An open letter to my Christian friends.

[screembloodymurder]

In the immortal words of W.B. Yeats,

"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

For promised security, we surrendered our liberties (Patriot Act), then our principles (Just War Doctrine), and now -- Congress would have our souls.

The proposed "Military Commissions Act of 2006” gives the President the freedom to define "special interrogation methods” in accordance with his individual “interpretation” of the Geneva Conventions. At the same time, the bill removes the right of individuals to use the Geneva Conventions to challenge (in a court of law) the government’s actions against them. Congress seems to have it backwards; ours is a government of laws, not men. Without legal recourse, how do we protect ourselves against injustice and how do we know what’s being done in our name?

If enacted, this bill will legalize whatever treatment of prisoners the President deems appropriate; and since other countries will follow our example, lead to the rejection of established international conventions for the protection of prisoners of war – including our own.

Again from Yeats,

"A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all around it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds."

Christians cannot roost atop the beast and feign indignation on judgement day. Speak out against this tortured legislation, lest your silence be mistaken for complicity.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warpy]

2. I talked to a Christian lady today

in line at the post office. Well, I wisecracked, then listened to a tirade, the gist of which any man who stiffed the poor while starting wars and killing people and cutting war veterans off the support most of them need is NO CHRISTIAN.

No way can I paint with a broad brush. I might have been able to 5 years ago, but not now.

[mike_c]

6. that is the heart of the issue that christians really need to deal with...

...IMO. They need to sort out among themselves who speaks for christians-- the ultra conservative American taliban, or the folks who interpret the christian bible to support tolerance, understanding, and charity. As long as "real christians" in your friend's parlance allow folks like the school board in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x237366 to speak for christians, the rest of us are going to have a hard time with their credibility. I do agree with you about the broad brush-- but christians need to address that, IMO, and deal with it themselves. Until they can agree, the rest of us are stuck with trying to characterize a very schizoid social movement.

[rman]

3. I don't see why this would be more of interest

to Christians than to non-Christians.


People cannot roost atop the beast and feign indignation whenever. Speak out against this tortured legislation, lest your silence be mistaken for complicity.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. True enough

[FormerDem06]

4. Well I'm a "devout Christian" and not ashamed and I'm against...

Torture for torture's sake. Now if there's a nukular bomb in the middle of New York City and a dude knows where it is, Cut his appendages off one by one until he talks. Use a hot poker on his privates, or any other means necessary to save millions of innocent lives.

But don't do that to some kid who you pluck off the battlefield just to find out who his commanders are. Just for funsies, or so Bush can avoid embarrassment for what's happened in the past in the Iraqi prisons or elsewhere? No freakin way.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. The "bomb about to go off" scenario happens on TV about once a month

But I can't think of any example in which it has occurred in real life.

Straw man argument.

[gratuitous]

10. And how would you determine that?

I mean, first that there's a nuclear bomb about to go off in the middle of NYC and that the guy you've got knows something about it? Did he stumble into the 15th Precinct and announce it all himself? You'd torture someone that delusional? Probably not, I hope.

Then you had someone under surveillance, and you knew he was a bad 'un. But what, you tapped and tailed him, but got some grit under your contact just when you could have seen where he put the bomb? Or a truck went by outside and you couldn't hear where he told his pals where the bomb was?

Or, in the most likely scenario, you strongly suspect this guy in custody is a bad 'un. Would you torture him based on your suspicion? He's kind of nervous and jittery, but considering the state of civil and criminal rights in our country right now, I'd be nervous and jittery in federal custody, too.

But what about those pesky "unknown unknowns" as Donald Rumsfeld characterized them? Dang, this guy may be as innocent as Maher Arar, but he might also be Osama's latest Number Three man. We just don't know that much about him. Maybe instead of hacking off appendages, we just start with a little leg stomping or some stress positioning. If he doesn't talk, he's probably okay, right?

Unless . . .

Boy, he could be one of the really wily ones, and he's had secret training to help him hold up under this kind of torture. Maybe a waterboarding session will loosen his tongue. Gotta be sure. How could you live with yourself if you had this guy in custody, and with just a little more torture you would have gotten him to spill the beans? Millions of potentially dead persons far outweigh whatever reality this poor schmuck is going to endure.

Nope. Torture is torture, and all war is still sin. Doesn't matter how you dress it up or what fantasy clothes you try to put on it. I suppose it's telling, though, that the three historic Peace Churches of Christendom, the Society of Friends, the Mennonites, and the Church of the Brethren are the smallest denominations.

[FormerDem06]

11. I guess the point is...

It would have to be some EXTREMELY and I mean EXTREMELY mitigating circumstance to even warrant it, nothing that would ever come up in the normal flow of today's society. There are countries in this world that would do it for funsies. I don't think the US should ever even hint at being one of those.

[gratuitous]

12. Ye-e-e-s, but . . .

As soon as you open a loophole, whether it's the ticking time bomb scenario or something else, suddenly everyone apprehended has to pass through that template first. The wholesale scooping up of folks and dropping them at Guantanamo Bay is an example of this. These guys have been sitting there for years without charge, access to a lawyer, and apparently with no expectation that they'll ever be let go. In some cases, I'm sure, some of these guys were apprehended who bore no ill will toward the United States, but I'd bet they harbor plenty now. Can we afford to let them go, even if they're innocent of any wrongdoing pre-capture? Whether they were terrorists or enemy combatants before is irrelevant; some of them are quite likely to take up arms against the United States should they be released.

In similar manner, as soon as the door to torture is opened, even a crack, we have to treat everyone who is apprehended as a candidate for torture. As I limned in my example above, what if this guy is one of those "unknown unknowns"? Sure, he seems innocent as all get out, but how can we know for sure? And what sort of answer could we return to the public if a nuclear bomb actually does go off in midtown Manhattan and this guy had information that could have helped crack the case? Can we afford to take the "chance" of not torturing him? And if he doesn't know anything, maybe we just haven't used forceful enough interrogation. Maybe.

Sure, torturing this guy is indiputably a bad deal for him. But weighed against the possibility, no matter how infinitesimal, of a nuclear device blowing up millions, his present discomfort seems a small price to pay (for him) so that we can be sure we're safe.

And thus does the option to torture turn into the obligation to torture.

[screembloodymurder]

13. My point was, under this law,

how will we know what atrocities are committed and why? I don't expect the President to tell us what tortures he has approved and we can't use the courts to force an explanation even when an injustice is done.

[kiki]

22. The US has been one of those countries...

...that tortures "for funsies" for several decades now. Just so ya know.

[Tigermoose]

5. Yeats was hardly a "normal" Christian.

He had this whole complex cyclical ages mythology worked out. He was a Rosicrucian, and he wrote extensively on and about his wife's "auto-writing" (where writing is performed via a spirit through the subconscious). It made for great poetry, but it was waaaay out there.

So I'm not sure how your quoting Yeats' poem that is based upon his Rosicrucian cyclical age mythology (or whatever the hell it was) is going to be relevant to Christian teleology.

[screembloodymurder]

16. I quoted Yeats because his words seemed to fit the legislation

and I don't know the Bible. I do believe that most of us have an innate knowledge, conscience or Spiritus Mundi that allows us to determine right from wrong. If Yeats tapped into the collective consciousness, then perhaps the poem is revelation. It certainly seems timeless.

[LynneSin]

8. As a Christian woman it offends me that you assume we all feel like that

You'll find that most Christians, the ones that actually read the bible and not a few selected verses, are truly offended by this torture bill. Perhaps you should redirect your message to the Fundamentalists out there that buy into this shit!

[screembloodymurder]

14. I think Christians Churches may have a special obligation

to do more than just disagree in private. Many Christian denominations, including my own, announced support for this President's war with Iraq. They did this despite the Just War Doctrine which clearly showed Bush's preemptive war was not justified. Now, I expect these Churches to voice their concerns about torture -- openly, and publically.

[FiveGoodMen]

15. Serious question -- not meaning to offend, but

why don't you leave a church that supported Bush's war? I ask because my Mom, her husband, and any number of other basically decent people that I know were against the war but didn't oppose the church when it was so clearly on the wrong side of this.

There must be better denominations than that.

[screembloodymurder]

18. I no longer attend.

They know why.

[FiveGoodMen]

20. Ah. Good for you. Wish my folks had done likewise.

[AZBlue]

17. This has nothing to do with Christianity.

This is wrong and people of many faiths and beliefs would agree.

[screembloodymurder]

19. I agree it is not strictly a Christian issue.

But then, we are predominantly a Christian nation and Bush might pay attention to the cries of his most ardent supporters.

[rman]

21. I think only few christians support Bush

After all, America is not a predominantly a nation of christian religious fundamentalists.