Because of a comment that was left on my blog recently, I want to make sure that my position is clear to everyone: I am categorically against torture. Moreover, my husband, Jim Berkley, director of Presbyterian Action at IRD, is categorically against torture, and IRD itself is categorically against torture.
Also, here is an example of another IRD staff person stating his position on torture, which is that he is completely against it:
http://www.newsobserver.com/663/story/481121.html
People who say that IRD supports torture have misinterpreted what IRD has written. Sometimes it's just because of their prior assumption that IRD is evil. Other times it's because they misinterpret the facts, which are the following: 1) IRD does not want to join people who blame only the US for torture, since the evidence that the US does indeed engage in officially sanctioned torture is not clear, and 2) IRD wishes that people who are against torture would focus on nations that are truly egregious torturers. The people who misinterpret these facts take them to mean that IRD is for torture. This is logically fallacious thinking. It's analogous to this situation:
Group A: "There's a guy that we know, and we think he killed another guy. Join us in a campaign against him!"
Group B: "We don't know that he killed him, and we think efforts should be focused on known murderers, so we won't join your campaign at the present."
Group A: "From what Group B just said, we can tell that Group B is in favor of murder, and we will now proclaim this to everyone."
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who have decided, on faith, without any facts to back up this faith, that IRD is evil. And so whenever they read or hear about anything that IRD says or does, they do so through an IRD-is-evil filter, and they interpret what they read or hear accordingly. It thus becomes extremely difficult for IRD to do anything at all that is not interpreted as more evidence of evil. For example, my husband once wrote to Steven Martin, who has made an anti-IRD film. His note to Martin was polite and kind, and Martin acknowledged that it was when he wrote about it in a comment on the Talk2Action website. The politeness and kindness was, to Martin, evidence that Jim was similar to Osama bin Laden. So, Jim was condemned ahead of time. There was no manner in which Jim could have written to Martin that would not have been taken as evidence of evil. IRD has been pre-judged (what stands at the root of the meaning of prejudice) as evil.
It is a sad state of affairs to see people who consider themselves to be open, liberal, and broadminded, fallen into prejudice, suspicion, and poor reasoning, and it is more than sad when this leads them to do injury to others.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Debbie,
I have no doubt you are a good person and I am gratified that you are personally against torture.
You quote a letter to the editor of newsobserver.com as evidence that the IRD is against torture. But ever single article at the IRD’s website under the heading of “war and peace” (under “issues”) proactively opposes good Christians asking any questions about the practice of torture by our elected public servants. If the IRD were silent on the topic one could at least fantasize they oppose torture and just haven’t gotten around to mentioning it, but no, the IRD goes out of its way to oppose any demands for accountability. If our government is sanctioning torture, it is in our name. How can a Christian allow even the possibility of someone torturing another human being in their name?
Where is their moral outrage?
You say “well, other people do it, why not complain about them too?” We should and we do. We have gone so far as arrested and brought other government leaders to trial and if found guilty had them hung by their necks till they were dead for doing just that. But at the end of the day we can only control and be held accountable for what we ourselves do. If every other nation in the world practiced torture as a matter of casual fact (and many do), we should forbid those that represent us from also doing it in our name.
In fact, those of us who have fought against torture in other countries have relied on the moral high ground our own nation has taken on the topic in the past.
You say “the evidence is not clear”. Does that mean we should look the other way? See and not see, hear and not hear, as in Isaiah 6? Let’s bring charges, have a trial, declassify and present all the evidence. But if found guilty, we should have done to our governments officials what we have done to the leaders of other nations that we have found guilty of such charges. That was the vow America made at Nuremburg.
The political question the IRD want us to ignore is whether we as Christians living in a democracy should give our public servants blank permission to do whatever they wish in our name, or whether we should hold them accountable. Our president believes he has permission. The IRD proactively says good Christians should give him free reign and do nothing to oppose him. If liberals are demanding accountability, the IRD then says conservatives should not. That is such a gross misrepresentation of the Gospel that I can only discern that it comes from a spirit that is intentionally against Christ.
“all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing”
You said: "ever single article at the IRD’s website under the heading of “war and peace” (under “issues”) proactively opposes good Christians asking any questions about the practice of torture by our elected public servants".
False. IRD has does not agree with certain assumptions that have been made by certain people, and does not agree with SOME questions asked by SOME people. That is a far cry from what you said.
"the IRD goes out of its way to oppose any demands for accountability". Again, false. What you interpret as a demand for accountability could reasonably be interpreted by other people as accusations based on uncertain evidence. Evidence must be established before punishment can be meted out.
"If our government is sanctioning torture, it is in our name. How can a Christian allow even the possibility of someone torturing another human being in their name?"
The relevant word in this is "if". You are assuming that IRD, like you, believes that our government sanctions torture. But IRD does not believe this. That is the difference between you and IRD on this subject. The difference is not that IRD does not oppose torture. The difference is that, unlike you, IRD is not sure that our government sanctions it.
"But at the end of the day we can only control and be held accountable for what we ourselves do." Then why is it that so many people who are angry with IRD about torture are also proactively attacking Israel for its policy regarding Palestinians?
"You say “the evidence is not clear”. Does that mean we should look the other way? See and not see, hear and not hear" No. But it also does not mean that we should attack others who are not sure of the evidence and accuse them of supporting torture. And please note that horrible things like Abu Ghraib are not evidence that our government sanctions torture; they were done without orders from on high, and the people who did it were punished.
"The political question the IRD want us to ignore is whether we as Christians living in a democracy should give our public servants blank permission to do whatever they wish in our name"
False. You can not get this from anything IRD has ever written or said, and I know it to be untrue.
"The IRD proactively says good Christians should give him free reign and do nothing to oppose him." False just like the last one.
"If liberals are demanding accountability, the IRD then says conservatives should not." False just like the two previous.
"That is such a gross misrepresentation of the Gospel that I can only discern that it comes from a spirit that is intentionally against Christ." Grievously false, and a hateful slander against people who are your brothers and sisters in Christ.
"“all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing”"
You have no idea all the things that IRD is doing, such as regarding the slave trade in Africa, for example. And there is much more.
Jodie, I'm not going to argue any more about this. IRD is categorically against torture. My husband specifically is categorically against it, just like his fellow IRD staffers, and is a faithful servant of Christ (as are the other IRD staffers), who only wants to serve God and the church and has absolutely no interest in secular politics. If you don't believe me and continue to spread lies about us, then you'll just have to deal with that when you meet God one day, but I'm through discussing it with you. I would appreciate it if you would cease from making any further accusations on this blog.
I just want to add, for Jodie or anyone else, that I find it utterly incredible that this discussion even needs to be had. Torture is absolutely so repugnant that I can't believe anyone could ever think that I, or my husband, or anyone we associate with, might ever even remotely entertain the thought that it would be OK.
Debbie,
Thank you for your indignation and very strong statement against torture.
As I said, my latest comments were based on posted IRD articles (such as the ones by Rebekah Sharpe, Faith McDonnell, John Lomperis and others). You asked for arguments based on specific facts so I gave you some. These formulaic articles make the IRD’s position abundantly clear that conservative Christians should remain silent in the face of allegations against and even admissions by Bush that he has authorized and ordered the use of torture (Bush calls it ‘aggressive interrogation” and calls it “legal” but you don't hear that from McCain).
Trials are what determine whether allegations are true or not. There is an overwhelming body of evidence to warrant at least charges and a trial. Asking for one is the civic duty of all responsible citizens who oppose torture – specially Christian citizens. But perhaps the IRD is afraid to loose and that is why it wants conservative Christians to hide until after such trial is concluded before weighing in.
Don’t you see that is exactly the silence that consents, the do-nothing that evil needs in order to succeed? The IRD’s articles fly in the face of the teachings of the Prophets, James, and Jesus. No. Unless the IRD retracts and apologizes for such articles I have to stand on my comments.
I hope that you and your husband find it within yourselves to turn your indignation into action.
Jodie, I'm also glad that you have a passion against torture.
However, I can't refute what you say against IRD unless you give me the specific articles that you have in mind. There is no "torture" section under Issues on the IRD website, and there are many articles by the people you mention, so I don't know exactly what you are referring to. But IRD's position is definitely not "that conservative Christians should remain silent in the face of allegations against and even admissions by Bush that he has authorized and ordered the use of torture". I do not follow politics but I know that IRD would not condone any moral wrong, and I suspect that the so-called admissions by Bush are not as clear as you make them sound.
Furthermore, IRD could not be called a group that supports Bush, because there is no political consensus among IRD staffers.
I also know that IRD staffers do not write according to any kind of formula.
Give me a couple of the specific articles you have in mind and I will better be able to answer you. I am sure that you are misinterpreting what has been written.
Debbie,
“I do not follow politics but…”
Ahhh… It is hard to put 2 and 2 together if you are missing one of the 2s. It helps me understand your reluctance to see the result.
“give me the specific articles” I did. At the top of this thread. Someone who likes math and logic puzzles should be able to see their pattern (the formula, as I called it) quite easily I think. The Layman also frequently uses the same pattern. Does the IRD overtly spell it out in a how-to manual, or do people just copy it maybe even without realizing it, I don’t know. I just figured it came out of one of the Neo-con think tanks, but who knows.
I sent you a link to an NBC report about Bush’s latest admissions on the previous thread. Read it.
By the way, as a linguist you should also find George Lakoff interesting reading. I suggest “Moral Politics”.
OK, Jodie, I just spent an hour late in the evening after getting home from work and then choir practice, reading several articles, including the ABC news article you referred to. Here's what I picked up from them:
The ABC article: it does not contain, as you said, "admissions by Bush that he has authorized and ordered the use of torture." It says that he knew that high-level staff were talking in great detail about what interrogation techniques were being used. That's a bit different from what you said. Nevertheless, it's bad that waterboarding was being used, but I thought I understood that that has been stopped. (Please note, by the way, that I am not a Bush adherent.)
Now for some of the articles from the IRD website, under Issues, under War and Peace (I had remembered you had said Issues but had not remembered about "War and Peace".) Here are notes about them.
Rebekah Sharpe, http://www.theird.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=610&srcid=610; she just reports what happened, and points out that they did not provide evidence for their claims, but never says anything at all about "conservative Christians" remaining silent if there actually is evidence.
Faith McDonnell, http://www.theird.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=606&srcid=606; again, she just reports what happened, and indicates her disagreement with some of the things that were done, but not a word is ever said about "conservative Christians" remaining silent.
article on anti-torture conference, http://www.theird.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=585&srcid=585: it tells that the conference featured people from the same political slant, and notes that they were only concentrating on unproved torture by the US and not at all on known torture by other countries. Nothing about "conservative Christians" remaining silent in the face of known torture.
John Lomperis, http://www.theird.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=583&srcid=583: no mention of torture.
From what I see in these articles, your argument with IRD is not for saying that "conservative Christians" should remain silent. Your argument with IRD is for not agreeing with you that sufficient evidence of condoned torture by the US has been shown.
I do not see a formula or pattern in these articles other than what you might find in any general news article. It's kind of hard to report on events in a novel way each time you do it.
No, there is no how-to-do-it manual. That's utterly silly. And, by the way, neocon is a word that evangelicals don't use that I know of, and I find it strange to have it applied to people I know. It's strange to have a group like IRD, that is based on shared theology, described in terms of secular politics, which is not what IRD is about.
When you think you find IRD telling conservative Christians to be silent about alleged US torture, you are reading into these articles something that is not there, but rather something that you expect to find. So when you expect to find it, no matter what they write, you see what you expect to find. It's like Steven Martin getting a polite and kind note from my husband and therefore thinking he was like Osama bin Laden.
As for other things you said:
"It helps me understand your reluctance to see the result." Please don't confuse my disagreeing with you as reluctance to get to a logical conclusion. Although I don't follow politics, IRD is not about politics (despite the insistence of IRD's detractors that they are.) It is quite possible for someone to disagree with you without shying away from facts.
And I am familiar with Lakoff's linguistic work but have not taken the time to read his political writings (nor have I done so with Chomsky, either.)
Unlike many progressives, I do not feel that it is necessary to engulf myself in secular politics in order to serve God and the church (although, when I was in college, I took part in war protests and worked on some Democratic political campaigns). I do not intend to get into secular politics now just because some people want to insist that IRD is secularly political. I have many other ways that I need to spend my time.
Apparently I am not the only one who thinks IRD's darling president Bush has confessed to authorizing torture:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20080429
/cm_ucru/arrestbush;_ylt=
AgUAYCaHeSJkicFCbbgtRnes0NUE
Tell me Debbie,
When in college, why did you stand up against the war in Viet Nam?
Because all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to find better things to do than standing up against it.
Today Bush not only gets away with torture and murder, he believes the error we made in Viet Nam was getting out.
The conservatives put this man there, the Christian conservatives with the IRDs blessings worked hard for it, and by not standing up against him they make it clear they still support him.
It is called being an accomplice.
To murder, to torture, to hatred and bigotry. You can hide if you like. Call it 'secular' politics if you like. But you cannot claim you did not know.
And you cannot claim you did not consent.
Jodie
Jodie:
Going through your comment from top to bottom:
I never said nor thought that you were the only one who believes that Bush authorized torture. But the article you cited doesn't prove that he did, nor does that editorial you gave the link to, which quotes the same article (I think).
And please don't call Bush "IRD's darling president", because he is not. IRD is not a political organization and does not endorse any particular politician. You do not have the right to accuse IRD of things it has not done.
In college I protested the Vietnam war because I believed it was wrong, and because I was young and saw issues as binary: completely right or completely wrong, no nuances. Now I still believe it was a bad war, but I can see the nuances, and I no longer believe that the people who thought we needed to fight it thought so for evil reasons.
I am standing up against evil in other arenas. There are more ways to fight evil than I have time to be involved in. I don't have to get involved in your issue just because you insist that I do. Moreover, I still have not been convinced that there is sufficient evidence to prove that the U.S. is deliberately engaged in policies of torture. Yes, we used waterboarding, yes, that was bad, and aside from the morality of it, torture does not even guarantee truthful results, but it has been stopped. That's good.
I'm not a Bush supporter, so don't lecture me about him.
It is false to say that "the Christian conservatives with the IRDs blessings worked hard for" Bush's election. True, many (but not all) Christian conservatives worked hard for it, but it was not with the IRD's blessings. The IRD does not get involved with secular politics. Again, you have a right to your opinion, but you don't have a right to get your facts wrong.
I do claim that I don't consent to torture, because I don't share your belief that it has been definitively shown that the US has a poicy of torturing.
I'm not going to be bullied by you into saying things I don't believe or hopping onto any bandwagon without sufficient reason to do so.
Believe it or not, Jodie, I actually do think about and carefuly consider what I believe and what I do.
In spite of all the talk and fretting about the U.S. having a policy of torture, no one has come up with hard evidence. It seems to me that if it were true, there would be evidence after all this time and all this talk. So you're not going to convince me without evidence.
I'll believe that people like you are really anti-torture, and not just anti-USA, when they spend equal time decrying the torture in, for example, North Korea.
Debbie,
"I'll believe that people like you are really anti-torture, and not just anti-USA, when they spend equal time decrying the torture in, for example, North Korea."
Typical acolyte vocabulary, but I am quite sure that I have never said nor done anything anti-USA in my entire life.
It is a shame I must remain anonymous. But it is essential that for people like me to be effective when we help the US take on nations like North Korea, that we not be guilty of the same things we claim to stand against. Hypocrisy does not work for us. Total and complete integrity is our strongest weapon. The world needs it from us. Certain things are in a gray area, yes, but these are not. The evidence you speak of is available to anyone who wants to find it. But it is our Christian values that are missing in action. That is the evidence that is missing. The IRD serves only to play the fiddle while Rome is burning. And if people like you are unwilling to truly stand by our values, then they may be gone forever.
And the work that I do in real life will be all for nothing.
Jodie
Jodie,
Hypocrisy doesn't work for anyone. Please take your veiled insults elsewhere.
Acolyte vocabulary? I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I'm sure it's a putdown. You're implying I'm an acolyte to something but I'm not sure what. I can tell you I'm certainly not an acolyte to Bush or to conservative politics, neither of which I particularly care for. What I wrote is an idea that Jim and I have discussed at the dinner table, but I've never talked about it with anyone else. In general take my beliefs from the Bible and apply what I find there to current situations. I think that would make me an acolyte of Christ but of nothing else. He's the only one I serve.
Now, if the evidence of official torture is available, where is it? Where is unambiguous, direct evidence? Not something like that ABC article, which said that Bush knew some top-level people were informed about details, but something that actually says that Bush authorized torture or that actually says that there is an official policy of torture.
Meanwhile, if you're going to continue to insist that IRD is playing a secular political role and doing things like "playing the fiddle while Rome burns", I'm going to ask you to stop commenting here. We could go on forever with my continuing to tell you that IRD is not doing what you say, and you coming right back and insisting that it is. That's wearying and a waste of time and cyberspace.
Your continued complete mischaracterization of me and my husband ("people like you are unwilling to truly stand by our values") makes it impossible to communicate with you. I will not be continuing this conversation.
Well done, Debbie!
You answered every legitimate question in a forthright manner.
You did better with Jodie than I ever did....
:)
Got that right, Toby. And she never cussed at me once.
Plus, maybe not lately, but she >has< done something to oppose torture and unjust wars.
What have >you< ever done to oppose torture and those that promote it?
Are >you<< willing to stand and be counted?
I don't agree that I have mis-characterized her husband, but I admire her fierce loyalty to him. I see no reason to challenge it any further.
As far as the evidence thing, there is so much of it out there it is hard not to simply stumble on it. I have to conclude that if someone doesn't see it, there is little I can do to increase their awareness. But if anybody really wants to track some down and doesn't know where to start, they could start with the ACLU website.
Or they could just Google the word "torture".
Jodie, this blog is not to be used for sniping at other people who leave comments. I will remove any further comments of that nature.
There are quite likely more people being killed by abortion than are being subjected to torture. Are you willing to stand up and be counted on that issue?
This is a rhetorical question. I do not mean to engage in a debate with you about abortion, and will not respond even if you do. It merely illustrates that for other people there are other issues in which horrendous evil can be found and which require good people to engage in the fight against them.
Debbie,
"Jodie, this blog is not to be used for sniping at other people who leave comments. I will remove any further comments of that nature."
Was that addressed to Toby and me, or just me?
"There are quite likely more people being killed by abortion than are being subjected to torture."
Is that supposed to comfort somebody?
"Are you willing to stand up and be counted on that issue?"
I am and I have.
Jodie, Toby did not say anything negative about anyone else. So right now I just mean you. But I am going to make this a general policy on my blog.
I told you why I mentioned the abortion issue, so don't ask me a question like "Is that supposed to comfort somebody?" But since you're playing that game, I'll tell you again: it's to show you that other people are involved in other issues that concern evil and the misery, oppression, and death of others. You can pour your efforts into the torture issue. Others will pour their efforts into the abortion issue. Others may pour their efforts into yet another important issue. We can't all take on all of them.
I'm glad, however, to hear that you have taken an active stand against abortion.
Well, he called me out by name, and and in such a friendly manner, that I thought a gentle reply was appropriate. But I will refrain in the future.
I don't think making an issue of one crime against humanity and intentionally turning a blind eye to another makes any moral sense. Specially when the other is done in my name supposedly to protect me.
At the very least one should cheer others who fight against it without recrimination or verbal sabotage (as exemplified by the IRD articles I mentioned). So either I don't understand your point or I don't agree.
Be that as it may, it seems this whole topic makes you quite angry. At first I thought it was all about loyalty to your husband, and like I said, I think that is a virtue. But I wonder if maybe it is also true that deep down you really agree with me. That kid from Berkeley, (not Berkley), is calling out from the past wanting to be heard again. Is that possible?
Just a little?
Toby merely mentioned how well people did answering questions from you. There was no sarcasm such as you used in your following comment.
I have already replied to the charges of "turning a blind eye" and "verbal sabotage", etc., that you make again.
And no, I am not at all angry. You are wrong about that.
Nor am I blindly loyal to my husband. I can think for myself, thank you.
We are done now.
Debbie
Debbie,
I never said you were blindly loyal, nor did I ever say or even imply you could not think for yourself.
Much to the contrary.
But if you are not angry, then heaven help us all should you ever get that way.
Post a Comment