Will Senator Gordon Smith join Oregon's Religious Communities in Condemning Torture?

Yesterday morning I participated in a conference call with Lori Prater, who is Senator Gordon Smith's Legislative Aide for the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The call was organized by Kevin Finney, the Public Policy Director for Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon and included a cross-section of religious leaders who oppose the use of torture.  Representing Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faith communities we spoke to Ms. Prater seeking leadership by Senator Smith in making the Army Field Manual standards (which do not condone waterboarding and other such torture tactics) the official statement on the use of interrogation techniques by the CIA and all intelligence personnel.  Although a vote on this issue will not happen until nearly the end of this month we all spoke of the power that Senator Smith's voice can have if he would go on record ahead of time on this issue rather than waiting until it comes to the floor of the Senate. As U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has refused to condemn water-boarding and other such techniques it is imperative that the legislative branch of our government speak as the moral compass on this issue.  We need Senator Gordon Smith's leadership in condemning torture and helping to heal the soul of this nation that has been so damaged by the current administration's willingness to allow such horrors. Ms. Prater was very generous with her time and I am hopeful that we can count on Senator Smith's leadership.

Go here to read the Oregon Interfaith Letter to Senator Gordon Smith Opposing the Use of Torture.

If you would like to encourage Senator Smith to take a strong stand against torture here are the hone numbers for his offices:

Offices for U.S. Senator Gordon Smith                                                   

Washington DC –    (202) 224-3753
Bend, Oregon -      (541) 318-1298
Eugene, Oregon –   (541) 465-6750
Medford, Oregon – (541) 608-9102
Pendelton, OR –     (541) 278-1129

Portland, Oregon - (503) 326-3386                                                               

Comments

[Neil]

I am not a fan of waterboarding, so if they do away with it that is fine with me.

Just curious, though - are all these folks against legalized abortion? After all, if I had the choice of (a) waterboarding or (b) having my limbs ripped off and skull crushed without anesthetic, I'd choose (a) every time.

Any other view would be gross hypocrisy.

P.S. I saw your comment re. Sarah Palin's alleged hypocrisy over at Currie's site. You insisted that giving "only" 3.9m to the teen mother effort was hypocritical given her pro-life views.

First, opposing something immoral like abortion does not require you to do something about the consequences. Can you protest wife-beating without having to marry all the women? Can you protest child abuse without having to raise them all to adulthood?

But pro-lifers do lots with their own money anyway. There are more crisis pregnancy centers offering free services than abortuaries that charge people for their services.

Second, if you had a church committee for feeding the poor that requested a 5,000 increase but you could only afford 3,900, does that mean you are hypocritical and anti-hungry people?

[Rev. Ryan Lambert]

Neil:

Wow, thanks for bringing the culture war over here...I'm sure Chuck has grown tired of having the same conversations over and over. I'm sure I will tire of it soon also, but here is my reply to your questions--slanted as they may be.

First, I am not privy to the views of everyone who signed this letter with regard to a woman's right to choose. I will say that, like Chuck, I am a pastor who happens also to be a pro-choice Christian. You will say my views are hypocrisy, but I do not see it that way. I believe that unplanned pregnancies always bring up many faithful questions and many faithful solutions. I believe abortions should be safe, legal, and rare and that the church should support families and communities in such a way that that is possible. One such way is by offering their youth and young adults information about birth control and nurturing them in such a way that they make healthy, informed, and faithful choices about when they decide to be sexually active. No matter when that happens, God does n their church should, continue to walk with them. Ultimately I believe the choice about whether to have an abortion is a faithful choice to be made by each individual woman or couple. As for the analogy you are trying to make, torture and abortion are simply not analogous because I do not abortion is immoral while torture is. We disagree about when life begins and I am certain we will not change our views by screaming at each other.

Next, I have no doubt that people who hold pro-life positions AND people who are pro-choice do many good things with their money...each of them in profoundly faithful ways. Your comment about free crisis centers vs. "abortuaries" is simply a red herring. Planned Parenthood, an organization I support, offers many free and reduced-price services that supply much needed health-care services to women and families in need--just as I am sure crisis centers do the same. I don't believe there is a monopoly on good works by either side.

Finally, you last question regarding church finances again shows that you struggle with your ability to put together analogous situations. Chuck, and then I, in response to comments on Chuck's site, critiqued Gov. Palin because she, with a line-item veto that eliminated funding approved by the legislature, cut funding to a program that helps young mothers and teens. When she stands against educating teens about sexuality and birth control and when she wants to take away a woman's right to choose whether to have a baby at all, as a Governor she had better back up her beliefs with money to programs that support those who fall victim to her beliefs. It seems that she failed to do so in this case and I believe Chuck and I, and the New York Times (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/palins-budget-cuts-affect-teenage-mothers/) for that matter, are completely justified in raising the issue.

[Neil]

Ryan, thanks for the reply.

You noted that you "believe abortions should be safe, legal, and rare."

Why do you think they should be rare? They are relatively cost-effective methods of birth control, and the Planned Parenthood folks insist that they are safe - even safer than delivering a child. So if they don't kill an innocent human being, who cares if they are plentiful?

"We disagree about when life begins and I am certain we will not change our views by screaming at each other."

I never scream, so I assume that was a self-reflection on your part.

Since you are uncertain about when life begins, I would encourage you to read any secular embryology textbook to solve the mystery. It begins at conception. It is a scientific fact, and only an uninformed or anti-science viewpoint would state otherwise.

Even pro-legalized-abortion advocates concede that (it is kind of hard to argue with ultrasounds). That is why they have moved on to equally flawed philosophical arguments about "personhood."

And even if we didn't know for a fact when life begins, wouldn't a prudent person - regardless of whether they claim to be Christian - err on the side of caution? If we might be destroying a human being, isn't that kind of a big deal?

"torture and abortion are simply not analogous because I do not abortion is immoral while torture is"

Abortion involves human beings deciding to crush and dismember another human being because they the larger people think they will be better off without the smaller.

One could easily demonstrate how limited torture could save the lives of countless others. And nobody dies! Again, I'm against torture but it is easy to demonstrate why 3,500 dead human beings in the U.S. per day is a slightly bigger deal than a handful of waterboardings per year.

Consider this: If you been waterboarded last week, where would you be today? Probably writing your sermon.

If you had been aborted in your mother's womb, where would you be today?

"I don't believe there is a monopoly on good works by either side."

How much time have you spent at Crisis Pregnancy Centers? Do you counsel women for post-abortion trauma counseling, or are you like the rest who endorse abortions as an alleged solution then are nowhere to be found for the next 60 years?

Have you listend to the recordings where 90% of Planned Parenthood offices made conscious attempts to help hide statutory rape? I've got the links to the transcripts and audio if you're interested.

Ryan, I will be glad to compare my logical abilities to yours at any time and find it amusing that you'd go with an ad hominem attack about analogies. I think the more appropriate areas to examine would be the math skills and bias of you and Chuck.

As noted here - http://carolinajournal.com/mediamangle/display_story.html?id=4977 - Palin approved a 300% increase in actual spending.

Did you follow that? A 300% increase. The "reduction" from 5m to 3.9m was a reduction in a request.

Perhaps you haven't had any business experience or you don't manage your church budget, but most organizations do not have unlimited funds. And sometimes groups play a budget game where they ask for more than they really need in hopes that they'll get what they do need.

Either way, to call the 3.9m a "slash" is to be bad at math or logic.

So instead of dodging the question, perhaps you could answer it: If you had a church committee for feeding the poor that requested a 5,000 increase but you could only afford 3,900, does that mean you are hypocritical and anti-hungry people? If the 3.9m was a three-fold increase from the prior year, would they be accurate in saying you "slashed" the budget? Because that is exactly what you accused Palin of.

Thoes are the facts. Now you get to decide if you are like Chuck and are so partisan that you'll never concede the obvious (that's a sure sign of a lack of confidence and integrity) or if you are willing to be corrected.

[Neil]

"When she stands against educating teens about sexuality and birth control and when she wants to take away a woman's right to choose whether to have a baby at all"

Are you saying that Palin wants birth control to be illegal? Because the "right to choose" is only the first part of the sentence if you are referring to abortion. It is the "right to choose to destroy a human being already in existence." This isn't some hypothetical exercise.

"as a Governor she had better back up her beliefs with money to programs that support those who fall victim to her beliefs"

I see that you have bought the Obama line that children are a punishment. That's an odd view for a Christian to take. How did she make them victims? Did she get them pregnant? Is she responsible for being their parents?

[Rev. Ryan Lambert]

Neil:

I am still staggered by your desire to argue...

However, I will concede one point. That as you noted rather than talking about when life begins I should have noted that I don't believe personhood begins at conception, but rather when a fetus can live outside of the womb. Don't bother sending me links supporting your side...I have them for mine and we don't agree on their validity.

As for abortions being rare...I want abortions rare because they are the result of unplanned pregnancies. I want every pregnancy to be a wanted pregnancy and too often poverty, abusive relationships, teenage pregnancies, and rape or incest make pregnancies unplanned or unwanted. Rather than trying to shame women into having babies they are unable to care for, the church should be working to end poverty, abusive relationships, and the many issues that cause youth to be sexually active. When the church (and society as a whole) does that...abortions will be rare.

Next...I remain steadfast in my conviction that the facts are as follows: Gov. Palin slashed 1.1 million dollars from the budget of the center to help children and young women. They did in fact get 3.9 million, but except for her decision they would have had 5 million. Again I am confident of my math skills and more than a little bored by your attempt to allow Palin to evade responsibility for shrinking a 5 million dollar financing package into a 3.9 million dollar package --for a program that would seem so important given her statements and beliefs about children. Palin has never justified this cut by noting where the 1.1 million dollars was used, so it is fair to critique her use of the line item veto in this case. Once again a state budget (especially one controlled via the line-item veto) and a mission committee budget are not analogous...sorry.

You know this of course, but you mis-state my view (and that of Senator Obama) when you try to re-make my statement into one that says children are a punishment. I was pretty clear in my statement, but you seem to have missed the point. I'll try to be clearer still: The children are the victims...because they are unable to be well cared for by families that are unprepared to care for them. But the center whose budget Palin chose to short might have made more of a difference for more of these children if only they had that 1.1 million dollars that Gov. Palin decided was unnecessary. That was her call and although her defenders attempt to debate the math the 1.1 million dollars that was eliminated from the center's budget with the stroke of Palin's pen remains somewhere else...but not helping the women or children that Gov. Palin claims to advocate for.

[Neil]

Ryan, what are you "staggered" by my desire to address the most important moral issue of our time? You thought it was worth "arguing" about torture, and I just pointed out that abortion seems worse than torture for the human being being destroyed, not to mention that it happens 1,000,000 times per year to completely innocent humans rather than a handful of times to terrorists.

Will I persuade you to change your un-Christian stances on abortion, the Bible, human sexuality, salvation, etc.? Obviously not, if you are so wedded to Obama that you can't concede the most obvious point about the Alaska budget.

But I think these blog discussions are worthwhile so the middle grounders can see and decide for themselves. (fyi - Delete it if you like, as I copy the comments to my PC for future blogging and am glad to point out when liberals can't take the heat).

I can't believe you dodged the Palin math again. Please humor me just this once and explain how you would handle the exact same situation if it were your church committee.

Would "slashing" the budget mean you are against the hungry or whatever group that committee served? Or would it mean that you didn't have unlimited funds and that you still gave the group triple what they used to have?

"The children are the victims...because they are unable to be well cared for by families that are unprepared to care for them."

You solution is to permit the victims to be crushed and dismembered. Admit it: They are the victims, and you don't object to their destruction. My solution is for them to live. Will life be easy? No, it isn't for anyone.

What about the children that are alive and unwanted? Can we kill them? Of course not. You concede that. So what is the scientific or even philosophical significance of a brief change in location from inside the womb to outside it?

"As for abortions being rare...I want abortions rare because they are the result of unplanned pregnancies."

But many children outside the womb are the result of unplanned pregnancies. Do you think infanticide should be safe, legal and rare because the children are the result of unplanned pregnancies? No.

So the only question is, "What is the unborn?" If they are human beings we shouldn't murder them (see the Bible for more on that). If they aren't human beings, the debate is over. But we agree that they are human beings . . .

"But the center whose budget Palin chose to short might have made more of a difference for more of these children if only they had that 1.1 million dollars that Gov. Palin decided was unnecessary."

Really? As I showed above, your logic is faulty and you have repeatedly dodged an analogy to your own church.

But it gets better: The group itself says the reduction was not a problem - http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/09/04/our-operating-budget-was-not-reduced-director-of-teen-center/

Here's a quote from Covenant House Alaska: "Despite some press reports to the contrary, our operating budget was not reduced. Our $3.9 million appropriation is directed toward a multi-year capital project and it is our understanding that the state simply opted to phase in its support for this project over several years, rather than all at once in the current budget year.”

Did you catch that? The group in question noted that they had no impact to their operating budget and will get the capital funding over multiple years.

[Neil]

"The children are the victims...because they are unable to be well cared for by families that are unprepared to care for them."

That is a very U.S.-centric thing to say. Using your criteria 80% of the births in the world should be aborted. Anyone who has been to poor parts of the world will know what I mean.

[Rev. Ryan Lambert]

"Will I persuade you to change your un-Christian stances on abortion, the Bible, human sexuality, salvation, etc.?"

Although you approach this conversation under the auspices of dialogue, when you denounce my faithfully held beliefs on abortion, the Bible, human sexuality, and salvation as "un-Christian" you cease to be engaging in a dialogue and have instead turned to demagoguery, with the Bible you claim to follow so closely as your weapon of judgment. I disagree with your conclusions, with your methods of reading and using the bible, and with your definitions of faith and what is morally right. This conversation is a fruitless pursuit because we so vehemently disagree. You are of course free to hold your faithfully held positions. Let me be clear however, I will faithfully continue to hold and promote mine--in this space and in the ministry to which I am called.

[Neil]

Sorry for the delay - I had no home Internet since Ike hit.

Whether your views are "faithfully" held is irrelevant. My point is simply that you disagree with Jesus on plain and detailed readings of the Bible, and your views are counter to historical Christianity - http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/shouldnt-christians-agree-with-jesus/ . I believe in religious freedom and support your right to hold false beliefs. But it is confusing and intellectually dishonest to refer to your views (or Chuck's) as "Christian."

[Rev. Ryan Lambert]

Neil,
I'm glad you are safe after Ike, and I hope that your community is moving closer to 'normal' in the aftermath. The victims of Ike remain in my prayers...

I appreciate you stating that you believe in religious freedom, but that statement is disingenuous when you call me dishonest and my beliefs false. The fact that my views are faithfully held is not irrelevant, as I mean that my views are fully formed by my faith in God who continues to speak to the world through the word of scripture.

I would agree that in some areas I differ with "Historical Christianity." However, "historical Christianity" shouldn't gain its status simply because it has been awarded "tenure." If we applied this standard to science we would never have come to understand our environment, the arrangement of the solar system, or the composition of the human body. I believe that in applying the fullness of our scientific, sociological, psychological, and theological understandings we can more fully understand God.

Finally, my views are not in conflict with the teachings of Jesus although they may be different from how the views of Jesus have been interpreted by "historical Christians." However, as John Robinson, the 17th Century Pastor to the Pilgrims (a rather historical Christian himself) said, "There is more truth and light yet to break forth from God's holy word." I would agree with Robinson...and this is our point of disagreement.

[Neil]

Hi Ryan,

You say your views are not in conflict with those of Jesus? Perhaps I have misunderstood your views.

So you believe that faith in Jesus is the only way to salvation? It is referenced 100 times in scripture (not just John 14:6 like Chuck believes), so it isn't some sort of debatable topic. No amount of "new light" can change that.

Do you believe that Jesus is God? Jesus does.

Do you believe that the unsaved spend eternity in Hell? Jesus does.

Do you believe that marriage is for one man and one woman? Jesus does.

Do you believe that every last letter of the Old Testament is accurate? Jesus does.

You obviously don't believe that murder is wrong, because abortion is obviously murder (the killing of an innocent human being). Jesus thought that even hating was akin to murder, so I'm pretty sure that He thinks real murder is murder.

Do you believe that other religions are false? Jesus does.

And so on . . .

[Rev. Ryan Lambert]

No, yes Jesus is the child of God, no, no, no, no...and so on.

Do you really live by all the Levitical codes?

Which creation story do you believe?

Abortion is not murder.

Homosexuality as we know it was not understood in the time of Jesus. God would not create someone as a gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgendered person and then because of their very essence determine them to be less than God's other children. You seem to believe that the GLBT children of God are somehow less than those of us who were created as heterosexuals. I, however, do not and I do not believe God does either.

[Neil]

You're a pastor and you ask questions like those? Oh my, what ignorance!

"Do you really live by all the Levitical codes?"

Seriously, you know what my response will be, right? Do you understand the concept of civil and ceremonial laws as opposed to moral laws? Did you ever read the Old Testament and realize that God had some special rules for the Israelites to set them apart, but that they have no bearing on Christians? Have you read Acts? I expect responses like that from people who have never studied the Bible, but wow, not from a "pastor."

"Abortion is not murder."

That is a wildly unscientific view. Read an embryology textbook. The unborn are human beings. Just because you say it isn't murder doesn't make it so.

"Homosexuality as we know it was not understood in the time of Jesus. God would not create someone as a gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgendered person and then because of their very essence determine them to be less than God's other children."

Hmmm . . . so God himself didn't understand homosexual behavior? Indeed. You are tipping your hand.

You also don't understand that only Christians are truly called God's children (do a word search on it in the Bible).

"You seem to believe that the GLBT children of God are somehow less than those of us who were created as heterosexuals. I, however, do not and I do not believe God does either."

No, that is just a typical straw man / ad hominem argument by liberals who can't argue on the facts. There is no legitimate science showing that they are "born that way." Even if there were, that wouldn't mean it wasn't sinful. We are born with all sorts of sinful desires.

I always treat GLBTQ people with dignity and respect. I seek to share the love of God and the Gospel with them. I don't try to "fix" them first, but neither do I tell them that their behavior is without consequence and that God made them that way.

You, however, love yourself much more than you love them. You are so worried about being popular that you spread the lie that their behavior is acceptable to God. You "affirm" them in their bad choices. You fear man more than God. Bad idea.

Seriously, have you ever read the Bible? You have so clearly made up your own religion and your own god. Again, I respect your legal right to do so but am so tired of people like you falsely claiming the name of Christ.

[Rev. Ryan Lambert]

Neil,
I am tired of people claiming Christianity when they only use it to condemn people...which seems to be your only reason for visiting/writing here.

[Neil]

Well, I'll bow out then.

You know what I'm tired of? Phonies like you and Chuck who do the work of Satan.

You don't even now scripture well enough to realize that we are all condemned and that we need Jesus to save us. You are too busy preaching a false Gospel. In your upside down world you think abortion is a good thing. Sickening.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

I pray that one day you will accept the Gospel and stop teaching a false belief system, whatever it is.