On torture: Are we Roman or American?
They may worship a savior who was crucified by the Romans, but 62 percent of white evangelical Protestants believe torture of suspected terrorists is justified.
That 62 percent -- measured in a recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life -- was a significantly greater proportion than among any other religious grouping and 22 percent higher than the 40 percent torture-approval figure among Americans with no church affiliation.
I suspect these numbers have far less to do with religious beliefs than with political views. Evangelical Christians tilt heavily toward the Republican Party, so it's not surprising a majority of them would be sympathetic with the Bush administration's policy on torture. Nevertheless, there are those in the evangelical community who find this concerning. In an Associated Press report on the poll, Prof. David Gushee, president of Evangelicals for Human Rights, had this to say:
This interesting angle on the torture issue comes at a time when the course of the debate has turned off onto a side road where the question of the day seems to be, "What did Nancy Pelosi know and when did she know it?" The Speaker of the House appears to have been in one intelligence committee briefing where CIA representatives said something about waterboarding but may have left vague the fact they were already engaged in the activity. Pelosi then missed subsequent briefings.
I suspect this is an example of one Capitol Hill reality that members of Congress would just as soon not advertise to the public: They all too often fly in and out of committee meetings, barely stopping long enough to make a brief statement for the record to give the illusion they are paying attention to the issue at hand. By the time she was finally paying attention enough to learn what the CIA was doing with detainees from the War on Terror, Pelosi says, she decided the only way to change things was to change who was in charge in Congress and the White House.
Under attack from the right-wing assault machine, Pelosi is now insisting the CIA lied to her and to Congress. In response, House Republican leader John Boehner, barely containing his glee at Pelosi's predicament, has stood up like a shocked choirboy to insist that the CIA, a government agency whose business is deception and subterfuge, would never, ever think of misleading members of the House or Senate.
Meanwhile, former-Vice President Cheney is boldly asserting that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that some call torture and many call illegal were necessary and effective in the defense of the country. Apparently, Cheney has gone on the offensive to defend himself against those on the left who want an investigation of Bush administration torture policies and prosecution of those responsible -- with Cheney as target No. 1.
Much of this is a political sideshow that is drawing us away from the heart of the issue. What Pelosi did or did not know is fairly irrelevant. And we already have a clear idea about how Cheney was a cheerleader for torture. More important is what is being revealed by the Senate judiciary subcommittee that is investigating the authorization and use of harsh interrogation techniques: They don't work.
Philip Zelikow, formerly an adviser to Bush Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, told the committee he tried to protest the bogus legal justifications for the torture policy and called the interrogations "an unprecedented program of coolly calculated dehumanizing abuse and physical torment to extract information." Ali Soufan, an ex-FBI counterterrorism agent and interrogator, testified that all the nasty torture business was slow, ineffective and unreliable and caused terror suspects to shut up rather than talk.
I think the evidence is convincing that torture is not only illegal, it also does not work. But that is a point that will debated for a long time. The bigger question is simpler: Whether it works or not, is it right? That's the issue that has caused so many evangelical ethicists to look askance at their brethren who seem perfectly fine with the fact that agents of the United States are carrying on like Roman soldiers at a crucifixion.
Even as I write this, I can hear the howls of protest at my analogy: "How dare you compare Jesus to a terrorist!" Well, I am not. My comparison is between perpetrators of torture in the past and practitioners of enhanced interrogation techniques in the present.
Jesus Christ was the ultimate innocent victim. Yet, however singular he may be in history, Jesus was not the only victim of Roman cruelty. Thousands upon thousands were scourged and crucified over the centuries, many as innocent as Christ, many others guilty of one crime or another. Of the guilty ones, certainly some were a genuine threat to the empire and its citizens. Did they, at least, deserve the lash and the cross? Or did the Roman policy of torture do more harm than good? Did the hatred fostered by their "enhanced techniques" ultimately undermine the security of the state? Did those who performed the torture become dehumanized themselves? Were the grand principles upon which Roman society was built subverted and diminished by the evil acts perpetrated in its name? Are the accomplishments of Roman civilization forever tainted by the still vivid memory of Rome's officially sanctioned viciousness?
And for us today, are we Romans or Americans? This nation was founded on the belief that the rule of law and the protection of God-given rights would protect us all from the abuses of unchecked government power. We were going to be different from the cruel kingdoms of the past. I believe we are still different, but, to the extent that our descent into torture as policy has compromised our founding vision, we, today, have become too Roman.
<SCRIPT language=javascript type=text/javascript src="/share.js"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT>showShare('168850');</SCRIPT>
They may worship a savior who was crucified by the Romans, but 62 percent of white evangelical Protestants believe torture of suspected terrorists is justified.
That 62 percent -- measured in a recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life -- was a significantly greater proportion than among any other religious grouping and 22 percent higher than the 40 percent torture-approval figure among Americans with no church affiliation.
I suspect these numbers have far less to do with religious beliefs than with political views. Evangelical Christians tilt heavily toward the Republican Party, so it's not surprising a majority of them would be sympathetic with the Bush administration's policy on torture. Nevertheless, there are those in the evangelical community who find this concerning. In an Associated Press report on the poll, Prof. David Gushee, president of Evangelicals for Human Rights, had this to say:
There is a version of Christianity in America that I think is not adequately committed to the Bible's teachings about the sacredness of every human life, including the lives of our enemies. It's also insufficiently committed to the peacemaking teachings of Jesus as one who did not resort to violence or cruelty to accomplish any of his goals and instead suffered violence instead of inflicting it.
Put another way, there are Christians in this country who have more faith in Dick Cheney than Jesus, at least when it comes to torture.
This interesting angle on the torture issue comes at a time when the course of the debate has turned off onto a side road where the question of the day seems to be, "What did Nancy Pelosi know and when did she know it?" The Speaker of the House appears to have been in one intelligence committee briefing where CIA representatives said something about waterboarding but may have left vague the fact they were already engaged in the activity. Pelosi then missed subsequent briefings.
I suspect this is an example of one Capitol Hill reality that members of Congress would just as soon not advertise to the public: They all too often fly in and out of committee meetings, barely stopping long enough to make a brief statement for the record to give the illusion they are paying attention to the issue at hand. By the time she was finally paying attention enough to learn what the CIA was doing with detainees from the War on Terror, Pelosi says, she decided the only way to change things was to change who was in charge in Congress and the White House.
Under attack from the right-wing assault machine, Pelosi is now insisting the CIA lied to her and to Congress. In response, House Republican leader John Boehner, barely containing his glee at Pelosi's predicament, has stood up like a shocked choirboy to insist that the CIA, a government agency whose business is deception and subterfuge, would never, ever think of misleading members of the House or Senate.
Meanwhile, former-Vice President Cheney is boldly asserting that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that some call torture and many call illegal were necessary and effective in the defense of the country. Apparently, Cheney has gone on the offensive to defend himself against those on the left who want an investigation of Bush administration torture policies and prosecution of those responsible -- with Cheney as target No. 1.
Much of this is a political sideshow that is drawing us away from the heart of the issue. What Pelosi did or did not know is fairly irrelevant. And we already have a clear idea about how Cheney was a cheerleader for torture. More important is what is being revealed by the Senate judiciary subcommittee that is investigating the authorization and use of harsh interrogation techniques: They don't work.
Philip Zelikow, formerly an adviser to Bush Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, told the committee he tried to protest the bogus legal justifications for the torture policy and called the interrogations "an unprecedented program of coolly calculated dehumanizing abuse and physical torment to extract information." Ali Soufan, an ex-FBI counterterrorism agent and interrogator, testified that all the nasty torture business was slow, ineffective and unreliable and caused terror suspects to shut up rather than talk.
I think the evidence is convincing that torture is not only illegal, it also does not work. But that is a point that will debated for a long time. The bigger question is simpler: Whether it works or not, is it right? That's the issue that has caused so many evangelical ethicists to look askance at their brethren who seem perfectly fine with the fact that agents of the United States are carrying on like Roman soldiers at a crucifixion.
Even as I write this, I can hear the howls of protest at my analogy: "How dare you compare Jesus to a terrorist!" Well, I am not. My comparison is between perpetrators of torture in the past and practitioners of enhanced interrogation techniques in the present.
Jesus Christ was the ultimate innocent victim. Yet, however singular he may be in history, Jesus was not the only victim of Roman cruelty. Thousands upon thousands were scourged and crucified over the centuries, many as innocent as Christ, many others guilty of one crime or another. Of the guilty ones, certainly some were a genuine threat to the empire and its citizens. Did they, at least, deserve the lash and the cross? Or did the Roman policy of torture do more harm than good? Did the hatred fostered by their "enhanced techniques" ultimately undermine the security of the state? Did those who performed the torture become dehumanized themselves? Were the grand principles upon which Roman society was built subverted and diminished by the evil acts perpetrated in its name? Are the accomplishments of Roman civilization forever tainted by the still vivid memory of Rome's officially sanctioned viciousness?
And for us today, are we Romans or Americans? This nation was founded on the belief that the rule of law and the protection of God-given rights would protect us all from the abuses of unchecked government power. We were going to be different from the cruel kingdoms of the past. I believe we are still different, but, to the extent that our descent into torture as policy has compromised our founding vision, we, today, have become too Roman.
<SCRIPT language=javascript type=text/javascript src="/share.js"></SCRIPT><SCRIPT>showShare('168850');</SCRIPT>
hno:
