1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Franklin Graham and Richard Land Support Universal Background Checks

Discussion in 'Activism' started by Prophet, Mar 17, 2013.

  1. Prophet

    Prophet Well-Known Member

    Let's not turn this into a religious discussion please. Keep all potentially inflammatory comments to yourself, they're counter-productive and the mods have already deleted a few. If you send a message, please be polite, informative and respectful as always.

    Dr. Richard Land, ethics chief of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Committee, and Franklin Graham, founder of the successful Samaritan's Purse relief and charity program, have come out in support of the President's call for Universal Background Checks.

    Please take some time to write a professional, informative, and well-intentioned letter asking Land and Graham to withdraw support from the President's proposal, on the grounds that it violates American's God-given civil liberties as protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    Here's a form letter, feel free to use it as a platform for your own.

    Last edited: Mar 17, 2013
  2. Thermactor

    Thermactor member

    Why should they weigh in on that issue at all? It seems awfully removed from their purview of religion.
  3. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    And that is a point that can be made, that they're involving themselves and their organizations in a political instead of a religious matter (worse yet, allying themselves with a politician that their supporters are at odds with politically and morally on other issues) at their peril.
  4. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Well-Known Member


  5. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator


  6. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Well-Known Member

    I agree that UBC cannot work without retroactive registration and that retroactive registration is clearly a prelude to confiscation, but that doesn't mean that a person who heads a religious organization has no right to chime in. Religious leaders have the same freedom to express their position on political/cultural matters as anyone else, even when I personally disagree with that position..

    The concept of "separation of church and state" is not mentioned in 1A. All that's there regarding religion is that Congress cannot establish a national religion.

    The right of a person to opine on UBC is protected by 1A, and the fact that such a person has a high position in a religious organization doesn't change that. I don't see any prohibition of organizations taking an "official" position on political/cultural matters either, even if doing so risks alienating many of the persons of faith they represent. Can anyone show me where it is?
  7. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Certainly true! They have the right to say what they want. And the right to incur whatever fallout taking such a stance might bring down upon them, their organization, and the beneficiaries of their charity.

    (Freedom of speech =/= freedom from the repercussions of your words and actions.)

    In this case, may it fall HEAVILY upon them.
  8. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Well-Known Member

    Sam, I agree with you completely that this is a risky stand. But what if these guys had come out in opposition to UBC?

    OP or anyone, if Land and Graham had publicly expressed opposition to UBC, would this thread even exist?
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2013
  9. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Well-Known Member

    This was a heart-breaker for us.
  10. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    What if they'd come out against Obama's plan? Well, I'd like to think this thread would indeed exist -- in that that someone would have noticed that and posted a "Hey, Support these guys!" thread.

    They have the right to speak. The repercussions which follow may be good for them, or bad. They chose ... poorly.
  11. Prophet

    Prophet Well-Known Member

    It was for me too. It's really going to be difficult for me to pass the word around on this one, the Samaritan's Purse Program has done awesome things. I'm particularly supportive of their Christmas charities.

    From 1954 to the present only one church has ever lost its IRS tax-exempt letter ruling, but even that church did not lose its tax-exempt status for opposing then-Governor Bill Clinton for President in 1992. Pulpit Freedom Sunday has been going on for years and the IRS won't touch it with a ten-foot pole, likely because it knows that it doesn't have a case.

    So that said; yep, this thread would still exist but in its opposite form.
  12. Hangingrock

    Hangingrock Well-Known Member

    Both of those individuals have a right to express themselves and I have the right to no longer support their endeavors.
  13. X-Rap

    X-Rap Well-Known Member

    The problem with these kind of endorsements is the same as what we encounter with our present legislators in that they take counsel from underlings that have a bias or are just uninformed of the ramifications of the supported legislation.
    On its face it is hard to say that sorting out those who would behave as criminals is a bad idea until one looks at the loss of liberties that the honest man will be subject to.
    UBC can never work without registration to know who presently has the guns, this goes for all transactions including those within an estate. The press won't report on that fact anymore than they will report the lies I have heard from Bloomberg and the rest when they claim guns are being bought online and through the mail.
  14. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Well-Known Member

    Got a reply...

    No apologies.
  15. jfrey

    jfrey Well-Known Member

    SO WHAT?? They stick their noses into an issue they have no stake in or will loose either way. The Southern Baptist Convention offices in Dallas posted 30.06 signs in 1996 when concealed carry came to Texas. I wrote them a scathing letter and told them they should stick to religion and stay out of politics and issues that didn't concern them. Never got a reply but did get numerous calls from folks all over the state sharing my views.
  16. Prophet

    Prophet Well-Known Member

    Wow. Did he really just respond with a basic summary of everything we already know? What kind of response is that?

    Time for another email.
  17. Ryanxia

    Ryanxia Well-Known Member

    Weak response. If they are going to stand on the other side of the line when it comes to freedom they're going to need to do better than that.
  18. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Well-Known Member

    I almost replied to Shuford's email. I didn't quite know if or why I should reply. Would it make a difference? Are they interested in hearing what I have to say? Anyway... here's what I almost sent Shuford:
  19. Prophet

    Prophet Well-Known Member

    Excellent and heartfelt. You took the time to write it up, you may as well send it even if it falls on deaf ears.

Share This Page