|
|
Where's The Compassion, Conservatives?
Some who opposed the war in Iraq, knew events like the Abu
Ghraib prison situation could happen.
Concerns were also expressed that instances like those at Abu
Ghraib could conceivably
spark instances like the murder of Nick Berg.
Personally, I believe those responsible for Berg’s death
would have used any excuse to justify their actions. Unfortunately, we
don’t seem to be a whole lot different.
Many in America, mainly the un-educated, un-initiated, and many
of those that lean towards the Right, have all but justified the
torture committed by our service men and women in the name of freedom.
I’ve heard people say: "We treated them better than they
would have treated us." Or: "That's better treatment than
our people who were burned and/or hanged." Or worse: "They
(the Iraqi prisoners) got off easy!
They had it coming." Did they? Some
of the Iraqis that have reportedly been tortured (hazed for you FOX fans) were no less innocent than Nicholas Berg.
Some were basically ordinary Iraqi citizens, just like Berg was
an ordinary American citizen. We
seem to have absolutely no empathy in this country--or at least
“compassionate” conservatives don't seem to.
The Right never sees America’s own behavior in the world as
something to be questioned. They
feel America’s actions in the world are above vindication simply
because we’re the biggest and baddest nation on the block.
Many, if not most, who tend to lean towards the Left
don’t agree. Compassion
is something you’re supposed to feel towards your fellow man - even
if he is your enemy. Even
though I consider myself a liberal, I don’t claim to follow this
doctrine all the time, not by any stretch of the imagination, but I do
understand it and I do try to at least empathize with those I don’t
agree with. Additionally,
I agree that if we did all live by that philosophy, the world would be
a much different (read better)
place. Obviously, I can't
take credit for that radical or even liberal
rationale. That goes to
the one (The One… if that matters to you) many conservatives claim
to look to for comfort - Jesus Christ.
And we all know how conservative
Jesus was. (More on
Christ as a liberal soon…) Very few people would dispute the compassion of Christ. So
why is it that so many of those who follow his teachings, or at least
claim to, find it so difficult to follow the one lesson he probably
wanted learned more than most -- Compassion
or Love for your enemy? According to the Bible, Jesus prayed for his murderers even
as he was dying. That’s
compassion! I know that I
couldn’t or wouldn’t have done that.
Would you? Judging
by the seeming consensus of attitudes among the religious
right (the self-proclaimed custodians of morality and decency),
the answer is a resounding, “No!”
I find it very ironic that pundits like Ann Coulter and
other conservatives feel it’s the liberals
who have no morals. For
the most part, I’ve found that liberals, Godless heathens that we
are, tend to have a more solid grasp on the concept of compassion –
possibly the most important moral (do
unto others…). Compassion
or Love is the foundation of morality. By and large, too many Americans seem to feel that because
of who we are, we have complete autonomy in the world.
It’s as if by virtue of being born American the world is ours
to crap on as we please and we’ll wipe our collective asses with
whatever flag is handy -- Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etcetera. Republicans seem to follow this ideology more than most.
I included Afghanistan because even though I view the toppling
of the Taliban (although possibly only temporarily) as necessary,
it’s the post-combat part I have a problem with. We wipe the map
with the opposing army, then afterwards say “we’re here to help
set up your new democracy” only to switch mid-stride. That’s exactly what we did in Afghanistan.
Since the neo-con coup of 2000, that seems to have become the
standard operating procedure of our foreign policy.
It could be what happens in Iraq if the Bushites win again.
With Iran and Syria in their sights, if there’s still a
Bush White House when January 2005 rolls around, the “Mission
Accomplished” banner might be unfurled, this time over the Coalition
Forces HQ in Kuwait. Bush could make another speech – this time
dressed as a ten-star general – and proclaim he’s marching the Forces
of Freedom straight into
Tehran. The chickenhawks
have probably already drawn up the battle plans, sans
exit strategy. Why mess with perfection? So, George W. Bush professes to be a devout Christian.
To me, by definition, that requires one to be compassionate.
President Bush is also a Republican that claims to be a ‘compassionate
conservative’. But,
you see, the phrase ‘compassionate
conservative’ is an
oxymoron (two words stuck together that are basically the exact
opposite of each other - my wife's favorite is ‘military
intelligence’). The
Bush & Co. marketing machine created the phrase ‘compassionate
conservative’ to sell their product: George W. Bush.
It’s kind of like Listerine’s marketing of the 1920’s
using the word halitosis –
prior to the marketing campaign, the word didn’t exist.
Prior to the 2000 Presidential Election, the phrase ‘compassionate conservative’ didn’t exist.
Today, the documented sighting of one would be tantamount to
having irrefutable proof of Nessie’s existence. For the record, I was raised in the Baptist tradition.
I do believe Jesus Christ existed and that he was a powerful
and revolutionary figure in history.
I don’t profess to be any kind of expert or devout follower
of his teachings, but I do agree with much of what he reportedly said
and greatly appreciate his contribution to mankind.
With “In God We Trust” on our currency, the ongoing debate
over the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the
strong show of support for the Alabama Supreme Court Justice and the 10
Commandments monument he refused to remove, I think it’s
reasonably safe to say that this is basically a Christian
nation. The prisoners at Abu Ghraib, guilty or innocent, did not
deserve the treatment they received anymore than Nicholas Berg
deserved to be butchered by terrorists.
Just as the terrorists were wrong for their supposed
retaliation, our tit-for-tat attitude may only spark further
violence against Americans in the region.
Here’s my parting shot: Suppose the terrorists’ motives for
murdering an innocent American were genuine (i.e. direct retaliation
for Abu Ghraib). Now try
a little empathy. How
would you have felt if the people in the prison were Americans,
stripped and humiliated by Iraqis for the entire world to see?
Whether you would have personally carried out such an act of
vengeance or not, you can probably empathize with the sentiment that
might permeate the Arab world -- we are responsible for Abu
Ghraib because of our presence in the first place.
It’s kind of odd that those who profess to be Christians
conveniently forget about compassion.
It kind of begs the question: |
|
© 2004 CounterBias.com
