To me, as an agnostic, one of the most disturbing elements of the relationship between mainstream evangelical religions and our current government has been the lockstep philosophical relationship the two seem to share. How could a group of people that profess to follow the teachings of Jesus support anything that the Bushites pursue? The monolith of evangelical politics was broken in 2006, when the National Association of Evangelicals issued a position paper on global warming, advocating for human action to counter global warming as a religious duty. Of course, the likes of Jerry Falwell and James Dobson did not disappoint; they subsequently declared an evangelical focus on global warming to be a distraction from the focus of more important issues like fighting access to abortion and blunting equal rights for all sexual orientations. Now, the NAE has endorsed a statement by an affiliated group named Evangelicals for Human Rights, a statement that shakes the political alignment between the Republican Party, a party pathologically obsessed with defending the American right to torture people in the name of national security, and evangelicals to its very core.
An executive summary of the anti-torture statement (I couldn't find a copyright statement on the group's web page, someone please let me know if there are copyright problems with this)
AN EVANGELICAL DECLARATION AGAINST TORTURE:
Executive Summary
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
I may disagree with the religious aspects found in this statement, but that discomfort is completely countered by the the strong stand taken against torture, by the recognition that security concerns do not trump the need to treat all humans with respect and dignity. In that, I think we can find common cause with religious activists.
This anti torture position, endorsed by the NAE, is sure to splinter its own foundation already cracking under the weight of global warming. Look how Dobson and his ilk have responded to the NAE global warming statement:
The public dispute began with the release of a letter signed by several men who helped transform the religious right into a political force, including Dobson, Don Wildmon of the American Family Association and Paul Weyrich.
The signatories — most of them activists, not theologians — expressed dismay that an evangelical emphasis on global warming was "contributing to growing confusion about the very term "evangelical.' "
In religious terms, an evangelical is a Christian who has been born again, seeks a personal relationship with Christ, and considers the Bible the word of God, to be faithfully obeyed. But Dobson and his fellow letter-writers suggested that evangelical should also signify "conservative views on politics, economics and biblical morality."
The letter took particular aim at the Rev. Richard Cizik, a prominent evangelical lobbyist who has promoted environmental protection as a moral imperative. Citing the creation story in the Book of Genesis, he has called the fight against global warming a directive "straight from the word of God ... no doubt about it."
The letter accused Cizik of "dividing and demoralizing" Christians by pushing this agenda and called on his employer, the National Association of Evangelicals, to silence him or to demand his resignation.
"This is, in some ways, a defining moment," said Randall Balmer, a professor of religion at Columbia University in New York. "It's the old guard trying to hold on."
Dobson recognizes the threat that an alternative focus poses to his empire:
On March 1, the signatories of the letter asked the National Association of Evangelicals to remove its vice president for government relations, the Rev. Richard Cizik, who has behind the Evangelical Climate Initiative. Cizik, said the Alliance, is among those who "are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children."
So Dobson and his philosophical comrades have made a clear connection between the act of being an evangelical and political conservatism. The NAE's condemnation of torture is sure to aggravate this internal struggle and shed more light on the true nature of Dobson, Wildmon, and Weyrich. Will they lower themselves to a pro-torture statement in an effort to preserve their personal power?