Who would Jesus torture?

Submitted by PAAMember on November 9, 2005 - 7:00pm. ::

I don't usually send stuff like this, but I've been kinda getting
into reading the info from Sojourners of late. They introduced me to
the likes of Jim Wallis, an amazing evangelical minister and activist
for human rights. They are well respected in the faith based as well
as many other communities.

In this edition of their online magazine, they ask the most important
question of all! and question the Bush administration condoning of
torture as standard US policy.

Despite strong bipartisan support in the Senate, Republican leaders
in the House - including Speaker Hastert - are using a procedural
loophole to block an up or down vote on Sen. McCain's anti-torture
measure. Take action today! WRITE your reps!

http://go.sojo.net/campaign/wwjt

Who would Jesus torture?
by David Batstone

Christians of strong religious faith and sound moral conscience often
end up in disagreement. Human affairs are a messy business,
unfortunately, and even at the best of times we only see through a
glass, darkly.
It is hard for that reason to call Christians to a universal standard
of behavior. At this moment, however, we cannot afford to dilute the
message of Jesus into meaningless ambiguity. There are certain acts
that a follower of Jesus simply cannot accept. Here is one: A
Christian cannot justify the torture of a human being.

The practice of torture by American soldiers is a hot topic at the
Pentagon, in the Congress, and in the White House at the moment. The
U.S. Senate already has passed 90-9 a bill that prohibits "cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment" of prisoners in U.S. custody. The
lead advocate of the bill, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), was tortured
by his captors during the Vietnam War. According to The New York
Times, the Pentagon adopted a policy last Thursday to rein in
interrogation techniques. The new policy uses much of the same
language as the McCain amendment - drawn in large part from the
Geneva Convention - to adopt standards for handling terror suspects.

Remarkably, the White House opposes the Pentagon initiative, and
threatens to veto any legislation to which the McCain bill gets
attached. Vice President Dick Cheney has urged Republican senators to
allow CIA counterterrorism operations internationally to be exempt
from the ban on mistreatment of prisoners, major newspapers reported.

On Nov. 3, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff for then-
Secretary of State Colin Powell, said during an interview on NPR's
"Morning Edition" that memos from Cheney's office practically
encouraged abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Though in "carefully couched
terms" that would allow for deniability, the message from Cheney's
office conveyed the sentiment that interrogations of Iraqi prisoners
were not providing the needed intelligence. Wilkerson said soldiers
in the field would have concluded that to garner better intelligence
they could resort to interrogation techniques that "were not in
accordance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and the law of
war."

Republican senators are among the strongest voices in the growing
chorus of criticism. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said, "I think the
administration is making a terrible mistake in opposing John McCain's
amendment on detainees and torture." And Sen. John Warner (R-Va.),
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and co-sponsor of
McCain's measure, agreed: "I firmly believe that it's in the best
interest of the Department of Defense, the men and women of the
United States military that this manual be their guide.

When the existence of secret CIA detention centers became public this
week, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Speaker J.
Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called for investigations - not about whether
they violate laws governing human rights - but about how the
information was leaked. But members of their own party are keeping
the focus where it belongs. The Washington Post quoted Sen. Lindsey
O. Graham (R-S.C.) as saying, "Talk about not seeing the forest for
the trees. The real story is those jails.

Admittedly, Christians of good faith part paths when political
conflict leads us to consider what constitutes a just and righteous
war - or if any war can be just. Though we may not consent on the
means, we do consent on the need to confront the spread of evil in
the world. Yet we can all affirm scripture when it says, "Do not
repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the
sight of all.... Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with
good" (Romans 12:17, 21). When we confront evil with its own means,
those means mark our own character.

In that regard, the practice of torture so fully embraces evil it
dehumanizes both the torturer and its victim. No just cause can be
won if it relies on torture to succeed. Democracy and freedom cannot
result from a war fueled by torture, which is why so many Americans
were shocked and angered by the disturbing incidents that took place
at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

All the more so, Christians must oppose torture under any
circumstances. Consider this: Who would Jesus torture? I cannot
imagine Jesus finding a single "exemption" that would justify such an
abuse of any individual made in God's image.

Though I bristle whenever I hear someone refer to the United States
as a Christian nation - it is such a loaded phrase - many in the
Muslim world see us as such. How tragic it would be for Muslims to
identify the message and mission of Jesus with torture and terror. We
must not allow that to happen.