The Power of Fear

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

Welcome to America, where a message of tolerance has corporations shaking in their boots.

All three major networks refused a commercial for the United Church of Christ–one that featured two bouncers refusing admission to (among others) two men who one assumes were supposed to be gay. They weren’t skipping or fondling one another, and one of them wasn’t wearing a wedding dress. And the announcer’s voice said, “No matter who you are or where are on life’s journey, you’re welcome here.”

ABC refused it because they don’t air religious ads (although dramas with nudity and profanity, that’s okay.) And CBS and NBC were skittish over the notion of advocating the notion that Jesus might accept gays (which is a hoot coming from the network that airs “Will and Grace.” Apparently it’s okay to laugh at gay men; just not accept them as people in the name of the Christian Messiah.)

This is, unfortunately, one of the results of Conservatism: Fear. Fear of rocking the boat. Fear of reprisal. Fear of gay rights. Fear of change. It’s one of the reasons Bush is successful: In a country still walking on eggshells since 9/11, he speaks fluent fear (indeed, his command of it surpasses his grasp of English.)

You just have to wonder how far this country has fallen when a simple message of tolerance and acceptance inspires fear of reprisal from those who preach intolerance and segregation. And how much further yet we can fall.

PAD

225 comments on “The Power of Fear”

  1. If someone’s faith says that being saved has nothing to do with how good a person you were in life and everything to do with one particular act of … well, you don’t like “loyalty”, so let’s try “love” … then it’s a faith that frankly mystifies me, and not in good ways. It suggests that Bishop Desmond Tutu and the Zodiac killer both have equal chances to be saved so long as they make that one last Hail-Mary pass at the closing moments. I think that’s ill-advised.

    In essence, you are right. They both have an equal chance. However, I have a question: Exactly how much would the Zodiac killer have to do to truly redeem himself? Would he need 10 months? Ten years? Is redemption really available for everyone?

    I have another question: How good a life must you live? What is the standard? The Bible teaches that the standard is perfection, not just having your good works out weigh your bad. For the moment lets assume that is the standard. Under that system, Bishop Tutu may live a better life, but he still falls short of the standard. So it really doesn’t matter in that regard how “good” a life he does or doesn’t live. It takes an act of God to save either of them.

    Finally, I would take issue with one part of what you said. I do not believe either is saved by simply making a last minute statement of “oh, I’m sorry, please save me.” It is an actual commitment to a person. God, I believe, knows the heart, and so he would be able to know the motivation and sincerity of the person. Most hardened murderers may not want to die, but they generally do not truly put their trust in God at the end. They are still trying to work things out in their own power.

    (Ironically enough, the Bible has a story that demonstrates both sides. When Jesus is crucified, two theives are also executed on either side. One repents, and Jesus says he will be with him in paradise. The other does not and continues to mock Jesus.)

    I’m a pretty clear-cut atheist … but if there WERE a god, I’d like to think he/she/it would care a lot more about someone being a good and decent person who tries to make a difference in the world and a lot less about one particular administrative hoop being jumped through or not jumped through. My god, were there one, would be more results-oriented and less bureaucratic.

    I can understand your point. My problem with it is that if God was truly just, then sin needs to be dealt with. Why should God just “wave his hand” and say that the fact that a person was nice for 20 years will undo the fact that he raped two women? How is that really justice? Salvation by “grace alone” is not a matter of jumping through one administrative hoop. It is a matter of recognizing that we are beyond our ability to save ourselves, so we ask for help.

    Furthermore, salvation is not just about going to live in a nice place. Salvation is about having a relationship with God. I do think that God cares about how we live and treat our fellow man. But why should he let us into an eternity with him if we don’t even care about him?

    Salvation by grace does not mean or actually encourage someone to do harm to others and then just pray a quick prayer before they die. God does care about how we treat others, and how we act does have an impact both now and in eternity.

    I can’t speak for the previous poster, but I hope that gives you a little more insight into my views, at least.

    It does. I don’t expect you to agree with me, but hopefully I have clearly explained my perspective on this matter.

    Jim in Iowa

  2. The United Church of Christ should change it’s name to the United Church of Apostasy.

    Novafan, that is uncalled for. Whether you or I agree with their theology or with their ad is beside the point in this debate and on this thread. The reality is some networks refused to play a religious ad, and they should be held accountable as to why. There is no reason they should have refused this one.

    Jim in Iowa

  3. Jerome,

    1.)Roger Tang is more than acceptable. We might want to include Luigi Novi as well, to balance things out.

    If you’d like, though I think three will do. Of course, this also contingent on the 3-4 of them accepting the job.

    3.) Do the two organizations I chose meet your criteria of charities?

    Absolutely. The only criterion I’d set down is that they not be political parties, and I’m pretty sure those both qualify in that regard. 🙂 Truth be told, I haven’t even thought of what mine would be (Bill’s suggestion aside) — I figure I’ve got 18 months to figure it out.

    Back to work…

    TWL

  4. I’m flattered that both sides find me acceptable. I agree with Tim that you two need to define what a draft is–I’m assuming we mean something along the lines of people who were civilians suddenly finding themselves in army fatigues with semi-comical “WTF?” expressions on their faces.

    I’ll be feasting on some generous helpings of crow if this happens, expecially in the next 18 months–it would pretty much ensure big Democrat gains in the 2006 elections, don’t you think? I’d see Bush just leaving Iraq rather than resort to a draft. But I guess we’ll see.

  5. You realize that they’re already doing it, right? In addition to extending the stays of people already there yet again, they’re conscripting people who served thirty, forty years ago. I’m waiting for John Kerry to be called up to serve.

    PAD

  6. PAD:

    >You realize that they’re already doing it, right? In addition to extending the stays of people already there yet again, they’re conscripting people who served thirty, forty years ago. I’m waiting for John Kerry to be called up to serve.

    It has been all over the news as of late. There is actually a lawsuit ongoing against the government….. initiated by 3 people fitting the description you’ve described. On one of the primetime news shows last week, I almost fell over when they interviewed a man. When they did a close-up of his face, all I could think of was the greatest generation and my grandfather. The guy must have been 60+ years old.

    Fred

  7. Yep, the “back-door draft” is in full effect. I wonder if those servicemen will win their lawsuit to avoid the backdoor draft…

  8. In addition to extending the stays of people already there yet again

    There’s another story here in Colorado of a woman who, after serving 8 years and receiving her discharge papers back in May, has been called up.

    Apparently she forgot (or, according to her, wasn’t told) to resign her commission. Not that I think it would stop the military anyways.

    She’s suing. Hope she wins.

  9. Which reminds me of the article in The Onion where Bush stated that he was going to now fulfill his National Guard commitment. Wouldn’t it be nice to have Bush go to Iraq to serve in the Reserves? Fair justice.

  10. Which reminds me of the article in The Onion where Bush stated that he was going to now fulfill his National Guard commitment. Wouldn’t it be nice to have Bush go to Iraq to serve in the Reserves? Fair justice.

    Of course, it would have to be deferred until his job as Commander in Chief is done. Assuming that would not count towards his service, he could start in 4 years. Of course, he would then have a stronger incentive to get out before 2008!

    Jim in Iowa

  12. PAD says:
    “In addition to extending the stays of people already there yet again, they’re conscripting people who served thirty, forty years ago. I’m waiting for John Kerry to be called up to serve.”

    Could someone direct me to some link about this? I’m having a hard time understanding how this is working. The woman mentioned above supposedly made the mistake of not resigning after her discharge so she was still technically eligible. Are you saying that guys who served 30, 40 years ago and have been out of the military ever since are being suddenly called up?

  13. Bill Mulligan wrote…
    Could someone direct me to some link about this?

    I’ve been hearing the recent talk of this too, but it was on TV and dámņëd if I can remember which (Canadian) network I heard it on. I was unable to dig up anything recent on the major news station websites (which tend to be a mess if you want archived stuff), but here is a link from way back in June. At FOX News, no less.

    Of course, I want to see a current link just as much as I’m sure you do, so hopefully someone can find one.

  14. Mere minutes later…
    I managed to find a good Google search string and found this article at CBS.

    It basically refers to the soldiers in question as “semi-retired” and mentions a clause in their contracts that many of them didn’t even know about.

  16. A few thoughts. I don’t think this is necessarily a good idea, but from having a brother as an elisted part of the military, and two close friends who are officers, I have a few thoughts.

    1.) I am not in the military but I knew about this clause. While the government may not have gone to any effort to warn those leaving active service it was a possibility, it was clearly there. Not to defend the military, but this is also a rather obscure rule that few thought would apply on this scale. So while it would stink for those called up, it was not a deep secret that they suddenly pulled out of nowhere.

    2.) Some being called up chose to keep their commission active because of other benefits. I don’t understand how it works, and I realize they did not dream this would happen, but some being called up now chose to not resign their commission.

    3.) From the bigger picture, I suspect this is not the best move. I supported and still support the war, but doing something like this will neither win friends nor lead to the best force we could put on the ground over there. While it is legal, it is bad in terms of public relations and troop morale. Those currently in active service who have their terms extended are one thing. That is the “gamble” you take for being a National Guard or serviceman in the first place. But for those who are completely out, I would agree that for them this a “back door” draft and do not support it.

    Jim in Iowa

  18. Just out of curiosity: How many of you here in this thread who find it so irresistible to comment on the possibilities of a draft, and how unfair it is, have actually served in any military capacity?

    My hand is raised. Any others?

  19. Jefferson’s “original intent” is irrelevant to the Constitution, as he was not involved in its creation.

    Not directly, but his writings were just as influential in its formation as the Federalist papers. Without the anti-Federalists, of whom he was considered one of the leaders, we would never have had the Bill of Rights

    By this logic, John Milton and James Harrington’s original intents are relevant to the body of the Constitution, because their writings were absolutely crucial to the development of American constitutional thought. And they played every bit as much role in the crafting of the thing as Jefferson, which is to say, none.

    I’m not sure it’s fair to call Jefferson a leader of the Anti-Federalists. In fact, I’m confident it isn’t, which is why I hedged my comment earlier. Jefferson was 3000 miles away during the ratification process, and Madison spent a voluminous correspondence persuading Jefferson to remain neutral or supportive about the proposed Constitution, and Jefferson essentially sat it out from his position in Paris. I do agree with your underlying assumption, that Jefferson would have opposed the Constitution had he been here to join in the fray; he certainly withheld his blessing until he had assurances from enough people to believe that a Bill of Rights was inevitable.

  20. I’m flattered to be invited to join the judging committee. I do think we have to define draft to be the conscription of persons from civilian life, not the “backdoor draft” PAD mentioned. Agreed?

  21. but this is also a rather obscure rule that few thought would apply on this scale

    What a surprise.

  22. I’m flattered that anyone would think I would remember the terms of this for any time length over 30 seconds…..

    “back door draft” = bad for morale. bad BAD policy, I think, as a lot of folks out of it for a long time aren’t trained, haven’t kept themselves in fighting fitness and will be much more likely to get themselves killed or, worse, their fellow soldiers killed.

  23. “Just out of curiosity: How many of you here in this thread who find it so irresistible to comment on the possibilities of a draft, and how unfair it is, have actually served in any military capacity?

    My hand is raised. Any others?”

    One term, USAF HQ SAC/XOXPC, dually assigned to JSTPS/JPPPC, as a SIOP Programmer/Analyst (and does anyone really care what all the alphabet soup means? If you are interested, I can explain – it’s not classified or anything…).

    I volunteered to support and defend my Constitution and my country. I deeply believe, however, that conscription is morally wrong, very nearly the equal of slavery. If a nation cannot defend itself through citizen volunteers, perhaps it has outlived its usefulness (see also USSR).

    BTW, while we’re on the topic, did I miss the occasion when Congress declared war on Iraq? I keep hearing about “wartime sacrifices” and “wartime rules” and such, but the last I heard, Bush had used his authority as Commander-in-Chief to order the troops into Iraq – an invasion, and perhaps even an act of war, but not a formal declaration. Congress has to do that. Did they?

  24. If a nation cannot defend itself through citizen volunteers, perhaps it has outlived its usefulness (see also USSR).

    Ðámņ, then we should have let the Nazis overrun the United Kingdom, because it was hanging on by its fingernails even with a massive draft. Our bad.

    BTW, while we’re on the topic, did I miss the occasion when Congress declared war on Iraq? I keep hearing about “wartime sacrifices” and “wartime rules” and such, but the last I heard, Bush had used his authority as Commander-in-Chief to order the troops into Iraq – an invasion, and perhaps even an act of war, but not a formal declaration. Congress has to do that. Did they?

    Yes. Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq 16 October 2002. John Kerry voted for it. The joint resolution 296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate. It didn’t use the magic words “war” or “declare,” but neither did Korea or Vietnam, and whom are we trying to kid?

  25. Thanks for the links folks. PAD’s reply had left me with the impression that any former member of the armed forces could be dragooned off to fight, leaving me wonder if my father would be eligible (and while my Dad is one of the All Time Great Guys, if there ever comes a time that the army says they need him for the war, I’m investing heavily in Iraqi war bonds).

  26. So while we worry about the fact that networks that routinely reject religious ads also reject one that features people that may be homosexual, France seems to be trying for some balance on the other side:

    http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=591175

    “France moved yesterday towards the creation of a new law which would make sexist or homophobic comments illegal and forbid job discrimination against homosexuals.”

    “If the bill is passed, anyone found guilty of making such remarks, verbally or in writing, would risk a one-year prison sentence and a fine of up

  27. TallestFanEver: Yet another entry from “PAD’s Recliner of Rage”, eh? I really have nothing to contribute, I just wanted to make a “Late Night With Conan O’Brien” reference for a little levity. First person who can name where that comes from wins a cookie!
    Luigi Novi: As a huge Conan fan, someone who was present at a taping through one of the sketch writer/actors who invited me, and who made a caricature of Conan and Andy Richter as Laurel and Hardy that he left there (no, I didn

  28. Just out of curiosity: How many of you here in this thread who find it so irresistible to comment on the possibilities of a draft, and how unfair it is, have actually served in any military capacity?

    6 years in the Air Force and 5 years in the AF Reserves.

    I’m actually leaning toward mandatory duty for all citizens akin to the Netherlands. I think anyone who serves in Congress should understand the hardships that are part and parcel of military life, not just for the member, but his/her dependents, too. I also think anyone who has served would have a clearer idea of what the military entails and could speak with more authority on subjects such as war and drafts and the Geneva Conventions take on atrocities. If everone is expected to serve in some capacity, then the argument that very few in Congress have children serving would also be moot. I bet they would be less interested in going to war for spurious reasons if their kids were involved.

    But that’s just me.

  29. uigi Novi: Sure. Just make sure we lay down the parameters, perhaps through a Microsoft Word document circulated to all participants via email.

    Oh, hëll….I gotta put a GENUINE email on that form now?

  30. Karen wrote…
    I’m actually leaning toward mandatory duty for all citizens akin to the Netherlands.

    I can see what you mean, and the idea does have a certain appeal, but I know that while I have a great deal of pride in my country, and wouldn’t trade it for any other, I don’t think the price of living here should be becoming part of the national war machine.

    While I believe that having a military is vital to the survival of a nation, and that war is even necessary at time, I’m a pacifist at heart, and have no desire to be forced into military service. If a conflict ever arises that I feel justifies the use of military action, I can only hope that I’ll have the courage to contribute. Until then, though, I’m much happier staying out of it.

    Of course, since I’m Canadian, this is all largely hypothetical, given the current state of our military. =)

  31. Jefferson was a leader among the anti-federalists. He was the first president elected from the party they formed, the Democratic-Republicans. The fact that he was 3000 miles away does not mean that his ideas were not influential on those that were there.

    And without the anti-federalists, we wouldn’t even have the Bill of Rights, so how can one of their leading advocates be considered irrelevent?

  33. I’m actually leaning toward mandatory duty for all citizens akin to the Netherlands.

    I’ve wondered myself if that would be a viable option. I honestly haven’t come to a conclusion one way or the other about it.

    I tend to think it would do alot of people alot of good. But then I look at the flip side, and I see how people are trained in the Army and such, I don’t much care for the fact that they basically destroy you, in the hopes of building you up again.

    And as a side note to the latter comment of mine, I have to wonder about the mental state of any of those involved in situations like the Iraqi prison abuse.
    I mean, seriously, for all the training, our soldiers should not be capable of such acts – either independently or under orders. It really makes me question the integrity of how our soldiers are trained.

  34. Jeff,
    I would hardly call the Netherlands a warlike country. I think mandatory service in this country should include much more than just the military. Many could opt for civil service positions, for example, to help shore up our aging infrastructure. But a mandatory 2 year service for all is not too much to ask for the benefits of living in this country. Many jobs in the Air Force are not completely war related. I would venture to say that the other services have support positions for those who conscientiously object.I was in Accounting and Finance on active duty and in Public Health while in the reserves. I had war skills in addition to my regular duties that I would have had to perform in the event of a war. And while on active duty we trained and were prepared, I can’t say 1 weekend a month and 2 weeks a year had me completely prepared for going to a war zone. I bet the reservists called up felt the same.

  35. Karen,

    How’s this for a quick reply? =)

    Of course I didn’t mean to imply that the Netherlands is some sort of military regime, and I intended (but forgot) to mention that I know nothing of their situation except for what you mentioned.

    Within the context of mandatory service of any sort, military or otherwise, it’s a very interesting idea. One could argue it flies in the face of the concept of freedom, but by the same token so does the education system.

  36. Craig,
    I can only comment on my basic training for the Air Force, and while the main goal was instant obedience to authority, they did not completely break us down. The military was a good choice for me. It gave me direction and motivation in my life, which until that time I was sorely lacking.

    I don’t understand Abu Ghraib. One of the things we were taught is if you are given an unlawful order you must go through the chain of command to report it and if you get no satisfaction you go to the Inspector Generals office. (The IG has offices on every base.) The only explanation I have on the atrocities taking place is that the orders come from too high to complain about. While on duty those at lower rank are strongly discouraged from showing too much initiative. Suggestions to make your job more efficient: OK, Taking matters into your own hands in order to torture prisoners? Not unless they were ordered to do it. The family of a young man in the army live next door to me. He was told the prisoners were terrorists responsible for killing and wounding members in his unit. He was not one of those guarding the prisoners, but can you imagine having someone under your control who you believe may have killed your buddy? And then being told by your supervisor that you can do a few things to soften them up to get intel? I like to think I would refuse that direct order and suffer the consequences, but I am not in a war zone eating crappy food, probably not getting enough sleep, and watching my friends get killed and wounded while wondering if I am next, while getting my stay in country extended time and time again by this government. I am horrified by what is being done over there.

  37. Jeff,
    I replied the way I did because you mentioned you were a pacifist. I wanted you to know that, unlike the US right now, military service does not have to include war. I did not take your words to imply the Netherlands was warlike. 🙂

    I was in the Netherlands for 3 years and they are a lovely people. They have socialized medicine, mandatory military service, pot is legal as is prostitution, and they survive quite well. Last I heard the hand of God has not risen to smite them down, either. Although, I was a little put off by the prostitutes in Amsterdam soliciting my husband while we walked past their windows, I still think their society has ours beat in several aspects. 🙂

  38. Jefferson was a leader among the anti-federalists. He was the first president elected from the party they formed, the Democratic-Republicans. The fact that he was 3000 miles away does not mean that his ideas were not influential on those that were there.

    Hegel’s ideas were influential on communists. He was not a communist leader. Jefferson took no role in the debates or conventions about the ratification of the Constitution, so your claim that he was a leader of the opposition party in those conventions is fatuous. I suspect that, had he been available, he would have become an Anti-Federalist, but counterfactual speculation is not what you’re claiming.

    And without the anti-federalists, we wouldn’t even have the Bill of Rights, so how can one of their leading advocates be considered irrelevent?

    Because you’re wrong on your first point and conflating two issues on your second. Your question was about the “original intent” of the framers of the Constitution. Jefferson was not one of them, so his opinions have nothing to do with the “original intent.” It’s equivalent to talking about Wendell Wilkie’s speeches when asking about the intent of the drafters of the Democratic Party Platform of 1940; even if they anticipated what his arguments would be, their intent and his intent are not the same thing.

    Your original question was about the “original intent” of the First Amendment. The First Amendment was originally written by James Madison, who was as far from being an Anti-Federalist as you could get in 1787-90. (He was not precisely active in opposing the ratification of the Constitution of which he was the most influential designer. Madison even wrote more of the Federalist Papers than Hamilton did, including several of the more famous issues. He took a long step away from his original position during the Adams presidency, but that was several years later. We’re discussing “original intent,” not “subsequent intent.”) It was rewritten by Fisher Ames, again a Federalist. The only way you get to an Anti-Federalist in this document is from one of the sources Madison utilized, the Virginia Declaration of Rights which George Mason wrote in 1776. Mason actually was an Anti-Federalist, having walked out of the Constitutional Convention. That connection does not make Madison an Anti-Federalist, any more than Lafayette is an Anti-Federalist based on his reliance upon Mason’s work in drafting the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Besides, your claim was not that Anti-Federalists were important to the drafting of the Bill of Rights (which was partially true), but that Jefferson’s writings represent the “original intent” of the drafters of the Bill of Rights, which is patently false because he was not one of them. Influencing a drafter and being a drafter are not the same thing.

  39. so your claim that he was a leader of the opposition party in those conventions is fatuous.

    Your question was about the “original intent” of the framers of the Constitution. Jefferson was not one of them, so his opinions have nothing to do with the “original intent.”

    If you’re going to split hairs on who was and was not influential in the framing the Constitution, I ask that you allow the courtesy of actually referring to my statements accurately. I never said Jefferson was one of the framers of the Constitution, I said he was an influence on them. As for “original intent” I did not say the “original intent” of the framers, but of the founding fathers. Are you going to tell me that the author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president was not a “founding father.”

    Now, to say he wasn’t a leading figure among the anti-federalist movement is simply ridiculous. Washington went to great pains to convince Jefferson to support the new Constitution or at least not oppose it. And you still conveniently ignore the fact that he was the first anti-federalist elected president.

    I find it incredible that you want everyone whose writings were circulated at the time the Constitution was being written except for the man who popularized the phrase “separation of church and state.” Pretty convenient, huh?

  41. It didn’t work, Jeff. I tried putting “www.nitcentral.com” in the quotes, and “This is a test” in the text section, and while the “This is a test” text posted, the link doesn’t work.

    Placing the cursor over the link doesn’t even show that url at the bottom left of the browser page.

    Instead, it shows: http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/www.nitcentral.com. How the url to Peter’s site shows up there, when that url was not in the formatted link, I don’t know.

    Please advise. 🙂

  43. But What if the commercial was just for the church, without any veiled pro-gay or anti-anything message? It was simply an equally non-offensive ad for the church.

    Would this blog entry even have been made?

    Or would it have been just another example the Christian Right trying to force their views upon us?

    It’s just like school, anyone remember their World History book where there was paragraph upon paragraph about EVERY religion in the world and one short sentance on Christinanity.

    I’m not saying there should be more on Christianity, but there seem to be tolerance for EVERY religion BUT Christianity. I’m also not say Falwell (sp?) and the like aren’t áššhølëš, but what’s good for the goose is good for the gander…

  44. Luigi,

    You need to put in the http:// at the start of the link you’re creating, otherwise it assumes the link starts with the URL you’re posting the link on (i.e., here).

  45. Gorginfoogle wrote…
    You need to put in the http:// at the start of the link you’re creating

    What he said, he beat me to it by a minute or two. =)

    Karen wrote…
    I replied the way I did because you mentioned you were a pacifist. I wanted you to know that, unlike the US right now, military service does not have to include war.

    True, but war/violence is its primary function. If we didn’t have those, there wouldn’t be much need for a military. As I said, while I’m a pacifist, at heart, I also recognize that militaries are necessary in today’s world. I just don’t want to be a part of it. The way I see it, bureaucracies are necessary in today’s world to, but I don’t want to be part of that either. =)

    And in other news…

    “The Supreme Court of Canada says the federal government can change the definition of marriage, giving gays and lesbians the legal right to marry.”

    It’s not a complete victory yet, our parliament still has to create a bill and vote on it, but we’re now one step closer! =)

  46. And as a side note to the latter comment of mine, I have to wonder about the mental state of any of those involved in situations like the Iraqi prison abuse.
    I mean, seriously, for all the training, our soldiers should not be capable of such acts – either independently or under orders. It really makes me question the integrity of how our soldiers are trained.

    Actually, I think that the Iraq prison scandal was in inevitable result of the policies in place: too little preparation (didn’t consider the need for numbers of interrogators), too little supervision due to too few personnel in the field and the current Administrations disdain for intellectuals and professors (who’ve know for 40 years from the Zimbardo prison experiment on down that this sorta things is appallingly likely).

    Training had little to do with it; it was the structural nature of troop deployment and oversight. Use the same personnel in a different situation (more frequent oversight, clearer instructions, less interference from “intelligence” officers) and you wouldn’t have any problems.

  47. but there seem to be tolerance for EVERY religion BUT Christianity.

    Well, it’s the Christians trying to force their views upon everybody else.

    Case in point: the Bush Administration is pushing the Supreme Court to rule in favor of allowing the Ten Commanedments to be displayed on government property.

    Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

    Granted, I know little of the religious symbols outside of Christianity, but do you think they’d push for, say, a Buddha to be displayed on government property too? I rather doubt it.

  48. Actually, I think that the Iraq prison scandal was in inevitable result of the policies in place: too little preparation (didn’t consider the need for numbers of interrogators), too little supervision due to too few personnel in the field and the current Administrations disdain for intellectuals and professors (who’ve know for 40 years from the Zimbardo prison experiment on down that this sorta things is appallingly likely).

    I noticed that you don’t mention any need for there to be a “command from on high” to abuse/torture the prisoners. After checking out a website on the Zimbardo experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/), I could very easily see this problem happening without any actual command from those in Washington to torture the prisoners. Your other points make it clear they are not without excuse since other parameters they set in place facilitated some environmental factors that led to the abuse.

    My question, Roger, is this: Is it possible, in your opinion, that the abuse could have happened without any actual order from Washington to torture the prisoners? That policy set up the environment — and Washington should have known better — but that it is possible that the abuse was not by command from a true higher up?

    As other facts about the abusers come out, I would not consider some of them of high moral character to begin with. The experiment suggests that it under the right circumstances, even the best could stoop to torture. But what if we did not have the best guarding the prisoners, at least not in some documented cases.

    Jim in Iowa

  49. Is it possible, in your opinion, that the abuse could have happened without any actual order from Washington to torture the prisoners?

    IMO, I believe it is possible, but I still believe that heads should roll from those in charge of these soldiers, all the way back to the Pentagon and White House.

    It’s called Chain of Command, and those above and responsible for those below, regardless.

    Bush started this little war, and, not surprisingly, he refuses to make anybody accountable beyond those soldiers directly involved.

    And with stories now that the Marines were harassing members of the military in other capacities (Defense Intelligence Agency was mentioned in one story I read) and trying to get them to NOT report the abuse. Well, actions speak louder than words – and nobody has taken any actions against the leadership.

  50. The Zimbardo experiment is a classic, everyone should follow Jim’s link and check it out. If you ever get an opportunity to see a video of it, do so. Sadly, I don’t know any ways to do this other than take a psychology course, so enroll in your local university today! 🙂

    My personal feeling on Abu Ghraib is that even if there were no direct orders to commit the prisoner abuse, the military culture over there is likely one that promotes this kind of treatment. It doesn’t take a lot of research to see that a basic step in conducting a war is to dehumanize the enemy. When you have a total institution such as a military dominating your life, things that would seem reprehensible to many people could, in fact, seem quite normal. I would be surprised if there wasn’t at least implicit approval from command in Iraq, if not direct orders.

    It should also be noted that this is not an exclusively American occurrence.

Comments are closed.