- About SI
"The Republican Party is not the only party that tries to claim God for themselves"
Mon, 04/09/2012 - 6:30pmLink
What Is Richard Land Doing?
Oh, http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/richard-land-a... ]he basically endorsed Mormon Mitt Romney . So we know EXACTLY what he is doing ... playing partisan politics.
In any event, while I very much disagree with the support of blacks - or anyone else for that matter - for the Democratic Party, it is not comparable to that of evangelicals. Evangelicals support the Republican Party for religious and religious-related reasons, to the point where Christian TV and radio regularly features politics (i.e. Jay Sekulow, Janet Parshall, Janet Mefferd etc.) and many evangelicals assert that Republican/conservative policy positions are part of a Biblical worldview, that the reason why God has blessed this nation so much in the past is because of our adherence to that worldview - our being "a nation founded on Christianity/Christian principles" - and that the Democrats are taking us down a path that will cause God to curse rather than bless us. Abortion, homosexuality, pornography prayer in schools and other faith in the public square issues, school vouchers, the Cold War/war on terror, support for Israel etc. are all either directly or one level removed from popular evangelical theology and the application/interpretation thereof.
By contrast, the black community's support for the Democratic Party is entirely for secular reasons. Blacks vote Democrat because blacks view it as the way to fight racism and its effects. It is done to oppose the racism that blacks believe would otherwise act to deny blacks education, job opportunity, housing, a place at the table when decisions are made by government and corporate America in areas that involve blacks etc. (Before you scoff, realize that blacks have a much more comprehensive, pervasive and encompassing view of racism than merely Ku Klux Klan/Neo-Nazi membership.) Yes, the civil rights preachers do invoke scriptures and what not, but only because those scriptures can be used to help make the case for the policies that - for whatever reason - the black community supports anyway. That is quite far removed from evangelical support of policies being based on what the Bible says (or at least what they believe it to say). Example: a member of the black community will already support urban jobs programs because of the economic benefit that (he believes) it will provide the black community, and will gladly embrace Psalm 82:3-4 being employed to justify a policy that he already supports. By contract, a white evangelical will oppose such programs - viewing them as welfare - primarily because 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says that a man who will not work should not eat (and will oppose government programs and socialism in general as an extension of it). With white evangelicals, the theology dictates the policy. With black Democrats, it really is all about the policy, and if a scripture or two can be used to support the policy ... well hey that is nice but it is still all about the policy.
That is why evangelical and fundamentalist black Christians vote Democrat despite the positions of that party on abortion, homosexuality, the place of religion in public life and other issues. Yes, lots of black leaders happen to be ministers i.e. Jackson and Sharpton but they are not the counterparts to Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell. Virtually no one listens to the "theology" of such black civil rights ministers, and few blacks could even identify said theology or have even listened to them actually preach (by this I mean a sermon inside an actual church, not slogans at some street rally), and that is a huge contrast with the many millions who were acquainted with the actual preachings and teachings of Robertson, Falwell, D. James Kennedy, James Dobson, Frank Schaeffer etc. The irony: lots of black evangelicals regularly watch Robertson and the 700 Club electioneer on a regular basis, agree with or have no real objection to it, and then go out and vote Democrat anyway!
If Land doesn't know this distinction, then he doesn't know about politics to be the lead political figure for the Southern Baptist Convention. If Land knows this distinction and is saying stuff like this anyway because it suits the GOP's rhetorical position, then the same applies: he shouldn't have his position in the SBC.