David Gushee’s article entitled “5 Reasons Torture Is Always Wrong” in Christianity Today is just excellent. He includes these insightful words from Senator McCain, who remains a voice of sanity in this divided country: “This isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.”
- - - -
Hope to see some of you in the next few days. I’m teaching a lectureship class at 9:45 — it’s one of 25 classes offered at that time. That’s quite a few!
- - - -
Who actually watches infomercials and buys the products, making them worthwhile to the companies? Seriously.
Who responds to junk mail so that it continues to be profitable enough to send?
Who is buying all those zillions of viagra pills in response to spam?
Who is buying stuff in response to marketing calls so that it pays off?
- - - -
Wish we hadn’t eaten spinach out of a bag last night. Why do those health warnings always come out the morning AFTER you’ve had what they’re warning you about.
My wife wasn’t feeling well Wednesday, so we left our church service early and were home by 7:15. I was quite surprised to receive a telemarketing call from Harding U. barely five minutes after we walked through the door.
Of course this would happen the week I went vegetarian. (Chris F. helped inspire me.) I never dreamed spinach could kill somebody. Eventually we’ll all have to give up everything and become a nation of anorexics.
Oh — and I usually hate informercials, but I’m asking for “Bare Minerals” for Christmas.
I don’t undertsand how anyone could be “ok” with torturing another human being to gain information. And the rhetoric about “it’s saving lives” doesn’t fly for me. Can someone who believes this is ok please tell me how you reconcile this with your faith?
And what’d they say is bad about spinach? Spinach?!?!?
Mike, have a good one at the ACU lectures. My first visit was around 1987 when the exhibitors were in a big tent. I was helping College Press set up when a man walked up and said, “You’re from College Press, right? Well, you’re going to hell - but ACU will beat you there!” Even though I had just been consigned to the flames, I felt like I was in good company - not that either organization is hellbound! As Don DeWelt used to say, “There’s too much ‘hell’ in some peoples’ ‘hello.’”
I’m not sure about the infomercials…those things drive me nuts. But the telemarketers…
I got a call this week actually, a follow-up call actually, because 6 months ago when they called I actually listened to their “spill” then too. It is a company called the Dove Foundation who is trying to get people to watch more GOOD movies. Movies that are family friendly. Films that are cutting the crud language, sex scenes and violence out.
The last time they called me I was still pretty much the “poor college student,” so I told them I couldn’t buy any of their films, but this time around I’m a little better off financially so I told them I’d get one.
I can’t help but join a cause like that that is trying to better films nowadays. The website is http://www.dove.org if you are interested in the good family films.
As for the spinach….yeah, I sure did get it on my Subway sandwich on Tuesday, when I normally don’t (thought I’d go a little healthier that day), and then sure heard about all this e.coli business. But I’m still probably going to get it on my subway again today…HA!
Popeye would be fine. His spinach came out of a can rather than from a little bag. I guess the lesson here is to ignore the “washed and ready” note and go ahead and wash it good anyway.
Victor, great story. I’d like to believe the guy had a grin on his face, but i’m afraid he was serious.
It depends how one defines “torture”. Is giving a prisoner a metal cot, blanket and pillow torture? What about the size of the cell or 4 straight hours of interrogation? What about making them listen to “rock and roll”?
Some of the things that groups describe as “torture” are petty and nothing more than light college hazing.
I don’t care what they say.
I’m never going back to spinach in a can.
I’m sure there’s a line forbidding it in the Geneva Convention document.
i am against torture as well, that is why i will not listen to some preachers. Which brings up a good idea. Make the terrorist listen to ___________.
I can well understand Sen. McCain’s fixation on prisoner torture and also feel he takes his demands too far at time. However, as Tim says, who will define what is torture. Some would say the very fact that they’re incarcerated would be enough to deem it torture.
For instance, shaming or embarassing a prisoner of war is NOT torture, beatings are imho.
I’m on the ‘do not call’ list, so don’t get telemarketing calls, other than local ones that use the phone book to call people. When they begin their presentation after asking who they’re wanting to speak with, I tell them I don’t accept calls from people who don’t know my family members’ names, and hang up.
Several years ago I ordered a couple of things and was happy with the products - they were as presented, with one exception which I returned and did receive full refunds.
Junk mail and spam email? Into the trash with both of them.
btw Mike, you cannot wash off ecoli. The warning I heard this morning said if you have ANY bagged spinach, throw it away. Cooking, washing will NOT get rid of the ecoli. Buy fresh spinach, out of bag spinach, frozen or canned and you’ll probably be okay but washing bagged spinach is not going to protect from ecoli. Sorry.
David Gushee is a great writer in general. I don’t think I’ve read his article in Christianity Today, but he teaches just up the road from here, and he contributes frequent columns to our local newspaper. One of his most recent was on torture. Brilliant piece. He has a way of stepping away from political rhetoric (left- or right-wing) and taking a hard honest look through a truly Christian lense.
Mike, I’m still hoping for the day that HU has you as the keynote at their Lectures. Prayers for all the speakers, presenters, & participants at the ACU Lectures. I would love to feel “the fresh winds” blowing there!
In Gushee’s own words: So I do not write to demonize those who believe that protecting our nation’s security requires the use of interrogation techniques that could be classified as borderline torture. Nor do I want to get into a technical and detailed argument about particular interrogation techniques to determine if they are torture. What I want to focus on is the idea that, given the war on terror, the gloves should be taken off. Simply put, should our government have the option—even if used only rarely and in extreme circumstances—of torturing prisoners?
Do people really need to define torture? What is the defination if “is”? It is just the presidents way of having permission to torture. Wake up people. Secret prisons, Gitmo…If you read article 3 of the Geneva Convention it is very clear on what torture is and the things that will not be done to prisoners. Article 3 is about how we treat humanity in times of war. Rules. If I trust anyone it is Colin Powell and John McCain.
If any country should set the example of how to treat humans, it should be the united states. Even the worst of criminals, murders and rapists, in America we don’t torture. When we do torture and don’t want to follow geneva convention then we become just as bad as the enemies we are fighting against.
Thanks for the waring about Spinach. I get my Spinach on pizza at CiCi’s, that’s all.
True torture is not right, ever. But as it has been said, what is torture for some is not torture for others. Listening to loud horrible music for hours on end is not torture to teenagers, but it’s reason for filing a law suit from terrorists suspects. Which brings me to a bigger point. I find it amazing that such detailed care is taken in making sure terror suspects aren’t “tortured” (I use this term loosely) but it seems many don’t want to consider the torture that has been stopped around the world as a result of the arrests and interrogations of many terrorists.
No I’ve been told by health officials that E-Coli can’t be washed off. You gotta throw the stuff out.
And by the way, I consider infomercials, spam and telemarketers a form of torture. Can I file a law suit against that? Have my constitutional rights been slammed? And if we “tortured” terrorists suspects with a constant flow of infomericals, spam and telemarketing calls, could they file a law suit against us for that?
How could Christians torture? Well wasn’t that what the inquisition was all about? We are not the first “Christian Nation” that has used torture techniques.
As far as infomercials go, I have bought a rotisserie from Ron-co off of the TV. Just set it and forget it. It is the best thing in my kitchen. Chicken, Beef, Lamb, Pork, Veggies all taste better in the Rotisserie. I have heard that his food dehydrator was wonderful as well, what about dehydrated avocados?
I agree with the article on torture completely. My problem is that I’m ok with the admittedly hypothetical situation of, “We know this individual knows where a nuclear bomb is about to go off but he won’t talk unless we ________ to him. If we don’t ________ to him soon, millions of people will die.” I’m all for the millions of people living at the expense of the dignity or even perhaps the life of the “bad guy.” I just don’t like what that says about me in the least.
PreacherMan,
I just woke up. Thanks for the condescending words. If only the countless lawyers around the world could read the GC articles with such clarity. Apparently there’s no room for dialogue…unless you buy what McCain and Powell are selling. I’m not inclined to believe any of them. None are exempt from the pulls of DC.
I appreciate the article. I’m in agreement for the most part. But there is (as always) legitimacy to both sides of the argument.
I would also dare to say that any civilized person is “anti-torture,” per se, much like any civilized person is “anti-war” (nobody wants war, but…). Can there be “just torture?” Or is the connotation assigned to the word “torture” simply too strong?
In my estimation, dialogue is the point.
Terry A, you can request no calls from Harding, and that will be honored.
Were the rules that came out of the Geneva Convention written for dealing with terrorist? My understanding is that they were not.
I don’t think any Christian supports torture if by “torture” you mean treating a prisoner in an inhumane way. But some people consider ANY behavior modification techniques as torture. A very close friend just had his brother sent to prison for 4 years……is that torture? Some would have you believe it is. We need to distinguish attaching battery cables to someone’s testicles from playing rock music loudly….and not call them the same thing. Not all “torture” is torture.
DU
I was told that hanging a smoked ham in the cabin of an airplane would be considered torture. I was also told that reading out loud and over and over the New Testament would be on that list. Guess we have to know what is meant by the President until we judge him. When the media uses anything as a catch word, I am leary.
We think that if we torture than they will talk and and give us all this information. In the name of Mohammad and Islam no matter how much we torture they aren’t going to talk. They’ve got 13 virgins in the after life waiting for them. Allah is going to bless them in their minds theology. So why should we American’s lower our standards? Why?
America has always stood up for human rights. Fair trials. Innocent until proven guilty. Bush is wanting to change the rules. Change who we are as a country as far as human rights and how we fight wars. Whe we allow the terrorists to change who we are then they have won. We need to be the example to the world and say no matter what the terrorists do to us we are not going to lower our standards. We are not going to do what they do. We are going to still be the nation that stands on the hill and gives the light of hope to the world on what democracy is like, that it is different and better than what they have. But, when we change. When we allow the things that they do to lower our human rights standards and the treatment of war criminals. Then we are not better off than they.
Torture. We shouldn’t even as American’s be thinking along those lines.
Were it so simple that the “countless lawyers” could read the Geneva Convention with such clarity. Kind of like all the countless Christians who read the bible with such clarity. Good thing everyone is in such harmonious agreement on interpreting that document.
When I used to teach infantry soldiers about Jesus, I always had to emphasize respecting human dignity–the source of which springs from being made in God’s image whether we’re an American Christian or a Saudie Muslim. There was a constant tension between those who wanted to dehumanize the enemy and those who were able to see the enemy as a real human with families and all the rest. We baptized Stephen Green, who’s accused of raping and killing a child and her family. Obviously the message of the gospel is having to compete with the message of the powers and principalities, powers which breed extreme patriotism, extreme nationalism, all which allows arbitrary lines on a map to define whose life counts and whose doesn’t.
Ben
charlie s.-exactly.
PreacherMan: “We think that if we torture than they will talk and and give us all this information. In the name of Mohammad and Islam no matter how much we torture they aren’t going to talk. They’ve got 13 virgins in the after life waiting for them. Allah is going to bless them in their minds theology. So why should we American’s lower our standards? Why?”
These broad generalizations with regards to others’ ideology doesn’t aid in the evolution of further understanding. Do all Muslims adopt this philosophy? Christians should know better than that. We’re all the same, right? Even when it comes to heaven and hell. No, we’re not. So this perceived Muslim ideology cannot be used as the trump card to end the conversation.
Furthermore, using biblical language to describe Amerca’s position to world is dangerous, at best.
Furthermore, the whole “If _____, the terrorists win” thing is overused. Who’s actually keeping the score? Is it a game?
Something tells me that Bush and the govt.’s rhetoric about “torture” doesn’t mean hanging hams in planes and reading the NT over and over.
We are kidding ourselves to think that those seeking this power to “torture” are talking about anything less than physically and mentally abusing prisoners in order to get information from them. This is the issue at hand. No matter what anyone else tries to say.
We have to stop trying to “clean up” stuff like this and get real about the way of Christ.
it is so sad that we can not get facts from the news media, but “they” can certainly scare alot of misinformed people into hurting so many people in the public “they serve” . Remember kindergarten,wash your hands after using the bathroom, before eating and duh, before cooking,(I don’t even need to tell you how many times I’ve been in a restaurant bathroom and watched four or five people walk out without washing their hands, or at church..ick! )
As my daughter says stay on track mom, E coli isn’t in the spinach, it is on the spinach and you can wash it off and you can cook it. Remember the hamburger e coli scare, just cook the meat to 115 degrees and you will be safe, don’t throw it all way! When I was growing up, if we brought fruit and vegies home we washed them, well. We lived oversea and the farming tech…well you get it, we need to take some responsiblity, washed spinach in bags has been great but if I need to go back to washing the leaves myself I will, I just don’t get telling everyone to throw food away and stores then throwing what they have on hand away… spinach is such a great source of iron for girls(and guys) …oh well, Oh and Mike I can believe this is the topic that got me to write in your blog,I have been so blessed by reading , thank you
Chris, we are back to square one……..what do you perceive to be “physically and mental” abuse?
Does the way of Christ include doing what you can to protect innocent people who have gone to work in the Twin Towers?
Chrisitanity is SO messy because there are no black & white issues - everything is a shade of grey & then it becomes WHICH shade is the “right” one? Thank you Jesus for pouring out your RED blood to wash away our greys!
“Suppose you are the president of the United States. You have hard intelligence that a dirty bomb is set to explode somewhere in Chicago within the next 12 hours. The Department of Defense is holding an enemy combatant connected with the terrorist group that placed the bomb. You have every reason to believe he knows the location of the bomb, but he refuses to talk.
“‘Mr. President,’ the secretary of defense says to you, ‘with your approval, we can make this man talk, thereby saving hundreds, maybe thousands, of American lives. But the interrogation won’t be pretty, and the prisoner may never recover. Shall we do whatever’s necessary?’ ” Rob Elder
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/torture-ethics.html
What if one of these lives to save was a family member?
Amen, Beaner!
Above commentor
David -
I don’t know that I can spell out physical or mental abuse here in a way that would satisfy all possible meanings of those words. I think that if you and were to watch a video of someone being hit, electrocuted, kicked, spit on, slapped, yelled at, threatened, having their families threatened, being left in a pitch black cell for days at a time, and being served food their religion forbids them to eat that we might say that all of that is not right. This is the kind of torture that is being talked about here.
As far as your hypothetical situation:
I harbor no belief that these issues are easy or clean. I would only reply to the above hypothetical with this:
I can’t believe that Jesus would physically or mentally harm anyone to gain information from them. That is not the Jesus I see in the scriptures and especially not at the cross.
I guess I am in the minority here, but I do not see anything wrong to do whatever is necessary to get information from a terrorist. That information literally could save thousands of lives. We were attacked and will continue to be if we do not do what is necessary to prevent it from happening.
I would define torture as treatment that is universally significantly unpleasant, physical or mental. Defining it by personal preference (such as taste in music) is silly. Beating, flaying, water dripping on your head incessantly, eyes taped open under bright lights, etc. are pretty much guaranteed to affect anyone. Making a situation simply uncomfortable is not torture, just punishment, which is acceptable in my opinion. Repurcussions for bad actions are not supposed to be absent of discomfort; otherwise what’s the point?
Torturing to save lives kind of falls under “an eye for an eye” doesn’t it? Claiming that some sort of balance between the means and the end makes it righteous. Christ vetoed that mindset, and never gave a ratio that justifies reverting to it momentarily. Christians are responsible for our own actions, period. No justification allowed.
How far do you carry “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also?”
How far are we to carry that whole speech there in Matthew 5:40 - 48??
It seems to me that our current President talks alot about his faith and the faith of the nation and yet there is a gap when it comes to what he says he believes and this torture issue.
Ben and Chris,
Excellent thoughts.
Amen!
NashvilleMan,
I don’t think it is a game. We are at war.
Even Bush says we will “win” if.
Does he think its a game?
We are talking about all muslims here it is reference to “terrorists” who are radical fundementalists mulsims who believe this about the afterlife. In talking about fundamentalists Muslims which these terrorists are you can use their ideology about the afterlife in understanding that this torture won’t work. Even Bush mentioned that Osama Ben Laden said it was better to die than to live.
You want to “win” in a war. Someone’s got to “win”.
If we claim to be Christian nation. The president in speeches uses “God” then we should be what we claim. We should be the light on a hill shinning forth freedom to the world. Letting the world know that democry is different than dictatorship or communism. America is a better nation. A nation that respects human rights.
When we torture it lowers our standards. We are just as bad as the terrorist who straps on a bomb or fly’s a plane into a building.
As American’s we must hold on to what we have been for many years an advocate for human rights.
If we change the Geneva Convention article 3 and “specify” what torture is…It leave it open for torture to be done. We say you can’t shock somone with jumper cables and leave out punching unrepeatedly…It leaves it open for that…and so and so on.
Talking what is torture and what is not torture in a nation that is to be a refuge to those who have been oppressed is sad and frieghtening.
Thanks for the perspective, David. For moral reasons, I’m personally not a fan of torture practicies in interrogation, but to write them off completely is also arguably immoral. Sometimes Christian behavior requires us to rely on a situation-ethic type of philosophy, determining the most moral action on the basis of what the particular situation calls for.
Chris Field = “I can’t believe that Jesus would physically or mentally harm anyone to gain information from them. That is not the Jesus I see in the scriptures and especially not at the cross.”
How do we line your statement up with Romans 13
“The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.”
Does the government’s treament of terrorists fall under the teaching of this scripture?
Why are terrorists such a separate category of criminals? How are other crimes against people of any number less deserving of the maximum punishment allowed? What makes us so sure that these people are the only ones who the government is allowed to treat worse than everyone else who has harmed or tried to harm someone? Because of the number of people they intended to harm? Because those in the media and authority have been driving that into our heads? Because they are basing their actions on faith much of the time, which makes them harder to deal with? Ridiculous. They are doing wrong. That’s all. Punish accordingly. Try and prevent problems in the future. Go after the leader, but don’t drop every moral restraint and legal guideline that applies in every other situation.
Yes, the government is “an agent of wrath to bring punishment”, but punishment and torture are two different things.
Preacherman, you keep bringing up the Geneva Convention without acknowleging it wasn’t written as a guide for treating those acting as TERRORIST.
DU
I don’t think Romans 13 can be used as justification for decisions by our govt. that are immoral or wrong. Don’t forget that it is the US govt. that advocated slavery and segregation until less than 100 years ago and it is this same govt. that didn’t allow woman to vote about 75 years ago. So was the govt. right in those situations? Obviously not.
I think the use of Romans 13 is out of context here and really doesn’t play into this discussion. Bottom line: Would Jesus torture anyone?
Would Jesus go Deer Hunting? Would Jesus be a Stock Broker? Would Jesus go see a Disney movie? Would Jesus go a Christian Concert? Would Jesus do this or that?
The WWJD is simply a ruse to make you feel better. It cannot, with any sort of intelligence, be used in all situations.
Chris Field- “I can’t believe that Jesus would physically or mentally harm anyone to gain information from them. That is not the Jesus I see in the scriptures and especially not at the cross.”
Agreed. But I don’t see a politically active, gov’t watch-dog Jesus either. And the Jesus you see in the scriptures may not be the same Jesus I see in the scriptures. I guess that’s the point.
I agree that torture is wrong (who doesn’t?!). But to be so difinitive about a position on an issue, allowing zero compromise or room for grey, seems to be short-sighted. Isn’t that what we all rail against on Mike’s blog?
One can be short sighted on either side of the aisle (Progressive or Conservative). It’s the same ill, just carried by a person of a different color.
It does serve as a good measure of how we treat others. Various activity questions may not apply, but we should judge our view of and actions toward other people in comparison with Christ.
What would Jesus do?
“Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?” Matthew 9:4
We can pick and choose scripture to make our argument seem the better choice, I just pray that I can live by God’s standards not my own, let me sow the seeds of peace, through the Prince of Peace, I just pray our country will set higher standards… we know He hates what evil people do, but He loves those who do right. I just ache for our country to do what is right. I’m an old Air Force “Brat”, my Dad’s example of service is awesome, I’ve seen him deeply hurt over our governments choice’s on many levels, yet the seeds He planted in me to be a warrior for our Lord, well, I for one don’t want our country involved in torture, it is always wrong.
Tim: I think that is why the book, “What Would Jesus Do Today?” was written. I can’t remember the authors.
Regarding the several people here who are making a case that torture in some instances is permissable (or even preferable if it saves innocent lives), or that being forced to endure blaring music (or whatever else) isn’t torture, or that this is a new kind of war and it demands new kinds of behavior (so the Geneva Conventions, or US law, or common human decency no longer apply), here’s what I’d say:
1) It never ceases to surprise me how quickly and perniciously fear works. If you scare people enough, you can get them to do anything. This is what happened in 1930s Germany to a large extent. And it’s the reason that the terror alert level has risen every time there’s been an election for the past 5 years–the reason those in power keep telling us that a vote for the “wrong person” could result in dire consequences. “You don’t want to embolden our enemies, do you?” Forgive me for mentioning it, but I thought one of the reasons Jesus came was to put an end to fear (remember that whole “perfect love casts out fear” thing?). Our chief purpose is to serve God and to serve others and trust to God to make it right. And in our better moments, this principle has also guided our country. Roosevelt wasn’t just blowing smoke when he told us the only thing we had to fear was fear itself… Fear is the destroyer; it incapacitates all of what Shakespeare called “our better angels.”
2) I’m profoundly troubled by the “us versus them” language I’m hearing here. I know that the whole purpose of people like Rush and O’Reilly and Coulter (and to be frank, even that fellow who claimed to be “a uniter, not a divider”) is to divide people–rich and poor, American and alien, red-stater and blue-stater, saint and sinner. So from what I’m seeing here and hearing across the country, mission accomplished. In politics, divisions are useful–and they can be a great motivator for action. It’s much easier to stir people up about an outside threat than it is to get them to work on their own problems and deficiencies. But again, Jesus seems to undermine this whole approach–from telling us to get busy about the specks in our own eyes first to reminding us that the person who’s really our neighbor might just be that person we consider to be subhuman. Jesus came to tear down the barriers that keep us from realizing our interconnectedness–remember that whole “there is no Jew nor gentile, slave nor free, male and female” thing? That’s all a product of the fall, right? So do we Christians really figure that the way to put an end to all this is merely to make the divisions bigger and more noticeable–to apply one standard to our enemies and another to our friends? Is working against the principles of Christ really a good idea? Now that we’ve tortured and bombed and invaded, is Iraq, for example, really a safer place? And has it all resulted in our increased safety? It seems to me that the thing that really “emboldens our enemy” is when we give them just cause to fight against us, to see us as unjust, to claim that we’re hypocrites. I’m thinking Jesus said something about loving our enemies and turning the other cheek (or was he just speaking about little stuff there?). Against such things, there is no law… So are we worried about the Jihadists like God is–yearning for their salvation, wanting them to join and enjoy the fellowship of his body, extending to them the gospel–or are we worried about them the way the “other side” is, wanting to devour them and destroy them? Anne Lamott says “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” That should be food for thought here…
3) One final thought: I’ve heard that the last couple of elections have been all about “moral values,” that a “new spiritual awakening” is happening in this country, and that our government is increasingly holding to “Christian truths.” I guess I get a bit confused, then, that all of this stuff that our leaders trumpet seems contingent on the situation… “I’ll love them if they love me,” or “I’ll play by the rules unless the rules won’t get me what I need or want,” or “I can violate that principle because the ends justify the means.” Forgive me. It’s no doubt a product of my generation that my Sunday School teachers spent a lot of time condemning “situation ethics.” But I can’t seem to remember the gospel saying anything like any of that.
You want a good definition of torture? It’s the thing that does not “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” And I guess I’m wondering what a Christian’s response should be to THAT…
Any of you guys who’ve gone on and on about how unfair it is to take this tool away from the president & his interrogators or how naive it is to treat the “detainees” humanely want to take a stab?
It would be nice if some of you could actually post a comment without your hatred for everything Republican/Bush/Conservative showing but, then again, I am sure you wear that sign proudly and it’s hard to put it down.
I understand the terrorists get to pray 5 times a day, get Subway and McDonald’s sandwitches, get to exercise 2 hours a day, etc. Some torture, huh? Oh, excuse me, the word is “detainees”
These are the same people who cut heads off.
David U,
Are we not at war with the Terriist? If that is the case then the Geneva Convention should apply.
Tim, you’ve just introduced what is known in the business as a “red herring”–a logical fallacy that distracts from the main line of an argument by pointing to or introducing a subpoint or a point not relevant to the main argument. Effectively, your post fails to deal with any of the issues brought up in the various posts, instead arguing that a person’s political status trumps or negates any other argument (no matter how well argued) that person might make. Is that really what you were shooting for here?
I just don’t understand any American and especially president who would think it would be okay to torture.
What message and image does that show to other countries around the world?
Bill: “It never ceases to surprise me how quickly and perniciously fear works. If you scare people enough, you can get them to do anything.”
Exactly, that’s why some support “torture” (whatever that word means).
I personally agree with the majority of your thoughts. I don’t agree, however, that Jesus’ sermon in Matthew was/is intended to apply to govts (it’s open for discussion). That being said, the authority (sermon on mount) with which we’re basing our positions isn’t yet established as authoritative
If you suggest that it is absolutely applicable to gov’t and the gov’t should be subject to it, I’d ask you if you pay taxes. Aren’t we all contributing to the violation of Jesus’ teachings to some extent. So the us/them perspective is invalid.
We’re all in the wrong to some degree. One cannot exist without being in the wrong to some extent. Without admitting this, my generation will never listen to this church.
Tim said “The WWJD is simply a ruse to make you feel better. It cannot, with any sort of intelligence, be used in all situations.”
I agree that it cannot be used in all situations by someone who is unwilling to be a radical Christ-follower before they are anything else (American, Church of Christer, conservative, etc.)
It seems I will have to agree to disagree with some of you on this issue. In the end, I really just think our own fears for country and self trumps our ability to really discern what is loving God and loving neighbor as self. And before anyone says that the greatest command is just a ruse, I’m just trying to sum up the law of God the way that Jesus did when pressed to do the same thing.
Oh, and the purpose of Rush, Coulter, et. al is not to be divisive. It’s to make money. Let’s not kid ourselves.
If bringing people together was lucrative, they’d do it. Or publishers/radio stations would find somebody that could.
One final thing:
I honestly am not all that concerned with what the “US govt.” decides to do about torturing people. I cannot control the govt. and I do not believe that trying to reason with govt. decisions using Jesus and scripture is fair to all those in our country who are not Christ-followers.
What I am far more concerned about is the way of God in this issue and how the people of God choose to treat others.
Would it be better for “America” to torture: Probably so.
Would it be better for the kingdom of God to torture: I think most of know how that questions must honestly be answered.
Col Jessep: You can’t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives…You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty…we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use ‘em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to!”
Chris,
Yes you can’t control the goverment. But the wonderful thing you can do is if you don’t like what the government is doing, you can vote in November.
NashvilleMan,
Rush and Coulter are blind leading the blind aren’t they?
Why is it that I’m not surprised that so many people from (predominantly, I presume) Churches of Christ aren’t offended by torture? Or that they don’t understand the importance of the question “What Would Jesus Do?” to our daily walk? Or that they don’t seem to understand that following Jesus is primarily what our lives are about? Or that they’re so very eager to defend this president that they just keep repeating sound bites from Fox New? Or that they somehow think that because we think the people being held are terrorists (same language our opponents are using for us) that frees us from the very agreements that we’ve relied up for so long, even though this president says we’re at war with them? Why am I not surprised?
Bill, I’m not sure Tim was even *trying* to use his short 12:18pm post to “contribute to the development of a syllogism to address the substance of the issue at play” here. As I read him, he’s simply appealing for a bit of evenhandedness in the style and quality of discourse, rather than the political baiting that invariably causes a conversation to degrade. It’s a simple matter of being respectful vs. being condescending toward those who don’t share a certain perspective. Tim, am I anywhere close?
There is, BTW, quite a lot of red-state-bashing that goes on here, I’ve noticed over the few months I’ve been monitoring the comments on Mike’s blog. Sadly, that kind of stuff saps the desire to engage in fruitful, energetic discussion, even if the political ad hominems have no technical bearing on the issues in play. It just makes the whole thing overtly personal and poisonous. We can do better than that, wouldn’t you agree?
This whole question of torture, unfortunately, *does* require that we parse the key words and operate from the same semantic baseline if we can. For example: I’m trying to imagine what it would be like, as a Muslim, to have a slab of bacon rubbed all over me with my wrists and ankles chained to the wall. The only thing I can come up with that would be comparable, as a Christian, would be to be forced to endure some sort of lascivious lap-dance or a steady stream of blasphemous language about my Savior and Lord. But is that torture? I guess I just don’t know, because the moral key in such an instance is the condition of my heart. God is surely merciful enough to forgive me being physically coerced into enduring something I would not otherwise choose for myself, so there is not really any question of being in spiritual jeopardy for being treated that way until/unless I, by an act of the will, decided to find a way to participate in the activity with my heart.
One thing McCain taught us, as did Bonhoeffer and the Jews of Dachau, was that a man can be imprisoned bodily, but his true mind/heart cannot be imprisoned. If the point of torture is to get a person to renounce his faith, then it can be resisted at the level of the will, and even giving in to it is not really giving in because of the coercion involved. Such “giving in” is mechanical and arbitrary. But if the point of torture or ill or demeaning treatment is to get a person to give up information that potentially saves the souls or lives of others, then the matter is far less clear, and the issues are more nuanced, even in light of Matthew 5:38-48.
I have been reading a lot of Hauerwas, a committed and eloquent pacifist in the streamlines of Yoder and the Anabaptists. Even looking deeply into his arguments from Scripture, one has to admit that it is really hard to devise a simplistic YES/NO to any generalized proposition (especially the kind that is required by drafting legislation!) about some nonspecific brand of “torture,” whatever that might mean. Do I give up the identities and locations of 5 Jewish families in a trap-door basement to save my own daughter from being raped by the SS? It seems to me that to be strident and dogmatic about how our president should see these matters (”as clearly as we do,” our modesty comically forbids us to say - out loud, anyway) does not take account of how difficult we would find the equivalent moral quandaries in our own lives were we, God forbid, to encounter them ourselves.
Thank God I don’t have to make such decisions that have the fates of DC or New York or Chicago or Miami riding on them. To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, more credit ought to accrue to the guys actually in the arena, bloodied but still willing to slug it out on the arena floor of geopolitical ethics.
qb
Amen to Chris Field and Bill. Amen and amen.
Bill, nice red herring yourself when you threw out the names Rush and O’Reilly and Coulter. Why specific names on one side of the aisle only?
QB, you got it.
David - Ahh…now you’re speaking my language (quote from ‘A Few Good Men’) It’s interesting to point out that Col. Jessep was found guilty & the 2 Marines were dishonorably discharged from the service!
QB, I appreciate your thoughts. I must ask, though, whether how we do “not take into account of how difficult we would find the equivalent moral quandaries in our own lives were we, God forbid, to encounter them ourselves” is a relevant question. I don’t think anyone involved would say they would find the answer easy should the situation be laid at their feet, regardless of which point of view they have taken. However, that is simply acknowledging that our human emotions would make the enactment of our moral standard a very difficult task. Nonetheless, it doesn’t mean that a stance, evaluated objectively apart from such emotional stress and intended to be modeled after the author of our faith, becomes less true or right when the decision must be made. It just tests whether we are strong enough to stand by it.
*chuckle* OK, Beaner, game on.
Do you conclude that that dramatic ending tells us more about (a) the apocryphal Marines or (b) the writer of the screenplay? That is, isn’t “how the movie actually ended” something quite apart from “how the story should have ended if it were written to reflect the realities of the kingdom of God?”
Someone brought up the Golden Rule as a quasi-conclusive standard for evaluating this stuff. But that begs a question of the following sort:
Faced with the option to inject a high-leverage prisoner with truth serum or not, with a nuclear guillotine hanging over an entire metropolis of my countrymen, women and children, on what level do I apply Jesus’ Golden Rule? At the level of, “I wouldn’t want someone to do that to me,” or at the level of, “I’d want someone to do that to me if, were I in my right mind, I knew that doing so would save the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocents?” The answer in the first case is probably NO, but in the second case - the situation hasn’t changed at all, mind you, only the level at which I apply Jesus’ teaching - the answer is probably YES.
Anyone wanna play?
qb
Hypothetical scenarios seem to be popular today.
So here’s one: a woman who’s been held may have information that could save many lives. But normal means of “aggressive interrogation” don’t work. But there’s a sense that if she’s gang raped, she might give information. It wouldn’t make her renounce her faith, but it would make her give information. Or, there’s a sense that killing her children one at a time in front of her would make her pass along the information.
Would we do it?
No. Because rape is wrong. Always wrong. Murder is wrong. Always wrong. I believe that’s all the Christian brother was saying in the article we were invited to read.
I can hear the question coming: But in your hypothetical scenario, was she a terrorist or just a normal POW?
It doesn’t matter which way you think of her. If she’s a terrorist and is in our detainment, we are responsible for how we treat her.
Emily 72
Amen! Preach it Girl! These church of Christer’s problemly wouldn’t like that either.
I’d like to play.
People who want to ignore the dramatic teachings of Christ live in the world of such games. Enjoy the games.
Christians never support torture.
Bill, although you had some good points, it’s really hard to get past the “I know the whole purpose of people” part. Really? I would like to “take a stab” at being that all knowing.
If “if’s” & “but’s” were candy & nuts, we’d all have a good Christmas!!!
I hate “always/never” statements unless they apply to God & you can “if” & “but” your way in & out of almost every arguement.
Not saying that there AREN’T any always/never, but we just need to be careful how we apply those!
Yeah, Memphis, you’re probably right about that. But it just seems to me that there’s a bit more moral/ethical certitude and facile chest-beating in evidence here than is warranted, and that that kind of certitude is being used as a starting point for ripping those of a particular political persuasion or those occupying a particular political office (most notably, the White House).
And more than a few of our eminent moral thinkers (of the Christian persuasion, that is) might say to us that evaluating these quandaries MEANINGFULLY in a completely objective, dispassionate way is simply not possible. The first century folks who fancied themselves enlightened enough to do that weren’t the disciples of Jesus, they were the scribes and Pharisees.
Now look: I don’t mean to suggest that the folks in this corner of the blogosphere are morally equivalent to those whitewashed sepulchres. I only mean to point out that anyone can fall into the trap of being a bit more certain of one’s position than the moral-facts-on-the-ground truly warrant — even those who spend a lot of time immersing themselves in the biblical record.
It’s another way of saying, I guess, “all ethics are situational.” Or to cop a geekier approach: that dastardly Heisenberg fella is everywhere, isn’t he?
qb
Did anyone hear the press conference? We want to define “torture” so we can know what we can and can’t do in getting the information we need to protect American’s. The Geneva Convention needs to be left alone. We must always follow it.
Torture is never right.
Is never acceptable.
Should never be permissable. We should never tolerate it. Ever.
Why can’t we see that torture is wrong?
We should be the ones who hold the standard and say we aren’t going to be like our enemies.
Emily, do you really believe…in your heart of hearts, I mean… that yer harmless brother qb REALLY “want[s] to ignore the dramatic teachings of Christ?”
I don’t think this is mere “games” at all. By “wanna play?,” I meant to try to lighten the tone around here a little bit so that we can be serious about serious ethical matters without drifting into the less charitable streams of discourse and blowing the whole thing sky-high. I had enough of that back in the “Ephesians 5:19 don’t say nuthin’ about no infernal pitch-pipes, now, does it?” days, know whut ah mean?
Alas, back to work. Y’all have a great weekend. qb
I have been listening all day, and seems the problem was caused by McCains bill from a while back. It left dubious language that commanaders aren’t sure what can and cannot be done to detainees. The President is just asking for clarity, as the military doesn’t want their men accussed of wrong doing. I have felt since this morning we are being duped by the media’s use of the word torture.
It has been an interesting discussion. But I encourage us to be cautious. The one who said in an earlier comment that someone who had written previously apparently didn’t take following Jesus seriously because he didn’t support the same conclusion about torture very carelessly misjudged, and seems to me to have violated a higher principle - how you regard a brother when you disagree. I know one of these people, and he takes his commitment to Jesus very seriously, I guarantee more than his Americanism. But he disagrees with your conclusion. Are you condemning him, or lovingly disagreeing on a matter of opinion (even a strongly held one)? And I assure you he is not a contentious brother. Email can be a difficult medium of communication, but the words used were defamatory. Caution.
Enough about torture/not torture! Joe Beam! Sex! Blowjobs!
IN THE NATIONAL MEDIA!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13834042/
Chris Field - “I don’t think Romans 13 can be used as justification for decisions by our govt. that are immoral or wrong”….
How immoral or wrong do you think it was of the Roman government to burn Christians on the stake in order to light their orgies? Talk about torture. Paul still says that the governments are established by God. All governments… How much are we going to trust God?
Lisa…very interesting…I just wish it was someone besides Joe. I don’t want to hear that coming from Joe (even though I agree with it)!!!
I was reading it thinking, “What’s the big deal? Good for him!” then I got to the part where it says he pantomimed oral sex and I had to click away. ::shudder::
There IS such a thing as Too Much Information.
T.Sherwood - I’m sorry if you don’t agree. I’m just not buying what you’re trying to sell.
If you want to say that all govt. are established by God, fine. I think there are HUGE problems with that idea, beginning with the govt. in Iraq that the US has recently overthrown. Why did we do that if God established Saddam in that position? But for the sake of this discussion, I will say”fine”, God put the current US govt. in their place as he did the Roman govt. of Paul’s times. But that is not the point here. The issue I have raised is not whether the govt. was established by God or not but if the decisions the govt. is making should be supported by Christian people.
Are you contending that Paul was condoning the burning of Christians at the stake because that govt. was established by God? I would think not. It seems likely that Paul thought that was wrong.
In the same way, even a govt. established by God can make unethical choices. And torturing people is one of those.
Taking your logic to the fullest extent means that all govt.’s are put there by God so we may as well just be fine and dandy with whatever they decide to do even if it goes against our Christian conviction.
Again, I can’t buy that. Sorry.
Mike, on a lighthearted note, you’ve tagged a blog which lists, among other things, a brief infomercial on your 9:45 Lectureship class, under the heading “Torture.”
Glad we know not to take you TOO seriously.
As for the rest of the comments, I didn’t have time to read them today, but since there is apparently something under discussion here today, I’ll quietly bow out with no further insight, and only a disclaimer: “My comment applies ONLY to jest Mike that he applied the label TORTURE to a blog containing an infomercial for his Lectureship class. Any application to anything else mentioned here is unintentional and sheer coincidence, because I didn’t read the comments today.”
(Always wise to post a disclaimer if your comment follows one that discusses oral sex.)
Good day to all.
Chris Field -
Yes, I am going to say that all governments are established by God, because that is what the Bible says! Not me, God says it.
Do I think that every government is doing what they are supposed to do? NO! Do I think that THIS government does all that it should do? NO! Am I trying to convince you of anything? NO!
You are the one wanting to pick verses out of the Bible to agree with or not. If your conviction is to not support the government, that is your decision.
Lisa - call me a prude if you must, but if your TMI and don’t-go-visual-on-me filters didn’t peg until *that* point in the article, you’ve got your threshold settings pretty awful high.
(Heck, qb was blushing by the time he yanked his head around from your first post pointing the article out to us. Talk about “get straight to the point” advertising, gone to seed!)
Mercy. Serves me right for drifting back this way out of innocent curiosity on a Friday afternoon. Is the heater on in here or what?
qb
…er, “meters,” not “filters.” (Mixing metaphors on Benadryl is a really bad idea.)
qb
T. Sherwood-
To be perfectly honest, after reading your two posts to me, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Sorry if I am just missing it here but I don’t seem to be getting what you are after.
A-men, Craig. I’ve heard “How can a Christian be a Democrat?” just about the same number of times as “How can a Christian be a Republican?” People are so very, very different, and I don’t think it’s fair to judge their hearts based on their voting records, their perspectives on the “War on Terror,” or who they listen to or don’t listen to on the radio. Personally, I disagree with some of the tactics used in military interrogations; however, I don’t have a big problem with breaking a murderer’s spirit by forcing them to listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers for hours on end…
Joe Beam brought his seminar here and it was well received, with a couple of minor hitches. First, he used his upraised forearm and open palm to represent a distinctive part of the male anatomy. Now here in Michigan, we use our open right palm as a map of the state (yes, we actually do refer to part of Michigan as “the thumb”). So when Joe pointed to a place on his hand and asked, “does anyone know what this is?” someone blurted out “Mackinaw City!” Later, he picked up a handheld wireless microphone to demonstrate the purpose and proper use of a different handheld, battery-powered device. Our praise team hasn’t been the same since.
Maybe I am not that old after all. I don’t think that listening to the Chili Peppers would be torture.
Now make me listen to Hoobastank or the anyone who played the Lilith Fair that would be torture, but Flea and Anthony not so much!
Mark-
Great post, maybe only Michiganders will get it, but it was worth it to lighten up this page. I thought Joe was great!
First, information received through “torture” is unlikely to be truth. You say whatever you think your captors want to hear. Secondly, I just cannot understand how any christian can be supportive of torture OR war.
I am sure Joe and his message were good…I just don’t want to hear it from him. It’s like your parents. You know they did it, you just don’t want to talk about it or visualize it.
Now, if one of the Weather Channel hosts want to give that lecture, I am all ears.
Chris Field -
To be honest, I must have missed some of your posts today and therefore missed where you were going. I think I’ll stick to reading Mike’s posts from now on and not the comments. Mike’s posts are enough for me to chew on anyhow.
“Secondly, I just cannot understand how any christian can be supportive of torture OR war.” -Belenda
I thought that conservatives were the only ones that are closed minded, but I stand corrected. Apparently close-mindedness does not discriminate.
Mike — my husband and I recently started attending Highland and love it. Between you and Jerry Taylor we could ask for nothing more!
In terms of the torture issue, the linked article said it all: even our perceived enemies are created in the image of God. Period. They are loved by the Almighty we worship (every bit as much as we are loved), so instead of trying to pinpoint how much we can get away with just short of torture, shouldn’t we be concentrating on what we can do to be LIGHT to the dark world? To our enemies? To those who would persecute us? That sounds oversimplified, to be sure. There’s always a tension between loving our enemies and condemning what is evil, but everything hinges on loving God and loving our neighbour. Right?
I was driving about a week ago behind a small car that had a bumper sticker — I suppose directed toward any would-be terrorists — that read, “God may forgive you. We will not.” It was plastered directly next to another sticker reading, “Jesus Lives.” The juxtaposition was so sad, so sickening to me, that I knew I should not ever justify putting any of my energy into vengeance and punishment. We, as Christ-followers, must be light or we doom ourselves to a world without mercy.
This post definitely opened up a can of worms (or possibly spinach:-), didn’t it? As for me, I HATE canned spinach so that would be torture for me to eat it. However, I love fresh spinach and discovered the bagged variety has been cleaned, as opposed to the fresh which has to be washed over and over again. When we lived overseas we soaked ALL of our vegetables in the sink with spoonful of bleach. Then rinsed so that might work.
My husband ate at Souper Salad today and there was no spinach today. So guess it may become a rarity now.
Was wondering how many watched ‘The Path to 911″ on ABC last week? We had DVRed it and finally watched it all. I thought it was very well done. Made me quite angry with all the beauracracy in our government whether w/Clinton or Bush. Very sad.
As an amendment to my comments above, I am obviously not saying there is no place for punishment of wrongdoing. But I DO believe that the idealogy which would have us believe anything short of torture is “letting them slide” rates dangerous at best. I’m not sure what loving our enemies looks like in the prison system, honestly. But the picture is worth pursuing, I think.
Joe has spoken at our church a few times. I wasn’t impressed then and even less now. Do we have to have this kind of talk in our churches?
Whew. Reading all the comments will make your blood pressure rise.
The thing to keep in mind about the present situation is that everyone wants to dump on the President, when actually the focus is on the law makers (ie, house and senate). The President is asking that the legal questions about what is torture and what is not be specified because #1 he doesn’t want to break the law, #2 he is a Christian and #3 he doesn’t write law, he just upholds the law #4 For Pete’s sake the man is trying to do what is right.
He has a job to do that most people are satisfied with doing as an “arm chair” president. Lots of ideas, criticism and judgments, but no guts to actually serve the public through elected office.
The ball in this political discussion needs to be directed to your elected federal lawmakers. This discussion is about the law.
All of the left leaners want to make an issue of seperation of church and state, yet want to mandate that the state adhere to their interpretation of Christian law where terrorists are concerned. I always find it odd what people decide is needed and what is not according to God’s law.
I’d hate to be in President Bush’s position. He has to determine what is torture to us the American people and what is torture to the ones who want to torture the American people. Bless him.
I agree with Terry, way back in the comments, we are all being “duped” by the media to think that this issue is something it is not. But that isn’t the first time.
Funny when we are led to believe bad things of the right it’s free speech. But when we are led to believe bad things about the left, it’s false info and WRONG!
Well said, Snapshot.
That does it. I’ve HAD IT with spinach.
Rob Elder concluded his article on applied ethics concerning the use of torture as it related to Abu Ghurayb:
“So military careers are ruined at the bottom of the chain of command, while at the top, the president and the secretary of defense can deny any responsibility.
‘Wouldn’t it be more ethical for George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld to say something like this: “We detest torture, but in wartime, extreme measures are sometimes necessary to protect American lives. The actions at Abu Ghurayb were a distortion of what we had in mind. Clearly things got out of hand there, and those in charge will be held to account.’”
Maybe this is the conclusion that President Bush has adopted. Because of this, he wants to know the parameters so that “Abu Ghurayb” will not happen again.
Duh!
That’s what he is saying. And because he wants to know the legalities of this horrible situation, he gets slammed. The guy can’t win with the left or the media.
Go back and listen to his press conference from this morning.
THAT’S WHAT HE’S ASKING FOR!!!!!
Folks, even Christians it appears, just get a big charge out of stickin’ it to our president. No that’s not being very Christian. And if you ask me, the president is constantly being tortured by the media and the left.
God help him endure.
What it boils down to is treat others, the enemy, the way you would want our American troops to be treated. Don’t treat them like objects. Don’t put any objects in them. Treat them like humans. Is it that hard to understand.
Today the president asked:What is human dignity?
It is a sad day for the world when the leader of the free world has to ask that kind of question.
I just think it is so aweful that we as American’s are even having this discussion. I haven’t heard one smart arguement for torture. Not one good arguement, reason to torture another human being, no soul. I just don’t get it. I don’t understand how Christians can support this kind of behavior. I don’t know how American’s can support this kind of behavior. It is sad.
Bush and the government are good at playing on the fear of the American’s. We had to torture to get the informatio