Maybe Crucifixion Was Only A “Stress Position”

If you’d like to see everything wrong with American Christianity, or at least the pretender thereto, read this column at the Federalist. Actually, don’t read it: it will sicken you as it tries to justify torture from the Bible. “Yes, Christians Can Support Torture,” the headline heretically proclaims. The Prince of Peace, the Man government tortured to death on the cross, the One Who commanded us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, actually approves stress-positions and rectal hydration—under the right circumstances, of course. “National security” is Lord for Leviathan’s idolators.

There are other reasons not to sully your mind with this garbage. It meanders on and on, in desperate need of an editor; it lacks wit and even common sense as the author commits logical fallacy after factual mistake after circular reasoning. For example, “government” is an entity rather than simply a group of politicians and bureaucrats exercising their fallen wills over the rest of us: we who oppose torture err because we “[apply] these [Biblical] commandments meant for individuals … to the government.” The writer also ascribes to 24’s fantasy: that torture yields information with which our ingeniously crafty public servants save lives. Study after study has disproved this, so much so that even the Feds themselves have admitted that hurting people into babbling only produces lies.

As you might expect, the usual misinterpretation of Romans 13 plays its usual starring role. And, in yet another insult, the article quotes the execrable John Yoo as if he were an expert rather than a sociopathic criminal.

Kudos to Michael Alford. He not only sent me the link, he also resoundingly reprimands the author in his reader’s comment (which I do urge you to read though you skip the article. And leave one yourself. We who follow our Lord, however imperfectly, should stomp these snakes in our midst).

Share

10:31 am on December 17, 2014