Torture or Not. 'No 'Nuance.'

Differences in the political and religious area usually matters of nuance. You made like Obama's 'recovery' plan or, in general oppose it. But few could be found 100% in favor or 100% opposed. Seldom is a political or religious issue so simple as to say it has to be all one way or the other.

But today in the U.S. we have an issue that clearly and cleanly devides people into two camps, without any possible middle ground or nuance.

You either think torturing another human being is WRONG under all circumstances, or you think it is ACCEPTABLE under certain circumstances. There can be no subtlety nor hedging. To torture another human being is either right or wrong. There is no "middle" position.

Now the collective opinion of history, at least today, is that torture is wrong. Yes churches have used it in the past. Their goal was to save souls, to put the best face on such practices. But no church I know today thinks torture was moral. Protestant and Catholic alike, among Christian faiths 'apologize' for the use of torture in the past.

But now in the U.S. we are engaged in a debate which most clearly delineates only two groups. I believe that torture is wrong in ALL circumstances. But Dick Caney, Senator Chambliss and others say "there are some cases when it is okay, indeed, cases in which we must torture." Let me be blunt: I believe Chaney and those who agree with him are PERVERTS. Strong words, yes. But the deliberate infliction of pain on others, no matter what the motive, is a pervision of all standards that make us human.

And the churches? There silence on this matter removes them from any pretense of being taken seriously. If, and maybe this is an oversimplification, the defining issue in our country in 1860 was should others humans be held as slaves, then today, the defining issue is should human beings torture other humans. It's just that simple.