****
Saw this story over at Mainstream Baptist. I have not been a Southern Baptist now for many, many years, but my past affiliation seems hard to completely drop. Even after the organization turned into a clapping factory for George W. Bush and to this day, as far as I know, has yet to take a stance against the administration's torture policy. Oh, and then there was the year they demanded that women get back to beings submissive... and the year they invited Condi Rice to speak and cheered loudly at news of a dead terrorist....
But Ethics Daily has this bit on how Richard Land (once of the worst comb-over in American history) was criticizing the new Baptist organization of being partisan. How dare they, he asked, when the SBC is clearly the most partisan, most whore-like for the GOP? Ok, he didn't actually ask that, but he might as well have. The new baptist organization (which I am not joining either, mind you) has not taken a political stance, but has invited a lot of Democrats to speak. They invited people like Huckabee as well, but I think inviting Democrats to speak is the original sin. I still remember hearing people ask (honestly) if there was such a thing as a "Christian democrat." And in 1998, Land said that the denomination wanted a close relationship with the GOP:
''The go-along, get-along strategy is dead,'' Land told the New York Times discussing the GOP in 1998. ''No more engagement," he said. "We want a wedding ring. We want a ceremony. We want a consummation of the marriage.''I think someone who wanted the SBC to become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party is in any position to criticize any other religious organization for "politicizing religion."
***
Interesting side note from the same piece was a discussion Land had about the SBC and poverty. He claims that the SBC gives nearly 75 cents of every dollar to alleviating suffering. Ethics Daily suggests that those numbers are not exactly right:
While 72.79 percent of the current Cooperative Program budget--the name for the SBC's unified giving plan--does go to world mission ministries, just $8 million of nearly $290 million received by the International Mission Board in 2006-2007 was designated for hunger and relief. The North American Mission Board spent $1.2 million on disaster relief out of a budget of $125 million.Interesting.
4 comments:
Streak-I'm a little lost on the "bitter" controversy. Have you seen this unwrapped a little anywhere? I saw the quote but have missed the commentary as to why it is so bad.- BB
It was taken as elitist and dismissive of some of the things valued by rural America. For example, the love of guns and high involvement in religion. I can see how, as Obama acknowledged, he could have phrased it better.
Here is a take on it:
But there’s more: Talking Points memo quotes Harvard University political scientist Theda Skocpol as saying the Clintons say the same thing in private that they’re now lambasting Obama for — and using as an argument to superdelegates for him being unelectable. Here’s part of the quote:
I have been in meetings with the Clintons and their advisors where very clinical things were said in a very-detached tone about unwillingness of working class voters to trust government — and Bill Clinton — and about their unfortunate (from a Clinton perspective) proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues. To see Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama for making clearly more humanly sympathetic observations in this vein, is just amazing. Even more so to see her pretending to be a gun-toting non-elite. Give us a break!
I wonder if she realizes that gaining a few days of lurid publicity that might reach a slice of voters is going to cost her a great deal in the regard of many Democrats, whose strong support she will need if she somehow claws her way to the nomination — and even more so if she does not clinch the nomination. The distribution of “we’re not bitter” stickers to her campaign rallies is the height of over-the-top crudity, and the reports are that very few audience members seem to have much enthusiasm for this nonsense. Not surprisingly, people cannot see the reasons for so much fuss.
Yes, she wants a big break, she desperately wants the nomination she and Bill believe is hers by right. We all know that. But where is her authenticity and her dignity and her sense of any proportion?
I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but I am not sure what to make of his comments. I find them somewhat confusing and would like to better understand what he was trying to say.
Is he saying that bitter people cling to guns and religion? Are guns and religion the same as anti-immigrant? Obama (IMO) has a pretty lousy record on guns, but I like his stance on other issues. I am hoping he will be a moderate on this issue and not push for gun control. That being said, his previous record on guns makes me leery of what he is saying now.
I think he misspoke about religion and guns, to a certain extent. But it is isn't completely wrong. Many people who are deeply frustrated with their lot in life and how their economic fortunes have declined that they have turned to other ways to deal with that. Some have turned to fundamentalism. But that doesn't mean that all people who are religious are bitter. Any more than it means that all gun owners are. And I think Obama would say that too.
Post a Comment