Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Can Christians Support Torture in Some Instances?
There’s no place better than Ricochet to discuss this issue with rationality and compassion. If you haven’t read it, D.C. McAllister has written a piece explaining how Christians aren’t going to hell if they support torture in very rare circumstances and if the “torture” (similar to what the CIA did) is for the sole purpose of getting information to save lives (contra strapping people to the rack for the sheer delight of it or to impose terror on the individual and society as a whole).
She basically gives the same argument many others (such as Thomas Sowell, Dick Cheney, John Yoo) do. She just brings the Bible into it (which has stirred up quite the hornet’s nest, as you can imagine). Both the subject and her arguments are complex, but she’s trying to address philosophical and theological points often lost in the debate. The piece is rather long, but it needs to be read in full or you’ll risk jumping to wrong conclusions. She cites Ricochet contributor Rachel Lu, whom she respectfully disagrees with. The post moves from a philosophical analysis with what to do about the practicality of whether to make torture in some form legal. To a degree she goes with Alan Dershowitz and his suggestion of torture warrants. It’s clear she doesn’t feel comfortable with trusting the government with this power (which is really another argument), but she wants to make the point that you can be a Christian and justify this in some rare instances.
If you have time and want to be disgusted, shocked, and a little entertained, you should plow through the nearly 500 comments to the piece. Remember, nearly 80 percent of Christians (both Evangelicals and Catholics) say that torture is justified in some instances. Clearly, everyone in this debate (including D.C.) believes torture is wrong. You don’t have to justify something if it’s right. The badness of torture is a given. The question is is it ever justified? And are you a terrible person and headed for the fires of hell if you support it? Do you allow for some measure of torture (however you define it) for the sake of saving an innocent life or lives, or do you uncompromisingly embrace practical absolutes, and as a result, put the “right” and dignity of a guilty terrorist over the innocent lives of children (and others) like those in the school in Pakistan or in the towers on 9/11?
On a personal note, as some of you know, I’m friends with D.C. here in Charlotte, and she’s received threats for writing this piece. A couple of threats have been on her life—and from people claiming to be Christians. For those of you who pray, you might want to remember her and her family in your prayers.
Published in General
I read DCM’s piece before I finished your post and her point that Criminals Forfeit Their Dignity made me slam down my hands and say “Yess!”
I am so disturbed by your news at the end of the post, however, I can’t even begin to revel in the wisdom of this spectacular piece of writing. In fact, I am speechless.
I’m sure Denise will be checking in to read these comments, so let me say, unequivocally, how much I admire her courage and that I support her every step of the way.
Above all else, stay safe our friend.
I can tell you that she misses you, ET. And everyone here. I’ll pass on the well wishes. No one likes threats. She’s pretty tough, but when people threaten her family, well that’s a whole other thing.
yesss!
Those were my sentiments exactly.
Thank you, DCM and KatyAnne.
If there’s only five minutes before the bomb goes off, . . .
I, a traditionalist Catholic, support the torture of Islamic terrorists unequivocally and without apology.
And I also support the torture of those cowards making death threats against Denise.
Thanks for the heads up Katyann. I keep forgetting about the Federalist and would have missed DC’s article were it not for your post.
I waded though a few of the comments but then had to stop. Stress has been a problem in my life these last few years and there comes a point where the reminder of the stupidity of so many people just adds too much.
DC nailed it. And I will be repeating her point that the terrorist can stop the enhanced interrogation at any point by giving up the info.
Those who have threatened DC have forfeited, if not their dignity, at least their decency.
DC quotes Zahnd
Maybe it is me, but isn’t the irony deep when Zahnd suggests God is kind and merciful to the wicked?
DC says this, making the contrast between individuals and the government:
But this is her most powerful statement, in my view:
There was a great line in The Siege. Annette Benning is a CIA agent and she says to FBI agent Denzel Washington : choosing between good and evil is easy. It’s choosing between two evils that’s hard. (Not an exact quote, but close)
I’d also add that the infamous “waterboarding” technique could never be compared to dismemberment and decapitation. It may be considered psychologically damaging, but how much more of that sort of damage can one truly incur upon people who have chosen terrorism as a living?
and after reading just a few of the comments on the Federalist, makes me ever grateful for Ricochet’s CoC.
Denice makes a serious misquote of the Bible, the Commandment is “Thou shalt not murder.” The punishment, stated clearly in Numbers, is to kill the murderer. The murderer has forfeited his/her life. King James version of the bible uses the word kill, but hit has been known for centuries the correct translation is “murder.” Distinguishing between killing and murder makes her argument stronger.
http://www.prageruniversity.com/Ten-Commandments/Do-Not-Murder.html
A very thoughtful article, as one would expect from Denise.
It might be easier to justify from a Christian perspective than from an atheist perspective. From a hedonistic standpoint, pain takes on greater significance because pleasure and pain are the measure of life’s quality. From a Christian perspective, even the most severe pains are fleeting experiences unless one elects to damn oneself with evil choices.
It’s important to note that when God orders someone killed in the Bible, that is not analogous to one human being killing another by his own judgment. God owns us. He created us and sustains our existence through His will. We are part of His domain. And God knows all about each person; guilt and potential, struggles and indulgences, barriers and gifts, past and future, etc. When God destroys an entire town, He knows exactly who He is taking and what choices they would have made had they continued to live.
More to the point, when God kills someone, He is not necessarily condemning that person, because there is life beyond life. God will save the innocent who live among the wicked.
Death and pain are unpleasant, but they are not trump cards in Christian ethics.
I made the argument, after Christopher Hitchens admittedly bravely voluntarily submitted to it, that if you can volunteer for it, undergo it, and not require hospitalization or even psychotherapy afterwards, it isn’t torture.
My interlocutor was unimpressed, but I stand by that claim.
In any case, please remind Denise how desperately she is missed, and how all of us will rise to her defense. I mean that literally in the form of armed guardianship if need be.
I read Patheos Evengelical Often. On Patheos Evengelical, there seems to be an effort to force Conservatives to choose between Christianity and Conservativism. While I think Conservatism is morally and religiously neutral, I think Liberalism is of the Devil. I am slowly reading Patheos Evengelical less often, because I believe it is slowly substituting a Political Faith for the Christian Faith.
I don’t read the Federalist, but it seems to me that it has the usual problem of sites with open and largely unmoderated comment sections: trolls. This is not to downplay the threats from DMc’s article, but more to note that such articles are bound to attract the very worst of commenters if the barriers are sufficiently low.
To me the comments run the usual gamut of severely isolationist Lew Rockwell / Alex Jones types (to whom the Federalist does in part cater), and the severely demented pacifist Left, who lacks any understanding of the usual rules of warfare – in particular the notion that non-uniformed enemy combatants can be executed on the spot. Best not engage with either type in such a forum in the first place (though I did see a few Rico regulars gamely wading in: HI SEVERELY LIMITED!). You get the same bunk exchanges over Facebook too (my favorite was having my immortal soul condemned for being a capitalist).
Couldn’t help but think of this scene from Army of Darkness:
Witch: “I’ll swallow your soul!”
Ash: “Come get some.”
You get the same bunk exchanges over Facebook too (my favorite was having my immortal soul condemned for being a capitalist).
Seriously? That’s ridiculous.
You’re right about the commenters. Advice: Don’t feed the trolls!
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of “get away from me you d*** dirty hippy!”
I almost wrote a post about it – but then Kevin Williams beat me to it with a superb defense of Wal Mart (the store had engendered the original exchanges). The kicker was that this guy kept calling me “brother”.
That’s de rigueur lately, skipsul. Even capitalists criticize other capitalists for being capitalists!
hey, that was scary….I had to turn it off. :)
Goedel: In any case, please remind Denise how desperately she is missed, and how all of us will rise to her defense. I mean that literally in the form of armed guardianship if need be.
Will pass on. I know she’ll appreciate this more than I can say!
Maybe it was Hulk Hogan in disguise.
Ash beat the witch and got the girl. ;-)
ok. that witch was uuuggllyyee
Klaatu Barata Nikto baby!
Kay–“King James version of the bible uses the word kill, but hit has been known for centuries the correct translation is “murder.” Distinguishing between killing and murder makes her argument stronger.”
There are different interpretations regarding that commandment, but you know what I thought of is how the Jewish interpretation of Scripture applies to these points. It’s known that Israel uses interrogation techniques, but one of the arguments from Christians against torture in any form is that it will make the nation that does it soulless. But I don’t see Isreal as losing its soul.
This one perplexes me. Somehow it’s OK to murder millions of children in utero (the cult of Moloch lives indeed) but capturing non-uniformed enemies alive, roughing them up a bit, then letting them live on a tropical island with the promise either of a return home or a US domestic trial is somehow soul-destroying? Really?
I can take it from other people who have some inkling running a business, but a hippy who is perpetually in grad school, claiming to KNOW economics, who can’t understand supply and demand in relation to the minimum wage, has forfeited any right to open his yap.