Torture
There's been a lot of talk about torture lately, with some people arguing that we should never torture based on our moral standards, and others saying that it is a necessary evil and must be kept up if we are to protect ourselves.
Ironically, it's the right, known for containing a majority of Christians, who are arguing for torture.
So here's my question: how can you claim to be both a Christian and a supporter of torture?
Comments
I think, to answer the original question, you can't be a supporter of torture and be a Christian. Again, references in the bible clarify this, that there will be many false prophets and that the devil comes disguised as an angel of light. Neither can you be a Christian and support murder and killing, regardless of how much you hate those being killed and their offspring. I'm certain there's an Old Testament Commandment about "Thou shall not kill". I can't recall a caveat after it that says "Unless you really want to".
Interference in the culture, religion and nation of others is not biblical; the bible is simply skewed by the devils disguised as angels of light. And so it goes that allowing personal and uninformed, unenlightened prejudice to effectively take the control out of the hands of God is also sin. There will be millions of fake Christians who meet each other in Hell after Judgment Day. The bible says so. Giving God His orders is not prayer; it is blasphemy. When you recklessly murder another human in the promotion of your national interests it is sin nonetheless. Supporting murder is equally as sinful because the bible says "God knows the hearts of men". You don't have to be the one pulling the trigger, dropping the bomb, or piercing the testicles of a bound and bloody captive to be guilty of the sin.
It's a good question that should be asked more often of those who promote death, destruction and the creation of millions of orphans after slaughtering their 'collateral damage' parents. There are many different means of torturing someone. Ask an orphan who lost their parents to an invading army; they may wel feel tortured for the rest of their days.
I liked your reply, lightandstorm.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html
I assume you mean acts like water boarding, sleep deprivation, insults, etc. Recently I viewed the movie Body Of Lies, which implied America regularly does such things as smash fingers, break limbs, and beat people to death. I'm not supportive of those kinds of tactics.
It is clear that Jesus is not teaching an ethic for national defense or international relations. He is kingdom building. His people are not of this world. However, as our first allegiance is to God and not man, we are instructed to render unto Caesar. Besides, "turn the other cheek" I do not think means stand there and let someone beat you to death, and especially is not license to stand idly by and let someone else be beaten to death. The Bible is a bloody book. Many acts of warfare are attributed to the command of God. It is a complicated read, a difficult interpretation, little is cut-and-dried concerning a Christian philosophy of war.
If psychological tactics and physical restraint will result in the saving of innocent lives, then it is a price worth paying.
Let me ask you: If you could prevent a 9-1-1 catastrophe through waterboarding of a murderous enemy combatant who has been captured, would you? Surely you would not skirt around the matter and not give a direct answer!
I think it was about the attitude or position represented in turning the other cheek. A willingness to face a difficult situation without fear, and instead to still be generous, outflowing.
It does imply the lack of attachment to self-preservation (since that is a subtle manifestation of fear and separation)...and the whole purpose of government is self-preservation...so I grant that we are immediate tension with regards to how we should act as a nation.
But I still think we should take that advice not to act out of fear seriously. Firstly, the terrorists succeed when we do. That's the whole point, to instill terror. And when we let that terror control our actions, we let them win. Secondly, reacting with aggression may worsen the situation. Those people who hated us, now have even more reason to hate us, as we've been torturing the people they care about. It makes us more deserving of an attack, since revenge is an easy emotion to follow. Essentially, we proved them right. And as our fear grows, so does our willingness to depart from ordinary morality...which is a scary path in itself.
That said, there still may be conditions where this sort of thing is warranted. After all, as you point out, the government is in the business of protecting its citizens, and it may need to take certain measures to do so. But if and when we act in this sort of way, let us stop for a moment and make sure that we *are* taking the best step, and not just reacting.
I guess for me the important thing is our position, the psychological place *we* are at when we make decisions. And part of the reason I don't agree with what Bush did is because it's evident that they acted out of fear. Rice has even come out and said so, and, from my perspective, Bush himself just exuded feelings of fear and insecurity.
If we are going to do something drastic, we need to have a better reason that the fact that we are scared.