Torture Redux

This fine editorial from Randall Balmer, a professor of religious history at Barnard College, Columbia University, captures my sentiments perfectly (it appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer this morning).

Where's religious right's outrage now?

Where is the "moral majority" when we need it?

In 1979, Jerry Falwell formed an organization called Moral Majority, part of a larger initiative to register politically conservative evangelicals who would bring their "Christian values" into the public arena. The mobilization of these voters, who became known as the religious right, contributed, perhaps decisively, to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Ever since, the leaders of the religious right have been unsparing in their pronouncements on everything from abortion and welfare reform to Mideast policy and homosexuality.

But on the defining moral issues of our day, the war in Iraq and the Bush administration's use of torture against those it has designated as "enemy combatants," these "voices of morality" are strangely silent.

The war in Iraq claims more than a hundred civilian casualties a day and consumes $250 million daily in taxpayers' money - funds that presumably could go toward rebuilding Iraq or New Orleans, hunger relief in Africa, or the revitalization of public education, especially in neighborhoods mired in poverty. And yet, although the Bush administration led us into war under pretext - the supposed al-Qaeda connection and weapons of mass destruction - leaders of the religious right have yet to question the morality of the war in Iraq.

Christian theologians through the centuries have developed criteria for determining whether or not armed conflict is justified. For instance, is it a defensive war? Have all alternatives been exhausted? Is the use of military force roughly proportional to the provocation? Does military intervention stand a reasonable chance of success? Have measures been taken to protect civilians? I've yet to be convinced that the invasion of Iraq meets any of these criteria.

Similarly, the religious right has been silent on the matter of torture, conducted either by American personnel in Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay or by proxy in places like Egypt and Syria under a cynical policy known as "extraordinary rendition."

Several months ago, I canvassed eight prominent religious right organizations, including the Moral Majority Coalition, Falwell's group, for their views on torture. My query was straightforward: Please send me, I asked, a copy of your organization's position on the use of torture. These are groups that have detailed position papers on everything, including stem-cell research and same-sex unions, yet only two answered my query. Both of them defended the Bush administration's policies on torture. No organization associated with the religious right has yet, to my knowledge, summoned the will to issue a statement of unequivocal opposition to the use of torture.

These are people who claim to be "pro-life" and who profess to hear a "fetal scream." Yet they turn a deaf ear to the very real screams of fully formed human beings who are tortured in our name.

The religious right's indifference toward the ethical issues surrounding war and torture is hardly befitting those who designate themselves the moral arbiters of our society. If my fellow evangelicals aspire to be the conscience of America, they had better liberate themselves from their captivity to the Republican Party and to the morally bankrupt policies of the Bush administration.

(By the way, here is a link to Professor Balmer's book...class move by Brian Tierney and the Repug-friendly ownership of the Inky not to give it a plug.)

After I read Professor Balmer's column, I decided to check and find out the opinion of the major western religions on Dubya's torture bill.

The Holy See and Catholic Online had nothing to say (just a blanket condemnation of turmoil and conflict throughout the world), and neither did the national Presbyterian or Lutheran sites. A liberal Jewish organization posted a message on its site urging people to protest, but somehow I don't think that speaks for any national Jewish organization (I'd love to be wrong on that, though).

So we are all torturers.

How nice.

And legal semantics aside, the type of activity portrayed in this video is now OK (with the blessing of Great White Father And Protector Dubya, of course...the video lasts for 13:08 and it is highly graphic).


And by the way, with all of the furor going on over Dubya's torture bill, it's possible to overlook the fact that the bill to conduct wiretaps on U.S. citizens was passed, along with something called the Iran Freedom Support Act (suffice to say that if someone like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen supports it, it's trouble).

In the article about Dubya's wiretaps, Ted Kennedy said, "In 40 days, we can put an end to this nonsense."

We should remind ourselves of that every day until November 7th.

Oh, and lest I forget, I should point this out (again from today's Inquirer...Specter is a "maverick" like McCain is a "straight talker"):

Specter's Challenge Is Rejected

True to his reputation as a Republican maverick, Sen. Arlen Specter was out front yesterday defending the right of terror suspects to file court challenges to their detentions.

Only three Republicans sided with Specter as the Senate defeated his proposed amendment, which would have allowed terror suspects to file habeas corpus petitions in court. Specter, a former Philadelphia prosecutor, says the ability to file such pleas is a fundamental legal right and is necessary to uncover abuse.

Others in the GOP caucus said giving terror suspects the right to unlimited appeals would weigh down the federal court system.

"This is a constitutional requirement," Specter said, "and it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court."

As the Inquirer noted, even though he was rebuffed, Specter voted in favor of the overall bill anyway.

Update 10/01: Speaking of the Inquirer, Tony Auth nailed it on 9/28.