Evangelicals Condemn Torture

[babylonsister]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-evangelicals-torture,1,5922876.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

Evangelicals Condemn Torture
By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer
March 12, 2007

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.

Several of the drafters have been advocates for a broader policy focus for Christian conservatives beyond abortion and marriage. One of the co-authors, the Rev. Rich Cizik, the NAE's Washington policy director, has drawn criticism from Focus on the Family founder James Dobson and others for his environmental activism.

In a phone interview Monday, Cizik insisted the statement was not a critique of President George W. Bush and his administration. He said the motivation was to send a message to the rest of the country and the world that evangelicals and other U.S. citizens do not support torture.

more...

[Skidmore]

1. They were for it before they were against it...

hypocrites of the first order. I give no quarter to those who would not stand up and object to any of the * program. After how many people and what type of torture did they just happen to notice the immorality of it? What exacly constitutes morality for them?

[tonkatoy57]

2. Or maybe not...

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.

[Wickerman]

4. I'll have to disagree with you there

Not ALL mainstream denominations are a part of the National Association of Evangelicals, which is what the article is referring to. Agreed, many church bodies do consider themselves evangelical, but the distinction should be made between being evangelical and part of the NAE.

Examples: I belong to an Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), yet that body is not a member of the NAE. You said you attend a Methodist Church. One of the more common Methodist bodies is United Methodist and they do not belong to the NAE, though one might argue they consider themselves evangelical.

Most mainstream religion in America, I would argue, is of the Liberal Christian philosphy. A citation from Wikipedia:

Liberal Christianity, sometimes called liberal theology, is an umbrella term covering diverse, philosophically-informed religious movements and moods within late 18th, 19th and 20th century Christianity. The word "liberal" in liberal Christianity does not refer to a leftist political agenda or set of beliefs, but rather to the freedom of dialectic process associated with continental philosophy and other philosophical and religious paradigms developed during the Age of Enlightenment.

As you'll see from the link below the article referenced group, the NAE, IS the exact same group you are saying we should not be concerned with. Active members of the the NAE include James Dobson and Franklin Graham. The recently resigned head was Ted Haggard.

I imagine we are on the same page, but I want to be clear that the NAE does NOT speak for all Protestants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Evangelicals
These Protestant church groups were members as of 2004:

* Advent Christian General Conference (joined 1986)
* Assemblies of God (joined 1943)
* Baptist General Conference (joined 1966)
* The Brethren Church (joined 1968)
* Brethren in Christ Church (joined 1949)
* Christian Catholic Church (Evangelical Protestant) (joined 1975)
* The Christian and Missionary Alliance (joined 1966)
* Christian Church of North America (joined 1953)
* Christian Reformed Church in North America (joined 1943-51; 1988)
* Christian Union (joined 1954)
* Church of God (Cleveland) (joined 1944)
* Church of God Mountain Assembly, Inc. (joined 1981)
* Church of the Nazarene (joined 1984)
* Church of the United Brethren in Christ (joined 1953)
* Churches of Christ in Christian Union (joined 1945)
* Congregational Holiness Church (joined 1990-92; 1994)
* Conservative Baptist Association of America (joined 1990)
* Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (joined 1951)
* Conservative Lutheran Association (joined 1984)
* Elim Fellowship (joined 1947)
* Evangelical Church of North America(joined 1969)
* Evangelical Congregational Church (joined 1962)
* Evangelical Free Church of America (joined 1943)
* Evangelical Friends International of North America (joined 1971)
* Evangelical Mennonite Church (joined 1944)
* Evangelical Methodist Church (joined 1952)
* Evangelical Presbyterian Church (joined 1982)
* Evangelistic Missionary Fellowship (joined 1982)
* Fellowship of Evangelical Bible Churches (joined 1948)
* Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God of the Americas (joined 1978)
* Free Methodist Church of North America (joined 1944)
* General Association of General Baptists (joined 1988)
* International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (joined 1952)
* International Pentecostal Church of Christ (joined 1946)
* International Pentecostal Holiness Church (joined 1943)
* Mennonite Brethren Churches, USA (joined 1946)
* Midwest Congregational Christian Fellowship (joined 1964)
* Missionary Church, Inc. (joined 1944)
* Open Bible Standard Churches (joined 1943)
* Pentecostal Church of God (joined 1954)
* Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church, Inc. (joined 1988)
* Presbyterian Church in America (joined 1986)
* Primitive Methodist Church USA (joined 1946)
* Reformed Episcopal Church (joined 1990)
* Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (joined 1946)
* Regional Synod of Mid-America (Reformed Church in America) (joined 1989)
* The Salvation Army, National Headquarters (joined 1990)
* The Wesleyan Church (joined 1948)
* Worldwide Church of God (joined 1997)

[tonkatoy57]

5. You are correct about the NAE

Without a doubt. I should have clearer. The NEA is not representative of more mainstream denominations.

My intent was to attempt to shed a little light on the term, "evangelism". The political right has been very successful in appropriating the term and making it a code word for far right politics and regressive social policy.

I wanted to point out that many mainline churches consider evangelism to be an important part of what they do and that "evangelism" does not always equal far right politial action and 14th century social policy.

[Wickerman]

6. well stated

I thought we were in agreement, but I so dislike the NAE that I wanted no confusion. :scared:

:hi:

[mmonk]

3. I welcome any who come to the light.

[gratuitous]

7. Let me just say hallelujah

Baby steps toward the light, Mr. Cizik. And, by the way, when you condemn torture, a necessary component is condemning the administration that endorses torture, practices torture, defends its torture practices, and seeks to shield that torture under color of law. Take a big step forward, Mr. Cizik; it's your right as an American and your duty as a Christian to "critique" an outlaw administration and its illegal practices.

Meanwhile, for Mr. Dobson and other alleged Christians who are criticizing the NAE, who do you think Jesus would torture? Can you honestly tell me that the Prince of Peace would shove bamboo shoots under someone's fingernails? Squeeze a guy's scrotal sac until his testicles swelled up like oranges, and then punch them? Do you see the Messiah on the business end of a cattle prod, sticking it to a guy hanging by his wrists while water trickles over him? How about attaching electrodes to a woman's labia and sending shock after shock to her?

As I recall, both Jesus and the Bible have some pretty harsh words to people who oppressed the helpless.