Getty Images
When someone plagiarizes content that isn't theirs, it's wrong. When that person is a religious leader, who claims the moral high ground on "ethics" while routinely condemning others for their sins, it's worse.
And that person is a religious leader in a denomination with an unfortunate racial history, and he's plagiarized racially charged content, well, that's just adding insult to injury (thanks to reader R.B. for the tip).
Southern Baptist leaders will investigate whether their top ethicist and public policy director plagiarized racially charged remarks about the Trayvon Martin case that many say set back the denomination's efforts on racial reconciliation.
Richard Land, who leads the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission for the Southern Baptist Convention, was accused of lifting remarks for his radio show that accused Democrats and civil rights leaders of exploiting the case of the unarmed Florida teenager who was shot and killed by a volunteer neighborhood watchman.
Even though Land has apologized for both the remarks and not attributing their source, the commission's executive committee said it was obligated "to ensure no stone is left unturned." An investigatory committee will "recommend appropriate action" to church leaders.
Jeffrey Kuhner, a right-wing columnist for the Washington Times recently wrote about civil-rights activists, "They need the Travyon Martins to continue perpetuating their central myth: America is a racist and an evil nation. For them it's always Selma Alabama circa 1965."
Richard Land, on his radio program, told listeners, "They need the Travyon Martins to continue perpetuating their central myth: America is a racist and an evil nation. For them it's always Selma Alabama circa 1965."
The sentiment itself is obviously offensive, and though Land apologized for presenting someone else's words as his own, he didn't express regret for his smear against civil-rights activists.
There's also the historical context -- Land helps lead the Southern Baptist Convention, which has not always played a positive role in the nation's racial debates.
Religion News Service noted this report from Ed Stetzer, a Southern Baptist researcher, who wrote, "The Southern Baptist Convention still must earn a better reputation for racial inclusion and justice. As such, perhaps SBC denominational leaders are not the best persons to speak into racially charged situations, critiquing the actions of African Americans or African American leaders."
Leave a Comment:
Land is the group's ethicist and PR man. Plagiarism is the least of the group's problems if they think like Land. His views are so disconnected from reality about racism, that the group will have difficulty finding reconciliation if it cannot face the truth about racism in this country.
I think reconciliation is always going to be a difficult thing for the SBC. It owes it's existence as a distinct Baptist denomination directly to the institution of slavery. Or, more precisely, the fight over slavery. Not the Civil War. I mean the growing divide over slavery between north and south in the years and decades leading up to the Civil War. Many denominations split over either the question of abolition or simply as a result of the Civil War, but the SBC were pioneers. They split away from all other American Baptists in 1845. That shows commitment, of a sort. Their history as a denomination is rooted in the very idea of institutional racism. That's a lot of heavy baggage to divest themselves of. Have they, as a denomination, even recognized the need for that? Considering that they've gone completely fundamentalist over the course of my lifetime, I very much doubt it.
Noone is asking for forgiveness for their mistakes.
I think this guys problem is that his opposition is TOO PROGRESSIVE. He is whining over them being stuck way ahead in 1965 because he himself along with his SBC friends are stuck in 1865. (And, gosh by golly, they sure miss ol' Jeff Davis!)
See, it's not a problem of WHAT is being done, just WHEN it is being done... or not.
I grew up in Augusta Georgia where the Southern Baptist Convention was split off from the Baptist church and formed specifically to provide support for slavery as opposed to the abolitionist of the main church.
The members of the KKK were almost exclusively Southern Baptist. The KKK considered itself a semi-religious organization, hence all the crosses. This was a continuation of the mission of the Southern Baptist to "preserve our Southern way of life".
My family has lived in Augusta for five generations and were members of "First Baptist Church" - named that because it was where and the church that formed the Southern Baptist Convention and I know all this to be true.
how ironic for a sleazebag like land to invoke selma/1965. had it not been for slavery, there wouldn't have been a southern baptist convention. had it not been for selma, alabama, there wouldn't have been a voting rights act. had it not been for the civil rights movement, there wouldn't be the republican party we know today.
You're missing the point. There are a lot of Southern Baptists that will tell you with a straight face and a clear conscience that legislation that was born of the civil rights demonstrations of the 60s was all unnecessary AND anti-Christian.
I grew up in a farming community of eastern South Carolina, and there are people there who still hold a grudge over their loss during the civil war. Some still believe that slavery is sanctioned by the Bible.
Well, slavery IS sanctioned in the Bible with admonitions for slaves to obey their masters. as is the stoning to death of disobedient children, people who work on Sunday ( actually Saturday ) and anybody gay.
You can find support for a lot of evil in the Bible, strange to say. The good Southern Baptists in the KKK thought they were doing God's work, no question about it.
Slavery is a part of the social context of biblical authors, therefore it shows up in the texts. But you can't point to anything which explicitly says "slavery is good" or "you must enslave other people". There is also nothing which explicitly says the contrary. Admonishing slaves to obey their masters is not really advocacy for the institution of slavery. I doubt anyone in late antiquity would have even thought of having a reasoned position on slavery, either pro or con, since at that time slavery was virtually synonymous with the employment of labor.
Man, atheists are terrible.... wait, he did what for a living?
Gosh where is his hood? Aren't grand dragons supposed to...uh he was hiding behind the cloth of religion so I guess he felt safe.
Welcome to right winged religion where Christ was a gentile and Charlton Heston is Saint Peter.
Hey haters keep talking!
Obama 2012
I get the feeling that folks like Land always think it's Suburbia, America, circa 1950: husbands worked, women stayed at home, people of color were domestic servants grateful to have a job, and there were no such things as "gay people" or unpopular wars.
Somewhat ironic that the same hands that will be lain on brother Land to wash him clean, are the same hands that sign his paychecks.
Wait...so not only that this guy is a racist, but he is also a "laz-ist" who was too lazy to create his own racist remarks? :D
That first line is so poorly written, it's just driving me crazy! One can't plagiarize oneself, so saying "When someone plagiarizes content that isn't theirs, it's wrong," THAT'S WHAT'S WRONG!!
The first sentence contains a redundancy. It is not the worst offense against the English language. Lighten up.
Just another "Pilkunnussija-ist." See: No. 1 (at the bottom)
http://www.cracked.com/article_19695_9-foreign-words-english-language-desperately-needs_p2.html?wa_user1=3&wa_user2=Weird+World&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=popularNo
Obviously you have never heard of the term self-plagiarism, perhaps that's because you probably have not attended college where many students plagiarize their own previous works for another class and submit them for new assignments with a different course and different professor. As it turns out, yes there is such a thing as self-plagiarism, and although it is a less severe academic dishonesty, it is nonetheless a form of academic dishonesty and it's a very prevalent subject among many college professors and college students, this article might help a little; http://chronicle.com/article/Plagiarizing-Yourself/124781/
It might be wiser to phrase your questions or statements with a little less sarcasm. Nobody is in a contest about which one of us has the highest IQ
At least he cares about the quality of the written word. We need more of that, even if he is wrong. As Simon Si has pointed out, you CAN plagiarize yourself.
I love how cavalierly the SBC uses the term 'ethicist'. Ethicists use rational argument to establish morality, not plagiarism. To boot, plagiarizing what amounts to a sound byte with no premises, logical structure or real conclusion. This wasn't ethics, this was self-righteous delusion.
"Ethics", much like "Legal", is relative.
Adolph Hitler was legally appointed Reichskanzler.
And the Inquisition(s) were sanctioned by the Vatican.
And the 14th Amendment was, unfortunately, necessary.
This is a remarkable story, and one that needs more attention from the mainstream press. One by one, the high priests of the evangelical and right-wing movement fall from their own deluded sins. Whether Richard Land plagiarized or not is largely irrelevant. His opinion on the Trayvon Martin case is one that is identical to the majority of conservatives in this country, which is completely opposite of views held by a majority o ordinary Americans. They see a situation where a white defender of justice rightfully took out a black thug who infiltrated a white suburban enclave. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
This from their 'ethics' guy. What a joke. Weird that he complains about civil-rights activists thinking it's still the 50's; when the right-wing seems to be determined to take us back to the 50's.
CAC is.....
as
CAC does.....
Let's be extremely clear about this. NO ONE who claims to be a 'religious leader' is telling the truth. NO ONE. This is the friggin' 21st century. We are deeply in the Age of Science. We're headed to Pluto, for god's sake!! I didn't hear about Jesus telling us jack sh*t about Pluto.
There was no talking snake. There was no world wide flood. There was NO RIB WOMAN. It's MYTHOLOGY. It's tribal Jewish mythology that was plagiarized from dozens of cultures before the tribal Jews even settled down.
Anyone who claims to purvey Bronze and Iron Age myths is a purveyor of LIES. Anything that comes out of these intellectual vandals' mouths is instantly a lie.
Yep!
Though, to be fair, science can't tell us jack sh*t about how to treat others, so while it may be the "Age of Science,", religion does function in ways that science cannot.
Point well made, Doctor. Mark, just to clarify a point, not all Christians believe that the Earth was literally created in 7 days or that a woman was literally created from a rib. You may also want to sit down for this one -- many of us believe in evolution too.....granted, there are "some" Christians who do in fact believe we rode around on dinos, but please don't lump all of us into that minority. Just because the morons speak the loudest, they do not speak "for" us. The love of Jesus is all about the Great Commandment: Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. C'mon - even a hard-boiled scientist like you could get behind being nice to people, right? Peace.
Right--but at least you can insist that they not lie about racism.
From Terry Pratchett's The Hogfather:
bull ! ! ! religion doesn't tell us how to treat each other. That is such crap and a myth that the religious hold over the heads of who ever they way to blast as "non-religious". There are lots of people who don't buy into the "religious" myth that are kind, good, caring people
@ Doctor----Maybe religion is SUPPOSED to make people treat others in a better way but I have not seen that happening. In fact, most very "religious" people hide behind their "religiousness" to stab people who don't agree with them in the back! I feel that you either are a kind, caring person or you are not---and religion isn't going to make you be that way.
@Doctor?: Who says that religion owns morals, how to treat others? Religion hijacked morals, and how to think, centuries ago. Religion is completely useless, if we keep in mind that doing the right thing, helping others, acting for the common good all belong to us, not religion. Religion owns nothing, it's powerless if we see it for what it is.
Good point Mark. The most evil peoples of all time have hidden behind the veil of religion. I personally think these types seek out religious groups as their followers raise no questions to their character once they claim they are a man/woman of god. Plus it is a free ride for them as they live off the backs of the working class who follow such religions. All because these followers think they will have it better after they die…what a scam!
Tragic as the Martin-Zimmerman incident is, Americans don't need it to show that in many ways we are Selma circa 1965. One need not travel far to find virulent racism in every corner of this country and subtle racism everywhere.
In many ways we are just as backward as we were then. It does not help that Land is the spokesman for an institution that has a lot to overcome in the realm of racial and gender equality says anything at all on a racially charged subject. But to repeat those statements only demonstrates that we are Selma.
Mr. Miller, thank you for a direct, well stated and sensible response to an emotionally charged issue.
I agree totally with you. Hypocritical and racist behavior is not easily voiced covertly without actually revealing it's intent and reality. Those that think this is really a christian nation are deluding themselves. The CONS use this notion to divide and conquer those without understanding at their own peril.
OK, so to set context: I think this guy is a sleezebag, a stain upon my profession (ethicists), and a retrograde racist bigot. However, there are different rules for conversational speech than there are for written material regarding plagiarism. We don't insist that every time someone uses a line from the "I Have A Dream" speech whilst talking that attribution be given. If someone uses a sentence or two someone else wrote in conversation (on the radio or elsewhere) that doesn't really rise to the level plagiarism. In written works, it's an entirely different story.
Calling out a picayune matter like this doesn't really do our cause any good. What he said was objectionable, sure, but if we start using this level of granularity to call something plagiarism, I think we will find ourselves on the receiving end of a lot of similar accusations. We need to keep our focus on what is really important and not dilute our moral standing by getting distracted by things like this.
Agreed! After washing out the "picayune," the guy is still a bigot.
Dear mary, quite contrary
You absolutely can plagiarize yourself. If I paraphrase or quote my previous work, it is surely plagiarism if I don't cite it!
And it's the racists and bigots like him that keep it evil! Always the pot calling the kettle black with the right wing!
To crown everything, these yokels always appear to be made of dough. You'd think that as self-proclaimed Christians, they'd know that gluttony is a sin.
Like every other southern baptist I've known. Do as I say, not as I do. They need to stop the bible thumpin at everyone else and read it for themselves. It's also time to begin taxing these big churches. They preach politics from the pulpit. It can't be toleated any longer. Fair is fair. Right is right and they need to learn that.
Siiiighs...once again people
Discussing racial divides =/= racism
Acknowledging that racism exists =/= racism
Taking the side of a black person killed by a white person and asking for a fair trial =/= a hate crime has commenced
Not discussing racism =/= racism no longer exists
Seriously RW's figure it out
The usual way we view the technical evolution of humanity is with all of humanity moving forward at the same time ( ie; fire, the wheel, wearing clothes, velcro, running water, etc ). But with social evolution, some of us move in Quantum leaps with notions like we are all equal, and that we each decide our own faith or non faith, etc. and others of us move backward in leaps of chosen ignorance such as racism, homophobia, misogyny, religious in tolerance, etc.
I have not figured out yet why we cannot embrace social change as a group the way we embrace technical change as a group. Fear maybe ? Whatever the reason, Religious Fanatic haters are the greatest force behind chosen ignorance who use God as a weapon and Jesus as a mascot. So very Anti-Christ.
At some point we need to be compassionate towards others who unapologetically {sic}display their ignorance for all the world to see; "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."--Jesus of Nazereth, as he hung, dying on the Cross.
Unfortunately I think that the religious fanatics DO know what they are doing and they keep doing it to try to get some sheep to follow them. Many people can't think for themselves and want to get with the "right" group to save them!!
Doctor ? I agree that science is not the total answer and there is a role for religion to offer a moral compass to those who wander astray. However, day by day religion is becoming more divisive and in some instances, hateful. Religion was created and maintained by man. Scared or power hungry, misogynistic or ignorant, self-righteous or deluded, or even well-meaning but powerless, these men who claim to speak for God are men not divine beings. They are in a position of power and they are easily as corruptible as the worst of us sinners. They can invite any who desire to pray with them but have no business in our government.
Seems to me that the actions of the religuluous bleaters in this nation are just sooooo far away from what that Hebrew carpenter was talking about. "Ethics" = SBC SO NOT!
In the synoptics, Jesus speaks sometimes about those who claim to follow him but really do not. I'm not going to make long quotations of those passages, because I'd rather have fun quoting this from Acts 19:13-16: "Then some itinerant Jewish exorcists tried to use the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, 'I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.' Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. But the evil spirit said to them in reply, 'Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?' Then the man with the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered them all, and so overpowered them that they fled out of the house naked and wounded."