Just tired. Good day today. I played golf, and actually played better than I have in sometime. Just good to get away from grading and stuff.
I had a couple of conversations with SBC members this week. And they were good conversations with well-intentioned people. As I see it, they really want to believe that they were right in choosing Bush for religious reasons. They so much want to believe that this man they pray for could endorse torture or oversee incompetence.
On torture, the common defense mechanism can be summed up thusly: it is hard to not want to get information from a terrorist that can save lives.
I understand that. I think we all do. We all want good intelligence and an active police force that stops bad people from doing bad things. But I am not sure that is what Bush is doing, especially when the actions help recruit more and more terrorists that we either have to stop or interrogate.
I have framed three key questions for them regarding this treatment:
1) If the justification is some outcome, does that make waterboarding or hypothermia ok?
2) if the outcome is the issue, then why even draw a line? If saving "innocent" life is the deal, then why stop at anything short of getting what you need?
3) and since innocence is a justification, how do we deal with the fact that we are torturing innocent people?
How does any of this, btw, match up with Christian values? Or the fact that Bush wants to gut constitutional protections or make these kinds of acts legal and limit anyone from having recourse.