From a comment on Amy Welbons blog. HT OSV Daily Take
All of you commenters here who keep bringing up torture and going on and on about it:Like Mark Shea says a spoof on the hypocrisy of consequentialist arguments.
You all are such simplistic one-issue voters on this torture issue. You're in such lockstep with the Vatican and the hierarchy that it's clear you have abandoned free thinking entirely.
I’m personally opposed to torture, but I don’t think I could ever impose that view on somebody else.
I’d rather see us have a President who works to reduce the need for torture. We need to get at the deeper issues here – it’s not just as black and white as you religious-types always say. We should work with torturers to support them, not criminalize them.
Your belief that torture is “wrong” is just that – a religious belief. Well, what about all of the people who don’t share that belief? We live in a diverse, pluralistic society. Get with the program.
How can you take what is a matter of faith for you and impose it upon another person who might not share that faith?
Did you know that the amount of torturing in this country actually went up during the Clinton presidency? It was lower under Republican presidencies.
Torture is a difficult issue, and people of good will can disagree about it. Ultimately, I think the torturer should be free to make that choice in consultation with his attending doctors, his field agents, and his God.
Besides, even if we made torture illegal, guess what? - there would still be people out there torturing. And they wouldn’t have access to all the sophisticated equipment that we have in modern torture chambers. They’d use whatever they could find – sticks, broken glass, even coat hangers.
Is that what you want? You want us to go back to the days of back-alley torturing with coat hangers?
A truly enlightened society would keep torture safe, legal, and rare.