It used to be the greatest country in the world, precisely because of what Reagan referred to as our “shining city on a hill” image. Notice that Reagan never went abroad in search of terrorists to destroy, yet many of those (neo-conpoops from both major political parties) who claim to act in his name do that very thing today, using a plethora of ill-conceived lies that sucker most Americans. I think Ronald Reagan looks down from above in sorrow at what the hijackers of his legacy have become.

Jack Bauer and his “24″ tripe are a travesty to American way of thinking, but I saw it coming when Tom Clancy novels started to get popular 20 or more years ago.

In short USA Today “dossiers” on fresh characters in the new season of Fox’s 24 set to debut tonight (Sunday), two of the four profiled actors/actresses used the space to espouse their personal disgust with the U.S. government for using “torture,” which has been employed by lead character “Jack Bauer.” Left-wing activist/actress Janeane Garofalo, who plays “FBI analyst Janis Gold,” called the use of torture “reprehensible” and rued: “That our own administration borrowed ideas from 24 is such a tragedy.” USA Today explained: “A former Army interrogator has said that soldiers mimic interrogation tactics seen on the show.”

With rare exception I find much of network television to be little better that watching an “R” rated movie.

Excellent point.

In real life, I seriously doubt that information obtained from torture is obtained so quickly and that its quality is beyond reproach. The information obtained from torture is so suspect that its value is near useless. Yet the show continues show Jack Bauer instantly getting accurate information from torture.

That being said, the show is still entertaining. But the public has to remind itself that it is just fantasy.

In a way, both this post on 24 and the post on the “bad publicity” that the Church has been getting are related.

Both are involving parties that feel threatened. They are threatened with death (Jack Bauer & 24) or they are threatened with intolerance or having rights taken away (prop 8).

Yes, I know what has been said many times about Prop 8 not “taking rights away”. But the feeling is there. Apparently the argument will always be there as to whether that is ACTUALLY being done.

So, at what point is someone allowed to behave like those that have litterally run over people holding a sign in support of Prop 8? Or in the extreme, to torture those threatening terrorism like in 24?

It is fine to talk about non-violent protest (Daniel) and about the Golden Rule (Connor). We can even debate the virtues, or lack thereof, of the “ends justifies the means” philosophy.
But wasn’t this the attitude of the founding fathers?

Yes, they made every effort to find peaceful means of relief from their injuries. But in the end, they waged war to get their way. What was the difference?

1) Life, Liberty, & Property were at stake.
2) They were so injured that they were willing to sign their names to a public statement pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to rebel against the forces in power.
3) They were perfectly willing to accept ANY consequences of their actions.
4) They were victims of a long train of abuses evincing a design of absolute despotism.

From this list, I believe that Jack Bauer is acting more nobly than the people attacking the Church. Certainly, those injured by Prop 8 could make an argument that they had liberty taken away. And they have been victims of a long train of abuses through intolerance. This is why I partially opposed Prop 8. Was it absolute despotism?

But are these people willing to accept the consequences of their actions? Are they willing to risk their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor on the matter? Are they doing it to get something for themselves? Or for others?

The recent HBO series “John Adams” really opened my eyes to some realities of the founders–highly recommended. One statement he says (in regard to giving a people the chance to choose their own system of government) applies here–”What on this side of Jerusalem can be of greater importance to mankind?”

Is gay marriage so important? I don’t think so. Are the lives of millions being threatened by terrorist action so important? I do think so. (not greater than Christ, just great enough to go to war over).

Jack Bauer in each episode risks everything for his country. Everything he does that is deplorable, he does to protect his country and others. This in no way means that I support someone who would resort to the measures that Jack Bauer uses on a regular basis. I just found the comparison interesting.

In a TV show it is really easy to breathe life into a hypothetical situation where the usually brain dead audience can say,”Duhhh, Yaahhh. Dat sounds like he’s justified.” But in real life how often is someone actually justified? Some say never. I say there are some extreme situations where it is. But it is very rare.

When talking this way about Jack, I’d like to ask where are we as Americans? Look at recent protests — not just the Church over Prop 8, but everywhere. Look at youtube. Look at reality shows.

I’m sure that the likes of Connor and Daniel are much more peace loving than I am (and I DO mean that as a compliment). But I wonder how many injuries we’ve been taking from enemies of the Constitution both foreign and domestic. I wonder how many more before we do wake up and say,”Hey, THIS is what is really bothering us. It’s not the petty stuff that we see on the news. It is the gradual deterioration of our Constitution.”

But instead of blaming the government for failure to address these injuries, we blame each other for petty issues that don’t really matter.

A couple of things have kept me from getting into this issue: a stack of exams, and a lack of enthusiasm for seeing people on my side of things acting less than noble. Which is less than noble of me, I suppose. So, okay, I hit the news to see what had been going on. There are probably some things I’ve missed though.

I read about the white powder mailings to temples, which is just nuts. However, as far as I know, we don’t know which nutcase was behind it, so I’m not going to lay it at the door of Prop 8 opponents, since we all know that teh gays won’t have anthrax technology for another 5 years.

I watched the Phyliss Burgess video. It was uncomfortable viewing, but not as bad as I’d expected. Lots of yelling, very unpleasant. I don’t think I would have acted as those men did. But I was waiting for a punch or something really awful, and it never happened. Getting yelled at isn’t the worst thing that can happen.

No, what upset me the most was the reports that African-Americans were copping flack for (supposedly) voting disproportionately for 8. It fit so perfectly into the narrative (victims becomes persecutors), and everyone knows blacks have a problem with gays, so it must have been true. Except it wasn’t. It was based on an inadequate sample size. The reports of racial epithets and the like made me feel the most ashamed. And it would have, even if all that had been true.

Oh, and I wanted to say that I liked this post because many people talk about avoiding immoral entertainment, but they usually focus on a rather narrow definition of ‘morality’: sex and nudity. The program 24 seems to be profoundly immoral entertainment. So props to Connor for a more balanced view of morality.

I have seen various episodes over the years as my husband is an avid fan. I haven’t watched it in a year or two because I couldn’t stand the violence. As I have learned more about propaganda and how the media is used to shape public opinion, I have been trying to convince my husband to stop watching.

I made the torturing/24 connection last year. I feel that this show has been used to numb people to the horrible things our government has done in our name. I have periodically watched parts of cop shows and see the subtle and sometimes blatant messages being sent. For example, many of the villains in these shows have been religious lately, subtly prejudicing people against religion. And even in these shows the ends justify the means. Violent interrogations, lying to and raging at prisoners to get them to “crack” and foul language are just a small part of the methods portrayed as good and necessary on these shows.

I remember reading a line in an Ezra Taft Benson talk (I haven’t been able to find it again, though) that said something to the effect of “if you haven’t been mesmerized by the television”, after providing some advice for action. He understood the evil it can perpetrate in a persons life.

The television can be used for good, to play uplifting programs and to send satellite broadcasts, but it has been used to manipulate viewers since the beginning. Why else would advertisers pay so much for air time? It works, and commercials aren’t magical or any more influential than the actual programs. In fact, the programs may be more so because we pay closer attention to them and most people laugh at the idea that there are any hidden motives behind them, so they are not guarding themselves.

24 is propaganda, plain and simple. It seems so many people are afraid to be seen as crazy for making such assertions, but truth is truth, no matter what the reaction to it may be.

Like I said, I respected you and I delighted in reading your posts. You provided rational and reasonable arguments to positions that opposed mine. It gave me food for thought.

I don’t see anything in my previous posts that would warrant the label “conniption”. Your use of the term indicates that you are trying to deflect the issue from yourself. Again avoiding the issue.

You speak of supporting non-violent protest. But instead of condemning some for participating in violent protest, you condemn those who are peacably defending themselves from the same.

As far as my position on their behavior, I thought I was pretty clear when I said they were acting deplorably. That is the first time I’ve heard you selectively reading any posts. Unusual to say the least.

I also DID say it for you in my last post. But you didn’t even confirm that much. And you’re still talking AROUND the issue. Is there something that keeps you from saying it? You say what you are for. But you can’t say you are against their actions.

Certainly I can put 2 and 2 together. But I’ve found that when someone doesn’t actually come out and say certain things, that usually means they are hiding something. I’m just wondering if you are.

If not, I guess I was off base. But I’m still puzzled what keeps a linguist tongue-tied.

If you are referring to the current thread — Jack Bauer’s Behavior — for one thing, it’s a TV show; for another. . .

Well, I’ll weigh in on that if you actually give me a complete answer. If not, it looks like we’ll both forget about it. I was just wondering.

If you’re going to have conniptions because I’m not condemning something vociferously enough for you, you’re going to have to go ahead and have the conniptions. And if someone’s not saying something you’d like to hear, maybe you should try saying it yourself. That’s how it works.

While I don’t agree with your assessment of the situation, I’m not going to argue with you on the points you raise — It would be a religious argument — pardon the expression.

However –

I find any condemnation of the violent acts on part of those “a little more than disappointed” by the passage of Prop 8 conspicuously missing from your comment. I’m confident that if a “Christian” were to burn a cross on the lawn of a minority, you would be up in arms in protest.

But I find it difficult to interpret from your comments that you find these parallel acts on the part of homosexuals and others who support gay marriage as unacceptable.

Is it acceptable in this society to verbalize resentment over things not going your way? I believe so. Is it also acceptable to belittle with highly disdainful language those that helped further a cause you absolutely disagree with? Probably — to a point. Is it acceptable to threaten with violence under the same conditions? NO!!!

Yet, all you can say is that the Church is going through PR hell?

No condemnation of those THREATENING violence, ATTEMPTING violence, vandalizing private property, harassing private citizens, just because they don’t agree with those around them?

Honestly, I’ve come to respect your arguments and fairness in the past. I’ve hardly ever agreed with you, but I’ve respected you. But I’m having trouble giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Believe me, I perfectly understand your arguments against the Church and its intervention on this issue. I get the logic. I don’t agree with it. But I get it.

But your focus placing the blame for the violence on the victim(s) in this case is impossible to understand.

If you at least said,”Yes, they’re acting horrifically. And I do not condone their actions. But the Church has to accept some portion of the responsibility . . . ” yadda yadda . . . then I would at least believe you when you said

My view is: you only get one life, so live it well. And be good to other people, because they only get one life too. Ergo, do not torture them.

But your silence so far is deafening.

The actions you suggest (killing or stealing from someone) are, as you noted, justified during the imminent threat of a serious physical threat. In training for a concealed weapons permit, students learn the proper escalation of force under all sorts of circumstances. The last thing you want to do is draw your gun (and use it), so you are taught how to appropriately respond to threats that are not so imminent, and when it is ultimately permissible to repel a threat.

I believe that torture does not fall under the category of necessary escalation. For my personal self-defense, I can’t imagine a situation in which I would need to torture and individual to save my life. If there is a major threat I need to put down, then I’m going to do so fully and completely and not settle on some nebulous middle ground. I simply can’t fathom a setting in which torturing an individual will save my own life.

And thus we’re left with the only feasible hypothetical: that torturing somebody will allegedly save other peoples’ lives (this is the crux of the Jack Bauer scenario). I believe that it’s a stretch to argue that torturing somebody will save lives; torture is used primarily for obtaining information, which falls outside the category of repelling an immediate and evident threat. One might argue that the information obtained will stop an attack from happening, and therefore justifies the torture used, but I don’t believe that this distant threat (or, rather, not immediate) is enough to merit any force. At this point the threat may or may not happen, and so the escalation of force is, in my opinion and training, unwarranted.

So, to answer your question more directly, I don’t believe that torture is ever justified (unlike killing or stealing).

As a law-abiding citizen, I uphold the law of the land, including Prop 8. (Or I would, if I lived in that land. You know.) I also uphold peaceful efforts to change the law, including peaceful protest.

I’m pleased to read that in spite of a lack of a religious center, you still have a moral center.

I think the religious center is overrated, frankly. The thing that makes atheists and believers do good things is that they’re good people who want good things to happen to people. Someone doesn’t have it, and you get a scary person, religious or not. Like Bush, for example. Nominally Christian, authorises torture.

Personally, I’m glad I don’t have a TV anymore, myself. (I prefer another kind of “screen sucking”)

Didn’t you mention something a while back about throwing out the ‘tube’ once you have kids?

At any rate, if official charges haven’t been levied against them it’s especially inexcusable.

I’m pleased to read that in spite of a lack of a religious center, you still have a moral center.

Keeping that in mind, I’m dissappointed that you failed to weigh in on the recent attacks on the Church and Pres. Monson (both verbal and physical).

In case you’ve been gone lately, I invite you to weigh in on the behavior of people who seem to share your position on the whole Prop 8 thing, but who (by your standard stated above) are acting deplorably.

It would probably be more appropriate to post on that article rather than this one.

Here’s an honest question: I’m sure you believe that killing someone else is morally right, even commendable, when it is the defense of your life. I’m sure you think that stealing is morally right, even commendable, when it is defense of human life (i.e. confiscating firearms from someone who has threatened to go on a shooting spree). Both killing and stealing are wrong otherwise, but the moment someone has made an attempt to take my or someone else’s life, stealing and killing (which are otherwise morally wrong) are appropriate as forms of deterrent and prevention.

What about afflicting pain in defense of human life? How is inflicting pain in the defense of human life qualitatively different from killing or stealing in defense of human life? A person forfeits their right to life and property as soon as they attempt to unlawfully kill another person; would they not also forfeit their right to comfort?

I am against torture… just wondering how you respond to the question.

My view is: you only get one life, so live it well. And be good to other people, because they only get one life too. Ergo, do not torture them.

I might suppose a religious person would think, “Why not torture someone if you can get forgiven, and you know they’ll get resurrected someday and still exist somewhere? After all, this life isn’t all that important; just prologue to eternity.” That would, however, be a distortion of your views, just as your comment is a distortion of mine.

Try and remember that non-believers aren’t a bunch of amoral hedonists, k?