Democratic Etiquette and the Religious Right

It would be a grievous mistake in a pluralistic society to exclude anyone from engaging in public discourse, and I happen to believe that the arena of public discourse would be impoverished without voices of faith. Despite their manifold excesses and distortions in recent years, the leaders of the Religious Right have every right to make their views heard.

Such advocacy, however, carries with it certain perils. Whenever the faith is identified too closely with a particular political movement, a political party or even (as in recent years) with a specific administration, the faith loses its prophetic edge. Let me offer an example. Earlier this year, in the course of writing Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America, I contacted eight Religious Right organizations with a simple, straightforward question. Please send me, I asked, a copy of your organization’s position on the use of torture. Let’s remember that these groups have detailed position papers on everything from same-sex unions to stem-cell research. And I guess that in posing the question I really didn’t expect the Religious Right to climb out of the Republican Party’s cozy bed. But I did think they might stick out a foot and maybe wiggle a toe or two.

Sadly, tragically, I was mistaken. I heard from only two of those organizations. Both of them defended the Bush administration’s policies on torture.

These are groups that claim to be “pro-life,” people who purport to hear a “fetal scream.” But they turn a deaf ear to the real screams of fully formed human beings who are being tortured in our name. And even to this day, to the best of my knowledge, no person or organization identified with the Religious Right has issued an unequivocal denunciation of the use of torture.

This illustrates, I think, the dangers of lusting after power and political influence, especially for people of faith, because in so doing you surrender the capacity for critical engagement and prophetic dissent. In fact, my reading of American religious history suggests that religion always functions best from the margins of society and not in the councils of power.

The other cautionary lesson of the Religious Right has to do with its conduct, specifically its desire to commandeer the conversation and its refusal to acknowledge other voices of faith. As a citizen of a free society, taking full advantage of the First Amendment, I have every right to express myself and my views. I can argue, wheedle and cajole, but I have no right to coerce or to drown out other voices. My ability to advocate certain positions presupposes my willingness to allow other people of differing views the opportunity to speak as well.

That’s the fundamental etiquette of democracy, especially in a pluralistic society. And it is a courtesy too often ignored by people of faith.

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.

000 1 amv best clip dance erotic fmp gregorian him klip love music pixar rock sex simpsons tokio hotel авто анимация аниме без тебя бог боль видео видеоклип видеоклипы война выступление гадание галустян группы девушки дети дискотека 80-х друзья единоборства животные здоровье зло искусство история квн кино клип клипы концерт кошки лесби лето любовь максим музыка мульт мультик мультфильм мультфильмы наруто небо нло олимпийский оригами отдых пародия песни песня попугай прикол приколы природа путин разное реклама рок ролик семья смех собаки спорт стас михайлов стриптиз супер танец танцы тату творчество успех фильм ххх чечня шансон эротика я яой
Adriana Lima
Alec Baldwin
Alessandra Ambrosio
Alicia Silverstone
Alyssa Milano
Anna Faris
Anna Kournikova
Anna Nicole Smith
Ashlee Simpson
Ashley Tisdale
Ashton Kutcher
Aubrey O'Day
Audrina Patridge
Autumn Reeser
Beyonce
Brangelina
Britney Spears
Brooke Hogan
Caitlin Upton
Cameron Diaz
Carmen Electra
Cate Blanchett
Charlize Theron
Christina Aguilera
Christina Milian
Coco
Danielle Lloyd
David and Victoria Beckham
Denise Richards
Dita Von Teese
Drew Barrymore
Eddie Murphy
Elisha Cuthbert
Elizabeth Hurley
Elle McPherson
Eminem
Eva Longoria
Eva Mendes
Fergie
Gemma Atkinson
George Clooney
Gisele Bundchen
Gwen Stefani
Halle Berry
Harry Potter
Hayden Panettiere
Haylie Duff
Heather Mills
Heidi Klum
Heidi Montag
Hilary Duff
Howard Stern
Ian Ziering
Jackie Chan
Jake Gyllenhaal
Jamie Lynn Spears
Jamie Pressly
Janet Jackson
Jenna Jameson
Jennifer Aniston
Jennifer Garner
Jennifer Hudson
Jennifer Lopez
Jennifer Love Hewitt
Jessica Alba
Jessica Biel
Jessica Simpson
Joanna Krupa
Justin Timberlake
Kate Beckinsale
Kate Hudson
Katherine Heigl
Katie Jordan Price
Keanu Reeves
Kim Kardashian
Kirsten Dunst
Kristen Bell
Kristin Cavallari
Lance Bass
Lauren Conrad
Lindsay Lohan
Lucy Pinder
Madonna
Mandy Moore
Mariah Carey
Marisa Miller
Megan Fox
Melanie Brown
Mena Suvari
Michael Jackson
Michelle Rodriguez
Mila Kunis
Miley Cyrus
Molly Sims
Naomi Watts
Natalie Portman
Nelly Furtado
Nick Lachey
Nicky Hilton
Nicole Kidman
Nicole Richie
Nicollette Sheridan
OJ Simpson
Owen Wilson
Pamela Anderson
Paris Hilton
Petra Nemcova
Pink
Ray Liotta
Reese Witherspoon
Rihanna
Rosario Dawson
Rose McGowan
Rosie O'Donnell
Ryan Reynolds
Salma Hayek
Sarah Jessica Parker
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Scarlett Johansson
Sean "Diddy" Combs
Shanna Moakler
Sylvester Stallone
Tara Conner
Tara Reid
Tila Tequila
TomKat
Uma Thurman
Usher
Vanessa Hudgens
Vanessa Minnillo
Victoria Beckham
Vida Guerra
Will Ferrell
Will Smith
Zac Efron
Alaina Alexander
Amy Davis
Antonella Barba
Blake Lewis
Carrie Underwood
Chris Sligh
Clay Aiken
David Archuleta
David Hernandez
Haley Scarnato
Jessica Sierra
Jordin Sparks
Katherine McPhee
Kelly Clarkson
Sanjaya Malakar
Season 7
Shyamali Malakar
Taylor Hicks
Анальный секс
Боди-массаж
Госпожа
Групповой секс
Доминация
Золотой дождь
Игрушки
Классический секс
Кунилингус
Легкая доминация
Лесбийский секс
Лесбис шоу
Массаж Аква
Массаж классический
Массаж урологический
Массаж эротический
Оральный секс
Пип-шоу
Рабыня
Ролевые игры
Секс мужчинам
Семейным парам
Страпон
Стриптиз
Фетиш
Экстрим
Эскорт

Posted by: beatles | July 2, 2008 8:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: beatles | July 2, 2008 8:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: beatles | July 2, 2008 8:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

my girl crazy, man!

Posted by: crack | May 26, 2008 6:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

my girl crazy, man!

Posted by: crack | May 26, 2008 6:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

my girl crazy, man!

Posted by: crack | May 26, 2008 6:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

давайте займемся этим!

Posted by: секс | May 16, 2008 5:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

давайте займемся этим!

Posted by: секс | May 16, 2008 5:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

давайте займемся этим!

Posted by: секс | May 16, 2008 5:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I not understend what U want

Posted by: Вечерний макияж глаз фото | May 15, 2008 4:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I not understend what U want

Posted by: Вечерний макияж глаз фото | May 15, 2008 4:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I not understend what U want

Posted by: Вечерний макияж глаз фото | May 15, 2008 4:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

U need antivirus?

Posted by: antivirkaspersky7 | April 25, 2008 8:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

U need antivirus?

Posted by: antivirkaspersky7 | April 25, 2008 8:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

U need antivirus?

Posted by: antivirkaspersky7 | April 25, 2008 8:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Calvinism is about predestination. In considering the lilies of the field the implication is that all living things have soul. Plato discussed how things spring from their opposites. We know there is good and evil and that the soul is the essence of life. Therefore all souls are not created equal but that some are good others evil. To he with an evil soul how great is that darkness. And, there is a great chasm between between the two that is unbridgable.

Posted by: Larry Bierma | March 17, 2008 11:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

Posted by: Verse Infinitum | August 4, 2007 10:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

All,
Thank you for your thoughts, various and challenging.
I think, given the post by Mr. Perkins, that there is in his position (one which I respect and often find very attractive) a problem in that it fails to define itself as a religious position when in fact it should. I say it should because in the public forum in this country the defense of the pluralism I take Mr. Balmer and Mr. Perkins both to be espousing at least to some degree, would require all individuals to place the virtue of tolerance above all other virtues. Tolerance of persons is I agree a great virtue; however, tolerance of ideas is a very great vice. Plurality to me seems to advocate the latter and require that I put aside my religious ideas whenever I step into the political sphere; if and when those ideas conflict with an absolute tolerance of ideas. Isn't the plurality position just a particular position about religions and ideas rather than a extra-religious set of guidelines for discussion? What if that position is in direct opposition to certain precepts of one's religious position?
In this vein, idealogical pluralism, secularism, atheism, Christianity, etc. all are positions about both ideas and God that ought to be considered and ultimately accepted or denied. As the process of these considerations goes forward, mustn't we as a society tend toward consistency with one or another of them? We surely cannot tend toward all of them. So, if all such '-isms' are positions about the universe, doesn't it become a question of which we will tend toward? Further, doesn't any position, even ambivalence, require a certain extremity of action insofar as it requires one to act in accord with some principle. I think I must choose to effect change in my government to make it reflect the principles that I accept by reason and by faith in Christ's revelation in the Roman Catholic Church of which I am a professed member.
I will look forward to comment upon the question.
Thanks

Posted by: Ken | February 16, 2007 3:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Many of these posts give me hope. Prof. Balmer is doing very important work and I hope you are all interested enough to read his books.

I am an atheist who is admittedly hostile to most believers of any sort, but I am coming to see this as counterproductive. I have read and agree with most of what Prof. Richard Dawkins has written and said, but his hostility and absolutism in the name of secularism makes me uneasy. I also don't think that denouncing religion entirely is a particularly useful, realistic, or democratic tactic. I value freedom, tolerance, dialogue, and understanding above all else. It is the only path towards a world community.

The case made by Prof. Balmer is instructive and perhaps of more use. I have a deep respect for many people who are religious, such as Jimmy Carter, Bill Moyers, my grandfather (Roman Catholic), and my many Muslim friends. My hostility, I think, is better directed at what we may call "religious extremism". My basic tenant has always been, "Believe what you like, just leave me alone." I think maybe there is common ground in this. We should be careful not to attempt to legislate limits on each others freedom of action beyond those things that can be commonly agreed upon, such as murder.

I think that anyone who believes in any god of any type is foolish and self-indulgently delusional, but then again, I am often guilty of these charges myself, though not in reference to God. I'm sure those of you who believe in God think the same of me. You're a fool and I'm a sinner, fine, now can you pass the bread? Do you want to fly a kite? Let's smile and laugh and enjoy life, enjoy our differences rather than kill each other over them. What's the point in that? Who wins in suffering?

As Prof. Balmer points out, we can differ in our beliefs and opinions about these things, as long as we retain respect for each other. We must tolerate each other and put the values of pluralism and communal understanding above our difference of belief and opinion. It is not religion, as Prof. Dawkins says, that is tearing our world apart. It is intolerance. Despite my atheism, I love all of you, Evangelists, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, as my brothers, my fellow human beings.

This is sometimes hard, because of the extreme fringes of your groups. Extremist Muslims think it's okay to kill and destory those who do not believe as they do, and come to think of it, so do extremist Christians and Jews. But I know for a fact that these extremists are a minority. There are millions of you out there who have more in common with this atheist on the level of morality than you do with the extremists.

We have to work together. It's the only way to save anything good abour our world. I will do what I can to preach tolerance and understanding amongst my fellow secular atheists, and I would like you all to do the same within your religious communities. I have a vision of a pluralistic, multi-religious (or non-religious, if that's what pleases you) world in which no one sufferes, starves, or is murdered. Please, let us all agree on this at least. This is our common ground, and we must define it, debate it, and stand firmly upon it.

Posted by: Lucas Perkins | November 26, 2006 1:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hello Mr. Balmer and audience =)

Ok so I've read a few comments. As for Jerry F. -...try not to react too strongly to his posts and let it distract you from responding to OTHER comments.

When I was reading Balmers post and a couple others about the religious right in politics I was remembering something I read. It's in the Bible, but I'm not preaching just thinking. In the Gospels of the New Testament of the Christian Faith there's a book/chapter called Luke. Jesus (God's son while he's on earth, and God exalted in heaven), in this rendition of his life, seems more burdened down by the religious people in political power than the moral depravity of the lowest of the low. Not only do they not get what he's teaching, but their power has made them corrupt their faith because its so closely connected. And now when he's come to give people new beginnings, they can't even see that all their powerful religion did not save them from becoming dastardly, because their hearts still gave in to exchange the purity of their devotion to God for gain from the world in the form of influence and money. So they can't see their own lack of righteousness because theyre very religious workings are held up in their society so high, and they are so wrapped up in its politics. So when Jesus came to actually complete true devotion to Him by giving them a way to do it, they couldnt see. And they threw Jesus out and killed Him because they could.

So the point of all that is that if you are an "Evangelical Christian", I think you need to look at where you're confidence in the policies you're proporting in the political arena lies.

This wasnt meant to go on so. I just thought it would be a thoughtful counterbalance to "Evil religion" vs. actual faith.
SJ

Posted by: Sara | November 20, 2006 10:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Real -
What clarity of insight.
What a stunning revelation.
Your mother must be very proud of you.

Regarding Christian religion right or left, having a say in the political system, didn't Jesus say his kingdom was no part of this world?

Didn't he tell his followers that they were no part of the world (John 15:19)

Using that as a measure, any Christian religion involved in politics is not following what Jesus taught, hence not christian by definition.

So, my view is any religious leader espousing a political view is a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Also, take a look at Matthew 4:8-10. I find it interesting that Jesus didn't dispute who was running the governments that were offered to him by Satan. It agrees with 1 John 5:19 spot on.

Interesting quote:
Under the topic “Church and State,” The Encyclopedia of Religion declares: “In the first three centuries AD the Christian church was largely isolated from official Roman society . . . Nevertheless, Christian leaders . . . taught obedience to Roman law and loyalty to the emperor, within the limits set by the Christian faith.”

Turns out it wasn't until the third century that individuals claiming to be Christians got involved in politics. Why should I think they are the right example given what the bible teaches?

Posted by: Thinking Out Loud | November 19, 2006 12:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Terrorists hate Western society because we are "infidels."

The religious wrong are the republican party.

Posted by: Real | November 18, 2006 7:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Whoa, Kelly, take a deep breath. Breathe. Good. One more time. Good. Now let's talk calmly.

>What CAUSES radical Islam? It's NOT in the Koran. WHY do SO many people (who are NOT Radical Muslims) HATE the U.S.? Open your eyes. Seriously.

Hysteria does not help your cause. It makes you look too immature and emotional to look at things rationally. If your ideas are clear and correct, they don't need contempt and condescension as a crutch.

>Pretty much all experts on the Middle East agree that our foreign policy has played a HUGE role in terrorism.

This is simply not true. As with any other important issue, there is a wide variety of opinion on the matter. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they don't "READ." The fact that you are totally unaware that there exists intelligent opinion that disagrees with you shows that you, in fact, are the one who has not read widely enough.

Besides, the tactic of asserting the unanimity of unnamed authorities just doesn't cut it. Quote people, be specific, or else use your own arguments.

>I'm sure someone who clearly knows so much about the subject, would be aware that we funded radical Muslims during the Cold War... right? You did know that right?

Yeah, because the Soviet Union posed a much bigger threat to the world at the time than radical Islam did. Just like we teamed up with the Soviet Union to fight Hitler. Look, when you're fighting evil, it's a messy job, and you inevitably get your hands dirty. You just do the best you can with the distasteful options before you. And opting out of confronting evil is no option. To paraphrase the old saying, all it takes for evil countries to triumph is for good countries to do nothing.

>And you do know that no matter where you go in the Muslim world, ALL's they wanna talk about is Palestine???

Funny you should mention that, because in Palestine we have what Sam Harris calls in his book The End of Faith "practically a scientific experiment" in what causes suicide terrorism. If terrorism is caused by politics, US foreign policy, poverty, etc, why is it you never hear about Christian Palestinian suicide bombers? They look the same as the Muslim Palestinians, have the same history, speak the same language, and are treated the same by the Israelis. But without belief in jihad, martyrdom, and a secure spot in heaven, becoming a suicide bomber loses all its attraction.

This post is already long enough, but you get the picture. Foaming at the mouth does not gain respect for your opinions; it tarnishes them. And if you're willing to "READ" differing opinion, you'll learn more and be in better touch with reality than if you scream at people with whom you disagree.

Posted by: abominable snowbeast | November 18, 2006 6:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Snowbeast:

What CAUSES radical Islam? It's NOT in the Koran. WHY do SO many people (who are NOT Radical Muslims) HATE the U.S.? Open your eyes. Seriously. Pretty much all experts on the Middle East agree that our foreign policy has played a HUGE role in terrorism. I'm sure someone who clearly knows so much about the subject, would be aware that we funded radical Muslims during the Cold War... right? You did know that right? And you do know that no matter where you go in the Muslim world, ALL's they wanna talk about is Palestine??? And guess who gives money to Israel to help bomb Palestine? Yea, that'd be us.

Something drives people to believing that dying is all they have left. Something leads people to be manipulated and used by those who feed them the rhetoric that killing for Allah will get them into heaven. What IS that? What is the unifying force? A hatred for freedom? That's not even a rational argument.

I repeat: READ. Don't just repeat back what you hear every now and then on TV or from your pastor or friends. READ. The news. READ stuff written by experts on the Middle East, not just Americans who've never been anywhere BUT America or other parts of the the West.

Posted by: Kelly | November 18, 2006 1:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment

This blog is perhaps the best evidence that perhaps there is no middle ground.

I am a Christian who supports stem cell research and a woman's right to birth control (but not necessarily abortion). Yet every day I hear why I shouldn't pray where other people might hear me. I hear why the 10-commandments are biased or wrong. I am lumped in with others like Faldwell or Robertson with whom I often disagree with and certainly wouldn't want to see President. And almost always these comments come from liberals who are as equally intollerent as the far religious right.

When it comes time to vote, what should I do? vote with liberal Democrates whom I agree with on some issues but whom treat the inclusion of God in my life with utter contempt.

Or do I vote with Republicans, who while sometimes extreme in their belief, to not slander the God I love nor treat his Church with verbal malace?

It is not the individual issues that push me into the Republican camp every two years. It is the belief that their is no room at the Democratic Party's table for someone who likes to pray, and certainly no room for God.

I will not stand with those who stand against God. Too bad there's not an alternative to the Republican excesses and the athiest Democrats. How's that for meaningful diologue?

Posted by: sok7 | November 17, 2006 8:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Message for R. Moore:
You suggest that it is interesting that no one in this forum has said "anything bad about Jesus".

Over 50 years ago in his book entitled' "Why I am not a Christian" Bertrand Russell suggested that Jesus' moral outlook was defective "because he believed in the existence of Hell". So let me rectify the shortcomings of this forum by saying: I agree with Bertrand Russell.

The notion of a Hell with eternal torture/torment (yes torture fellow readers!) is a truly bizarre and indefensible notion. Maybe torture of some kind is defensible under some circumstances but it sure isn't defensible as a form of interminable punishment for supposedly wrong belief -- whether it is Jesus or anyone else who advocates such a ghastly concept.

Posted by: Ted Swart | November 17, 2006 6:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jerry F-

I LOVE you too.

Posted by: Yesh'ua | November 17, 2006 3:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Regarding the UPS driver referenced above, he was not blaring "Christian music" from his radio, but Christian hate radio, talk radio, with a rabid, hissing host demonizing liberals like me. I believe I have a right to live peacefully on my own property without the evangelical UPS driver blaring hate talk demonizing me over his radio speakers. If he insists on blaring demonizing talk from his speakers, he can leave my packages at the gate and not enter my property. I would urge anyone else confronted by a hate-monger on your property to alert their employer and make a complaint. Enough is enough.

Posted by: Trudy | November 16, 2006 6:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

>Terrorists don't hate our freedom. Terrorists hate our foreign policy.

No, terrorists hate infidels; foreign policy is just the excuse. Radical Muslims have an incentive to pick fights with other religions because, according to Islam, if you die "defending the faith" you get a free pass into heaven. That's a much surer thing than trying to be perfect your whole life and still not being sure if you'll make the cut.

Posted by: abominable snowbeast | November 16, 2006 4:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Forget what I said to Diana, that was meant for someone else. Terrorists DO hate us for our foreign policy. You people need to learn a thing or two about the M.E. before you start mouthing off about it.

Diana, your ability to keep your legs shut when you want, has NOTHING to do with foreign policy. Take a class on politics.

MAYBE... terrorists hate us for our $3 billion dollars a year that are given no matter what to Israel in military aid- money that was used to pay for the shelling that took place last week killing 18 women and children... which we then proceeded to be the ONLY country out of 15 to disapprove of a UN resolution to condemn Israel for the killing of innocent women and children. We not only didn't support it, we vetoed it- while 10 other countries supported it. Or how about our insistance upon democracy... but we then take it back when governments we don't like are elected.

READ PEOPLE.

Posted by: Kelly | November 16, 2006 2:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

DIANA:

THANK YOU.

Posted by: Kelly | November 16, 2006 2:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jerry F:

If you love the "LORD!" you BETTER learn to love your enemies. Or did you totally miss that part of the Bible? OR... did you read it, and just figure "hey, I know what God REALLY meant... I don't need to do that."

Radlical Islam, from which terrorism currently stems from, is not formed from a hatred of freedom. People from that part of the world DO NOT hate us because of our freedom. Try reading about Islam for change. Try informing yourself about people over there. Try LOVE. And UNDERSTANDING. Try being like the Jesus you say you love, and not so much like the phariseese who killed Him. Remember Paul??? He killed Christians... and he also wrote most of the New Testiment. Try ACTING on your love for the "LORD!" and not just preaching it.

Posted by: Kelly | November 16, 2006 2:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It sounds to me like Jerry is a good, God-fearing Christian. In fact, if he changed the name of his religion, he would be a great Saudi Arabian Wahabist.

Posted by: Tim | November 15, 2006 11:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If religious voices stuck to issues that related to real issues of faith, such as poverty, corruption, stewardship of planetary resources, and the common humanity of all and stopped shoving their unwanted nose in the bedroom they'd be far more welcome in the discourse of the public arena. Right now, too many voices of faith are merely shills for Republican demigoguery to be worth the vowels and consonants they torture with every breath.

Posted by: Ethan | November 15, 2006 9:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Terrorists don't hate our freedom. Terrorists hate our foreign policy."

That dependa on which terrorists, right? Someone who both dislikes his country's weak economy and likes raping his terrified teen bride while he's at it might both hate us for America's foreign policy and hate us for our freedom to keep our legs shut when we want to.

"If the British were indeed invaded by the Germans, THEY'D BE DOOMED ANYWAY and thus had nothing to lose by gassing the Germans."

Wasn't Frank talking about gassing cities, not about invading them? Britain and Germany were dropping bombs on each other's cities, and presumably able to drop gas on each other's cities, in WWII long before the Allies occupied Germany.

Posted by: Diana | November 15, 2006 9:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Randall Balmer suggests that "public discussion would be impoverished without voices of faith". He then goes on to accuse the "Religious Right", as he call it, of "manifold excesses and distortions". Heaven alone knows what sins of comission or omission can be laid at the door of the relgious left.

He speaks of the "dangers of lusting after power and political influence -- especially for people of faith". Nevertheles, in some strange way, he seems to think that having faith, of one kind or another, is an asset. The message does not seem to have got through to him that having a baseless faith, of any kind, is inherently dangerous.
The main religious faiths are all mutually incompatible and it is far more likely that they are all phony than any other possible explanation.

Methinks that all our discourse would be greatly improved without the dead weight of faith based dogmas which have no basis in reality.

Posted by: Ted Swart | November 15, 2006 8:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Faith... faith. Faith in what? The meaning of life according to the Bible? Hold whatever beliefs you want, but make policy decisions on reason and the public welfare. I understand that everyone is influenced by his or her particular belief system. Nevertheless, there are good ideas and bad ideas. A bad idea isn't made more palitable by the claim that the foundation for that bad idea is the Bible (or whatever book one chooses to cite), nor is it improved by claiming that science makes it so. Bring me a good idea from a nasty person and I will take it over a bad idea from a saint.

Posted by: sbrooks | November 15, 2006 8:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It does disgust me that some churches cannot offer their stance on torture. When they covet political power more than their desire to model the life of Jesus they have lost the path.

Luckily it is not all churches.

Sternberg, please detail where tens of thousands of citizens have been saved. What forms of torture were used? Also, what is our ratio of success? I would argue that the torture evidence I've seen to date has cost U.S. citizens dearly in global goodwill. This loss puts us at greater danger and has cost lives. The more we are viewed as villians, the less likely good people will stick out their neck to give us information or tips and the more likely they will allow or support our enemies.

Posted by: JohnE | November 15, 2006 8:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bear with me, this story has a point

When I was just a kid, my brothers once were playing with matches in our house and burned a hole in the floor. Needless to say, my mother was a tad upset.

She has us standing in a line, grilling us as to who the culprit was. No one would confess.

Finally, this seeming like hell itself to my 12 year old self, I said that I had done it, simply to stop our mother from yelling at us. I hadn't done it of course, but I just wanted it to stop.
Obviously my mother wasn't torturing us per se, but it seemed awful enough at the time.

The moral of this story? TORTURE DOESN'T WORK.

P.S. My mother actually realized I was lying after a few minutes, and I got to go to my room and read. My brothers remained on the rack.

Posted by: Peggy | November 15, 2006 7:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It's fair to say that incivility, vilification, a presumption of bad faith, a disregard for what the writer calls the "etiquette of democracy," — these are all too common in contemporary discourse. That's not the fault of the so-called religious right, nor is it by any means peculiar to people of that persuasion. Indeed, the so-called religious right is itself demonized incessantly by people like the writer.

Count me unimpressed.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 15, 2006 7:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I think it is significant that the religious right is accused of hijacking certain terms, and no one wants to take exception to this gentleman and others with the same political motive hijacking the word torture for their own benefit.
In medieval times bodies were broken on the rack, persons flayed alive, and minds destroyed to gain confessions. Confessions with a political purpose.
Now we are calling torture, interrogation techniques that do no damage to body or mind. Techniques that our own interrogators use on themselves, for a better understanding. We make those interrogations, not to collect confessions, but to gather evidence that has saved the lives of tens of thousands of our citizens. Every one who has given that information, is now capable of performing every act and practicing every skill that they had gained over their entire life's practice. None of those is in any pain, or mental anguish, with the possible exception of a fear that their fellows will take revenge for their testimoney.
Next thing you know, we will have persons trying to convince us that our military foe is entitled to writs of habeas Corpus, even though our Constitution, specifically excepts them from any such right.

Posted by: Sternberg | November 15, 2006 6:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It has been extremely educational reading all the comments in this blog. Rather than jump into the fire of any particular issue, like torture, religion in government, etc., I'd like to offer a few observations based on what I have read. First, the comments reaffirm the inadequacies of labels. I guess we all use them, but they simply do not suffice. For example, I am an evangelical Christian, having been convinced by the biblical and extra-biblical claims about Jesus, but I might not fit your definition of one. I spent the last 14 years of my life as a Christian missionary because I wanted to serve others overseas and provide them an opportunity to consider Jesus claims, as well. I believe that these should be two of the highest priorities for anyone who claims to know and love Christ, no matter where you live, but I know that Biblical Christianity can only be chosen, not imposed. I am also a social conservative. I have no problem with Christians participating in politics, yet I am convinced that engaging in the so-called “Culture War” as a Christian power political block is the best way to lose (or confuse) our voice in the debate and drive our society away from the faith and principles of morality that we find in the Bible. I think that you do not win over those with whom you fight. Obviously, many Christians disagree with me. I think that many Christians have confused nationalism (or love of country) with Christianity. This country that we love is not the “Kingdom of God”, nor can it or should it be a theocracy. I think that perception can be just as powerful as reality in the relationship (or lack thereof) between Christians and non-Christians. I think that many who are not Evangelical Christians are vehemently opposed to those of us who are because they think that we are opposed to them and seek to impose our faith and moral standards upon them by political force. Some think we hate them. Some think we’re from Mars. Most don’t think about us at all. My observation as an “insider” is that although there are notable exceptions, the majority of us Evangelicals in the USA have circled the wagons to protect ourselves from those who are not. Aside from the usual church meetings, we have Christian school (home and otherwise), Christian clubs at public schools, Christian sports leagues, Christian doctors, Christian mechanics, Christian Boy/Girl Scouts, Christian subdivisions (really!), Christian cruises, Christian RV parks, Christian radio, etc., etc. I see nothing wrong with any of these, but my point is that it should not be surprising that so many people misunderstand us. We spend almost no quality time with anyone who isn’t a Christian...or at least acts like one! Maybe some of us fit their labels all too well. Finally, did you notice that know one in this blog said anything bad about Jesus. Hmmm.

Posted by: R. Moore | November 15, 2006 6:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Torture doesn't work. Let Junior the Fear Monger (Dave) rant all he wants about his timebomb and KSM, but torture is still pretty ineffective.

And, the evil we visit upon others will be visted upon us.

It is a fact that in World War 2, Germans fought harder against the Russians because they knew their fate if they ended up in Soviet hands. They knew what would happen because it was the same thing they had been doing to the Russians. The American Army took a different approach. German POWs had regular meals, heated sleeping quarters, and they could even write letters home (though with no guarantee that the letters would make it).

Our Army wanted their army to know they would be treated well when they surrendered. Russians wanted to exact revenge upon the Germans, and they did it rather well, which was easy since they lacked the resources to do much for the German POWs.

The German people suffered much more under the Russians than they did under Americans because of reciprocity. The German war crimes of rape, murder, theft, and torture were repaid in full by the Russians. Russian soldiers also paid their own price for their harsh reputation in that a German soldier was more likely to fight to the death to avoid becoming a prisoner of Russia.

In short, torture doesn't work, and it will come back to haunt us. Torture is easy for stupid people to advocate because it's simple. They figure that if you beat a man long enough, he'll tell you what you NEED to hear. But, the opposite is true, if he does tell you anything, it will be what you WANT to hear. Then, you can pat yourself on the back and go make a press conference.

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 6:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Torture doesn't work. Let Junior the Fear Monger (Dave) rant all he wants about his timebomb and KSM, but torture is still pretty ineffective.

And, the evil we visit upon others will be visted upon us.

Our Army wanted their army to know they would be treated well when they surrendered. Russians wanted exact revenge upon the Germans, and they did it rather well, which was easy since they lacked the resources to do much for the German POWs.

In short, torture doesn't work, and it will come back to haunt us. Torture is easy for stupid people to advocate because it's simple. They figure that if you beat a man long enough, he'll tell you what you NEED to hear. But, the opposite is true, if he does tell you anything, it will be what you WANT to hear. Then, you can pay yourself on the back and go make a press conference.

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 5:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I wonder why the press, especially those knowledgeable in the area of American religious sentiment don't do a thorough job of comparing the faith-based American politicos and their ordained allies with their counter parts in Iran and elswhere. This group, regardless of church affiliation functions no differently than the radical mullah's of Iran, or their sunni radical counter parts in insisting that society conform to their mores. If american readers understood that we have our own variety of "christian" mullahs they might better be able to evaluate the phenomenon.

Posted by: m. wisocki | November 15, 2006 5:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The Religious Right has every right to be heard, in their Church of Worship, our Constitution guarantees that right. However, the founding fathers, in their wisdom, realize that danger lurks when religion and government mix. George Washington added the words "so help me God" to end of his swearing in as our first President. GW however as a Deist.

Deists reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, deists hold that correct religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being. Does such a believe find acceptance with the Religious Right?

John Adams our second President believed that each person could practice the religion of their choice so long as they did not breach the peace.

Religion is not all sugar and candy. It is a hot flame in the hands of a powerful government. My son attended a Baptist Church for a while. I know the Pastor and he did me a very big favor, however, my son came home from one of his sermons one day and told me the Pastor preached that all Jews and Catholics were going to Hell. That was the last sermon he attended.

Realizing that more people are murdered in the world for ethnic or religious reasons (just look at what is going on in Iraq) then for any other reason, we should carefully consider the wisdom of politizing Religion.

Tolerance is the American way. Religion should be a private matter not a political matter, and to preserve American values it should stay that way. That's what I believe, so help me God.

Posted by: Richard Katz | November 15, 2006 5:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Of course Christian believers have a constitutional right to express their beliefs. What is distressing is that Christianity is the greatest hoax perpetrated on humanity and the fact that so many people believe its nonsensical dogmas and doctrines is appalling. Were it possible, which it is not, Christians should be confined to insane asylums.

Posted by: norman ravitch | November 15, 2006 5:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Trudy -
You’re right. How dare the UPS man come down your drive with his radio on. He had no right to inflict that music on your ears. I’m sure he did that just to infringe on your right to not hear music you don’t want to hear. It’s a good thing you asked him about his position…just to make sure you didn’t misunderstand the situation, I’m sure. Because if you hadn’t broached the subject with him, I’m sure he wouldn’t have asked if you believed in Jesus. How dare he respond to you! He just wanted to proselytize, I bet.

Darn good things you made the complaint to UPS, too. That man doesn’t deserve to work if he believes in Jesus.

OK – clearly this is sarcasm. There are a lot of other things to be irate about in life. And I daresay the music the UPS guy listens to is not one of them. Your actions were petty and juvenile. Oh, yeah, and asking him about his music invited a response. So I would add manipulative to that list as well.

Posted by: Lysa | November 15, 2006 5:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Stefan,

Sounds like the only answer is to just kill these people!

What contribution are you making to "public discourse" with your demonizing (literally) of Christians & Republicans?

You can find just as much hate speech from the secular left as on the religious right (Scroll up this page and you'll see a good bit of it). There are as many power-mad lefties as there are power-mad righties.

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 5:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The American Religious Right would do well to remember the words of St. Augustine of Hippo, who said that the Christian must live in the City of Man (secular society) as a captive or a pilgrim does, taking what he needs to survive (peace, order, food, shelter, etc.) while always remembering that his true citizenship is beyond this world.

Posted by: Robert | November 15, 2006 4:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Funny how the Washington Post and New York Times spend so much time and and effort to demonize and demean Born Again Christians and then after defeating us in the elections throw us their scraps to show that they are capable of objectivity. You are not capable and it's not that you don't want to try you can't be objective or fair. You are sold to your left-wing ideals that will never mesh with the Biblical morality. Your pennance is pathetic. Your bread crumbs are unwanted. Continue in your demeaning and insulting of us. That's what you do best.

Posted by: Steve MAshni | November 15, 2006 4:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mike,

I agree, there are grave risks in contemplating the use of torture, but there are also grave risks in absolutely ruling it out. If we weight the costs on both sides and determine that torture (once defined) must never be used, fine. But I think most people on this forum haven't really done that. They just dismiss it as some kind of monstrous "Bush = Hitler" thing. You can see it in the way the white house was excoriated even for its internal, legalistic attempt to come up with a definition of the word "torture"--people assume that if Alberto Gonzalez is writing a memo with the word "torture" in it, he must be advocating it.

Unfortunately, the way information flows in the world today, the way the press is just chomping at the bit to uncover the latest scandalous outrage, we can't count on our military to do dirty jobs for us in dark rooms. If we are going to torture, we have to be transparent about it (oddly enough).

I think we disagree about the war in Iraq, which I do indeed see as part of the war on terror, in fact the inevitable next step. I could tell you my reasons for this but it would take us even more off-topic and waste even more of our time. I think the post-9/11 sympathy you speak of was bound to be short-lived anyway. People love us when we are weak, hate us when we stand back up and assert ourselves. The war hasn't gone as well as we'd have like, but what war has ever gone as well as people liked?

Well, it's been nice talking to a thoughtful & reasonable person, but I've got to go. Seeya -

Dave

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 4:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Our core problem is that public discussion itself has become poisoned by hatred in this country. Sure, left-wingers are not without "sin" here, but responsibility for the demise of public discourse in the USA rests squarely with the Republican Party and with Christian fundamentalists who have confused a self-serving political agenda with the will of God. Just listen to the conservative talk machine or a fair slice of Christian radio if you need convincing. Such folks are not interested in the discussion of actual issues - they wish to inflame their supporters and beat down opposition, and they'll employ anything they can find in the Devil's toolbox to achieve their purposes. They are bent on only one thing - power. We have to face this fact and not pretend that somehow civil discourse will be restored if if we clear up misunderstandings or manifest enough good will.

Posted by: Stefan | November 15, 2006 4:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

DAve,

I see your debate tactic and understand. I also see where you are trying to push the debate. And to be totally honest, I was comfortable not knowing what goes on in war; assuming torture happens but am very uncomfortable having it written into our laws. A bit hypocritical to be sure. My father was in WWII and he said that once the shooting starts, there are no good guys and bad guys.
The problem here is that we have a small US military presence in a war that does not serve our interests in ending terrorism. Nor can we fight this war on terror like any other conventional war in years past. Therefore, to conduct this war on terror (NOT Iraq, mind you) as a kind of military/police action/citizens patrol/propaganda war of ideas, these "normal, "not talked about" military tactics are not feasible, nor do they help achieve the overall objective but rather create mroe hatred of us and more animosity andf increase our chances of being attacked again. Afetr 9/11 most Islamic nations denounced the attack and distanced themselves from Bin Laden. There was a great essay by Fareed Zakaria where he compared the US post WWII mindset of equating all communism as one enemy made several very disparate and disagreeing factions join loosely to defend themselves as they saw the "enemy of their enemy as their friend" with Bush's whole "Radical Islamic" conglomerate which will have the same effect.

Posted by: Mike | November 15, 2006 4:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Super90 -

good for you, a reasonable argument(except for that "duh" at the end). Here's what I'd say. First we have to agree on a definition of torture (whether or not we then decide to ban it, in some or all cases) Then, we must make a distinction between enemy soldiers in uniform, whom I'd be inclined to agree we should indeed never torture, for the reason you cite among others.

However, terrorists are not soldiers. Soldiers wear a uniform (which puts them at risk) and (usually, ideally) try their best to hit military (not civilian) targets. terrorists deliberately target the innocent. They hide among civilians, imperiling them. They do not deserve the same respect we would show an enemy soldier in uniform.

Finally, terrorists (as I have said) are not deterred or encouraged by how we treat our captives. They will torture or kill their American prisoners (or not) as it suits them, with no regard to what we do. We've seen this already. Bin Laden didn't need the excuse of Abu Ghraib on when he slaughtered 3000 Americans on 9/11.

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 4:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Religion, when used for political purposes isn't religion anymore but propaganda and trash, those who use God's name to justify their thirst for power and domination are doomed. Period.

Religious right is anything but religious.

Posted by: Faithful | November 15, 2006 4:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bob - if you're looking for a definition of "puerile", check out Frank's latest.

Is there no one out there so idiotic or so consumed by their hatred of Bush that they can't engage in a reasonable discussion of this important issue?

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 4:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Here's my favorite argument against torture:
Let's start with one assumption: The U.S. has the best and most lethal armed forces the world has ever seen. Agreed? Okay.

Here's a hypothetical: The U.S. is engaged in a land battle with a foreign enemy. The enemy knows that the U.S. DOES NOT torture. If they surrender, they will be treated humanely and with respect. If they do not surrender they know they will be killed by the aforementioned most lethal armed forces the world has ever seen. What will this enemy do? They are more likely to surrender.

Here's another hypothetical: The U.S. DOES torture, and the enemy knows it. Now, they can surrender, but they would mean being tortured and then held indefinitely, or they can fight and possibly kill some U.S. soldiers before they go.

The equation is quite simple. Torturing enemy combatants puts our troops at risk.

Duh.

Posted by: Super90 | November 15, 2006 4:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Yup, looks like Frank's out of bullets.

I can tell you don't read much history, because if you did, you'd know Hitler was a vegetarian.

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 4:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Yes, Dave, superhighways and fuel efficient cars are evil. Really, is that the best you can do? I'll bet Hitler would have enjoyed dinner at Sizzler also, but that doesn't mean it's a bad restaurant. Hey, Hitler wore pants so pants are now evil. Doggonit, Stalin wore shoes so now I can't wear shoes.

Dave, could you please change your name to Junior the Fear Monger? Thanks.

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 4:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mike,

sure, I understand the other side. I am arguing from an extreme perspective as a deliberate technique.

For example, let's say I believe the constitution gives me the "right to bear arms." OK, but one cannot reasonably argue that therefore you should be able to have unfettered and unrestricted access to any and as much "arms" as you want. We can't all have our own personal nuke, right? So once we determine (by arguing in extremis) that there must in fact BE (sorry for caps) some limit on the right to bear arms, it is now a question of WHERE that limit should be--which reasonable people can disagree about.

Same thing with torture. I'm trying to point out (as Dershowitz does) that it is unreasonable and unrealistic (especially in today's world) to totally rule it out, to argue that there could never be a situation in which it might be justified to resort to torture. Those who argue against me are in fact the simplistic ones.

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 4:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jesus is tolerant of evil? Where did that notion come to be declared?
"I am come to send fire on the earth;and what will I, if it be already kindled?"... Luke
When HE was tempted by the usurper and Satan claimed ownership of the world's kingdoms, HE did not dispute that fact. Matthew
Washington is controlled by Satan and financed by the rich "movers and shakers". God told man early on that he would have to sweat to survive after the fall. Ever since, the human race has been trying to get somebody else to do their sweating for them.
We want to Party and Play.
And make someone else Pay.
It's the AMERICAN WAY!!!

Posted by: Fool on the Hill | November 15, 2006 4:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

That's right Dave. As long as we're stuck on 9/12, Bush can do whatever he wants. I've noticed that whenever he wants something from Congress, he employs his his rhetorical sword of "9/11!" Fear, fear and more fear is all we get from this crowd. Good going Dave! You're a great fear-monger.

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 4:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Duh, I mean cut it out. See, we are dumb.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 15, 2006 4:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Frank,

talk about weak arguments. Just because Hitler exploited fear doesn't mean fear is always unwarranted or unreasonable or merely a product of manipulation. Only an idiot has absolutely no fear of anything.

Hitler built the autobahn and designed the Volkswagen. Does this mean superhighways and fuel efficient cars are also evil?

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 4:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dave/Frank, you're making us look dumb in front of the smart sophisticated English guy. Cut in out.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 15, 2006 4:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dave-

I know that you are getting baited but you have to stop with the caps and the name calling (however yoru line about reading history on the crapper was pretty damn funny)..
I wrote the post in response to you regarding having been present for 9/11 as well. My name came up as anonymous. Look...I understand your position but I don't want Al Qaeda being my bell-weather for proper conduct in battle. It might sound lofty and out-of-touch. You seem intelligent and thoguthful, but you get pretty obtuse with your argument. I guess because you are getting heckled. But could you give any ground and at leats acknowledge the otehr point of view? It would make the debate a little more civil.

Posted by: Mike | November 15, 2006 4:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dave- first you call me an old fart and then you say you're older than me. I suspect your mama is going to call you to dinner soon. You best hope she doesn't know you've been chatting on AOL in the "Undecided" room:-)

I'm going to sign off now. A good debate. Dave, you took a lot of heat but you never did answer my gay marriage question:-) Only kidding. You made some good arguments and your point about fear is understood. I have six children that I dearly love too and I know you just want to protect yours. I want to protect yours, mine, and everyone else's but I can't. Neither can you. Dave, you can't live your life based upon fear or about what the crazies may do. We need to take the real fight to them and not this BS war in Iraq (that you swallowed whole and still do) that ended up recruiting 1000's more terrorists for Osama.

If we're going to win we do have to change our approach - so, do you think you could ask W if he wouldn't mind asking the American people for a vote? W speaks about democracy and then does as he pleases. He might be amazed at how much the American people would support a real, tough, smart, no-holds-barred fight with the real terrorists - not the guys who shamed his daddy.

Yes, junior, I want someone to ask me and my fellow Americans if they want to change the rules - who the hell gave that cowboy with an IQ of 10 and tricky Dick the right to dick with established law all the way from the 13th century? We Americans can defeat the bad guys but we want a say in how it's done given that it's our kids who will die to win that war.

Peace, Dave, and remember to carry that concealed weapon, vote pro-life, pro-gun, anti-liberal, anti-gay, and against activist judges - tell them Jesus sent you. Boy would he be disgusted. Now go wash your hands and tell your Mama you love her....junior:-)

Posted by: Bob | November 15, 2006 4:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous,

thanks for telling your story. I'm glad not everyone looks at 9/11 as "so five years ago..." I don't think that this is at all a simple issue--its the other side that does. They say "we should never torture, ever"--usually without even bothering to define what "torture" is. I'm saying, we have to define it, and then think long and hard about whether there are really ABSOLUTELY no possible situations, however far-fecthed you or I may think these are today, in which it could be used. If the answer is "no", fine--but be prepared to sacrifice the innocent for the guilty. If the answer is "yes", we have to come up with some legal system and procedure(as Dershowitz advocates).

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 3:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dave,

We all know about Alan Dershowitz and his ticking timebomb scenario. Fear has always been helpful in subverting the rule of law. Hitler used the burning of the Reichstag to gain absolute power in German, Joseph McCarthy used it to gain power in the Senate and persecute Jews and political enemies, the Klan regulary uses it to get new members. We also know of all the current uses of fear, including the Iraq War and the crippling of the Constitution. Rove, Cheney, Bush, and Rice are masters of fear. Is that your point?

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 3:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It is obviously past time for a civil society worthy of the title to seriously judge so-called religions on some basic criteria of merit. Most of the organized religions in the United States at least are at best superstitious nonsense based on world views rooted in nomadic tribes of the Middle East in support of their tribal wars; at worse they are blatant cons of the gullible. If any of the "standard" methods used by religion were done for any other reason, the Attorney Generals would be prosecuting left and right. I see no reason to turn blind eyes to many of these groups which are essentially stealing from the most vulnerable, avoiding taxes, allowing their "leaders" to live lifes in direct contradiction to the principals they use to bilk their followers. Being a successful con for hundreds of years is no excuse!

Posted by: Leo Myers | November 15, 2006 3:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dave,

You study on the toilet? Why not go to the library or the kitchen table?

So many weak arguments.

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 3:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Frank,

If the British were indeed invaded by the Germans, THEY'D BE DOOMED ANYWAY and thus had nothing to lose by gassing the Germans. Those Brits who hapenned to be Jewish, gay, etc. would of course have been gassed either way.

Frank, our soldiers are being tortured ANYWAY. The North Vietnamese tortured our soldiers, even though they were signatories to the Geneva Conventions. And I'm not advocating torturing soldiers, but terrorists--who do not wear a uniform and do not deserve the benefits of being a soldier (since they are unwilling to assume the risks and responsibilities). Our gallantry in battle or lack thereof has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on our enemies. I'm sure Osama would get a good chuckle out of your post.

I have no idea how old or young you are, but I'm guessing you're an idiot and that I've read more history sitting on the crapper than you have your entire life.

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 3:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I like Lindsey Graham's standard of torture, however you define it....

would you approve of OUR soldiers being treated this way?

Posted by: pv | November 15, 2006 3:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

FRANK!! That was me! I thought I had "Saved my personal info" so I didnt put my name on that post!!

Posted by: MIke | November 15, 2006 3:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bob,

my fellow atheist, it turns out I'm older than you, JUNIOR!

Harry,

thank you, I've been trying to make this point for awhile, but in return I get people telling me I have "issues" with my mother or anger or something. Not a lot of genuises in this forum.

If you want to think seriously about this issue and not just parade your moral vanity on the internet, here's a good place to start.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/01/22/ED5329.DTL

Or do what I did and google "Alan Dershowitz + torture"

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 3:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hey Dave-

I have a better understanding of you now. I too was there and had front row seats to the whole thing in 2001. I had just been married a week before, my father dies five days later and I was on my way to work at 5 World Trade that morning. I was never filled with more rage, fear, and shock. I too want my wife (and now 9 month old daughter) to be safe. And fear every day I go to work and my wife goes. We treat every morning as a potentially horrible day. We have plans in place of we get separated because of an attack. And I don't want to live this way and I don't want to think this way. I know what you are saying but the fact is, if you can pick out the terrorists from the shia from the sunni from the Kurd form the Baathist from the poor pissed of bastard whose own wife and child were killed by US bombs, or whose sister was raped and burned by US troops thenw e can have the torture debate. Unfortunately it is all far too gray to have such a simple answer.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 15, 2006 3:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If the British had used gas on invading Germans, what would have immediately happened to London? That's right, gas, gas, and more gas would have flooded the city. London fog would have taken on a whole new meaning. Some options are just too horrific to consider.

If we torture, we can say NOTHING when our soldiers are tortured, and trust me, their pain will far exceed anything we inflict on our enemies. How does that sound, Dave? You see, we don't torture primarily because what we do to others will be done to us.

Dave, you arguments are so short-sighted that I'm guessing that you are pretty young and not very wise. Grow up a little, and maybe study some history books.

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 3:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

All you folks, stop torturing the guy.

Posted by: AKA | November 15, 2006 3:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Everyone has a view for or against torture..
Now can someone define exactly what torture is. Some of the prisoners said they were "tortured" because a female guard was present. With what happened at Abu Ghraib I have seen frat initiations that probably were more defineable as torture than there. Excesses have occured, and they should be dealy with harshly. But much of what is being called torture is harassment, not torture.

Posted by: Harry | November 15, 2006 3:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bob-

I grew up catholic and I, too was impressed with Reagan's diary. I am an atheist now.

I was not molested but my parish priest was defrocked recently. I am 35 now but spent a lot of time with him as an alter boy, lector, choir, etc. I love your idea of with-holding the cash, but thats not how catholics work. They will always give because they put the parish above the priest/diocese/vatican/pope. Its hard to explain how the flock operates other than to say ..well...as a flock. Its a local thing rather than a "God Bless CArdinal Ratzinger the ex-nazi youth.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 15, 2006 3:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous,

I don't know why, but your post made me laugh.

Thanks.

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 3:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bob,

I know what the word puerile means. I suspect you don't (but you think you do), because it has no relevance here. What we are talking about is hardly childish or silly, it is deadly serious.

Mike,

You are right, I am not a lunatic and I am essentially arguing from fear. Don't let anyone fool you--there IS something to fear other than fear itself. Here's what it is--people who wish to kill you more than they wish to live. I fear very much that my wife or one of my children will someday be killed by such people. We have forgotten, because we live in the age of the atrophied attention span, but I will never forget watching people jump from the twin towers. To me it's like it happened yesterday, because in the larger historical context, it WAS yesterday. It could have been you or me, it could be our children. And occasionally, we may have to do some things we'd never otherwise do to prevent it from happening again.

When the Brits were in serious danger of being invaded by the Germans in 1940, they planned to use gas on the Germans if they ever landed on English soil. And they'd have been totally right to do it. Being a civilized gentleman does you no good if you're dead at the hands of a brute. If you must reluctantly become something of a brute temporarily in order to defeat another brute, so beat. The enemy is not ruling anything out. We cannot either. If someone is trying to kill me, one of us will die--and whatever I need to do, it ain't gonna be me.

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 3:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Frank

you know, I thought of that while I was writing that post. That's the annoying thing about religion. Most reasonable arguments to the contrary usually have some unassailable answer. At this point, I would probably resort to a debate-losing "Go fish for THIS!! answer....

OH, what the hay!!

SHUT UP FRANK!!!

Ahhh...that's better!

Posted by: Anonymous | November 15, 2006 3:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Or, maybe he just meant that we should go fishing with really big hooks and super high-test line.

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 3:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I think what Cordelia said was awesome with one exception: If Catholics voted their consciences there would be no more pedophiles in black and brown cassocks. With all due respect to my brothers and sisters in Catholicism how much sense does it take to figure out that the Church is still a safe haven for the abusers of little children? Hey, just one more crisis of faith in Rome. They play the long odds and the flock goes right with them. Cordelia, when you all tell the Church you won't fill the collection plates on Sunday until the pedophiles are gone I'll bet the Men in Red listen - even as they transfer old Father pedophile to Milwaukee.

Posted by: Bob | November 15, 2006 3:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mike,

I agree with you, but Jesus did say that Christians should be "fishers of men" and that can be interpreted as a call to proselytize non-believers.

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 3:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pusillanimous?! I didn't know profanity was allowed here.

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 3:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Binja! Well said. Why does the religious right feel that the only way to salvation is to convert the whole nation? When they go before God, won't they be judged for their OWN salvation? Not for the salvation of their nation?

The danger of such certainty..

Posted by: Mike | November 15, 2006 3:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Frank and Dave play nice or we're going to have to separate you boys.

Posted by: M | November 15, 2006 3:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dave (AKA Junior), you keep blathering on about KSM. Who told you about KSM? Was it Cheney or Bush? Because those two always tell the truth and never say anything false.

So, out of all the people we've tortured, only ONE has given us viable information? That's not much of a success rate.

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 3:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I don't think anybody considers the Catholic Church the "true" religious right. The Catholic Church hasn't morphed into a Republican voting block. Other denominations wag back and forth, right and left of it, but the Catholic Church stays pretty much the same. Modern Catholics are not swayed by the dicta of its clergy. Modern Catholics use birth control, fight in unjustified wars. They don't go to confession, as they should, prior to receiving communion. And the worst example of Catholics ignoring church hierarchy is World War II where Germany and Italy fought France and America, all nations with large populations of Catholics. The reason for this "disobedience" is that Catholics have been threatened with hellfire, even for the infraction of missing mass, since birth, and they are sick of it. Most of them don't take the threats seriously anymore.
The new evangelical born-again Christian, on the other hand, is often coming from a background of mealy Methodism and pusillanimous Presbyterianism, denominations that winked at their drunken golf games, extra-marital affairs, and even worse, infrequent church attendance.
Suddenly, not only the direction of these lukewarm Christians' eternal souls, but the density of their bank accounts rely on how closely they toe the line their evangelical pastor paints for them. Suddenly, the love of Jesus is not the focus of their churchly experience, but the bigotry of Leviticus, the meddling intolerance of Paul. Rubbed raw and fresh with heretofore unknown terror, now they are reborn, "young minds," ripe for manipulation by their preachers who are old hands at herding.
But these old hands are newly hand-in-hand with a political party whose neo-cons and Weekly Standard old-o-cons want to use the strongest government in the world to change the world. And the only way the PNAC can do this is to get a populous base. What base can be had for a few dollars? Ralph Reed's million-member Christian Coalition, a nice voting block of people who believe God is reading their ballots.
That's who your right-wing Christians are, not the Catholics. To a Catholic, his Pope is spookier than his God. And the Pope doesn't see through voting booth walls. So the Catholic can vote his conscience.

Posted by: Cordelia Reagan | November 15, 2006 3:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dave (AKA Junior), we all took a vote, and while we think you are a fine, law-abiding American, we also think you're a moron.

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 3:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

My religion teaches that eating animals is a sin. Why do you Christian and Muslim meateaters continue to act against my religion?

In truth, I don't care to follow the tenets of your religion (i.e. banning gay marriage), nor do you want to follow those of mine (unless you're willing to give up Big Macs). So, act according to your own beliefs, and gain your own salvation, and leave the rest of us alone.

Posted by: Binja | November 15, 2006 3:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Frank,

you're obviously far too stupid for me to try to argue with. But I guess I'm not smart enough to give up hope on you.

There is such a thing as a life-or-death situation. There have been situations where what you consider torture has saved lives. GO LOOK IT UP - just google "KSM + waterbaording". The police don't usually face situations where thousands could die for want of a piece of intelligence (which are the kinds of situations I'm arguing MAY call for the infliction of discomfort on a suspect). But they may in this new world of ours, and if they did, I would want that option available to them too. Now, I know you're going to trot out your slippery slope and say if we do that, this or that reaction must immediately follow. But LIFE is a slippery slope. ANY action COULD lead to any terrible consequence if taken to an extreme. You arm the police, and next thing you know they're just blasting away at everyone for no reason! Or maybe not. Maybe most police are professionals, and only draw their weapons when the situation warrants it.

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 3:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thank you, Ben. I appreciate the clarification and the points you make.

Posted by: Bob | November 15, 2006 3:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dave-

You don't sound like a lunatic. However your arguments do tend to come from a place of fear rather than pragmatism. Let's say for instance, we do have John Malkovich playing an islamic terrorist in custody; he knows where a chemical bomb is and Bush calls and gives the green light to electrocute his balls. HE screams bloody murder giving a best supporting actor perfomance and discloses the location of the bomb. Agents rush to the site and.... no bomb. BUT a bomb goes off in another part of the city. Suddenly there would be the Monday morning armchair torturers professing why we got the bad info. "We didn't torture him a.) properly .b) enough c.) all of the above. See what I am getting at? THATS the slippery slope. Where does it end? Also, there is a truckload of great material on this subject written by actual interrogators who, witout exeption, say that torture only produces poor, false results. There are a host of techniques that have been used that extract very good results that do not include torture. So do your research, but I do understand the impulse to say if we must torture, we must. But its an emotional reaction, not a pragmatiic one. I cannot say I haven't felt that way myself.

Posted by: mike | November 15, 2006 3:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dave,
I apologize; I didn't mean "junior" in terms of your age. I meant it in terms of your obviously puerile (look it up, junior) tendencies. Boy, you were too easy to bait and predictable as a priest at a boy scout meeting. Son, leave the debate to those of us who can make the argument, go lie down by your dish and lick your....wounds.

Posted by: Bob | November 15, 2006 3:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bob,

Forgive me, I tried to keep it short.

I know well British (and European) colonial history, all the crimes domestic and foreign, and have known them from childhood (I was brought up on the hard left).

I love America, and a friend (in my eyes), should always share fears for a friend's direction, from his own experience or observations.

I was talking from experience. We cannot relive our pasts, but we can acknowledge them fully, learn and move on to better ways.

The British government has been complicit in all the same things but for longer - and incidiently all the while run by our equivalent of the GOP.

The revisionist history and double standards are still here, but there's more each day working on seeing the world through true eyes.

Posted by: Ben Housden | November 15, 2006 3:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dave, our own goverment has defined waterboarding as torture. Personally, I don't know what it feels like and I suspect you don't either. Sadam used to have the children of his enemies tortured in front of their parents. I bet that would really garner some good intel. What if you waterboarded Khalid Sheik Muhammed and he still wouldn't talk? Would you round up his kids and torture them in front of him. That might get him to divulge all. Where do you draw the line right? I mean your life is at stake so you have to torture a couple little kids to save millions of Americans.

Posted by: M | November 15, 2006 3:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Democratic Etiquette", clearly not Democrat etiquette.

Posted by: Propinquity | November 15, 2006 3:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sean, relax. None of these commentaries was trying to "intimidate" anyone until you replied. Good luck trying to have an open conversation about differing faiths when you make personal attacks at an individual.

No wonder we are such a polarized nation. People read or hear what they want to based off of a label: Right/Left, Conservative/Liberal, Republican/Democrat, Christian/Muslim. Please stop stereotyping a such diverse group as Religious Right and address which groups you necessay to throw stones at.

I will say one thing in Frank's defense. He is absolutely correct on the Roman Catholic church's stance in regards to right to life (abortion and capital punishment), that is not to say the Catholic faith is without its faults. Their problems have been clearly illustrated in the media.

No one group has all answers but until you learn to step outside your own box, educate & respect our differences and quit stereotyping people nothing is ever going to change.

P.S. Sean... Hannity, Limbaugh and Michael Moore are a joke.

Posted by: Aaron | November 15, 2006 3:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Very good comment, Randall. Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love God. The other side of loving God is to love our neighbor. Evangelical Christianity has a wonderful emphasis on the need for repentance. Pollsters say that in the last election growing numbers (up to 40%) of Evangelicals are repudiating the idolatry of equating Christianity with the Republican Party. Sam Harris suggests the answer is less faith in God and more in science. But ego driven biases can be clothed just as easily under the label "Scientific" as the label "Christianity=Republican". Evangelicals love to quote II Chron. 7:14,
"if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land." Real faith in God is more radically open than either the clothing of Evangelical idolatry or Science because it judges the wearer. Where do we get the courage to change? Evangelicals are right when they insist that healing comes from a truly humble, repentant encounter with a living God.

Posted by: SEPorter | November 15, 2006 3:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bob,

where do you get off calling me junior, you old fart? What makes you think I'm a "vigilante"? What does my opinion of gay marriage have to do with any of this?

I don't own a gun but the 2nd amendment gives me the right if I so choose. None of which has anything to do with my point to you, which is; saying you can't advocate "torture" (however defined) unless you're willing to be tortured is just like saying you can't advocate arming the police unless you yourself are willing to be shot.

I thought I told you to go off somewhere and think a bit.

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 3:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

No mention of the religious left of course; they're harmless. Until you see the pasty white country club boys, Howard Dean, John Kerry and Algore performing in the Black churches, you don't know what torture really is.

Posted by: pacumis | November 15, 2006 3:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dave, you've got a lot of issues to work through. I sense so much anger in you.

You keep going back to your dead or alive argument, but it doesn't fly. If it did, police would have unlimited power to torture. Come one Dave, join us in the civilized world. And, while you're at it, get some counseling for that anger. Too much anger can lead to heart disease. Wait, what am I saying? Dave probably has no real heart. Tell me, did the man behind the curtain give you a real brain or just a piece of paper?

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 3:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jack,
Well said, although I think that there are many in the South who don't let religion rule their lives and their everyday thoughts. But hey, the good old boys in TN almost elected a black man. Almost, I say. There's hope yet even for the Ken Mehlman's of the world. PTL.

Posted by: Bob | November 15, 2006 3:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Frank,

I'm not at all angry. Why are you making cracks about my mother? Is it because you don't have the intellectual capacity to defend your position?

M - lots of things seemed "hollywood" before they actually happened. What you are describing-- getting information from a terrorist by what you'd call "torture" (and I'd call discomfort)--has ALREADY HAPPENED. It has saved lives. Google "Khalid Sheik Muhammed + waterboarding" and read all about it.

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 3:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One person's cajoling is another person's coercion.

Posted by: Jon White | November 15, 2006 3:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jesus is dead. People realize that, right? I am all for being tolerant of religious people. If they want to give their money and brain cells away to the man at the podium, so be it. If it keeps them in line, fine.

However, a lot of us in this country are born with whats called "common sense". I don't need a book or a tablet on a courtroom wall telling me that murder is bad and that I should respect my parents and be nice to my neighbors. Somehow, I just knew all that without my parents allowing me to be brainwashed.

The South once wanted to be its own country. Let it happen. We will very soon see that the brain power and common sense prevail in the U.S. again, while the new country flounders. Think about it.

Posted by: Jack | November 15, 2006 2:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dave-
The police are the only ones who *should* carry guns. Ask any cop, junior. Its the vigilantes like yourself who pose imminent danger with your lack of respect for established law. This has become too personal and you're entitled to your opinion without all the invective being hurled at you. Are you for gay marriage, perhaps?

Posted by: Bob | November 15, 2006 2:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Frank,

If there are some things you simply will not do in order to defend yourself, than you'd better kiss yourself goodbye, because there are a whole lot of poeple out there who ARE willing to do anything (including sacrificing their own lives) to kill us.

I'm not advocating torture (I haven't even defined it). I'm defending the infliction of discomfort in extreme circumstances ("ticking bomb", etc.). I'd rather be alive and thought a jerk (or whatever) by people like you than be a civilized and enlightened corpse.

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 2:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dave, I think "torture or be killed" as you seem to posit it is a false choice. I don't buy the ticking time bomb scenario. You've got the guy, you know he has the info, you're going to torture him to get it? Come on. That's Hollywood. By the time you get around to identifing and torturing your captured bad guy, his ticking time bomb info is probably no longer current. And yes, I'd rather not be part of a nation that tortures suspects. Call me a wild eyed liberal.

On 2nd thought, I would consider torturing my ex-husband.

Posted by: M | November 15, 2006 2:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dave has so much anger. Dave, is this one of those mother issue things?

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 2:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This is just a guess, but you didn't vote last week, did you?

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 2:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bob,

according to your logic, you should not agree with the idea that police should carry loaded guns unless you yourself have been shot.

Go off someplace and think for a bit more.

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 2:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ben-
I cannot tell you how much sense you were making until I realized you're a Brit. Dude, with your history as the most Evil Empire of Colonialism that ever lived, bar none, would you please hold down the ever-so-proper anti-American rhetoric disguised as reason? It may play well at a dinner party in Beaconsfeld with the nouveau riche but it sure aggravates those of us who remember what The Queen did in the name of the British Empire. Peace.

Posted by: Bob | November 15, 2006 2:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dave, yes, there were those in the US who knew there were no WMD, but their input was ignored. Meanwhile, the guys who said the claim of WMD was a slamdunk got promoted and then got Medals of Freedom. Face, the war is maybe the biggest single mistake our country has made, but, yes, that is another debate.

Dave, didn't you read my last post? I said you're brilliant. We must become the enemy to avoid defeat by the enemy. And, your suggestion to torture anyone who might have done something wrong was fantastic! You're brilliant.

Also, I'm a jerk? You the one advocating torture here. What does that say about you?

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 2:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mark from Irvine, CA:

"Torture has always been un-American... and it continues to lower the USA's prestige and example in the world"

I've been enjoying the discourse, but Mark the US had a big, big, hand in torture across Latin America and the Middle East for many, many decades.

Two months before 9/11, I was sitting at dinner on the Potomac River. One of my American hosts, asked the question what 5 things did I like about the US, and what 5 dislike.

One part of my answer was my wish for Americans to realise what is done beyond their shores in their name.

It's a big country, with big domestic news and I can understand the glare from within, but it's this external history that's created the US's present predicaments.

From a British contemporary perspective, I tend to find the Right, and the Hard Left, are dangerous guardians of people, for they sin abroad and decry at home.

Posted by: Ben Housden | November 15, 2006 2:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Just a quick point to make: in the gospels, Jesus was directly tempted by Satan and others to take political power. He didn't do it. Maybe this is a thought some American Christians need to mull over?

Posted by: John | November 15, 2006 2:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Frank,

You're pretty brilliant yourself... in your system, we maintain our dignity as we are killed by terrorists. I hope you're one of those religious fanatics who believes in an afterlife. I am not. I have one life to live, and if the enemy forces me to do things I'd rather not do to destroy him, so be it. No point being a humanitarin if you're DEAD.

Did I mention you're a jerk?

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 2:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

M - are you saying it could never happen? What do you think are the odds it WON'T happen in the next, say, 30 years? You think we'll be lucky that long? I'll bet if someone told you in 2000 that the twin towers would soon be rubble, you'd think they were crazy. You remember me when it happens, M.

Frank - were you one of those guys who knew there were no WMDs in Iraq in 2003? No you weren't, because NOBODY was, except for Saddam Huseein himself. Let's debate that some other time.
I'm not the one "lynching" anyone here, Frank. I'm trying to debate, which is what this forum is for. You're just being a jerk.

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 2:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"I'd rather fight on the edge of a slippery slope than die in an airplane or at my desk in a skyscraper."
--Dave

Excellent! Fantastic! You're brilliant!

I agree. We should throw out all the rules, and give up our humanity so we can protect our way of life. We should expand combat and killing to a whole new level to combat being killed. Did I mention that you're briiliant?

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 2:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Frank -

it's a slippery slope, but I'd rather fight on the edge of a slippery slope than die in an airplane or at my desk in a skyscraper. We have to give some serious thought to how we deal with an enemy that is unafraid of death--that in fact relishes death. We can't be like the redcoats fighting like "gentlemen" against a stealthy, comaflaged continental army. In past wars, the enemy at least could be counted on to be interested in self preservation. He didn't want to kill you so much that he would gladly sacrifice his life (the odd kamikaze excepted). But now, the enemy wants us dead and doesn't much care if he has to die too. He's sometimes even more interested in his own martyrdom (and the glorious inspiration it will provide to toehrs once they see it on Al Jezeera) than whether or not he managed to kill any of the infidels as well.

Yes it is sad that we may have to "torture." It demeans us. But I'd rather be sad and demeaned than dead.

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 2:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hey Dave, were you one of those guys supplying intelligence to the Pentagon about WMD in Iraq?

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 2:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Folks-
How did this become a debate on torture? And Dave, until you've been tortured (other than by Jerry on here) you're pretty cavalier about it. Seems to me you should ask Dick Cheney and the Waterboarders to torture you and THEN you can argue for it. Just seems you don't have the street cred to argue for it when you haven't had it. Much like Cheney never serving but sending them off to die anyway.

Posted by: Bob | November 15, 2006 2:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Please forgive Dave. He's obviously got a lynchmob mentality.

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 2:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"a terrorist in your custody knows that there is chemical or nuclear weapon in the heart of your city." Dave, again, you've been watching too many movies.

Posted by: M | November 15, 2006 2:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The religious Right is neither RELIGIOUS or Right

Posted by: Barbara R. Doyle | November 15, 2006 2:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Yeah, you say that, but pretty soon, EVERYTHING become a matter or life and death, and torture become the first, last and only means of prisoner interrogation.

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 2:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Frank,

let's not be ridiculous. Either there are some situations where "torture" (whatever that means--remember, you have to define it first--it's not just whatever you say it is) is acceptable, or there are not. If there are no situations where it is acceptable, you have to willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands, or even millions, for the "comfort" and "personal dignity" of a terrorist. It is not at all unrealistic to think that we will be presented with a situation like this in the near future; a terrorist in your custody knows that there is chemical or nuclear weapon in the heart of your city. But he's not talking. What do you do? Will you let thousands die to assuage your moral vanity?

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 2:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Yes, Japanese soldiers were tried and convicted for waterboarding, and yes, it has been banned, but it was still used by our soldiers in Vietnam. But, hey, we're at war, and anything goes.

David, it's a sliipery slope. You start torturing a little here and a little there, and pretty soon we're back to the rack.

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 2:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Torture demeans us as a people. The U.S. Gov previously convicted Japanese soldiers of war crimes for using waterboarding against American POWs. We've sacrified our moral authority. Additionally from what I've read from professional interrogators torture is not considered reliable because the person being tortured will eventually tell you anything you want to hear whether it's true or not. As for your ridiculous argument of whether I would torture someone to save my child? (bogus scenario, anyway. You're watching too many spy thrillers) Of course, but since when is that the determiner of right and wrong. I wanted to punch out the kid who picked on my son in 3rd grade too, but that wouldn't have made it right.

Posted by: M | November 15, 2006 2:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Just look at the hate spewing out of this forum. Trudy wants to "outlaw religion" and considers it a major victory for the forces of light and goodness that she got her UPS driver in trouble. And you think the religious right is intolerant!

Mark, Dom Rumsfeld never ordered anyone to stack Iraqis in nakes piles and take pictures of them (which is also not torture, but humiliation) and thus it was NOT done in my name. She was also successfully prosecuted for doing so. Scaring a terrorist with a dog, turning up the AC in his cell, waterboarding, I have no problem with that. They don't do anything to these guys that they couldn't tolerate themselves (just like the police, who must allow themselves to be "tazed" as part of their training to use a taser). The people at Gitmo live way better than the grunts in Iraq and Afghanistan

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 2:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

David,

I will answer your question -- YES!

Yes, I would torture someone to save the life of my child. Likewise, I think we should torture anyone arrested for a crime. Afterall, what if they've committed other crimes? We should know everything about a suspect, and there's no better way to get quality information than through torture. I'm thinking maybe all Americans should be tortured regularly to find out if they have been breaking the law. No exceptions; everyone gets it -- men, women, children. Heck, let's kick some puppies while we're at it!

David, you agree, don't you?

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 2:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

However, Muslims are crazy and evil.

just check out linktv-mosaic and see the interviews. The hypocrisy is disturbing and the "groupthought" brainwashing could signal the end. I reiterate....muslims are whack.

I don't mean to posit an obtuse argument but reality demonstrates these people (sympathizers too) are so self-righteous and violent that it exceeds all the bounds of reason.

Posted by: Regnat | November 15, 2006 2:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To M-
I'm sure Jerry is joking but we all know real Jerry's -- they're on most Sunday mornings fleecing the faithful- so let's not be that forgiving here.

And, Jerry, having read your last post I have to say that you should let Jesus heal you - it's unlikely any secular person ever could.

Posted by: Bob | November 15, 2006 2:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm pretty sure the US gov't convicted some Japanese of torture when they waterboarded OUR troops in WWII.

WE then decided it shouldn't be done.

no?

Posted by: pv | November 15, 2006 2:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mark,

you said--David Curtin posits a false question when he asks "If you could save your child's life by torturing a known terrorist, would you contemplate it?" The real question should be "If you knew that torturing someone would not result in reliable information, but you thought that the person was an enemy, would you torture him anyway on the off chance that you might get something from him?"

Mark, why don't you answer my question before making up your own. In fact, what you call torture (but I wouldn't - waterboarding is uncomfortable but not injurious) HAS gotten us good intelligence, from Khalid Sheik Muhammaed (ringleader of 9/11) and others. If I knew I wasn't going to get good intelligence, there would be no point in torturing him--even if you really wanted to--because it would do more harm than good. The media would find out sooner or later, and you'd be condemned as a "torturer."

"Everything that this administration accepts as "causing discomfort short of death" has been condemned by the USA and civilized world for decades, after the Nazis used it in WW2."

I don't think the Nazis bothered with waterboarding. And I'm sorry, sleep deprivation and loud music don't count as torture. For some people (college students) they are a way of life. If you are going to complain about torture, you must first define what it is. If mere discomfort, confinement, or "assualts upon personal dignity" are torture, then you can't have a civilian police interrogation or prison system.

Posted by: David | November 15, 2006 2:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Torture techniques are specifically designed to keep the person alive, but require the infliction of mild to severe pain.It is entirely consistent, as both a moral and religious issue, to be in favor of torture and anti-abortion and against stem cell research."

Huh? That might follow philosophically but that view is not consistent (as Balmer rightly points out) with Christian beliefs. Nor is it consistent with Scripture. Christ's greatest commandments to Christians were to
1) Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and 2)Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no prescribed dosage for pain infliction of any type because Christ never endorsed inflicting pain on anyone or anything. Christians who say otherwise are professing politics, not faith.

Posted by: jah | November 15, 2006 2:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hear me now or hear me never. That's your chioce. Bob says Bush is not your spiritual leader, but does he have proof? Did God tell him that? No? Well, then what proof does he have? NONE. We don't yet know what the TRUTH is so maybe Bush is the spirtual leader. Until we know the truth we should give Bush the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by: Jerry F | November 15, 2006 2:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Guys, I'm pretty sure Jerry is joking.

Posted by: M | November 15, 2006 2:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

thank you Bob. :)

Posted by: sean | November 15, 2006 2:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I disagree that the hope of the Christian Right is to have a theocracy. Instead, I believe they need something to rail against in order to continue fleecing the true believers out of their money. All grand movements that thrive by dividing the masses and creating scapegoats always fall apart or diminish greatly in influence, e.g., Nazis, Faschists, the Klan. Hopefully the day of reckoning is coming the "religious right." Hopefully, its followers will wake up one day and realize how badly they have been manipulated.

Posted by: Frank | November 15, 2006 2:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To Trudy:
Actually, I think Jerry makes a very persuasive argument for outlawing Jerry:-) Hope he's not in management (of anything)

To The Christians Trying to Outdo Each Other:
Listen all ye of faith - Bush is not your spiritual leader and he isn't the second coming of anything - other than big oil money in the White House. Injecting religion into every argument allows you to abstain from thinking for yourself. Jesus, I promise you, was neither a Republican or a Democrat and your endless, holier than thou professions of faith as a substitute for critical thinking would probably nauseate him. There is more to our country than abortion or gay marriage and it really is time join the dialogue with your minds not just your rote professions of faith.

Posted by: Bob | November 15, 2006 2:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Guys,

Jerry F is jerking your chain. Nobody is that backward.

Don't feed the trolls.

Posted by: proxl | November 15, 2006 2:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

There is little doubt that many in the evangelical and conservative Christian groups would like to see the U.S. become a de facto theocracy, and they thought they had taken the first step toward that goal with the election of President Bush. Like cod liver oil, we have had their beliefs shoved down our throats for years. In time, the evangelicals will probably find more success in their efforts by spurning the radicals in their midst, and by focusing their energies on the passion, love, forgiveness, charity, and inclusiveness of Christ. In the meantime, I am hopeful that those who are more moderate and reasoned will return our country to a place of respect and trust in the world community. I am hopeful that we be united by the common threads of our religions rather than polarized by the radicals who seize on the differences as a means of promoting hatred. In this, we will see a rejection of torture and a renewed respect for the value of fundamental human rights for everyone.

Posted by: Victor | November 15, 2006 2:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I think you raise very valid points. However, when you talk about the "prophetic edge," I am not sure that any of the Christian institutions in America (including mainline denominations not identified as the "Christian right") have much of a prophetic edge. I think it is very difficult (like a camel going through the eye of a needle?) for an establishment institution of any sort to have a true "prophetic edge."

"Prophets have no honor in their own country," - and because of their message are not likely to be popular with almost anyone. Read the Book of Amos, and put it into today's America. A prophet Amos in America today would not be a welcome speaker at any Christian organizational fundraisers. If he said about our President, what Amos said about his King, he would might be arrested, and would certainly be under surveillance.

We need Christian prophets today - but I don't think they'll come from our institutions, and certainly not from the "Christian right" who have a whole different (dangerous) take on prophecy.

Posted by: Johan | November 15, 2006 2:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Relgious tolerance and diversity are some of the tenents of US democracy and respect should be given to good citizens of different faiths but I have never seen much hate speech coming from Falwell or Robertson. Did I miss some speeches? Does anyone have some sort of record? I would just enjoy an objective source where they espouse hatred rather than self-defense.
Moreover, plain and reasonable dialogue about someone who clearly hates you is not evil. Its about protecting your right to practice your life in the manner you want. As long as a reasonable secular debate exists, I have no problem with religous right positions, although their justification is clearly marred.

Posted by: Regnat | November 15, 2006 2:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If you disagree with the administration and you think habeaus corpus and due process are good things, then you hate freedom and probably want to give comfort and aids to the enemy.

Posted by: Jerry F | November 15, 2006 1:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Moving on now.....Jerry is dead. Long live Jerry.

Posted by: Sean | November 15, 2006 1:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm getting the feeling that there are many people posting here who don't love the LORD.

Posted by: Jerry F | November 15, 2006 1:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

David Curtin posits a false question when he asks "If you could save your child's life by torturing a known terrorist, would you contemplate it?" The real question should be "If you knew that torturing someone would not result in reliable information, but you thought that the person was an enemy, would you torture him anyway on the off chance that you might get something from him?" Everything that this administration accepts as "causing discomfort short of death" has been condemned by the USA and civilized world for decades, after the Nazis used it in WW2. As for Lynndie England at Abu Graib acting (or not) in your name, it has been shown without a doubt that the orders to get rough with prisoners there came from the highest levels of the Pentagon (Rumsfeld, in particular) over the objections of the generals who know it doesn't work and feel that it debases us to the level of the terrorists we are dealing with. Torture has always been un-American (except in the pre- and sometimes post- civil rights South of the USA), and it continues to lower the USA's prestige and example in the world.

Posted by: Mark from Irvine, CA | November 15, 2006 1:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jerry:

Terrorists don't hate our freedom. Terrorists hate our foreign policy.

I can't believe how many people have bought into the administration's claim that 9/11 was carried out by "freedom haters".

Posted by: ao | November 15, 2006 1:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Christian extremists are also terrorists who hate freedom. Jerry F. clearly demonstrates why these people are dangerous social and political terrorists: "If the US Gov t arrests you, you surely not innocent, and torture is a good way to find out what you've been up to." Part of our constitutional freedoms they threaten is the fundamental precept of innocent until proven guilty. I have read the Bible. May God have mercy upon you Jerry if, one day, you are arrested for something you didn’t do, a religion you didn't follow, or for disagreeing with demagogues who have risen to power falsely using Jesus' name.

Posted by: Roy | November 15, 2006 1:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I sure hope that last one was a joke....

Beat the non-Christians?

they 'ARE always right'?

they want to 'eat our childrean'?

'If the US Gov t arrests you, you surely not innocent'

holy cow! is that absurd? or just plain sick!
no wonder you don't get any respect.

Posted by: pv | November 15, 2006 1:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

John:

DUE PROCESS? That is nothing more than a legal loophole for terrorits to exploit. Due process along with that habeas corpus are the single biggest threats to our FREEDOM. And, maybe you need to check you spelling also.

Posted by: Jerry F | November 15, 2006 1:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One would think that religious organizations, whose ideology is tightly shackled to precedent, would recognize that by coercing a government into observing their particular set of morals they are setting a precedent for the intrusion of religious codes of morality into government. And while religious fundamentalists are nothing if not hopeful, they must recognize that their influence over the government can wax and wane, and could be supplanted by a religious sect whose set of morals is incompatible with theirs. It would seem to me that they would have a vested interest in the restriction of government to the amoral protection of individual freedoms, such that all faiths are permitted to advance their agendas through non-governmental means. You know, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, or words to that effect.

Posted by: Gabriel Fry | November 15, 2006 1:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jerry F:

Nowhere in the article does Professor Balmer defend terrorists. Neither have liberals for that matter, but I don't think that's your original thought there so I won't argue against it.

Now for a history lesson. In this country we have something called due process, and you might not know this, but it's worked for 225 years. This means that someone that is arrested is innocent until proven guilty, and that there are certain rights every person arrested should be awarded (guilty or not). There's just this great document called the Bill of Rights that guarantee a number of rights for all peoples under the jurisdiction of the United States, I suggest you put the Bible down for a second and read them again.

Also, there are people trying to kill us for many different reasons, none of them good. However, I don't think Jesus would torture them to have them learn the true nature or power of God. He would teach them to love thy neighbor, and appreciate the power of good. Torture is evil just to remind you.

I am a Democrat (check the spelling), a liberal, but a free thinker. I love my country, I love my freedom and my ability to speak my mind against beliefs I don't agree with, especially right now.

Posted by: John | November 15, 2006 1:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Trudy, you need the LORD in your life. I don't need to make "righties" look bad because we are ALWAYS RIGHT. Please, come to the LORD, and stop loving the terroritss.

Posted by: Jerry F | November 15, 2006 1:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

My new bumper sticker:

WWJH

Who Would Jesus Hate?

Posted by: Lyn | November 15, 2006 1:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Oh, wait, I just got the joke. Jerry's not real. Couldn't be. He's a liberal plant to make righties look bad. Good one, Jerry! A little too over the top, though.

Posted by: Trudy | November 15, 2006 1:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

KM needs to love the LORD.

Posted by: Jerry F | November 15, 2006 1:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

What right does anyone have to force their beliefs on others? None.

And I find those who call themselves "Christians" to be far from the definitions of righteousness preached by Christ.

Jesus taught to turn the other cheek, but today's Christians want to invade other countries and kill their sons and daughters. Christ told us to take care of the poor, but today's Christians reward the rich and corrupt, while taking funds for children to give to millionaires as tax giveaways.

Bush and fellow Christians like to carry around the WWJD keychains, but I doubt that Jesus would have signed over 130 Death Warrants, as Bush did.

I am tired of those who see the world through emotionalism, preferring to believe things that are emotionally satisfying, instead of making the hard decisions to live the genuine life of a real Christian. In fact, if I were Satan, I would find the most effective tactics to be in the subversion of the teachings of Christ, turning His followers into selfish, emotional, self-righteous tools of hate and divisiveness.

Posted by: gk | November 15, 2006 1:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jerry, you make a very persuasive argument for the outlawing of religion.

Posted by: Trudy | November 15, 2006 1:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The moment religion became "organized" it was destined to become a political entity. If history has taught us anything, it should be clear that whenever religion of any sort is involved in politics, bad things happen. Historically, the more religious a society the more narrow the collective thinking (see Jerry F's post above, for example).

I consider the Bush Administration as an icon of why the separation of church and state is so important. Moreover, I "credit" Bush for bringing this issue to the forefront of American dialogue so everyone can see, for themselves, how the hypocrisy and double standards play out.

Posted by: KM | November 15, 2006 1:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sean, all I can say is that I love the LORD! Do you love the LORD? You seem a little sarcastick, and I think maybe you don't love the LORD. You should love the LORD and stop being like the terrists who hate the LOARD and FREEDOM.

Posted by: Jerry F | November 15, 2006 1:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

You are hilarious, Jerry! I wish I lived next door to you! It's like rerading Sean and Rush in the Op-Ed's!

Posted by: SEAN | November 15, 2006 1:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Isn't that just like a liberal to defend the terrorists who hate freedom?

These people want to come over here and kill and eat our children. They hate us because we are free and civilized. They hate freedom. They also hate God and don't know the power of Jesus's love. Maybe they could use a little torture, and learn the true nature of the power of God.

If the US Gov t arrests you, you surely not innocent, and torture is a good way to find out what you've been up to. Torture is probably no worse than waht they endured in there training camps.

Yes, I'm part of what you call the "reliogios right" because we always ARE right always. Now the DEMONcrats will sell us out to the terroists because DEMONcrats hate freedom also.

YOu just need to go back and read the Bible, and you see that it says we should beat non-Christians.

Posted by: Jerry F | November 15, 2006 1:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Just as Islamic extremists have hijacked Islam, Christian extremists have hijacked Christianity.
I weep for Jesus and the millions of true Christians who live by his words of tolerance, acceptance and love. Christian extremists, on the other hand, hate the word tolerance. They bristle at any suggestion of it and bully those who suggested it by lumping them with their common enemies, democrats and gays (used to be the communists but they had to find new scapegoats like Hitler used the Jews). The US is in real danger not only from the blatent terrorism of Islamic extremists but also from the more subtle political and social terrorism spouted Sundays from the pulpits of Fallwell, Dobson, Robertson and the like.

Posted by: Roy Briggs | November 15, 2006 1:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

CW:

While I agree with most of what Mr. Ballmer has to say, (and others who have written, too) attacking the "Religious Right" just gets us back into the cycle of name calling. How do we get out of that?

Posted November 15, 2006 1:22 PM

That's hard to answer. Anyone not in lock step with Bush and the Neo-Cons was labelled as unpatriotic, and cowards. That is not something easily forgiven. The Religious Right was fervently behind this sort of name calling, and I suppose it's going to be a while before the anger subsides.

Posted by: Sean | November 15, 2006 1:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The issue of torture is a red herring. To conservatives (I am not one), abortion and stem cell research threaten the very sanctity of life itself. Torture techniques are specifically designed to keep the person alive, but require the infliction of mild to severe pain. It is entirely consistent, as both a moral and religious issue, to be in favor of torture and anti-abortion and against stem cell research.

Duh.

Posted by: Chris | November 15, 2006 1:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If we are people of faith, when political ideology trumps the foundations of spiritual belief, we need to take a hard look at the real god to which we pray. Living a faithful life is not easy, but listening to others and listening to that voice within ourselves, helps us to better understand that difficult path. We are lucky to live in a country where, theoretically, we can enter into a dialogue such as this and, perhaps, make a difference toward a peaceful world.

Posted by: Cheryl | November 15, 2006 1:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

While I agree with most of what Mr. Ballmer has to say, (and others who have written, too) attacking the "Religious Right" just gets us back into the cycle of name calling. How do we get out of that?

Posted by: CW | November 15, 2006 1:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Frank-

Balmer identifies those organizations here: http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42b00601.htm. That should satisfy your need for specifics.

David-

First of all, if you need to have the Bush administration's policy on torture explained to you, you haven't been reading papers for the last three years. Clearly you are pro-torture, but the point is not what you or even what Mr. Balmer thinks of torture. it is what these religious organizations believe, as their stance on political and moral issues such as torture do not comport with what we non-Christians are led to believe that they thin.

Posted by: Xanthippas | November 15, 2006 1:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

and P.S., Frank, until the Roman CAtholic Church suddenly appeared to try for the "moral high ground ring", they were NOT who I was talking about. Try turning Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity off for a while.

Posted by: Sean | November 15, 2006 1:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Frank,

Are you seriously asking this? You intend to try to intimidate me by using that sort of logic? Then stay the course. Cut and run. Do whatever your leader tells you. I'll be god damned if you will ever pass muster again. No, sir. YOU go out and look at the destruction Neo-Cons ( Read: Religious Right ) have wrought, then come back here and write an essay on who the Religious Right is. I'm not being vague. You and everyone reading this is 100% certain of who I am talking about. Your right wing neologisms failed you at the polls, and it won't work here. Go do your own soul earching.

Posted by: Sean | November 15, 2006 1:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I couldn't agree more...it has long amazed me that those who so earnestly abhor abortion and claim to be 'pro-life' also support the death penalty...so they are not 'pro-life', at least as I define 'pro' and 'life'. They are 'pro-life-that-they-think-is-worth-saving'. In this respect, though I am not a Roman Catholic, I admire the stance of the Roman Catholic hierarchy: they oppose both capital punishment AND abortion, which is at least consistent. And they have condemned torture.

There was major reason our founding fathers wanted to divorce religion and government: however well intentioned, theocracy evetually becomes a religious tyranny. Because those with an extreme religious bent are inevitably censorious of those with whom they disagree because of 'immoral' views or behavior, censoriousness leads to exclusion, which leads to persecution or worse. Adams and Jefferson saw exactly this happening in their own time, and had the wisdom learn from it. For some reason, the behavior of extreme theocratic regimes such as Taliban-controlled Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia (theoretically secular but in thrall to the Wahabists) does not make a similar impression in our own times. Fundamentalism in any religion is ultimately inconsistent with a free and open society which values dialogue and compromise, because 'fundamentalism' and 'compromise' are diametrically opposed philosophical approaches. Hence, ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel stone American Reform Jews who approach the Wailing Wall because they are not 'real Jews', a man who fails to grow a beard in Saudi Arabia is jailed for not following the tenets of the Koran...and an avowed homosexual cannot be a practicing Baptist.

Posted by: Phil | November 15, 2006 1:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I agree. The religious right has become too emboldened of late and it is good to see them brought down a notch. I got a jump start on this before the recent election when I became irritated that my UPS driver came along my quiet dirt road with his radio blaring Christian hate radio, specifically Monica Crowley. I asked him about it and he said, "You don't believe in Jesus?" I said, "How could not believe in Jesus? He was a fine fellow. But what's done in his name is a travesty." So, I registered a complaint with UPS, asking them to ask him to keep his radio off when he's on my property. The next time I saw him, he was accompanied by a supervisor, riding along as a monitor. I was elated.

Posted by: Trudy | November 15, 2006 1:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

What a bunch of BS. Tell us, Mr. Balmer, what is YOUR position on torture? If you could save your child's life by torturing a known terrorist, would you contemplate it? And what is the "Bush administration's position on torture?" Instead of telling us "they defended the Bush administrations policy on torture" why don't you tell us what they actually said, or at least tell us what the policy is? I don't imagine you could do so without spinning it, given the title of the book you've written. I don't believe anyone has been tortured "in my name"--they were either "made to feel uncomfortable" in my name (waterboarding) or perhaps tortured or humiliated by rogue personnel NOT acting in my name (Lynndie England at Abu Graib), and were punished for it.

Let's just stick to the subject at hand and not use it as a stick with which to beat up Bush. And for the record, I'm an atheist.

Posted by: David Curtin | November 15, 2006 1:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

agreed with sean.....people of faith were complicit with the right's trampling of public discourse.

this of course was a matter of personalities of the leadership of the religious right- and not a matter of faith. but the two are linked- and the wakeup call should be to people of faith- that...

its not their leadership- but the fact that they need or have leadership to take them down any political path.

i was so disgusted that politics entered churches. people of faith should be VERY weary of any political or policy information that seeps itself into a church. anytime you see some pamphlet or policy advice in a church---scrutanize it- and go out of your way to find what the opposite side's rationalizations are. the information on policy in churches- that ive seen- tends to be very blakc and white/ good vs bad- which can pull the wool over someones eyes who is less than critical.

BE CRITICAL OF YOUR ALLIES

keeping them in check is the best way to reassure yourself that those on your side, are indeed on your side.

peace all

Posted by: dave | November 15, 2006 1:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I think the problem here is that the Religious Right has hijacked terms like "Christian," "believer," and "people of faith." That's why I take issue with the closing statement of Professor Balmer's comment. People of faith have not ignored the courtesy of dialogue--but people of a certain kind of faith orientation have indeed done so. I think also that there is a problem of what to call such people. "Fundamentalist" seems to have fallen out of favor, though I don't quite understand why. "Evangelical" seems to be the preferred designation, though that claim is dubious since the "news" coming from the direction of the Religious Right is almost never "good." (Reference Jim Wallis's remark that "you're not an evangelical unless your news is good.") "Religious Conservative" may be closer to the mark, but the fact that many of these groups couch their spirituality in misinterpretations of Scripture that date from the 17th and 19th centuries marks them out more accurately as Religious reactionaries. Since all such groups, be they from Christian, Muslim, or Jewish backgrounds, seem to emphasize the rights of the male, whether as head of the family, guardian of the state, or personification of the state, perhaps "patriarchalists" would do fine. Then again, that would take too much explanation.

Posted by: Michael | November 15, 2006 1:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The Religious Right? Why didn't you identify some of these organizations? You will not find a more pro-life organization than the Roman Catholic Church and I know they did not write to you to defend torture. It was just a few weeks ago that a Vatican approved publication called the death sentance on Saddam Husein wrong. Please stopping being so vague and let us know who you are really directing this to.

Posted by: Frank Fitzmaurice | November 15, 2006 1:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

As long as there's something to be gained, no one is safe from avarice. The religious right stole the moral authority of faith, and used it for politiccal advantage. I remember no noises of disapproval from the faith-based voters so long as they were getting something from Bush and the Neo-cons. Now the whining begins? Come on. You were complicit.

Posted by: Sean | November 15, 2006 1:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

Randall Balmer

Posts By Category

Posts By Date

Democratic Etiquette and the Religious Right

Comments