The headlines regarding a corrolation between church attendance and support for torture were eye-popping. Apparently the correlation isn't so strong for us mainline denomination types but I don't hold out much hope. It may be that we're not really supportive, but our quietist tendencies keep us from making too much of a fuss.
Coincidentally, I wrote the following for my congregational newsletter before the survey was published. I'm expecting some flack.
We Have SinnedTorture is wrong. Our government has consistently affirmed this. This idea lies behind the rejection of “cruel and unusual punishment” in our Bill of Rights. Where we lost our way was when we tried to draw a line as to “how far one can go” in the use of “aggressive” or “enhanced” interrogation methods. These terms themselves are cynical euphemisms. The rule should be quite simple. If it would even look like torture to the average person, if you would be ashamed to have a video of it put on national television, the line is crossed.
Some will undoubtedly disapprove of this column as political. It is not. Indeed, therein lies the problem. Those who advocated the use of these “brutal” methods, as the New York Times called them, looked only to the legal limitations, not the larger principles. Simply because something may be legal, and the legal justifications in this instance are far from certain, does not mean it is moral.
It is shocking that there has not been a greater sense of moral outrage. It is understandable, I suppose, on one level. These things were done to (most certainly) bad and evil men. In the mind of most, they deserve no pity, no mercy. And of course, humanly speaking, they do not. But righteousness is not measured only by how one treats one’s friends or how one benefits one’s own, but Jesus teaches us that it reaches to how we treat our neighbors, whether they be near or far, countrymen or strangers, friends or, yes, enemies.
The question of our morality or righteousness is one which is most effectively analyzed when we are tempted to lose control. It is when we are anxious or enraged that our moral character is supposed to kick in and overrule our baser thoughts and desires. It is supposed to stop us from “taking the gloves off” and applying the “whatever it takes” standard. A “whatever it takes” standard is a frightening notion in the hands of individuals, let alone in the hands of a government as powerful as our own. It suggests there is no overriding moral judgment or moral compass other than results—to guide us and that the real standard in place is that the ends justify the means. But such a strategy, if it can be called that, does not take into account the real and long term costs, not only the legal costs or political costs, but the costs to our very own souls.
Bishop Hanson, along with the leaders of many denominations in the US, signed on to a statement by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. It states the argument against torture with unambiguous moral clarity.
Torture is a Moral Issue
Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions, in their highest ideals, hold dear. It degrades everyone involved — policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation's most cherished values. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable.
Nothing less is at stake in the torture abuse crisis than the soul of our nation. What does it signify if torture is condemned in word but allowed in deed? Let America abolish torture now without exceptions.
The materials revealed in the last few weeks should remove all doubt as to the moral quicksand surrounding the defense of these tactics. The claims of efficiency and effectiveness in defense of these or other “harsh” methods are mocked by the disclosure that two men were water-boarded more than 250 times in one month. In the past, our government sought to assuage our pricked consciences by assuring us that these “special methods” were only used against two “detainess” and the impression was given that these events were limited. Well, yes and no. The water-boarding all took place in the span of a month. But, as we now know, at a high level of repetition. Exactly how this is calculated — whether by the number of times water was poured over the face of the individual or the number of sessions involved — it betokens a level of sadism and savagery, most of us would not have thought possible at the hands of the American government, which is to say, at our hands.
And there is the worst of it. In a democracy we cannot simply denounce government actions and turn our backs. If the government did it and those responsible for it are not held accountable or punished for it by the American people, then we have acquiesced to, approved of and abetted in this disgraceful episode. We must and should expect accountability in some form. The legal consequences, if any, for those who devised and authorized this policy the courts will have to sort out. But the judgment of the conscience of the nation should be harsh and severe. We have sinned.
