Evangelicals Oppose torture

[Perky]

Jim Wallis: Evangelicals Against Torture
The struggle against torture and cruel treatment of prisoners by the U.S. received a major boost this week. In its recently concluded meeting, the National Association of Evangelicals board of directors last weekend endorsed an important new statement - An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture: Human Rights in an Age of Terror.
http://www.evangelicalsforhumanrights.org/pb/wp_abaf1d69/wp_abaf1d69.html?0.20779085316566725
The statement begins:

From a Christian perspective, every human life is sacred. As evangelical Christians, recognition of this transcendent moral dignity is non-negotiable in every area of life, including our assessment of public policies. This commitment has been tested in the war on terror, as a public debate has occurred over the moral legitimacy of torture and of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees held by our nation in the current conflict. We write this declaration to affirm our support for detainee human rights and our opposition to any resort to torture.
Then follow sections on the scriptural grounding, human rights, the ethical implications of human rights, and international law and treaties regarding human rights. The statement was drafted by a group of evangelical ethicists, theologians, and pastors, and is carefully researched and coherently argued. Its conclusion is four fundamental declarations:

(a) We renounce the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment by any branch of our government (or any other government)—even in the current circumstance of a war between the United States and various radical terrorist groups.

(b) We call for the extension of basic human rights and procedural protections to all persons held in United States custody now or in the future, wherever and by whomever they are held.

(c) We call for every agency of the United States government to join with the United States military and to state publicly its commitment to the terms of the Geneva Conventions related to the treatment of prisoners, especially Common Article 3.

(d) We call for the legislative or judicial reversal of those executive and legislative provisions that violate the moral and legal standards articulated in this declaration.

A new Web site has been launched, Evangelicals for Human Rights. It seeks to “to reaffirm the centrality of human rights as an unshakable biblical obligation fundamental to an evangelical Christian social and moral vision.” The site provides resources for churches and organizations, current legislation on torture, and news developments.

An Associated Press story on the statement was titled, Evangelicals Condemn Torture (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-evangelicals-torture,1,5922876.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true). I urge you to read the declaration and add your name.

Petitition http://www.evangelicalsforhumanrights.org/pb/wp_6ffa24c0/wp_6ffa24c0.html?0.9213951496736612

[originalpckelly]

1. You know, aside from abortion, we pretty much agree with real Evangelicals.

Anyone who's really into helping the poor would naturally be a Democratic candidate.

[NDP]

15. Actually, you agree with them on abortion, unless you want as many abortions as possible.

Your disagreement is in the way the issue is framed. Their position is they don't want any "abortions" to take place. I believe that most people don't want any abortions to take place. However, they go to the extreme and say that the option should not be available at all. That's where the disagreements emerge. Most people want abortions to be safe, legal, and rare, but available, with women having the right to choose. However, in terms of "abortions," most people would like to see as few abortions as possible, and idealy none, but they are realistic. The disagreement is over whether the government should allow people to "choose" to have an abortion.

So the disagreement is about "availability" and "choice." The point of agreement is over "wishing no one would have one."

How many people here want there to be a whole lot of abortions? Neither do they.
How many people here want there to be any abortions? Neither do they.

The difference. You want the choice to have one to be there. They don't.

"Choice" is where you disagree. Not abortion.

[The Stranger]

2. They forgot to mention the part that if it involves torturing Muslims, it is okay.

[Perky]

5. huh?

[The Stranger]

6. "huh" what?

[Perky]

7. I don't understand the reference to muslims

are you suggesting that evangelicals think that it is ok to torture muslims?

[jellybeancurse]

3. They had to hold a meeting

to decide en masse that this was bad? Give me a break.

[Perky]

4. I am not sure I understand your comment?

It would seem prudent to bring people together to formulate language.
Is your comment just meant to bad mouth well meaning people by suggesting that they somehow must have had an epiphany about being opposed to torture?

Maybe you need an epiphany of your own/ The community of faith is large and very siloed from one another. We have sharp disagreemnt on amny theological fronts. the fact that we could come together on ANYTHING is initself remarkable.

Complaining that we "had to have a meeting" to write up a document for a national petition is just being a horse's ass

[blondeatlast]

9. In order to make an official statement? Yes, they certainly did. nt

[Jacobin]

8. How Christian of them

Does that apply to crucifixion as well?

:evilgrin:

[blondeatlast]

10. The Christians crucified Christ? Yet another lost book of the Bible

discovered?

My head is spinning--last week someone discovered Matthew...

[Jacobin]

14. I didn't suggest that

But they did seem fond of being fed to lions by the Romans. Martyrdom seems appealing to that sect.

[Hubert Flottz]

11. Why do they vote for people thay they know are doing it then?

They vote for it!

[951-Riverside]

12. but we don't torture anyone

We 'interrogate' ;)

[northernsoul]

13. More accurately: Jim Wallis opposes torture...

and hopes that some other people who consider themselves to be Evangelicals agree with him.

Unfortunately, the exceptions to the blanket assertion that "Evangelicals (en masse) Oppose Torture" are numerous.

[Perky]

16. You people drive me nuts

You confuse evabgelicalism and the Christodascisim
you sya Christian on the left are not doing enough

We are making a concerter effort to on Global Warming
We are standing up to Dobson whe he ties tp bully the National Association of Evangelicals
We have come out with a stron statemnt against culture
and now you are criticizing us fo "enjoying martydom" and because there are pocket of people who do not agree with us and we h"had to have a meeting to decide "torture was bad"

Get a clue. We ar e fighting the same people from different perspectives What is so blesses wrong with that?