Recently in torture Category

Some African churches have taken a frightening literal turn: accusing children of witchcraft and torturing or killing them to purify their souls. 

Over the weekend, the Associated Press reported that more than 15,000 Nigerian children have been accused of being witches in the last decade, with around 1,000 of those children murdered because of the accusation.  These were not random acts of violence.  Instead, family members and pastors often executed their children claiming to literally follow the biblical injunction, "You shall not allow a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18).   In addition, thousands of children have suffered torture at the hands of "exorcists" who charged their impoverished parents vast sums to cleanse their children of witchery.

In Eket, Nigeria, local police try to stop the worst abuses.  But they confess, "We cannot afford to make enemies of all the churches around here" and say that the "vast majority" are involved in the practice.

Since the 2002 publication of historian Philip Jenkins' fine book, The Next Christendom, it has become popular in some Christian circles to romanticize African Christianity as more orthodox, spiritually vital, and morally pure than western Christianity.   Although Jenkins did not specifically say so (and it is a bit misreading to so claim), his readers have often depicted western Christianity as a tired and corrupt tradition awaiting the energy, insight, and vibrancy of a new Reformation springing from Africa that would remake the Jesus-faith for the future.   Indeed, some critics of western Christianity--as in the case of the Episcopal Church in the U.S.--embraced this analysis so completely that they have forged ties with various African churches in order to destroy the western forms of their denominations in favor of a new, "more orthodox," Africanized version. 

The combination of Jenkins' argument and its politicization by North American conservatives has sapped the confidence of some western denominations--thinking that their historical day was somehow over in favor of Christianity in other parts of the world.

But stories like this witchcraft story prove otherwise.  African Christianity is as vast and diverse as American Christianity.  Some of its most vibrant forms are its most progressive types--like the theologies that fostered justice in South Africa or sponsored the Truth and Reconciliation movements.  And, as the Associated Press points out, some of its most regressive forms are its most literal--like small town pastors who kill children they think to be witches. 

And it also shows that western Christianity--especially its liberal and progressive versions--has something important to say in today's world.  A few hundred years ago, western Christians killed witches, too.  In places like Massachusetts.  And they also interpreted the Bible literally--"You shall not allow a witch to live."

Our ancestors figured out that was a stupid interpretation and they embarked on a long theological quest to figure out what the Bible does and does not teach, how to understand it dictums, to explore its context, to discover the meaning behind the literal words.  This quest--the move from pre-critical Bible reading to a critical approach to the Bible--framed much of Christian history during the modern period. 

Contemporary Christians often take this quest for granted--because it was so successful.  Very few North Americans actually read the Bible literally.  Yes, there are those who believe in a six-day creation, think wives should submit to husbands, or burn books in God's name.  But can you remember a time when a person was excommunicated for eating pork or failing to cover her head in church?  Have you ever seen someone bring his slaves to church? Have you witnessed a Christian being chastised for "touching the skin of a dead pig" (that's in Leviticus--think football) or walk around maimed because he cut off his hand due to sin?  Even the most conservative Christians read selectively, metaphorically, and contextually--and they do so because the liberal, critical approach to Bible reading has been so thoroughly accepted in the west.

Critical reading is not the source of decline; it is the source of great spiritual vibrancy.  And literal reading is not a source of spiritual wisdom or moral purity; it is the source of serious distortions of faith.  Approaching the Bible with a critical eye restores scripture to its primary place as a collection of wisdom documents--the record of human experience that maps our understanding of God.  It isn't a rulebook or a phone book or a history book or a science text or a political science handbook.  The Bible must be understood in its context, as a series of different literary genres, as an inspired collection of ancient tales about life, God, and faith.  In this way, it possesses great insight into the human condition, about how to love, and about wise living. 

Western Christianity is a great tradition.  We've done things wrong--that goes without saying.  But we also are full of life, insight, and wisdom from historical experience.  We've been around for a long while.  We've learned a thing or two.  Like it isn't a good idea to read the Bible literally.  That killing and torture are wrong.  Always wrong.  Especially in the name of God.  Most especially when it involves the innocent and oppressed. 

Once upon a time, western Christians tried to inflict our views on Africans.  That, too, was a bad idea and came from a misreading of the Bible.  But maybe if we shared what we've learned about God, Jesus, scripture, and the Christian faith with humility and respect, we might actually be able to help our African brothers and sisters avoid some of our stupidest mistakes.  

In 2004, a little book appeared that made quite a splash among dispirited Democrats:  George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant.  In it, Lakoff argued that Republicans and Democrats worked out of two different "framing" stories--frames are "mental structures that shape the way we see the world."  Republicans frame their politics in the terms of "a strict father family," while Democrats frame theirs on the ideal of a "nurturant parent family."  According to Lakoff, the party with the most compelling storyline often "wins" in public discourse.

Yesterday, in the dueling national security speeches of former Vice-President Cheney and President Obama, the two storylines stood in stark contrast--a visible demonstration of the difference between political approaches.

On one hand, Vice-President Cheney enacted the part of the strict father.  He chided Obama as a parent might correct an erring child--delivering a verbal conservative spanking to the young upstart who (according to Cheney) doesn't understand the ways of the real world.  He protected the traditions of the older generation, applauding himself for his own wisdom and insight--all the while reassuring the rest of the fearful family that his way is the right way.  Stay on the course of the Fathers (Cheney and Bush) and all will be well. 

And it was implicitly religious in the style of a Puritan jeremiad.  Cheney chastised the new administration for the sin of departing from the true path and threatened hellfire and damnation would result.  He insisted Obama repent and return.  Only then can the nation be saved.  It was a narrative masterwork of the old Republican frame--brilliant, scary, intimidating, and bizarrely reassuring all at the same time.

In contrast, President Obama's speech embodied many of the characteristics of nurturing parent politics--he empathized with people's worries about terrorism, and reiterated his commitment to national security (thus allowing for maximum human happiness).  He brought themes of freedom, fairness, community-building, trust, and open communication to the discussion--all of which are the nurturing values of progressive politics. 

However, Obama turned the prism of nurturing parent politics in an interesting and unexpected way.  Historically, progressives have said, "I empathize with you" (as did Bill Clinton), "These policies empathize with you" (as did Jimmy Carter), or "The government empathizes with you" (as did FDR).  But President Obama essentially said, "The law empathizes with you."  The entire speech, delivered at the National Archives (the building that houses our most cherished legal documents), argued that the closest possible attention to the traditions of the law would both protect us from harm and save our national soul.  The nurturing parent is not an individual, policies, or government.  In Obama's progressive politics, the law nurtures the American family with its hopes for happiness, fairness, community, and justice. 

This emphasis on the law-as-nurturing parent helps explain Obama's own coolheaded and dispassionate nature--he is able to stand alongside an issue and analyze it through the lens of legal traditions.  And it also explains his remark on wanting an "empathetic" Supreme Court justice.  He wants someone who shares this vision of the nurturant law as his legacy on the Court.

It is also a profoundly Judeo-Christian vision.  The law--as summed up in the injunction to love God and love one's neighbor--saves.  The law is not a set of rules to be adhered to in every circumstance (as some people misinterpret it); rather, the law is a summary of divine wisdom of how to shape a community in both devotion and ethics.  As rabbis, ministers, and theologians know, the law both instructs and empathizes.  According to Jewish and Christian scriptures, the law delights; the law forms the soul; the law teaches; the law nourishes; the law guides; the law frees; the law protects.  The law establishes Israel; Jesus reaffirmed the grace-filled power of the law in his own teaching:  The law is life.

Obama isn't trying to mediate between liberals and conservatives as Dick Cheney charged.  The President is trying to create an entirely new vision of progressive politics--one based deeply in American law, and one anchored in the wisdom traditions of Judaism and Christianity.  A progressive revival--both secular and sacred--of American community through the Law.

Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path that sinners tread or sit in the seat of scoffers; but their delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law they meditate day and night.  They are like trees planted by streams of water, which yield their fruit in its season, and their leaves do not wither.  In all that they do, they prosper.  Psalms 1:1-3.

The plot to bomb a Riverdale Synagogue in the Bronx makes all of us sick and angry about the use of religious violence and terror against ordinary citizens.  The four accused men claim that their actions are in reaction to the attack on Muslims in Afghanistan by the United States - and, by their own admissions, their hatred of Jews. That, of course, is no excuse at all and these individuals should be prosecuted to the legal limit with life in prison. 

This terrorism attempt brings into sharp focus two dueling policies and the drama of a former vice president facing off against a sitting President in opposing speeches today. Dick Cheney speaking to the American Enterprise Institute accused President Obama of "recklessness cloaked in righteousness' as he defended torture and the degradation of the constitution as necessary components of the Bush approach to the war on terror. 

President Obama in a speech at the National Archives argued for the closing Guantanamo Bay as well as adhering to the international conventions against torture as part of the effort to win the war against al Qaeda, What Dick Cheney calls recklessness, Obama argues is part of what it means to be President of the United States saying:

 

I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as commander-in-chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never -- ever -- turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake. 

But not only is the approach that President Obama taking principled - it is a pragmatic. The President knows that part of a successful strategy to the war against Al Qaeda involves convincing Muslims that America is, in fact, on their side and wants the best for them and their religion. 

The great majority of American Muslims already know this and are, I'm sure, the most sickened by the attempted attack by the four men earlier today.  I have heard Dr. Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America, say on many occasions that America is one of the best countries in the world for Muslims to freely express their faith.  ISNA has been a great partner with the United States in anti-terrorism efforts, and Muslim Americans may have  even helped to foil the plot against the synagogue in the Bronx as there are many Muslims who serve on the NYPD.  ISNA also combats anti-Muslim sentiments and policies that still exist in this country, so that we might truly be the most religously free of all countries.

As Obama has said, we need all hands on deck in this war against Al Qaeda.  We need to win hearts and minds of people of all faiths, but especially Muslims - and that is not done by torture and the removal of habeas corpus.   It is done with firm prosecution of wrong doing while repecting due process of law.  Dick Cheney might pause to remember that 9/11 actually did happen on his watch, have a little humility and step down and let the President handle this.   

Barack Obama is right and the ACLU is wrong.  The ACLU's legal battle to release torture photos of interrogation performed by order of the last administration is correct in its underlying convictions but wrong in its conclusions. 

The underlying conviction of the ACLU is that we need to bring the atrocities of the past administration to light.  In that they are correct.  Under the Cheney administration our country lost its moral standing, abandoned the Geneva conventions, and tortured people.  Calling something "extra special interrogation techniques" (as the press is still doing) does not change the fact that it is torture.  As Senator John McCain said, we prosecuted the Japanese for water-boarding after WW2, the exact same practice supported by Cheney in 2009.

Fortunately, the ACLU and many other groups, including religious groups and many in the military and the CIA have forced us to acknowledge the terrible mistakes that were made.  Even more fortunately, we have elected a President who has made it clear that the days of American torture have ended.  

There is now no good reason for the ACLU to continue their battle to release these torture photos.  The photos are assuredly shocking and horrifying, but we do not need new images to tell us that torture is wrong - and that is the only conceivable reason to release them.   The bad effects will greatly outweigh the good.  For one, the world largely is beginning to see America regaining our moral compass and we have a chance for a new beginning.  The photos will only reverse this trend and incite anti-American feelings and give a boast to extremist recruitment.    Our troops are still at great risk in Iraq and Afghanistan and they do not need more hurdles to building positive relations with the people of those countries.   Plus President Obama will be going to Cairo soon and he does not need American torture to be spotlighted as the main focus of that trip. 

The reasons for not releasing the torture photos definitely outweigh the reasons for releasing them and as a card carrying ACLU member, I urge the ACLU to stop this campaign.

Of course, Cheney and friends aren't helping progressives like me in making our case to not release the photos.  Cheney continues to promote torture and shows no signs of remorse or regret that he has degraded our country in such a fundamental way.   Still, we shouldn't let a failed vice president force the current administration to do what needs do be done to move forward and to make up for the sins of the past.