Justified Under Some Circumstances

I think that's what it comes down to, for me... The more I hear about Fundies suddenly giving themselves 'grey areas,' on torture, but not on things like, capitalist greed in the face of sick children, or capitalist greed in the face of a poisoned world, or their own 'moral beliefs' that queer people shouldn't have equal protection under the law, ...the less I, a non-absolutist, think it's wise to give them that particular power under any circumstances.

It just doesn't add up. As Americans, it's on us not to let them keep these 'special powers' they've claimed.

Cause, what power they *have* they turn in bad directions, and lie about itr, and cover up, edefine what they're claiming they aren't doing, but we can't look, and it'd be OK anyway, and there's a signing statement, .... and then they try to demonize those who say *no.*

To torturing people in secret and not-so-secret prisons with no accountability cause of imaginary 'grey areas?'

I mean...

Get it?

Wait a minute, here....

Did the Neocon guy say 'Competent authority?'

Reply to FATE, posted November 12, 2007 2:56 PM:

"...Chuck, I see not much has changed from the Watergate days when protecting the president required moral relativism. Once a crook always a crook it seems. I expected no less from you. I guess your faith in moral relativism is just as strong now as back then. But America is a nation of good people, and once they see what you are advocating, it will be rejected just as you and Nixon were long ago."

Well said! I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that, quite aside from the torture business, what both Chuck Colson and Cal Thomas have done on these pages is to reveal in bold relief the monumental hypocrisy that lies at the heart of their and the Christian right's whole concept of Christianity. Both have shown themselves to be exactly what they profess to most despise--moral relativists. And like many hypocrites, they know exactly what they are doing--and attempt to deflect the expected criticism by simply stating that they are not engaging in moral relativism! Issue solved--for them.

You're dead-on, also, in pointing out that decent and tolerate Americans, including real Christians, have lost their patience with this drivel. Watching the religious wing nuts implode and take the Republican Party with them is one of the exquisite pleasures of my life.

I wish someone who is an expert in the science of logic and human reasoning would get involved in these debates. As they go down for the third time, the putative "Christians" on these pages become more transparent as they become more hysterical. They provide a goldmine of data just waiting to be mined. I mean, I think there is a PhD treatise waiting be written.

Jesus said : "What you do to the least of my brothers you do to me."

If Christ comes back, I think the final showdown will put Chuck and Jesus on opposing teams, because truly Chuck seems to have already signed on with the Beast.

Chuck, you are invoking Martin Luther King, Jr. to justify torture as "civil disobedience." Let's entertain your argument for a moment-- if you believe this, then why do you also accept legalizing torture? Do you also believe that we should legalize trespassing because one could trespass in order to save a drowning person?

Why not make the argument that someone who believes *so strongly* that torture is warranted be willing to "take the law into his own hands" and do so, leaving himself vulnerable to the law? If a jury of his peers feels he made the right decision, they can refuse to convict. More likely, of course, a jury of his peers would be disgusted by the torturer's behavior and demand that he be sentenced to the maximum penalty. It sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it, too-- claim that illegal acts are justified but at the same time make those very acts legal.

After reading Cal Thomas's tripe on this subject I thought I'd see if Colson had a better view. Not much. Both of these republican apologists consider torture not only justifiable but necessary under certain circumstances. Colson says this is not moral relativism. Really? Then please define moral relativism!

The early christians refused to fight the Romans who were sending them into the lion's pit. They knew what moral relativism was and would rather die than give up their christianity. If you consider torture a sin except in special situations what other sins would you have people commit in the name of goodness? Should a married man or woman spy sleep with the enemy to obtain secrets? Should gang members be killed by vigilantes? Should child predators be hunted down and killed to prevent future abuse? Should your child while at school be pinched until bleeding by the teacher in order to find out who stole someone's lunch money?

Torture is a pandora's box, as those at Abu Graib found out. Once it is allowed in any way, it will be used in all ways. All that is needed is the justification. And in times of war or strife, justificatins abound.

If you want torture to be used as a last resort, you cannot make it legal in any way, otherwise it will be used long before the last resort. By allowing torture you attract the sadists. By allowing torture, the ideals you are fighting for become quaint and are set aside, maybe never to be realized again. By allowing torture in America's name, you shame America, you trivialize what America stands for, and you actually hurt America by making America a brutal nation. The German's are still anguished over their nation's brutality of the past when they used inhumane techniques as their nation was under seige. Torture serve's no one except the torturer and his frustrations. If Jesus would have condemned anything, it would first and foremost be torture.

Chuck, I see not much has changed from the Watergate days when protecting the president required moral relativism. Once a crook always a crook it seems. I expected no less from you. I guess your faith in moral relativism is just as strong now as back then. But America is a nation of good people, and once they see what you are advocting, it will be rejected just as you and Nixon were long ago.

Amviennava writes of Mr Mark:

"please revisit the content of your posts because your tactic is to comment on the person and not the message."

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

For Amviennava has written:

"Oh, my! a lecture by 'Mr. Mark'. Accompanied by an attempt at insult. Oh, my! Now I understand the positions tha 'Mr. mark' takes. He is simply a pompous ...
NOVEMBER 10, 2007 9:39 AM"

"I have concluded that you use that term (Xian) because of the views that you hold, and it is actually a demeaning term.

"So, please do retract your facetious comments, and if you assume a mature attitude and show respect even to those with whom you disagree, there may actually be a fruitful discussion.
NOVEMBER 10, 2007 4:27 PM"

Thanks for the examples of how not to, "comment on the person and not the message." Not.

I'll let this be my final comment in this particular conversation. I'll allow you the last word(s) on the subject, but I prefer to move on from what is a fruitless avenue of discussion.

Amonymous @ November 12, 2007 8:12 AM: Very well put. Unfortunately.

Mr Mark @November 11, 2007 12:57 PM: You ask, 'Correct, based on what?' Based on that apparently that is what you mean.

Most of the rest I frankly will choose to ignore. I have little tolerance for the 'in your face' attitude that many assume; even when I agree with (most) of what they say. Having said that, please do be very careful, because I also do not accept personal comments. (By way of reference, please revisit the content of your posts because your tactic is to comment on the person and not the message - this is just friendly advice and not an attempt to continue a meaningless polemic).

REPLY TO DISAPPOINTED (Posted November 11, 2007 2:48 PM)

("...Explain to me, then why they have ministries, radio programs, television appearances, etc., that reach out to audiences of, perhaps, millions. And why do candidates of at least one of the two major politicial parties actively pursue their endorsements?...")

Two quotes, one or both of which can be attributed to either P.T. Barnum and/or H.L. Mencken:

"There's a sucker born every minute."

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

Good gosh, Disappointed. You live in a world where popular culture is dominated by the likes of Lindsey Lohan, Britney Spears, and Paris Hilton. Where professional sports are dominated by the most ignorant, arrogant, self-centered thugs ever to come down the pike.

You live in an America where millions of Americans went to the polls twice and voted for a presidential candidate whom time and his own record has proven to be dumb as the side of a barn.

You live in a world where the party that seeks those "Christian" endorsements has been revealed as harboring more sex perverts and corrupt on-the-take malefactors than any other modern American institution, with the possible exception of the Catholic Church. A world where that same party claimed that one of its basic, bedrock principles was fiscal responsibility--and the minute it got into power, proceeded to throw that alleged principle overboard and run up more debt in seven years than all previous administrations combined.

You live in a world where that same self-proclaimed party of "family values" is led by an Administration that openly proclaims that it works to create its own reality by lying. And it followed through on that promise by systemically perverting scientific truth to serve partisan political ends. Our born-again President with his Christian endorsements created in Washington a culture of lies unequaled in our history.

You live in an America where so-called Christian leaders make a living preaching the gospel that the essence of Christ's message was to oppose abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, and the teaching of evolution--while ignoring his explicit prohibition of divorce, his call for love for all and compassion for the less fortunate, and his condemnation of rich and powerful religious leaders as the world's chief hypocrites.

You live in a world where the line has disappeared between journalism and entertainment. Where blow-hard loudmouths are looked to as real commentators on public affairs. Where appearing on TV and being a celebrity conveys legitimacy.

And you show by your very question that you have bought into all the above! That is, you equate being a celebrity and having a worshipful audience as establishing your worth and credibility. In other words, Disappointed, you believe that Pat Robertson is a great Christian and Paris Hilton is one of the greatest entertainers the world has ever seen.

I'm afraid that anyone who does not see the monumental hypocrisy and moral and intellectual corruption in Pat Robertson's endorsement of Rudy Giuliani is beyond rational debate.

However, if there is some cell in your body that still cries out for enlightenment, I suggest you begin by reading that classic American book, "Elmer Gantry."

Maybe, but only on dubbyah, darth cheney, coultergiest, bull-rush the drug addict, billo orally, and other such pillars of hell. A little waterboarding might be nice, heck that ain't even torture according to these neo-CONS.

If the pro-life demographic seems less than enthusiastic about being led down the garden path by the GOP one more time, the GOP has a new strategy: Christians For Torture.

Can someone please tell me just who would be considered as "a competent authority"?

If Bush administration did not torture maybe the would have reliable information about WMDs in Iraq

Chuck, I'm usually right there with you on your comments. But, on this one, I think you've got it 100% wrong. You of all people know that in this broken fallible world that a 'competent authority' is pretty much impossible to find. Human nature (the evil in us) when enticed with an opportunity to cause pain, will do so. You yourself were part of that 'competent authority' at its highest levels, and know how much even a large group of very very smart and motivated people can find an end to justify a means.

So it is with torture. Once we allow our larger principles to be parked alongside the road of expediency or become subject to arguments on 'when it's OK to break the law', we're back into your old world, Chuck.

The no trespassing sign is maybe something God put up, and maybe he says, I'll handle it past that point. Events spin out of control once you guys down there start thinking you're able to define when to push past the sign on your own.

The larger good is that a nation like the U.S. is built on laws that are followed -- by everyone and for everyone. That's what we have to offer the world. Bust past a no trespassing sign, and the U.S. has just created a new model -- for ALL to follow. THAT's a scarey world.

Sara BB:

Who would Jesus torture?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~you ask~~~~~~~~~~~

According to Christians Jesus tortured Jesus, agony in the garden, crown of thorns, dragging the cross and death on the cross just to hit the high spots of Jesus torturing Jesus. Being God Jesus had the power to resist all that didn't He?

Then there's that thing about God sacrificing His only begotten son, Jesus so your sins can be forgiven. It's your fault that Jesus was tortured by His father. The actual torturer was you. Aren't you ashamed of yourself for making God torture His son, Jesus? That was necessary because you were born in sin and haven't stopped sinning. Even the president knows about you, "we are all sinners" he said.

It will be necessary for you to make a good clean confession, do your penance and sin no more. Oh, and don't forget that God loves a cheerful giver. Noticing that God isn't the least bit shy about torture it's a good idea to give all you got.

On second thought, ref http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul the correct reading of sacred scriptures tells us that Jesus was the son of Devil and not God at all. As difficult as it is to believe God would sacrifice His only begotten son it's equally easy to believe Lucifer would sacrifice His own mother. Jesus was the son of the supernatural being in the ball of fire. You knew that didn't you?

So those guilt feelings are not just feelings. When you sing the praises of the being in the ball of fire, the one Moses made the deal with, his soul for the treasure of earth, you invite God to torture you. If you were God what would you do with you a worshiper of the biggest Devil of them all, Lucifer?

Calling Devil God doesn't get you off the hook but to be sure it does make Devil happy.

JJ:

As for my name - the butterfly and I have a totemic relationship, and I chose for myself the name Lepidopteryx to indicate that long before you ever "met" me. What you call me is entirely up to you. It's no scales off my wings. My spiritual identity is not yours to grant or deny.

I never claimed to be Eclati - when I originally started responding toy our posts, you were expressing some ideas that I related to. I hae always made it quote clear that I am Pagan and quite happy with my religion. You can't excommunicate me from a church I never joined.

And your posts HAVE become increasingly bellicose over the past few months. It ain't like I'm the only one who's noticed.

As for secrets, I wasn't aware that you and I shared any. What secret of yours did I reveal?

Of course, if torture were ever to be justified, you can bet that the "Christians" of Colter's stripe would find a way to do it....

Oh, and by the way, Christ would call it "torture," not prudence. Why do we care what the Greeks would call it, except to try to justify the unjustifiable ?

Would u kill a single human being to save lives of thousands? How many (possibly innocent) ppl do you have to kill for a thousand?

Would it be prudent to crucify a person for a greater good? I mean, by a competent authority?

Does the term 'competent authority' apply to the Bush administration?

What if your family member were being held hostage in a hostile situation and this particular terrorist had information that could lead to their location and release? In some cases it might require extreme measures to obtain information. you may feel differently in these extenuating circumstances.

Who would Jesus torture?

Well, Adjelo, maybe also mention it seems to be the 'kooky Pagans' and others trying to stand up, and, well, ...they didn't think it could happen in Germany, either.

On that whole Second World War thing... it's kind of embarrassing, but I'm a little worried we might need a return favor at some point. That is if these maniacs here don't make the rest of the world a bigger problem for everyone.

Yipe. :)

Unfortunately Colson's answer involves a rejection of the Christ he now claims to follow. He seems to have forgotten the words of Jesus, "As you have done it unto the least, you have done it unto me."
There is no equivocation or moral relativism in those words, only the fundamental essence of the Christian faith. Colson seems to have gone back to his days as advisor to Nixon.

Unfortunately Colson's answer involves a rejection of the Christ he now claims to follow. He seems to have forgotten the words of Jesus, "As you have done it unto the least, you have done it unto me."
There is no equivocation or moral relativism in those words, only the fundamental essence of the Christian faith. Colson seems to have gone back to his days as advisor to Nixon.

Unfortunately Colson's answer involves a rejection of the Christ he now claims to follow. He seems to have forgotten the words of Jesus, "As you have done it unto the least, you have done it unto me."
There is no equivocation or moral relativism in those words, only the fundamental essence of the Christian faith. Colson seems to have gone back to his days as advisor to Nixon.

Unfortunately Colson's answer involves a rejection of the Christ he now claims to follow. He seems to have forgotten the words of Jesus, "As you have done it unto the least, you have done it unto me."
There is no equivocation or moral relativism in those words, only the fundamental essence of the Christian faith. Colson seems to have gone back to his days as advisor to Nixon.

.
This was the scenario when I read aloud a print-out of Rev. Carlson's piece justifying torture in exceptional circumstancesas as "prudence" and not "moral relativism." In a cafeteria, with a friend from Europe who looked more and more stunned as I read.

He: "You're reading from something published from your social fringes...?"

Me: "No. Washington Post on-line section 'On Faith'".

He: "You are, as you say it here, 'pulling my leg?'"

Me: "No. This was penned by a religious--Christian--leader: a pastor, no less."

He: "Ha, ha... It's a joke? A pastor! Come on!"

Me: "Says here: Founder of Prison Fellowship, an outreach ministry to the prison population of this country..."

He: "Gasp!?... Torture--ministry to prisoners?? NO way!"

I looked up and saw him gaping at me, lower jaw almost touching the table top.
.

I'm brazilian and i'm againt all kind of torture.

I'm brazilian and i'm againt all kind of torture.

I cannot believe Chuck Colson is using such a lame rationalization to justify torture. It is moral relativism, Mr. Colson. There is no justification for torturing a fellow human being, period.

Torture is immoral and won't give you the information, thus won't save any lives. In fact the blowback is likely to end lives.

In the case of a suspect, if they were waterboarded or had electricity applied where the sun don't shine they would tell us what we wanted to hear so the immoral treatment would stop. This has a tendency go gives us false information: how do we know what they are saying is correct? The only way we get accurate information is if we know ahead of time: either without talking to the suspect or have psychic powers. Basically torture IS NOT a reliable interrogation method.

Aside from that fact that torture DOES NOT work, what does it say about this supposedly "free country?" We call ourselves "land of the free," but what does it say about us if we're willing to dehumanize and abuse people on mere suspicion?

If Osama Bin Laden wants to recruit unemployed young men to blow themselves up, I can't think of many better ways to recruit than showing the U.S. torturing people. Thus, torture has not saved any lives, but this blowback could well have directly/indirectly ended some lives.

"Justified under some circumstances"?
How many of the Ten Commandments can be avoided by some (Christian) rationalization? How many are, indeed?

If a competent authority honestly believed that torture was the only way to get information that might save the lives of thousands, he would not be a competent authority.

If a competent authority honestly believed that the right words from George W. Bush would turn water to wine, we would clap him in irons and send him to the loony bin. So why, when a competent authority makes such an incompetent judgment on torture do we not do the same? Personally, I've heard the ticking bomb theory so many times recently from so many people it causes involuntary reverse peristalsis. Mr. Colson is the first, I will hand him, who has now reduced it to a single sentence. In point of fact, it is missing all the information that would be present in any real bomb plot, and any hint of which information would be known prior to the attack and which after. The argument is a false characterization of the circumstances for torture masquerading as an attempt to reduce a serious ethical anomaly to it's essence.

It is not a competent enunciation of any real ethics problem, it is not a description of any real event. It is an excuse, pure and simple, meant to justify behavior which cannot be justified, not just by Christians, but by anyone else who claims the title of "humanity". At least this post by Mr. Colson correctly identifies that his loyalty to those who have tortured in the Bush Administration outweighs his supposed dedication to the teachings of Jesus, who would never have equivocated in favor of torture.

I anticipated the postings by devout Christians who are quick to point out that Mr. Colson and Mr. Thomas are, in fact, not true God-fearing Christians that could be considered even marginally representative of Christianity in America. Likewise for men like Mr. Falwell and Mr. Dobson, I suppose. Explain to me, then why they have ministries, radio programs, television appearances, etc., that reach out to audiences of, perhaps, millions. And why do candidates of at least one of the two major politicial parties actively pursue their endorsements? As Mr. Gump might have said "Religion is what religion does."

WHO WOULD JESUS TORTURE?

Chuck Colson suffers from the George W Bush self-delusion.

Moral relativism is not moral relativism if Chuck Colson says its not moral relativism.

Torture is not torture if George W Bush says its not torture.

The only question is do they know they are lying or have they truly lost their hold on reality?

Chuck, Chuck, Chuck. Yep, there you are at the foot of the cross, playing dice.

It's people like Chuck that makes America look like the twilight of the Roman Empire.

It is exceedingly difficult to read any opinion by Chuck Colson without remembering quite sharply so many striking details of his past as a dirty tricks hit man for (recent) past Republican administrations. The fact that he "found Jesus" while in prison and now runs his own ministry closely aligned with evangelistic ministries which are, in turn, aligned with neoconservative political causes, renders his opinions much too closely associated with those of the perpetrators of the torture he so liberally excuses. Despite his seeming reformation, but given his political alignments, it no wonder that readers who remember who he really is cannot trust a word he says.

It is exceedingly difficult to read any opinion by Chuck Colson without remembering quite sharply so many striking details of his past as a dirty tricks hit man for (recent) past Republican administrations. The fact that he "found Jesus" while in prison and now runs his own ministry closely aligned with evangelistic ministries which are, in turn, aligned with neoconservative political causes, renders his opinions much too closely associated with those of the perpetrators of the torture he so liberally excuses. Despite his seeming reformation, but given his political alignments, it no wonder that readers who remember who he really is cannot trust a word he says.

The interrogator is always sure the victim has information. Always....
Sometimes the detainee does have the information. Sometimes Not.
The difference between always and sometimes is why authorities should never have the authority to torture.

I have supported the idea:

TORTURE IS MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE IN EVERY CASE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PERPETRATOR OR THE OBJECT OF THE TORTURE.

But, you gentle souls have led me to reconsider my position.

Perhaps the gauge of immorality can be lowered just enough to torture bush and cheney, (add colson - for good measure), BUT not to extract information. The torture would be JUST FOR FUN!!! (I am already smiling).

Mr Colson says, "Justified Under Some Circumstances" talking about torture. Now let's suppose it's Mr Colson that's being tortured. Any arguments that's not justified?

The soundest argument against it is based on the fact that he doesn't know anything anyone would want to know. But then there is the bright side of it, allowing criminals to "do their thing" a process at which it's said that Mr Colson has experience. And, he met Jesus in the process. Torture can be good fer ya. Huh, Mr Colson? Oh how those poor tortured souls in prison need Jesus to forgive their sins since the government, (we the people) refuses to forgive their crimes.

"Vengeance is mine" said the Lord God of Israel. The government, (we the people) must be the "Lord God of Israel" as we do vengeance by jailing the crooks and liars.

AMVIENNAVA writes:
"Mr Mark @November 10, 2007 12:58 PM: The CORRECT response on your part would have been 'Christian'. No more and no less."

Correct? Based upon what?

"I strongly prefer that you use that in lieu of the Chinese province 'Xian'; I have concluded that you use that term because of the views that you hold, and it is actually a demeaning term."

Following your logic in using/abusing the letter "X", you just took a swipe at the Chinese.

As I have written elsewhere on this blog this week, I have used the "X" shorthand to denote Christ from my days as a Bible-believing Xian. I see no reason to drop the usage now just because I'm an atheist, no matter how much or how often CHRISTian bullies like Amviennava get their panties in a wad over it. I didn't use it in a demeaning way when I was a Xian, and I don't use it in a demeaning way now.

If I altered my posts to account for every "offense" I perpetrate on the religionists here, I'd end up writing nothing at all.

"As for the rest of you comments, I am fluent in several languages, among them the Classical and Modern Hellenic. I also have studied History among other subjects."

Which makes your apparent ignorance on the historic use of X to denote Christ all the more surprising. Or, perhaps you know all about the historic use, but you have a problem with its modern use. Who knows? You don't say.

Reading through Amviennava's posts on torture, I find that we agree on just about everything, including a loathing of the bush administration. We'll just have to disagree on my use of Xian. I'm not going to drop it any time soon. Amviennava can always avoid getting offended by not reading my posts.

The good news - while you may be offended by the use of X to denote Christ, Christ himself is probably a big enough person to watch out for himself. If he's the god people say he is, then he doesn't really need defending on such an insubstantial point, does he? I wonder how Jesus would rate as an offense the use of "X" to denote Christ compared to, say, torture or launching illegal wars, often in his name?

Jozevz,
A rose by any other name still smells as sweet...
A butterfly can be called a moth..but it is still a butterfly.

terra

Dear "Christian" Chuck,

We all have a different opinion of what is prudence.
If you really think that "as with all moral obligations, there may be circumstances for exception", I think it would be "prudent" to waterboard you and your Christian extremists who are blind to Christ's true words to let you know for sure whether it is torture or not. Do onto others as you would have them do unto you.

Only cowards support, endorse or order torture

Someone brought up this example earlier, but is it acceptable to rape, torture or murder children if trying to get information from their parents?

And what remedies should apply to those wrongly tortured, do they get to torture those who carried out, or ordered, their torture, and if so, to what severity?

Until those questions are answered, logically, then anyone blathering in support of torture is nothing more than an elitist, ivory-tower, moral relativist of the most hollow sort

Wasn't a certain Galilean carpenter stripped, scourged, nailed to a board, and left asphyxiate while his tormentors gambled for his garments, because on a "competent authority's" assessment that the example might dissuade a local ethnic uprising, thereby saving the lives of thousands of up upstanding Roman citizens?

Prudence Mr. Colson?

No, hubris.

thankfully, i do not worship the diety colson does. according to this convicted liar, jesus was rightfully scourged since pilate was just "maintaining" civil discipline.

what an 'ffen idiot

How can one possibly equate torture with disobeying a no trespassing sign? How many lives that could be saved justifies torture, one, ten, one hundred? Who makes the decision that it is justified, law enforcement, the courts, the President? Is the test that "possibly" lives could be saved, "probably" lives could be saved, or "beyond a reasonable doubt" lives could be saved? Would it also be moral for another country to torture an American if the other country believed it was about to be attacked by American and by torturing the American lives of their countrymen could be saved?

Ignoring morality completely, it is still not justified.

The basis laid out implies imminent threat. If someone either perpetrates or is complicit in something that is going to cause great harm, then getting that information by use of torture is the wrong approach and may do grave damage to your goal of getting the info.

You have to assume the person would tell you anything but the truth, which could divert important resources from genuine investigative work to go chase false leads. You cannot then punish that person because you are already torturing him. Any further info would be worthless because he has already been proven a liar. He can keep doing it without worse repercussions and you would have to keep chasing false leads.

Also, you may accidentally kill him.

A more likely route would be to somehow guilt him into giving up the info. If that didn't work, you attempt to find family members - especially any children the guy may have. He will give up the information when you cut off the arms of one of his children. Then prepare yourself for hell.

If he doesn't have any children, then use one of your own because you won't care; you are already a dead person inside.

There are preventative methods too. When the US gave Saddam chemical weapons technology, we did so with the full understanding and approval that he would use them. Why give him the technology otherwise?

When we supplied both Iran and Iraq with weapons in their war, what we said is "the US hates you and your kind and we want you to kill each other."

Oddly enough, some might take offense to that. That's the kind of thing that could make someone hijack a plane and smash it into a building. It's not our freedom they hate, its our bombs blowing apart their families.

Now we have demonstrated to the world what democracy is all about. It is something that gets forced on you and leads to the killing, maiming, or displacement of 1/3rd of you citizens.

What will we say when the next plane yells "Avenge Iraq!" before it hits the next target?

Funny, atheist does start with an "a", and utilizing that you could fit with a number of nasty terms. If we take the "c" in christian we can also find a slang term for the genitalia preference of many of your pastors and preachers.

I just wish waterboarding had been available for the Nixon admistration! Not for their use of coarse.

Torture is wrong not just because it dehumanizes the one being tortured, (denying the individual's image of God and as loved by God). Torture is also wrong because of what it does to the torturer. When we torture, we are dehumanized as well. When we turn to torture, we pick up the very instrument of terror that we seek to confront. We fall victim to the myth of redemptive violence - that by greater violence, we can end all violence. The truth is that salvation and redemption come from God alone.

We cannot use violence, even temporarily, to achieve the peace that only comes from God. When Jesus was on the cross, God chose not to retaliate, to not hop down off that cross and annihilate humanity, which was rejecting God. Instead, God showed us that our violence could not bring about the death of God. That violence and death, the tool and very nature of our fallen human condition, could not thwart God's plan of salvation. Death did not win out. Christ rose from the grave, showing death to be powerless over the Creator. In order for humanity to be redeemed, we must give up on violence and turn to God's love.

So, for humans to use torture, even in limited circumstances, is to risk our very salvation.

(By the way, I do not intend for this to represent Methodist theology, though I do not believe it to be incompatible. Those looking for further reading might look to Rene Girard and James Alison.)

Frankly, I have a hard time taking anyone who claims there is any religious or humanistic justification for torture seriously.

I heard it on the blog...
Umm well maybe you need to go elsewhere but the blogs to learn anything...X does not mean anti...But was used to mean Christ in Greece...Christus.

In ancient Christian art χ and χρ are abbreviations for Christ's name.[3] In many manuscripts of the New Testament and icons, X is an abbreviation for Christos, as is XC (the first and last letters in Greek, using the lunate sigma); compare IC for Jesus in Greek.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas

terra

Lepi
Thanks for that (11/8 at 11:29) it's pretty much what I was going to say. I tremble to think who might be considered a "competent authority" in this context. John Yoo? Rumsfeld? Almighty forbid, George W.?
Only those who are aware that their judgment is insufficient to the question would be qualified to make such a judgment. Kind of a catch-22, que no?

....And come on folks. A little bit of shorthand (X meaning Christ) is hardly a conspiracy from China or anywhere else....

AMviennaVA,
The letter X is the Greek letter that was used for Christ. It was not Chinese.

Useing Xian is just short hand.

terra

Funny how Colson claims his 'moral relativism' on this issue is in fact, not 'moral relativism.'

Apparently his morals are relative to who's doing the crime against humanity.

While I'll admit it's *conceivable* a situation might arise where torture might be ...forgivable, this simply isn't what the policies and people he's defending are about. The "24" like situation is fantasy.

Sometimes, conceivably, a messed-up situation may arise where a crime is the 'lesser of two evils' ...but that doesn't mean it's not a crime, that should be answerable in court, not made policy.

It certainly doesn't justify the creative redefinition of torture on top of lies on top of secrecy that Mr. Colson is defending.

MTMAV writes: "I generally agree with Mr. Colson. Torture, like the death penalty, should be used *only in the rarest and most exceptional cases* and in accordance with the principle of double effect. (Generally, when the harm done to one individual prevents a greater harm to overall general society. This principle has its origins in the thoughts of St. Augustine. Paragraph 2266 of the Catholic catechism outlines this principle. Paragraphs 2263-2267 of the catechism outlines the Churches position on the use of the death penalty. Substitute "torture" for the "death penalty" in these paragraphs and ..... Voila! That framework works!)."

Thank you for pointing out how "spot on" Mr Mark was in his reMarks. Who DOES support the death penalty? Certainly not Jesus aka Christ? Certainly only a strange group of Christians? Strangely the same group of Christians who still support the Bush administration also support the death penalty and torture?

At the same time - those few who currently support the Bush administration are the same few who also are anti-abortion. What is going on?

When it comes to abortion - we really do not know where life begins and if anything immoral is involved? But we know for certain that grown adults can feel pain! We know that grown adults are alive!

Why then do those Christians who support Bush fight against abortion but not against the death penalty and torture FIRST? Let us tackle what we KNOW Christ would never do FIRST and only then philosophize regarding the utterly uncertain?

Xtheists use Xian probably because they are too lazy to spell or perhaps have too much guilt to even type the full name in good conscience. Who knows.

Of course, one could refer to 'atheist' in this manner:

a******

mmm....that also fits another term that starts with a.

go figure

MtMav @November 10, 2007 10:42 AM: I disagree with "Torture should only be conducted on a case by case basis and never assigned generically or vaguely". For one, you may not agree with what I may consider a valid 'basis'. It is also an empirical observation of mine that once you start making exceptions, the result is that you will make an exception for anything and everything. Once you accept the hypothetical case, there is no end.

As for "Only POTUS should authorize the torture of an individual on a case by case basis. By federal law, that authorization could not be delegated." We (the US) are parties to treaties that forbid torture, so I don't see how, legally at least, the 'POTUS' can approve of torture. Which is why the current 'Potus' and his minions go to such ludicrous lengths to redefine what is 'torture'.

Finally, I am not comfortable with sacrificing the few for the benefit of the many. Firstly, how many is 'few'. Lastly, if you protect even the few, then you end up protecting all. In between, there is an article in the Post today about the status of children in Iraq who suffer from leukemia. It normally can be cured, but they are apparently some of the 'few' that the 'POTUS' has selected (not by design) to suffer for the benefit of the many. Can you please apply your doctrine to them?

Mr Mark @November 10, 2007 12:58 PM: The CORRECT response on your part would have been 'Christian'. No more and no less.

I strongly prefer that you use that in lieu of the Chinese province 'Xian'; I have concluded that you use that term because of the views that you hold, and it is actually a demeaning term.

As for the rest of you comments, I am fluent in several languages, among them the Classical and Modern Hellenic. I also have studied History among other subjects. I, at least, do not expect you to provide any lessons; just valid discussion.

So, please do retract your facetious comments, and if you assume a mature attitude and show respect even to those with whom you disagree, there may actually be a fruitful discussion.

MTMAV writes:

"Only POTUS should authorize the torture of an individual on a case by case basis. By federal law, that authorization could not be delegated.

By federal law, POTUS would be required to authorize the torture of an individual *IN WRITING* and not just verbally. This in order to create a record."

One might - MIGHT - be able to go along with that as long as the ground rules stated that:

1. the POTUS could not be a member of the Republic Party, and

2. the POTUS could not be - specifically - gw bush

AMVIENNAVA writes:
"Mr Mark @ November 9, 2007 10:19 AM: Oh, my! a lecture by 'Mr. Mark'. Accompanied by an attempt at insult. Oh, my! Now I understand the positions tha 'Mr. mark' takes. He is simply a pompous ..."

No insult intended.

From the question you asked in your post, I assumed you didn't know anything about the historic use of the letter Chi ("X") as a shorthand to signify the title, "Christ." I didn't have time to lay out the history for you (and I know that most intelligent people like to discover things on their own, rather than being lectured by someone else), so I gave you a few clues to get started.

Of course, that assumed that you wished to learn. It also - obviously - assumed that you didn't already know that the letter "X" has long been used in the CHRISTIAN tradition as a shorthand to denote Christ, because if you already knew that, then your original comment would appear to be, at best, facetious, at worst, snarky.

What is it?

I generally agree with Mr. Colson. Torture, like the death penalty, should be used *only in the rarest and most exceptional cases* and in accordance with the principle of double effect. (Generally, when the harm done to one individual prevents a greater harm to overall general society. This principle has its origins in the thoughts of St. Augustine. Paragraph 2266 of the Catholic catechism outlines this principle. Paragraphs 2263-2267 of the catechism outlines the Churches position on the use of the death penalty. Substitute "torture" for the "death penalty" in these paragraphs and ..... Voila! That framework works!).

Torture should only be conducted on a case by case basis and never assigned generically or vaguely. (Example: " ...... torture all terrorists).

Only POTUS should authorize the torture of an individual on a case by case basis. By federal law, that authorization could not be delegated.

By federal law, POTUS would be required to authorize the torture of an individual *IN WRITING* and not just verbally. This in order to create a record.

Bottom line: Look first *NOT* to torture. But keep the option on the table in order to prevent a greater harm. Rare and exceptional!

Mr Mark @ November 9, 2007 10:19 AM: Oh, my! a lecture by 'Mr. Mark'. Accompanied by an attempt at insult. Oh, my! Now I understand the positions tha 'Mr. mark' takes. He is simply a pompous ...

if God wants to save those 'thousands', he can do so without anybody resorting to torture--the question to ask is: "what would Jesus have me do?", and the answer is: "love the person you would torture."

if God wants to save those 'thousands', he can do so without anybody resorting to torture--the question to ask is: "what would Jesus have me do?", and the answer is: "love the person you would torture."

Once upon a time, i studied religion in a secular fashion. One of my professors, a former Jesuit, talked about two vectors of religion. By this he meant that the spirituality of a religion is different than the earthly actions of a church. No major denominations of Christianity that i know of has ever even attempted to follow the actual way of Christ.

The one exception i can think of is the Cathars, but on that we cannot be completely sure. We do know that by the actions of Constantine and later Roman emperors that the church established itself as a powerful, earthly institution. That institution has never had any qualms about torture. How many hundreds of years did the inquisitions last? How many 'witches' were tortured in Salem? How nobly did the Crusaders act towards other human beings, even other Christians? How many members of the KKK went/go to church every Sunday?

There are many intelligent, good Christians in this world. By good Christian i do not mean believing whatever the Church tells you to believe. MLK was a good Christian, i.e. he walked the walk. But many more people believe that by being a member of the Church, they are automatically good Christians. They are wrong, they are good church members; moreover, many of our churches...and many churches of other faiths as well...instill violence, hatred, and bigotry of all sorts. And all of those are melded with a great deal of fear.

I've read the Bible, cover to cover, multiple times. I've read a great deal of theology and a large amount of biblical history/anthropology. I've also read more than my fair share concerning other religions. And i have come to the conclusion that should Christ return any time soon, there will be a very large number of people thinking they have a sure bet on heaven...and they will be disappointed. Jesus would not torture, he would be tortured, just like the first time around.

Christians like Mr. (or is it supposedly Rev.?) Colson are what has made me the Agnostic/Athiest I am today.

I am simply appalled that ANYONE claiming to be a Christian could approve of torture under any circumstance. While I realize that tenure in Hell is torture, it is not up to humans like Colson to assign people there.

Whenever I read about "Christians" who support the use of torture, all I can think, agnostic/atheist that I am, is "God help us all."

Mr. Colson, you hypocrite, you have just renounced your faith and should no longer claim to be a Christian. I do not make that claim myself, having never felt The Presence, ever, in my own life, and yet your stand here sickens me.

See you in Hell.

Chuck Colson - "Torture is justified...as long as you are atheist, muslim, gay..."

I think that a lot of these "Christianists" (to use Andy Sullivan's term for the Fundies) get off on the idea of torture. They fantasize about what they'd like to do to us non-Christians, sort of like the Inquisitors did during the Inquisition. After all, they get off on telling people that if they don't believe exactly the same way, they'll be thrown into a pit where the Devil will torture them for eternity. Frankly, my idea of torture is being around Chuck Colson and his ilk for eternity.

I am not sure whether it is the Christians that
Mr Mark berates for their fear, or Mr Mark, who
more misinterpret the Gospels. One of the most
common (if not the most common) sayings of
Jesus was "Fear not" or some variation.
Fire and brimstone preaching is based on fear,
and probably avoids quoting all those times
that Jesus says "Fear not". ON the other hand,
not all Christianity is based on fire and brimstone.

Robert B. asks:

..."Thanks for the link, but I do note that the study is almost two years old. Has anyone done a study more recently than this?"...

I'm not aware of one on torture, but this one on the subject of targeting civilians was also interesting to me...apparently Americans are more likely than any Arab population to support the deliberate killing of civilians...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html

Kind of makes one rethink a few preconceptions...

Regards

A Hermit

AMVIENNAVA writes:
'Mr. Mark': Please expalin what is an 'Xian'. I am not aware of that group."

You need to learn something about the history of Christianity.

Here's a few clues to get you started:

Graffiti

Greek

Chi

Get back to me when you've educated yourself.

'Mr. Mark': Please expalin what is an 'Xian'. I am not aware of that group.

Chuck Colson's comments put another nail in the coffin where lies any semblance of an idea that he represents a Christian viewpoint in any form, shape, or size. The monumental hypocrisy that lies at the heart of his words is so flagrant, the only people who could take this person seriously would have to be those for whom: "There are none so blind as those who cannot see."

It's not just his pro-torture position as a contradiction to the basic teachings of Jesus Christ. That's a minor matter. What Colson has done is nothing less than to espouse a relativist morality. Christian morality, Mr. Colson proclaims loudly and clearly, is a perfectly conditional concept. "If a competent authority honestly believed that torture was the only way to get information that might save the lives of thousands, I believe he would be justified. That is not moral relativism. It is making a difficult decision when human life and dignity will be affected either way. The Greeks called it prudence."

A more eloquent and moral argument in favor of abortion has never been uttered. Or gay marriage. Or stem cell research.

Further, Mr. Colson has firmly stated that each individual can decide whether or not moral relativism is in play. We, just like Mr. Colson, can all decide when we are justified in giving ourselves a get-out-of-jail pass when faced with an apparent moral dilemma.

What a total fraud. No wonder the so-called Christian Right movement of which he is a part is in the process of imploding, along with the pathetic Republican Party that thought it could lead this country allied with a narrowly-based cult of "Christian" extremists.

Please, Washington Post. Stop treating the three Jimmys' religion--Jimmy Swaggart, Jimmy Dobson, Jimmy Bakker--as if it's a going concern. It's the dinosaur of modern America. Those Jimmys--and Chuck Colson--no more represent Christians than Al Sharpton represents black Americans.

Oops. Another story.

Henry James: Good to read you again. I have not posted here for months but this is a subject that I feel so strongly about that here I am again. I did post a lenghtier note on the Jacoby thread if you would care to read but I wanted to quickly answer your question about the hypothetical situation set up by Colson.

I would agree with you that on the face of it, it would make someone ponder. But as others have pointed out, these hypothetical situations are not likely to happen. And if they did happen and a soldier or CIA agent got carried away with questionning the one person that could tell us how to stop the catastrophe, it is unlikely that any court of law would convict them. The bigger issue is when you start codifying torture, and putting it in your rules and regulations, and setting up criteria for how much pain to inflict, and so on as this current administration has done. Then you institutionalize a practice that should be abhorent to any civilized nation and you change the culture of your military and spy agencies and you end up with steadily more disregard for the propre rules of interrogation and engagement. You foster an atmosphere where very young soliders, having seen their fellow soldiers blown up, feel justified in going out and seeking revenge. And you end up with the horrific pictures at Abu Ghraib that should make any American wince and say: How could we have done this?
With all the talk about "you are with us or against us", and "we take the war to them so that they won't bring it to us", you set up the stage for dehumanizing the "others". This is how nations lose their mooring, and this is how the US is loosing the high moral ground in its fight against terrorism.
And it that atmosphere, I guess we may not stop and think before we torture the terrorist's daughter in the scenario brought up by A Hermit.

Henry James: Good to read you again. I have not posted here for months but this is a subject that I feel so strongly about that here I am again. I did post a lenghtier note on the Jacoby thread if you would care to read but I wanted to quickly answer your question about the hypothetical situation set up by Colson.

I would agree with you that on the face of it, it would make someone ponder. But as others have pointed out, these hypothetical situations are not likely to happen. And if they did happen and a soldier or CIA agent got carried away with questionning the one person that could tell us how to stop the catastrophe, it is unlikely that any court of law would convict them. The bigger issue is when you start codifying torture, and putting it in your rules and regulations, and setting up criteria for how much pain to inflict, and so on as this current administration has done. Then you institutionalize a practice that should be abhorent to any civilized nation and you change the culture of your military and spy agencies and you end up with steadily more disregard for the propre rules of interrogation and engagement. You foster an atmosphere where very young soliders, having seen their fellow soldiers blown up, feel justified in going out and seeking revenge. And you end up with the horrific pictures at Abu Ghraib that should make any American wince and say: How could we have done this?
With all the talk about "you are with us or against us", and "we take the war to them so that they won't bring it to us", you set up the stage for dehumanizing the "others". This is how nations lose their mooring, and this is how the US is loosing the high moral ground in its fight against terrorism.
And it that atmosphere, I guess we may not stop and think before we torture the terrorist's daughter in the scenario brought up by A Hermit.

Of course it is moral relativism because the pretext that Colson establishes for torture only happens on TV. It does not happen in real life.

And yet we torture anyway -- and in that way behave like the Nazis, the Spanish Inquisition, and the darkest days of the Soviet empire.

There is so much I want to say, but I am so outraged that I can't even begin to spit it all out. Let me just say to Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham that your continuing to give a forum to this Stalinist makes you complicit in the loss of whatever moral standing our Nation once had in the world.

Only two posters from a long list (Chuck and Cal) who openly support and justify torture. And both of them claim to be "real" Christians. Further, most bigoted and intolerant posts come from these two posters as well. Strange? Yes! Sad? Very!!

A Hermit:

Thanks for the link, but I do note that the study is almost two years old. Has anyone done a study more recently than this?

Nice exchange there between Mark and Robert.

It's certainly true that one can't generalize about all Christians on the basis of the rantings of people like Colson and Thomas; but there is some truth to Mr. Mark's observation. Sadly, Pew has found that American Christians are much more likely to support torture under some circumstances than are secularists (although even there, the number of Americans who say torture is always wrong is, sadly, less than 50%):

http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006a/032406/032406h.htm

Not sure what that means, really, but I think it should concern Christians of good will.

Regards

A Hermit

With the Revelations-exclusive Christians in this country, fear and hatred are the dominant force behind them. Trouble is, they are full of doubt in the power of God (rightfully so), so they have to bring hell to the unbeliever through torture, threats, etc. Ofcourse, this isn't exclusive to Christians - all Abrahamic faiths have it - that is how they assert control. Not to get off topic, but religion is necessary. It allows those who are weaker physically and mentally to take control by attacking the conscience of those superior. What better way to take money from another than to tell him he will go to be tortured forever if he doesn't? It's just amazing the rollercoaster that Christianity goes through - slaughter, take, rebuild, make peace. "There is no way to peace..."

Dear Robert B -

Thanks for the kind words.

Yes, I read Father Reese's column and enjoyed it. Spot on, as they say.

I've taken Reese to task plenty of times here. I suppose I should post a comment of support, just to be fair.

To Mr. Mark

Tnank you for your explanation. It's nice to see an atheist who actually behaves in accordance with the devotion to reason he or she cherishes. :)

Have you checked out Father Reese's post on this topic?

Dear Robert B -

You mistake my meaning when I say that Xians "embrace fear." I don't mean to suggest that there is paranoia associated with the embrace of fear, but, rather, that the embrace of fear - fear of hell, fear of death, etc - is one of the prime motivators (if not THE prime motivator) in the Xian experience, most notably in the early life of a Xian.

And how can it be otherwise? Jesus' own words paint a dismal and horrifying picture of an afterlife of torture for those who don't follow him. He also paints a horrible picture of the material world in which we all exist. If that's not fear-mongering, I don't know what is. Embracing fear for a Xian isn't paranoia, it's part of the puzzle in what it means to be a Xian.

The "enjoyment" of fear that I mentioned comes in many forms, be it the rather infantile "you're going to hell and I'm not" brand of Xianity to the "god is love, all else is dross" perspective of the long-term, more-advanced Xian, ie: those Xians whose religiosity has been tempered by secular idealism.

I admit my perspective fails to include "all" Xians of every stripe, but that's what generalities do. I suppose I could have written "among MOST Xians," but I didn't., just like I don't feel the need to account for the exception to the rule when writing about those in the bush administration who are the absolute worst that humanity has to offer.

I'll try to be less inclusive next time I write about the Christians.

It is imperative that one realize that Chuck Colson and Cal Thomas write primarily from the perspective of Republic(an) sycophants/apologists/loyalists, not as "god-fearing men." They are the Thelma and Louise of Republic(an) apologists, locking hands and speeding their car directly off the nearest bush-defined cliff.

They try to hide their Republic agenda behind a gossamer film of religiosity, but it doesn't really work.

Remove the sleight-of-hand religious words from their posts and read them with the understanding that they are regurgitating talking points that are coming direct from bush's WH, and you'll better understand what their posts are really all about.

To Mr Mark --

You wrote, "This is why bush has such a high rating among Xians. They not only embrace fear, they enjoy it. It's their natural state of affairs. An equilibrium, if you will."

I realize that you are a strident anti-theist, but I would please ask that you have the decency to understand that not all Christians are as paranoid as you claim. You are obviously an intelligent man, and no intelligent man would ever make such a ludicrous claim seriously.

As for Christian support of Bush, given his current ratings across the board, I would care to bet that a majority of those who disapprove of Bush would also identify themselves as Christian. I'm certainly one who would...

Yes, Robert, Chuck Colson just equated torture with trespassing.

I would imagine that Colson calls in the SWAT Team whenever the neighborhood kids hit a baseball into his front yard. TP-ing his tree on Halloween probably elicits a frenzied call to the National Guard.

It's amazing, AMAZING the level of fear that Xians live with. How do they get through the day, what with shadows all around us? Someone spills their Pepsi at the mall and the Xian screams for the Hazmat crew.

This is why bush has such a high rating among Xians. They not only embrace fear, they enjoy it. It's their natural state of affairs. An equilibrium, if you will.

Scary stuff.

Dear God in Heaven, did Reverend Colson just equate torture with trespassing?? Is this what has happened to the moral center of our nation??

He also called for torture to be sanctioned by a "competent authority". What kind of competent authority does he have in mind? Doe he want the Justice Department to have an Undersecretary for Torture?

Everyone on these boards should send copies of Father Reese's answer to this question to Mr. Colson and Mr. Thomas so that maybe, just maybe, these two men will look in the mirror and see that they are not truly men of God.

"If a competent authority honestly believed that torture was the only way to get information that might save the lives of thousands, I believe he would be justified."

As long as we're engaging in absurd hypotheticals let's go a step further. Suppose we didn't actually have the terrorist in our custody, but we did have his six year old daughter.

By this "ends justifies the means" reasoning Colson is saying we would be justified in publicly torturing the child in an effort to force the terrorist to abandon his plan. After all, it's her pain or the lives of thousands, right?

Chuck Colson objectively supports torturing little girls...

Fact is such scenarios do not happen in real life; they are a desperate attempt by the President's few remaining supporters to justify the crimes committed by those who have allowed themselves to be terrified by the terrorists; or worse who have exploited that fear to move forward a program of authoritarian rule.

Torture might work in a James Bond movie, but in the world it is a despicable crime; I don't know how anyone who has met a torture victim and heard their descriptions of the fear, the desperation, the dehumanization it produces could ever support such evil.

Shame on you Mr. Colson.

Regards

A Hermit

Amazing how Cal and Chuck are the two adherents to the "perfected" religion yet are also morally bankrupt. Says so much about your beliefs. Jesus will be back to take everyone but the Christians, apparently.

JJ
**Ooops!~ How art thou "BUTTERFLY"?**

I'm fine, but your increasingly bellicose screeds are starting to freak me out.

Ooops!~ How art thou "BUTTERFLY"?

**if a competent authority honestly believed that this was the only way to get information that might save the lives of thousands, I believe he would be justified. That is not moral relativism. It is making a difficult decision when human life and dignity will be affected either way. The Greeks called it prudence.**

And who exactly would be an authority competent to make such a decision? And how could this "competent authority" be certain that the information gained would be accurate?
If history has taught us anything, it should be that torturing someone for information gets you the information that person thinks you want to hear, regardless of whether or not it is true.

While I've never been in the military, I have lived with abuse. I can vividly recall a night when my ex was shoving me around the house screaming at me to confess that I was having an affair with a friend of his. I was not, but I was scared enough that, had it continued much longer, I might very well have said I was just to make him stop.

Henry: as to Cheney - impeachment is silly, but how about a war crimes trial? wouldn't that be fun?

Joey
i also find your posts smart and engaging.

you may know the moral reasoning question that people like Singer use:

you are running the switching on a train track.
a train will kill 5 people if it keeps going on the track it is on,
and if you switch the track, it will only kill one person. what do you do?

now i agree with you that these hypotheticals are wacky. they are SO remote as to be senseless.

and i do basically agree that when the question is:
to torture or not to torture,
given that it is both "wrong"
and there is far from any guarantee that it works, or that one couldn't accomplish a better or equal result by other means,

then the operative policy: "never torture" - is the right one to adopt.

one feels manipulated when Dick Cheney says "what if it were your own child you could save."

Henry: that's my point. if you get to write the hypothetical, you can assume anything, like how you know that 10 minutes of waterboarding will get you accurate information. at some point you have a moral certainty that would cause the best angelpinheads to pause, but since the likelihood of that ever happening except on "24" is so remote it's hardly worth making the point, and in fact dangerous because someone will actually believe it justifies what's actually happening.

saw your superb and witty comments elsewhere. this one has been fun.

I dunno.

I am used to such a level of utter nonsense from Mr Colson that this column almost seemed to make sense.

Admittedly his hypothetical drowning trespasser is silly,

but on a straightforward moral basis

if one were faced with the choice to

a. torture a man and save 10,000 lives
or
b. don't torture him and 10,000 die

and you could be SURE the torture would prevent the deaths (a hard nut, since most evidence goes against this presumption)

doesn't that start to get hard.?

especially if one of the people who would die is ME?

TO CHARLES COLSON:

Christianity is suppose to be about what Jesus taught.

Jesus did not teach torture...

It is wrong.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I've got the logic, and I was raised Catholic so I was taught that the commandment not to kill had exceptions for just war, but to get torture into the realm of violating a no trespass sign to rescue a drowning man (Chuck - an attempt at irony?) requires such a ridiculous hypothetical, (certainty on so many fronts that you could hardly need any more info from the subject in the first place) that it is irresponsible to even throw it out as a possibility, especially without all the qualifications that would make it clear it's just a remote and fanciful hypothetical on the order of angels and pinheads.

Do you really not see the difference between disobeying a "no trespassing sign" and torture?

How many people would a Christian be justified in torturing if they honestly believed that it was the only way to save the lives of thousands?

Ten? One Hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand?

What would the families and friends of those innocent torture victims be justified in doing to stop them being tortured?