WWJD? Waterboard. In An SUV. With Teabags.

First, the best find on Red State ever, courtesy of Balloon Juice:

Misinterpreting the Christian Response

Posted by roetenks (Profile)
Saturday, May 23rd at 2:44PM EDT

… It’s likely even Jesus would have OK’d water boarding if it would have saved his Mom. He would’ve done the same to save his Dad, or any one of His disciples. For that matter, He even died to save all humans.

And the diarist should know, seeing how ‘[a]s a devout Catholic, Roeten has a high interest in politics. His background as a Chemical Engineer gives him special insights to subjects not normally discussed.’

Subjects like Jesus’ pro-torture bona fides. We’re not sure how being a chemical engineer gives one that particular ‘special insight’ … but then, we’re more qual than quant anyway. Perhaps ‘turn the other cheek’ was an instruction in a lost manual for securing the heads of torture victims.

The Golden Rule — Now With Thumbscrews!

Next, on Meet the Press, David Gregory stumbles into this interesting interchange with Newt Gingrich:

MR. GREGORY: How long should Gitmo remain open?

REP. GINGRICH: Until the war is over.

MR. GREGORY: When is that?

REP. GINGRICH: We’ll — when the terrorists disappear. I mean, you’re faced with…

MR. GREGORY: Well, you’re talking about a pretty long-term proposition here.

Long-term, indeed. We’re reminded of Philip Agre’s frustration with the language being used to define the Sept. 11 attacks and the dangerous future that was being outlined in the then-nascent ‘War on Terror’, just a few days after 9-11:

Let us say, then, that George W. Bush commences a war against Osama bin Laden, or even against the greater abstraction of “terrorism”. What happens then? A state of war is a serious thing. States of war have routinely been used to justify censorship, the curtailing of civil liberties, and the repression of dissidents. States of war are also understood to require the opposition in the legislature to moderate its otherwise essential functions of criticism. Calls are issued to stand behind the political leadership and to display unity, with the implication that the enemy is watching and that failure to unite is tantamount to treason. These are not healthy conditions for a democracy; indeed, they are the opposite of democracy.

War in the old conception was temporary: the idea was explicitly that the state of war would end, and that the normal rules of democracy would resume once their conditions had been reestablished. Civil liberties and the institutions of democratic government are not entirely eliminated during wartime; rather, they are reduced in their scope while retaining their same overall form. Even in conditions of total war mobilization, clear boundaries between the military and civilian sides of society are maintained. But war, we are told, no longer works that way. No such boundaries are possible. It follows, therefore, that “war” in the new sense — war with no beginning or end, no front and rear, and no distinction between military and civilian — is incompatible with democracy, and not just in practice, not just temporarily, but permanently and conceptually. If we conceptualize war the way the defense intellectuals suggest, then to declare war is to destroy the conditions of democracy. War, in this new sense, can never be justified.

So going on nine years later, Gingrich is still pushing for ‘war with no beginning or end’. But can we at least stop inviting him to talk about it on TV?


Comments: 58


You gotta hand it to RedState. They’ve got a counter-argument for everything there, no matter how absurd it might be. “Since Jesus suffered to save us, he’s got no problem with other people suffering if it saves us!” Vomit.

Harrisfrom paris

Nothing new here. Part of every Sunday morniong service I’ve attended.

It’s right in the Doxology, just after “Praise God, from whom all blessing flow.” … “War without end/Amen/Amen.”

Caliph Garrett

He would’ve done the same to save his Dad

Um…his surrogate Dad (Joseph) or his Dad-in-the-Sky (who loves him, but just can’t be there right now)?

Jesus must have been one ontologically messed up kid.


And since when do “devout Catholics” say “his Mom” and “his Dad” (note completely wrong capitalization too) to refer to Mary and Joseph?

Maybe in your librul hippie Protestant sects that’s just groovy, but Pope Benny would smack you upside the head if he heard that crap.


“When the terrorists disappear.”, i.e., never. That means more stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, long range missiles, Star Wars shit, you name it. Spending more than the rest of the world combined is just not enough.

I’ll ignore the Jesus crap, except to ask, how come he never mentoined abortion? It did exist in first century Palestine.


I remember when Ron Reagan Jr. asked “If you are going to call yourself a Christian—and I don’t—then you have to ask yourself a fundamental question, and that is: Whom would Jesus torture? Whom would Jesus drag around on a dog’s leash?”

I didn’t think anyone would be stupid enough to answer.


Also, Gandhi used to stuff himself with cheeseburgers just to show those British what’s what, and MLK was down with firehosing whitey.


WWJT: Whom Would Jesus Torture.

“So. You won’t talk, eh? Well, I may have come to fulfill the laws, but not even my Father said I couldn’t stretch a bit. Welcome to my enhanced parables, mother f***er!”

“I… I don’t know anything… I promise, I go to temple every now and then… What do you want?”

“I’ve got this pottery jug full of water, and my, erm, ‘disciples’, will make sure you stay on this reclining board until you answer me a few questions.”

“What? What about? I’m just a peasant, I don’t know anything.”

“I’ll be the judge of that. Who do you say that I am?”

“I dunno, a street preacher or something?”

“Do it.”

“Aarrgh glurble cough glurble.”

“Enough. Now, I’m gonna ask you one more time—and if you don’t answer right, one more time, and one more time, and one more time again. Who… Do… You… Say… That… I… AM???”


States of war are also understood to require the opposition in the legislature to moderate its otherwise essential functions of criticism. Calls are issued to stand behind the political leadership and to display unity, with the implication that the enemy is watching and that failure to unite is tantamount to treason.

Except if the leadership is Democratic and the opposition is Republican, because Republicans, along with their conjoined siblings conservatives and Christians, are never wrong(and can do no wrong) but can only be wronged and always are, the poor little darlings. These modern day Pharisees fundamentally misunderstand the Bible, their own characters, and the nature of logic and reality. Among other things.

Caliph Garrett

Aramaic, motherfucker, do you speak it?


To paraphrase a Balloon Juice commentor, recasting Cheney as a Christ figure is a bit much. And didn’t the Swingin’ Nazz deny Mary, Mom of God, when she came to him or something like that? I know this -sort of ball-slapping ignorance and hatefulness coming from right-wingers shouldn’t surprise me as much as it does, nor that someone dumb enough to meet RedState’s exacting standards for nimrodery wouldn’t think to himself “Hey, maybe I shouldn’t put my name on something so godawfully asinine under my own name” before he hit the publish button, but dangit, it nevertheless does. Man, I’d be ashamed of myself if I claimed to be a Christian and called May “Jesus’s Mom”. A little respect for the Holy Virge, dude.

Prudence Goodwife

Jesus would have OK’d water boarding….

Would that be before or after he turned the other cheek? Is this why they hate empathy;the Golden Rule kinda prevents you from torturing.


Harrisfromparis: Young man, I think you know good and well that final bit in the Doxology is “WORLD without end, Amen Amen.” And you’re confusing your Doxology with your “Gloria Patri” anyway. I didn’t fucking go to fucking church and Sunday School every fucking Sunday of my youth without picking up SOME useless shit of some sort. Yes, I realize this isn’t the actual “fuck” thread.


The Chronicles of Jesus: This Time It’s Personal


It’s likely even Jesus would have OK’d water boarding if it would have saved his Mom.

Jesus might not agree with that:

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

– Matthew 5:38-42

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

– Luke 6:27-31

And this also from the man who, while being brutally killed is supposed to have said:

“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

– Luke 23:34


Jesus was objectively pro-torture.

No doubt about it.

He loved it, volunteered for it.



It’s likely even Jesus would have OK’d water boarding if it would have saved his Mom.

Of course, I forgot this passage of the Bible:

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ And I tell you, you must righteously resist evil. If someone threatens your mother, beat him to a bloody pulp, put him in a stress position, find his wife and rape her in front of him, beat his child, then strap him upside down to a table and pour water into his nostrils.

– The Gospel of Chuck Norris 2:3-7


From another commenter at Balloon Juice:

Jesus II: Die Harder


Interestingly, many of the torturers of Argentina’s ‘dirty war’ were said to regard themselves as good Catholics, virtuous family men saving their country from Communism. Priests who knew what they did would grant them absolution.

It’s funny how, sometimes, religion greases the wheels of state oppression.


The Return of Jesus: He’s Back and He’s Pissed Off!


If wingers are going to discuss torture and war and things like the economy and social programs and even morality in general, it would be best if they dropped all references to Christianity.

You know, to avoid all the GLARING CONTRADICTIONS!?!


It cracks me up when these people say that Jesus would have supported this or that policy when they have absolutely no shred of evidence to support it.

Jesus would have supported waterboarding whom to save his mother from what?


Jesus was down with stoning, too.

You just had to be without sin and you were good to go.


Reminds me of Wierd Al’s Ghandi II ad (from VHS):
No more Mr. Passive Resistance! He’s out to KICK SOME BUTT!


For that matter, He even died to save all humans.

Yes, personal sacrifice is equivalent to torturing another person. {slaps head unable to believe teh stupid}


I don’t think the Red Stater is saying Jesus would torture in any situation … there would have to be a ticking sundial bomb or something.


“States of war have routinely been used…”

“State of war” doesn’t mean shit. Now, a “Declaration of War”, there, you got something. “State of war” my ass.

Johnny Coelacanth

“Jesus was down with stoning, too.”

Yeah, you could sort of tell from the hippie hair and beard.

“Duuude, I’m so high I could walk on water.”
“Ha ha, dude. Prove it.” And he did!


You know, I bet this “Jesus would totally torture!” conservative Christian would lambaste liberal Christians for trying to remake God in their own images. “You’re rewriting the Bible to make Him fit your desires!” is common cant from these dudes.


How do you get a sundial to tick? I could imagine an hourglass weighing down a ratcheting mechanism to make a ticking noise, but ticking sundials seem like a hard thing to work out.


Passion II: Revenge of the Christ


Good Friday II: Bad Monday


From the front page of RedState:

Vichy Republicans by Erick Erickson
Call Powell, Ridge, etc. quislings, Vichy Republicans or whatever you like, but one thing is clear — these respected men have chosen to use their positions and media adoration to take on not Rush and Dick Cheney, but conservatives. Like Obama using various bank executives as a proxy to fight the free market, these men and others are using Limbaugh, Cheney, and others as proxies to fight conservatism in general.

Why? Because Cheney, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Coulter, and others are burning down their potemkim village — their facade of being both reasonable and on the right.



How do you get a sundial to tick? I could imagine an hourglass weighing down a ratcheting mechanism to make a ticking noise, but ticking sundials seem like a hard thing to work out.

The new click beetle technology has that problem licked. Merely attach click beetle with iron-age adhesive of choice.


Neocons – Teh New Generation: we’re not even going to pretend we’re not a bunch of psychopathic sick fucks anymore!

Looks like Muscular Christianity needs to lay off the steroids.


… but ticking sundials seem like a hard thing to work out …

That’s because you are a moonbat. Game, set, match.

potemkim village

That is Full of Wim.


Torture is good. If the Romans hadn’t tortured Jesus, there would be no Easter Bunny.


When I saw a few of my acquaintances with WWJD bracelets (they would generally make a show of great piety, but would break every commandment given an opportunity, even the killing and coveting ones), I would always tell them it meant What Would Judas Do? Now I can make WWJT bracelets to give to these same hypocrites. I’m sure they’d wear them with pride.


The Return of Jesus: He’s Back and He’s Pissed Off!

I read that as “black” and pissed off.

Can we please make Samuel L. Jackson Jesus happen?

Harrisfrom paris


watch your language, please. It’s fucking offensive. Besides, the Gloria Patri is a doxology, you co-bag. I didn’t spend those many summer days in Methodist church camps-where playing cards and dancing were forbidden-without learning a thing or two.

Also, it’s well known that after Jesus kicked the money lenders out of the Temple, he had them water boarded. It’s right there in Leviticus, you can look it up.


Mo's Bike Shop

Would that be before or after he turned the other cheek? Is this why they hate empathy;the Golden Rule kinda prevents you from torturing.

Apparently the right wing xtian reading of ‘turn the other cheek’ is basically ‘revenge is a dish best served cold.’

I don’t remember the details because my brain melted. But it involves Romans on horseback.


I actually heard a televangelist preach that turning the other cheek was to test the intentions of the striker, and if they hit you a second time the Bible didn’t say you couldn’t then punch their lights out.


Aramaic, motherfucker, do you speak it?

Actually, Jesus is New Testament, so it should be: ‘KOINE, motherfucker! Do you speak it?


potemkim village
“Potemkim” is the plural form. You can’t have a village inhabited by only one Potem.


Jesus was objectively pro-torture.
He loved it, volunteered for it.

You didn’t get the memo. If people volunteer for scourging and crucifixion, clearly they’re not torture.


Well, 61 years later and Orwell’s 1984 is more relevant than ever.


Do these people even read what they write after they’ve written it? Or do they just jump to the next slogan as the last one evaporates from their short term memory?


I seem to distinctly remember that, after Judas’ betrayal, one of the disciples (Paul?) pulled a sword on the Romans to stop them from taking Jesus, and Jesus stopped him and told him he was a naughty disciple.

Maybe Jesus meant to torture him after wards for breaking the rules, but now we’ll never know, will we?


That was Peter. Paul, while having lots to say about what Jesus really meant, didn’t ever actually meet Jesus in person.

Big Bad Bald Bastard

You’d think these people would worship Pilate.


Sorry, posted tis on the wrong thread. It fits better here.

Of course, I’m sure the Red Staters would point out that Jesus didn’t have something as cool as a handgun. Although they did torture him to get him to confess to being the son of God so they could kill him. And under fundie wingnut theology, by submitting to that behavior, he obviously approved of it.

He was also pretty clear about paying your taxes; you should do it. That admonition is recorded unequivocally by three of four evangelists: Luke 20:25, Mark 12:17 Matthew 22:21

And just to be complete, I disagree that Jesus backhandedly sanctified marriage by performing his first miracle by making wine at a wedding. He was more straight forward than that, so he could have sanctified marriage by saying so, or performing one, or by getting married himself, which there is no record of him doing any of these things or otherwise directly indicating his approval of marriage. I think he was showing his approval of drinking wine at a celebration. He may have read Proverbs 31:6, which says “Give wine to him that is heavy of heart so that he may drink and forget his misery and remember his poverty no more.”

Here endeth the lesson


Gloria Patri is a Doxy? Damn, I always heard she was easy, but I served 7am mass 5 days a week for two years in latin and never learned that.


Doxy’s Midnight Runners are people who avoid attending a late-night service.


Jesus was okay with being tortured, so he must have been okay with torturing others. Okay. Now, does it work the other way? People okay with torturing others are also okay with being tortured? Who will volunteer first? Anybody? Anybody? . . . . . I see.


Here’s what the pope actually said about torture:

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”. The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”.

Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II

And for those of you following along, torture is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (section 2297) as “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”

I will get this published at RedState, but I have yet to get my account approved there.

If I have to drive to Eagle Publishing myself, I will see this comment published.


? ????? ?????? ? ???????? ? ????? ??? ??????. ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?????????? ??? ??????. ??????? ?? ?????!


(comments are closed)