The muddy middle road

There are several controversial issues that seem very clear to me. There are others that tend to be murkier, causing me to shift back and forth evaluating the issue from several different perspectives. Many of the well reasoned responses here along with other circumstances helped to sway my thoughts. Here are three issues where my stance is not rock solid.

This may come across as a bit "rambly" because these are just my thoughts on these issues.

Torture - Well, I suppose I should rephrase that. I am against torture, I'm just not sure some of the current techniques being debated should be considered torture. The most talked about being waterboarding.

Al Gore's "TV network" current set out to demonstrate the horrible nature of waterboarding, but after having watched the video I am less convinced that waterboarding amounts to torture.

Is it rough treatment? Sure. Would I want to undergo it? Not if I could help it. Does any of that mean it is torture? Not in the least bit.

Having said that, I do find the possible use of torture by the United States as very troubling and harmful to the War on Terror. But even if torture helped us and even if torture got us valuable life-saving information, some lines should not be crossed. We should not fight fire with fire in the case of the terrorists treatment of our soliders. That is a game we cannot win and should not play. Human dignity and the sanctity of human life should be protected regardless of how valuable (or worthless as the case may be) we consider the life.

My position will probably alienate both conservatives and liberals, but I agree with liberal news analysts Kirsten Powers:

I oppose torture, but I don't consider waterboarding torture (though it is considered such by plenty of smart people...we just disagree). To me torture is amputating limbs or digits, ripping out fingernails, drilling holes in feet, starving people...you know, the things Iraqi insurgents and the Hussein clan do/did to people). That said, I'd be happy to agree that we would never waterboard a soldier who is fighting for a country that has signed on to the Geneva Conventions, since it would be a reciprocal agreement. We have no such agreement with terrorists and the worst of what we do to them -- in an attempt to protect ourselves, not for revenge -- is a walk in the park compared to what they do to Americans they capture or attack. We would be unbelievably lucky if they treated us the way we have treated them in Gitmo.

I don't think the waterboard should be rolled out routinely for any person in our custody. But it should be allowed in extreme cases -- as part of an interrogation, not for fun -- which is exactly how it's been used. Like for people like Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, who admitted to murdering Danny Pearl after about two minutes of waterboarding. [Aaron - He also gave up info about a potential 9/11 style attack in LA.]

Death penalty - As far as I can remember I have always been in favor of the death penalty, but it has never been one of my most important issues. My wife is against the death penalty, but there have been several times when she has said something like, "I don't believe in the death penalty, but that guy deserves to die." So, she really has been too convincing from that side of the issue.

As Sam has pointed out here, it is a tragedy that people have been put to death as innocent individuals. That is a horrible fact of our justice system, but one that would not change with the elimination of the death penalty. People would still be convicted as an innocent person. They may even die in jail during their life sentence. I'm not sure how to completely prevent the conviction of innocent individuals, unless we are able to perfectly decide guilt.

A pastor that I work with expressed his disagreement with the death penalty. He said that all life is sacred and only God should be allowed to end it. He closed up his feelings by saying, "I just can't see Jesus throwing the switch." I asked him about Old Testament laws and the death penalty. He said he would have been put to death under those laws. Grace superceeds them.

I can see that line of thinking and I identify with it to some extent, but I also think we have to see Jesus "throwing the switch" because he did so in the Old Testament and the New Testament tells us He will do so again. If God is "the same yesterday, today and forever," then Jesus was just as much God in the OT. Therefore, He gave those death sentences in the OT. The Revelation says that one day, He will do much the same.

My concern is for the potential innocent victim in the public, more than the potential innocent victim in the justice system. It is much more fair to try someone in a court of law, find them guilty and put them to death, than to allow a murder to get out of jail because we don't believe in the death penalty and have them kill more innocent victims. We should strive for neither, but if I have to choose between the two I would choose the justice system.

I would have no problem eliminating the death penalty, if I can be assured that death penalty opponents would stop trying to get murderers off with light sentences. If can know that when someone is given life in prison, they will serve that unless they are found innocent, I would not mind the end of the death penalty. My fear is many of the same ones arguing against the death penalty would argue against life in prison or any lengthy prison term and we would see even more repeat offenders and more innocent victims.

Blue laws - While I believe that local governments should have the right to reflect their collective morality in the laws to a certain point, it may be that blue laws go past that point.

I was arguing for them, while not really supporting them myself. I was simply saying that towns should have the right to do that, but my own stance on a similar issue has prompted me to reconsider.

Greenville, SC city council recently voted to ban smoking in all public places in the city limits. Having never been a smoker, having never smoked in my life, I was adamantly opposed to forcing private businesses to ban smoking just because the government wanted them. I saw it as a complete invasion of private property rights (and as they read this now, many are screaming at their screen "This is the same thing as forcing businesses to close on Sundays!")

I think there are differences, mainly the religious aspect of it, but essentially they are the same issue. The government should not have the right to force businesses to close on Sundays. I still think that local governments can reflect the values and morals of the citizens in ways that state and federal governments can't, but this may be one that steps past the line.

Businesses should be forced to abide by current discrimination laws, which do not let them discriminate on basis of religion. Therefore, Christians should not be required to work on Sundays. Muslims should be allowed to go somewhere and pray toward Mecca five times a day. Jews should not be forced to work on Saturdays. If a business has enough irreligious people who don't care and they want to stay open on Sunday, Saturday or during Ramadan - go for it.

Conclusion - On some issues I am completely rigid (I'll illustrate that later), but on others my position is not that strong. These are issues where I can adapt, even change my position. I thought these examples would show the benefit of blogs and online discussions. I hope those here who disagree with me have learned some things. I hope they have a better view of conservative Christianity for having engaged in discussions here. I pray that eventually some will change their minds completely about following Christ, but regardless thanks for the dialogue.

Comments

[seeker]

My views:

Torture: There is a balance between valid methods of persuasion and torture. War is not pretty. This gray zone will always exist, and taking either extreme is a mistake.

Death Penalty: This is a tough one. I lean towards it, but understand the arguments against it. I truly equivocate on this.

Blue Laws: I am against them. Church ought to compete in the open market for people's time.

[Sam Wilkinson]

Torture: if you're willing to tolerate waterboarding, it would seem that you're willing to tolerate almost anything. As the world's greatest democracy, we have a responsibility to be better than others, and legally allowing torture isn't an act of a great country.

Death Penalty: I with Aaron's wife here. There are plenty of people that I would like to see die (peers toward Pat Robertson). However, my own anger shouldn't be confused with the acts of a fair society, and so I must, despite my own willingness to see certain criminals die, oppose it. It's wrong, and if even a single innocent is executed, the system is corrupt beyond words.

Blue Laws: Seeker and I...agree? Will wonders never cease.

[Aaron]

Sam, did you see that video of a waterboarding? THAT is the equivalent of tolarating anything? It's not like it was a conservative network or person doing the video. It was from Al Gore's network, so it's not like it was trying to help the Bush administration.

I'm with Kirsten Powers on this one, that is not torture.

As to the blue laws, it is not that churches shouldn't "compete in the open market" it is a question of how much authority should a local government have to reflect shared morality of a community. After rethinking it, I believe blue laws go past that line.

[Sam Wilkinson]

But Aaron, you yourself you wouldn't want to be waterboarded. Why not? If it isn't torture, why would you mind it being done to you? Or your wife? Or your children? If it isn't torture, then what's the problem?

And stop talking about shared morality of a community. You're talking about the shared morality of the MAJORITY. That isn't the same thing.

[seeker]

However, my own anger shouldn't be confused with the acts of a fair society, and so I must, despite my own willingness to see certain criminals die, oppose it.

Not everyone who seeks the death penalty does so out of anger or revenge, so you can't dismiss it just because those are YOUR motives. I am angry at the INJUSTICE of allowing murderers to go unpunished. And the death penalty for them is just, since that is what they took.

[Aaron]

Sam, as I have said before there are a lot of things I don't want to be done to me or my family but that doesn't make it torture. I hate sitting in traffic jams, but that isn't torture. I don't want my wife to have to work late, but that isn't torture.

Do you honestly want the standard for interrogation of enemy combatants to only be things that you would want to go through yourself? I don't want to be held in a cell, should they all be released. I don't want to be questioned roughly. Should we not ask them any questions or maybe just beg with "sugar on top" for them to tell us what they know about upcoming terrorist attacks.

As far as the shared morality, can I not even argee with you on an issue without having you disagree with me. If three people in a community disagree with something while 300 agree, you are saying that one cannot use the phrase "shared morality of the community."

Of course there will virtually never be a time when 100% of the people agree, so your contention is that whatever the minority wants it gets? Minority rule can be just as oppresive as majority rule.

I never even proposed a place when I thought such a concept should be enacted, only that it should be left open and you still disagree without knowing any specifics. That seems odd and a tad argumentative.

[seeker]

you yourself you wouldn't want to be waterboarded. Why not?

I wouldn't want to be imprisoned either. I don't want to be taxed either. Does that make them unjust?

[seeker]

Of course there will virtually never be a time when 100% of the people agree, so your contention is that whatever the minority wants it gets? Minority rule can be just as oppresive as majority rule.

Which is why we need to rely on an external, objective rule for what is fair and just, not just what the majority or minority want. Porn, for instance, should be regulated (not sold to minors) and porn shops should be relegated to the outskirts of town away from schools and other places children are. This should be done whether 90% or 10% of the town likes porn.

It should be so because it is unhealthy and BAD for the emotional and relational development of children. It's even unhealthy for adults, like tobacco. It traffics in immorality and is related to child porn, sexual slavery, and addiction.

The ethic is, does it hurt people? The clear answer is YES, both the industry and the products are harmful.

[Louis]

I was hoping you'd include full equality for gay people. I guess that's just too much to hope for.

[seeker]

I guess it all depends on what you mean by 'full equality.' Gays share the same basic rights as the rest of us. They just don't have government sanction of their sexual orientation. We've been over this.

[Louis]

"Gone over it" to YOUR satisfaction, maybe, but not to mine. I think that the right to marry the adult of your choice (ie, the person you love) is a "basic right" which gay people have been denied. And that doesn't equal "government sanction of their sexual orientation" as you so clumsily and insensitively put it.

But, of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand, stinker.

[Cineaste]

Well, I suppose I should rephrase that. I am against torture, I'm just not sure some of the current techniques being debated should be considered torture. The most talked about being waterboarding.

I think you are missing the point here. The point is that the only justification now needed to conduct torture mere suspicion. There is no more habeas corpus. If the President suspects anyone, even innocent Americans, of wrong doing they can be tortured. It won't be like that joke of a video you linked. No, real waterboarding is much much worse. Essentially, one does not need to be found guilty of anything to be subjected to torture. You may think this is okay for others but it would be a different story if you were yanked off the street, accused of some bogus charge and tortured. I can easily see someone like Bush accusing people of "terrorism" when they are actually speaking against his policies. The sick logic would be, speaking against the war in Iraq is helping the terrorists, therefore you are a guilty of aiding terrorists and can be tortured. Bush is asking us to trust him to do what is right. What a joke.

[seeker]

think that the right to marry the adult of your choice (ie, the person you love) is a "basic right" which gay people have been denied.

You have the right to marry, just not the right for that marriage to be recognized by the state. We can't expect the state to sanction sin.

[Louis]

"We can't expect the state to sanction sin."

The two have NOTHING whatsoever to do with each other. The state has no business regulating "sin." "Sin" is a theological concept which has no place in determining law in a secular government. Of course, we all know the basis for your and other xians objection to gay marriage (and gay equality, or even, visibility) is your religion and not some sociological reason. And, in addition, we all know that you want to impose your religious beliefs on the rest of us through law. In fact, what you want is a de facto - if not de jure - xian theocracy. That's why we don't believe your constant bleats to the contrary. The way you speak, the way you act, the beliefs you propound, prove it. The above is only the most recent piece of evidence.

[seeker]

Let me rephrase it. We can't expect government to sanction that which goes against nature, and public health.

[Sam Wilkinson]

There are naturally occuring homosexual animals Seeker, and STDs have NOTHING to do with sexuality. Thus, homosexuality isn't a problem for you.

[seeker]

There are naturally occurring homosexual animals Seeker,

Oh yeah, we discussed the problem with using the word "nature" because it is too broad - as you noted, homosexuality, as well as infanticide, are seen in animals, so maybe we can't use that view to justify or condemn the behavior.

How about this - it is against the natural design of the body and soul of humans, and contrary to public health. Therefore, while we are not going to make it criminal, neither shall we legally sanction it.

[Sam Wilkinson]

I would argue, and you would agree, that gay men enjoy having sex with one another, and gay women enjoy having sex with one another. And that doesn't seem to be "counter" to our "design." I would similarly argue, although you might not agree, that sex in consenting, adult relationships can always satisfy both the body and soul (if soul actually exists). As for this accusation of being "contrary to public health," I have to wonder what you mean. After all, isn't heterosexual sex responsible for all of the abortions in this country? And is that contrary to your notions of public health? You'll have to explain what you mean.

[seeker]

gay men enjoy having sex with one another, and gay women enjoy having sex with one another.

Enjoyment doesn't count either. Some people enjoy killing.

Homosexuals have a higher rate of suicide, and higher rate of other mental illnesses such as depression. Homosexuality may be tied to these illnesses, and be considered an illness itself.

Additionally, psychology shows that the optimal environment for childhood development is with parents of each gender.

Lastly, from a sociological view, it could be argued that officially sanctioned homosexual unions lead to the breakdown of the concept of the family, and therefore, unhealthy to society, which in the end means society's children.

These aren't ironclad arguments, I admit, but they are serious enough to warrant not barreling ahead, going against thousands of years of wisdom concerning the family unit, and sanctioning gay unions. It arguably victimizes children because it exposes them to mental illness and unnatural sexuality and gender-identity development.

[Louis]

You may try to "rephrase it," seeker, but the truth has already come out. You object to full equality under the law for gay citizens because of your religious beliefs. You have no other leg to stand on, as you yourself sort-of acknowledge. You are a theocrat, and you wish to impose your religious superstitions on the rest of us. You may try to disguise it through weak and ultimately phony arguments like those you attempt above, but the truth has already been spoken. Why don't you just admit it? How can you abandon your "saviour" in this manner? Christ and His church, the haters and persecutors of gay people throughout history, expects more of you!

And your comments about gay suicide and mental illness are beyond contemptable. It's as clear as can be that such phenomena are the result of social superstitions regarding homosexuality, of the centuries of persecution and oppression visited upon gay people by the likes of YOU! What do you think it's like to grow up gay bearing the stigma people such as yourself have created? Are you completely evil?

And that is why I have rejected the Abrahamic monotheisms: they have brought too much evil into the world to be true. And, of course, YOU share in the blame.

[Sam Wilkinson]

For the hundreth time, "thousands of years" of anything reveals not monogamous, two person family units, but polygamy. And as for that notion of depression and suicide? Perhaps if you were constantly advocating for second class citizenship for gays, calling them sick people, perhaps if you were loving toward them and your "loving" didn't mean hatred, maybe the depression would ever-so-slightly lessened.

[seeker]

Actually, the suicide and depression rates have been shown to be disproportionate from other oppressed communities - that is, social disapproval is not sufficient to explain the preponderance of associated mental illness in gays.

[Louis]

According to YOU. If you admitted the toll homophobia (such as yours) took on gay people (particularly the young)you'd have to renounce your personal pogrom against gay people (and, of course, as a xian, you can't do THAT).

Disgusting.

[Cineaste]

Aaron, Seeker, waterboarding is torture. Period. Whatever you may think about Christopher Hitchens, this shows that he can speak with intellectual honesty about this subject...

Hitchens Gets Waterboarded

[seeker]

I've never taken a stand on it either way.

[Aaron]

I read about that. I think Hitches takes a very reasoned approach. He makes a very reasoned defense of his position. As I said in this post, I vascilate between stances. I can see wisdom on both sides. Does that make me more nuanced and open-minded than you? ;)

[Cineaste]

"I vascilate between stances. I can see wisdom on both sides."

There are 2 sides.

1. Waterboarding is torture.
2. Waterboarding isn't torture.

Personally, from what I saw of Hitchens, there's no doubt waterboarding is torture. Does it make one open minded to think waterboarding is not torture? Well, Hitchens was "openminded" about it before and now I guess he is not, now that he's formed an educated opinion about it.

Also, I answered your question about abortion on the other thread, Aaron.