Warren speaks; I'm not impressed

Rick Warren, after weeks of refusing to condemn the murderous anti-gay law working its way through the Ugandan parliament, of denying his connection to the promoters of the law, and trying to change the subject has finally issued a statement in opposition to the law. The message is in two forms, a Youtube video of him addressing an "encyclical" to African pastors and as a transcript with a FAQ addendum posted at his publicist's site. The transcript is slightly shorter than the Youtube video, but the differences are only a slight editing of his wordiness and do not change the substance of his message in any way. It's vintage Warren.

He opens the message with the famous quote from Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." That's cute, considering his strenuous effort to do nothing for the last several weeks.

To his credit, he comes out in full opposition to the law: "I ... completely oppose and vigorously condemn ... the pending law under consideration by the Ugandan Parliament, known as the Anti-Homosexuality Bill."

He gives five reasons for his opposition. They are a mixed bag and probably a disappointment to human rights advocates.

First, the potential law is unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals, requiring the death penalty in some cases. If I am reading the proposed bill correctly, this law would also imprison anyone convicted of homosexual practice.

This is good. I think we can all agree that this should be the first reason for opposing the bill.

Second, the law would force pastors to report their pastoral conversations with homosexuals to authorities.

He's opposing it because it would be bad for the church to send people to their deaths. While true, discussing it at this point waters down the primary issue, which should be trying to stop a rapidly approaching mass murder.

Third, it would have a chilling effect on your ministry to the hurting. As you know, in Africa, it is the churches that are bearing the primary burden of providing care for people infected with HIV/AIDS. If this bill passed, homosexuals who are HIV positive will be reluctant to seek or receive care, comfort and compassion from our churches out of fear of being reported. You and I know that the churches of Uganda are the truly caring communities where people receive hope and help, not condemnation.

He's opposing it because it would hurt the mission of the church. This point falls somewhere between the first two. Mission churches do provide a large portion of the medical care in Africa. If people do not go to the mission clinic for fear of being imprisoned or killed, then they won't get the medical care they need, which is especially dangerous when dealing with infectious diseases. That he uses the moment to be so self-flattering about the churches cheapens the point.

Fourth, ALL life, no matter how humble or broken, whether unborn or dying, is precious to God. My wife, Kay, and I have devoted our lives and our ministry to saving the lives of people, including homosexuals, who are HIV positive. It would be inconsistent to save some lives and wish death on others. We’re not just pro-life. We are whole life.

At this point, his compassion is completely overtaken by his self-promotion. As a reason for opposing the bill, isn't this the same as point one? All live is precious, therefore we shouldn't send people to their deaths.

Finally, the freedom to make moral choices and our right to free expression are gifts endowed by God. Uganda is a democratic country with remarkable and wise people, and in a democracy everyone has a right to speak up.

He lost me here. How, exactly, does a belief in freedom of choice translate into a reason for opposing the bill?

By my count, about twenty percent of his message is a direct condemnation or call to opposition to the bill. About thirty percent of the message is self-promotion or promotion of his groups. The other half of the message is his greeting to the pastors and a Christmas message. The latter part should have been sent as a separate message an waters down the most important part of his message, but that's quibble on my part.

The FAQ appended to the print version of his message is an extended whine about those mean things being said about him by bloggers and the liberal media. It's about three quarters the length of his encyclical (since when do Protestants issue encyclicals?). The FAQ is filled with slippery hair-splitting. He says he has never met President Museveni, but fails to mention that he has spent time with the President's wife, Janet Museveni, one of the main forces behind the expansion of American style fundamentalism in Uganda. He says he never met with members of parliament, but he has spent time with influential former members of parliament. Once more he pushes the irrelevant urban legend that last year, 146,000 Christians around the world were killed because of their faith. The FAQ taken together with the encyclical makes the print text almost two thirds self-promotion and whining with his opposition to the murderous law reduced to a mere one eighth of the text.

This is Rick Warren, the purpose driven man. He'll do the right thing when he's been nagged and embarrassed into doing it. The rest of the time, his purpose appears to be nothing more than promoting Rick Warren and his evangelical empire.

More incoherence

Rick Warren is back in the news. Once again his name is showing up in connection with homophobia. Once again he wants to change the subject rather than give an honest response.

For those of you who are late arriving to the story. The Ugandan government is currently considering an anti-homosexuality bill that mandates life imprisonment for merely being gay, prison sentences for not turning gays in, and the death penalty for being gay and HIV positive among other things. The author and most vocal proponents of the bill include certain darlings of the American religious right. Warren's connection is that he is a supporter and friend of pastor Martin Ssempa, one of the Ugandan proponents of the bill.

Over the past two years, Warren has been trying to put some distance between himself and Ssempa, but he won't go so far as to actually condemn the Ugandan legislation. When asked about it he issued this statement: "The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations." When asked about it on Meet the Press this weekend, he said he never takes sides and tried to change the subject to abortion.

Today, still trying to change the subject, he has fallen back back on that old favorite of the religious right, when backed into a corner, cry persecution. On his Twitter feed this morning, Warren wrote: "Globally last yr 146,000 Christians were put to death because of their faith. No one, except Christians, said anything." What is his point? If someone, somewhere, kills Christians for who they are, then it's okay for Ugandan Christians to kill gays, most of whom are also Christians?

Who were these 146,000 Christians and where were they put to death? I can't find a source for his claim. The closest I could find was a comment on a conspiracy forum making the same claim four years ago. I also can't find any evidence that Warren was one of those Christians who protested it. I guess that would be him not interfering in the political processes of other nations.

Insane voter update

Prompted by my old friend Geoff Hoff, I checked out current state constitutions for mental health and IQ restrictions. Finding the voter qualifications wasn't as easy as it sounds. In some cases, even finding the constitution was a challenge because the state website was such a mess. In some, the problem was finding the right section in the constitution once I managed to find it the constitution. There were two main reasons for that. First, was that many constitutions are not indexed; I had to start at the beginning and skim through it until I found the right section (word search wasn't much help because different names are used for voters in different states). Second, the location of the voter qualifications section could be anywhere in the constitution. In a surprising few, it is located in the bill of rights, where I would have put it (shouldn't voting be a basic right in any polity that calls itself a democracy?). In most, there is a seperate section on elections. Vermont has no voter qualifications section that I could find. Oklahoma leaves it to the legislature to decide. Alabama rather famously has the longest constitution of any state (almost a thousand sections and amendments often dealing with the most trivial local government issues).

What I found was that eight states still use the "idiots or insane" language. They are Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Ohio. Most of the other states have adopted more genteel language (non compos mentis and mentally incompetent are the most common). About a quarter of the constitutions hint at some kind of process for determining when someone's mental condition disqualifies them from voting (usually it runs along the lines of "judicially declared mentally incompetent"). For the most part, all that has changed is the language; the attitudes remain the same and exhibits a simplistic us and them treatment of complex mental health issues. They divide the population into a majority of sane, normal people and a scary minority of abnormal people who are idiots or insane.

Anyone familiar with mental health issues will see that there is still quite a bit of arbitrariness in the system. Although things have improved since 1902, we have a long way to go before we have a system that is nuanced enough to be fair to the whole spectrum of mental ability and health.

Should we waterboard Sean Hannity

At first glance, the answer to that question appears obvious – an enthusiastic "hell, yes!" I think most of the people who read this blog would find it immensely satisfying to see conservative apologists for torture subjected to it. I'd love to see how many false confessions we can wring out of Rush Limbaugh with a little harmless fraternity hazing. However, taking Hannity up on his offer to be waterboarded would actually give the apologists a massive propaganda victory, create a false impression about the reality of waterboarding, and set back the anti-torture cause.

First some background. Charles Grodin appeared on the Wednesday edition of Hannity's Fox News show. After mocking Hannity's mascara but before questioning the fascistic tendencies of the show, Grodin had tried to put Hannity on the spot about torture.

Grodin: You're for torture.

Hannity: I am for enhanced interrogation.

G: You don't believe it's torture. Have you ever been waterboarded?

H: No, but Ollie North has.

G: Would you consent to be waterboarded? We can waterboard you?

H: Sure.

G: Are you busy on Sunday?

H: I'll do it for charity. I'll let you do it. I'll do it for the troops' families.

Many liberal bloggers think Grodin got the best out of that exchange. I disagree. Hannity kept his cool, didn't back down, and even managed to get some points from the Fox audience for his patriotic posturing "I'll do it for the troops' families" schtick.

Thursday, Keith Olbermann and Lawrence O'Donnell jumped on board in an attempt to call Hannity's bluff.

O'Donnell: The reason Sean Hannity thinks torture is a good idea. The reason Sean Hannity thinks it works is because it would work on him. ... [P]eople who live where Sean Hannity lives and those safe places and the safe Cheney home where no one in the Cheney family would ever submit themselves to military service, ever submit themselves to the risk of torture. They think torture works because it would work on them.

[...]

Olbermann: [addressing Hannity] You'll do it for charity? For the troops families? I'll take you up on that Sean. For every second you last, $1000. Live or on tape provided other networks cameras are there. $1000 a second Sean because this is no game. This is serious stuff. Put your money where your mouth is, and your nose. And I'll double it when you admit you feared for your life. When you admit the horrible truth. Waterboarding, a symbol of the last administration, is torture.

With that, Olbermann allowed himself to be suckered into Hannity's game, even though I'm sure Hannity never thought it out far enough to know that he has this game in play. Olbermann is basing his challenge on one of the more persistent myths of American culture: the myth that all bullies are physical cowards. While that's probably true for most bullies, it's complete folly to assume that every bully will conform to a two dimensional stereotype. Furthermore, there is more than one kind of physical cowardice. The classical playground bully isn't adverse to all pain; if he was, he would avoid all fights. The playground bully typically picks fights with kids he knows he can beat and humiliate. The playground bully is happy to accept some discomfort if he knows he will win in the end. Bullying is all about banishing your own sense of powerlessness by inflicting powerlessness on someone else. This means there is a lot of macho posturing involved in common bullying and most concepts of macho and masculinity include being able to "take it." In playground bullying, the bully is willing to shrug off a few blows as long as the game is fixed. This why Hannity is comfortable inviting waterboarding. He knows that it will be only for a few seconds only and that, if he can grit his teeth and tough it out, he will not only win his political point, he will enhance his masculine reputation, a goal that I'm sure is dear to his heart.

This brings us to the second reason why waterboarding Hannity would be a bad idea. The only possible conditions under which it could be done are not torture – they are reality teevee.* Waterboarding Hannity for charity would not be torture it would be a cheap stunt and nothing more. A torture victim is in the exact same position as a bullying victim.** Powerlessness and uncertainty are necessary for torture techniques to rise to the level of actual torture. A torture victim is not only physically powerlessness, he has no idea of the course or outcome of events. He does not know when the torture will happen, what kind of torture will be used each time, how long each session will continue, or whether the torturers will continue until he is crippled, brain damaged, or dead. Even if he gives the torturers everything they want, the victim cannot be sure that the torture will ever stop.

What Hannity and Olbermann are talking about is not torture. It is a situation in which Hannity gets to set the time and place. Hannity will know that it's only for a short time. Hannity knows that no one will allow permanent harm to come to him and that, if he becomes emotionally overwhelmed, the process will stop. And Hannity knows here will be a large payoff for going though with it. Anyone can endure discomfort and pain if we have some control over it and knows when it will end. In the smallest sense, we go through this every time we allow the doctor to stick a needle in us. No one would call getting a shot torture. But if we didn't know whether the doctor was going to keep sticking needles into us, if we had no idea when someone was going to grab us and carry us off to have more needles stuck into us, if we had no idea how deeply the next needles would be stuck or whether they would blind or cripple us – that would be torture. When G. Gordon Liddy held his hand over a flame to impress and intimidate others, that wasn't torture. But if I had thugs hustle him off in the debt of night so I could hold his hand over a flame, with no guarantee that I would stop before his hand was reduced to charred stumps of bone – that would be torture.

If Hannity takes Olbermann up on his offer, it will be because Hannity recognizes all of this. He will realize that he has inadvertently suckered Olbermann into a losing game. Hannity will go in to it knowing that all he has to do is grit his teeth for ninety seconds of terror. At the far end of the tunnel he gets to humiliate Olbermann and come off as a tough guy. His few moments of bravado will give great comfort to American conservatives and to torturers everywhere. Make no mistake, every torturing regime on the planet would watch this stunt with profound interest. If Hannity pulled it off, not only would American conservatives have evidence to argue that "harsh interrogation techniques" are not torture, totalitarian regimes everywhere would use his stunt make the same claim about their tortures. Torturers would be able to use the prestige of the United States as cover for their crimes even as that prestige was dramatically diminished. The anti-torture cause would be dealt a blow that would take a generation to repair.

Words have consequences and Grodin and Olbermann's challenges, made with the best of intentions, could have almost unimaginably horrible consequences. Torture is serious business. Treating it like a reality teevee challenge diminishes that seriousness. Lets hope Hannity really is as much of a physical coward as O'Donnell predicted. If he isn’t, a lot of innocent people will be in for a world of hurt.

* I admit that reality teevee is torture for many viewers, but it isn't torture for the participants; it's masochism.
** And yes, I am saying that bullying is the same as torture – exactly the same. The enabling attitude of too many grown-ups who shrug off bullying as "boys will be boys" or some such nonsense is exactly the same attitude that allows too many people to shrug off torture as no worse than fraternity hazing or acceptable as long as it doesn't cause too much permanent physical damage.

Update: Good morning C&Lers and Pharanguloid hordes. Thanks for dropping by to check out my tortured logic. Help yourself to the watered down coffee and stale cookies and be sure to pick up our brochure on your way out.