God and Torture

I was perusing the National Review on-line this afternoon and I read two things that I need to comment on. The first was about George W. Bush and God. It's mostly about how often God is mentioned in presidential inaugural addresses. Mostly....

Despite all this history, if George W. Bush mentions God in his second inaugural, especially in a meaningful way, he can expect to be attacked by those abysmally ignorant of U.S. history, by those clueless as to the real meaning of separation of church and state, by those seeking to expunge any vestige of God from public life.

I, for one, couldn't care less if the president mentions God in a speech and while I'm not terribly ignorant of U.S. history, I think it is very important to hear how he mentions God. Andrew Sullivan, who is sometimes a bit paranoid about these things, has brought up a few points in recent weeks. First, when apparently a GOP insider said "Mitt Romney is going to have a hard time connecting with the social conservative base of the party given his Mormon faith--just a fact of life. For what it's worth..." Second, when Bush himself in an interview said "On the other hand, I don't see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord."

Having faith should not be anathema to holding public office but it shouldn't be a prerequisite. And apparently, to be a Republican now, you have to be of a particular faith because apparently Mitt Romney, who is uber-conservative, will have a hard time getting support because he is Mormon. So, the question I have about God and Bush, when the president mentions God in his inaugural address, how much do the politics of his religion (not his religion itself) affect his public politics? His intentions, not his reference to God, are what is dangerous to a secular society. We shouldn't expunge God from public life but we shouldn't try to get Him involved in politics.

The second article that caught my eye was one defending Alberto Gonzales' testimony during his confirmation hearings....

With the facts separated from hyperbole, Senator Cornyn turned to the substance of Gonzales's legal thinking. The Democrats arranged for a handful of witnesses to criticize Gonzales, but none of them truly refuted (or even rejected) his legal stance. Indeed, the witnesses — a pacifist opposed to the war in Afghanistan altogether and two law deans specializing in international law — seemed, by the conclusion of Cornyn's questioning, to have little argument at all. To the senator's principal question, "Did they agree that all lawful means to gather intelligence likely to save American lives should be permitted?," they all answered affirmatively.

This may all be fine and good; I too believed that Gonzales acted legally. But just because terrorists aren't entitled to the Geneva Convention doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to human rights. I certainly don't believe that the the level of questioning should be kept to name and rank, as the Geneva Convention requires, but we certainly don't need to haggle over how far we can go without actually reaching the level of torture.

We're America. We're supposed to go above and beyond the call of duty. We go above and beyond with foreign aid, with protecting the world from terrorism, with personal freedoms for our own citizens. Shouldn't we be going above and beyond when it comes to preserving human dignity, no matter how ignoble or barbaric the human in question might be? And when did it become un-conservative to care about human rights?

We're either that kid that everyone hates because every teacher loves him and gets straight A's and is captain of the lacrosse team and homecoming king, or we're the kid that everyone hates because he beats all other kids up on the playground and won't share his ball unless he makes up all the rules. Quite frankly I'd rather be hated because I'm generally better than everyone else, not because I carry a bigger stick.