This is an issue all people of faith should rally around- torture is a moral concern offensive to us all.
Great video!

Torture is a huge moral issue and the people of faith cannot and shouldn't defend or justify it in any way. People in power who claim to be Christians should speak and work against it with a clear determination.

After signing the statement I found no place to submit it.

You should see the submit button at the bottom, which then sends your statement to your Congressional leaders.

We were within 10 miles of Clark Field, Luzon. We had lost all but 400 infantry men from the 106 Infantry Reg. The amublance brought in two Japanese soldiers who had been captured by Filipino irregulars. The Japanese were beaten from head to foot, black and blue all over but sitll conscience. I was the 19 year old enlisted G.I. on duty in Triage. A major was the surgeon in charge. He began to examine the soldiers in a very rough manner: twisting and pulling on their legs and arms. His examination caused great pain, yet the prisioners did not cry out. I asked: "Major, why are you doing that, can't you see it is quite painful?" The major replied, "I an checking for fractures." I responded. "We don't check our men that way". The major said; "If it weren't for these bastards I would be back in the Bronx making a Good Living. I responded, they are just as much victims as we are. The major said. "Soldier, you are out of order!" I shut up and he stopped his twisting and pulling. We were in active combat for another 90 days. I caught a lot of flak from the major from the Bronx. I'm still glad, I had 19 year old guts. Tom

I love that story Tom.

That's the sort of tough fair-minded justice that we need. You've inspired me!

Alex:

Since you claim to want a discussion, yet all you’re likely to get is people eager to get in line to agree that yes, torture is wrong, even immoral, what you really need is someone to challenge you. (hope that doesn’t sound like a slam, but, certain patterns do emerge; don’t they…)

With all due respect, may I volunteer? (Rigsby; ever the glutton for punishment…)

On the premise that one of the things I very much dislike is cheap talk, may I suggest that the mere assertion that torture is wrong/immoral is just that; cheap talk. It may be true, but it is cheap. Why? Because it does not see, and if it does it does not own, the consequences of it’s grand, moral posturing.

What do I mean by this?

Deciding not to torture has a price. Quite simply -- and with horrific impact to an easy, sanctimonious, costless moral piety -- there are consequences to the seemingly moral choice not to torture. And that consequence is the death of innocents. We now know this beyond a shadow of a doubt with the revelation that real deaths were prevented by the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- known as KSM. Torture, horrible as it is, saved lives. Innocent lives. The choice then is not simply to torture or not, the choice is between the morality of torturing and the morality of directly allowing -- even as if causing -- the death of innocents. When torture is eschewed, innocent people may die. To deny this reality is to not be serious about the topic. And if the topic is serious (it is) it deserves more than sound-bite PR sounding cliches like torture is a moral issue.

I think there is a path for the Christian to walk here, but I will confess straightaway I do not like it. It’s a path I see, albeit in a glass darkly, and cannot claim to walk. Yet. In minds eye, walk this path with me for a few moments…

The first step for me it seems is to simply admit with great horror and humble sadness that yes -- there are moral consequences to not torturing. This is what a world of sin looks like; these are the choices. Second step though is to directly challenge the assumption that embracing the consequence (the death of innocents) is one to be strictly avoided at all costs. This is a step that abhors me most perhaps. For instead of forming the choice as between one moral good (eschewing torture) and a consequent moral evil (the killing of innocents) one must embrace the horrible consequence into his own flesh. Yes; innocents will suffer. And I must willingly offer to be the first among them.

This seems to me the only way to move beyond mere moral preening. I must be so committed to the goal of non-violence that I explicitly and honestly accept all consequences myself. Into my own body. Thus, to make the decision not to torture is to accept the consequence that I will die. Not might; will. I must BE -- myself -- the innocent victim of the very policy I endorse. Only then does my choice not to torture (by proxy) begin to take on real moral substance.

It is quite natural to recoil at what seems at first glance like such passive submission to violence. (take this cup from me…) Not least is the fear that I thereby appear to enable violence. A real part of this dilemma for me comes from the work of feminist theologians who have shown the evil that can result from viewing Christ’s death on the cross as passive suffering in the service of God. They helped me see that for too long this seeming passivity was seen as model to be emulated. And this has lead too many women to accept abuse silently in the name of a good God. Suffer like Jesus did -- to please God. The key insight however of this theology is that the act of Christ was NOT passive submission, but active non-violent resistance. It took its eyes off human systems of violence and domination, and instead placed it’s trust in the God of love and life. It accepts that if the consequence of living a total non-violent ethic is death, so be it; for God transcends all this in His role as honest judge and giver of life. Thus to choose the consequence of non-violence is an act of trust in this God. (And it don’t come easy -- at least for me.)

Of course there are huge difficulties with applying this theory and theology. Not the least of which is the fact that this choice to absorb consequent violence into oneself is completely personal; I cannot make it for another. That would be coercion. It must be personal and it must be free. If a large enough group of people (what group more natural to do this than the church; ie the body of Christ?) makes this free choice, societal change may result. But human experience coldly tells us that more than likely, all will NOT make this choice; believing the cost is too high. I do not see human governments as the proper ultimate agent for this choice which is to be personal and free. For, use of government structures are neither.

Further practical difficulties include the reality that, despite my willingness to offer my life to the consequent violence of my choice, the nature of this violence is that it’s victims will be completely random. And if I insist, with force (of government perhaps,) on this ethos, in all likelihood the victim will be another. Another who may NOT have made the same personal choice. To the extent that my ethic causes the death of innocents who have NOT made the choice which I have, this must restrain, trouble, and humble me. I do not have an answer to this problem. Perhaps you do.

And finally (for now anyway) it seems to me that full potential of an exploration of the truth that the willingness to absorb violence into ones-self in the cause of his moral vision really really can be constructed in terms of active resistance (not passive submission) cannot really happen if one leaves as an option, a return to violence. That is, if we truly embrace the non violent ethic that the mantra “torture is a moral wrong” implies, (which is really what we’d be doing; embracing a complete ethos of non-violence) we would have far more motivation to be creative in our pursuit of non violent means of resistance to evil consequences. If one leaves the option for violence open as an escape hatch, his efforts at non-violence will necessarily be less vigorous and sincere. Sort of like the ship-bound explorer, on arrival to a new land, burning the boats to “motivate” the men to make this new destination work. (And sort of like if you HAVE a theory of a “just war” you are far more likely to INVOKE a theory of “just war” -- to excuse your own particular agenda…)

But, as I say, this is a very hard saying for me.

And may I say that before one even travels this road, he should be very familiar with competing visions such as this one so as to be familiar with what is being left behind...

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZjhkM2YyZmE5MThjZGNlN2IyMGI4M...

your friend,
Bob

Bob, as always you raise a lot of provocative questions, and before I write a reply to your comments, I will read the National Review article.

You heard Mukasey refuse to say that waterboarding was torture, but DID admit that it would be if he experienced it. Isn't that somewhat, or entirely hypocritical? "I wouldn't want it used on me, but I can't condemn its use." He has been very reluctant on this question because of the possibility that a positive answer from him would make criminally liable those who used these methods.

Millions of innocent people have been killed in all the wars since time began. But the planned "enhanced interrogative techniques" that have been used are certainly something that no country should be proud to admit. Yes, we have been told that in a particular case, that you mentioned, innocent lives (number?) were saved. It is becoming increasingly difficult to believe so many of the stories (lies) our own government tells, that in this case, a healthy skepticism is inevitable. Their stance is "believe us, we're the government. Would we lie to you?" Well, yes, but don't ever expect an admission of this.

This "quaint" Geneva doctrine against tortue was not something that was hastily arrived at. Abu Ghraib is the direct result of the U.S. lowering their ideals or standards and becoming as guilty as the enemey. Should we expect or demand more of our government? I hope so.

Very well said Bob. I'm glad you pushed beyond the easy. One thing that struck me is that when we torture, we are engaging in a definite wrong to prevent a possible wrong. We are not able to predict for certain who even has actionable intelligence, who will respond to torture, who would be "worth it". For the one instance when we did possibly save innocent lives (I've with Elaine here on my skepticism but I would never say that the scenario couldn't happen) how many people (sometimes innocent people) would have to be tortured yielding nothing helpful? I think it would be a very rare situation indeed when we would actually be trading the evil of torture for the good of directly protecting innocent lives. Just because it is rare though, doesn't negate the moral issues you raised. For a fascinating look by someone who tried it, see this link:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448717

Another thread I heard was the power of non-violence and the willingness to follow that belief to its conclusion. It does get personal doesn't it? After talking about my discomfort with Gitmo and some of the gov'ts behavior, someone asked me if it would be worth it if I knew my children were alive because of it. Protecting my children is the strongest instinct I have and I would give my life for them. Give their lives though? Wow. My response was that they are at much greater risk of being hit by a drunk driver when we are going to the grocery and I don't advocate getting rid of civil rights for drunks. Tough laws yes. Throwing them away with no trial, no attorney, no chance to defend themselves, no. We are called to certain standards as a civilized society and the value that our country places on individual freedoms makes me proud to be an American. There is something very frightening about the risk of terrorism that seems to make us lose our prospective and agree to all sorts of things we would never agree to regarding the much more likely risks.

I read the National Review article. It reminded me some of Clinton's weaving and dodging. It does sound like the law needs to be clarified but the tone seemed to be, the law is unclear so what can we get away with? There has been a deeply cynical part of me that has wondered through much of the Bush presidency what the political conservatives would have done if it had been Clinton doing all of this. Would we be reading National Review articles defending our gov'ts behavior?

I wish I could be a pacifist but I'm not quite there. I think it takes an enormous amount of faith - the kind of faith that could change the world or a faith that could lead to the end of civilization.

Bob, you wrote:

" there are consequences to the seemingly moral choice not to torture. And that consequence is the death of innocents. We now know this beyond a shadow of a doubt with the revelation that real deaths were prevented by the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- known as KSM. Torture, horrible as it is, saved lives. Innocent lives."

Please document that statement, together with who said it and the number of innocent lives saved. How can any "confession" of an individual undergoing torture be ascertained as to its truthfulness? Those who have engaged in interrogation have freely expressed the opinions that one will say anything to have the torture stopped. Would we not also do the same? How many confessed and rescinded religious beliefs under such torture in the Inquisition several centuries ago? IOW, how successful has it really been?

The article by McCarthy also stated in 4th paragraph: "One thing we do know, however, is that at risk are the careers and potential legal jeopardy of American intelligence officers who have relied on Justice Department opinions in conducting interrogations since Septermer ll, 2001." Those U.S. military personnel who engaged in the degrading and humiliating exercises in Abu Ghraib were not immune from prosecution and unable to claim they were merely "following instructions" or that they were not aware of the illegality of their acts. Whether or not CIA officers relied on Justice Department opinions in their acts, they, like military personnel, should not be granted immunity under the claims of their department's opinions. The ability to know right from wrong should be a necessary qualification to be employed by the Justice Department, of all government departments. That goes back to Cain's "Am I my brother's keeper?" Not knowing that we should treat our fellow human as deserving as we are, is to be lawless.

This article was written during the time of the hearings for Senate approval of Mukasey's appointment to be the Attorney General. This week's hearing was AFTER he was appointed to that position. However, he does not seem to have enlightened himself on this issue since that time. His first pleading was that he was not privy to the classified information concerning these interrogation techniques. His answers yesterday could have been a broken recording with no additional information that he seems to have informed himself on. Well, we get another AG only slightly better than Gonzales.

This was such a "hot potato" issue that the government simply had suspects captured and "rendered" to foreign governments where they could enact much rougher interrogation techniques and the hands of the U.S. government would remain squeaky clean: like a hit man ordering someone to be mugged. Despicable!

Come on Elaine!

WALK that path with me; FACE the reality that to insist torture is wrong IS to embrace the path of total non-violence.

I am very heartened to see that Beth gets this -- and she honestly admits she too is not quite of faith enough to “go” there.

As for you Elaine, you start out OK -- then very quickly succumb to the same old partisan blame game. It’s the wicked Repub Admin to blame; things would be better with different leadership; what is your evidence for stating KSM’s torture actually helped save lives?? All comfortably delay ones arrival at the inevitable destination of freely choosing an ethic of total non-violence. Total.

Best, Elaine, to admit that NO administration will ever adopt the full moral conclusions of the “torture is not moral” ethic. Simply because that ethics ONLY proper place is in the service of TOTAL non-violence. You doubt me? Even the WaPo recently reported that, in ’02, upon being briefed by the WH on waterboarding, Nancy Pelosi’s response was “are you sure that’s going to be enough?”

Elaine: your faith in government is badly misplaced…
Your reticence to accept the ONLY possible place for full condemnation of torture (ie IN an ethic of total non-violence) is all too clear.

It seems that it is a hard saying for you too Elaine….
Join the crowd. This is a human problem --- NOT a matter of right government. Your position is no more moral than the next guys… unless you are willing to walk the path of TOTAL non-violence.

I told you it was a difficult walk. And you confirm that for me…

PS -- IF the horror of torture is to be finally abandoned, it seems it MUST be abandoned EVEN if there are cases where it "works". Just get that barrier over with immediately. We are called to abandon it EVEN IF it works.
seems to me

Bob, you don't seem to understand that I HAVE no faith in my government to do the right thing at all times. Do you?
If so, what sort of accusation is that to infer that I have faith in my government? If I did, I wouldn't question their actions.

Are you saying that one must be 100% for non-violence or 100% for violence? Is there no middle ground in your implications? Is life so totally black and white that the gray areas are expunged?

It is that I don't see in the example given that the torture was justified, and you fail to convince me that it was, i.e., Might makes right. Are there situations where torture would NOT be justified? What are those conditions?

You ask "what is your evidence for stating KSM’s torture actually helped save lives?? You were the one who made the statement: " We now know this beyond a shadow of a doubt with the revelation that real deaths were prevented by the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- known as KSM" and yet have given no substantiation for that statement. I'm still waiting? If there is a government statement to that affect, who said it and how many lives were alleged to have been saved? Surely, with the assurance of that, you can do more than repeat something you read. We had the same assurance from administration that there were WMD In Iraq. Forgive my skepticism.

We might as well ask: "Can a Christian be a good CIA officer?" If one's allegiance is first to his government then when it conflicts with his conscience, what should he do? No, I do not, nor would wish that my government adopt so-called "Christian standards" for whose standards would they be?

The "Just War" ethic promoted by Augustine and first used by the Hebrews in eradicating their neighboring tribes is still most usefully adapted today. How many "just wars" have been fought? They are always ruled "just" by the invaders. However, one can still dissent with those decisions. And this writer does.

This is not a partisan position, unless it is against government in this instance. I call the shots against both Republicans and Democrats when I feel they are wrong. Are you upholding your government, right or wrong? Surely, there are positions that are inviolable in your thinking that are totally out of the realm of a party affiliation.

Wow Elaine:

I love you to death, but you really do have little clue what I’m saying…

That you would say:
Are you saying that one must be 100% for non-violence or 100% for violence? Is there no middle ground in your implications?”
amply demonstrates this!

Elaine! Can you not see that the very second you admit the need for violence, you have LOST the argument! For now all you have is a difference of opinion -- to which little morality is attached. It’s just Dems vs Repubs; libs vs conservs…

YES Elaine: I am saying that when one endorses the ethic that torture is immoral, they HAVE implicitly and explicitly and every other possible way opted for 100 % non violence.

Will you tell me now exactly where YOUR “middle ground” is on violence?
(and PS -- please tell me this is not he first time you’ve heard of KSM… KSM is essentially irrelevant to this discussion… You see that right??)
And oh yes: VERY glad to hear of your distrust of government and of your skepticism.

You guys write about torture as if you knew something about it. When was the last time you nursed a dying man who had been cut down from between two bamboo poles where he had been used for bayonet practice--careful not to penetrate a "vital spot".

Neither of us knew the other's language. All we had was eye contact, a tender touch and a cool cloth. I nursed him for about three hours while his lungs slowly filled with blood and he drowned in his own blood.

Death is inevitable we need not cause it, or hasten it, or create fear of it. One act of terror does not justify a
"holy war!" We should have declared it a criminal act and responded accordingly. Tom

Of course, I've heard of KSM, but doubted the statement and to whom it was attributed.

Let's see. Did MLK advocate non-violence? Did Gandhi advocate non-violence? Did Jesus advocate non-violence? Where did I infer that there was a need for violence? This was your premise, as I understood it, but I may be wrong.

Yes, If I gave the impression that there are times for violence, please show me where I gave that impression.

Yes, if I accept your position that non-violence limits all POSSIBLE uses of violence, then that is the position I adopt. If there are possible exceptions, I do not now, nor never expect to encounter them. I own no weapons for self-defense, and would not attempt to use them if I had them.

The illustration used was not a personal use of violence, but a government program, just as war is a violent government program. And no, I do not condone war, ESPECIALLY, when diplomacy has not be used.

Perhaps a reader of these post can point out the illogicality of my position. I have judged debate teams and presumed I had a bit of knowledge about logic, but I could be wrong.

Yes Elaine, you are very wrong:
And I can’t believe how well you are illustrating my very point…

You said:
“Are you saying that one must be 100% for non-violence or 100% for violence? Is there no middle ground in your implications? Is life so totally black and white that the gray areas are expunged?”
If that’s not an implicit acceptance for a place for violence, I don’t know what is. If not some brand of “partial violence” what, pray tell, IS your imagined “middle ground”??

If you too dream of a reality of NONviolence, then we are truly one… And our political differences melt away into… nothing…

I WANT to be one Elaine. I could care less about the argument. What I am afraid of, is that your puzzle is that a conservative is capable of imagining...
total non-violence...
Interesting huh...??

Most assuredly I dream and hope for non-violence. That there is no such place on earth where that can be found makes all those, like you and me who despise violence, dreamers. What is the possibility of ever finding a non-violent country today?

How do you guys think of the local police force that has to use "violence" pretty much daily?

Pat

There are rules of engagement in law and order in our streets. If the local police force gets out of line they are subject to existing statutes.

I like the story about the Quaker who confronting an intruder said: "I am going to shoot where thou art standing in ten seconds."

The present issue was joined because, this government has refused to abide by international law on the treatment of combatants. It is more than a moral issue--it lowers the bar for the treatment of our troops if captured.

If the crucifixion of Christ wasn't a hate crime, there never was one.

Certainly the Christian Church should take its que from Him
not Bush/Cheney. Tom

Tom,
I am not disagreeing with the idea of not having a carte blanche to "torture". We should abide by the Geneva Convention. My point is that force is necessary in an evil world at times in order to create order. Our local police are evidence of that.
If one chooses "nonviolence" on a personal level... o.k. On the civic level I suggest that is Naivete and a "reverse" understanding of "separation of church and state."

I appreciate the Reformers understanding of law.

1) To convict of sin
2) As a moral guide
3) As a guide for civic authorities

Sometime back when the talk about use of torture started I listened to a journalist comment on the subject on Public Radio. What I remember as the gist of his comments was that torture must be illegal. That said it is easy, whether realistic or not, to come up with a scenario where the torture could save innocent lives. His advice was that in that case it should be done and then the torturer would accept full responsibility. In other words, the person in that position would sacrifice themself. There would be no way to cover your behind. There would not be any government to hide behind. It would a move of integrity. Few would make it.

Wasn't their a time when people said that the best thing that can happen to you if you are at war is to be captured by the Americans? Are we more safe now than we were then?

The best example of the use of persuasion was during WWII the British captured a Italian Frogman near a British warship.

He refused to talk. So they put him down in the hold at midship. He sat there quietly for several minutes and then began to babble.

They hauled him up and he said the ship would blow in minutes. He told them where the bomb was placed and a British frogman defused it minutes before it was to explode.

Sometimes it is not that easy. The question before us is Where is the line and who is going to draw it? The Geneva Conventions are still our best guidelines. If we as a nation reject them and then engage in violence behavior explicitly prohibited by international agreements we are setting a new low for our enemies.

Even war in heaven solved nothing. It took the Christ event to demonstrate the Character of God.

But we are discussing this issue because of a least 17 prior mistakes of this administration.
1. Stockpiles of WMD will be found.
2. The war will be a “cake walk”.
3. Neither the UN nor NATO matter.
4. It will be discovered that there was a strong link between Saddam and al-Qaida.
5. Ahmed Chalabi will become an immediate popular leader of Iraq.
6. Insurgency will never get established, few occupation troops will be needed.
7. The collapse of Iraq will weaken the entire Muslim world.
8. When the oil flows, France and Germany will quickly join.
9. Opening Iraq oil will immediately force a drop in oil prices and will pay for rebuilding Iraq.
10. The Halo effect of deposing Saddam will crush the Palestinian Intifada,
11. Pentagon intelligence will dominate the intelligence community.
12. The assessment of Iraqi resistance by our ground forces officers will be overblown and can be ignored.
13. The democratization of Iraq will create a domino effect throughout the Middle East—all will live happily ever after.
14. The political leaders of our coalition nations will become increasingly popular at home.
15. We can by-pass the cities, they will fall by themselves.
16. Abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib prison will stop.
17. Woman and children will be safe in the streets.

The administration is certainly consistent, Not since the Bay of Pigs has there been such miserable contingency planning. Nine presidents have lived with the consequences of the Bay of Pigs foul-up. We will live with the military, diplomatic, fiscal, and monetary consequences of the “quick draw” bravado in Iraq for decades. It will haunt my great grand children their entire lives. Tom

I heard an interview with the CIA operative who just recently came forward to denounce waterboarding. I can't remember his name and a quick NPR search wasn't fruitful. I thought it was on Fresh Air but couldn't find it. Anyway, he was saying that waterboarding KSM led to his talking immediately while months of work before hand did nothing. He acknowledged that it worked but still denounced it. Very interesting interview.

Bob, I'm not sure I see quite as strong a connection between pacifism and disagreeing with torture as you do. Nonviolence commitment is one reason not to do it. There are other reasons that basically say it is immoral to do but stop short of saying any violence is immoral and I think those are logically valid positions as well. It could be immoral for other reasons besides the violation of a nonviolence ethic. That said, it did get me thinking about why we think torture is worse than killing someone outright. Few people would disagree with shooting someone to prevent that person from seriously harming them or another but few would agree that torturing that person to prevent a harm is acceptable. Why?

Yes Yes Beth! I too read the article about the CIA guy who participated in the torture of KSM, realized that it really did “work,” and came away utterly appalled at the implications: that if ANY good is seen to come from violence, (torture in this case) we will, somehow someway, allow ourselves justification to employ it. For then the argument is hijacked into the total diversion of relativity; how much “good” must we demand from violent act “X” to justify it? Such an ethic will ALWAYS be subjective and ultimately self serving.

Now, as Pat Travis can tell you first hand (he is a friend of mine; with whom I used to ride -- until he sold his motorcycle!) I am NOT capable of practicing this high ethic. One evidence: I have a concealed weapons permit and own guns for self defense. Yes, plural. My trust in God is too weak and immature to actually LIVE in the ethic of total non-violence. But I DO have a dream and vision of it and see the path I must take to get there. But I WILL not minimize it’s cost and I MUST not dilute the enormity of it’s calling. And I’ve NO doubt that this is the ethic that animates the reign of God.

But the reality of human nature, in it’s current configuration, is that we are inherently blind, subjective, and extremely prone to bias that favors ourselves. Please! see Aubyn Fulton’s comments over on the thread “ College Remembrance for Martin Luther King Includes Official Apology” where he brilliantly makes this same point in a different context. You must read that.

--- As an aside, I make the same point when I take it upon myself to “counsel” -- with their consent! -- a young couple about to be married…
“Never -- ever -- allow yourself the bromide that marriage is 50-50; we each give 50%. That ethic spells certain doom and unhappiness. Why? Because there exists not a man or woman upon earth’s face who is capable of knowing when his giving has reached 50% nor when he has received his 50%. The tendency is to underestimate what the other gives; overestimate our own contribution. No, the only proper mindset is to give 100% and give it 100% of the time. Without thought of whether the other is doing their part… For this is precisely how Jesus approaches us I think…---

So Beth; not to dredge up the past to denigrate, but instead for understanding and growth, I have had grave differences on this site with Alex; and one of those differences is that he is a man of ACTION. He cares much less about the theology (which is NOT to say he doesn’t care about it at all…) which prompts the action, cares much more about the action; about getting busy DOing that which he sees as a furtherance of the Kingdom. I believe that, while this is a simplified version of his position, he would agree it is fair. I, on the other hand, have a deep deep need to have a grounding basis for doing what I do; for me, it seems the theology and reason FOR doing something is really really crucial. My belief is that once sufficiently grounded, doing the right thing becomes far more natural and easy and instinctive and probably permanent.

With this in mind, I have engaged in seeking to discover for myself if God really does employ violence in His government -- does violence play a part in the reign of God. And along the way, it has become most clear to me that to the extent that we allow our God to be violent, we allow ourselves the same. This is the frightening reality. And there seems an endless array of situations in which I really can say that certain violence does seem to bring good. But I also must admit that the good, while real, is temporary. Yes, violence may indeed seem to work; but what is it’s place in the long run? in the eternal reign of God? And in this process I have come to see the Atonement -- which is God’s reconciliation with us -- as the complete opposite of violence; it’s antithesis. And in fact, I think the bible is to be READ as a polemic on the futility of violence as long-term solution. (I think the Sabbath is an explicit antidote against violence; a sacrament to the ethic of non-violence… but that’s another story…)

Thus, I bring this ideal of non-violence to the table as my STARTING point on this discussion of torture. And when someone says their position is “moral” -- my instinct is to ask just HOW moral it is? For it seems clear to me the ONLY truly moral stance, that which bypasses ALL moral-relevance diversions, IS total non-violence. ANd while the CIA guy didn’t come close to filling in these gaps like I am trying to do here, I really think that in some ways he’s making some of the very same connections that I have. So as Christians we are to live IN the world (that is, the threat of violence is REAL and constant) yet not OF the world (we must not stoop to employ the measures of violence which offers only temporary safety; ever. Our only safety and salvation is in TOTAL trust in God. And no, I have no illusions that a platform like this will EVER get anyone elected to anything. Except maybe the insane asylum….

But…

You know all those visions of end time horrors we Adventists have been raised with? What it… what if… they are not really so far off base?? What IF there comes a time when the Godly remnant (it’s be a motley crew to be sure!) is that remnant who has totally given up all violence. In FULL knowledge that they themselves will BE the first victims of such a stance… What if our world never gets any better, despite all our attempts to elect right governments and further right policies. And instead there continues a slow march towards our own self-destruction. And the forces driving us there will be righteous ones; oh so righteous. And all will be called to fight for it; a noble and righteous war it will be… Except that there are this annoying little group who have totally abandoned the place for violence. They HAVE no enemies; and the cup of cold water is given indiscriminately to any and all who need it. And their attitude attracts the attention of those in charge. And soon enough, THEY become the object of the scorn of those righteous ones who have come to dominate. (this role could be fulfilled by either Right OR Left wing ideologies it seems.) WHEN this group, so settled into this ethic of NON-violence is ensconced, then God lets loose all the depravity of violence He has been holding back. And, to make extra dramatic the point, God steps in and PROTECTS those who emulate so well His own refusal to use ultimate violence as solution. And this is the final witness to what the Christ came to show us -- all those long years ago….

OK -- who knows. Of course that’s just speculation.

I really appreciate that you see what a dilemma this is for me Beth… Thanks...

Bob

If we could only have the faith of Abraham and Isaac--"The Lord will provide!" I had the same questions and concerns big time when I was the father of three small children.

Now I have great grandchildren. But I have learned that they are more precious in the sight of the Lord than even my eyes.

I watched the Discovery Channel this afternoon. On Black Holes and the new things we are discovering about the Universe. To think that a God of all that has His Church His People as His supreme regard---I don't need a 357 magnum. I do keep the doors locked. Peace. Tom

Tom:

A story, as you also share, which stirs and compels me is that of Abrahm. Called to a path, a country, and to a destination, which he neither saw, nor knew, he went anyway. That is stunning I think.
And I confess to you that the path of total non-violence really WOULD be easier to travel if… if I had a host to travel it with me.
But in reality, the path must be chosen in private, in the sacred times of contemplation with almighty God alone. It’s as if God does not WANT us to rely on each other, so much as He wants us (well, ME) to rely on Him.
You Tom, count very much with me, as one who validates my struggles and my journey. I do not like it here Tom I will confess; it’s a wasteland of moral uncertainty. But I’ve no idea how to get from “here” to “there”… I DO have the audacity to feel more encouraged though with your likes at my side...
Can I trade MY .357 Magnum for God?
That’s a strange -- and VERY direct way -- of framing the dilemma….
But I do have this dream… I dust it off from time to time; wondering if it still ticks; wondering why more don’t pick it up and run with it…
I just don’t know Tom…

Bob

I have tested it alone through three years of war, through
7 years of graduate study, through 19 years of denominational service, through boys growing up in the Vietnam era, through a cat burgler attempting to enter my hotel room, through a 75 car pile up in icy fog, through 20 days of my wife in intensive care, and a thousand adventures of which I am total unaware.

I was a medic in the 40th infantry Div. on three assualt landings and 3 months of combat with the only weapon a morphine syrette.

I do believe, He watches over us. We remain mortal but we need not live in mortal fear nor cause anyone else to live in mortal fear of us. Tom

A few weeks ago I was discussing with my children at worship, Jesus' admonition to turn the other cheek and offer the cloak along with the asked for shirt. I began by saying this is very difficult for people to both understand and follow and we have been doing a terrible job of it through the ages. We had a big discussion around whether Jesus meant non-violence all the time in any circumstance and whether he was referring more to things than people when talking about handing over what is precious. My 9 year old son said kind of laughingly, "Yeah like he didn't mean if bad guys wanted me you would hand me over and then hand over C (his sister) too," and then he looked very intently at me. He was asking, "Would you protect me or does God not allow that?" Indeed. What does God ask for?

I told him under no circumstances would I hand him over and I would fight to the death to protect him. He visibly relaxed and I was left to ponder anew the job of leading a righteous life when the way can be so unclear. I simply cannot take the step of saying I will never act violently to protect my children as long as there is a question in my mind that God may not require that of me. What if I did refuse to act to prevent their harm and got to heaven and God said, "Oh no you took that turn the other cheek lesson a bit too seriously. Of course love means protecting the weak." I also do not believe that God intervenes to protect us (except maybe in very very rare instances) so I would have no hope that God would somehow bail me out and harm wouldn't come to them.

Bob I can see how this could tie in with your universalist ideas. I agree that the more violent we see God, the more violence we can justify in our world. Part of the final act of restoration in traditional belief is violence by God acted on humans. Atheists call it genocide of an unthinkable scale. I find it confusing to say the least and I find little solace in the traditional platitudes of God having to kill people to destroy evil. Perhaps it would be easier to embrace non-violence if one believed God followed it too.

Saying that it you use any police power you justify all violence is like insisting that if you light a candle you might as well burn the house down.

Beth:

Since we call these things “conversations” I tend to address my replies to specific people; but of course it’s for everybody. So thanks for letting this get “personal” here because in some ways I think this is THE most important topic we humans face. That is, lots of implications emerge from this.

As I see it, both you and Blair Walker have shone a spotlight into the dilemma. Taking and translating Walkers analogy of light, his argument says in essence that surely SOME violence is necessary -- we just don’t want to use too much. But this is precisely the problem; who will tell us with perfect clarity and confidence the exact “proper” and “moral” amount of violence allowed -- or even obligated by a “moral” person? For that is really all the current political debate is about. Once violence gets a toe in the door, soon the foot will follow. And it simply comes down to personal differences of opinion; how much violence one is willing to employ. It’s only a matter of degrees. On one hand is claimed the moral “weight” of avoiding the evil of torture, and on the other is claimed the moral “weight” of the good resulting by saving innocents.

So yes: your discussion with your children is very poignant indeed; for it would almost universally be agreed that a mother who refused to defend her children from evil should be despised -- no matter HOW moral she claims to be. Me? You know what I’d do; if it’s between an assailant or my children or family, or any of YOUR family for that matter, the .357 (or .40 S&W, my current favorite) is discharged without hesitation. But really, in the equations of eternity, have I actually accomplished anything? Not really; all I’ve done is extended the life of my family. But we as Christians should know better because WE know exactly where life comes from -- and it sure ain’t from the barrel of a gun. In fact, doesn’t the event of the resurrection explicitly confirm the ultimate futility of violence? At the cross, God demonstrated that the reign of violence was OVER -- though we continue to live and act like it isn’t. And of course the temporary consequence WILL be death -- our own. Which means that the discussion with your children will someday need to move to the place where they decide for themselves whether THEY are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice of living fully by that ethic. And I think it’s telling that even Christ made the journey totally alone; for even HE can not chose this ethic for us -- we must chose it for ourselves. But if enough people actually DID choose it, what would society look like?

It has been said that the most frequently enacted religious ritual in the history of men is the celebration of the myth of redemptive violence. It happens with such regularity that we scarcely even notice anymore. Cartoons, Movies, Stories. Good men, with children, wives, only wanting to live and enjoy life, are preyed upon by evil. At first the good man resists retaliation, he does not want to “go” there. But the pressure builds and builds and eventually he reaches his threshold. And he does what he has to do. And in a grand spasm of violence, he employs that very thing he abhors; violence. So, while he may in fact end up doing the exact same thing to the evil ones that they did to him (or his family) his violence is seen as holy; as justified; as cleansing; as noble. And so the audience is drawn along in this ritual. We too like to think we abhor violence, but when the threshold is crossed, BAM -- our own inner violence is released (albeit vicariously) and we actually feel cleansed and pure again. And even, redeemed.

In fact, this ritual is so deeply ingrained in us that it permeates even our theology. So instead of seeing the cross as the END of violence, we simply interpret it in ways that has God operating just like we do. Incredible.

So to repeat, I can “see” the destination, but I’m just not sure how to “get there” unless in one -- only one -- grand step of eschewing ALL violence. And of course Beth, once one sees the reality that there is simply NO place for violence in God’s system of love, Universalism comes almost naturally. But not easily.

Oh -- by the way -- and this is a bit off topic, but I think you’ve missed the point on the cheek turning advice of Christ. That’d be a good discussion too sometime.

(PS -- Go Patriots!!!)

Bob,
I appreciate your frankness. It does seem to be completely negligent if one has the ability to avert harm to someone and instead stands by and watches. It is unconscionable. The prayer would be for the wisdom to know the point of intervention and to avoid the temptation of the preemptive. Too many times I have known people (including myself) who tend to dwell on their almost hoped for moves of self defense (back to the movie scenario). I guess this is what makes the story of Jesus' crucifixion so provocative. It was hard to watch the Passion without desperately hoping for Clint Eastwood to walk into the scene.

We had a series of lectures on Islam this weekend. Last night we watched the move "The Message" which is about Mohamad. It seemed to me, probably because I want to believe in the rightness of a pacifistic Holy Man, that the movement took a bad turn when it was decided appropriate to take back property and defend themselves with violence. When violence is mandated by the last messenger from God, Islam is confined to defending itself through violence.

Thanks for helping me in the process of sorting through some of this. It's an ongoing process for sure.

Bob, I do have one quibble though and that is your superbowl choice. Although it is going to be ugly I'm sure, as a liberal, I still have a weakness for the underdog :) Now we'll take a break from our discussion on non-violence to watch football! Woohoo!