ConsortiumNews.com, July 31, 2009
Christian
Leaders Mum on Torture
By Ray McGovern
Who but the
cowardly crew leading the “Christian” churches can be held responsible
for the fact that many of their flock believe torture of suspected terrorists
is “justified?”
Those polled were white non-Hispanic Catholics,
white Evangelicals, and white mainline Protestants. A majority (54 percent) of
those who attend church regularly said torture could be “justified,”
while a majority of those not attending church regularly responded that torture
was rarely or never justified.
I am not a psychologist or sociologist. But
I recall that one of the first things Hitler did on assuming power was to ensure
there was a pastor in every Lutheran and Catholic parish in Germany. Why? Because
he calculated, correctly, that here would be a force for stability for his regime.
Thus
began another horrid chapter in the history of those professing to be followers
of Jesus of Nazareth but had forgotten his repeated admonition, Do not be afraid.
A
mere seven decades after the utter failure of church leaders in Germany, their
current American counterparts have again yielded to fear, and have condoned evils
like torture by their deafening silence.
What kinds of folks comprise this
54 percent? An informal “survey” of my friends suggests these are “my-country-first”
people — like the fellow who recently gave me the finger when he saw my bumper
sticker, which simply says “God bless the rest of the world too.”
They
are people accustomed to hierarchy and comfortable being told what they should
think and do to preserve “our way of life.”
They place a premium
on nationalism, which they call patriotism, and on what the Germans call Ordnung.
I suppose that this may be part of why they go to church on Sunday.
It’s
a problem that has existed for almost 1,700 years, ever since 4th Century Christians
jettisoned there heritage of non-violent resistance to war and threw in their
lot with Constantine.
Subservience
Nowhere is the phenomenon
of obeisance to hierarchical power highlighted more clearly than in the Grand
Inquisitor story in Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky, who could plum the
human heart as few others.
In the tale, Dostoevsky has Jesus joining the
“tortured, suffering people” of Seville during the Inquisition. The
Cardinal of Seville immediately jails and interrogates Jesus, telling him that
the Church has “corrected” his big mistake.
Rather than donning
“Caesar’s purple,” Jesus gave us freedom of conscience.
While
it has been 130 years since he wrote Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky captures the
trap into which so many American “believers” have fallen in forfeiting
freedom through fear. His portrayal of Inquisition reality brings us to the brink
of the moral precipice on which our country teeters today.
It is as though
he knew what would be in store for us as fear was artificially stoked after the
attacks of 9/11.
Here is how the cardinal ridicules Christ for imposing
on humans the heavy burden of freedom of conscience:
"Didst thou forget
that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge
of good and evil? ... We teach them that it's not the free judgment of their hearts,
but mystery which they must follow blindly, even against their conscience. ...
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet [and] become obedient. ...
We shall tell them that we are Thy servants and rule them in Thy name. ... We
shall tell them that every sin will be expiated if it is done with our permission."
Recently,
prominent Baptist layman and distinguished senator from South Carolina, Lindsey
Graham, gave a hat-tip to the Inquisition. At a May 13 Senate hearing discussing
interrogation techniques like waterboarding, Graham explained that, “One
of the reasons these techniques have been used for about 500 years is that they
work.”
I was reminded of one of the things Gandhi said about Christians:
“Everyone in the world knows that Jesus and his teachings were non-violent
except Christians.”
And the reason that regular churchgoers don’t
seem to know this is because the historical Jesus is not preached.
My guess
is that those who go to church on Sunday expect a modicum of moral leadership.
If the pastor is silent on torture, then torture must somehow be okay. How easy
it is then to cede one’s conscience to an American-flag-draped pulpit.
Jesus
(and Luther) Didn’t Really Mean It?
A progressive Lutheran pastor
in Dallas asked me to give a talk to his parish on the issues I had been addressing
in my writings. It struck me that since George W. Bush had moved into their neighborhood,
I might ask the congregants how they thought they should relate to someone who
had given written approval to torture.
I was too clever by half —
actually, naïve. I would show them the “smoking gun” memorandum
signed by George W. Bush on Feb. 7, 2002, which the Senate Armed Forces Committee
has determined “opened the way” to all manner of detainee abuse, and
then I would challenge them by quoting Martin Luther who, after all, was one of
their guys.
I chose this passage cited by George Hunsinger in an essay he
wrote in 1987 (appearing in his book Disruptive Grace):
“If,”
wrote Martin Luther, “I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition
every portion of the truth of Gods except precisely that little point which the
world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however
boldly I may be professing him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the
soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battlefield, except there, is mere
flight and disgrace if one flinches at that point.”
Hunsinger emphasizes
that faithfulness to Jesus of Nazareth is always situational, that one can spout
impeccably orthodox theological truths and still be “fatally disloyal.”
Genuine
loyalty is proven where it counts — in the pitch of battle, where it really
costs something. Writing 22 years ago, Hunsinger was already addressing what he
called “an overwhelming spiritual collapse, in which we have lost touch with
even minimal standards of morality.”
“The prevailing sense seems
to be that, if the demands of biblical morality contradict the dictates of national
security, so much the worse for biblical morality. … Dungeons … torture,
and death are described as belonging to the free world. … War criminals in
high places we honor. … Acts of aggression we celebrate as noble deeds. …
of preemptive self-defense. Orwell has become our destiny. …
“The
passive acquiescence of a Christian community which has lost its moral conscience
in matters of state contributes substantially … to misery and oppression.
… ‘Seek your own welfare above all else’ has become the maxim of
the day.”
Hunsinger has earned the right to criticize those who confess
Jesus of Nazareth “from the safety of some remote enclave, where confession
may be true but costs nothing.”
He is professor of systematic theology
at Princeton Theological Seminary, but was so aghast at U.S. practice of torture
that he devoted untold time and energy to founding the National Religious Campaign
Against Torture (NRCAT).
Luther Not Popular in Dallas
I suggested
to the gathering of Lutherans that Dallas, where the “decider” on torture
is now their neighbor, might be where the battle rages for them. I had very few
takers.
“But he kept us safe … isn’t it better to fight the
terrorists over there than to fight them here?”
There was little appetite
to listening to THAT Luther in that Lutheran church. The pastor shared with me
later that he had encountered all manner of criticism for having invited someone
disrespectful of George W. Bush.
Despite the turbulence I caused, the pastor
thanked me for coming, but noted that “torture is not high on anyone’s
agenda.”
In a brief thank-you note he wrote, “I believe that if
the full scope of the nation’s use of torture comes to light, there may be
need for churches to propose confession and repentance, as a positive witness
for the rest of the world.”
Presbyterians: To their credit,
the Presbyterians have been more outspoken — some of them at least.
In
2006, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) called on Congress
to convene an independent investigative body to establish responsibility for the
abuse of detainees and, if appropriate, to recommend the appointment of a special
prosecutor.
The clerk of the General Assembly followed up on April 23, 2009,
with an appeal to President Barack Obama to work with Congress to establish a
non-partisan Commission of Inquiry to bring “an understanding of what happened,
how it happened, and who was accountable,” adding”
“If those
responsible are not held accountable, nothing beyond wishful thinking and admonitions
exists to compel future leaders to resist the temptation to torture in times of
fear or threat.”
Good for the Presbyterians, I thought. I led off a
Sunday evening talk to a Dallas area Presbyterian congregation by complementing
those assembled on the gutsy appeal of April 23. I was greeted by blank stares.
This
congregation was no exception to the general rule that courageous statements at
high official levels do not find their way into Sunday sermons, much less workshops.
A disappointment, but hardly a surprise.
Methodists: The United Methodist
General Board of Churches and Society, acknowledging the results of the Pew survey,
is also supporting an independent inquiry into torture.
Top executive Jim
Winkler has been very direct: “Shame, shame, shame on any Christian who could
imagine there is any justification of torture against another human being. I cannot
conceive in my wildest dreams of Jesus Christ giving any blessing to torture.”
It is another question, of course, as to whether Pew reaches the pews.
As
for the Dallas Methodists, Southern Methodist University has shown itself eager
to host George W. Bush’s presidential library and an independent institute
to sponsor programs to “promote the vision of the president and celebrate”
his presidency.
The protests of thousands of Methodists, including prominent
alumni of SMU’s School of Theology pointing to the policy of torture, fell
on the deaf ears of the Methodist bishops and trustees who blessed the enterprise.
Catholics:
Sadly, the U.S. Catholic bishops cannot find their voice on torture. This is history
repeating itself, for Hamlet-like Pope Pius XII kept trying to make up his mind
on whether he should put the Church at some risk in Germany, while Jews and other
minorities were been tortured and murdered.
In 1948, the French author/philosopher
Albert Camus addressed a Dominican monastery of friars who had asked what an “unbeliever”
thought about Christians in the light of their behavior during the 30s and 40s.
Camus said:
“For a long time during those frightful years I waited
for a great voice to speak up in Rome. I, an unbeliever? Precisely. For I knew
that the spirit would be lost if it did not utter a cry of condemnation. …
“It
has been explained to me since that the condemnation was indeed voiced. But that
it was in the style of encyclicals, which is not all that clear. The condemnation
was voiced and it was not understood. Who could fail to see where the fault lies
in this case?
“Christians should voice their condemnation loud and
clear, in such a way that never a doubt, never the slightest doubt, could rise
in the heart of the simplest person. … They should get away from abstraction
and confront the blood-stained face history has taken on today.”
And
today? True to form, laudable statements and papers have been produced and placed
in in-boxes in the bowels of the bishops’ bureaucracy, but they rarely find
their way to the pulpit on Sunday.
I am a Catholic, and initially was happy
to find, by a search of the bishops’ Web site that there is a Catholic Study
Guide titled “Torture is a Moral Issue.” It was developed in collaboration
with the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, the group Professor Hunsinger
founded.
This was news to me. Had any of my Catholic friends heard of this?
The answer from a representative sampling, including progressive parishes, was
No.
So I called the bishops’ staff to inquire as to why the study guide
on torture had not been published and made available to pastors to use in their
preaching or workshops.
I was told that it was “not designed as a
publication, because there was uncertainty as to how much demand there would be
for such a study.”
A publishing run would not be cost effective unless
it produced at least a thousand copies and this particular issue might not warrant
that kind of run. (There are 70 million Catholics in this land.)
As for
Pope Benedict XVI, he arrived here in April 2008, a week after media reports that
the most senior officials of the Bush administration had met regularly at the
White House to plan which torture techniques might be most appropriate for which
high-value detainees. He said nothing.
All the more strange, it would seem,
since Jesus of Nazareth, after all, was tortured to death. If the pope had an
opinion on torture, he kept it to himself.
Mormons: What about the
Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints?
My small random sampling
of the information available shows a strong propensity among Mormons toward Dostoevsky’s
caricature of a strong, top-down authoritative church, but with the notable exception
of at least one person who could, and did, think for herself — to her own
peril.
The most prominent Mormon with torture connections is Jay Bybee,
a devout Mormon with undergraduate and law degrees from Mormon-owned Brigham Young
University.
As leader of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel
in August 2002, Bybee approved a memorandum indicating that interrogators could
apply virtually any harsh techniques, so long as the pain involved was less than
that accompanying “serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment
of bodily function, or death.”
In my view, his memorandum must surely
be the most shameful text ever to appear beneath Department of Justice letterhead.
It was among the ones released by President Obama in mid-April, over the strong
objections of many top officials.
A lively debate rages among Mormon lawyers
over the morality of Bybee’s approval of harsh interrogation techniques.
Dan Burke, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, was incensed to learn
that a fellow Mormon could justify such actions.
“I cannot believe
that the practice of torture is acceptable to anyone who claims to be a disciple
of Jesus Christ,” said Burk.
Not so fast, say other Mormon lawyers
— David Wenger of New York, for example.
“I would personally be
uncomfortable writing a memo on how the administration could legally justify torture
of people, but I don’t think it’s against the tenets of our faith,”
Wenger told the Salt Lake Tribune.
“One might believe that the value
of ready access to torture-obtained intelligence outweighed the negative,”
said Wenger.
Yet another Mormon, a woman Army specialist named Alyssa Peterson,
was clear on the morality of torture. She refused to take part in applying torture
techniques approved by Bybee.
She walked away from an interrogation in the
“cage,” where Iraqis were stripped naked in front of female soldiers,
mocked and burned with cigarettes. Three days later, on Sept. 15, 2003, Peterson
was found dead of a gunshot wound at Tal Afar base in Iraq. The Army said her
death was a suicide.
It gets worse. The two faux-psychologists to whom the
CIA turned to show them how to torture, James Elmer Mitchell and Bruce Jessen,
are both Mormons, and were widely referred to by other U.S. interrogators as the
“Mormon mafia.”
Add to the mix Robert Walpole, the CIA analyst
who wove out of whole cloth what has been referred to as “The Whore of Babylon”
— the worst National Intelligence Estimate in the history of U.S. intelligence.
“Iraq’s
Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction” dated Oct. 1, 2002,
was a deliberate — and successful — attempt to deceive Congress into
authorizing war on Iraq.
In his memoir, At the Center of the Storm, former
CIA Director George (slam-dunk) Tenet praises Walpole as a “brilliant analyst.”
In a transparent attempt to defend Walpole against charges of being “hell
bent on war,” Tenet insists that Walpole is “one of the most unlikely
people to be accused of being a war hawk.”
Tenet notes that Walpole
did not think an attack on Iraq justifiable – and Tenet adds that Walpole
is a Mormon bishop. Did Tenet think that that should do it, as far as credibility
was concerned? In any event, Walpole did what he was told in managing the production
of the Estimate that paved the way to war.
I know there are many Mormons
besides Alyssa Peterson with integrity. It remains a mystery to me why so many
of the ones who gain prominence seem to lose their sense of right and wrong when
they are asked by hierarchical authority to do things they know are wrong.
In
sum, with respect to the Christian churches I believe author Chris Hedges summarizes
the situation neatly, if sadly:
“The utter failure of nearly all our
religious institutions — whose texts are unequivocal about murder —
to address the essence of war has rendered them useless. These institutions have
little or nothing to say in wartime because the god they worship is a false god,
one that promises victory to those who obey the law and believe in the manifest
destiny of the nation.”
The Good News
Who would have thought
we would have to turn to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to carry the
moral ball on torture.
Adm. Mike Mullen has called his commanders on the
carpet. He is reliably reported to have been so “appalled” and “disgusted”
after viewing some of the abuse photos being kept under wraps by the Obama administration
that he warned senior military officers on July 10: “We haven’t all
absorbed or applied all the lessons of Abu Ghraib.”
Mullen ordered
that more be done to halt detainee abuse. He is quoted as saying, “We’re
better than this; and now we have to show it.”
Hopefully, Adm. Mullen
will stay around long enough to start a thorough clean-up of the torture mess
— at least in the military.
He has acted responsibly and with integrity
on a number of issues; the country is lucky to have him in that very senior post.
For it is clear that, as long as demagogues keep insisting that we are “at
war” with global terrorists all manner of abuse can be heaped on “the
enemy.”
It’s always the same “during wartime.” Here’s
what one widely admired U.S. general had to say about the German enemy during
WWII. It is an attitude about which we must be aware, so that we can guard against
it:
“My God, I actually pity those poor bastards we’re going up
against,” said General George Patton. “We’re not just going to
shoot the bastards, we’re going to cut out their living guts and use them
to grease the treads of our tanks. …
“Don’t worry; I can
assure you that you’ll do your duty. The Nazis are the enemy. Wade into them.
Spill their blood. Shoot them in the belly. When you put your hand into a bunch
of goo that a moment before was your best friend’s face, you’ll know
what to do.”
Waiting for the Church?
Don’t wait for
the churches to speak out against such violence. We have seen enough of their
vacillation to know that, for us, this would be a cop-out.
Sad to say, the
same challenge facing Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero before he was assassinated
faces us. And we must have the courage and honesty to act, like him, in putting
ourselves where the battle rages:
“A church that doesn’t provoke
any crisis, a gospel that doesn’t unsettle, a word of God that doesn’t
get under anyone’s skin, a word of God that doesn’t touch the real sin
of the society in which it is being proclaimed, what kind of gospel is that?”
We
cannot avoid the challenge; it is up to us. We have to supply what is lacking
in the institutional church.
There is hope. As St. Augustine warned 1,600
years ago:
“Hope has two children. The first is anger at the way things
are. The second is courage to do something about it.”
With those two,
well, yes we can.
Back
to Top
Send
this page to a friend!
