bridgetown on May 4, 2009 at 8:13 AM

Any christian that
a) Tortures
b) supports, condones or otherwise advocates the use of torture

is a hypocrite.

period

That’s not news.
See this for what it is. An attempt to paint all christians as hypocrites.

philwynk on May 2, 2009 at 8:27 PM

wow, that’s a nuanced rationalization.

Your exit question: Is torture “un-Christian”?

There are no commands in scripture issued to governments. The commands in scripture are toward individuals. The command to turn the other cheek is specifically issued to individuals suffering persecution.

The act of securing the nation is not vengeance, and not forbidden by scripture. The act of attempting to maximize information gathered from detained enemies while making sure no physical harm is done to those detained enemies, is a distinctly Christian act; this is a level of concern for enemies that no government on the planet other than the US government has actually carried out.

Calling the US interrogation policy “torture” is a tortured use of the language. The subject under consideration is “interrogation,” not “torture.” One of the dozens of techniques used by questioners may be considered “torture” by some, but the distinction between “a harsh interrogation technique” and “torture” is an arbitrary distinction, a matter of degree and interpretation. The program, itself, was not a “torture” program, it was an interrogation program, and it was both effective and humane.

8And they brought the head of Ishbosheth unto David to Hebron, and said to the king, Behold the head of Ishbosheth the son of Saul thine enemy, which sought thy life; and the LORD hath avenged my lord the king this day of Saul, and of his seed.

9And David answered Rechab and Baanah his brother, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, and said unto them, As the LORD liveth, who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity,

10When one told me, saying, Behold, Saul is dead, thinking to have brought good tidings, I took hold of him, and slew him in Ziklag, who thought that I would have given him a reward for his tidings:

11How much more, when wicked men have slain a righteous person in his own house upon his bed? shall I not therefore now require his blood of your hand, and take you away from the earth?

12And David commanded his young men, and they slew them, and cut off their hands and their feet, and hanged them up over the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ishbosheth, and buried it in the sepulchre of Abner in Hebron.

On the other hand, it’s hard to argue that you’re turning the other cheek in such circumstances. Your exit question: Is torture “un-Christian”?

Jesus warned us against seeking vengeance. Any torture done from that motive would be wrong. That’s not the same thing as “torture” being done to protect innocent lives. The Old Testament prophets frequently rebuked authorities for failing to protect the helpless. I’m not saying that means all torture is ok. I’m just saying this is a very complex moral issue and I don’t think the “turning the other cheek” command necessarily applies in the context of harsh interrogation methods done to save lives.

Watch how long that argument lasts when they and their families are terrorized, dismembered and murdered by enemies of America. Today their self righteous indulgences are repulsive; they are repulsive. By then, pathetic.

maverick muse on May 1, 2009 at 6:23 PM

One of the things that most amazes me is the sheer suicidal stupidity of their unflinching support of these people. The cognitive dissonance of the whole thing is just insane. The left wing are the first people that would be put to death under sharia law.

It just blows my mind that Liberals would care more about the “rights” of a terrorist than the lives of their friends and families.

kingsjester on May 1, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Watch how long that argument lasts when they and their families are terrorized, dismembered and murdered by enemies of America. Today their self righteous indulgences are repulsive; they are repulsive. By then, pathetic.

thanks, diedre

I’m quite interested in this topic. Could you refer me to where you learned this? Thanks!

thuja on May 1, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Ditto. I hadn’t heard that.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 1, 2009 at 1:22 PM

You don’t slap somebody in the face if you really mean them serious physical harm. If you slap somebody in the face you are only insulting them. It is the act of somebody who cannot win an argument and who seeks to belittle the person who is slapped.

By turning the other cheek you are refusing to participate on the slappers terms … you are neither escalating the conflict, nor merely passively accepting the insult.

Offering the other cheek can be a sensible and dignified response to an insult. It is not a sensible response to somebody who earnestly wants to kill you.

Ridiculous. Find something in the New Testament addressed to government interrogation of terrorists.

Good luck.

The scripture’s directives to governments and individuals are not the same, obviously, because they are different entities with different natures and different responsibilities.

This issue is complex and the reductionist nonsense on display here discredits you.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 1, 2009 at 12:10 PM

I love my bible. I love God’s word. God never changed.

God says david is man after my own heart

47And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the LORD’s, and he will give you into our hands.

48And it came to pass, when the Philistine arose, and came, and drew nigh to meet David, that David hastened, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine.

49And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.

50So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

51Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

Now to the real point. The US did not take out Saddam the time he attacked Kuwait. Had GHW Bush done the deed, we would not have had this 9/11 mess. Iraq continued to be an incubator for terrorists and could have been stopped if we had not gone for the limitations of the U.N.

Being slapped on the cheek was the way a person was insulted back then.

It was never meant to be interpreted as letting someone assault you.

Basically Jesus was saying “If someone insults you, not only should you take it without retaliation, but be ready to take more insults.”

The underlying and subtler point is that it is not for us to “balance the ledger” so to speak, it’s up to God.

I postulate that ‘deeply religious’ people have well-defined moral boundaries, with fairly fixed points of reference. Hence within that adopted framework it is easy to decide whether something is very good, good, marginally good, questionable, marginally bad, bad or very bad.

For less-religious people it is, perhaps, harder to decide where lie the lines between the shades of morality; the only thing certain about liberalism is the uncertainty of its shifting moral boundaries.

The Left does not want to understand our current predicament. If they can just pretend that the only evil we face is just ourselves, everything is so much simpler.

thuja on May 1, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Well said. We do face evil in ourselves. But how would that manifest itself? We might hurt our neighbors. If we take it for granted that our neighbors are hurt by evil in ourselves as well as evil from without, the pristine conscience is not as valuable as not realizing the ends that are primarily what we worry about.

Obsession with a pristine conscience is a sort of narcissism and self righteousness. I’d wager that it’s a modern day Pharisaism. The Pharisees didn’t walk on grass on the Sabbath just to make sure they weren’t doing some equivalent of “work” (threshing and planting), but they burdened others with their fine interpretations. Jesus said “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders”. (NASB Mat 23:4)

a) those with religious faith are less likely to be swayed by arguments based on superficial moral equivalence;

b) those with religious faith are less likely to be swayed by moral fashion;

c) those with religious faith are less more to believe in evil and therefore to understand the importance of defeating it.

Off topic, but it’s my duty to sometimes be obnoxious to Esthier. All Jews are expected to study the Bible in the original language.

Of course, and within my father’s lifetime, at least at his church, Catholics were taught in Latin, but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

But I realize that’s in response to my earlier comment, which was poorly phrased.

Perhaps your pastor could suggest an intellectually serious book which discusses the topic.

thuja on May 1, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Very likely. He’s a former pastor, as I moved out of town, but if I’m able to get in touch with him, I’ll share whatever he has. I’ve saved your email.

But anyway, if Esthier would mind linking books or discussion or anything please do. It’s an interesting topic.

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 1, 2009 at 2:32 PM

I’ve thought so. I’m glad I’m not alone on the topic.

Hey, thuja, again, thanks for having my back last night. It was unexpected, but greatly appreciated. It just blows my mind that Liberals would care more about the “rights” of a terrorist than the lives of their friends and families.

kingsjester on May 1, 2009 at 2:35 PM

The Left does not want to understand our current predicament. If they can just pretend that the only evil we face is just ourselves, everything is so much simpler.