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.

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.

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.

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.