One has to wonder what it’s like for Bush’s apologists, always having to defend and explain his policies. It must be difficult. They must understand that those criticizing his policies can sometimes feel the same discomfort.

Take for example one of the new issues in political discourse: third-party torture. Illegal here, prisoners are sent to countries in which torture is openly practiced.

It should come as no surprise that Bush supports torture. Torture cases have been uncovered in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

Cases of third-party torture have also been exposed. When asked recently about sending prisoners to countries whose governments openly use torture, Bush said, “The post-Sept. 11 world, the United States must make sure we protect our people and our friends from attack.”

Then, in response to another question from the press, he answered by saying, “We seek assurances that nobody will be tortured when we render a person back to their home country.” Read his answer again, and then try to guess what question Bush was asked. Could he have been asked what we seek (assurances) from the totalitarian regimes? Could he have been asked what is assured (no torture) from the totalitarian regimes that practice it?

Of course not, but that goes without saying. The question posed was, “As commander in chief, what is it that Uzbekistan can do in interrogating an individual that the United States can’t?” The correct answer, obviously, is torture. Caught, Bush could only wiggle and say, “we seek assurances …”

What is the value of an “assurance” from a homicidal, totalitarian butcher? Obviously, it is worth nothing. It naturally follows, therefore, that the government sends prisoners away for interrogation fully conscious of the fact that they will be tortured.

Although Bush’s apologists may wish they weren’t in a position to have to defend torture, it ain’t easy on the other side, either. Simply coming out and saying “torture is wrong” is bound to convince certain partisans that torture is sound policy. (Political “debate” is more sport than honest, issue-oriented discussion.)

So let’s remove Bush, a divisive figure, from the picture for just a moment. What would Jesus say? Was Jesus a practitioner of torture? Would Jesus choose to send human beings to be tortured and humiliated, stripped of dignity and, in the process, dehumanize the torturers as well?

Bush claims to follow Jesus. Is he, by condoning and consciously using torture? Anyone can make a mistake, lose patience, curse and do even worse. But let’s be honest — torture? Come on. By continuing to support Bush’s reactionary political policies, his religious followers make Christianity look like a philosophy of hatred and plain evil. And for this, the Christian right has no one to blame but themselves.

The Christian right is being used. There comes a point in time — long before torture comes up — when one must admit that Bush isn’t really following Jesus at all. The hallmark of politicians is self-serving dishonesty, and Bush is no different. By capturing all of the emotion and passion of Christianity, he has found a solid group of followers who are willing to support literally anything.

It is backward and cannot continue. Don’t tell me that a person can be a follower of Christ and employ torture at the same time. If that were true, then there would be no morality, no wisdom and no kindness in Jesus Christ. It is ridiculous to even have to say this.

It is my hope that people will stop allowing Bush to use Jesus as a tool for violence. Besides being horribly wrong, no one enjoys being in this position.