I've lifted a post from the World magazine blog by Marvin Olasky about his interview with a writer.
This statement about a question I've posed here before has got me thinking:
No Christian... ever made an ethical decision solely on utilitarian grounds – what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people – especially if it compromises the worth and dignity of an individual.
Makes sense.
In an upcoming issue of World we'll run an interview with Barnard professor Randal Balmer, author of Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical's Lament. One of my questions to him was this: "You complain that, 'The torture of human beings, God's creatures - some guilty of crimes, others not - has been justified by the Bush administration….the use of torture under any circumstances is a moral issue.' Agreed that torture is terrible and sometimes useless in gaining information, but… if the imminent explosion of a nuclear bomb would kill millions of people, and if by applying some kind of physical pressure to a terrorist you could gain information that would lead to its location and disarming, would you do it?"
His reply: "No, absolutely not, and I’m surprised that you would even suggest such a thing! I was under the impression that conservatives were allergic to utilitarian arguments; certainly that is what I learned from Paul Ramsey in graduate school. No Christian, he insisted, ever made an ethical decision solely on utilitarian grounds – what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people – especially if it compromises the worth and dignity of an individual.
"In the course of writing Thy Kingdom Come, I contacted eight Religious Right organizations with a simple, straightforward request to send me a copy of their group’s position on the use of torture. Only two organizations replied, and both of them defended the Bush administration’s policies on torture. None of the others, to my knowledge, has even yet condemned torture. That’s morally bankrupt. These are people who claim to be prolife, who profess to hear a 'fetal scream,' yet they turn a deaf ear to the very real screams of human beings who are being tortured in our name."
accurate, sad, not surprising. That little consistency flag is waving a lot these days in Christendumb.
Posted by: steve at September 6, 2006 08:30 PMAnd ask this: Would Jesus torture that guy? Actually lay his hands on a whip, ice pick, electrode, or cigarrette, and apply it to one of his created ones?
WWJD indeed
I think the fact that torture raises an issue comes from a bankrupt religion loosely based on, but not aligned with the true Christ.
Posted by: steve at September 6, 2006 08:34 PMOkay, Jim, once again. If some Rethuglican writes racist crap on a MoveOn forum that they disavow, and remove, how does that make the organization racist? Here's the money quote you ignored:
But in a statement posted on the MoveOn site Saturday, Pariser condemned the anti-Semitic rants.
"Once in a while - as in any public forum - inappropriate material is posted," he wrote. "Recently, a few of the thousands of comments that are posted every week contained anti-Semitic language.
"The comments that were posted were abhorrent. We were dismayed to see them, and removed them as soon as they came to our attention 17 days ago."
He added that most of the comments were not made by MoveOn members and suggested it could be an effort by conservatives to "target" the group, and said any effort to tie the rants to MoveOn was "wrong."
Posted by: Jeff at September 6, 2006 09:10 PMWhoops. How do you post to the wrong thread? Sorry.
Posted by: Jeff at September 7, 2006 08:47 AMJeff started it, so I'm going off subject too. Well, like him, this is pertinent to the discussion, but not specifically about torture.
Dibert blog a couple of days ago:
"What Would Trump Do?
If my religion were based on the teachings of Donald Trump, I would try to make a lot of money and keep it all. And I’d feel good about it because I was being true to my beliefs. I’d hate to go through life feeling like a hypocrite.
Non-believers have it good too. They can keep their money or give it away – whatever feels right. Bill Gates is the biggest philanthropist on earth and he’s a non-believer. So is the second biggest philanthropist on earth, Warren Buffet. George Soros too. You’d expect rich guys who have no moral compass to build their own countries on barges so they can legally rape and kill the citizens all day. For some reason they don’t.
Things get trickier when you base your religion on a nice fellow who wants you to give most of your money to the poor. How do you justify buying a third television set when people in New Orleans are living in rolled-up carpets? That’s not a rhetorical question. I actually wonder about the answer. Here are some of my best guesses about your rationalization:
1. Jesus likes me better than poor people. He’d approve of my second iPod.
2. If I give a poor person a fish, he’d only eat for a day anyway. What’s one day?
3. I give 10% of my money to charity. God says that’s exactly the right amount. 11% would anger God.
4. Poor people are lazy or crazy. My money won’t fix that.
5. There’s a loophole in the Bible that says I can keep my money. Woo-hoo!
6. I am bad at economics and I am convinced that keeping my money stimulates the economy and helps poor people indirectly.
Am I missing any reasons? I am actually curious."
I thought that a number of readers here might be able to help Scott Adams wiht more reasons?
Posted by: steve at September 23, 2006 08:01 PMMan, that is good. A big Manhattan reformed guy, Tim Keller discusses this mindset in a book of his I've been reading.
John Wesley gave almost all of his money away, till he had nearly nothing. I've heard of other Christians doing this too.
Wish I could. And the fact that I think I can't is perhaps the problem.
Posted by: Nat at September 27, 2006 10:50 AMSteve, if you can figure out the reason and somehow get them to see the light (sic) you make this one better world, and one better country. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure it answers the question WWJD.
Posted by: Jeff at September 27, 2006 05:19 PMI actually commented on Scott Adam's Blog. (Man, I want to just say "scott's blog" like we are on a first name basis!) But there I said something abotu the fact that when I point that out in churches, it is the last time I am invited. The keepers of the Keys of St Peter, in whatever denomination, have turned the gospel into their private business...and so how can you expect them to say something contrary to their sustenance? ( they are happy to control that 10% and not rock the boat in suggesting something else)
An interesting read on the Words of Jesus to the churches in Revelations is that the (I think) Nicolaitans(SP?), who Jesus said He hates (!) were the Greek guys that were trying to make the clergy proffesional, and separate from the laity. Supposedly there is a connection in the root of the word laity also. So Jesus might have indicated that he hated the very thing that has driven his church for quite a while. If you study the Nicolaitans, there is a real fog about their identity...could it be that the scholars where not happy with the consequences if the objects of Jesus' wrath were the clergy, as a profession? hmmm
George Mueller, who was truly crazy, in the 1800's took a preaching position only if the church would not pay him, as he felt that would affect his abiltity to bring the unadulterated message. The inference for Preachers who ARE supported by those to whom they preach becomes an indictment.
I keep finding more truths that line up with my reading of Jesus on Muslim and atheist and now cartoonist's blogs. At some level, I worry, because I have been indoctrinated against this very thing. I say indoctrinated, because that is exactly what it was. It was not maliscously intended, as far as my parents were concerned, but the message was distinctly: "we are the bearers of truth! do not look elsewhere, or be damned" and so it is uncomfortable to hear Joshua repeat my phrases...as he clarifies what I thought I only whispered...and I fear the establishment...sure, it is not the inquisition, but one becomes marginalised, especially in the missionary world. The funny ( I laugh so hard I make myself paranoid) thing is that the missionary community is the most money focused group I have ever been connected with. Even funnier is me. I want to share the light with them...but that makes me suspect...and what if those doubts get back to my supporters? Saying it, I fight it, but have to say it is the little nagging thought: "what if I preach "trust God's providence, and stop manipulating people" and God lets me down?" I actually asked him ( rather, I said: If I fail while trusting and obeying you, it's your fault, not mine!") and he responded with a laugh ( or was it thunder?) and said..."just do what I say...I never fail, little son!" And in 20 years, I have failed continuously but I cannot point to a single instance where He failed. I am continually in awe of the grace that is so much a part of the equation.
And of course, then there is Che. Today int he hospital, Josh and I stumbled onto an office with Che posters all over. One quote ( in the farewell note to his children) said: "...remember always that the heart of a revolutionary is the inability to accept injustice to anyone, anywhere." That explains why he was on the outs with most governments! Does he align wiht the Trump religion, or the Jesus People?
Posted by: steve at October 6, 2006 09:55 PM