saw this headline in sojourners magazine and it really made me think. the white house is actively opposing an amendment to a bill which would bar all american forces from using torture of any description. while we right thinking christians are of course appauled at this we're more complicit in the torture culture than we like to admit
i heard reprieve founder and legal director clive stafford-smith speaking at greenbelt this year. he is a lawyer who spends his time defending people on death row and campaigning on justice issues. if any uk citizen is charged with a capital crime in the us he'll be the lawyer who represents them. he's also the only uk lawyer to have been in guantanamo bay as only us citizens are allowed and he holds dual nationality. he presented a thoroughly convincing case not only against the death penalty but against punishment in general.
it was pretty obvious from his remarks that he does not consider himself a christian and one of the things that made his talks so uncomfortable for me was the damnable light in which the church had portrayed herself. christians, he said, were often the ones most vocally supporting the death penalty and completely reprehensible institutions (like guantanamo bay) while doing little or nothing to help relieve the suffering of prisoners and criminals (a word stafford-smith hates!) even though clearly this is something christians will be judged on! enough to make one think!!
i did an ethics module last semester and our lecturer made the point that everyone would accept that there is no moral argument which could be made for the torture of innocents. i objected strongly - a lone voice in the class. i think in the vast majority of cases people who torture others (even the innocent) do so because they believe it serves a greater purpose. it's not that torture is so axiomaticaly reprehensible, it's that it's so easy to justify. terrorists torture innocents so that the word will spread about how ruthless they are, to instil terror in the general populace, which in turn enables them to defeat establishment powers which often possess vastly superior numbers. the inhumane treatment of one individual leads to a better (at least in their eyes) state of affairs.
we're all against terrorists. the problem is that there's no accepted definition of what a terrorist is! someone described terrorism as an irregular verb: we have freedom fighters, you have guerillas, they have terrorists. one minute nelson mandela is universally proclaimed a terrorist, the next as an international statesman. one minute we're training bin laden, the next he's the most wanted man in the world. one minute we're going in to free iraq, the next we're "occupying." the lines are much more grey than we like to admit. the scariest thing about "them" is that "they" are actually "us"!
even we armchair critics aren't so far removed from these terrorist torturers as we like to think. think of the films we love and the tv programmes we watch. in the brilliant the usual suspects kaiser sose shoots his own family to establish his authority to rule and command men; in 24 we're cheering in our chairs as jack bauer tortures and brutalizes all who get in his path because he is persuing "bad (wo)men" for a "good cause"; even in the incredible mississippi burning we're practically punching the air when the tables are turned on the white racists and they are threatened with exactly the methods they have been using on black people and protestors for years.
i could give a thousand more examples from history the ira, hitler, abu graib... and a million from fiction: lost, the devils, the shield... we implicitly accept that there are just some situations where the only response is to torture some that others will benefit; that the end justifies the means. but then we return to the question at the start: who would jesus torture? dostoyevsky gives this famous challenge:
that’s rebellion,” murmered alyosha, looking down. “rebellion? i am sorry you call it that,” said ivan earnestly. “one can hardly live in rebellion, and i want to live. tell me yourself, i challenge your answer. imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature- that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance- and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? tell me, and tell the truth.”
“no, I wouldn’t consent,” said alyosha softly.
“and can you admit the idea that men for whom you are building it would agree to accept their happiness on the foundation of the unexpiated blood of a little victim? and accepting it would remain happy for ever?”
“no, I can’t admit it….
the brothers karamazov
the scenario which is often presented to justify torture is that of the nuclear bomb ticking and we have the one person who knows where it is and how to disarm it. surely torture is justified in situations such as these! but this scenario has never ever arisen and is ludicrous in the extreme. espionage is never black and white like this. the good guys aren't so good, and the bad guys, not so bad.
tolkien is a wise teacher in the lord of the rings. no matter how good the intentions of the wearer, the ring must never be used even in a good cause. it is too powerful and will end up corrupting and controlling the wearer. we must accept that there are some things which we should never do even when our interests would be served by doing them. this is not only the basis of christianity, it is the basis of civilisation! surrender this principle and we debase ourselves to the level of animals.
so next time you find yourself cheering for jack bauer or gene hackman or michael chiklis or dick cheyney, or belmarsh, or guantanamo bay, ask yourself what message is being sold to me here and would jesus preach it?


Comments