Torture Update

Yesterday I posted on the anti-torture campaign of some religious leaders. Consider now what can be found on THE PAGES OF THE LA TIMES:

The American Civil Liberties Union on Friday released a heavily redacted version of a military report on detainee abuses by special operations forces in Iraq. The report concludes that a series of sensational allegations by detainees could not be substantiated.

The report, compiled by Army Brig. Gen. Richard P. Formica, was completed last year, but a declassified version was not prepared until this month. It says some of the minor accusations — such as that detainees were fed only bread and water for more than two weeks — had merit. But it found there was no evidence for most of the more controversial allegations.

I think it is worth giving some thought to this news, which is found at the end of a fairly long piece. I noted in my earlier post that the group that had placed an add in many papers across the country, seemed to assume that allegations of abuse and torture, even the worse allegations, were true. Upon further review, apparently, of at least some of the allegations the findings are that "there was no evidence for most of the more controversial allegations." This report of no evidence comes at the end of a news article, and I assume many readers simply will not read to the end. I also suspect that there will be few if any headlines in newspapers across the county that look like: NO EVIDENCE OF CONTROVERSIAL ALLEGATIONS OF DETAINEE ABUSE IN IRAQ.

In watching politics over several years I now have seen many examples much like this. An allegation is made, and the news industry prints it up and talks it up. Later, the allegation is proven false, but the news industry often responds in a rather timid way. I can't say this pattern should not be expected, and I have come to expect this to be a very common pattern. Because this is my expectation, I have tried to develop ways of studying and watching politics and political issues to minimize the times I get fooled, and the times I miss seeing this pattern play out. I think an important part of this is that I now assume that it is not very likely I will learn what is true from just the news industry alone.

In thinking about the anti-torture add by religious leaders that I posted on yesterday, perhaps many of those leaders do not share my expectations about the news industry and about the discussions in the public square. So, perhaps in that earlier piece, I was a bit hasty to conclude the anti-torture campaign was pure politics. Perhaps a closer look by many of the signatories to the add would lead to a change in their views. Yet, if you understand that you cannot rely on the news industry to learn what is true and what is not true, then I find it difficult to think you could sign on to the add without choosing to play politics. And, as I wrote yesterday, I hope that bringing my faith to my politics means at least that I seek, long and hard, to bring clarity and truth to political discussion.

Religious Leaders Urge U.S. to Ban Torture

AS REPORTED IN THE WASHINGTON POST religious leaders have begun an anti-torture campaign:

"By suggesting that recent abuse of prisoners may not be just an aberration but a reflection of U.S. policy, the statement contains an implicit challenge to the Bush administration, according to some signers.

'I'm not persuaded that this issue has been put to bed yet by the Bush administration,' said David P. Gushee, a philosophy professor at Union University in Tennessee who wrote an influential article against torture this year in Christianity Today, an evangelical magazine. 'I'm worried that we still don't truly know what is going on in all our detention centers around the world.'

Deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino said the administration has 'the utmost respect for all these religious leaders.' But, she said, 'I'll simply repeat what the president has said many times, which is that this government does not torture, and we adhere to the international conventions against torture. That is our policy, and it will remain our policy.'"

You can see a copy of the ad run in the New York Times here. This is the text in the ad:

Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions, in their highest ideals, hold dear. It degrades everyone involved -- policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation's most cherished values. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable.

Nothing less is at stake in the torture abuse crisis than the soul of our nation. What does it signify if torture is condemned in word but allowed in deed?

Let America abolish torture now -- without exceptions.

Is it possible that what the White House says is true? What if American statute law, as well as specific policy, is that torture is not used by our government, and that our government adhere's to international conventions against torture? If true, then what can such a statement mean?

I do not think our government should use torture. Yet, I don't think I could sign the statement as it appeared in the ad because the statement is clearly premised on the belief that our government does use torture. If I believed our government did make the use of torture a matter of law and policy today, then I would support changing those laws and policies.

My best assessment at this time comes from reading news reports of allegations of torture, and from reading and hearing interviews of various people on the allegations and on the practices and policies of our government. And, my assessment of course includes what our President has said about torture. My best assessment is that it is neither law, nor policy, to use torture, and further, that any proven allegations (and therefore no longer just allegations) to date that specific individuals in our military have violated law and policy have resulted in those individuals being punished for their violations of law and policy.

My conclusion, therefore, is that the statement of the religious leaders in the ad makes little sense to me. Calling for the Congress and the President to change law and policy, when the change requested already seems to me the law and policy of Congress and the President makes no sense. One implication of all this is that such a nationally publicized statement seems motivated by pure politics rather than by a commitment to a moral view.

Perhaps I am incorrect in these conclusions. Perhaps I am wrong and it is the law and policy of the United States to use torture. Unfortunately, neither the ad, nor the web site of the organization paying for the ad, provides any reference to specific law or policy that would contradict my conclusion, or contradict what the President has said about law and policy.

I'm thinking that if I bring my faith to politics and political discourse there are at least 2 things that I would want to do. I would want to bring clarity and truth to the discussion. It seems to me that these religious leaders have not done that. Am I wrong?

More Estate Tax

WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL:

Americans favor repealing the death tax not because they think it will help them directly. They're more principled than that. Two-thirds of the public wants to repeal it because they think taxing a lifetime of thrift due to the accident of death is unfair, and even immoral. They also understand that the really rich won't pay the tax anyway because they hire lawyers to avoid it.

[. . .]

Edward McCaffery, an estate tax expert at USC Law School, argues that "if breaking up large concentrations of wealth is the intention of the death tax, then it is a miserable failure."

Certainly I am one who thinks our tax system should reward thrift as well as savings and investment, and it should not tax or penalize these sorts of choices. Probably one reason I have for not wanting to tax saving and investment is that I'm an economist, and that means I understand how saving and investment leads to economic prosperity. I've wondered whether my faith might lead me to a different conclusion, and I don't really see any reason to think that it should.

Consider the suggestion that the reason for the estate tax is thought, by at least some people, to be breaking up large concentrations of wealth. Setting aside the observation that the estate tax has not accomplished such a goal, I wonder why large amounts of wealth would be seen as a bad thing? An individual earns an income by being productive, and being productive means being part of the economy that produces and supplies goods and services people want. By being productive a person earns a living, and this is done by helping those who want the goods and services that result. Wealth is created when a person saves out of income instead of consuming all the income that is earned. Wealth results then from the productivity of people, and from their choices to save and invest rather than consume all that is earned. So, I can't really understand anything wrong with wealth, nor with so-called "large concentrations of wealth." It seems to me that the economic choices of people to create wealth for themselves involve choices that benefit others (being productive), and also choices that involve less interest in goods, services and materialist consumption in the present which seem to me choices that all also good choices. I don't see any clear reasons from my study of Jesus and the New Testament that would suggest I have the wrong idea about the creation of wealth.

So, if 2/3 of the American public, as asserted by the WSJ, want the estate tax repealed, I wonder who is supporting the continuation of the estate tax? This is often a useful and informative question to ask when considering proposed public policies: who wants the proposed public policy? Here is the answer the WSJ offers with respect to the estate tax:

By far the largest supporter of preserving the death tax is the life insurance lobby, which could lose billions of dollars from policies written to avoid the tax. The Los Angeles Times reported this week that the insurance industry is the main funder of an anti-repeal outfit known as the Coalition for America's Priorities. . . .

Noting the special interest supporting continuing the estate tax is pretty informative, but consider something else about this support. The reason the life insurance industry wants to keep the tax is really because the life insurance industry makes a profit on figuring out how people can avoid paying the tax. In other words, without government's prior bad policy (i.e. taxing wealth at death), there wouldn't be a special interest in opposition to end government's bad policy today.

I posted earlier on the estate tax noting that this was a public policy that encouraged envy, and the WSJ seems to think so as well:

Voters have been saying clearly and for years that they don't want a tax whose only justification is government greed and envy.

Christians For The Estate Tax

SOJOURNERS:

"If Senate leadership has its way, American inequality is about to take a giant step forward with efforts to repeal or gut the estate tax. Never mind it's been in place for nearly 100 years, is a substantial source of government revenue, and has been a major catalyst to charitable giving. And it only affects the wealthiest half of 1 percent of Americans - most family farms and small businesses are exempt.

A repeal of the estate tax will cost an estimated 1 trillion dollars in federal revenue over the next 10 years, substantially increase the deficit, dramatically diminish the resources available to help low-income families escape poverty, and further increase the pressure on the budget from the high cost of war.

Make a call to preserve the common good! Tell your senators to oppose repeal or drastic cuts in the estate tax!"

Perhaps someone can explain the use of "common good" in this political appeal? I would like to define common good to mean that no one is harmed, that all either benefit or at least do not bear a cost because of the government action in question. If you agree with my idea of the common good, then I think you would have to agree that calling to preserve the common good does not fit with continuing the estate (a.k.a. death) tax. Surely there are people who are harmed when government takes some portion of an estate.

Do you agree with my idea about the meaning of "the common good?" Or, would you define this term in some other way?

I posted just below on Galatians 6:1-10 so that I could give some thought to President Clinton's choice of scripture at his first inauguration. That led me to read the rest of Paul's letter, and I think that Galatians 5:16-26 might have some relevance to this appeal by Sojourners. Read the entire passage, but here are the specific words I think might relate to this political appeal:

Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh . . . Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication . . . licentiousness, idolatry . . . enmities, strife, jealousy, anger . . . factions, envy . . . and things like these.

By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, patience, kindness, generosity . . . If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another.

I think I'm put off by appeals such as this by Sojourners regarding the estate tax because it is a position about a public policy that seems to encourage envy, factions, strife, and competing against one another. It seems to me a position about public policy that is inconsistent with the fruit of the Spirit when I consider the people who would have their estate taken by the coercive power of government. Do you think I'm wrong in this?

Galatians 6:8

I POSTED YESTERDAY that many Presidents have chosen to have the Bible opened to a specific scripture passage for their inauguration. At President Clinton's first inauguration the scripture passage was Galatians 6:8

If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit.

It might be interesting to consider whether the scripture choices of the Presidents provide much in the way of understanding with respect to faith and politics. Of course, the scripture choices might have little insight regarding politics, and more insight with respect to the personality or the faith of the President, or perhaps the insight would tell use something about the nature of the challenges the President anticipates for his upcoming years.

In President Clinton's choice of scripture there seems to be little direct application to politics or to the choices with respect to public policies. With tongue in cheek, I suppose the passage might be relevant to anticipated challenges while in office.

Perhaps we should look at the larger context within which this passage is located. Here is Galatians 6:1-10

My friends, if anyone is detected in a transgression, you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness. Take care that you yourselves are not tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. For if those who are nothing think they are something, they deceive themselves. All must test their own work; then that work, rather than their neighbor's work, will become a cause for pride. For all must carry their own loads.

Those who are taught the word must share in all good things with their teacher.

Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you reap whatever you sow. If you sow to your own flesh, you will reap corruption from the flesh; but if you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life from the Spirit. So let us not grow weary in doing what is right, for we will reap at harvest time, if we do not give up. So, then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all, and especially for those of the family of faith.

I suppose we might see some thoughts about faith and government in this entire passage, which is titled, in my Bible, "Bear One Another's Burdens." Perhaps some would suggest support here for bearing the burdens of others through government welfare programs, or other programs that might be said to "share in" the misfortunes of others? Perhaps we should look at "let us work for the good of all" as suggesting we look to government as the means of accomplishing what is good for all? Now my own view of government doesn't tend in these directions, and perhaps that is why I do not see this scripture as suggesting either of these sorts of ideas about government and about my politics.

I see this scripture as saying very little directly relevant to politics and government, and I think this conclusion is emphasized by the final idea in this passage which points to "especially for those of the family of faith." I do not think good government is one that would be "especially" interested in any identifiable group, whether of the family of faith or not.

For me I read in this scripture lessons from Paul about living in ways that are mindful of the gift of the Holy Spirit. He teaches that if we learn of someone who has transgressed, we, who have received the Spirit, should turn to help them, and our help should come from the influence of the Holy Spirit on our lives. In some ways I think the teaching here counsels against materialist and self-interested attitudes, and teaches that we should attend to the counsel of the Spirit in our lives.

Perhaps in this last idea we have an indirect implication for politics. It is hard for me to avoid thinking that almost all of politics is driven by self-interest. I suppose some politicians and some of those who actively work in support of various public policies are largely motivated by an interest in helping others, but such motivations seem at best a very small part of our politics and of our governments. Politics and government are inherently about using force and coercion in our daily lives. It seems simply inconsistent to me that a personal interest in, and concern for, others would turn to use government as the means of acting on such a concern for others. I don't think concern for others translates into force or coercion toward others, and I note also that Paul teaches that "you who have received the Spirit should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness." It is difficult for me to understand government in terms that sound anything at all like "a spirit of gentleness."

Consider also that "whenever we have an opportunity, let us work for the good of all." I tend to the conclusion that there are relatively few instances in which force and coercion can be used in our daily lives to the good of all. Rather, I believe that working for the good of all tends to be associated with cooperation, exchange, and, just in general, interactions and associations with others that are voluntary and freely chosen. A government's coercion and force can be used in many circumstances to guarantee or insure that interactions and associations are freely chosen by all parties, and it is such circumstances that I find to be useful in defining the purpose of government. Unfortunately, most political issues today clearly involve efforts to get government to force outcomes and associations and interactions in the ways some people prefer, and at the expense of other people.

So, it seems to me that Paul's teaching in this scripture is most directly about how an individual approaches his or her own personal life. Indirectly, the scripture says something to me about my faith and my politics. To me it says that if I "sow to the Spirit" I will have little interest in politics and government for achieving self-interested advantages, and little interest in trying to use government to force or coerce others "to get things right."

Presidential Bibles

I discovered something interesting in Jon Meacham's book American Gospel. When a President is sworn into office he places his hand on an open Bible. Apparently, many Presidents have chosen to have the Bible opened to a specific scripture passage. Perhaps it would be interesting to reflect upon those Presidential favorites of scripture:

Proverbs 3:17 -- Martin Van Buren 1837
Proverbs 21 -- Andrew Johnson 1865
Isaiah 11:1-3 -- Ulysses S. Grant 1873
Psalm 118:11-13 -- Rutherford B. Hayes 1877
Proverbs 21:1 -- James A. Garfield 1881
Psalm 31:1-3 -- Chester A. Arthur 1771
Psalm 121:1-6 -- Benjamin Harrison 1889
Psalm 91:12-16 -- Grover Cleveland 1893
Chronicles II 1:10 -- William McKinley 1897
Proverbs 16: -- William McKinley 1901
James 1:22-23 -- Theodore Roosevelt 1905
Kings I 3:9-11 -- William Howard Taft 1909
Psalm 119 -- Woodrow Wilson 1913
Psalm 46 -- Woodrow Wilson 1917
Micah 6:8 -- Warren G. Harding 1921
John 1 -- Calvin Coolidge 1925
Proverbs 29:18 -- Herbert Hoover 1929
Corinthinans 1:13 -- Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933, 1937, 1941, 1945
Matthew 5:3-11 & Exodus 20:3-17 -- Harry S. Truman 1949 (used two open Bibles)
Psalm 127:1 & Chronicles II 7:14 -- Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953 (used two open Bibles)
Psalm 33:12 -- Dwight D. Eisenhower 1957
Isaiah 2:4 -- Richard Nixon 1969 and 1973
Proverbs 3:5-6 -- Gerald R. Ford 1974
Micah 6:8 -- Jimmy Carter 1977
Chronicles II 7:14 -- Ronald Reagan 1981 and 1985
Matthew 5 -- George H.W. Bush 1989
Galatians 6:8 -- Bill Clinton 1993
Isaiah 58:12 -- Bill Clinton 1997
Isaiah 40:31 -- George W. Bush 2005

You Always Have The Poor With You

Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus' feet, and wiped them with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, "Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor? (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.) Jesus said, "Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep if for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me." (John 12:3-8)

I am curious about what Jesus means when he says we always have the poor with us. What do you think?

I also cannot help but relate the parenthetical note on Judas keeping the common purse and stealing from it to some aspects of Congressional practices today. The members of Congress have developed the practice of budget earmarks by which individual members of Congress are allowed to pick specific projects and specific recipients to receive federal monies. The practice has even developed where a member of Congress designates specific funds to a specific recipient or a specific project and that designation or assignment of funds is not even specifically written down in the bill that Congress votes on. There is more, members of Congress often make such personal budget earmarks without even being identified as the member of Congress making the earmark. Do you see any parallels in the ethics of Judas and the ethics of earmarks?