There are a lot of labels that fit Richard Land but "ethicist" is not one of them. I find that to be no different than labeling Jeffrey Dahmer a celebrity chef. Cutting people up in to steaks would not get you a show on the Food Network no matter how messed up you might think our entertainment/media system has become. Deceit and plagiarism are not exactly revelations when it comes to Land's career.
The apparent surprise expressed in Horton's "Richard Land's Trayvon Martin Comments Were Lifted From Washington Times Editorial" seems a little misplaced. If you have covered religious news for any length of time Land's past should be familiar ground. I found it interesting that the two labels that come to my mind any time I hear his name were never used. Conservative (and/or Republican) Activist and Religious Right fit him far better than "ethicist." I find it hard to believe that anyone in the field of ethics would claim that constantly using deceit is a positive attribute. Land has been corrected on any number of facts and yet he will often go right back to using whatever false information suits his purposes.
Richard Land is neither an ethicist nor ethical.
No comments:
Post a Comment