::::::::

George Bush set a record for executions in Texas. More importantly, he supported and defended the practice.

Capital punishment is the result of the mind-set that it is okay for governments to kill, unnecessarily, without the presence of imminent threat, because of some theoretical benefit to society.

Utility, cost benefit analysis, efficacy: such are the arguments in favor of state sanctioned killing for cause. It is a straight line from executing a criminal to torture and pre-emptive war. Once killing for cause is accepted as legitimate public policy, it invariably finds its way onto the table of options.

In his final State of the Union address, Bush said this regarding the Iraq war: “We must do the difficult work today, so that years from now people will look back and say that this generation rose to the moment, prevailed in a tough fight, and left behind a more hopeful region and a safer America.”

War has now become just another foreign policy option – the Iraq war an undertaking not to defend our sovereignty, but to instead test a formulary that it will benefit future generations.

Contrast President Bush’s wisdom with that of Mark Twain: “We build a fire in a powder magazine, then double the fire department to put it out. We inflame wild beasts with the smell of blood, and then innocently wonder at the wave of brutal appetite that sweeps the land as a consequence.”

[Fun fact: According to a recent survey, 4 out of 5 Republican presidential candidates recommend executions, torture and war.]

What I find particularly interesting and paradoxical, is the connection between the politically active conservative Christian “base”, and state sponsored violence.

Codifying the Christian values that this country was allegedly founded on is the rallying cry of Christian conservatives throughout the country, especially in the South. Thus regular initiatives to define marriage, teach intelligent design, allow prayer in schools, etc...

After all, absent the authority of the Christian Bible, society would descend into moral anarchy, would it not?

Tolstoy’s Levin, in conversation with himself, pondered: “What would I be and how would I live my life, if I did not have those beliefs, did not know that one should live for God and not for one’s needs? I would rob, lie, kill.”

How ironic that American Christian conservatives succeeded in electing to the office of president, their candidate, George Bush, and in turn were rewarded with robbing, lying, and killing – the very things Levin erroneously associated with the absence of Christian enlightenment. Even more ironic, a good many Christians appear to be okay with the Bush method, even delighted.

President Bush robbed human beings of due process and human dignity. He squeezed the poor and middle class while fabulously enriching the already fabulously wealthy. He robbed our disenfranchised children, unwitting co-signers to trillions of dollars of financed expenses that were rightfully ours, not theirs, to bear. He lied to sell tax policy that favors the rich via further expansion of our national debt; lied about the malicious outing of a CIA agent; lied about the intelligence supporting the reasons (lies in and of themselves) for the Iraq war. Then there is the killing – ah, the killing – hundreds of thousands killed, hundreds more thousands, perhaps millions, maimed and/or displaced.

The problem isn’t religion, it is people who inject their own innate violence and bigotry into their theology.

I heard a Muslim speaker the other day say she “cringes” every time she hears the words “Islamic terrorist”. The phrase wounds her soul. The words are completely “incongruous” – an oxymoron to the billion plus peaceful Muslims in the world. Worse, the phrase promotes bigotry by linking Islam with terrorism, as if the former is responsible for the latter.

The Bible is not responsible for violence perpetrated by Christians. Likewise, the Koran is not to be blamed for violence carried out by Muslims.

We are not Christians at war with Muslims, but rather violent people at war with violent people. On both sides are people at war with their respective theology.

Twain wrote: “You can find in a text whatever you bring”. In the case of Christians and Muslims, being homo-sapiens, they tend to bring hostility and aggression, employing theology not as a tool to rise above barbarism, but instead selectively co-opting Holy verse in order to justify deplorable acts. Our justifications for violence are not manifestations of sacred texts, but instead the product of bigotry merged with prehistoric, congenital, culturally reinforced aggressive and violent instincts.

A Muslim that recently lectured at my church was asked to reconcile the “gentle spirit” represented by his understanding of Islam, with the hostility and violence associated with “Muslim extremists”. He responded by saying they are irreconcilable. He then pointed out that Muslims in Iraq, for example, are similarly perplexed by the hypocrisy of American Christians: “How can we cite all the beautiful passages from the New Testament, speak of love, grace, compassion, and sanctity of life, then give them ‘awe and shock’; raining bombs and destroying their country, killing thousands of innocent civilians?”

I have an answer, it’s called bigotry. How else can you explain a strategy to “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here”? Life is cheap over there. Better a million should die “over there” might it prevent an attack here.

Never mind the fact that every National Intelligence Estimate since the beginning of the Iraq war has concluded it hasn’t made us safer but in fact has served to increase recruitment of terrorists, elevating the risk of terrorism worldwide, including the United States. Never mind. Really, never mind, it isn’t relevant! Even if such a scheme proved effective, it would nonetheless remain a racist, immoral policy. If we really were all equal in the eyes of God, if Muslim life were equal to Christian life, we’d take our chances and fight them here, risking our own lives to save millions “over there”.

Of course we view ourselves as innocent victims that merely retaliated for an unprovoked attack. Setting aside the fact that Iraq did not in any way participate in the events of 9/11, consider the propaganda of bin Laden, which cited the “million children” that died in Iraq in the 1990’s as a direct result of U.S. backed sanctions. I don’t believe America was responsible for such tragedy, assuming it occurred. Nevertheless, the al Qaeda terrorists that attacked America no doubt believed this to be the case. Just as we tenaciously cling to our own self-deceptions, in their minds, no less susceptible than the American psyche to religious, ethnocentric, and nationalistic bias, aggressive nature and thirst for revenge, the fanatics that identified themselves as Muslim viewed their attacks on the U.S. as legitimate retaliation for the unjustified killing of innocent civilians.

1,000,000 Iraqi children. 3,000 imperialists. Seemed fair to them.

I think you now see the problem – or perhaps not.

We want others to eschew violence first, then we’ll follow suit. We want others to stop their executions, because their motives aren’t as pure as ours. We want others to refrain from torture because they might torture us, and the lives they suppose they’ll save by the practice are perceived as less valuable than American lives.

What if we took the lead? What if we exercised military restraint? What if we refused to torture? What if we refused to execute? What if we afforded everyone due process, just because they are human, regardless of citizenship? What if we really respected the sanctity of life; all life, regardless of geography, ideology, theology, or ethnicity?

Perish the thought! That’s something Jesus would have us do, or the likes of Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Theresa, the Pope, Gandhi, or the Dalai Lama.

What the hell do they know?

We have our safety and security to defend above and beyond any other considerations, especially moral and ethical ones.

By the way, we have an election coming up, and we have our replacement Christian Candidate. He set a record for executions in Arkansas.

Authors Bio:
Robert Sargent is co-owner of a Washington State commercial printing company with operations in Seattle and Redmond. He has an Economics degree from the University of Washington and occasionally plays alto sax with the Husky alumni band. An amateur economist, investor and photographer, and fiscally conservative moderate at heart, Robert has been a "yellow-dog Democrat" since the Bush administration "began screwing up the world beyond repair". Active in local and national political races, Mr. Sargent ("Sarge") was a delegate for John Kerry and is now supporting Barack Obama. A news and politics junkie and occasional workaholic, his non-work time is spent (not in order) with his wife of 17 years and 2 kids, blogging in front of the TV, reading, cooking, spectator sports (NCAA hoops & football, MLB, NFL) taking pictures, and participating in a famously progressive Presbyterian church.