Setting the record straight
- Oct 8, 2010 -
There has been some misinformation and distortion of Dr. Richard Land’s work in some online reports recently. This document is an attempt to set the record straight.
- Is it true that Richard Land supports the building of a mosque at Ground Zero?
- Is Richard Land involved with a coalition to defend the right of Muslims to build mosques in the United States?
- Is Richard Land involved in the U.S. Muslim Engagement Project?
- Why does Richard Land get involved with groups that are not Southern Baptist?
- Does Richard Land endorse “radical” Jim Wallis?
- Does Richard Land give credibility to Latter Day Saints (Mormons) like Glenn Beck?
- Does Richard Land support President Obama’s “amnesty agenda”?
- How can Richard Land be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)?
Q) Is it true that Richard Land supports the building of a mosque at Ground Zero?
A) No. Richard Land believes the building of a mosque just two blocks from Ground Zero is inappropriate. Dr. Land’s thoughts have been accurately published at Newsweek/Washington Post , Baptist Press , and the Tennessean.
Q) Is Richard Land involved with a coalition to defend the right of Muslims to build mosques in the United States?
A) Richard Land defends the right of American Muslims to build their houses of worship (mosques) in places where they live, just as he defends the rights of all Americans (as secured by the Bill of Rights) to build and attend their places of worships. He is NOT involved in efforts to encourage or aid the building of those mosques. In deciding to lend his name to the Interfaith Coalition for Mosques, he sought to support those involved in legal efforts to defend American Muslims who are having their legal rights under the First Amendment denied or curtailed by zoning commissions and city councils.
No Cooperative Program funds were used in the legal efforts of the coalition.
On January 21, Richard Land withdrew his name from the coalition; he noted that some Southern Baptists were concerned about the perception of “denominational leaders filing suit in court to protect those rights when Muslims are the aggrieved party.” He said his involvement with the interfaith coalition was perceived by many as “crossing the line from defense of religious freedom to advocacy of, or promotion of, Islam itself.” In press reports surrounding his announcement, he repeated his assertion that these perceptions were in error and that at no time had he advocated for Islam itself, only for the rights of American citizens to freely worship.
Please find here an explanation he provided when he initially joined the coalition effort:
“As Baptists, we believe in religious freedom, that is the right of people to the free exercise of their faith without interference from government authorities. All Americans should be ashamed when they hear that their fellow Americans are involved in acts of violence and vandalism in their attempt to deny Muslim citizens the same rights they demand for themselves.
“Baptists have been victimized by such religious discrimination in the past. We should always remember that if we allow the government to discriminate against one religion today, they can discriminate against all religions tomorrow. We should not make a religious belief illegal or treat it differently than we treat other religious beliefs in the law.
“The Free Exercise clause in the U.S. Constitution provides for American citizens to worship freely and build their houses of worship without threat or fear of retribution, like the vandalism that occurred recently in Murfreesboro, Tenn. It is incumbent upon the government to investigate any subversive or illegal behavior that may be occurring under the cover of any religion and in any religious building. If people believe there is subversive or illegal activity involved, then it is the job of the FBI or other appropriate law enforcement authorities to investigate. We should make actions illegal, not beliefs.
“In the 1960s there were attempts to outlaw a cult that kidnapped people to try to force them to accept a particular faith. Wisely, our country decided not to outlaw the belief but to outlaw the action. In this case, kidnapping or holding people against their will is the action. It is illegal to kidnap somebody whether you are trying to sell them Tupperware or to coerce them to adopt another religion.
“When we start allowing the government to decide which religious beliefs are kosher and which ones are not, then we are on a steep and slippery slope to a dark and dangerous place where our cherished religious freedoms will be crushed.
“I am well aware that there is a radical element in Islam and U.S. security officials should closely monitor it. It should be remembered, however, that the majority of Muslims are not radical jihadists. How do we know this? For one thing, in a study published by the United States Military Academy at West Point it was revealed that worldwide 88 percent of the victims of radical Islam have been fellow Muslims who refuse to knuckle under to this radical death cult’s interpretation of Islam. Make no mistake–I support whatever measures are necessary to defeat radical Islam. When I recently heard a radical Muslim on television say that someday an Islamic flag would fly over the White House, I said, ‘Over my dead body, buddy!’”
DR. LAND HAS BEEN AND REMAINS UNALTERABLY OPPOSED TO THE BUILDING OF THE MOSQUE NEAR GROUND ZERO BECAUSE IT IS NEEDLESSLY HURTFUL TO THE FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS WHO DIED ON 9/11. It is also worth noting that NO Cooperative Program monies were dedicated to the defense of the construction of any mosques.
Q) Is Dr. Land involved in the U.S. Muslim Engagement Project?
A) Yes. Land has said this initiative is a serious, comprehensive, bipartisan effort that seeks to address a critical problem: The world Muslim community misunderstands Americans and Americans misunderstand them. This approach lays out a detailed and comprehensive plan to vastly decrease that misunderstanding and that will build constructive bridges of mutual understanding between Americans and the Muslim world, with the ultimate hope that extremism will be rejected.
For example, when Muslims around the world discover that tens of millions of Americans of faith are as appalled as they are at the violent and pornographic nature of the American entertainment culture, they think more highly of America. They also are impressed when they discover the degree of religious freedom that is experienced by Muslims in the U.S.
The U.S. public recognizes the limits of military force and the need for a more comprehensive set of tools to resolve conflicts with and within Muslim countries. Military force may be necessary but is not sufficient alone to defeat extremists in Muslim countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan or prevent attacks elsewhere. The U.S. Muslim Engagement Project understands there is a struggle for the hearts and minds of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world and that it is in the best interest of the U.S. and the world that moderate Islam prevails over radicalism.
Part of the U.S. Muslim Engagement project concerns efforts to have American private enterprise build “bridges” to economic development in Muslim countries. The sad truth is that it is a lot easier to recruit suicide bombers when 30 to 40 percent of a community’s young men have no hope of ever having a job that would allow them to support their family. The Engagement Project explores other options to give young men jobs.
His service on the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom complements his involvement with this project.
Q) Why does Richard Land get involved with groups that are not Southern Baptist?
A) Richard Land and the ERLC staff receive invitations to participate in a variety of opportunities in diverse settings. They never allow their deeply held biblical convictions to be compromised; to the contrary the staff looks for opportunities to shine the Light of Truth in a world of darkness.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission often partners with other groups to effect social change or to advocate for particular legislative action. Yet these partnerships are not ecumenical or spiritual in nature. Theological differences are set aside, so to speak, to work together for a moment on a moral or ethical issue where there is agreement between people of different faiths and no faith at all. When a broad group of Americans from different backgrounds speak in solidarity, there is a greater likelihood that those in power or who have influence in the public policy arena will hear and adjust their stance on the moral or ethical issue being discussed.
Our partnership with these groups is similar to citizens–from varied backgrounds–joining together on a local level to attend a city council meeting to speak in unison against a measure being considered by their elected officials. As with these local citizens, the ERLC does not compromise or weaken its convictions or theology in these temporal partnerships.
“Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love. In order to promote these ends Christians should be ready to work with all men of good will in any good cause, always being careful to act in the spirit of love without compromising their loyalty to Christ and His truth” (excerpted from The Baptist Faith & Message 2000, Article XV)
Q) Does Richard Land endorse “radical” Jim Wallis?
A) No. Richard Land did provide an endorsement for Jim Wallis’s book The Great Awakening in 2008. A recent commentary on Richard Land truncated and largely took this endorsement out of context. The full and accurate quote from the book is:
“Despite our significant public-policy differences, I commend Jim Wallis for advocating religious belief as an invaluable resource in addressing the urgent moral and social crises of our time.” – Richard Land
As Dr. Land has indicated on multiple, public occasions (including debates opposite Wallis), he has significant theological and policy differences with Jim Wallis. Yet they agree that religiously informed values are both permissible and beneficial in the public square. This is in contrast to a “rabid” secularism, which seeks to keep all religious thought out of any policy debate.
A thorough explanation of Land’s profound disagreements with Wallis may be found in the pages of Land’s book, The Divided States of America?.
Q) Does Richard Land give credibility to Latter Day Saints (Mormons) like Glenn Beck?
A) Richard Land has, on multiple occasions, stated his belief that Mormonism is “not an orthodox—with a little ‘o’—Christian faith.” As Dr. Land has stated repeatedly, Mormons are not Christians. He does find common ground with Glenn Beck on many public policy issues, particularly when confronted with the threat the “liberal left” poses in our nation. Dr. Land works productively in a cooperative way to address moral and ethical issues, such as abortion, with a number of groups that have clear theological differences with him. Dr. Land wrote an article published in The Hill discussing the significance of the Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally.
Q) Does Richard Land support President Obama’s “amnesty agenda?”
A) Richard Land opposes amnesty as a solution to illegal immigration. Dr. Land’s position and recommendations on the subject (dating back to 2006) are well documented at ERLC.com/immigration. He emphasizes that before any discussion can take place on what to do with those in the country illegally, the border must be secured first. In fact, he has argued against amnesty which would be to forgive the breaking of the law by undocumented workers and has insisted that they be punished in multiple ways for having broken the law.
Q) How can Richard Land be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)?
A) Richard Land holds a personal membership in the Council on Foreign Relations. Dr. Land’s comments regarding his membership:
“The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is a nonpartisan think tank that seeks to better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other governments.
“In 2006, the CFR membership extended an invitation for me to join the Council because of their desire to broaden the Council’s scope by having more evangelicals involved in its deliberations. Another example of this emphasis is that recently, Michael Gerson, an evangelical who was the former chief speech writer for President Bush, joined CFR as a Senior Fellow in their Washington, D.C., office.”
“Having accepted this unique opportunity, my participation in the work of the CFR is entirely in-line with the biblical mandate to believers to be “salt” and “light” in society (Matthew 5:13-16). My involvement with the Council offers another opportunity for me to be a positive influence and bring my scripturally derived values, beliefs and convictions to this diverse arena. It is my view that as God gives the occasion, we must be faithful to honor Him by carrying His truths and wisdom into the marketplace of ideas and thought. As the Apostle Paul was given the opportunity to speak to the cultural elite of his day on Mars Hill, my individual membership in CFR allows a biblical worldview to be delivered without compromise in this venue.”
The following is a quote from Bott Radio Network on Dr. Land and CFR:
Bott Radio Network is pleased to feature Dr. Land’s program, not because of his involvement with the CFR, but rather because of his long-standing conservative Biblical leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention across America. We can’t speak for Dr. Land, so I suggest you contact his organization directly with your concerns. However, it would be consistent with Dr. Land’s strong character and excellent track record if his motivation for membership with the CFR is an attempt to be a positive influence.
Dr. Land addressed this issue directly during a Richard Land LIVE! Radio broadcast in 2007. Read or listen to that excerpt.
Thank you again for seeking the truth regarding these matters. In a world of sound bites, partial quotes, and media inaccuracies, it is always a good idea to go to the source to get the complete story.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, Christian Citizenship, Church and State, Religious Liberty,