I was reading some blogs the other day, and read a horrifying post at Obsidian Wings about our government wanting to export torture. We are not supposed to do it, even George Bush said so, but we are willing to legalize the process of sending people we can't torture to people who are more than willing to torture people. Here is more information about it. The argument seems to go the way of the ticking bomb scenario. Wouldn't you be willing to torture one person if that torture could save thousands of lives? Mark Kleinman has linked to a blogger who continues this argument by pointing to all the evil that is happening in Baghdad and other parts of the world. Hard to muster sympathy for people willing to do this kind of thing.
I am reminded of a story in the Dallas News from years back. Locals were shocked to find out that their neighborhood now included a sex-offender so some of the locals decided to send the message that they didn't want people like that around. Unfortunately, the guy they thought was a sex-offender was just a mentally challenged guy living at the wrong address. They beat him pretty badly. People said it was unfortunate, but sex-offenders shouldn't have rights. The irony of the fact that this guy wasn't a sex-offender seemed to miss their pea-sized brains. Our judicial system is not there to coddle the guilty, but to somehow determine who the guilty are. This story and the current one show the ignorance of most people regarding the judicial system. I think when most people complain about judges and the courts, they assume going in that the guilty are the only ones there. The fact that due process is there to insure that you and I are not wrongly convicted seems missing.
So, the above question should be rephrased. Instead, it should be "how many people are you willing to torture to get some information?" Or, "are you willing to torture people that might have information?" That is what happened in Abu Ghraib when some of the people tortured (remember, some of them were kids) were just neighbors of suspected terrorists. Oh well, they all look alike, right?
So where is our Jesus model here?
Can anyone imagine Jesus of Nazareth in a hot dark room. He isn't torturing of course, but is sitting over in the corner watching as the interrogators hook up the battery cables. Jesus turns away as the suspect screams in agony....
No! Of course Jesus would never do such things. So why are all his vocal followers so damn silent? Why are they supporting Republican leadership? Why do they support a Bush administration that can both denounce torture and look the other way while others do it.
WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS. WE SHOULD GODDAMNED WELL ACT LIKE IT!!!!!
1 comment:
An interesting connection came to mind. Your poignant WJWD (What Jesus Wouldn't Do) question at the end actually describes aptly a scene recounted by Luke in the book of Acts. A group of angry nationalistic relegious people tortured a man named Stephen because he called them to task for their hypocrisy. Their actions betrayed their inner attitudes as they dragged him along the ground, probably kicked him a time or two, and then stoned him. Standing off to the side was a man (Paul) giving approval of the murder.
I'm sure Christian's don't condone the torture of Stephan. Is this because he was a Christian or because torture and murder is wrong? A scary proposition. Perhaps Stephan’s words will speak from the grave and call Christian’s to task for their hypocrisy.
Post a Comment