Post Page Advertisement [Top]

NAE Stays Cool






  1. I am extremely glad not to be an evangelical, I have a hard enough time with the rigidness of the Catholic church.
    Why can't evangelicals see beyond abortion and homosexuality?
    I understand their absolute hatred of both, but, even in the face of war, terroroism, torture, global warming etc, they can'tsee beyond those two subjects?
    I ask because I cannot understand this position.
    Why do they hate science?

  2. The IRD primary purpose is to take corporate money and the money of the wealthy and use it to try to silence the Church when it disagrees with these monied interests.

    In the past, the IRD's primary target has been the Mainline Prodestants. Interesting to see IRD start to go after Evangelicals, too.

  3. diane and jleeper: Thanks for the comments. I am glad that organizations like the NAE are attempting to broaden the focus of evangelicals. It is interesting (maybe odd is a better word) that the IRD has turned its sights upon the NAE. This is just one more reason why the IRD is a problem within Christianity.

  4. Anonymous12:27 PM

    Your leap of logic is tragically short when you write: "Actually, how can the IRD claim to be a Christian organization and not be against torture and genocide?"

    Your mistake? You predetermined that the ONLY way to be opposed to torture and genocide is to be in favor of one SPECIFIC statement. Thus, if IRD finds particular problems in the specific statement and therefore is not in favor of promoting that statement's particular shortcomings, you conclude that IRD favors torture and genocide.

    That is a rookie mistake, and you should do better.

    IRD could very well be (and most certainly IS) opposed to torture and genocide, but not in the way and for the ostensible reasons in the statement it cannot support.

    For you to make the absurd claim that IRD is not opposed to torture and genocice is simply bearing false witness. Such patent nonsense should be below the intellectual if not moral standards of your blog.

  5. Anonymous: Thanks for offering your concern. You make a good point that this one statement is not necessarily the only way to oppose torture. Had the IRD simply not signed the statement but put out another, I probably would not have even written anything about them here.

    However, to attack someone for taking an anti-torture stand does not seem appropriate. Even if one does not agree with the specific statement enough to sign it, I do not think that those taking this important moral stand deserve condemnation.

    That being said, I should have worded the post more carefully. I have read comments by IRD officials explaining that they are against torture, so I know that position and am glad to see it. Sadly some Christians have actually supported torture (see my recent Ethics Daily column entitled “Tortured Theology”). My complaint, therefore, is not that the IRD supports torture (since that is not true) but that the IRD would attack Cizik for taking a moral and biblical stand. I hope that clarifies this issue. Thanks again for offering your comment!


Bottom Ad [Post Page]