Well I guess it was inevitable. The CIA admitted waterboarding three al Qaida suspects during 2002 and 2003. The new attorney general will not open a criminal investigation. VP Cheney thinks that it was a good thing then and would be happy to do it again if necessary. CIA Chief Hayden thinks that waterboarding is now likely illegal under laws passed by Congress.
This is all coming out now because the next President (John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or Barak Obama) will enforce the law and finally establish for all agencies that this country does not torture and that waterboarding is torture. So those who have used this technique want to make it perfectly clear that they did so only with the authorization of the President.
What has happened to us?
We used to be a nation of laws.
We are now a nation of lawyers.
We used to be a nation founded on principle.
We are now a nation of fear and self-righteousness.
We call ourselves a Christian nation, but there is no Christ in this policy.
It is tempting to try to justify torturing a person to save the lives of others, but that cuts to the very core of moral principle.
God gives us simple choices. Love Him and love all of those around us.
We are the ones who try to make these choices complicated.
We make them complicated because we fear that doing what we know is right will somehow leave us vulnerable. It’s at that point that we have stopped listening to God and have started listening to our fears. Unfortunately our fears can drive us to the ultimate absurdity, we kill to save lives. To my mind that is the ultimate act of cowardice.
Here’s how Jesus defined courage, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13. What that means to me is that the greatest demonstration of love and courage is willingness to confront your own fears and remain commited to your values.
My sincere hope is that the next election cycle delivers a leader who understands and can demonstrate this quality.
Mr. Beamsley:
You describe yourself as Progressive Christian. You espouse God’s love for all his children as you argue for individual choice to abort a being
that isn’t given a choice. To me your greater good routine is nothing more than a typical/socialist dishonest chant.
You say people are “called” to sacrifice for the greater good. Hogwash. People of your liberal ilk don’t “call” on people to sacrifice, you demand and confiscate for what “you” decide is the “greater good”. Your greater good is LBJs war on poverty from 40+ years ago. Spend trillions on
government poverty programs to no effect, other than destroy the family unit, and your answer is vote for Obama or Clinton in order to ramp
up government spending to help the poor. Didn’t work then and it won’t work now.
John,
I appreciate your position regarding abortion.
What I don’t share is your conclusion that it is both Bible based and the only logical position available.
What I also don’t understand is how the discussion regarding right to life is the appropriate response to any other political discussion. The discussion in this case was about torture and whether or not we can justify engaging in it.
This general finger pointing and name calling doesn’t really get us anywhere. Also dredging up your particular list of liberal sins isn’t particularly instructive either because there is just as long a list of conservative sins and blunders.
What I’m hoping to encourage is a constructive dialog where we can discuss issues on their merits and determine whether or not we have common ground.
As far as “common interest” and “greater good” you don’t have to look much further than constitution.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I look forward to an ongoing dialog where we can get past the labels and actually discuss the issues. I’ve posted on a lot of them, so pick one you like and let’s get started.
Jeff
Never meant to argue that right to life was an appropriate response to any and all political discussion. Could have picked anyone of your posts and
made the same point. Frankly, having read the your posts in your blog, I
absolutly believe you smoke large amounts of pot, consult the bible for
a few quotes, and then post strange and mystical meanderings.
John,
Curious why you feel that personal attacks on me are either appropriate or constructive dialog.
I get it. You don’t agree with what I write. You have every right to an opinion different from mine.
What I’m interested in is the thought behind your opinion. That’s why I spend time writting this blog. I am seeking out interesting conversations with those who don’t agree with me.
The goal of those conversations is understanding. I’m not trying to convince you (or anyone else) that you should change your mind. But, if we have that sort of conversation, I will respectfully challenge your reasoning just as I would expect you to challenge mine.
In my mind, this is how democracy should work.
So far, I’m sorry to say, your challenges have been weak. If the best that you can do is throw out tired conservative characterizations of liberals (smoke pot, don’t read the bible, aren’t really Chrisitans), this conversation isn’t going to go very far. That is the sort of lazy thinking that has poluted the airwaves with demonization (both sides) and worn thin the fabric of our democracy.
If your positions are the result of careful study, thought, and prayer; then we have something in common, because that is my process too. Bring that to the conversation and we’ll have something to talk about.
Jeff