Evangelicals say U.S. has lost moral focus by using torture tactics in terror fight

[ck4829]

The National Association of Evangelicals has endorsed an anti-torture statement saying the United States has crossed "boundaries of what is legally and morally permissible" in its treatment of detainees and war prisoners in the fight against terror.

Human rights violations committed in the name of preventing terrorist attacks have made the country look hypocritical to the Muslim world, the document states. Christians have an obligation rooted in Scripture to help Americans "regain our moral clarity."

"Our military and intelligence forces have worked diligently to prevent further attacks. But such efforts must not include measures that violate our own core values," the document says. "The United States historically has been a leader in supporting international human rights efforts, but our moral vision has blurred since 9-11."

The statement, "An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture: Protecting Human Rights in an Age of Terror," was drafted by 17 evangelical scholars, writers and activists who call themselves Evangelicals for Human Rights. The board of the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group, announced late Sunday that it had endorsed the document.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/03/13/faith/18_16_313_12_07.txt

[ixion]

1. listen to them spin

:crazy: :banghead:

These are the people who acted as the 'popular voice' and got us into this mess. And even in this statement, they still can't seem to decide if they want to be rational or not. *sigh*

I mean, I agree whole-heartedly that torture is bad. So bulley for them for finally catching on. However, the other side of their argument is couched safely in phrases like "fighting the GWOT".

As long as people continue to refer to this (so-called) 'War on Terror', nothing will change. There is no such thing as a 'war' on 'terror'. It is fighting shadows on the wall. It is the final step into full-blown collective insanity. :-(

[Random_Australian]

2. Aye, what does it say about a group when everyone - everyone -

thinks that their 'policies' on torture are straight from the dark side of the evil mind of a sane madman.

The world is wide. The minds of the Shrub admin are not.

Mind you, the evangelicals still seem to think that America is the nation of complete truth and justice, and they may even blame Bush's actions on the liberals, but at least they can see that only a complete bastard uses torture.

- And they voted for him
- And they will continue to promote the kind of thinking that led to this

All in all, better than nothing but still a couple of inches short of a poke in the eye with a burnt stick.

[NMMNG]

4. His fan base is shrinking by the day

I wonder if, when it gets small enough to be contained in a single room, he'll get a clue.

Somehow I doubt it.

[Random_Australian]

6. One of his cronies will tell him that the entire universe is made of that room.

Aside from that, g'night Buffy! Cya round!

[NMMNG]

9. And to him it will be

At least all that matters anyway. We're either with him or against him after all. :shrug:

Until later. :hi:

[lostnotforgotten]

3. But I Am Sure They Voted For This Asshole - Talk About Spin

We know the President approved the Torture!

[opihimoimoi]

5. I join the others in repeating...The Pubs voted for Bush...They are guilty of

the crimes Bush commits...they stood by this asshole 2x.....

Now they wanna flip flop?

[ClintonTyree]

13. It soothes their consciences ......

and, in their mind's eye, makes them right with the lord. They've confessed their "sins" so it's a clean slate for them. Again. Now, on to the next whacked-out position of theirs that goes contrary to everything their lord and savior supposedly proposed. Then, another confession of guilt and another round of forgiveness. Repeat as necessary. Go directly to heaven. ;) Religion is a wonderful tool for the wicked.

[opihimoimoi]

16. LOL....They have the SIN PASS....do wrong and its OK....you right..its a tool.

[orpupilofnature57]

7. We lost moral focus when we subscribed to a criminals sons.

from day uno.

[rock]

8. And now for Duh News

[WCGreen]

10. Not all Evangelicals are under the spell of Fallwell and Dobson...

There have been rumblings for a few years now about how the shift should be away from the GOP at all costs and to look at candidates on an issue by issue basis...

Remember, several Evangelical leaders have endorsed the reality of Global Warming and believe strongly that it is their moral responsibility to be good stewards of "God's Creation"...

I, for one, find hope in this split and that maybe the rank and file is not as lock step with the crazy self proclaimed Evangelical Leaders who capture the headlines...

Remember, not all Evangelicals feel that this is the run up to the end times...

[tonkatoy57]

14. Thanks

I'm no theologian or even a Christian, although I do attend the Methodist church with alarming regularity.

I think you need to separate Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and the rest of the religious right and moral majority (their phrase not mine) from the broader meaning of "evangelical".

All mainstream denominations consider themselves to be evangelical. That is, an important tenet of their faith is to bring others into their faith. Some denominations have been more aggressive is their evangelism than others, some forcing conversion at the point of the sword and others through good works and social outreach. It's just a matter of degree, but the bottom line is that evangelism is a cornerstone of their faith.

Don't confuse the "First United Church of Hate and American Exceptionalism" with other, more traditional denominations that have evangelism as a central part of thier religious mission.

[WCGreen]

19. I didn't confuse it....

The orginal poster seemed to have lumped all Evangelicals together...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. We're finally hearing from someone

other that Falwell, etc. I've often thought that those bozos gave evangelicals a bad name. Glad the silent masses are starting to speak out.

[charlie]

12. Commendable, I guess

Though I imagine it oughta be the "no fucking shit" position for any Christian organization. They also hold a "green" stance on global warming and ecological stewardship.

Here's the thing, though. They have the kind of juice in Washington that few can dream of. Dubya and the rest of the Repubs could give two shits about what any of us think, but you know they're keenly interested in keeping evangelicals and rightwing fundies on their side. The NAE's main man (until his men and meth problem), Haggard, used to brag about his monthly conferences with Bush. GeeDub had him up to his Crawford spread for at least one weekender. If they really mean what they say, and with that kind of solicitous access, it'd be no prob to deliver an ultimatum -- can the torture and global warming denial or you'll be hearing from us in public. But noooo, because Bush still vamps them with Fundie moonspeak, they still won't blame HIM for his own policies ("Cizik insisted the statement was not a critique of President George W. Bush and his administration."). Which tells me the NAE is probably just doing some CYA posturing.

I asked Haggard why, as a man of Christian principle, Bush did not fully disavow Karl Rove’s despicable smear tactics and apologize for the ugly lies the Bush campaign spread over the years about Ann Richards, John McCain, and John Kerry, among others. After all, isn’t getting right with God -- whatever the political price --the most important thing for the sort of Christian Bush has proclaimed himself to be?

Haggard laughed as though my questions were the most naive he’d ever heard. “I think if you asked the president these questions once he’s out of office,” Haggard said, “he’d say, ‘You’re right. We shouldn’t have done it.’ But right now if he said something like that, well, the world would spin out of control!

“That’s why when Jimmy Carter ran, he such a terrible president. Because when he (governed), he really tried to maintain (his integrity) and those types of values -- and that is virtually impossible.”

The pastor returned to my charges of Bush’s deceitfulness. “Listen,” he said testily, “I think (we Christian believers) are responsible not to lie (sic), but I don’t think we’re responsible to say everything we know.”

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8790

[sinkingfeeling]

15. They're just now figuring that out? We said that about 3 years ago.

[Evoman]

17. The United States historically has been a leader in supporting international human rights efforts,

I'm sorry but this is bullshit. Ask my dad, who lost friends in Chile, and had to flee, about this.

Look, I love you guys, I really do. And I make an distinction between ordinary Americans like you, and your country as a whole. But saying that the U.S. used to be some bastion of morality and goodwill even before bush is not true. America has historically done whats good for America.

[moobu2]

18. They’d still vote for Bush

If he were running in 08. All a candidate has to do to get these type of people to support them is tell them what they want to hear, say a few christian catch phrases and they’ll show at the polls for them. They’re horrible judges of character, and that will never change.

[struggle4progress]

20. Faith -- Evangelical group rebuffs critics on the right

http://3/16/2007 9:49:58 AM

By Laurie Goodstein

New York Times News Service

... Prominent Christian conservatives like James C. Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, and Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, had sent a letter to the association's leaders this month accusing the policy director, the Rev. Richard Cizik, of "using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time," which they defined as abortion, homosexuality and teaching children sexual morality and abstinence.

Board members say that the notion of censoring Cizik never arose last week at their meeting in Minnesota, and that he had delivered the keynote address at their banquet.

In addition, the board voted 38-1 to endorse a declaration, which Cizik helped to write, that denounces the U.S. government's treatment of detainees in the fight against terrorism.

The board also voted unanimously to reaffirm the platform adopted three years ago, which enumerates seven policy priorities, including the environment, human rights and poverty ...

www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=31&a=287805

[struggle4progress]

21. Christians Who Won't Toe the Line

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, March 16, 2007; Page A21

... The political maestros can't abide any serious evangelical Christian daring to broaden the agenda beyond the limited set of issues (notably, opposition to abortion and gay rights) that keep the faithful voting Republican. Cizik was a threat, so they attacked him in a March 1 letter to the NAE board. It was signed by such conservative luminaries as Weyrich; James Dobson of Focus on the Family; Don Wildmon of the American Family Association; Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council; and Gary Bauer, who ran for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination ...

What makes this fight strange is that Cizik is no liberal. On the contrary, he supported Ronald Reagan twice and George W. Bush twice. He is still proud of his role in drafting the invitation to Reagan that led to the former president's 1983 speech before the NAE calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire."

Cizik simply rejects the idea that his environmental commitment runs contrary to his support for the antiabortion movement: "Tell the parents of children who are mentally disabled because of mercury poisoning -- tell them that the environment is not a sanctity-of-life issue," he says.

"We should be primarily concerned with what the Gospel says," Cizik insists, "not whether you're getting off some political train." Those are the words of a New Reformation. Many evangelicals are boarding a new train. It runs along tracks defined by the broad demands of their faith, not by some party's political agenda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR2007031501868.html

This is an informative article

[struggle4progress]

22. Breaking Camp: Political Fractures Among the Christian Evangelicals

March 15, 2007 21 35 GMT

By Bart Mongoven

... 1984 was the last year that traditional progressive Democrats, personified by candidate Walter Mondale, mattered in a national election -- and Mondale lost 49 states in his bid to supplant Ronald Reagan. In the wake of the election, "Progressives" -- loosely defined as idealists (empowered by the party reforms of 1972) who were deeply suspicious of the military, business and laissez-faire capitalism -- came to be seen by party leaders and major donors as a core problem. Perceptions grew (and were cemented by Michael Dukakis' massive defeat in 1988) that Progressives alienated middle-class voters and marginalized the Democratic Party. Out of this line of thinking were born groups like the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), founded by then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, to increase the power of the party's moderate center.

Clinton, of course, ran for president as a moderate who conveyed the message that he was not a prisoner to traditional Democratic constituencies. Meanwhile, within the party, the DLC wing took and retained power until the 2003 invasion of Iraq and 2005's Hurricane Katrina. "Progressive" Democrats, once heavily represented among the party's leadership, were essentially jettisoned from power.

The 1992 election also is key in the GOP's current thinking. The Clinton campaign had successfully framed the Republican Party as captive to the religious right; evangelicals and their supporters played into this portrayal at the Republican National Convention, from which emerged a platform that reflected the strong influence of religious conservatives. The capstone, of course, was Pat Buchanan's famous "Culture War" prime-time address, which alienated Republican moderates and convinced mainstream media that everything they had been hearing about the conservative "takeover" of the party was correct ...

In this context, it is easy to see why the Council for National Policy meeting in Florida was likely as contentious a meeting as the group has had in a long time. Indeed, the very fact that details have been leaking out to the press is evidence of the rifts that are in place -- and of course, the information being leaked sheds further light on the points of contention. At this point, it does not seem likely that evangelicals will be able to agree on a single Republican presidential candidate for 2008 ...

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=285848&selected=Analyses