The anatomy of a retraction: Setting the record straight
- Apr 16, 2007 - 9
Here is another object lesson in the old saying: “Don’t trust everything you read.” The Washington Times printed a serious mischaracterization of Richard Land in an article, Republican ’08 options disappoint evangelicals. The paper reported that in a race between New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, Land would vote for Clinton. The following details his response to that newspaper, demanding that the record be set straight:
Contrary to an assertion in the article written by Ralph Hallow that was published in the April 16, 2007, edition of the Washington Times, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, has never said that he would vote for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for President of the United States in the 2008 election.
He is on record as having said that if Rudy Giuliani were the Republican presidential nominee he would not vote in the presidential election for any candidate. It is also incorrect to say that Land has taken a “hard line against all the major Republican candidates.”
Land has said he has taken a “hard line” with only two candidates in the Republican race—Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich—if the former House majority leader were to run. These are men for whom Land said his conscience would not allow him to vote because of character issues related to their marital infidelities.
Land has stated he is not ethically flexible enough to have made President Clinton’s marital infidelities a character issue and then give Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Gingrich a pass.
Land has said many Evangelicals are concerned about Senator McCain’s unpredictability and feel they don’t have any real confidence about where McCain is going to come down on issues of importance to them, like embryonic stem cell research and the federal Marriage Protection Amendment.
Concerning Mitt Romney, another purported GOP frontrunner, Land has said on the record that Romney needs to address the Mormonism issue in a speech similar to the one then-Senator John F. Kennedy gave to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960.
Land has said he doesn’t believe the Mormon issue is necessarily a “deal breaker” for the former Massachusetts governor, but that only Romney can make a majority of Americans comfortable with voting for a Mormon for president.
Land has made it clear for more than a decade that people should vote their values, beliefs and convictions. He has repeatedly said he is pro-life and could never vote for a pro-choice candidate. And Land added, Senator Clinton is most definitely a pro-choice candidate.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, Christian Citizenship, National
9 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Apr 17th, 2007, at 12:34pm, Deborah Foster wrote:
I saw the article posted on Free Republic yeaterday morning. We noticed that the comment attributed to Dr. Land was not in direct quotes. Many of us believed it to be a form of trachery toward socially conservative people, hence my inquiry yesterday. This is just one more problem with the character of Giuliani supporters.
I am glad this has been exposed and cleared up. It may need more attention. After something like this happens, it is very hard to get the media to undo the damage.
Thank you for your response.
By the way, I agree with Dr. Land.
2 On Apr 19th, 2007, at 8:37pm, Christina Lewis wrote:
I truly appreciate any conservative - Christian or other who takes a stand for traditional American values. I agree with Land concerning some of the presidential candidates marital history, however, I completely disagree with not voting for any candidate. Is there a truly “christian” candidate running for presidency? NO! But regardless every conservative HAS to vote. If we (the Christian Conservatives) choose not to vote – the consequences are absolutely frightening!
3 On Jun 21st, 2007, at 8:08am, Travis Smalley wrote:
I cannot believe that an agency head of the the SBC is actually, what it seems like “pulling” for a candidate whom has been deceived by a cult. Mormonism is a cult. If you do not think so, go to http://www.namb.net where you will find resources to help see why SBC has classified Mormons as a cult. If Mr. Romney has been taken by this well documented cult. What else will he be taken by? If we have an agency head that is promoting such. We need a new agency head.
4 On Jun 22nd, 2007, at 2:36pm, Matt Hawkins wrote:
It is a mischaracterization to describe Dr. Land’s comments as ‘pulling’ for Mitt Romney.
During the course of multiple media interviews, Dr. Land has been asked for his insights on certain elections in general and many different candidates specifically. To the extent that comments on any specific candidate are highlighted over others, it is the nature of that process for reporters and editors to choose what they desire to use (and not use) for those articles.
Since taking on this position (President of the ERLC), Dr. Land does not endorsed candidates running for political office.
(Matt is on staff at ERLC.)
5 On Jun 22nd, 2007, at 3:46pm, Travis Smalley wrote:
Why did he say this? “Concerning Mitt Romney, another purported GOP frontrunner, Land has said on the record that Romney needs to address the Mormonism issue in a speech similar to the one then-Senator John F. Kennedy gave to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960.
Land has said he doesn’t believe the Mormon issue is necessarily a “deal breaker” for the former Massachusetts governor, but that only Romney can make a majority of Americans comfortable with voting for a Mormon for president.”
Why is he giving Mitt campaign advice? Why does he say being a Mormon is not a “deal breaker”? Why is he suggesting that Mitt put the country “at ease” by addressing the subject. No, he has not endorsed him but it sounds like he is pulling for him.
6 On Jun 22nd, 2007, at 6:19pm, Rob Chambers wrote:
Why should Dr. Land not give a presidential candidate advice if the advice is sought after by the advisee?
Christians will well recall the relationship between Joseph and Pharaoh of Egypt, and Daniel and King Nebuchadnezzar and Darius the Mede. Joseph and Daniel were both sought after to give advice to these pagan kings. They did so at the king’s request. No problem with that.
What Dr. Land has done is neither unbiblical nor politically unethical. What God has done is to place his servant before governing authorities, so that, Dr. Land may give wise council when called upon.
7 On Jun 22nd, 2007, at 10:46pm, Matt Hawkins wrote:
In the event that neither my reply nor Rob’s reply provide a satisfactory answer, then there is always the opportunity to ask Dr. Land directly on the live radio broadcast he hosts every Saturday for 3 hours.
Richard Land LIVE! airs nationwide from 11:00am-2:00pm Central. The toll free number is 1-888-324-8456. Online (live) streaming is available for all three hours if the program does not air locally.
In the event that this specific topic is discussed on the program, we will post that conversation here.
8 On Oct 4th, 2007, at 1:42pm, Ben Macklin, Ph.D. wrote:
Dr. Land’s remarks have blurred the lines between authentic faith and the science fiction that Romney believes. His “not a deal breaker” line makes it sound like we can vote for anyone who can put the right package together, even if they are religiously totalitarian and practice a heretical aberration of the truth.
Dr. Land has done a great disservice by reducing Southern Baptist political alignments to a candidate’s moral stands on gay marriage and abortion. No other religious or political movement is so glazed over with slick promotion than mormonism. Their mass deception campaign to mainstream their religion would receive an incredible boost were Romney even elected as the nominee.
Unitl you issue a radical clarification, Dr. Land, I cannot join my voice with your on any issue.
Ben Macklin,
Vernon,Texas
9 On Dec 10th, 2007, at 12:52pm, Mike West wrote:
Sadly, Dr Land has relegated his Kingdom Citizenship to that of his USA Citizenship. With preeminence to our Heavenly King’s laws and ways, royal ambassadors should have a minimal threshold that must be met before we choose or assist candidates for public office. Based on God’s higher standard in Exodus 18:21, Moses was advised how to select leaders…”Able Men of Truth that Fear God and Hate Covetousness”. We should raise standards not lower them as worldly voters. Spiritual leaders should be searching the Holy Scriptures rather than speeches given by JFK, one of our country’s most adulterous Presidents! As for advising and encouraging candidates like Romney or Hillary, the only wise counsel we should be giving (in a spirit of love) to an enemy of the Cross of Christ is “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand”. To help their agendas amounts to SPIRITUAL TREASON! As for me and my family, it’s a big “Deal Breaker” if a candidate is not under our King’s Rule.