced myself to the women here, just as we all have, as I am here for the same reason MOST women are here.

I respectfully asked you to drop the subject. That business above about you "saving the letters he sent you for another string" only illustrates your lack of sensitivity. I didn't come here to spar with some guy or to have some guy taking shots at me or the situation. Ummmm, no thanks. If you are going to throw a tantrum when someone disagrees with your style or method of writing, then you are in the wrong business. I simply thought we could engage in intelligent discussion about the article. Clearly you cannot tolerate a difference in opinion. Point taken. If you need to be right, then go ahead and tell yourself you are "right." Be all the right you want. I am not interested in whether or not you think you are right or your digs. It is totally inappropriate, especially in a forum such as this. I am not comfortable with you, CHARLIESANGELS, and have neither the time or inclination to get into any further exchanges with you.

Again, no thanks.


WithThislight