Bryan, I see you are on the (literal) warpath when it comes to this whole CIA Torture thing, claiming in both video and in print that it’s all perfectly in keeping with Christianity and the dictates of Scripture. So let’s see how you’re able to justify, in a Christian fashion, people being subjected to cruelty, many of them innocent, and with dubious results, with this little opinion piece: Liberals Would Turn Bible’s Heroes Into War Criminals.
War is, and always has been, a nasty business.
Well, that’s a good start, if a truism.
Now the Bible is not anti-war, not in the least. In fact, God himself is described in Exodus 15:3 as “a man of war.”
In fact, Bryan, you’re right. That’s part of a song of praise from Moses and the Israelites after Pharaoh’s armies are wiped out by the Red Sea crashing down on them.
Lest we think of Jesus only as “gentle Jesus, meek and mild,” we’re told that when he returns, he will come as a warrior with his own “robe dipped in blood” (Revelation 19).
Yeah, that’s a pretty gruesome passage all right, leading up to the Battle of Armageddon and the overthrow of the Beast and his marked followers.
So what should Christians make of all that? Heck if I know. I suppose it depends on such factors as how infallible and literal you consider the Bible, whether in recording history (the Exodus tale) or foretelling the future (the Revelations reference). Taking Revelations literally is a tough row to hoe, Bryan. And as for the bloody history of Israel and the triumphalist backfilling of the Lord’s intention behind every historical event (or myth thereof), that path might well lead you to believing that God believes in and commands torture, not to mention rape, slavery, and genocide. Are those also lessons we should take as to what it’s okay to do in wartime?
(I find more comfort in the Talmud’s take on the Exodus moment: When the Egyptians were drowning in the Red Sea, the angels in heaven began to break forth in songs of jubilation, but the Holy One, blessed be He, silenced them: “My creatures are perishing — and ye are ready to sing!”)
There are, according to the Bible, wars that are unjust but others that are entirely just.
A war being just (and we’ll beg the question whether the broad conflict that was triggered by the terrorist attack of 9/11 actually qualifies as a “war,” let alone a “just” one) does not excuse or justify all activities taken in pursing it. A “just war” does not provide a Get Out of Jail Free card (or oughtn’t, at least) for those who commit unjust acts.
Jesus’ command that we are to “turn the other cheek” was given to individuals, not to the state. In fact, the state has precisely the opposite responsibility in the face of evil: it’s job is most decidedly not to turn the other cheek but to strike the cheek of the offender in punishment. That’s what keeps our society from degenerating into the chaos of vigilante justice: we can choose not to take matters into our own hands, believing that God has promised to take vengeance on our behalf through the state and has delegated his authority to it for exactly that purpose (Romans 12-13).
It is true that, from a civil standpoint, the state is allowed to do things that individuals are not — incarceration, for example. But ultimately that’s just passing the buck, Bryan. The state is not just some abstracted entity out there that “does” stuff. It’s made up of individuals, each of whom (a Christian would believe) is called upon to obey the same moral dictates as any other. “I was just following orders” is of limited moral exculpatory value before the Throne. And, in our society at least, the state is controlled by We the People; we individually have a moral stake in what the does on our behalf.
Ironically, one passage you cite, Romans 12:17-21, would seem to argue against your point:
Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
I don’t see an “… unless you’re a CIA interrogator in a time of war” as a caveat to the above.
Indeed, Bryan, aren’t you the one always saying that nations as a whole are judged by the actions of individuals, so that a handful of gay people getting legally married spells DOOOOM for the United States unless they are stopped? You can’t both say that the state is allowed to do stuff and that makes it all right, but then that the state can do bad stuff and all the individuals in it will be punished.
Granted, Romans 13:1-7 does seem to indicate that the state gets to do stuff, and we should all nod and defer to it:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
But that’s all pretty problematic, too, Bryan. I mean, first off, the authorities at the time were the Roman leaders. They weren’t expected to comport themselves as Christians, so the could “bear the sword” of civil order with impunity (or, at least, not as a Christian might be expected to).
And, from the opposite perspective, this passage seems to give the state a pass on everything it does, including all those laws you consider so awful, Bryan, and those things that guy in the White House does that you gnash your teeth over, and all those taxes that get levied and all that jazz. I’m not sure that you can assert with a straight face that you have given respect and honor to the current president, Bryan, and, honestly, I don’t find a strong religious injunction toward doing so, this passage notwithstanding.
Paul then goes on with Romans 13:8-10 …
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
It’s kind of hard to see how that jibes with okaying torture.
The Bible understands that things are permitted in a time of war that are not permitted in a time of peace. David was wroth with Joab because he killed Abner in a time of peace as retribution for Abner’s killing Joab’s younger brother in a time of war (1 Kings 2:5). Blood spilled in a time of war is different than blood spilled in a time of peace.
David’s got a lot more going on against Joab than the latter’s not differentiating between time of war and time of peace; had he killed Abner in war time he would still have been on David’s shit list. Though I can’t say I consider David a great moral teacher, given how screwed up his own reign and personal life was.
Much criticism has been directed at our intelligence community in recent days over the issue of enhanced interrogation techniques, even though they are not life-threatening.
Well, aside from the folk who died. But, then, are we drawing the line to say that anything that doesn’t actually kill someone is okay and legal? Thumb screws? The Rack? Rape? Mutilation? If not, then why draw the distinction?
The techniques used would make any ordinary human being squirm.
Except for those determined to make them out as justified, even heroic acts.
In a time of peace they would be criminal acts. But when such techniques are used to protect innocent lives in a time of war, they are entirely justified.
That’s a false dichotomy, Bryan. War doesn’t just turn on an “Anything Goes” switch. Use of force against others operates under internationally agreed-to rules (including rules that the US has agreed to). That applies to the treatment of prisoners, too, even if you think they have no rights.
Your statement also assumes that all such actions were taken “to protect innocent lives,” whereas we know that prisoners were tortured without any reason to believe they knew anything — and that as many as a quarter of them were, in fact, innocent folk swept up and then, well, tortured. Or killed.
And, no, blaming torture on the 9/11 terrorists in the first place (i.e., they “made” us do it) doesn’t
We know for a fact that every technique used was carefully reviewed by the Department of Justice …
Except we also know that some of the techniques used were not reviewed by the DoJ.
… and all were deemed to be permissible under American law.
That assertion appears to be under some dispute.
And we know that congressional leaders – including some who are today’s loudest critics – were fully briefed on these methods and registered nary a complaint.
We have certainly been told that by people who are now looking for ways to avoid taking heat for the program — “Well, they didn’t stop us, so it must have been okay!” — but even if true, that doesn’t make it right. Because, after all, you, Bryan, of all people know that just because the government says it’s allowable doesn’t make it morally defensible, right?
We know from the testimony of former CIA directors that these techniques were not only legal, they were effective. They led to the killing of Osama bin Laden, for instance, and to the apprehension of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks.
We have had that asserted by those former CIA directors. We have also had those assertions called into question. And much of the key information around that remains, conveniently, classified. But even if wildly effective, does that make them right? Would Jesus really support simulated drowning or other “enhanced interrogation techniques”?
All in all, Bryan, I find it remarkable that you are in this instance so willing to believe what you are told by government officials and accept their judgment as to what was legal as a moral justification for what they did. You’ve typically called into question the veracity, motivation, or morality every action of the current Administration, but when it comes to fighting and torturing Muslims, you’re notably credulous about everything you’re told.
Students of Scripture are well aware of some of the grisly things done by God’s warriors in the heat of battle. Ehud, for instance, arranged a private meeting with the king of Moab and ran him through the gut with a sword until the king’s fat folded over the hilt of the sword, which Ehud left as a calling card (Judges 3). He was both an assassin and a war hero at the same time.
And the hero of the war against Sisera was Jael, who lured the commander of Sisera’s charioteers into her tent where she hammered a tent peg all the way through his skull into the ground while he napped. She is not vilified in Scripture for her brutality, she is lionized as a heroine and immortalized in song (Judges 4-5).
Interestingly enough, neither of those actions takes place “in the heat of battle,” but (especially in Ehud’s case) as a pre-meditated killing.
Frankly, Bryan, I don’t find the Old Testament as a whole to be a very good guide as to what is allowable in war time and what is not. We have cities attacked and utterly destroyed, their inhabitants put to the sword, or all the men and boys killed and the women taken as wives or as slaves, all actions sanctioned (at least as the OT was eventually written down) by God, but almost any of them subject today (appropriately) to charges of war crimes. Or are all those activities in war acceptable today in your sight, Bryan? Is Numbers 31:7-18 how we should be fighting wars today?
The left, if they had enough familiarity with the Bible to even know these stories, likely would be aghast at such behavior and be inclined to throw Ehud and Jael into Gitmo along with throat-cutting Muslims.
Well, Bryan, I suspect if someone assassinated one of our leaders like Ehud or Jael did, you’d probably think they should be thrown into Gitmo as well. And maybe subjected to some “enhanced interrogation.”
But, again, it’s important to realize that the torture stuff we’re talking about here is not frenzied activity taking place in the fury of the battlefield (though atrocities and crimes can be committed there, too, even in a “just” war), but far behind the scenes, in secret and not-so-secret prisons, where people were subjected to ghastly tortures to get them to talk, or even just to see if they had anything worth talking about. These were cold-blooded decisions that are, to my eye, anathema to Christ’s dictate to love God and love one’s neighbor.
War indeed is a nasty business.
Yes. So where’s that part again where Jesus taught us that, well, sometimes you just gotta be nasty to one another?
But the Scripture …
Paul.
… says that the state “does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4). One of the purposes for which God has authorized the state to use force is to keep us safe in a time of war.
But that doesn’t mean (even if the war is a real one, or just) that the state can do whatever the hell it wants with that sword with no moral repercussions.
Perhaps this is all we need to know about today’s left: they likely would drag the Bible’s heroes before the courts at Nuremberg …
War crimes tribunals today are held in the Hague, not Nuremberg, Bryan. You’re about seventy years behind the time.
… and charge them with crimes against humanity. Maybe the American left needs a values adjustment more than the CIA.
And perhaps you ought to reread a few value-adjusting passages of the Bible yourself. Might I suggest the following, Bryan?
- Luke 10:25-37
- Matthew 26:49-54
- Matthew 5:5-9
- Matthew 5:38-39
- Romans 12:17-21 (mentioned above)
- John 8:3-11
- Mark 8:34-36
(Google+ post here.)
Dear Bryan.
9/11 was carried out for the god of Abraham.