Duplicity by the Religious Right

[* irenic *]

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Tony Campolo: Duplicity on the Right

Do those on the Religious Right understand their duplicity?

For years they have argued against situational ethics. They have stood for
absolutes and contended that those absolutes should never be compromised.
With conviction they have declared, loud and clear, that the end never
justifies the means. Now, with the war on terrorism on our hands, they
support torture when interrogating suspects.

A prominent scholar recently polled a dozen top leaders of America s
Religious Right, who were unanimously in favor of using torture given the
situation at hand." When it suits them, it turns out, the end does indeed
justify the means.

If they have changed their minds and are ready to refute the golden rule,
then it is time for them to say plainly, For the most part we agree with
Jesus, but there are special circumstances when we must ignore His
teachings.

Of course, these leaders ought to recognize the implications of their
decision to support what they might call necessary evils in special
circumstances. For instance, can they still tell a teenage girl who is
pregnant by rape or incest that abortion is always wrong?

I m not ready to answer such questions, except to say that the Religious
Right can t have it both ways. They can t say that righteousness must never
be compromised, and then add except in certain situations like torturing
our enemies in times of war.

http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/


-- --

Shalom! Rowland Croucher

'It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so' (Mark Twain)

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/ - 18,000 articles/ 4000 humour

[b***@juno.com]

Post by * irenic *
For years they have argued against situational ethics. They have stood for
absolutes and contended that those absolutes should never be compromised.
With conviction they have declared, loud and clear, that the end never
justifies the means. Now, with the war on terrorism on our hands, they
support torture when interrogating suspects.

The above is a straw-man version of "absolutist" ethics. Surely you can
come up with a more nuanced version?

Post by * irenic *
A prominent scholar recently polled a dozen top leaders of America s
Religious Right, who were unanimously in favor of using torture given the
situation at hand." When it suits them, it turns out, the end does indeed
justify the means.

It's called a "post 9-11 mindset." Believe it or not, it is a real
possibility that we might need to torture Osama if he is the only one
who knows where the Nuke is in New York City.

Post by * irenic *
If they have changed their minds and are ready to refute the golden rule,
then it is time for them to say plainly, For the most part we agree with
Jesus, but there are special circumstances when we must ignore His
teachings.

Somehow I doubt that Jesus would support gross negligence by government
officials. I dont think Jesus would want government FBI agents to be
filling Osama's Martini orders (to be "nice" to him) while a Nuclear
bomb is about to go off in thirty minutes in Manhattan.

Post by * irenic *
Of course, these leaders ought to recognize the implications of their
decision to support what they might call necessary evils in special
circumstances. For instance, can they still tell a teenage girl who is
pregnant by rape or incest that abortion is always wrong?

Focus, buddy. You are shotgunning standard liberal cliches all over the
place.

Post by * irenic *
I m not ready to answer such questions, except to say that the Religious
Right can t have it both ways. They can t say that righteousness must never
be compromised, and then add except in certain situations like torturing
our enemies in times of war.

Yes we can have it both ways. All we have to do is make a nice
distinction between:

1. "ethics of an individual"
which is based on pacifism..........

2. and "ethics of government"
which is based on agents of government using violent methods to keep
the peace, as the following verse makes perfectly clear.........

Romans 13:4
"For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be
afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's
servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

[shegeek72]

Post by b***@juno.com
It's called a "post 9-11 mindset." Believe it or not, it is a real
possibility that we might need to torture Osama if he is the only one
who knows where the Nuke is in New York City.

I think the question we should ask ourselves is: would Jesus torture
someone?

Tara

[gilgames]

<<
I think the question we should ask ourselves is: would Jesus torture
someone?

Tara
It depends what you mean torture?

If it is causing pain to get information, He will not, He knows
everything since the beginning of the world.

If it means just to have involved in pain, he let to torture Himself on
the cross, and ultimately He was behind the painfull extermination of
the Jews in AD 70.

laszlo

[b***@juno.com]

Post by shegeek72
I think the question we should ask ourselves is: would Jesus torture
someone?

Jesus wouldn't, because he knows all things, and thus would know just
where the Nuke was already. He wouldn't need to torture, since He would
already know.

However, Jesus would not object to FBI agents torturing Osama. Because
FBI agents are not omnisicent.

It is immoral to NOT torture Osama, if you have a Nuke going off in
thirty minutes. To NOT torture him would be to indirectly cause the
death of several million people. This is much, much worse than
torturing a single person.

We need to get the American left out of the pre-9-11 mindset. They
actually think we can proceed just as we did before? Their lunacy is
truly mind-boggling.

The prohibition against torture only applies when you don't have
weapons of mass destruction, being used by shadowy terrorists.

Now that we have terrorists sneaking around, with the ability and
desire to slaughter millions of innocent civilians, the moral equation
has changed. Surely you grasp the concept?

[shegeek72]

Post by gilgames
If it is causing pain to get information, He will not, He knows
everything since the beginning of the world.

Uh, where have you read that in the Bible?

Post by gilgames
If it means just to have involved in pain, he let to torture Himself on
the cross, and ultimately He was behind the painfull extermination of
the Jews in AD 70.

I find that to be quite a leap in logic!
--
insanity /n./ (See "staying the course.") in the national interest /
idiomatic. phr./ 1. Conducive to the election of Republicans. 2.
Beneficial to Republican contributors.

English - Winglish Dictionary (updated)
http://users4.ev1.net/~taragem/winglish.htm

[Robert Marshall]

Post by b***@juno.com

Post by shegeek72
I think the question we should ask ourselves is: would Jesus
torture someone?

Jesus wouldn't, because he knows all things, and thus would know
just where the Nuke was already. He wouldn't need to torture, since
He would already know.
However, Jesus would not object to FBI agents torturing
Osama. Because FBI agents are not omnisicent.
It is immoral to NOT torture Osama, if you have a Nuke going off in
thirty minutes. To NOT torture him would be to indirectly cause the
death of several million people. This is much, much worse than
torturing a single person.

Artificial example - to have torture to work means you need some time
- more than 15 mins (say), otherwise:

apply torture
ObL says it's in building x on the nth floor
agents dash over there
it's actually in building y on the mth floor but now it is too late

You need to be able to conduct tests - on the person you're torturing
that they're telling the truth and in 30 minutes you don't have time
to do those iterations

Robert

[r***@yahoo.com]

In the duplicity debate, I have been told that we are guilty here in
America for standing by and not doing something about some of the evils
in the world.
Do nothing = complicity = guilt.
But in this case, we'd lose 13 million people in NY + the ripple
effect of negative consequences for the entire world, but it'd be
cool because at least we didn't stoop to torture, so we are morally
clean.

So is this duplicity?
Stand by while something bad happens is guilt.
Yet we should stand by while something bad happens so we won't be
guilty.

Now granted that in the first case: hunger or something, the answer
wouldn't be to torture people in order to save millions from
starving, whereas in the second case, it would involve torture in order
to save millions from being blown up. But where would we stand on such
a case?
Does standing by = guilt?

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by shegeek72
I think the question we should ask ourselves is: would Jesus torture
someone?

Do you think of a judge torturing a man because he sentenced him to
death for raping and killing a kidknapped child? It's called
"righteous
indignation." People get upset when the ref makes a bad call as
witnessed
in a replay. People get upset because they too have a sense of
justice. So your question is ignoble.

[gilgames]

<<
Uh, where have you read that in the Bible?
It is a philosophical statement, the consequence that God is eternal,
above the time.

[shegeek72]

Post by l***@hotmail.com
So your question is ignoble.

Thanks for the insult. [It amazes how quick some Christians are to
insult people.]

Tara