OK, so from a Christian perspective, and IF it can be effective and actually save lives, what do ye say as to what level of physical intimidation is ok, what is too far? Think guys like ISIS that are butchuring young and old.
And, yes, Rick's avatar is a bit of on-going torture.
But seriously? I mean, few would say we can't kill in wartime scenarios - so we can KILL them but can't waterboard? Where do we draw the line?
Never, it is never okay.
War brings out the most despicable, disgusting, evil side of humanity, history has shown us that.
Some of the atrocities and torture tactics go far beyond any level of acceptable military behaviour no matter who is on the receiving end or instigating it. Because most miliataries have been tarnished with that brush.
Look at the disgusting pictures that emerged from Guantanamo Bay. The written and oral testimonies of detainees. That type of behaviour is nothing short of the most ugliest side of human nature. There are no justifications. The degrading, humiliating, sadistic tactics that any military uses is just plain evil.
The type of training that operatives go through is basically devoiding them of empathy and compassion. we are not wired to torture others, to cause immense physical pain. The only people in society who can are sociopaths and psychopaths. It takes a lot of training to shut down a part of the human psyche so that they can break a person physically and mentally.
From a Christian perspective and I don't mean to over simplify the issue, but what do you think Jesus would say? The New Testament gives us such in depth descriptions of Jesus' character, what he stood for, I think going from His teachings the answer to the question is obvious.
It kinda falls along the lines of bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima. As bad as that was, in hindsight, we know those bombings caused japan to surrender. Which actually saved lives.
I honestly don't know. On one hand we have torture. Which on the surface seems just plain wrong. On the other hand, if by torturing someone, we can save thousands of lives.
Does the end justify the means?
I think you're going to get a good split on the answers. I would say most Americans here would vote for torture, in certain circumstances. While the Canadians and Aussies would vote no for torture in all circumstances.
If anything, it shows how our respective cultures influence our choice.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
I submit that, for a Christian, the MEANS is what lends validity to the end.
Christ makes it clear that the greatest expression of love is self-sacrifice, as in the case of His death for All believers.
The end ( salvation for all beleivers because of what Christ did, not what they do) is valid because of the MEANS ( His sacrifice) because it was WHAT was done and not WHY it was done.
I say that because the WHY ( to give salvation) could have been done via works or via the law or anything else because it was the END that matters, BUT it is NOT the end that matters, it is THE MEANS:
Belief.
I submit that, for a Christian, the MEANS is what lends validity to the end.
Christ makes it clear that the greatest expression of love is self-sacrifice, as in the case of His death for All believers.
The end ( salvation for all beleivers because of what Christ did, not what they do) is valid because of the MEANS ( His sacrifice) because it was WHAT was done and not WHY it was done.
I say that because the WHY ( to give salvation) could have been done via works or via the law or anything else because it was the END that matters, BUT it is NOT the end that matters, it is THE MEANS:
Belief.
Woah! So we're gonna compare the means of what Christ did to save us to (arguably) actions designed to prevent evil men from more mayhem and carnage?!!! This would be a very bad analogy. Not to mention it doesn't hold up with many OT actions God had Israel take against threatening heathen nations. I can guarantee such heathens would have BEGGED to have been waterboarded instead of given a haircut at the neckline!
I submit that, for a Christian, the MEANS is what lends validity to the end.
Christ makes it clear that the greatest expression of love is self-sacrifice, as in the case of His death for All believers.
The end ( salvation for all beleivers because of what Christ did, not what they do) is valid because of the MEANS ( His sacrifice) because it was WHAT was done and not WHY it was done.
I say that because the WHY ( to give salvation) could have been done via works or via the law or anything else because it was the END that matters, BUT it is NOT the end that matters, it is THE MEANS:
Belief.
Woah! So we're gonna compare the means of what Christ did to save us to (arguably) actions designed to prevent evil men from more mayhem and carnage?!!! This would be a very bad analogy. Not to mention it doesn't hold up with many OT actions God had Israel take against threatening heathen nations. I can guarantee such heathens would have BEGGED to have been waterboarded instead of given a haircut at the neckline!
No Philip, the example of Christ was that the MEANS justify the end, not vice-versa.
To many people seem to believe that the ends justifies the means and that just leads to justifying all manner of horrific acts.
No Philip, the example of Christ was that the MEANS justify the end, not vice-versa.
To many people seem to believe that the ends justifies the means and that just leads to justifying all manner of horrific acts.
STILL a terrible comparison in dealing with those trying to kill us. Obviously, often, the means ARE justified to reasonably consider, given certain threats. And we are not God - we CAN'T know the ENDS. But God gives us brains and tools to protect ourselves against those bent on destruction. If killing people warring against your nation isn't a means, nothing is. But whenever using such means, WE are not guaranteed ANY ends. God ALWAYS knows what His means will produce - we can't!
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
It's very easy to sit back on our comfy couches watching our 60'' TVs and wax philosophical how the ends don't justify the means. It is quite another when 4 planes just hit major targets in the country, thousands have lost their lives, chaos is raining superme, and broken intelligence is pouring in that a second, third, and fourth attacks are imminent with the potential for 100 times more casulaties and destruction. Yes, that tends to pull us out of our comfort moral zone but what is the alternative, just let people die? I've always said when your enemy does not have the same moral compass as you do the war is already lost. It's just a matter of degrees.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Yep, people like to think of this idea of putting captive terrorists under intense physical duration in the abstract - or a theoretical situation they are removed from. So, let's personalize it: YOUR children, mother, father, brother, sister, husband or wife is facing imminent beheading by terrorists in a location, time and place that are soon to be, but unknown. And certain techniques are available to utilize against a captive terrorist that, if obtained, might very well allow your forces to intervene and save not only your loved one, but many, many other lives. So it's more moral for hundreds to die when it might be prevented by obtaining the right information through coercion? A captive on the same side as the murderous horde that is getting ready to kill those you love and yet you wouldn't sanction extreme measures - as ALL this person would have to do is credibly give up whatever info he's hiding (no, this is not a certainty the info would be accurately provided). I can guarantee you that most here wouldn't think twice about getting the info in through extreme measures, in such a situation.
We ought to be biased against it for a whole host of reasons I probably don't need to enumerate here. Torture in and of itself, however is not intrinsically evil, and that despite what emotionally charged assertions to the contrary we get from the "enlightened" class. Malice, of course, is intrinsically evil; but torture need not be malicious any more than incarceration need be. It clearly can be malicious, but so too can any form of imposed justice.
I would affirm, by the way, that the ends never justify the means, and therefore that immoral means do not accomplish moral ends (that is, immoral means can taint an outcome such that, however desired the outcome is, it is no longer good or praiseworthy). But raising this principle is only related if the means themselves are immoral. And, again, I just deny the charge that torture is necessarily immoral.
I also think that the discussion we are having right now about this as a society--or at least the way it is being had--is very shameful. Further, it is dangerous. The results will not be to make us more secure and save lives, nor will it be to improve our moral standing in the world. Rather, the results will be to make us less secure, cost lives, harm our moral standing in the world, and in doing all of this we are besmirching the reputation of an entire group of civil servants for largely political purposes. I see this as absolutely no different than the way our military veterans were treated by the American left when they came back from Vietnam. It is shameful, and frankly, it is sinful.
edit:
And besides all that, it's takes an awful lot of arrogance to stand back and make such judgments. I'm told by people who have access to information that NONE of us do that there are no such thing as good decisions on these matters. There are only bad decisions, and as such there is only the least bad decision. If it were as simple as just waxing eloquent from your moralistic principles that someone like Obama would gray so much over six years? Look at EVERY president at the beginning and end of their service. If it were cut and dry, those men would not be so stressed. At least some of them would just do what needed to be done--or at a minimum what they really believed needed to be done. And that would cut most of the stress out. But it doesn't, because once you find out what is really going on, you find out that your naive sloganeering on the campaign trail really is just useless, if not harmful, rhetoric.
And WE would do well to stop it amongst ourselves.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
The problem is that the debate over this issue is mostly based upon theoretical situations of which no one knows enough details and so they are trying apply these generalizations and theoreticals to complex real-world situations of which they have next to no information. I can see how each situation would be different. Somethings may not only be immoral (or even reasonable) but also tend to produce unreliable results - which could produce quite the opposite (and thus more dangerous) than what was intended (as one is operating upon the premise that the coerced were accurate, truthful, and truly knew about whatever info they gave up. What gives me a redflag is that people often seem far more worried about the treatment of murderous hostiles than they appear to be over their victims or the hostiles intentions for horrific actions. If extreme measures were not justified in a war, we could never shoot back at those trying to kill us. And make no mistake about it, with groups like the Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS - we are at war with them.
Which is why I think this whole conversation is harmful. We don't and can't have details and so all we have are generalizations. Even arguing that torture produces unreliable results is a generalization. So what are we really doing here? Passing judgment without facts. That ought to stop. It's shameful.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
