On January 21st the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to reverse a 63-year-old ban preventing corporations from using their profits to either support or oppose political candidates. In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, voting along ideological lines, the conservative justices noted that the decision declares “unconstitutional a large portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act passed in 2002.” While the decision still prevents corporations or other public entities from giving funds directly to candidates, it now allows such entities to give unlimited funds to promote or oppose any candidate or position in the best interest of the corporation. In all fairness this decision MAY also allows labor unions and other non-profit entities the same access (I explain MAY below) but I will stick with corporations because a) they have a lot more money, b) they have been granted special status, and c) I am pro-labor. The conservative opinion of the Court noted that limiting the contributions of corporations represented a “ban on free speech inconsistent with the First Amendment of the Constitution.” In effect, by protecting corporations right to freedom of speech the Court declared corporations as persons and therefore guaranteed rights under the Constitution.
While the Court voted away 63 years of precedent (which seriously questions some justices pretentions of judicial restraint), the tactic of bestowing personhood to corporations has a long history among pro-business conservatives. In 1886 in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad the Court settled a case as to who had the right to determine and assess taxes on the railroad (Southern Pacific Railroad won the case). Of interest in this decision, however, was a head note included in the opinion by a Court reporter, a former railroad president J.C. Bancroft Davis which stated: “The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” With a stroke of the pen Davis wrote corporate personhood into the opinion of the Court in this decision.
Oddly, the Court had ruled no such status for corporations. Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite, in a handwritten note which can be found in the National Archives, states that nowhere in the decision does the Court grant personhood to corporations. After the decision, however, corporate lawyers quoted the head note when arguing before the Court and conservative justices (many ideologically prone to side with corporations) eventually did write the corporation as person idea into precedent. Prior to 1886 the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed “rights” only to individuals, other artificial entities chartered by the state (e.g., corporations, unions, churches, etc.) only had privileges, not rights—privileges that could be revoked if the entity violated its charter. The Davis note and subsequent opinions by the Court moved corporations to the status of having rights while other entities (e.g. labor unions, non-profits, and churches) only have privilege status. Thus, a corporation can now endorse any candidate or position it desires under First Amendment protection. A church (or pastor) that did the same might find itself losing its tax-exempt status.
Personally, this decision by the Court was not unexpected, at least by me. When justices Roberts and Alito joined the Court, swinging the balance of the ideological right, many social conservatives saw the opportunity to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which constitutionally protects a woman’s right to an abortion. Religious conservatives have claimed, rightly, that the decision violates the Image of God in the unborn child. For this reason religious conservatives have been adamant about stacking the court to provide the votes necessary to overturn Roe. The Citizen’s United decision represents a classic case of being careful what you wish for. Ideologically the same justices religious conservatives are trusting to restore rights to the unborn are equally (or even more prone) to extend personhood to corporations which are vastly more powerful, not subject to same criminal punishments as individuals, have no soul (and therefore are not moral entities) and, with the revoking of laws which previously required corporations to be re-charter, can also live into perpetuity.
The sad reality of this corporate personhood, insofar as it protects political freedom of speech, is that corporations are not subject to the same constraints as you or I. If I yell “Fire” in a crowded theatre I am subject to punishment and fine (I may falsely induce a panic which even under the First Amendment I do not the right to do). Political ads, however, are not subject to the same truth in advertising laws as those of products. If an advertisement makes false claims about a product that company can be sued for false advertising. If a false claim is made about a candidate only the candidate can seek recourse by suing for libel. Unless there is a serious defamation of character the candidate is often unwilling to do so since it generally produces a negative backlash against the candidate. The result, I fear, is that we will not see the type of outrageous “Swift boat” types of campaign ads which will only make political campaigns more negative and poison an already cynical electorate.
I take the idea of Image of God quite seriously. It is why I am pro-life and why I find this decision by the Court to be abominable. Yet, I have yet to hear anyone among the leading religious conservatives condemn the Court on this decision. Brethren, if we don’t stand for principle, even if it means confronting those to whom we are allied, we are nothing more than any other special interest group. If that is who we are we should not be surprised when that is the way we are treated—regardless of who is in power.
Showing posts with label Image of God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Image of God. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Friday, May 1, 2009
Why We Must Condemn Torture (including Waterboarding)
A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life indicates that the more often people go to church the more likely they are to support the use of torture (or the coy euphemism “enhanced interrogation tactic”) against suspected terrorists.
Of people that attended church at least once a week 54% said that torture was “justified” or “sometimes” justified, as compared to 42% who seldom or never attend services. White evangelical Protestants were the most likely to support torture, with 60% justifying its use. This compares to 49% of the general population. By contrast 30% of mainline Protestants (those that evangelicals usually label as “liberal”) said torture was never justified (as compared to 25% of the general population). Only 12% of evangelicals saw torture as never justified.
Since President Obama released the CIA memo revealing the use of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques a few weeks ago, the issue has stirred a great deal of controversy, prompting the Pew Forum survey. President Obama, in a recent press conference, failed to use the term “crime” (which would certainly have lead to criminal proceedings) but has left the door open to further investigation. In September 2005 nine Army reservists were convicted of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. The only officer convicted, Lt. Col. Steven Jordan, had his courts-martial conviction thrown out by the Army in January 2008. The content of the CIA memo seems to indicate that the actions of the nine at Abu Ghraib (portrayed by the army as rogue soldiers acting outside the chain of command) as well as by those at Guantanamo Bay and other sites were part of a systematic approach to intelligence gathering that was sanctioned at the highest levels of the Bush White House.
President Bush, as early as 2005 and repeatedly thereafter, claimed that the US does not torture. Secretary of State Rice condoned the practice of waterboarding and Vice President Cheney, in an interview with ABC News in December 2008, defended practice and admitted to “helping to get the process cleared .” When asked if the practice of waterboarding was appropriate, Cheney replied, “I do.” The CIA memo indicates that the members of the Bush Justice Department, under the direction of Attorney generals Ashcroft and Gonzales were instructed to write guidelines clearing certain techniques and therefore rendering them legal. One such memo, written by former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee in 2002, advised the C.I.A. that "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment was at times allowable under U.S. law, and authored, co-authored and signed other memos on "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation." The release of that memo has stirred calls for the impeachment of Bybee, now a Federal Justice on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Former Attorney General Gonzales, in November 2004, called the Geneva Convention, the international code that protects servicemen (including our own) from torture and abuse “quaint” and “obsolete.” The statement prompted criticism from human rights groups and families of American GIs noting that if the US is can disregard the practices of the Geneva Convention what prevents other nations or combatants from disregarding them with our service personnel. The CIA memo certainly calls into question the extent to which former President Bush knew about and even authorized the practices of torture during his administration.
Waterboarding seems to be a central issue here so let’s deal with that. Waterboarding IS torture (I will deal with this issue in a moment), but two considerations seem important in light of the Pew results. First, the use of waterboarding is being defended by many (including Cheney) because it has been effective. This has been the justification most likely to be seen on FOX News (where more evangelicals get their news then other station—OK maybe not but it seems like it). The Pew question on whether torture is “justified” begs the question—on what grounds? The Cheney answer, the FOX answer, and apparently the evangelical answer, is that it has prevented further attacks. The validity of that statement is highly questionable but assuming it is—does this condone the practice by Biblicists? The logic of its defenders essentially comes down to Machiavellian principle of the “end justifies the means.” It is political pragmatism that notes that the chief end of government officials is to keep its citizens safe and thus any means that accomplishes this end is permissible and deemed beneficial (maybe even moral) if it produces such results.
This defense suffers from two flaws. First, would we allow other nations to use that tactic against US citizens. For example, if Iran were to engage in the torture of Roxana Saberi, the American journalist being held in suspicion of espionage, upon what basis could the US (including evangelical Americans) wage protests? The pragmatic methodology being defended by many evangelicals is a defense of the erosion of moral absolutes that we typically decry when it comes to issues such as abortion or gay rights / marriage. We appear to as moral absolutists on certain issues (esp. when they don’t effect us directly), but on issues of safety and security (with its more direct effect) we become pragmatists. The late Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer noted that it would be the desire for “personal peace and affluence” that would lead to the rejection of moral absolutes in the West. I am sure he didn’t suspect the defenders of biblical truth to be the ones that would help grease the skids of rejecting biblical absolutes.
Also, the pragmatic argument is not biblical in that it rejects the sovereignty of God over results. The Bible clearly teaches that the disciples of Christ are to be faithful to the process of doing righteousness, but that we are not held accountable for the results of the actions. Believers are not judged on results since results are come under the sovereign auspices of God. What disciples are called to do is be faithful to the process. By reducing the justification of torture to results Christians are clearly violating faithfulness to the idea of the image of God in others and the commandment to love our enemies. To defend the torture of others one must first objectify or dehumanize the one being tortured—a result that is always a part of the sin nature.
Now, is waterboarding torture? Despite Sean Hannity claiming he would undergo the procedure (and Keith Obermann chiding him to do so) the process IS torture. The technique has a long history (at least to the Spanish Inquisition). In 1947, following WW II, an international tribunal labeled the technique a war crime and hanged several people convicted of using the technique (including those that used waterboarding on American soldiers). The United States found sufficient moral outrage at the technique to support the death penalty for those who used it against our service personnel, but found such statues “quaint” and “obsolete” when we desire to use them. For evangelicals, which claim that the United States is a “Christian nation,” the support of such techniques and unquestioning support of those who authorized them, constitutes a violation of the very principles claimed to be the moral basis of the nation.
It should be noted that the clearest characteristics of the sin nature is the desire to be God and define right and wrong for ourselves (Gen. 3:5). Brethren, the only justification for the support of torture is to nurture this fundamental characteristic of the sin nature through the use of biblical or patriotic sounding rhetoric which, in the end, supports the desires of our sinful hearts. In the end our moral motivations becomes the same as the worldly motivations that we say we reject. We cannot expect the world to respect an argument for moral absolute and the image of God in the unborn if we continue to deny moral absolutes clearly stated in the Bible when it comes to the treatment of enemies. As Biblicists we must condemn the technique and investigate its practice.
Of people that attended church at least once a week 54% said that torture was “justified” or “sometimes” justified, as compared to 42% who seldom or never attend services. White evangelical Protestants were the most likely to support torture, with 60% justifying its use. This compares to 49% of the general population. By contrast 30% of mainline Protestants (those that evangelicals usually label as “liberal”) said torture was never justified (as compared to 25% of the general population). Only 12% of evangelicals saw torture as never justified.
Since President Obama released the CIA memo revealing the use of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques a few weeks ago, the issue has stirred a great deal of controversy, prompting the Pew Forum survey. President Obama, in a recent press conference, failed to use the term “crime” (which would certainly have lead to criminal proceedings) but has left the door open to further investigation. In September 2005 nine Army reservists were convicted of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. The only officer convicted, Lt. Col. Steven Jordan, had his courts-martial conviction thrown out by the Army in January 2008. The content of the CIA memo seems to indicate that the actions of the nine at Abu Ghraib (portrayed by the army as rogue soldiers acting outside the chain of command) as well as by those at Guantanamo Bay and other sites were part of a systematic approach to intelligence gathering that was sanctioned at the highest levels of the Bush White House.
President Bush, as early as 2005 and repeatedly thereafter, claimed that the US does not torture. Secretary of State Rice condoned the practice of waterboarding and Vice President Cheney, in an interview with ABC News in December 2008, defended practice and admitted to “helping to get the process cleared .” When asked if the practice of waterboarding was appropriate, Cheney replied, “I do.” The CIA memo indicates that the members of the Bush Justice Department, under the direction of Attorney generals Ashcroft and Gonzales were instructed to write guidelines clearing certain techniques and therefore rendering them legal. One such memo, written by former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee in 2002, advised the C.I.A. that "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment was at times allowable under U.S. law, and authored, co-authored and signed other memos on "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation." The release of that memo has stirred calls for the impeachment of Bybee, now a Federal Justice on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Former Attorney General Gonzales, in November 2004, called the Geneva Convention, the international code that protects servicemen (including our own) from torture and abuse “quaint” and “obsolete.” The statement prompted criticism from human rights groups and families of American GIs noting that if the US is can disregard the practices of the Geneva Convention what prevents other nations or combatants from disregarding them with our service personnel. The CIA memo certainly calls into question the extent to which former President Bush knew about and even authorized the practices of torture during his administration.
Waterboarding seems to be a central issue here so let’s deal with that. Waterboarding IS torture (I will deal with this issue in a moment), but two considerations seem important in light of the Pew results. First, the use of waterboarding is being defended by many (including Cheney) because it has been effective. This has been the justification most likely to be seen on FOX News (where more evangelicals get their news then other station—OK maybe not but it seems like it). The Pew question on whether torture is “justified” begs the question—on what grounds? The Cheney answer, the FOX answer, and apparently the evangelical answer, is that it has prevented further attacks. The validity of that statement is highly questionable but assuming it is—does this condone the practice by Biblicists? The logic of its defenders essentially comes down to Machiavellian principle of the “end justifies the means.” It is political pragmatism that notes that the chief end of government officials is to keep its citizens safe and thus any means that accomplishes this end is permissible and deemed beneficial (maybe even moral) if it produces such results.
This defense suffers from two flaws. First, would we allow other nations to use that tactic against US citizens. For example, if Iran were to engage in the torture of Roxana Saberi, the American journalist being held in suspicion of espionage, upon what basis could the US (including evangelical Americans) wage protests? The pragmatic methodology being defended by many evangelicals is a defense of the erosion of moral absolutes that we typically decry when it comes to issues such as abortion or gay rights / marriage. We appear to as moral absolutists on certain issues (esp. when they don’t effect us directly), but on issues of safety and security (with its more direct effect) we become pragmatists. The late Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer noted that it would be the desire for “personal peace and affluence” that would lead to the rejection of moral absolutes in the West. I am sure he didn’t suspect the defenders of biblical truth to be the ones that would help grease the skids of rejecting biblical absolutes.
Also, the pragmatic argument is not biblical in that it rejects the sovereignty of God over results. The Bible clearly teaches that the disciples of Christ are to be faithful to the process of doing righteousness, but that we are not held accountable for the results of the actions. Believers are not judged on results since results are come under the sovereign auspices of God. What disciples are called to do is be faithful to the process. By reducing the justification of torture to results Christians are clearly violating faithfulness to the idea of the image of God in others and the commandment to love our enemies. To defend the torture of others one must first objectify or dehumanize the one being tortured—a result that is always a part of the sin nature.
Now, is waterboarding torture? Despite Sean Hannity claiming he would undergo the procedure (and Keith Obermann chiding him to do so) the process IS torture. The technique has a long history (at least to the Spanish Inquisition). In 1947, following WW II, an international tribunal labeled the technique a war crime and hanged several people convicted of using the technique (including those that used waterboarding on American soldiers). The United States found sufficient moral outrage at the technique to support the death penalty for those who used it against our service personnel, but found such statues “quaint” and “obsolete” when we desire to use them. For evangelicals, which claim that the United States is a “Christian nation,” the support of such techniques and unquestioning support of those who authorized them, constitutes a violation of the very principles claimed to be the moral basis of the nation.
It should be noted that the clearest characteristics of the sin nature is the desire to be God and define right and wrong for ourselves (Gen. 3:5). Brethren, the only justification for the support of torture is to nurture this fundamental characteristic of the sin nature through the use of biblical or patriotic sounding rhetoric which, in the end, supports the desires of our sinful hearts. In the end our moral motivations becomes the same as the worldly motivations that we say we reject. We cannot expect the world to respect an argument for moral absolute and the image of God in the unborn if we continue to deny moral absolutes clearly stated in the Bible when it comes to the treatment of enemies. As Biblicists we must condemn the technique and investigate its practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
