Should we Torture Prisoners to Obtain Information??

[N.T. Wright Fan]

If you believe it is morally defensible to torture terrorists, then I would ask you to consider the following scenarios.

I assume at least part of the justification here is the idea of "the greater good" -- that is, that trading one (practically) worthless life is worth a thousand lives. In terms of mere numbers, it's a no-brainer.

What if, however, the potential "torturee" is the mother of the terrorist, who has never committed any treacherous act, but possesses information about her son's location? Is it morally defensible to torture the mother for this information? If the overriding principle is "the greater good," then the answer must be an unequivocal "yes."

Of course, the same kind of reasoning would apply in the case of the child of a terrorist. The principle of "the greater good" demands the child to be tortured.

Do not the terrorists themselves buy into the concept of "the greater good," that the end justifies the means? Indeed they do, some of them to the point of death. And I would hazard a guess that many, if not most of them, believe they are striking a blow for "justice," and they're willing to pay whatever price is necessary to secure it.

In and of itself, "the greater good" argument would also justify, among other things, medical research to be conducted on unwilling subjects, all in the name of finding cures for diseases that threaten thousands, perhaps millions, of lives. (And who does this make you mindful of?)

This line of thinking simply perpetuates the seemingly never-ending cycle of violence, and allows the world to continue on the way it is. It's a "false justice," and it seems completely foreign to the ways in which Jesus dealt with people, and reflects a very short-term perspective of how God's justice works.

"Jesus approached and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, 'If you had only known on this day, even you, the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.'" - Luk 19:41

[Russell Roberts]

What of the difference in moral culpability of the mother or daughter as opposed to the terrorist? He is in collusion and has active plans to kill innocent people. In the other two cases, they are merely retaining information that could prevent the death of innocents.

[Russell Roberts]

One more thought. God the Father allowed his Son, the only innocent man who ever lived, to be tortured on a cross. Are we to follow his example in allowing innocent people to die (albeit the innocent in this case are not making a voluntary sacrifice as Jesus did).

On this basis, should we allow our own innocent family members to bear the weight of evil if we are to be like our Father?

[Dr. Ron]

Can I just say that I get really weary of all the "spiritualizing of the flesh" with these subjects....I mean come on ....don't any of you have some souls to win...????):):):)

Look...no terrorists were killed in the interrogations....that should say a lot...

Second...what is the difference in gaining information from an enemy and shooting him with an M16 on the battlefied,....or stabbing him with a bayonet, or slitting his throat with your knife...or worse throwing a grenade at him....

Is that any different or any less "inhumane" than waterboarding someone..which btw, no one has ever died from ....in this country anyway....

Under the uniform code of conduct, it is expected that a soldier of this nation is to defend and protect this country against all enemies foreign and domestic.....simple.....what is the difference if the branch of service is Marine Corps. or CIA???

I promise you in the field, men will talk ......no difference...

The liberal mindset would have us go to the battlefield with equal numbers of soldiers and equal equipment....stupid....

I grew up in West Nashville....when we fought it was to win....fair fight ....how stupid....get the bigger board and hit the idiot in the head....he will quit.....

Sorry if I don't sound so spiritual...but I get really nauseated at this stuff,..

[dolfan]

Who is this Dr. Ron person? Are you new here?

(J/k .... haven't seen you here in a while.)

[Dr. Ron]

Hey dolfan,.,,,been busy with fb....sorry...

I can't seem to get it all done....and with my mom's dialysis and my wife having surgery today.....I had a little more time on the puter....

I will be back around....

[MacUser]

Hey dolfan,.,,,been busy with fb....sorry...

I can't seem to get it all done....and with my mom's dialysis and my wife having surgery today.....I had a little more time on the puter....

I will be back around....

Glad to see you back. You have been missed.

[Russell Roberts]

Dr. Ron,

First, I served for four years in the infantry. Had I been called on during that time to fight, I was more than ready and willing...as I would still be today. That doesn't mean that I agree with our invasion of Iraq or our continuing presence there. I don't simply buy into all the propoganda I hear spouted from either Republicans or Democrats. Secondly, I don't know if you were applying the label of 'liberal' to me or not but I probably don't fit that label very well.

I am first and foremost a Christian trying to understand biblical principles. These discussions are worth having as an ongoing dialogue to help me and others evaluate our current wordviews in light of scripture. If some tweaks are needed to my worldview, I stand ready to change. Bless you.

Russell

[N.T. Wright Fan]

Perhaps I'm just daft, but I failed to grasp the point Dr. Ron was trying to make.

[Russell Roberts]

As a sidenote, according to NBC news, one of the detainees was beaten to death with a flashlight.

[dolfan]

I do believe that there is no one singular method or manner to handle these issues. Each scenario calls for a different approach, and each has to be weighed on its own merit or lack of it. There is no bright line rule.

Personally, I don't find much guidance from the Bible on this particular instance of a mother or child of a terrorist retaining information of the known whereabouts of a terrorist. We don't find a similar scenario. Let me add that, as to a child, I'd just have to balk. I would. I couldn't do it and I couldn't approve it or abet it.

What is appalling, though, is any willingness to find a hint of moral equivalency in "justice" as viewed by a jihadist as compared to, well, almost any other idea of it. Very simply put, and go ahead and accuse me of oversimplifying for the sake of feeling superior or what have you, but very simply put, Islam is a religion of bloodlust. It is not a monolith, I know. But, let's not define it by the exceptions in the West, or even in Muslim countries. It isn't my religion, it is a false religion, and I frankly do not care to entertain its worse nature for the sake of "honoring the dignity" of those Muslims who oppose that worse nature.

It is an unrealistic expectation, and any Christian who would have us do so is, in my opinion, fooling himself. This is nothing any different than taking any other virtue of the faith and stretching it out as the thing to be pursued at too high a cost to the rest of the faith.

I love and want to be at peace. I want for all of the world to be at peace, even if it is not the kind of peace that will ultimately prevail in the kingdom of God. BUT, we live here. We have to make practical decisions. The "we" I'm talking about is a government. The government cannot and should not be expected to act consistently with Christian ideals. It is not a Christian government; there can never be any such thing until Jesus is King and reigns here on Earth in the ultimate eschaton. There simply no way for us to practice sufficient goodness to close the gap between where we are and where we shall be. He must return to, as N.T. Wright likes to say in using C.S. Lewis' phrasing, "set things to rights." N.T. Wright and others are earnest in wanting this to be, but it cannot be in this present order, and no amount of government feel-goodisms are going to bring it one whit closer. He is wrong about it. He is more right than wrong on most things, but as concerns government and public policy, he, along with Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren and a host of like-minded, well-intended believers, are just plain wrong.

[Russell Roberts]

Dolfan,

While I agree that the United States government is not a Christian government, they, like Caesar in the first century, must be confronted with the truth - the truth that torturing people is inhumane and that they will be called to account by the true ruler of creation. As well, the Church leadership must be confronted with the same truth.

As Wright pointed out in his article, the solution to terrorism isn't simply dropping bombs in hopes that they will kill the elusive terrorist. Where is the justice for the thousands of innocent civilians killed in the bombings? Where is the justice for them Dolfan?

I agree with Wright that our initial reaction was bloodlust and that Bush was way offbase for launching an attack against Iraq without a true international coalition. Afghanistan, I can see. But Iraq appears to have had as much to do with securing natural resources for our own financial well-being.

We kill them, they hate us, we torture them, they blow up another embassy. Somehow this crap has to stop. We are just as guilty of killing innocent civilians as anybody else. We just seem to think it is right because we use more sterile methods - smart bombs. And the little bitty boys and girls are called collateral damage.

[MacUser]

I agree with Wright that our initial reaction was bloodlust and that Bush was way offbase for launching an attack against Iraq without a true international coalition. Afghanistan, I can see. But Iraq appears to have had as much to do with securing natural resources for our own financial well-being.

You guys have got to move on past these old points if you ever want to be taken seriously. Does it always come back to this?

[dolfan]

Every knee will bow ... not just America's, if America continues to exist long enough. There is no justice in the truest sense for innocent kids in Iraq or Afghanistan ...or NYC or Kurd provinces or Kuwait or anywhere else. Just ending this crap is no solution, either. More tyrants will arise. More children will die.

Debate societies never stopped an evil.

[Russell Roberts]

I agree with Wright that our initial reaction was bloodlust and that Bush was way offbase for launching an attack against Iraq without a true international coalition. Afghanistan, I can see. But Iraq appears to have had as much to do with securing natural resources for our own financial well-being.

You guys have got to move on past these old points if you ever want to be taken seriously. Does it always come back to this?

This is true Mac. Thanks for pointing out the digression. Back to the task at hand. Is it, or is it not Christlike to torture people? I still say no, it isn't, despite my own want for vengence were somebody to attempt to do my own family harm. Again, sadly the question is not what WOULD I do but what SHOULD I do (this betrays the split between my theology and praxis which souldn't exist).

Should our government torture people?

If we look to the example of Jesus, by whose life we understand who God is, can we justify torture? Again, I come back with the answer that no, we can't. To do so is to capitulate to evil and to incorporate tools (torture and the threat of death) used by the Romans and the Jewish leadership in their opposition to Jesus.

How did Jesus win the victory? He allowed evil to exhaust its power against himself on the cross. Simeon had stated that Jesus came to be the light to the nations. It was on the cross that Jesus was displaying the way to victory - self-sacrificial love. In so doing, Jesus defeated the enemies of his kingdom, the nexus powers of sin and death.

If the United States is to build on this accomplishment by Jesus, if we are to shine a light to those in darkness as Jesus did are we not to follow his example of self-sacrificial love in the way we treat people (including terrorists)?

Has the very public news that we torture terrorists been a light to a world of Muslims?