The appeal in Keyes v Bowen has been denied by the California district court of appeals. This is the case jointly brought by Ambassador Alan Keyes, Markham Robinson and Baptist pastor Wiley Drake against California Secretary of State Bowen, that argued Bowen should have verified Barack Obama’s eligibility to be on the California presidential ballot.
Retired Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland, sitting on the California court by assignment, said determining the eligibility of a presidential candidate is the responsibility of party officials and Congress and not California’s secretary of state.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation is the plaintiff’s attorney in the case.
Drake, pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif., served as second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention in 2006-2007.
“It’s interesting to me at great political battles how you have a Protestant to pray and a Catholic to pray and then you have a Jew to pray,” Smith stated. “With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew.”
Southern Baptist Convention President Bailey Smith, Aug. 22, 1980
Maybe it’s just me, but does anyone else bristle at Alan Keyes being called “Ambassador”? He was a representative of the United States at the Economic and Social Council of the U.N., but he never assumed the traditional duties or status of what we normally think of as an ambassadorial post. Although I respect his service to the United States, and admire his educational credentials, Keyes has degenerated into a pompous creep, whose intellectual powers have been replaced by stupidity, religious bigotry, and avarice. Perhaps, in purely technical terms, Keyes was an ambassador–but then, technically speaking, so too is Orly Taitz a lawyer. Both besmirch the honor of their titles.
“Whenever… preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science.” –Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281
I don’t mind preachers having political opinions, in fact it is inconceivable that they would not. But I am utterly sick and tired of preachers claiming to have a hot line to God and his/her/its political views and seeking to condemn everyone that doesn’t agree with him (the preacher) to hell.
And anyway, any preacher of any faith that thinks that “God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew.” or a Muslim, or a Zoroastrian, or a Buddhist, or whatever, doesn’t understand the concept of the term “God Almighty” and therefore doesn’t even begin to understand the first thing about his own religion and should be defrocked.
Smith, nor the SBC, never repudiated that statement.
Which is one more reason why I thank God that I’m not a Southern Baptist.
And why I give thanks every day that I am Jewish, and my wife is a follower of the Dalai Lama.
And just when you thought you could relax…
Wiley Drake plans to appeal the dismissal. http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2010-10/southern-baptist-pastor-appeals-suit-over-obamas-birth
ellied, that is great news! Now we will have a CA supreme court opinion that will mock The Kreep and the birthers. I can’t wait!
I’m a recovering Southern Baptist.
Misha,
I thought it was the birthers who relied on comments taken out of context. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were not aware of the origin or full text.
Time Magazine- Monday, Sep. 29, 1980
Last June in St. Louis, well-organized conservatives at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention elected a stem-winding preacher named Bailey Smith, 41, as president of the nation’s biggest Protestant group (13.4 million members). Smith, who trained at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and is a pastor at the First Southern Baptist Church in Del City, Okla., managed to keep a low profile until a big August political rally in Dallas, organized by the rising Protestant right. Reporters flocked to a press conference where Ronald Reagan was holding forth in favor of biblical creationism, and so most of them missed Smith’s address to 5,000 in the main arena. Said Smith: “It’s interesting to me at great political battles how you have a Protestant to pray and a Catholic to pray, and then you have a Jew to pray. With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew. For how in the world can God hear the prayer of a man who says that Jesus Christ is not the true Messiah? It is blasphemous.”
Sensing more anti-Semitism than due respect, “those dear people” decided Smith’s words should not go unnoticed. Last week the American Jewish Committee sent transcripts around the country. Smith persists in his opinion, but many S.B.C. members are embarrassed over their leader’s theology. Said Jimmy Allen, head of the radio-TV commission and a former S.B.C. president, Smith’s statement “doesn’t represent the position of most Southern Baptists. God listens to the needs of every person who calls on him.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,952810,00.html
My grandfather was an old school southern baptist preacher for over 50 years ; He couldn’t stand Bush or republicans. Didn’t take too kindly to those in his congregation who took it upon themselves to constantly bash Clinton either 😉
Yes, please include me in the group.
Yes, but remove “Amb” and “ador” and the title fits well.
No clear that the context puts Smith in any better light, but of course context never hurts.
I am not a Southern Baptist, and I recently read an interesting comment on a blog somewhere pointing out that many people who are not Southern Baptists have gotten the incorrect impression that the SBC speaks for them, or is somehow in charge of them. It’s certainly true that I had gotten that impression from the way the SBC is talked about in the papers. But this commenter said that churches that belong to the SBC are under no requirement to agree with the SBC about anything, theological or otherwise.
So apparently it is inaccurate to quote anything from the SBC and assume it applies to the member churches.
The Associated Baptist Press blocked me from commenting before I even made a comment.
I must be on some master no opinions list.
As am I! Became an Episcopalian at age 18 because I couldn’t bear the narrow mindedness any longer.
ellied, that is great news! Now we will have a CA supreme court opinion that will mock The Kreep and the birthers. I can’t wait!
Review with the Cal. Supremes, like SCOTUS, is permissive. So expect a silent denial a la “cert. denied.”
The old Baptist Theology stated in simple terms that a believer held that Jesus was the Messiah who came and died to take away the punishment for the sins of all mankind, collectively and individually. A person needed to publically state his or her belief (being born again) and be baptized by immersion as a symbol of a new relationship with God. How the believer or individual congregations interpreted the rest of scripture varied greatly. It seems to me that now the SBC is trying to codify Baptist beliefs about just about everything. Included is a belief about the restoration of Israel as a key component in Christ’s Return. Many conservative church bodies, my own included, believe that after the Cross and Jesus’ Sacrifice we are no longer Jew or Greek(Gentile), but followers of the Messiah. Israel is a State, but not in any sense, part of the promise of Christ’s return. I hope in my effort to be simple I am not simplistic. You can correct me.
More nonsense….
http://www.habledash.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=920:white-house-insider-serious-obama-scandal-that-could-end-2012-bid-&catid=45:the-nook&Itemid=59
As well as the machine appears to be operating from the outside, there is a massive scandal beneath the surface involving the undocumented President Obama, Chicago, and the Justice Department that has put the White House into complete meltdown. An interview transcript with a Washington insider and former Obama White House official has just been released on News Flavor that will truly blow you away about the failed Obama administration and serious events taking place behind the scenes to prevent an implosion of the Democrat Party because of the current Commander-in-Chief.
We’re aware of the non-existent leadership qualities possessed by Obama and also that he seems to only enjoy the perks of the job without doing the job altogether. However, it appears that the powerful machine behind the Democratic Party is working from within to keep this president to a single term for the sake of the country and their party.
Judging by the comments made from the anonymous insider, the scandal is huge – big enough to send the Democrat Party back to the stone age. With the number of Democrats openly opposing Obama in their re-election bids this year, it’s clear that something has them spooked.
President Obama. Chicago. The Justice Department. The insider eludes us to believe that the scandal is right under our noses and the media has even reported bits and pieces of it. So what could it be?
One thing’s for certain: Barack Hussein Obama was picked from obscurity to get to where he is today. His past is hidden under a very powerful lock and key courts won’t let anyone touch, likely for a good reason. If the scandal does involve Obama’s citizenship, that alone could significantly impact the moral fabric of America. Think about it: If Obama wasn’t born in America, he would have needed extremely powerful people able to pay off officials at every level of the United States government, all the way down to local city officials, as well as foreign nations – and in return for what? If revealed to be true, Americans would have zero trust in the government – there could be a revolution.
But bringing it back to Chicago, think about the key players: Tony Rezco, SEIU’s Andy Stern, Valerie Jarret, the banks, the political machine, etc. We know the phony stimulus money was given to his pals at Chicago banks to save them from going under, but somehow Blagovich is involved. He may be crazy enough to be telling the truth about Obama’s old Senate seat.
And the Justice Department? They’ve likely been told where, when, and how to act to keep this event on the down low – maybe to even postpone it until after the midterm elections. Think of the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case all the way to Arizona’s enforcement of federal immigration law via SB1070.
All we know is that there will be a massive message sent to Washington D.C. next week by the voters and something huge is going to go down once Republicans take control of the committees, which means investigations of events that Democrats have tried to bury.
A few of the most interesting excerpts are below, but the article can be found here on News Flavor. The interview was conducted by Ulsterman and both sources remain anonymous.
Yes and President Bush put bombs in the buildings to create political leverage. You know that story. This one rivals it.
Note the lack of details and the inability to spell. Yes, I certainly believe this poster.
It doesn’t matter if I took the quote by itself. Bailey Smith is an anti-semite.
Your sentence doesn’t actually mean what you appear to think it means due to the combination of “nor” and “never”. Substituting “ever” instead of “never” would work, lol.
Loved the SBC President quote though and it has given timely help to me in a discussion I’m having with someone elsewhere. Thanks.
Thank you.
That Baptist site causes my McAfee Security to go berserk.
That statement alone is enough to make anyone believe it is impossible to pull off such a scandal.
Misha was correct in attributing the quote to Bailey Smith.
From the article in question.
Being embarrassed isn’t the same as believe that something is wrong. Not, being Jewish I would expect a stronger renouncement that “many S.B.C. members are embarrassed.” Actually, no matter my religious conviction or lack there of I would expect a strong renouncement.
Christians know how to strongly condemn things.
(Raises hand) Another survivor. Had to escape the Old South first.
Bah. Join the American Baptists (originally Northern Baptists). We generally do not issue edicts to our churches, whether they’re obligated to follow them or not. Plus, we claim the First Baptist Church in America, located in Providence, Rhode Island.
That church was founded, I believe, by Roger Williams, a passionate advocate for the separation of church and state, the first theologian in America to do so.
He rejected the overtures of the Baptists in Boston upon his arrival because they were too were not ‘separated’, that is they believed in an established church. So he founded Rhode Island Colony.
Williams would be aghast at the antics of today’s clerics.
Yes, he would. And would be as brave combating it in a way that witnessed to many. Christians should be firm in their faith convictictions which include speaking as an ambassador of Christ, but equally firm in insisting that the Church not become actively involved in party politics. Both parties take positions I cannot justify as a practicing Christian. Voting and speaking out on issues of importance is not only justified but necessary, even for ministers. But actively advocating for a particular party or wing of a party is not. I did get one of the robo calls from Dr. Dobson and emailed his organization with my frank opinions about that kind of activity. I am still trying to figure out how he got my home phone number. It was not my church.