The trustee executive committee of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, where Land serves as president, issued the reprimands today after conducting an investigation on comments made by Land during a March 31 broadcast.In a press release published on the denomination's official media outlet, Baptist Press, the ERLC executive committee stated:"We reprimand Dr. Land for his hurtful, irresponsible, insensitive, and racially charged words on March 31, 2012 regarding the Trayvon Martin tragedy. It was appropriate for Dr. Land to issue the apology he made on May 9, 2012 and we are pleased he did so. We also convey our own deepest sympathies to the family of Trayvon Martin for the loss they have suffered. We, too, express our sorrow, regret, and apologies to them for Dr. Land's remarks."
Land, who also serves as executive editor at The Christian Post, sparked controversy in March when he accused Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and President Obama of exploiting the Trayvon Martin shooting.Martin, a 17-year-old African American, was shot dead on Feb. 26 by George Zimmerman, 28. The teen was unarmed. Zimmerman has claimed self-defense.Denouncing the public's "rush to judgment" before all the facts were clear, Land called the two well-known civil rights activists "race hustlers who've made their careers and made their fortunes exploiting racism" and argued that some were using the case "for their own political ends."Land further stated that the civil rights activists were "perpetuating their central myth" that "America is a racist and an evil nation." He later also stated that a black man is "statistically more likely to do you harm than a white man."The statements drew criticism from the public, including fellow Southern Baptist pastors who called on Land to repent.
But everything he said is true.
"But everything he said is true".
ReplyDeleteHe was only half right (at least in regards to the probable opportunism of Sharpton and Jackson and the public rush to judgment).
American racism is no "myth", though.
Segregation was so common (even within the church), that Billy Graham received much criticism in 1952 when he decided to stop holding segregated crusades. Bob Jones University banned interracial dating until some time in the 90s (the same decade that the SBC finally decided to apologize for its role in American slavery). Don't forget Jim Crow laws and the KKK. Get to know some folks in Kentucky or Alabama and see how long it takes to hear the "N" word tossed about casually.
Is racism as common as it was? Perhaps not, and it's no longer enshrined in our laws as it used to be, but it's not unusual, and one must concede that has been imbedded deeply in the fabric of our nation's history.
In terms of whether a black male is statistically more likely to commit a crime than a white male, that could be true, but to state it in reference to Martin is just as much a "rush to judgment" as were the comments of Sharpton and Jackson. If he didn't mean to imply that there was some likelihood of guilt by mere virtue of the fact that Trayvon was black, then why say it?
James said:
Delete"Is racism as common as it was? Perhaps not, and it's no longer enshrined in our laws as it used to be, but it's not unusual, and one must concede that has been imbedded deeply in the fabric of our nation's history."
Hm, I don't think Land is suggesting there's no history of racism in the US or that there's no current racism.
Also, I take it Land is aware that we've made laws against racism to the point of changing our very Constitution, the prevalence of the whole politically correct culture of tolerance in our society, and that people like Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Barack Obama can serve in the highest offices of the land.
Rather, I think Land is suggesting something like, while America has made considerable progress against racism, Jackson and Sharpton are the ones who are trying to mantain the racial strife and divisiveness for their own personal and political advantages.
By the way, at least from what I can tell based on his quoted remarks above, Land isn't saying anything materially different than what former NAACP leader and black pastor C.L. Bryant said here.
"If he didn't mean to imply that there was some likelihood of guilt by mere virtue of the fact that Trayvon was black, then why say it?"
Again, it sounds to me Land's complaint was against the civil rights activists Jackson and Sharpton and how they're exploiting the Trayvon case. I don't think he was saying anything about Trayvon's guilt or innocence. At least I don't see that based on his remarks in this post. In fact, Land said he thought the public "rush[ed] to judgment."
By the way, let's keep in mind the bigger picture. Keep in mind what the Obama administration has done for race relations and racism.
DeleteFor example, even if it's true Land made some unfortunate racist remarks (which I don't grant at all), it'd be mild compared to, say, Eric Holder calling Americans "a nation of cowards" for not discussing racism in the way Holder thinks should be discussed. For one thing, Holder has a lot more political power than Land does.
I'd add the New Black Panthers offering a bounty for Zimmerman doesn't exactly help either.
James6/23/2012 8:27 PM
ReplyDelete“American racism is no ‘myth’, though.”
It’s a myth when you single out America, as if Americans (or white Americans in particular) are more racist than other ethnicities or nationalities.
“Segregation was so common (even within the church), that Billy Graham received much criticism in 1952 when he decided to stop holding segregated crusades.”
That’s not “America.” That’s just a subset of Americans.
“Bob Jones University banned interracial dating until some time in the 90s.”
That’s not “America.” That’s just the stupid, retro policy of one Southern Fundamentalist Bible college.
Keep in mind that many blacks self-segregate on contemporary American campuses.
“(The same decade that the SBC finally decided to apologize for its role in American slavery).”
It’s an empty gesture to “apologize” for the wrongdoing of other people who lived way back in the mid-19C.
Suppose my grandfather left his wife for another woman. Suppose I exist because my grandfather was an adulterer. Am I supposed to apologize for my grandfather’s infidelity?
It’s fine if the SBC wants to belatedly condemn the racist roots of the SBC, but spare me the meaningless, feel-good, vicarious apologies. We’re not in a position to apologize for the actions of others. That’s their problem.
“Don't forget Jim Crow laws and the KKK.”
Don’t forget black Africans who sold their countrymen into slavery in the first place.
Don’t forget slavery in modern Africa.
Don’t forget black-on-black crime.
Don’t forget black hip-hop rappers who degrade black women.
Don’t forget blacks who demean other blacks for acting “white” if they do well in school.
“Get to know some folks in Kentucky or Alabama and see how long it takes to hear the ‘N’ word tossed about casually.”
Get to know some black stand-up comics and see how long it takes to hear the ‘N’ word tossed about casually.
I daresay every ethnic or racial group has racist epithets for other races. Why do you single out whites?
You’re also assuming that I lack firsthand knowledge of Southerners. Wrong assumption.
And in my experience, having lived in both the North and the South, nowadays the North is more segregated than the South.
“Is racism as common as it was? Perhaps not, and it's no longer enshrined in our laws as it used to be, but it's not unusual, and one must concede that has been imbedded deeply in the fabric of our nation's history.”
Your indictment is totally one-sided. You’re locked into a stereotypical black/white paradigm of race relations. What about black/Latino, black/Asian, or Latino/Asian race relations?
And while you fixate on antiquated symbolism, we have real institutional racism in the form of discriminatory policies fomented by our current Attorney General (Eric Holder), as well as academia (“affirmative action”).
“...whether a black male is statistically more likely to commit a crime than a white male, that could be true.”
That’s an understatement.
“If he didn't mean to imply that there was some likelihood of guilt by mere virtue of the fact that Trayvon was black, then why say it?”
Maybe because the liberal media instantly cast the issue in terms of a hate-crime committed by a white assailant against an innocent black victim.
Then when the media found out the embarrassing fact that the shooter was, himself, a racial minority, the media reclassified him as an honorary “white Hispanic.”