The Incipient Racism of Southern Baptists

Richard Land needs to be very careful. The incipient racism that flows so easily just beneath the surface of many southern baptists tries to rear its ugly head in his recent statement concerning the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.  See Justice Sotomayor?—More for some, less for others?

He begins with a statement questioning the President's statement about most middle-class Americans not feeling particularly privileged.  Yet it does not take very much listening to black Americans living in the Bible-Belt or Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans living many places in this country to realize that racial discrimination is alive and well. And any time or place there is this kind of discrimination, more often than not, it is white middle-class Americans who benefit from it.

Next he parrots one of the major talking point of the right wing media about the president's pre-selection statements about wanting a judge with empathy and assumes quite erroneously that a judge cannot be both empathetic and impartial. Just for the record, a definition of empathy-the capability to share your feelings and understand another's emotion and feelings. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes," or in some way experience what the other person is feeling.  I can state from personal experience that you are much more likely to get justice from a judge who has some understanding of where you are coming from than one who doesn't have a clue about what goes on in your neighborhood.

Next he talks about the Ricci case as if she is solely responsible for it. When in fact, she was one of a three judge panel which unanimously upheld the decision of the district court and in the majority of a 7-6 decision that the case did not merit further review at the circuit court level. He also does not mention that the plaintiffs in the case were not all white, but white and Hispanic. If she is guilty of letting her "race" influence her decision, why did should rule against the Hispanics in this case. Maybe one should look at the Cabranes dissent as the one that was racially motivated.

And finally he continues to parrot the right wing talking points by taking her comments about "a wise Latina woman" totally out of the context. In fact he violates one of the clearest standards of interpretation by stringing quotes together to make his point. I have always given him credit for his bible study skills but wonder if maybe he also treats the biblical text so unfairly. For a brief discussion of what she meant in her 2001 speech, see Charles Savage's NY Times column, A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record.

I am not suggesting that Richard Land's objection to her nomination is racially motivated.  It is obvious that his objection comes from being in bed far too long with the radical right wing of the republican party. But the arguments he uses are certainly tainted by the underlying racism of the southern baptist convention. It began as a racist organization and, in spite of its proclamations to the contrary, continues to demonstrate that racism in the way it and some of its members relate to American society.

Far from being solid analysis as one reader commented, this is a hatchet job on an extremely well qualified judge.

You gotta admit, they've got balls

I am constantly amazed at the chutzpah of the radical religious right. After years of totally ignoring or at most giving lip-service to the biblical demand about caring for the poor, an issue has finally arisen that makes them take the side of the poor. I was made aware of this when I received an "action alert" from the chief of modern day pharisees, Richard Land of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Only last year, Land used as an excuse for not supporting some of the evangelical green efforts, that his "constituency" had not come to any consensus on the issue of globlal warning.

Land is quoted in Christianity Today as saying, "I don't think there is anywhere near that kind of consensus on the issue, at least among the evangelicals I know. … They're not ready to accept it is a settled fact that human beings are the major cause of global warming."

Apparently since then, he has reached his own conclusion that stopping global warming is not biblical. Here are some excerpts from the alert:


Tell Senate to Reject Climate Change Bill that Would Hurt Poor, Economy

Dear Friends:
Alarmists (emphasis is mine not Land's) are calling all senators to board their global warming train this week in Washington to avoid what they consider to be a looming climate catastrophe, despite warnings that it could wreck our economy, destroy jobs, and harm the poor.

I need your help to stop this train before it leaves the station!

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote this week on a bill to mandate massive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by electrical, industrial, and transportation sectors in a vain attempt to reduce the unfounded threat of cataclysmic global warming. The hype and good intentions driving this train would yield devastating consequences.


What is even more troubling is that poor people in this country and around the world would suffer the most as the rising costs of all goods make mere subsistence increasingly burdensome and millions of people in underdeveloped regions of the world would find it even more difficult to have the cheap and abundant energy they need to escape their desperate circumstances.

All this would come with an almost immeasurable reduction in global climate temperatures. This is a price too high for a policy based on science disputed more and more each day by thousands of scientists and climatologists.

Christians have a responsibility to practice environmental stewardship. But any action should first consider its impact on God’s most prized creation, human beings.

Thank you for joining me as a voice of reason to stop this bill before it crushes livelihoods and liberties.

In His Service,
Dr. Richard Land
President
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Southern Baptist Convention

By using words and phrases like alarmist, unfounded threat, science disputed he shows that he is cavalierly dismissing the overwhelming evidence and support for the reality of this crisis from the scientific community. Even NASA has released a report acknowledging both the high probablility that global warming is caused by human activity and can be controlled by human activity. But it comes as no surprise that Land and his ilk align themselves with the "do-nothing, status quo" party on this issue, since they effectively wedded themselves to the repubs many years ago. The names Land, Dobson, Perkins, etc. have become synonomous with other sycophants of the radical right, religious or otherwise.

The alert directs readers to a website called We Get It! A blurb from the page proclaims

Caring for the environment and the poor – Biblically
Imagine…one million Christians standing together
to shed Biblical light on one of the biggest
cultural issues of our day…
Honoring our Lord Jesus Christ as creator and
sustainer of this wondrous world…
And impacting the lives of millions of the
poorest people here and around the globe.
That’s what the We Get It!
campaign is all about!

And guess who's names show up as being among those who "Get It."

Dr. Daniel Akin, President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Singer Pat Boone
Congressman Paul Broun
Senator Tom Coburn
Dr. James Dobson
Senator James Inhofe
Dr. Richard Land
Wendy Wright, President, Concerned Women for America

What a collection. I thought I had gotten over my shame at having the two most ill-informed men in the Senate be from my state and yet here they are, Inhofe and Coburn. You remember Inhofe, he's the one who said on the floor of the Senate in 2003 that "man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Good old Oklahoma reasoning. Right up there with Sally Kern.

Along with them the campaign is supported by
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention
Family Research Council
and believe it or not
Wallbuilders ( I guess since David Barton was thorougly discredited as a historian he is seeking a new platform as a climatologist) They even quote Barton as if he were some sort of expert on something, saying that proper care of creation and the environment will "come not from government-implemented programs but rather from unfettered free-market solutions." I guess I was mistaken. He can be just as wrong about the environment as he was about American history.

But the new and most despicable element in the appeal of these groups and individuals is their professed concern for the poor. I can only conclude that in light of their previous apathy or even hostility toward issues involving the poor, both here and abroad, it is not hard to see that what they really mean is that they don't want to have to give up their SUVs and big houses and consumptive lifestyles. I was particularly appalled by that reference to "cheap and abundant energy." When has anyone in this group that is so closely tied to the oil barons in the White House ever been concerned about the energy needs of the poor.

A Silver Lining Moment

Out of the incident which demonstrates that Richard Land has no business leading anyone when it comes to ethics and morality, I at least learned a new word, contumelious. And to show you that I know how to use it in a sentence: Richard Land is one of the most contumelious people I know.

According to thefreedictionary.com
CONTUMELIOUS - arrogantly insolent, disrespectful - exhibiting lack of respect; rude and discourteous.

I think that "arrogantly insolent" part is particularly applicable.

I am grateful to Jeffrey Weiss of the Dallas Morning News Religion Blog for this expansion of my vocabulary.

SBC=GOP As If There Was Really Any Doubt

It has been obvious for some time now that the southern baptist convention (sbc) has sold-out to the conservation/reactionary wing of the republican party. This was never more apparent than yesterday (March 3, 2008) when I received the following erlc (ethics & religious liberty commission) action alert.

America's National Security At Risk

Dear Friends:
Americans are less safe today from terrorists than two weeks ago.

On Feb. 16, a critical law authorizing our intelligence community to monitor foreign terrorists’ communications expired.

That’s why the modernized Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA—which amends the 1978 law—is urgently needed. Since the horrific 9/11 attacks, many telecommunications companies have helped keep us safe from another attack on U.S. soil by cooperating with our intelligence agencies to intercept phone conversations of foreign terrorists placed into our country.

Now, without an amended FISA, our intelligence agencies are hamstrung from intercepting foreign communications unless they have a warrant, and phone carriers lack retroactive immunity from lawsuits leveled against them at the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars for admirably protecting you and me. Meanwhile, our national security is continually placed at greater risk as our foreign enemies can easily pass information into our country without us knowing it.

Liberals in Congress appear more interested in empowering the lawyers to sue the telecommunications companies than they are in providing for the security of United States citizens.

The Senate passed an update to FISA last month with strong bipartisan support, 68-29. But the House leadership has failed to give it a vote, despite its broad support in the House.

If this is a concern to you, please tell House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to schedule a vote on the Senate-passed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and urge your representative to support the bill.

You can call them by dialing the Capitol switchboard at 202/224-3121. Or click here to e-mail them a suggested letter or one entirely your own.

Thank you for your doing your part to help keep America safe from those who wish us harm.

In His Service,

Dr. Richard Land
President
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Southern Baptist Convention

One of our privileges at the ERLC is to help you take a stand for Biblical values in your community, in the marketplace of ideas, and in the public policy arena. This Action Alert is one tool we use to keep you informed and call you to action on the important issues of the day.

Many people in both political parties will have different opinions about this action. What troubles me, is just what "biblical value" is Richard Land taking a stand for her. He obviously thinks doing his part to "keep America safe" is somehow connected with being "in his service." I think this ought to trouble anyone who gives any part of their offering to the cooperative program of the SBC. It is a very clear case of using funds given for relgious purposes to further a specific political cause. Since I quit giving any of my offerings to the SBC a couple of years ago, that is not my problem. But it ought to be a big problem for any of you who still think giving to the SBC is somehow helping to spread the kingdom of god. Some of you need to start holding Richard Land's feet to the fire on this.

Land Watch

Bruce Prescott has given us additional insight into the ethics?/theology? of Richard Land at
Richard Land -- Court Priest for a War Denomination
He cites an article at EthicsDaily.com, "Southern Baptist Leader Terms Premature Troop Withdrawal Immoral", which reports Land's statements on a PBS broadcast. As he has done in the past, Land twists Just War theory to make it fit his ideas. If you read the article and wonder about Robert Parham's statement, "Having demanded a wedding ring from the Republican Party, Richard is now so wed to the president's failed war than he is a court priest for a pro-war denomination." He is referring to the following statement Land made in 1999 when meeting with a group of conservative religious leaders about their strategy for the up-coming election. He said, “The go-along, get-along strategy is dead. No more engagement. We want a wedding ring, we want a ceremony, we want a consummation of the marriage.”

The Wrong Richard--"he regularly speaks without authorization"

While scanning an article from ABP, the following statement caught my attention.

"While many of us consider Richard to be a friend, he regularly speaks without authorization for the entire organization and puts forward his own political opinions as scientific fact,"

My first thought was why are they talking about Richard Land in this article. Then I realized that they were talking about Richard Cizik, NAE's vice president for governmental affairs. He is in trouble with some of the high-powered fundies for talking too much about global warming. And while I really can't understand the fundies objections to global warming initiatives (unless they are so closely tied to conservative politics that they have lost all discernment), that is not my main concern here.

It seems to me that the "he regularly speaks without authorization for the entire organization" statement is applicable to Richard Land. I realize that he is the head of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and as such is tasked to educate and to provide resources to SBC churches and agencies on moral and ethical issues. As such the head of this commission will obviously make some public statements, but did anyone in the SBC vote to make him "spokesman on Capitol Hill for the largest non-Catholic denomination in the country" or ask him to represent "Southern Baptists’ interests in the halls of Congress, before U.S. Presidents, and in the major media"? He has turned his position into the cult of Richard Land. Look at the general publications of the ERLC, the most prominent thing in them is Richard Land. Look at the ERLC website, the first item on the menu is Richard Land. I searched the site using their own search engine with the following results:

Ethics 1730 hits
Religious Liberty 1840 hits
Abortion 1080 hits
Richard Land 2408 hits

And the winner is . . .!!!

I don't know about you but I am a member of a southern baptist church and he does not now nor ever has been a spokesman for me.

Situation Ethics at the ERLC

I seldom give Richard Land credit for anything, but I will give him credit for consistency in his condemnation of Rudolph Giuliani. Of course, I do wonder if he would be quite as concerned about the divorces if Giuliani were more conservative politically. Especially, in light of his comment, "I think that's going to be an awfully hard sell, even if he weren't pro-choice and pro-gun control."

Oops

I spoke to soon. Read the rest of the statement. Although McCain has been married twice, Land said, the senator's other credentials and history of conservatism earn him more respect than Giuliani. Land said. "When you're a war hero [like McCain], you have less to prove on the character front."

So being a war hero excuses you from the moral absolutes that Land and his ilk are so fond of slapping us in the face with. I really do find it interesting that a man who claims to be a spokesperson for a large group that follow the "Prince of Peace" sees being a warrior as somehow justifying other moral failures.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing either McCain or Giuliani for their divorces, I'm just trying to figure out what kind of situation ethicist Richard Land is.