I recently mentioned our moral progress since Biblical times<\/a>. When I think seriously about the issue of torture, I am struck by the fact that it simply wasn\u2019t an issue back then \u2013 those in power could do what they liked, and rarely were there even prophetic criticisms of what we would call war crimes after the fact. The fact that it is an issue today is encouraging.<\/p>\n When I think about the issue in more detail, I find myself wondering whether I am wholly opposed to all forms of torture on principle regardless of circumstances. I certainly oppose its application to people who have been rounded up merely on suspicion of wrongdoing. But would I really be sorry if the authorities tortured someone known to be part of a terrorist organization, and who can reasonably be suspected to know the whereabouts of a nuclear device hidden (and set to go off) in a heavily populated city? Would I really put my principles, and the suffering without permanent physical damage of one individual, before the lives of hundreds of thousands and the serious injury of many more? What if there were members of my family in that city? Do not the words of the most famous Vulcan<\/a> apply here \u2013 \u201cThe needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few<\/a>\u201c?<\/p>\n It nevertheless troubles me that many churches and Christian organizations simply trust the government to use its power wisely in this area. It is the loss of ability to be a voice of conscience to our society that is disturbing. It is very much in keeping with the ironies of the \u2018Pro-Life\u2019<\/a> position. It really ought to be renamed \u2018Pro-Breathing\u2019. Just make sure someone has the chance to be technically alive, merely existing, and then show no interest in whether they are living in squalor, or wrongfully detained and tortured, or anything else that has to do with the quality<\/i> of their life.<\/p>\n The most ironic part of it all is that this position is content to leave human beings merely existing as all animals do, yet it is a viewpoint that claims that human beings are fundamentally different from other living things on this planet.<\/p>\n If Star Trek has taught us anything morally, it is that one day the concept of \u2018human rights\u2019 may not be wide enough. We accept that other human beings are conscious by analogy. One day, we may find we are sharing the world with being that are technological or extraterrestrial in nature. Before we reach that situation is the time to reflect on the broader issues and ask ourselves just what it means to be a person<\/i>, what rights they should have, and why we are persuaded of this. I am not suggesting that we be absolutists who do not allow for exceptions to many of our ideals. But we shall never be ready for further interaction beyond the human, if we do not first figure out some basic guidelines that we can persuade all human beings, of every culture and religion, to abide by at least in principle.<\/p>\n Before there can be a United Federation of Planets, we have a long way to go in achieving even a rudimentary stability<\/i> merely on one planet.<\/p>\n These are but a few of the things I\u2019ve learned from Star Trek. To include more would make this post too long. But I must mention just one more. Don\u2019t forget: Gok<\/a> is best eaten live.<\/p>\n
![\"Which](\"https:\/\/www.tk421.net\/character\/spock.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-8459153763256960258?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"