Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Empathy (part 4)

Empathy (part 4)

Last updated on: March 15, 2006 at 3:51 pm by Fred Clark

217 Comments

Empathy (part 4) 2006-03-15T15:51:02-05:00 Fred Clark

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.

"What's the matter with Kansas?" Thomas Frank asks.

That's a good question, and a fair one. The majority of Kansans, after all, continually vote against their own economic self-interest. That's how Frank puts it, anyway.

I would put it somewhat differently: The majority of Kansans continually vote against the economic interests of the majority of Kansans. I don't really care whether or not you cast your vote in your own economic interest, but when your vote betrays the interests of most of your neighbors, well, that's a sin.

Solidarity is a moral duty. You vote against it at your own moral and mortal peril. These Kansans, in other words, have some splainin' to do. They had better have a very good reason to be voting with such disdain for the economic interests of so many of their fellow citizens.

As Frank shows, they think they do. To try to understand what that is, we're better off asking not, "What's the matter with Kansas?" but "What does Kansas think is the matter with us?" ("us" here meaning us liberals or us Democrats).

What sparked all this was a post at The Poor Man on a wholly different topic.

The Editors were responding to the claim that one could support a pro-torture administration without actually supporting torture oneself:

Right now, America tortures people. You live in a country where the president has declared an effectively permanent state of war, and can, and does, as a matter of policy, and on a global scale, engage in torture. Morally, practically, spiritually, profoundly: this is wrong. It is worth being upset about. It is worth overlooking the use of literary devices you don’t agree with. It is worth forgiving minor policy disagreements. It is even worth telling people you otherwise agree with that, when they defend, excuse or minimize the situation, they are wrong — morally, practically, spiritually, profoundly, even — and they, through deed or inaction, disgrace America. Because they do.

Yes. Yes, yes, yes. I agree completely. Torture is, indeed, "morally, practically, spiritually, profoundly" indefensible. This is a line that cannot, ought not, must not be crossed.

I hope you agree as well. If you don't, I'm afraid I'll regard you as suspect. It would make you one of those people I don't get, one of those people — like Fred Phelps — that I fear I'll never be able to view with empathy, never be able to understand. In short, I would no longer be able really to trust you, or to trust your moral judgment.

I haven't written nearly as much about torture as I should have. In part, this is because I can scarcely even believe this is something we need to say. Every time I look at this page and see that icon there on the right for the National Religious Campaign Against Torture I get this sinking feeling in my stomach. I can't believe we've sunk to this level as a nation, as a people. I can't believe that "torture is wrong" is a statement I now need to say out loud. I can't believe that torture — freaking torture — is an "issue" on which I am now forced to take sides. I can't believe we're even talking about this.

And I agree wholeheartedly with The Editors that torture is not something that can be defended, excused or minimized. When someone is pro-torture I cannot regard this as merely one of many political stances I should factor into the mix.

And let's be clear: this is not a hypothetical situation. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales are all, emphatically and unambiguously, pro-torture. So are senators Wayne Allard, Kit Bond, Tom Coburn, Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, James Inhofe, Pat Roberts, Jeff Sessions and Ted Stevens.

These are bad men. Monstrous men. As The Editors wrote, they are wrong and they disgrace America. They do.

As it happens, I also disagree with almost every other political stance these men embrace. But even if that were not the case — if you could show me some issue-guide checklist that indicated that Kit Bond and I agreed on the other 99 out of 100 issues — I still could not overlook the fact that Bond is pro-torture. When you're in favor of sodomizing prisoners, I really don't care what your position is on ethanol subsidies or, well, anything else. When you're pro-torture, you will never get my vote.

But it's not just a matter of casting votes, not just a matter of whether Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Allard, Bond, Coburn, Cochran, Cornyn, Inhofe, Roberts, Sessions and Stevens are allowed to remain in office. They ought to be voted out and tried for war crimes (not in the Hague, but here in America, to prove that the Constitution they regard with such contempt still matters). But this goes beyond these particular morally stunted politicians.

When I consider that America is now governed by an administration that excuses and practices and defends torture I fear for the future of our country.

Now let's go back to Kansas, home state of the despicable Sen. Roberts, and let's try to imagine the world from their perspective.

Let's try to exercise a bit of empathy and consider that question, "What does Kansas think is the matter with us?"

The answer, frankly, is that we're baby killers.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate. I'm not trying to articulate or to engage their argument. I'm not concerned here with the merits or demerits of that argument, and I'm not concerned here with trying either to refute or defend it.

What I'm getting at here is that this is how we are perceived.

For American evangelicals and many Catholics, abortion is the trump card. Everything I have just said or quoted from The Editors about torture parallels exactly how these folks think — and, more importantly, feel — about abortion.

Again, please don't get distracted by thinking about responses to their argument(s), or by the statistics that show evangelicals and Catholics have pretty much the same abortion rates as everyone else. Those things aren't the issue here.

The issue here is that this is how we are perceived.

Re-read everything I've said above about pro-torture politicians. I distrust them. I view them as morally stunted, morally suspect. I believe they bring shame and disgrace to America. And I don't care what else they may say about any other issue.

This — precisely this — is how all supporters of abortion rights are perceived by those so-called "values voters."

Recognizing that means recognizing that lame euphemisms like "values voters" are misleading and confusing. It's not about generic "values," it's not even about religion — the whole liberals-and-spirituality sideshow is an irrelevant distraction. It's about abortion. Period.

Speaking at religious gatherings, or making a show of religiosity, or some half-assed Saletan-style triangulation to "moderate" (i.e., abandon by degrees) support for abortion rights does little to alter this perception. I have some thoughts on what might, but I will save those for another post. I don't want to get into a discussion here of how we can convince these folks that we are not monstrous because I don't want to distract from this main point:

They see us as monsters.

(Edited: Fixed Kit Bond's name. He's pro-torture, a disgrace to America and to the great state of Missouri, but that's no reason to get his name wrong.)

(BOLD added: Along with some repetition to highlight, again, that nothing in this post advocates any particular remedy for the situation it attempts to describe. That it is solely descriptive and not at all prescriptive. Not. At. All. Not explicitly. Not implicitly. Not even in the hidden between-the-lines gnostic code that only the Enlightened can read.)

evangelicals

Previous Post

March 15, 2006

Empathy (part 3)

Next Post

April 2, 2006 Teen Mania

Recent Comments

217 Comments | Leave a Comment

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 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 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 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 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "blessed are the peacemakers" mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Start fights Always win Promote peace Cause trouble