Friday, April 24, 2009

Adding to the discussion on Kyle's blog

Please read Saunders' article on waterboarding and the US approach to "torture."

Los Angeles or Waterboarding?
A Commentary By Debra J. Saunders

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Torture discussion on Kyle's blog: Journeys In Alterity

For a few days now, a discussion about the legitimacy of torture and how Christians should regard it as been going on at and his Kyle's blog: Journeys in Alterity.  

You can reach Kyle's  blog by clicking on the name, Journeys in Alterity, on the list of blogs I peruse found at the bottom of this page.  

Next you will find Kyle's original blog posting on the matter and one of my responses.  Please do go to Kyle's site and make some comments...I'm eager to explore this more myself.  

Kyle said: SATURDAY, APRIL 18, 2009

Torturing Christ

I find it disturbing that we’re actually debating the concept of torturing people, but what I really don’t get is the defense of torture by Christians. I say this not because Christians are better than others, but because, from the Christian standpoint, what we do to one another, even to the least among us and to the worst of sinners, we do to Christ. We show our love and respect for God in how we treat one another. A Christian who defends torturing a human person defends, in a sense, torturing Him in whose image and likeness we are all made.

I said:S. Rich said...

I don't have a definitive answer. But let me mention a few thoughts.

-Christ was certainly willing to be tough at times. When the money changers desecrated the temple Christ personally smacked them with a whip-like instrument. Was such a torturous action? Christ smacked them and publicly humbled them. Christ embarrassed there fragile psyches and physically assaulted their bodies, their temples of the Holy Spirit. 

-Christ also buys into justice. Of Judas, it would be better for him if he had never been born. Of someone that would harm a child, may he have a millstone tied about his neck and be cast into the sea. 

I suppose the definition of torture is at issue here. Is waterboarding torture because it scares someone? Is putting a caterpillar in a closet with someone afraid of bugs torture? 

I am inclined to believe that if it is possible to have a just war, then it is possible to have a just extraction of information...but there is certainly a fine line that cannot morally be crossed. I don't have an exact demarcation of that line myself, though I would tend to be cautious so as not to risk crossing that line.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Article from my favorite Stanford Prof., T. Sowell!

I didn't really think about what I would post on this blog when I started the thing...but it seems posting someone else's article just for the sake of sharing things I find significant has been appreciated.  Here is another such post, I've pasted sections of Sowell's article and my commentary will be inserted in bold print here and there in a scattershot manner.   A link to the full article is found at the bottom 

While the rest of us may be worried about violent Mexican drug gangs on our border, or about terrorists who are going to be released from Guantanimo, the Director of Homeland Security is worried about "right-wing extremists."...According to an official document of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, right-wing extremists include "groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." It also includes those "rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority."I wonder if rejecting federal authority refers to states that want to secede or is it broader, including the subsidiarity advocates and distributists at the chesterbellocmandate?  ...

According to the same official document, the Department of Homeland Security "has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence."...

So-called "honor killings" by Muslims in the United States, including a recent beheading of his wife by a leader of one of the American Muslim organizations, does not seem to arouse any concern by the Department of Homeland Security.

When it comes to the thuggery of ACORN -- its members harassing the homes of bankers and even the home of Senator Phil Gramm when he opposed things that ACORN favored -- the Department of Homeland Security apparently sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no is an overreaction, but actions like this by ACORN made me think of Hitler's Kristalnacht...when his minions swept through the towns to intimidate all the churches and synagogues that resisted 'them.'

Maybe they are too busy worrying about right-wing "extremists" who don't like abortions or illegal immigration, or who favor the division of power between the state and federal governments established by the Constitution.

... it can be sinister as a revealing and disturbing sign of the preoccupations and priorities of this administration -- and their willingness to witch hunt and demonize those who dare to disagree with them....

All this activity takes on a more sinister aspect against the background of one of the statements of Barack Obama during last year's election campaign that got remarkably little attention in the media. He suggested the creation of a federal police force, comparable in size to the military.this may be an overreaction, but this smacks a bit of Hitler's SS

Why such an organization? For what purpose?...

What would be different about a new federal police force, as compared to existing law enforcement and military forces? It would be a creation of the Obama administration, run by people appointed from top to bottom by that administration -- and without the conflicting loyalties of those steeped in existing military traditions and law enforcement traditions.

In short, a federal police force could become President Obama's personal domestic political army, his own storm troopers....

Monday, April 20, 2009

Revisiting an old idea-a horse for every home!

A friend, that would be you Doug, asked why I don't have any new posts posted...I was on vacation. I'm short on the usual inspiration that comes to me as my mercurial personality reads the daily headlines. So, to hopefully satisfy Doug, let me posit a revolutionary, backwater idea that if forced on society could save society. It's late and I'll only give the briefest of outlines of my old idea for the time being. I'll look for a massive number of comments and expand my thinking in my responses.

All families and homeowners should be required to house and maintain a horse. The positive benefits to society will be as follows:
1. people will realize that even majestic animals are typically a great burden and royal pain. worth it if you love horses, but a real pain...this will have a great effect on the ignoramuses at PETA, and those that are wooed into sympathizing with the PETAns
2. synthetic glue marketers and manufacturers will see more competition
3. people will have to start having more kids, so that they don't have to do all the horse-ing around. farmers usually have many kids, share the wealth/burden!
4. jobs! horse trainers will be in high demand again, not to mention the shipping and growing of hay...small time farm operations will be more profitable due to increased demand for hay
5. less potentially harmful chemicals in the soil and food supply...the great glut of horse processed plant matter has to go some where
6. (and last for tonight) increased sense of responsibility for something other than yourself

I know this isn't quite workable, but it could save the world, maybe?