so personally as a christian I can't support torture, no one in their right mind can support that.... but it's still going to happen.. much like murder, rape, genocide, abuse and other crimes.. on people and humanity... rather I believe in it or not..
so when are the threads going to start asking the same question of the other great religious beliefs of the world?
I don't think is it too elementary if it will not be answered. It goes to the very heart of what proponents of torture are saying.
The thread is about morals, and that is a very relevant moral question that deserves to be answered before any other discussion can take place.
On that note, in case anybody missed it, here it is again:
If your neighbors are doing evil, does that make it right for you to do evil?
I see a the same pattern here over and over and over again. You worry too much about what others do and not about what your own do.
"what others do"
Extremely typical of right-wingers/Repugs: they cannot defend the disastrous record of the Repugs since Jan 2001, so they are continuously on the attack against the Dems/liberals/etc as being just as bad.
iow, "The Repugs are , but so are the others"
Primitive, transparent (if you open your eyes), useless, wonderfully self-condeming.
Ok RG..... The answer is no. You knew what the answer would be... why harp on it? If others don't embrace that concept as truth then that is their personal perogative but not one that is condoned by 'Christianity'. As joch mentioned earlier, Biblically speaking, we are called to love our enemies... as hard as that may be. And torture is a mechanism which strikes at the very core of that principle. Personally, if I was ordered by my government to torture someone else I would object and refrain. It isn't right, it isn't justified, it isn't how Jesus taught us to behave...
But let me address something else....
A common mistake around here is that people try to equate the Republican Party or GWB to 'Christianity'. They are not one and the same.
Frankly, I am tired of making that distinction clear and I wish people would stop doing it. Christianity is a not a political endeavor -- it is a spiritual one. Christianity is not a 'move' towards financial security -- it is based on the trust of GOD's provisions. Christianity is not a movement built on hate and intolerance - it encourages us to love everyone, to forgive everyone, to embrace everyone despite our flaws; GOD's Spirit afterall is what changes people -- not us... People should not take it in their own hands to try and change another - that is GOD's job. We are simply called to live with a Christ-like at ude, and to strive for personal accountability with our Creator.
Regardless of the 'flavor', as boutons so disdainfully describes, these should be the basic tenets that drive all Christiandom. But around here people are quick to pounce on extreme cases of 'Christian' misbehaviour -- and would quietly ignore every single positive newsline that would glorify GOD through the works of His Church. The blatant preponderance of this view is downright biased, flawed and hypocritical... but no, let's not let the fragile bubble around here be burst lest some of them actually 'see' the social good being provided by true followers of Christ.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-02-2006 at 10:12 AM.
They'll stop when Republicans stop I suppose.Frankly, I am tired of making that distinction clear and I wish people would stop doing it.
You missed the point. When was the Republican Party renamed to George W. Bush and the Disciples of Christ??.... I don't recall that ever happening.
I didn't miss your point at all. Republicans have made cloaking all their actions with a veneer of Christianity -- appropriately or not -- standard pracitce for the last 12 years and that practice only accelerated under Bush. I don't think most of his opponents here are bad mouthing Christianity itself, just the Republicans use of religion for political purposes and some examples of hypocrisy in doing so.
I understand where you're coming from my man, and I agree with you. Its a shame when people undertake less than stellar objectives under the guise of christianity because it just taints things.
I'd imagine you feel the same way a lot of moderate muslims feel.
Would that explain why I get branded as a Republican, bible thumping Bush supporter when I make a reference to Jesus? There is a disconnect.
Brushing the question aside, I know where you are coming from. Others however, like Nbadan, or boutons_, don't seem to draw the distinction.
No.
You have proven that line of thinking wrong in this thread, but I doubt it will stop the overgeneralizations.
I apologize for asking it repeatedly. I have yet to have an advocate of torture answer it though.
Fact is, we all know torture is evil, but for some reason otherwise rational people seem to think it is acceptable "because it saves lives", and because the people we are fighting are also evil.
We give up our most basic principles when we do such a thing.
Here is a thought experiment that leads to a new question.
If you were to hold a gun to the head of most Americans and give them an ultimatum:
"Your life will be spared if you agree to give up the Cons ution, and allow your country and everything it stands for to be torn down and cast aside as a failed experiment."
What would most Americans answer, knowing that to live they would have to become slaves or worse and that their sacrifice would save the ideals for which we say we stand?
Further, here is yet another logical inconsistancy brought on by current administration policies:
We will torture to save lives, because lives are important and we aren't willing to allow people to die, but we invaded Iraq to fight for freedom because we are willing to throw lives away. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 10-02-2006 at 10:44 AM. Reason: grammar, readability
Yes, I do and great post.
Because the Repugs have failed to attack the terrorism problem with other than military means (which is not ing working as both Iraq and Afghanistan are lost, or will very soon be lost), the Repugs have placed torture at the center of their anti-terror policies, as if it were the best and only tool, without which the Repugs cannot, will not?, defend America. That's the WH Repugs extortion of Congress: legalize torture or the Exec will not defend America (this was very much the tone of dubya's "speech" before the vote to gut the Geneva Conventions.
The ultimate Repug hypocrisies revolve around their so-called pro-life stacne. The hypocrisies reveal that the Repugs co-opt the social conservatives strictly for the conservative votes, not to implement their policies.
Repugs are anti-abortion, but have no problem with civilians murdered as collateral damage in the phony Iraq war.
Repugs are anti-abortion and "value the black vote" (not black people), but they stand by idly as (oil-less) Darfur sees genocie of 100s of 1000s blacks.
Repugs are anti-stem-cell research, but don't criminalize private stem-cell/embryo research, nor criminalize the disposal of 1000s of fertilized embryos at fertility clinics.
Well, of course you're surprised, you equate discomfort with barbarism.
I can't force my beliefs on someone else.. even if they say they are christian... everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe... unless that freedom has been taken away... when you say my own... my own is mosaic of different thoughts and interputations of biblical principles... some still believe in a eye for and eye.. and some are opposed to an eye for an eye... so how can anyone say that every christian thinks alike .. as if some monolithic block of thought... most are agreed on the facts about Christ .. but after that denominations differ even on political stances... so I don't know how you can say that I don't worry about what my own are doing.. I believe most of the adminstration comes from main line religious thought... I believe bush is a methodist... and thats not my flavor of christianity... sorry....I see a the same pattern here over and over and over again. You worry too much about what others do and not about what your own do.
No -- I hold my government to a higher standard, though. I also don't see the Cons ution as a trifle that just gets in the way sometimes.
If my nation is committed to respecting the rights of individuals, that respect shouldn't know some arbitrary geographic boundary. If the government of my nation is not committed to respecting the rights of individuals, regardless of the existing global cir stance, then I do consider its actions barbaric.
I think you should just lay your cards on the table here FWD. What you're saying is that the U. S. Government has an obligation to safeguard the rights of non-U. S. Citizens over the security of U. S. Citizens.
Do I have that right?
I'm with John McCain on this issue. I'll take his word for it.
Happily.
I'm not saying that one trumps the other. What I am saying is that using the proxy of national security strikes me as an insufficient basis for disregarding rights that the foundational do ents of this nation describe as fundamental and inalienable for all people, not just Americans. Fight the war on terror, but don't violate rights that we hold to be fundamental in that process. To do otherwise might win a war but it will erode the foundational basis for the civilization that the war was fought to save.
Rights do not exist at the whim of government. Government exists because the People allow it to. Government's ability to conduct itself is always -- and should always be -- subject to the rights of the People. Somehow, that notion has been turned on its head after September 11, 2001.
It strikes me as odd that anyone who describes himself as a patriot would honestly think that the most basic principles addressed by the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Cons ution and its amendments should be capable of such willy-nilly subversion. That idea would obviously be anathema to many of those who played such a key role in the establishment of this nation and in ensuring its prosperity -- Patrick Henry didn't ask for Security or liberty; he asked for liberty or death. Benjamin Franklin famously adopted the proverb that "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It's ironic to me that this Administration props itself up for having brought freedom and democracy to Iraq while at the same time seeking every means available to avoid those responsibilities in its own activities. Again, I see no principled basis for an argument that this nation respects individual rights, but does not respect the individual rights of those who are not its citizens. We're better than that.
well said....
"Government exists because the People allow it to"
aka, the people, persons are superior to ins utions.
.... but watch the SC of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia repeatedly favor the power of ins utions over the rights of individuals.
If the U.S. sets itself out to be the "world police" that goes out to spread democracy and topple tyrants (the motive Bush claims for Iraq), then yes, it does.
, or get off the pot.
While I appreciate your characterization -- wrong as it may be -- that doesn't translate into a legal obligation never before asserted.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
