Pious Pose and Profane Prose or “Keep the Conventions. Break the Commandments”

Last updated on: January 1, 2015 at 3:04 pm by Mark Shea

Pious Pose and Profane Prose or “Keep the Conventions. Break the Commandments” 2015-01-01T15:04:46-07:00 Mark Shea

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

One thing that has struck me about all the gnat straining and camel swallowing of the sundry torture defenders I have encountered is their curious devotion to the inversion of Christian values. Over at What’s Wrong with the World there was a thrilling rhetorical flourish at one point of the discussion, in which I was berated for “pious pose and profane prose“. It really was an admirably catchy turn of phrase: sort of like “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries”. Admittedly, both flourishes are in the service of defending grave evil and ridiculing opposition to grave evil, but you have to give them props for sticking in your head–like a Kit Kat jingle.

Anyhow, it reminded me of a little exchange I had recently in my own comboxes. Zippy, remarking on the growing pattern of lies emerging from the “Torture Works” wing of the media, remarked:

The point is that the Rubber Hose Right is, well, a pack of dupes and liars when it comes to discussing the extent to which torture “works”.

To which I responded (caution, naughty word ahead):

I eagerly look forward to the latest round of fainting spells over your heart-rending “lack of charity” toward apologists for torture.

All I can think of is “Gentlemen! Fighting in the War Room!” – President Merkin Muffley, Dr. Strangelove

The bizarre priorities at work in the, ‘ow you say, Enhanced Interrogation Enablement Community are grotesque. Write “Those animals tortured that man to death” and torture defenders *still* have the gall to lie ‘Hey! Bush just defined ‘torture’ differently than you”. You get a tut-tutting scold replying, “A truly Christian person would say, “Those *gentlemen* administered approved enhanced interrogation techniques in a regrettably over-enthusiastic way. President Bush ordered what he felt was alright and you have no right to say he was wrong. I think you are very mean to him!”

If you reply, “Don’t you ever tire of telling God-damned fucking lies that insult everyone’s intelligence including yours?” the torture defender, eyes welling with tears, expresses shock and deeply spiritual dismay at your profanity (even though it’s actually more in the nature of a precise theological formulation combined with a little vulgarity just to blow off frustration).

It’s like so much of torture apologetics consists of a satanic inversion of Chesterton’s maxim: “Keep the conventions. Break the Commandments.”

As I contemplate this weird inversion of Christian morality, what also strikes me is the peculiar way in this the Sermon on the Mount gets turned on its head. Jesus’ preaching aims to kill sin at the root–in the heart. He says, for instance:

“You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother * shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults * his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell * of fire.

Likewise, with adultery, he famously remarks that if you so much as look upon a woman lustfully, you have already committed adultery in your heart.

It is, shall we say, a difficult standard to live up to.

But as torture apologetics continues to lay waste to clear Catholic moral thinking among those who have, hitherto, defended human life, it proposes to us (just as abortion apologetics does) an entirely different way of thinking about sin. The goal is to lower the standard so far that *nobody* is guilty of sin.

So, for instance, the abortionist tells us to ignore the question of whether the thing we are killing is a what or a who? We are pressed, not to look at the sin which is in our heart, but at how close you can get to murder without technically doing it. First trimester? Second trimester? What *is* infanticide anyway? The bar is always moved lower.

In exactly the same way, the torture apologist seeks to see how much he can dehumanize his victim without “crossing the line” of some technical legal boundary. And so you get the spectacle of Christian theologians and philosophers suggesting things like “The fact that [KSM] went through 183 spills means that it wasn’t torture to him” as specimens of “serious and careful” deliberation on the question of torture.

Yet such serious and careful thought does not stop for one moment to realize that you may as well say of a rape victim that “the fact that she was raped a dozen times in a gang bang means that it wasn’t torture to her“. What never enters the discussion is that, in a torture situation as in a rape, it is the torturer, not the victim, who decides how many time the torture is inflicted.

The notion is based on a false idea and on a dubious assumption. The false idea is that , in cases of torture, everything “would ultimately depend on the suspect’s perception of things” If it were really torture, the argument goes, then nobody would endure it 183 times. The victim or torture opponent must therefore be liars or bleeding hearts to call the procedure “torture”. With identical logic, a member of Britain’s National Front recently remarked that “Rape is like being force fed chocolate cake.” Both sex and dunking in water are harmless and even *fun*, as millions will attest, just as millions attest that caterpillars are cute and a little loss of sleep never hurt anybody. It’s only a whiner who turns it into psychological torture by their *perception*. So the problem is really with the victim. His perception is what makes it torture. The actions of the so-called torturers, like those of the so-called rapists, are being described by purely subjective hysteria. Physically, no harm is done to either the “torture” or “rape” victims. No tissue damage. Nothing that shocks the conscience of the so-called “torturers” or “rapists”.

In short, Jesus has it all wrong. People who force waterboarding on a “victim”, like people wno force sexual relations on a “victim” are simply performing a physical act with good intentions (just ask them!). It’s only the perception of the victim that makes it “torture” or “rape”. So we should go as far as we can, but be careful not to cross the line into something truly immoral, such as using the F word.

And anybody who tells you different is just posing piously.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

April 30, 2009

Sheesh! Get a room!

Next Post

April 30, 2009 Prayer Request

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 September 2006 June 2006 July 2005 April 2005 May 2002 April 2002 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz