Good for the evangelicals.
Sort of amazing that the Bush administration, which, I bet if anyone did a tally uses more faith-talk/God-talk than any previous presidency at least in my lifetime, can't see this for themselves - the incompatibility of torture with, say, "What would Jesus do?" Just a bit of a "disconnect" I think...

Posted by: Paul | March 15, 2007 5:43 PM

We should all sign the 'Evangelicals Condemn Torture' petition.
But there are four traitors at the heart of the criminal Bush administration's embrace of torture: 1. Dick Cheney, warmonger and war profiteer, who ordered the destruction of an entire intelligence network. Cheney is at 18% approval. He may tip over any day. If he doesn't resign he should be impeached, tried and convicted. 2. Karl Rove, political operative, who plotted to eliminate America's Constitutional balance of powers and thereby achieve permanent rule of America by a fascist Republican Party. Congress is homing in on Rove for his scheme to fire our Federal Prosecutors and replace them with cronies and stooges. Pressure is building to put Rove under oath in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He won't survive this. 3. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who asserted that the Geneva Convention is "quaint" and executed Rove's plan to politicize the Federal Justice system. I don't think perjurer Gonzales will last another week. 4. John Yoo, Professor of Law at Berkeley, who provided bogus legal opinions (theory of the unitary executive, torture is not really torture if the president orders it and anything the president does is legal) that support Bush's fantasy of unlimited power to wage preemptive war and ignore the rule of law. John Yoo should be fired from his position teaching outlaw theory to young law students. America's torture scandal will not end until these traitors are purged from our government, tried for their crimes, convicted, serve their sentences and be banned from government service for the rest of their natural lives. The worst president in American history would be nothing without them. .

Posted by: justintime | March 15, 2007 6:37 PM

Kris, Torture is defined by the United Nations Convention Against Torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
In addition to state sponsored torture, individuals or groups may also inflict torture on others for similar reasons, however, the motive for torture can also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of effecting religious conversion or political re-education. Nevertheless in the 21st Century torture is almost universally considered to be an extreme violation of human rights, as stated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Signatories of the UN Convention Against Torture agree not to intentionally inflict severe pain or suffering on anyone, to obtain information or a confession, to punish them, or to coerce them or a third person. In times of war signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention agree not to torture protected persons (POWs and enemy civilians) in armed conflicts. If you think the firing of Federal Prosecutors for political motives is a non story, just stay tuned. .

Posted by: justintime | March 15, 2007 8:12 PM

Kevin's personal conscience vanished in a cloud of smoke. Now Kevin is on the dark side of torture. I hope he never gets tortured. .

Posted by: justintime | March 15, 2007 9:18 PM

Kevin I think you can count intimidation of people with dogs when they cannot escape as torture. Waterboarding someone so they think they are drowning is torture. Face it the majority of things that happened at Abu Ghraib were torture to any compassionate person. Abu Gonzales, Bush, Cheney et al have no compassion at all by any stretch of the imagination. Kevin I think it's pretty easy to say if you were held someplace hooded with electrodes attached to your genitals thinking you are going to be electrocuted that you would tend to think you were tortured at the very least.

Posted by: KathyG | March 15, 2007 9:58 PM

If I might chime in here: Kevin is accused of being hypocritical because he criticizes liberals for relativism on one hand, then on the other hand points out the lack of specfics in the NAE's statement on torture. There is no hypocrisy, because there is no conflict. It is not "relativism" to call on the President's critics for a bill of particulars. The NAE has issued a fine statement of general principles, but if I were an administration official who respected the NAE's position on these things, I cannot tell just what the NAE wants us to do or cease doing from this statement. The statement says that "our moral vision has blurred since 9/11." This might be true, but it only begs the question: What would we be doing differently if our moral vision were clearer? And who is the "we" here? Evangelicals? The Bush administration? America in general? Kevin has a point: the vagueness of this statement might be the effect of political compromise within the NAE. This sort of murky language is the exact opposite of prophetic, and opens up the possibility that NAE's leadership are trying to paper over significant internal divisions. We've had this conversation before, and I'll repeat what I said then: details matter. Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 15, 2007 10:09 PM

"A couple of days ago, on a different subject, Kevin was disapproving of "relativism" and linking it with "liberals". Not really, but Wolverine is correct that it isn't really germane to this discussion.
"Face it the majority of things that happened at Abu Ghraib were torture to any compassionate person. " Absolutely. They were also prosecuted. And that raises a question as to what the NAE has in mind here. Are they speaking out against Abu Ghraib? Waterboarding? Are they assuming that the United States is actively torturing enemy combatants? Under what circumstances? Why be vague instead of specific?
"And if you believe that Abu Ghraib was an "animal house" moment for a "few" rebel US troops you have just cheapened our well trained military and its well sanctioned leadership." Is this to say you think the problem is more widespread, or that they were just following orders from on high? If it is the former, I don't see how it cheapens our military to disagree. If it is the latter, what would be the point?

Posted by: kevin s. | March 15, 2007 11:30 PM

Regarding vagueness: there is a longer statement on the website that clears up some questions. Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 15, 2007 11:59 PM

Deryll gets it. The fish rots from the head down. Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and others are complicit in war crimes. Perhaps they will be judged at the International War Crimes Tribunal. .

Posted by: justintime | March 16, 2007 12:12 AM

I ask: would I want this done to me, if I were POW? (do unto others) I remember: information or confessions extracted by torture are not reliable or trustworthy. An expert can get anyone to say ANYTHING after60 seconds. Dubya, Dick and all the lackeys have really shown their character on this one.

Posted by: tim the tinker | March 16, 2007 1:38 AM

KathyG said: "Waterboarding someone so they think they are drowning is torture." Waterboarding does not merely make somebody think they are drowning. They are actually drowning. If lucky, the torturers will pull them out before they die, but the drowning is real.

Posted by: MikeJ | March 16, 2007 3:03 AM

It's just a little pathetic that a Christian organization had to come out with a detailed statement that they are against torture. It is something that should have been unquestionably on the Christian top ten DO NOT DO list for all the world to see. Christians are supposed to reflect the love of Christ and that is incompatible with any sort of torture.Just shows how far afield the so-called church leaders have lead the flock in their preoccupation to judge gays,punish unmarried mothers and elect Republicans.

Posted by: c kitty | March 16, 2007 6:23 AM

What is the definition of torture? What is the definition of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment? What do you think should be allowed during the interrogation of believed terrorists?
The question is; what is, is? If you don't know what torture is you won't know what is, is.

Posted by: butch | March 16, 2007 6:41 AM

"they are both so slippery" When will you get it, that is Kevin's job to be slippery, dodge, change the focus of the discussion, make excuses. As long as you give him time his work is done.

Posted by: butch | March 16, 2007 6:56 AM

"Are they assuming that the United States is actively torturing enemy combatants? Under what circumstances? Why be vague instead of specific? " Kevin This will be on the test, if you are vague you will be marked off for vagueness.
Now how vague is vague, I don't know! I used to think I had some idea of what torture was now I don't know what is is? This is very confusing. I thought you said "make them take off their clothes, then pile them up and sit on the bitches." The other guy thought you said "sic the bitch on that nude pile of Iraqi's". Rather than not follow orders we did both, man you should have seen the look on that guys face, buck naked looking at that dogs teeth.

Posted by: butch | March 16, 2007 7:21 AM

You Progressives are the Wolves in Sheep's clothing mentioned of in the New Testament. You don't want adult murderous humans tortured, but, it's OK to hack unborn and innocent children humna tp pieces because their mom and dad don't want to be held accountable for their actions. Until "you" Progressives tell Muslims to stop torturing non-Muslims worldwide and do something to stop them, you are just a loud gong banging away for your own vapid self-interests. Also, Evangelicals are against the torture of children in public schools from Liberal Progressive politics, that have our schools a den of iniquity. Time for a little consistency Mr. and Mrs. (and Life-partnered) Progressives.

Posted by: Donny | March 16, 2007 2:12 PM

And this: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110009726 cheers, Paul

Posted by: Paul | March 16, 2007 3:31 PM

I'm glad that these evangelicals are against torture. But why aren't they coming out against the war as a whole? Does not this very war, which has included indefensible torture, violate every principle of Christian ethics?

Posted by: Steve | March 16, 2007 5:47 PM

Butch: "When will you get it, that is Kevin's job to be slippery, dodge, change the focus of the discussion, make excuses." Yes, but unlike some of his rightwing comrades, Kevin is clearly capable of intelligent discussion. (Btw, Donny's latest post makes me wonder if he is Sasha Baron Cohen's latest creation...) So back to the issue of moral relativism. Sorry, Kevin and Wolverine, but it looks pretty clear to me that that is where you (or your constituency at least) are at on this one. The way it works is this: (1) From the list of torture techniques which your country's operatives have been reported to use, choose a couple that look to be on the less extreme end of the spectrum. (2) Refer to them without reference to context or duration so that they sound rather less extreme than they are. (Fyi, Kevin, I call this spin. I could call it a lot of much less pleasant names, and I'm sure plenty of torture victims do so, but I won't. What do you call it?) (3) Your (generally ill-informed) constituency will then think of them as not being torture and hence OK to use in certain circumstances. (4) Hence we reach a situation in which you feel able to justify torture in some circumstances. That, I suggest, is not just relativism but relativism underpinned by at the very least self-deception. Mark

Posted by: mark | March 16, 2007 6:50 PM

the statement on torture would have more credibility had you included a strong statement against abortion---double standards?

Posted by: Richard Weber | March 16, 2007 7:05 PM

Btw, has anyone else had difficulties posting here? I tried several times yesterday and got a blank screen after I pressed publish. Today I've sent 3 messages (4 if this one works) with no problem. Mark

Posted by: mark | March 16, 2007 7:07 PM

Mark, You realize this game works in reverse: 1. Announce that you have written a statement on torture. 2. Include statements that go well beyond the subject of torture, such as the use of habeas corpus. Bury these in the back of a longish document and do not call attention to these in summaries or initial press releases. 3. Well-meaning evangelicals (and probably a few non-evangelicals) sign what they understand to be a statement against torture. 4. Later, present full statement to media, and/or political leaders, proclaiming that x number of evangelicals want habeas rights extended to all detainees. Now, let me reiterate: I don't really think that the NAE did this on purpose. I think, in their zeal to protect human rights, they conflated the two issues. But then, I don't think conservatives are doing what you accuse us of either. I think what's going on is we are opposed to the more extreme methods, but want to leave our armed forces with some reasonable methods to get information out of detainees. Tell you what: I'll give you guys the benefit of the reasonable doubt as to your motives if you'll extend the same to us. Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 16, 2007 7:14 PM

I saw an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski (probably one of the greatest strategic political thinkers of our time) whose book is coming out soon and it is called, Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower
He has some refreshing things to say about what it means to be moral superpower and how we have squandered that place we once held because we have not taken the lead with humility, wisdom or regard for others. You cannot be moral leaders if you use immoral means (torture, unjustified wars). It just doesn't work. We should have strengthened our allies (through wise & creative diplomatic reasoning) and scattered the resolve of our adversaries (by uniting against them).. instead we have scattered our allies from us and strengthened the resolve of our adversaries. How has that helped us? Are we not going next into Iran? Then Pakistan? When will it end? Do our children bear the brunt both physically and financially of a continued ground war that will never end in our lifetimes?

Posted by: Erin | March 16, 2007 7:28 PM

Mark asked: Isn't that bending definitions just a little too far. Misinformation, yes (probably). Maybe even attempted indoctrination. But torture???? This was in relation to a gay awareness day at a Massachusetts high school. I agree that this probably doesn't constitute torture, but it's important to understand why. There is an undercurrent that seems to suggest that anything a detainee objects to may be considered torture: one person asked: "If YOU were imprisoned, what would you consider severe pain or suffering?" and another poster wrote "I ask: would I want this done to me, if I were POW?" Now I think it's fair to say that a lot of kids were probably made very uncomfortable and offended by the gay awareness day, but it didn't rise to the level of torture. Why? Because we know better than to simply accept their assessment of how badly they suffered. Look, if I were a prisoner I'd be tempted to do whatever I could to either get out or get the best treatment I could while I was in there. If I could get sympathy for it, I'd scream "INHUMANE!" if I asked for Coke and got Pepsi instead. It is a good thing to try to think of the best interests of detainees, but they aren't the only people with rights here, and their rights do not trump all other concerns. By all means we should avoid torture, but that does not mean that the prisoners should be permitted to run the prison. Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 16, 2007 7:31 PM

Wolverine says: "I think what's going on is we are opposed to the more extreme methods, but want to leave our armed forces with some reasonable methods to get information out of detainees." Which is just a nicely-spun way of saying what I was saying - you find torture acceptable sometimes but not at other times. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: maybe you are deceiving yourselves rather than deliberately trying to deceive the rest of us. I note, however, a certain lack of specifics in your position. Which techniques are acceptable, and which aren't. When are they acceptable and when aren they not? On what criteria do you decide? Mark

Posted by: mark | March 16, 2007 7:39 PM

Responding to Paul: I am well acquainted with the rationale of just war theory--I have a Ph.D. in medieval history and advanced degrees in religion. My point is that it ignores Jesus' very clear teachings. And aren't they supposedly authoritative for evangelicals? Or is this another case of evangelicals doing what all other Christians do--choose which passages of the Bible they like, and which they will ignore? Can you really, truly believe that Jesus supports this war? Would Jesus say, "Deus vult"?

Posted by: Steve | March 16, 2007 7:43 PM

"whether it has been on the curriculum at the School of the Americas or whatever it's called this week." Mark I trained these tin soldiers while in the Army and was able to see them pop up in Central and S American governments. Now you want me to play nice with these people, I've been to many places and seen to many things. These are really important matters and gentle polite intelligent discussion may not reveal motives. If this is an academic exercise for you fine but it isn't for me.

Posted by: butch | March 16, 2007 8:18 PM

Steve, Have you read C.S.Lewis "Why I am not a pacifist"? I'm not sure how helpful trotting out CV's is as others who can claim similar credentials have different views. Both sides must be cautious of their "canon's within canon's". Some are content to deny that Jesus was the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob, by declaring the "older testament" irrelivant. Others have problems with that position. Again, a much bigger issue than can be effectively dealt with in this forum. Dr. Jeffries has a good discussion of the problems associated with simplistic assumptions about Jesus ethics in: http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Even-Forgiveness-Its-Limits/dp/0195151496 cheers Paul

Posted by: Paul | March 16, 2007 8:22 PM

Kevin S: " And the definition of severe mental and physical harm is the subject of this debate, which has gone back and forth.
But it is not clear to me what they believe constitutes torture. If the NAE statement specifically mentioned barking dogs or 54 degree conditions, I suspect they would lose a lot of support for their position.
There's a lot of smoke here, but not much fire." Very aptly put by the naysayers. Keep on playing the harp while Rome burns, Nero! Muddy the waters with your definitions.
kevin s.

Posted by: Sarasotakid | March 16, 2007 8:45 PM

Mark wrote: I note, however, a certain lack of specifics in your position. Which techniques are acceptable, and which aren't. When are they acceptable and when aren they not? On what criteria do you decide? Very clever. Here's the thing though: You're the one making accusations, not me. You're the one demanding large-scale changes in policy, not me. Consequently, you are the one who needs to say precisely what the administration ought to be doing differently, or precisely where it went out of bounds. Yeah, it sucks, but life's tough sometimes for those who would provide the rest of us with moral instruction. Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 16, 2007 9:03 PM

Wolverine, you disappoint me. I was hoping that you would come up with a carefully thought-out set of principles to form the basis of a "just torture theory". [And then someone like Jean Bethke Elshtain could distort it to justify just about any torture that US operatives might wish to commit.] But you - like your government, and like the rest of the US authoritarian right - are apparently unable to do so. So you want to know what I think your government should do. The answer is quite simple. No torture. No rendering of suspects to regimes which practice torture. No indefinite holding without charge or without right of legal representation by a lawyer of ones choice. No teaching of torture techniques. Full and independent scrutiny of all US facilities where abuse of human rights is even a remote possibility. You cannot hope to win the "hearts and minds" battle against militant islamism by getting down in the gutter with them. If you do the above, you will at least begin to win back a bit of respect for your country in a world where it is viewed with steadily increasing contempt and mistrust. But if you continue to justify torture then you have already lost. Mark

Posted by: mark | March 16, 2007 11:00 PM

Re definition of torture, the Evangelicals for Human Rights petition does actually address this quite better than I'd realised, at http://www.evangelicalsforhumanrights.org/pb/wp_cc181820/wp_cc181820.html?0.5505599196444173 . Maybe the most useful thing they say is: "If the proposed approach technique were used by the enemy against one of your fellow soldiers, would you believe the soldier had been abused?"

Posted by: mark | March 16, 2007 11:52 PM

Full and independent scrutiny of all US facilities where abuse of human rights is even a remote possibility." What would be wrong with recording everything we do and show the americian people? I'm talking about everywhere not just where we get caught. We decide what we want our government to do, let us decide.

Posted by: butch | March 17, 2007 12:35 AM

"In that situation I'm not sure torture is justified but I'll admit I would find it hard to condemn the intelligence officer who resorted to torture to get the information." Wolv Either torture is ok or not, we cannot operate a civil society based on what I might do if my family was in the building.

Posted by: Butch | March 17, 2007 6:05 AM

Torture is wrong under any circumstance. It's obviously wrong for the person tortured; it's also wrong for the torturer who loses his own humanity in carrying out such dehumanizing acts. I, too, saw an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski. He's very clear that the U. S. has lost its moral power and he's dubious that the U.S. can regain that moral power. It's also important to remember that the U.S. has trained others to torture, often on behalf of the U.S. American involvement in Pakistan's torturing of its own citizens, of Afghanistan's torturing of its own citizens, with many of those citizens having been identified by American sources who don't want to do the dirty work themselves...I could go on, but it's too depressing. If you haven't already done this, you might find it instructive to read English newspapers on the Internet, just to get a different perspective on what the U.S. does. By English, I mean "published in England". It might prompt you to alter your perspective on what the U.S. does--at the very least it would show you how much respect the U.S. has LOST throughout the world. And why.

Posted by: Bren | March 17, 2007 6:52 AM

I know that torture is not ok but I wonder if I would not employ if the need arose. Anyway I am not strictly a pacifist even though I do support non-violence. It works.
I think one thing that needs to be said here is that we can't live in a world of hypotheticals for the sake of fake security. Either we trust God and prepare accordingly or we don't. I think that's what faith is. p

Posted by: Payshun | March 17, 2007 7:01 PM

Deno Reno, I appreciate your concerns. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a "Truth Serum" Sodium Pentathol does not work as the urban myth would have us believe. If it did, you can be certain that it would be used to get the necessary information. I don't want to add any more heat here, but I would ask people to consider what they would do if they had the responsibilities for questioning these people, and to consider it in the light that if you were not sucessful in getting the information, many of the people here would be among the first to crucify you for "not putting the dots together". cheers, Paul

Posted by: Paul | March 17, 2007 11:07 PM

Deuteronomy 22: 28 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. 29 Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her Deuteronomy 7:1 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations ... then you must destroy them totally. 2 Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
Leviticus 21: 9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father; she shall be burnt with fire. I would like to buy into this Bible stuff, but it seems too violent for modern society. What do you guys think?

Posted by: Augustine | March 18, 2007 12:37 PM

As I see it, there are a few prominent angles to this issue. There first, and probably the (albeit silent) majority view that there are circumstances when torture is okay. The attitude is largely utilitarian, in that the number of lives saved must justify the act.
The downside to this is that we must then wonder what sort of heinous acts are allowable. If we allow, say, slapping a detainee in the face, can we also justify murdering his daughter in front of him? This question remains unanswered for most.
The second is an absolute prohibition of that which might be construed as torture. The positives to this view is that there is an absolute morality, and we can have a clear conscience. The downside is that we are left (as Wolverine mentions above) only with the ability to ask nicely, which essentially grants our enemies the right to keep terrorist secrets.
The third view, espoused by the NAE and (at least ostensbily) the Bush administration, is that there are certain actions that are acceptable, by virtue of the fact that they do not constitute torture. The positive to this view is that it allows for common sense to enter the equation. The downside is that we must then define, item by item, what constitutes psychological manipulation, and what constitutes torture.
I think the debate ought to start there. This issue is much too complex for the wristband rhetoric ("who would Jesus torture?") or hyperbole about darkened hearts.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 18, 2007 7:20 PM

here we go again. endless wordsmithing about a well documented and discussed issue. why can't the nae and wallis just condem torture and move on to a constructive effort at ending torture. for the world. not just "our Government". have you all forgotten 9/11, the public beheadings, the sadam torture chambers, the rape chambers? the muslim practices regarding women. the schooling of children to hate infidels. where did the nae and wallis comment on those issues? guess i missed those posts. no one on this blog wants to address the world wide effort of muslims to dominate the world by force as laid out by muhammod and the koran. why? what does the nae say about that? wallis? or are the trips to visit iran the final solution? and stop calling this "God's Politics" this is wallis' politics.

Posted by: jerry | March 19, 2007 12:08 AM

Sarasotakid, Honestly don't think that is fair at all. Kevin S has given a rational for his position, and if you disagree with that rational, knowing which parts, and why would be helpful. What you have done here is just namecalling, and not helpful at all. cheers, Paul

Posted by: Paul | March 19, 2007 3:13 PM

Below is an excerpt from a column I wrote for a local Vermont paper which speaks to Wolverine's questions about habeus corpus. The UN Conventons on torture are clear and provide plenty of context, as are the Geneva Conventions. The UN law is also duplicated in American Civil Law which shapes the uniform code of military justice..In other words we have laws against torture The attempts by Cheney, Addington, Yoo and Gonzales to redifine torture fly in the face of 200 years of constitutional law. The Bush Cheney doctrine on this flies under the colors of the unitary executive theory , an emperor with no clothes. Any way here is the excerpt:
There is a deep and dark divorce predicated in the Military Comissions Act (which apart from from Rumsfeld, American military leaders rejected with virtual unanimity) . The declaration of independence says that government derives its just power from the consent of the governed. The Constitution is the framework that delegates and defines the limits and extent of that power. It seems to me therefor that any legal action taken by the government must have its limits defined by the Constitution. We cannot arrest anyone and deny them fundamental constitutional rights. Who then would be carrying out the arrest or detention? If the executive branch is not acting within the framework of the Constitution, under the limits of the Constitution, and by the authority of the Constitution, then under what authority are they acting? Is there some America separate from the Constitution? When the executive branch can break treaties and laws without accountability to Congress or the courts, the fabric of the American political system is put in severe jeopardy. Cheney and Bush argue that we are at war. With what country did we declare war? There is no country called Terror, and torture is not a tool to fight terrorism . Torture and arrests without due process are terrorism. America has steered into dark waters and only the courage of citizens who refuse to be bullied by fear mongering can turn things around. I am not arguing here that the Government should not do all it can constitutionally do to prevent and prosecute illegal acts of violence or violent plots. There is plenty of bi-partisan agreement on these goals and plenty of flexibility within our system. But our greatest weapon against violent ideologies is a dedication to a transparent and accountable system of self government through law and justice and equality of rights for all citizens.

Posted by: Joseph Tracy | March 19, 2007 8:49 PM

Sarasota Kid, Honestly don't think that is fair at all. Kevin S has given a rational for his position, and if you disagree with that rational, knowing which parts, and why would be helpful. What you have done here is just namecalling, and not helpful at all. cheers, Paul Paul
What name did I call Kevin? I merely described what I perceived to be his underlying objective- namely putting State over the principles of Jesus Christ. That is not name calling. It is a mere statement of where I see Kevin as being. It certainly is provacative but it is not an ad hominem attack. Kevin S is very often provacative in his posts so he should expect provacative replies. Cheers, Sarasota Kid

Posted by: Sarasotakid | March 19, 2007 10:30 PM

Paul, I addressed Kevin's rationale. Kevin puts State and pax americana over the plain words of Christ. These are values that I do not hold but Kevin does. It is a statement of fact as I see it. Nothing personal. Nothing ad hominem. Thanks for trying to make a point about what constitutes ad hominem and what does not. Unfortunately, I do not see your point as being valid. Cheers.

Posted by: Sarasotakid | March 19, 2007 10:57 PM

Sarasotakid, Hmm, guess I must have missed it. Was his arguement not valid, or not sound? cheers, Paul

Posted by: Paul | March 20, 2007 5:33 AM

Jesus would never accept or approve of this administrations evil motives. When selfish motives are behind what is being done in Iraq, the U.S. is bound to fail. How is one to respect a government as ours being lead by war criminals and war mongers. If Bush, Cheney. Rumsfeld and Rice are not war criminals, there ain't none.

Posted by: Thomas Van Zanten | March 20, 2007 3:46 PM