A Theological Response to Waterboarding
By Leon H Wolf Posted in War — Comments (42) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I am a little snowed under with work and school and whatnot today, but I wanted to offer a brief response to Joe Carter's post on waterboarding that stirred up a pretty good deal of discussion here at RedState yesterday. Before I begin, let me just say a few things - this is not a thread for you to complain about Carter, or to argue utilitarian justifications for waterboarding. Do not threadjack this diary with either of those topics. Second, this thread does not address whether sufficient process is put in place to ensure that waterboarding is not done unnecessarily - the discussion of whether it is being done in appropriate cases is a discussion for another time and place.
Now, engaging the substance of Joe's post, I will say that it mostly consists of appeals to authority. I find it curious that the post is utterly devoid of appeals to the most significant of Christian authorities: the Bible. This is all the more curious since the post purports to examine the Christian response to waterboarding. Of course, some sects within Christendom have extrabiblical traditions which have already spoken authoritatively on this question, and that is I suppose helpful to members of those particular denominations, but is not so helpful in a discussion of what Christians should think about waterboarding, as the discussion encompasses cross-denominational dimensions. For that, the Bible is the only shared authority (and the pronouncements of the UN or the UCMJ are no authority at all).
So what does the Bible say about torture? The simplest answer, of course, is "nothing," as the word does not occur in the Bible. However, several Biblical passages point to principles that guide the way toward an appropriate understanding of the Biblical exercise of state power.
The most common Biblical basis objecting to torture is of course the golden rule. However, Romans 13 seems to clearly indicate that the state and its agents have Biblical authorization to disregard the golden rule in situations where the preservation of the state itself and social order demand it. After all, ROmans 13:4 specifically refers to the state's legitimate use of an instrument of death, and yet presumably no person would themselves want to be killed. So we see that, when thinking about the legitimate exercise of state power, the Golden Rule is not necessarily a helpful yardstick.
We are then left to ask what the Bible *does* say about restrictions on the State's use of force against its citizens or wartime enemies. As we have already noted, Romans 13:4 indicates that force leading to death is not Biblically impermissible. Further, 1 Peter 2:20 seems to accept that "beatings," a physical punishment designed to inflict pain rather than death, are a permissible exercise of power. However, in 1 Thess. 2:2, Paul references the fact that he was "shamefully treated" at Philippi - and we learn in Acts 16:22-24 that this "shameful treatment" consisted of being publicly stripped, beaten with rods, being "severely" flogged, and cast into the inner dungeon and fastened with stocks. It is of course entirely possible that Paul's complaint was with the fact that they had not done anything to deserve this punishment, but the more natural reading of the language indicates that the treatment *itself* was shameful, and so we may accept this as a Biblical example of the government going "too far."
Well, where does waterboarding fall on this particular scale? Does it fall closer to an "ordinary" beating or lashing as discussed in 1 Peter 2:20, or closer to the "shameful" treatment of Acts 16:22-24? To my way of thinking, it falls closer to the former than to the latter, but I admit that room for disagreement exists on this question, and I am always willing to respect the consciences of others on these sorts of matters - cf. Romans 14. It seems to me, however, that the question is not nearly as clear as Mr. Carter makes it out to be, and that Christian charity would call for Mr. Carter to refrain from universally condemn those on the other side of this question, particularly in such harsh terms. I, too, am dismayed by the crass utilitarianism that tends to surround the debate about various different interrogation methods, and I think it's right for Mr. Carter to be dismayed that some ostensible conservatives differ from Peter Singer only because they are unwilling to press their own philosophy to its logical conclusions. But it is important to realize, I think, that non-utilitarian arguments can be made that waterboarding is not a per se abuse of the State's legitimate power of self-defense so that we need to resort to utiliarianism to defend it, or at least not be horrified by it.
You might want to, um, consider the context of this discussion by reading the piece that was linked to, and then try again.
Holy cow, that was hard.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
I read that comment and started to reply. Then I had flashbacks and all I could see was Moe coming for me with a big rusty harpoon so I just trucked on down the road.
And yeah, I can understand just how hard that was. You probably need some time off after that.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I'm not quite as charitable as Leon. While that wasn't the dumbest comment I've seen, it doesn't beat it by much. I know it must be a kneejerk reaction to react the way you did, but try to control it and post a response that actually has something to do with the subject of the diary.
It is not the bible, it is "The Holy Bible", or "Bible" for short. We (and I mean apparently "not you") are Christians, not christians.
After all, are you alberta, or Alberta? Show some basic respect.
As for silly, you use the absurdity of Islamic Jihad to argue that no 'holy' canon could actually be Holy (as in the Holy Bible).
That's a non sequitur. In English, that means you are silly.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
I don't know that anyone would think the torture and beating of Jesus was justified. Nor that of most of his apostles in early times. However, if the state is justified in defending itself from threats with torture if necessary there is a problem. Because the Romans and Jews saw Jesus and the christians as threats.
If the government has that power to beat people if they are threats, you run into the problem of the weakness of government's perceptions. Perhaps if you open that window to torture, you will one day accidentally fall through it yourself.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
The reason being that government routinely gets it wrong about who is an actual threat to the state OR the state itself is actually evil and a threat (as in the case of the Romans from the biblical perspective). The Romans thought that the christians were a threat and therefore tortured and killed them. If torture is okay when the state perceives a threat then the persecution of Jesus, Paul, etc would be justified. I don't think many are prepared to take the position that the torture of Jesus was justified so we must look at the issue closely. The problem would seem to lie in the issue of a government lacking absolute knowledge with which to confidently torture the "right" people who are real threats as opposed to the Prince of Peace. So you have governments that are fallible making choices regarding who they can torture. And they could torture people who are only threats to their power and not to the actual people (as in the case of Jesus, Paul, etc).
So the problem with torture is that governments get it wrong and could torture the wrong people. From that perspective it seems the Bible would not condone state-sanctioned terrorism because of the possiblity that it could get it wrong (as governments did routinely get it wrong in torturing the main heroes of the New Testament).
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
1 Pet 2:20 specifically recognizes that some punishment will be unjustly doled out, that does not render it illegitimate. That is merely a function of human institutions.
If the "the government could get it wrong" argument holds any water at all, then it also serves to prove that the death penalty, prisons, and indeed any punishment at all should be done away with.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
By that I mean, I don't think Paul would advocate handing the Romans the power to torture, nor would he say their treatment of Christians was justified. Maybe he would, but I believe the crimes against Christians by the Romans was not defended by the Bible.
Now why is that important? Mostly because the Bible may defend righteous use of force by moral men, it would not advocate the use of force by evil. That is to say that just because the Bible would support some use of force, that isn't a blanket statment. You can still use force and torture in an immoral way. There are governments in a theoretical sense that perhaps could be trusted to use those tactics. Like David, Moses, etc whom God spoke with and discussed matters with. However there are governments that are evil and against the will of God and their actions would not be justified because they are evil and outside the will of God.
Therefore, one has to decide whether or not they think the US government is inside the will of God and can be trusted. That is the key question I think, when you are talking about Biblical authority of a state to do anything. One has to be inside the will of God for that to apply. Is the US government inside the will of God to be sanctioned by his rules? If you are outside the will of God you have no authority as is given by him.
If you think the US government is Godly and bibilical then maybe there is a case for waterboarding to be found in the Bible. There is however a more crucial question to be answered as well and I don't have the answer.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
Romans 13 was written most specifically about the Roman government. Which was not Godly or Biblical or any other thing that might be considered desirable. That simply does not change the analysis.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
You're still addressing the question of whether "we" should "torture". Isn't the more salient question with regard to whether or not waterboarding in particular is torture?
I believe torture is a practice we should oppose in general, and that in fact torture is a practice that the United States opposes in general. I'm not sure why that is continually re-debated.
The OP suggests, rightly, that there is room for principled disagreement on the question of where water-boarding in particular falls in the category of shameful treatment. But your reply takes for granted that waterboard qualifies as such. You imply that the debate is between pro- and anti- torture factions. I don't see that it is. The question is specific.
absentee
I thought it was a theological response to waterboarding, assuming that it was an "enhanced" interrogation technique which is why he brought up biblical references to the mistreatment of Paul in his diary.
My understanding of the diary (which could easily be wrong) was that it is understood that waterboarding is rough treatment and trying to figure out if the Bible in anyway condones state use of those tactics for security purposes.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
-H. L. Mencken
I could be wrong too, I'm just going off this:
"Well, where does waterboarding fall on this particular scale? Does it fall closer to an "ordinary" beating or lashing as discussed in 1 Peter 2:20, or closer to the "shameful" treatment of Acts 16:22-24? To my way of thinking, it falls closer to the former than to the latter, but I admit that room for disagreement exists on this question, and I am always willing to respect the consciences of others on these sorts of matters - cf. Romans 14."
absentee
I think that there are generally three areas of discussion with respect to water boarding or enhanced methods of interrogaation - which were not discussed yesterday.
1. Legal arguments.
2. Theological - Biblical and extra-Biblical dogmatic or traditional arguments.
3. Moral arguments - non-theological arguments.
As you rightly note, Mr. Carter's argument did not address a theological argument beyond the concept that "we are all created in God's image" etc. You've hit the high points of the theological argument in this blog and as you rightly note, there is room for disagreement on the issue.
With respect to the moral, non-theological, arguments, I don't recall those being made to any extent yesterday. There was some discussion about "us descending to 'their' level" and a "greater good" argument was briefly addressed relative to it's should be OK to torture bad guys to save good guys lives. As with your theological points, there is plenty of room for legitimate disagreement on the issue.
Finally, with respect to the legal argument - which seemed to be the bulk of discussion yesterday. Mr. Carter spent considerable time insisting that water boarding is "illegal". He provided no specific citations on the illegality of the procedure, only making reference to general statements in both US statute and international treaty. On several occasions I requested specifics such as, if in fact water boarding is illegal, we know that KSM was water boarded within the scope of the procedure we've been discussing, why have no charges been brought against the interrogator? Also, if the law is so clear, why is the US Senate having it's current debate with the AG nominee?
My was, and is, that the law relating to interrogation is by no means "settled" and is subject to precisely the same debate as the theological or moral discussion of the subject. All of the commentors yesterday, including Mr. Carter and myself, offered opinion on the subject. Some of the commentors presented their opinion as "fact". We are all entitled to our opinion. We are not entitled to our own set of facts when the subject at hand clearly is not "settled".
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I don't think the argument about the use of torture or rough treatment (in which category I place waterboarding) is utilitarian at all.
Most of us recognize that killing is wrong. We do, however, make exceptions for police officers, private citizens under threat of death, soldiers in war time, the state in administering the death penalty, etc.
Likewise just because we support imprisonment by the state doesn't mean we support imprisonment by private citizens.
Recognizing exceptions to a general principle and accepting that those exceptions are necessary doesn't mean we are utilitarian and are on a down hill slide to mayhem in the streets.
On this account, I think the much abused passage from Romans is the definitive reference. If we accept that the state has the authority to execute malefactors, it would seem unreasonable to think the state can't pour water over the face of malefactors and scare the bejeezus out of them. I hasten to point out that the executions sanctioned by St Paul in Romans could have significantly less legal due process than that involved in getting a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to an undisclosed location.
I think that there are more references in the New Testament that imply that torture was accepted as a value-neutral fact of life at the time of Christ. For instance, He mentions or implies torture in parables and statements at Matthew 18:34; Matthew 22:13; and Matthew 24:51.
The Old Testament says at Exodus 21:20-21 (New American Standard translation here)
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
To me the Golden Rule is a non sequitur. The Golden Rule governs activities between persons, not states. Were the Golden Rule operative then war, itself, would be anti-Christian and the idea of making someone uncomfortable as being particularly wrong would be in the context of organized mayhem would seem pretty frivolous.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
However, a great many are. THey generally begin by conceding the point that waterboarding is torture and/or wrongful, but go on to justify it through the greater good that it supposedly brings about to mankind.
I just don't think the discussion has to go there.
To me the Golden Rule is a non sequitur. The Golden Rule governs activities between persons, not states. Were the Golden Rule operative then war, itself, would be anti-Christian and the idea of making someone uncomfortable as being particularly wrong would be in the context of organized mayhem would seem pretty frivolous.
I think we're in total agreement here.
I think that there are more references in the New Testament that imply that torture was accepted as a value-neutral fact of life at the time of Christ. For instance, He mentions or implies torture in parables and statements at Matthew 18:34; Matthew 22:13; and Matthew 24:51.
I would agree with the "fact of life" part, but not necessarily the "value neutral" part as you're assessing those verses.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
in the parables as being God (I think most of us do though there may be some denominations who read it differently) then I'd say that torture by the sovereign is clearly permissible.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I just interpret the "torture" as being the punishment inflicted upon the wicked in hell. Which presents an entirely different question as to whether it is appropriate on earth.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
is one of "evolving standards of decency." It is hard to believe that Christ would have represented an inherently wicked or immoral act being carried out by God in a parable. And while the parable clearly applies to the afterlife it is set in a context that would not have left his listeners gobsmacked (he did that at least once in reference to "eat My flesh" and lost a lot of his audience). So my take is that he is saying that this was just punishment meted out by a just ruler on Earth and the same awaits you in the hereafter.
If this interpretation is accepted then there is no more theological argument against torture being carried out by the state during the course of a war than there is against killing being carried out by the state in the same circumstances.
This is not to say that there might not be good arguments against torture under those circumstances but the theological component looks exceedingly weak.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
That it assumes that man may permissibly do whatever God may permissibly do. It's also possible (and, I think, the more natural reading of the text) that Jesus was attempting to impress upon his listeners the severity of the punishment rather than its justice. And I think that you can get that God means business pretty easily - and I think that if you look at the passage in John 6, what caused him to lose a lot of those people was that they did not *understand* what he was saying - "This is a hard saying, who can understand it?" was exactly what they said.
And also, as I noted, Paul specifically called his treatment in Acts 16 "shameful," so that would seem to me to indicate that there are certain things governments should not do.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
would still be that those listening to the parables in Matthew did not get up, scratch their head, and say "that's a bit too much, boss." The parable was a story with which the could easily relate and implies that there was an understanding that torture could be a just punishment. Certainly not one out of the ordinary.
Going to your example from Thessalonians, I would argue that it is not clear that it was the government who administered this treatment to Paul. In Paul's peregrinations he seems to have been routinely abused by laymen at synagogues/market places (Acts 21:29-30) but less frequently by authorities.
Clearly there are things that governments should not do. The question is, as you said, is there a theological reason that they should not do them.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
19When the owners of the slave girl realized that their hope of making money was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to face the authorities. 20They brought them before the magistrates and said, "These men are Jews, and are throwing our city into an uproar 21by advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to accept or practice."
22The crowd joined in the attack against Paul and Silas, and the magistrates ordered them to be stripped and beaten. 23After they had been severely flogged, they were thrown into prison, and the jailer was commanded to guard them carefully. 24Upon receiving such orders, he put them in the inner cell and fastened their feet in the stocks.
I suppose it's at least possible that there was another occasion when Paul was in Phillippi and was shamefully mistreated, but I'm not aware of any commentator that doesn't read the passage in 1 Thessalonians to reference the events of Acts 16.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
but was there a reason you didn't boldface [t]he crowd joined in the attack against Paul and Silas?
But I'll give you that Paul thinks being flogged and imprisoned after nearly being lynched by a mob is shameful, the question is whether this provides a useful analogy to torture, or being real meanies, during wartime.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Certainly the crowd instigated the action, but the punishment here was inflicted by the authorities. I think the "attack" in this circumstance, means "accusation," pretty clearly.
As to your latter, the answer is that this is pretty much the only New Testament passage I can find that speaks to the question. So I agree that it's not an especially strong argument, but I think it can be made with a straight face.
To me, however, waterboarding does not seem to come close to being stripped naked in the public square, beaten "severely" (and when a writer says about Paul that a beating was "severe," you can probably assume they were flogged within an inch of their lives), and then cast into a filthy inner dungeon with your wounds still gaping and locked in irons which would have contorted them into an uncomfortable position which they would not have been allowed to escape. I don't really know that it's worse than an ordinary lashing that would have been administered in the first century, which seems to be approved by I Peter 2:20. But I do think the passage would have possible implications for, say, the rack or thumbscrews or other such means of punishment.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
to place the Bible in any political context due to the fact that it is a religious book not a "how should the proper gov't be instituted and function" book. So many time we try to use the Bible for means that it wasn't designed for. I think if one were to examine the scriptures carefully he would find that Jesus was not interested in the current events (luke 13:1-5) or even the misuse of State authority (mark 10:41-44)He was interested in the exact thing he can to do and that was to reconcile people to God. Jesus didn't care about the condition of the state...he cared about the condition of peoples' souls.
"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
-Matt 22:21
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy."
–John Marshall
That's a fascinating (and by fascinating I mean wrong) interpretation of Luke 13:1-5. Quite to the contrary, he comments upon the current event about which he is questioned, and then makes the same lesson about *another* current event which was not mentioned to him.
I will agree with you that the Bible is not primarily (or perhaps even secondarily) a political book, but to state that the Bible has nothing to say about the behavior of the State, or the Christian's life as a citizen of the State, is to not know significant portions of the Bible.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
that when asked about the events in Luke 13 Jesus immediately turns their attention to themselves and thier relation with God and not what had happened to the people that Pilate had "unfairly" (which is implied) dealt with. Perhaps they were trying to get Jesus to comment on (or make a political statement in regards to)the situation, but he refuses. The same can be said about the Jews and Matt 22:21. Wouldn't you agree?
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy."
–John Marshall
At least with regards to Romans, contrast relevant portions of 12 with 13:
From 12:
I appeal to you therefore, brothers ... Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. ... Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. ... Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
The last parts of the above excerpt seem particularly relevant. If heaping burning coals on your enemy's head was permissible, why not explicitly permit it here? It would cost less than feeding your enemy, to be sure. Instead the exhortation appears to be, treat your enemy hospitably: that will induce the same effect but by the use of the good rather than the evil.
Now on the other hand, it's fair to say this only addresses "vengeance" and therefore only exhorts against the torture of an enemy for no other reason than retribution. If we accept that torture is evil in the situation where there is no outcome but retribution, can we yet justify torture in the situation where there may result some good outcome? But, at least Romans 3:8 suggests not: "And why not do evil that good may come? —as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just."
From 13:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
Overall, doesn't this map to the scenario of Christian pharmacists who refuse to vend certain compounds on the basis of their belief that doing so would place themselves in the role of instrument of evil? In other words, let us assume torture is evil: based on the above excerpts, a Christian would conform to the Bible if they neither applaud, condone nor participate in torture - but they must also submit to and not resist their government's decision to torture. One imagines a Christian interrogator who refuses to directly participate in a torture session similar to the Christian pharmacist who refuses to vend abortifacients.
Of course nothing here precludes the Christian from expressing their belief that the government's behavior is evil or attempting to vote in a government that mirrors their own beliefs. But to the debate at hand, Carter - who believes torture is evil and that waterboarding is torture - cannot actively resist (i.e. thwart, foil, prevent) the government's use of torture even while he expresses his belief that it is contra God's will and may work diligently to (legally) replace said government with one that operates in a manner he believes does conform with God's will.
From a different perspective, from Matthew 5:
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. ... You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
If Jesus Christ himself exhorted his followers to love their enemies, and left no wiggle room, then how much other scripture must be brought to bear in order to justify the use of even "almost torture" by a Christian on a bound and defenseless enemy? Aside from passages describing what the just punishment is for certain transgressions of the law by members of one's own society, can anyone cite some passages that provide a positive affirmation for a Christian to use severe physical or mental anguish in order to either extract confessions or coerce information from their enemy? In the absence of same, am I incorrect to conclude that the weight of Scripture cited above stands against the mis-treatment of enemies by Christians, for any purpose?
They are meant to be read together. In fact, the chapter break between Romans 12 and 13 is one of the most ill-advised in the whole New Testament. What does that passage you quoted in Romans 12 say? It says to the individual Christian - *you* do not take vengeance, because "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." Okay. Now if you stop at the end of Romans 12, you think he probably means that he will repay them in the afterlife, but Paul is clear that this is not under consideration, because look at what he says in Romans 13:4 - the *government* is *God's minister* - an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. The reason a Christian should not seek vengeance is because God has ordained that Government shall be his minister of vengeance upon malefactors. All of which goes back to what I initially said in this post; Romans 13 clearly indicates that the State has a legitimate authority for self-defense and to punish wrongdoers to act in such a way that would otherwise not be in accordance with our understanding of the golden rule, or the passage in Matthew 5 you quoted there.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
What does that passage you quoted in Romans 12 say? It says to the individual Christian - *you* do not take vengeance, because "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
Moreso to the point, it says that "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
The contrast I find is in the difference between what a Christian is called to do (or not do) and the reality of government authorities that are not Christian and, obviously, do not make their policy according to Christian beliefs.
the *government* is *God's minister* - an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
If context matters, the "governing authorities" that Paul speaks of were not Christian. Still, Paul says, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.". In other words, even un-Godly governments are in power only by the will of God, correct? I don't see anything in Romans 13 that indicates that governments always behave righteously - governmental perfection is not the reason given for the Christian to submit to government authority, instead, "Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience." I guess if one takes it very literally that government authories are in fact ordained ministers fluently speaking God's word... but that doesn't seem to be a logical interpretation, does it?
"For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer" - this sounds more in tune with the idea that the government authority is a tool of God's will, and that through this tool, God's purpose will be accomplished. This isn't inconsistent with, for example, Gen 50:20, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." (albeit "you" isn't a government authority, I think we would agree that Biblically, God has used a number of non-Christian actors who behaved poorly to accomplish his purpose).
Romans 13 clearly indicates that the State has a legitimate authority for self-defense and to punish wrongdoers to act in such a way that would otherwise not be in accordance with our understanding of the golden rule
I'm not sure I can go that far. Romans 13 speaks to the demand that Christians submit to authority because ultimately that will result in the best outcome for the Christian, "for he is God’s servant for your good". It doesn't indicate that all government activities are legitimate by virtue of their being righteous and holy. "Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval" - good isn't defined here as everything the government does, is it?
your point in the least. You strung together a lot of disconnected things, exclaimed Eureka and walked away.
As we discussed above, the Golden Rule does not apply to state action. If we accept your tossing of this non sequitur into the argument then we find ourselves arguing over torture during wartime when we are killing in wartime. Say what you will, but after torture the other guy is still alive and after waterboarding all he has to to show for it is wet clothes.
Generally, theologians have agreed that the state does have the inherent right to wage war (e.g. killing people and breaking things) and to to execute criminals. So we know from this as well as from St Paul in Romans that the state can kill legally. It follows from that as the state does not have a corporeal form but acts through individuals that individuals can kill legally.
So now you are arguing that it is legal for a public executioner to break someone on a wheel or draw and quarter them or burn them alive, all common punishments in earlier times but it isn't legal to torture them, or make them wet, to extract information that will save lives.
My guidance, the Catechism (see 2297), is a lot less than clear on the subject:
Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.
Because we aren't talking about extracting confessions, etc. We are talking about extracting information and doing so to in an environment where punishment, frightening others, or satisfying hatred is most assuredly not part of the program.
Just as the Catechism says of the decision to go to war
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
So to does the decision on how to treat a very small number of prisoners rest upon the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Some who wish to have as you say "wiggle room" might claim that Jesus is using hyperbole to make a point, but with romans 3:8 and 12:21 coupled with the golden rule and Matthew 5 it is hard to argue.
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy."
–John Marshall
you put Scriptures together that actually go together.
With Acts 1:18 and the second half of Luke 10:37, it's hard to argue that Christians shouldn't hang themselves.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
First I was adressing zroxx's question which was...
"Aside from passages describing what the just punishment is for certain transgressions of the law by members of one's own society, can anyone cite some passages that provide a positive affirmation for a Christian to use severe physical or mental anguish in order to either extract confessions or coerce information from their enemy? In the absence of same, am I incorrect to conclude that the weight of Scripture cited above stands against the mis-treatment of enemies by Christians, for any purpose?"
which I reasoned if you look at Matt 5 and romans 3:8 and romans 12:21 in essence as "individual Christians" we should not torture or take revenge or do harm to anyone period!
lets look at them by themselves...
Matthew 5 is about you (me) not hating our enemy but showing him love
romans 3:8 is about the OT law and why should God Judge us if our sinfulness makes him look better (but I want to add the last part about doing evil so good will result is an argument for torture is it not?)
romans 12:21 is about doing good to those who have done bad...by overcoming one with good we are better then just returning the bad.
these are all points about individuals doing evil that I was talking about not the state...it is clear that Paul is talking about governments role in punishment (i don't know about torture)in romans 13
but if read for what it is that God has ordain all gov't then isn't the Saddam reigm in Iraq the reigm that was meant to be there... remember that the dictatorship of Caesar is what Paul was talking about in Romans 13...not exactly a democracy.
I hope this clears everything up.
"The power to tax involves the power to destroy."
–John Marshall
Is the conclusion then that unfortunately in this case we do not have what we would have expected: an authoritatively definitive answer from the Bible about whether water-boarding and/or torture are morally permissible for government irrespective of the circumstances?
Is it beyond the pale to question whether the Bible even teaches us to look at morality as deduced from principles and commands, irrespective of circumstances, causes and effects? I am thinking of Rahab, Ecclesiastes 3, of God and Job, Peter’s prison break, Jesus’ work on the Sabbath and ostensible violation of purity laws and even of the contingency on circumstance we would ascribe to Paul in the course of reconciling his prescription with his complaint. The “situational ethics” are related to biblical theology as I comprehend it, not something “resorted” to for convenience. In other words, I have biblical arguments with the premise that the correct answer here could be authoritatively deduced from the Bible in isolation from situations; and as related, that I might be an “ostensible conservative” making "crass" arguments. But I applaud the effort to see what we can learn from the Bible about how to judge the situation.
but I'd like to comment on two points.
First, there's the question of what is "shamefully treated". I submit that the passage in question doesn't necessarily deal with government conduct. Being publicly punished is a source of shame. Alternatively, the treatment could be considered shameful because it's undeserved. Unless a Greek expert can make a reasonable case, I think it's stretching to get anything out of this.
The Old Testament Mosaic law is a much better source. Here you have exactly how God wanted the theocracy of Israel to act. While these precepts aren't binding as civil law today, it's a good check against what government conduct is proper.
In the case of physical injury, the requirement is the simple one of justice - "An eye for an eye." The question then becomes whether waterboarding is part of a just punishment for an offense. Information gathering is not an excuse in itself.
Now since being an unlawful combatant is a crime, and arguably as severe as attempted murder, waterboarding strikes me as a reasonable partial punishment. If we get information in the process, bonus! I merely suggest that there should be real proof of misconduct, and that any additional punishment not exceed the bounds of justice.
Second, there is the demand of love for the neighbor, which is the highest law save one. This is the situational ethics justification - that it might be better to overpunish a criminal if that will save lives. And as much as we may not want to get into this, we don't have a choice, because we already have.
The situation in Iraq is complex. But one thing it isn't is a defensive war. If we didn't go there to save American lives, we don't have any moral justification. It's important, therefore, not to keep trumpeting democratization and ignoring the original purpose. There are Christians opposing the war that are still accessible to us, if we put our arguments well.
..."waterboarding" and "torture." The former ain't the latter (and the only arguments that I've seen that claim that it is do nothing to substantiate that claim, but simply start from the presupposition that, like Algore and AGW, it's a "settled issue" that waterboarding=torture), so any look into what any source says about "torture" is absolutely not extrapolatable (or applicable) to waterboarding specifically.
1. Joe keeps mentioning the Geneva Convention. He clearly knows little about it. I was charged with teaching the Convention in several venues for the US Army during my time. One point that people like Joe fail to notice is that the Convention itself denies protections contained therein to illegal combatents.
For example, if the enmy chooses to shoot at you from a mosque or a hospital, you may return fire. If a combatant is captured he may not be mistreated. If a combatant is "illegal", ie not wearing the uniform of a national military, that person may be shot. He sacrifices any claim to the convention.
2. Joe keeps bringing up an old case of waterboarding tried several decades ago. He fails to mention that this was a case of water-torture, which is not the same technique as waterboarding. It is a dangerous technique that would rightfuly be banned. Waterboarding is different entirely.
It would be interesting to hear a balanced argument on this issue, but unfortunately the tone and the accuracy of the opponents of water boarding for illegal combatants is a bit off.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
I think looking to the bible for the go ahead to torture or not torture is a little silly. I dont mean to be disrespectful to you or anyone else who believes, but the bible isnt the only holy book in the world, and like it or not, a good majority of the world would disagree with its primacy.
For example, and this shouldnt be news to anyone, but the koran takes a much harder line with what can be done to people in the name of protecting the state then does the bible. Is it ok to cut peoples heads off because it says its ok in a book some believe is holy? I dont think reasonable people would agree that it is.
Now as to whether a christian should look to the bible is also a little grey, I think. Im not one of those people who believes that the Church is evil, but anyone who has read a history book knows that the Church has employed torture on whole populations in the past, during the Inquisition for example.
just some thoughts