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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Excellent. Well said. Cuts to the bone on this issue. Mr.X
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly. However, in addition to arguing that torture has a time and a place, they are also denying torture, renaming it enhanced interrogation techniques. There are reasons that we do not accept coerced confessions by our police departments - primarily because they end up proving to be false - people will tell you what they believe you want to hear to make the torture stop.
ReplyDeleteI recommend watching In The Name Of The Father - it's based on actual circumstances in London and shows how anti-terrorism/homeland security type laws can fail miserably. It's a wonderful movie with Daniel Day Lewis, Emma Thompson, Pete Postlewaite among others. Two thumbs up.
Yes, I saw that movie when he first came out. Jack
ReplyDeleteAs an Episcopalian (Anglo-catholic division) I can take some limited comfort in the fact that my church has spoken against torture. I think we are correct on that point. Not a lot of others perhaps especially in the area of economics but at least on that one!
ReplyDeleteFWIW
jimB
Jim, as a person who has done considerable reading and writing on 19 century English religious movements, let me ask you how you are using the term "Anglo Catholic?" Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteI suppose I am using it as Episcopalians do when we say "Affirming Catholic." That is one who affirms a number of fairly 'catholic' things like the communion of saints as an active part of our reality, the idea (controversial among some evangelicals) that sacraments are real ontological events, and the whole idea of what we sometimes call 'high church' liturgics.
In terms of prayer, not the Anglican rosary in my picture space. ;-)
FWIW
jimB
I like to think that most good Christian Catholic who truly believe that "Jesus Christ" started that Religion with Peter, as His first Pope, would agree with you that hurtful torture is wrong.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think that we should tickle these terrorist until they confess!
I hear ya Jack! All they would need is for you to preach to them Victor!
What do you mean by that Jack?
OH Honestly, Nothing at all Victor! :)