quote:I think he changed the title because he realized how the title sounded, and he didn't want to come across as threatening your salvation. This is why he clarified it by saying that supporting torture doesn't mean you won't go to heaven. It just means you aren't being Christ-like.
And let me be clear, I don't mind the pastor saying he is against torture based on his reading of the Bible.
Have a real problem when he basically threatens your salvation. And IMHO that is exactly what he did which is why he changed the title.
Peace
quote:
He said "maybe" about their salvation, correct? And read his original title which is very revealing.
quote:
Of course no Christian is condoning any of the actions I listed. But that doesn't mean those folks have lost their salvation. We all fall short.
quote:
DECEMBER 12, 2014 12:00 AM
The Torture Taboo
The taboo against torture is important and honorable, but sometimes the real world gets a veto.By Jonah GoldbergFor a long time I resisted the word "torture" when discussing the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used against high-value captives in the War on Terror. I don't think I can do that anymore.
The report put out by Dianne Feinstein and her fellow Democrats may be partisan, one-sided, tendentious, and "full of crap," as Dick Cheney put it the other night on Special Report with Bret Baier. But even the selective use and misuse of facts doesn't change their status as facts. What some of these detainees went through pretty obviously amounted to torture. You can call it "psychological torture" or something to that effect, but such qualifiers don't get you all that far.
It's true that torture is to some extent in the eye of the beholder. Everyone can agree that hot pokers, the rack, and the iron maiden qualify. But loud music, sleep deprivation, and even waterboarding? At first, maybe not. But over time, yes. Torture can be a lot like poison: The dosage matters.
One of the great problems with the word "torture" is that it tolerates no ambiguity. It is a taboo word, like racism or incest. Once you call something torture, the conversation is supposed to end. It's a line no one may cross. As a result, if you think the enhanced interrogation techniques are necessary, or simply justified, you have to call them something else. Similarly, many sincere opponents of these techniques think that if they can simply call them "torture," their work is done.
The problem is that the issue isn't nearly so binary.
Even John McCain a vocal opponent of any kind of torture has conceded that in some hypothetical nuclear ticking-time-bomb scenario, torture might be a necessary evil. His threshold might be very high, but the principle is there nonetheless. And nearly everyone understands the point: When a greater evil is looming in the imminent future, the lesser evil becomes more tolerable. This is why opponents of the interrogation program are obsessed with claiming that it never worked, at all.
And this suggests why the talking point about drone strikes has such power. Killing is worse than torture. Life in prison might be called torture for some people, and yet we consider the death penalty a more severe punishment. Most people would prefer to be waterboarded than killed. All sane and decent people would rather go through what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed went through than see their whole family slaughtered from 10,000 feet by a drone. And yet President Obama routinely sanctions drone strikes while piously outlawing the slapping of prisoners who might have information that would make such strikes less necessary and, more importantly, would prevent the loss of innocent American lives.
It's odd: Even though killing is a graver moral act, there's more flexibility to it. America killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in World War II, but few would call that murder because such actions as the firebombing of Dresden were deemed necessary to win the war.
In other words, we have the moral vocabulary to talk about kinds of killing from euthanasia and abortion to capital punishment, involuntary manslaughter and, of course, murder but we don't have a similar lexicon when it comes to kinds of torture.
When John McCain was brutally tortured far, far more severely than anything we've done to the 9/11 plotters it was done to elicit false confessions and other statements for purposes of propaganda. When we tortured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, it was to get actionable intelligence on ongoing plots. It seems to me that's an important moral distinction. If I torture a fiend to find out where he left a child to suffocate or starve in some dungeon, that's a less evil act than torturing someone just to hear them renounce their god or country. Also, KSM was not some innocent subjected to torture to satisfy the grotesque desires of some sadists. He is an unlawful combatant responsible for murdering thousands of innocent Americans.
This may sound like nothing more than a rationalization. But that is to be expected when you try to reason through a morally fraught problem. If you believe torture is wrong no matter what, then any sentence that begins, "Yeah, but . . . " will seem like so much bankrupt sophistry. The same goes for truly devout believers in nonviolence who think any and all killing is wrong.
I can respect that, because I think the taboo against torture is important and honorable, just like the taboos against killing. And just like the taboos against killing, sometimes the real world gets a veto.
Jonah Goldberg is a senior editor of National Review and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. You can write to him by e-mail at goldbergcolumn@gmail.com or via Twitter @JonahNRO. 2014 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
quote:
The taboo against torture is important and honorable, but sometimes the real world gets a veto.
quote:
This may sound like nothing more than a rationalization.
quote:quote:
quote:- People can disagree on what exactly is defined as torture
Whether what the US was doing qualifies as "torture" or not doesn't change the fact that what they were doing should not be supported by Christians.
quote:quote:
quote:- IMO, if the CIA believed that these terrorist had useful information, they had an obligation to use all means necessary (short of actual torture) to protect this country
This is not a Christian perspective though.
quote:
- - Even if this report was 100% accurate, it never should have been released to the public. This should have been handled internally.
Our money was confiscated to fund these barbaric practices. It most certainly should have been released..
quote:
You forgot to add 'in my opinion'. As a Christian I would say that in general I'm ok with enhanced interrogation techniques (or whatever the term is), but I'm not OK with torture. The challenge for our gov/society is to determine where those lines are.
quote:
Again, your opinion. One of the primary roles of our government is the defense of the country. IMO there is nothing un-Christian about protecting the citizens through non-torture methods.
quote:
Wrong again.... Did you pay your federal taxes last year? Tell me how it was confiscated? If we did torture suspects they should make changes going forward. But they should not put the country (and assets in the field) at risk.
quote:
As a Christian I would say that in general I'm ok with enhanced interrogation techniques (or whatever the term is), but I'm not OK with torture. The challenge for our gov/society is to determine where those lines are.
quote:
The question is simple: Do you, or do you not, support actively hurting (psychologically, physically, etc) someone to get what you want?
quote:
Q1. Would it be "Christian" to use any means necessary to prevent the one's doing the torturing?
Q2. What's the difference between the torture of the Jews vs what the U.S. government is doing? (torture of the innocents vs a torture to potentially save a life) ((I'm not convinced our gov. has been perfect or without fault in this.))
Q3. Is there any instance in which torture could/should be justified?
Q4. In the scriptures do you see different commands for individuals, the church, and the governments?
1. No. The ends don't justify the means. Ever. I don't believe we are allowed to sin, in order to prevent the circumstances of another's sin.
2. No difference. Torture is torture, regardless of the motivation.
3. No.
4. No.
quote:
So how do you feel about drones?
quote:And I get that, but I believe you'd still be wrong for doing so. Do you believe that Christ, if He were standing right next to you, would condone you using "any means necessary", including causing physical or psychological harm to others?
If my daughter was being held hostage by some murdering psycho I would use any means necessary.
Water boarding included.
Sorry.
quote:
You: This doesn't surprise me. It's a very Christian thing to accept grace for one's sins, while withholding grace for someone else's.
Me: It's a very Christian thing for Christians to commit acts of sin until that day. A Christian withholding grace is not very Christ-like
You: I'm not sure how to read this...are you saying I am withholding grace by holding my opinion? Come on...we are just talking about the issues here. I am not condemning anyone or reducing their value as a human.
I also don't believe that Christians sinning is an acceptable thing, either....so I will not call sinning a "Christian" thing. An unfortunate truth, sure.
quote:
If my daughter was being held hostage by some murdering psycho I would use any means necessary.
Water boarding included.
Sorry.
quote:First, please reconcile your position with Christ's teachings, specifically as to how we are to treat our enemies. Second, nobody here has said they'd be "happy or content" with others dying needlessly.
Loaded words, loaded arguments, and high horses aplenty in this thread. If all human life has value and torture can save it, is it worth doing? How cruel would you have to be to be happy or content with others dying needlessly when you could prevent it? Would you even be able to say that you value human life? What is your arbitrary line for return?
Might as well ratchet it up and make it a fair fight, rhetoric on rhetoric. Christians can claim both roads but motive is key. To deprive man of motive like some have done might as well be to absolve him of sin, for he can no longer reason.
quote:
Q1. If you were hiding Jews in Germany from the Nazi's during WW2, would it be okay to lie to the Germans in order to protect the Jews that you are taking care of? Many people did this.
quote:
Not sure. He loved the three thousand killed in the Twin Towers also.
quote:
I am against torture. My definition of torture may be different than yours.
quote:
I think it is very disingenuous, even sinful, to bring this stuff up over a decade later when times are totally different.
quote:
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone
quote:I understand, and thanks for the clarification.
Diehard - I was not taking a shot at you or stating that you were withholding grace. The initial quote seemed to me like a shot taken at Christians who accept Grace for one sins, while withholding grace for someone else's. I didn't do a very good job of making a comment. To clarify: I think Humanity, not Christians specifically, always wants grace or mercy for themselves and justice for the other person. Christian will continue to sin or struggle with various sins until they die as their body has not yet been redeemed (see Paul's struggle in Romans 7). It's not acceptable for anyone to sin but it's inevitable (for all have sinned and fall short (2 verb tenses). Christians however should not use this as an excuse to sin Romans 6.
quote:quote:First, please reconcile your position with Christ's teachings, specifically as to how we are to treat our enemies. Second, nobody here has said they'd be "happy or content" with others dying needlessly.
Loaded words, loaded arguments, and high horses aplenty in this thread. If all human life has value and torture can save it, is it worth doing? How cruel would you have to be to be happy or content with others dying needlessly when you could prevent it? Would you even be able to say that you value human life? What is your arbitrary line for return?
Might as well ratchet it up and make it a fair fight, rhetoric on rhetoric. Christians can claim both roads but motive is key. To deprive man of motive like some have done might as well be to absolve him of sin, for he can no longer reason.
quote:Well, we clearly do have differing definitions. I define torture more in line w/ the textbook definition of it: inflicting severe physical or psychological pain in order to punish or coerce.
My definition of torture would ply you could die from it.
How do you feel about drones?
And just curious are you a pacifist like Zahnd?
quote:
Loaded words, loaded arguments, and high horses aplenty in this thread. If all human life has value and torture can save it, is it worth doing? How cruel would you have to be to be happy or content with others dying needlessly when you could prevent it? Would you even be able to say that you value human life? What is your arbitrary line for return?
quote:
Reconcile yours with His teaching on shepherding, specifically as it would pertain to protecting His flock. You're as bad as a southern baptist preacher that latches on to one verse and delivers a sermon on it.
quote:
Your reluctance to act on others' behalf would indicate your contentment. We're you not content with all circumstances you would do something.
quote:So those who are OK with "torture" have to die to act in accordance with the morality of some Christians.quote:
The taboo against torture is important and honorable, but sometimes the real world gets a veto.
No, the real world doesn't get to veto the teachings of Christ, at least if you are a Christian. Whether you call what the US was doing is torture or not, and the US considered it "torture" when prosecuting Japanese officers, you cannot reconcile what was going on with the way Christ told us to treat others.quote:
This may sound like nothing more than a rationalization.
Because it is.
