Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Sotomayor, the ERLC, Parham and the Facts
In his OnFaith article (originally titled "SBC More Partisan than Senators on Sotomayor"), Robert Parham claimed the ERLC has lost influence with Senator Graham since he declared that he leaned toward voting for her confirmation rather than against it. Mr. Parham assures us of this lack of influence because Senator Graham, a Southern Baptist, didn't toe the ERLC's line on Sotomayor.
Evidently, Mr. Parham has forgotten one of the most important doctrines to Baptists--soul freedom. This is an issue Mr. Parham has been deeply concerned about in the past. Now that it is actually occurring, Mr. Parham is troubled by it. One must wonder what Mr. Parham would have written if Senator Graham had announced his opposition to Judge Sotomayor instead.
Now, lets get this straight--according to Mr. Parham if Senator Graham disagrees with the ERLC, then it is "losing influence" but in the event Republican senators agree with the ERLC then the ERLC is in bed with the GOP. Amazing. Through Mr. Parham's distorted lens, the ERLC is condemned either way.
As for Mr. Parham's assertion that the ERLC's letter merely reflects "far-right ideological partisanship," it should be noted that the ERLC raised legitimate concerns about Judge Sotomayor. If Mr. Parham thinks that concerns about the sanctity of human life, racial discrimination, and private property are only items about which the religious right is concerned, then it is pretty clear who is actually out of touch. After all, more than 50% of the people in the country now identify themselves as pro-life. Obviously, sanctity of human life concerns are not only "far-right" issues.
Mr. Parham complains that the ERLC "hasn't raised questions over where Sotomayor stands on the First Amendment's religio[n] clause." Did Mr. Parham read the ERLC's analysis where religious liberty issues took up over 840 words out of a 5000+ word statement which is approximately 17% of the entire document? (260 KB PDF)
The ERLC found that Sotomayor's "record suggests that she understands the church/state principles in the First Amendment." Some of her decisions are well-decided in this area. Furthermore, if Mr. Parham took the time to research the ERLC's concerns more closely, he would have noted that in those same fact sheets it pointedly stated that her decision in Okwedy v. Molinari "should deeply concern religious free speech advocates."
But more to the point, perhaps Mr. Parham has forgotten that the property rights concern the ERLC raised in its letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee has direct religious liberty implications, since Judge Sotomayor's decision in Didden is an outgrowth of the terrible precedent established by the Supreme Court's Kelo decision. Surely, Mr. Parham recognizes the threat to religious liberty in Judge Sotomayor's Didden decision. If the government can take private property and then arbitrarily give it to others, then church property is no longer safe from government seizure.
If Mr. Parham is as concerned about religious liberty questions as he claims, perhaps he should have used the influence of his own organization to raise those questions with the senators. If he did, it doesn't appear anyone was listening. On the other hand, the questions the ERLC raised in its letter generated numerous questions that helped bring out some of Judge Sotomayor's underlying ideology and judicial philosophy.
By
Richard Land
|
July 17, 2009; 4:46 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Grace after Meals |
Next: Laws Should Honor the Mutual Superiority of the Sexes
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | July 19, 2009 11:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Yet another sarcastic, condescending response from Richard Land of the SBC. And Southern Baptists wonder why their membership is slipping and their public image is so poor.
Posted by: jaynashvil | July 18, 2009 8:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Land and his ilk are a constant reminder why I fled the Baptists screaming at the age of 14 and have never looked back, except with a feeling of profound relief. He would be much more comfortable consorting with Iranian mullahs than pretending to know and speak for "mainstream America". Self-satisfied puffball...
Posted by: jimD118 | July 18, 2009 5:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reading Richard Land reminds me once again why I left the denomination that had been the denomination home of my family for 200 years. What a disgraceful betrayal of the values that I learned growing up in the Baptist church of my childhood! Where is the Christ of compassion and outreach that I knew as a child, adolescent and young man? All I hear now from the Southern Baptists is fear, vitriol and paranoia.
Posted by: SmokyMountainCarpenter | July 18, 2009 4:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The evangelicals are doing for the political right what prion disease does for cattle.
Posted by: dfc102 | July 18, 2009 2:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"After all, more than 50% of the people in the country now identify themselves as pro-life. "
More than 50% are pro-life. Many of those are also supporters of reproductive rights. Those two things are NOT mutually exclusive.
Posted by: lostinthemiddle | July 18, 2009 2:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Why don't you go get a job with someone that doesn't purport to be elemental to the body of Christ, the church. The SBC is faltering for its dabbling (just for starters).
Posted by: mammyyel | July 18, 2009 12:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
On the billboard case:
As has been said again and again, written in this, that, the other book, article, etc., for decades, Leviticus 18:22 does not concern consensual male homosexuality, but the rape of men by men, generally, the victors, in battle. This was a common regional practice that the Tanakh ("OT") condemned. (See any recent Oxford Study Bible.)
In the West, the construct, the notion of homosexuality did not appear until the nineteenth century.
The SBC web site contains the usual NT passages deployed to condemn, harass gays. Perhaps they could try the billboard thing again using one of those verses. Alternatively, preferably, the SBC could cease and desist in its bigotry, grow up, stop poisoning public discourse.
Mr. Land, you do not know this, but you are a danger to us all.