During the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on his nomination as attorney general, Michael Mukasey was asked "Is waterboarding constitutional? Mukasey answered: "I don't know what is involved in the technique. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional."
Since Michael Mukasey is unsure, let me clear it up for him: Yes, waterboarding is torture. And torture should never be legal.
Even more disturbing than the idea that a future attorney general doesn't know what's involved in waterboarding is that we live in an age when a familiarity with torture techniques is to be expected of our leaders. How did we get to the point where such a question needs to be asked of an attorney general? Who allowed our country to succumb to such fear and moral cowardice that we parse the the meaning and definition of "torture?"
I blame myself, and implicate my fellow Christians. We have remained silent and treated an issue once considered unthinkable--the acceptability of torture--like a concept worthy of honest debate. But there is no room for debate: torture is immoral and should be clearly and forcefully denounced. We continue to shame ourselves and our Creator by refusing to speak out against such outrages to human dignity.
For a prime example, consider the muted response to Deroy Murdock's recent column, "Three Cheers for Waterboarding." Murdock--a dispiriting example of what passes for a "conservative" in our culture--not only justifies the use of torture, but applauds it: "Waterboarding is something of which every American should be proud."
(How degraded has conservatism become? Consider: Historically, a utilitarianism-embracing Benthamite like Murdock used to be a prime target of conservative criticism. Today, he gets to be regular contributor to Human Events and National Review Online.)
Compare the opinion of this ignorant scribbler and armchair general to men who have served their country with honor and distinction: Sen. John McCain says waterboarding is torture and adds " People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that. ”Charles Krulak, former commandant of the Marine Corps, and Joseph Hoar, former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, say that waterboarding is torture and note that such methods "have nurtured the recuperative power of the enemy." John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy, says "Waterboarding was devised in the Spanish Inquisition. Next to the rack and thumbscrews, it's the most iconic example of torture."
As Christians we must never condone the use of methods that threaten to undermine the inherent dignity of the person created in the image of God. Murdock may believe there is nothing “repugnant” about waterboarding. But there is something clearly repugnant about our unwillingness to distance ourselves from the fear-driven utilitarians willing to embrace the use of torture.
Related: In December 2005, Justin Taylor and I sponsored a Christian ethics symposium on torture. A number of Christian thinkers, including Albert Mohler, Richard John Neuhaus, Darrell Cole, and Robert Vischer contributed brief essays.
For those still unclear on the concept, the legal definition of torture to which the U.S. subscribes can be found in the UN Convention Against Torture:
For the purposes of this Convention,torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Amen! Well said and much needed.
Even after reading Murdock's piece I still have one question: What is waterboarding?
I originally thought your post was going to be about Christians and some form of wakeboarding, but clearly that is not the case.
Sincerely,
Ignorant in the Lone Star State
If making a terrorist feel uncomfortable for a few minutes saves just one American life, I have no problem with that. Since when has it been a Christian virtue to fail to defend yourself? I won't shed any tears for guys like Khalid Mohammed.
"For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad... for he does not bear the sword in vain."
I think the government is biblically empowered, and even mandated, to cause fear and discomfort to those who conspire to perform evil acts upon innocents. While waterboarding may cause severe discomfort and anxiety, I don't believe it crosses the threshold of "severe pain or suffering" cited in the definition above.
The "imago Deo" is not threatened by the use of firm interrogation techniques, but rather it is distorted into an unrecognizable form by the wickedness of mens hearts. It is the common grace of God poured out on mankind that establishes governments to deal firmly and harshly against evil doers to provide for justice and protection.
I don't consider that a utilitarian argument, but rather one founded in a Christian understanding of the depravity of man and God's purpose for civil government.
well,regardless of the very distinct possibility that most people who have been tortured in the context of the "war on terror" probably were poor bloques drafted into service or innocents rounded up alongside genuine terrorists,both of whom would know nothing of any worth anyway, this apathy among christians when it comes to torture of non christians really comes as little surprise to me...for all its vaunted claims,christianity is really less an ideology than it a FACTION...a faction that historically has seen fit to justify all manor of depraved acts perpetrated by its members in the pursuit of its nefarious Dominion agenda.
You know, I doubt seriously anyone wants to do any waterboarding. But on the other hand, given the classic hypothetical situation: terrorist knows where the nuke is, you have ten hours to find it or you lose a whole city (something I am concerned about actually happening)--well, I'm not a hundred percent sure Mr. Terrorist would escape a waterboarding. Not because I want to be cruel to the terrorist, but because I want to be kind to a few hundred thousand Americans.
Or even ten, or fifteen, for that matter.
Matter of fact, if the life of even one U.S. Marine was on the line, and I knew that waterboarding a terrorist would leave the terrorist alive and functional and might give my fellow Marine a chance at staying likewise...well, it's a temptation I wouldn't blame anyone for giving in to.
No one likes the fact that awful things are done in wartime. In World War II, we torched only God knows how many women and children in Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. What quickly became the standard means of taking out a Japanese machine gun next was to roast the men inside alive with a flamethrower. We justified it by saying that it was their women and children or our women and children. To this day, I'm not a hundred percent sure that was true.
Compared to that, waterboarding ain't nothin'. Repugnant, yes, but, as I'm sure you've noticed, Khalid Sheik Muhammad is still alive and walkin' around, apparently in good shape.
Just ain't in the same league as the rack, and it doesn't have to be.
This is the quote I was looking for: There are few better examples of how out of touch liberals are. They go right to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and expect Americans to be outraged that he may have been waterboarded.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks and is believed to have played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Bali nightclub bombings, the filmed beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, a thwarted 2002 attack on a bank tower in Los Angeles, and Operation Bojinka, a plot to blow up 11 commercial airliners simultaneously. Oh, and he took home the coveted "world's craziest terrorist" prize at al-Qaida's end-of-season office party last year.
I think waterboarding should be a reward for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: OK, you've been good, Mohammed, we're only going to waterboard you today. Let's get you out of those cold electrodes and onto a nice, warm waterboard, OK?
And to answer the inevitable question, no, I'm not accusing anyone here of being a liberal...
Dan Paden
and what happens when "Mr Terrorist" isent really a terrosits at all...we know...FACTUALLY KNOW...that innocent people have been submited to these torture sessions by either US personal or with their assent...we just dont know how many. So i m curious...how many innocent people tortured until it is finally discovered they know nothing of any worth does it take before it becomes wrong? And what of their interrogators....how many can they performed these acts on other human beings...before thei begin developing a taste for it?
I would have agreed with you until I saw Fox News anchor Steve Harrigan actually undergo the procedure on-air. Here's the link to the video.
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/04/video-steve-harrigan-gets-waterboarded-on-fox/
I honestly have a difficult time considering this torture. It's certainly unpleasant, and about as unpleasant as anything I would allow to be done, and then only in extreme circumstances. I'll also note that that is exactly how the U.S. has used this technique--it was used only a handful of times, and hasn't been used since 2003. And since the "fear of the unknown" factor no longer exists with this technique, it probably won't be used again because it won't work.
Once I actually saw the technique, realized its effects were short term, caused no pain (mostly fear), and allowed for quick recovery, I changed my mind about it. I wouldn't recommend it be used in any but the most dire circumstances, but I don't think it qualifies as torture.
Yes, we who claim Christ should speak against sin and call for faith and repentence.
On a side note ... Amazing.
I never cease to be amazed how those who oppose religious involvement in government affairs so readily appeal to some level of "morality" for our national behavior. I'm glad they do -- for the benefit of all -- but it is terribly inconsistent.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
Collin Brendemuehl
"I never cease to be amazed how those who oppose religious involvement in government affairs so readily appeal to some level of "morality" for our national behavior. I'm glad they do -- for the benefit of all -- but it is terribly inconsistent."
Not inconsistent at all...religion is about doing things because of your God...morality is about doing them because of your conscience. Now we all know one's conscience is far from perfect but i ll still trust it far more than i would any religious dogma...a very wise man once said "In this world,good people do good things, bad people do bad things but it takes religion to make good people do bad things."
I dont care about your God or his wishes because he doesnt need me to care for him...he's omnipotent he can take care of himself...i care for other people because their humanity depends on it...as does mine.
I think the government is biblically empowered, and even mandated, to cause fear and discomfort to those who conspire to perform evil acts upon innocents.
Brothers, it's one thing for you to disgrace yourselves and our faith by justifying torture. But please do not invoke the Bible in apologizing for such Satanic acts.
"Once I actually saw the technique, realized its effects were short term, caused no pain (mostly fear), and allowed for quick recovery, I changed my mind about it. I wouldn't recommend it be used in any but the most dire circumstances, but I don't think it qualifies as torture."
dude...i think its safe to say you ve been had...The waterboarding exemple you were shown did occur rapidly and was done in a safe and controlled environment for Harrigan...and i suspect he got the suger coated version of too...I m fairly certain that in actual practice its a LOT uglier,is done hours at a time and in the span of who knows how many days,weeks,months...it has the merit of not leaving any PHYSICAL traces on its victims...which makes it an efficient cup a plea because thats what it is...its what the army and the governemetn admits to in order to hide the even uglier things they do which they feel we re not "mature" enough to know about.
Brothers, it's one thing for you to disgrace yourselves and our faith by justifying torture. But please do not invoke the Bible in apologizing for such Satanic acts.
What's the Biblical justification for opposing "waterboarding? Romans seems to give the government broad authority to punish evil:
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." Romans 13:1-4.
Also, look at Luke 12:42-46:
And the Lord replied, “A faithful, sensible servant is one to whom the master can give the responsibility of managing his other household servants and feeding them. If the master returns and finds that the servant has done a good job, there will be a reward. I tell you the truth, the master will put that servant in charge of all he owns. But what if the servant thinks, ‘My master won’t be back for a while,’ and he begins beating the other servants, partying, and getting drunk? The master will return unannounced and unexpected, and he will cut the servant in pieces and banish him with the unfaithful.
Cutting someone in pieces seems a bit more harsh than waterboarding, but here is Jesus describing what will he will do to unfaithful servants upon his return.
Now, I am not arguing in favor or against torture; what I am saying is that there is strong Biblical justification for supporting the government's use of torture as a tool in the War on Terror.
Great prophetic post Joe. I have been emphasizing this point for sometime now. And, thank you for quoting John McCain, it seems as if many Republican conservative Christians have a habit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Andy
Mr. Carter, I'll just remind you of something I'm sure you already know: when you try substituting unveiled sneers for actual counter-arguments, most people will just assume that you don't have a counter-argument.
Sorry, Joe, I can't get outraged about waterboarding either. You're probably right about everything you said about it, but I just don't have room for all the outrage you have, i guess.
I look at it this way. I am against abortion, but I'm OK with it if the mother's life is truly in danger. It's still an abortion, right? It's morally wrong, right? To be truly consistent I ought to oppose it right?
So also with waterboarding. It seems that the good that comes from it outweighs the bad.
And, you know, I'd actually do it myself at least one time: except in this case it would be to get Ludwig to SHUT UP.
As someone who is trained and experienced in the field of interrogation, I can say with authority that torture in 99.99% counterproductive and unnecessary. Even in a time crunch, there are techniques and practices that can glean information without torturing the subject. As for those who would say that we are "Biblically mandated" to use torture, I would suggest, "woe unto those who call evil good".
The politicians need to stay out of the military's field of expertise and let our service men and women do their job, with honor.
I am glad to see at least one evangelical condemn the use of torture. Although there may be a very few cases where the benefit of saving lives might justify some form of torture, those cases are so rare and difficult to define that it is best to forbid the practice altogether. One question: does your understanding of what happens in hell fit your definition of torture?
"And, you know, I'd actually do it myself at least one time: except in this case it would be to get Ludwig to SHUT UP."
touched a nerve,have I? I suppose you would too...if you have no compunction about torturing random brown people on the assumption that they're all out to get you anyway,why would you hesitate to do it on someone who has the nasty habit of calling you on your own BS...
As someone who is trained and experienced in the field of interrogation, I can say with authority that torture in 99.99% counterproductive and unnecessary.
As far as I can determine (granted, we really don't know what happened because most of it is classified), KSM folded like a cheap lawn chair after a few minutes of "waterboarding" and gave up a lot of significant intelligence on AQ operations. Now, it is possible to argue that KSM was the 1 in 10000 case where "torture" is productive and necessary, but I suspect it is more likely that you are wrong in your assumptions.
As for those who would say that we are "Biblically mandated" to use torture, I would suggest, "woe unto those who call evil good".
Where does the Bible specifically call torture evil? It's one thing to say that we shouldn't torture; it is a sentiment I largely agree with, but it is quite another to point to a passage in the Bible that specifically forbids it. If you are going to say that Christianity forbids government use of torture, then you should be able to point to a verse that says that, but the verses lean towards the opposite; read Romans 13. "God's wrath" is a terrible thing, much worse than waterboarding, yet the the government is charged with dispensing "God's wrath" on evil doers. That would seem to argue that the government has the authority to inflict terrible punishments on those, like KSM, that do evil.
I think one of the strongest arguments against torture is that we are also imperfect sinners, and we should not trust ourselves to go down the slippery slope of torture. I stole this from the First Things blog:
There is a temptation to place terrorists beyond the pale of humanity. But every human being, no matter how radically he has debased himself, is a child of God, created in His image and likeness. Liberals such as Alan Dershowitz have argued that, in extraordinary circumstances, we should get over our abhorrence of torture and establish rational rules for its use. Dershowitz’s argument is seconded by Andrew C. McCarthy in the July-August issue of Commentary in a jumbled article that compares torture to capital punishment, allowing abortions under restricted circumstances, the death of innocents in war, and government plea bargaining to obtain information. The gist of McCarthy’s case is that we should “create controlled, highly regulated, and responsibly accountable conditions” in which torture would be permitted. Torture happens anyway, he writes, and his proposal is “far superior to the current hypocrisy that turns a blind eye to that which it purports to forbid.” An even better proposal is not to turn a blind eye to the illegal and unconscionable.
The usual instance cited by proponents of legalized torture is that of the “ticking time bomb.” The scenario is that we have in custody a fourteen-year-old girl who, we have reason to believe, knows where a nuclear bomb is planted in the heart of a city, a bomb timed to explode within hours. Surely, it is argued, in such a circumstance torture is justified in order to get information that will save many thousands of lives. No, it isn’t. Leave aside the counter-arguments that maybe she does not know, or that information exacted by torture is unreliable. When it comes to defining circumstances justifying torture or to the regulating of torture, the course is slippery and steeply sloped. We dare not trust ourselves to torture.
ucfengr,
"Now, it is possible to argue that KSM was the 1 in 10000 case where "torture" is productive and necessary, but I suspect it is more likely that you are wrong in your assumptions."
This is not an assumption on my part. As I said, I am trained and experienced in interrogation. The key word being experienced. While I have no knowledge of the case of "KSM", I know that the techniques I am talking about work. No torture involved, period! As far as your second point, well I have to bow out on that one for the moment, as I am unable to immediately come up with a verse to counter your argument. Perhaps later.
ern I honestly have a difficult time considering this torture.
Do you really think that video is representative of waterboarding? Do you really think they are going to give the full treatment to a national reporter on camera? I've seen videos of real waterboarding sessions and they are not as mild, as controlled, or as short as this clip.
I'll also note that that is exactly how the U.S. has used this technique--it was used only a handful of times, and hasn't been used since 2003.
And we know this because…?
Once I actually saw the technique, realized its effects were short term, caused no pain (mostly fear), and allowed for quick recovery, I changed my mind about it.
Rather than rely on the sanitized version done on journalists, I prefer to look at how the technique is used in the real world. Consider this case as recently recounted in WORLD magazine:
ucfengr Now, I am not arguing in favor or against torture; what I am saying is that there is strong Biblical justification for supporting the government's use of torture as a tool in the War on Terror.
With all due respect, I think you are completely wrong. In fact, I doubt that you'll find a Christian theologian that will agree with your claim that there is Biblical justification for torture. I'd recommend reading some of the entries from the torture symposium I held.
Dan Paden Mr. Carter, I'll just remind you of something I'm sure you already know: when you try substituting unveiled sneers for actual counter-arguments, most people will just assume that you don't have a counter-argument.
A counter-argument against torture? I'm sorry I didn't know I needed one. I thought I was talking to civilized people, not savages.
What's the Biblical justification for opposing "waterboarding? Jesus said "LOVE YOUR ENEMIES". Can you love your enemies and torture them?
My guess is Joe is wise enough, as an ex-military man, to know that if we torture our prisoners that our soldiers will get tortured when they are detained.
Joe does the FRC and Focus Action (or whatever the Focus on the Family political entitity is called) share your viewpoint on torture? Could you talk them into it?
Uncenger,
Could you do us all a favor and elaborate on those strong Biblical justification for supporting the government's use of torture as a tool in the War on Terror? It would really help us all understand your mindset-it would enlighten us as to how you view the world.
On second thought....
ucfengr,
"Where does the Bible specifically call torture evil?"
Even if the bible doesn't specifically call torture evil, which I am sure it does on some level or another, any person who is capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong can understand why torture is wrong. Deliberately harming a defenseless person in any way, is reprehensible and unjust. If you still need to understand why torture is evil, just read any biography of a former POW (from any nation) and it should become clear. If it is still unclear then God help you, because I can't.
Torture is always wrong. End of discussion. There simply is no room for negotiation or compromise on that moral principle.
If you feel it is necessary to water-board someone in order to find out where a hidden nuclear bomb is, go right ahead. Just also be willing to go to jail for it afterward. If the situation is that important, that dire, then any sacrifice is warranted isn't it?
You want to torture people for information? That is the only morally acceptable way to do it. There has to be a price.
Unless you want you and your children to grow up in a world where the United States uses torture as a routine practice. Oh wait. They already do. Because yes, even "stress positions" are considered torture by Christian ethics.
Joe is correct. The silence of the Christian Right is shameful.
It looks like the Founding Fathers as usual were correct. The participation of Christian activists in the political process has not made government more moral. Instead its made Christianity much less so.
The walls between Church and State were not put there to protect government. They were created to protect religion. You remove them at the cost of the soul of your faith. The Christian Right has gleefully traded that soul for political leverage and power.
It makes me sick to stomach to hear my fellow Christians on here defend the use of torture and/or deny practices that clearly meet the definition of torture as not being so. It is almost unbelievable. Do you really think that if you are in an interrogation room and the Lord Jesus is standing at your side, that He would condone you strapping electrodes to a person or waterboarding him? You really think the the Bible condones the purposeful infliction of severe mental and physical anguish on another human being? I guess the new saying needs to be WWJT: Who would Jesus torture.
P.S. If waterboarding does not constitute torture, then nothing does.
Could you do us all a favor and elaborate on those strong Biblical justification for supporting the government's use of torture as a tool in the War on Terror? It would really help us all understand your mindset-it would enlighten us as to how you view the world.
Indeed, the only thing I've seen so far is talk about 'God's wrath'. Certainly the good Republicans here are not telling us that the gov't is the same thing as God right?
Since when has it been a Christian virtue to fail to defend yourself?
The whole 'offer the other cheek' thing is meant symbolically I suppose. Only Noah's Ark and creation in 7 days was meant to be taken literally.
If making a terrorist feel uncomfortable for a few minutes saves just one American life, I have no problem with that.
I think it was John Woo who was asked does the President have a legal right to have the testicals of a terrorist's son crushed in front of him if he felt it would produce useful information and he answered yes.
Please make a not of all these people the next time Joe wants to write about stem cells.
KSM=Khalid Sheikh Mohommed.
With all due respect, I think you are completely wrong.
Joe, that is perfectly respectable position, however I have cited Biblical justification for my position; you have not. If you are going to make the case that the state (as opposed to individuals) waterboarding terrorists is wrong from a Christian perspective, then you should be able to cite from the source (i.e. The Bible) to support your position. Please feel free to show me how I have misinterpreted the passages I cite.
Could you do us all a favor and elaborate on those strong Biblical justification for supporting the government's use of torture as a tool in the War on Terror?
John, in Post 14 I cited Romans 13:1-4 and Luke 12:42-46 to support my position.
Even if the bible doesn't specifically call torture evil, which I am sure it does on some level or another
If you are sure, it should be relatively easy to cite Biblical support for your position; I did for mine.
any person who is capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong can understand why torture is wrong.
It always amazes me how many Christians want to pretend that there is no Old Testament and want to ignore the fact that eternal punishment awaits non-believers. Read Leviticus; the punishments God proscribed for punishing evil doers was orders of magnitude more harsh than "waterboarding". Read the passages describing the eternal torment awaiting the unsaved; they ain't pretty. The Jesus Christ of the New Testament is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. He loved Jacob and he hated Esau. He ordered the the complete destruction and genocide of Jericho and everyone in it (except Rahab and her family). Anything Jesus says has to be viewed in the context of the Old Testament as well as the New and the folks of the Old Testament were not very loving towards their enemies.
Joe, I think this comment thread helps demonstrate that the term "conservative Christian" is, except in rare cases, an oxymoron. There isn't really any set of principles that can be called "conservatism," what is practiced as "conservatism" nowadays is a combination of authoritarianism and cowardice. You see this amalgamation of chickenhawks advocating torture of random brown people so that the chickenhawks can obtain a sense of absolute security against personal danger. Their analysis is basically, some authority figure says this person is a terrorist, anything an authority figure (that is, an authority figure presently in the good graces of conservatives) does is OK, by allowing authority figures to do anything we want, I can be protected from scary brown people.
And the "Christianity" practiced by conservatives is along similar lines. They don't actually care about God as anything other than an authority figure they can use to validate their worldview. The analysis is, here's the conservative line, the Bible (as interpreted by conservatives) supports the conservative line.
Uncenger,
Thanks for elaborating on your position re: torture.
If I understand you correctly, you would have to say that the practices of the Romans towards political prisoners and dissidents during the time of Christ and during the time of the early church was completely in line with the bible.
The Romans were the civil authority entrusted by God to maintain order. You would have to conclude that the Roman's were doing God's will. People would object would be objecting to the rightful order of things established by God. Right?
Anything Jesus says has to be viewed in the context of the Old Testament as well as the New and the folks of the Old Testament were not very loving towards their enemies.
Ummm...wow...I never thought I'd agree with JohnW over Ucfengr, but wow!
How about viewing the Old Testament in the context of Christ? That is far more true to the perspective of the New Testament writers, not to mention the Church fathers!
"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."
Jesus is asking us to recenter all that we've known from the Old Testament around himself, NOT the other way around!
Joe,
Well done. If the "right" has been silent, Scriptorium (at least) has not been.
Torture trades a certain evil for an uncertain good.
Not a good trade.
John Mark
If I understand you correctly, you would have to say that the practices of the Romans towards political prisoners and dissidents during the time of Christ and during the time of the early church was completely in line with the bible.
This is what the Bible says regarding governments:
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."--Romans 13:1-2.
Does that say that the government always acts good or right? No, it says that all governments have been instituted by God and are under his authority and that resisting that authority is resisting God. I don't know why God, in his wisdom, allows governments that I don't approve of exist, but he does.
"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."
Should we interpret that to mean that governments shouldn't punish evil or use extreme measures to protect it citizens from evil? I think not. We as individuals are commanded to "love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us". Governments are instituted by God to, among other things, "carry out God's wrath on evil doers". I think "God's wrath" allows for "waterboarding" and even significantly more extreme punishments.
Uncenger,
So while we may intuitively know that torturing prisoners is wrong and not something we would see Jesus Christ doing, it would be unbiblical and by extension un-Christian to speak out against it because the established order is the authority set up by God, right?
I certainly agree torture is wrong, and can never be justified. But I would guess it's all about the line one draws as to where torture really begins. Those on the left want us to draw the line as far away as possible, and those on the right would tend to err closer to and maybe sometimes over that line. If we can possibly stop another 9/11 or worse, to not get close to that line is irresponsible at best, and derelict at worst.
I just don't get those who are so exercised about this. If your job is to protect the American people, and if you will live in infamy if you let something terrible happen, and thousands or tens of thousands or more will die and suffer, you probably won't be so focused on the purity of your human rights credentials. This whole argument is way too either/or. The armchair quarterbacks are always so pure and self-righteous in their pronouncements. Real life, in a real war, with real consequences isn't so easy.
So while we may intuitively know that torturing prisoners is wrong
I don't accept the premise that torturing prisoners is always wrong. A couple of weeks ago, I watched (re-watched really) Dirty Harry. In the movie, they have the Clint Eastwood (Harry) torturing Scorpio (the Bad Guy) to find the whereabouts of the girl he kidnapped and left in a place with limited air (hence in danger of imminent death). When I watched the movie, I was not troubled by the scene at all, even though the "Good Guy" is clearly torturing the "Bad Guy", but I was troubled when the "Bad Guy" got off because of the "Good Guys" actions. I accept that it is sometimes necessary for the "Good Guy" to take extreme measures to protect good from evil.
If your job is to protect the American people, and if you will live in infamy if you let something terrible happen, and thousands or tens of thousands or more will die and suffer, you probably won't be so focused on the purity of your human rights credentials. This whole argument is way too either/or. The armchair quarterbacks are always so pure and self-righteous in their pronouncements. Real life, in a real war, with real consequences isn't so easy.
Here, here. Is torturing a "Bad Guy" to save the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocents evil? In other words, is being nice to evil while innocents suffer, nice?
Would we agree that Christians should have a Christian worldview? If so, how do all of the comments that seem to be directed at "the greatest good for the greatest number" represent this worldview? They seem to me rather humanistic and naturalistic rather than Christian and biblical.
Romans 13 does not require a Christian to render complete submission to a secular government that commands it citizens to support or engage in activities that violate God's word. Torturing another human being can in no way be considered biblical and certainly violates the Golden Rule, and the command not to return evil for evil.
Punishment is one thing. Torture is NOT punishment. It is satanic.
I think the important point here is not whether a Christian would torture a demonic, frothing, murderous heathen in order to save a cute little girl. Maybe Jesus would not, but the consensus seems to be that a Christian would. Mr. Karamazov, you have a call on line 1.
The more interesting question is whether the Christian should object when the divinely instituted government of China, Myanmar, or Cuba randomly tortures an alleged Christian who has allegedly distributed flyers that allegedly call for an allegedly peaceful demonstration against the sovereign atheist government. The answer is obviously no, according to Paul.
So, there is really no question of whether the divinely instituted US government should torture anyone at all: They should. In fact, they must, if that is what it takes to keep order.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about torture-it gave us all a better understanding of your worldview and faith.
Torturing another human being can in no way be considered biblical
Then it should be very easy to cite Scripture prohibiting the government's use of torture against evil doers, but it isn't or somebody would have done it by now.
and certainly violates the Golden Rule, and the command not to return evil for evil.
The Golden Rule applies to individuals, not governments. As we see in Romans 13, God gives governments the authority to punish evil doers. You don't have the authority to take vengeance on people who have wronged you, the government does.
Punishment is one thing. Torture is NOT punishment.
So "waterboarding" is okay if we call it punishment, but not if we use it extract information from terrorists?
Qte:
"As Christians we must never condone the use of methods that threaten to undermine the inherent dignity of the person created in the image of God."
Qte
Waterboarding is torture and degrading --- as opposed to putting a bullet in someone; as opposed to dropping a bomb on a troop convoy? With all due respect I think killing someone is about as degrading, and destructive of "the person created in the image of God" as you can get but water boarding is wrong? I consider myself to be a good Christian but I find this kind of convoluted moralizing to be nonsense.
If waterboarding some jihadi S*B will provide information that saves the lives of American civilians or soldiers, pass the bucket. What do you think God wants you to say to the survivors and families after the nuclear or biological weapon goes off in downtown Chicago and a few minutes of discomfort and "degrading" of some terrorist coward might have allowed us to stop it?
The more interesting question is whether the Christian should object when the divinely instituted government of China, Myanmar, or Cuba randomly tortures an alleged Christian who has allegedly distributed flyers that allegedly call for an allegedly peaceful demonstration against the sovereign atheist government. The answer is obviously no, according to Paul.
I don't think it is obvious at all. As a Christian, I can object to the actions of the government of China, Cuba, or Burma because those governments have no authority over me. Christian Americans also live in a country where they can lobby their government to take action against the governments of those other countries. I also think it is perfectly acceptable for Christians in those countries to defy the government to practice Christianity, but they must also accept that the government has the right to punish them for violating the laws of the nation. We should look to Paul and the rest of the Apostles for our example. They preached the "Good News", in violation of Rome, and they accepted their punishment with equanimity. Eventually, in God's time, they were vindicated.
The Golden Rule applies to individuals, not governments.
Absolutely! Government employees are not required to treat you as they would have you treat them, since they are not individuals; they are part of the collective, which bears no moral responsibility.
Welcome to Hell! Oh, you say you were a "Christian"? Well, you know, not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven.
They preached the "Good News", in violation of Rome, and they accepted their punishment with equanimity.
Exactly. There was no reason to object to their treatment from a worldly perspective.
Likewise, from a worldly perspective, it is not even necessary to violate laws in order to justify torture against you. It is sufficient to claim that you do not recognize the earthly ruler as the ultimate authority, because then you are basically threatening national security. That refusal to acknowledge worldly rulers might even get you killed. Like, on a cross.
It always amazes me how many Christians want to pretend that there is no Old Testament and want to ignore the fact that eternal punishment awaits non-believers. Read Leviticus; the punishments God proscribed for punishing evil doers was orders of magnitude more harsh than "waterboarding".
Again the position here is the state = God? Then again what should be made of someone whose sources of devine knowledge are the Bible AND Dirty Harry movies.
Joe, that is perfectly respectable position, however I have cited Biblical justification for my position; you have not. If you are going to make the case that the state (as opposed to individuals) waterboarding terrorists is wrong from a Christian perspective, then you should be able to cite from the source (i.e. The Bible) to support your position.
Bahhh, I guess I get no credit for citing Jesus. Ahhh well.
Should we interpret that to mean that governments shouldn't punish evil or use extreme measures to protect it citizens from evil? I think not.
Torture is not punishment so your legalistic argument falls apart right there. As for authority, the Constitution prohibits torture as a punishment so you must yield there if you assert gov't authority is also God's authority.
So while we may intuitively know that torturing prisoners is wrong and not something we would see Jesus Christ doing, it would be unbiblical and by extension un-Christian to speak out against it because the established order is the authority set up by God, right?
I remember one of the objections some Christians had to the movie The Last Temptation of Christ was Jesus being depicted as supplying the Romans with crosses. Yet it would seem like that objection was invalid from ucfengr's POV. The Romans were the authority and they had a right to punish those who disobeyed which meant they needed to buy crosses and Jesus, being a carpenter, would have been right to supply them.
Mike
But I would guess it's all about the line one draws as to where torture really begins. Those on the left want us to draw the line as far away as possible, and those on the right would tend to err closer to and maybe sometimes over that line. If we can possibly stop another 9/11 or worse, to not get close to that line is irresponsible at best, and derelict at worst
The line is a lot more clear than you think. Waterboarding has been defined as being torture for a long time. The US has always been clear about labeling it as such when its victims were US POW's or others. As for stopping another 9/11, there's a lot of reason to think our toying with torture will probably motivate the next 9/11 rather than stop it but even if so the question you must confront is at what price will you save your life? Again Jesus has something about losing yoru soul versus gaining the whole world but then maybe I'm thinking of someone else.
Here, here. Is torturing a "Bad Guy" to save the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocents evil? In other words, is being nice to evil while innocents suffer, nice?
Actually yes it is. I can't honestly say if you bend over backwards to set up a convoluted hypothetical where the choice is a thousand innocent people getting killed or a little bit of torture that I wouldn't go with the torture but that doesn't make it right. Then again those of us in the Reality Based Community must address what is the correct thing to do in the real world. Not Dirty Harry movies or the next season of '24'. How about addressing the Woo example? Could we torture the innocent child of a terrorist suspect in front of him in order to get information?
Again I'm warning all of you, names will be taken and used the next time we get a stem cell thread here!
Waterboarding is torture and degrading --- as opposed to putting a bullet in someone; as opposed to dropping a bomb on a troop convoy? With all due respect I think killing someone is about as degrading, and destructive of "the person created in the image of God" as you can get but water boarding is wrong?
Yes, you have discovered that torture is a lesser crime than murder in the law. Amazingly the set of things that 'are wrong' is larger than one!
Christian Americans also live in a country where they can lobby their government to take action against the governments of those other countries.
However, it is treasonous to lobby our government to stop torturing people who have not been convicted of crimes?
I agree with you Joe. Torture is not acceptable in either a moral or spiritual sense. It is the Lord who exacts justice and when He talks about exacting justice...it comes from His hands not our torture techniques.
Furthermore, the scriptures above don't even come close to specifying torture and I believe they speak more toward law, order and war in the general sense. Wrap that in the context of the entire scripture and it would seem that God has ultimate understanding of government(s) but He will judge them in the manner of how He judges individuals; Truth , grace and mercy. I am not a theologian but what I do know is that God is consistent. He may allow governments to rule on earth, but they will be held to account just like everyone else. I don't believe torture fits anywhere in the golden rule.
A moral country dependent on God's provision, protection and direction does not need torture. A self-sufficient country will resort to atrocities in the name of fending off atrocity. We become what we hate.
I am all for war and retaliation for attacks on our soil. I do believe that fits scripturally but torture does not fit scripturally in my opinion.
Waterboarding is not torture, and Christians are wise to leave the topic alone. It only plays into the hands of the terrorists, who use any breach in our unity - and there are far too many- as a sign of weakness.
Everything unpleasant is not torture. And the people who may or may not be experiencing waterboarding are not criminals. They are terrorists at war with us. By the Geneva Convention, we have the authority to simply shoot them. We instead are keeping them alive and well as if they were soldiers - which they are not.
Immature appeals to faith or demands of treatment as if the terrorists are civil crime suspects hides the reality of the situation.
Anyone who says they would rather let a terrorist plot proceed to bloody success than to engage in aggressive interrogation is either amoral or dishonest.
This blog topic only illustrates that, even under the veneer of Christianity.
What does this ahve to do with Christianity?
If only every supporter of "gentle persuasion" could be so honest.
The Golden Rule applies to individuals, not governments.
This is the silliest, most nonsensical argument I have ever read. Individuals comprise government.
Then it should be very easy to cite Scripture prohibiting the government's use of torture against evil doers, but it isn't or somebody would have done it by now.
Several verses have already been given to you. You want to ignore them on the basis of a silly argument that they only apply to government, as if a government is a computer, instead of a system made up of INDIVIDUALS, each accountable to God for their actions, whether they desire to be or not. I don't get a free pass from God on what I do if I happen to do it on behalf of the government.
So "waterboarding" is okay if we call it punishment, but not if we use it extract information from terrorists?
Try again. That isn't what I said. Waterboarding is torture and torture is not punishment. Waterboarding is never justified for any reason. Civil governments can enact punishments. But to torture a human being is not a punishment. It is a satanic act of evil that defies every command and rule that God has established. It also defies basic human decency and every Christian theologian and philospher I have ever read condemns it. I think they are on to something.
Again the position here is the state = God?
No, the state does not equal God, but the state is given authority by God to execute "God's Wrath" on evil doers. I thought the cite from Romans was pretty clear on that point.
Then again what should be made of someone whose sources of devine knowledge are the Bible AND Dirty Harry movies.
I don't really claim much "devine" knowledge, nor divine knowledge for that matter. What I do know is that needle on my moral compass points more towards concern for the victims of terrorists than towards concern for terrorists. It might be nice if some of the other "Christians" in here could recognize that as not necessarily a bad thing.
Torture is not punishment so your legalistic argument falls apart right there.
Sure it is. You wouldn't consider a life sentence at Ryker's Island torture? I would.
As for authority, the Constitution prohibits torture as a punishment so you must yield there if you assert gov't authority is also God's authority.
No, the Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment, but it doesn't specify what constitutes "cruel and unusual". Many punishments that were common throughout 19th century America are considered "cruel and unusual" now. Congress also had an opportunity with the McCain amendment to specifically declare "waterboarding" is torture, and therefore illegal. They chose not to, preferring, I guess to keep the legal status of "waterboarding" ambiguous.
I find it telling that almost everyone here who is in support of waterboarding has attempted to justify their position by appeal to the relatively moderate nature of the technique. It's ok to make someone feel a little uncomfortable for a few minutes in order to save lives.
It's a wonder that those same people are willing to trust a benign example performed on live television (where the man was certainly in no real danger - AND HE KNEW IT WASN'T REAL), but are unwilling to listen to POW's who have undergone the real thing and describe it unequivocally as indecent torture.
Is this willful blindness? And why? So we can defend some conservative political agenda? Since when are we Republicans first and Christians second??
By the way, throwing around a few Bible passages taken out of context is not at all helpful. The history of Christian thought, especially in the Just War tradition, is against torture.
Uncenger,
I'll use this bible verse as biblical authority for speaking out against the use of torture even though it is condoned by the established authority (be it Rome or the United States of America). It comes from Romans Chapter 12 the chapter before the one you used to support your position. I'll paraphrase:
Do not be conformed to the thinking of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may be able to determine what is the good, acceptable, and perfect will of God.
I believe that the Lord gave us a brain to use. When one of these Islamofascists has knowledge that threatens our very existence, you bet I'll endorse waterboarding. i don't think the Lord created us to be defenseless and walk away when our very lives are threatened.
no, he created us to sacrifice ourselves so that others might live...
Do not be conformed to the thinking of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may be able to determine what is the good, acceptable, and perfect will of God.
John, I am not going to question your integrity or faith for interpreting a Bible passage differently than I do. It would be nice, but out of character, for you (and some of the other "Christians" here) to extend the same courtesy.
Getting back to Romans 12, it is clear that the Bible delegates the authority to visit "God's Wrath" on evildoers. Does anybody disagree? Given that, what do most Christians feel that "God's Wrath" entails, basic cable with no HBO? My reading is that God's Wrath on the unsaved (let alone the truly evil) is going to be a big ol' steaming cup o' pain and suffering. It might make more sense for Christians to deal with that then to get their knickers knotted over a little "waterboarding".
By the way, throwing around a few Bible passages taken out of context is not at all helpful.
Feel free to point out where I have taken Bible verses out of context. BTW, "Out of context" does not mean when it disagrees with your interpretation.
Nothing in the Constitution can be construed as protecting enemies of the United States during prosecution of a duly authorized war. Cruel and unusual punishment is a prohibition on government against its citizens. It may even be outside of Congress's power to prevent the President from outright torturing, let alone waterboarding, foreign nationals captured during the prosecution of a war. They can certainly make it illegal for the military, and could even perhaps restrict Federal departments, but in the final analysis the President himself can probably do it.
In any case, I hardly think God expects governments of Christian nations to be soft. Remember - when He finally returns to settle all these questions, He will be an absolute Ruler over all the New Creation. And He will wage war, and I doubt it will be nicey-nicey war. The enemies of God have much more to fear than simple waterboarding interrogation!
That said, in our personal conduct we are to forgive and treat others with love even in the face of hatred. I expect my government to protect me. Taking this prohibition on waterboarding even one step further calls into question any law enforcement or military action whatsoever! Especially considering all combat military operations are offensive (defensive operations are only conducted to allow time and space to prepare for further offensive operations).
Is it also "un-Christian" for the police to arrest criminals, and for judges to sentence them to long, trying sentences?
What I have never been able to understand is the disconnect between Just War theory and the opposition to torture. If we are to take Just War theory as valid, we can, under appropriate circumstances, be justified in unleashing our horribly lethal weapons upon our enemies to maim and kill them. Why then does something such as waterboarding, which does not necessarily do any physical harm and may ultimately save both friendly and enemy lives, evoke so much passionate opposition? I honestly do not understand how one could subscribe to one theory but oppose the other.
As a secondary issue, there's an awful lot of feeling and dogmatic pronunciations in this thread. No offense, but I'm not too concerned with either. Where are your biblical references to support your position? And if you think your position is so obviously Christian, you should have an especially easy task in assembling some biblical support for it.
We are justified in doing whatever productive means are required to win this war. Our Christianity is not in peril if we use rough means to gain information from prisoners. We in the past bombed cities full of civilians, sunk merchant shipping, nuked cities full of civilians, caused famines, etc. In suppressing guerillas, we have shot or hung them after summary courts martial, publicly and dramatically. There are rumors that to suppress moslems in the Phillipines, we would shoot moslems and bury them in the caracasses of pigs. We did not start this war. We did not ask Al Qaeda to wage war by means of terror. We did not ask Osama to spend money and effort to acquire nuclear or biological or chemical weapons. Using effective means to prevent further attacks and to defeat the terrorists is completely justified.
If waterboarding, in the few times it was ever used, worked, it is fine. I would point out that the released info on this indicates it has not been done in about 4 years.
If waterboarding would help to prevent Iranian backed terrorists from using a nuclear weapon, it would save many thousands of people in Iran and the target. To not use it would be criminal.
So, does this mean we should line up to shoot ourselves to death in front of the terrorist as a form of interrogation?
Just curious. Seems kind of extreme to me.
An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture: Protecting Human Rights in an Age of Terror has been endorsed by the NAE.
Catholics and mainline US Protestant churches made their viewpoints public a long time ago.
I stand to be corrected - the SBC is an exception.
Just wondering how many innocent waterboarding victims are acceptable in the war on terror? The overwhelming assumption of the pro-waterboarders here is that everyone being tortured is guilty.
How many of the victims of waterboarding have told their torturers what they want to hear, rather than what the truth might be? After all, if you tell your torturer that you don't know where the bomb is hidden, do you think he'll just say "OK. Sorry for pouring water down your windpipe. No hard feelings."?
Uncenger,
Not to judge you, but to further explain myself. I thought being born again meant turning away from the natural/sinful way of doing things and seeking to be more like Christ. And through our lives, actions, and attitudes we witness the love of Christ to others.
As seen through the controversy in this discussion thread-Christ's way is different than our way. In other words, the way Dirty Harry treats a criminal in that movie you mentioned is very entertaining and appeals to our natural instinct for revenge, but it's not what Christ would do.
The idea that government's and people are held to different standard's might seem plausibile, but people make up the government. Furthermore, in our country we have large numbers of christians. It's not wrong for Christians to be speaking out against the Government when it violates God's law. It's not wrong to work for Peace and Justice in this world.
The logical extension of your position of Romans Chapter 13 would be that it was wrong for German Christians to speak out against their crimes against the Jews. Afterall, the Nazi's were the legitimate authority in German.
God's Wrath, is just that God's wrath. Once again paraphrasing from Roman's Chapter 12:
Bless those who persecute you; Bless and do not curse. Repay no one evil for evil and have regard for good things in the sight of all men. If psssible, as much as depends on you, live peaceable with all me. Do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengence is Mine, I will re-pay" says the Lord.
The Book of Romans was written to christians living in Roman in the first century. They were not living in a society like ours where evangelicals are the majority and hold powerful political positions. The Roman christians were a minority living in a society that was hostile towards them. This may have something to do with the context of Romans Chapter 13.
Those that say "If we tourtue, we open up our men to torture" are badly misguided. Clearly, if we were fighting a uniformed enemy who at least semi followed the Geneva Convention, tourture would be very wrong and an unwise tactic. Sadly, and some here don't get this (or they just wish to sound like the "better" man), we are fighting an enemy with no honor. They will cut peoples heads of reguardless of how we treat their most vile jihadis.
Hey Bill. How many "innocent" waterboarding victms? Actually, we are finding its use is VERY minimal. This was reported on earlier today. How many innocent individuals murdered by raving islamic fanatics on 9/11? Uh, 3000+? If one of the "innocent" waterboarding victims had had knowledge of 9/11 beforehand and waterboarding was the method used to gain the knowledge, would it have been worth it to avert the attack? As Pdizzle said, we're fighting an enemy with no honor. They will behead and not have a second thought about it.
Hey Bill. How many "innocent" waterboarding victms? Actually, we are finding its use is VERY minimal. This was reported on earlier today. How many innocent individuals murdered by raving islamic fanatics on 9/11? Uh, 3000+? If one of the "innocent" waterboarding victims had had knowledge of 9/11 beforehand and waterboarding was the method used to gain the knowledge, would it have been worth it to avert the attack? As Pdizzle said, we're fighting an enemy with no honor. They will behead and not have a second thought about it.
If this duplicates an earlier comment, I apologize; I'm not sure whether I accidentally deleted it or what.
A counter-argument against torture? I'm sorry I didn't know I needed one. I thought I was talking to civilized people, not savages.
Descending to personal insult isn't actually going to help. Some don't agree that a technique that doesn't, as far as I can tell, leave a mark on the victim, necessarily constitutes torture. But calling me--and others--"savages" doesn't actually prove that we are wrong.
My mind's not one hundred percent made up. It is true that I'm leaning toward saying either that waterboarding isn't torture, or that torture can be, under some circumstances, a legitimate tool of warfare. On the other hand, I rather appreciate Ludwig's argument that once you say torture is okay under some circumstances, it gets rather difficult to draw the line on what constitutes some circumstances.
I reiterate: sneers and insults don't actually improve your position. I know that when I've resorted to them, it's usually been a sign that I'm losing the argument.
Mr. Boonton:
I can't honestly say if you bend over backwards to set up a convoluted hypothetical where the choice is a thousand innocent people getting killed or a little bit of torture that I wouldn't go with the torture but that doesn't make it right.
Since this was largely the issue with at least one person, and you admit now that there are some circumstances where you might engage in torture, may I say: welcome to the dark side... :)
Sorry for the duplicate post! User error.
I find it horrifying that some Christians are willing to condone torture. Thank you, Joe, for standing up for what most of us see as right.
Christians like Collin are amazed that those who consider morals subjective actually want to see them practiced regardless. I say I prefer my subjective morals to those of ucfengr, whether they are based in scripture or not.
Ucfengr:
Assuming you are correct in your interpretation of Romans 13, you make a pretty good argument that Christians neither serving in the government nor actively supporting it beyond the submission required by Romans 13. At a minimum that would apply to those branches of government that are agents of wrath. The government may be an agent of God's wrath, but in context, Romans 12 gives a quite different set of instructions for Christians. We are to be agents of his mercy.
If our government tortures people, then it is like the Babylonians and Assyrians. They were used by God as agents of his wrath. They were also evil and worthy of his judgement. If our government tortures, then Christians should be agents of God's love and mercy demonstrate their love for their enemies by opposing the torture, binding up wounds, and comforting
sorry about duplicate. Previous post was accidentally truncated:
Ucfengr:
Assuming you are correct in your interpretation of Romans 13, you make a pretty good argument that Christians should neither serve in the government nor actively support it beyond the submission required by Romans 13. At a minimum that would apply to those branches of government that are agents of wrath. The government may be an agent of God's wrath, but in context, Romans 12 gives a quite different set of instructions for Christians. We are to be agents of His love and mercy.
If our government tortures people, then it is like the Babylonians and Assyrians. They were used by God as agents of his wrath. They were also evil and worthy of his judgement. If our government tortures, then Christians should be agents of God's love and mercy demonstrate their love for their enemies by opposing the torture, confronting the government when it does evil, binding up wounds of our enemies, and comforting those who have been harmed (terrorists as well as their victims).
Hey Pam,
911 was terrible-3000 innocents died. How many innocents have died since we started our so-called "war against terror" and invasion and occupation of Iraq? Many more than 3000. And most of these were not "raving islamic fanatics", but innocent civilians. I guarantee you more than 3000 innocent civilians died in the first week of the Iraq war. Are there lives worth less than our Christian american lives?
And by the way, the word "islamo-fascist" is a meaningless word made up to make people fearful. It does not describe the terrorist threat we face. Yes, Terrorism is a geniune threat, but it is not an overwhelming epic struggle.
I'll say it again. Is there anyone here who thinks they could withstand waterboarding and not say anything your torturer wanted you to say? Hmm?
And again...
If you truly don't know anything and say so, do you think your torturer will be content with that? Good grief people, don't you realize this was a tool of the Spanish Inquisition? Can you really content yourself with the self-deception that you oppose torture but that this isn't really torture? Or that a little torture is ok as long as it isn't alot of torture?
Are you absolutely convinced that everyone being tortured is guilty and has knowledge we seek?
Lastly, is being "safe" or even "alive" the highest good that Christians seek? Is this even the highest good that Americans seek?
If our government tortures people, then it is like the Babylonians and Assyrians. They were used by God as agents of his wrath. They were also evil and worthy of his judgement.
Nick, I don't accept the premise that the US "waterboarding" terrorists to obtain information that can be used to save innocent lives is morally equivalent to the Babylonians or Assyrians (or any other totalitarian regime) using torture to maintain the power of the king. I think intent matters.
I say I prefer my subjective morals to those of ucfengr, whether they are based in scripture or not.
Of course, I prefer my moral to yours, Rob. So have a nice day.
If our government tortures people, then it is like the Babylonians and Assyrians. They were used by God as agents of his wrath. They were also evil and worthy of his judgement.
Nick, I don't accept the premise that the US "waterboarding" terrorists to obtain information that can be used to save innocent lives is morally equivalent to the Babylonians or Assyrians (or any other totalitarian regime) using torture to maintain the power of the king. I think intent matters.
I say I prefer my subjective morals to those of ucfengr, whether they are based in scripture or not.
Of course, I prefer my moral to yours, Rob. Not sure what that says about you or me, though.
I'll say it again. Is there anyone here who thinks they could withstand waterboarding and not say anything your torturer wanted you to say? Hmm?
The purpose of interrogation is to extract useful and truthful information from the subject. The use of tactics like "waterboarding" is part of a larger process of using rewards and aversives and also information you already have to convince the subject that telling the truth is preferable to lying.
John W: Take a look at the IslamoFascist Terrorist/Jihadist events prior to 9/11. This ISN'T a new event. They've been killing people since they were at the gates of Europe in 1683. Try GatesofVienna.com, read "Because they Hate" by Bridgette Gabrielle. It doesn't matter WHAT you call it - it's out there and was long an issue prior to 9/11 and prior to the US being around.
I know that I'm among the most troll-like of commenters here, so feel free to ignore me if I say I'm sorry if you are offended by sarcasm.
However, it is, to put it gently, idiotic to promote as a "Christian" and "Biblical" ideal of behavior the practice of deliberately instilling in someone the fear of death, as a humane alternative to killing them...based not on a fair trial, but on supposition and hearsay, since its defenders specifically refuse to conduct a trial...during a time of undeclared "war" that is mostly characterized by new Hummer dealerships and increasing imports from the largest communist country on earth.
It is cowardly and immoral to hide behind the claim that the individuals are not responsible because they are serving the government.
And I am willing to impugn your Christian witness if you state that any government policy has a greater claim on your loyalty than Christ. Your personal behavior will be judged first in the face of the temptation to triumphantly inflict pain and suffering on another person to settle your grievances and prevent some imagined disaster. Whether you call it torture or not, it is disgusting.
Joe,
How would you respond to this article on real clear politics...?
http://realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/the_torture_fraud_of_the_left.html
Very easy for you to say behind the abstract safety of your keyboard. This kind of pseudomoral nonsense gives religion a bad name. I and thousands of others are only alive today because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded.
Very easy for you to say behind the abstract safety of your keyboard. This kind of pseudomoral nonsense gives religion a bad name. I and thousands of others are only alive today because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded.
Very easy for you to say behind the abstract safety of your keyboard. This kind of pseudomoral nonsense gives religion a bad name. I and thousands of others are only alive today because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded.
Since when did Christians become utilitarians? And who can defend that biblically? It strikes me as something more up Judas's alley...
In logical form, I've seen some of the best arguments imaginable for abortion...but only if it were government-mandated.
Ucfengr, I'd be interested in what verse you could cite that prohibits the government from punishing a jaywalker with death. Don't appeal to your independent thoughts on the matter, just give me the verse, specific to civil governments, that condemns capital punishment for traffic offenses.
Thanks!
This kind of pseudomoral nonsense gives religion a bad name.
That's right; true morality is "Get them before they get you." Why adhere to the old "slave morality" of Christianity? Hey, I know a book by Nietzsche that you would really like.
I and thousands of others are only alive today because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded.
Well, at least your conscience is clear, since you know everything. If only our government would employ non-marking methods of scaring all the bad guys, then all the good guys would be safe! Let's put it into law. Surely nothing could go wrong with a law encouraging police and federal agents to take all suspects right up to the brink of death so that they would preemptively confess their crimes and terror acts. That would save a lot of money on lawyers and judges!
You know, that would be great...right up until "the other party" gets into power. You didn't just criticize the president's abortion policy, did you? You know that only terrorists say those kinds of things!
I have a few more questions for Ucfengr and anyone else so inclined.
What prevents the government from mandating sterilization as a form of punishment?
What about internment camps for people of Middle Eastern descent for the duration of the War on Terror?
What Biblical support can you cite that prohibits the government from enacting these measures?
While some like to contend that this is merely a theoretical debate that uses movies as an example, I would say that waterboarding is a real and very important issue. When US Soldiers were abducted earlier this year,