First, let's make sure we are on the same page. What is propaganda? According to Dictionary.com it is...
...information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.So, if I wrote a blog entry that was asking you to dislike a certain website - that would be propaganda. That may seem like what I am doing here but hopefully what I am doing is pointing out a flaw in Christianity Today's approach. (However, it is very difficult to avoid writing propaganda even when we try. Some of this is to be expected.)
In this article, the website is attempting to ask Christians to disapprove of government torture because (I'm not kidding) if we are against abortion and stem-cell research we should also be against torture. I don't think those are the same things and because the article does not go into much theological detail we have to take their word for it and accept that torture is always wrong.
(Notice that I am not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with them on this issue. At this time I'm only addressing their approach to this issue even though I do have strong feelings on the matter.)
By reading a few articles it becomes obvious that Christianity Today thinks that each Christian should vote like a Democrat. This is just as foolish as a member of the so-called Religious Right insisting that all Christians should vote Republican. There is no Christian way to vote and these complex issues will not be interpreted in the same way by all believers. The method Christianity Today uses to shove its politics down our throats is abhorable (no matter which side of the debate they are on) and Christians will be better off when we stop insisting that all Christians should agree in the voting booth.
20 comments:
I'm curious to know how one would even oppose such a thing. How is it possible to reconcile the compassion that Christianity teaches with the raw brutality of torture? I guess what I'm saying is how could a Christian ever not oppose torture?
I see the logic clearly. If we are pro-life, we should be pro-life across the board, and what is torture but the ripping out of a person's life bit by bit? What is it but the mere manipulation and exploitation of what makes mankind most human? We behave as if our agenda makes us God.
In fact, I think the argument works so well that it works both ways, and it's equally frustrating when human rights activists are pro-abortion. The torture issue seems far away, and we can easily point our fingers and say, "Look at that wrong over there." But when it comes to my personal inconvinence and my personal right to choose... Don't get me started.
I agree with Justin. Is this loving our enemies? If we valued compassion as much as we value feeling safe, perhaps more people would be asking the same kinds of questions.
Which is, in part, why, like you said, Adam, Christian publications need to stop telling the community of faith how to vote; how to think. I aggree with you, Adam, Chritianity Today is often pushing a perhaps not so thinly veiled liberal political agenda. However, I think the approach of this article is legitimate, and therefore it may not be the best piece to make your point. Regardless, I believe your last paragraph is pretty spot on. Even if CT isn't trying to convert all Christians into Democrats, they certainly seem to think it would be christianly for conservatives to "all shuffle to the left."
Personally:
1. I am pro-life.
2. I oppose torture.
3. I am for a death penalty.
4. I am amiable to a death penalty for aggravated rape.
If you are wise enough to see how #1 and #3 can be logical extensions of the same concept (sanctity of life), then the connection between #1 & #2 is the same as the connection between #3 & #4, in accordance with renea's logic.
If I were to come out in opposition to #2, there is a question of voice. If a terrorist has placed a nano-bomb somewhere in my body, I am free to forgive him and show him Christian compassion, for it is my life at risk. If, however, it is others' lives at risk, or if it is others whom the terrorist has killed, I could possibly pervert justice if I claimed authority to forgive on that level.
Remember, I oppose torture. But politically right now I am not upset by the actions of our government "torturing" terrorists. How can that be? Because if you think we are waterboarding every terrorist and making them all suffer terribly, you're confused. [This is not an "OMG the other nations torture so much worse" argument, it's a "watch your definitions" argument.]
Jared-
I would be quick to point out that waterboarding even one terrorist (which has been documented) is enough to declare that the government is torturing people.
I am against the death penalty for many reasons that have nothing to do with the Bible, namely its arbitrariness and faulty process. I don't see the connections between your points.
You're right, I need to amend that statement. I thought it over, and more honestly I'm not politically upset because the voices in this issue make it hard to oppose torture as a single issue within the larger framework of the terrorist threat. It's the same way that I'm an environmental conservationist but I have a hard time promoting that because the environmentalist wackos have seized the field and changed the goal posts.
I'm going to throw some dirt in the water. Let's see how this goes...
I'm one who prefers to ascribe meaning to words VERY CLEARLY before we can have an intelligent discussion (I love philosophy of language). Let's say, for the sake of argument, that "torture" by definition is immoral. I'm cool with that. But now we have to define "What is torture?"
Before I do that, let's define, "What is lying?" Lying should NOT be defined as, "not telling the truth." That definition is too broad. A good definition of "lying" in my opinion is "WRONGFULLY not telling the truth." The reason why this distinction is important is because we don't call actors liars and you don't call your spouse a liar if he/she throws a surprise birthday party for you whenever he/she initially told you that the plan was for a quiet birthday. The "immoral" aspect is what makes not telling the truth a "lie." We can do this same exercise with, "What is murder?" Murder is NOT killing someone - again, it is WRONGFULLY killing someone. The security guard KILLS the bank robber or the bank robber MURDERS the security guard.
Okay, so "What is torture?" Remember, by definition, we are attributing "immorality" to it. This is because it CAN'T be defined as simply "causing pain on someone." Then we would have to ascribe "torture" to coaches, doctors, and a parent who spanks their child. Therefore (once again), it should be defined as "WRONGFULLY causing pain on someone." Fair enough? Now, the real debate is, "Did the previous administration 'torture'?" (based on our new definition). The media and politicians are being ridiculous to make statements like, "Waterboarding is torture." That would mean waterboarding was 'torture' intrinsically (which I personally find odd, especially if our military does it to soldiers to prepare them for such a scenario). That would mean such training is "immoral." I don't think so. The real question (in my opinion) is truly, "Did the previous administration ever WRONGFULLY cause pain on someone?" (based on what I believe is this proper definition of "torture"). Thoughts?
I think when we decry an activity (such as waterboarding) as torture when it's done to our soldiers, it counts as torture when we do it to alleged terrorists.
Fair enough. I've just not heard this "decry" about waterboarding soldiers. They go through extensive training to prepare for the possible scenario that they are captured. Most people seem fine with it, which of course means it's not about the pain - it's about something else.
In regard to earlier discussion, I am for a death penalty BECAUSE I value life.
Except we haven't. Though they've both been called "waterboarding," they're altogether different activities (vis-a-vis the article I linked earlier).
Sam-
We executed Japanese soldiers after WWII for waterboarding U.S. troops ("Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts," 45 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 468), so I don't see how anyone can say it hasn't been decried. When it was done to our troops in WWII by the Japanese, it was torture punishable by death, but in 2009 it's no longer considered torture? I don't buy it for a second.
As to the death penalty issue, this isn't the place to debate that, although if Adam would ever like to write a blog post about the death penalty I would very much enjoy debating it there.
Fair enough, Justin (on the death penalty issue).
What I meant regarding the lack of decry over waterboarding U.S. soldiers was in reference to the fact that the our military has waterboarded our own soldiers to prepare them if they become prisoners of war and are tortured for information. There has been no "decry" over our military doing this, because of context and motive. Thus, such training is not considered intrinsically immoral.
I'm in complete agreement that for Japanese soldiers to waterboard U.S. soldiers during WWII was immoral, and therefore "torture" (under what I view as its proper definition). Once again (don't miss my point), I do not view causing pain on someone as intrinsically immoral (and thereby classified as "torture").
Let me put it more plainly: It was wrong for the Japanese to waterboard during WWII (they were our evil enemies at the time); however, it was (maybe) not wrong for the U.S. to do it in the last few years (depending on the circumstance). Once again, there is a bank robbery - the robber shoots dead the security guard with a gun (and gets the death penalty) OR the security guard shoots dead the robber (and gets a medal). What's the difference? The perceived morality (or immorality) of the act of shooting someone dead. Context and motive matter in ethics - not just the superficial.
Just some fuel for the fire, let's take this from the theoretical into reality. A gang of murderers have threatened those you hold most dear. You have captured one of the gang.
What would you do to find out their plans?
Remember the rest of the gang is loose and able to act against your loved ones.
Where is the love for those victims of the murder gang?
I am not trying to make a case for torture, I am just pointing out that these issues are not as clear as we would like.
Is protecting the terrorists from rough treatment, more or less important than protecting innocent lives from those who would do them harm?
I don't know, guys. I agree with Sam that motives matter; context matters. I'm glad he brought it up, because I stand by my point that anything which dehumanizes us is evil (or at least a product of evil). Which means, both torture and torturING is evil. That is, both the person receiving the torture is receiving an evil and so is the one administering the torture (receiving an evil).
Much of what's necessary to be martial deprives us of what makes us human. It may be the lesser of two evils, but...
[Of course, the military isn't the venue in which we lose ourselves, because you see, "the world sets in to making us into what the world would like us to be, and because we have to survive after all, we try to make ourselves into something that we hope the world will like better than it apparently did the selves we originally were. That is the story of all our lives, needless to say, and in the process of living out that story, the original, shimmering self gets buried so deep that most of us end up hardly living out of it at all. Instead, we live out all the other selves which we are constantly putting on and taking off like coats and hats against the world's weather" (Frederick Buechner, Telling Secrets).]
So even if we can rationally distinguish between "moral" and "immoral" torture, and I'm not sure we have yet, I don't think we can make that distinction outside of this bigger context (anything that strips us of our humanity is a product of evil). And that ought to immediately bring compassion and sensitivity and nuance into the conversation. The first two of which are rarely accessible from positions derived from rational distinctions alone.
PS. David, a gang of murderers is bringing this conversation from theory to reality? ;)
But your point about complexity is excellent.
Torture only has for it a pragmatic argument. It loses its one leg to stand on when the information it elicits takes just as long as other methods or proves less reliable. This seems to be the case.
Pragmatically, the threat of torture is far more effective than the actual act. However, the threat must be real to be of use.
One of my daughters teachers asked everyone who was pro-life to stand up. Then he asked those standing, if they were against the death penalty to sit down. He then told all the kids still standing that they needed to learn to be consistent.
As my daughter and I talked about it, I told her I didn't see any inconsistency in being pro-life and pro-capital punishment. The child's life is innocent, and his or her death is not a result of anything he or she has done. While a person on death row has been convicted of a heinous crime.
I read the article, and one thing struck me about the comparison he was making. Jesus was tortured for "political" reasons, not the way I see it, but lets just accept that for a moment. The purpose of political torture, in my mind, is either to force a conversion, or to flat out punish dissent. The purpose of the questioning that the terrorists underwent is to protect innocent lives from some very violent people. While neither may be moral, I can certainly see the difference.
"Teacher, do you support imprisoning murderers? Do you support imprisoning abortionists? Hmm, looks like I'm not the only one with consistency issues."
I like these comments, but I would like to be sure everyone realizes that my blog entry was only for the purpose of discussing the magazine in question and their approach to politics - it is not intended to be a well thought out discussion on the issue of torture. (Which I may need to write now that this topic has become so popular.)
Haha. In which case, I refer back to my original comment. :^)
There was a blog entry? ;)
Post a Comment