New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
     
 
Monday, March 15, 2010
Home arrow Opinion arrow Opinion: Respect the office of the president
 
Opinion: Respect the office of the president Print E-mail
By Dwight McKissic   
Monday, October 12, 2009

(ABP) -- While listening to talk radio on Sept. 28, I heard conservative commentator Laura Ingraham refer to President Barack Obama as, “You fool!” Shock, disbelief and utter amazement are the only words I know to describe my emotions upon hearing those words.

Later, I asked one of my associates to listen to the archived recording of Ingraham’s show to determine if I had heard correctly, and I had. Referring to President Obama’s visit to Copenhagen to pitch his hometown to the International Olympic Committee, Ingraham stated: “He doesn’t have time to speak to his general in Afghanistan, but he has time to fly to Copenhagen and push for Chicago. This is an exercise in egotism -- pure egotism, period.... The news over the weekend is that Colin Powell is being consulted as President Obama rethinks his Afghanistan strategy.... By the way, the president is getting personal on his outreach on this issue. Why doesn’t he just call all the generals [Gen. McChrystal in Afghanistan]? Why doesn’t he just talk to his own general? He is going to old generals like Colin Powell. Talk to the one who is actually in Afghanistan, you fool!”

Referring to the President of the United States as “You fool” brings to memory South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson’s recent bellicose statement interrupting the president’s speech to a joint session of Congress, “You lie!” At the very least, these actions violate the biblical and conservative principle of respect for authority, set a poor example for the people who listen to them -- including children -- and for some, raises the question of racism.

President Barack Obama, and his wife, Michelle, have been called by Tammy Bruce, a guest host on Laura Ingraham’s show, “trash in the White House.” Rusty DePass, a prominent South Carolina Republican activist, responded on Facebook to reports of a gorilla that had escaped from a local zoo by saying, “I’m sure it’s just one of Michelle’s ancestors -- probably harmless.”

Enough is enough! It is time for the church of the living God to take a stand. Since Laura Ingraham called the president a fool publicly, I’m asking her to apologize publicly to him and all her listeners who were offended. Morever, I’m asking that the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Johnny Hunt, and the president of the SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Richard Land, join me in repudiating Ingraham’s and Wilson’s remarks on the grounds that they are disrespectful to the office of the president of the United States.

I am not accusing Ingraham or Wilson of being racist, but clearly disrespectful. However, we must acknowledge that many Americans of all colors and political persuasions believe that these actions have a racist underpinning.

I alone cannot influence the culture to refrain from disrespecting the president. But, if my Baptist brethren and people of good will would sound the alarm, it would go a long way toward furthering the biblical command to “honor the king” (I Peter 2:17).

The Southern Baptist Convention sat on the sidelines during the Civil Rights Movement and watched fire hoses sprayed on black people, dogs barking and biting black people at the prodding of Bull Connor’s bullhorn, and bombs blowing up black churches while black girls studied their Bibles in Sunday school. Please, don’t sit idly by again and allow this president to suffer these kinds of indignities and disrespect. Please do not repeat the sins of your fathers. Step forward and boldly denounce and condemn this disrespectful, unbiblical and possibly racially insensitive rhetoric -- for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake and the Great Commission’s sake.

Surely “you lie,” “you fool,” “gorilla” and “trash in the White House” ought to move Baptists and Americans to action to repudiate the Ingraham and Wilson comments and to request respect for the office of the president.

-30-

William Dwight McKissic Sr. is pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, and a former president of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention.

 




Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (84)Add Comment
Where was all this outrage...
written by Ken, October 12, 2009
...when the left was showing such disrespect for President Bush?
...
written by pjerwin, October 12, 2009
How short is your memory? How selective is your ethic? McKissic isn't the first to make this observation since the new administration took office. Their new orthodoxy (right belief) is, "Respect the office of the president," but their consistent orthopraxy (right practice) is "...when you respect the person holding the office."

I attended my first ABC/USA Biennial in 2003, where I heard some of the most hate-filled rhetoric against Bush -- much of it from the mouth of US Representative John Lewis (D-GA).
...
written by kash, October 12, 2009
Amen, brother. I am embarrassed by the ugly disrespectful way many of my fellow Baptists refer to the President. They seem to think that they are justified in demeaning him personally just because they disagree with some of his policies. It may or may not be racially motivated, but it is definitely not consistent with Christian behavior. "But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." Matt 5:22b
...
written by kash, October 12, 2009
Ken, I do not remember prominent members of the RELIGIOUS left demeaning Bush's ancestry or engaging in vituperative name-calling. Opposition to his policies, yes. To the very fact that he is President, no. If I am mistaken, you may quote instances of such to me and see if it compares.
Written By Dwight, October 12, 2009
written by Dwight, October 12, 2009
Ken, I did not allow any disrespect to the president spoken form my pulpit during the Bush years. Plenty of Southern Baptists affirmed, defended and celebrated George Bush. Where is the SBC defense for the disrepect shown to Obama?
Double Standard
written by tenor1, October 12, 2009
For every criticism, invective or outburst hurled at Obama by congress-persons, entertainers, pundits, or whomever, multiply by a factor of at least ten to get even close to Bush's score. But now, the Rev. McKissic expects the SBC to defend against comments by Southern Baptist individuals? Reverend, that's how you lose your tax-exempt status, although many, particularly black churches, have violated that law with impunity for too long. Moreover, Southern Baptists, along with all freedom-loving American citizens, enjoy rights under the 1st Amendment until the radicals in Washington figure how to nullify those, too. Rev. McKissic, where was your defense of President Bush when under constant vicious attacts by the likes of Bill Moyers (an ordained minister)? And for every Laura Ingraham you want to bring up, I can name 10 Lettermans - gimme a break!
By the way, Joe Wilson's "you lie" outburst, although uncalled for and out of place, was the only factual part of that whole exchange.
But Rev. McKissic, just know that every time Obama and/or his minions cry "racism!" against those who reject his socialist policies, his shadow government comprised of dozens of radical leftist "czars" and his promise to "fundamentally transform the United States of America," into a socialist state, they and his disciples are driving the wedge ever deeper between the cultures in America. Socialists come in all colors, reverend, and the fact that this one is half-white makes no difference.
Speech Seasoned with Salt
written by KyleM, October 12, 2009
I don't understand the comments that say or imply that given the abuse President Bush received that these attacks on President Obama are permissible or excusable. It is largely because I was so angry at the vitriolic criticism directed toward President Bush that I am angry at the same types of responses toward President Obama. To excuse for one requires us to excuse for the other, and I will never excuse those numerous hateful attacks on President Bush, a president I supported. As Christians, our speech is to be seasoned with salt. We can strongly speak against the administration's policies without making demeaning personal attacks against the administration.
...
written by pjerwin, October 13, 2009
KyleM: you are right, for the most part. Reflecting God's image, or rather the redeemed image of God in Christ through the "new man," should mean that neither are we "respecters of persons," that is to say, we should not show partiality. "Honor the [President]" regardless of who happens to hold the office at the time.

Some take the "tit-for-tat," "what's good for the goose is good for the gander," "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" approach. When I point out the political and religious left's maligning of President Bush, which rang out from both church and denominational pulpits (I heard it with my own ears) it's not to say that it's okay, but to say that we need to check ourselves for hypocrisy. Ad hominen attacks and name-calling are out of place in the Household of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the Pillar and Support of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

This article, however, says more about McKissic than the Southern Baptist Convention he maligns. To call Southern Baptists on the carpet regarding the remarks of Laura Ingrahm, a faithful, active Roman Catholic, Joe Wilson, an Associate Reformed Presbyterian, lesbian Tammy Bruce, and racist Rusty DePass based on the social climate of the 1950s and 60s demonstrates that McKissic needs to move into the 21st century.

And, by the way, as a child of the 60s I need to ask this question: just how many black churches were bombed while black girls studied their Bibles in Sunday school during the Civil Rights Movement? I only recall the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, which happened right after SS had dismissed, but as I say, I was very young then.

Presidents have been spoken ill of from the beginning, and often with incredible invective. It just so happens that the current President is of mixed race, identifying most strongly with his black heritage, and so people are given to attributing the invective to race.

I believe the current President is strong enough to weather whatever criticism is leveled at him. And respect for the office of the President is as safe as it ever has been.
response
written by Dr. J, October 13, 2009
Liberals can dish it out, but they can't take it. And of course, they allude to racism.
Spot on, pjerwin!
written by Broadman, October 13, 2009
The only thing more certain than liberal hypocrisy is the whining that accompanies it.
Respect?
written by mcskinny, October 13, 2009
Respect someone who has done nothing to warrant the prestigious award he humbly accepts? Respect someone who allows service men and women die in battle as he puts off making a decision regarding reinforcing their positions while he jets off to plug Chicago for the Olympics? Respect someone who feels no remorse when telling the American public his pet programs will not cause taxes to rise when anyone who has ever paid attention knows that every government program costs money and never does what it is supposed to accomplish?

One more question. How do you know who is the target when someone yells "You lie!" in a room full of today's American politicians, or American journalists, or even (I hate to add)American preachers?
Charlie Mac
...
written by jbird, October 13, 2009
Pastor McKissic is spot on!
...
written by KT2005, October 13, 2009
May I address the race issue. I simply grow tired of blacks defending blacks because they are black. I am relatively young and I have great sympathy for the older people in the black community. They experienced much suffering and injustice. Yet I have no patience for the younger generations of blacks. I grew up watching gang wars where blacks killed blacks. I watched as my friends parents did not receive jobs and promotions because they were white. I went to college where blacks were always given a leg up on the rest of us. Now that we have a black president I just want all this talk about race to go away. Barack Obama was elected president. The United States is no longer a racist country. We will always have a few idiots who are racist, but nuts exist in every society. I guess I want to see blacks quit whining and start working and making it. Barack Obama worked hard and is now commander and chief. This is America. If a man can't make something out of himself here then he is of weak character. Anyone can go to college through loans or the military. There is no excuse to not make it in this great country.

As far as this article goes, politics is a rough game. Its always been that way and will always be that way. The president does not need this author to defend him. He is president of the U.S. for crying out loud. No one was writing articles to be nice to Bush, Clinton, Reagan, or Carter. This author thinks Barack Obama needs special protection because he is black. This is really racist when you think about it. A white man did not need protecting, but a black man does. Its almost as if this black man sees President Obama as especially weak because he is black. President Obama is a man, and he can fend for himself. . . just as 53 other presidents have. My goodness, have a little faith that a black man can defend himself just as white men have for 200 years.
kash
written by Ken, October 14, 2009
"Ken, I do not remember prominent members of the RELIGIOUS left demeaning Bush's ancestry or engaging in vituperative name-calling."

How many people on the RELIGIOUS right have done this to President Obama? You either missed my point or you're dodging it. My point is, the RELIGIOUS left looked the other way while liberal politicians were raking President Bush over the coals. Thus, they have a serious credibility gap when they ask us to respect the office of the President.
KyleM
written by Ken, October 14, 2009
"I don't understand the comments that say or imply that given the abuse President Bush received that these attacks on President Obama are permissible or excusable."

Like "Kash", you're dodging the point. When President Bush was being raked over the coals, ABP was notoriously silent about it. Why do they suddenly think we should "respect the office of the President" when they have shown such disrespect for it in the past?

Evidently, in the eyes of the religious left, being a Democrat covers a multitude of sins.
...
written by ABP Reader, October 14, 2009
So, Ken, your approach here seems to dodge the point that it is wrong to disrespect the office of the president - regardless of who is doing it. Do you thinkg folks disrespected GWB? Do you think folks disrespect BHO? I would answer yes to both questions.

By the way, I'd still appreciate it if you would provide the promised sources for the accusations you made some time ago.
...
written by kash, October 14, 2009
I am not excusing bad behavior by anybody. But prominent religious mouthpieces have said extremely disrespectful things about Obama as a man, and about his family, and questioned that he even "deserves" to be president because of his birth, ethnicity, race, etc. I still do not recall any members of the religious moderate/left doing so in regards to Bush. Yes, terrible things were said about Bush by secular leftist organizations, mouthpieces, websites, etc. The secular left can be just as ugly and as quick to use the name-calling scare tactics as the right. But Bush was not demonized on a personal level by the likes of Jim Wallis and others even while they sincerely criticized his policies in Iraq, on torture, on corporate welfare at the expense of social welfare, etc. I do think there is a difference in tone between the Christian moderate/left and the Christian right when it comes to discussing issues, and I think the right is much more comfortable with trying to whip up self righteous anger while the Christian left goes more for self righteous compassion. All politics is tainted by the sin of pride, because we are all trying to prove to the other side that we are the ones who are correct. But trying to demonize the opposition is always a sin and no one benefits but the demons.
...
written by ABP Reader, October 14, 2009
kash, you make a good point about pride and stubborness discussions such as this. The response we too often use when called out for bad behavior (disrespect, in the case of the presidency) is to act like children and focus attention on the bad behavior of others instead of owning up to our own bad behavior. Both so-called "conservatives" and "liberals" are guilty of this.
ABP Reader
written by Ken, October 14, 2009
"So, Ken, your approach here seems to dodge the point that it is wrong to disrespect the office of the president - regardless of who is doing it."

I've not dodged that point. You're dodging my point. Why did ABP look the other way when people were being so disrespectful to Bush? You've not answered that question.
kash
written by Ken, October 14, 2009
"But prominent religious mouthpieces have said extremely disrespectful things about Obama as a man, and about his family, and questioned that he even 'deserves' to be president because of his birth, ethnicity, race, etc."

What "prominent religious leaders"? Most of them have denounced Obama's policies, not his family or his ethnicity.

"But Bush was not demonized on a personal level by the likes of Jim Wallis and others even while they sincerely criticized his policies in Iraq, on torture, on corporate welfare at the expense of social welfare, etc."

Excuse me?? Where were you for the last eight years? People compared Bush to Hitler. They said he "stole" the 2000 election. They accused him of "shredding the Constitution" and "creating a police state." Some even went so far to say that 9/11 was an "inside job." Why did the left look the other way when these accusations were made?
...
written by ABP Reader, October 14, 2009
Ken, I'm not dodging any point. I have no idea about ABP and GWB so I can't speak to your question at all. I didn't read ABP at that time. What I do know is that this article is talking about about BHO and disrespect. Answer the two question I asked above about GHW and BHO. I also asked a third; please don't dodge it.
...
written by kash, October 14, 2009
"Excuse me?? Where were you for the last eight years? People compared Bush to Hitler. They said he "stole" the 2000 election. They accused him of "shredding the Constitution" and "creating a police state." Some even went so far to say that 9/11 was an "inside job." Why did the left look the other way when these accusations were made?" But what religious leaders were saying this? What members of the Christian moderate/liberal public? We are talking here about a Christian's responsibility in political discourse.
...
written by Jesdisciple, October 14, 2009
If I understand this discussion correctly, there are two levels of Christian responsibility at play... My fellow conservatives seem to be focusing on the left's lack of protest against disrespectful comments from outside the Church. ABP's supporters are emphasizing disrespect from inside.

To be sure, both are bad... But don't we have more responsibility for those inside the Church than those outside? While we should defend against the more notable insults from outside, insults from inside injure the Church itself rather than just the political atmosphere. 1 Corinthians 5:9-13
...
written by KT2005, October 14, 2009
I think you guys are missing the point. Do you really think we would be having this discussion if our president was white? We didn't under GWB or Clinton. Obviously a believer is to watch his words. I think we all agree on that. Yet why are we having this discussion now and not before? The conservatives above are saying why didn't people cry out against harshness when Bush was president? They believe this is leftist defending their guy by proposing self censorship. Yet no one begged conservatives to be nice to Clinton. You surely remember that both Bush and Clinton were treated like trash. Cries for niceness flow from the fact that Obama is black. That is the issue here. I believe McKissic would not have written this article if a white man were in office. If anyone can find articles he wrote that condemn criticism of Bill Clinton I will gladly say I'm wrong.
...
written by kash, October 15, 2009
The Clinton persecution project was pre-blogs. There were plenty of people in religious communities unhappy with the persistent attempts by the right to find SOMETHING to pin on Clinton because he wasn't their image of a successful President. It was just harder to get a bully pulpit back then. You will have to search archives of letters to the editor in moderate and liberal Christian newspapers to find such instances of religious moderates/lefties/democrats crying foul at trying to impeach a President for admittedly immoral behavior, but behavior of which many of his accusers have turned out to be just as guilty. Sexual promiscuity and marital infidelity appears to be one of the few bipartisan activities of Washington.
...
written by kash, October 15, 2009
Just to clarify: while I think for some the disrespect shown our President is racially motivated, and for some their knee-jerk defense of him is because they are uncomfortable with any criticism of such a historic Presidnet (since he is not "lily white" like all previous ones), I think a large majority of the relgious right are quite comfortable being vituperative and disrespectful to white folks that aren't judgemental enough of "homosexuals and baby killers". The fact that they have started to join with those of the pseudo-Christian white supremacist persuasian should be a wake up call that perhaps they are not using Christian tactics in pursuing their agenda. When Tony Perkins of Family Research Council paid David Duke for his mailing list, warning bells should have gone off in his conscience that making a deal with the devil to help raise funds to end abortion leads to only one place, and it isn't the Kingdom of God.
ABP Reader
written by Ken, October 15, 2009
"So, Ken, your approach here seems to dodge the point that it is wrong to disrespect the office of the president - regardless of who is doing it."

I didn't dodge anything. I merely pointed out the double standard of ABP.

"Do you thinkg folks disrespected GWB? Do you think folks disrespect
BHO? I would answer yes to both questions."

So would I. But why was ABP silent about it when Bush was president?

"I have no idea about ABP and GWB so I can't speak to your question at all. I didn't read ABP at that time."

Then why did you accuse me of dodging the point?
kash
written by Ken, October 15, 2009
You didn't answer my question. Here was the accusation you made to which I responded:

"But prominent religious mouthpieces have said extremely disrespectful things about Obama as a man, and about his family, and questioned that he even 'deserves' to be president because of his birth, ethnicity, race, etc."

What religious leaders have criticized Obama for these reasons? The ones I've read have criticized his politics and his policies, not his race or ethnicity.

I pointed out the harsh accusations made against President Bush, and you said the following:

"But what religious leaders were saying this? What members of the Christian moderate/liberal public?"

That wasn't my point. I said that liberal religious leaders LOOKED THE OTHER WAY WHILE THESE THINGS WERE BEING SAID. How many moderate/liberal leaders spoke up in Bush's defense? Where were the calls to "respect the office of the President"? Where were the call for civility? Why has this suddenly become a concern now that a Democrat is in office?


...
written by ABP Reader, October 15, 2009
Ken, thanks for finally clarifying that you think both GWB and BHO have been disrespected. I accused you of dodging the point about BHO being disrespected (the point of the article as I read it) because you kept insisting on an answer to your own questions about the intentions of ABP and "the left." Based on your comments, I believe it was an accurate accusation.

As to your question "But why was ABP silent about it when Bush was president?", I'll repeat what I've already said: I have no idea about ABP and GWB so I can't speak to your question at all. I didn't read ABP at that time. You are certainly welcome to guess, but I won't presume to know the intentions of ABP.

Any word on the citations of the accusations you promised several weeks ago? Please don't dodge this question. If you're not going to provide them, then please say so.
ABP Reader
written by Ken, October 15, 2009
"I accused you of dodging the point about BHO being disrespected (the point of the article as I read it) because you kept insisting on an answer to your own questions about the intentions of ABP and 'the left.' Based on your comments, I believe it was an accurate accusation."

I repeat, I did not dodge the question. You have failed to answer mine. Why is ABP suddenly concerned about respect for the presidency? They certainly didn't seem to have that concern when Bush was president.

"I'll repeat what I've already said: I have no idea about ABP and GWB so I can't speak to your question at all. I didn't read ABP at that time."

Thank you for finally giving an honest answer. I did read ABP at the time, and I don't recall one single article calling on anyone to respect the office of President.

"Any word on the citations of the accusations you promised several weeks ago? Please don't dodge this question."

I didn't notice it the first time you raised it on this thread. An honest oversight is not the same as "dodging." Here's one for starters:

Criticizing the National Prayer Breakfast under the Reagan administration, BJCPA Executive Director James Dunn wrote: "The National Prayer Breakfast, which thousands attended recently, appeared to many to be laudable piety, a nation on its knees before God. Was it in fact a church on its knees before Caesar? Was this a civil religion so flattered that it had been invited to the king’s table that it forgot that the prophet speaks God’s word to the king and must never be bought? THE FALSE prophet tells the king what he wants to hear. He is the court chaplain, whose function it is to give sanction of religion to the wishes of the king. ... The false prophet or court chaplain represents civil religion at its worst." (Florida Baptist Witness, Aug. 25, 1983, p.7)

But under the Clinton administration, Dunn was not only "invited to the king’s table" for a prayer breakfast, but helped White House public liaison official Mike Lux "put together the invitation list." (Washington Times, Sept. 4, 1993, p. C-I, "Scope of Clinton’s Outreach")

I mentioned a couple of things Dunn had said on the previous thread. If you'll recall, "Big Daddy Weave" never denied that Dunn made such statements. He simply tried to excuse or spin them.
...
written by ABP Reader, October 15, 2009
Ken, please read more carefully so as to avoid misrepresenting my comments. You wrote: "Thank you for finally giving an honest answer. I did read ABP at the time, and I don't recall one single article calling on anyone to respect the office of President." You can see above where I responded to your question on October 14 with the same wording as October 15. It is unfair and inaccurate to make it sound as if I avoided answering your question.

Thanks for the two citations and, more importantly, for keeping your word. I look forward to checking the context to see if they do, in fact, support your accusations.

As to your distinction between dodging and oversight, again, please read carefully. Perhaps others are guilty of oversight on this site and could use your patience. As you may know, poor reading makes for uninformed conversation.
ABP Reader
written by Ken, October 15, 2009
"It is unfair and inaccurate to make it sound as if I avoided answering your question."

Is it not unfair and inaccurate for you to do the same to me?
...
written by ABP Reader, October 15, 2009
That's funny. I'll give it to you, you're consistent with your evasive tactics.

Here is a condensation of the order of our interaction, which shows that you had a chance to answer my question but did not. I answered your question immediately but you accused me of dodging. Either you're still having oversight problems or you're misrepresenting. Unfair and inaccurate I have not been.

abp reader 1 on October 14: So, Ken, your approach here seems to dodge the point that it is wrong to disrespect the office of the president - regardless of who is doing it. Do you thinkg folks disrespected GWB? Do you think folks disrespect BHO? I would answer yes to both questions.

ken's first response on October 14: I've not dodged that point. You're dodging my point. Why did ABP look the other way when people were being so disrespectful to Bush? You've not answered that question.

abp reader 2: Ken, I'm not dodging any point. I have no idea about ABP and GWB so I can't speak to your question at all. I didn't read ABP at that time. What I do know is that this article is talking about about BHO and disrespect. Answer the two question I asked above about GHW and BHO. I also asked a third; please don't dodge it.

ken's response on October 15: I didn't dodge anything. I merely pointed out the double standard of ABP . . . "Do you thinkg folks disrespected GWB? Do you think folks disrespect BHO? I would answer yes to both questions." . . . So would I. But why was ABP silent about it when Bush was president? . . . . "I have no idea about ABP and GWB so I can't speak to your question at all. I didn't read ABP at that time." . . . Then why did you accuse me of dodging the point?




ABP
written by Ken, October 15, 2009
According to your own rehashing, you were the one that started in with the accusations of dodging. I never denied that people show disrespect for President Obama. My questions is, why is ABP suddenly concerned about disrespect for the President? They certainly were silent about it during the Bush years. You admitted you do not know the answer to that question.
...
written by ABP Reader, October 15, 2009
I believe it was "Ken" on this thread that first accused another commenter of dodging. You didn't deny or affirm until pushed. You did try to push the conversation into the realm of intentions and absence of ABP and "the left." Why didn't you just come out and denounce the disrespect and then ask your question?

At least we both agree (I think) that the presidency should be respected and that is has not been. I hope we agree that too many folks on both/all sides have been too silent.
ABP Reader
written by Ken, October 15, 2009
"You did try to push the conversation into the realm of intentions and absence of ABP and 'the left.' Why didn't you just come out and denounce the disrespect and then ask your question?"

Because I question ABP's sincerity in publishing this editorial, that's why. They were silent about the disrespect shown to President Bush. Why are they suddenly concerned about "respect for the President" now?
...
written by ABP Reader, October 15, 2009
Ken, is it inaccurate for me to conclude that you are less likely to trust the intentions, statements, and motives of those you categorize as "liberal/moderate" (whoever they may be in your mind)?
...
written by ABP Reader, October 15, 2009
Ken, a second, related question and I'll shut up: is it innacurate for me to conclude that you consider those you categorize as "conservative" to be more likely to be genuine, have pure motives, and exhibit more consistency in their statements, theology, etc.?
Dwight
written by Ken, October 15, 2009
Sorry for taking so long to respond to you. I didn't see your post earlier.

"Ken, I did not allow any disrespect to the president spoken form my pulpit during the Bush years."

That may be true, and I respect you for your consistency. I don't regard Dwight McKissic as the issue (assuming it's a coincidence that your name is also Dwight). He may be entirely sincere in writing this editorial, but I do question ABP's motives in publishing it. Would they have published such an editorial when Bush was President? Somehow I doubt it.

"Where is the SBC defense for the disrepect shown to Obama?"

I don't exactly what kind of "disrespect" you have in mind. If you're talking about Wiley Drake, I believe most Southern Baptist leaders have distanced themselves from him (he certainly doesn't speak for me). At the same time, I don't think it's disrespectful to criticize President Obama's policies.

...
written by ABP Reader, October 15, 2009
So, you are calling ABP out for not denouncing anti-GWB sentiments but you wouldn't come out directly and denounce anti-BHO sentiment on this site? Is that an accurate description?
...
written by ABP Reader, October 15, 2009
Sorry for all the questions, but I'm just trying to get a good understanding of your position.
ABP Reader
written by Ken, October 15, 2009
"So, you are calling ABP out for not denouncing anti-GWB sentiments but you wouldn't come out directly and denounce anti-BHO sentiment on this site? Is that an accurate description?"

No, it's not.
P.S. to Dwight
written by Ken, October 15, 2009
I believe the Southern Baptist Convention adopted a resolution last summer celebrating the election of the nation's first African-American president. It was approved overwhelming and, if my memory serves me correctly, without debate. I know I voted for it.
...
written by ABP Reader, October 15, 2009
Well, it seems you are wanting to point out ABP's bias in this editorial, so I'm going to guess you do want to denounce any disrespect for BHO's presidency. Accurate?
ABP Reader
written by Ken, October 15, 2009
"Well, it seems you are wanting to point out ABP's bias in this editorial, so I'm going to guess you do want to denounce any disrespect for BHO's presidency. Accurate?"

It depends on what you call "disrespect." Is disagreement with a President's policies disrespect? Is it disrespectful to denounce policies that I think will be harmful to the country? I don't think so. Dwight McKissic probably agrees, since the resolution he submitted to the SBC last summer contained some criticisms of President Obama. As I said, I don't consider Mr. McKissic the issue.

Has some of the rhetoric from the right been "over the top"? Undeniably. However, the rhetoric from the left during the Bush years was even worse. Why wasn't ABP concerned about respect for the Presidency then?
...
written by ABP Reader, October 15, 2009
Ken, Dwight's article didn't really address the policies. It addressed words like "fool," "trash," and "gorilla." Is that or is that not disrespect? If so, do you denounce it in the same way (you may have) denounced the kind of talk during the GWB years?
...
written by ABP Reader, October 15, 2009
You want to conclude that ABP wasn't concerned about respecting the presidency during the GHW years, and you're welcome to do that. But your're doing so on an argument from silence and an absence of articles. Still, you're hesitant on here to denounce disrespect, or at least slow to admit that BHO has been disrespected.
ABP Reader
written by Ken, October 15, 2009
"Still, you're hesitant on here to denounce disrespect, or at least slow to admit that BHO has been disrespected."

Why are you lying about me?
...
written by ABP Reader, October 15, 2009
I personally think GHW was a terrible as president, but that didn't mean that I should have referred to him as trash, gorilla, hitler, or nazi. I'm not convinced BHO is a great president either, and neither should those words be applied to him.
...
written by ABP Reader, October 15, 2009
Just read the comments. "Hesitant" and "slow" are words I would use to describe your approach on here.
...
written by ABP Reader, October 15, 2009
Well, time to head to work. It's been interesting, Ken. I'll probably bump into you again in the future.
ABP Reader
written by Ken, October 15, 2009
"But your're doing so on an argument from silence...."

Just like you do in implying that I condone disrespect for the President.
Written by Dwight McKissic, October 15,2009
written by Dwight, October 15, 2009
I have in mind the disrespectful quotes in my article, "you lie", "you fool", "White trash" , "gorilla". Do you not see these statements as disrespectful to the office of the president?
...
written by Jesdisciple, October 15, 2009
ABP Reader: This topic doesn't have much discussion material outside of whether we denounce others, because only a few of the disrespectful are brazen enough to throw insults. Without accountability, it becomes a purely personal issue about what the individual should and shouldn't say... And I don't think that has much for Christians to discuss.

And I do agree with Ken that blacks seem to be a political sacred cow. However, I prefer to shift attention from racism to the other valid points, then apply those to both sides.

Note: I think I see why we have this climate: blacks learned to band together as a mini-culture against the bullies. But now that the context of institutionalized racism is mostly gone, we need them to forget that habit and stop attacking modern whites for what other whites did 40 years ago.
response to Ken
written by kash, October 15, 2009
Ken, I did not list instances of religious leaders using disrespectful language about Obama because it seemed redundant, as Dwight McKissic had done so and that is why we are all commenting here on this blog. As far as you saying Wiley Drake, former SBC second VP, doesn't speak for you, I find it interesting that you hold all religious moderates/liberals responsible for all secular criticism of Bush that was in poor taste, but don't think it is necessary for the SBC to specifically denounce Drake. Finally, I do believe that if you will read back posts from Jim Wallis and company's blog at Sojo.net from the Bush years, you will find many instances where moderates and progressives call for respectful, Christian dialogue in spite of our differences, and condemning caricatures and name calling. Happy reading!
also to Ken
written by kash, October 15, 2009
Ultimately, Ken, your argument seems to be that since ABP and other moderate religious outfits didn't do enough to stop the disrespectful treatment of Bush (by the non-religious left, we seem to agree) it is not the responsibility of the religious right to call out the members of its own ranks who use disrespectful language and actions in opposing Obama. A sort of "two wrongs make a right" argument. Do I understand your position correctly?
...
written by kash, October 15, 2009
Here is an example of what I am trying to get Ken to recognize: http://blog.sojo.net/2009/09/25/obama-bigotry-and-balance/
...
written by pjerwin, October 16, 2009
Weren't able to get very far in this discussion, were we?

Obama is disrespected; Bush was disrespected; Clinton was disrespected; Bush was disrespected; Reagan was disrespected; Carter was disrespected; Ford was disrespected; Nixon was disrespected; Johnson was disrespected; Kennedy was disrespected; etc. Disrespect for Presidents doesn't appear to be tied to race, but ideology. And it isn't directed toward the office, but the officeholder.

The question is what's the deal with this article? McKissic makes no sense. He quotes no Southern Baptist as having disrespected either the office of President or the sitting President, yet petitions a repudiation from SBC leadership. The he ratchets up the rhetoric, calling them to recall "bombs blowing up black churches while black girls studied their Bibles in Sunday school," as if this was a common occurance during the Civil Rights Movement, rather than one horrific, outrageous act of violence. Clearly, this has more to do with emotion than reason.

Martin Luther King, Jr. pressed the US government and the AMerican public for equal treatment of all people without reference to race. This President is being treated no worse -- and really much better -- than other Presidents.
...
written by kash, October 16, 2009
Sigh. It isn't only if a member of the SBC says something disrespectful or excessively vituperative that it reflects badly on the body of Christ. And read the article on Dr. Land's apology for realizing that comparison's to Hitler and the HOlocaust are not appropriate, ever. Yes, extremists on the left compared Bush to Hitler. No, it doesn't make it right for Christians to compare Obama to Hitler. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard of discourse.
...
written by pjerwin, October 16, 2009
It isn't only if a member of the SBC says something disrespectful or excessively vituperative that it reflects badly on the body of Christ.
Sure, if a Christian does it, it reflects poorly on the body of Christ. But don't call on SBC leadership to repudiate everything individual, non-Southern Baptists do that reflects poorly on the body of Christ.

...comparison's to Hitler and the HOlocaust are not appropriate, ever.
Of course, you realize that assertion isn't true. There are times when comparisons to Hitler and the Holocaust would be highly appropriate.

Otherwise, kash, I agree.
This is the problem
written by kash, October 18, 2009
This morning the guest preacher at our small SBC church implied in an off-the-cuff statement during the invitation that Obama was the anti-Christ (he actually said that Obama was trying to form a one-world government and thus Jesus will be coming back at any time). I find this highly inappropriate, for many reasons, not the least is that it is factually inaccurate and not the most is that it is theologically unwise. Perhaps this is where our current climate of divisiveness is leading us? And if Obama does what every other President has done and simply serves his term(s) and then is replaced, and the end of the world as we know it doesn't occur, doesn't that make our eschatology look ridiculous?
...
written by pjerwin, October 19, 2009
It doesn't just make us look ridiculous, it indicts us as presumptuous, at best, and false, at worst.

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment... and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets... (1 Corinthians 14:29-32)

You may say in your heart, "How will we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?" When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)
The obvious
written by ignatius22, October 19, 2009
Wow, 63 posts later, and still no one has said simply this:

Watch your mouth and be nice.


How hard is that? What does it matter what side you're on; you should not badmouth anyone. I've stood up to friends, foe, and family for calling the homeless lazy bums, for calling Chinese chinks, for calling African Americans ...well, you get the point.

Instead of clarifying what we mean here, and going back and forth on a message blog, maybe we should come up with ways on how to reverse the lack of civility and civil discourse in the American public. Christians should be on the forefront for teaching others how to speak properly; it's that simple--there's no room for debate. To say this or that or ask, "where were you when Bush was president?" is a waste of time. Get over it. Let's talk solutions here for once.
kash
written by Ken, October 20, 2009
"Ken, I did not list instances of religious leaders using disrespectful language about Obama because it seemed redundant, as Dwight McKissic had done so and that is why we are all commenting here on this blog."

What RELIGIOUS leaders did he cite? The only names I saw were Laura Ingraham, who is a conservative commentator, and Tammy Bruce, with whom I am not familiar. I can cite plenty of liberal commentators who said worse things about President Bush. Why does ABP have a double standard when it comes to respect?
kash
written by Ken, October 20, 2009
"Yes, extremists on the left compared Bush to Hitler. No, it doesn't make it right for Christians to compare Obama to Hitler."

Why didn't anyone on the left say this while Bush was in office? If they had, their current calls to "respect the President" would not sound so hollow.
...
written by kash, October 21, 2009
Ken, you are splitting the very hairs you accuse the moderates/lefties of splitting.
...
written by robber, October 26, 2009
Unlike so many who regularly post on these threads, I will actually address the opinion piece, not other comments.

Sir, whether you like it or not, Ms. Ingraham, or anyone for that matter, has the right to express her/his opinion. For you to imply racism, which you surely do, in order to suppress the opinions of those who don't agree with you, is evil. How dare you present yourself as a man of God and ask us to "take a stand" to help you organize an effort to deny someone their freedom of speech. This reeks of the same hypocrisy and slander used to deny Rush Limbaugh his right to pursue business interests. You have placed yourself in the same box as Sharpton and Jackson. Willing to use any means necessary to get your way, no matter how evil or contemptible they may be. To ask those who are using their God-given freedom of speech in the marketplace of ideas to apologize to you, while you form an organized effort to quell that speech, is like asking Peter to apologize for denying Christ after you, Judas, have plotted His demise. Although the opinions you cite are in some ways disrespectful, those people had the right to say them without fear of someone like you to threaten their livelihood or personal safety. The biggest disrespect comes from you sir, for believing we're stupid enough to help you spread your brand of hate.

It's columns like this that actually have me remembering the good old days when all I had to deal with was De La Torre.
...
written by Jesdisciple, October 28, 2009
Ignatius is right. We got the point across that double-standards are bad; now let the Holy Spirit do His work with that knowledge.

So what pro-active things can we do to discipline each other? This is a great opportunity to increase unity if we take the right attitude and measures.
...
written by Jesdisciple, October 28, 2009
Oops, apparently used a page cached from a few days ago to respond.

robber: I sympathize with your point. However, there is a time for church discipline; maybe you think that doesn't apply to speech. Regardless whether the statements are racist, they are disrespectful. I actually commend Dwight for restraining the urge to definitively label something as racist. And no, I doubt his hesitancy is only a cover for ulterior racist motives.

Liberals are hyper-sensitive to prejudice and conservatives are hyper-sensitive to political correctness. Both sides need to get over it, admitting both that black men can receive non-racist insults and that some racist insults likely remain in plain view but disguised. You don't have to protest the insults, but I think you need more grounds than you have to protest the protests.

Personally, I have no qualms about these people losing respect because of their disrespectful statements.
...
written by Jesdisciple, October 28, 2009
Correction: 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 lists "reviler" as one of the types of people to be disciplined.
...
written by robber, October 29, 2009
Thanks for a reasonable dialogue. I don't think it's OK to be disrespectful, but I also think ones actions can be disrespectful. My point was Ingraham's disrespectful comment pales in comparison with McKissic's disrespectful effort to quell free speech.

I like your comments about what the left and right think and that they need to get over it. That's a very insightful remark that makes me think I need to let some things go. I just believe free speech is God-given, and it irks me when someone tries to stamp it out to further an agenda. It's way too easy in this country to cry "racism" and get results.
to Jesdisciple
written by robber, October 29, 2009
sorry, jesdisciple, that last comment was supposed to be directed at you but I forgot to include your user name. thanks again.
...
written by Jesdisciple, October 30, 2009
I think the point we're disagreeing on is just what a "marketplace of ideas" should look like. When a toy company finds a defect, it's expected to recall the toy ASAP under penalty of boycott or prosecution. If they can't make any toys without defects, they should go out of business.

Should we not apply this principle to free speech? Granted, prosecution isn't warranted except perhaps for the most grievous offenses (i.e. threat of bodily harm), but why not boycott? And if boycotts are appropriate for speech, what did McKissic do wrong?
...
written by Jesdisciple, October 31, 2009
Oh, and:
It's way too easy in this country to cry "racism" and get results.

I agree, but that's not what McKissic did. He offered the possibility that the statements had racist motives behind them - which I must say is rather probable. But the thrust of his argument was that the statements are disrespectful. Mind you, I think omitting the issue of race altogether might have been more prudent, but he didn't dishonestly invoke race.
...
written by robber, November 02, 2009
If you or McKissic wanted a marketplace of ideas, then you would offer competing ideas instead of trying to silence your competition. Get it? Explain to me why Obama is not a fool (and don't suggest I'm bashing, I'm not, just giving an example) instead of boycotting Ingraham because she suggests he is. Get it? That's the difference. Neither you nor McKissic wants that marketplace, because in a marketplace of open ideas you lose. And yes, he does imply...look:

"The Southern Baptist Convention sat on the sidelines during the Civil Rights Movement and watched fire hoses sprayed on black people, dogs barking and biting black people at the prodding of Bull Connor’s bullhorn, and bombs blowing up black churches while black girls studied their Bibles in Sunday school. Please, don’t sit idly by again and allow this president to suffer these kinds of indignities and disrespect."

"Suffer these kinds of indignities"? Seriously? I mean give me a break. Comparing what Ingraham or Wilson did to this? It's the most dishonest thing I've seen. Stop making excuses for this writer and get a grip. He strongly, unquestionably implies racism. I don't have to infer it: It's implied. There is no racism implied in what Ingraham and Wilson said. You have to infer it. You have to search for it to find it, and too often the left finds it even when it's not there. Get it?
...
written by Jesdisciple, November 02, 2009
Do you expect reasonable dialogue to also be civil?

President Barack Obama, and his wife, Michelle, have been called by Tammy Bruce, a guest host on Laura Ingraham’s show, “trash in the White House.” Rusty DePass, a prominent South Carolina Republican activist, responded on Facebook to reports of a gorilla that had escaped from a local zoo by saying, “I’m sure it’s just one of Michelle’s ancestors -- probably harmless.”


Trash in the white house: Umm... I'm pretty sure no one deserves to be called trash, let alone a leader. This isn't as apparently racist as the next one, though.

You fool: See above. Note that neither of these has any racism at face value.

Gorilla one of Michelle's ancestors: White supremacists (used to) claim that blacks are closer to apes than whites are. Why didn't he say "one of my ancestors"?

Explain to me why Obama is not a fool instead of boycotting Ingraham because she suggests he is.
Her comment was inappropriate disrespect regardless of her opinion. It does nothing constructive, just inflames the discussion further. If she doesn't recall her defects she should go out of business.
...
written by Jesdisciple, November 02, 2009
Oops, second example was inserted between others. "next one" should be "last one".
...
written by Jesdisciple, November 02, 2009
Also, note that the defects I speak of in toys are safety hazards to kids. These reviling comments are safety hazards to our culture.

And I should acknowledge that I didn't notice McKissic's implication about the civil rights movement. I think the gorilla comment justified that on its own, but even without that blacks will be prone to view insults directed at blacks as racist. I don't always agree with this, although the "trash" comment does strike a racist chord to me. The "fool" insult is easiest to justify as not racist, but it's still disrespectful.

I found this discussion insightful, as you might also: http://blog.sojo.net/2009/10/30/why-clint-eastwood-can-be-trusted-with-mandela-and-why-glenn-beck-cant-be-trusted-with-mlk/#comment-21358603
done
written by robber, November 03, 2009
There is no end to this conversation. I have tried to stay close to my original premise, but every time I make a point you go off in another direction. Screw it. I'll never convince you, you'll never convince me. You have the last word, let's just let it go.
...
written by Jesdisciple, November 03, 2009
At the risk of seeming argumentative, maybe I can explain my position in relative rather than absolute terms.

I believe I understand your point, and it is an essential part of free speech. That is, I believe honest opinions should not be silenced in the name of empathy. However, I see these comments not as opinions but as insults and therefore unfit for the marketplace of ideas. There are opinions behind the insults, but the insults don't help anything and, at the least, should not be considered legitimate conversation.
...
written by pjerwin, November 07, 2009
Jesdisciple:

You noted that "there is a time for church discipline," however you must note that in this particular article the author calls Southern Baptists on the carpet not for remarks made by Baptists, but for those made by a faithful, active Roman Catholic radio host/political commentator (Laura Ingraham), an Associate Reformed Presbyterian US Congressional Representative (Joe Wilson), a lesbian radio host/political pundit (Tammy Bruce), and a known racist/political activist (Rusty DePass) -- the religious leanings of the last two are unknown. The leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention have no business trying to engage in "church discipline" with these folks, much less repudiating their remarks; they have nothing to do with Baptists or the SBC.

Whether or not you or I or anyone else likes the way it works out in the real world, we live in a country in which we are guaranteed freedom of speech -- or more accurately, freedom from government abridgement of free speech and a free press; it doesn't matter whether one considers it "honest opinion," "legitimate conversation," satire, travesty, or insult. Who's to determine what's fit or unfit for "the marketplace of ideas," what's "honest opinion," "legitimate conversation," "helpful," or "constructive"?

What YOU seem to be talking has more to do with ethics, something which cannot be regulated by law, but must be taught, learned, and practiced.
interesting article
written by robber, November 09, 2009
Here is a Fox News story that provides a good example of free speech being trampled on. You can say this guy maybe should have controlled his speech, but you could say the same about the woman. But look who lost his/her job. It is wrong for Americans to have to fear what will happen to them when they exercise their right to free speech.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572862,00.html?test=latestnews
...
written by robber, November 09, 2009
jesdesciple: I read the blog you posted. Sorry, I did not find it insightful, interesting, or any other word that begins with "i". It's more arguing about racial issues, and I just don't have the stomach for long strings of back-and-forth debate where the combatants do no more than parse each others' words.

Finally, I will add this: We adults, and I wholly include myself, are clueless as to what to do. The actions of white America in the past, often using "God" as a crutch or weapon, are abhorrent and sickening. Unfortunately too many people today are looking either to defend what happened or make up for it in some way. Neither is possible. We need to reboot and start over. This generation is incapable of doing that. We must look to the next generation, and they will have to look to the generation that will follow them. Eventually we may get it right. I earnestly pray that we do.
Respect
written by Bobby McCord, December 21, 2009
Can I say that the office is nothing without the man and the man in the office now has no respect for the people of God, the word of God, or even the Son of God. Anyone who supports gay marriage, the killing of the unborn, the trashing of the constitution and the theft of the taxpayers, derves no respect and will not have miine. It doesn't matter how old he is, what color he is, or what party he is in. If the man is against the Christian values that this nation was founded on, I am against him.

Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >

Baptists

Nation

World

Opinion

Copyright © 2007-2010 Associated Baptist Press, All Rights Reserved.