SBC and Birtherism

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[Sandy]

Drake was elected 2nd VP by a convention several years back. In Southern Baptist polity, with the exception of the President, officers only serve the convention at his direction during the couple of days that it is in session. They have no official capacity even to act on the convention's behalf even when they are serving, without the approval of the executive board or the messengers. There were fewer than 2,500 of the 12,000 registered messengers in the room to cast ballots when he was elected. As far as I know, he was never asked to do anything for the convention during his one term, and was not renominated or re-elected. His nutcase idiocy related to the birther nonsense occurred after he'd served. It would be a far reach to connect this to his involvement in the SBC.

What could the SBC do? It would probably be a rules or bylaw violation to do some kind of censure, or official statement, since he is no longer connected to the convention. Perhaps a resolution to denounce his activity would be in order, or a vote not to seat messengers from his church, though perpetrating political idiocy or acting like a stupid ignoramus are probably not included in the bylaws as valid reasons for doing so.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[William Thornton]

You will have to go where the sbc big guns read and answer questions on Wiley Drake. I recall distancing myself from him years ago. My usual line is that he was an SBC vp because he got nominated on a joke platform. The joke has been on us.

Nutcase.

[Sandy]

I actually considered making a motion not to seat messengers from the First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, California, where he is pastor, at the convention in Indianapolis a few years back. However, the rules require evidence that the church is "not in friendly cooperation" with the SBC. The only further interpretation of that put into the rules has been churches which do something that shows they endorse or approve of homosexual behavior. That he has thoroughly and completely embarassed the SBC is probably not in question. However, I think it would have taken something more specific, other than being a lunatic nutcase, to get thrown out. There are a lot of lunatic nutcases who are elected messengers to the SBC annual meeting. Where would you draw the line?

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[HowellS]

I think that the "birther" movement is all but dead. Of course, there are already more conspiracy theories floating around today regarding doctored or forged documents. While I disagree with most of President Obama's policies, I think Richard Land would be correct in saying that anyone still doubting that the President was born in Hawaii is not acting rationally. For the White House to request the release of an official document from the Department of Health in Hawaii that they knew was somehow doctored or forged would be complete insanity. I think that those conservative Evangelicals, especially any Southern Baptists (like Drake) who have been associated with the "birther" movement need to apologize forthwith. I don't expect that to happen. That being said, I still do not know why this "long-form" birth certificate could not have been released two years ago. That's more of a political question that a religious one.

As to Wiley Drake, I'm not sure why anyone is paying attention to him. It was a mistake for him to be elected to any office within the SBC, but I'm not sure a formal move to not seat messengers from his church would be productive. It would just give him a platform to spout off his nonsense. I may have missed some parts of the SBC Convention the last two years in Louisville and Orlando (I may have stepped over to the bookstore and exhibit area ), but as far as I remember, Wiley Drake did not make his presence known. I think since his imprecatory prayers against President Obama, most Southern Baptists have shunned him into silence and irrelevance. I agree with Aaron that praying for the death of President Obama is offensive and crosses an ethical line. I'm just not sure that we want to start going down that road in determining the seating of messengers apart from the clear guidelines that are included in the SBC Constitution and Bylaws. If we want to draw a bright line in the sand and amend our Bylaws to further define what it means to be in "friendly cooperation" with the Convention, then that is the avenue that needs to be taken. Any other approach would prove to be problematic.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Howell, I second what you say in the post just above.

[Dave Roberts]

If Obama's release of the original birth certificate yesterday didn't kill the birther movement, those folks are even blinder than they already appear to be. They have already been wearing cataract surgery patches over both eyes.

[TOMPARKER]

Dave Roberts:

Sadly, President Obama producing his long-form will not satisfy a certain group of folks. Unfortunately this President is having to deal with something no other President to date has, to prove that he IS.

[Sandy]

Why didn't he release the long form birth certificate before now? Well, in the history of presidential elections, no candidate has ever been required to do that. The certified copy satisfies the constitutional requirement, in the same way that it does for getting a driver's license or passport. The Obama campaign produced that long before the deadline. Most states do not issue copies of the long form any more. In this computer age, records are kept electronically, and an authentic certificate is much easier and less costly to issue.

This is one of those issues where people who shout about the constitution and strict constructionism show how little they really know about it. The Supreme Court has had to interpret and re-interpret this particular clause on several occasions, because of circumstances that have made it less than clear. Questions have been raised, for example, about whether someone born in the Confederacy during the Civil War would be considered a natural born American citizen. And what if the child of a diplomat, born while his parent was serving abroad, wanted to run? What about the children of military personnel stationed overseas whose children are born there? Essentially, the Supreme Court has interpreted "natural born American citizen" to mean anyone born in the US or its territories, or anyone born to a parent who is an American citizen at the time of the birth. Under that interpretation, President Obama meets the requirement regardless of his place of birth. I wonder how many of these ultra right wing extremist birthers realize that, in their hard line stance, they are tacitly approving of illegals who come across the border to have children which are American citizens. Issues are always more complicated than they seem.

Personally, I wish the SBC would stay out of secular political issues altogether. The smartest thing they could do right now is to disband and dissolve the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and place those resources with any one of a dozen conservative, evangelical Christian lobby organizations in Washington, DC, if not the BJCRL, then something else. There are already problems stemming from Land's all but endorsement of Mit Romney. They need to stick to religious liberty and get out of partisan politics and candidate preferences. It hurts all Christians when they try to speak for their own constituency.

[William Thornton]

ABP and Ethics Daily pay attention to Wiley Drake. They ought to put him on the payroll.

[Dave Roberts]

[Stephen Fox]

In the original SBC Birther chat that has been locked, Sandy said something about following my connections.
As this stream has developed I tend to lend toward those who dismiss Wiley Drake as beside the point. If you read my original quotes from Steven Miller's book and then from the New Yorker, if Sandy and like minded will go back and read those then that is the point I am striving for.
For all those like myself who continue to explore the implications of the Billy Graham factor for the SBC Struggle, Steven Miller is must reading. In conjunction with that read Joe Crespino In Search of Another Country.
If Sandy and William and BDW and the folks to whom I have made an appeal at SBC Heritage will have a group reading then the "Fox Connections" and fog now clouding Sandy will start to clear.
It is a nuanced point, but one I am convinced much more worth studying at Baylor and Mercer, than a carnival barker like Wiley Drake.
Here is Brian Kaylor's exploration on the matter:

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/franklin-gra ... -cms-17813

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... _services/

I have made a comment at BDW's weekly roundup at the BT.org site.

[Sandy]

Kaylor's article alludes to some Southern Baptist state legislators and some Southern Baptists in Congress being part of the birther group. I'd have like to see who, and specific evidence that they are.

I'm not shocked at either of Land's statements, regarding Obama being a typical 21st century mainline protestant, or that the birther issue is nonsense. Being a typical 21st century protestant may not necessarily be a compliment from Land. And I think he probably recognizes the fact that such an issue, allowed to move forward, would do more damage to Republican chances at election time than it would do good. He's a total pragmatist when it comes to winning at politics.

[Dave Miller]

Definitions of "birther" are somewhat fluid - and definitely used as a pejorative for political expediency.

I've never been a birther and thought it was all kind of silly. I made a comment to Howell saying that I thought Obama's handling of this thing was poor, and that it had created the slightest inkling of doubt in my mind.

Suddenly, I was being labelled a birther by BDW and Tom Parker - without evidence and contrary to anything I actually believe or said. Tom (who takes every opportunity to publicly ridicule me) just continued to pile on insults, though I stated repeatedly that I was not and never had been a birther.

Birthers are almost as nutty as the 9/11 Truther group. (No, not quite that insane, but close). But it seems to me that the birther thing is being jumped on by some as an attempt to paint all who oppose Obama as radicals. We abandon truth sometimes in our efforts to paint our political opponents as radicals or dangerous. Truth is the casualty of that war.

I oppose the disaster that is the Obama presidency not because of where he was or wasn't born, but because of what he is trying to do to America. I will continue to oppose him until the first week in November of 2012 (and after that if he gets reelected) not because of some conspiracy, but because I believe his policies are both damaging and damning to America.

Paint that however you wish. Disagreeing with that is your right. Trying to label me because I oppose Obama is unfair, but I have no doubt the trend will continue.

[Dave Miller]

And as an SBC conservative, I can tell you that Wiley Drake couldn't get elected to clean toilets at the SBC anymore. I understand the anti-SBC sentiment on this site, but bringing up Wiley continually is a little passive aggressive, isn't it?

[Sandy]

Partisan politics has certainly divided and polarized this country, and brought some strange things to the forefront. As a former Social Studies and Government teacher, I absolutely hope beyond hope that my students do not display the utter ignorance and complete lack of knowledge of the constitution, its provisions, and how things are done that some of the prominent spokespersons for the birther movement have shown. Our government curriculum included an entire unit on election of the President, requirements to hold office, and specific examples from history where the provisions were tested, including the citizenship status of candidates for the office. It's not really a fair comparison to equate this to the 9-11 Truthers, which isn't a constitutional issue, and which I place in the same category as conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination. We'll never know about those things. There is incontrovertible evidence in this case.

I'd like to know specifically which Southern Baptists in Congress or the Senate have indicated that they are "birthers," as was alluded to by Brian Kaylor in his Ethics Daily piece. I'm not aware of any specific Southern Baptists in Congress who have been in the forefront of this.

It seems like moderate Baptists can't get away from Wiley Drake's single term as second vice-president of the SBC, though it was just a single term, and second VP is a "do nothing" office. Usually, when the election for 2nd VP is held, most of the messengers are elsewhere. Since that is a convention office, it actually exists only when the convention is in session. There is no "representing" or constituency attached to it. I guess the convention could ask him to stop saying that he is a former second VP, but how would they enforce that? There would have to be a legitimate reason, as I have said before, beyond the fact that he is a nutcase, to toss him or his church.

[Jim]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[Sandy]

[Gene Scarborough]

I think the most important statement in this thread so far is that we should remember our former advocacy of the Separation of Church and State.

Billy Graham gained his most high respect by carefully avoiding picking sides in presidential elections and offering his friendship to both Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon--about as far apart as your get in personality / positions. Franklin Graham is a fool who is so full of himself as the Eldest Son, he has forgotten the rules for being a religious advisor for the nation.

Presidents need religious people who advocate the tenants of Christ = "Love and forgive one another / render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

We are forgetting the turmoil left behind in England and Europe where Church and State were one!!! It was most interesting to me the comment about the Royal Wedding this past week: "This may be the last wedding where church and state mix in England."

If anyone can show me or the Founding Fathers any benefit of changing "Congress shall make no laws concerning religion," then I will consider how "foolish" they were to make the separation of Church and State a Constitutional matter!

In the 200+ years of our America, we seem to be ressurecting the falacies of the Old World = rich getting richer / unequitable law enforcement between rich and poor / too much intrusion of government into private life / a emperial ruler approach to civil peace and tranquility.

I fear we are about to the limit of control / taxation / freedom for all people coming from all nations to find opportunity in a land founded on such. If we had massive rebellion of the governed over taxes, I would not be surprised. There is simply too much hate and lack of compromise in political circles these days. We are in a stagnant economy more for this reason than any other, in my opinion. Government is paralized over party hatred and arrogance.

What are we going to do about the massive expenditure of tax dollars in the MIddle East when we have far greater problems needing solution in our own backyard???? Our reward for being in oil land is higher prices per barrell and speculators with American credentials making is worse and worse to survive as an average working person of religious pursuasion. Is there such a thing as honesty and integrity today in American Business?

Is the only real motivation to just "get rich quick" in America???? The LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil, if I remember Jesus' words right.

[Jim]

[Gene Scarborough]

Let me share a story from Haiti where a friend of mine visited the joint compound of Billy and Franklin which is shared. He observed the hate each outfit has for the other. It was replete with an expensive helocopter which could have bought how many trucks and how much food and clothes???? You figure.

I read Franklin's autobiography some years ago. It is the story of a son doing all kinds of evil to try and get his dad's attention since Billy was gone so much from home. He was hardly a righteous son of whom to be proud. Neither is his pay to his wife and children who run Samaritan's Purse near Boon, NC. It appears to be about money and fame and the two shall not be parted. So why would I be jealous of someone making big bucks conning people into support which has a large pay-out to those running it----something Billy NEVER HAD!

Another interesting aspect to my NC residence status is the opportunity to hear, first hand, of the activities and jealousy going on over Billy's Heritage Center in Charlotte. They can't seem to agree with what to do with daddy and whether to follow his simple wishes to be buried beside his beloved Ruth. This is the children who are split wide and far over how to carry on their father's legacy.

The little rhyme was interesting, but badly off in it's assessment of my outlook.At least you got it right that I live on the Pamlico River---and far from the mega church /evangelistic associations. I just talk with my neighbors about spiritual matters which concern them---and cut and doctor trees for a fair price. I'm happy and one never will be if he is jealous!