UCCtruths

I continue to respect Pastor Dan although he seems suddenly unable to comprehend basic moral logic. He's not the only one though and I've gotten plenty of flack for the post on the message board.

For starters, I'm not advocating for torture at all - it is completely immoral and it is wrong. All I'm saying is that the timing of John Thomas' statement on torture is suspicious since this isn't an issue of public dispute and there are no new allegations of torture. Further, as a country we crossed a moral threshold long ago when we decided that a war was necessary. Excuse me if I see a big moral difference between a belly slap and killing someone. Basic logic to me, but not to Pastor Dan.

As far as Abu Ghraib goes, Pastor Dan is completely right and the perpetrators were rightfully prosecuted. It also has nothing to do with Thomas speaking out now.

His example of force feeding a Guantanamo detainee who is on a hunger strike as an example of torture is dubious... would it be more moral to just let him die?

As far as his example of Jose Padilla goes, this is testimony from his defense attorneys who were trying to make the case that Padilla was not competent to stand trial as a result of the alleged torture he received. Pastor Dan makes the idiotic mistake of holding up Padilla's defense attorneys as the final word and he conveniently failed to mention that the judge dismissed the defense experts testimony and actually found Padilla to be competent to stand trial.

Pastor Dan goes on...

Any ninny with half a heart who had thought about these practices for longer than thirty seconds would come to the conclusion that they are disgusting, disgraceful, and completely inconsistent with Christian and American values.

I agree... and his point is....?

Well, he doesn't really have one because he didn't really get the point of my original post. He would rather hyperventilate than read what I actually posted.