Poll shows Southern evangelical denominations support torture

More evidence of a self-deceived, non-Christian nation.

peace to youraying:

 

If it is used against the enemy in extracting information to save the lives of your comrades, it it a sin?

 

Evil is always evil, no matter how you attempt to justify it in your mind.

peace to youraying:

 

Then comes the question, What is torture? Who defines it, Liberals?

This of course demands thought which the media does very little of.

 

First, I asked a question, you didn't answer...just provided an ad hominam (typical)

I suppose you also have Scripture defining torture as "evil"...in every situation?

Is it evil to spank my child when he doesn't obey my orders?

 

These guys are sick. How else do you get someone to talk who is willing to blow up men, women, boys, and girls and not even blink about it? But I guess the rights of the poor terrorist outweighs the multiple lives of the innocent people he and his kind will kill.

 

#1, does the end justify the means?

#2, does torture provide reliable information, or does it provide misinformation? The evidence suggests that torture provides misinformation. Before you ask about my evidence, I've posted this evidence in other threads about torture. Please feel free to find my posts on this board about torture.

So, you're saying that spanking is the same as torture?

 

In some cases, yes. Rahab hid the two Israelite spies and lied, and was blessed for doing so.

Really don't feel like doing a search, but if the torture provided misinformation, that should be the last misinformation the person being tortured would provide.

Ask the one being spanked.
Physical punishment for disobedience was what I was getting at. If all torture is wrong in all instances, all corporate punishment should also be wrong.

 

It's been long enough that my posts about torture are probably in the archives. But, it was easier than I thought to find the links I wanted about torture, so I've posted them.

Here's a link to an op-ed by Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar (Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.) about torture.

Here's a link to an article about torture.

Here's a PDF titled "Educing Information".

Here's a pertinent quote from the Educing Information document.

Physical punishment for disobedience isn't the goal of torture, is it? I thought the definition of torture we were using was that it was a method of using pain to extract information. Which definition of torture are we going to use?

 

Yes, it is a sin, illegal, and unconstitutional. Torture is NOT an effective way to collect reliable data in a speedy manner.

Places that use torture have found out and become advocates for the following Civilization protecting Standard:

Countries, Civilizations, and individual people that practice torture need to be eliminated for the greater good of mankind.

 

Eph 4:28-32 (KJV1611 Edition, e-sword.com ):
Let him that stole, steale no more: but rather let him labour, working with his handes the thing which is good, that he may haue to giue to him that needeth.
29 Let no corrupt communication proceede out of your mouth, but that which is good to the vse of edifying, that it may minister grace vnto the hearers.
30 And grieue not the holy Sririt of God, whereby yee are sealed vnto the day of redemption.
31 Let all bitternes, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and euill speaking, be put away from you, with all malice,
32 And bee ye kinde one to another. tender hearted, forgiuing one another, euen as God for Christs sake hath forgiuen you.

General principle:
being unkind to others is a sin

Specific application:
Torture is a sin.

There might be overriding exceptions, but I don't think one will find 'torture' mentioned in the Bible.

"Thou Shalt not murder",
Overriding exceptions:
1. told to kill by government
2. kill to protect family's lives

 

Physical punishment for disobeying commands to release information is the goal of torture. We're not talking about torture just for the fun of it. If the person supplies the information when asked, no torture. If they disobey, I see torture as punishment for such disobedience.

 

Then we can't protest if our soldiers are "commanded" to release information and are tortured if they don't.

 

Many ugly things occur during war.

 

ccrobinson: // I thought the definition of torture we were using was that it was a method of using pain to extract information. //

Yep, that is the definition.
It is mean, a sin, illegal, in-human, un-necessary, stupid, and a really deficient way to collect information.

 

In a civilian situation such as a criminal investigation, torturing "suspects" in order to elicit information is wrong, uneducated, uncivil, and bumbling. The courts are right to declare as inadmissible anything obrained under undue physical or mental duress, even if it is an outright confession of guilt.
However, in martial situations, such as war, there are some changes.
Small or mid-sized units do not always have a trained tactical interrogator among their numbers, and given the stress of battle and the emotional toll it inflicts on men who have lost friends and facing the possibility of losing more friends, who is to blame the senior man of the unit if he uses every means he can to gain information from a captured hostile if he believes this hostile has information that may save some lives ?
Easy to puff the chest and say "I will not be party to such evil" and to act indignant when one is not in a situation of desperation, secondly the world does not follow the Bible.

 

In a civilian situation such as a criminal investigation, torturing "suspects" in order to elicit information is wrong, uneducated, uncivil, and bumbling. The courts are right to declare as inadmissible anything obrained under undue physical or mental duress, even if it is an outright confession of guilt.
However, in martial situations, such as war, there are some changes.
Small or mid-sized units do not always have a trained tactical interrogator among their numbers, and given the stress of battle and the emotional toll it inflicts on men who have lost friends and facing the possibility of losing more friends, who is to blame the senior man of the unit if he uses every means he can to gain information from a captured hostile if he believes this hostile has information that may save some lives ?
Easy to puff the chest and say "I will not be party to such evil" and to act indignant when one is not in a situation of desperation, secondly the world does not follow the Bible.

 

I do think an important point was brought up, and largely overlooked.

How is "torture" defined?

That makes all the difference in the world.

Some would say waterboarding is torture. Some would say not providing the religious diet is torture. Some would say disturbing the normal day/night rhythm is torture. Others would say forcing prisoners to work is torture.

What's the definition?

 

What this brings to my mind is Church History, I was once told (meaning I don't know) up until the time of the reformers or shortly after "heretics" were commonly burned at the stake. So my question "Is torcher in our History as a Church?"