Love your enemies, unless they withhold vital information from you.
That is how it goes, right?
You would think so, with the way that the torture debates have been going over the last several weeks. President Obama released the torture memos detailing the various methods that were used on each prisoner: Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, varying forms of physical abuse. Subsequently, all backlash hell broke loose when conservatives were quick to criticize the president’s action. Now, on television, radio, the internet, and in coffee shops and Jack’s restaurants, people are asking the question: Should we torture?
Torture.
Just roll the word around in your head for a second.
Torture.
What kind of images, feelings, and impulses does it conjure up?
Torture.
A necessary evil? According to many, yes it is.
While we don’t want to torture, we must do so in circumstances when lives and our national security are at stake.
Ok, I understand that torture is something that we don’t want to do. I understand the “what if” scenarios that so many conservatives bring up when debating this question. What if a nuclear weapon is going to detonate on American soil and we have detainees that can give us information to stop it? What if we can use torture to save lives? I understand that people believe that in order to stop terrorists we must be willing to do some of the things that they do, to “break the rules” a little bit in a Jack Bauer sort of way. But what I don’t understand is the stance that many evangelical Christians take to not only defend the use of torture, but the action of advocating for it.
On the Christian radio the other day (I can hear some of you moaning “oh God, not again” at this point), I caught a piece of a segment in which a DJ from one of Crawford Broadcasting’s conservative talk radio stations was on and was criticizing Obama for his decision to release the torture memos to the public. Ronnie Bruce, the daytime radio host, simply agreed and stated that we are living in “scary” times and that Christians should be praying now more than ever. Indeed, things are getting a little scary.
But the scary part is not that we have a president who is willing to make the ethical stand against torture. The scary part is that we have Christian radio personalities, pastors, political leaders, and public figures who are going on the airwaves and in pulpits and advocating for it.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. Matthew 5:9
You see, when I think of some of the great religious heroes throughout history, is isn’t those who believed in resolving conflict by means of violence and torture. It has been people who advocated love and peace. For instance, Mother Teresa, who gave her life to the act of loving, living with, and caring for the world’s poor and diseased. Or Ghandi, who championed peace and nonviolence in
In this sense, I find it kind of strange that many of those who claim to follow the Prince of Peace are the very ones saying we should use torture to interrogate terrorists. The religious conservatives who claim to hold the moral high ground in American are often the ones defending the use of torture. But what is moral about this? What is ethical about strapping a human being, made in the image of God, to a chair and pouring water up his nose until he almost drowns? Even if you think it’s necessary, do you really think it’s right?
Do not repay evil for evil. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:17 and 21
As a person who believes in Jesus’ teachings, I can’t support that. The position against torture is easily the high ground, no matter what kind of “what if” scenarios they come up with. True ethics don’t go out the window just because a situation changes, because our security is being threatened. In these kinds of circumstances, it is more important to cling to our morals and values than ever.
I think that the church, as a community of faith, should look at itself and reexamine this issue. Shouldn’t we, as believers in the God who is the great force for good in this world, be the ones taking the moral high ground in these cases? Should we really be the ones who are criticizing the leaders who decide to do away with torture, or should we rejoice at the fact? Is it really worth it to trade away our souls for our security?
Maybe we should just ask the great question:
What would Jesus do?
Or how about a better question:
Who would Jesus torture?
Posts
6 comments:
very well said matt. it baffles me how christians, followers of Jesus, are so quick to support war and torture (and for that matter, capital punishment). it is, without question, a sinful and complete ignoring of Jesus actual teachings
I think your pretty much right on this. I don't really think that torture is going to help in getting us anywhere. And, so far, I haven't found anything that justifies it.
But at the same time, it brings up the question of "where do you draw the line". I may sound hypocritical for saying this, but I don't think war is necessarily bad all the time. We see in the Bible where God played a major role in bringing the Israelites through many wars, and I don't think he would have done so if it were completely out of line.
Because the sad truth is that peace will not always produce miracles. I wish it would, but it just isn't that simple.
Great post, though!
Wow, Elizabeth said some of the things I wanted to... I guess the apple does not fall too far from the tree.
A couple of questions, Matt.....Where do you draw the line. If pinching a jihadist bent on the absolute anihilation of the United States on the fatty part of the arm under the bicep would yield information that could save said United States and millions of people therein, would you be against it because pinching people in a tender spot like that is 'torture?" I would certainly hope not. Exactly how do we define torutre? Other nations have used actual torture to force Americans to renounce the US and claim that the torturing country is really great. we have used methods such as waterboarding, which, while maybe not exactly enjoyable to the recipient, is not actually harmful, to obtain life saving information. These same people who we have waterboarded would cut YOUR head off if they had half a chance.
Let's see... Waterboarding.....decapitation.....let's see which.....which do you choose.....oh, waterboarding is TORTURE.
I am not a blind "The US is ALWAYS right" kinda guy. In fact, i can and have been very critical of the US and both major political parties many times (I do not really like either party) but Obama's actions on this and other issues just defy my remotest imagination of what any American president would ever dream of doing.
Also, btw, why would someone who believes in the life, death, resurection, ascension of Jesus Christ, and who believes that man (all men, male and female) are made in the image of God and are therefore precious in his sight and of incredible value and worth, criticize waterboarding while defending a man who is hell-bent on protecting a woman's 'right' to end the life of her unborn child?
Well, I don't have enough insight into interrogation techniques to define exactly where the line would be drawn as far as what is torture and what's not. I do know that waterboarding as well as all the other practices in the torture memos have been defined as torture. Even John McCain said on the campaign trail that waterboarding is torture. If it wasn't torture, then it probably wouldn't work and therefore they wouldn't use it.
Also, when would pinching a terrorist on the arm be the only way to save the United States from imminent doom? This is just another "what if" scenario like I was talking about. If that was in the least bit a realistic scenario then I would understand, but I don't think it will ever come to that.
"Don't become a monster in order to defeat a monster."
As for abortion, that's going to have to be another post some other time. I don't think it's right to abort babies at all. But I think mothers who are faced with that problem should receive more support so that they will be able to raise the children that they never meant to have. And that is something Barack Obama wants to do. I don't entirely agree with either party in the way they propose to handle this issue. I think if they would come together for a solution then more progress could be made.
But I'm not the NRA when it comes to politics. I don't vote just based on one issue. Even if I don't agree with Obama on abortion, I still agree with a lot of his other ideas, including his stance against torture.
wait a second...
who wants to cut off matt's head again?
"these same people", huh? i gotcha. they sound mean. do we have their names?
i wonder if they know how nice a guy matt is?
stupid women's rights. stupid obama. stupid honest take on torture. stupid jordan schafer.
go braves!
I don't know everything when it comes to the issue of torture, and whether or not waterboarding is torture, etc. I agree with Matt on the principle of the title of this post. "Trading Your Sould for Security" - it doesn't work. As Ron Paul would say, when you sacrafice freedom for security, you lose both. I think it's the same basic principle.
Therefore, I do disagree with the (former) administration tapping into everyone's phone lines in order to "obtain valuable information to cathing terrorists." I disagree with finding anyone who wears a towel on their head and looks from the same descent as Bin Ladin and torturing them until we force them to tell us something "valuable" when they could just make it up.
However I do believe there is a line to this. In the case of a murder trial that is domestic to us, law enforcement obtains a search warrant to search private stuff for more evidence, they normally would not search through. Sure, it is possible we search an innocent's man's personal belongings, but on the whole, there is a time when it is appropriate to search for evidence through someone's stuff.
On the same vantage point from an international perspective, there are times when taking someone who is quite possibly guilty of the desire to kill our nation, or has valuable information about those who do, and providing limited pain so they can give us that valuable information, is acceptable.
When it comes to waterboarding, I honestly do not know the line. I think it is oversimplitive to be a "U.S. is always right" kinda guy, and assume that no matter what we do to anybody who is not American, we must do it for the right reasons. And certainly I'm not a Bush was/is always right kinda guy either. But it is also oversimplitive to assume that any form of "torture," if that is even what it is, is entirely wrong.
So that is what was mean by the pinching example. If that WERE the case (not that it is), then it is stupid to forgoe it as torture. So there is some line, and hopefully we can see it (there is a line on the other end too, as if we just should bomb the entire Middle East). The question is, where do you draw the line. Apparently there is some disagreement about that, but I think Matt's approach, though good in theory and principle, is fairly oversimplified.
As for abortion, it is another issue. I do not hate women who have committed an abortion, and though I disagree with their choice, my heart does go out to those women because some of them did not know better when they were going through what they were. But it is still murder, and for our government to be fine with taking the life of an innocent child who does not want to kill America, but not want to temporarily cause a little pain to those who do, is a bit rediculous.
Just my thoughts.
Ryan
Post a Comment