Great op-ed by Robert Parham of EthicsDaily.com and the Baptist Center for Ethics over at the On Faith website, a project of the Washington Post and Newsweek.
Parham’s editorial is titled SBC More Partisan than Senators on Sotomayor.
Here’s a snippet:
What does it say when a Southern Baptist Republican senator leans toward endorsing Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor two days after the Southern Baptist Convention’s chief lobbyist opposes her confirmation?
Here’s what has happened: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a member of Corinth Baptist Church, said on Thursday morning that as a judge her record “has not been radical by any means.” He said that she was “not an activist.”
He told her: “You have been very reassuring here today and throughout this hearing that you’re going to try to understand the difference between judging and whatever political feelings you have about groups or gender.” Toward the end of his questions and comments, Graham said to Sotomayor, “You have, as a judge, been generally in the mainstream.”
Graham’s comments came two days after Richard Land, the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission president, wrote in a letter: “She is out of the mainstream of the American public.”
You can read Richard Land’s letter here that Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama put on the record during the hearing on Wednesday.
Land who is President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention is “deeply troubled” by Sotomayor’s record. Land’s letter focuses on abortion, race, and private property rights. However, as Parham points out, the head of the Ethics and RELIGIOUS LIBERTY Commission doesn’t seem the least bit concerned with Religious Liberty. Big surprise there.
Also check out this post titled Sorting Out Sotomayor: Church-State Experts Wait For Answers, While The Southern Baptists Plunge Ahead.
Related posts:
- Does Richard Land Speak for Southern Baptists? This is a must read article by Bob Allen of...
- Richard Land vs. Russell Moore: Southern Baptist Ethicists Differ On Glenn Beck Over the weekend thousands flooded the Mall in D.C. to...
- Billy Graham Transfers Church Membership A member of FBC Dallas since 1953, Billy Graham has...
- On Richard Land, Roman Polanski & Southern Baptist Predators Richard Land, the chief “ethicist” of the Southern Baptist Convention,...
- Is Richard Land A Liar? SBC Blogger Suggests So This exciting occasion comes on the heels of an “endorsement”...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
What does it say or mean when Richard Land doesn’t walk in lockstep with Republicans?
It means that we still live in a country where people don’t have to be monolithic or bow to party leaders in order to be a part of a political party.
Frankly, it has been this way for a long time. Richard Land, James Dobson, Falwell and many other conservative Christians have agitated within the Republican party and conservative movement a heck of a lot more than Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo have within the Democratic party.
And by the way, racial preferences, hate crime legislation and private property rights are not disconnected from religious liberty. You speak as if these things should be hermetically sealed off from any discussion on religious liberty.
Land was rarely (if ever?) a voice of dissent during the Bush Administration. What item on Bush’s agenda did Land dissent from? Anything? He did a great job of selling the war for Bush - that’s for sure. I’ll give Jim Wallis more time before I decide whether he too is a partisan. We’re only 6 months into the Obama Administration.
And I surely realize that all issues have the potential for religious liberty implications.
“No more engagement. We want a wedding ring. We want a ceremony; we want a consummation of the marriage.” Richard Land’s declaration to a NYT reporter concerning the relationship between the Religious Right and the Republican Party.
The quote from Richard Land is his way of saying that he doesn’t want conservative Christians to be patronized. I don’t doubt that Land agreed with Bush most of the time (although Land did take issue with interrogation techniques like waterboarding; he also disagreed with Bush’s approach on faith based initiatives) - the main reason being that Bush had his back in virtually all of the internal battles within the GOP against the more socially liberal and liberterian elements of the party. Richard Land knows which politicians whispered sweet nothings and delivered squat. He also knows who said what they meant and did what they promised.
Regarding Wallis and Campolo: I’m hopeful that they will speak up during the Obama Administration - I’ll agree with you that it is too early to judge. However, their record during the Clinton years and many years before are bereft of examples where they have taken on abortion activists or other extremists within the DNC. If you can show me one instance where they have engaged in an internal battle with other Democrats, it will be the first I’ve ever heard of.
Both Wallis and Campolo openly disagreed with Clinton on abortion, on welfare reform, and on several other issues.
What does it say?
It says “We don’t have the votes to oppose Ms. Sotomayor and appearing tough on her will offend several voting blocks, so we will save our fire for the next nominee, and make lemonade by moving quickly to the inevitable approval.”
Like Democrats did with John Roberts.
Karen,
Maybe. Then again, maybe it is related to the maturity level of the senators. Maybe they understand that the senate’s “job” re: appointees is less making sure they agree with their constitutional and judicial philosophy and more to do with making sure that the nominee is qualified for the position (whether they agree with them on issues or not).
John
John, I think you are right. These hearings were not bad - although I wish Senators would talk less.
Actually, the Rs on the Senate panel failed to listen and asked the same questions over and over and over again, about the same non-issues, and got the same answers over and over and over again. Why? Two choices. Either (1) they could not find anything relevant or significant to oppose in this candidate and were pontificating for the benefit of their “base” (multiple meanings intended) or (2) they are too stupid to listen and treat a question as having already been asked and answered. Take your pick, but to me, either shows a real intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Judiciary Committee Rs, and probably of most of their colleagues in the Senate and House!