Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost expanded on his waterboarding post with another post, “Anthropos and Enemy: Further Thoughts on Waterboarding.”
I was really glad to see this. Normally his posts are very thoughtful and thought-provoking, so the post I linked to yesterday really left me wanting more. In this post, he gives several reasons why the US should not use torture, instead of just defaulting to the emotional response.
In addition to that, he closes with some very important food for thought…
As political scientist Glenn Tinder once wrote, the human being is both fallen and exalted, sacred and yet morally degraded. These two aspects of humanity cannot be separated. A fact, Tinder admits, that is “hard for common sense to grasp.” Indeed, it is almost impossible to grasp when we try to apply this concept to our enemies. We often fall for one of two extremes.
The “liberal” position, for example, tends to be overly empathetic in an attempt to understand and “humanize” our foes. But this is just one of the ways in which we can err. The “conservative” position, which seeks retribution and dehumanizes our opponents in order to distance them from ourselves, can be just as dangerous, particularly for those who must carry out this war.
We must never hesitate to defend our culture, our future, and our lives against those who seek to destroy us. The liberals’ appeal to tolerance and understanding in the face of such an enemy is suicidal. The conservative position, which is willing to face up to and address the evil of terrorism, provides a more adequate approach.
Yet the conservative position must never forget that the evil comes not just from the actions of “subhuman vermin” but from the heart of a fallen, sacred yet degraded, human being. If we are to preserve our own humanity we must not forget that our enemy differs from us in degree, not in kind.
He closes with an interesting perspective…
But torture should always be illegal and the price of breaking this law should be so high that we can expect that it will be used only in the most absolutely urgent of circumstances.
Because the torture victim must bear the cost of incredible pain and even death, the benefits to the torturer must worth bearing some of the costs. Torture must not be cheap. But if the “ticking-time bomb” scenario is real, the interrogator should be willing to pay the price–even if it means his own death–to protect the lives of the innocent.
Any thoughts?
November 7th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Interesting. You demean what you call the “emotional response.” Of course it’s not an emotional response you refer to, but an ethical response, based on a moral code.
You seem to suggest that moral codes shoule be relativistic, and that anything besides a situational, freel-floating morality on torture is simply being “emotional.”
I doubt I’m the only one seeing the irony, here.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
It’s not ironic. I constantly hear Christians being forced to justify their positions absent their moral code, so I was just asking the same of everyone else. I know right from wrong and my standard is anything but relative. Right and wrong come from God. It is pretty cut and dry. However, I would like to see policy based on something a little less controversial. That is why I was unsatisfied with Carter’s original post and liked this one much better.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
“We must never hesitate to defend our culture, our future, and our lives against those who seek to destroy us.”
Isn’t that what “the Terrorists” think and say about US??
“If we are to preserve our own humanity we must not forget that our enemy differs from us in degree, not in kind.”
In other words, “hate the sin, but not the sinner.” That sounds like an emotional response to me.
“But torture should always be illegal and the price of breaking this law should be so high that we can expect that it will be used only in the most absolutely urgent of circumstances.”
Ummm, hasn’t that been the excuse given for the new, current Bush-torture policy?? (I.E. “We can’t let the smoking gun be in the form of a mushroom cloud” fear-mongering.)
Therefore, torture will always be “justified” because, who can actually determine and predict “the most absolutely urgent of circumstances?” It’s been a pretty dismal record, thus far. And does anyone actually think an “interrogator” will be severely punished for trying to gather intel that might save the lives of innocents?? Has anyone been punished for the torture of now-known innocent victims of rendition?? And BTW, nazi soldiers who tortured and claimed they were “just following orders,” WERE tried and punished by death, by a system implemented by the US. They could have claimed that their situation was “the most absolute of circumstances…” And why is the writer trying to “re-create” a system of law that was already put into place, by US…that torture is illegal and the use of it punishable by death.
So, I must conclude by saying I think this writer is desperately trying to reconcile a vile practice, “torture” with his “Christian” faith.
November 9th, 2007 at 6:48 am
Here’s a good example of waterboarding (just don’t show the kids)
Waterboarding Barbie, Torture, and more:
Waterboarding Barbie
November 9th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Colleen said, “That sounds like an emotional response to me.”
The rational part of Joe’s argument was in his post, not quoted here.
“So, I must conclude by saying I think this writer is desperately trying to reconcile a vile practice, “torture” with his “Christian” faith.”
I’m assuming you did not read his posts, only what I quoted. He is extremely opposed to torture.
In his first post (linked on my first post on this topic), he is unequivocally opposed. Apparently, he was taken to task by fellow conservatives for being so black and white about the issue, so he issued a follow-up.
In the second post (linked here), he gave a list of reasons to oppose torture, some practical, some moral. I only quoted his closing because I thought it was interesting.
As far as Christianity goes, and this is directed at JD Ryan, too, it is very simple to know what to do as an individual in response to our enemies: love them, turn the other cheek, overcome evil with good. They are created in the image of God and should not be degraded with torture. Jesus died for their sins just as much as he died for ours. We should not fear death, either. Fear of death is not an excuse to sin.
But, this is not a question of how we as Christians should act individually. This is a question of what someone who is charged with the protection of the lives of our citizens should do. That is where it gets a little gray.
For example, would it be a sin if my husband killed an intruder to protect his family? That is not as cut-and-dry as asking if it would be a sin for him to kill an enemy.
What Joe is saying is that torture should be illegal and it is wrong, and if the circumstance arises that it is needed to protect the lives of the innocent, he should be willing to suffer the consequences, even death.
He did not say that they could claim “the most absolute of circumstances” and get off without penalty.
What he is saying, that one should be willing to lay down his life for another, is biblical, too.
He is not in support of torture and my understanding is that he does not think that the current situation has justified its use.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Owen, I just wanted to let you know that I saw your site the other day. It’s on my list of things to check out - when the kids are not around.
November 9th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
I did read his post, (and i think my responses to his quotes were pretty straight forward) and yes, he does state he is strongly opposed to the use of torture…”with the exception of the ticking-time-bomb scenario in which he feels torture would be justified to save the lives of innocents.” But yet that person would have to be willing to “sacrifice his own life” if need be because of the illegality of using torture.
I’m sorry, but I still find his reasoning flawed for several reasons.
secular reasons: The circumstance of actually having in custody a person who has the info and knowledge to stop a “ticking timb bomb scenario is so remote as to be almost non-existent. And even if so, what makes one think that the person being tortured is going to give the correct info??
Using the “ticking time bomb” scenario to allow for torture creates that proverbial “slippery slope” and makes the definition of just what is actually a ticking timb bomb scenario very relative. You mentioned earlier that the Sheik gave up the names of “other terrorists.” What was the extent of their terrorist activities?? If one of them was merely a taxi driver, should he be tortured to get names of other people who might be involved in ticking time bomb scenarios?? I doubt there could ever be a true case of the classic definition of a ticking time bomb scenario. Leaving that one exception throws the door wide open to everybody’s interpretation, and i think that risk far outweighs the risk of any actual ticking time bomb scenario. And who believes that the interrogator is going to be punished, esp. if the public believes that lives have been saved. As I said, NOBODY has been punished thus far, except a few lowly soldiers who were “following orders.”
religious reasons:
To use the biblical, Christian correlation that the torturer is “laying down his life to save the lives of others” seems disingenuous. Whether Christians like it or not, Jesus was a Pacifist. He did not attempt to defend the Jews from the Romans, as Barabas did, which most of us would think completely justified. He did not even attempt to save his own life. He made absolutely NO EXCEPTIONS, as Joe Carter does. (This is why the majority of us are such flawed Christians- and many who claim to be “Christian” have zero understanding of what it means, and those folks always seem to be quoting the Old Testament… Most of us can never rise to that level of spiritual consciousness). Ghandi was a pacifist. I doubt either of them would have used torture even if they thought they were “saving innocent lives.” We just don’t have the ability to comprehend that.
And that is why I see Joe Carter’s reasoning as flawed. Torture should never be used- ever- even in the most seemingly dire of circumstances…at least from a true Christian perspective.
November 9th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
“Torture should never be used- ever- even in the most seemingly dire of circumstances…at least from a true Christian perspective.”
I was thinking about this whole issue earlier today and I came to the same conclusion.
I was never trying to say that Jesus would condone torture, just for the record.
I posted about this topic because I was interested in a discussion and I appreciate your comments.
November 9th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
I’m confused as to why there should be one standard for how individuals act and another for how we should all act together. Aren’t we all part of the same group ultimately?
There has been a long-standing legal tradition of excusing killing in one’s own self-defense, and I don’t see any problem with that…unless you’re a complete and total pacifist.
I’ll personally be very disappointed if we can’t all eventually agree that our govt. should not be torturing people in our names, but that’s just me. Our govt. has stopped plenty of violent acts against us in the past without torturing people.
November 10th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
I appreciate your posting of this topic- more people should be discussing/debating the ramifications of the Bush torture policy. There are still far too many people just not tuned in to what is happening.
January 7th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
hello, i’m lizzy!