Andrew Sullivan can get under your skin every now and then if you’re a progressive like me, but he’s important and right on quite a bit of the time. He’s particularly insightful in his analysis of how America’s (somewhat behind-the-scenes but more and more a part of the public debate) acceptance of Torture in its response to terrorist attacks is destroying much of what we stand for.

For instance, read his analysis on Guy Fawkes Day, with this money quote:

From revulsion against torture, liberal democracy was born. And by acquiescing in torture, liberal democracy will die.

Spot on…

I’m glad to read about this today:

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.

…

“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,” Cizik said. “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.”

…

The document says government and outside researchers have documented “acts of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment,” against U.S. detainees, “especially in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, in Afghanistan’s Bagram Air Base, in CIA black sites and at the hands of other nations.”

The authors praise the U.S. Army for last year releasing a revised field manual that bans beating, sexually humiliating and threatening prisoners, among other interrogation procedures.

But the evangelical writers criticize the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a Defense Department system for prosecuting terror suspects. The evangelicals condemned provisions of that act that allow indefinite detention for some suspects and does not always hold intelligence officials to the same standards as the military.

Quoting a wide range of sources including the Bible, Pope John Paul II, Elie Wiesel and theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, the authors say the federal government has a moral obligation to follow international human rights treaties that the U.S. has endorsed.

“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 says. “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.”

The NAE says it represents 45,000 evangelical churches. However, it does not include some of the best-known conservative Christian bodies, including the Southern Baptist Convention and Focus on the Family.

Go hug an NAE member today! While you’re at it, check out the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.

Spencer Ackerman reports over at TPMMuckraker that senators Dodd and Menendez are going to introduce a bill that would ban torture and restore Habeas Corpus to detainees at Gitmo. That’s a hopeful sign; the approval of the detainee trial bill last September will be a black eye on America’s moral standing for decades, if not longer, and the removal of its sanctioning of torture and the abandonment of basic constitutional protections for those under our care can’t happen soon enough. For backstory, here is some of my posting about it then (in roughly reverse order): here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

I thank Andrew Sullivan in particular for his reporting on the issue. I think we share some of the sensibilities about how torture is incompatible both with America’s best ideals and with Christian ethics, and I agree with his concern about what our use of torture has done for our international image.

His most recent post on the subject is fascinating: taking a look at the approbation of torture on popular television programs like 24 and how it impacts thinking on torture. I’d suggest reading it all.

…Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly also has a post up that reflects on Jane Mayer’s New Yorker piece on this subject and a LA Times entertainment article on ‘24′. Money quote:

Pre-9/11: torture is used by bad guys.  That’s one of the ways you know they’re bad guys.

And today? Actually, nothing’s changed. It’s still how you know who the bad guys are. We just seem to have temporarily forgotten that.

An addendum to the last post: that reference, and many more helpful pieces on the subject of Same-Sex marriage, are included in what I think is one of the best readers on the issue: Andrew Sullivan’s Same-Sex Marriage: Pro & Con. Its a helpful collection of some of the strongest arguments on the subject, and a helpful resource.

I’d commend it, particularly given the fact that it marshals strong arguments on both sides, the author admits his own bias and position, and it is fairly balanced. You might get something out of it…

Jan Edmiston writes about the Evangelical Spectrum over at A Church for Starving Artists. She points to this good ad on the Sojourner’s site put out by Evangelicals for Darfur, and writes:

What are Ted Haggard & Rob Bell doing on the same list? (This was a full page ad in yesterday’s Washington Post.) And why isn’t Cliff Kirkpatrick on there?

I write (and, God-help-me, preach) as an evangelical Christian.

“Evangelical” used to mean “Protestant” in Europe. Today in 21st c. North America, it often means fundamentalist/ Biblical-inerrancy-believing/personal-relationship-with-Jesus-touting/politically conservative Christian.

I’d like to take back the word to mean spreading the Good News that God is liberating us — and all the world — through Jesus Christ. Good News isn’t about defending the Gospel. It’s about living the Gospel. (Or trying to.)

I include myself in The Evangelical Spectrum too.

With Jan, I wince at the co-option of the concept “evangelical” by the right, but we on the left have let the title go, somewhat. Time to claim our part?

…Looks like Jim found the same Evangelicals for Darfur page.

The damage to our international reputation, and our moral standing, will be irrevocable after Bush signs into law the detainee trial bill, blurring the line on what interrogations are permitted under US law and condoning the “alternate procedures” of the CIA. Its a sad day, mainly because we (us citizens) now are all accomplices in what the government is doing on our behalf. Lord have mercy.

As a final thought on the matter, Sullivan posts pictures of an actual waterboarding table. Go take a look. .Here’s the CIA description of waterboarding:

You can see how the CIA’s official description makes sense now. Here it is:

“The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the
treatment to a halt.”

That can now be legal in our America, friends, should a president allow it under an executive order. FWIW, none of my representatives (two Republican Senators and a Democratic Representative) listened to my concerns: all three voted for this bill. And, for what its worth, I’m not a huge Hillary Clinton fan, but she came down on the right side on this one (here’s a blog entry of her full speech as prepared):

This is an interesting podcast at Decently and In Order, particularly the discussion about how much energy is expended at Presbytery on maintaining orthodxy instead of outreach,  mission, shared service, along with how these discussion are shaped in the media, etc.

When the “traditional” presbyterians talk about why the church is broken, maybe all the energy expended on trying to enforce their narrow idea of theological purity is the reason? Just a thought….

The US Supreme Court reinstated the Death Penalty in Kansas yesterday. Generally I’m opposed to the death penalty, for a number of reasons, but that’s not the general point of this post. The KC Star reported on the findings and citied Thomas’ majority opinion and Scalia’s consent:

Writing the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the Kansas statute is constitutional and does not violate the rights of defendants. In a concurring opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the American people have decided that the benefits of capital punishment — deterrence and punishment — outweigh the risk of error, and that it is “no proper part of the business of this court, or of its justices to second guess that judgment.” (emphasis added)

I dare say, that this is the ultimate risk of error. The supreme court has a huge moral obligation to ensure that the civil liberties of the innocent do not fall prey to the American populace’s judgment that they can accidently kill the wrong person because their perceived benefits of the capital punishment system — deterrence and punishment — and the stronger motivator of revenge are preferred.

The concern for error, for killing an innocent person, is not germane for Scalia. God help us. I never pegged Scalia for being a utilitarian.