Suppose that a semi-prominent person who had long been an advocate for the pro-abortion side decided to delve a little deeper into the subject quite sure that their pro-choice position would be validated. Surprisingly, when this person did begin to explore the reality of abortion they began to openly question their previous position. Perhaps they have not yet come full circle on the subject or fully appreciate the Catholic position on the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, but they are beginning to see more clearly.
So here we have this person, questioning. Maybe not so sure as they once were. What should we as Catholics do? What would Jesus do? I think it is without question that we would applaud them for their courage so far and encourage that person to continue that journey to a more fully Catholic position.
So how about if the subject that the semi-prominent person had begun to question was not the intrinsic evil of abortion but rather the intrinsic evil of torture? How would we treat that person? And what if the question was not “What would Jesus do?” but “What would Mark Shea do?” If that was the question, the answer would be — kick him in the teeth.
Reality Trumps Ideology …especially on Talk Radio. One yakker [radio host Erich “Mancow” Muller] for the Rubber Hose Right decided to go get himself waterboarded to prove it’s not really torture. Note that highly politically invested locution. He did not want to find out whether it was torture or not. He “wanted to prove it wasn’t torture”. That’s because, contra so many people on the amazing shrinking Rubber Hose Right, there are indeed people who are heavily invested, not in facts, but in marshalling evidence for a fore-ordained conclusion driven by their political allegiances.
Problem is: the facts are against the torture apologists in many, many ways, beginning with the ridiculous claim that waterboarding is not torture. Our yakker quickly bailed when confronted with the claims of reality over the demands of ideology and announced that it’s “absolutely torture.”
Duh.
We, as Catholics, should always be mindful that while there are those who are steadfast in their defense of intrinsic evil knowing full well what it is, there are others who have yet to really think things through. I suspect that Mr. Mancow falls into this latter category. When these people show an openness to the truth, even if cajoled through self torture, we should help them to see that truth more fully.
Just yesterday we featured a link on the Reader of a Atheist Denver post columnist who is reconsidering his position on abortion. While I am sure that there is much big stuff that we would still disagree on, he has displayed an openness to the truth and for this we applaud him. For the sheep to return to the fold they must first realize that they are headed in the wrong direction.
Jeff Miller politely pointed out to Mark in the combox:
I say give some credit to Mancow instead of just calling him a yakker. At least he is admitting the truth about this now, so let us rejoice and not diminish him. Now if only other torture apologists would come to their senses via reason and respect for human dignity without having to actually undergo this.
And to his credit Mark admits that his frustrations may have gotten the better of him.
Jeff: You are, of course, right. In my frustration at years of denial of the bleedin’ obvious, I failed to acknowledge that this was a real step forward. I applaud Mr. Mancow for breaking ranks with the torture defenders and am glad he is speaking the truth on this matter.
Bleedin’ obvious, maybe. But we all should be mindful that we all have topics that while bleedin’ obvious to us now, were not always so. One might say it is bleedin’ obvious that we should be encouraging to those who show openness to the truth and not respond with “no kidding Sherlock! Duh!” But then again, we all miss the bleedin’ obvious sometimes.
May 28, 2009 at 6:35 am
I disagree. I believe that Mancow in his own way proved waterborading isn’t torture.
Please see Actually, Mancow proves that waterboarding ISN’T tortureAlso, Attorney General Eric Holder failed to prove waterboarding is torture in his testimony to congress, which the MSM has failed to report. See On ‘Torture,’ Holder Undoes Holder – National Review.
May 28, 2009 at 7:12 am
The comparison of abortion – which kills millions of lives – and an interrogation technique that forced Khaled Sheikh Mohammed (who chopped off Daniel Pearl’s head with a rusty knife and boasted after being captured of a second 9/11 – which he wouldn’t tell authorities about) is Obama-like in its vacuity and moral stupidity. Shea specialises in these sorts of look-at-me exercises in bogus moral superiority, of course.
The interrogation of KSM and Abu Zubaydah led to the disruption of a second-wave attack on the US that would have killed thousands. Again, comparing this to abortion is simply stupid – as well as childish. If Shea really believes that nobody should ever do what Jesus wouldn’t do, let him have the courage to advocate the abolition of the US armed forces. Jesus wouldn’t be a fighter pilot, a Delta Force soldier or a gunner’s mate in the navy either.
On the question of waterboarding, I’m intrigued by the number of commentators and reporters who volunteer to endure it. How many have volunteered to have their eyeballs pierced with a needle; or their extremities chopped off; or their kneecaps broken with sledgehammers? Oh that’s right: none. Why? Because the latter are forms of real torture, of course.
Duh.
May 28, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Yeah, for sure it would be better if Khaled Sheikh Mohammed had been aborted. Right?!
May 28, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Saying abortion kills millions while waterboarding is only practiced on a few people so it’s ok is the heresy of proportionalism. That as long as I can point to more widely practiced intrinsic evil, it’s ok to do a less prevalent one. Even SERE trainer Malcom Nance says it’s torture and makes the point about what it does to its practitioners rather than its victims. He even remarked that they are trying to develop an automatic waterboarding machine in an attempt to alleviate the guilt of one’s doing it. So people volunteering for it doesn’t prove anything anymore than volunteering to commit adultery proves that it is not wrong. But, for a more simpler approach–if I discovered that our enemies employed waterboarding on our soldiers, I’d want it added to their list of war crimes and I imagine the five-minutes-alone-with-Osama crowed would as well.
May 28, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Mark Shea’s approach to waterboarding-as-torture has actually made me consider the arguments of the other side of the issue. His unwillingness to engage any part of the “is waterboarding torture” question, instead kicking anyone in the teeth who would dare try to sort out the issue or acknowlege any controversy about it, is a major turn-off.
On the surface, it would appear that waterboarding is certainly not as bad as other actions that are considered torture. No body parts are getting cut off, no one is being strung up by his thumbs, no one is being starved, no electrocution, no scars, nothing up anyone’s fingernails. Indeed, many good people (Jimmy Akin, Raymond Arroyo, the Anchoress, many conservative Catholics that I know) are on the fence about this issue.
Since I don’t really see myself being in a position to do anything about it anytime soon (I doubt that one of my friends will come up to me and confide that he’s considering waterboarding a prisoner that he thinks is a terrorist — although I surely would advise against it if it happens), I have time to discern where I stand on the issue.
May 28, 2009 at 7:31 pm
I would enjoy reading Mark Shea’s blog if he could let go of his anger at the so-called “Rubber Hose Right,” or if he would simply stop writing about the subject of torture. And I say this as someone who *agrees* with him 100% that torture is intrinsically evil, and that waterboarding is torture.
The problem, in my opinion, is not that Mr. Shea is on the wrong side of this issue, but rather that his tactics in the torture debate are about as helpful as Randall Terry’s tactics in the abortion debate. I admire both Mr. Shea and Mr. Terry for their respective convictions, I just am doubtful that either of them is helping their cause very much.
May 29, 2009 at 2:16 am
Whenever I read something of Shea’s I come away wondering how deep his conversion to the Church really is? Wonder what would happen if it weren’t so lucrative for him?
May 29, 2009 at 7:17 am
Rather than “Mancow” how about a contributor to well thought out blog “The Catholic Thing” who was waterboarded as a SEAL and says it isn’t torture.
Mark Shea’s arguments on this issue are really weak and out of his depth I think. Plus he frequently cites for support such lovely advocates of morality as Andrew Sullivan and Sen. Patrick Leahy but never mentions their support for immoral conduct like abortion. Which in the case of the Catholic Leahy is a grave scandal.
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/content/view/1615/
May 29, 2009 at 11:55 am
Saying abortion kills millions while waterboarding is only practiced on a few people so it’s ok is the heresy of proportionalism. That as long as I can point to more widely practiced intrinsic evil, it’s ok to do a less prevalent one.That’s not why I said waterboarding – as used on THREE terrorists – was permissible. I said – contra Mark Shea – that it cannot be likened to abortion. To do that would be heretical and Obama-like insofar as it rests on the assumption that abortion is merely one of a variety of entirely equal “life issues” which all involve identical moral implications.
I said the waterboarding of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed (who chopped off Daniel Pearl’s head with a rusty knife and BOASTED after being captured of a second 9/11 – which he refused to tell authorities about) and Abu Zubaydah saved innocent lives. We know from multiple souces – including Obama’s hand-picked intelligence chief – that it did.
May 29, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Mark Shea’s arguments on this issue are really weak and out of his depth I think.That is my point. To say something is “bleedin’ obvious” when, well, it’s not, is not much of an argument. The other side, however, like the view presented in the “Catholic Thing” article above, contrasts it with more cruel and damaging practices. I am willing to be convinced, but convince me, please…
The constant attacks against the “Rubber-hose Right” rub me the wrong way as well. He goes out of his way to say that Obama and Sotomayor aren’t as bad as we think they are, but then directs his fury towards pro-lifers who happen to be conservatives or Republicans, cutting them no slack.
Doesn’t make sense to me.
May 30, 2009 at 11:35 pm
I thought you might like to know, it seems it was all a staged stunt.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/05/30/mancow-muller-accused-staging-fake-waterboarding