A reader writes:
You wrote:
"I should confess that behind my passion on this subject is a core religious conviction – that all human beings have dignity in the eyes of God and that treating any human being in this way is an absolute moral evil."
I am a confirmed, confident atheist, and yet I am in complete agreement with you on this.
I suppose, for myself, I could revise your statement as "Behind my passion on this subject is a core moral conviction – that all human beings have dignity, and that treating any human being in this way is an absolute moral wrong." (I am skeptical of the existence or usefulness of "absolute evil".)
I really appreciated this: "I have not made my argument on religious grounds because I believe in the separation of religion and politics and made my case in language that anyone – believer and non-believer – can engage equally."
So here is a question for you: Let’s say Darren Vandeveld was an atheist instead of a Catholic. Would you have titled your post "An Atheist Takes A Stand"? Would you have even written it? How would most people have reacted to that? What if instead of a "devout Catholic," Vandeveld was a lapsed Catholic, or an unenthusastic one? What if he was a Baptist, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or a wiccan?
I think opposition to torture can spring from humanism or simple moral decency, not just religious faith. I just found, as a fellow Catholic, Vandeveld’s example was an inspiration. As well as a rebuke to the shamefully reticent Catholic hierarchy. If the Pope had challenged Bush on his record of torture, it would have meant a great deal. But this Pope appears to care more about power than about truth. And an alliance with the American president trumps a principled response to that president’s enforcement of an absolute moral evil. Maybe if that evil had something to do with sex Benedict would raise his voice.
The Dish 