Resolutions for the SBC Annual Meeting (by Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr)

by Guest Blogger on May 14, 2014 · 236 comments

RESOLUTIONS ON:

1.       The NFL Same-Sex Kiss and Their Failure to Recognize Kenny Washington;
2.       The Washington “Redskins” Racially Insensitive and Racist Mascot;
3.       Amending “Stand Your Ground Laws” In States That Have Such Laws.

By William Dwight McKissic, Sr.
Cornerstone Baptist Church
Arlington, TX

Whereas, the God of the Bible who is “the same, yesterday, today and forever more” is omnipotent and omniscient, therefore, keenly aware and concerned about the affairs of mankind (Hebrews 13:8, Malachi 3:6, Matthew 6:24-34),

Whereas, “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” is assigned the task of representing the Kingdom of God on earth and to be His voice (I Timothy 3:14, Matthew 16:18-20, Romans 10:14-17),

Whereas, the Church of the living God is to be the light of the world, the salt of the earth, and a city upon a hill, in order to exalt righteousness, brotherhood, justice, and redemptive history (Matthew 5:13-14),

Whereas, the Bible commands believers to prophetically address righteous, justice, and racial issues (Amos 5:24, Malachi 2:10, Matthew 28:19-20),

Whereas Jesus warned His disciples concerning the dangers of adversely impacting the lives of children (Matthew 18:6),

Be it resolved that we believe that it is inappropriate for children to be subjected to having to watch same-sex couples engage in public displays of affection while watching a sports-related event on allegedly family-friendly channels. We discourage any further televising of such events. While there is a missing airplane somewhere in the Far East, over 200 kidnapped girls from Nigeria, and high unemployment in America, we respectfully request the President of the United States to refrain from congratulating and extending well wishes to any future homosexual professional sports players, unless simultaneously he is going to make celebratory and well wishes calls to the likes of Tim Tebow, Prince Amukamara—the “Black Tim Tebow,” and AC Green, professional athletes committed to sexual purity.

Be it further resolved that whereas, the NFL has not celebrated and heralded Kenny Washington, who broke the color barrier in the modern era of the NFL (1946), the Southern Baptist Convention wishes to acknowledge and celebrate the significance of Kenny Washington for paving the way for the NFL to be a diverse and inclusive sports league for players of all colors, just as Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in professional baseball,

Be it resolved that the Southern Baptist Convention deplore and denounce racism in any form or expression by professional sports league management, as was recently expressed by Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers,

Be it further resolved that the Southern Baptist Convention view the mascot of the Washington “Redskins” as racist and disrespectful in its origin and the mindset of George Preston Marshall, owner of the Boston Braves football team in 1932, which relocated the team to Washington, DC in 1937, and renamed the Boston Braves, the Washington “Redskins.”

 

Time Magazine reported in 1940, “Considered by West Coast fans the most brilliant player in the US last year, [Kenny] Washington cannot play major league pro football because he is a Negro.” When the Cleveland Rams moved to Los Angeles in 1946, the commissioners of the Los Angeles Coliseum stipulated as part of the agreement that the team be integrated. Kenny Washington then signed the first NFL contract to play for the Los Angeles Rams as a Black man in the modern era. When Kenny Washington finished college at UCLA, having led the nation in the total offense, he caught the eye of legendary Bears Coach George Halas, who coached him in the College All Star Game in 1939. Halas kept Washington in Chicago for three weeks on his own dime as he tried to lobby the NFL to integrate the league, but he didn’t succeed, with Redskins owner, George Preston Marshall, the lone holdout.

George Preston Marshall, who named the “Redskins” and whose players in 1946 held Kenny Marshall down, piled on top of him and poured chalk in his eyes, was without a doubt a racist, as evidenced by him denying Kenny Washington a chance to play in the NFL until 1946, along with other NFL owners, and allowing his players to pour chalk into the eyes of an African American player without any repercussions.

Can you imagine Louis Farrakhan having owned the Dallas Cowboys in the ‘60’s, and having named them the Dallas “Whiteboys”? And having no intent to ever allow anyone who was White to play on the team? The man who named the “Redskins” did not allow a “Black-skinned” or truly “Redskin” player on his team until forced to by the Federal Government in 1962. The Washington “Redskins” were the last NFL team to integrate. Louis Farrakhan would be making a mockery of the name “Whiteboys” if he had no intent to place “Whiteboys” on his team; and this is exactly what George Preston Marshall did to the Washington “Redskins.” We plead and appeal to the current owner of the Washington team, Daniel Sayder, to change this racially insensitive and racist name.

It is racist to make reference to a racial group (Native Americans) as a mascot. It trivializes the racial group to be referenced as a mascot. Again, the man who assigned this name was a documented racist. Donald Sterling would look like Branch Rickey, compared to George Preston Marshall. The Southern Baptist Convention denounce the mascot of the Washington Redskins as racist, based on the documented racism of its owner of the time—George Preston Marshall. “Redskins” was a colloquial, not so respectful reference to Native Americans during the period in which Marshall gave his team that racially repugnant name.

Be it resolved that the Southern Baptist Convention views it as an unfit analogy that the St. Louis Rams—having recently drafted the first openly homosexual player and the Los Angeles Rams in 1946, having signed the first African American to an NFL contract in the modern era, is indicative of social progress or advancement. To compare the advent of a same-sex attraction player, to an African American player is to compare one man’s skin—to another man’s sin. The Southern Baptist Convention completely, absolutely, and unequivocally rejects the comparison. One’s racial identity is a by-product of biology. One’s sexual identity is a by-product of one’s preference or choice. Therefore, it is intellectually dishonest to compare skin color, with same-sex relational desires. It is also offensive and racist.

Finally, be it resolved that the Southern Baptist Convention encourage State Legislatures who have adopted “Stand Your Ground Laws” to revisit those laws. The Southern Baptist Convention is requesting states to consider amending such laws to reflect the notion that one cannot be the aggressor in an altercation and then plead “Stand your Ground” as a defense.

Because our God is a God of righteousness, justice and equality the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, June 10-11, 2014, resolve the aforementioned resolutions.

 

1 Mark Mitchell May 14, 2014 at 5:19 pm

Are all three of these combined into one single resolution?

2 Dwight McKissic May 14, 2014 at 5:41 pm

Yes.

3 Mark Mitchell May 14, 2014 at 5:20 pm

This thing may not get a lot of votes.

4 Dwight McKissic May 14, 2014 at 5:41 pm

Why not?

5 Thomas Magers II May 14, 2014 at 6:12 pm

I agree with Mark, I don’t believe this will pass. My reasoning, I believe this should be divided into different resolutions. There is too much information for one resolution.

6 Dwight McKissic May 14, 2014 at 6:31 pm

Thomas,

If it is submitted as seperate resolutions, how would you recommend it be divided?

The notion that the NFL is celebrating, promoting, and protecting Miachel Sam’s sexual proclivities, but have not celebrated Kenny Washington, who clearly in term of breaking the color barrier was just as significant as Jackie Robinson needs to be brought to the forefront. This line of thinking and misplaced value needs to be corrected.

7 Mark Mitchell May 14, 2014 at 7:38 pm

Dwight see my previous post.

8 Mark Mitchell May 14, 2014 at 7:39 pm

See my post down below

9 D. L. Payton May 15, 2014 at 12:18 pm

Dr. Dwight

I just want to add my voice to what has been said re. too much information. It should be broken into three resolutions. It would be too long to go into the “whys” of this, so I will not. I feat that with so much information in this, producing so much discussion, it will be overwhelming and perhaps defeated because of a discontent with a part of it. Of course it can be amended but I simply feel that frustration might set in and negative votes will be the result.

10 Les Prouty May 14, 2014 at 5:27 pm

Would you consider throwing in the congressman who referred to a sitting Supreme Court justice as an Uncle Tom? Maybe denounce that racist remark too?

11 Dwight McKissic May 14, 2014 at 5:44 pm

Perhaps that might be a resolution that you would consider submitting. You have ’til May 26 to get it in.

12 John Wylie May 14, 2014 at 6:24 pm

Pastor McKissic,

I am confronted every comment you make with the truth of the power of perspective. I am challenged to measure my own perspective against the truth of what the scriptures teach about equity and justice and righteousness. I spoke a few Weds nights ago about Christians being voices for justice and reconciliation, I thought it hadn’t gotten very far but just this week a deacon came to me and expressed how that the message had impacted him.

13 William F. Leonhart III May 14, 2014 at 5:56 pm

Okay. If we’re going to oppose the use of the Chiefs, Redskins, and Braves as mascots in professional sports because it’s “demeaning,” where is the outcry over the Minnesota Vikings, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, the Boston Celtics, the Vancouver Canucks, and the Louisiana–Lafayette Ragin’ Cajuns?

I say, if autonomous local churches want to issue public rebukes and for perceived social ills, they are in their full rights to do so. This is not a function of a national convention of churches. Not when we can’t even get a sound statement addressing Freemasonry, an occult organization that has plagued the churches in our convention since its founding.

14 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 8:54 am

“I say, if autonomous local churches want to issue public rebukes and for perceived social ills, they are in their full rights to do so. This is not a function of a national convention of churches. Not when we can’t even get a sound statement addressing Freemasonry, an occult organization that has plagued the churches in our convention since its founding.”

Agreed!

Additionally, Freemasonry on top of being a cult was also founded on racist principles and to this day is still highly segregated.

15 Dwight McKissic May 15, 2014 at 11:36 am

William,

None of the examples that you gave(Vikings, Celtics, Cajuns,etc.) reference specifically those people group “skins”. Those references evoke positive, powerful, historical and inspirational aspects of those groups that are clearly meant to honor them. Thus, no complaints.
Again, “Redskins”? What are you honoring? What are you evoking as a positive, powerful, inspirational, celebratory memory? There is simply no comparison that’s fitting to the name “Redskins” and the names you mentioned.

16 William F. Leonhart III May 15, 2014 at 1:45 pm

Why are these issues for the convention to address? There are hundreds of other issues that are in the papers today. If we confront these, where does it stop? Are we now to be a reactionary convention?

There are myriad issues more pressing than these.

17 Dwight McKissic May 15, 2014 at 1:57 pm

William,

Great question. The answer is because these issues interface with the very gospel that we preach. God has a Word, will, & way regarding each of these issues. If we believe that God’s Word addresses these issues, why not speak out?

It is easy to speak out against racism generically. But can you speak out against racism specifically? As in the case of Donald Sterling; the failure to recognize and celebrate Kenny Washington, yet recognizing the sexual proclivities of Miachel Sam; the failure to speak against the misapplication of the Stand Ypur Ground Laws; the continued referencing and acceptance of calling the “Redskins” by that name, though many, if not most native Anericsns object to this objectifying and denigration of their culture. Why should ethnic groups take the SBC serious about reaching their people groups, if the SBC cannot soeak out against the moral injustice of the aforementioned issues?

18 William F. Leonhart III May 15, 2014 at 2:40 pm

I guess my confoundedness stems from the fact that people get away with open racism (Sterling’s comments were illegally recorded in private) all the time in the NBA and we don’t move as a convention to condemn them. If anything, Sterling needs to be rebuked for having a mistress. What do we care what he says to her in illegally recorded, private conversations? He shouldn’t even be involved with her to begin with.

For more on this: http://www.raanetwork.org/roundtable-processing-sterling-voddie-baucham/

19 Robert Masters May 14, 2014 at 6:17 pm

Dwight,
You might ask Dr Dave about the use of the term Sioux in his hometown!

I believe there is no agreement on the last two among Southern Baptist.

The last two will sink the first one…….In my opinion.

20 Dwight McKissic May 14, 2014 at 6:56 pm

Pastor John,

It has been refreshing watching Russ Moire, Paige Patterson, Richard Land and others take the right side of the Immigration debate. I would to God that the SBC-for the sake of the nations children-would take a stand against same-sex kisses on family friendly t v; racism as expressed by, Donald Sterling; and against “Stand Your Ground Laws” that allow the aggressor(s) to kill those that they are aggressive toward, and then claim “Stand Your Ground” as a defense.

21 John Wylie May 14, 2014 at 10:12 pm

Pastor McKissic,

I agree entirely brother.

22 Andy May 14, 2014 at 7:04 pm

Ok, here goes:

“One’s sexual identity is a by-product of one’s preference or choice.”

Many, myself included, might appreciate some clarification on this point. Perhaps defining what is meant by “sexual identity”, and also what is meant by preference, as contrasted with choice.” I think many Theologically faithful Southern Baptists have come to realize that many of those with same-sex attractions did not choose to feel those attractions. So if the word “preference” allows for this as an “un-chosen preference,” over an against others who may very well have chosen that lifestyle for some reason, then the statement is fine, although perhaps ambiguous.

23 Mark Mitchell May 14, 2014 at 7:09 pm

The first part would pass. The second two will kill the whole thing. I do hope that attaching the first one was not a ploy to garner yes votes on the whole things.

The Southern Baptist Convention certainly speaks out on a great many moral issues. Much of the time those issues are also highly political. However, in this case the Washington Redskins name and “Stand Your Ground” laws are not needful moral issues they are only hyper-partisan issues with no foundation.

The Washington Redskins name is not racist. That name in no way communicates that anyone of any race is inferior. Therefore it is a non-issue.

The “Stand Your Ground” laws only recently became a public issue with regard to the Trayvon Martin Case. The problem was that “Stand Your Ground” laws were not part of any considerations involving that case. It was only brought up by those who were trying to find someone to demonize. It was purely a hyper-partisan issue with no true moral concerns.

We, as a convention, need to stand strong on issues. We also need to be careful how and on which issues we voice our concerns. Those who scream like a banshee over anything and everything lose credibility and only become a shrill noise tot he ears rather than a voice of reason.

24 Dwight McKissic May 14, 2014 at 10:26 pm

Mark,

The majority of Native Americans view the “Redskins” mascot as racist. Name me one other team who has a racial appellation as a mascot? Name one other team whose owner was a documented racist, who gave his team a racist name, as did the then racist owner of the “Redskins”? Do you really believe that it is not a moral issue to denigrate a race of people by reducing them to a mascot? Do you really believe that it HS not a moral issue for a man in Florida to shoot and kill an unarmed man after instigating the encounter, and then be found innocent of murdering the unarmed man, in the name of “Stand Your Ground”?

25 parsonsmike May 14, 2014 at 10:35 pm

Dwight,
Whether Stand-Your-Ground Law is good or bad, I do not know,
But the truth is that he was found not guilty because the jury did not believe he was the aggressor.
Maybe they were wrong. Either way it is a travesty. But to misrepresent what happened in the verdict is wrong.
mike

26 Dwight McKissic May 14, 2014 at 10:57 pm

Parsonsmike,

How can I go over to a car and give directions to people in a car that I have no authority over, shoot persons in that car,while still in their car, who are unarmed–and the unarmed persons seated in their cars are the aggressors?

27 Mark Mitchell May 14, 2014 at 11:07 pm

Dwight

If you think that is what the stand your ground law is about then you need to go and research it better. You do not seem to understand it at all.

28 parsonsmike May 14, 2014 at 11:12 pm

Dwight,
The problem you see is not with the law, but with either its enforcement, or the media’s reporting. No SYG law could stay around if it allowed such aggression by its claimants. It would be appealed and struck down as unconstitutional.

29 parsonsmike May 14, 2014 at 11:18 pm

Dwight,
I tried to find that case you are speaking about on the ‘net to no avail.
Could you supply a link or a source.
thanks,
mike

30 Dwight McKissic May 14, 2014 at 11:26 pm

ParsonMike,

My assistant does the link thing for me. She is off tomorrow, and I will be at the dentist for a part of the day. But, I will look up the Florida city, and the names involved and post those here. It was a highly publicized case. You should be able to find it.

31 John Wylie May 14, 2014 at 10:36 pm

Mark,

I live in OK and have preached extensively in Native American churches and I will promise you that the term “Redskins” is offensive to them.

32 Mark Mitchell May 14, 2014 at 11:06 pm

John,

I pastored a Native American church in Thoreau NM just outside of the Navajo reservation and I can tell you it is not offensive to them.

33 John Wylie May 14, 2014 at 11:10 pm

Mark,

With all due respect that’s nonsense and you know it.

34 parsonsmike May 14, 2014 at 11:22 pm

I looked into some places on the web about how many native Americans were standing in relation to the name and mascot.
The Washington team claimed most Native Americans were for it. So this group researched it and found that the team was wrong. Many do not oppose it, buy many do. Some do not find it offensive and some find it greatly offensive. They surveyed tribes in northern New York, California, and Florida.

35 parsonsmike May 14, 2014 at 11:24 pm
36 D. L. Payton May 15, 2014 at 12:24 pm

John

To the best of my knowledge, the same is true in Montana. I would welcome other Montana folks giving an opinion on this. However, not many of us will be there to vote.

37 Dwight McKissic May 14, 2014 at 11:15 pm

Mark,

Do you believe that Anerica would allow a team to be named the “Whiteskins” with imagery of slaveowners, or White cowhands, as the brand? America would not stand for that because it would trivialize and denigrate and entire race of people. Yet, we do it with the Washington football team.

38 Mark Mitchell May 14, 2014 at 11:20 pm

Dwight,

That is an absurd comparison and not even close to being equal in comparison.

39 volfan007 May 15, 2014 at 10:39 am

Dwight,

The Notre Dame “Fighting Irish” is a name of a people group, and I have not heard any Irish Americans complaining.

Western KY “Hilltoppers” is a name referring to hillbilly’s….I haven’t head any complaints from any KY hillbilly’s.

Anyway, Dwight, I agree with the others….if you include the nicknames of teams in your resolution, it might cause it to fail. It just seems so PC, and I think a lot of people are just getting tired of all the PC obsession that’s taking place, today.

Also, “stand your ground” laws are not bad, Dwight. If a man jumps out of a dark alley….hits you over the head….thinking that you’re knocked out….he goes after your wife…trying to rape her….you come to….you have a gun on you for just an occasion like this….in case it might happen….you pull your gun, and shoot the man. I don’t care if he’s Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, or painted blue….I would applaud you. You would never see the inside of a jail, if I had anything to say about it. I would pat you on the back for being a loving husband, and for having the courage to defend your wife. And, I’ll bet that your wife would be grateful, as well.

Dwight, we should be allowed to protect ourselves from thugs, muggers, rapists, and all the other low down, stinking scum, out there, who only want to take what you’ve got, and hurt you, and/or do not care if they hurt you, or your family. Do you not agree with this? Leave Trayvon out of this discussion for the moment. Let’s just talk about all the times when people’s lives are in danger….

David

40 Dwight McKissic May 15, 2014 at 10:46 am

“Fighting Irish” refers to a country, which also gives a people dignity and value. “Redskins”refers to simply a skin color, which does not inherently give a people dignity and value. No comparison. Arguably, an Irishman could be somebody other than White. A “Redskin”?; Nothing but a “Redskin”? This is clearly a denigration and caricature of a race of people. The SBC ought to stand against this and stop defending the indefensible.
Gotta go. Will respond in about 3-4 hrs.

41 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 10:56 am

Fighting Irish could be argued to be based on a negative stereotype of drunken Irish who like to fight.

Could it not?

42 volfan007 May 15, 2014 at 11:57 am

Tarheel,

That’s exactly what the mascot is all about….Irish people, who like to drink and fight.

David

43 volfan007 May 15, 2014 at 11:59 am

Dwight,

What about what I said concerning the “Stand your Ground” laws? I notice that you didn’t comment on that?

David

44 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 2:43 pm

I know, Vol…that is my point.

Anyone looking for a reason to be offended can certainly find it just about anywhere they look – including many, many, many sports names and mascots.

45 parsonsmike May 14, 2014 at 11:02 pm

I think the greater problem in sports in America is how we as a country have made an idol of the NBA, the NFL, march Madness, pro baseball, and Div1 college football.

And even as it is wrong to offend some, maybe most, Native Americans by a name and a mascot, it seems a little off. It seems like as a parallel in the OT would be the Israelis complaining that one of the name of a false idol offended a group, so they should change the name. When they really should destroy the idol altogether.

46 parsonsmike May 14, 2014 at 11:06 pm

For example, how many people on SB church rolls do not go to church on Sunday but watch the NFL?
Should we not be more worried about these we claim as brothers, who have gone AWOL then what name is on a football team?

47 Douglas Belardi May 15, 2014 at 9:09 am

agreed

48 Bob Hadley May 16, 2014 at 1:22 pm

PM… With ONE possible exception; if one does NOT want to go to church ANY reason will do. If he does then NOTHING will keep him from going.

49 Joey Hufstedler May 17, 2014 at 7:47 pm

agreed

50 Dwight McKissic May 14, 2014 at 7:13 pm

Andy,

By sexual identity, I mean a self declarerd homosexual. By preference or choice, I believe that Romans 1: 18-32 is quite clear that one makes a choice to engage in same-sex activities or behaviors. I was unaware that many Southern Baptists viewed homosexuality as you just stated: “many of those with same-sex attractions did not choose those attractions.” If they didn’t, who did?

51 Andy May 14, 2014 at 7:38 pm

1. Thanks for clarifying a self-declared homosexual.

2. If you mean the same thing by preference or choice, why use both words.

3. I agree that one makes a choice to engage in same-sex activities

4. However, I have come to believe, based on multiple testimonies of active homosexual men who have come to Christ and given up their same-sex acts, that they did not at some point “Decide” to be more attracted to men instead of women. This is not a denial of there responsibility, but actually is explained biblically as a recognition that we are all affected by the fall, albeit in different ways, Some are more tempted on certain areas than others. The simple fact that one feels a “natural” attraction to the same-sex does not mean it is God’s intent…rather it means his desires have been warped by the fall, as have the desires of all of us. I am quite “naturally” attracted to many women, but all but my wife is off-limits. A man with same-sex attractions can honor God by abstaining, even if those desires do not go away completely for quite some time, if ever.

That’s a short basic answer for now…I’d be glad to elaborate on any specific point if asked.

52 parsonsmike May 14, 2014 at 8:34 pm

Andy,
I agree.
The sin isn’t in the attraction or temptation, but in the wrong response.
As Christians, one way to healing is recognizing that though tempted, I don’t have to sin, and that because of who i am, i can say no to temptation, no matter how strong.
The problem with some sinners is their refusal to call evil wrong and thus call their evil desires good. May God move them out of that thinking and save their souls.
mike

53 Jess May 14, 2014 at 8:41 pm

Dwight, My understanding of the Stand your Ground Law is the one standing their ground is not the aggressor. I think the law is clear about this matter.

I think Baptist are some of the most well armed folks I know. I have several guns myself. I think Texas Baptists are well armed also. I think to bring the issue up to the SBC would kill all the resolutions. I think one at a time would be better, then you would probably get two resolutions passed.

54 Dwight McKissic May 14, 2014 at 10:18 pm

Jess,

You are right ’bout the Stand Your Ground law would be the one Standing Their Ground is not the aggressor. Yet, in Florida, a man went to the car if an unarmed young person;shot and killed him; then pleaded “Stand Your Ground” and was found innocent of murdering the unarmed youngster, though he was the aggressor. This has happened on numerous occasions, and that needs to cease. The aggressor should not be able to plead “Stand Your Ground.”

55 Joleolsen May 14, 2014 at 10:55 pm

To which case are you referring?

The case you describe sounds like it is perhaps a distortion of the Martin/Zimmerman case, but perhaps there is a different case of which I am unaware. If you are referring to the Martin/Zimmerman case you should review the actual facts.

The Martin/Zimmerman case is a case that some people try to use as an abuse of Stand Your Ground legislation, however, a Stand Your Ground defense was never used in that case. It is misleading to try to link this particular case to Stand Your Ground legislation.

56 Dwight McKissic May 14, 2014 at 11:07 pm

I am not referring to the Martin/Zimmerman case here. There have been several others, but the one that I am referring to here is the one where a man walked to the car of some younger males and ordered them to turn down the volume on their car music. The males in the car never got out of their cars, and were unarmed, but ended up getting shot by the gentleman that approached them. The shooter successfully argued “Stand Your Ground” and was found innocent of murdering unarmed young men.

57 Ryan Abernathy (@absonjourney) May 15, 2014 at 7:19 am

I believe this is the case Dwight is referring to:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/justice/florida-loud-music-trial/

It is separate from the Trayvon Martin case but it is another example of Florida’s interpretation of their SYG law that basically allows open season on young African American men because of the latent racism present in the minds of some white people who view every black man as a threat.

SYG is a law that is not applied fairly. There was a third case in Florida of a young African American woman who “stood her ground” against her abusive husbands threats by firing a warning shot- no one was killed- and she got 20 years.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/

The racial inequity in the application of these laws, especially in Florida, is stunning.

58 volfan007 May 15, 2014 at 7:53 pm

Ryan,

Yes, the abuse of this law is troubling. The abuse of any law is cause for great concern. But, citizens should have a right to defend themselves against people, who are about to do harm to them, or to their loved ones. Agree?

So, maybe the enforcement of the law should be looked at….strongly…..but, I would just hate to see the rights of law abiding citizens taken away just because the law is being abused, or not enforced right, or whatever the problem is down there in Florida.

David

59 Ryan Abernathy (@absonjourney) May 15, 2014 at 8:55 pm

David,

I agree that people should be able to defend themselves. That is sadly not the case in the two cases in Florida where SYG was used to acquit murderers. It was sadly not applied in the case of a woman who fired a warning shot to scare off her abusive husband. The problem with SYG is selective enforcement.

60 Bob Hadley May 16, 2014 at 1:32 pm

While the defense in this case DID use the stand your ground defense,,, I am not sure it held up because the prosecution DID show the shooter as an aggressor. I am guessing the issue of 1st Degree murder had to do more with no intent to kill a specific person; thus the second degree murder charge where his actions resulted IN a death.

The jury has NOT spoken about their deliberations but as I understand it, this may have been more of the issue. I do not believe the SYG issue had ANY bearing on the jury decision in this case.

61 Robert Vaughn May 15, 2014 at 9:31 am

I did some Google searching and think I found the case Dwight is talking about: Shooting of Jordan Davis. I had not heard about it, and make no claims regarding the accuracy of the Wikipedia article. But this points out the existence of the case and gives a starting point for those who want to read about it.

62 SFG May 14, 2014 at 8:44 pm

As a long time UCLA fan I knew that Kenny Washington was a great football player, but I did not know that he broke the color barrier in the NFL. I think it would good to make a separate resolution honoring Kenny Washington and recognizing his important role in racial relations in the USA.

Interestingly, there is another Kenny Washington who was a key player on UCLA’s first two basketball championships in 1963 and 1964.

63 Andy May 14, 2014 at 9:27 pm

Also, on a different note, I had to go to the SBC website to remind myself what resolutions actually are, and how they work…Here is the basic description:

“A resolution has traditionally been defined as an expression of opinion or concern, as compared to a motion, which calls for action. A resolution is not used to direct an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention to specific action other than to communicate the opinion or concern expressed. Resolutions are passed during the annual Convention meeting.”

If this is the case, I wonder if the Annual Meeting could be more productive and efficient if we did away with all, or most, resolutions, and limited business to “motions,” which actually bring about action. How much of the 2 day meeting do resolutions take up?

64 parsonsmike May 14, 2014 at 10:17 pm

Andy,
I think Dwight made a case for resolutions:
“Whereas, “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” is assigned the task of representing the Kingdom of God on earth and to be His voice (I Timothy 3:14, Matthew 16:18-20, Romans 10:14-17), ”
- See more at: http://sbcvoices.com/resolutions-for-the-sbc-annual-meeting-by-wm-dwight-mckissic-sr/#comment-240279

Part of action is properly expressing one’s convictions.
Taking a stand against the moral ills of society is a good and right thing to DO.
mike

65 andy May 14, 2014 at 10:47 pm

Yes, but is it the BEST use of a very short and busy 2-day meeting to spend multiple hours discussing and amending such resolutions, especially when there are many who are frustrated that their “motions” are not considered, often due to time restraints?

66 Dwight McKissic May 14, 2014 at 11:00 pm

ParsonMike,

Thanks for understanding that there is a role for the church to play in addressing social and moral issues that have Kingdom, discipleship, and evangelistic implications. I deeply appreciate you pausing to register your affirmation of the church’s role in this regard.

67 Steven May 14, 2014 at 10:17 pm

Whether as a single resolution or broken up into three, you will get more people saying “Bless your heart” than people voting in favor of the resolution(s).

68 Dwight McKissic May 15, 2014 at 11:42 am

Steven,

What would be the reasoning behind “Bless your heart” as oppose to “I will vote for the resolution?

69 parsonsmike May 14, 2014 at 10:55 pm

Andy,
Maybe much of the process of resolutions can be done before hand, say a month beforehand via the internet.
Or that resolutions be screened by a committee and limited to a certain number.
And there probably are other creative solutions that can be put forward by someone who knows more about the convention process and is more creative.
mike

70 parsonsmike May 14, 2014 at 11:09 pm

And as to the same sex kiss. It is not just sports but prime time TV that displays gay couples [kissing, i don't know, i don't watch] together in intimate embraces.
So maybe something should be said, but why limit it to football?

71 Dwight McKissic May 14, 2014 at 11:19 pm

ParsonMike,

Great point. I agree. If this resolution makes it to through the committee, maybe they will expand it to address the larger issue.

72 Mark Mitchell May 14, 2014 at 11:22 pm

John Wylie

It is not nonsense it is fact. This junk is nothing more than subversion to try to create issues other than the serious issues with Obama. And others are just playing right into their hands. Sad.

73 John Wylie May 15, 2014 at 7:40 am

Oh no you’re right, Native Americans love being called “Redskins”. Sure, that makes sense. Sad.

74 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 9:04 am

As a matter of clarification and to state the obvious, John….No one is calling Indians “Redskins” because of the name of a pro football team – when that term is used in this context it is referring to a sports team.

If some use that term nefariously….although I’m not sure that happens much today….perhaps it did in the past…then that has nothing to do with the NFL team.

75 John Wylie May 15, 2014 at 9:43 am

Tarheel,

With all due respect, using your logic then it would be appropriate to call a team the Chinks, or the Wetbacks or the Darkies. To all who read this I’m trying to make a point not to be offensive.

76 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 10:00 am

No, that’s a ridiculous framing of my argument.

Why would someone name a team afte a group thy hate….calling someone those names is hate filled.

The owner of the skins moved to DC and named the team in HONOR of his Indian head coach.

Also, historically the terms you mentioned have always been racist. The use of Redskin historically is not so. It was used by indians themselves and was largely neutral in the white community…much like the term “black”.

Have people used it racially…sure thy have….but just about any term can be used racially.

The team being called Redskins is not and was never meant as derogatory it is and always has been complimentary.

77 John Wylie May 15, 2014 at 10:04 am

The term Redskins has always been a racist slur Tarheel.

78 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 10:16 am

I’m sorry but You’re wrong about that….

http://neddybee.blogspot.com/2005/04/redskins-and-war-paint.html

79 Jerry Smith May 15, 2014 at 8:49 pm

I don’t get it, My grandmother was a full blood Cherokee Indian, & the name Washington Red Skins does not bother me the least bit. And I’m an old country Baptist pastor, & I don’t get it.

It bothers me not the least bit.

80 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 9:18 pm

There is a very large contingency of native Americans here where I live…I am close friends with many of them – any they too think the attack on the redskins nickname and mascot is stupid.

They’re not offended at all.

81 John Wylie May 15, 2014 at 10:30 pm

I’m sorry but your grandma being Cherokee doesn’t really qualify you to be offended.

And Tarheel, a large contingency of Native Americans in NC? Come to OK and tell that one again.

82 John Wylie May 15, 2014 at 10:32 pm

I would be willing to bet that there are more Native Americans in the county I live in than in the entire state of NC.

83 John Wylie May 15, 2014 at 10:42 pm

Okay I was a bit hyperbolic in my assessment, but NC has an estimated Native population of 165,000 out of a population of over 9 million. OK has 330,000 out of a population of 3.8 million.

84 parsonsmike May 15, 2014 at 10:55 pm

The Cherokee nation has not vocalized their opinion on this matter yet. They are the second largest contingent of Native Americans.

85 D. L. Payton May 15, 2014 at 11:03 pm

I want to go on record as being against racism in any form. However, the problem I have with this whole Redskins issue is that it takes away from the real issues of discrimination. I am not sure we can afford to focus on the Redskins issue while we have those who cannot get a job, or are paid lower wages, cannot get housing etc., because of the color of their skin. When we take care of discrimination that causes people to suffer then perhaps we can move to Redskins type of “racism”. We must be focused, intentional, and selective if we are going to win over racism. May God grant that we will.

86 Tarheel May 16, 2014 at 5:19 am

Agreed, DL.

87 dr. james willingham May 20, 2014 at 9:26 am

Dear D.L.: Some of us Redskins or descendants of the same and relatives of others remember that the idea of cleansing every Indian name out of both the professional and college leagues is not too swift. After all, the Seminoles are quite adamant about the matter, getting paid and providing a member of the tribe as a mascot. Fifty years ago I heard Dr. R.G. Lee preach on the Millenium at the SBC in Kansas City. Came home and our local Indian pastor, pastor of our largest First Baptist Church, a graduate of SWBTS, got up and preached a reply to Dr. Lee, a fearless tackling of the issues, which all we pre-tribs, premils smiled politely about and went on life. Then many years down the road that pastor’s trap sprung to get us to think. You just can’t restrict them folks (like one, a woman from a Western tribe who was project director for a lab doing experiments with stem cells from the body – not aborted infants and finding ways to grow organs for human bodies) any more than one can restrict African Americans. While racism is deplorable in any form, there is a dignity of spirit that is maintained even in the midst of things that can be taken wrongly….not to condone such but to call attention to the exceptions that finally make a new rule.

88 Dwight McKissic May 15, 2014 at 10:30 am

The issue is that it is White Men who are naming the Native Americans, “Redskins.” The Native Americans don’t call themselves “Redskins”; White men call them “”Redskins.” It is simply wrong to trivialize these people race. And we all know it.

89 Kellye Hooks May 15, 2014 at 12:08 am

I believe this is the case Dwight is referring to–it has been big news in Jacksonville.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/16/justice/florida-loud-music-trial/

90 parsonsmike May 15, 2014 at 12:32 am

Kellye,
Thanks for the link.
That was a sad story.
I hope at the retrial they get it right.
I didn’t see the defense using stand your ground as a defense, but maybe I missed it. It late and I am headed to bed.

91 Adam G. in NC May 15, 2014 at 12:21 am

1. We lost this one back during the “Teletubby Wars”. I guess one more round will get the red meat flowing. That Disney boycott worked, right? At least it aint Calvinism.
2. Fine with me. There’s not going to be any football in heaven anyways.
3. No thanks. I’m always for Trayvon or whomever else wants to “stand their ground”. Either way, Marissa Alexander is forgotten and gets no press and probably years in prison…cuz it dont fit the agenda the LIBERAL media and peddlers have created.

92 John Fariss May 16, 2014 at 11:08 pm

“2. . . . There’s not going to be any football in heaven anyways.”

With Knute Rockne, Pop Warner, Bear Bryant, and Joe Paterno up there? Surely you jest! Who do you think invested football and the Crimson Tide, anyway?

John

93 Rick Patrick May 15, 2014 at 7:36 am

Whatever happens to the Redskins, I will absolutely draw the line if Hindi groups or Vegetarians protest the name of my Sacred Cowboys. I refuse to root for the Dallas Organic Farmers.

94 cb scott May 15, 2014 at 7:48 am

Dwight,

Why are you going after the Redskins, Braves, and Chiefs? That is not going to pass and you will get little support. It may not even come out of committee. You know that as well as I do.

If you want to make a resolution this year, and especially since we will be in the backyard of D.C., why don’t you write one challenging the 12 leading contributors of sexual exploitation. The number one contributor of sexual exploitation is Eric Holder.

Let’s challenge the Attorney General to clean up his act. Thus far, Mr. Holder has refused to enforce existing federal obscenity laws against hardcore adult pornography. He does so dispite the fact that these laws have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and enforced by Attorney Generals in the past.

Frankly, your Resolution is far too broad to get traction. However, if you focus on the abduction of children and/or pornography you may get a strong hearing this year and if you challenge the Attorney General, Eric Holder, for his ungodly conduct, especially while we are in Baltimore, you will send a message to the White House that needs to be heard. National press will pick it up and make it known to the nation.

95 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 8:11 am

“However, if you focus on the abduction of children and/or pornography you may get a strong hearing this year and if you challenge the Attorney General, Eric Holder, for his ungodly conduct, especially while we are in Baltimore, you will send a message to the White House that needs to be heard. National press will pick it up and make it known to the nation.”

I’d support that resolution, CB.

96 Dwight McKissic May 15, 2014 at 10:10 am

CB,

The words “Braves” and “Chiefs” do not in and of themselves distinctly, uniquely, directly, nor specifically, apply exclusively to Native Americans. Those words are used in ways that are positive and that apply to the general public. They are used in other context affirmatively. “Redskins”? Come on, CB, you know better. That is an indefensible term, unlike the others that you referenced. One can’t seperate the term from the racist owner at the time. That in and of itself makes the term problematic.

97 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 10:20 am

You’re sure the owner at the time was a racist?

98 Jeff Johnson May 15, 2014 at 10:59 am

cb,

Maybe you are right on the pornography resolution. Just wondering aloud here, however . . .

Although an Eric Holder resolution might get traction in the SBC, it would be similarly futile in that the federal government is not going to enforce laws that criminalize the production or possession of pornography involving consenting adults. That doesn’t necessarily mean we shouldn’t call the justice department out, however. I just don’t know how I feel about the federal government using its search & seizure powers, as well as its power to imprison, on this issue. (As a side note, it’s interesting to think that such a resolution would have broad support in the SBC though some on this board suggested Jared Moore is unqualified to serve as SBC President because he would publicly support laws that criminalize homosexual acts.) There is a better chance of encouraging the enactment and enforcement of laws that limit online porn advertisements and create better safeguards to protect children and unwary internet users.

Rather than focusing on the supply of pornography, however, we should focus on attaching the demand, especially in-house. I would favor a resolution or even study that looks at how the SBC can address and help Southern Baptists, including pastors, who grapple with pornography addiction.

99 Jeff Johnson May 15, 2014 at 11:00 am

*Attacking, not attaching.

100 cb scott May 15, 2014 at 2:08 pm

Jeff Johnson,

The challenge to Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, is to act upon the laws already in force against the porn industry. I stated nothing about enacting new laws.

The point is that Eric Holder is not doing his job regarding enforcing the law of the land regarding pornography and he needs his hand called for not doing so.

That is and was my point. I noticed that Dwight did not address that. He threw me a McKissic curve ball about the names of sports teams instead.

101 Dwight McKissic May 15, 2014 at 2:25 pm

CB,

“A McKissic curve ball” LOL!!!!!!! Best laugh I’ve had today. Honestly, I know little to nothing about the Holder situation that you are referring to; the laws involved; the lack of enforcement; or any related matter. But, I trust you CB. So, if you craft and submit a resolution that contain the matters that you soeak of, I am sure that I will support it if it gets to the floor, primarily for the sake, and with the view that it could lead to the end of protecting our children. Please submit this to the resolutions committee.

102 D. L. Payton May 15, 2014 at 11:36 pm

C.B. M makes some good points here that must be kept in mind. The first re. the fate of this res. It will not garner nearly enough votes. I would take it a step farther that C.B. and say it will NOT survive the committee. I am not saying this is good or bad, but I am saying it is reality.

The second point C.B. made concerns other issues that need to be addressed. I do not want to put words in anyone’s mouth, but in my words, there are far more pressing issues to deal with. This issue pales when com pared to the social, political, and moral issues that are pressing all around us. We have 1 1/2 plus days in Baltimore. Lets use the time wisely.

103 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 8:36 am

Dwight,

Stand your ground/castle protection laws are completely appropriate and necessary laws. Are they misapplied and misused on occasion? Yes.

As are many other laws designed to defend rights.

In my opinion the ending of such laws would be a profound detriment to society.

Practically, you gotta know you’re not going to get southern baptists to pass a resolution negating people’s right to self defense and defense of personal property.

As for the Redskins thing…..the whole thing (not you, but idea generally) is stupid. SBC should stay out of this mess.

As for the other two….separate them – word them better, and i may be open to supporting them.

104 Jon Deigs May 15, 2014 at 8:45 am

Dr. Mckissic,
None of these are a good idea and IMO a waste of time for the SBC.
1. If we were to make resolutions on all the things shown on tv, we would have time for nothing else. How about all the lewd images with the beer commercials? Let’s get rid of those e.d. commercials as well. Or, just turn the tv off.

If there was a broad resolution on homosexuality, that might be a better idea. Although the SBC has done that many times in the recent past.

Same with racism. If there was a broad res on that, maybe. But, to pick out football again is not a good idea. I think that the Redskins will change their name in the near future due to pressure from the league.(just a guess)

IMO, it’s resolutions like the one you pose that drive younger SB’s away. T

105 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 9:36 am

Here’s a poll from 10 years ago….the article also explains that the name was given as a compliment to the Indian head coach who was appreciative of the honor.

Very, very few Indians found it offensive in 2004.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2004-09-24-redskins-indians-poll_x.htm

106 Dwight McKissic May 15, 2014 at 10:22 am

The name was given by a bona-fide racist. Blacks referred to as “colored” then. That didn’t make it right. It simply meant that racism was institutionalized. Standing on the wrong side of history is a position that the SBC needs to abandon.

107 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 10:28 am

Agreed, and we’ve passed resolutions abandoning that….numerous times….

This case is just not one that warrants a resolution, IMO.

108 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 10:29 am

Bonafide racist? Got proof for that?

109 Dwight McKissic May 15, 2014 at 10:39 am

George Preston Marshall was racist to the core. Google his name. He stood against Blacks playing in the NFL ’til 1962. He was the last holdout, and the last team to allow Blacks to play. He said that he would allow Blacks to play on his team when the Harlem Glibetrotters allowed Whites to play on their team. Both teams were owned by Whites. Yes he was a bona-fide racist. And I shall not dialogue on this subject any further with a man who will not identify himself.

110 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 10:45 am

Lol…..

There we go again….get a little uncomfotable and you go there….the old anonymous slip…

Lol.

Getting old.

In less than a month everyone will know who TARHEEL is… What excuses to evade discussion will y’all use then?

111 Dale Pugh May 16, 2014 at 7:07 am

What?! In less than a month Tarheel will be revealed??!! This is almost as good as unmasking Captain USA! I can hardly wait…

112 Tarheel May 16, 2014 at 10:50 am

Dale, I know right? When and if people actually make an effort to meet me – they will find that I am quite boring – just a regular ole opinionated southern baptist pastor…but given all the angst about my anonymity there must be some people who are sincerely unable to wait.

I figured that since knowing who I am is so important to some, I decided that should not reveal on the site but in person…this is why I am doing so at the SBCvoices meet and greet at the convention.

I just hope no one says “oh so its you”, and then punches me in the nose or something. LOL

113 Dale Pugh May 16, 2014 at 10:57 am

I’ve got a feeling that most of us are fairly harmless……..

I won’t be there, but I’m sure I’d be happy to share a cup of coffee with you.

114 John Wylie May 16, 2014 at 10:59 am

Tarheel,

I think the reason why there is so much angst against anonymous comments is because in the last 10 years or so there have been a number of anonymous bloggers on various blogs criticizing and calling for “transparency” on several well known SBC pastors and entity heads. Naturally you can see the hypocrisy of someone calling on others to be transparent who themselves have not so much as even revealed their identity. I’m not saying these things about you, but blogs like FBC JAX Watchdog have really stirred up anger toward anonymous bloggers.

115 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 10:42 am

Also – Blacks being referred to as “people of color” still exists….and is used often…..by you, Dwight, on numerous blog posts and comments.

So if use of term that is a racist…then what does that make you?

Meanings of words (and political correctness) can be and often is redefined over time and 75 years later you might be called a Bonafide racist.

See how this gotcha game can be counterproductive?

116 Mark Mitchell May 16, 2014 at 2:51 pm

Oh you must mean like the Nation Association for the Advancement of “Colored” People or better known as the NAACP.

117 Joe Blackmon May 15, 2014 at 10:55 am

Tarheel

I don’t think this comment will see the light of day, but I really appreciate your comments on blogs in general. If you’d contact me at joe.blackmon72 at yahoo dot com I’d appreciate it. I won’t “out” you. I respect your desire to remain an anon.

118 Les Prouty May 15, 2014 at 12:04 pm

What shall be done to all the public high schools (taxpayer funded) using nicknames like:

Redmen
Savages

and a number of high schools and middle schoolsusing Redskins as a nickname.

Should they all be denounced as well?

119 D. L. Payton May 15, 2014 at 11:44 pm

The original Oklahoma “Sooners” were a bunch of lawbreaking cheaters. Yet i still say “I’m sooner born, sooner bred, and when I die I will be sooner dead.” Boomer Sooner!! Go big Red!!!.

120 David R. Brumbelow May 15, 2014 at 9:41 am

I agree the two men kissing is wrong.

I disagree on the Washington Redskins needing to change their mascot and think this can be a case of being too sensitive.
A number of similar mascot names have already been pointed out.
Many think such a mascot is an honor, instead of a slur.

I disagree on being against the stand your ground law.
A man or woman has the right to defend themselves.
The stand your ground law works for you whether you are white, black, Hispanic, etc.
David R. Brumbelow

121 Dwight McKissic May 15, 2014 at 10:18 am

David B.,

Blacks are protesting the Stand Your Ground Laws throughout America, and especially in Florida, because they aren’t working for them as a rule. They are being victimized by this law. Whites are getting a “get out of jail free” pass behind this law. Your statement was totally incorrect on how this law is working for everybody. A Black lady in Florida was given 20 years when she stood her ground for simply shooting up in the air. A White Man stood his ground against an unarmed Black man and walked and was found, not guilty. The White Man was the aggressor.

There is a reason why the vast majority of Blacks are against this law, and the vast majority of Whites are for it. You need to rethink your analysis.

122 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 10:25 am

I’d like to see the links in those cases..what you posted just doesn’t sound like the whole story.

Could it be that many are against it because of the hyper race baiting that surrounded the Martin case by Sharpton, Jackson and others.

Stand your ground was not a defense there by the way.

123 Ryan Abernathy May 15, 2014 at 6:20 pm

The links are in my comment above.

And SYG was MOST certainly the legal defense used by George Zimmerman.

There was no race baiting in the Martin case or the other cases mentioned. Just the Florida prosecutors office turning a blind eye to the victimization of young African American men.

SYG is a bad law. Poorly enforced. Poorly understood. Deadly for those who are its victims. Protecting yourself does not mean looking for trouble, unless you live in Florida and aren’t African American.

124 Les Prouty May 15, 2014 at 7:36 pm

According to the Tampa Bat Times there was no hearing on the stand your ground law. http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_139

125 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 8:51 pm

Ryan you’re just wrong.

SYG was not a factor, or even argued, in the Martin case.

Let’s take this situation – a mother, home alone with her children, shoots a man who has entered the home. She barricaded herself and children in a bathroom and when he began to order her out of the bathroom she shot thru the bathroom door…killing the aggressor. Her “castle” had been invaded and she feared for her life and her children’s. Turns out he was unarmed.

The Castle/SYG laws of most states will keep her from facing criminal prosecution and in some cases protect her from civil exposure. (Florida extends that protection to all defendants acquitted on self defense/defense of others grounds – that’s why Zimmerman can’t be civilly sued. The jury found he acted in self defense)

I say horay for tht mother, and thank you to the state legislature for enacting common sense legislation.

Ending SYG would land her in criminal and civil court….and I think that is ridiculous!

Sure some take advntage…sure some prosecutors/cops stink at thier jobs….sure defense lawyers exploit loopholes….but we can’t throw the baby out with the bath water – shall we?

126 Ryan Abernathy (@absonjourney) May 15, 2014 at 9:11 pm

“Just because Zimmerman’s defense team didn’t bring up Stand Your Ground in the trial (more on that below), that doesn’t mean the law was irrelevant to the jury’s decision. To the contrary, Judge Debra Nelson made clear in the jury instructions that they should consider the law:

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

And consider it they did. According to the most outspoken juror, known only as Juror B-37, Stand Your Ground was key to reaching their verdict. She told CNN’s Anderson Cooper in an interview that neither second-degree murder nor manslaughter applied in Zimmerman’s case “because of the heat of the moment and the ‘stand your ground.’ He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.””- Mother Jones, July 2013

It was not invoked but it has a HUGE impact on the trial and outcome. It’s a bad law. It empowers knuckleheads with weapons to shoot first and ask questions later. It’s not enforced appropriately.

Your exact example occurred in Florida to Marissa Alexander. She didn’t even shoot someone. She fired a warning shot. She’s in jail for 20 years. Why did she not have the right to “Stand Her Ground?”

Tarheel, this is about justice. Selective enforcement. It’s also about a mindset. When we give people the power or authority to go and take a life they are more likely to do it. That can’t and doesn’t end well. Ask Trayvon Martin’s family.

127 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 9:21 pm

The jury also believed the witnesses who testified that Trayvon was the aggressor.

128 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 9:32 pm

Oh my!

http://mediatrackers.org/florida/2013/07/16/no-marissa-alexanders-conviction-was-not-a-reverse-trayvon-martin-case-in-florida

The Alexander case. It wasn’t her house. She left the house after the fight and went to her car…got her gipson came back in the house and fired.

The evidence against her illegal activity was so profound that it took the jury a whole 12 minutes to convict her.

Come on….this case is not on your side. Wow.

129 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 9:34 pm

*got her gun from her car’s glovebox

130 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 9:40 pm

From the article;

“ALEXANDER’S DUBIOUS CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE

First, although she had ample opportunity to exercise non-lethal options when she claimed to believe her life was at risk — exiting through the front door, back door, or garage — Alexander chose to remain in the home. She later claimed that the garage door was broken, eliminating her ability to leave when she initially entered the garage, but officers found no evidence to suggest that it was not working.

Second, Alexander’s claim that she fired only a warning shot, as opposed to firing at Gray and merely missing, also rings somewhat hollow. Her claim that she fired a warning shot, instead of a shot at center mass to stop the aggressor’s attack, suggests that she did not believe that deadly force was actually necessary.

Third, the fact that Alexander never called the police after the incident also suggests that she did not reasonably fear for her life. A victim of a near fatal attack would almost certainly alert authorities so that they might apprehend the attacker.

Fourth, the fact that Alexander voluntarily returned to Gray’s home repeatedly after the incident — against explicit court orders which Alexander promised to obey — also suggests that she may not have actually feared for her life when she fired at Gray.

Fifth, and finally, Alexander’s behavior before and after her arrest in December of 2010 — while she was still awaiting trial for the previous incident — also calls into question whether she actually believed the use of deadly force was necessary to defend herself from Gray in August of 2010. Alexander never called police (in both the August and December encounters, it was Gray or his children who contacted the police) and initially lied about even being present at Gray’s home.

Given Alexander’s behavior and interactions with Gray in the months following her initial arrest, it is not difficult to see why both a judge and a jury may have been skeptical of her claim that the use of deadly force was reasonable and that no other options were available.

But the facts surrounding the Zimmerman and Alexander incidents are not the only differences in the two cases. Even though numerous media outlets have suggested that Alexander received unfair treatment under “Stand Your Ground” compared to Zimmerman, Zimmerman never actually claimed a defense under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. This incorrect comparison almost certainly comes from a misunderstanding of what the Florida law actually does.

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN NEVER SOUGHT IMMUNITY UNDER “STAND YOUR GROUND”

The law does not, as many have claimed, give individuals an unassailable right to shoot first or an automatic “Get Out of Jail Free” card. Instead, it is something of an extension of what’s known as the Castle Doctrine, which gives individuals in many states the right to use deadly force in their homes, cars, or places of business if they reasonably believe it is the only way to protect themselves or others from serious bodily harm or death. In most states, “Stand Your Ground” laws merely extend that right to public places in which individuals have a lawful right to be. In other words, the law gives people the right to defend themselves or others with deadly force if they have no other non-lethal options available, as opposed to requiring what is often referred to as a “duty to retreat.”

“The Zimmerman case was never a ‘Stand Your Ground’ case,” self-defense attorney and author Andrew Branca told Media Trackers. “If retreat is not possible — if there is no reasonably safe avenue of retreat — then no ‘duty to retreat’ exists.”

“‘Stand Your Ground’ was simply irrelevant” in the Zimmerman case, Branca concluded.

The controversial Florida law also gives individuals involved in a deadly shooting the opportunity to have charges dismissed, assuming they were ever brought, and full civil and criminal immunity granted by a judge before a trial even begins. It was this right to an immunity hearing that Alexander exercised. In contrast, Zimmerman chose to forgo that immunity hearing in favor of a full criminal trial.

The reason is that the rules for for the hearing are quite different — and more difficult for the defendant — than those of a criminal standard trial where guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In a standard criminal trial, the defendant must be found “not guilty” if jurors have a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Innocence does not need to be proven; all reasonable doubt must be eliminated to justify a conviction. A “Stand Your Ground” hearing, however, requires defendants to affirmatively prove to a judge, based on a “preponderance of evidence,” that they acted in self defense. In laymen’s terms, the term “preponderance of evidence” generally means “more likely than not.”

In choosing to forgo a “Stand Your Grand” immunity hearing, Zimmerman’s attorneys likely believed that Zimmerman had a better chance if the prosecution had to prove  guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers than if Zimmerman had to prove his innocence to a single judge.”

131 Adam G. in NC May 15, 2014 at 11:57 am

Good to see you saying the error is in how the law is applied, not the law itself. So lets work to correct the application of a sensible law. But, again, that wouldn’t benefit the agenda that leftist media and controversey peddlers want to push on us.

132 Joey Hufstedler May 19, 2014 at 9:52 am

What case was this white man who stood his ground against the unarmed black man?

133 Jeff Johnson May 15, 2014 at 10:34 am

I respectfully believe that we should limit new resolutions to raising awareness and defining positions on issues (1) that implicate the evangelistic mission of the Convention; (2) that a majority of Southern Baptists agree are clearly answered by Biblical texts or principles; and (3)that the Convention has not yet addressed.

As to the NFL-related items, Southern Baptists are against homosexuality and racism. Past resolutions and the BF&M have made that clear. Also, I don’t know that a majority of Southern Baptists will agree that Redskins is an inherently racist term to use as a sports team mascot. Apparently, not all Native Americans agree. See this article by ESPN’s Rick Reilly. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds

As to the gun laws, I don’t believe that a majority of Southern Baptists agree on how the Bible governs “stand-your-ground” laws. These specific laws vary by state. And like any law, they can be misapplied in particular cases.

134 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 10:54 am

Amen. Jeff.

I’d support a resolution declaring how the gospel tears down walls of separation by skin color and further to strongly and unequivocally denounce any furtherance of racism by separating ourselves by skin color in any shape or form.

135 Tarheel May 15, 2014 at 2:50 pm

I have been thinking and I am considering submitting a resolution along those very lines, Jeff.

and in the “be it finally resolved” I might even include a ban on all resolutions that do not meet that standard.

Sure would make the work of the resolutions committee a lot easier. ;-) :-)

136 Dwight McKissic May 16, 2014 at 10:18 am

Jeff,

It’s easy to be against racism generically. The question is, are we willing to be against racism specifically. The misapplication of the STY laws have hurt Black people specifically. No one is saying, do away with the law. My resolution calls for amending the law to guard against aggressors taking advantage of the law to murder people after intiating and instigating the altercation, regardless to what color you are.

Again, concerning the “Redskins” three things are for certain: (1) This was not a name Native Americans named themselves, it was a name given to them by EuroAmericans. (2) The man who named them was adamantly opposed to Blacks playing in the NFL. (3) We should not call people by a name that they would not call themselves, or one that we would not say to the face to face.

137 John May 15, 2014 at 1:07 pm

Can we get back to debating Calvinism? :)

138 Doug Hibbard May 16, 2014 at 8:42 am

Sorry, we have no choice but to engage in this discussion.

You are free, however, to skip it :)

139 Tarheel May 16, 2014 at 10:53 am

We are freely choosing to do as we were divinely predestined to do. ;-)

140 Doug Hibbard May 16, 2014 at 11:18 am

Well, now we’ve got racism, guns, football, and Calvinism.

Who wants to bring up alcohol?

141 Les Prouty May 16, 2014 at 11:31 am

Well, it’s my opinion that two glasses of 4 Buck Chuck red each evening would seriously cut down on racism while not hindering the use of a firearm should you need to Stand Your ground against an intruder while actually watching those Redskins, knowing all the time that such an evening is delightfully foreordained before the foundation of the world.

142 Tarheel May 16, 2014 at 12:31 pm

Bawahahahaha!

143 Tarheel May 16, 2014 at 12:33 pm

Faithful Redskins fans are often driven to drinking!!!

144 John May 16, 2014 at 11:32 am

Doug,
I was just attempting to bring a light-hearted comment to the post.

145 Dave Miller May 15, 2014 at 2:55 pm

I don’t know if anyone has pointed it out, but out of curiosity, I checked the SBC site (http://www.sbcannualmeeting.net/sbc14/Resolutions.asp) and found that resolutions must be submitted at least 75 days ahead of the convention.

It would appear to me that the time has long passed for resolutions to be offered. I knew you had to submit them in advance. I didn’t realize it was 75 days. That seems a little extreme.

maybe there is something I’m not seeing here.

But, unless I’m reading things wrong, the time for 2014 resolutions has expired.

146 Dale Pugh May 15, 2014 at 2:57 pm

Re-read, Dave. The committee is appointed 75 days prior. Those submitting resolutions have until 15 days prior to the Convention to submit them.

147 Doug Hibbard May 15, 2014 at 5:36 pm

Dale’s right–it’s 15 days prior.

148 Dave Miller May 15, 2014 at 5:54 pm

good.

75 days seemed long to me.

149 Greg Harvey May 16, 2014 at 2:42 pm

However, 75 days for members of the committee on resolutions to prepare with appropriate fasting and prayer sounds just about right…

150 volfan007 May 15, 2014 at 3:07 pm

I wonder sometimes, if we don’t sound a lot like this video when discussing all of these things…..lol.

http://youtu.be/OTlQS7j96DM

151 Dwight McKissic May 17, 2014 at 11:25 pm

Volfan,

Just saw this. LOL. Best laugh of today. Could use this laugh tonight. We sure sound a lot like that video.

152 Volfan007 May 17, 2014 at 11:44 pm

:)

153 Doug Hibbard May 15, 2014 at 5:59 pm

Observations:

1. Here’s one way I’ve learned to judge whether something is offensive–would I call a person from that group by that name? I would not suggest calling a Native American “redskin” to their face. I certainly wouldn’t expect following that up with an invitation to church to be successful. So, I think the football team should change its name. Heck, the NCAA compelled most of their member schools to change from nicknames deemed offensive–as I recall, the Seminole Nation had to stand on behalf of Florida State to keep the name Seminoles, but most of the generic “Indians” or whatever else are gone.

2. I also don’t figure the SBC will say anything about it, or that the NFL will listen anyway.

Ultimately, I think the question is this: will our efforts to spread the Gospel in an effective manner be helped or harmed by this resolution?

To answer that, we need to consider:

1. Are there people who do not want to hear us talk about Jesus until we address the issue in the resolution?

2. Are there people who will refuse to listen to us talk about Jesus if we address the issue in the resolution? Is that a change (in other words, are they listening now but would quit?) in their attitude?

3. Is this clarifying a position on a Biblical/moral issue we have been vague on?

4. Is this rectifying a position on a Biblical/moral issue we have been wrong on?

5. Is this clearly based on God’s Word such that we accept those who disagree and divide from us over it are those we are better off without?

I would suggest that a resolution that doesn’t get a yes on #5 alongside answering the others in an acceptable manner isn’t worth our time.

So, is it clear in Scripture that racism is sin and do accept that those who are definitely racists are not those we want guiding participation in Southern Baptist life? I think we all say yes to that principle.

Do the actual concepts in this resolution address that principle and do so in a manner that gives us good answers to 1-4?

Since I’m not going to be in Baltimore, I don’t have to figure out that answer. I doubt that our history of racial issues and our current practice of racial division will be overshadowed by calling for a name change on the Washington football team…maybe it will. It won’t change the NFL, but maybe there are a few places that will be more open to us proclaiming the Gospel.

154 Dale Pugh May 15, 2014 at 8:41 pm

This resolution will probably go nowhere. The SBC has spoken to the homosexuality issue before. The addition of the NFL and all of the extraneous material in the body of the resolution (who cares who got chalk in their eyes 60 years ago?) make it pointless and poorly communicated. The whole “Redskin” thing just pretty much kills it (how many teams in the US are named for Native Americans–Indians, Braves, Redskins, Mohawks, Apaches, Warriors, etc. Fact is that I’ve lived among Native Americans, and they don’t like it.) It really says nothing, and it takes a lot of space to do it.

155 Dwight McKissic May 16, 2014 at 8:52 am

“who cares who got chalk in their eyes sixty years ago”

That my friend is the problem. If one does not care about that and acknowledge the pain, insult, and hurt…and more importantly the racist and supremacist thinking that drive placing the chalk in the eyes, we have a real problem. Of we don’t care about the “chalk placed in the eyes sixty years ago,” do we really have an attitude of mutual respect and equality toward the descendants of Kinny Washington today?

156 William F. Leonhart III May 16, 2014 at 10:26 am

The problem is that recognizing victims of ages past and drudging up superficial statements made in the present doesn’t get to the real issues of hatred that very much still exist on both sides of the racial divide today. In many ways, as has been pointed out above, drawing attention to these things detracts from the all too real, very painful issues that truly do exist. It also gets to the fact that no one seems to be pointing out the fact that racism is not a purely white, or anti-black, issue. All races can be racist, and it seems that a good case could be made for the argument that it pervades much of the African-American subculture today. We aren’t comfortable talking about these things, but that is precisely why it must be addressed.

Most “white” churches I have talked to who are looking for pastors are looking for pastors that will help them to diversify and look more like the culture around them. Where is the push to see “black” churches, “Asian” churches, and “Hispanic” churches undergo the same diversification? Futhermore, I see that you point out white racism against minorities (in the case of the NFL and MLB) above, and you point out Jewish racism against blacks (in the Sterling case), and Hispanic racism (or so the accusation has been made) against blacks (in the Zimmerman case). Why don’t you point out the pervasive issue of racism among African-Americans in America?

157 Dwight McKissic May 16, 2014 at 5:18 pm

William,

Predominately African-American churches have never denied Whites from attending or joining. Most African-American churches that I am aware of welcome wholeheartedly Whites, Asians, and Hispanics with no hesitation or reservation.

158 volfan007 May 16, 2014 at 11:35 pm

Dwight,

Racism cuts both ways, Brother. I know of white people, who were not treated good by groups of Black people…just because they were White. I know of a Black Church that’s been asked to join a Baptist Association, but the Black Church has some racist Deacons…. one in particular…the most influential one…who said that he will not join with White people, even thought the Pastor would like to join.
My daughter and her friends got lost in Memphis, one time, and pulled into a convenient store to get directions. When they walked into the store, a bunch of Black people were sitting around talking. When they saw my daughter and her friends, one of them said, “Wooooweee, it’s starting to snow in here.” Dwight, while this is hilarious to me….made me chuckle….still, how would you feel if you walked into a store full of White people, and one of them said something similar….only about a Black person?
My wife and I went to a Black Church, one time, that was having a singing. We were not greeted very warmly….only a few people said hello…most of the time it was me saying hi to them, and I was the visitor. Also, I had more than a few glare at my wife and me….like, what are you, White people, doing in our Church? I didn’t feel very welcome. In fact, I felt like an intruder….especially by a few of the people that you could just tell that they were not happy that White people were there…..and, I didn’t know but 2 or 3 of the Black people at this Church.

So, it cuts both ways, Brother.

David

159 Dwight McKissic May 17, 2014 at 9:37 am

David,

Couldn’t agree with you more; racism cuts both ways. Unfortunately, many of my Black brothers and sisters have brought into a worldly concept that Blacks cannot be racist, because we have no power. The thinking is, in order to be racist you have to control institutions and systems to enact racist ideology. Since, for the most part Blacks don’t control in America institutions and systems then we are not in a position to enact racist viewpoints.

I totally disagree with that line of thinking. Racism is a sin, pure and simple. And there is no sun that Black people cannot commit including racism. I’m sorry for the ill treatment that you, your wife and daughter have received at the hands of Black people. I agree that racism needs to be addressed no matter the source. At times I alienate Blacks and Whites, because I am willing, and have called out Black racism as I have Black racism.

I led a coalition if Black pastors to oppose Farrakhan’s Million Man March because I thought it was racially and theologically flawed. Blacks hated me for that. Because I openly oppose President Obama’s policies that conflict with the Bible, and refused to vote for him both times he ran for those reasons, certain Blacks-even some church folks-hate me for that. One church requested of their pastor to never invite me back to preach-after having preached there many times-because of my unwillingness to vote for, and publicly state my opposition to the President’s policies. I feel the pain of White people who have experienced Black racism. Thanks for your comment David. Look forward to seeing you in Baltimore.

160 volfan007 May 17, 2014 at 5:11 pm

I’m also looking forward to seeing you and your lovely wife.

David

161 dr. james willingham May 20, 2014 at 9:36 am

Volfan007: When I was teaching at South Carolina State College in Orangeburg back in ’70-72, I had a student who thought everything white that moved was evil. He gave me a hard time, and finally I had to tell him to leave the class. Another Black student told me that I should have done so even earlier. I answered, “Well, I tried to give him all the leeway possible,” or something to that effect. Later, the student I put of class got back in but was quieter. Then he jumped on one of the White athletes (the school was being integrated in reverse), and the school kicked him out. However, there was a reason behind his prejudice. His uncle had been hung by a bunch of whites for oogling a woman at the beach. And then I know about the lynchings in the years after slavery was outlawed and even worse things that I will not repeat here. If you had a relative that was hung for oogling some African American ladies at the beach, how would you feel? This ain’t no tempest in a teapot anymore than the exposure of our missionaries to danger at SWBTS is. This is downright serious business, involving lives, etc. At least that fellow who shot the young man in Florida did not get away with it, the fellow who was made because of the African youths were being noisy. Wonder if he would have done that with a bunch of White youths? I serious doubt it.

162 volfan007 May 20, 2014 at 11:20 am

Dr. Willingham,

I have no doubt that some Black people hate White people due to the past, and the things that happened. But, does this excuse their racism and hatred now? We all can be bitter and angry about things that have happened in the past….things done to our ancestors, or done to us, personally. But, does this excuse hating other people, just because they’re of a different skin color, or a different culture?

My Mama and Dad grew up in a wild, rough town on the MS River. Back in the day, they saw a lot of bad things done to Black people…..some done by the Sheriff of that town. My Mama and Dad didn’t participate in those mean and ugly things, and absolutely didn’t like that they happened. And, they always taught my brother and me to not hate people just because they had a different skin color. They taught us to respect people of other races. As a matter of fact, my family suspects that that same, mean Sheriff killed one of my relatives. They didn’t get along, and this Sheriff had it in for him. And, one night, the Sheriff said that he found my relative dead….in the middle of the road….drunk and had been run over by a truck…..of course, that didn’t explain the bullet hole in his back. So, should my family and I hate his family for the rest of our days, and have nothing to do with them, and excuse it by saying that their relative treated my relative horribly?

Brother, I’m not sure I’m following what you’re trying to say, here. I hope I’m wrong. But, it really sounds like you’re excusing racist behavior by some of the Black people, who hate White people. I hope that’s not what you’re saying? Are you saying that the past excuses the racist behavior of people now?

But, Dr. Willingham, I completely agree that if someone kills someone else without a just reason, then they should be punished. If a White man kills a Black man, without a good reason for doing so, then that White man should be punished. Most certainly. And, if a Black man kills a White man, for no good reason, then he should be punished for it. Yes, Absolutely. But, don’t take away the citizen’s right to defend themselves against attacks. Listen, if someone is threatening my family…to do them bodily harm….let’s say it’s an mean, ugly looking, White boy with a big knife. Let’s say that he’s got a wild, drug induced look in his eyes, and he’s threatening my family and me with his knife. Brother, if I’ve got a gun, and he won’t listen, and be talked into standing down, and it looks like he’s about to hurt my wife, or someone else, then I hope the Lord helps me to shoot straight. Let me ask you, would you want to just be standing by while this man hurts, and possibly kills your wife and children? Would you want to be just standing there, helpless? While he cuts you…wounds you….and then, hurts your family? Or, would you rather be able to defend yourself? and your family?

Listen, I know that some White people are racist, and they take advantage of self defense laws. And, they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with murder. But, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let’s not take away people’s right to defend themselves against attacks, just because some hateful people take advantage of the law. Instead, let’s not let them take advantage of such laws, to get away with murder.

David

163 Dale Pugh May 16, 2014 at 10:54 am

Which points out how poorly written this resolution is–I thought you were referring to the owner, not the player. I’ll take responsibility for misreading that one. My apologies.

As far as my attitude towards anyone’s descendants, I don’t have a problem respecting anyone. That pain, hurt, and insult is not mine, though, and I get a little tired of having to answer for my granfather’s sins.

That being said, how many neighborhoods exist in America where I would be in danger of my life by walking down the street? And the danger would be there simply because I’m a white man. Racism is evil to the core, and it exists across world cultures. Whites aren’t the only racists, Dwight, as you and I have discussed before.

However, my point remains–A resolution concerning the NFL is going nowhere.

164 William F. Leonhart III May 16, 2014 at 1:29 pm

There are two types of racism: those who hate and/or ridicule people of other races and those who favor and/or think more highly of their own race than others. You want to see a high-spirited table of African-Americans become awkwardly silent at lunch where I work? Have a friendly white man sit down at their table. Trust me. Racism is prevalent among those of all races, and it must be condemned universally, not just when it is picked up on by TMZ and Al Sharpton. I should be able to walk into a “black” church and not feel like a prostitute among aristocrats. Likewise, African-Americans should be able to walk into “white” churches without feeling like they’ve just entered the twilight zone where everyone is faux-happy to see him. We all have a lot of work to do on this issue, and it is an important topic. However, I think making a huge deal out of the cases you mentioned minimizes the true issues that face us as Christians.

165 dr. james willingham May 20, 2014 at 9:49 am

We have a about five blacks in our church, and the last one where we were members had about 20. They elected one an elder after we left (I had the privilege of recommending to the members of the committee that they ought to consider him. I am not sure whether that was a year earlier or not). We have a teenager in our church who wants to become a deacon.

I have attended Black churches and preached in them. In fact, I have preached funerals for Blacks in their churches (note I use the term Black, because that was the term under which I received my training. I attended a meeting of the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History in the Fall of ’70 in Philadelphia, when they were debating changing to the term African Americans). Blacks have always been kind, gracious, receptive, and they can laugh and talk around Whites, if they know them. If they like them, there is no limit. A Black lady ask my son and me to preach the funeral for one of her sons. Later, we would also have a part in her funeral. There great people among African Americans just as there are among other Americans, and I even question the use of African due to my thinking of them as Americans.

Just think of the Marine who said to me, “I don’t feel about them folks like others. In ‘Nam one night we had incoming fire, and my buddy threw himself in the way to protect me. I sat there and held that Black man in my arms and cried like a baby while he died.” I repeat there are great people among them, and you will find them, if you will simply be open, honest, caring, and compassionate. That doesn’t mean you have to approve everything they do, anymore than we would want Blacks to approve everything Whites do. UGH! We have some Whites that commit murder, incest, pedophilia, etc. Think about it, friend. Some of the best treatment and help I ever received came from African Americans,

166 William F. Leonhart III May 20, 2014 at 1:41 pm

Dr. Willingham,

I appreciate your experience. I have had many similar experiences with true friends of every race. I don’t see how that matters. I have yet to meet a perfect culture or subculture. Racism persists in all cultures and subcultures, and it is to be condemned in all of them. Wherever racism exists, it is a denial of the gospel, as Pastor Dwight has pointed out. Thus, to single out specific cases while turning a blind eye to others is shameful. I will not burry my head in the sand, flying the banner of self-righteous white guilt, in order to appease those who think I have to answer for something someone else did. I’m of German decent. My family came over after the Civil War, but before WWII.

I denounce racism of all kinds, and I believe it also proper to confront favoritism in the church when it comes to assigning blame in the ongoing issue of racism in America. Every race and subculture has an obligation to correct the wrongs that are currently being done under their own umbrellas, and to stop pointing fingers at others. I have racists in my family. They know I disapprove of their intolerance and will not allow it to go on in the presence of my children. I hold strongly to these principles, but I’ve grown sick and tired of watching others get a pass for not confronting racism in their own backyards, especially in the church. It sickens me to no end.

167 Tarheel May 16, 2014 at 12:55 pm

Guns
Football
Racism
Calvinism
Alcohol

Now for someone to add Baptist Identity, Believers baptism by immersion and all the variations often discussed regarding the leadership of the local church. ;-)

168 Les Prouty May 16, 2014 at 1:05 pm

Well, as with the Four Buck Chuck, moderation and all, I’d propose moderation in the amount of water needed for baptism…maybe a handful?

169 Tarheel May 16, 2014 at 1:16 pm

Nah, when it comes to baptism ya gotta go all the way.. my Presbyterian friend.

To use a sports quip….”go hard or go home”. ;-)

170 Les Prouty May 16, 2014 at 1:20 pm

Oh I know. I use lots of water when baptizing in Haiti with my Baptist church partner. Just helping you get all the topics on the page.

171 William F. Leonhart III May 16, 2014 at 1:46 pm

Has anyone suggested adopting the 1689 LBCF? Or would that be too 19th Century?

172 Stephen M Young II May 17, 2014 at 12:37 am

Is this a serious resolution idea or just a conversation starter?

Why direct resolutions on non-brothers? Resolve to recommend discernment in television watching and having the depth of discipleship to make the hard choice to do without a certain entertainment so as not to take part in a certain sin. Why resolve what the world should change? The world is outside of Christ. Or at least direct the resolutions toward those who call themselves followers of Jesus.

This resolution would not get my vote.

173 William F. Leonhart III May 17, 2014 at 8:15 am

Good point. I hadn’t that about that.

“I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves” (1Cor. 5:9-13; NASB).

Problem solved. We are to judge the racism within our churches and let the heathen behave like heathens. God will judge them.

174 Dwight McKissic May 17, 2014 at 9:20 am

Stephen,

See my comment to William below. It addresses your question as well.

175 D. L. Payton May 17, 2014 at 12:31 pm

We are salt and light, we must seek to change the world. A resloution as suggested is a form of monasticism.

176 Dwight McKissic May 17, 2014 at 4:50 pm

It amazes me how in the abstract many are opposed to racism, but in acknowledging that the appellation “Redskins” is a racist term, that was given by a racist, we can’t seem to call that act racist.

It amazes me that we would be willing to boycott Disney because of our objection to homosexuality, but we can’t commend Adam Silver, the NBA Commissioner for calling Dinald Sterling’s words racist and fining him and banning him from the NBA. It amazes me that he is willing to show more integrity on this issue than some of the commentators on this blog.

It amazes me that one cannot acknowledge that the STY laws have allowed aggressors to fet by with murder, and we aren’t willjng to ask state legislatures to amend the laws to maje sure that agggresors can’t take advantage of it.

To speak out against racism in general, but not specifically is hypocrisy of the highest order.

177 Mark Lamprecht May 17, 2014 at 6:48 pm

Dwight,

It amazes me that you expect people to dialogue with you when you paint people into a corner as you’ve done above. None of these issues are as crystal clear as you seemed to have expressed them to be. Yet, you are unwilling to understand different perspectives while calling peoples’ integrity into question. Like so many other interactions on the internet such an approach wreaks of bullying.

Both conservatives and liberals are on different sides of the SYG laws. It was argued via statistics last year that SYG in FL (as I recall) benefited minorities above others. As noted by others on this thread, some Native Americans are troubled by the Redskins name while many others are not. I don’t believe many today are pushing to boycott Disney. In fact, such political-type actions seem to be ill thought of today.

178 D. L. Payton May 20, 2014 at 11:17 am

Mark
Well stated.

179 Les Prouty May 17, 2014 at 6:53 pm

Thank you Mark. You said what needs to be said. Amen!

180 William F. Leonhart III May 17, 2014 at 7:02 pm

I’m only 33 years old, so I was just a teenager when the SBC voted to boycott Disney over the gay issue. I would not have been in favor of the boycott and I’m glad they reversed it. It is always dangerous to force a convention of churches to agree uniformly with the opinion of a few on one course of action in such specific cases. Where does it stop? There are so many specific instances, as I have pointed out above, instances of racism on all sides of which Pastor Dwight seems completely unwilling to acknowledge. To single out specific cases for scrutiny undermines all the other cases that deserve our attention. No racism should be tolerated, whether the culprit is white, black, Hispanic, Asian, or other. This is a broad topic that deserves a much broader brush than Pastor Dwight is willing to use.

181 Tarheel May 17, 2014 at 7:03 pm

Agreed.

182 Dwight McKissic May 17, 2014 at 7:11 pm

Mark and Les,

It is interesting that neither of you put up an argument as to why it would be unfounded to label the use of the word “Redskins” as racist, or the words of Donald Sterling as racist, or amending the STY laws to not allow aggressors regardless to color to not take advantage of them. You chose to attack the messenger rather than to show what is wrong with the message. It is difficult to be honest, and find something wrong with the message, so you resort to labeling me a “bully” because I bring the message. I am no MLK, but he was called far worst names, therefore, I will wear that label as a badge of honor, for making an effort to move our convention toward speaking prophetically against the racist use of the term “Redskins,” the abuse of the STY laws, and the racism of a current NBA owner.

Mark and Les, did you, or do you support the Disney boycott?

183 Les Prouty May 17, 2014 at 7:30 pm

Dwight, quickly. I’m out for the evening. Back later. And I did not support the Disney boycott.

184 Tarheel May 17, 2014 at 7:32 pm

You didn’t ask me…but no I did not support that SBC boycott. Absolutely did not.

I fact I don’t generally support “group boycotts” of any kind.

185 John Wylie May 17, 2014 at 8:37 pm

Brother McKissic doesn’t need me nor anyone else to defend or speak for him, but I have to great exception to saying that Pastor McKissic is bullying anyone. If you knew him you would know that bully is the last word that would come to mind.

What has been glaringly clear in this conversation has been that all of our perspectives are largely dictated by our racial experiences. I would have previously not been that concerned with the whole Redskins thing, but 10 years of preaching in several Native American churches tells me that they are not cool with the whole Redskins thing.

186 D. L. Payton May 17, 2014 at 10:44 pm

Dr. Dwight

I understand what you are saying. However, I fail to see how these words apply in any way to what i said. Please elaborate.

187 Dwight McKissic May 17, 2014 at 11:06 pm

D. L.,

This comment stream is long and the hour is late. I will be retiring for the evening soon. Would you help me out be referring to the comment # or a brief quote of what you are referring to. As you know the comments are not always sequential. I don’t know what words of mine that you are referring to that might not apply to your words. Been a long day for me. I apologize for being slow.

188 D. L. Payton May 18, 2014 at 12:51 am

Dr. Dwight

My comments may 17 @ 12:31 I am sure it has been a long day my brother. Perhaps tomorrow or the next day. Have a good Lord’s day

Blessings

189 dr. james willingham May 20, 2014 at 2:39 pm

I agree with you Dr. McKissic that Sterling’s remarks are racist. And the term Redskin can be taken as racist, but some folks want to stop all references to Indians, Warriors, Chiefs, etc., and even including the Seminoles. After conceding the Redskin issue, the others raise issues, because they are adopted in recognition of the proud accomplishments of many American Indians. Being a descendant of Cherokees on one side of my family and related to some of Sitting Bull’s descendants on another side, I think there is a lot of pride in the Indians’ accomplishments. By the way who knows about the Indian War Chief who defeated an American Army in in about 10 battles, inflicting more losses on them in those engagements than were inflicted at Little Big Horn? The American Army thought so much of him that they buried in him the uniform of an Captain. Ever hear of Little Turtle and his whipping that he put on General Saint Clair which involved the loss of 600 men?

190 Dwight McKissic May 17, 2014 at 9:18 am

William,

If MLK had only addressed the racism within the church and not the racism in the world, the SBC would still be totally segregated, as well as the USA. Prophets often addresses secular situations and scenarios of sin, immorality, inequity, injustice, exploitation and the like. Most of it outside of the church. The attitude of many in the SBC in this subject signal a major distinction between how most Black Baptist pastors and White Baptist pastors view this issue.

191 William F. Leonhart III May 17, 2014 at 2:44 pm

If you want to emulate MLK, we won’t try to stop you. As a citizen of this earthly kingdom, I am grateful for what MLK did in stopping the hemorrhage of racial injustice that pervaded our society. I only wish that there had been a simultaneous impact on the church that resulted in greater desegregation among God’s people within the church. What we have today, though, is a perpetuation of a race war that is more reminiscent of Malcom X and the Black Panthers than of MLK. I see a major push among evangelicals for white guilt and white shame on this issue when there are aggressors and agitators on all sides.

At the same time, though I am very grateful for men like MLK from an American citizen’s perspective, from a churchman’s perspective, I cannot resonate with his theology or personal ethics. But we need not get into all that. Suffice it to say that we need better examples if we are to move forward in this discussion, and there can be no golden calves.

In the end, if you and Robert Jeffress and Pat Robertson and other pastors and your churches want to make these sticking points for your churches, you have full autonomy to do so. As for me and my church, our consciences are not bound on these matters. Our concern is our hearts and minds, both corporately and individually, on these issues. Neither do we desire to bind other churches’ or individuals’ consciences on these issues, nor do we desire to be bound on the issue. If you want to denounce these specific issues, more power to you. I will not, nor will my church, be bound to do the same.

192 Dwight McKissic May 17, 2014 at 4:52 pm

William,

See my response to D. L.

193 William F. Leonhart III May 17, 2014 at 7:53 pm

Pastor Dwight,

I don’t think any of us would have an issue with calling out racism as a slight against the gospel, but too get this specific about particular racist events is, by omission, to justify all other events of racism. Again, what do I care what a pagan Jew said in private to his mistress about the other men with whom she chooses to galavant around when there are many men, mostly African-American men, in the NBA who get away with much lighter consequences for much more bold and public displays of racism? I don’t want to say anything about Sterling, not because I think too lightly of racism, but because shining such a bright light on him allows so many other racists to remain in their self-righteous darkness. Enough has been done to him and said about him, and I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve it. What I, and many others, are saying is that there are many others who deserve it also, and you still remain silent about the pervasiveness of racism within much of the African-American community.

194 Dwight McKissic May 17, 2014 at 8:18 pm

William,

The Sterling racism is a slight against the gospel. And those who support his continuing to own the team are also slighting justice, truth, and righteousness, which are at the heart of the gospel. This is a gospel issue. The fact that many of you can’t see that is quite disheartening.
I discovered this in South Africa while Mandella was still in prison. The. White missionaries did not see it as a gospel issue that they supported apartheid and color codes racial supremacy on the church construction job site that two American Black churches were funding, including the church that I pastor. The native South Africans immediately saw thus hypocrisy and racism. The missionaries couldn’t it didn’t want to see it. Neither could they see why their “blindness” was a hindrance to the gospel. This situation reminds me of that. Scores of Black Baptist Church leaders have said to me that they will never join the SBC for this very reason. Somehow, many in the SBC compartmentalze these issues and don’t see them as gospel issues. This is a huge problem.

Please point to me the specific incident of Black racism and if the fact bear it out I have no problem labeling and addressing it as such, as evidenced by my comment to Volfan/David in the comment stream above.

Question: Do you believe that the term that White men coined to refer to Native Americans and the Washington NFL team “Redskins” is racist; this term that again, was given to the team by a racist owner?

195 volfan007 May 17, 2014 at 8:30 pm

Dwight,

I will say this about the team mascot names. I never looked upon team names such as Indians, Warriors, Redskins, Seminoles, Braves, Chiefs, or Fighting Irish as racist names, or bad things. On the contrary, I always looked at these names as badges of honor…..that they looked upon the American Indians and the Irish as fierce warriors, who could really fight with great courage in battle. Thus, someone would want their mascot and team nickname to be something good, and courageous, and noble. I mean, I doubt people would pick a team nickname from something that they looked down upon, or despised, or thought was terrible.

Spartans, Trojans, Hilltoppers, Volunteers, Cowboys, Demon Deacons, etc.

Just a thought…..

David

196 Dwight McKissic May 17, 2014 at 8:36 pm

Volfan,
Would you be in support of a new football franchise, hypothetically speaking named The Memphis Whiteskins, with a logo of White Men wearing southern cowboy hats?

How could the name be a compliment if inherent in the name is a disrespect and putdown to the people referenced in the name?

197 Joey Hufstedler May 17, 2014 at 8:40 pm

Can you show us a poll of of what the Indians think? Everything I have read says they do not care.

198 volfan007 May 17, 2014 at 8:41 pm

Dwight,

Would it be better if they were named the Washington Warriors? Or, the Washington Fightin’ Algonquians? Or, do you object to any team nickname being named after an Indian tribe? In other words, is it the term “Redskins” that you don’t like?

David

199 Dwight McKissic May 17, 2014 at 8:48 pm

David,
You didn’t answer my question concerning the Memphis Whiteskins, and I really wish you would. But, my friend, I will answer your question. Yes, the name “Redskins” bother me tremendously. Because it is inappropriate for a mascot to be considered “synonomous”with a race of people, regardless to what race of people they might be.

I don’t personally oppose the “Warriors” or the other names that you mentioned because they are not inherently racist. They speak to geography, or some other positive feature. Unless the people from the area(s) that you mentioned objected, I would have no other objections to the names that you mentioned. Now will you please answe my question.

200 volfan007 May 17, 2014 at 9:00 pm

Honestly, Dwight, I wouldn’t care if a team were called the Whiteskins, and they were wearing cowboy hats. And really, I wouldn’t care if a team were named the Memphis Rednecks, and the mascot was a chubby fella wearing a ballcap, jeans, and his sleeves were cut off his camo shirt, making it a muscle shirt, and he yelled, “Yeeeeee haaaaaawww!” after a touchdown.

And, I’ll say this…..IF the American Indians in our nation really found the Redskins an offensive nickname, then it should be changed. The owner should change the name….if it’s that offensive to the majority of the American Indians in our land. BUT, should the SBC really have a resolution on this? Is it really that important? To change the name of an NFL team?

David

PS. My Great Grandmother was a full blooded, Creek Indian. I also have a lot of English and French blood in me, as well as a little German. I also have a lot of redneck and hillbilly in me.

201 Dwight McKissic May 17, 2014 at 9:11 pm

David,

Thanks for your honest answer. You might not object to that name, the majority of Americans would, which is why no such name as ever been proposed.

Yes, because the SBC cares about what is offensive to people, and the denigration of a people group, they should care about this issue. How can they truly care about their souls, if they don’t care about them being disrespected. I appreciate your acknowledging that the Washington team should change their name if it is offensive to the majority of Native Americans.

202 Joey Hufstedler May 17, 2014 at 10:03 pm

A 2004 poll from the NAES showed that 90% of Native Americans are not bothered by the name Redskins

203 William F. Leonhart III May 17, 2014 at 8:50 pm

Pastor Dwight,

I said that ALL racism is a slight against the gospel. For you to read that as saying that Sterlings comments were not a slight against the gospel is dishonest at best. You asked me to show you evidence that there are WORSE instances of blatant, public, unapologetic racism going on among African-Americans in the NBA (with what, by comparison, could be described as little more than a slap on the wrist). Glad you asked: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2014/04/29/8-Things-That-Wont-Get-You-Banned-by-the-NBA I await with anticipation your call for an SBC-wide denunciation of these incidents.

Regarding your comparison of me to South African racists, it just goes to show that you have not read my comments honestly, and you seem to be intent on building a straw man against me. However, I will say that you point out another instance of racial blindness that I believe only perpetuates the problem. Many South Africans who opposed Mandela did not oppose him for his stance against racism so much as his Marxist politics and his ties to terrorism. He was an evil man who I strongly denounce, but get this: I will not call for an SBC resolution denouncing him, because I realize that it would not breed civility in the SBC. It would only lead to further division in an already too divided convention.

As for my opinion on the Redskins’ name, I can neither confirm nor deny your charges. Yet you seem fully willing to run people out on a rail who are not as “up-to-date” on these things and have not formed as “sanctified” an opinion as you. Whatever happened to the old saying, “There, but by the grace of God, go I”? I can’t help but wonder what new opinion your sanctification will have you arrive at next year, which you will no doubt recommend as a resolution for the SBC, and subsequently cast stones at all those who don’t agree with you (or, perhaps, simply don’t go as far as you).

I think the term “bullying” is quite fitting.

204 Dwight McKissic May 17, 2014 at 9:05 pm

William,
I hurriedly read the link that you provided as what you see as examples of racism, I suppose. Would you please be more specific as to exactly what in those articles represented racism. It was not specified in the article, nor did my quick reading discover exactly which one of those incidents do you see as racist.

What exactly were you referring to that is not a slight against the gospel? Why resort to name calling-”bully”-when we are simply discussing contemporary issues and how they might relate to the gospel and the SBC? I haven’t call you disrespectful names. Please refrain from such toward me. Thanks.

205 William F. Leonhart III May 17, 2014 at 9:54 pm

I used a verb. That’s not a name. It is an action. The bullying to which I (and others on this thread) refer is to be found in the fact that you seem to be intent on labeling “racist” and “supremacist” anything that is not in keeping with your opinions on very specific instances. Let me put the next sentence by itself so you can see with the utmost glaring emphasis:

I agree with you that most, if not all, of what you point out is racist.

What I have argued is that it is not worthy of a resolution because, by omission, it makes light of all other instances of racism, some far more severe than the instances on which you have decided to focus. Where the blatant bullying comes in is when those who disagree with your proposed course of action are compared to racist South Africans and white supremacists.

Regarding your dismissiveness toward the article I sent you, section #3 is labeled, in bold, “Being a publicly vicious racist while black.” I don’t know how in the most dismissive of cursory reads one could miss that. Also, regarding the player that CHOKED HIS COACH while dragging him across the court for seven whole seconds and then later came out and punched him, can you honestly tell me that a white player could get away with doing the same against a black coach in any league in the United States?

I will repeat what I said earlier. There are two types of racism: there is the racism in which one hates and/or belittles those of another race, and there is the racism in which one prefers and/or idolizes his own race. BOTH of these types of racism are wrong and slight against the gospel. To turn a blind eye to ANY racism is tantamount to denying the gospel, so to pen a resolution highlighting only certain instances of racism is highly unhelpful and does not aid progress.

206 Dwight McKissic May 17, 2014 at 10:09 pm

William,

The labeling of a section racist dies not make the content therein racist. I ask you to point out one act of racism in that article, or any other, and I would be glad to condemn it. I have no problem at all calling out Black racism where it exist. This is absolutely necessary if we are going to heal this divide. The Sprewell/Coaxh choking incident was clearly wrong and an example of not respecting, and submitting to authority. It was Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! I can’t say that loudly enough. Racist? I don’t know his motivation;s) for having done so. Could gave been racist; could not have been. The article didn’t make a documented trail as I recall to the choke being motivated by racism. Again, show me a definite undisputed case–such as Sterling, “Redskins,” or the a use of the STY laws and I will call it out. I am not scared, but I am not a bully. But, again, MLK was called much worse.

207 Tarheel May 17, 2014 at 8:16 pm

I also contend it’s pretty blatant hubris for Dwight to portray himself a victim while at the same time comparing himself to MLK in this comment stream.

I’m pretty floored by that honestly.

208 cb scott May 17, 2014 at 8:19 pm

Dwight,

How shall we deal with Redskin Potatoes and Irish Potatoes in the future? Shall we call them Crimson Potatoes and Potatoes of the British Isles?

Can we just call them all ‘Taters?

If we call them ‘Taters, then those in leadership would all be ‘Taterheads.

209 Doug Hibbard May 17, 2014 at 9:48 pm

We are not renaming a potato group after the Alabama football team.

No.

Not at all.

210 Dwight McKissic May 17, 2014 at 8:27 pm

C B,

Redskin potatoes have red skin. Irish potatoes are named that way perhaps because they are white on the inside and some near white on the outside. Are we going to really place a people group-The Native Americans in the same category as potatoes?

To refer to a people group as a mascot is to make light of and reduce the people group to an object. It objectifies the people group in a disrespectful manner. Again, Whites in America would not stand for one minute for the Dallas Cowboys to be called the Dallas Whiteskins, and to allow images of White slavemasters or White cowhands to be the logo. Yet, many on this post are comfortable with or defending the Washington NFL team treat a people group this way. We need to remove this vestige of racism from American life.

211 cb scott May 17, 2014 at 8:43 pm

“Are we going to really place a people group-The Native Americans in the same category as potatoes?”

No. We are not going to put Native Americans in the same category as potatoes. However, we should just let ‘taters be ‘taters and football be football.

Dwight, this resolution is not going to pass. It will not get out of committee. You would have a better chance of getting a resolution on the removal of the WMU from rural Southern Baptist churches in Mississippi than you will have with this resolution.

Let’s go after Eric Holder and pornography. That is a worthy cause and worth the effort.

212 Dwight McKissic May 17, 2014 at 8:53 pm

CB,

Let me read a resolution that you or someone put together on the Holder/pornography situation and if I agree to what I read I would be glad to vote for it and support it. If this proposal does not get out of committee that would indicative of turning a deaf ear to the Native Americans who are appalled by the continued use of this racist appellation.

I ask you, my friend, as I asked Volfan: Would you support the name of a team called the Dallas Whiteskins?

213 Tarheel May 17, 2014 at 9:34 pm

“If this proposal does not get out of committee that would indicative of turning a deaf ear to the Native Americans who are appalled by the continued use of this racist appellation.”

Wow. So if they reject a poorly written hobglob resolution like this one … It means they’re racists?

Yea, you’re bullying.

214 John Wylie May 17, 2014 at 10:09 pm

Actually no that’s not what he said.

215 cb scott May 17, 2014 at 11:42 pm

Gentlemen,

Dwight McKissic is no bully. That is not in his character and it is extremely misappropriate that he has been referenced as such here. Dwight is an honorable man, a fine husband, father, follower of Christ, a splendid pastor, and a friend to many, me included.

He is also stubborn, as are many of us, when he believes his cause is right. I understand his cause, but I believe it to be untimely and not of the same degree of importance to which he obviously does.

Dwight,

There are just too many issues of a far more pressing need for Southern Baptists to address in our culture than the name of a football team.

Consider the case of Meriam Ibrahim, a 26 year old Sudanese Christian woman who has been sentenced to death after she delivers her baby and nurses the child for two years. Why? Because she married a Christian man, became pregnant and the Muslim government in Sudan has determined she has committed adultery because she married a Christian, and had marital relations with him, evidenced by her pregnancy.

Her government demanded she deny Christ. She refused. Now she is to be hanged by the neck until she is dead after the child turns two. Read her story.

Her cause is worth a resolution. Young Nigerian girls dragged from their homes is worth a resolution. Eric Holder remaining silent as pornography rapes the minds and bodies of children, youth, and adults is worth a resolution.

The names of football teams in the NFL is just not high on the list today, Dwight. You are a man with clout. Use it wisely, my friend. Use it wisely.

216 Tarheel May 18, 2014 at 7:10 am

That’s exactly what he’s saying….when people are accused of “turning a blind eye” to racism then obviously there certainly a implication of of some kind of racism.

217 Tarheel May 18, 2014 at 7:14 am

When someone is trying to say that what is not agreed upon as being racism needs to be dealt with and then say that you’re not dealing with the way THEY want you to…else you be declared a racist – then they are in fact being a racism bully.

218 John Wylie May 18, 2014 at 8:11 am

I’m sorry Tarheel, that’s not at all what he said.

219 D. L. Payton May 17, 2014 at 10:37 pm

CB

AMEN

220 Dwight McKissic May 18, 2014 at 12:02 am

CB,

Wow!!!! What great causes and concern that you have referenced that demand the attention of the Kingdom of God and the SBC expression of that Kingdom. You, my friend are the man with great history, great associations, and a bold, biblical, needed resolution put forth concerning the then POTUS, Bill Clinton.

CB, one can only submit three resolutions. I’ve already submitted mine. But, you my friend, could either influence someone, or you yourself could submit the topics that you put forth here as resolutions that certaininly merit the prayers, support, and any action that the convention could muster up to impact change and correction in these horrible situations. Thanks for calling attention to these. I wholeheartedly agree. Please submit these as resolutions by May 26. God could breathe on them and they could contribute to the change that’s so desperately needed. Thanks, my friend.

221 Dwight McKissic May 17, 2014 at 10:16 pm

Bro. John,

Thanks for understanding my English and not allowing my words to be misrepresented. Deeply appreciate it.

222 John Wylie May 17, 2014 at 10:21 pm

Yes sir, I was glad to do it.

223 Joel Hunt May 17, 2014 at 11:29 pm

Be it further resolved that the SBC condemns the song, “Jesus Loves The Little Children” for it’s blatant racism, and stereotyping on account of skin color…

Just kidding… kind of.

224 Mark Lamprecht May 18, 2014 at 12:05 am

Of course, another dismissive comment despite others’ perspectives that some of Dwight’s comments came across as bullying to some. Blogging of this type becomes fruitless as we won’t even pause long enough to consider how we come across to each other.

To belittle some Christians for not holding to the same alleged standard of the secular NBA Commissioner and charge other Christians with “hypocrisy of the highest order” is fine? Yet, point out that these (and other) statements come across as bullying, and get dismissed?

I have seen the charge of hypocrisy on this thread, but I’ve not seen it proven. I simply can’t believe that so often, and it saddens me, that it is pastors talking to each other in this manner. I cannot imagine shepherding people using this approach.

225 Dwight McKissic May 18, 2014 at 12:21 am

Mark,

I appreciate the fact that you are concerned about civility in speech I the blogworld. I share that concern. Perhaps, I could have used a better choice of words. While trying to make the point that general denunciations against racism, but never condemning specific acts of racism are in my judgement rather hollow and inconsequential; I should have addressed my statement to the topic in a broad sense and maybe not so much specifically referring my point to the topics specifically mentioned in my post. “Hypocrisy” may have been to strong of a term to use in this context. I was expressing my frustration over the fact that several in this thread are not willing to say that Sterling’s brand if racism needs to be condemned in my judgement by the SBC, and Adam’s Silver’s decision to ban him needs to also be supported. If Sterling goes to court to fight this decision, it has the potential of polarizing this nation racially in a way like we gave not seen since the OJ trial. It could also shut down the NBA. Disciples of Christ across color lines ought to be united as much as possible surrounding these issues. I am willing to take back the word “hypocrisy.” I hope that you would consider taking back the word “bully”.

226 Mark Lamprecht May 18, 2014 at 12:34 am

Dwight, I’m sorry for your frustration – and I’m sorry for mine as well. As difficult as it is, I understand that we all have different perspectives that inform our decisions. I’m sure you get that too. What we don’t always immediately (never?) know are the motives for decisions others make. But we are on the same team playing different positions which is why some of the comments on this thread boggle my mind.

While I admit that some of your comments came across as of the bullying stripe, I appreciate your explanation and am willing to take back the word.

I wonder if there are any in-house SBC issues that we should be concerned with.

227 William F. Leonhart III May 18, 2014 at 12:43 am

Let’s just be honest. The condemnation of this Jewish racist (and his comments were racist) and the silence on so many other instances of racism is the real hypocrisy here. The only reason the SBC would move forward with a resolution like this is if we were bullied into doing so. A resolution like this would only serve to embolden those who think it is okay to remain silent about certain types of racism, or racists of certain races, while dividing nations and denominations over other types of racism. We gain nothing by condemning specific cases and overlooking others as a convention.

228 Dwight McKissic May 18, 2014 at 1:04 am

Please site a case or cases that are clearly racist beyond dispute like Sterling, and I will join you in condemning it. No one is overlooking other acts of racism. Document it. We need to root it out.

229 Dwight McKissic May 18, 2014 at 12:48 am

Mark,

Thanks. The one thing that I personally wish the SBC would lead out on is the intentional planting of churches that are inter-racial. Part of the problem is that we live and worship in differnent worlds.

Eric Holder(one of CB’s favorite people-:) stated today his disagreement with Chief Justice Roberts about racism no longer being the pressing issue that it was years ago. Holder went on to argue that it is a prevalent issue today, just a lot more subtle than the Sterling type. The reality is, Blacks and Whites see these matters differently. Those differences are reflected in this thread.

But, back to your point. A resolution won’t resolve this. But, NAMB needs to start planting inter-racial churches, that are thoroughly inter-racial. They may ought to require evidence of an inter-racial core leadership team before they actually begin funding the church plant. We will not see some of these racial issues resolved until we can first resolve them in the church. The SBC represent the only hope that I see in the horizon with the ability to plant these churches on a large scale. That is a primary reason that I remain SBC hoping to see some significant movement in this direction. That’s an in house matter that we can focus on that if successful can change the country. Glad we made peace over this issue.

230 Dwight McKissic May 18, 2014 at 1:01 am

William,

You don’t know me. Therefore, I understand why you don’t take my word for it that I have and will boldly, unequivocally, and unashamedly stand against Black on White racism, or Black on any other non-Black race racism. I simply don’t see in the article that you were kind enough to provide for the second time a clear race based motive for admittedly some terrible, unnecessary, shameful, sinful, wrong, and irresponsible acts. The question is: were they racist acts? The article does not document that for me. It meets your standards to declare those as racist acts, and I understand that. Nothing I just read meets my standards to call them racist acts. Much of what Spike Lee said was a declaration of his past acts of racism. He was not admitting those as necessarily current actions and attitudes. Miachel Jordan admits to past racist attitudes and actions, so do I. I concede again, that this article meets your threshold for racism, but not mine. It clearly meets my standards though for a series of wrongheaded actions.

231 Doug Hibbard May 18, 2014 at 8:21 am

At this point, it feel cliche for someone to encourage everybody to stop, take a breath, go worship the Lord with the Lord’s people, and let this sit for a little while.

So consider me the deliverer of the cliche. Have a good day with God’s people, and pick this back up later. Dave can reopen the comments when he feels like it, or I’ll do it Monday morning.

232 Jess May 20, 2014 at 12:27 pm

I think racism will last as long as the present world does. There was racism in the days of Jesus, and there is racism now. It’s sad but true. We cannot change the heart of man, only Jesus can do that. I think we can treat one another with respect, and as equals.

My question is this, Dwight. Let’s say all the resolutions passed that you put forward. Then what? It will not be something that isn’t already law. So what do we do with the resolutions? Do we create our own Supreme Court and decide who will receive discipline if it is thought a resolution has been broken. What is the purpose if these resolutions pass.

I’m not against the resolutions, but what do you hope to accomplish?

233 Dave Miller May 20, 2014 at 2:00 pm

The fact that racism exists and will exist doesn’t change the fact that we should fight it with every ounce of our beings.

234 dr. james willingham May 20, 2014 at 4:09 pm

Reply to William F. Leonhart III, @166: William, I feel like saying, Duh? Who said I was burring my head in the sand bearing the banner of self-righteous white guilt? Racism against Blacks is wrong or racism against anyone is wrong. There are instances of racism in the past two years, where Blacks have said, “Lets get Whitey,” and they have run up an hit White people in the head, killing some. But racism like that is just simply racism like that the Whites have manifested toward the Blacks. And as to being of German descent, I am Heinz’s 57 varieties of American. Yep, I have German in my ancestral background, along with English, Scotch-Irish, and Cherokee. My family on both sides tend to date from as early as the 1600s (not counting those who were here before Columbus (O well why not) and those who were here before Columbus and the 1700s. The issue over Disney is not as cut and dried as it would seem to some of us. Anyone know about the pedophiles who have gone after children there? I read something about a year ago on the issue. These matters about homosexuals overlook the issue that the Pedophiles are present in Gay parades, waving their NAMBLA signs (that’s North American Man Boy Love Association), claiming that as long as it is done in love it is okay, never recognizing the fear and intimidation and adult can have on a child and the guilt trip laid on a child that affects and effects the child’s behavior, practically, for the rest of his or her life. We are allowing this stuff to be pushed on the internet, taught in our schools, integrated into our army. I had a book written by a Psychiatrist from Duke Univ. He was chairman of the Billy Graham Crusade in the 70s or early 80s. In his book he tells of a group that got together in World WarII and were caught engaging in immoral acts. Imagine what could have been the result, if the group had been on the front lines and were more concerned with their desires than with the prosecution of the war. But the thing I really worry about, having studied it, is the impact of sex upon the child, causing promiscuity, inability to hold down a job, insecurity, self-doubts, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.

235 William F. Leonhart III May 18, 2014 at 12:35 am

Pastor Dwight,

If you read the section, I certainly do believe that everything included in it is racist. Let me make it easier and just copy and past the section:

“Spike Lee has stated that white gentrification of Harlem has been horrible, has posted the address of George Zimmerman’s parents online to spur violence, has explained after visiting South Africa in the early 1990s, ‘I seriously wanted to pick up a gun and shoot whites. The only way to resolve matters is by bloodshed.’ He, like Donald Sterling, is no fan of interracial dating: ‘I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street.’ He’s currently a host on NBA Radio on SiriusXM, stars in NBA commercials, and had a front-row seat to the Sterling announcement.

“Then there’s Jay Z. Jay Z isn’t just fêted by the President of the United States. He’s a former part-owner of the Brooklyn Nets and, as an agent, works closely with the league. He was spotted recently at an NBA game wearing a necklace medallion for the Five Percent Nation, which sees black men as gods and white people as devils.”

Sterling was banned from the NBA for racist, but nonetheless private, comments he made. Jay-Z is an open, flagrant racist. Spike Lee is an open, flagrant racist. Why don’t we, the SBC, tell the NBA to ban them?

Furthermore, I find it interesting that you conclude, on the basis that a Hispanic man claims self-defense when he discharged a legally owned and possessed weapon against a much larger black man who was beating the tar out of him, that there are racial issues at stake in the Stand Your Ground law… However, when a black man drags a white man around by his throat for seven seconds in front of tens of thousands of viewers only to return later and punch him, suddenly you can’t read people’s thoughts and motives. How convenient.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: