So Mrs. rimrocker and I DVRed "The Passion of the Christ" on Showtime Friday and finally got around to watching it last night after the kids collapsed from an Easter candy sugar high (man, it was a rough afternoon... the things you do for your kids!). I know I'm late to the discussion, as most of you have seen it already, but there is one point I'd like to make... it seems that (in the media and at the elected official level at least) the folks who were the most avid supporters of the movie when it came out tend to also be proponents or at least defenders of American torture. The two seem incongruous to me... I don't see how you can watch the movie and preach on about the suffering of Christ and then advocate torture, regardless of who is receiving the pain. On top of that, Jesus was literally an innocent, as, it seems, are many of those subjected to torture in our name. Just looking at the religious and moral issues, it doesn't make sense to me... lay that on top of what we fought against in WWII and the world that was created in the wake of that war and it is nonsensical that this great country is OK with the idea that the Geneva Conventions are quaint and torture is supported at the highest levels... even scarier is the fact that it has found lots of support in the citizenry.
i don't have a god in this fight, but please define "torture." few people that i know would defend actual torture. but much of what the left leaning parts of the MSM and blogosphere have jumped on does not qualify.
And what would you see as being defined as torture, by whatever you think of as the MSM and blogosphere, that you don't consider torture? Keep D&D Civil.
I'm not sure these topics are related. Many liberals also claim to be people of faith. Many conservatives that disagree with Bush's decisions (this is where I find myself) are people of faith. I would think you would have a hard time finding a majority of any demographic that supports torture except the most extreme on either side.
Upon further reflection, this is representative of what I'm talking about... since when do we have to define torture and define what torture is not? Talk about your slippery slopes and questions with no good answers...
(Following not aimed at you, I'm just using your answer to craft a point) If you support politicians who implement torture, you are for it. If you voted for a person and you had some idea they would pursue torture, you're for it. If you sit idly by after you learn about it, you're for it. To me, this is one of those critical moral issues where you have to be brutally honest with yourself and look at your actions and how they support or detract from our government torturing in our name. I grew up during the tail-end of the Civil Rights era... My great aunt was reviled in her little East Texas town because she hired black men and supported civil rights during the 1950's and early 1960's... There were also many who supported what she did, but were afraid or too lazy to challenge the status quo. We now suddenly find that the status quo on torture in this country is no longer revulsion, but acceptance or consideration. That it is often presented as a logical outcome of our efforts at preserving and spreading Democracy is abhorrent to me. That it is often espoused by folks who take advantage of good Christians for political gain makes me sick.
now that's good!!! george: "i can sense the slightest bit of human suffering." jerry: "are you sensing anything right now?"
And yet many conservatives who support Bush are people of faith and more importantly, most of those that work for Bush claim to be, but cynically take advantage of the folks who believe for political power and gain. I don't see how anyone claiming to have a shred of morality can support this administration... Torture Changing the EPA reports to say there's no air quality danger at Ground Zero Lying about Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch Katrina The list could go on, but even without touching on the political questions of economic decisions, Iraq, etc., the moral failings of this administration are tremendous... national or global in scope and intentional. That the President has a favorability rating in the mid-30's boggles my mind. This is the most anti-American and un-Christian administration in our history. By far. Their support should be zero.
I hope one side or the other comes up with a more centric candidate. This is the deomocrats chance to get the votes of disenchanted republicans but more John Kerry's and Al Gore's will not get the job done.
of course, i and any right thinking person deplores torture. as i've said, much of what transpired in abu ghraib wasn't torture, and your attempting to lump naked pyramiding and the like in with real torture simply devalues your arguement. but if real torture did occur at abu ghraib, that does not mean Bush or his supporters condoned it. did LBJ condone massacres, simply because my lai happened while he was president and directing the war in vietnam?
I never said anything about naked pyramids, but if you want to argue fraternity pranks when we have documentation of blood and death, that's your call. The difference between LBJ and the Bush Administration is that LBJ never had administration lawyers look at the legality of massacres, never had administration folks argue that international laws against massacres are quaint, never tried to define what is a "real" massacre and what is not, never had his Secretary of Defense comment in an off-handed way that diminishes the issue, never had a trail of memos and documents that showed the administration, at the highest levels, considered and permitted massacres. But then, you knew that already. I find it interesting you would use My Lai. It didn't come out until Nixon was in the WH, and he first played it off as an isolated incident. After the guilty verdict was announced, Nixon, bowing to pressure from the right who had confused the issue of Calley's guilt or innocence with non-support or support of the Vietnam War, removed Calley from behind bars and placed him under House Arrest. That action prompted a letter from the Prosecutor...
Can you please explain to me why you continue to ignore the aspects of Abu Ghraib that involved death, rape, cut throats, and pretend like it was all naked pyramyds? You have done this and been called on it repeatedly. Are these facts too gruesome for you to get your mind around? You are the only person is bringing naked pyramids into the argument. Bush and is administration is certainly behind the torture, the only question is to what degree. If Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, then our nation would have had no part in those tortures. Despite the fact that folks representing the U.S. have indeed tortured, Bush fought against the torture ban, until he finally signed it, but then made the provision that it isn't really binding. It isn't hard for you or Bush, to simply get behind the torture ban, and agree that torture is always wrong, and never justified. I am a Christian, and certainly think it is un-Christlike to torture. I also think it is un-Christlike to start pre-emptive wars, and lie to folks to get them to support it.
What if your mother was in the cute little naked pyramid? Sweet little bag on her head? Having her _______ electricuted? Not really torture right?
I have to disagree with this. There is no perfect politician. There is no politician whose views represent every single thing that every single voter strives for. You can support the politician, but not support all of his views. Generally, folks vote for those that best represent their views. For example, I am against abortion. I do not vote on one issue. If there was a presidential candidate that represented 99% of what I would like, but was for abortion, that would not prevent me from voting for him. That certainly does not classify me as pro-abortion. My job as a concerned citizen would be to do reasonable things within my power to try and change that candidates views on the subjects I feel strongly about.
And you can still endeavor to change the law and the attitude toward the law whether or not your candidate budges on the issue. Back to the topic: how many deaths are alleged to have occured through the torture inflicted by US forces?
FYI, for years the CIA has produced handbooks that have understood that psychological and sensory methods are far more devastating than physical abuse. Most developed nations also have these methods as part of their definition of torture. The US does not. PS - I hated, HATED, Gibson's Passion...and I love NT movies.
