All of you commenters here who keep bringing up torture and going on and on about it:
You all are such simplistic one-issue voters on this torture issue. You're in such lockstep with the Vatican and the hierarchy that it's clear you have abandoned free thinking entirely.
I’m personally opposed to torture, but I don’t think I could ever impose that view on somebody else.
I’d rather see us have a President who works to reduce the need for torture. We need to get at the deeper issues here – it’s not just as black and white as you religious-types always say. We should work with torturers to support them, not criminalize them.
Your belief that torture is “wrong” is just that – a religious belief. Well, what about all of the people who don’t share that belief? We live in a diverse, pluralistic society. Get with the program.
How can you take what is a matter of faith for you and impose it upon another person who might not share that faith?
Did you know that the amount of torturing in this country actually went up during the Clinton presidency? It was lower under Republican presidencies.
Torture is a difficult issue, and people of good will can disagree about it. Ultimately, I think the torturer should be free to make that choice in consultation with his attending doctors, his field agents, and his God.
Besides, even if we made torture illegal, guess what? - there would still be people out there torturing. And they wouldn’t have access to all the sophisticated equipment that we have in modern torture chambers. They’d use whatever they could find – sticks, broken glass, even coat hangers.
Is that what you want? You want us to go back to the days of back-alley torturing with coat hangers?
A truly enlightened society would keep torture safe, legal, and rare.
Posts
A Boy and His Beignet
4 hours ago
21 comments:
Thanks for sharing that. I really enjoyed it and am going to Amy's blog now to tell her!!
Please cite the source behind, "the amount of torturing in this country actually went up during the Clinton presidency? It was lower under Republican presidencies."
The Welborn comments are pretty useless - as is opposition to 'torture'. The 'torture' by the CIA didn't even result in the loss of a fingernail. We are being laughed at by practitioners of real torture.
One of the guys who was 'tortured' bragged about cutting off Daniel Pearl's head. Hello?
John, I think you and Amy's commenter have missed the point of raising the issue of torture. Catholics concede torture as evil, as abortion is. The point many are making is that the ND/Obama protesters may be presenting an inconsistency to other believers and to the public.
The sarcasm may be amusing to some, but it doesn't really advance discussion on the issue.
Tortured logic
I agree with "Anonymous"...
This Administration and their buddies, the almost all liberal media, are obviously misleading the public. America needs to wake up and "think".
It is very clear that this Administration is not in the least concerned about America's safety, our military nor the rights citizens have under the Constitution. These are very disturbed people focusing on "protecting and giving rights" to terrorists, embolding them and consequently making America vulnerable.
Have you heard of Obama's decision to refer to terrorism as "man-caused disaster", and war on terrorism as "overseas contingency operations"? What nonsense is this.... words fail me to even comment on this rubbish.
Let us pray for his conversion and the conversion of all those of like-mind.
God bless!
This comment was obviously a joke. Replace 'torture' with 'abortion' and it is exactly the same type of argument pro-choice people make. He is mocking them because almost none of those same persons favor torture.
Hmmm.
I don't think you get it.
I'm surprised there are a several people here who haven't picked up on the irony of the posted quote.
Critical reading is your friend =)
Author! Author!
Well done. Now, I need someone to explain to me why shooting the Somali pirates to save the life of one man was fine, and water-boarding to save the lives of a multitude is an outrage. I would really like a serious answer on that - any time I've posted the question, all I get is the standard verbal abuse.
"I'm surprised there are a several people here who haven't picked up on the irony of the posted quote."
I'm not.
I would really like a serious answer on thatOK, Cosgrove. The answer is that your question is framed entirely in consequentialist terms -- and Christians don't do consequentialism.
Romulus
cosgrove: Are the differences between a combat situation and a situation in which a group of people are torturing a prisoner so hard to see? Really?
cosgrove, you raise a point that they can't refute. don't let them bully you into non-thinking.
Cosgrove, don't expect any real solid counter-arguments. I've been reading as many of these catholic torture articles/blogs/editorials for quite awhile now and I'm simply amazed no one has labeled you a "torture-defender" yet. Usually by now, they simply start denegrating you instead of countering your argument with substance. Maybe if you're lucky you'll get a sentence long rebuttal...quickly followed by some more insults. I'm expecting a few myself for even showing any form of support, regardless of how much I may or may not agree with you.
This is interesting coming from the organization that brought us the inquisition, where torture was brought to a fine art. I’m sure you have heard of the golden rule. Torture is both a sin and a crime. It should be prosecuted as such. No one is above the law. Anyone who believes otherwise should be confronted and set straight.
Cosgrove et al, the difference is that in the Navy/pirates instance, the shots fired by the snipers were the direct means of defense of the life of the cargo ship captain. Immediate and direct.
That's not the case in torture, in which the direct action is to inflict pain (in whatever form) in the hope of extracting information. Big difference. Pouring water on someone's face is not a direct means to defending lives.
That's why Catholic moral teaching disallows its use.
"I need someone to explain to me why shooting the Somali pirates to save the life of one man was fine, and water-boarding to save the lives of a multitude is an outrage."
A few reasons.
While torture can help interrogators if they're looking for anything, especially false information, it is notoriously unreliable.
The only place torture saves lives is in fiction.
The point of torture is generally not getting information; it is the punishment of the abused person.
In any conflict, once a combatant has been captured or subdued, both Christian values and military honor demands the prisoner be treated humanely.
Given the first reason above, the torture of a prisoner by a soldier bring dishonor to the person and nation.
The torture of a prisoner is a grave stain on the soul of the believer.
Lastly, it is the premise of Christian morality that the ends do not justify the means. In other words, direct evil cannot be committed in order to gain a future good.
Cosgrove, the people who verbally abuse you are also in a state of sin, if that's any consolation, but the phenomenon you describe is endemic to holding a minority opinion.
Todd says "The point of torture is generally not getting information; it is the punishment of the abused person."
Yes, that is why torture is "generally" wrong.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0612fea4.asp
Post a Comment