Southern Baptist agency declares ‘no room for torture’

[sabra]

Source: AJC

The Southern Baptist Convention, the dominant religious voice of the South, has finally weighed in on the issue of waterboarding and other forms of torture.

Under no circumstances should they be permitted in this country.

The statement came through the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, which is in charge of figuring out where the rubber of national politics meets the theological road.

Given the denomination’s influence on the religious conservatives who dominate the Republican party, the statement could have significant impact on public debate that continues to percolate.

Read more: http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2009/05/07/southern-baptist-agency-declares-no-room-for-torture/

---

full statement here: http://erlc.com/article/sbcs-richard-land-condemns-waterboarding-and-torture/

[bunnies]

1. It will be great entertainment seeing repubs respond to this.

:popcorn: :thumbsup: Why do the Baptists hate America?

[Rageneau]

2. Buncha wimpy, godless liberals!

[Soylent Brice]

3. finally!! fundies speaking out against torture...

i've been waiting eagerly to see if any of these religious groups would ever speak out against torture.

[Democrats_win]

4. What a joke! Have they apologized for supporting War Bush?

That's where they should begin. The torture thing is ancient history. The war goes on.

And on.

[madmom]

5. and let the back pedaling begin...

[gratuitous]

6. "In this country"?

I smell weasel.

[Mithreal]

22. No doubt, same weaselly wording Rice uses. nt

[Rob H.]

7. Hang on a second...

Under no circumstances should they be permitted in this country. (Emphasis added--Rob)

So does that mean they think it's still "okay" to torture as long as the torture doesn't take place within the United States? (The quote is from Jim Galloway's blog, not the statement issued by Land.)


Edit: Oops, gratuitous beat me to it. Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that phrase and found it odd.

[14thColony]

17. But read that sentence in the broader context of the statement

Sure, taken by itself it appears it could constitute weasel wording. But the rest of the statement is a pretty damned strong proscription against torture as a violation of inalienable human rights. I think it's an incredibly definitive statement that leaves no wiggle room. They even go so far as to extend the definition of physical harm to include psychological harm, so no room for lots of the other torture methods such as cold rooms or sleep deprivation.

If they wanted to equivocate, why bring the psychological harm aspect up at all? Leaving that out leaves far more room to maneuver in still approving of or providing theological top cover for torture.

Or just don't make any statement at all. Most people assume silence is consent.

[Dappleganger]

8. Too little, too late.

They stood by and said nothing while it was being done? They are as guilty as the ones watching the coats of the crowd while they stoned people.

[No Elephants]

10. They may have not believed it was actually going on--with the blessing of higher ups--until

they read the memos. Bushco said they weren't torturing and the folks at Abu Ghraib had no authority. They may have thought anything contrary to the statements of Bushco was nothing but liberal propaganda.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Kicked and recommended, but this sentence is misleading.

"Under no circumstances should they be permitted in this country."

I found no equivocation in the original statement by the SBC.

Let it rain.

Thanks for the thread, sabra.

[get the red out]

11. They won't win another election if they don't

They want to try to save their political party I'm sure. You don't put so much effort into owning and operating a major political party only to let it be flushed down the toilet because it is publicly wretched. If the holy side of the party says mistakes were made, the holy party can be saved. If this doesn't work they loose their power. The objective is to maintain power.

[mainegreen]

12. Good.

[rateyes]

13. Here's the statement. Richard Land actually sounds like a real Christian here:

There is no room for torture as part of the United States’ intelligence-gathering process, Richard Land said today. He also said he believes the practice known as “waterboarding” is torture and, as such, is unethical.

Land, president of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said there is no circumstance in which torture should be permissible in interrogations by U.S. officials, even if the authorities believe a prisoner has information that might involve national security.

“I don’t agree with the belief that we should use any means necessary to extract information,” said Land. “I believe there are absolutes. There are things we must never do under any circumstances.

“For me the ultimate test is: Could I, in good conscience, do whatever I am authorizing or condoning others to do? If not, then I must oppose the action. If I could not waterboard someone—and I couldn’t—then I must oppose its practice.”

Land said he considers waterboarding to be torture because the definition of torture includes the determination of whether a procedure causes permanent physical harm, noting he is unable to “separate physical from psychological harm” in this instance. The practice contravenes an individual’s personhood and their humanity, he said.

“It violates everything we believe in as a country,” Land said, reflecting on the words in the Declaration of Independence: that “all men are created equal” and that “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

“There are some things you should never do to another human being, no matter how horrific the things they have done. If you do so, you demean yourself to their level,” he said.

“Civilized countries should err on the side of caution. It does cost us something to play by different rules than our enemies, but it would cost us far more if we played by their rules,” Land concluded.

-------------------------

Gotta give the devil his due. I couldn't have said any better.

[SemperEadem]

15. He needs to go further, because he's stopped far too short of the mark to convince me

Land, president of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said there is no circumstance in which torture should be permissible in interrogations by U.S. officials, even if the authorities believe a prisoner has information that might involve national security.

so, what about extraordinary renditions to Egypt where those sending the person there on a private plane know that they will be tortured for the information that might involve national security? What is the SBC's stance on this practice?

It's one thing to bluster about what one does in the US; it's quite another to strike the head off of the issue of torture by condemning extraordinary renditions by our government.

[rateyes]

16. Later on he says about things "humans" should not do to "humans."

And, that "There is no room for torture as part of the United States’ intelligence-gathering process,"

[14thColony]

19. I seems pretty definitve to me

“I don’t agree with the belief that we should use any means necessary to extract information,” said Land. “I believe there are absolutes. There are things we must never do under any circumstances."

Or should he have said "we and..." and then named every country and stateless nation and group on earth alphabetically?

Remember, the SBC didn't HAVE to make any statement at all. This was not done grudgingly under a court order or something.

Sometimes people you don't like can still have good and just intentions, even if it is repugnant to you to believe that you and they might share the same view on a specific subject.

[FiveGoodMen]

14. I'm genuinely shocked to hear some common sense and decency from that group

But assuming they mean it ... :applause:

[KayLaw]

23. I had a Southern Baptist friend.

She was wonderful and thoughtful and I never heard her say a mean word about anyone but her wicked sil.

[FiveGoodMen]

25. No doubt there are many decent individuals, but the SBC pre-approved Bush's preemptive war

telling all their members that killing people who are every bit as much "God's children" as we are is fine so long as they make you nervous.

Therefore, this anti-torture statement sounds like a marked improvement for the organization.

[tosh]

18. Uh-oh. Wait 'til Rush hears about this. nt.

[14thColony]

20. That'll be fun to watch

If Rush thinks he wields even a tiny fraction of the power of the SBC, he's started to believe too much of his own bullshit. If anyone ends up kissing anyone's ring, he'll be kissing theirs.

[bighart]

21. I believe I might send Mr. Land a note of thanks for this.

It's frank, and rather definitive in it's wording. Who knows if he (they) receive enough positive feedback it may open the door
for discussion on some other points of contention.

[JoeTheDog]

27. Baptists on Torture

Bighart -

I agree. C'mon guys. When someone agrees with your position, don't beat the hell out of them for it (remember the old "the enemy of my enemy" thing?). I really don't think they are trying to hedge on this at all - seems genuine to me. This is a good thing, and if we expect everyone to agree on everything, we end up where we are today. I hope it gets a lot of press - will be interesting to see Rush and the rest of the sanctimonious chickenhawk hypocrites deal with this. Seems like a political quandary for them.

[Zodiak]

29. I agree

I believe that the Southern Baptist convention is trying to disengage themselves from the political entanglements they found themselves in when signed up with the pukes...it's finally too much for them. After all, they are a religion first and foremost. It has to be hard to fall into lockstep with a torturing Republican party when the avatar of your religion was himself tortured brutally and executed in one of the most painful ways man has ever devised.

I bet the Southern Baptists are finally feeling the weight of hypocrisy lifting off of their shoulders. We do ourselves no favors by acting in any manner but congratulatory toward them. It might get them to do this sort of thing even more.

[LiberalLovinLug]

24. what about the Methodists?

They are building Dubya a giant new shiny library on one of their universities. A monument to he who Decided torture was just fine.

[sakabatou]

26. So now will those right-wing, theocrats be singing a different tune?

[truthisfreedom]

28. If it doesn't make more sheeple, religion will never get behind it.

Abstinence... now that makes more sheeple.

Torture? Not so much. Makes sheeple less sheeply.

[nichomachus]

30. "Under no circumstances should they be permitted in this country."

Which is why the Bush Crime Family was careful to do it in other countries.

[anonymous171]

31. We shall see. nt

[Papa Boule]

32. This was slow in coming. Heartbreakingly slow. But still this is big.

Because the issue was being discussed publicly, they long ago could have made such a statement over the issue of torture, just as a statement of position. Just like they're quick to make statements about things they don't approve of going on in bedrooms--at any opportunity or discussion of it.

Still, long in coming or not, this appears to be a strong denunciation. I say "appears to be" because I too am concerned about the "in this country" phrase. A little clarification from the SBC would be good.

[Raster]

33. Who would Jesus torture?

[struggle4progress]

34. *gotta say it* *gotta say it* "GOOD FOR THE SOUTHERN BAPTISTS!" *there* *i said it*

kinda makes ya believe in evolution :D

[Lars39]

35. lol....good one.

:D