The John Ashcroft Conundrum

Over at Beliefnet, Steven Waldman asks an troubling question: why didn’t John Ashcroft, perhaps the most devoutly religious man ever to hold the office of Attorney General, do anything to impede Bush’s torture program?

But if that’s the case, I’m left wondering: what is the value of having a religious person in office? I don’t mean that as a snarky rhetorical question. I’m honestly perplexed: if ever there was a situation when we actually could have benefited from having a self-righteous, moral, Bible-reading, God-fearing Christian in the room to morally challenge utilitarian thinking, the discussions about torture would have been it.

Perhaps John Ashcroft’s flaw was not that he was too Christian on the job but that he was not Christian enough.


This entry was posted in Scathing Social Commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The John Ashcroft Conundrum

  1. Bucko says:

    What would Jesus have done? He would have smacked him upside the head. And the other cheek, too.

  2. p.t. dismal says:

    well. we wuz only torturin’ heathens and such.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s