-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Trent Lott called to task by SBC leaders?
- Thread starter go2church
- Start date
Found this story Trent Lott story
Lots of silence, although Richard Land, president of the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, has called for him to step down.
http://bpnews.org/bpnews.asp?ID=14861
http://www.abpnews.com/abpnews/story.cfm?newsId=3389
http://bpnews.org/bpnews.asp?ID=14861
http://www.abpnews.com/abpnews/story.cfm?newsId=3389
In all fairness, what specifically did he say that would enable someone to biblically demand that he step down?
The turmoil is about what the liberal media and the PC-minded think he meant. As far as I know, he hasn't admitted that he had segregation in mind when he spoke.
The turmoil is about what the liberal media and the PC-minded think he meant. As far as I know, he hasn't admitted that he had segregation in mind when he spoke.
You have got to be kidding?!! What did he say? Weren't you listening? To uphold a segregationist as the solution to many of the problems of today is unthinkable. You must remember this is not the first time he has made remarks like this. Once or twice is an accident, a slip of the tounge reflecting his closed-minded upbringing in good ole Mississippi. Comments over two decades is a pattern of thinking being held in check by creative handlers.
I will forgive him. He should have stepped down much earlier, offering his resignation rather then being forced out of his position of power. (Call it what you want, he was forced out) The fact that he didn't shows that he just doesn't get how hurtful what he said was.
I don't know if they held themselves accountable or they just ducked when they saw the PR mess Lott created headed their way, remember there were 10 (25%) fellow senators who wanted to "stand by their man".
I don't know if they held themselves accountable or they just ducked when they saw the PR mess Lott created headed their way, remember there were 10 (25%) fellow senators who wanted to "stand by their man".
Let me translate what a desire for Separationist Government would be like.
To separate means one group is entitled to certain benefits and rights that the other is not and is further recogonized by the Government, thus laws will apply to one group that will not apply to the other. This is called discrimination and is only used by government when that person or group is a threat to society or the government, like criminals, or foreigners.
This results in the idea that one group is better than the other group based on race alone. Another word for this is racist.
post it,
I never heard Lott espouse any of what you say. Lott even said he did not view himself as superior to blacks. I am not a fan of Lott in that I think he is a politician who will say whatever it takes to be elected. To say he is racist I think is wrong however and seems that to many people are super senstive about things.
I never heard Lott espouse any of what you say. Lott even said he did not view himself as superior to blacks. I am not a fan of Lott in that I think he is a politician who will say whatever it takes to be elected. To say he is racist I think is wrong however and seems that to many people are super senstive about things.
Bro. James Reed
New Member
I wish that Sen. Lott had not apologized. Rather, I wish he would have explained what he meant by the comment. Was he just showing pity on a 100 yr. old man? Did he disagree with some of Truman's policies and, therefore, wanted for Thurmond to implement new ones? There are many things he could have meant by the comments, and to jump all over the man without actully knowing what he meant is very un-Christian. You will forgive him, but ONLY if he steps down as Leader. I didn't know that God placed conditions on forgiveness. If he did, we would all be in a heap of trouble. How often do we offend people? If we truly repent, we should be forgiven. I'm sure everyone who wants him to step down has been a perfect saint for their entire lives. Put another way, if your pastor came before the church and asked to be forgiven because he had cheated on his wife, what would you say? Okay, we forgive you, but you can no longer be a preacher. If so, what is the purpose of repentance? If people aren't truly going to forgive us, we should keep our mouths shut about any wrongs we have committed. Has anyone ever heard of the gospel steps of Matt. 18? You should read up on them before you condemn someone. Sen. Lott is no different now than he was when first elected to be Leader, so why are we just now calling into question his moral character? Just as with Bill Clinton. If he would have come out and admitted his wrong-doing and asked the American people for forgiveness, it would have been easier to accept than his lying, under oath, about it. Sen. Lott never lied about his comments, though, it would have been smarter of him to explain what he meant by them, rather than just attempting to be forgiven for them. People are not as accepting of things said in these present times as they used to be. One wrong comment and you're out. He should have explained what he meant by the comments and then apologized if they had been misconstrued by anyone. Unfortunately, Sen. Lott's staffers did not ask my opinion, so they didn't get my great advice. 
Hopefully, the next Senate Leader will be Jesus. He'll be perfect and will never have to be forgiven for anything. Oh, wait, Jesus is a Christian. Well, we can't have that in the U.S. Senate. I think we all need to take a long, hard look at ourselves before we start condemning other people. God Bless. Bro. James
Hopefully, the next Senate Leader will be Jesus. He'll be perfect and will never have to be forgiven for anything. Oh, wait, Jesus is a Christian. Well, we can't have that in the U.S. Senate. I think we all need to take a long, hard look at ourselves before we start condemning other people. God Bless. Bro. James
I too waited to hear Lott explain that he meant something DIFFERENT than what the news people and everyone else claimed he meant... but we heard nothing, he made no explaination other than he was sorry. This means that he really did mean it in the context that the nation suspected.
What Lott did say was that he was now going to be bias in favor of Blacks. This statement suddenly showed us that the man can't be trusted to treat all men equal, first he is against the Blacks, now he is against all other races. Who will he be against next week or next month?
He made a vital mistake, I think he had several avenues to correct it, but he continued making mistakes in handling the problem.
What Lott did say was that he was now going to be bias in favor of Blacks. This statement suddenly showed us that the man can't be trusted to treat all men equal, first he is against the Blacks, now he is against all other races. Who will he be against next week or next month?
He made a vital mistake, I think he had several avenues to correct it, but he continued making mistakes in handling the problem.
T
TaterTot
Guest
Hey. Watch it!! We arent being a bit hypocritacl here, are we?
I didnt think so.
Trent Lott has resigned his position as the GOP leader in the U.S. Senate. Liberal Democrats hounded him out after his ill-considered remarks at Sen. Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party. Lott was deemed a "racist" for saying that "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" if then-segregationist Thurmond had been elected president in 1948.
So, Lott's out of power... and now it's time to take action against the biggest racist in the U.S. Senate, based on his history and his own words.
No, it's not Sen. Lott. In fact, it's not even a Republican.
It's Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV).
Back in the 1930s, Byrd was a cross-burning, night-riding, sheet-wearing "Grand Kleagle" in the Ku Klux Klan, the ultimate racist organization in America. He's never apologized for his role in that organization or strongly condemned the violent hate group in any way, and he referred to blacks in writing as late as the 1940s as "race mongrels." In fact, according to NewsMax.com, as recently as nine years ago, Byrd explained that he joined the group that specialized in lynching African-Americans because it "offered excitement."
Twenty years after Byrd proclaimed in a letter to the KKK's Imperial Grand Wizard that "The Klan is needed today as never before," he spent 14 hours filibustering against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He also voted against Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, the only two blacks ever nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Then, on March 4, 2001, Byrd was being interviewed by Fox News when he bluntly told Tony Snow, "There are white n*ggers. I've seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time; I'm going to use that word."
You read that right: the man who was at that time the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate -- third in line to the presidency of the United States -- used the "N-word" on national television. TWICE.
Oh, he issued a written apology by the next day. But the episode barely got a mention in the major news media, and was never condemned by the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, Rainbow/PUSH, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or any other leading civil rights group or leader. Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Kweisi Mfume -- none of them issued a single press release on this incident.
Well, now we know better. Now we know that it's absolutely inexcusable for any Senator in a leadership position to make any passing remarks that might be remotely considered racist.
And now we need to DEMAND that the liberal Democrats "put their money where their mouth is." We need to demand that the Senate CENSURE ROBERT BYRD.
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) has said that, "If a Democratic leader had made [Lott's] statements, we would have to call for his stepping aside, without any question whatsoever." But they didn't!
At the time, some argued that Byrd's use of the "N-word" last year was to be forgiven because of his advanced age (85). Of course, nobody seemed to think he was too old to have been Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, as well as Senate Majority Whip and president pro-tem. They also tried to blame the hour of the day, and even the fact that he had just finished lunch before the interview, to try and explain away his use of the word. They did not censure him or force the former Klansman to resign from any of his leadership positions.
As UPI political analyst Peter Roff has stated, "If Trent Lott is to pay a price for his remarks, then all politicians must pay a price. No amnesty, no forgiveness, just judgment. There is no room for selective redemption."
NewsMax.com
Amen.
Russ <><
So, Lott's out of power... and now it's time to take action against the biggest racist in the U.S. Senate, based on his history and his own words.
No, it's not Sen. Lott. In fact, it's not even a Republican.
It's Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV).
Back in the 1930s, Byrd was a cross-burning, night-riding, sheet-wearing "Grand Kleagle" in the Ku Klux Klan, the ultimate racist organization in America. He's never apologized for his role in that organization or strongly condemned the violent hate group in any way, and he referred to blacks in writing as late as the 1940s as "race mongrels." In fact, according to NewsMax.com, as recently as nine years ago, Byrd explained that he joined the group that specialized in lynching African-Americans because it "offered excitement."
Twenty years after Byrd proclaimed in a letter to the KKK's Imperial Grand Wizard that "The Klan is needed today as never before," he spent 14 hours filibustering against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He also voted against Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, the only two blacks ever nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Then, on March 4, 2001, Byrd was being interviewed by Fox News when he bluntly told Tony Snow, "There are white n*ggers. I've seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time; I'm going to use that word."
You read that right: the man who was at that time the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate -- third in line to the presidency of the United States -- used the "N-word" on national television. TWICE.
Oh, he issued a written apology by the next day. But the episode barely got a mention in the major news media, and was never condemned by the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, Rainbow/PUSH, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or any other leading civil rights group or leader. Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Kweisi Mfume -- none of them issued a single press release on this incident.
Well, now we know better. Now we know that it's absolutely inexcusable for any Senator in a leadership position to make any passing remarks that might be remotely considered racist.
And now we need to DEMAND that the liberal Democrats "put their money where their mouth is." We need to demand that the Senate CENSURE ROBERT BYRD.
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) has said that, "If a Democratic leader had made [Lott's] statements, we would have to call for his stepping aside, without any question whatsoever." But they didn't!
At the time, some argued that Byrd's use of the "N-word" last year was to be forgiven because of his advanced age (85). Of course, nobody seemed to think he was too old to have been Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, as well as Senate Majority Whip and president pro-tem. They also tried to blame the hour of the day, and even the fact that he had just finished lunch before the interview, to try and explain away his use of the word. They did not censure him or force the former Klansman to resign from any of his leadership positions.
As UPI political analyst Peter Roff has stated, "If Trent Lott is to pay a price for his remarks, then all politicians must pay a price. No amnesty, no forgiveness, just judgment. There is no room for selective redemption."
NewsMax.com
Amen.
Russ <><
Terry_Herrington
New Member
New Man,
That is not quite correct. It was the conservative republicans that spoke out against Lott first. Then the republican White House did not show any support for Lott. And it was a republican, Frist, who showed interest in becoming the new Majority Leader that forced Lott to resign, not the democrats.
That is not quite correct. It was the conservative republicans that spoke out against Lott first. Then the republican White House did not show any support for Lott. And it was a republican, Frist, who showed interest in becoming the new Majority Leader that forced Lott to resign, not the democrats.