Re-Beating a Dying Horse
Torture.
Not a pretty word at all. In fact, it may be one of the ugliest in our language. Generally speaking, torture is not something we would wish on our worst enemies.
But that is pre-9/11 talk!
Now that torture is approaching standard operating procedure for intelligence gathering in the war on terror, it is becoming more clear that many (most? a few? I dunno) Americans do not have clear moral objections to torture any longer. At least we could say that Americans are willing to let their leaders define illegal torture out of existence.
This reminds me of an argument I posted on this blog in the wake of the 2004 election. I observed that Oklahoma overwhlemingly voted for Bush and a "defense of marraige act" while also voting to allow casino gambling on land belonging to Native American tribes in addition to finally creating the lottery. Both of these measures were violently opposed by Oklahoma's churches, yet both passed with nearly the same majority that Bush managed to gain. (see SQ 712 & 708 respectively) I merely wished to point out that religion was likely not the deciding factor in the hearts and minds of voters, for surely religion did not motivate the same electorate to approve prohibitions on same-sex marriage and allow gambling across the state.
The present administration's tacit (and not-so-tacit) approval to questionable treatment of prisoners makes my argument even more clear. If Bush had truly been elected by a tide of religious renewal and evangelical Christian zeal, why are those same people so silent before the horrendous pictures emerging from Abu Ghraib and other prisons? Where are those who claimed to stand up for truth and justice when they voted for Bush now that such atrocities are being performed under his command? Don't feel bad if you were such a Christian. What happened in 2004 cannot be blamed on the church alone. But we are guilty of silence if we do nothing. Here is something we can do.
Not a pretty word at all. In fact, it may be one of the ugliest in our language. Generally speaking, torture is not something we would wish on our worst enemies.
But that is pre-9/11 talk!
Now that torture is approaching standard operating procedure for intelligence gathering in the war on terror, it is becoming more clear that many (most? a few? I dunno) Americans do not have clear moral objections to torture any longer. At least we could say that Americans are willing to let their leaders define illegal torture out of existence.
This reminds me of an argument I posted on this blog in the wake of the 2004 election. I observed that Oklahoma overwhlemingly voted for Bush and a "defense of marraige act" while also voting to allow casino gambling on land belonging to Native American tribes in addition to finally creating the lottery. Both of these measures were violently opposed by Oklahoma's churches, yet both passed with nearly the same majority that Bush managed to gain. (see SQ 712 & 708 respectively) I merely wished to point out that religion was likely not the deciding factor in the hearts and minds of voters, for surely religion did not motivate the same electorate to approve prohibitions on same-sex marriage and allow gambling across the state.
The present administration's tacit (and not-so-tacit) approval to questionable treatment of prisoners makes my argument even more clear. If Bush had truly been elected by a tide of religious renewal and evangelical Christian zeal, why are those same people so silent before the horrendous pictures emerging from Abu Ghraib and other prisons? Where are those who claimed to stand up for truth and justice when they voted for Bush now that such atrocities are being performed under his command? Don't feel bad if you were such a Christian. What happened in 2004 cannot be blamed on the church alone. But we are guilty of silence if we do nothing. Here is something we can do.
posted by matt at 4:07 PM
2 Comments:
I posed a question to my coworkers the other day which would sound familiar to some of you who read here: When is a couple truly considered "married"? The best answer they had was when the couple signed the marriage license. I asked what would happen if the license was destroyed, say, in a house fire. Their response was that the government would have a copy. So I asked do you need a government to be married? I took their silence as an affirmative. They understood that there must be a higher power involved other than the couple themselves. I think in the absence of a theology, the only higher power many people answer to is the government. It's almost like Aquinas's (?) arguement for the Divine Command Theory translated to, er, the Presidential Command Theory. The state, as the only higher power of governance, makes the rules. Says what is right and what is wrong. And, to further add to all the frustration, as long as they can keep a thick wall of this belief between the voting masses and what actually goes on in the military overseas, the guys in power (i.e. the executive branch) can do just about whatever the heck they want. What a wonderful democracy we've maintained.
Fascinating question: "Do you need a government to be married?" I'll explore that idea later perhaps.
Anyway, good observation. These "guys in power" seem to be running amok more than usual.
Post a Comment
<< Home