Torture and the Faithful Citizen

Though it sadly is not too surprising, given the stances of the current administration, President Bush said today that he vetoed a bill banning waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques such as the use of dogs, electrocuting, and burning. His rationale was that the legislation is a firm impediment to truth-seeking efforts in the war on terror and thus is an unjust cessation of proven techniques in fighting terrorists and preventing further attacks on American soil.

Leaving aside the ill-fated assumptions that tortuous interrogation actually yields truth, this veto is a horribly sad representation of American public morality. As a President who champions the spread of freedom throughout the world, this act reeks of oppression and unjust rule. To see its irrationality and injustice clearly, all we need to do is turn the question around: If the U.S. was not the world hegemon, would Americans not revolt if the government followed a world leader that condoned torturing in the name of freedom? Therefore, as Americans, should we stand for such behavior? Or what further, what is the most advantageous truth-seeking strategy, both morally and “practically” (as if a distinction should be made), in this war? To what extent should we, as a nation, moderate our means to reach the end of preventing terrorist activity on American soil?

I think there is a two-part answer to these questions.

First, we must look at the human effects of torture. Specifically, South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu highlights its most devastating impact in his work No Future Without Forgiveness. Here, he argues that on a fundamental level, for both the victim and torturer, torture wholly dehumanizing. These acts – especially those outlawed in the legislation Bush vetoed – are so atrocious to the victim that they essentially deny the fact that he or she is human. In fact, their aim is to undermine the victim’s human dignity, casting aside all the person stands for and even the justice of their existence. To see this with undeniable clarity, all on has to do is look at the reprehensible tortures of sexual nature this bill outlawed, or even the acts of sensory deprivation. These activities specifically target physical and cultural understandings of the dignity of each individual’s existence in an attempt to leave them with no reason not to confess the “truth”.

Also, in a move I found particularly wise, Tutu shows how the acts are purely dehumanizing to the torturer as well. To deny the humanity of another simply turns man into a barbaric animal.

With this said, then, the second part of my answer is found in Christ’s call to love one’s enemies in the Gospels. Fundamental to love, especially Caritas, is the recognition of the other’s existence as good, just, and dignified. And, from a theological perspective, it is an understanding that all, regardless of their actions, are loved by the Lord. Therefore, to love one’s enemies requires a full recognition and respect for their human dignity, for if God loves them, in what way could their life not have value?

Author Shane Claiborne shows the counter-cultural and revolutionary nature of this call in our present day and age. He shows that it means taking an understanding of radical love and applying to even the most grueling, dehumanizing enemies of our time. Put plainly, we are called to love terrorists, Saddam Hussein, and even Kim Jong-Ill, whatever that practically means. We are called to act in a way that affirms the other’s human dignity as children of the Lord who are not beyond redemption, and to therefore work to show them the saving love of Christ.

Therefore, if acts of torture deny the very humanity of our enemies, how then can we as faithful citizens not be outraged at our President’s actions? To deny one’s human dignity and rights undermines all of our own, for our humanity is caught up within theirs. To deny theirs is inevitably to deny our own.

We must evaluate, as a nation, the justice of the means to our end of a peaceful, harmonious, and truly free world community. How can the world be peaceful if people are treated as animals? We must not back down from this principle, for if we do, all our world’s hope for a peaceful future is thrown out the window.

Super-delegates or Super-elitists?

I was watching CNN the other day when an anchor posited “the Democrats do some of their best work behind closed doors” with Presidents JFK and FDR to show for it. This hearkened back to my senior year AP Gov. class…Mr. Wallace asked if our Founding Fathers were brave forbearers of a great representative democracy or elitists who never intended for the ignorant farmer to participate in government….

The intentions of our founding fathers are debatable, but the affect campaigns like “Rock the Vote” have isn’t….

The “elite” still reverberate in the minds of voters today. Besides a soon-to-be super-delegate decided Democratic primary, the ever-amusing “Obama” and “Jack” video clips suggest that the “elite” control not only the air waves and TV screens, but the vote too. Jessica Alba, Jack Nicholson, Ryan Phillippe appear to be the new John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison-shaping our future with their words, opinions, and suggestions. Is that really democracy?

So what about voting behind closed doors? Is the Democratic party taking one more grass-roots decision and turning it into an oligargical one? With successes like JFK and FDR under their belt, do we have reason to trust the “elite” super-delegates? And are aforementioned means of a pivotal decision what this country was intended to have...?

The Moral Instinct

For a couple of my classes this semester, an assignment I have received is to read an article called “The Moral Instinct” written by a psychology professor at Harvard University named Steven Pinker. He is an atheist who is trying to analyze the role and structure of morality in human beings.

The article’s main point is that the “moral impulse” is something innate in each human being. We all have something intrinsic which allows us to distinguish right from wrong. However, because of the cultural and societal norms in which we were born, there are different “spheres” or themes which make one moral act more important than another. The five different spheres include harm, fairness, community, authority, and purity. Pinker writes:

All this brings us to a theory of how the moral sense can be universal and variable at the same time. The five moral spheres are universal, a legacy of evolution. But how they are ranked in importance, and which is brought in to moralize which area of social life — sex, government, commerce, religion, diet and so on — depends on the culture. Many of the flabbergasting practices in faraway places become more intelligible when you recognize that the same moralizing impulse that Western elites channel toward violations of harm and fairness (our moral obsessions) is channeled elsewhere to violations in the other spheres. Think of the Japanese fear of nonconformity (community), the holy ablutions and dietary restrictions of Hindus and Orthodox Jews (purity), the outrage at insulting the Prophet among Muslims (authority). In the West, we believe that in business and government, fairness should trump community and try to root out nepotism and cronyism. In other parts of the world this is incomprehensible — what heartless creep would favor a perfect stranger over his own brother?

The article is not about politics per se. However, it does make a slight mention of it. Pinker states, “It’s not surprising that each side (liberal and conservative) thinks it is driven by lofty ethical values and that the other side is base and unprincipled.” It is just an interesting concept especially when trying to talk to someone who holds a different perspective. I think it is true that some people hold some issues to be more important to them than it might be to someone else. This idea can to some extent be seen in the election today. There are “hot topics” and “cold topics”. Last election, abortion was a big deal. This election poverty is a big deal.

Now, I just want to point out that I do not think that the actual moral act and that the content of morality is relative to culture and society! This article just definitely makes for interesting conversation! I would love to hear what you think!

Red Letter Christians

So I had to come home for the weekend a bit early in order to attend a graduate school interview and spend time with my grandmother who just flew in from England. While at home, I got into a rather in depth discussion with my father partly about politics, partly about religion, partly about the general state of the world- ya know, the usual lighthearted chat with Dad! Anyway, as we were talking about the political state of the country and actually this class quite a bit, he was reminded of a guy that he saw interviewed on The Colbert Report who has just written a book entitled, "Red Letter Christians: A Citizen's Guide to Faith and Politics." I was unfamiliar with this title, but the little bits that my father remembered got me intrigued...so I did some research.

It turns out this guy who was interviewed is named Tony Campolo and he is the man behind the movement entitled Red Letter Christians. His book, by the same title, which I believe just came out in February, outlines his new direction for the Evangelical Christian church. His philosophy on the Christian religion reminded me in some ways of Yoder's writings in that he bases his beliefs directly off of Bible passages which he feels display Jesus in a political light. Similar to Yoder, he looks in the Gospels for guidance on how a true Christian should conduct himself in the political realm. The name comes from reading the red letter sections of the Bible, those words in the New Testament that are spoken directly by Jesus, and seeing those sections as the most important for Christian guidance. The guiding principle for the Red Letter Christians, or at least the starting point for this movement, is the idea that God is neither republican nor democrat. The movement seeks to show why partisan politics is wrong, and how it does not lead to true Christianity informed political action. In an article by Tony Campolo he writes,

"The purpose of this gathering was not to create a religious left movement to challenge the religious right, but to jump-start a religious movement that will transcend partisan politics. Believing that Jesus is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, we want to unite Christians who are concerned about what is happening in America. We are evangelicals who are troubled by what is happening to poor people in America; who are disturbed over environmental policies that are contributing to global warming; who are dismayed over the increasing arrogance of power shown in our country’s militarism; who are outraged because government funding is being reduced for schools where students, often from impoverished and dysfunctional homes, are testing poorly; who are upset with the fact that of the 22 industrialized nations America is next to last in the proportion of its national budget (less than two-tenths of 1 percent) that is designated to help the poor of third-world countries; and who are broken-hearted over discrimination against women, people of color, and those who suffer because of their sexual orientation."

The Red Letter Christians look at all sorts of issues in the political realm, and particularly focus on ending poverty and injustices worldwide. While dissolving political lines, Campolo hopes to inform Christians on how to not only vote on these important issues but also how to be politically active. In another article I found four goals were enumerated for the Red Letter Christians:

"In Red Letter Christians, readers will discover:

• Why Jesus is neither a Republican nor a Democrat
• A Red Letter Christian's voting guide
• The problem of partisan politics
• The importance of being politically active"

The Red Letter Christians focus on dissolving two prejudices that follow them in today's world. Firstly, they hope to show that being an evangelical Christian does not mean that you must be republican. Secondly, that being an evangelical Christian does not mean simply talking about preventing gay marriages and the importance of overthrowing Court rulings on abortion. Campolo writes,

"Some leading evangelical spokespersons focus almost all their attention on preventing gay marriages and overturning past Court rulings on abortion. While these are biblically important issues, there are more than 2,000 verses of Scripture that call us to express love and justice for those who are poor and oppressed," Campolo states. Red Letter Christians, while recognizing the great importance of the "hot-button issues," embrace a broad range of social concerns, giving special attention to legislation that alleviates poverty and injustice and provides hope for the oppressed."

I found a lot of really interesting information about this movement just by googling it..which I recommend. This site includes a little segment from his book- Who are Red Letter Christians?
For a quick summary of the movement you can check it out on your friend and mine, wikipedia. I think it is really interesting, and maybe we could even read a segment from it for class. It is definitely a new look at how faith and politics are mixed and a real modernization of a highly criticized branch of Christianity.

I will include the clip of Tony Campolo on the Colbert Report so that you can watch his interview. I think it is really intriguing.

I think what he says in this video is really important for the current election and for anyone who is interested in how faith informs politics. Neither the Republican nor the Democratic party is right about all of the issues and neither of them support Christian values one hundred percent of the time. That is the basis of the Red Letter Christians and I think it is something that we all have a hard time understanding, and maybe we can all learn something from this movement about keeping an open mind, an open soul, and an open heart to what Jesus really said throughout the gospels and how it relates to our modern society.

The Not so Common Good

Reflecting on our topic of the common good from last week, I feel compelled to explore this topic more thoroughly. Defining what the common good means is an essential aspect in determining its role. For the sake of argument I am choosing to define common good as the sum total of those conditions of social living whereby men and women are enabled more fully and readily to achieve their well being. 

In defining the common good it is necessary to consider the needs of all people and the best manner to meet these needs. In his article, "The Common Good and Catholic Social Thought", John Coleman explores four objections to their being a common good for society. The first states that because knowledge is subjective and socially constructed, there is not way for anyone to really know the or an objective common good. The second objection simply states that society is too large for someone to know what is truly good for the entire entity. Staying with the theme of what is good for society, the the third objection argues that the presence of a common good will impose on someone else's vision of good. The final objection focuses on the many differences in society and states that because "wants and needs differ, they cannot be aggregated or ranked in any rational way"(8). I feel that each of these objections proposes a valid reaction against the creation of "the" or "a" common good. 

The common good needs to integrate itself within the current plurality of society and must speak of individuals in relation to their institutions. Social institutions (family, school, work) both constrain and empower. They shape the "behavior, imaginations, and purposes of individuals" which effectively shape the goals of the common good. Greater reflection on plurality and social institutions will reveal the potential for common good. However, in terms of plurality, how are we to reconcile such drastic differences in religion, ethnicity, political views so that we may come to understand a common good for all people, globally?

David Hollenbach wrote an article titled "The Common Good and Urban Poverty". This explores an interesting issue holding us back from establishing a common good. He states that because of plurality and drastic differences around the world, we have been taught to tolerate individuals for their unique characteristics. Concern for the common good has vanished from public discourse. Everyone tolerates the differences in the world and just remains complacent with the idea that those differences will forever leave us divided. People feel that tolerance will provide the necessary boundaries for everyone to live their lives to the fullest capacity. Yet tolerance is not strong enough to end homelessness and unemployment. We need to build a stronger vision of the common good which encompasses a sense of concern, rather than toleration, for one another. Is it possible to move past the stagnant views of toleration to a more loving view of the common good that calls into concern the sincere needs of each person?

The contribution of the faithful

While reading through a few articles on the internet I stubled across two that I thought were both interesting and related to each other in a certain way. The first is an article from commonweal and it talks about faith and politics in general over the years, it is quite interesting and brings up some really good points. The one question that I had after reading this article was what is it that we will contribute, as society, that will make this upcoming presidential election so much different than elections in the past?
I then went on to read another article that, I think, gave an answer (only on of many answers, I'm sure). This article was from TIME and it focused on the Democratic party and the involvement that faith, especially prayer, has played in this election so far. I thought it was really interesting to see that in the past the Democrats have not been overly expressive of their faith yet, they attracted a good majority of the Catholic vote in both our parents' and grandparents' generations. I wonder if this increase in faith in the Democratic party will attract even more of the faithful...

Gandhi speaks . . .

I know that religion is different from faith, particularly in the context of this class, but I thought this was interesting (and perhaps even a title for the blog!). Christianity is not the only politically engaged faith...

“Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.”
-Mahatma Gandhi

The musical subtext

I was struck by a couple of ads this weekend. One for Hillary Clinton, one for Barack Obama. In both of them, I think that there is a not-so-subtle play into messianic hope. Both of them count on some serious star power.

In the first, pay attention to the music and what it implies.



In the second, well ... just watch and listen.



I think we're supposed to mostly pay attention to the spoken messages of hope and inclusion. The main idea here is that WE are the ones we've been waiting for. But when was the last time you heard a single name sung/chanted that much. I'd bet it was either at a sporting event or a worship service. Doesn't this seem more than a little idolatrous?

Both, I think, are using certain categories of heavenly/messianic hope to express something more temporal. I'm not saying that we can't hope for some good from any or every candidate. But, especially for Christians, we need to be careful not to buy into messages that equate hope for the earthly city with hope for the heavenly city.