Torture: Where do you stand?

Greetings,

As the resident Conservative here at CAP, I would like to state categorically that I am against the use of torture. Aside from the moral issues that are involved, it is just plain ineffective and inefficient. First of all, how many of the prisoners really know anything? Not a whole lot. Say maybe 5% max and even then that knowledge may be out of date or of minimal value.
Secondly, if you put a person through enough pain they will tell you whatever they think you want to hear just to make it stop. You haven't really learned anything.
Finally, IIRC, it is legal under the Geneva Convention to use drugs during interrogation. We have some of the finest "babble juice" in the world at our disposal. We should be using that in our interrogation.
The use of torture is morally toxic to the individual who administers it and the society that condones it. As a Conservative who believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I condemn the use of torture. Let the practice stop now for if our government believes it can get away with doing this to foreign nationals then it is only a short step until they start doing it to us.

Christians don't torture. Period. Anyone who supports torture is not a Christian, even if he or she claims to be. There's no wiggle room here. Christians don't torture other people. Period.

HI Larry

I agree with you completely that torture is incompatible with the Gospel of Christ. But you are in no position to judge another person as "not a Christian". Paul made it clear; who are *we* to judge another mans servant--it's up to the other man (Christ) to judge.

your friend
Keith

Keith,

I understand your point, but you are painting with far too broad of a brush when you say that Larry is "judging". A "Christian" is a follower of Christ- show me where Christ said we should torture. When Christ said "blessed are the peacemakers", he was not referring to those who claim to make peace by waging war or killing their enemies. We are also taught that we will know believers if they have the fruit of the spirit--love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self control. A willingnees to torture is not one of those qaulities that defines believers or followers of Christ.

In the end, it is not up to us to decide who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but we can recognize what Christ tells us we must do to enter. Engage in torture (or support torture) is not one of the criteria.

Personally, I think it is a deliberate attempt by bush and co to start WWIII with the moslems.

He may also be trying to acclimate people to the idea of torture, to drag this nation down morally.

There have been some quiet rumbles in this area in support of bush's torture policy, but I'm not too suprised...

It wasn't that long ago that lynching was common in the south.

If you look at the last five decades as periods of real moral and ethical advances in this country, then it is obvious that he's trying to turn back the clock.

Especially when you go back to the New Deal policies, and how the conservatives are trying desperately (and effectively) to gut the advances made then.

You are correct, of course, Keith, that I have no business judging other people. I wasn't so much judging them as judging the validity of their claim to be Christians. The people in our government who are most determined to allow torture are the same people who make a great show of professing a strong Christian faith and who have gained considerable political capital by so doing.

If you claim to be a Christian, but don't behave like one, they I will choose not to believe your claim. I realize that what is and is not Christian behavior is, to some extent, moot. As far as I'm concerned, condoning torture is not one of the debatable issues in Christianity. Nor do I think that claiming you don't support torture because you've chosen to rename it, is an act of a Christian.

I will, or course, respectfully read thoughtful opinions to the contrary, and will change and/or modify my opinion if people have compelling arguments that demonstrate that Christianity and torture are compatible under some circumstances.

Finally, I fully agree that, it is not up to me to judge people. That's God's job. My job is to judge people's behaviors in the light of whether or not I would be true to my Christian calling were I to emulate such behaviors.

----------------------------------------------
In preview, at least, I can't seem to make this stuff show up in paragraphs. Is there some secret? I tried putting in html tags and that didn't work. I also tried three different browsers, and none of them allowed paragraphs. Not only am I now p.o.ed about torture, but I also feel quite stupid. Now I remember why I don't comment here.

Ok, I see that the problem is that the "preview" doesn't work. The paragraphing I set up initially did work out.

Sorry about the mini rant.

HI Larry and R.

I must disagree. Not that Christ would condone torture; I completely agree with you that he doesn't. But as a Quaker, I also believe that Christ would oppose warfare, even in cases like in WW II. I could even challenge you to show me where Christ said it was OK to follow the orders of a secular government to kill soldiers who are at war with our nation. But I would never suggest that only pacifists could be Christians. Even IF Christ opposes all warfare, this doesn't mean that a non-pacifist who honestly believes that sometimes war is a tragic necessity isn't a follower of Christ. You can be a follower of Christ even if you are sometimes wrong about what direction he is leading. That's really all I'm saying. I honestly don't see a huge difference between torturing an individual and bombing him, and yet very few Christians are pacifists.

your friend
Keith

I suppose, Keith,

I'll have to rethink some of this. I've never been able to understand how making war is compatible with Christianity, but I have also understood that many people disagree with me on this point and I have not held this against their claims to being Christian. So perhaps I should rethink my pigeon holing them on the basis of their views on torture. So is there a "Just Torture" rationale that provides one the ability to believe both in torture and in Christianity without feeling a bit of a hypocrite?

Keith: "You can be a follower of Christ even if you are sometimes wrong about what direction he is leading. "

Well, I have no quibble with this. I'm well aware that I'm often wrong in my direction. Actually, I think more of the time my problem is more one of implementation than wrong headedness. I think I know the proper direction I should take to be a follower of Christ, but my various earthly attachments (or whatever you wish to call them) seem often to have me doing/thinking/traveling elsewhere.

Keith: " I honestly don't see a huge difference between torturing an individual and bombing him..."

Well, perhaps not. I do see some difference between torture and standing in a trench shooting at someone who is standing in a trench across a field shooting back at you. I suppose, however, that modern warfare is more about anonymous bombing runs and tossing grenades into buildings that "might" harbor an enemy combattant (and if not, wasn't it noble of the innocents inside the building to have sacrificed themselves for freedom?) than it is about two opposing factions squaring off against each other.

Wow! I don't know where to begin to respond to such high moral judgements. It is obvious to me that you people seem to have an extreme distaste for the military and the people who serve/served in it. I spent three years in the Army and one year of that was in Vietnam. I've seen and experienced first hand what war does and it is obvious to me that you all don't have a clue.
Let me ask you "pacifists" this. How do you stop genocide? How do you stop the slaughter of the innocent? How do you do that? To me to stand by and do nothing is to enable these criminal acts and to do that makes you no better than the criminal monsters who perpetrate them.

Thank you Frank Frey for your intelligent, lucid statement against the use of torture.

I sure wish politicians from both parties would exhibit the same sort of ethical vision and moral courage.

Hi Frank

You wrote: "Wow! I don't know where to begin to respond to such high moral judgements. It is obvious to me that you people seem to have an extreme distaste for the military and the people who serve/served in it. I spent three years in the Army and one year of that was in Vietnam. I've seen and experienced first hand what war does and it is obvious to me that you all don't have a clue."

KEITH: I don't have a clue about what? You agree (don't you) that war is a horrible thing, that it requires you to kill people who are pretty much just like you except for the fact that they are members of a different army than you? I haven't experienced war first hand but I don't see why I need first hand experience to know those things about war. If anything, first hand experience would show me that war is much worse than I can imagine.

I happen to think it is wrong to kill innocent people even if they happen to be in the other army. But I do NOT "have an extreme distaste" for the people who serve in the military. On the contrary, I have tremendous respect for them BECAUSE they risk their lives to do what they believe is right. I certainly am not JUDGING people in the military. The only judgment I am making is against WAR as a policy of state--I believe it is wrong. You disagree. I respect you for that and do not claim you are non-Christian bcause you believe that war is sometimes necessary.

FRANK: Let me ask you "pacifists" this. How do you stop genocide? How do you stop the slaughter of the innocent? How do you do that? To me to stand by and do nothing is to enable these criminal acts and to do that makes you no better than the criminal monsters who perpetrate them.

KEITH: It seems to me that YOU are the one being judgmental. It is wrong to stand by and do nothing to stop genocide? Even if what you DO is immoral? Obviously I cannot agree--by definition it is WRONG to do what's immoral (that's what the word "immoral" means). I should note that very few wars are wars to prevent genocide, but the genocide question is the most difficult challenge to pacifism--I am not sure what the right response is. But it seems to me that murdering innocent people to save the lives of other innocent people presupposes that moral questions of life and death are matters of arithmetic, and I don't believe that morality can be reduced to simple math. It seems to me that war just substitutes one form of genocide for another. Non-violent resistance, difficult as it is, seems to me to be a morally better approach.

Torture has to be debated as christian or not? Show me one passsge in the NT where this is even mentioned as a 'possibility'? There has to be a resolute 'no' from us and the choir. Another way having a definition of defending our country's ethics with our Christian ethics gets muddy (how sad).

"Let me ask you "pacifists" this. How do you stop genocide? How do you stop the slaughter of the innocent? How do you do that? To me to stand by and do nothing is to enable these criminal acts and to do that makes you no better than the criminal monsters who perpetrate them" (Frank)

Did the army teach you that? Or did the teachings of Christ teach you that? That's where the answer really lies. But I suppose you think pacifism is 'wrong' in the face of war? I don't see a very big problem as you might pre-suppose. If the Christian church could actually follow Christ's example (on a huge scale) then we could use our resources to help people world-wide, thus preventing such problems in the first place (instead of backing war as the final solution). Even if we don't prevent this from happening we need to act in a way that reflects Christ, so we help out our neighbors and not support regimes that bomb them. We are not called to love our government, but love God and our neighbor (not some machine), and even our enemy. Love reflects itself in ways that make life better for the other humans not worse, and war causes refugee's, death, sickness, etc. I am a pacifist but I am also a activist...if the church could become an agent of Christ and not within arm's reach of gov't then we would be in a better scenario to say something.

Keith and Societyvs: First of all, I apologize if I sounded harsh. I didn't mean to. As you can tell, this is something that I feel very deeply about.
Secondly, I would like to share something with you all. It is something that I learned a long time ago. Any time you kill another human being, no matter how justified the circumstances, a part of you dies as well. A part of your soul becomes tainted and never gets fully clean in this world.
Societyvs, neither the Army nor the Bible taught me that. My late father, who was a police officer for 25 years, taught me that. He firmly believed that you have to be ready to oppose evil by physical force if necessary. I should note here that in his 25 year career he was involved in exactly three shootouts. He believed in trying by any other means to resolve the situation but if it had to be done then it was best to get it over with quickly. To him, carrying the badge and the gun brought with it an enormous responsibility. A responsibility to always try to find other solutions to situations.
Finally, Keith and Societyvs, I respect both of your positions as pacifists. The genocide question I think speaks to a deeper question which is "Does the end justify the means?" Is it morally right to commit a bad act for a greater good.

I am sorry, Frank,

if my post came across as moral judgmentalism. I had thought I was trying to correct the appearance of moral jugdmentalism that I gathered Keith had perceived in my first post. I'm certainly no better than the next person. Obviously, my ability to communicate is worse than the ordinary.

I do not, in fact, have extreme distaste for people who serve/served in the military. I respect most of them because I recognize that they served honorably. The fact that I may not have agreed with their choice doesn't mean that I think less of them as people or don't respect their choice. Their choice was different from the one I made, but that doesn't mean I think less of them because of the difference. For all I know, their choice was the *right* one, but I'll not know that until I meet St. Peter at the gate and he gives me the straight dope. At least I hope St. Peter will give me a clue before sending me off to the other place (otoh, I suppose hell would be more hellish if you didn't even know why you were there).

My issue is with how I understand the teachings of Christ. I understood them to be incompatible with military service. Perhaps that understanding wasn't practical. Perhaps it was even wrong. That's just how I understood things and why, therefore, I filed for CO status as soon as I turned 18 and was eligible for the draft. Maybe I made the *wrong* choice. I only know it was the right one for me. Other people made other choices and perhaps those were right for them.

All I'm trying to say is no one ever has been able to give me a compelling reason (compelling to me) why I should be willing to make war on other people while still remaining true to my understanding of Christianity. I recognize that other people think they have been able to rationalize a belief in war with a belief in Christianity. I have not been able to buy their arguments. I do respect their attempts to have worked through the issue.

I have yet to see even an attempt to rationalize a belief in the use of torture (to get back to the main topic) with adherence to Christian principles. Until someone comes up with such a rationale, I will believe torture to be wrong (even if it did work, which it doesn't). I do not believe the Lindy England's of this world to be evil, just misguided. I do admit, however, to having some problems maintaining respect for a former Viet Nam era draft dodger who is currently trying to get the use of torture instituted as a part of U.S. foreign policy. I will work on this, since as Keith will no doubt point out, all people deserve respect as children of God.

Now as to your other issues: "How do you stop genocide? How do you stop the slaughter of the innocent? How do you do that? To me to stand by and do nothing is to enable these criminal acts and to do that makes you no better than the criminal monsters who perpetrate them."

Those are good questions, but I have no particularly good answers. I think we need to involve ourselves in *active* peacemaking as opposed to sitting idly by until a problem gets out of control. To my mind, that is part of Christ's teaching, but obviously not a part very many people take to heart (and one I'm not good at either). Historical wars were often seeded by injustices that occurred many years (sometimes many decades or even centuries) previously. Were we to work to erase injustices, we would go a long way toward erasing some of the causes of wars. I am clueless (as you point out), however, as to how best to deal with people who are obviously mentally derranged once they get into power. I'm not convinced that dropping bombs on their countries is the best way. But you may be correct, perhaps it is the only way.

Hi Frank

It's a very good an important point you make: there are always two victims when one person kills another. When both victims are innocent (as is generally the case in warfare) it is exceptionally tragic. And you are right that trhe issues of war and peace are difficult ones. I try not to be so arrogant as to pretend that my answer--the one I have for myself--is necessarily right.

I do want to say one thing though. Thank you for your service in Vietnam. I was too young for Vietnam by about 2 or 3 years, but being a Quaker I know some people who were CO during that war. I even know some COs from WW II. I have nothing but respect for my friends who refused service. But you didn't refuse, you put your life in the line, and every one of us owe you a debt of gratitude. Thanks.

your friend
Keith

What's so noble about war anyways? Makes me feel like a man (brave, courageous, freedom-fighter, etc) and plays to my ego. It never asks me about the guy I have to shoot (who thinks the same thing as me - enemy). War has no recourse for forgiveness either, you can't forgive someone you just killed (apparently they can't hear you at that point for some reason). But I rationalize freedom and protecting my country as a good enough reason for killing a Vietmanese person or some Afghan, how weird. If I thought like that in America (outside the army) I'd be locked up for 21 years or more for murder, yet in war anything goes and death is meaningless. I can't find a single reason to teach anyone's children this message...unless we want to justify our freedom's and whatever right we deem neccesary to protect them. If you don't like it, you can shoot me (how's about that)...for good ole enemy anger's sake. And when I am dying make sure you can come to grips with the fact you played God in someone's life. Torture, war, it's not even logical. I am harsh I know, but that's a real look at it.

When is it right to destroy someone else to rid the earth of evil? Hmmmm. That's the police's job to defend society but that's not my duty in life, I am a Christ-man not a Police-man. I didn't join this faith for the answer to that but I'll give the same answer that always works in every situation, why don't we all get together and actually love our poor, destitute, starving, troubled, demented, oppressed, neighbors...maybe we can stop some of this atrocity in the first place. Now that's pre-emptive action!

HI Societyvs

What's so nobel about war? Nothing. But there is something nobel about the people who fight in it. They are risking their lives, they are risking their psyches, they are risaking their arms and legs and spinal column for their country or their buddies at the front. There is something nobel, no doubt, about a person who risks everything he has for what he believes is the common good. I don't believe that the typical person who fights the wars are doing it because it makes them feel like big men, I believe that typically they hate the war at least as much as we pacifists do.

The other things you say about war, I agree with.

your friend
keith

Keith,

Thank you for your good words.They are greatly appreciated. I believe that while the Vietnam War was a tragic mistake serving my country wasn't. I respect the moral courage that you and the other pacifists on this site show with your beliefs. I think that we are both called to service and we are all part of the same team.
My philosophy would be summed up in the phrase "to protect and serve." It was my father's guiding principle for the 25 years that he served on the Kansas City Police Department. It is a principle that I think should be foremost in the hearts and minds of all of us who carry a gun for a living. Whether it is as a police officer or a soldier we must never forget that we carry a special burden. We must be a little better than average for our society has entrusted us with the power of life and death and has sanctioned our use of it. Our actions should be guided by the highest moral principles. Peace should be our ultimate goal. We will welcome the day when we will no longer be needed but until then we must be ready to intervene because dead peacemakers can't make peace and dead caregivers can't give care.

Perhaps an echo is in some readers' minds with this subject & two adjacent posts 3 months ago [6/26/06 by FP, 6/28/06 by R. Johnson] about Randall Balmer's new book & concepts therein, including Christians & torture! "I'm sorry, but the use of torture under any circumstances is a moral issue, not a public-relations dilemma."

An Op-Ed appears in the Friday, 9/29/06, Philadelphia Inquirer [A23] under the title, "Where's religious right's outrage now?" [article available at www.philly.com & registration]. Let me just quote the 2-paragraph conclusion here:

There are people who claim to be "pro-life" and who profess to hear a "fetal scream." Yet they turn a deaf ear to the very real screams of fully formed human beings who are tortured in our name.
The religious right's indifference toward the ethical issues surrounding war and torture is hardly befitting those who designate themselves the moral arbiters of our society. If my fellow evangelicals aspire to be the conscience of America, they had better liberate themselves from their captivity to the Republical Party and to the morally bankrupt policies of the Bush Administration.

Exodus 23: 2 "Do not join a crowd that intends to do evil.
Only an evil sadistic person can approve torture

Monte has a point. And Frank, I think you make some great points about the people that do serve the country, maybe I am little callous to the idea because I have seen those powers (people with a gun) twisted a lot. Again I am not against people that protect this country, or that country, our a supposed enemy's country...they are all God's creation. I think what I am reittirating is what others have mentioned that I don't see this a Christian call or scripture to back it up...but then again maybe I am asking for a lot of responsiblity from people that 'carry a gun'.

What I've found interesting is that the local newspaper isn't referring to torture at all when discussing the bill... at least, I haven't read anything that refers to torture.

I am not certain how many people really know what was voted on. Unless you understand legalese, a lot of what is voted on is unintelligable to the average person.