The Dishonest Double-Speak of SBC Leader Richard Land<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
By Brannon Howse
www.worldviewweekend.com
Last week I wrote an article titled: Marxists, Muslims, Mormons, Globalists, and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention. Instead of being straight forward with the Christians that listen to his national radio program, or the SBC members from which he receives $3.2 million dollars a year to run his office, Richard Land chose to defend his unbiblical activities and affiliations using double speak, obfuscation, straw-man arguments, and what I see as outright dishonesty.Let's begin by acquiring the definition of doublespeak. Dr. William Lutz from Rutgers University defines doublespeak this way:
Doublespeak is language that pretends to communicate but really doesn't. It is language that makes the bad seem good, the negative appear positive, and the unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable. Doublespeak is language that avoids or shifts responsibility, language that is at variance with its real or purported meaning. It is language that conceals or prevents thought; rather than extending thought, doublespeak limits it."8 [bold added] The use of doublespeak includes the use of phrases and terms that rename otherwise objectionable concepts..."
 
Now let's see if Richard Land is gifted in the art of doublespeak. Richard Land's doublespeak on supporting the building of mosques:
In responding to articles by such individuals as Michael Carl of Worldnetdaily, Bryan Fisher of the American Family Association and myself, Mr. Land put out a rebuttal to our objections in the following manner:
 
Q) Is Richard Land involved with a coalition to defend the right of Muslims to build mosques in the United States?
A) Richard Land defends the right of American Muslims to build their houses of worship (mosques) in places where they live.  He is NOT involved in efforts to encourage or aid the building of those mosques.  He is only involved in legal efforts to defend American Muslims who are having their legal rights under the First Amendment denied or curtailed by zoning commissions and city councils.
 
That is doublespeak. Land is NOT involved in helping Muslims build mosques he is simply helping Muslims overcome legal obstacles so they can build their mosques? 
The majority of Southern Baptists that donate funds to their churches are not doing this so a percentage can go to Land's office so he can be involved in "legal efforts to defend American Muslims who are having their rights under the First Amendment denied or curtailed by zoning commissions and city councils." As I stated before in my last article, we are not for the federal government prohibiting the free exercise of religion of Christians or Muslims. However, if local communities do not want a mosques in their community because 80% of mosques in America are being funded by the Wahhabi Islam of Saudi Arabia, that is their right. Why would any Christian work to build mosques for a satanic religion such as Islam?
Land and I are both in favor of religious liberty but that does not mean I am going to join the interfaith coalition of the Anti-Defamation League and now help the Muslims overcome the obstacles they encounter in local communities. When was the last time you saw Muslims help a Christian church overcome obstacles thrown in their way by a local planning commission? If this is Land's new calling then he should leave the SBC and go start such an organization.
Bryan Fisher of the American Family Association nailed it in his article, "No mosque at Ground Zero? Then why a mosque anywhere?" in which he wrote:
There is nothing in our Constitution that requires us to give space to an institution that is determined to wipe out the Constitution. In fact, the one crime identified in the Constitution is treason against the United States. So not only do we not have to give room to those who "adhere" to the enemies of our way of life or give them "Aid and Comfort," we can put them in jail.
Is every mosque a center for terrorism? Nope. But 80% of the mosques in America are funded by Saudi Arabia, which sends them literature to distribute to their attendees, which calls for the blood of infidel Christians, and Jews. Thus 80% of the mosques in America are almost certainly teaching and preaching violent jihad against America. They are teaching violence against their host country. That's not religion, that's treason. 
If a group of Muslims is willing publicly - say, in front of a zoning board or a city council - to renounce the 109 verses in the Koran that call for the spilling of infidel blood, if they are willing to renounce the verses that call for second-class citizenship for Jews and Christians, if they are willing to renounce the verses that call for the decapitation of Muslims who convert to Christianity, if they are willing to renounce the verses that call for husbands to beat their wives into submission, if they are willing to publicly declare that Christians and Jews are not pigs and apes but rather human beings created in the image of God, and if they are willing to publicly state that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state and that Hamas is a terrorist organization, then they should be allowed to build as many mosques as they want. But then they wouldn't be building mosques at that point, would they? 
What is it about what Bryan wrote that Land does not understand? I also recommend you read the article by Bryan Fisher titled, As One with a Southern Baptist Heritage, THIS Saddens me!
Richard Land's doublespeak on his endorsement of a book by Jim Wallis: Land wrote: [emphasis added]
Q) Does Richard Land endorse "radical" Jim Wallis? A) No. Richard Land did provide an endorsement for Jim Wallis's book The Great Awakening in 2008. A recent commentary on Richard Land truncated and largely took this endorsement out of context. The full and accurate quote from the book is:
"Despite our significant public-policy differences, I commend Jim Wallis for advocating religious belief as an invaluable resource in addressing the urgent moral and social crises of our time." - Richard Land
Remember this is a statement put out last week by Richard Land. Richard Land's name is at the top of the statement as the author. This would really be funny if it were not so serious.
Land is saying that he does not endorse Jim Wallis but he did provide an endorsement of Jim Wallis' book. That is exactly what I stated in my article last week. Thank you Richard for confirming what I wrote which was that you endorsed the book of a neo-Marxist and commended Wallis for bringing religious beliefs to bear on the urgent moral and social crises of our time.
What Land wants to make clear is that he does not endorse Jim Wallis, he just endorses the book that contains Jim Wallis' radical ideas. That is what is called doublespeak.
But wait, it actually gets worse. On his October 9th radio program Land again says that I wrote in my article that he endorsed Jim Wallis. NO WHERE in my article did I ever write that Land endorses Jim Wallis. I specifically had the subhead line of: "Land endorses a book by Radical Jim Wallis".  Land also says that I did not quote the full endorsement he gave on the book by Jim Wallis.
Land says, "the first half of the quote says although I disagree with most of the views in this book, I do applaud Jim Wallis for understanding that religion has a place in public policy, well he just takes out the first half of the quote and says that I am endorsing Jim Wallis. Well that is just dishonest, that's just dishonest and its misinformation."
Land's endorsement of the book by Wallis does not read, as he claims, "Although I disagree with most of the views in this book…" You will not find those words in his endorsement. Please read the full endorsement again by Land that is provided above.
Land is the one being dishonest and putting out misinformation. Land wants you to believe that I wrote something that I did not write. Land is trying to change the debate and muddy the waters so people will think that I took Land out of context when that never occurred. Land wants you to believe he is the victim of misrepresentation when in fact; it is Land that is misrepresenting my article and the facts contained therein.
Land is Shocked That People Believe The Content in my Article:On his October 9th radio program Land said, "Well you know, the sad thing to me is so many people that believe this article that know me." This reason they believe the article Richard may be because they DO know you and have followed what you have been up to. The other reason they believe the article is because it is factually accurate and I provided numerous hyperlinks to news articles that document your silly and misguided quotes, affiliations, and beliefs.  
Richard Land's Double Speak on Amnesty: Land says he is not for amnesty but for illegal aliens paying a fine and getting to the back of the line. That is amnesty even if Land says it is not.  It is amnesty from being deported. Staying in America and going to the back of the line for citizenship is not the same as being deported and waiting in line in their country of origin. Thus it is amnesty from the full penalty of the law and thus what Richard is supporting is amnesty. I believe Richard Land is very gifted at doublespeak.

Specific Issues I raised in my article that Land never addresses: 1. Land never addresses how he is in clear violation of 2 Corinthians 6:14 and 2 John 9-11 when he entered into a spiritual enterprise with Glenn Beck and locked arms with members of all faiths in an attempt to look to "one god".
2. Land never addresses his taking scripture out of context to support his amnesty agenda. Why? It is because I provided the hard evidence from a concordance that he had taken scripture out of context and so instead of taking responsibility he just ignored the facts?
3. Land never addresses the anti-Christian, anti-American, globalist agenda of the Council on Foreign relations or his giving them credibility as a member. Instead, Land claims to be fulfilling the Matthew 5:13-16 mandate to be salt and light. Land needs to understand that we are never called to be salt and light by compromising and becoming members of an anti-Christian, antichrist organization like the CFR. Again in 2 Corinthians 6:14 and in 2 John 9-11 the Bible speaks to this issue.
4. Land never addresses why he would call Mormonism the fourth Abrahamic faith. Mormonism does not believe in one god but millions of gods, making it a polytheistic religion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are monotheistic; meaning they believe in only one god. So how does that make Mormonism a fourth Abrahamic religion? Mormonism does not date back to Abraham so how can Land call it the fourth Abrahamic faith? Why did Land not address this part of my article? Is it because he cannot doublespeak his way out of this blunder?

Renaming Otherwise Objectionable Concepts:
Remember that part of the tactic of those engaged in doublespeak includes the "use of phrases and terms that rename otherwise objectionable concepts..."
Land will not admit that I, and others, have laid out clear examples of unbiblical partnerships, alliances and endorsements. Instead Land seeks to call compromise by another name-evangelicalism.
On his October 9th radio program Land clearly implied that those who are criticizing him are fundamentalists that want to withdraw from the world and those that support him are evangelicals that want to engage the world.
When Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, and Neo-Marxist Jim Wallis all call themselves evangelicals then you know the term has been co-opted by the progressives. Considering what I believe to be Land's moves to the left perhaps Land is an evangelical.
Land can call those of us that disagree with him "fundamentalists" but I believe he is seeking to turn the word into a pejorative and an insult. Land can insult me if he likes but in reality I believe he is also calling those that agree with the facts that I have presented in my article last week a pejorative and that just happens to include many Southern Baptist members and pastors that have e-mailed me in agreement with my article. Perhaps we "fundamentalists" should donate to our SBC churches with clear instructions that none of our contributions are to make their way back to the SBC where a percentage is given to fund the work of Richard Land and his office. 
Also on his radio program Land spoke to my criticism of his accepting the invitation to become a member of the anti-Christian, anti-American, globalist organization, the Council on Foreign Affairs. Land said "I mean what am I suppose to do say no because some pinhead may think that I'm an internationalist and I want to reduce America's sovereignty because I am a member of the Council on Foreign Relations?" I assume I am the pinhead Land is referring to. Yes, Richard, I do think that a Christian leader should have enough discernment to know that you were invited to join the CFR because they want to use you to make themselves appear "Christian friendly" when in fact they are not. The fact you cannot figure that out and I can makes me the pinhead? I personally think it is time for Land to go and start his own organization and raise his own funds instead of relying on the hard work of us "fundamentalists."
However, just because I call myself a conservative, Bible believing Christian and do not want to join the Council on Foreign Relations, endorse a book by neo-Marxist Jim Wallis, seek to build bridges with radical Islamic fundamentalists, push for amnesty for illegal aliens, proclaim Mormonism the forth Abrahamic Faith and join Mormon Glenn Beck in a spiritual service does not mean I want to retreat from the world. What it means is that I want to be in the world but not OF the world. And that is no doublespeak.