If the ends *never* justify the means, all forms of war are unconditionally immoral. For that matter, police forces are immoral. More robust reasoning is certainly required to avoid a philosophy of anarchy, which I would be surprised to see a biblical argument for.

Chris (Jesdisciple),

Your point is taken, but there is a significant difference between police action, wars and torture. A police officer or a soldier uses violence against an immediate threat. The detainees at Guantanamo are imprisoned. They've been neutralized. They cannot harm anyone. To torture a prisoner or POW is not the same was a police officer shooting a violent criminal in the street or a soldier using force on the battlefield.

We don't have to go to Jesus, we can look around right now. When I was reading a blog post on another Christian site about torture and being told by many that torture was ok because those being tortured had sinned and done wrong, I received an email asking me to write to China asking for the release of a Christian leader there. The email said that the leaders had been unjustly imprisoned without a trial and was believed to be tortured. It is exactly because of issues like the one in China that we need a holistic view on torture. We have to be able to submit to world wide scrutiny of our own actions if we believe that others like China and Iran should also be following an ethic (and the law) where torture is inappropriate.

I don't get why Chris says police forces are immoral. It depends on what and how their purposes/modes of operation are. Does not a government that represents the people have the right to enforce basic laws that respect the personal rights of the people?

It ultimately comes down to the respect of human life. At what point does human life become worthless, and who decides that? Is it when they go against a political ideal? Is one political ideal better than another? How is a 2 party sysetem all that representative? Someone said the reason that Communism fails is because man is too corrupt to make it work.

I am shocked that with the numbers of Christians who are being persecuted around the world that Christians in the USA consider torture allowable. In so doing we have alreaady passed judgement upon those in Americas grasp, and given tacit approval for others being tortured in other countries. Even as a government, what seperates us from "barbarians" when we treat others like that?

There is no place for torture. Violence begets violence. Of course there is room for control and incarceration of individuals without a moral compass, who hold the life of another in no regard. That is the governemnt's job.

Not to mention that the whole utilitarian argument breaks down when you consider that the so-called "doomsday scenarios" (i.e. you know for sure there is a nuclear bomb in New York City and you know for sure the person before you has the information necessary to neutralize the threat in time...) used to justify torture simply don't exist outside of an episode of "24."

We would NEVER know for sure whether such a bomb existed. At best we only have suppositions and I would think after the WMD fiasco used to justify Iraq, we would be more agnostic about such situations. Furthermore, we can NEVER know for sure whether a detainee has the knowledge we need.

I guess my point is that this whole thing is not only immoral but ignorant as well. Torture is simply wrong. There is no justification. And even the reasons some are giving to defend it betray not only a lack of morality but also a lack of thoughtful reflection.

I have never been more ashamed of the Body of Christ than when I read this Pew Forum report. My brothers and sisters, we need to repent and beg God to have mercy on us for we have gone far astray.

WTF? You've got to be kidding me. Please, please, please you are telling me that a majority of so called evangelical Christian's DON'T think torture is okay.

Torture is NEVER, EVER okay. See this is the problem. In our so called "pursuit of security" ensured by Caesar, we end up acting just like the zealous ideological no civility fundamentalism we claim to be fighting against!

And for Christians to support such means, means nothing less than the fact that we have denied the gospel of the Crucified One, Jesus of Nazareth who very Son of God was tortured on a Roman execution stake. How in the hell could any follower of this Jesus support the torture stake of America!?!?!?

It is mindblowing to me the degree to which the collective gospel imagination and lifestyle of Christians in Ameirca has been hijacked by the "things of this world."

You will say, "well you are living in a another world, this is about our safety!" Where do you read that in the Sciprtures? Safe? there is nothing safe about the gospel. It is sad how far the church in the U.S. has been compromised by the Gospel of America. The gospel which says "we will do anything we need to do to make ourselves, fat, rich, happy, and safe and we will claim that this is the way of Jesus!"

Utter B.S.

Sam, not only do the majority of Evangelical Christians think it is ok, they are the most likely group to think it is ok. And who do you think that thinks it is not ok, people that don't go to church. What a sad, sad state that the church is in.

I really think the comparison between torture and abortion is a sound one. I remember bringing this topic up around 3 years ago in my old church and my college pastor was visibly angry when I suggested that torture was always wrong. This is the same pastor who would rail agaist the moral weakness of our society. I think we need to ask for forgiveness from God and from the international community. We can go after politicians, but as many articles have pointed out, it is really us as a whole country that allowed this to happen. We need to take responsibility for our mistakes.

Ethan,

Yes there is certainly a difference, but it's not utilitarianism versus non; it's utilitarianism with variables. I recently participated in a conversation on this topic at the Baptist Standard: http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9534&Itemid=9

I hope the editor allows that link through; I've linked back here from there as well.

That poll reveals a profound stain on the Church.

Evangelicals would do well to watch their high-minded moralistic tone about...well...just about everything in light of this.

Simply shameful.

And what's worse is the kind of abuse leaders will be subjected to if they actually preach the Scriptures evangelicals claim to have a corner on loving.

I guess I'm a little confused. I recognize no parallel between abortion and torture. Abortion is treating as worthless the lives of unborn, innocent children. Abortion is a very definite event with set features. Torture itself is so variably defined amongst different people as to make a poll like this almost meaningless.

Torture "24"-style is bringing pain/discomfort to those who are (presumably) still participating in illegal, dangerous, and evil acts in the hopes of saving lives. Torture communist-style is the use of pain and maiming, which may lead to death, to force those who are politically inexpedient into false confessions of guilt or to get them to compromise their beliefs. As far as I can do, that form of the term "torture" is used to maintain power, not save lives.

So as the question stands, the debate is too broad, utilizing a term where most people use self-made or assumed definitions. The debate needs to be narrowed to be at all sensible rather than merely, as it is now, sensational.

Maybe a better question is: Is it wrong under any circumstances to bring discomfort or pain to those who are doing evil in the hopes of bring about good?

And if the answer to that is "yes", how do we reconcile the Old-testament treatment of the Canaanites. And what about our responsibility, via 1 Cor. 5, to put pressure (mental torture?) on habitually sinning brothers to both protect the Body (utilitarian?) and help the sinners repent? Or how about God's use of worldly calamity to aid spiritual restoration (e.g., Amos 4)?

Could anyone above who is so broadly ashamed of evangelical existence narrow the discussion precisely enough to justify your outrage? If you can do that, I'd probably join your outrage...but right now, most of the emotionally charged comments above seem mere stylish reactions rather than reasoned, loving rebukes.

Paul Dalach gets to the heart of this issue, IMHO, when he asks if God uses "enhanced persuasive techniques" like sickness, pestilence, plague, famine, and deaths of the firstborn to get people to do something he wants them to do. Uh, yeah.

God can be pretty severe in his treatment of stubborn people. In Exodus 4:11, Moses indicates it was God who gives people disabilities. In John 9, Jesus indicates a man was born blind not because of human sin but because it was going to bring God glory.

If God blinds, and disables, and kills the Egyptian firstborn for the sake of the kingdom, are we to "be like God" in our means of persuasion?

Just asking.

Is it wrong to inflict pain for a good purpose? Surgeons do, coaches do, drill sergeants do, personal trainers do, physical therapists do.

At least SOME pain is fine if the cause is just. No pain no gain.

Would spanking be considered torture of a child? Inflicting bodily pain to modify behavior.

If so, no wonder churchgoers support torture. It's just an extension of commonly used parental practice.

This discussion is downright scary.

For those in favor of torture, I have a few questions:

1. Would you support govt. torture of US citizens?

2. Would you support governments, schools, or civic institutions using torture to "discipline" people into right behaviors?

3. Do you denounce the torture of Christians in other lands by governments that outlaw belief in Christ?

4. Do you believe America's long-standing prohibition of torture has been wrong?

5. Do you believe the church should be advocating social laws based on Leviticus including the death penalty for deviant sexual behavior?

6. Should churches be using physical discipline on members who are immoral?

7. Is torture ever wrong?

This conversation has me begging for a definition: all pain is not torture.

According to dictionary.com "torture" is:

"1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony."

Okay, so now we should talk about at what point pain becomes "anguish" or "excruciating" (that last one is an interesting word for Christians since it's root comes from "cross." Hmm. In at least one case, torture was redeemed. Like that oxymoron, Good grief.)

The problem is: Christians recognize that suffering sometimes has positive results. A culture that truly believes that what appears bad can actually be redemptive is one that has a hard time saying that "torture is always bad all the time."

Is torture a good thing? No. Are there moral dilemmas in which choices need to be made between a bad thing and a worse one? Yes.

I am opposed to abortion. But nearly all pro-lifers acknowledge that if the mother's life is in immediate danger, it is permissible to save one life rather than lose both. We distinguish between murder for personal gain and killing in self-defense.

The key here is not only the end, but the means and the probably guilt of the detainee. Sleep deprivation, discomfort, psychological pressure are not in the same as pulling out fingernails or breaking arms. Torturing with no purpose other than sadistic pleasure is not the same as applying measured pressure with a goal of saving lives. Beating individuals for their beliefs is not the same as trying to find out information on an imminent terrorist attack. This is not utilitarianism, it is life in a fallen world where genuine evil must at times be resisted.

And uniniformed terrorists who represent no government and who target civilians should not have the same protections as legitimate soldiers who abide by the rules of war - wearing a uniform to allow combatants to recognize friend, foe and civilian, targeting military targets only, etc.

This mischaracterization of Christians supporting torture carte blanche is unfair and only fuels the popular sentiment that Christians are negative, ignorant fools. CT should know better.

Of course, "torture" is always wrong. No one would admit to "torturing." That's why we argue whether waterboarding (which isn't supposed to be lethal) is considered "torture."

And is sleep deprivation "torture"? If so, my 6-month-old is guilty of torturing me.

It's surely not just utilitarianism that is behind these apalling statistics.

Equally important is the false gospel that equates American national interests with the advance of the kingdom of God.

Paul Dalach nails it. The reason Christians aren't up in arms over the particulars of the CIA treatment of terrorists is that the "torture" is described as, for instance, keeping them awake with loud music. That simply doesn't compare with flying a passenger jet into a skyscraper. Lets have ALL of the documents released so that we can make an informed judgment of what happened.

Besides, this article is merely another of Skye's attempts to cloud the abortion issue. That's his main purpose.

I was appalled when I first saw this statistic on white evangelicals and the approval of torture. Torture is always an evil because it violates and degrades a human being and thereby willfully tarnishes the image of God in whom that human being is made. This is not ethical or theological rocket science; it's a conclusion drawn directly from one of the basic tenets of Christianity and the way of Jesus.

Why do so many white evangelicals believe torture is just fine? There are probably a number of reasons, but one of the major factors has to be a lack of teaching in the church on the nature of God and man and what the Bible says about these things. Lightweight self-help sermons and "relevant" programs simply aren't challenging people to be serious Jesus followers or giving them the intellectual or ethical grounding and tools to counter our culture.

This whole situation sickens me. Thanks Skye for standing up on this extremely relevant and timely moral issue.

I am gravely concerned and distressed that Christians are buying into this nationalistic hubris in large numbers. Torture of actual enemies flies in the face of everything we learn in the Scriptures about following Jesus. A related point that several commenters also seem to be missing is that the US government chose to practice torture against SUSPECTED enemies of our state - not PROVEN enemies (not that it matters morally). These people were presumed by the US government to be our undeclared enemies. This has yet to be proven in most cases.

How dare we engage in this type of hypocrisy while simultaneously decrying human rights abuses in China and other places? What gall do we have to participate in this double standard? The ends justify the means if we suppose it might protect our national interests? May it never be!

Let me be clear...I'm not for torture.

But it'd be a stretch to call this poll helpful and I blanch at the comparison of "tortures", such as sleep deprivation, to abortion. And until we can clearly come to at least some broadly defined definition of torture, when will the definition stop expanding...will it soon include imprisonment for criminals. After all, should the image of god be imprisoned for life in a 8x10' cement cell? As far as I can see, consistency those who are against abortion should be against prisons too, right? Right everyone?

Stupid comparison. Torture is a justifiable debate...and I'm all for it. But the comparison to abortion borders on the ludicrous.

I'm not for cruelty being inflicted upon our enemies. If it were between a terrorist and me, kill me...all things being equal, I'd like to give him that chance to live and repent. But there are practical questions that arise when we deal with confirmed (not presumed like at Gitmo) hostiles that DO NOT arise when we are dealing with unborn children. Can we be clear on that? Some of you talk of being "sick" from what you're hearing...I'm sick too of the disdain you show to the unborn.

That said, I'm still waiting on a reasoned limit/definition of torture from those ashamed of us horrible white evangelicals represented by the poll so that we can talk with instead of at each other.

As Americans, we know more about what our government is doing than people in other countries know about what their governments are doing. That being said, we pretty much know what a very biased media would have us know - which is how each and every one of us is responsible for some terrible thing called torture of prisoners of war. Folks, if you think it matters who you vote for in this debate - get real. Obama is no different than any other politician who will say whatever it takes to get elected and then back-peddle when he finds out how difficult the implelmentation of his utopian dreams really is. Skye assumes a tremendous amount of forethought on the part of people who answered this poll. The accuracy of such a poll is highly questionable for the following reasons:
1. The pollster must place numerous calls before getting an answered phone. (Who knows what non-answerers think?)
2. Many people who answer the phone refuse to take the poll. (Who knows what refusers think?)
3. Just because a person self-identifys as a "Christian" doesn't mean they really are.
(Half the "Christians" who comment at this site believe the other half who comment here aren't really "Christians" so how do you define the term?)
4. Polls don't allow the polee to discuss the questions but simply to give a 'yes' or 'no' or "...on a scale of one to ten' type response.
5. Many polls are what are known in the business as "Push polls" designed to couch the questions in such a manner as to get the desired answer.

In other words, most polls are questionable at best. Another thing to keep in mind is that folks like The Pew Forum and other pollsters earn big bucks taking polls. Make no mistake - polling is big business and it's purpose is not really altruistic.

My last point is this - 73.4 percent of all statistics are made up.

I never thought I'd agree with Richard Land from the Southern Baptist denomination, but I wholeheartedly did when he said that Christians supporting torture is a great moral failure. So, where have we as a church gone wrong? Maybe it was when we got caught up in so many other issues (Reformed vs. Arminian, what form of baptism, politics, etc.) that we forget to walk as Christ did.

I am saddened by the fact that many US Evangelicals support torture of political prisoners... When will we learn to distinguish between victims of police states and real criminals?

Andrew
(Tutor for Theological Students in Rome, Italy)

There are so many holes in this argument about Christians supporting torture. First of all, I've read the survey questions, which go something like this: "If the government is holding a terrorist that they know has information about an imminent attack on a U.S. city where thousands of innocent Americans will die, do you support using torture to extract the information that will stop the attack?" The question is designed to trap the person being surveyed. Condemning the Christians who answer that they would be willing to sacrifice one terrorist to save thousands of innocent lives is just as bogus as it would be to condemn the non-Christians for being willing to kill the thousands to save the terrorist. I suppose that you would argue that David was wrong to kill Goliath, that Saul should have negotiated with the Phillistines, or maybe he should have let the Phillistines massacre his army and enslave his people.
Let's get real. Jack Bauer is a FICTIONAL character who is willing to inflict painful bodily harm and death on the bad guys to save Americans. The REAL terrorists who DO inflict painful bodily harm and death on real life prisoners, American or otherwise,(can anyone even argue that point?) are very different than the U.S. officials who embarass or make life uncomfortable for the Guantanamo detainees by using sleep deprivation, cold air conditioning, loud music, slapping them (in the presence of doctors), and even water boarding (a technique that does not inflict actual bodily harm on the detainee, but gives them the sensation of drowning). The U.S. doesn't maime, burn, beat, disfigure, behead, or kill detainees; and anyone who thinks we do is blinded by political idealogy, not by the facts. Call me naive if you like, but I still believe in the American values of life and liberty, and our "torture" methods do not conflict with those values but instead reflect those values. And that's why Christians answer the question posed to them the way we do.

One more thing... Interrogation and torture are two completely different things. Yes, the U.S. interrogates prisoners of war and enemy combatants. I do not believe we torture either. Are the interrogation methods harsh? Yes, of course; these are tough people intent on horrific acts of violence. They won't trade their information for a jelly doughnut. Are our methods torture? No. I believe that the news media deliberately confuse the two in order to sell their news products, and I believe that others confuse the two in order to sell their political agendas. I also believe that the Christians who answered the survey questions about torture were actually approving harsh methods of interrogation and not giving their approval of torture. I don't think that approving harsh interrogation and disapproving of torture are incompatible points of view -- unless you are Jack Bauer.

God is in the torture business.

Why shouldn't His followers be?

Church leaders throughout history have realized this truth.

Why do you think they used to burn people at the stake for incorrect theology?

Oh my G-d.

I cannot believe some of the things I'm reading here.

Skye, I think Melody was right about the polls, the bias assumes that the respondents were christians...evidently, they are not, nor are some people here who could be accused of such either.

If this is what the church has come too...we are certainly in a world of hurt.

As I read the survey question as posted by Christian David, three things bother me. First we need a clear and precise definition of what torture is and what isn't. Some folks who experience simple incarceration consider it torture. How about solitary confinement? And drawing a line is not just for the sake of arguing morality. If the line is not clear, there will be huge temptation interrogators to push the limits. Personally, I think that calling sleep deprivation torture fails to recognize the horror of real torture. As for water-boarding I'm not so sure.
Second, the question posits a very extreme situation which realistically we would rarely encounter even in wartime. The certainty about the impending attack and the knowledge held by a particular prisoner is not realistic. If the question posed were "we're pretty sure an attack is imminent and we suspect that someone out of a dozen prisoners knows about it, should we torture them all?" the approval percentage would drop like a rock. Bad questions make for misleading results.
Third, and maybe most important, many Christian teachers and leaders seem to have a hard time with the fact that sometimes we have to choose the lesser of evils. I would be very reluctant to use torture even in the extreme case described in the question. But the other alternative is also evil. Torture is always evil, but you need to stop and think carefully before you decide that it is the greater evil. Whichever evil you choose, don't pretend it isn't evil.

I'm so glad to read this post. Thank you it. Very well said.

Sally B, you gotta be kiddin' me...

By your logic, murder is okay because everyday people die. If God can "kill" people than it follows we can do it because we're to be like God, right?

The glaring presumption you make is that we would make our determinations of who lives, dies and deserves to be tortured with God's understanding, knowledge and, most importantly, His motivation (= His Love!).

So, do you think we, specifically Christians, can torture and kill others (especially our enemies) with unconditional love (read: God's love) for their well-being?

02RBtDp8xHUHy2_RY7HF1l7Npde3SV
UyblDd6rHp_uSgz-etXFP4dQmVKC2A
zEEEq_is9l7Nm7QDFCGr5EX9k-
0LhsA5Cq7U0NLo8hxL5-8JTgiYkxxd
SDjvGGcPhoYwLrDXh7JgA1d-
VklCO2JVeZpJEGJ2AB

Come on people, everyone knows what torture means. The question in the survey wasn't "Is the US government currently torturing terrorists" or "Do you support harsh interrogation techniques", it asked if it could be justified to use torture on suspected terrorists. We all know what torture is; if a person said yes, they meant yes. If someone asks me if we can torture people, I won't be thinking what the government is or is not doing now, I will be thinking - is it okay to use "torture"?

Lisa,
If you're so sure that everyone knows what torture means, let's test that assumption. Please, give me your clearly delineated definition and we'll see how that jives with the rest of ours.

Sheerahkahn,
I think you're partially right...I'd hazard a guess that many that call themselves Christians aren't. I'm concerned, however, that you'd be so quick to call some of us (me?) an unbeliever because on this issue.

Because of it's clarity, I feel estrongly about the abortion issue for Christians. What I am confused about is that it seems (and please correct me if I'm misiportraying you) somehow "torture", no matter how it is defined, is clear and abortion is complex. And if abortion is clear as well, I can't understand how we haven't discussed the fact that, presumably, how unborn children are innocent and the tortured's guilt is, presumably, established.

And for all the fire coming about the torture issue, according to the Pew Forum's poll on abortion, protestants as a whole support abortion...mainline overwhelmingly so. So tell me, if sanctity of life is the litmus test for Christianity, I wonder where most of us here fall? And if the torture debate gets us so up in arms, I wonder if it's more because the discussion is very much in fashion and abortion is a bit tired.

I'm not for torture under most broad definitions (maiming, starvation, familial threats, sexual abuse, humiliation) under any circumstances. I'm not for extended incarceration without trial. I also have no problem with prisons being less that comfortable given that guilt can be established.

But the bleeding hearts here might be better equipped to convince us "pagans" if you'd stop purely emotionalizing it and start discussing with your brain as well as your heart.

I'll throw my hat in the ring on this whole "definition" of torture debate...What we are talking about specifically is waterboarding. That is the issue. This is a practice that has traditionally been defined by the US as torture. It is simulated drowning and amounts to a mock execution. By utilizing this tactic we are now associated with the Kempeitai (Japanese Gestapo), the German Gestapo, the North Vietamese, Pinochet's regime in Chile, and Khmer Rouge.

According to John McCain, after WWII we executed Japanese soldiers who were convicted of, among other things, waterboarding. US generals refused to engage in waterboarding during Vietnam because it was illegal and in fact court-martialed one soldier convicted of the practice.

So when I say that "torture is immoral" I am most definitely referring to waterboarding. Never in our history as a nation has this practice been acceptable even during wartime.

For the record, I am also equally opposed to abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, and pre-emptive war. I am pro-life. I believe in protecting the sanctity of human life no matter what stage we may find ourselves in.

"Turn the other cheek...loving our enemies...praying for those who persecute us..." At the end of the day, I guess I believe these words are worth suffering, even dying for. And I am simply trying to follow Jesus as radically and relentlessly as possible. Does it make me unrealistic and naive? Perhaps. But then again, how many legions had the pope or Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi or Desmond Tutu? And yet all were able to accomplish incredible transformation by taking Jesus' message of non-violence literally.

Doug Resler,
I don't think we differ to entirely much. And the historical insight into waterboarding was helpful.

But I don't think we all were talking specifically about water-boarding.

At least, I wasn't.

Not being a Christian, yet having used to be one, I see this in a different way. First of all, just because God has "tortured" as someone said does not give us the right to do so, because we are not God. Why do people overthrow dictators? Second of all, there are better alternatives to torture, and you probably believe this torture is justified because most of them are of Islam belief, and well, terrorists. This is basically like punishing someone for what they believe in. That's stupid.

Torture is never justified. Of course, it depends on your own definition of it, but we don't have the right to pry information in cruel ways. Realize that even if it will cost lives if we don't get that info, it will cost just as many lives if we do, because there will be more terrorists, more people willing to go suicide bombing. EITHER way there will be more deaths, because NEITHER side understands each other well enough, and either side can't accept either sides beliefs. Of course, torture is necessary in this world, because lives will always be lost, and wars will always be fought, and just because of the fact religion exists is a reason why war exists. I could go on and on, but whatever I have to say lacks organization so see it as you will.

Personally, I think it boils down to Evangelical Christians being duped by the political right wing.

Anything GOP is "Christ," while anything Democrat is "world."

A Jesus ethic will clash with both parties, but too often the Evangelical community is in the pocket of the polical Conservatives.

When Erza writes:
This mischaracterization of Christians supporting torture carte blanche is unfair and only fuels the popular sentiment that Christians are negative, ignorant fools. CT should know better.

If that is the popular sentiment, my opinion is that we have brought it on ourselves.

WWJT?

I looked up torture in the dictionary. Here it is: 1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure.

I am for coersion of the caught and guilty. I am not for the punishment and sadistically pleasurable. Lives are on the line. After all, innocent lives are just as sacred as guilty ones. Also, try this verse on for size: Prov. 20:30, NIV. Pain is useful and temporary. God uses it(read Job) and so can our government. The way we waterboard(measured pressure w/ a doctor on standby) is not even in the same moral universe as what real torture is, what we hear about in past wars.
What offends me are the articles--that Chistians who support "torture"--slamming those Christians. I am one and I try to follow Jesus the best I can. However, our country didn't have time to say "pretty please" a thousand times to get info from these terrorists who hate us. We have to apply pressure. Or more innocent people would've died. Otherwise, we have dead innocents in CA and people crying out to leaders:"why didnt you do anything to prevent this?"

Tony,
Funny...my wife quoted proverbs 20:30 to me this morning. Agreed that the sadistically pleasurable or pain for those who aren't of known guilt is 100% out of line.

And in the name of using the bible to clarify the "Christian Position"...what does everyone make of Romans 13:

"1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience"

Paul-

I agree that the comments on this blog may have widened the discussion but the specific practice in play politically right now is waterboarding. Is it torture or is it not? This is the issue that forms the context in which the folks from the Pew Forum were asking their questions. And it is the underlying issue to which so many responded which is why (see above) I am so disappointed in my fellow believers.

Thanks, by the way, for challenging us to bring specificity and clarity to the issue so we can have an informed debate.

Peace,
Doug

I think Romans 13 is irrelevant in this argument.

How about discuss what torture is according to US law. US law defines torture as

"..any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."

So let's talk about whether we are ok with US officials violating US law. Because what was done to Padilla violates the above definition and he is a US citizen. What about the more than 1/3 of the people that have been in Guantanamo that even the Bush administration agreed were innocent. What about the more than 100 people that have died under US care around the world according to the International Red Cross?

I can't believe that this conversation is occuring. We are all Imageo Dei, not matter what the person has done. The basic laws of the old testament require a trial and witnesses, unlike what we have required before holding people for years. The US has torture, the US has violated both US and international law. That is the truth. Now we need to talk about what should be done about it.

Luke 6:27-28 "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you," How is this not clear to the Evangelical community? Remember, we are to follow the words of Jesus Christ, no one else. There is no room for torture in the heart or mind of a Christian.

Doug,
Waterboarding, or further Gitmo, does set the context and motivation for the Pew Forum poll. That is true. But the question is more than that. For Christians, there are questions of domestic law (unlawful detention without a speed trial), international law (the Geneva Convention outlawing torture). and the responsibility of governing authorities to enforce law(even harshly...see Romans 13)on top of the Christian value for life.

Personally, I rail against anyone who says the issue is simple. At times, the ability to balance the above issues are clear, like when guilt is not established or American citizens. Other times not. More, the definition of torture depends on one's perception of "severe" or "excruciating" pain...which are both subjective.

Part of my reaction to this discussion has been my growing awareness that most Christians are apparently ignorant to the role of pain and suffering in Godly discipline. Honestly, I've become tired interacting with people who are "more" merciful than God...not realizing that discipline can be a grace.

And I can't abide the idiocy that sees no distinction between those who murder babies and those who inflict pain on criminals to save lives. Even if one still disagrees with paining criminals, surely one can see a distinction?

Again, for the record, I don't agree with Gitmo. We should be people of our word...if we signed a treaty, we should abide by it. If we have a constitution, our elected officials should act within their established limits. And as Christians, just as we take no joy in discipline within the church, we take no joy and go to great lengths to avoid whatever injustice, pain, or discomfort we inflict on prisoners.

Paul, your words "Let me be clear...I'm not for torture." presume that we all understand what the word torture means.Does'nt it? I live in South Africa where more than 90 percent of my countrymen have English as their 2nd or 3rd language . Yet if I stopped any of them on the street, asking them "Do you know what torture is?" ,they could answer me (or you).
Your 'definition of torture' notion is spurious.
Paul, "Torture is a justifiable debate..." ,um, no it's not.Whether torture is cool or not is not open to debate which is why so many of us writing here are displaying disgust, anger and even deapair.

Diderik, despite what Cheney and others keep saying, there is a clear legal understanding on what torture is. It has been understood for 50 years. The US has a legal history that defines both through legal definitions and through case law what is and what is not torture. What the US has done is torture according to that legal history. That is what was so wrong about the torture memos. Those memos purported to give a justification of the torture without any reference to US legal history of prosecution for the exact same activities that were being approved.

Suppose a soldier wounds an enemy in a battlefield. His pain and consequences can be surely greater than those of waterboarding. Now what? Ban wars?

Well, I guess we shouldn't worry about the way the death penalty is inflicted either.

Public drawing and quartering would be awesome!

C'mon people.

It's not about "bleeding hearts", it's about being better than those we fight. It's about the historical fact that we executed people for doing the very things we're doing now.

It's about human decency in the face of indecency and evil.

All this talk about being in a uniform or not, or spiritualizing this thing with saying "God used pain" is some of the worst sophistry I've heard yet from evangelicals.

Sergey, surely you can understand that there is something fundamentally different between our actions against a person that is in custody and one that is actively fighting against us. It is the exact same difference between the policy beating an unarmed person in custody, vs pulling a gun on and shooting a person that is shooting back at you. We do not allow police to beat suspects just as we do not allow (legally) our military or CIA to torture people.

Purely for practical purposes, why would someone surrender if they knew they were going to be tortured. That is a serious issue when we fight wars. We want the soldiers on the other side to surrender. And for those that will say that Al Queda aren't soldiers, I would say that it is even more important for them to surrender to us. And if actively argue that we should be torturing everyone that surrenders, then there will never be anyone that surrenders.

Diderik,
When I said "torture is a justifiable debate"...I mean that it is a conversation that is worth having and hashing out. Since I wasn't clear before, let me be clear in saying I'm glad the discussion has come up because I think the issue needs precision thinking that many people don't give it, on both sides.

Forget legalities right now...think pure biblical ethics. Sadistic, pointless torture of innocents and abortion, I see some similarity. Non-maiming infliction of pain or fear on those who are 100% known to be guilty (if that knowledge were possible)...potentially defensible. At the least, arguably less unethical than sadistic torture or slaughtering children.

Look, agreed that too many people have an American idolatry...they believe that our government can do no wrong and that anything that protects our lives is justified. I don't believe that. As I said many times before, what has gone on recently has been shameful.

But the charge of pure hypocrisy has been targeted to evangelicals because of their rejection of abortion simultaneous to their embrace of "torture". And that's not a fair comparison. There are different ethical valuations of "torture". Sadistic torture of people, criminals or not, is very wrong. Brutal torture in the pursuit of saving lives is very arguably wrong, but there is a white element. Killing babies...okay? Millions of our children wiped out...a few detainees in Gitmo. Where's the real comparison? Maybe because, to us, the process a child's murder is cleaner and their voices silent. Maybe because the detainees have lawyers to, justifiably, squawk for them. But haven't heard anyone address that aspect of the article yet. Why is that?

Honestly, people need to get real. We imitate those whom we love and fear. We love and fear God Almighty.

And, guess what? God Almighty tortures people. He is torturing billions of souls in Hell right now and billions more are certainly destined for that. He tortures them because His justice and holy satisfaction requires it. It brings about a greater good. It was God's will His only Son be tortured to bring about salvation!

In the same way, can we not also justify torture? If, for believers, torture serves a greater good (to bring about repentance, confession and perhaps save lives, thus affording unbelievers more time to avoid going to hell), then maybe we ought to imitate our Master.

It's only in modern times the church has become squeamish about torture. It was widely practiced, even by great Reformers like Calvin and Zwingli, throughout church history.

Quincy do you seriously believe that God tortures people? First you have some issues of definition. Torture as defined by US law is not about punishment. So God does not torture, as we are talking about because what is being done is not about punishment. I do not even want to go to your argument because it has so many issues with it. Two, I don't think there are any Christians today that think that Zwingli or the Spanish Inquisition were appropriate. They are prime examples of why torture does not work (in order to bring about confession). Torture succeeds in getting people to confess something, but it is just as likely that they are confessing to something that they didn't do as to something they really did. 3) Torture is not about greater good. That is a false argument. Ticking time bomb scenarios do not exist.

Hi Adam:

To your point about punishment vs. torture, I don't really think there is an important distinction to be made here. There is no doubt that Hell is torture, eternal concious torment, and God is in charge of it.

Now most of us would blanch at, say, torturing a thief daily for 50 years until he dies in prison. We'd rather hang him and be done with it. But it's different with God. God does not have a problem with torture! And the Bible tells us so. We're just afraid of it.

We're just kind of soft today because of the influences of modern living and secular morals. Tough minded Christians who understand the faith and what's at stake realize that torture is part and parcel of the Master's grand design and we are to stand back in awe and reverance.

The church has bifurcated into "Love" only Christians and "Wrath-Justice" Christians, and neither have the full story, though on balance it's much safter to err on the side of Wrath and Justice.

The author makes a conclusion by linking the torture of Jesus to his view. This is a blatant example of using the Scripture to justify personal view, or "the end justifies the means". The issue is much more complex than a simple poll. Let me use the example of the recent incident where a US ship was hijacked by pirates, and the US Navy Seal rescued the captain by killing three pirates in the lifeboat and arrested the fourth one. Did the Navy Seal commit torture by shooting and killing the pirates?

Joe and Quincy, no matter how many times you repeat it, your mis-representation of both God and the actual definition of torture do not make your versions true. Torture has a clear legal meaning, one that Cheney and others keep ignoring. Harm to other does not equal torture. It is not torture to kill someone that is trying to kill you or someone else when you are both armed. It is not torture for God to punish people according to his justice. To claim otherwise is actually very, very close to blasphemous.

What is being talked about in this poll and in our current political discussion is the right of a group (in this case the US military or CIA) to hold a person without trial and then physically, or mentally harm them in order to obtain information or punish.

This is not what God does according to scripture. There is a judgement, an all knowing all seeing God, so no hearsay options of having an innocent person. (Remember at this point in time more than 2/3 of those that have been held at Guantanamo have been released because they weren't guilty of anything (this was before Obama came into office.)

WWJT: Who Would Jesus Torture?
By Doug Giles

A Christian radio show host asked me the other day how I could, as a believer, be cool with waterboarding terrorists for intel crucial to our national security-or, as I like to call it, the implementation of the Irrigation for Information Act. Irrigation sounds so much more pleasant than torture, oui? Oui. ...

http://townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2009/05/30/wwjt_who_would_jesus_torture