I must say, Richard, that I find your attempt to connect me with an “inside-the-beltway urban myth” rather amusing.
» Back to full entry
» Back to full entry
What Islam Really Says About Violence, Rights and Other Religions
Gomaa, Fadlallah, Mubarak, Khan, Siddiqi, Ellison, others | On Faith
All Comments (2)
cotd diob ogymjrd clrduz tydpzfmc unwpk blpmo
July 13, 2007 5:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 13, 2007 17:08
Randall --
I enjoy your work and, roughly speaking, tend to agree with your point of view. But I think you're doing Richard Land a disservice here.
Yes, he was wrong about it being under Carter, rather than Ford, that the IRS stripped Bob Jones of its tax exempt status. I suspect he'll admit to that error. But he suggested he didn't really oppose it anyway -- at least not actively -- so I don't think he was trying to "pin" anything on Carter.
Anyway, here's where I think you're being unfair. First, although you didn't outright claim that any individuals in the modern evangelical movement are racist, you did say that the movement was born out of an effort to defend segregation. Without clarification on your part, there's a link there that many readers would make. To deny that is kind of like the Bush administration denying that they said Saddam played a role in 9/11. (Smaller scale, of course!)
Moreover, you are ignoring the fact that you and Richard agree on something: the pro-life movement did not arise directly out of the Roe vs. Wade decision. He never said that, so you really should stop arguing as if he did. He said the movement was catalyzed by the million plus abortions that took place soon after Roe v. Wade. You can argue against that analysis of history, which would be fine. But don't attack a straw man.
As a result, I think your talk of Richard engaging in "character assassination" is a bit over the top. Let's keep things civil.
March 5, 2007 10:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 5, 2007 22:27