Well cut off my legs and call me Shorty. Here’s Danny Akin, President of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, making a video for the “Openly Secular” campaign, which encourages people to publicly express their secular beliefs. I have to say, this is a remarkable display of comity by a Baptist, but all I can do is applaud his open-mindedness towards non-believers.
I’m sure there are a few sourpusses out there who will denigrate this as some kind of cynical ploy. . .
People who publicly display their lack of faith are easier to find and harass into submission.
I should add that I grew up as a Southern Baptist. I know these people. A more manipulative bunch of geezers have never been found.
In response to OgreMkV, I too grew up a Southern Baptist. Greedy,, manipulative, dishonest… If this guy said this in public he has ulterior motives!!
Geezers? Not to get too far off the subject but I’ve always wondered if there’s a noun “geezer” shouldn’t there be a verb “to geeze” or is it geez? So these people you’re talking about, at least some of whatever it is that’s disagreeable about them could be attributed to geezing, could it not? When I go into a room and forget why I went in there that, I think could be called geezing as well. Just sayin…
There must be something in an online dictionary. I’ll have a gander.
People who publicly display their lack of faith make it easier to talk about religion in the public square. That’s not the same as “harassing people into submission.” In fact, in open debate we’ve got more of an upper hand than they realize.
Is this guy a Southern Baptist — or the more liberal American Baptist, who tend to be staunch defenders of church/state separation?
The seminary’s web site says Southern Baptist.
Thanks. I was too lazy to check.
You couldn’t be arsed! 😉
Maybe so, but we’ve just been told by two former members what liars they are.
Based on that testimony, if a Southern Baptist bus went over a cliff and I was checking for survivors, if some of them claimed to still be alive, I’d nevertheless check for a pulse.
It is nice to run into religious people who “get it” regarding secularism and why it is important to them, too.
Indeed.
Those of us committed to freedom realize it works both ways. It’s good to see his speaking up, and it’s also important for secularists to defend the rights of the religious where appropriate.
No one is free unless everyone is free,
Well Jerry, here is one sourpuss thought that immediately came to mind.
– Get friendly with ‘the enemy’, get them onside with common ground issues, earn respect and perhaps their resistance to differences will soften and allow me to keep peddling !
I’m not convinced this is a genuine outreach…
A bit of irony here, after your post the other day about not using ‘anonymous’ as a name. I made this remark thinking I was logged in, but was not. And so I did log in and made the much the same message at no. 7
Curious. Your identicon as “Anonymous” is the same as Robert Bray’s was when he was … but he kept this icon even when his comments were posted with his real name, whereas it’s changed for you.
/@
Ant…
…well I don’t know what went on with Robert. I posted that comment thinking I was logged in but was not. So the system assigned that identicon (a new word for me, thanks !) to that comment. I then logged in and more or less said the same thing @ no.7 with an ‘existing account (nurnord) that has always had that identicon.
The plot thickens…
Doesn’t matter — at least, not significantly. When somebody goes on the record like this, regardless of the secret motivations (if any)…the fact remains that he’s on the record saying the right thing, and people are going to hear him saying the right thing and take him at his word. If he later qualifies what he said, that would be cause for concern, but not something to worry about unless it actually happens.
As far as everybody other than the speaker is concerned, there’s damned little difference between advocating for something out of a sincerely-held belief and advocating for something out of cynicism. You’re still advocating for whatever it is, and advancing that cause…and if you’re cynical, all you’re doing is scoring an “own goal.”
I have no reason to doubt his sincerity; he’s just expressing support for the same freedom of expression that’s been the gold standard since the Enlightenment, and the overwhelming majority of people who’ve moved the Enlightenment forward have been sincerely religious at the same time.
So I welcome Mr. Akin’s statement and thank him for it. I have every reason to believe it’s genuine — and I still welcome and thank him for it in the vanishingly unlikely case it’s not.
b&
i’m having a particular problem with my kindle FvF that i have encounterd before with great books. it would have been easier to buy a version completely underlined and then just delete where unimportant.
this as preface to not finding the highlight i want at the moment, but i think there is an Ingersoll reference about false comity from religionists.
now that they are starting to lose the public’s unquestioning allegiance and have nothing to fall back on except revelation, dogma and authority, it’s smiles and handshakes and “can’t we all just get along?”
wolf in sheeps clothing kinda thing.
I assume this is an attitude he’s ensuring is taught in his seminary, and if so, that’s great. Good on him. It’s certainly one that needs to be spread to many Southern Baptist congregations.
I wonder if he’s any relation to Todd Akin of the “legitimate rape” comments?
touché.
Unlikely as Todd was born in NY and Danny in Georgia.
Well Jerry here is a sourpuss thought that immediately came to mind.
– get the ‘enemy’ onside with common ground issues, gain their respect and understanding and maybe we can soften their approach on opposing issues and that way we can keep peddling !
I’m not convinced this is well-intended, genuine outreach at all…
That position will make it impossible for you to agree with him that stop lights are good things to have at busy intersections.
Hardly James, I can agree readily but still think he has shares in metal poles for traffic lights !
If you think everyone who appreciates traffic lights has shares in the road hardware there is little I can say. Except… please see your psychiatrist. Your paranoia is out of control.
? James, just, what ?! Tell you what you can do, ask another person on this site what my comment means, then say ‘oh’ to yourself…Jesus H Christ !
We have no evidence that this guy (from the seminary) means anything other than what he says. If there is something suggesting that he is unable to understand that secularism means not imposing your religious ideas on other people you haven’t presented it.
We need to be able to work with people on things we agree about without assuming that they are being disingenuous.
Nord is fine, take care.
GB, on this one I agree completely with you. It’s just simpler all round to take people at their word unless there’s some good reason to doubt them.
What’s that… three times now? Will wonders never cease? 😉
Well I might have some devious disingenuous plan afoot, but it’s probably simpler to assume that I agreed with your comment. 🙂
PS. “James” is my surname. So don’t call me “Jim”.
GB it is then…
“We need to be able to work with people on things we agree about without assuming that they are being disingenuous.”
– and I did not do that (not suggesting you stated here that I did) ! Here is what I said “I’m not convinced this is well-intended, genuine outreach at all…”
– and, I’m not !
Fine. I didn’t suggest you were lying.
Either you think the fellow is lying about this (and IMO it is reasonable not work work with people who are lying about the thing you’re working on) OR you have to provisionally take him at his word until such time as you find out he’s being deceitful.
You’ve decided he’s deceitful (not well-intentioned) without evidence. Now I’ll cop to having assumed that you think working with liars is not a good thing to do. I may just be projecting because I think that. You may disagree.
(He’s not British, either!)
(there is no reply button at the comment below so here it is here)…
“Either you think the fellow is lying about this”
– No, I just am not convinced he has sincere, agreeable motivation, there is daylight in the 2 positions !
“OR you have to provisionally take him at his word until such time as you find out he’s being deceitful.”
– No, I do not have to make that decision, I am staying where I am now – doubting…neither accepting nor condemning.
“You’ve decided he’s deceitful not well-intentioned
– so you conclude, having been corrected already, that I have condemned him ! You even replied “Fine”, yet here you are again making claims against my position !
“You’ve decided he’s deceitful (not well-intentioned)”
– GB, you need to learn the difference between casting doubt and making a judgement on either side ! I said I am ‘not convinced’ he is well-intended, I did not say ‘he is not well-intended and therefore deceitful’ did I ?…
– we seem to be going in circles of you misrepresenting and misinterpreting and me correcting !
I think it is facile to say someone is not “well-intended” and not “genuine” (your words) and simultaneously claim that you aren’t saying he’s lying. That is a distinction with no difference.
You can say I’m misrepresenting you but those are your words.
GB, I think I am going to have to spell this out to you slowly…
“I think it is facile to say someone is not “well-intended” and not “genuine” (your words) and simultaneously claim that you aren’t saying he’s lying.”
– ONCE AGAIN, I *DID NOT* say that I thought he was not well-intended or genuine, I stated *I AM NOT CONVINCED* that he is !!!
– It is a neutral position, I REMAIN to be convinced ONE way OR the OTHER ! So when you say in brackets “(your words)”, you missed the operative part out – “I’m not convinced” ! Do you actually not see the difference in the 2 statements ?
“You can say I’m misrepresenting you but those are your words.”
– but you see, you *ARE* misrepresenting me and you *OMITTED* the operative words…as I just spelt out across the clear blue sky above !!!
Please, take your time and read through the above and recap all comments I made and see your errors here.
Frankly, Nord (may I call you “Nord”?), it isn’t worth the effort you and I have already expended. We disagree. Let it go, Indy.
There is a move within many Christian denominations to reduce the god connection. One way to tell who they are by how vigorously they support GLBTQ rights.
He speaks the truth that many mainline church goers are reluctant to speak. Thanks.
Who are you and what have you done with the President of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary?
The aliens are getting more clever with their disguises. The guy in the video looks damn near human.
Sub
There were many “We believe” statements in there with a couple of “come together” as well. I don’t doubt the sincerity but once we get past the We believe part, the rest of the sentence is not going to match up very often. We might have a better conversation if we stay away from the we believe as the ice breaker.
Call me a naivepuss, but I thought this guy sounded genuine ( which does not mean I don’t think his religious beliefs are full of s**t)
It’s not what he said, its that he was motivated to say it. This guy is not young and he has watched for some time that religion is changing and in some cases clearly becoming irrelevant. He knows there is now a sizable and (worse) growing population of unaffiliated. I think he would rather talk to them that let them completely slip away (from his faith).
What’s the relationship between Southeastern Baptists and Southern Baptists?
Relatedly, when Liberty U drops its requirement for its faculty to swear annual fealty to their Doctrinal Statement, we’ll be making real progress.
I looked at their web site. It seems that it is Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, affiliated with Southern Baptists.
So… no difference. The “Southeastern” part is just part of the seminary name.
Aw, I thought it was going to be a case of “Die, you heretic scum!”
/@
😀 😀 Thanks!
Oh, ok. I thought he might be an American Baptist. Especially good on him, then.
I don’t think he has ulterior motives but even if he did, I think friendly dialog would eventually allow more people to leave faith than lasso them into it.
Does having the freedom to openly practice your conscience and so forth mean to him that businesses can refuse to serve gay people for example? Because while that wasn’t what was said, that was surely what I heard in my mind.
Take the poor man at his word. All he’s saying is that we agree on certain things like helping the poor. We do. At least most of us do. But look for him to be out of a job before long, just for being friendly with the wrong folks.
Very possible.
It will be interesting to see if he gets fired for his statement.
I think it is easy to forget, when you read too much about the very bad things that are being done by religious people, that the people who are actively trying to challenge secular society are probably a minority. I have no trouble believing that Danny Akin is being sincere here. Typically, the people who are a problem are as ignorant of religious history as they are of scripture. I know religious people who view secular society positively, since they know that the alternative would probably be a religious regime that would view their sect as heterodox. The position of Baptists on pedobaptism has always put them at odds with the majority of Christians.
Secularism is arguably more important to the religious than it is to the secular!
I don’t know, I think that regardless of what this man’s intentions are, and I’ve no evidence to suggest that they are deceitful,
I think an open, constructive dialogue about religious belief will ultimately lead more people away from faith.
Plus, I’ve worked with baptists and evangelicals doing volunteer work to help the homeless in the past. Most of these people were so zealous they were practically Quakers, but not once did anyone ever indicate in the slightest that they were offended or upset by my atheism. They were just glad to have another person willing to help.
Count me in as a sourpuss out there who will denigrate this as some kind of cynical ploy.
I don’t think it’s a cynical ploy. I’ve gradually discovered the hard way that the first rule in understanding religion is to make sure you don’t fall into simplistic stereotypes when it comes to the believers themselves. People bring their backgrounds and personalities into their faith commitments and go all over the place … even when you know (or think you know) their religious or spiritual affiliation. In the IRC debate rooms I quickly learned to always ask. And if you have to make an assumption, assume that the person you’re talking to is not only a perfectly nice person, but smarter than you are. You can always walk that one back a bit if you have to, but it’s hard ground to win if it turns out you should have moved it forward.
My experience with online fundamentalists and conservatives in debate rooms is that generally speaking they appreciated atheists. We were paying attention, we were holding a position, we were listening and arguing over a topic which is supposed to be important. Unlike most of their fellow religionists, however, who according to them seemed to find serious discussions anathema, horrified at the very idea that anyone would ever tell anyone else that their religion was wrong. Thinking through what one believes and why is considered both tedious and pointless. If you think truth (or Truth) matters, this can get frustrating.
There’s a Bible passage somewhere which says something about God spitting the lukewarm out of his mouth, preferring a strong position in either direction. This was thrown at us from time to time, in the spirit of fellowship and often by the same people who would cite passages about atheists being ‘without excuse.’ A Bible contradiction to go with a people contradiction.
Judging from the video, Danny Akin seems more inclined towards a genial accomodationism and a let’s-focus-on-what-we-share attitude than in opening the doors to dialogue on topic — but hey, either way is nice of him.
I find Akin’s rapprochement with Openly Secular a bit surprising but also quite heartening. I have a passing acquaintance with Southeastern (my husband was a graduate, as well as of both Yale and Chicago Divinity Schools). My guess is that Akin really appreciated the invitation to make this video, and I consider his comments genuine–definitely not a ploy.
Sounds like the kind of accommodationism I can get behind: the live-and-let-live kind — not the live-and-shut-up-with-any-criticism-of-the-other-guy’s-ideas kind.
I don’t give a damn what the Reverend’s motivations are. I’ll risk being identified as a non-believer and harassed into religious submission (nil) in exchange for the opportunity to debate religion openly in the public square.
He’s their go-to guy for anti-gay speeches. So the “dictates of their conscience” that “everyone agrees” can’t be denigrated or criticized is you-know-what. You can probably throw creationism in there too. No everyone does not agree and he knows it. So he snuck a couple of right-wing zingers in there under the radar. Either that or I’m a giant sourpuss. Probably the latter I guess apparently haha.
On the other hand, he could be a committed creationist and a horrible homophobe, but if he’s about keeping religion out of the state, he’s right about one matter. Not only is that a good thing, the fact that he’s (likely) thought about one topic suggests maybe he’d learn about the others too.
One thing he left out of his comments was respect for and enforcement of the first amendment. Agreement with the need to keep religion out of politics and government. That the United States must remain secular in order to ensure the plurality and freedom of conscious he was espousing.