Paul Raushenbush: February 2009 Archives

George Hunsinger is the McCord Professor of Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is the founder of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. Among his recent books is Torture Is a Moral Issue: Christians, Jews, Muslims and People of Conscience Speak Out (Eerdmans, 2008). 

The Executive Orders by President Obama on January 22 -- to close Guantanamo, to end harsh interrogations, and to abolish secret prisons -- represent a huge step forward and are truly cause for rejoicing. They go a long way toward putting an end to the lawlessness of the past and to restoring our country to decency. Torture is not just one issue among others. It is archetypal. It poses a fundamental threat to constitutional government and the rule of law. Regimes that authorize torture send a terrifying message that they operate in a law-free zone. (High-ranking officials from the outgoing administration openly acknowledged before they left that a policy of torture had been implemented in the so-called war on terror.)

Nevertheless, although the new Executive Orders are encouraging, they still leave room for concern. The decision to shut down Guantanamo is most welcome, yet it is not only lacking in detail but also allows too much time for its implementation. Guantanamo should be closed in less than a year. The many men who can go home should be immediately repatriated. Safe havens must be found for the others who would face torture or persecution if sent back. A handful will need to be tried in domestic courts.

Closing the CIA black sites is also enormously important. Secret prisons have no place in a democratic society. Their only purpose is to get around the Geneva conventions and other laws so that torture and abuse can be carried out. No option should be left open for reviving those sites. Establishing a single standard for interrogation, also promulgated in principle, is essential if torture is to be flushed out of our system. One of the executive orders proposes to do this on the basis of the Army Field Manual. Nevertheless, serious ambiguities remain. First, a disturbing loophole is left by establishing a Task Force mandated to review this single standard in order determine whether exceptions should still be made for the CIA.

Second, the Field Manual itself contains a notorious "Appendix M" in which interrogation techniques are permitted that would qualify as "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" under the Geneva conventions. Future efforts must be aimed either at eliminating this Appendix or simply letting the Geneva conventions stand as the sole standard to which all US interrogations, whether by military or intelligence agencies, must conform.

Finally, it is noteworthy that no explicit mention was made of extraordinary rendition, a policy that needs to be firmly disavowed. Rendition has been the practice of apprehending suspects and sending them to countries where it is known that they will be tortured and abused. The US needs to apologize for this horrendous practice and to offer reparations, especially in those cases where it has been shown that the suspect was actually innocent (as Canada did for Maher Arar). While the tone of the president's remarks at the signing was heartening, his silence on rendition left a glaring hole. 

Strong pressures, both openly and behind the scenes, to circumvent these new measures at their best are to be expected. They will come from right-wing sources and agencies like the CIA. For the past 50 years, the history of US involvement in torture has been the history of loopholes for the CIA.

In short, the new executive orders are full of promise, They overturn illegal and immoral tactics in the defense of national security. But they do not mean that the struggle is over.

There is a church in Indiana which requires people taking advantage of the food kitchen and homeless shelter to also participate in the life of the church.  In short hand - no religion, no food. Just to be clear, the church has allowed that the people do not have to worship at their church - it can be at another church or even AA.  But they have to at some level engage in a spiritual practice if they are going to take advantage of the church's material largess. 

Of course, this strikes many of us as draconian and the worst kind of religious bribery.  The mandate to help those who are in need has no strings attached.  You do not feed the hungry, house the homeless, and clothe the naked so they will believe what you believe.  Rather you do it because, one, it is the right thing to do; and two, because it has its own spiritual rewards.  So, the idea that you give with one hand while giving a head lock with the other is repugnant. 

But there is another way to look at this.  I have often seen churches which are heavily involved in social services to the poor, but on Sunday morning in the pristine sanctuary there is not one person who was there during the week in search of food or other help.  This divide between who is welcome to come to the soup kitchen and who is welcome to the Sunday service is just as disgusting. Of course, it is never made explicit, but it is felt.  The invisible rope of class often can be just as forbidding as the velvet rope in front of any other exclusive club. 

Part of the reason this church in Indiana caused a ruckus was the question of federally funding for their programs.  Of course, they shouldn't receive funds for social services if they are using those programs to force people to attend their churches.  But if you believe as I do (and from my own experience) that religion can help the individual to overcome many of life's challenges, then encouraging participation in religious activities is part of providing efficacious services.  It is about being effective.  I believe a church should have the right to invite (not force) people to services.  A simple sign in the soup kitchen would be enough - "We welcome you here through the week, and we welcome you on Sunday too." 

Ultimately it gets so complicated, and legally fraught that it is probably better to keep worship and social services separate.  But this strict separation can foster a very patronizing dynamic which signals to those who come to our churches in times of desperate need - "you are good enough for me to feed you across the counter, but not good enough for me to kneel with you before the Lord."

The build up to President Obama's speech was more moving than I expected.  To see the energy in the house chamber as the new cabinet, and the first lady entered provided the reminder I needed that we have a new administration caring for our country.  As the President walked down the aisle, it was remarkable that he spent as much or more time on the republican side, greeting, shaking hands and smiling.  Alone in my living room  I found myself clapping with the rest of them - before a word was said, I was already re-energized.

By the end of the President's first paragraph we had heard the broad outline of the entire speech.  The President started with the very stark reality of the present moment, followed by reassurance that something can be done about it, and ending by offering hope by promising that we will will solve this crisis because in times of great peril there are great opportunities.

A lot of ground was covered in this speech.  For those who had a mind to listen, some complex economic realities were broken down to explain the motivations behind the legislation that has been passed or will be proposed.   But most were probably more inspired by perhaps a couple of specific lines that were aimed more at the heart than the head.  At one point the President said about the suffering and hardship that is occurring in America - "I get it.  My job, our job is to solve the problem." This was reinforced by the insistent words of the young student from South Carolina who was quoted by Obama, and became a new mantra for America - "We are not quitters."

The major applause line of the night came when Obama insisted on personal responsibly and declared that dropping out of high school was no longer an option because it was "not just quitting on yourself it was quitting on your country."  I would have liked more of that.  What are the concrete actions (aside from shopping!) that people can be doing right now to help our country?  Enlisting every American in some kind of service is an idea whose time has come. 

For a speech that dealt with the hard times that are facing the country, the spirit of the hall seemed rowdy, and by the end - the Yes We Can spirit of the campaign was back and this time it wasn't about an election but about our country. While the joint session of congress is divided up by sides, only once or twice did the Republicans sit the major applause moments out.  That is pretty amazing given that the speech called for a lot of actions including: healthcare reform, ending the war in Iraq, tax increases for the rich, the closing of Guantanamo, increased funding for education and the proclamation of ending torture.   These are all progressive causes and yet they were presented in a way that both sides of the aisle were up and applauding.  For tonight, we have a feeling that we are all in this together as Americans.  And that is what I consider a successful speech. 

Religous leaders seen on TV during this ecoomic downturn generally make me shudder,with their undercurrent of opportunism, and the selling of crazy snake oil magical Jesus to make things better.   But Father Jim Martin is impressive with Colbert. 

Jim Wallis reported on these three things that Christians from across ideological and political divides agreed upon at the Poverty Forum

We all found three substantial things on which we could agree.  First, the moral test of any society is its treatment of the poor.  It is from that vantage point that we should both formulate and judge policy proposals.

Second, in order to see anything change, to ensure that our policies and our budgets reflect our moral values, we need greater political will and better policy ideas.  Democrats and Republicans often get stuck in sometimes knee-jerk reactions to policies and approaches based upon a political worldview shaped decades ago.  Some politicians have been fighting the same fight for 20 or 30 years; sometimes that shows persistence and other times it shows that they haven't been paying attention.  To make sure some of these better ideas become reality, we also need to form the political will.  Some of these changes will be hard and rub up against the status quo for both parties.

Third, bipartisanship is easy to say and hard to do.  However, when you are able to start with a common end goal and a shared vision, it can be done.  In the meetings of The Poverty Forum, we were able to get beyond left or right, liberal or conservative.  Left and right are political categories, not religious ones.  We asked instead what is right and what works.

I really appreiciate the spirit behind this effort. The committment to conversation acrosss ideologies at the Poverty Forum reminds me of the interfaith dialogues that are also currently taking place in order to forge peace.

But there are some questions out there.  In response to the Poverty Forum I recived an emaiil from a hard core progressive who was sick of this effort at bi-partisianship. They felt it waters down our passion for justice in order to appease those on the right. I admit I also have some sympathy for that perspective. 

But ultimately I am a pragmatist - what will work in helping people get out of poverty?  It seems to me that to get conservative Christians to really care about poverty is already an accomplishment.  So far no policy has been suggested, and that is really where it will be seen wherther the Poverty Forum and efforts like it are good pragmatic approaches or just a selling out of progressive ideals.