The link doesn't seem to work. I would be interested in reading the resolution.
True to form, Southern Baptists have issued no statement regarding torture. The Convention is this week and to my knowledge nothing is set to be proposed. They are more worried that Calvinists are being discriminated against in the SBC.
Interestingly, I Googled Southern Baptists and torture and Streak's blog was the first entry.
This is why Streak should come out with a strong statement against torturing Southern Baptists. Until he issues such a statement without DeLay, I'll believe Streak is torturing Southern Baptists, until he proves otherwise.
Thanks for the correct link, Streak. My html skills are weak. The best part of the resolution: "The use of torture is manifestly contrary to Christian faith and teaching, and erodes the credibility of the United States Government at home and abroad." ~ That's awesome that Streak gets such a good Google hit on this issue. Next step: Monetize!
I would suspect there are some Southern Baptists who think reading my blog is not enjoyable. Maybe not rising to the violation-of-the-Geneva-Conventions-unenjoyable, but unpleasant. Hell, I think one of them is running for SBC president!
Out of curiosity, does anyone know the history of the "Torture is a moral issue" phrasing? I know many more Christians who would agree that torture is, abstractly, a moral issue than who would agree that torturing people who happen to have been born Hispanic or Arabs is wrong, at least when Someone In Authority says it's all okay.
And by the way, who ever the hell you are, only sadists and tyrants defend torture. There are people of good will and good intention on both sides of the abortion debate.
Sorry, Gary, you've already lost that part of the culture war. You're welcome to yell at me if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't change anything.
Really, Reggie? I am the only one in the civilized world that says torture is immoral? There haven't been international treaties and religious meetings devoted to saying exactly that?
Face it. You are on the side of dictators, tyrants and bullies. Or let me put it this way. Tell me what other constitutional democracies openly embrace torture?
Let's take a step back and really look at this. It seems that the argument comes down to this:
1)'x' is a controversial moral issue, which you oppose. 2) I don't know, but assume you support 'y,' another controversial moral issue. 3) Therefore, because I assume you support 'y,' your opposition to 'x' is invalid.
BTW, perhaps it is a good thing that our government is torturing folks. After all,I wasn't attacked today, were you? Mission accomplished.
Nor did pink marshmellow peeps fall from the sky, so the National Weather Service's Severe Peep Storm Prevention Project is similarly a rousing success. That's too bad, I like marshmellow peeps.
I am sure there are instances where torture produces vital information, but for every one of those there are probably dozens of instances where it does not. That, along with other reasons already mentioned, is enough for me to not want to go that route.
Tony, I don't know if you're a Joss Whedon fan, but you could always call yourself "Preacher" and add a picture of Shepherd Book and every geek in the world would love you.
Tony, I don't know if you're a Joss Whedon fan, but you could always call yourself "Preacher" and add a picture of Shepherd Book and every geek in the world would love you.
This gets my vote, though of course I am not a geek. ; )
There’s lots of dialogue going on this days. Evangelical leaders met with Barack Obama this week to dialogue some more. They haven’t figured out what aborted babies in America already know—that Obama supports the right to slaughter preborn babies in the womb and those out of the womb who manage to survive a induced labor abortion. Obama twice voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in the state of Illinois. This bill was supposed to allow babies to live who managed to survive an abortion procedure, and it was introduced after nurses like Jill Stanek protested having to watch little babies die on dirty laundry carts after failed hospital abortions. Jill recalls holding one such down’s syndrome baby for 45 minutes because nobody else would hold him while he died. They had put the infant on a cart in a laundry room to die. This, Barack Obama supports and it’s on the record in the state of Illinois. So extreme are his views on abortion that the Washington Post carried a piece on just how extreme he is. Michelle Obama drafted a fundraising letter for his Senate campaign that warned about how zealots wanted to stop partial birth abortion and that her husband would keep it safe for all women. The Obamas support partial birth abortion where the baby’s head is born, skull punctured with scissors, the brains sucked out and the baby then delivered and hurled into a bucket. That’s real hope and opportunity for all, Mr. Obama. What a hero.
These evangelical leaders like T.D. Jakes, who said he had goosebumps when Obama got the nomination, should be forced to watch what Jill Stanek did, holding a baby that had been murdered at his mother’s request, all because he had down’s syndrome. They should have to watch the movie Hard Truth and see what America’s idolatry of choice has brought us. 50 million dead human beings and counting. The irony is, rather than stand up for human life in this election, many evangelicals (a predicted 40%) will help facilitate the election of one who has a track record on child killing that is so extreme the Washington Post even comments on it.
I am not sure we have a lot of ground in common to talk about this. Jill Stanek is hardly a credible source on this matter. In fact, she and I have had some pretty terse emails where she essentially defended her right to say whatever racist thing she wanted to in her anti-choice crusade. That is her right, but it doesn't help your argument here. Nor does, as one of the other commenters noted here before, the avoidance of the key issue of torture. Even if you are right about abortion, that in no way makes the torture of other human beings any more palatable.
It's just that you bash Bush for torture but laud Obama. Why is torture so much more worthy of criticism than the murder of innocent children (of which Obama appears to be an extreme supported)?
Tony,
I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying dog fighting is just as bad as abortion? Not, trying to be mean, but your comment sounded flippant.
Yes, my comment was flip. I got really aggravated when many conservatives (and just so you know, I am one) compared Vick's dog fighting and how horrible that was to abortion. The argument was essentially, dog fighting is bad, abortion is worse, so how can we get worked up about dog fighting when babies are being aborted? (The real issue wasn't the dogs, mind you, but to the NFL it was Vick's willingness to gamble. If he will gamble on dogs, he will throw a game.)
The two (abortion and torture) are mutually exclusive. Yes, they are both immoral, but to compare the two and make a value judgment one based against the other is to grossly miss the point.
Sure, abortion is an atrocity, but so is the torture of another human being. Can we compare the two if we are going to be consistently pro-life? I'm not sure that is the best way to frame the argument.
For my perspective, I believe firmly that there are people of good will and good intention and good morality who disagree about abortion. No one likes it, but many disagree about who should make the decision, when life begins, etc. You are obviously on the hard-line pro-life side, and you are welcome to that viewpoint. Many here will agree with aspects of what you say, but others of us might not.
No reasonable people support torture. Sadists and dictators love it. Christians have been too often the target of torture, and usually have stood strong against it.
And as I said, quoting Jill Stanek will not get you any support here.
41 comments:
I see there is fine print at the bottom. Are you sure it doesn't say "void where prohibted - some restrictions apply?"
Perhaps the quickest comment ever.
I think they are a little late...
Well, evangelicals do typically show up late to the party.
That is NOT a lousy church sign, btw. :)
Well, in true Episcopal fashion we opted for a lengthy "resolution" over a logo, but the sentiment is the same: http://tinyurl.com/62esmc
Anglican,
The link doesn't seem to work. I would be interested in reading the resolution.
True to form, Southern Baptists have issued no statement regarding torture. The Convention is this week and to my knowledge nothing is set to be proposed. They are more worried that Calvinists are being discriminated against in the SBC.
Interestingly, I Googled Southern Baptists and torture and Streak's blog was the first entry.
This is why Streak should come out with a strong statement against torturing Southern Baptists. Until he issues such a statement without DeLay, I'll believe Streak is torturing Southern Baptists, until he proves otherwise.
Anglican's address is fine if you copy and paste it into your browser, but here's a working link.
Thanks for the correct link, Streak. My html skills are weak. The best part of the resolution: "The use of torture is manifestly contrary to Christian faith and teaching, and erodes the credibility of the United States Government at home and abroad."
~
That's awesome that Streak gets such a good Google hit on this issue. Next step: Monetize!
Copy and paste...well, duh. (Hanging head in shame). Sorry, Anglican.
Streak is torturing Southern Baptists. Well that explains EVERYTHING.
I would suspect there are some Southern Baptists who think reading my blog is not enjoyable. Maybe not rising to the violation-of-the-Geneva-Conventions-unenjoyable, but unpleasant. Hell, I think one of them is running for SBC president!
Out of curiosity, does anyone know the history of the "Torture is a moral issue" phrasing? I know many more Christians who would agree that torture is, abstractly, a moral issue than who would agree that torturing people who happen to have been born Hispanic or Arabs is wrong, at least when Someone In Authority says it's all okay.
It hasn't even risen to panties-on-your-head levels yet. I'm still waiting . . .
Leighton,
You mean like "Abortion is a moral issue?" You know, "murder is ok as long as it's a baby who can't really describe how painful it is."
Bush may have authorized torture, but Obama can/has/will authorize murder.
Anonymous,
I am this close to shutting off the anon comments. You want to pop in with your comments, at least give us a name.
The next one gets deleted.
And by the way, who ever the hell you are, only sadists and tyrants defend torture. There are people of good will and good intention on both sides of the abortion debate.
The people who got info from KSM at Gitmo had good intentions. And the info they got prevented further attacks.
Abortion is murder. "Convenient" perhaps, but still murder.
And what's your real name?
Sorry, Gary, you've already lost that part of the culture war. You're welcome to yell at me if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't change anything.
It is my blog. I didn't ask for your real name, btw. I asked for some identifier. Many of us use aliases.
As for your assertion that all abortion is murder, it is just that--your assertion.
Wouldn't you feel more comfortable at LGF or some blog where they joke about waterboarding terrorists?
Streak,
And it's only your assertion that torture is what you say it is as well...
Leighton,
The God you don't belive will have the last word, not the culture you seem to have so much faith in.
Quite right. Why don't you let Him have the last word, then, and scuttle off to places that actually want you around. :)
Really, Reggie? I am the only one in the civilized world that says torture is immoral? There haven't been international treaties and religious meetings devoted to saying exactly that?
Face it. You are on the side of dictators, tyrants and bullies. Or let me put it this way. Tell me what other constitutional democracies openly embrace torture?
Agreed, Leighton. Bye bye, Reggie.
Let's take a step back and really look at this. It seems that the argument comes down to this:
1)'x' is a controversial moral issue, which you oppose.
2) I don't know, but assume you support 'y,' another controversial moral issue.
3) Therefore, because I assume you support 'y,' your opposition to 'x' is invalid.
Lookit me, I's cipherin'!
BTW, perhaps it is a good thing that our government is torturing folks. After all,I wasn't attacked today, were you? Mission accomplished.
Nor did pink marshmellow peeps fall from the sky, so the National Weather Service's Severe Peep Storm Prevention Project is similarly a rousing success. That's too bad, I like marshmellow peeps.
...my real name, btw.
That's too bad, I like marshmellow peeps.
Those are nasty!
I am sure there are instances where torture produces vital information, but for every one of those there are probably dozens of instances where it does not. That, along with other reasons already mentioned, is enough for me to not want to go that route.
ubub person,
I's cin sypher, 2. Naught to my naught is naught!
I must agree with Steve here. marshmallow peeps are nasty.
Signed,
Tony (my real name)
P.S. Is it absolutely essential that I address the content of the post or can I just flip in and make some off-handed remark?
P.S.S. I need a cool alias. Every cool person in blog-world has one. Any suggestions?
Tony, I don't know if you're a Joss Whedon fan, but you could always call yourself "Preacher" and add a picture of Shepherd Book and every geek in the world would love you.
Two options come to mind.
"Tony-not-Ubub"
and
"The T-Bone"
How about Fighting Preacher? Oh, wait . . .
Nevermind.
Is that T-Bone?
Tony, I don't know if you're a Joss Whedon fan, but you could always call yourself "Preacher" and add a picture of Shepherd Book and every geek in the world would love you.
This gets my vote, though of course I am not a geek. ; )
Law geeks are geeks too. >.>
This question might be off-topic, but is this what thread-jacking means?
There’s lots of dialogue going on this days. Evangelical leaders met with Barack Obama this week to dialogue some more. They haven’t figured out what aborted babies in America already know—that Obama supports the right to slaughter preborn babies in the womb and those out of the womb who manage to survive a induced labor abortion. Obama twice voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in the state of Illinois. This bill was supposed to allow babies to live who managed to survive an abortion procedure, and it was introduced after nurses like Jill Stanek protested having to watch little babies die on dirty laundry carts after failed hospital abortions. Jill recalls holding one such down’s syndrome baby for 45 minutes because nobody else would hold him while he died. They had put the infant on a cart in a laundry room to die. This, Barack Obama supports and it’s on the record in the state of Illinois. So extreme are his views on abortion that the Washington Post carried a piece on just how extreme he is. Michelle Obama drafted a fundraising letter for his Senate campaign that warned about how zealots wanted to stop partial birth abortion and that her husband would keep it safe for all women. The Obamas support partial birth abortion where the baby’s head is born, skull punctured with scissors, the brains sucked out and the baby then delivered and hurled into a bucket. That’s real hope and opportunity for all, Mr. Obama. What a hero.
These evangelical leaders like T.D. Jakes, who said he had goosebumps when Obama got the nomination, should be forced to watch what Jill Stanek did, holding a baby that had been murdered at his mother’s request, all because he had down’s syndrome. They should have to watch the movie Hard Truth and see what America’s idolatry of choice has brought us. 50 million dead human beings and counting. The irony is, rather than stand up for human life in this election, many evangelicals (a predicted 40%) will help facilitate the election of one who has a track record on child killing that is so extreme the Washington Post even comments on it.
ubub, I think that is what we call threadjacking. Who knew Gary was a transvestite?
Rhonda,
I am not sure we have a lot of ground in common to talk about this. Jill Stanek is hardly a credible source on this matter. In fact, she and I have had some pretty terse emails where she essentially defended her right to say whatever racist thing she wanted to in her anti-choice crusade. That is her right, but it doesn't help your argument here. Nor does, as one of the other commenters noted here before, the avoidance of the key issue of torture. Even if you are right about abortion, that in no way makes the torture of other human beings any more palatable.
Wait, we need to talk about Michael Vick and compare dog fighting to abortion, too.
Streak,
It's just that you bash Bush for torture but laud Obama. Why is torture so much more worthy of criticism than the murder of innocent children (of which Obama appears to be an extreme supported)?
Tony,
I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying dog fighting is just as bad as abortion? Not, trying to be mean, but your comment sounded flippant.
Rhonda,
Yes, my comment was flip. I got really aggravated when many conservatives (and just so you know, I am one) compared Vick's dog fighting and how horrible that was to abortion. The argument was essentially, dog fighting is bad, abortion is worse, so how can we get worked up about dog fighting when babies are being aborted? (The real issue wasn't the dogs, mind you, but to the NFL it was Vick's willingness to gamble. If he will gamble on dogs, he will throw a game.)
The two (abortion and torture) are mutually exclusive. Yes, they are both immoral, but to compare the two and make a value judgment one based against the other is to grossly miss the point.
Sure, abortion is an atrocity, but so is the torture of another human being. Can we compare the two if we are going to be consistently pro-life? I'm not sure that is the best way to frame the argument.
Rhonda,
For my perspective, I believe firmly that there are people of good will and good intention and good morality who disagree about abortion. No one likes it, but many disagree about who should make the decision, when life begins, etc. You are obviously on the hard-line pro-life side, and you are welcome to that viewpoint. Many here will agree with aspects of what you say, but others of us might not.
No reasonable people support torture. Sadists and dictators love it. Christians have been too often the target of torture, and usually have stood strong against it.
And as I said, quoting Jill Stanek will not get you any support here.
Post a Comment