Cruciatus reductus ad absurdum

Torture reduced to the absurd. Also known as an apagogical argument, when debating an issue, reducing something to its most extreme is a form of logical reasoning that makes use of the principal of Tertium non datur meaning: There is no third possibility. Basically, a statement is either true, or it is false. It cannot be both.

Some non-absolutists would argue that life is not made up of "true and false", "right and wrong", or "black and white". I am not a non-absolutist. I believe that most, if not all things can be sorted into that which is true and that which is false. Of course this form of logic only works if one concedes that there is in fact an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Now there are pros and cons to both schools of thought and I in no way intend to suggest that my way of thinking is the only way. But I do believe that it is the right way based upon my experiences and views of the world around me, illuminated by the light of my faith. But if it is reasonable to suggest that a thing cannot be both true and false at the same time, then it is also reasonable to conclude that the truth of any matter can be determined by reducing the complexity of the problem to its simplest terms.

So it is on this predication of the belief in an absolute "right and wrong" that I submit to you the following. I want you to test yourself. I want you to explore your concept of what is acceptable and what is not. The subject is torture. It's a terrible word conjuring images of medieval dungeons and all types of dastardly tools wielded by masked executioners or mad scientists. Each of us draws lines in our psyche, if only subconsciously, defining the acceptable field of play. What is Ok? And what is not? There must be a line. It must exist for all but the moral relativist, who is illogical and unreasonable anyway and thus excluded from all consideration in this discussion. But what constitutes "torture"? And is it ever acceptable? If so, when? If not, why? It is easy to juggle one's reasoning when the subject is as broad as that outlined in the preceding questions. One can easily say "NO", it is wrong and barbaric and should never be considered under any circumstances by civilized society. OK. Let us assume for a moment that that is your position. Let us then apply the logic of reducing the subject to it's most absurd extreme, for it is either true or it is false. It is right or it is wrong.

Assume for a moment that I have broken into your house while you slept. I've kidnapped your daughter. Your daughter has a deadly medical condition which requires regular doses of medication. I've hidden her away in an undisclosed and untraceable location and her very life is at stake because without immediate intervention, she will die. Now, assume that I've been captured and indisputable evidence exists that links me to your daughter's disappearance....perhaps photographic....perhaps eyewitness...perhaps DNA. Perhaps all of the above. Perhaps I've confessed but remain unwilling to reveal her whereabouts. Assume it is up to you. What coercive methods would you be willing to inflict to obtain the desperately needed location of your daughter? Think before you answer. This is your child. Your love. Your life. You'd take her place in death without a second thought if only you could. But you can't. And now her very existence hangs in the balance of your preconceived notions of the morality of torture and the sanctity of life. What do you do? Do you forsake your principles to save your child's life? Or do you stand on them in spite of the horrific cost? You are human. Be honest with yourself. For it is not your principles at stake here, it is truth itself.

We are a nation of laws, of rights, of reason. We do not, as a society, condone torturing anyone to obtain any information no matter how valuable. Or do we? The question today is not: "Is it right for our society?" The question today is: "Is it ever right at all?" I have no problem telling you where I stand. I am not afraid of the introspective consequences of discovering that I am human and that while I revere humanity for all of its goodness and charity, I also recognize the inescapable truth that man, despite all of his noble acts of selflessness will always have a tendency to act in favor of his own self preservation. I would inflict any amount of pain upon you if it meant that the information you gave would save my child from certain demise.

This example is extreme. It is meant to be. It is meant only to illustrate that there IS a line. There IS a boundary. There IS a limit to man's tolerance of predation by other men. The question is: "Where is that line?" It is no doubt different for everyone. Personally, I wouldn't require near the extreme example cited above to resort to torture. I recognize the sanctity of innocent life. Why should the life of an innocent stranger be any more sacred than the life of my own child? It must be nasty business to torture someone. I don't believe I could make a living out of it. But I have no doubt about my willingness to engage in it should the outcome be that an innocent person lives to see another day, be it my child or yours.

One can attach whatever stipulations one likes such as "It must be confirmed that this person actually possesses this intelligence." or "It must be time sensitive." or "It must be a last resort." Those stipulations are matters for policy makers to address. This post is not meant to delve that deeply into the subject but rather only to illuminate the fact that there are times when even the most staunch opponent of torture would consider it as a reasonable alternative and if that be the case, that the person must reflect honestly upon his or her moral fabric and make a judgment as to when it is acceptable and how far it should go. It is not an easy subject to consider, but neither should it be an easy subject to avoid. For while this example was extreme, the underlying theme is not so far fetched. Much is at stake in our world today. We face an enemy who sees his own death as a victory. The technology exists to literally exterminate life as we know it and it is conceivable that plans are already underway to bring about such an end to our way of life on this planet. Are our principles really so unswayable that we would just willingly concede such a heavy cost for the sake of adhering to them? Not mine.

Christian Theocracy: Legitimate fear, or a fear mongering conspiracy theory of the anti-Christian liberal left?

The debate rages on. Jennifer has really struck a cord, it seems with her recent post that began with some cartoons mocking the liberal attack on the words "under God" in our National Pledge. This evolved to include the discussion of the words "In God We Trust" emblazoned on United States Currency. Now it has morphed into the inevitable debate about the true reason liberals object to these references to God. They fear a Christian Theocracy in the United States.

It cannot be intelligently argued against, that the liberal left has had a virtual monopoly on the Main Stream Media over the past two decades. Specific among these it the collective editorial comment in the nation's print media. Unique among newspapers is their editorial "opinion" columns. Conservatives have virtually no place in which to opine on full page ads from the powerful chair of an editor. These "opinion" pages have now spilled over into the "news" pages and the end result is unfair, biased news reporting that is significantly slanted to the left. I could list hundreds of newspapers across this country, but you all know who they are. I mention this because I believe that in addition to the monopoly the left has on the academia, this control of the print media in America is the prime catalyst for the propagation of this severely misguided fear of a government run by preachers and theologians.

There is a movement among some Protestant Christians to involve themselves in and, in fact, dominate the political process. These "Dominionists", however comprise a small insignificant portion of evangelical Christians. They derive their idea from the Biblical teaching in Genesis that God gave man "dominion" over the earth. There are basically two ways of interpreting this passage. One would be the Dominionists' concept that they are charged with total control of Earth and all of its secular institutions, while the majority of Christians tend to interpret it as a command for stewardship.

Dominionists have a bit of a paradoxical problem to confront when asserting their idea that it is the responsibility of Christians to rule by God's law. You see, God has given all that he has created, including man, the free will to choose. This is evident throughout Biblical text, the fall of Satan, the fall of man, man's continuous defiance of God and God's continuous forgiveness of man, and God's commandment to spread the Gospel to all corners of the earth. (Why would this be necessary if man had no free choice to receive it?)

It is a bit of a conspiracy theory among liberals that all Evangelical Christians seek to impose a Christian Theocracy upon the United States. They are truly frightened by the Traditionalist Conservatives in this country. They peddle this obtuse theory through opinion columns and College classrooms. More recently the internet has provided them with a very flexible forum from which to get their word out that they are the true "free thinkers", liberated from the bonds of archaic religious doctrines and that Christians are evil fascists who seek to impose their beliefs upon the world. The website Jesusland.com, for example has devised what they refer to as a "crypto-fascist theocracy" complete with maps and a new National Anthem entitled "The Star Spangled Bible". You read it. Then you decide who is fascist and who is not.

Most of us seek only to acknowledge that the United States is a country that is largely Christian not to force you to go to church or celebrate Easter. We don't believe in murder. We don't believe in adultery. We don't believe in stealing, lying or cheating. So, to those who would fear that Christians aspire to govern you: How are our beliefs any different than the laws already laid down in this country? Our Bible doesn't allow us to push the Gospel upon you or force you to comply with God's commandments. It requires us to share it with you if you will listen but you have the right to refuse. Where in the Constitution of the United States are you afforded the right to never be exposed to religion? Where in that document of our freedom are you assured that you will never be approached and offered something you have the right to refuse anyway?

Whether you believe in God or not, we have morals and concepts of right and wrong that are derived from God's laws as man has no moral compass of his own. Most would concur that killing, raping, stealing, and enslaving is wrong. But how do you know? Who says? What is wrong for you, may be right for another. If there is no God, then who is to decide what is truly right, and what is truly wrong? If we are not accountable to a higher authority than ourselves, why should we then conclude that anything is bad, so long as we benefit?

The concept of right and wrong comes from the belief in a divine creator God who is all powerful, all knowing and all present; a God who is watching and who knows our every move and our every thought. It is the only reason we should fear killing our neighbor and procuring all that he owns for ourselves under the cover of darkness. Why should that be wrong unless someone greater than ourselves says so? If you are your own God, then it is you who decides what is right and what is wrong. If you then decide that it is OK to rape a little child, who is to contest you? If survival of the fittest and evolution is true, then the weak should die and the strong should live. You should be able to plant your seed wherever your see fit. Civilized behavior and social welfare should be considered counterproductive to the natural cycle of life as it allows the sick and the weak to prosper.

Sounds barbaric doesn't it? It is. But it is in keeping with the theory of evolution to which Atheists cling so strongly. It is, in fact, their "religion", one which, ironically, they shove down the throats of everyone who obtains a public education. (kinda double standard isn't it?) Christians don't hold these propositions to be true and declare it by proclaiming the name of God as Him in whom we trust all things. If you don't believe that, then that's fine. But you are still bound and accountable to the laws of civilized society which are remarkably similar to the laws of God. So if you have to live by them anyway, why should you care to whom the credit is given?

Shock and Awe! (It worked for the Air Force.)

Sorry, but I made it as small as I could. If you dare, you should click it for the larger picture and let your "scientific mind" study it for a while. Ask yourself if this 10 week old fetus, which already has fingernails, is....sorry, was a HUMAN BEING. Ask yourself if it felt pain. Ask yourself if it suffered. Ask yourself if we executed prisoners convicted of murder in a similar manner, (by dismemberment), "Would it be considered 'humane'?" Why then, would anyone consider such a heinous act as a matter of mere convenience?

I have not made it a practice to regularly include disturbing images such as this on my site. Nor does it stand the chance of becoming commonplace, so don't be afraid to visit again. But I noticed, in my daily reads, that such images must be searched for and even then they hide behind disclaimers. Why? Because it might offend someone? Who? Who should be offended by this photo? YOU SHOULD! And that's the point. I AM OFFENDED BY THIS PHOTO, but I choose not to bury my head in the sand and pretend that it all amounts to some sterile form of euthanasia which causes no pain or suffering nor carries with it eternal consequences.

Look at it. If you believe that this is just some chance evolution of nature born of primordial slime, then I guess you should just continue on because the value of human life to which I appeal in you just isn't there, not to the level that one appreciates when confronted with the realization that this is the design of a Divine Creator. But if you believe, not only in the value but also in the SANCTITY of human life, then you should be moved to never, ever support politicians or legislation which protects the process by which this photo was achieved.

Don't just feel.....REASON. Reason with yourself and your convictions. Is this right, or wrong? Almost everything on the planet can be sorted into those two categories. If you arrive at the conclusion that it is neither, but rather a "necessary evil" then you have indeed missed the point and your blessed theory of evolution should bother you greatly because this would indicate that it is a backwards process and we are naturally contributing to the destruction of our species. I don't believe in such a process. I believe in right and wrong. I believe that there exists in this world both good and evil. And I believe that THIS....this abomination to God and man alike is indeed EVIL.

What do you believe? Don't be fooled. This is not some overly complicated situation which, because of endless variables, cannot be easily sorted into the simplicity of mere right and wrong. Conversely, this IS the simplest example of right and wrong. It IS the most elementary illustration of good vs. evil. There will come a day when you too will be sorted and though your stance on this particular issue won't be the factor which decides whether you're placed with the sheep or the goats, the fact remains that your stance on this issue is a clear indication of which flock you dwell among today.

Justice is like the tides, it comes...and then it goes.

“Two counts of murder”…that’s what Bobby L Cutts Jr. is charged with. TWO. Why two? Because he allegedly killed Jessie Davis and by doing so also killed her UNBORN child. This puzzles me, not because I disagree with the charge, but because Ohio, like most other states, seems to have a double standard when it comes to killing the unborn.

Though the state has a few more hoops to jump through than others, abortion is still legal in Ohio. A woman can, choose to have a licensed physician terminate the life of her unborn child and society will call that choice equitable and fair. But if someone punches her in the stomach and causes her to miscarry, technically, that person can and should, rightfully be charged with murder.

It seems Ohio (which is not alone in this particular view) is perfectly willing to acknowledge that a fetus is a “human being” with all human rights intact…so long as the mother “wants it to be”. But no one charges a physician with murder when he performs an abortion, though, by every definition of the word, that is exactly what he is doing. No one would dream of charging the mother, with accessory to murder when she's the one who funds and authorizes the act and provides access to the victim. No one considers the legislators and judges who essentially sanction the act to be directly or even indirectly responsible for the death of an aborted child. Yet they have no problem charging Bobby L Cutts with two counts of 1st Degree Premeditated Murder.

Don’t get me wrong. If Bobby Cutts killed Jessie Davis and her child, then he deserves a speedy trial and a potent intraveneous cocktail. Death isn’t good enough for her killer, because one can only experience death once, and this killer killed twice. On that fact, I agree with the State of Ohio. But what of the hundreds of children who die, not at the hand of an enraged attacker on a dirty street, but at the “healing” hands of a physician on a sterile table?

On the way to work...

On the way to work this evening, I noticed the following:

• 18 American Flags on the short drive out of my neighborhood (4/10 mi)
• The Citgo had 1 vehicle getting gasoline. The Shell next door had 8. The BP across the street had 9...God bless 'em!
• A man who had a stalled vehicle in the middle of the road had no sooner turned on his hazard lights than two men pulled over to help him push it out of the road.
• A billboard that said "Jesus loves you!"
• At the door of a local convenience store, a young boy who was exiting and an old man who was entering held both doors wide open for a lady with a baby in one hand and a bag in the other. She expressed her appreciation to both with a kind "Thank You".
• On the counter of that same convenience store was a pickle jar. On that jar was the picture of a young boy with intestinal cancer and a plea for any change you could spare. IN that jar was a whole lot of money....full to the rim with 1's an 5's.
• Exiting the parking lot of same convenience store, the traffic was thick. But I didn't have to wait long for a kind motorist to stop and wave me out.
• At Wendy's, a young boy, all of 5 years old was sitting with his grandfather eating a frosty. In his "outside voice" and his little country accent he stated very matter of factly for everyone in the store to here: "Paw Paw, you know whuut? I shuuuur do love you!" It drew a toothy chuckle from his "Paw Paw" and brightened everyone's else's day!
• An advertisement for a "Father's Day" sale at a local gun shop! (I'll have to check that out.)

That really is just an average day here, but for some reason, today I just happened to notice it. Now I'm not saying you can't find these things anywhere else in this fine country but having traveled most of it, I can tell you with great certainty that you won't find it as often. Damn, I love living in the south!