November 8, 2007

Shorter Cal Thomas on torture

If it works, better them than us and screw the trivial concerns over "civil liberties."

Sigh.

12 comments:

ANewAnglican@gmail.com said...

Thomas takes his moral cues from a TV show. That seems about right.

Streak said...

Hey, one of our Supreme Court justices does the same thing.

steves said...

Thomas is kind of a statist, so it doesn't surprise that he isn't worried about Constitutional violations.

Didn't we discuss Scalia's comments on Jack Bauer a while ago? I think he was kidding and unless someone can show me he made similar remarks during a case, I am not going to read too much into it. He does have a point. If he actually saved a city, then a jury probably wouldn't convict him.

Streak said...

Actually, what bothers me about Thomas is that he is supposedly a Christian who often chastises liberals for "moral relativism" yet is here defending torture because of who "they are."

Torture--the new Christianity.

ubub said...

He loses me though where he begins to argue that if others are going to engage in cheek-striking, then by God, the US of A is going to engage in cheek-striking because to hold otherwise would be to embrace a double standard.

"And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love. And they'll know we are Christians by our love."

steves said...

We don't live in a Christian nation, so my opposition to torture has nothing to do with my Christianity. The Christian thing to do may not always be the best thing for the nation. Things like adultery, taking the Lord's name in vain, and disrespecting your parents are also morally wrong, but I don't think laws should reflect these values.

As a Christian, I am asked, "how can you vote for _________, when they support _________?" It isn't always easy. There are no perfect candidates, so I will do the best I can. I am also interested in voting for someone that will follow the Constitution.

Streak said...

Who argued we are a Christian nation? Not me.

But I will say that a Christian who approves of torture isn't much of a Christian.

steves said...

I was not saying that to endorse torture (I have never taken that position). Do Christians have to vote for candidates that support all Biblical standards? The problem then becomes who is the most Biblical and leads to people emphasizing certain standards over others.

Streak said...

Of course Christians don't have to vote a certain way. That is part of what got us into this disaster. But torture is not the normal political or moral question. There really aren't two sides to this debate, and it isn't a complex one. It is as Tony suggested, about power and cruelty. Christians who endorse it (take politics out of it) have lost sight of much.

Just how long ago was it that we were being inundated with images of Jesus being tortured by evil Romans and Jews? Then it was a symbol of evil perpetrated on the symbol of innocence. Now?

Tony said...

The problem then becomes who is the most Biblical and leads to people emphasizing certain standards over others.

We are seeing this play out as we speak (type?). Just as in the SBC as in the GOP, there trying to see who can out-Christian the other all the while invoking "biblical tests".

Torture should be the most black and white issue we face. There is no place in the Bible to appeal to other than its wrongness and it seems to me that its wrongness can be established inherently and without further qualification.

steves said...

I guess the point I was trying to make (an not very clearly) is that the candidate that is the most "Christian" may not be the best leader for our country.

Torture is wrong in and of itself, just like rape, murder, or kidnapping.

Streak said...

Tony, I agree. This is the political redball that the moral majority and Pat Robertson gave us--the increasing politicization of religion, and the increased religifying of politics. Neither has been good for the other. And the torture debate is exhibit one.