I don't understand how you can be christian and support Rumsfeld/Bush/Torture

[Daniel19]

How can "Christians" support Rumsfeld/Bush/Torture?

Self deception, willful denial, and possibly going as far as convincing themselves that George W. Bush is doing God's will, and in turn, turn a blind eye to the negative fruits of his work.

Maybe it's the pictures...

 

[Eryk]

What most--including many of the president's fiercest supporters--don't know, however, is that Bush doesn't go to church. Sure, when he weekends at Camp David, Bush spends Sunday morning with the compound's chaplain. And, every so often, he drops in on the little Episcopal church across Lafayette Park from the White House. But the president who has staked much of his domestic agenda on the argument that religious communities hold the key to solving social problems doesn't belong to a congregation.

The first excuse conservatives provide is that Bush can't possibly be expected to have time to go to church, what with being leader of the free world and all. Yet, during Jimmy Carter's four years in the White House, he found time not only to attend a Baptist church in the Washington, D.C., area, but to teach Sunday school there as well. For a presidential delegator like Bush--who has freed up enough time to spend approximately one-third of his presidency on vacation--finding a few hours for church should be a snap.

It shouldn't really matter. A president's religious habits often reveal far less about his faith than the decisions he makes. But, more than any other president, Bush has staked his political reputation on being a devout man of faith. The implied and often explicit responsibility for one another that undergirds congregational life is at the heart of Bush's faith-based policy agenda. The fact that he isn't himself a member of a congregation should be relevant. Source

 

[whatbogsends]

I still say that anybody that proudly supports the platform of moral relativity found in today's modern liberal and specifically the Democratic Party has no ground to stand on when talking to ANYBODY about moral bankruptcy, Christian or not.

In other words: "I can't respond to the question at hand, so i'll attack another position."

Why do you feel the need to choose between supporting the Republicans or supporting the Democrats? Both parties are obviously corrupt.

 

[whatbogsends]

If I had someone in my control who knew that my children were in mortal danger but wouldn't tell me about it on their own, I would have no problem "pursuading them" to let me in on it. Zero, especially if they were a real bad guy and it would save my kids lives.

In other words: "I support the use of torture."

Was that so hard?

 

[ballfan]

the administration made its use acceptable and put the attorney general to work justifying it. absolutely.

Then by the same reasoning Clinton and the Democrats that supported his lying and adultry must think such actions are OK. It would also extend to abortion, homosexuals and all others perversions Democrats support people in doing.

I don't understand how you can be Christian and support Clinton and others who do such things?

Last line is the thread title turned around.

 

[SummerMadness]

I don't understand it myself. I see a lot of people skirting the issue, trying to attack other things when this about the torture. What about the president's use of torture? Trying to bring up other topics completely ignores torture.

Here's another thing, being able to legally justify torture doesn't all of a sudden mean the ethical and moral nature of the situation vanishes. It's just like abortion, it can be legal, it doesn't mean it's moral for someone to have an abortion.

 

[ballfan]

Ashcroft and Rumsfeld signed off on secret system of detention and interrogation intended to get around the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions.

The appeal of Guantanamo Bay from the start was that, in the view of administration lawyers, the base existed in a legal twilight zone—or "the legal equivalent of outer space," as one former administration lawyer described it.

And on Jan. 9, 2002, John Yoo of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel coauthored a sweeping 42-page memo concluding that neither the Geneva Conventions nor any of the laws of war applied to the conflict in Afghanistan. Source

You're still totally wrong. Even the source proves it. Try reading all your article.

 

[JustOneWay]

Then by the same reasoning Clinton and the Democrats that supported his lying and adultry must think such actions are OK. It would also extend to abortion, homosexuals and all others perversions Democrats support people in doing.

I don't understand how you can be Christian and support Clinton and others who do such things?

Last line is the thread title turned around.

Clinton apologized for his actions, like a good Christian would. In time Bush may prove to be a good Christian....but I doubt he will ever apologize for anything.

 

[reverend B]

Then by the same reasoning Clinton and the Democrats that supported his lying and adultry must think such actions are OK. It would also extend to abortion, homosexuals and all others perversions Democrats support people in doing.

I don't understand how you can be Christian and support Clinton and others who do such things?

Last line is the thread title turned around.

read the whole thread. i have already directly responded to this non-argument. the rest of us will be here when u catch up.

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

I don't "support" torture. I know it exist and is used by all kinds of governments and people whether they encourage it publicly or not. I honestly don't think that a President under any other party would stop torture. I guess that since it exists and the military/government will use it I must support it. I would gladly like to see the government oppose it but someone out there would still use it. The President isn't always informed of everything. I for one voted for Bush for reasons not related to his faith, or lack thereof. I did pray about voting before I did it and picked Bush. For whatever it's worth.

 

[Daniel19]

As whatbogsends has pointed out, both political parties are equally corrupt. Corruption and evil knows no boundaries in the heart of any man. Governments, in the hands of corrupt men is the most dangerous tool to be weilded against mankind - and it must be resisted. I am a Christian consitutionalist and will point out corruption and evil on both sides. Politicians have always used religion in their campaigning to garner support from a desired group. Christians; remember what you have been warned about - It is no wonder if Satan's ministers appear as ministers of righteousness. (2 Corinthians 11:15)

 

[ballfan]

I don't understand it myself. I see a lot of people skirting the issue, trying to attack other things when this about the torture. What about the president's use of torture? Trying to bring up other topics completely ignores torture.

Thats right, the issue is being skirted. In the OP two people made remarks about American troops seeing torture take place and what should they do about it. Thats hardly been addressed at all.

Then the assertion is made that reporting it makes a person unchristlike. Thats not been addressed much either.

Now new claims are made that either the President actually tortured someone or ordered the torture. Neither of which is the least bit true. Then a charge is made that the troops tortureing Iraqi's is Administration policy. Another outright falsehood.

I'm going to bump up a post I made which responded to the OP. Nobody directly responded to it either. Lets see if they will now.

 

[ballfan]

read the whole thread. i have already directly responded to this non-argument. the rest of us will be here when u catch up.

You've been caught applying your arguement unevenly. To you its forgivable when Democrats are caught with actual true facts but not so with Republicans who have false charges levied against them.

 

[SummerMadness]

What allowed for torture to happen in these conflicts? More than a few people have been tortured and killed in American custody? To me it seems that they can stamp this out by having a mandate against torture.

 

[ballfan]

Suppose a Marine Lt., a sargent, and a corporal go to an Iraqi position where there are perhaps 100 iraqi's holding prisoners. Suppose also that the Marines and Iraqi's are all armed to the teeth. Suppose the Marines see torture taking place and say stop that and give us the prisoners. Suppose then the Iraqi's say no and advise getting out.

Do we then immediately move to a firefight--or

do we go and report it?

Is our obligation to fight or report?

Remember its been put forth in the OP that reporting is favoring torture.

Or is the OP simply a crock?

This deals directly with the OP. Anybody care to respond directly to this.

 

[reverend B]

You've been caught applying your arguement unevenly. To you its forgivable when Democrats are caught with actual true facts but not so with Republicans who have false charges levied against them.

you are a very poor reader. that is not at all what was said. quote me and respond to what you are referring to. is it when i pointed up the apology from clinton regarding his adultery? that noone suggested adultery was the correct course of action? what are the false charges being levied against republicans?

 

[ballfan]

What allowed for torture to happen in these conflicts? More than a few people have been tortured and killed in American custody? To me it seems that they can stamp this out by having a mandate against torture.

People allowed for it. There is a mandate against murder but that doesn't stop all of them. Maybe it can be better understood on a different level. Does it make God guilty because he created man , gave the mandate, and mankind refuses to fully follow it?

 

[reverend B]

This deals directly with the OP. Anybody care to respond directly to this.

noone responded because the hypothetical is innane and hopelessly biased.
the correct action would be to try to stop it by telling them that this was unacceptable. if the force of 100 men refused the demands of the 3, there would be no other choice but to leave. is this an iraqi manned but u.s. installation? do we have authority in this mystical prison?
rather than come up with a scenario that would make being proactive about stopping torture a suicide mission, why not address what is really going on over there? there are plenty of situations you could concoct that had more application to the current realities the rest of us on here are trying to address.

 

[ballfan]

you are a very poor reader. that is not at all what was said. quote me and respond to what you are referring to. is it when i pointed up the apology from clinton regarding his adultery? that noone suggested adultery was the correct course of action? what are the false charges being levied against republicans?

Have you yourself not said or implied the President condones torture?

Yet the President has made it clear he doesn't. Do you accept that he means it?

Now apply the above to Clinton. Clinton definitely lied about his adultry. Got full backing from Democrats. Then admitted it and said he doesn't condone it. Do you accept that he means it?

Keep in mind that Clinton actually did what he was accused of. Bush though has not tortured anyone nor is there any proof he ordered any torture.

 

[Eryk]

You're still totally wrong. Even the source proves it. Try reading all your article.

The article says that Bush and Co. didn't specifically recommend what was done. They just sought legal cover for whatever might happen, by saying that no rules of war would apply and by placing detainees in areas they thought would be outside the law.