George W. Bush is not a man of God
George W. Bush is not a man of God…at least not my God. There is a possibility that he is devoted to some other God. I may even speculate about that as we move along.
I was away this week. I wasn’t near a radio or a television when George W. Bush admitted the “secret prisons” and the torture that took place there. I didn’t hear the press conferences and the speeches wherein he explained the tactical advantage that had been gained by by “waterboarding” detainees. I missed the assurances that this would end now that they were being transferred to the relative safety of Guantanamo, not that anything illegal or regrettable had been done, of course. This is good, because I likely would have broken the radio or TV.
When did America become a place wherein its chief executive could blithely acknowledge torture and there be no public outcry? Why did I hear two NPR correspondents chatting this morning about how President Bush used the admission to make a “bad news day” into a “good one”? How is this possible?
When I’ve talked with fellow Mormons about their support of George Bush, they have often cited his public religious stances. Recently, he came to Salt Lake City and cited God and religion in a speech to the American Legion in which he justified the record of his administration thus far. He is publically very religious, respectfully of differing paths to God, but proud of his own Christian tradition. He has spoken at Bob Jones University, a center of Christian bigotry, and he has met several times with the First Presidency of our church, whom I don’t believe that he believes are actually Christian. Nonetheless, I have a feeling that President Hinckley likes and respects him (although I may be wrong).
Thus, Bush cites Christ as a model. He publically tries to emulate him. He fails. He fails spectacularly. He fails to the degree that I am now wondering if he is conscious of Hitler’s advice regarding big lies.
I am utterly, utterly serious and I wish I wasn’t. I see absolutely nothing of Christ in Bush and very little of Christ’s influence in his rhetoric. I see an awful lot of Molech, the god of the Ammonites, who demanded the sacrifice of children for the maintenance of universal peace.
I believe that my God believes that human worth is inherent, that the loss of any human life is regrettable. Bush seems to believe that some people are worth less and therefore may be treated as inhuman, treated in ways that he would not treat his dog.
I believe that my God demands compassion, even for enemies, who are, after all, God’s children. Bush seems to believe that we should revel in the deaths of miscreants, miscreants created, in some cases, by our own government, but when they worked for us, of course, they were heroes.
My God demands that we act in humility, acknowledging his hand in all things. Bush seems to believe that he will single-handedly change the world for the better on his watch. I remember a scene a few years ago, when Bush was asked what his greatest mistake as a president was. He paused, chuckled, and then answered that he couldn’t think of anything. Most people so inclined thought that this was an act that revealed his hubris, an inability to acknowledge his errors. I disagree, I think that he is realistic enough to know his mistakes. I think that he just couldn’t figure out a way to plausibly admit a mistake, to maintain deniability so that his political ambitions would not be hurt. His need to save face is greater than his need to be Christian.
I know that NPR has a “liberal” reputation (as does this blog). I know that the correspondents I listened to could be misrepresenting the reasons behind Bush’s revelation. But is there any Christian justification for torture? Any appropriate response to the public revelation of torture on Bush’s watch, condoned by him, than apology and resignation? Any less appropriate response than to tout how well it worked?
Bush, from the beginning of the war of terror, has demanded death, both from his allies and his enemies. He condones torture; he condones the dehumanization of human beings. He asks us to sacrifice freedoms, but I don’t believe he has or ever will make a sacrifice that he hasn’t already calculated will be painless. He asks of us our children; He offers his control.
If the election of Bill Clinton represents the ultimate victory of the Communists, as I believe it does, Bush’s election represents a trend slightly more disturbing to me. Clinton represents those who value things only for their monetary worth. Compassionate programs are to be jettisoned if they fail to produce results in a scheduled timetable. We can only give if we expect a great return in the future. Giving just to give is now foolish, wasteful. We must calculate the gain and loss of every act of charity in order to determine the net result for our pocketbook and theirs. When compassion was commodified, Marx turned out to be right.
Furthering the process, we have the commodification of women and sex. The sex trade thrives in America; kidnapping and prostituting young women thrives throughout the world. I won’t blame an American president for this (although Clinton might be an appropriate stand-in), but it shows that when we only value items and people financially, we fail them. We no longer worship our God.
Bush seems to see the soldiers in these wars as just numbers and as such represents the commodification of life itself. When the decision to enter a war is based entirely on the likelihood (real or imagined) that the war will “pay for itself”, haven’t we simply turned people into numbers? Hasn’t their death become another ledger that simply requires balancing? Bush is the greatest of Marxists, as the people will be happy with an opiate of sure jobs at home and deaths overseas.
Certainly, despots should be ousted. I have no love for Saddam Hussein. But does anyone really believe that Bush’s sole concern was the suffering of the people in Iraq or the potential of weapons of mass destruction falling into terrorist hands? Don’t most people think oil might have been somewhat influential? Elections in Iraq were a wonderful step forward; were no-bid contracts for Halliburton necessary to attain them? The great good you do (or rather send others to do) that coincidentally fills your pockets (or the pockets of friends who will take care of you when you lose this gig) doesn’t seem like that great a good. Do we fight and kill now because the human losses involved mean financial gains?
I don’t wonder whether Bush sleeps well at night. Don’t we all assume he does? Does there seem to be even a trace of concern for the loss of the lives involved, US and Arab? The whole point of the war in Iraq is to have the killing take place there, not here. But he doesn’t seem that put out by the killing. Is this a man who can appeal to the “better angels of our nature”? A man who counts his accomplishments in the published photos of the men he has killed or captured?
If Bush worships a God, it isn’t mine. I will not vote for him in the upcoming election. I will not vote for anyone whom he endorses. I recognize that this may leave me without options regarding candidates, but I will manage.
That said, I am willing (deseparate, really) to be wrong. If you can convince me that Bush is Christian or that Bush is working for a God I believe in, I will let him off the hook. I just don’t see it right now. When I see him, I don’t see the light of Christ in his eyes, just the reflected flames of the fiery sacrifice he commands.
JDC, thanks for the impassioned post. I’ve had similar feelings for years now; the only thing that changed recently is that Bush has finally acknowledged some — although not all — of what the best evidence has indicated we’ve been up to for quite some time.
Of course, you realize that the two of us are, as the saying goes, “well outside the mainstream of American opinion.” Presumably, the 54% of Americans who disapprove of Bush’s job performance in the most recent Gallup poll are also outside the mainstream.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — September 9, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
Thanks for the support, JNS. We initials need to stick together.
BTW, I do know that Bush can’t run for President again. I just meant that I wouldn’t support him for City Council or anything should he move to the greater Utah County area.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 12:38 pm
Also, for the curious, here is a link to the NPR piece I heard.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
Makes me wish I went by initials, too! Interesting stuff.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 9, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
The use of the word torture to describe water-boarding is both extreme and duplicitous. Until a few years ago, torture referred to acts that induced extreme physical pain. At some point, propagandists have been trying to stretch its meaning to include acts that induce panic. Then pseudo-intellectuals like you get to pretend to be principled by using this new, stretched meaning with the hope that it retains the same rhetorical force that it used to have when it referred to pulling people’s fingernails out.
If this your God is willing to engage in this kind of duplicity (not to mention idiocy), then as far as I’m concerned He can shove it. I don’t care to worship Him, and I don’t care to have a president that does either.
Comment by DKL — September 9, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
DKL, is that all you got here, man? A definitional quibble? C’mon. That strikes me as a minor kerfluffle in light of the larger post.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 9, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
DKL, perhaps a touch of duplicity is also at work when you say that water-boarding wasn’t called torture until recently. It was a favorite torture tactic of the South American dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s. At the time, it was denounced as illegal torture by many within the international community — including the US government under Carter.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — September 9, 2006 @ 12:56 pm
DKL,
My standard is whether I imagine George W. Bush would consider it torture if inflicted on US soldiers. Whether I would consider it torture if it was inflicted on me. I don’t know of any other criteria for defining torture that I would respect. I am however willing to listen to alternate labels.
Also, focussing your argument on me is really missing the point, isn’t it?
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
Don’t play games, Steve. Without J’s accusation that torture occurred, little is left of his critique but some milquetoast rambling about humility. The fact that he’s using the term torture in a trivial sense fatally undermines the basis of his righteous indignation as well as the moral significance of his purported God.
Comment by DKL — September 9, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
…and I label it a minor kerfluffle because the question of what constitutes torture was resolved decades ago by the UNCAT in 1987 and the four Geneva Conventions. If the U.S. didn’t intend to stand by those documents, it shouldn’t have voted for them.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 9, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
DKL, I don’t understand your claim that waterboarding is trivial. John McCain — no torture novice or softie he — calls it “very exquisite torture.” See this story for more.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — September 9, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
DKL,
Do you believe that God would endorse “waterboarding,” which, I admit, seems to me to be the most tortuous of the interrogation methods used by the US that I have heard described?
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
JDC, I think what you’re experiencing is best described here:
http://dir.salon.com/story/comics/tomo/2003/02/10/tomo/index.html
Comment by Jonathan Green — September 9, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
JG,
I agree. The vein in my forehead began to throb when I heard those NPR idiots discussing the political ramifications of the admission.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
‘Without J’s accusation that torture occurred, little is left of his critique but some milquetoast rambling about humility.”
The use of human life as a commodity seems a significant charge to me.
Comment by gomez — September 9, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
The CIA has prisons? Well lordy! More tax dollars! Wouldn’t it be more economical to interrogate their murderous detainees at the nearest coffee shop? And why all this costly drug-stuff? Sheesh! You can by a nice pair of pliers for less than ten bucks.
Comment by Jack — September 9, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
HP/JDC: My standard is whether I imagine George W. Bush would consider it torture if inflicted on US soldiers.
If George W. Bush had charged Saddam with torturing US Soldiers because he water-boarded them, liberals and Democrats would laugh it off as propaganda–and they’d be right.
Whether it’s Dan Rather’s forged documents or the accusation that Bush was taking revenge on Wilson by “outting” his wife or the accusation that Bush lied about British intelligence about Saddam’s attempt to find Nuclear material in Niger, liberals always have an excuse: What Rather said about Bush was true, even if the evidence was fraudulent; it’s been shown that there was no malfeasance in Novak’s naming of Plume as a CIA agent, but Bush & Cheney are still misusing executive authority to threaten opponents; Bush may have been right that Saddam was trying to buy fissionable material, but he was still wrong about Saddam’s intent.
Liberals come up with one conspiracy theory after another to prove that Bush is evil. Then, when the theories are exposed as false, they try to pretend that nothing happened, and still claim that he’s evil. This does not lead me to believe that the liberal opposition to Bush is generally principled or intelligent.
Your misuse of the term torture fits this pattern perfectly. You’re inventing a reason to hate Bush, and when it’s questioned you try to pretend that your case still holds when it’s primary accusation has been undermined.
Comment by DKL — September 9, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
Then pseudo-intellectuals like you
DKL, that’s low man, and it’s wrong. Ol’ JDC is bona fide. I’m just sorry he lives on Orem; he must get ulcers.
People should read the post and the article it links to over at headlife. It’s a very sensible discussion of torture. But Bush is more than torture, so let’s not get hung up on that. There’s much more rope.
Comment by Ronan — September 9, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
he lives on Orem
Sic.
Comment by Ronan — September 9, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
DKL,
I remain confused nor do I believe that you have significantly undermined my argument. I am perfectly willing to call any use of water-boarding evil, as I believe torture is just that. I did not invoke “liberal” or “conservative,” except to acknowledge that there may have been some bias in the snide manner in which the events were reported. You are assuming quite a bit about me.
For that matter, I am willing to be unconvinced. If there is a compelling Christian argument for the use of waterboarding, I would love to hear it. Please, enlighten us.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
er…switch “nor do I believe” to “and I do not believe” and I think the first sentence up there will make sense
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
“…I’m just sorry he lives [in] Orem…”
Now *that’s* low.
Comment by Jack — September 9, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
Here is an article (found at the headlife link Ronan gave) that talks about the restrictions by which interrogators try to abide. It is a fascinating read.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
On whether God would sanction water-boarding: You’re “God of Kindness” is more the Regent of Refuse than He is any deity depicted in the Bible. According to the scriptures, God’s capable of sanctioning things much worse than water-boarding; e.g., what happened to Job to test him was much worse than water-boarding.
Comment by DKL — September 9, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
The question:
“Do you believe God would endorse waterboarding?”
The answer:
Not anymore than he would endorse chopping a man’s head off, or the chopping off of men’s arms.
Comment by Brent Hartman — September 9, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
Hey, JDC, as you mentioned Moloch, let me introduce you to Bohemian Grove…
Comment by Ronan — September 9, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
DKL,
Thank you for your response (and yes, I am laying it on thick).
First, am I misreading you or are you saying that God isn’t interested in compassion? In that, I am including compassion towards one’s enemies.
Second, I agree that there are situations in which God might use methods that I would find disturbing. For instance, the rules regarding “holy war” in the Bible could be read as an endorsement of the wholesale slaughter of non-combatants. In those situations, he tends to make it clear that the order is derived from Him, usually by speaking through his designated prophet and through personal revelation. I am unfamiliar with anything from the First Presidency that would constitute an endorsement of waterboarding or an irrevocable endorsement of Bush. I’ll admit that I haven’t prayed over the issue of waterboarding; perhaps I should give it a try. In any case, is your compelling argument that waterboarding is okay with God related to some sort of revelatory experience that heretofore you have not mentioned?
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
Thanks for the link, Ronan and JDC. That’s an excellent article.
Comment by Jack — September 9, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
Uh, guys, the UN Convention Against Torture can be found right here. It’s a quick read. It mentions water-boarding exactly as many times as the Bible mentions chocolate.
It bars intentionally inflicted “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental.” The suffering and pain of water-boarding was so severe, that CIA tested it on its own officers to see how well it worked. Some torture!
Comment by DKL — September 9, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
DKL,
Or does your compelling argument hinge on “It’s not that bad”? Do you expect waterboarding to become a kind of ride at Six Flags?
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
JDC: “My standard is whether I imagine George W. Bush would consider it torture if inflicted on US soldiers. Whether I would consider it torture if it was inflicted on me.”
Do you think your standard should include some consideration of the culpability of the person being interrogated?
If we take it out of the realm of war and think in terms of criminal punishment for a moment, I know that I would consider it unjust to be jailed if I never did anything wrong, but I consider it just to lock up a criminal. I consider it unjust when an innocent person is put to death, but I don’t consider it unjust when a mass murderer is executed.
I tend to think something like this should apply when we talk about what is done to detainees. Your standard above says you consider it torture based on how you would feel if it was done to you. If I was one of these people who devoted my life to killing unsuspecting innocent people in horrendous ways, strapping bombs filled with nails onto women and sending them into crowded busses to blow the passengers up, I would think I had it coming to me. Don’t you think the culpability of the detainee plays into the moral calculus? It seems to me that God does.
Comment by Jacob — September 9, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
Secret Prisons + George Bush = Evil
Cutting off arms + Ammon = Evil?
Slaying Israelite idolaters + Moses = Evil?
Rethink your arithmetic guys.
Comment by amused — September 9, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
Jacob,
A “detainee,” unless he has been tried for a crime and proven guilty, does not yet have anything “coming to [him]” and is not yet “culpable.”
Oh, I know, it’s a real pain in the arse to have all this namby-pamby, innocent-til-proven-guilty, don’t torture the terrorist crap, but it’s the way we do things in the enlightened west, and I for one think it should stay that way. It’s in Saudi Arabia that they arrest you, torture you, then find you guilty.
Comment by Ronan — September 9, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
Mr./Ms. Amused,
Not roughing up terrorists = liberal hogwash?
Turning the other cheek = liberal hogwash?
Doing good to your enemy = liberal hogwash?
Oh, the contradictions!
Comment by Ronan — September 9, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
A man’s words spoken in supposed privacy betray him.
GWB, one year before Iraq was invaded: “F**k Saddam. We’re taking him out.”
GWB, ten months before the invasion: “I intend to kick [Saddam's] sorry motherf***ing a** all over the Mideast.”
GWB, on the 2000 campaign trail: “There’s Adam Clymer, major league a******e from the New York Times.”
Conversation between lobbyist and then-Texas Governor GWB:
Lobbyist : “You know, Governor, I represent a dear friend of yours from West Texas, a gentleman by the name of Bobby Holt.”
GWB : “Is that right?”
Lobbyist : “Yes. In fact, we’re discussing something that is near and dear to Bobby Holt’s heart, and that is the law of joint and several liability.”
GWB : “You know, Mike, I’ve known Bobby Holt all my life. Grew up with Bobby Holt. One of my warmest, closest personal friends. F**k Bobby Holt.”
GWB to Tony Blair in 2006: “See the irony [irony???] is what [the UN] need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s**t and it’s over.”
Now, I know words like this are in today’s culture widespread and not very shocking.
My point, however, is that someone who speaks like this in “private” is most certainly not a man of Christ. And if such a man pretends to be in public, that also makes him a hypocrite.
Comment by Jonjon — September 9, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
Ronan,
Are you responding to my comment, or just imagining what you think my point is and arguing against the thing you imagined? Your sarcastic tone seems entirely unjustified as a response to my theoretical question about whether culpability should play into our ideas what is considered torture.
I said that if I was a certain kind of evil person, I would feel I had it coming to me, which would make me view JDC’s standard in a different way than he seems to think it will apply. I didn’t say we should torture people and prove them guilty later. Please.
Comment by Jacob — September 9, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
Ronan: “A ‘detainee,’ unless he has been tried for a crime and proven guilty, does not yet have anything ‘coming to [him]‘ and is not yet ‘culpable.’”
Must I point out the obvious fact that guilty people are culpable whether or not we know it or can prove it? The statement above is uncharacteristically sloppy.
Comment by Jacob — September 9, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
Jacob,
W brings out the worse in me. I apologise.
my theoretical question about whether culpability should play into our ideas what is considered torture
Not in this sense: we cannot know (in any way that is satisfying to western legal ethics) of someone’s culpability until we have tried them. So, no.
I said that if I was a certain kind of evil person, I would feel I had it coming to me.
Except the average jihadi doesn’t consider himself to be evil.
Comment by Ronan — September 9, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
Ronan, “turn the other cheek” is mostly hogwash. It works in avoiding the kind of revenge mentality that fuels (say) the plot/conflict of Aeschylus’s Oresteia. But you can’t very well use it to apply to any activity of moral significance that impacts anyone but ourselves. You seem to envision something like this, “When someone compels you to walk a mile, walk two. When someone tries murders your first child, offer him your second one also.”
Some people want to say that Jesus is limiting his admonitions to the sphere of personal behavior toward purely personal offenses. But what he’s really advocating is the notion that if we have enough faith, worldly consequences do not matter; God will take care of everything for us. This is a terrible philosophy.
Interpretational issues aside: Christ’s admonitions are manifestly unworkable in any moral system that conceives of individuals as responsibility for others’ well-being.
Comment by DKL — September 9, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
Jacob, you’re the sloppy one. “Guilty” refers to a person who has been tried and found guilty. Someone who has committed a crime but is not found guilty is not, in fact, guilty. They may have some moral guilt, but no legal guilt. That’s the distinction that is critical to remember here — or are you suggesting that legal guilt is somehow irrelevant to questions of torture? You “didn’t say that we should torture people and prove them guilty later,” but you are trying to redefine guilt to refer to something other than a legal standard — which has the same effect.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 9, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
Ronan #34, here’s one more for you,
Anyone who disagrees with liberals = unchristlike?
HP/JDC,
I found the following line extremely difficult to believe; indeed, given your tone, I don’t believe it at all.
“That said, I am willing (deseparate, really) to be wrong.”
Comment by Eric Russell — September 9, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
Oh, I agree, DKL, that “turn the other cheek” is totally unworkable. But I also do not think that slaughtering idolaters (assuming the historicity of that account) is a good way for society to operate.
Comment by Ronan — September 9, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
Steve Evans,
If you can’t tell that I am referring to moral guilt and not legal guilt then it is your desire to find fault in my comment and not my sloppiness. Why is this thread so heated? Seriously folks, I was just interested in discussing an interesting question, but it seems everyone has knives drawn.
Comment by Jacob — September 9, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
Anyone who disagrees with liberals = unchristlike?
Er, yeah!
Comment by Ronan — September 9, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
“I’m not defensive! You’re the one who’s being defensive!”
Jacob, you talked about Ronan being sloppy — I was pointing out that you had something of mr. pot/kettle thing going on. And yes, I could not tell that you were referring to moral guilt — in fact, so far in your comments you refer to them almost inseparably, so I have a hard time following you or answering your question.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 9, 2006 @ 4:06 pm
I just can’t see things as so black-and-white.
George Bush isn’t evil. I don’t admire him, but I don’t think he is entirely motivated by greed or hatred or powermongering or whatever. I certainly don’t envy him. I don’t know what I would do differently if I had his job, but the President must protect the country against hateful, violent agressors and that’s not a pretty business. It often requires violence, which, as we all know, is sometimes justified. I’m not at all confident in my ability to determine what God thinks of many wartime actions.
And Orem is a wonderful, beautiful city and JDC should be envied, not pitied, for living there.
Comment by Tom — September 9, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
Ronan: “Except the average jihadi doesn’t consider himself to be evil.”
The standard suggested by JDC for torture (which spurred my comment) was whether he would consider it to be torture if it were done to _him_. If I believe incarceration is a just punishment for murderers, must I abandon this attitude if the murderer doesn’t consider himself to be evil? I don’t much care what evil people think of themselves (at least it doesn’t play into my own moral calculus).
Comment by Jacob — September 9, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
I disagree with most policies of Bush 43 (particularly the war and his “my way or the highway” foreign policy); his personality also rubs me the wrong way. It alarms me that so many of my co-religionists think he is a man of God.
Comment by DavidH — September 9, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
I agree that Bush is evil and not a man of God. Unless we stand for something, for what’s right, then why even fight? Is our goal only that one set of thugs should win out over another set? I have no such aims. Any side that embraces torture is not a side I am on.
Comment by Tatiana — September 9, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
Jacob,
I think if JDC was tortured, either because he was actually a terrorist or because he was accidentally picked up in Syria whilst on a dig, having grown his beard and wearing a ghalibeya, he would still consider it to be torture.
Comment by Ronan — September 9, 2006 @ 4:19 pm
HP/JDC, it comes down to this. If you believe that conducting a noninvasive, non-damaging psychological technique on known murderers and conspirators in order to save the lives dozens, hundreds, possibly thousands of other people is morally wrong, then you have some interesting ethical theories. And that’s fine.
But to assume that your very strange ethical theories are everyone else’s ethics, to assume that your interpretation of what is morally right is also Christ’s, and then to condemn others for not believing as you do, and thus imply that those who do not believe as you do are not followers of Christ, well, I think that’s the most unchristlike thing I’ve heard all day.
Comment by Eric Russell — September 9, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
Ronan (#50),
Ok, very interesting. I wouldn’t want to be tortured either way (because I don’t like pain or discomfort), but I would certainly feel differently about the two cases. As I said, if I were a terrorist I would feel I had it coming. Nevertheless, I am glad to understand your position, thanks.
Comment by Jacob — September 9, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
DKL, long-standing international interpretation of the UN Convention on Torture and other relevant international law considers waterboarding to be a form of inducing severe mental suffering — so torture. The counterargument that waterboarding isn’t torture is the recent novelty, not the definition that considers it a form of torture.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — September 9, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
Tom,
I’m sure Orem is a fine place, where the sun always shines, the cows happily moo, and the girl always gets her man. I imagine Pleasantville in my mind.
Comment by Ronan — September 9, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
Eric, a large number of the detainees at the Guantanamo prison are not known murderers or conspirators — they’re known to be basically innocent. Torture techniques aren’t known to produce reliable information that saves lives — but they are known to produce a lot of false information. These are important ideas to keep in mind.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — September 9, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
JNS,
Ditto. Eric, you cannot be a “known” anything under law (and that’s all we got, man) until you have been tried. Which is why torture is so reprehensible and, well, un-American. And water boarding sounds like torture to me.
Comment by Ronan — September 9, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
JNS, Ronan, so the U.S. military is systematically harassing random Arabs just for kicks? If that were true, that would be very sobering information indeed.
Comment by Eric Russell — September 9, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
Nope. I suspect that the majority of them are in fact jihadis. But that is not, and can never be, the point.
Comment by Ronan — September 9, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
There have been a few comments about the Savior’s Gospel not working in all instances. The Savior’s gospel works in all instances. Jesus’s teachings to turn the other cheek were obviously not intended for all circumstances as shown by followers of Christ such as Captain Moroni and all the Christlike generals in the scriptures. When do you turn the other cheek? Or when do you go to war? How do you handle any crisis? You use the Gift of the Holy Ghost to discover the Lord’s will. In some instances the Lord will tell you to turn the other cheek. In other instances the Lord will tell you to defend yourself.
Comment by YL — September 9, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
(A little off-topic)
Jonjon (#35) says:
I have to disagree with this statement. I find it troublesome to claim that because someone uses foul language (which I HATE, don’t get me wrong), then that person cannot possibly be a man of Christ. It’s like saying that because someone wears sleeveless shirts or co-habits or drinks coffee, that person is definitely NOT Christian. That is a narrow, prideful way of looking at others’ actions.
Comment by Keryn — September 9, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
Holy macaroni!
What kind of insufferable moralization is this that has caused us to be shocked to our foundations at learning that relatively mild forms of coercion have been used to extract vital life-saving information from murderers or those who support murderous terrorist cells?
Comment by Jack — September 9, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
Ok. First of all, please stop putting words in my mouth. I said that torture was evil; I never said that Bush was. It may be not be much of a leap for me for you to see me saying that, but it is a leap I did not make and did not intend. Bush is attempting to do what is right, which doesn’t make him evil in my book. I think the source he is turning to for advice ain’t Christ, but there is that.
To all those who are judging me unChristlike for saying that Christ would not condone torture, please give me a compelling argument that there is a good Christian justification for it and I will go with you. Really.
To Eric Russell, who peers unblinkingly into the dark recesses of my soul, you, like DKL before you, don’t know me. I have no great desire to think that the leader of our great nation is a hypocrite or someone who casually orders the torture of detainees. It is repulsive to me and bad for the country. I would love to be wrong about this (ask Ronan, before whom I have defended Bush in the past). Please refrain from telling me my own mind. You don’t know it. Oh and I am careful to acknowledge that we are dealing with a battle of my interpretation of God vrs my interpretation of Bush’s interpretation of his God. So, please refrain from further straw men.
Jacob,
Even if guilty, I don’t think we should torture people. Even if they “deserve” it, I don’t think we should torture people. It is a line in the sand, I admit, but not one I believe we should have crossed, and certainly not one our President should be bragging about. As to my definition, if it helps, I wouldn’t consider sleep deprivation or the good cop/bad cop routine torture. I might not consider implied threats torture. Waterboarding is not an implied threat; there is the real risk of drowning someone if the interrogator’s calculations are wrong. It would be a horrible way to go. We rule out “cruel and unusual” punishments for our criminals for this very reason.
Jack,
now that I understand where you are coming from, I ask, Are you saying that the fact that we could be chopping off their fingers but aren’t means that we are morally justified to do lesser tortures? I don’t find that particular argument convincing.
All,
I am generally pro-Orem. Please don’t let Ronan’s hopelessly European preferences stain me also.
Once again, it is waterboarding, which I consider a form of torture (and which is widely recognized as such), that is the central issue here. Well, that and a president who brags about using it.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 6:08 pm
From the very beginning this struck me as a really weird post. The assumptions just seem a bit weird.
Who is an example of contemporary man of God that you want as president?
What policy should a man of God president have towards terrorists?
Comment by danithew — September 9, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
#60
Keryn, I think you need to go back and consider the context of some of the quotes. It’s not just that GWB is using foul language. Look how he uses the foul language to refer to others who he disagrees with or who are his enemies. Christ-like behavior this is not.
Comment by Jonjon — September 9, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
JDC,
I’m sorry that you are getting the usual conservative treatment when rightfully criticizing Bush and his policies. This is what us more moderate and liberal folk have been dealing with from the start.
Anyways, in regards to torture, DKL, you may bring up all the times in the Old Testament where the Lord has commanded the Israelites to completely destroy all living life in Canaan, or in the Book of Mormon where Ammon chops off the arms of the sheep thieves, but using those to justify torture is misleading, incorrect, false, a bad analogy, and using two scenarios that have nothing to do with one another.
Moreover, I would guide to you what the church has said about torture, here.
The church took it one step further, and not talked just about torture, but also included “inhumane treatment.” My guess, just taking a shot in the dark, but “waterboarding” would probably be considered “inhumane” by most civilized standards. I think the church’s stance is as follows: “If you yourself don’t want to be waterboarded, why would you do it to others?” And it seems a pretty good policy. After all, didn’t the Savior say something to the effect of: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Furthermore, the church left no loophole open. “under any circumstances” would pretty much cover everything, including the ticking-time bomb scenario incorrectly used as a justification for general torture policy.
If we are truly fighting for freedom and the liberties our fine nation stands for, then why are we lowering those standards in the fight? Is that not undermining the very reasons we are fighting?
Comment by Dan — September 9, 2006 @ 6:42 pm
danithew,
I have no idea what man of God would run for political office in the US. We all seem to agree that the process weeds out the genuinely good people early on. That said, I would like a president that couches his rhetoric in overtly religious terms to not torture people. Otherwise, what is it exactly that separates us from Iran (ideologically, that is).
I tried to answer both questions with the above. But to reiterate, I believe that a genuine man of God should not ever condone torture, even on a terrorist. If it happens, which is conceivable, I certainly do not expect him to brag about it in speeches thereafter, using it to score political points.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
When do you turn the other cheek? Or when do you go to war? How do you handle any crisis?
Actually, the Lord gave permission to go to war in a defensive position to protect family, country, religion, etc.
Alma 43: 46
46 And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.
To all those who are judging me unChristlike for saying that Christ would not condone torture, please give me a compelling argument that there is a good Christian justification for it and I will go with you. Really.
Let me say that I’m not thrilled about torture we have learned about or seen in the past, but I’m not sure we can necessarily and neatly dismiss Bush’s choices as patently ungodly. God is not always one to be nice to everyone. Sometimes tough decisions are made and violence is justified. Whether this applies to torture per se is open, of course. For example, note the above scripture and the following as possible examples of scriptural justification of violence:
D&C 98
31 Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.
32 Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles.
(This section also gives more specifics about when war is justified, but I’m focusing on addressing the question above.)
1 Ne. 4: 13
13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.
Alma 30: 47.
47 But behold, it is better that thy soul should be lost than that thou shouldst be the means of bringing many souls down to destruction, by thy lying and by thy flattering words; therefore if thou shalt deny again, behold God shall smite thee…. (May or may not apply. I’m interested in times when the Lord has justified harming or cursing or killing someone to protect others.)
1 Ne. 17: 37 (33-38).
37 And he raiseth up a righteous nation, and destroyeth the nations of the wicked.
etc.
I’m not saying I am convinced that what is happening is good. But I do think it’s important to realize that the Lord isn’t always all red, turned cheeks and compassion. Anyone who reads the OT will know that, and the BOM also testifies of this as well.
If you were Bush, what would you do? I would like to hear someone go beyond attacking him and suggest solutions that would also keep safety and well-being and protecting of truly-innocents (morally and legally) in mind. I’m not sure turn-the-other-cheek compassion for the enemy is always the right answer scripturally. So why do we expect that it would always be so in our day?
Comment by mullingandmusing — September 9, 2006 @ 7:12 pm
I agree that the political process pretty much weeds out those who would be man of God presidents. Or perhaps they never choose to run in the first place.
Couching political rhetoric in religious terminology is the least of the sins committed by Iran’s Islamic fanatic government.
George Bush using religious rhetoric in speeches does not turn the United States into a de facto mullahcracy akin to Iran.
Comment by danithew — September 9, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
mullingandmusing,
#67: you say,
The church “condemns inhumane treatment of any person under any circumstance.” Is it inhumane to kill someone who wants to kill your family? I think that one is pretty clearly answered by the scriptures you quoted. It is okay to take the life of someone intent on taking your life.
But, what happens when that person has surrendered and is now in your custody? Is he capable of killing you or your family while he is in your custody? Would then any kind of inhumane treatment be justified on that person? The church seems to say quite clearly, no. You might be worried though about one of his accomplices with some ticking time bomb ready to kill you and your family. Should you torture the person you have in your custody in order to get information on the plot? The church seems to say quite clearly, no.
Besides, studies and reports have shown that information garnered from a man tortured tends to not be reliable. After all if you are in excrutiating pain, wouldn’t you tell your captors and torturers anything they want to hear? If you are simulated to drown to death (waterboarding), would you not say anything to make it stop? How can you even trust the information is correct?
Most of the time when “tough tactics” are used against a detainee, they are based on a preconceived notion (ticking time bomb), that the captor believes the detainee knows something about, when it could turn out that this particular detainee has no clue about it at all. How would you know this if you torture the man and he yells out what you want to hear?
I am actually ashamed that my country, the United States of America, the “light on a hill” to other countries, is actually discussing legalizing “inhumane treatment.” I thought we were above that.
Comment by Dan — September 9, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
#67:
you also ask:
The first thing I would do is never lower my standards, irregardless of how low standards my enemy has. Who cares if my enemy chooses to use terrorism to hit me. Why should I lower myself, not necessarily to his standard, but anything below mine. None of us would lower our religious standards, say to take a sip of alcohol, for anyone. Why lower our moral standards?
The best thing America could have done after 9/11 was to put all the money and effort that was diverted into Iraq, put that all in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is America’s greatest failure of the new century, far worse than Iraq, because in Afghanistan, we had the support of the entire world. We could have done anything there. If we asked the world for full assistance, we would have had it.
Put all 150,000 Americans we sent into Iraq, into Afghanistan instead. Completely purge Afghanistan of the evil that has infected that poor country since 1981. Most Afghans alive today have never seen a world of peace. They have seen war for the last 25 years of their lives. Take out Bin Laden. The fact that he is still alive and taunting the United States FIVE YEARS after he attacked us is reprehensible to our leaders. He’s a CAVE DWELLER! How can he escape the mightiest military in the history of the world!
Pour all our money into Afghanistan and turn that country around. Not only will this show the world that we mean business, and that if someone were to attack us, we would completely wipe them out, but it would be the example of what we want the Middle East to look like.
Forget about Saddam. Those who wanted to go into Iraq missed the bigger picture. The irony is amazing. By taking Saddam out, America took out the only thing that kept Iran at bay. Now, by removing Saddam and failing in replacing Saddam’s Baath regime with a stable government, America has handed Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. Leave Saddam be. Let him rot in his palaces.
Focus on Afghanistan. Remember the bigger picture. Iran is our main threat in the Middle East. By keeping the rock in Iraq, and creating a hammer in Afghanistan, you corner Iran far better than by taking both Iraq and Afghanistan out and failing to create stable governments in both countries. Now, Iran, a stable government, has strong influence in both countries, rather than the other way around.
Moreover, a stable and flourishing Afghanistan would be good news for Pakistan and the troubles Pakistanis (especially those tribes that hate Musharraf) have against the West. They’ll finally see that America is not quite as bad as Bin Laden purports them to be. Right now they trust Bin Laden and give him sanctuary in Pakistan. Furthermore, they also agree with the Taliban and give them and Omar sanctuary too, over in Pakistan, our bestest buddy in the war on terror. Oh the ironies! A repressive dictatorship with nuclear weapons that has no control over a region that protects and shelters both the Taliban and Bin Laden, and they are our best ally on the war on terror. If it wasn’t tragically bad, I’d laugh at the irony.
But that’s what I would have advised the president to do, (and what I’ve advised on my blog).
Comment by Dan — September 9, 2006 @ 7:37 pm
For mullingandmusing, I’ve come to believe that this is the relevant scripture here:
Matthew 24:24.
“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that (if it were possible) they shall deceive the very elect.”
And I do mean that the many church members who still trust and support Bush are the elect who are deceived, and Bush is the false prophet. He has certainly wrapped himself in a cloak of religion to deceive. Dan in #70 has done a very good job of answering what Bush could have done differently.
Comment by paula — September 9, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
m&m,
I think that it is pretty clear that God will occasionally condone war or capital punishment. I don’t know that he has ever condoned torture nor can my finite mind conceive of a situation in which he would. Even when God condones war or a killing, as I stated before, such things come through the relevant prophet and will be confirmed by personal revelation. I do not believe either standard has been met for me personally, although I am willing to allow others their own revelation.
danithew,
I too believe that the crimes of Iran are not limited to religious rhetoric. I believe that they routinely torture, detain, and kill people in ways that we find deplorable and which would be illegal here. If we torture people, we are on a slippery slope that has places like Iran at the lower end. That was my point.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
George Bush has never claimed to be Jesus Christ or a prophet. I don’t know any Mormons who claim to believe that he is either. To be a false prophet, you have to claim to be a prophet. By the way, if an American president were to claim to be a prophet, that is exactly the sort of thing that would play into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists … since they believe that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets and that there can be no prophet after Muhammad.
I’m sure there are Mormons who think George Bush is some kind of instrument in God’s hands for these times. But there is a significant difference between that sort of perspective and believing that George Bush is a prophet.
I’m sorry Paula, but a Mormon casting a vote for Bush did not fulfill negative or positive Biblical prophecies. I just don’t buy it.
Hatred for Bush seems to make a lot of liberals lose their minds — they turn hysterical and begin to claim all kinds of outrageous things. Hating Bush is probably just as fine and acceptable (in the arena of American politics) as supporting him. But don’t lose your reason in the process.
Comment by danithew — September 9, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
“Hatred for Bush seems to make a lot of liberals lose their minds — they turn hysterical and begin to claim all kinds of outrageous things. Hating Bush is probably just as fine and acceptable (in the arena of American politics) as supporting him. But don’t lose your reason in the process.”
Although I am not sure if this is directed at me, I feel a need to address it. I do not hate Bush (although I can easily see you getting that from my over-the-top post). I think that he tries to do right. But I don’t think he does right. And, with the torture thing, I don’t think he is a very good Christian.
I knew a woman once who responded to Bush in a manner that made me think he knew here personally and had come over and slapped her mother or something. She passionately hated him, refusing to use his name without adding an expletive or two. I am not her.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 8:08 pm
Dan: “Leave Saddam be. Let him rot in his palaces.”
You might as well accept the reality of the American invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam’s government. Please, stop moaning about foreign-policy decisions that have already been executed.
Saddam being overthrown and apprehended is one of the few positive things that has happened in the Middle East in the past fourteen centuries. It’s something to celebrate.
Comment by danithew — September 9, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
danithew,
#73,
I dislike Bush and abhor his policies, and will do what I can to get him fired from his job. His policies are destroying my country.
That said, please read my #70 post and show me where I’ve said anything “hysterical and begin to claim all kinds of outrageous things.”
Comment by Dan — September 9, 2006 @ 8:16 pm
Dan,
be fair. danithew was addressing me (and paula) with that. After all, I did accuse Bush of worshipping Moloch. If that isn’t hysterical, I don’t know what is.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
“I wouldn’t consider sleep deprivation or the good cop/bad cop routine torture”
Why not? It can be pretty mean. It’s not very christ-like. It’s not turning the other cheek. I don’t suppose the ones being interrogated enjoy it very much. Certainly no one who engages in such techniques can be good Christians.
Comment by Eric Russell — September 9, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
#75:
Handing control of Iraq to Iran is NOT “one of the few positive things that has happened in the Middle East in the past fourteen centuries.”
As this report shows, our actions in Iraq has only strengthened Iran.
Furthermore, my #70 was in response to a question of what I would have done if I were Bush. That is what I would have recommended he do.
What would I recommend Bush do right now if I were his adviser? Quit his job, go to the justice department and turn himself in for violating the Constitution and the War Crimes Act of 1996.
Comment by Dan — September 9, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
JDC
#77:
my apologies, my comments are strongly against Bush, so I assumed he was talking about me.
Comment by Dan — September 9, 2006 @ 8:22 pm
HP/JDC: “Now that I understand where you are coming from, I ask, Are you saying that the fact that we could be chopping off their fingers but aren’t means that we are morally justified to do lesser tortures? I don’t find that particular argument convincing.”
On rare occasions I have swatted my children for such reasons as seemed (imo) to merit such action against them. (running out into the street and what-not) While I am loath to admit that I am doubtful as to being morally justified in meeting out such judgement in every instance, you can sure as hell guess that if I had horse-whipped them until they bled that my actions most definitely would not have been justified in any one of those instances. Not one.
This, to me, implies an obvious moral division–the former being justified at times while the latter is always reprehensible–even though the two differ ostensibly only in degree. (and before anyone cries “strawman!” Let me add that my father was horse-whipped by his father until he bled)
I happen to think the term “torture” to be somewhat misplaced in this debate. We’ve become so soft in our ethics that even those who oppose the death penalty are likely to believe that a death sentence is more appropriate a fate for terrorists than the “questionable” milder forms of coercion employed by their interrogators.
I don’t believe Capt. Moroni was out of place when he threatened his foes with extinction in the fiercest of language (without the “f” word I assume–he being one of the few to whom the jaws of hell were shut) causing no small amount of psychological stress on the part of his enemies–so much so, that many caved and threw down their weapons. And those who were more resistent to Moroni’s words he simply killed until they caved as well.
Our tactics are milktoast by comparison.
Comment by Jack — September 9, 2006 @ 8:23 pm
Jack,
“I happen to think the term “torture†to be somewhat misplaced in this debate. We’ve become so soft in our ethics that even those who oppose the death penalty are likely to believe that a death sentence is more appropriate a fate for terrorists than the “questionable†milder forms of coercion employed by their interrogators.”
I don’t know. I do sometimes think that death is better than torture, when death can be quick. That said, if I ever were a “torturee,” I can easily imagine going both ways on the issue.
Regarding Captain Moroni, I had him in mind when writing this. I can see him giving detainees a dressing down and I can see him looking to score psychological trauma. I just can’t see him waterboarding anyone (although, obviously, I could be wrong).
Since we seem to be disagreeing over whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture, we may have to agree to disagree as, hopefully, neither one of us will ever endure it and produce firsthand evidence.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 8:32 pm
Without a doubt Iran exercises significant influence in Iraq, particularly among the Shi’a population. However, to say we have wholly handed control of Iraq over to Iran is a major exaggeration.
Comment by danithew — September 9, 2006 @ 8:33 pm
Eric,
Frankly, I don’t mind them because there is little to no risk of people dying while being subjecting to sleep dep or good cop/bad cop. I do not believe this to be the case regarding waterboarding. So no, I don’t feel like I am using a double standard.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
In a further development, I would like point out that I am not Tom Cruise and you are not Jack Nicholson, so please stop telling me that I can’t handle the truth.
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
In another further development, I may be wrong about the possibility of drowning from “modern” waterboarding techniques (I had “medieval” techniques in mind). Here is the wikipedia article on the subject. As it is, I am not sure how I feel about it. If you can’t breathe, does it matter that water won’t actually get into your lungs?
Comment by HP/JDC — September 9, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
I could entertain doubts that Captain Moroni would have pulled anyone’s fingernails. But I can easily imagine him depriving Lamanite prisoners of sleep if he thought it would be a useful way to get information that he needed.
Don’t forget that Moroni forced Lamanite prisoners to build his fortifications. This was serious manual labor.
I wonder how we could apply that sort of policy to al-Qaeda prisoners.
Comment by danithew — September 9, 2006 @ 8:59 pm
Manual labor is one thing. Making one feel like he is dying to lean information out of him is another. One is not inhumane and the other is. I have no problem if you put al-Qaeda prisoners on a chain gang. Let them sweat it out. I have no problem. That is actually productive. But with the fact that the information gleaned from torture is unreliable, what’s the point of using torture?
Comment by Dan — September 9, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
Dan,
Thanks for your thoughts in response to mine. Again, my scriptural citations were more in direct response to the question I quoted. I think the Church’s statement is a pretty good standard by which to judge the issue of torture.
That said, I still would like to ask you what someone asked above:
What policy should a man of God president have towards terrorists?
Comment by mullingandmusing — September 9, 2006 @ 9:45 pm
Danithew, (#73), isn’t your answer about what you would say if you were deceived?
Comment by paula — September 9, 2006 @ 10:15 pm
mullingandmusing,
#89,
I agree that the church’s official stance on torture and inhumane treatment is the standard we should go by today, and what a “man of God president” should go by.
The question is this:
The first thing to realize is that these men we label “terrorists” are first and foremost human beings, sons and daughters of God, who chose out of their own free will to come to earth and follow God’s plan. They may have chosen despicable acts here in this life (and we’ll get to that) but they are still here because they chose to follow God.
The moment we begin to dehumanize a group of people with inhuman labels is the moment we make it easier to justify killing other human beings. Nazis had no problem justifying in their minds killing Jews because they saw Jews as cockroaches and animals. Few have an abhorrence to killing cockroaches and animals. The Hutus called Tutsis cockroaches also in Rwanda, and that led to the genocide of 800,000 Rwandans, both Hutus and Tutsis. Muslim extremists like Bin Laden call westerners infidels, a Muslim label that does the same thing, makes it easier to justify killing someone.
I fear that if Americans keep going down the road of calling all their enemies terrorists, they will find it easy to go and kill anyone named a terrorist.
The problem with such labels is that such labels always oversimplify a complex situation or group. And in regards to terrorism, history has shown that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. At what point is the line drawn? Is it okay for America to have used the precursors to the Taliban to fight against the Soviets? Some would argue that we were fighting a greater enemy, so some leeway was needed in our morals and standards. After all, America supported Saddam’s war of aggression against Iran, because in America’s eyes, the bigger danger was Iran. It was okay for America to turn a blind eye when Saddam gassed Kurds and Iranians in the 1980s, because in America’s eyes, Saddam was fighting against a greater evil. Was that right?
Is it right for America to back the Uzbekh dictator who last year killed almost 1000 protesters in his country, where the United States had a military base? Is that not a terrorist?
The problem right now with the word “terrorist” is that it is ill defined. This vagueness works well for those who advocate war, because you can, with ease, slap that label on anyone you dislike. Plus you can alter history so that your terrorist back in the 1980s wasn’t really a terrorist because he was fighting for you. But those he was killing still see him as a terrorist.
A man of God would treat all his enemies the way he would want to be treated by them. Basically said, if I don’t mind being killed if I don’t want to stop my fight against my enemy (such as the Lamanites who did not agree with Captain Moroni’s demand), then that’s the standard I would use on my enemies. I personally do not want to be tortured, plain and simple. I would rather die. There are extreme negative psychological effects on a human being who is tortured, not to mention that if I’m tortured, I’m going to tell my enemy exactly what he wants to hear (very unreliable information).
A man of God will do what he can to achieve peace, not victory, with his enemy. Captain Moroni never invaded Lamanite country. In his entire war against the Lamanites covered in chapters 46-62 of Alma, all the fighting took place in Nephite territory, which when analyzed gives the impression that Moroni’s intents were simply to defend his home country, and not defeat his enemy, merely driving his enemy back to his land. Notice that no righteous Nephite ever invaded Lamanite lands.
A man of God will try and work hard with moderates in his enemy’s country, men who, though imperfect in their views and previous statements, prefer their country to be at peace with mine. So what Mit Romney did to rebuff Khatami by not offering him any assistance for his visit to Harvard is quite childish, and if an example of Romney’s foreign policy, will mean Romney will not only not get my vote, but will have me actively against him for president. A man of God will vie for peace at all times while defending his country.
A man of God will let his enemy come to him, and not go on the offensive. This is evidenced in the Book of Mormon when the people under Gidgiddoni in What policy should a man of God president have towards terrorists?
The first thing to realize is that these men we label “terrorists” are first and foremost human beings, sons and daughters of God, who chose out of their own free will to come to earth and follow God’s plan. They may have chosen despicable acts here in this life (and we’ll get to that) but they are still here because they chose to follow God.
The moment we begin to dehumanize a group of people with inhuman labels is the moment we make it easier to justify killing other human beings. Nazis had no problem justifying in their minds killing Jews because they saw Jews as cockroaches and animals. Few have an abhorrence to killing cockroaches and animals. The Hutus called Tutsis cockroaches also in Rwanda, and that led to the genocide of 800,000 Rwandans, both Hutus and Tutsis. Muslim extremists like Bin Laden call westerners infidels, a Muslim label that does the same thing, makes it easier to justify killing someone.
I fear that if Americans keep going down the road of calling all their enemies terrorists, they will find it easy to go and kill anyone named a terrorist.
The problem with such labels is that such labels always oversimplify a complex situation or group. And in regards to terrorism, history has shown that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. At what point is the line drawn? Is it okay for America to have used the precursors to the Taliban to fight against the Soviets? Some would argue that we were fighting a greater enemy, so some leeway was needed in our morals and standards. After all, America supported Saddam’s war of aggression against Iran, because in America’s eyes, the bigger danger was Iran. It was okay for America to turn a blind eye when Saddam gassed Kurds and Iranians in the 1980s, because in America’s eyes, Saddam was fighting against a greater evil. Was that right?
Is it right for America to back the Uzbekh dictator who last year killed almost 1000 protesters in his country, where the United States had a military base? Is that not a terrorist?
The problem right now with the word “terrorist” is that it is ill defined. This vagueness works well for those who advocate war, because you can, with ease, slap that label on anyone you dislike. Plus you can alter history so that your terrorist back in the 1980s wasn’t really a terrorist because he was fighting for you. But those he was killing still see him as a terrorist.
A man of God would treat all his enemies the way he would want to be treated by them. Basically said, if I don’t mind being killed if I don’t want to stop my fight against my enemy (such as the Lamanites who did not agree with Captain Moroni’s demand), then that’s the standard I would use on my enemies. I personally do not want to be tortured, plain and simple. I would rather die. There are extreme negative psychological effects on a human being who is tortured, not to mention that if I’m tortured, I’m going to tell my enemy exactly what he wants to hear (very unreliable information).
A man of God will do what he can to achieve peace, not victory, with his enemy. Captain Moroni never invaded Lamanite country. In his entire war against the Lamanites covered in chapters 46-62 of Alma, all the fighting took place in Nephite territory, which when analyzed gives the impression that Moroni’s intents were simply to defend his home country, and not defeat his enemy, merely driving his enemy back to his land. Notice that no righteous Nephite ever invaded Lamanite lands.
A man of God will try and work hard with moderates in his enemy’s country, men who, though imperfect in their views and previous statements, prefer their country to be at peace with mine. So what Mit Romney did to rebuff Khatami by not offering him any assistance for his visit to Harvard is quite childish, and if an example of Romney’s foreign policy, will mean Romney will not only not get my vote, but will have me actively against him for president. A man of God will vie for peace at all times while defending his country.
A man of God will let his enemy come to him, and not go on the offensive. This is evidenced in the Book of Mormon when the people under Gidgiddoni in 3 Nephi 3:20-21:
This means that a man of God trusts his God for protection. Spencer W. Kimball talked about this in his talk “The False Gods We Worship” which has been discussed here on BCC earlier. Can we risk trusting in the Lord for our protection? I think some people fear stepping into, what they perceive, as the unknown. They have to have faith that the Lord will actually be there. Whereas, with a missile or a gun, they see their protection and can feel it in their hands. Which one is the best protection though? I’m going to go with the Lord for my protection. I trust he will keep me alive until it is my time to go. Such is a man of God.
This man of God does not shirk in his responsibility to defend his home and his nation. Relying on the Lord for protection does not mean we don’t have to do our part. Service in the military is honorable and good. Knowing how to protect our families is a good thing. Using that to go and kill our enemies is not good. Let them come to us. God will protect us. Of that, I have full confidence.
Such a man of God will never be elected as president of the United States, because 95% of Americans don’t have that kind of faith in their God. It is unfortunate, but there it is. They would rather trust their gods of steel in the military industrial complex.
Comment by Dan — September 9, 2006 @ 10:18 pm
dang it, sorry about the HTML screwup on my post.
Comment by Dan — September 9, 2006 @ 10:19 pm
Re comment #70:
Guess I’m leaving lurkerdom and butting in here…but you sound like you’re saying, “When Bush has spoken –executed his foreign policy — the thinking can stop.” Is that what you’re saying?
Are you saying that the study of history and foreign policy decision-making is nothing but “moaning?” Just curious.
Comment by Robert — September 9, 2006 @ 10:20 pm
Sorry, should have said comment #75, NOT 70. You get rusty out in lurkerdom. Apologies.
Comment by Robert — September 9, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
I don’t blog, but I often end up glancing at blogs over my wife’s shoulder while I wait to check the TV listings. Sometimes I have to wait for a long time. Tonight, this resulted in me seeing several references to something called “waterboarding”. I am not an expert in torture, and am not familiar with this technique (though I gather from the above posts that some perceived or actual risk of drowning is involved). Is it at all related to “wakeboarding”? I have never been wakeboarding but I have known people who have and I think most of them liked it even though I understand that there is some risk of drowning.
Comment by aaron — September 9, 2006 @ 11:29 pm
No one should be allowed to comment on this thread until they’ve read the article Ronan recommended above. It is here.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_terrorists.html
In an earlier comment HP/JDC said he realized God was disposed toward capital punishment but doubted that God would ever use or condone torture. HP/JDC was not mindful of the 10 Plagues when he wrote that comment. Our “stress techniques” — even waterboarding — don’t hold a candle to God’s torture. WWJD? Escalate from boils to locusts to killing the eldest in each family when people are belligerent, apparently. (Yes, that was tongue-in-cheek.)
Finally, concerning the liberal myth that tough interrogation techniques don’t produce anything of value: please read Ronan’s article — it’s here: http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_terrorists.html — before embarrassing yourself further.
Comment by Matt Evans — September 9, 2006 @ 11:48 pm
Having read all the comments that have been made whilst Europe slept, I have to say how happy I am that the Mormons are once again brushing aside Jesus’ commandment to treat their enemies well, suggesting the Master is hopelessly naive and, to use the mot du jour, rather milquetoast. That Jesus fellow! Such a sap.
Comment by Ronan — September 10, 2006 @ 12:15 am
Matt,
I also love the way you and others reach back to the Old Testament for your moral cues. Memo: for 2000 years, Christians have largely considered the new law to be of more value. (Of course, when they want to wage war, they usually go all OT.) The New Testament is pretty unequivocal. Do good to your enemies = don’t torture.
Comment by Ronan — September 10, 2006 @ 12:18 am
Dan (91)
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with much of what you said.
I still feel they might be a bit incomplete, however, because there are also times in the BoM when wars were fought and killing took place to pretect lands, family, religion, etc. The Lord doesn’t condone offensive strikes, but He has condoned defensive fighting in certain situations.
I am trying to sort out my own thoughts and yours have contributed to that mulling. I was reminded also of Pres. Hinckley’s words when the war on terror began shortly after 9/11.
For the first time since we became a nation, the United States has been seriously attacked on its mainland soil. But this was not an attack on the United States alone. It was an attack on men and nations of goodwill everywhere. It was well planned, boldly executed, and the results were disastrous. It is estimated that more than 5,000 innocent people died. Among these were many from other nations. It was cruel and cunning, an act of consummate evil….
Those of us who are American citizens stand solidly with the president of our nation. The terrible forces of evil must be confronted and held accountable for their actions….
We are people of peace. We are followers of the Christ who was and is the Prince of Peace. But there are times when we must stand up for right and decency, for freedom and civilization, just as Moroni rallied his people in his day to the defense of their wives, their children, and the cause of liberty (see Alma 48:10).
(Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Times in Which We Live,†Ensign, Nov. 2001, 72)
How might that fit into your opinion? (I wonder if he thinks we have accomplished some of the goals for which he expressed support. He clearly recognized that this conflict might go on for a while.)
Also, while I’m seeking your opinion, do you ever think it is right to try to help others who may not be able to fight their own wars against oppressive governments, which would then take armies to other lands? The Anti-Nephi-Lehies wouldn’t fight, but others fought for them, right? (I’m speaking in generalities, not trying to assess the current war.)
I think that regardless of our opinions about the war, we should respond to Pres. Hinckley’s words from that same Conference talk:
“Unitedly, as a Church, we must get on our knees and invoke the powers of the Almighty in behalf of those who will carry the burdens of this campaign.
I pray the fighting can stop soon. I hope and pray we can have more peace in the world. Maybe we could all do a little more of that rather than criticize something over which we have no control right now.
Comment by mullingandmusing — September 10, 2006 @ 12:56 am
“Christians have largely considered the new law to be of more value.”
So God doesn’t follow the higher law?
No real strong opinions on all of this. I think Bush’s actions are pragmatically unfortunate. I have a harder time seeing them as immoral as some do. But they were stupid.
Arguments against the OT though like the above seem weird. It’s akin to saying God wasn’t really God since he wasn’t following the higher law. Now you can say the OT is irrelevant or perhaps historically inaccurate. But when you say God’s acts don’t matter then that’s harder ground. I think those appealing to the OT have a harder time demonstrating relevance. But some of the counterarguments are far worse.
Me, I just appeal to Brigham Young and Porter Rockwell as as examples of how men of God act. (grin)
Comment by Clark — September 10, 2006 @ 12:57 am
Clark,
It’s a bitter cup, but it seems clear that at the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was somehow saying the older law was deficient. Make of that what you will. It’s unlikely to sit well for many Mormons.
I don’t think it’s a “weird” observation, btw: the apparent contradiction between the God of the OT (actually, the God mostly of the Pentateuch/Deuteronomist; the God of the prophets is much different) and the God of the NT (Jesus) has bothered Christians for centuries.
Given this contradiction, I admittedly choose the option that feels better to my conscience, and the one that appears to have the greater weight of history, i.e. that Jesus preached in such a manner is much more likely than the bombastic myths that surround the emergence of the Israelite nation.
In an act of full disclosure, I should say that I believe that relying solely on OT stories to form moral judgements for 2006 is not too far off robbing a bank, giving the money to the poor, and saying “Robin Hood made me do it.” For me, there has to be more than just an ancient tribal story to underpin my opinion on torture. The Old Testament contains the word of God; but it does not follow from that that the genocide narrative therein necessarily reflects historical reality (archaeology and the Book of Judges suggest it doesn’t), nor that it reflects the will of God rather than the patriotic writings of Jerusalem theologians who mingled philosophy with scripture.
Which is all to say, given the choice between Yeshua of Nazereth, or Yeshua ben-Nun, I feel compelled to pick the former. Not that the NT is a sure-fire thing of historical truth, but this is a difficult balancing act we play.
Incidentally, I do not believe it is a case of picking and choosing the scripture that best supports my views: it is a case of noticing that Jesus is saying something different than Joshua, being a little puzzled by that, but concluding that Jesus is the one to be trusted. I also realise that Mormons believe that it was Jesus who was giving Joshua his marching orders, but as the Book of Joshua is not historical, I simply call that into question.* (Or you can be happy that God is so bi-polar. You pays your money, you makes your choice.)
__________
* I’m not calling into question that Jesus and Yahweh are one, but that the God reflected by the Deuteronomist is truly God. Incidentally, prophets such as Amos seem to be concerned about the very same thing. The OT itself is full of contradictions.
Comment by Ronan — September 10, 2006 @ 1:20 am
Paula (responding to her comment #90):
My answer: No.
Comment by danithew — September 10, 2006 @ 5:20 am
I think I read about the first ten comments. These legalistic definitional quibbles are really becoming tiresome.
Waterboarding was one of the things the Dept. of Defense recently disallowed. The reasoning of the JAG lawyers?
Physical duress doesn’t work.
If torture, physical duress, waterboarding, whatever you want to call it, actually worked, Bush might have a leg to stand on. Might.
But it doesn’t.
So now, not only is Bush immoral. He’s also a freaking moron.
“Freaking moron”…. That’s really the only reason you need for opposing Bush. The immorality arguments are just a bonus.
Comment by Seth R. — September 10, 2006 @ 7:54 am
Matt Evans #96
The story you linked to doesn’t prove anything. It just repeats the same tired rhetoric within the framework of a nice piece of storytelling. I don’t feel embarassed in the slightest.
People under duress will tell you whatever they think you want to hear.
You get the best intelligence from willing informants, not people you beat up.
You don’t need a Phd or an expensive study to figure that out. Just common sense.
Something that seems to have abandoned the political right as of late…
Comment by Seth R. — September 10, 2006 @ 8:01 am
Matt,
I understand the importance of interrogation and how confessions are received. I don’t think the article claimed that interrogations always produce good data, it just noted some instances when it did (actually, it noted instances when people “broke” but did not comment on the issue of relevance of the data thus obtained, if I remember correctly). Further, the article never mentions waterboarding, but rather focusses on less frightening interrogation techniques (making people stand for long periods, letting them think you aren’t abiding by Geneva conventions by touching them). Remember, I directly linked to the article. There is no cover-up occurring.
Second, you can use the OT to justify just about any act. You are right to bring up the plagues. This can be read as an instance wherein God decided to torture the Egyptians (including many innocent Egyptians) in order to accomplish his goal. However, this raises a couple of questions. You have a God who is willing to torture the innocent. Does this mean it is okay for anyone to do it, so long as they have a good reason? If God, in his infinite wisdom, sees fit to torture some people, does this justify Pres. Bush condoning it? If so, why is it bad when Iran or Saddam Hussein does it?
Ronan,
The law that Jesus found suspect is specifically the law of Moses (of which Deuteronomy is one example). The plagues occur prior to the mountain, so it is hard to know if we should read them as pertaining directly to Christ’s reassessment of the law. That said, the God of the OT (particularly, the God of the Pentateuch) often appears entirely unconcerned with the suffering of his children. This is in direct contrast to his appearance in all other scripture. It makes one wonder what plain and precious truth got left out.
Finally, I am interested in the rhetoric that I lampooned in bringing up A Few Good Men. Why are you all calling me “liberal” and “soft” when I am not (as far as you know)demonstrably either?
Comment by HP/JDC — September 10, 2006 @ 8:07 am
He’s a man of my God.
Comment by annegb — September 10, 2006 @ 10:52 am
HP/JDC,
Indeed the Sermon on the Mount was the new law (of Moses). You are also right to point out that the “early” God of the OT seems to lack compassion at times; this is something else that Jesus (through his life) directly contradicts.
On a related point, I am coming to realise that the New Testament, specifically the Gospels, is probably the least important Mormon scripture. I lament this.
Comment by Ronan — September 10, 2006 @ 10:58 am
As long as we are all just engaged in a dispassionate attempt to understand the gospel, and since this thread has nothing, absolutely nothing at all to do with partisanship, I think we call all be glad that GWB is president and not his opponent. He was enaged in an enterprise where, in his own words, they “had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam…”
Comment by Mark IV — September 10, 2006 @ 11:14 am
Mark,
I know who JDC voted for as governor of Maryland, and it wasn’t the Kennedy girl. He’s not a partisan hack. In fact, I have no idea where his party loyalties lie, and I’ve spoken about politics with him many times.
Comment by Ronan — September 10, 2006 @ 11:22 am
As for your Kerry-bash, are you actually saying that Kerry participated in these atrocities? Even the SBVT didn’t go that far. Did I miss something?
Comment by Ronan — September 10, 2006 @ 11:30 am
“On a related point, I am coming to realise that the New Testament, specifically the Gospels, is probably the least important Mormon scripture. I lament this.”
I’m hoping that you meant “Mormons treat it this way but shouldn’t” and not that it really is the least important.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — September 10, 2006 @ 11:38 am
Ronan,
You’re probably right, friend. My point is that this post’s title is unnecessarily inflammatory, that it detracts from the substance of the post, and that the shabby politicking that ensued in the comments was predictable, don’t you think? For me, reading some of the comments and trying to follow the some of the self-righteous arguments has risen to Gitmo level torture. GWB may not be a man of God, but I have very few doubts that he is a better man than some of the people dumping on him on this thread.
I just got out of priesthood meeting where I learned that Heber C. Kimball sometimes beat his children with a cowhide whip for failure to do their schoolwork. I don’t anticipate we’ll be seeing a post at BCC anytime soon stating that HCK was not a man of God.
To my mind, a much better title for a post would be one that says Mark is Not a Man of God. Now THAT is a proposition we could all agree on.
Comment by Mark IV — September 10, 2006 @ 11:38 am
Ronan, in answer to you question in 110, my answer is no, I am not saying Kerry did those things. I was just trying to demonstrate how easy it is to make someone an offender for a word, but maybe my example was gratuitous. After all, there are plenty of other examples of that in the comments.
Comment by Mark IV — September 10, 2006 @ 11:44 am
“I don’t anticipate we’ll be seeing a post at BCC anytime soon stating that HCK was not a man of God.”
Mark IV, if HCK did that, he’ll doubtlessly be held accountable for it before God. Offending one of those little ones — let alone beating them with a cowhide whip — surely is conduct ill-fitting someone calling themselves a follower of Jesus. I would be surprised if anyone would disagree with that.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 10, 2006 @ 11:57 am
Julie,
The former.
Comment by Ronan — September 10, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
Mark,
I think the title is fair because there are people who seem to think that because Bush speaks the language of faith, he is a “man of God.” As we all know, Rove has always courted the Evangelical vote and plays off of this. If we were having a go at Clinton, the title would be silly, because no-one believed him to be a man of God. “Adulterous twit,” perhaps.
The title is fair.
Comment by Ronan — September 10, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
Steve, HCK certainly did do that, if his son J. Golden Kimball is to be believed. And I agree with you - it is certainly behavior that is beneath any of us. And it is just as certain that the title of this post could be applied to any of us at our worst moments, which I think was JDKs very good point.
I just really, really hate food fights in the ‘nacle, and that title just about guaranteed one.
Comment by Mark IV — September 10, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
JDK, d’oh.
I meant JDC. Sorry.
Comment by Mark IV — September 10, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
Can I just say that I love ‘nacle food fights. Wanna piece of me, Mark? “Bring it on.”
Comment by Ronan — September 10, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
I disagree with that, Steve. We, in our ultra-sensitive liberal culture, cannot possibly imagine such behavior ever being justified. But when one is in a situation where death (by starvation or what-have-you) is the likely result of ambivelence, then it is not too difficult to image why more stringent methods of punishment (comparatively speaking) might be employed as a means of inciting young people to action.
Comment by Jack — September 10, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
I believe that my God believes that human worth is inherent, that the loss of any human life is regrettable.
He does? Then why does death exist? The “loss” of human life - you mean when He decides it’s time for His children to come home? THAT loss of human life?
Like God didn’t see this whole thing coming? This isn’t part of His plan? It’s a total shock to Him that we’re at war? Like God is a “come on, kids, play nice” kind of wimp?
And to blame all the events that led up to 9/11, 9/11 itself, and our current war on Bush - and to suggest that torturing for information is a little too inhumane for a group of people who want all Americans dead and work frantically toward that end -
Eccch.
Comment by But Of Course — September 10, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
Ronan (#98), I wasn’t taking my moral cues from the Old Testament, I was asking WWJD? Jesus tortured the Egyptians until they gave him what he wanted, continually escalating their pain until he found their pressure point: killing their kids. Rather than toss out those parts of the Old Testament that offend our modern sensibilities, the Mormon view, it seems to me, is to look at God’s behavior as well as his words. Sometimes he kills the wicked (by flood or fire) when they don’t comply. And I agree that we most value the new law — that’s why our nation is so mild in it’s interrogation and punishment. We get no delight in seeing people suffer, and wish that everyone would work win-win so no one had to lose.
Seth, you wrote “people under duress will tell you whatever they think you want to hear,” as if that’s a bad thing. The interrogator tells the person under duress EXACTLY what they want to hear: who paid you, who are your buddies, where are your supplies, etc.
The liberal myth that I complained about before is the myth that duress doesn’t cause captives to provide useful information. The myth rests on the faulty logic the because sometimes captives give bogus info, they never reveal useful information. The truth is that interrogation techniques cause detainees to provide information, which sometimes proves to be true and sometimes doesn’t. The techniques are useful because, in sum, the information is better than what the detainees would provide without pressure.
Finally, your claim that informants provide better info than detainees is beside the point and a false dichotomy. There would be no need to pressure an Al Qaida detainee to tell us where Bin Laden is if an informant had already told us. The military uses informants *and* detainees because both are better than either one alone.
Comment by Matt Evans — September 10, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
Ronan, you are either for me or against me. It may be a long, hard slog, but I have not doubt I would be able to declare “Mission Accomplished”.
Comment by Mark IV — September 10, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
B.O.C.
Um, how do you know that the person you are torturing is a terrorist?
Comment by Ronan — September 10, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
Matt,
I don’t believe Jesus/Jehovah/God/Allah tortured Egyptian children, and it’s not (just) because the notion is offensive. It’s a question of historical likelihood.
Comment by Ronan — September 10, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
And as JDC has wisely pointed out, even if you believe that God tortured innocent Egyptian children (making him a hypocrite of the vilest order — shall we cast God into the deep?), why the hell do you think that would give you or anyone else the right to do the same? This is a terrifying logic. And, btw, it’s exactly the same logic used by pious Muslim torturers in Saudi Arabia as they lash your feet. Allahu Akbar!
Comment by Ronan — September 10, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
“Um, how do you know that the person you are torturing is a terrorist?”
When they yell JIIIHHHAAAD!!! while they’re being carved up…
Comment by Jack — September 10, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
Yeah, I agree with Ronan. That’ scary logic. The OT is replete with activities that we modern folk universally abhor. Or so I thought! I’ve seen Christians of various stripe argue about whether the OT events actually occurred, or debate the underlining meaning, or whether it was really God’ will, etc…but can’t say I’ve run into the sentiments described in #122 before. WWJD? Kill the Egyptian kids! Yikes!
But maybe I’m too sheltered here in Uberliberaland.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — September 10, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
“Jesus tortures children.” T-shirts anyone?
Comment by Ronan — September 10, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
BOC,
stop putting words in my mouth. Really, you are finding things that I didn’t say. Please read carefully.
Matt,
I’ve thought some more about your Egyptian analogy. I don’t think it works for other reasons aside from the fact that none of the people involved here are Gods. You could make an argument that all life is suffering (as the Buddha and BOC both have done). Is cancer less of a torture than waterboarding? I don’t know. Using the plagues as a form of torture strikes me as being a way to render the concept of torture meaningless. We don’t call Hurricane Katrine torture, we call it an act of God or of random nature. I think that we have to restrict our definitions to human vs. human activities.
Of course, that wasn’t the point of your analogy in any c