24
Sep
As I have mentioned recently I don’t read many blogs anymore however one of the few I still peruse has got me thinking on some rather sensitive and controversial topics. I would be dishonest if I didn’t give a hat tip to Tony Woodlief before I launched into this quagmire of thoughts I need to get sorted. You see I find it rare that my opinions, stances, position, or whatever you want to call them are challenged in a manner that makes me seriously reconsider them. The reason for this is that I have trained myself not to take a position until I have thought things through reasonably well. Of course there are things that are blazingly obvious but for more esoteric or issues with gray areas I take time to formulate a logical position that doesn’t contradict my core values. This provides me with a degree of certainty that seems to lacking in some of my peers. So when presented with an argument, or an explanation of an opposing position, I usually have my response ready. This doesn’t mean I am reciting rote talking points but rather that I have thought through the argument already. As an aside I try surround myself with people who are strong in their beliefs and can articulate their positions with ease. I would prefer to be friends with someone who disagrees with my on social and political issues but can articulate their position well as a friend over someone who agrees with me but regurgitates talking points and bumper sticker slogans but I digress…
Tony’s post on torture got me thinking. It has been a long time since this topic came up in conversation and it probably won’t since it’s sensitive and inflammatory for most people. I had thought through and taken a position that torture, to a certain degree, could be justified as self-defense in the same manner as war. In my thoughts there were some lines, however hazily defined, that one shouldn’t cross. So I could support things like water-boarding or making Muslims stand around naked in the company of the opposite sex but would never support using pliers to yank our fingernails. I didn’t put much thought into any given method of torture but knew that I had a line drawn at mutilation. There may have been other lines but unless something came up that took me there I hadn’t firmly defined them. I was quite comfortable in my thought process and could argue my position convincingly. Self-defense is justifiable so all I had to do is show how torture could be self-defense. It was quite a nice position to take as it was easy to defend. This position was also one of the laziest positions I have ever taken. I did mental gymnastics to squeeze torture into the self-defense category and then stopped right there. Once it was self-defense I didn’t need to weigh it against my moral compass because I already believe self-defense is a moral act.
Then Tony posted the previously linked article which was inspired by Andrew Sullivan’s piece in The Atlantic. I read Tony’s piece and started evaluating my position and this morning read Andrew’s piece and came to some conclusions. But before I go on to my conclusions here is brief excerpt of Andrew’s article (which you should now go read in full):
…torture is not defined in law or morality by the production of blood or by any specific technique—that would simply invite governments to devise techniques other than those prohibited. Torture is defined by the imposition of “severe mental or physical pain or suffering” to the point when a human being can bear it no longer and tells his interrogators something—true or untrue—to stop what cannot be endured. That’s torture, in plain English.
and
But torture has no defense whatsoever in Christian morality. There are no circumstances in which it can be justified, let alone integrated as a formal program within a democratic government. The Catholic catechism states, “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions… is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.” Dignity is the critical word there. Even evil men are human and redeemable. Our faith demands that, even in legitimate punishment or interrogation, the dignity of prisoners must be respected. Our faith teaches that each of us—even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—is made in the image of God. To violate that imago Dei by stripping and freezing him, by slamming him against a wall, or strapping him to a board to nearly drown him again and again and again, to bombard him with noise and light until he loses his mind, to reduce a human being to a mental and spiritual shell—nothing can justify this for a Christian. Nothing. To wield that power is to wield evil. And such evil is almost always committed by those who believe they are pursuing good.
The four page letter to President Bush from Mr. Sullivan shed a new light on things for me. The stance on torture from a Christian perspective can, in my opinion, be only that it is always wrong. I don’t want that to be the case. My brain wants to think that anything that saves the lives of American soldiers can be justified. I am not comfortable with this position but that’s the amazing thing about right and wrong and that is that right doesn’t always feel good. A quick look at scripture shows up not only what Mr. Sullivan pointed out, we are all made in the image of God, but furthermore that our response to terrorists should be the same as our response to anyone who wrongs us: But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. (Luke 6:27-31 NASB) and Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. (Luke 6:36-37 NASB). I could post more but I think those two verses alone show what our response should be personally and what sort of government response we can support, as Christians, in relation to any situation or even any attack on our country.
I am ashamed to admit my previously held position on torture. Maybe I could rationalize that some of the methods Mr. Sullivan takes Pres. Bush to task for are not actually torture, in fact some have been found not be under the Geneva Convention, but that would simply be rationalization. The methods used were not merciful, they were not doing good to those that hate us, and certainly were not loving our enemies. I can no longer, in good conscience hold my previous position that torture is a means of self-defense used during war time. I am not sure where I will draw the lines this time but I can say, with certainty that my previous position is untenable in the face of own core moral and values and thus has been kicked to curb. What can be justified in light of the scripture posted above I do not know. I do know that the acts committed by our soldiers and listed Mr. Sullivan’s article, for the most part, are indefensible. To be honest I might could see sleep deprivation as a humane method of extracting information but that may be my own desire to have some method, any method, of extracting information from our enemies. It may take a while for me to form a new concrete position on this issue and I probably won’t post about when I do since those things kind of happen in the background and I likely won’t notice but the process has begun.
I think the one thing that Mr. Sullivan and I disagree on is that the current administration should pursue legal action against those involved. I do not condone the acts and am honestly sickened by some of them but I do not believe that going after those who were not directly involved, and the military did that, with these things so far in the past is in the best interest of our country. I take the stand that these things happened and should never happen again. Those directly involved were taken to task over their actions and at some point the pursuit of retribution has to stop. Bush will never authorize anything like this again as he doesn’t have the power. We have no proof how much he knew, though it is obvious he knew some of the atrocities were going on, and at this point we hold these actions and decisions to be derided as incompetent, disgusting, and never to be repeated. We follow the same principals Mr. Sullivan espouses on the treatment of prisoners and we forgive Pres. Bush and the rest who were not directly involved and let this go down in history as a moment of shame for our government and military. Putting the men in governmental position in jail for these acts serves no purpose at this time and wouldn’t act as a preventative measure for any governmental official in the future. It would simply do nothing from those perspective but worse yet it would offer absolution to those who might have had a hand in these acts. They could serve their time and walk away feeling like that had paid for their crimes. We should simply forgive them publicly and without reservation and let God decide on a just reward for their actions.
I had a couple of other issues I wanted to address but this has become one of my longer posts and so those other issues will have to wait for other posts. I hope these political/moral/religious posts give all three of my readers things to think about and I really hope I challenge your views at times. I am not the best writer in the world but if I make the three of you think then all of my drivel here is worth it. And yeah I know this is a day late but it took longer than a day to get it all sorted into a coherent train of thought. Thanks for your patience.
Comments
