Digby has this and Glenn Greenwald has this on recent revelations of the treatment of Jose Padilla, and Glenn has this on a piece in the UK paper The Observer that details how the US kept a serial murderer on its payroll and destroyed the career of a man who tried to stop it (the details of the story have to be read to be believed; it is one of those things, if put in a novel, would never bepublished precisely because it is so outrageous). I have thought long and hard about what would constitute a distinctly Christian, as opposed to simply a lefty, perspective on these iceberg-tip violations of law, the Constitution, and human dignity. I am not sure I have progressed to any kind of real answer, but I thought I might give a start here. I want to make it clear that I do not think a Christian perspective is the sole legitimate protest against these and myriad others; indeed, a strictly legal argument - relgiously neutral - is, in many ways stronger. Even a moral argument that makes no mention of God or any religion of any kind, could make mincemeat of the Bush Administration's justifications for its wide variety of human right's abuses. I just think it is important, for me, to figure out what a distinctly Christian perspective might add - or might not add - to this whole discussion.
As a general beginning, I think it safe to say that, despite Jesus' being George W. Bush's favorite political philosopher, Jesus himself would never countenance torture, having been a victim of it himself (and, like Padilla, unjustly I might add). That there might actually be a "debate" on the issue of torture in the United States shows how low we have sunk. We pride ourselves as part of a Western culture that values the life and integrity of each individual (honored more in the breach than not, truly enough), and worked hard to get through international and domestic laws against genocide and torture. To claim that we are now in a national emergency dire enough to set these aside is ludicrous on its face; as these particular laws make no exceptions for different types of conflict, and as violations of these laws not only have the potential to bring harsh penalties but show the moral vacuousness of those who do violate them, it is easy enough to point out the sheer lawlessness and immorality of anyone who claims that torture is necessary as a part of our war-fighting strategy.
This is still, however, a legal argument. A good starting point for a Christian perspective would perhaps be the second chapter of St. Paul's letter to the Philippians. In this chapter, in which he is trying to buck up the courage of the Philippians in the face of some sort of persecution (whether from the local synagogues or from Roman officialdom is not clear), he reminds his readers, through a quoted hymn or early creed, that we Christians are to imitate Jesus the Messiah who "laid no claim to equality with God, but made himself nothing, assuming the form of a slave. Bearing the human likeness, sharing the human lot, he humbled himself, and was obedient, even to the point of death"(Revised English Bible). There are a variety of ways we could look at this particular passage, but for now, I want to concentrate on the highlighted portions, for this reason: as early as a quarter-century after his death and resurrection, there was developing within the Christian movement a high Christology that understood Jesus to be, in some way not yet fully fleshed out (and still not, two thousand years later, I might add) sharing in the divinity of the Jewish LORD. The remarkable thing, for Paul and these early incarnational theologians (the author of the Fourth Gospel is another), was that God became human; in a world dominated by a popularized form of Greek neo-Platonism that understood the world to be a source of corruption, to claim divinity had assumed the human lot was a remarkable statement. To say that this divine-human being had died was even moreso.
This little review of Christian theology on this particular passage serves to show that, from the earliest records we have, Christians saw value in human beings precisely because God saw value in human beings, enough so that God became human. We are the image-bearers of the Godhead, first through creation, then through incarnation. Human integrity is valued by God. Even the most vile offender - a child molester; a serial murder (even one on the US payroll); a supposed terrorist-not - bears something of the dignity and worth of all humanity, an integrity that God cherishes and loves, even in the depth of our estrangement from God. That integrity is not to be violated for purposes of expediency, especially political expediency. This is beyond law, beyond custom, even perhaps beyond reason; we are to honor the integrity of other human beings in their person because they are cherished by God in and for their humanity.
There are also numerous passages from the Hebrew prophets that could be used to argue against a government run amok. The prophets were the spokesmen for God to the kingdoms of Israel and Judah when they had wandered from the covenant established with their LORD; the worst violations were not moral, but in fact social and political, the oft-cited abuse of the poor and widows and orphans. These were not just evils and and of themselves (about this the prophets are quite clear), but are themselves symptoms of a deep estrangement from the covenant that established the people in the first place. The prophets called the people to return to that covenant; they are reminded, again and again, that they are different precisely because of that covenant, not for any political power they may or may not wield. The distinctiveness of the Hebrew people lies in the fact that, once they were no people, but God called them out and led them out of slavery to freedom (I do not wish to discuss the historicity of the events in question; I am speaking here of national founding "myths" as it were, and their use by the Hebrew prophets). They are not their own, but the LORD's people, and as such they do not answer to anyone but the LORD for their conduct.
While I would not use such justifications against the current Administration in too literal a way, I bring up the prophets because they were the original dissenters, the anti-American, dirty-f'ing-hippie crowd of the two kingdoms (Amos is hauled before the king and insists he is nothing but a poor shepherd, hardly worthy of notice by the great and powerful king; Ezekiel was an early practitioner of civil disobedience, and his visions are particularly surreal). they spoke the truth in a way that discomfited those in power. We Christians share this heritage, and should practice it as well. The abuse of power is an ever-present temptation, even among those with the best of intentions (or those who believe they have the best of intentions, which is usually worse). That the US government would engage in acts that can only be called horrific cries out for all persons of good faith - including Christians - to take a stand and insist "No more!". I know this is just a beginning, but I think it is a start for a distinctly Christian source of protest against the most vile abuses of power by the Bush Administration.
Virtual Tin Cup
