[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Ukrainian eyewitnesses claim factory was annihilated to dust by Putin's superweapon FBI Director Wray and DHS Secretary Mayorkas have just refused to testify before the Senate... Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt. You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge Jewish Land Grab Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own. Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room Ukrainians have stolen up to half of US aid ex-Polish deputy minister Gaza doctor raped, tortured to death in Israeli custody, new report reveals German Lutheran Church Bans AfD Members From Committees, Calls Party 'Anti-Human' Berlin Teachers Sound Alarm Over Educational Crisis Caused By Multiculturalism Trump Hosts Secret Global Peace Summit at Mar-a-Lago! Heat Is Radiating From A Huge Mass Under The Moon Elon Musk Delivers a Telling Response When Donald Trump Jr. Suggests FBI recovers funds for victims of scammed banker Mark Felton: Can Russia Attack Britain?

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: 45,000-member evangelical group breaks ranks with Bush administration on torture
Source: Raw Story
URL Source: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/45000 ... l_group_breaks_ranks_0314.html
Published: Mar 14, 2007
Author: Raw Story
Post Date: 2007-03-14 18:42:23 by Zipporah
Keywords: None
Views: 439
Comments: 28

The National Association of Evangelicals, representing roughly 45,000 churches across the U.S. endorsed on Tuesday a declaration against torture put together by Evangelicals for Human Rights – an organization of 17 evangelical scholars – in a striking break from the Bush Administration's policy.

"Tragically, documented cases of torture and inhumane and cruel behaviour have occurred at various sites in the war on terror, and current law opens procedural loopholes for more to continue," the evangelicals' statement declares.

"There is a perception out there in the Middle East that we're willing to accept any action in order to fight this war against terrorism," the NAE's Rev. Rich Cizik told AP. "We are the conservatives – let there be no mistake on that – who wholeheartedly support the war against terror, but that does not mean by any means necessary."

"As American Christians, we are above all motivated by a desire that our nation's actions would be consistent with foundational Christian moral norms," the document adds. "We believe that a scrupulous commitment to human rights, among which is the right not to be tortured, is one of these Christian moral convictions."

Their full statement follows.

#

1. Introduction: 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.

2. Sanctity of Life: We ground our commitment to human rights in the core Christian theological conviction that each and every human life is sacred. This theme wends its way throughout the Scriptures: in Creation, Law, the Incarnation, Jesus' teaching and ministry, the Cross, and his Resurrection. Concern for the sanctity of life leads us to vigilant sensitivity to how human beings are treated and whether their God-given rights are being respected.

3. Human Rights: Human rights, which function to protect human dignity and the sanctity of life, cannot be cancelled and should not be overridden. Recognition of human rights creates obligations to act on behalf of others whose rights are being violated. Human rights place a shield around people who otherwise would find themselves at the mercy of those who are angry, aggrieved, or frightened. While human rights language can be misused, this demands its clarification rather than abandonment. Among the most significant human rights is the right to security of person, which includes the right not to be tortured.

4. Christian History and Human Rights: The concept of human rights is not a "secular" notion but instead finds expression in Christian sources long before the Enlightenment. More secularized versions of the human rights ethic which came to occupy such a large place in Western thought should be seen as derivative of earlier religious arguments. Twentieth century assaults on human rights by totalitarian states led to a renewal of "rights talk"after World War II. Most branches of the Christian tradition, including evangelicalism, now embrace a human rights ethic.

5. Ethical Implications: Everyone bears an obligation to act in ways that recognize human rights. This responsibility takes different forms at different levels. Churches must teach their members to think biblically about morally difficult and emotionally intense public issues such as this one. Our own government must honor its constitutional and moral responsibilities to respect and protect human rights. The United States historically has been a leader in supporting international human rights efforts, but our moral vision has blurred since 9/11. We need to regain our moral clarity.

6. Legal Structures: International law contains numerous clear and unequivocal bans on torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. These bans are wise and right and must be embraced without reservation once again by our own government. Likewise, United States law and military doctrine has banned the resort to torture and cruel and degrading treatment. Tragically, documented acts of torture and of inhumane and cruel behavior have occurred at various sites in the U.S. war on terror, and current law opens procedural loopholes for more to continue. We commend the Pentagon's revised Army Field Manual for clearly banning such acts, and urge that this ban extend to every sector of the United States government without exception, including our intelligence agencies.

7. Concluding Recommendations: The abominable acts of 9/11, along with the continuing threat of terrorist attacks, create profound security challenges. However, these challenges must be met within a moral and legal framework consistent with our values and laws, among which is a commitment to human rights that we as evangelicals share with many others. In this light, we renounce the resort to torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees, call for the extension of procedural protections and human rights to all detainees, seek clear government-wide embrace of the Geneva Conventions, including those articles banning torture and cruel treatment of prisoners, and urge the reversal of any U.S. government law, policy, or practice that violates the moral standards outlined in this declaration.

#

READ MORE HERE.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 16.

#3. To: Zipporah (#0)

All christians should be against torture! Hello! Do they forget the little old word 'persecution' and what it entailed? Or not returning evil for evil?

rowdee  posted on  2007-03-14   19:11:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

All christians should be against torture! Hello! Do they forget the little old word 'persecution' and what it entailed? Or not returning evil for evil?

it's one thing I can never understand ..how those who call themselves Christian could possibly be in favor of such things.

Zipporah  posted on  2007-03-14   19:16:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

All christians should be against torture! Hello! Do they forget the little old word 'persecution' and what it entailed? Or not returning evil for evil?

it's one thing I can never understand ..how those who call themselves Christian could possibly be in favor of such things.

Christianity is paganism, and the vast majority of those that call themselves Christians know not who they worship.

The Creator need not to gain our approval. It works the other way around. There are many gods, and this fact escapes Christians. For some unexplainable reason, they cannot see that it would be Satan (or some other god) which would be the one to bestow "blessings" on them in order to deceive them.

For example, a friend of mine (who proudly claims to be Christian) just the other day was talking about his new boat (a very nice boat). He said "I feel fortunate and thank God for allowing me to be the keeper (or caretaker - I can't remember his exact word) of it." Which is the more likely scenario - that the Creator see fit to make sure he has this new boat, or that Satan does; and thereby gets the "praise" for it???

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Sounds to me like there's gonna be a lot of disappointed souls. The requirement is "doing the WILL of the Father". So what exactly IS the WILL of the Father??? It's just a guess, but could it be to follow His commandments, statutes, and judgments (in other words His Laws)? After all, He did say that 172 different times in Scripture - so I'm guessing it's rather important to Him.

And just exactly WHAT are His Laws? Well, at the time the Messiah spoke these words not one word of New Testament had been written - therefore the "Law" was what was contained in the Old Testament. The Messiah also said in Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Aren't the words in the Old Testament part of the words that proceeded out of the mouth of God? What is it about the word every that Christians don't understand? If they're that illiterate, there are dictionaries available which they could use to look up what the word means. Again, at the time the Messiah spoke these words, not one word of New Testament had been written. But Christians don't believe this. They believe the New Testament supersedes and abolishes Old Testament (even though they can find proof in the New Testament itself that they are wrong on this issue in Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Again, at the time this was spoken by the Messiah, the Law was what was written in Old Testament - and as I look around I see the earth, so I assume it has NOT yet passed, NOR has all in Scripture yet been fulfilled [all being another of those words which Christians don't seem to understand the meaning of]). That's why they have no problem with eating bacon for breakfast, although eating pig was the subject of one of those "Laws" and was strictly prohibited by the Creator. And why do they believe this? Because their god (Satan or whoever) has deceived them with "goodies" like new boats, and gotten them to follow the lie.

So it shouldn't be surprising in the least that Christians (in the generic sense of the word) would be in favor of such things.

innieway  posted on  2007-03-15   10:53:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Re the matter of eating bacon--IIRC, Peter was told in a vision that it was OK to eat everything; he objected on the basis of his being a kosher Jew; and was told God's Word was not to be triffled with (in so many words). This was just before he went to the home of Cornelius, when he and his household converted.

I further recall that the apostle Paul said all things were lawful, too.

I have friends who observed the abstaining from consuming hog meat. For some reason, Raul refused to believe what was given to Peter.

rowdee  posted on  2007-03-15   18:21:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Re the matter of eating bacon--IIRC, Peter was told in a vision that it was OK to eat everything; he objected on the basis of his being a kosher Jew; and was told God's Word was not to be triffled with (in so many words).

No, I'm afraid he wasn't.

You are referring to Acts Chapter 10. Starting with verse 13 we see: And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.

Nowhere is it stated that swine had ever been cleansed. God had "cleansed" certain meats (cow, sheep, goat are some examples), and told us those we can eat. Others we were told not to eat as they were unclean to us (pig, rabbit, horse are some examples). Same is true of fish and fowl. Catfish and shrimp are "out", trout and tuna are "good". Owls and swans are "out", chicken and turkey are "in".

Furthermore, Peter's vision had nothing to do with a change in God's meat laws; (no matter how much anyone uses this particular incident as proof He did) it was concerning his dealings with people. We see this in verse 28: And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

This is but another example of people twisting Scripture to justify their beliefs or desires. It also flies in the face of the statement found in Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. People don't believe that either. The ONLY reason God would have to change the law concerning eating swine is if He made a mistake in the first place and saw the need to correct it - and THUS would NOT have been the same yesterday, today, and forever.

I further recall that the apostle Paul said all things were lawful, too.

Ludicrous. The quote I just gave of Hebrews 13:8 is from Paul. So is verse 9: Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. Eating swine is a "diverse and strange doctrine".

HOWEVER, I'm sure you didn't mean ALL things were lawful, but were referring to the "food laws". Not that it matters, as Paul didn't declare that the food laws were "changed" either. I think you are referencing 1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: (This is the "other" Scriptural reference which pork eaters use to justify their transgression of the law - otherwise known as sin) But once again, they are taking this out of context. What is the SUBJECT of Paul's discussion in 1 Timothy 4? He is talking about people departing from the faith and following seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils!!! 1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Verse 4 is part of the "speaking of lies" and "doctrine of devils" of "seducing spirits" which we are warned against.... Paul had NO AUTHORITY to change God's laws, and NO INTENTION of doing so!!!!! Again, if God had changed His laws, he would NOT have been the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

I have friends who observed the abstaining from consuming hog meat. For some reason, Raul refused to believe what was given to Peter.

Good for Raul. He's NOT refusing to believe what was given to Peter, but rather knows that it was NOT given to Peter to eat pork.

I consider it TRIVIAL to try to make an argument from the writings of Paul or whoever OVER a statement by the Messiah Himself, and that statement I'm referring to is For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Of course most people know He was lying, and that they are correct in how they have it figured out)

I don't care if somebody wants to eat pork. I'm not here to tell anyone what to do, (but I will admit that the way I put things sometimes it comes across that way) I'm simply telling them what Scripture says. But I can kind of picture the conversation these folks will have with the Creator someday...
God: "So Joe, did you keep my commandments and abstain from eating pork?"
Joe: "No. The preacher said that Paul said it was OK."
God: "Well Joe, did you keep the Land Sabbaths?"
Joe: "The LAND SABBATHS??? What the hell is that?"
God: "Then I'm sure there no point in even asking if you wore mingled fabrics."
Joe: "Mingled fabrics? You mean like socks that are 96% cotton, 2% rayon, and 2% polyester? That was a LAW???"
Joe: "But LORD, I DID help out the neighbor when he needed it, and I DID always speak good things about you, and I DID rebuke the devil."

Somehow I don't think Joe is gonna have a very good argument. He won't have a leg to stand on, and will qualify as as one of those cited in Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? and Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And he shouldn't be too surprised when the response he gets is I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. as we are told in Matthew 7:23 (by the Messiah Himself) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. exactly what He will say.

innieway  posted on  2007-03-17   10:24:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#18. To: innieway (#16) (Edited)

Regarding the hog/pig/bacon. In the O.T., Leviticus, God forbade the eating of certain animals as being unclean. That is why Israelites did not eat swine. This was something like 1200 - 1300 years before Peter, et al.

Why would it be necessary for it to even be brought up again? It isn't like Peter wasn't a practicing Jew/Israelite observing their kosher/food laws. That's why he objected to this 'sheet' and voice telling him to kill and eat all the animals shown on that sheet. And the voice for THREE times said this and also said that what God hath cleaned, he wasn't to call common--in other words, who is Peter to countermand God's Word.

[EDIT TO MAKE SENTENCES/PARAGRAPHS]

KJV: Act 10:10 And1161 he became1096 very hungry,4361 and2532 would2309 have eaten:1089 but1161 while they1565 made ready,3903 he fell1968 into1909 a (846) trance,1611
Act 10:11 And2532 saw2334 heaven3772 opened,455 and2532 a certain5100 vessel4632 descending2597 unto1909 him,846 as it had been5613 a great3173 sheet3607 knit1210 at the four5064 corners,746 and2532 let down2524 to1909 the3588 earth:1093
Act 10:12 Wherein1722, 3739 were5225 all manner3956 of fourfooted beasts5074 of the3588 earth,1093 and2532 wild beasts,2342 and2532 creeping things,2062 and2532 fowls4071 of the3588 air.3772
Act 10:13 And2532 there came1096 a voice5456 to4314 him,846 Rise,450 Peter;4074 kill,2380 and2532 eat.5315
Act 10:14 But1161 Peter4074 said,2036 Not so,3365 Lord;2962 for3754 I have never3763 eaten5315 any thing3956 that is common2839 or2228 unclean.169
Act 10:15 And2532 the voice5456 spake unto4314 him846 again3825 the (1537) second time,1208 What3739 God2316 hath cleansed,2511 that call not thou common.2840, 3361, 4771
Act 10:16 (1161) This5124 was1096 done(1909) thrice:5151 and2532 the3588 vessel4632 was received up353 again3825 into1519 heaven.3772

Peter later went to the home of a Gentile, Cornelius, by name, realizing that God is no respector of race, i.e., Gentile vs Jew, i.e., just as he had no need for clean and unclean.

You wrote..."This is but another example of people twisting Scripture to justify their beliefs or desires. It also flies in the face of the statement found in Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. People don't believe that either. The ONLY reason God would have to change the law concerning eating swine is if He made a mistake in the first place and saw the need to correct it - and THUS would NOT have been the same yesterday, today, and forever."........Whew. I trust this is not directed at me personally--the first couple of sentences, anyways. I've been reading and studying God's Word in heavy duty time (2 to 8 hours a day/night) the past two years--searching for the truth==HIS TRUTH--not mine.

God, to be God, can do whatever and whenever He wants. We, in our small human mind can declare it a mistake, an error, an honest attempt, whatever--but what we declare it is immaterial. It is what God says. Was God wrong when He said he wouldn't take it out on His creatures again, ie, like the flood, when He was wiping out mankind? Not in my book--He can do whatever He wants--its His world, His universe, His creation.

Anyways, I don't take that as a personal attack. :) Really. :)

You also wrote..."HOWEVER, I'm sure you didn't mean ALL things were lawful, but were referring to the "food laws". Not that it matters, as Paul didn't declare that the food laws were "changed" either.

I think you are referencing 1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: (This is the "other" Scriptural reference which pork eaters use to justify their transgression of the law - otherwise known as sin).....I wasn't referencing Timothy--haven't got to him yet!

Your scenario, IMO, might work with Israelites when appearing before the Judgment Day.

It is my belief the Law of Moses was written for the Israelites. Given the time when Jesus Christ was born (after Greek rulers) and under Roman rule, and most all those Gentiles out there in the world didn't know a thing about the Law of Moses, don't you wonder why virtually nothing is given, if anything, of those laws in the New Testament? I'm into Thessalonians presently (it is a long story on how I am studying), and thus far, I've not come across anything being said containing the list of do dos (beyond a few short brief things-- nothing like Leviticus)--certainly not on Land Sabbaths, as a for instance.

Right now my mind is going twenty ways from Sunday, but essentially all I can recall at the moment regarding the list of do'dos and don't dos is mostly in regards to sexual morality.

I'm sure there's more, but I'm dealing with a vexing situation at the moment. Sorry....

Thanks for discussing. So long as responses are done in good faith, it is a joy to read, to try to understand.

rowdee  posted on  2007-03-17 16:53:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]