pro-war, pro-torture "christians"

[bishop]

there are quite a lot of self-proclaimed christians who believe that war and torture are good things - so long as it's being dealt out by u.s. forces in the war on terror.

to me, being pro-war/torture are diametrically opposed to true christian beliefs. and, i've noticed that there are some christian groups out there who have also acknowledged this clear hypocrisy and have rejected war/torture because the acts contradict their beliefs.

i'm just wondering how someone can claim to be a devout christian on one hand, and support war/torture on the other.

[Mr.Vicchio]

That's because you have no concept of the word "torture"

To you, any harm inflicted is "Torture".

No, Torture is inflicted pain for the sake of punishment. Take a North Korean labor camp, that's torture, Beheading prisoners, that's torture. Waterboarding a terror leader to break him so we can stop possible future attacks.



Using coercive measures to get needed information to save lives is acceptable.

[Hmm]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio That's because you have no concept of the word "torture" To you, any harm inflicted is "Torture". No, Torture is inflicted pain for the sake of punishment. Take a North Korean labor camp, that's torture, Beheading prisoners, that's torture. Waterboarding a terror leader to break him so we can stop possible future attacks. Using coercive measures to get needed information to save lives is acceptable.

Why is it necessary to use coercive measures on any suspected "bad guy?" Is it hard to realize that torture usually never works whenever one is trying to obtain information, as the one being tortured will admit to crimes that they never committed?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Hmm,


They aren't trying to get confessions, just information on the network, on what's in the works, trying to save lives.

Isn't that a worthy goal, or are the rights of terrorist more important to you then the lives of the people they seek to kill?

[bishop]

people need to revisit the dictionary.. torture has both physical AND psychological aspects. and rather than getting hung up on torture, realize that the thread concerned BOTH torture as well as war.

north korea is a red herring and fails to address the original question of this thread.

again, does being pro-torture and pro-war contradict true christian morality, taught by jesus?

[tinybear]

Boy, good thing I ain't no Christian. Christian teachings are way behind the times, in my opinion.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Define Torture Bishop, also who do you define as "Pro-Torture?"

Anyone that supports the war on Terror? Then in that case this is a pointless debate because you have no intention of debate just demonizing anyone that supports Bush.

Also, ont he point of "Pro War" yes, you can be Pro War and be a good Christian. Christ wasn't pacifist, roll over and let evil flourish kinda guy. But any good Christian knows this all ready.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio That's because you have no concept of the word "torture" To you, any harm inflicted is "Torture". No, Torture is inflicted pain for the sake of punishment.

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take a North Korean labor camp, that's torture.

A camp is not torture, it's what is going on in there that would be deemed torture, like Guat.

Beheading prisoners, that's torture.

Uh... no, that's called being killed. I haven't heard from too many people complaining afterwards that they have a sore throat.... oh and if you start slicing at buddy's throat, he's not gonna be able to tell you much now will he?

Waterboarding a terror leader to break him so we can stop possible future attacks. Using coercive measures to get needed information to save lives is acceptable.

There's that Christian attitude..... to save more lives, we will do any and all that is nessicary..... evil or not..... just like killing abortion doctors. *clap clap*

[RickSp]

Waterboarding is indeed torture. The North Vietnamese used waterboarding extensively to torture American pilots during the last Texan President's war. Victims of waterboarding have suffered brain damage and even death. I think anybody who doesn't think waterboarding is torture should be waterboarded themselves.

Of course, not all Christians are barbarians who support torture and abuse.

NAE Leaders Advance Broad Agenda with Landmark Document on Human Rights and Torture

AN EVANGELICAL DECLARATION AGAINST TORTURE: PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN AN AGE OF TERROR

[Praxius]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Christ wasn't pacifist, roll over and let evil flourish kinda guy. But any good Christian knows this all ready.

*Snickers*.... oh ok.... so he didn't just lie down and let everyone beat the crap out of him, make him carry his own cross to where he would be hung, got nailed to the cross, they stuck a crown of thornes on his head, made him drink vinigar, and then they impaled him with a sword when he died....... yeah... he's a regular Rambo that Jesus is.

How Christian are you again? I no longer am, and yet I seem to know more then you.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Praxuis, you don't get why he did that, so obviously it's pointless to debate that issue with you now isn't it? You "know why" but you choose to ignore that to score "gotcha" points.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Praxius "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main Entry: 1tor·ture Pronunciation: 'tor-ch&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle 1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain 2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure 3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING

Definition of torture - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Wikipedia is not the end all of information. This is the classic definition of Torture, and one that stands even in the face of the wikipediacs.

[RickSp]

You want a definition of torture V? How about the US Army Field Manual? They call waterboarding torture on page 97.

U.S. Army Field Manual 2-22.3: [N]o person in the custody or under the control of DOD, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as defined in US law. The following actions will not be approved and cannot be condoned in any circumstances: forcing an individual to perform or simulate sexual acts or to pose in a sexual manner; exposing an individual to outrageously lewd and sexually provocative behavior; intentionally damaging or destroying an individual’s religious articles. If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations, prohibited actions include, but are not limited to— Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner. Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes. Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain. "Waterboarding." Using military working dogs. Inducing hypothermia or heat injury. Conducting mock executions. Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care. In attempting to determine if a contemplated approach or technique should be considered prohibited, and therefore should not be included in an interrogation plan, consider these two tests before submitting the plan for approval: If the proposed approach technique were used by the enemy against one of your fellow soldiers, would you believe the soldier had been abused? Could your conduct in carrying out the proposed technique violate a law or regulation? Keep in mind that even if you personally would not consider your actions to constitute abuse, the law may be more restrictive. Acts of violence or intimidation, including physical or mental torture, or exposure to inhumane treatment as a means of or aid to interrogation are expressly prohibited. Use of torture by US personnel would bring discredit upon the US and its armed forces while undermining domestic and international support for the war effort. It also could place US and allied personnel in enemy hands at a greater risk of abuse by their captors. Conversely, knowing the enemy has abused US and allied POWs does not justify using methods of interrogation specifically prohibited by law, treaty, agreement, and policy. Physical or mental torture and coercion revolve around eliminating the source's free will, and are expressly prohibited by GWS, Article 13; GPW, Articles 13 and 17; and GC, Articles 31 and 32. Torture is an act committed by a person under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain and suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control. (Extracted from Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 2340A). *Emphasis in the original. “Human Intelligence Collector Operations.” U.S. Army Field Manual 2-22.3. September 6, 2006.

And guess what, not only does the Army say that torture is illegal but it is also stupid.

Use of torture is not only illegal but also it is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the HUMINT collector wants to hear. Use of torture can also have many possible negative consequences at national and international levels.

Go ahead, V - call the US Army un-American and anti-patriotic.

[5010]

Consider Matthew 24 (Or Mark 13 or Luke 21), and specifically verse 6-7: "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom."

Jesus also mentions war in Luke 14:31, recognizing the wisdom of a King who counts his soldiers before deciding to go to war (and when his army is 1/2 the size he sues for peace terms).

But Paul (2 Corinthians 10:3) said "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does." and suggests that wars be won by debate.

But John spoke of heavenly wars in Revelation 12-13, as well as people on Earth worshiping the dragon because none could war against it. And in Revelation 19 he reports "I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war."

So I would conclude that Paul believes Christians should win wars politically and the rest suggests that physical war can be a wise choice when Christians are threatened.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Praxuis, you don't get why he did that, so obviously it's pointless to debate that issue with you now isn't it? You "know why" but you choose to ignore that to score "gotcha" points.

I know exactly why he did it.. it's been engrained into my friggin brain forever from growing up. It's pointless to debate the issue with me, because you made no sense.

You were saying Jesus wasn't a pansy man:

Christ wasn't pacifist, roll over and let evil flourish kinda guy. But any good Christian knows this all ready.

So trying to relate that to the topic at hand, you sound like you're trying to say Jesus would promote torture in the face of evil, like you could see Jesus actually torturing someone...... I can't say that was an imagine I ever grew up seeing.

He talked, he taught, and he healed, as they say.... but he sure wasn't any Bush, nor could I see him promoting something like what's going on today....

If he's not the kind of guy to roll over in front of Evil, then I suppose now would be a good time for him to stand up.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Praxius, you're having fun ignoring the point just to score points.

I'm talking about War, Jesus is not against War just to be against War, sorry. I wasn't talking about Torture, because, Jesus wouldn't have to torture to get info, he'd just know.

So that's a silly point to debate.

[arielmessenger]

It's against the religion. There are however, millions of people who call themselves "Christian" but do not follow the teachings of Christ. To confuse Christianity with those who do not practice it would be a false judgment but unfortunately, that is and has been the "normal" course of history for Christians and Christianity.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Praxius, you're having fun ignoring the point just to score points. I'm talking about War, Jesus is not against War just to be against War, sorry. I wasn't talking about Torture, because, Jesus wouldn't have to torture to get info, he'd just know. So that's a silly point to debate.

I don't debate for points... I see no score card anywhere....

Jesus is not against War.... yet he was always promoting peace and good will to others, love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek and all that other stuff..... but he's cool with people killing each other for oil? And he's cool with humans torturing other humans so more humans can be killed on one side, more so then on another side?

I'm not ignoring any point, in fact I'm responding directly to the topic at hand and what you posted in relation to it.

The only Christians that promoted war were kings and priests in the name of Jesus and God.... and everything went from there... If you could show me somewhere in the bible where Jesus justifies wars and torture in his own words (Or words that someone wrote in the bible anyways) ~ Then I shall stand corrected.

[5010]

Didn't Jesus consider his own torture and death to be absolutely essential to save souls for God? But then again that would only apply if soldiers were torturing and executing a general they liked to prove to their king they would sacrifice anything for the king's mercy after they violated some of the king's laws, especially if the general were a conjoined twin of the king. Pretty freaky, that king.

Obviously, I don't really understand Christians...

[RickSp]

OK, V, we have established that the National Association of Evangelicals, representing 60 denominations and 45,000 churches, opposes torture. The Army's own Field Manual opposes torture, specifically including waterboarding, as both illegal and stupid.

So explain to me again why a Christian and and American could possibly support torture such as waterboarding.