The Moral Debate About Torture
Here is ACU-grad Shaun Casey on “The Moral Debate About Torture.” I liked the spirited but respectful exchange between the two ethicists. Hmmmmm. So you CAN talk about something so important without exploding and without trying to destroy the other person!
This follows a Pew poll that indicates: “The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.” Why are those who attend church “seldom or never” also less likely to support torture?
Here’s an insightful piece by conservative columnist Kathleen Parker (that I referenced earlier on Twitter).
- – - -
Great sadness today following the death of HU grad Micah Rine Pate, daughter of Dennis and Terri Rine of Searcy. She and our older son, Matt, were in elementary school together (a class apart) in Searcy. Please pray for her family and friends.
There is an important piece missing in the Casey debate – the definition of torture. How are we to debate truthfully if the definition of the subject being debated isn’t clarified, specifically defined, imho.
Also, is there any scriptural, God-given distinction between the individual’s and the government’s responsibilities to others?
I’m in no way giving approbation to life-threatening measures, but no matter my own belief or on what side of the argument I fall, imo, these two pieces need to be defined and clarified before any of us can come to a God-glorifying answer to the questions asked.
In a lighter vein, can we safely use the Pew poll to make a judgment call on our fellowman….if in favor of ‘torture’ you go to church faithfully; if not in favor of same, for shame, you don’t go to church faithfully?
OR – if you go to church faithfully you are in favor of ‘ torture….if you don’t go to church faithfully, you are NOT in favor of same. We sometimes draw the same type of specious conclusion in other matters.
I am for torture. If we waterboard all politicians that lie, cheat or slander, we the people would be better off.
If God is going to torture sinners in Hell for all eternity what’s wrong with a little waterboarding of a terrorist?
Clint, You answered that question yourself—-the operative thought being “God will do the punishing”. It’s our job to treat everyone with dignity so that we won’t ourselves be judged. I’m thankful God is who HE says HE IS.
If the fact that God is going to torture sinners in Hell is all the justification man needs for torture on earth, then, in all honesty, who among us shouldn’t be the first person to step forward and be waterboarded?
There are so many questions at play in the discussion between Elshtain and Casey. Are there any circumstances under which something that can be called “torture” gives a government the information needed in order to protect, to preserve the most good, or to bring about a lesser evil? I think I agree with Elshtain that there are, and that a government would have moral permission to use torture for those reasons. I also think that the abuse of this principle in no way invalidates it.
Annie, how do you deal with Romans 13
“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established….He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”
Sam, you lost me.
My question was an attempt to understand why Christians are more in favor of torture than non Christians. Maybe because Christians spend their whole life trying not to mess up for fear of eternal damnation it is not a big deal then when a terrorist is waterboarded for killing 3000 innocent people.
However, after more thought I believe it is simply a political view. If you are a conservative you lean towards torture, if a liberal away from torture. Conservatives tend to be Christians and Liberals tend to be non-Christians. Therefore Christians tent to be for torture.
I do find it interesting that only 25% say torture should not be done in any situation.
Kathy –
Is it even a valid request to ask the Christian to define torture? I mean, really?
What would Jesus think of a question like that? I imagine Jesus saying something like, “You have heard it written, ‘Do not torture.’ But I say to you …”
Where would he draw the line? At anything more aggressive than turning the other cheek? By the way, I don’t believe Jesus’ instructions for radical peace, namely to turn the other cheek, are conditional. “Turn the other cheek … unless you can get some really good intel out of the sucka that might save some lives.”
To me, the fact that this “debate” needs to be had in the Christian community shows that we are far too comfortable in our fallen culture and have bowed to the idol of nation. I would say the same thing about war, abortion, economic inequality, extreme poverty, etc.
The only debate is what we as Christians are to do about these things. Inaction is not an option.
By the way, Clint nailed it as to why Christians tend to be for torture in the Pew poll.
Politics.
It’s a shame that so many Christians would allow partisan politics and the interests of nation supersede the way of Jesus. We are a peculiar people whose kingdom is not of this Earth and whose politics are those of the Suffering Servant, not of Caesar.
Count me as one who sees no justification for torture ever. There have to be other ways to “preserve the most good or bring about a lesser evil.” I am also one who is not absolutely sold on the idea that the U.S. is God’s last best hope on earth and should be preserved at all costs. And if God sees otherwise, can’t he preserve this nation without us resorting to techniques (torture, war, self-preservation, etc.) that he is clearly against? I have always been confused by “believers” who support a death penalty, demand looser gun laws, show signs of racism, call for stronger border controls, support war… Something just doesn’t sync.
Glad we’re on the same page, dad! =)
Jessep (Jack Nicholson): You want answers?
Kaffee (Tom Cruise): I think I’m entitled to them.
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth!
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 —- what you think you’re entitled to!
Kaffee: Did you order the code red?
Jessep: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.
Kaffee: Did you order the code red?
Jessep: You’re —- right I did!!
Whatever happened to the so called high value detainees is ugly. War always is! Is it worse to employ an insult slap, knock someone against a board designed to keep from hurting them and even to waterboard than it is to go to war? The house that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in was specifically targeted with a bomb to kill him. It killed him, but apparently he had a period of significant pain before he expired. And he didn’t cut off the head of anyone else after that. But we deliberately killed him and almost no one complained about the morality of it.
Every time a sniper targets someone, or even a regular soldier takes aim, he intends to kill, or preferably (sometimes) to injure and cause significant pain. “War is hell.”
David Lipscomb and many other have argued that Christians should have no part in any of these activities. So isn’t the real question not just whether we should engage in the low end of torture but whether we should be involved in war at all – either as a nation or as disciples of Jesus.
Is it valid to draw a distinction between what a follower of Christ must do (or avoid) versus what God approves of a government doing (or avoiding)? As I read the Sermon on the Mount, I understand that my responsibility before God is to absorb an insult or mistreatment rather than retaliate. But do nations, governments have rights or sanctions that individuals do not have? Is this what Romans 13 teaches?
Back to the responsibilities of individuals, was D. Bonhoeffer right or wrong when he concluded that his part in the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler was consistent with the will of God? He is hailed as a martyred, but what is not often remembered about Bonhoeffer is that he pastored his co-conspirators, patriotic Germans, as they committed themselves to a violent anti-government plot, not to mention all the duplicity.
Geezer,
“War is Hell”? Not my definition. Hell, at least as I was taught, is for thode who deserve it. War touches those who have nothing to do with it.
I understand the historical quote, but it is inaccurate.
I always thought of torture as something that inflicted pain or harm. This seems to be a new definition of torture. Let me say that I am absolutely against torture. But it seems to me that we should be having a conversation about what torture is. I don’t think you can run down a list either. At the end of the day, you have to decide what the guiding principals are that help us determine how we treat those who are trying to kill us. It seems that interrogation generally comes down to manipulation. So, how can you manipulate someone in accordance with God’s will? I don’t have a lot of answers. But I think going out and trying to imprison one’s political enemies without being able to answer these types of questions is missing the mark.
These kind of articles are very popular now. Let’s make Christians look bad. Other religions are written about to make them look good. I read articles in the paper about swamis, Buddhism, etc all looking great, next to the article saying devout Christians love torture. We are not told the exact question that Christians and non-Christians were asked. I was recently called in a poll about the state of education in my state. The questions were asked in a way that I never could give my real opinion on this issue.
Frank – Good questions. I appreciate the spirit / humility with which you push back and question these things. I just don’t see God having a double-standard for individuals versus entire societies and nations. I kind of see his kingdom — his dream, if that word is more helpful — encapsulating all of reality, down to our relationship with each other, other nations, our enemies, Creation, the poor, etc. God’s dream is that he’d be our king, not man, and that we’d live by his rules, not man’s. In a very real sense, even the concept of nations is counter to God’s dream for the world because it forces governments to seek their own interests first, not the interests of the poorest nations.
A “turn the other cheek / take the seat of shame” nation would be quite a sorry excuse, wouldn’t it.
Also, I think we let a single verse — 1 Cor. 13 — do things it was never intended to do. Is there another verse in the Bible that holds so much sway for American Christians today than this one? Paul’s words are a corrective for Christians who see themselves so much as a marginalized remnant in the Empire that their actions thereto are not befitting of a follower of Jesus. We live in a culture where Christians vote, go to war, host political talk shows, and take public office, so Paul might write to us from the perspective that we are too enmeshed with the Empire — not the opposite. To take 1 Cor. 13 and apply it universally is a poor reading of that text in the context of the whole of scripture, in my opinion.
Re: Bonhoeffer, I’m not sure we’ll ever know the answer to your question. I have heard vehement arguments on both sides. (here’s a thoughtful post asking that question) Bonhoeffer, as revered as he is, was still human and prone to sin. So we must at least keep open the possibility that he sinned when participating in that action. The best we can do is formulate our own ethic by which we will live and apply it where necessary. Any of us would be lying if we said we couldn’t have justified participating in such a plot against the Nazis and their atrocious actions, but thank God we haven’t ever had to make that decision. I pray we never do.
Our interpretation of scripture is largely influenced by our world view. In the beginning God created Man in His image. Today it seems Man has created God in his image.
Steve Jr., thanks for what you’ve said here. I also appreciate the spirit in which you disagree, my brother.
On various and sundry things: Isn’t it the case that the state takes actions every day that we approve of but would never ourselves have the right to do? The state arrests, jails, pronounces and enforces punishment, etc. Yet who would argue that such actions are inconsistent with the will of God simply because they are not the prerogative of any individual?
Governments typically abuse power. But does this mean that government is a bad thing? Do sinful humans make being human a bad thing? People were created by God. And, the authorities that exist have been established by God.
Re: Romans 13:1-7. I wouldn’t disagree with your comment about Americans being enmeshed in politics. Nationalism is powerful and subtle sin. But is it an abuse to say that this passage speaks of divine rights that belong to a state official (a diakonos of God) but which do not belong to any individual?
If God extends to nations provisional power, does that away from the kingship of the Almighty? If there are shepherds in the church, does that take away from Christ’s role as chief shepherd? Can’t the two be consistent?
Steve, Sr. (or Jr. for that matter),
How do “stronger border controls” in the attempt to limit illegal immigration fall into your list of non-Christian thought processes?
WW2, Japanese soldiers subjected some of our soldiers to Waterboarding in fear of a WMD attack (what were they thinking?).The punishment for those men after the war ranged from life in prison to death. Just want to make sure all of you who are so gung ho about this believe it was justified for the Japanese to use it on us. The alternative is that you are a hypocrite.
Frank,
Good comments. Your thoughts and questions on this issue closely mirror my own.
C: I had in mind what God told Israel about how to deal with “aliens and strangers” in their land. Not only was Israel to welcome them, they were to provide basic sustenance. Also, it seems that the way the white man sort of barged in to the New World and made ourselves at home calls for more sensitivity for those who want to join us in this fabulous place. We’ve got enough of everything for everyone.
Frank –
Oh man, I have a whole line of thinking relating to governments and institutions (including organized religion, much of the time) being a part of the “powers-and-principalities” complex with the Prince of Darkness himself, but I don’t even want to open that can-o-worms here. Theologian Walter Wink took about 5 books to explain it, and I think he’s right. So I honestly can’t really get behind much of anything governments do, as I think they are mostly bad and self-serving. The best government is self-government as one is guided by God. And the only hope for true peace and justice in the world is the Prince of Peace working through his agents in the dark places of the world.
When we think it’s our job to straighten things out, we just waterboard people.
If you knew with 100% certainty that “torture” (whatever that really means – let’s say waterboarding) would prevent loss of human life (lives) or prevent a terrorist attack – what would be your decision? If would be hard for me to deny that.
To me that’s where the rubber meets the road. If we use the same principle of “torture” or causing discomfort to people – then that same principle should be used to criminals (prisons, police, etc.) as well, correct? Obviously we don’t waterboard prisoners, but they are in discomfort and our interrogated to seek the truth.
I would also classify locking a terriosts in a padded room with Celine Dion blasting on steady rotation “torture”, but then again I’m for that because I’m a Christian.
@Brad
Interrogation is not what is causing the uproar, torture is. In regards to your first paragraph, in a society run by the rule of law, no one (not even the President) gets to make decisions based on subjective hypothesis (i.e. this person may have information that could save lives, let’s torture him to get it out of him) that break the law. Richard Nixon thought he was above the law and it didn’t work out too well for him.
Steve Sr.,
Thanks for the response. I haven’t thought of it in that way. I’m in agreement, but I still lean toward the importance of going through the available channels to become legalized. I would like to see border control used and viewed NOT as a tool to keep all others out, but more as a tool to stem ILLEGAL immigration and push toward utilizing legal opportunities.
@Hope
“Torture” is at the PINNACLE of subjectivity. The word “torture” in itself is a brash term in which people stop and will not listen further because of the connotations associated with the term. When I hear the word torture I think of being chained up in a cave being whipped to near death, bones broken, beaten, disfigurement, etc.
I agree, the first thing one has to do in order to have an intellegent arguement on the subject is to define the term torture. I believe the definition has definitely evolved over time. Torture, in my opinion, has become more heavy on the interrogation side of things and become more conscious of the criminals rights than the innocent. There’s the “torture” for the innocent.
My point to the hypothesis statement is that it’s either right or wrong and not situational. Someone who feels very strongly that we should not “torture” should feel it’s wrong if no lives are at stake OR feel that it’s wrong if it is absolutely certain that the result of it will save thousands of lives. It shouldn’t be based conditional principles. If you believe it’s right or wrong and stand by it, I respect that.
The debate on whether waterboarding is torture is a valid debate. But to say the US put to death Japanese soldiers for waterboarding is not an accurate statement. The crimes committed by the Japanese soldiers were for worse than just waterboarding including starvation, rape, and death in work camps.
On November 29, 2007, Sen. McCain, while campaigning in St. Petersburg, Florida, said, “Following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding.”
From Politifact.com:
“McCain is referencing the Tokyo Trials, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. After World War II, an international coalition convened to prosecute Japanese soldiers charged with torture. At the top of the list of techniques was water-based interrogation, known variously then as ‘water cure,’ ‘water torture’ and ‘waterboarding,’ according to the charging documents. It simulates drowning.” Politifact went on to report, “A number of the Japanese soldiers convicted by American judges were hanged, while others received lengthy prison sentences or time in labor camps.”
I did not say waterboarding was not on the list, only that the other crimes are far worse. You make it sound like the Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for waterboarding alone.
Saying the Japanese were hung for waterboarding is like saying a Doctor was executed for performing an abortion in the early 70’s when the rest of the story is that the doctor raped and murdered thousands of women and children after the abortion. And just like abortion is no longer a crime the debate on waterboarding is a valid debate. And Hope calling people who disagree with you a hypocrite dishonors your name.
Back to the original point, do you, or do you not, think that it was justified for the Japanese to waterboard American soldiers in anticipation of an upcoming WMD attack? If you do not, then my point is how can you justify us doing it in turn to our enemies? Name calling was not my intention and I apologize for that, just wanted to get people thinking.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Do you think the Japanese in WW2 is the same as the US in the War on Terrorism?
Other than the fact that we both attacked sovereign nations preemptively? No.
So you believe that the attack on Pearl Harbor is the same as the US response to 9 11.
If we were in court, I believe you would be accused of ‘leading the witness.’ Let’s be rational. I never got an answer to my question. I answered yours.
I answered yours
Guess I need to catch up on my cultural literacy. I’ll spare everyone else any more posts. Thanks for the forum Dr. Cope.