Please change your bookmarks to: www.godspolitics.com

and your RSS feeds to: http://www.sojo.net/blog/godspolitics/?feed=rss2

After two years of a blog partnership between Sojourners and Beliefnet, we're moving the God's Politics Blog in-house to the Sojourners Web site. You can still go to www.godspolitics.com which as been redirected to reach us at our new location.

Other than a new look and feel, you'll still find the latest commentary by Jim Wallis and friends "articulating the biblical call to social justice" as our Sojourners mission statment says. You will also find a few welcome changes and great new features, such as:

• More ways to access blog content, including links to posts by author, "most read," and "most commented."
• A "tag cloud" that represents the hottest topics on the blog.
• Separate RSS feeds for God's Politics, Verse and Voice of the Day, and our Daily News Digest (and more to come...)
• Advertisements that comport with Sojourners' mission and values. 

And perhaps the most significant new feature of all--new comment software including a new sherriff in town: YOU!

• That's right--we're implementing peer moderation, with the ability for readers to rate comments up or down as useful or not useful. Posts that receive too many down votes (no, we're not telling you how many) will be automatically removed. We know we're asking a lot of our readers--to rate posts not on what views are expressed but on how they're expressed--but we think you're up to the task.  
• Of course, you can still always "flag" abusive posts for removal by our staff if something's obviously inappropriate.
• Plus, personal profiles for each commenter with optional attributes including "avatar" images.

We hope you'll continue to enjoy reading God's Politics at its new home!

Most of you are too young to remember Joe Friday, the tough inner-city police sergeant on the old television series Dragnet, which I still see sometimes in syndication. The no-nonsense cop was famous for a line he almost always used while conducting his investigations into a crime. To the many eyewitnesses he would interview, he would say, "Just the facts, ma'am."

Where is Joe Friday when you need him, like during this election campaign? Who is going to check the candidates on their positions, statements, speeches, and especially their attacks on each other, which are getting more vicious? And now, who will also check the media, especially the cable networks, who are increasingly just dividing along partisan political lines?

Where do we go to find the facts? Unfortunately, the media (especially the cable television networks and talk radio shows) are of less and less help -- especially in presenting "just the facts." I try to watch all the Sunday morning news shows some time during the day. Last Sunday's Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace had a long feature with one "analyst" to help us all understand what was happening in this election. The analyst? Karl Rove -- the only analyst. The great Republican architect has now become the great Republican analyst.  Now how's that for "fair and balanced?" And if you want the political alternative, just turn on MSNBC, which is increasingly the ideological counterpoint and competitor with Fox. Then we go to CNN, where more and more of the commentators have become surrogates for one side or the other, saying predictable things along predictable party lines, with notable exceptions like David Gergen, who has worked in the White House for both Republican and Democratic Administrations and really does try to be fair and balanced.

Most of you are also too young to remember when evening news anchors were mostly eloquent narrators of the news. Now turning on television is like tuning into an ongoing partisan debate or, worse, seeing a succession of negative ads fighting back and forth in the name of commentary.

There are, however, a few segments on television, and more investigative stories in the newspapers, where journalists are trying to do the job of keeping the politicians honest. And there are respected fact checking places emerging on the Internet which appear to be developing respect on both sides of the aisle -- a very rare thing these days. One of them is FactCheck.org, whose spokespersons seem to be both fair and balanced. So far, I have seen them do helpful fact checking into the lies now being told in campaign ads and the overstretching of the truth in both campaigns. No, Obama did not support a bill in Illinois to teach sex education to kindergartners, but rather one to protect them from sexual predators. And no, McCain didn't say we should keep the war going in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary, just that we might have to support troops there that long as we do in other places.

Check the facts very carefully when the campaigns tell you what their opponent will do on taxes. Hopefully, there will be more of such places emerging that can be trusted. Send in the best choices for fact checking in your experience. Let's find some Joe Fridays out there -- "Just the facts, ma'am." Better yet, let's try to be Joe Fridays ourselves.

[Correction: Thanks to our fack-checking commenters, we have learned that the Dragnet detective's name was, in fact, Joe Friday (not Jack Friday), and the actor's name was Jack Webb. This correction is now reflected in the text.]

We are deeply concerned. Attempts are being made to link Héctor Mondragón to the FARC guerilla movement in Colombia's paper of record, El Tiempo, which has reported on alleged e-mails to Héctor found on the computer of assassinated FARC leader Raul Reyes. Héctor, a Mennonite economist dedicated to the cause of the poor, is a good personal friend.  He works closely with Colombia's indigenous and small-scale farmers (campesinos).  He speaks passionately and writes prolifically on connecting the dots between the social political violence suffered and multi-national economic interests underlying the current armed conflict. In Colombia, good work does not go unnoticed. He is a survivor; he was being tortured around the time I entered the world. 

Colombian Mennonite Church President Alix Lozano writes:

Héctor H. Mondragón has been a member of our church since 1994, that is, 14 years. We have known him as a Christian not only committed to the cause of Jesus Christ, but also to Jesus' teaching and example of nonviolent love. ... His positions towards the government as well as toward the insurgent groups have been clear. ... The Colombian Mennonite Church rejects any attempt to link one of its members -- and in this particular case Héctor H. Mondragón -- to any armed group or any violent practice or to slander his/her name, which as we all know, is also extremely dangerous for the life and security of any person in this context. (Click here for the full statement; aquí para español.)

You can also read Héctor's response in his own powerful words in an essay called "My choice for civil resistance" (aquí para español):

Those who know me know very clearly that I am not part of the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), because I disagree with their strategy, their political line, and their methods.

For 18 years, I have publicly and privately differed from the FARC's strategy. That strategy is centered on the role of the guerrilla converted into a revolutionary army, through which the people can seize power and transform society. ... It has become a tragedy for popular struggles. It has permitted the strengthening of the extreme right, which today is running the country. Not only has it failed to stop the displacement of hundreds of thousands of peasants and Afro-Colombians, but it has actually exacerbated that process, and even provoked the forced displacement of indigenous peoples in various parts of the country. ...

Since 1994 I have opted for a personal commitment to nonviolence as the way to contribute to radical social change. I renounced the use of arms in self defense under any circumstance. I got rid of two revolvers that I had legally carried since I had been threatened with assassination ... I stopped working with bodyguards because I did not want to save my life at the expense of another. I ended up abandoning all routines, and thus the possibility of a stable job, in order to avoid being assassinated. I believe in the struggle for radical social change, but I believe it must be accompanied with a radical change of method, the abandonment of armed struggle and the abandonment of the notion that the end justifies the means. The radical means of nonviolence can help us reach the objective of truly radical social change. ...

It is not about replacing one corrupt, right wing government with another. It is not about exchanging one set of gangsters for another, so that our friends can rule instead of our enemies. It is not about demonstrating "governability" without meeting the basic needs of the 80% of Colombians who live in poverty. Colombia needs deep changes, especially on the land and in its relationship to the transnationals. And the only way to win these changes is to deploy the widest civil resistance, to construct alternatives from the base, and to have massive and committed civil mobilization. Absolutely everything I have done in these years, every single day, has been to work towards this with all my strength and all my experience.

Today, I still carry wounds from the torture that I suffered in 1977 and also from 20 years of being threatened with death, pursued by the paramilitaries. Sometimes I lose hope, especially when I know that some of my friends have been killed. I ask myself why continue in this struggle with indigenous people and peasants, why not give up. But then I am struck again with the passion for the people I love and the certainty that they deserve lives with dignity, and solidarity. They failed to kill my body but today they are threatening to kill my words, and I feel it like a re-opening of my old wounds. But the word is a seed and it grows, whatever happens, in the peasant on the land, in an indigenous person in her territory, in Afro-Colombians returning to their communities, in those who live in the popular neighborhoods of the cities who will eat better after the land reform that we will win, in every working family that will get a just wage for work, there the word will live. They won't be able to kill it.

A call to action may be forthcoming.  For the time being we invite you to share this concerning turn of events and pray.  Héctor writes, "I remain firm in prayer and many have prayed for me as well.  They sustain me.  (Me he aferrado a la oracin y muchos han orado por m. Me llegan muchos apoyos y me sostienen. )"

Janna Hunter-Bowman works for Mennonite Central Committee in Bogotá, Colombia, as the coordinator of the Documentation and Advocacy Program for Justapaz.

Just war theory is a mode of analysis that lists criteria by which war may be considered righteous before, during, and after its execution.  The criteria to consider before a war are: declared by legitimate authority, just cause, right intent, reasonable hope of success, last resort, and announcement.  The criteria to consider during war are: noncombatant immunity, proportionality of damage to good that will result, and limitations on weapons and tactics.  Young scholars in Christian ethics are developing criteria to consider after war, such as reparations, truth and reconciliation, and refugees.

Just war theory has a long history inside of Christianity.  It is a middle way between holy war and pacifism.  However, just peace theory occupies the ground between just war theory and pacifism.  From the perspective of just peace theory, just war theory is only war.  It presupposes war.  It comes into the discourse at the moment when a conflict reaches a crisis point and the possibility of war.  The conversation becomes about making the case for war using just war principles.  In contrast, just peace theory presupposes peace.  The discourse becomes about what the nation is doing to preserve the peace.  Further, just peace theory moves beyond just war theory because just war theory is unrealistic in the face of the nature of war itself.

For example, before a war we consider just cause.  In reality, the causes of war are always multiple, complex, and entangled. So underneath arguments about defense and humanitarian intervention, there often lies an economic intent.  Further, once war begins, no one can ever know how successful a nation will be in executing the war.  Just war during war calls for the immunity of innocents and the protection of noncombatants from being targets of violence.  Realistically, innocents always die in war.  Some will object that this is an argument of moral equivalency.  It is.  The blood and tears are equivalent; people are equivalently killed and physically and psychologically injured.   An innocent ecology is equivalently wounded.

Moreover, the nature of warfare is to defeat an enemy by any means necessary, and this includes using weapons and tactics that will demoralize the enemy even if that means killing innocents.  Just war theory cannot come to terms with this reality.

Just peace theory understands that peacemaking happens every day, that the only just war is the war that we prevent because there is no such thing as victory in war.  War itself is a defeat of human reason, communication, truth, and respect.  At the same time, just peace theory recognizes there may be times when a military force ought to deploy to protect vulnerable populations or to enforce a peace agreement.

September 21 is the U.N. International Day of Peace and Global Cease-fire.  It is a day when the world can pause to think about ways to make justice and peace the project and the goal of daily life.

Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon is an independent scholar who publishes lectures and essays at JustPeaceTheory.com. She received her Ph.D. in religion and society from Temple University and taught Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary and Andover Newton Theological School     

Thus says the Lord: Stand at the crossroads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way lies; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. But they said, "We will not walk in it."

- Jeremiah 6:16

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

The latest news on the Wall Street Crisis, Iraq, Iran, Presidential Campaign, Hurricane Ike, Hurricane Ike-Cuba, Crime, Homelessness, Zimbabwe, Burma/Myanmar, Bolivia, and Father D'Escoto at U.N.

Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

God does not have hands, we do. Our hands are God's. It is up to us what God will see and hear, up to us, what God will do. Humanity is the organ of consciousness of the universe ... Without our eyes the Holy One of Being would be blind.

- Lawrence Kushner

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

Yesterday afternoon, after devastating the Texas coast, the remnants of Hurricane Ike tore through Granville and the rest of Ohio, uprooting centuries old trees and downing power lines with hurricane force winds.  More than one million Ohioans lost power, and some of us may be waiting for up to a week for power to be restored.  In central Ohio where I live, 455,000 remain without power at this time.  The schools here are closed, and many of us are without water due to well and septic systems that rely on electricity to work.   

We lived through this kind of power outage before -- during the ice storm of 2004.  So neighbors are pulling together, checking on the elderly, and making sure everyone has enough supplies to last until the power is restored. The Granville college students are helping with water delivery and clearing the trees.  Local residents are pooling their cash and making trips to stores in Columbus that have opened to sell water, batteries, candles, and other necessities.  Churches are checking on their shut-ins and providing food to those without the necessary provisions. The local government turned out road crews with chain saws and tools to clear blocked streets and passages.  And in the one coffee shop that has electricity, residents are sharing the electrical outlets as we charge up our laptop computers, Blackberries, and cell phones.  So, all in all, our small community will weather this storm.

But I wondered last night, when I saw one gas station charging $5.99 per gallon for gasoline, what about those who are living on the edge here?  Are the folks in the trailer park at the edge of town okay?  Can they afford to pay for price-gouged gas?  Can they afford to replace an entire refrigerator and freezer worth of food that is now spoiled?  Do they have the extra cash to buy emergency supplies and food for a week until the power comes back on?  Can they take their child to work for the day, or a week, until the schools and childcares open again?   

One in six children in Ohio is hungry.  How many of those children will miss their government subsidized meals this week because the schools are closed and the meals cannot be prepared?  Poverty hurts -- and an unexpected emergency like a windstorm and a long term power outage makes poverty hurt even more by laying bare the continued economic disparity in our country -- and in my small town.   

These are the issues that propel me forward in my work to Vote Out Poverty.  These are the questions that drive me to ask pastor after pastor after pastor to host a Poverty Sunday this fall to raise the consciousness of parishioners in the pews about poverty.  These are the questions that had me participating by candlelight last night in a national conference call with Jim Wallis to Vote Out Poverty.  And these are the questions that have turned the Lord's Prayer into my plea: "thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven."

Please keep in prayer the families of the three people killed in Ohio last night during the windstorm, as well as the thousands and thousands in Texas and the Gulf Coast who were displaced by Hurricane Ike.  Please also pray: "The world now has the means to end extreme poverty; we pray we will have the will."

Rev. Virginia Lohmann Bauman lives in Granville, Ohio with her family, and she is the Ohio Field Director for Sojourners.

The presidential tickets in this election on both sides of the aisle have lots of "personality;" some of the candidates have even been referred to as "rock stars."  John McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis has said that "this election is not about issues, this election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates." That has been widely interpreted as a prediction that the election will be about personalities more than about issues. That would be a tragedy. And some on the Obama side were perhaps hoping that their candidate's charisma and popularity would be enough. But those qualities won't be enough and shouldn't be. Here are ten reasons why.

1. The economy is in grave danger. Over the weekend, two more of the nation's top investment banking firms have gone down. Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy, and Merrill Lynch was sold to Bank of America. With the earlier demise of Bear Stearns, that's three out of the nation's top five investment banks who have not been able to weather the financial storms triggered by the subprime lending crisis. Analysts this morning say this is either the beginning of the end of the crisis or the beginning of the end. The stock market looks like it fears the second outcome. Ordinary Americans are worried about college and retirement funds and, much worse -- a downward economic spiral that affects most all of us. We need more than personalities here.
2. "Poverty is now our next door neighbor." That's what a hospital administrator said to me during my annual physical last week. With foreclosures, declining housing equity and opportunity, job losses, stagnant wages, and lack of affordable healthcare, more and more people are being affected. And, of course, those at the bottom are in the worse shape of all.
3. Globally, the progress we were making on international poverty has been seriously set back because of food and fuel prices. Untold numbers of people are facing starvation.
4. There continue to be about 1.3 million abortions a year.  Partisan shouting on both sides during election seasons has prevented our finding solutions that result in real abortion reduction.
5. A broken immigration system is resulting in more and more raids on workplaces, breaking up thousands of families.  How can we create reforms that are compassionate and just along with protecting our borders?
6. Global warming is shrinking the polar ice cap at an unprecedented rate, more plant and animal species are endangered, and weather patterns are becoming erratic and more dangerous.  How can we stop and reverse climate change?
7. The war in Afghanistan has gone on for seven years now, yet the situation on the ground is getting worse by most accounts. The war in Iraq has gone on for more than five. Some claim progress and others say the underlying issues remain unresolved. Both those who want "victory" and those who say we should "end" the war must show their plans for success.  There are other wars now threatening in places like Iran and Syria. How many more wars can we fight at one time? The military is severely strained, especially service men and women and their families. And those veterans who come home needing so many things are not getting them.
8. We are no closer to a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, still a critical factor in Middle East conflicts.
9. The conduct of the United States' war on terrorism has taken a great toll on America's standing in the world. The use of torture, the abuse at Abu Ghraib, the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo and secret prisons around the world have all taken their moral toll. There needs to be a plan to repair the nation's moral stature.
10. The great danger of nuclear proliferation continues unabated. And even the pleas of national security wise men, from both sides of the aisle, have not been heeded.

And because each of you has other crises you think should be added (I can think of another ten easily), it becomes more and more clear that voting on personalities this election would be irresponsible. It's time to focus on the issues, the records of the candidates, and their plans for solving the massive problems that we face.  That will be the subject of my blog posts between here and the election -- and what a more "prophetic" than "partisan" Christian witness might be. Stay tuned.

Last year I lived in a Catholic Worker house that offers hospitality to immigrants without first inquiring about their legal status. One day, a woman called the house on behalf of two young boys who had come home to an empty apartment; their parents had been taken in a raid, and the boys had no other relatives or friends in the country. They had been born in the U.S., but their parents were undocumented workers; the raid had traumatized and temporarily orphaned them. They were afraid to leave their home and had no idea how to locate their parents.

Unfortunately, these boys' story is not unique. Over the past year, throughout the country the Department of Homeland Security has conducted increasingly numerous worksite enforcement raids that target employers who hire unauthorized workers. During these raids, large numbers of workers who have often worked in difficult and appalling conditions are arrested. Children are separated from their working parents for days at a time, and community life is disrupted.

Last week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement urging Homeland Security to discontinue worksite enforcement raids until several "humanitarian safeguards" are put into place. The statement says, "The humanitarian costs of these raids are immeasurable and unacceptable in a civilized society" and reminds us that "many families never recover, others never reunite."

Catholic social teaching states that the family is the "fundamental institution upon which society and government itself depends" and that the family "must be supported and strengthened." May Christians follow the lead of these courageous bishops to speak with one voice, urging the government to support families and put an end to the inhumane practices of worksite enforcement raids.

Jennifer Svetlik is a policy and organizing assistant at Sojourners.

The latest news on Hurricane Ike, Wall Street Crisis, Afghanistan, Unemployed Women, Education, Urban Gleaning, Religion, Arms Sales, Zimbabwe, Canadian Election, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Bolivia, India, and Select Op-eds.

Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail »

Your beliefs will be the light by which you see, but they will not be what you see, and they will not be a substitute for seeing.

- Flannery O'Connor

+ Sign up to receive our quote of the day via e-mail

O Lord, how long shall I cry for help,
and you will not listen?
Or cry to you "Violence!"
and you will not save?

Why do you make me see wrongdoing
and look at trouble?
Destruction and violence are before me;
strife and contention arise.

- Habakkuk 1:2-3

+ Sign up to receive our social justice verse of the day via e-mail

Once upon a time there was a house...

Anything that begins with such words as that usually carries with it the implicit promise that a tale is about to be told. "Once upon a time" rarely is a vehicle for conveying factual or objective truth. Rather, we have learned to read it as the set piece that introduces a bit of folk entertainment which, in the end, will leave us with a bit of folk wisdom forever wrapped in a memorable tale. All well and good and as it should be.

On the other hand, when a professional religionist begins something by saying, "Once upon a time," there is the hesitant assumption that the forthcoming insight or wisdom will be less folk or common wisdom and more geared toward making some kind of moral point. And when a professional religionist begins something by saying, "Once upon a time, there was a house...," there is every reason to assume -- especially if the religionist is a Christian -- that we are about to re-visit, whether we wish to or not, the parable of the two houses. One was built on a solid foundation of rock so that, when the storms came, it withstood their onslaught and remained standing. The other was built upon a foundation of sand and, when the storms came, crumbled under their onslaught and fell down. It is one of the better known of Jesus' parables and contains something very close to folk wisdom or common sense in addition to its theological ramifications.

Actually, a number of New Testament parables are common sense or folk wisdom tales, requiring not much depth of perception to understand and yet still wrapped in the skin of story and entertainment ... a fact which is, I suspect, a good deal of the reason for our having a certain kind of laziness about extending them into our own time instead of leaving them as quaint, but still honored, artifacts of an earlier one. All of this came to mind for me three or four Sundays ago when the parable of the two houses was the New Testament reading for the congregation with whom I was worshipping at the time. I've been chewing on the matter ever since. So...

Once upon a time, there was a house, whether on sand or rock, I can not say; but let us assume that this house was securely positioned, at least for our purposes here. Now this house of ours had an occupant. Who, we don't know, but an occupant. That occupant has a family ... a mate, children, a few pets, and an occasional relative or friend who comes for a visit. Now the children are all worrisome and gratifying and demanding, as children are supposed to be. The mate is the beloved whom the occupant can hardly bear at times, though it is clear that each of them is really in the business of sculpting the other into something that more resembles half of a new whole than it does anything else. The pets all bounce around ... or the dogs do, anyway. The cats prefer to sit back, tails curled under them, and wait to be asked about what should be done next. The pets are quite dear at times and not so dear at others, but all of them are fed and housed with an affection which, unlike that extended to the children and the mate, is largely untainted by any sense of obligation or duty.

The house has all the appointments that one would expect. There are windows, well-positioned not only to let in the light, but also to admit of good cross-ventilation. There is an adequate electric system that also keeps the house well-lit, warm enough and cool enough, and very functional. Likewise, the plumbing is in good balance with the needs of the house, though like all plumbing, it will occasionally suffer from overload and back up or will be the dumping place for more than it can handle and overflow. These are ongoing nuisances that cause the occupant only passing inconvenience, but rarely extended difficulty. There is the usual division of the house's rooms into those that are more or less public and those that are private and also, of course, those that are distinctly personal ... or at least, from time to time and on a routine basis, their use is. There is, as we would expect, a lovely, warm, cheerful kitchen which transcends the categories and simply is communal space at all times. The occupant, being a good person, sees to the house and its maintenance responsibly, consulting experts from time to time, when that is necessary, and spending time and money, as well as energy, in seeing to the house's ongoing good health.

In all of this, it is very clear to all concerned that the occupant is not the electrical system, though neither the house not the occupant would scarcely be able to function without it. It is equally clear that the inviting, communal kitchen is not the occupant, nor are the attractively dressed windows nor the front porch and flowers beds that complement the house. The furnishings, all of them adequate and suited to their purposes, are not the occupant, even though they are used constantly for the comfort, sustenance, and betterment of the occupant. And certainly no one would ever think that the occupant was the stairways which went up and down, from basement to first floor to second floor to attic, or even from doorways to driveway and sidewalk and patio. The occupant is none of these things, in part, of course, because the occupant isn't a "thing" and therefore can never be one. It is true, however, that the occupant could not long survive without a house of some sort, be it this one we are speaking of, or some other shelter.

But the house and the occupant do share one commonality: they both will someday cease to be. Both will pass away. The occupant, who was not the house, will die; and the house, who was not the occupant, will burn down or molder down or be torn down or undergo some other such ending. All will be gone. All the pieces and parts of our lovely story gone into dust and ashes. All of them gone as pieces, anyway. What is and always will be is what neither the house nor the occupant, as separate entities, ever was. What is and is ever to be is home ... the joy-giving, rest-filled, and light-bearing presence within experience of the reality of "home." What is, is the translation of passing tangibles into the eternal. What is, is the fusing of occupant and house into one that is neither, but both together. What is, is a story about an occupant and a house that, in truth, is really a story resurrection bodies and the kingdom of God, as in "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as in Heaven." Or so it seems to me anyway.

Phyllis Tickle (www.phyllistickle.com) is the founding editor of the religion department of Publishers Weekly and author of The Words of Jesus: A Gospel of the Sayings of Our Lord and the forthcoming fall release, The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why.

Based on some responses to my last post, and a new poll by Faith in Public Life and Mercer University, it seems there are many evangelicals who believe that there are in fact times when torture is necessary and proper.  I am assuming these people also believe it is at times necessary and proper for Christians to do the torturing?

According to the poll, 57% of white evangelicals in the South believe that torture is often or sometimes justified.  Another 16% believe that it can be justified in rare occasions.  Only 22% believe that it is never justified.  This is surprising because only 48% of the general population believe that torture can be justified.  How can this be?

Well, it seems it is because those Christians polled have forgotten or ignored the teachings of Jesus.  The poll found that 44% of those asked relied on personal experience and "common sense" more than on Christian teaching when making their decision.  Only 28% of the people polled initially were found to base their decision on Christian teaching.  When these same people were reminded of the "Golden Rule," many changed their answer.  When taking into account Jesus' teaching that those who follow him should, "Do to others what you want them to do to you," opinions changed by 14%.  After the reminder, 52% of white evangelical Christians polled replied that the U.S. government should not do to others what they do not want done to their soldiers.  This is a 14% jump from the initial 38% who claimed that torture is never or rarely justified.

When we lose sight of the life and teachings of Jesus, we tend to stray away from the path he paved for us to walk.  How do those who respond to the call of Jesus to "follow me" end up supporting the torture of children of God?  By forgetting what he taught and lived.  If we take the words of Jesus seriously to "do unto others...", it becomes much clearer that torture is out of the picture for Christians to support or engage in.  There are no known sayings of Jesus that can remotely hint that torture is ever justified, but there are many that point to the fact it is never justified.  "Do unto others" is just one of those teachings.  Jesus does not call us to "common sense" but to radical discipleship and love.  He calls us to the type of discipleship and love that is more likely to get you tortured than approve of the torture of others. 

Jimmy McCarty is a student at Claremont School of Theology studying Christian ethics, a minister serving cross-racially at a church in inner-city Los Angeles, and a servant at a homeless shelter five days a week.  He blogs at http://jimmymccarty.wordpress.com/.