Mr. Eric L. Wattree:
It is obvious from your opening statement (the profanity and all) that you have issues with character so I will not expect to get to much rational dialog from you. I was a bit surprised that you claim to make an “honest search for truth” when it seem you haven’t even made an honest attempt to dialog with the primary source before you shot off your “BTS” (BENEATH THE SPIN) . Rather than assume the worst it is proper to give the benefit of doubt to Brother Simon. But because of apparent prior bias you did not seem capable of this. You state:

" That seems somewhat disingenuous since one would think that any misunderstanding within the church could easily be cleared up with a simple memo or statement.”

And just what memo or statement do you feel would reach the number or people and churches that have heard the songs and are convinced that Joe Simon is still singing secular music? We are not talking about a simple local incident here. You then state:

“The article also points out that "Since near the beginning of the year, Simon said he has sent the record company a series of letters asking that someone talk to him and to work out an agreement." What kind of agreement? You can't un-cook an egg. What kind of 'agreement,' could he come to with the record companies that would un-release music that's already on the market? The only agreement that he can possibly come to is a financial one–and how would a financial agreement help his standing in the church any more than a simple memo or statement that his previous material was being used without his permission?”

It is surprising that you are so sure that you have exhausted the possible “kinds of agreement” that could be worked out at a meeting. Are you so arrogant that you feel you know all the possibilities without asking the source? Please understand I am not calling you arrogant, I am asking if you are, since it would be a demonstration of arrogance to assume that one knows what one could not possibly know.
It is obvious that your obsession has blurred your intellectual vision on this matter. You then state:

“This is not about his ministry–what needs to be addressed is whether or not this is actually his material. If Simon has legal ownership of the material, why is he trying to chase down record executives instead of hiring an attorney? The obvious conclusion is, he's trying to use God to be compensated for something that he has no legal right to.”

It is obvious that you have not made any meaningful attempts at researching the story before you shot off your “BTS” it doesn’t even seem like you waited to hear more reports on the story. Had you waited a little longer you would have had the opportunity to hear Bishop Simon comment on questions that you pose for someone else who at lease gave him the opportunity to address the question himself. But hearing his side was not your concern was it? There seems to be something more to your attack on Bishop Simon, perhaps your distain for clergy? It is not uncommon for some people to place all clergy in the same class as jack-leg preachers, ecclesiastical pimps and soul hustlers and feel justified in doing so. That’s sad but I digress.
More to the point, Bishop Simon has been on radio discussing his concerns and I personally heard him on a 3hour radio program in which he made it clear that he (as many music legends), did not own his master nor was he addressing monetary compensation in his statements. That does not give those who possess them the moral right to misuse them in a manner that will misrepresent what he now is with out protest. Anyone with a since of decency and respect for God and the Church could understand the issue here. He also made it clear that out of respect for Jay-z he would not presume to give details about what kind of “agreement” they would discuss. Since you seem to be more interested in perpetuating slander against Bishop Simon I don’t think trying to get you to see another side to this would be time well spent. So my comments are not as much for you as for the readers so that they will at least not be totally blindsided by your unwarranted attack. Perhaps one day when God deals with your heart and heals you of your bitterness you will be able to see more clearly. You have my prayers in this hope. You then state:

“ article goes on to point out that "In the wake of more and more folks hearing his voice on rap records, Bishop Simon said some folks seem to be shying away from supporting the ministry financially." Yet, Dr. Mark H. Sandilands, the presiding Bishop of the Mission Consortium of Churches International indicated that "When Bishop Simon was ordained as a part of this organization, he was placed right next to me. If something were to happened to me, he becomes presiding bishop overnight."
Oh really? I find it quite curious that a religious organization that is so disdainful of "worldly music" that it would withdraw support and speaking engagements, would place a "worldly musician" who is newly ordained into the organization into the second to the top slot in the organization's hierarchy. Thus, the church must find something of value in worldly music.”

It is clear that you have your intellectual wires crossed on this comment, nowhere was it stated to my knowledge that the Missions Consortium of Churches international “withdraw support and speaking engagements” nor do I recall them expressing “Disdain” for worldly music. And to say that they “placed a worldly musician” to the second to the top slot in the organization’s hierarchy” is a clear indication that you are clueless. The man they placed as second to the top was and is a Christian minister; a “Former worldly musician” there is a difference though I doubt that you are interested on knowing what it is. You then state:
I can fully understand Bishop Simon being frustrated by people making millions of dollars while using his material and then thumbing their nose at him. But if that's the case, he should just say so, and stop trying to use his collar to drag God into what is essentially a personal and legal matter. The congregation of his church looks up to him and have vested in him a solemn trust, so he shouldn't be abusing that trust by trying to make the very God that they worship his private lap dog, utilized to address his personal issues. That's the kind of thinking that led to hundreds of thousands of people dying in Iraq, and what the facts seem to suggests, to a much lesser degree, but just as insidiously, is happen in this case.

Here you betray your lack of understanding and your bias, not only about Bishop Joe Simon but about God and the Bible. Which is why I am so amazed that you can later attempt to comment on “Selfless men and women of God”.
Bishop Simon is well within his rights to voice his concerns about what his music is being used to represent and how it reflect on him as a minister. Your slant on the story betrays your bias and lack of consideration for what he is trying to accomplish. To say that he is “dragging God into a personal and legal matter” shows your ignorance of how God is related to his servant. When you abuse God’s servant you have involved God. And true men of God involve God in everything they do. The church, which you seem to have little knowledge of, also supports their minister and when you abuse the minister you have insulted the church. Therefore this is not an abuse of the church as you spin it. And to compare what Bishop Simon is trying to do with what is going on in Iraq is not only irresponsible but it is also unintelligent. You then state:

“That's the primary reason this issue is even worth our attention. It provides us with a bite size example of the mindset and kind of rhetoric in which people of faith should always remain vigilant. It clearly demonstrates how some so-called "men of God" often use the Lord's name to promote their own interests. It also shows why the many selfless men and women of God who are out struggling everyday to uphold his name, are gradually beginning to lose credibility with the public.”

The lack of credibility of people of God is due in part to propaganda such as you are putting out as well as the publicizing and polarizing of poor examples of Christians and false Christians to in effect destroy the credibility of the True Christian church. What else is new? Your analysis is wrong, your arguments flawed and your bias obvious. It would be nice if you would come clean and be “Honest” about your convictions about the Christian faith. Let us know where you really stand so we can understand the real reason behind your attack on Bishop Simon who has done nothing to you to deserve such an assault. You then state:

“In addition, Bishop Simon's actions in this matter are in direct contradiction to everything a man of God, and a Christian, is supposed to believe. Instead of trying to chase down record executives, why doesn't he do what they always tell their flock do about their problems–"take it to the Lord in prayer?"”

Again I am amazed at your attempt tell us what a man of God and Christian is supposed to be. Just what Scripture in the Bible forbids a man of God from publicly calling people to task about an unrighteous issue? As a Bible teacher I am use to dealing with people like yourself who mis-applying and mis-interpreting the Bible so I don’t expect an accurate answer from you. But I would be interested in just where you feel you get the Biblical authority to condemn Bishop Simon for his announcement. And for the record, Bishop Simon has asked and does have people “praying about this matter” including me. Finally you state:

“Even though in many of the churches throughout America there are children sitting in the pews next to their parents with their stomachs growling, many of these professed men of God will unhesitatingly take the very funds needed to feed those children away from the family in the collection plate. Then, when it comes to the families needs, they tell the family to have faith, and pray to God for help to feed their children. What has always perplexed me, however, is when the preacher needs money to pay the church's light bill, or for airfare and hotel expenses to fly across the country to go preach in another state, to "spread the word"–in states that are already literally overflowing with preachers–they don't pray for God to provide the airfare, or pay the light bill, they pass the collection plate.”

As I suspected, here you expose your bias, for some reason you feel the need to put Bishop Simon in the same category as the preachers you describe and you don’t even know Bishop Simon. Why? Don’t you have the ability to deal with people on an individual bases? Should all writers be judged by your poor attitude? I think not. It is fortunate that there are people who do get the importance of Bishop Simon standing up for his integrity as a minister and for what the Church is concerned about. The manner that some (not all) Rap artist has degraded women in general and Black women in particular is common knowledge. Their disrespect for people is notorious. I applaud Bishop Joe Simon for his stand and I pray that he will get the support he need to bring more attention the Rap industries need to be made accountable for what they do to harm people. Every little bit helps in some way to fight back at the degradation that exist in the Hip-Hop industry and bring to the light the good Rap artist who have decent messages and are trying to be heard.
Mr. Wattree; you seem to be a moderate who embraces ideology over truth and conflict over reason.
Danmonk