Here's the lead paragraph of a story in today's UK News Telegraph:
The Bush administration pledged yesterday to veto legislation banning the torture of prisoners by US troops after an overwhelming and almost unprecedented revolt by loyalist congressmen.
Our "born again" evangelical President is vetoing legislation banning torture and the religious "values voters" who elected him are still maintaining a code of silence on this issue.
We clearly live in an era of evangelical American barbarity.
Technorati Tags Torture, evangelicals
25 comments:
When it comes to the moral mafia if the epithet fits they should not be ashamed to wear it.
cks,
I did not call this barbarity "Christian," I called it "American."
Bush is an "Evangelical" American. His base is described as "religious 'values voters'."
Anyone who thinks defense of torture is "Christian," knows little about Christ.
cks,
Double checking, I did miss one reference to Christianity in the blog as originally posted. I thought I had cleaned them all out before I posted it.
The reference to Bush being a "'born again' Christian" has been changed to "'born again' evangelical."
My apologies for missing that reference.
I think a few things need to be noted here.
1. I (among others) don't consider Bush an evangelical because he wouldn't affirm inerrancy, he views Muslims, Jews, and Christians as worshipping the same God and thus brothers, and thus he holds to an inclusivity or pluralism that is outside of evangelical thought.
2. There is a great divide on the torture issue among all Americans, regardless of left or right leanings. I have spoken to some Democrats that have a mentality of "torture the torturers" when it comes to those in the Middle East.
3. Some of the silence in this issue is warrented and some is not. Certain activities that are called torture could be found on college campuses and be labeled "hazing", other acts are truly pure torture. Sometimes those things have been lumped together and because so the true acts of torture, and not hazing have been hidden in a mountain of ambiguity.
4. Many in this country who actually have been prisoners of war have been quiet as well. I find that interesting to say the least. Why? I think it is because their experiences far exceed what the pictures revealed was done to the prisoners at the US camps. Thus, this again plays down the seriousness and causes people to be silent.
5. The whole politicization of the war has caused divides in the issues to be greater. When Dems speak on issues that should be addressed Reps ignore them. When Reps speak on important issues, Dems ignore them. This has led to much confusion and an ignoring of the real issues that need to be faced, like torture.
6. Left and Right politics have caused Christians on both sides to abandon at times what is most important in light of Scritpture and Christlikeness. You say on the one hand torture. I would say on the other hand partial birth abortion, a heinous act committed against a child that I have heard few Liberal Christians come out against in their support of the terrible practice of abortion in the first place. Another issue ignored by liberal Christians is persecution of Christians (most of whom are extremely conservative) in nations like Vietnam, N.Korea, and China. So both sides have problems.
I agree that more should be said in regard to these acts of torture, but to call it "clearly" Evangelical American Barbarity is (in agreement with cks) way over the line.
"So the amendment I am offering simply codifies what is current policy and reaffirms what was assumed to be existing law for years. In light of the administration's stated commitment, it should require no change in our current interrogation and detention practices. What it would do is restore clarity on a simple and fundamental question: Does America treat people inhumanely? My answer is no, and from all I've seen, America's answer has always been no." - Senator John McCain from "MCCAIN STATEMENT ON DETAINEE AMENDMENTS" posted on his website.
Bruce, this is a "non-story." No credible news site has reported the story which you link to, only those who are anti-American or anti-George Bush. McCain doesn't even support the article. The whole story came from a comment by Scott McClellen during a press briefing that, if the bill was presented, the staff would recommend that the President veto it because it would be "unnecessary and duplicative." Never mind attaching it to the defense spending bill. The News.Telegraph article which you linked to wasn't even accurate in it's quote from the press conference.
I guess I'm just wondering where your anger and outrage are really directed? Obviously the article is only a ruse.
There it is, plain as day. If you're anti Bush your anti American. Hmm...I feel a blog post brewing.
This is one of those instances when it is beneficial to use a measure of objectivity. The article said, "...pledged yesterday to veto legislation..." It's not legislation, it's an amendment to a defense spending bill basically to create an Army Field Manual codifying our existing policies.
As to the merits of the story, 15 minutes of research will show that CNN, FoxNews, Washington Post, Reuters, even Google...no mainstream journalistic organization reported the story because there is no story. Virtually all those citing the story quoted the one from News.Telegraph. Places like democrat.com, democratunderground.com, truthout.org, freerepublic.com. That's not defending the President. That's called objectivity.
The real evangelical American barbarity is why otherwise-rational people will defend a terrorist against interrogation techniques and then support the killing of more than a million innocent babies in the womb every single year. That's barbarity on an unconscionable level.
Hi!
I think I've read about all I can stand without posting a response. I AM Southern Baptist,
and my God is grieved about a multitude of issues in the world today - whether it be
torture, persecution, homelessness, hunger, disease, the lost, crime, and yes abortion.
Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that because I look at as many issues as I
possibly can before I vote, that I am automatically "in favor of" abortion. I do not know
any Christian who is in favor of this act. I feel that any responsible Christian, familiar
with the gospels has an obligation to pray, read their Bible, pray, explore all issues, pray,
then vote. Then I am confident that I have allowed God the opportunity to speak to me. I
do not need a pamphlet or a pastor to tell me what God's will is for me personally. As a
Christian who has attended a Southern Baptist Church for 35 to 40 years I can tell you I
learned that attitude from wonderful men of God, and fellow Christians in a Southern
Baptist Church. That is not what happens today. So anyone who tries to convince me or
themselves that nothing has changed is just not being truthful with themselves.
I believe that God is in control. He was in control when President Clinton was in office,
and He is still in control. The difference between myself and some of you who post here
is that I didn't spend the Clinton years trying to convince everyone that would listen that
God had made a huge mistake. My God doesn't make mistakes!
The same posters here who bemoan the "bad press" President Bush is receiving right
now, have conventiently forgotten that for his first five years in office, the majority of his
press was positive. Some of these same posters probably danced with glee each time an
article about Whitewater or Monica Lewinsky was written or aired. You can't have it
both ways!
Also, I hope we all are not naive enough to believe that anyone who says they are "born
again" truly is. I would hope we could take people at their word, but too often we are
deceived. We must use that under exercised muscle we call discernment. You know, it's
that God given muscle that begins to atrophy when we let others tell us what and who to
believe, what is important and what is not, what God wants for us and what He doesn't,
instead of letting God speak to us directly. If we don't use it we will surely lose it, and
then we beome easy prey for anyone out there that knows the right "buzz words," but who
has a heart as black as sin. It is easy to see how the anti-Christ will be able to deceive
many Christians. He only has to tell them what they want to hear. "I'm born again," he'll
say, and many will follow him.
Just my thoughts.
God Bless,
TammyJo58
Tammyjo58, I was only pointing out that this particular story was trumped up. To me, it appeared to be just an excuse to get a dig in, so I pointed out the merits of the story, and asked Bruce what was really on his mind.
I mentioned abortion because I think it's barbaric and was trying to contrast that with the rhetoric that Bush's religious voters ignore the moral decadence of torture. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it. And I personally know Christians who support abortion, and wasn't speaking of anyone on the blog.
Being anti-American and anti-Bush is not the same thing, but sites holding these strong sentiments are the only ones carrying the story, which is all I was pointing out.
I sat in my car in silence listening to the radio as Congress impeached Clinton, and felt sadness at the event. I didn't like him because he thumbed his nose at God's moral law, but I believe God put him in office. Initially, I liked Bush because he seemed to be a man great of character, but I found myself becoming just a political hack, so to speak. I've had to rethink it. I decided that I'd rather stand for the Lord and than for a politician, because they may not always be on the same side, and I may not always know it.
Chaplain Paul,
I appreciate your comments and your posts and I directed my comments to everyone, not to a particular person.
I believe that when the question is asked, "Who is on the Lord's side?" we need to be ready to say, do, think, act, feel, etc. in such a way that may be contrary with popular Christian opinion, in fact it may be in a way very contrary. God is not a God of popular opinion.
When Paul wrote to the Church at Ephesus, he had some pretty specific guidelines of how Christians should treat other Christians. Sometimes that just doesn't happen here. The sarcasm, the twisting, the digging of Christian to Christian on some posts, I believe would have prompted Paul to write a letter to us, if he were still here.
I know that all Christians do not think alike, we are all individuals, praise God for that! We need to practice appreciating that individuality and lifting each other up, not tearing each other down. If we can't do that for each other, fellow Christians, how can we show compassion and love for the lost? The answer is we can't, and that is a very sad state for the Church to be in at this time in history.
God Bless and have a great day!
TammyJo58
Since this can of worms has already been opened, I feel free to comment. I have never heard a convincing argument that "God is in control" the way it is being expressed here. The only way God could have "put both Clinton and Bush in office" would be be in control of the voters who, in an exercise of their free will, voted one way or the other to elect Clinton and Bush. If God controlled the voters decisions then God also must be in control of the decisions Clinton, Bush, etc. made, have made, and will make as president. If God is in control of their decisions, then he is responsible.
And as long as we are comparing our SBC credentials I have been a member of Southern Baptist churches for more than 50 years.
sepherim,
I like your blog description: "Defender of Truth, Justice, and I'm not so sure about the American Way as it stands today."
When are you going to start posting?
I was a Southern Baptist for over 50 years also until I defected 2 years ago to become a *uh* *gasp* United Methodist.
Yeah Sepherim, the God is in control talk has always made me uncomfortable. Humans are responsible for their actions. We're not chess pieces in a giant board game for God. We are responsible for our actions. As Christians we are responsible for implementing God's plan. God's plan is for us to love one another and to love God. I could explain why the whole God is in control talk isn't probably the right attitude to have, but don't have that much time.
Marty,
Shortly after setting up the blog I changed jobs. My new job had a steep learning curve but I am now getting to the point that I will have a little more time. Look for things to start soon.
Mom2,
I have read my posts, and I have read most of the posts here daily for the last several months. It is unfortunate that you did not receive my posts in the spirit they were intended - to exhort Christians to treat each other with respect, despite opposing viewpoints. The is, after all how we should be treating each other. There is no justification for the alternative. As a Christian I would of course include myself in this. As I stated in my post to Chaplain Paul, my comments were not directed at anyone in particular, but to everyone, including myself.
God Bless,
TammyJo58
Sepherim and Buck,
I think you have both set up a false dichotomy not found in Scripture -- that is that either we have libertine free will or that God has determined every action to the extent that He is responsible and we are not. Neither is true according to Scripture.
Scripture is plain and clear that God is ultimately in control of every action of his free creatures. Here's an article with plenty of Scripture references to that end:
http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_42.html
But also we are responsible for our actions. And that too is clear in Scripture. Here's an article on how the two interact.
http://www.founders.org/FJ09/article2.html
The affirmation of both was central to the Reformation and of both the first and second great awakenings in this country. So TammieJo can say "God is in control" in an absolute sense and you can say, "man is responsible" in an absolute sense. To make one a trump card over the other is to be outside of the Biblical teaching. That leads to Open Theism or Hyper-Calvinism, both heresies. You can emphasize one more than the other (leading to competing Biblical positions -- though that does not mean they are equally correct, just both legitmately defensible by Scripture and historically attested by the Church).
mom2,
I could not agree with you more! We cannot place our faith or trust or hope on earthly institutions, because they will fail us every time. We must place that faith, trust, and hope in God because He will not let us down.
God Bless,
TammyJo58
Seems to me the idea of the sovereignty of God is just something that was created to give more credance to the idea of inerrancy. I think the whole dialectic of inerrant and errant (if that's a word) is just the wrong argument to have. I think what Rene Girard has proposed the idea of Gospel vs. myth is more meaningful. Myth for Girard is not necessarily something that is completely fictional. A myth tells a story from the perspective of the persecutors. Gospel is a story that narrates the perspective of the victim of collective/sacred violence. Jesus, of course, but also Achan and Abel. Are the Gospels Mythical
You might not see what the below essay has to do with the idea of sovereignty your talking about, I don't know either, or can't really discuss it in an intelligent way, but it's a good background on things I would like to express to you.
Some Thoughts on the Atonement
Buck, I agree with cks on this -- inerrancy was never an issue in Christianity until the German theological liberalism slowly trickled in and began to move further and further down a slippery slope towards the view you espouse. Certainly, the sovereignty issue is foundational in understand the inspiration of Scripture (see 2 Peter 1:19-21).
Secondly, in regard to your view of Gospel, I think you insert "speculation" and "perspective" into the Gospel accounts where it is not warrented. The Gospel is the good news regarding the facts of Jesus incarnation, virgin birth, miracles, teachings, death, and bodily resurrection. Those facts cannot be separated from Christianity and yet retain the essence of what the Gospel is and the power that it brings (see 1 Corinthians 15:1-19 -- Paul here defines the Gospel).
This is another good piece of writing about what I'm trying to say, it specifically discusses the Holy Spirit and how the Gospel was such in incredible break with all other religions and social structures the world had ever knew. The Paraklete
Part of the whole rise of fundamentalist Christianity, inerrancy/literalism etc. (hope I'm not saying anything insulting), was in reaction to anthropologists finding startling similarities between pagan religions and Christianity. The defense was something along the lines of our God is real their's is not. Ok running out time. But Mr. Girard was also trying to combat this whole relativizing of Christianity. He concluded in a nutshell, that yes the structure and narrative of the life of Jesus was a lot like the stories of the Gods of pagan religions. This is undeniable to an objective observer. But he observed one huge difference between the pagan myths and the Gospels. In pagan myths the gods are perceived to be guilty of the crimes they are accused by the lynch mob. In the Gospels it was, besides some foreshadowing in the Old Testament, specifically in the Psalms and Isaiah 53?, the first narrative to ever take the perspective of the victims of collective violence.
I know this all might not take you by storm. But it is a solid defense of Christianity from society's reversion to Neitzschean paganism.
D.R. & cks
If we are discussing God's sovereignty from a theological position that is one thing and your statements are supported by many (but obviously not all) scholars and theologians throughout church history. My concern is with the popular view of God's sovereignth that results in a statement like "God was in control when he put both Clinton and Bush in office." No matter what your theology is, if God put them in office then he is the one responsible.
Left and Right politics have caused Christians on both sides to abandon at times what is most important in light of Scritpture and Christlikeness.
Oh, can I get an A-men!
I am fed up with politicized, hyphenated Christianity. We are not Americans, Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Libertarians, or what have you before we are Christians. And yet so often we act like it. For some, Bush is God's own anointed, chosen to bless and save God's precious, blessed America; to others he's an obnoxious perversion, a wolf in sheep's clothing. Fact is, he's neither. And we should stop acting like political animals when we discuss politics and more like eternal sons and daughters of God.
America will one day pass away, as will all of our precious political positions and parties. We will stand before God as individuals, not members of dead political parties. The Republicans and Democrats will not save. Neither will our political beliefs. Only what we believe and do for one another.
Zeke,
Amen.
Post a Comment