A Chilling Effect
Conservative activists are heaping criticism on Sen. John McCain for fighting President Bush over proposed rules for the interrogation of terrorism suspects, a dispute that has reopened long-standing divisions between the maverick Republican lawmaker and his party’s establishment. [...]
“This very definitely is going to put a chilling effect on the tremendous strides [McCain] has made in the conservative evangelical community,” said the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, one of several conservative activists who support Bush’s proposal on interrogation techniques.
“McCain Stand Comes at a Price”
Los Angeles Times - September 19, 2006
:: :: :: ::
A certain ruler came to Him, saying “You are my favorite philosopher. Tell me, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
And He replied, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”
But the ruler wanted to clarify things, so he asked Him, “And who is my enemy? I mean, you certainly can’t mean that I should love some of the evildoers that are out there.”
Again, He replied patiently. “I say to you: Love your enemies. If people seek to kill you, plead that they may receive forgiveness."
The ruler asked, “But what do you mean by ‘love’? It’s very vague. It’s like I was trying to tell the press about the Geneva Conventions, which say that we should treat prisoners in a way that there will be ‘no outrages upon human dignity.’ What does that mean? That’s wide open to interpretation.”
“Ah yes,” He replied. “I know the Geneva Conventions well. Indeed, I think they should be changed —”
“Exactly! That’s what I’ve been trying to tell folks.”
He continued, “‘Outrages on human dignity’ is not a high enough standard.”
“Wait...” the ruler sputtered. “Not high enough?”
He looked at the ruler and loved him. “Again I tell you: Love your enemies. And do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
At this the ruler’s face fell. He went away sad, because he thought he should have the right to torture evildoers.
7 Ripples from “A Chilling Effect”
timmer k. says:
September 21, 2006 at 10:09 am
You see--this is why you need to blog more. I greatly appreciate your perspective on politics. This whole issue has me pretty angried up as well...only compounded by the whole Jesus Camp thing lately. When will Christians realize that alignment with a political party will not be ultimately helpful to the kingdom of God?
christolles! says:
September 21, 2006 at 2:09 pm
while i agree with your opinion of “torture”, whatever the word means, i think we’re all being a little too simplistic.
should bush, as a christian who implicitly claims the bible authoritative, oppose torture (interrogation? imprisonment?) because the bible says to turn the other cheek? you imply yes.
the bible, however, also says do not commit adultery, your body is a temple. what else then should be illegal?…
id love to hear your opinion of where the line is drawn for a christian leader in a democratic (secular) government.
long time reader, first post. thanks for making me take the plunge…
Streak says:
September 21, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Brilliant. And sad.
zalm says:
September 22, 2006 at 2:09 am
Thanks for your thoughtful questions, Chris. I will do my best to come back to them when I’ve kicked this nasty cold and can breathe fully again. But for now, I guess I have a few thoughts as I wait for the Nyquil to kick in.
First, I do realize that this piece was a little simplistic. For that matter, it might even be a wee bit blasphemous, although I definitely scaled it back from my first draft.
I think you ask an interesting and challenging question. In this specific case, I think there are numerous reasons to oppose torture, only some of which are rooted in Christian moral tradition. I would hope that the leader of a democratic (secular) government would oppose torture for any number of those reasons, Biblical or otherwise.
I realize that doesn’t fully address your question, but as I said, I’ll try to return to it at a later time if I’m up to it.
I think what sparked this post was Sheldon’s implication that anyone who sought to limit the president’s ability to torture would lose the support of “conservative evangelicals.” In a press release, Sheldon even called on affiliated churches to lobby their representatives to support Bush’s awful bill.
I wrote this because I simply cannot understand how lobbying for a government’s right to torture can even remotely be construed as the right work of the church. I wrote this because I don’t understand how someone could call themselves a “conservative” or an “evangelical” and still make this argument.
Streak says:
September 22, 2006 at 10:09 am
I am not sure that the governing principle here is simply turning the other cheek. Most Christians, and certainly most critics of the Bush admin’s torture policy are not suggesting that we not respond to terror or attack. But the issue of torture is about dealing with someone who is a captive--who has already lost his/her freedom (and perhaps should)--who is being waterboarded or fake buried to get questionable intelligence. Where is the moral authority for such actions? Bush wants that moral authority, and, as Zalm noted, claims to see Jesus as his favorite philosopher and influence.
this feels like a red herring. Isn’t there a fundamental difference between what the state does to someon and what the state allows people to do to themselves? Your suggestion implies that if we are not willing to outlaw adultery or obesity, then we can’t outlaw our state using torture? I don’t follow the connection.
christolles! says:
September 28, 2006 at 9:09 am
there certaininly is, but where exactly does one drawn the line? illegal drug use is done to oneself. polygamy is done to oneself. even looking at child pornography is done to oneself…
i certainly dont go that far, its just the concept of “pick-and-choose” theocracy that causes me to ask such questions… i do not suggest an “all or nothing” approach (i, for one, oppose torture but am for the legality of pornography, so obviously im not taking my own advice), but again, its always about that stinkin line…
zalm, would love to hear from you again…
zalm says:
September 28, 2006 at 10:09 pm
And I’d love to have an answer for you. But it’s been a rough week for my overall esteem for our country and its government.
Ordinarily, if someone came to me and asked how Christians should involve themselves in government, I’d say “with great care and humility.” Today, I’m more open than ever to the argument that perhaps Christians should avoid participating altogether in the fallen system of violence that we call government.
-----