news-record.com

OPINION

McLaughlin: Christians’ acceptance of torture called sad, ironic

Saturday, May 9, 2009
(Updated 6:57 am)

Just last year Frank Dew was among a group of people who asked the local General Assembly of Presbyterians to pass a resolution condemning the use of torture against suspected terrorists.

It included the lines,

“Whereas John Yoo, acting as a deputy at the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, argued that military interrogators could subject suspected terrorists to harsh treatment as long as it didn’t cause 'death, organ failure or permanent damage,” (see Newsweek, May 5, 2008, “Getting Away with Torture”)

But ended with a prayer,

“...we confess that in our efforts to secure ourselves as a nation, we have on occasion resorted to tactics which were cruel, inhumane, and degrading. O God, we pray for your forgiveness.”

They addressed the Salem Presbytery last October, just months before a survey in April among major Christian groups was being conducted on the same subject. Those survey results have horrified some people of faith.

The respected Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life conducted the survey. Asked whether torture can ever be justified, only 25 percent of those who attend a church service weekly said no. As in never.

Dew, the pastor of New Creation Presbyterian Church, was saddened by the results.

“The teachings of Jesus are clear that we are to love our enemies, so it’s particularly ironic to me when some folks claim to take the Bible literally … but justify torture,” Dew said. “It’s the tension between the nationalistic 'do whatever is necessary’ kind of approach and a putting of the teachings of Jesus first.”

Those who seldom or never attend services had virtually the same level of opposition — just 26 percent said torture is never justified.

The survey did not include people of other faiths, such as Muslims and Jews, but Rabbi Fred Guttman of Greensboro said it saddened him, too.

“I don’t know what to make of it, but if you think of the history of western civilization, what person is the most famous person to ever be brutally tortured?” Guttman said. “The answer happens to be Jesus. I think it’s ironic the spiritual parent of a religion, who was brutally tortured himself —  that that message is not getting to the people in the pew.”

The resolution and prayer was approved by the Salem Presbytery, which does not speak for its member churches. But its affirmation does say that the group found it a reasonable request.

Dew is speaking up for the minority voice in the surveys.

“There is crime and there is punishment,” said Dew, who has also protested death-row executions. “The thing that execution does, and I would even say torture, is that it puts us in a position of having to exact absolute perfect justice. That’s why Jesus, when he found the woman caught in adultery, said anyone without sin, go ahead and throw a rock, but short of that we should drop our rocks here.”

Dew’s group wanted to do something of substance in the resolution and prayer that followed, but there were concerns that it would seem negative toward those serving in the military.

“There were a number of people, and this goes back several months, that were concerned that we were condemning our military, that our military was doing the best they could, and certainly we don’t want to put the efforts of our military down,” Dew said.

“What we want to do is put them in the best position possible to do their jobs, and asking them to carry out things like torture is not only putting them in a bad position, but putting them in a worse position if they were captured.”

Dew remembers reading a letter to the editor in which a World War II veteran wrote, “This is not what we fought for.” More recently, Dew heard former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice say that while no laws were broken, it was a horrific and scary time for all Americans, including its leadership. He doesn’t find that an acceptable excuse.

“The very definition of leadership that I often heard is that you keep your head while others around you are losing theirs,” Dew said. “I’m not saying that’s easy, but I’m saying that’s a definition of leadership that I thought was a pretty good one. I appreciate the atmosphere and the context in which all this happened. Nonetheless this is where leadership has to see the bigger picture. And when we can’t see around the bend in terms of what might happen next, that’s when we have to be guided by our principle.

“That’s why it’s even more important now that we make clear this was a serious mistake and a serious diversion from our national ideal, so when these kinds of scary things confront in the future, we will remember not to lose our head when others are losing theirs and when we can’t see what might happen next.”

He hopes that after thought and prayer, a new survey would show a different result.

“Ironically, the people who know the most about these kinds of things seem to say whatever information you get from people who have been tortured is often unreliable,” Dew said.

“I can only imagine what I would say under those circumstances.”

Contact Nancy McLaughlin at 373-7049 or nancy.mclaughlin@news-record.com
 

THE FRONT PEW

Join the discussion at The Front Pew, Nancy McLaughlin’s blog, at blog.news-record.com/staff/frontpew

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

left-wing conspiracy theorist

May 9, 2009 - 6:10 am EDT

The most disconcerting thing to me in regards to this Pew survey is that frequency of church attendance is directly proportionate to support for torture.

JParker

May 9, 2009 - 9:27 am EDT

That is sort of true. In the report mainstream Protestants had lower support for torture, though, while Evangelicals were very much more pro-torture.

Lakeshia

May 9, 2009 - 7:37 am EDT

Will Bill Clinton & Janet Reno be charged for the torture they inflicted upon the Branch Davidians?

rmacz

May 9, 2009 - 8:25 am EDT

Mclaughlin is a bias liberal who votes for Obama that funds killing babies in the name of the black church vote, and then she publishes this article about our DOD. Nancy you are a hypocrite.

Get A Clue

May 9, 2009 - 10:29 am EDT

"Dew’s group wanted to do something of substance in the resolution and prayer that followed, but there were concerns that it would seem negative toward those serving in the military."

You cannot have it both ways. Either you practice what Jesus preached and you call BS on anyone else who chooses to torture or you STFU and stop pretending your religion stands for anything other than control of your sheeple.
The Ten Commandments aren't that hard to read, or to follow. So either Jesus's philosophy is just a pleasant diversion until things get kind of rough or it is actually, "the way, the path, the light."
Unfortunately, Dew has made it quite clear where he stands. I urge him to resign his title.

wreck86

May 9, 2009 - 2:50 pm EDT

I hope this doesn't make me part of "the usual group of idiots," but is it really so easy to just dismiss waterboarding when people's lives are at stake? I understand the whole slippery slope concept, which is why I disagree with legalizing marijuana. And certainly I would think you could admit, as torture goes, waterboarding is on the light side. But I'm not sure that if I was President, I'd ever be able to live with myself knowing that I didn't pursue every means available to protect the people who elected me to protect them from zealots. There's no way that our current President or anyone elected to that office from this point on can ever say he didn't think that was part of the job description.

Perhaps there is more to this study, that alleges that these evangelical Christian hypocrites are in favor of torture more than those who aren't, than what everyone wants to believe. It seems that everyone outside of church and maybe some in it, looks for an opportunity to call a Christian a hypocrite. Miss CA comes to mind. Maybe the reason that evangelical Christians can come to grips with waterboarding terrorists to save people's lives is that we're used to having to practically apply a set of standards to our daily walks more than those who don't attend church regularly. The faith that we have is personal and while we do believe that "turning the other cheek," and "loving our enemies" are tenets that we strive towards, we don't see how forcing an entire nation to live to them is good for the individuals comprising that nation.

After 9/11, I knew that the only way to truly win would be to mourn for our lost people and forgive the terrorists. We would have won the moral advantage and the hearts, souls, and minds of the "moral" world for the next 50 years. However, I can also understand that we would have been leaving ourselves open for many more attacks on our shores and on those abroad. The problem is that there really is evil in this world and it doesn't just live in corporate boardrooms and in the DOD as many would like to believe.

I can apply the "love my enemies" rule to myself when something bad happens to me as a result of an enemy, but I can't rightly apply it to your life if it was you who would die because I "loved my enemy." Can you do so so easily?

Panacea

May 9, 2009 - 6:10 pm EDT

All we got from torturing our enemies was blowback.

People who should be our allies rose up against us (Sunni Iraqis who joined al Queda). The world at large hates us--and now we have a situation where our soldiers are going before foreign courts to account for their actions.

All because Bush outraged the world with his double talk: his goal to defeat the "Axis of Evil" by employing tactics just as abhorrent as those Saddam Hussein used. Had he followed the Geneva conventions, and sent in 1) enough troops to secure Iraq in the first place, and 2) sent in diplomats to work out a new government that included the Sunni's, then al Queda in Iraq wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.

Instead he played smash and grab with the civil liberties and lives of innocent civilians, and they joined in the fight against us. We had a golden opportunity to pacify Iraq in the first 90 days, and we blew it.

Anyone who approves of torture is not following Christ's teachings and should be ashamed. God will call these deluded souls to account.

War is one thing. Rape, murder, torture, and corruption are quite another.

rmacz

May 9, 2009 - 6:27 pm EDT

Panacea , this kind of approach does not work and never has. FDR appeased Hitler and the Japanese. Bill Cilnton had Bin Laden in Sudan, Bush kept our country safe for 7 year. Military deathes are up since last September in Iraq. Look at Israel, force works, Gaza and Lebannon were successes. Feel good polices don't. Trust but verify.

left-wing conspiracy theorist

May 10, 2009 - 1:01 am EDT

FDR appeased Hitler and the Japanese? Could you please explain?

Thanks in advance!

Kastle

May 10, 2009 - 10:01 am EDT

Waterboarding is torture. But these "enhanced" techniques go beyond waterboarding. Keep in mind, John Yoo's memos authorize anything that stops short of death or "organ failure." The photographs from Abu Ghraib tell a darker story and it is now understood that these were institutionalized procedures.

If I'm understanding wreck86 correctly; Christians support rape and torture, not for their own sake, but for mine. Thanks, but no thanks.

wreck86

May 11, 2009 - 3:44 pm EDT

I don't think that Christians necessarily support rape or torture despite what the poll may say, and I never mentioned rape in my comment. This is a catch 22 type question. I did not see the questions that were asked in the poll, so I apologize for that. But let me suggest two questions.
1) If a kidnapper was holding your child somehwere, and you feared for his life, would you support torturing that kidnapper to obtain the location of your child?
2) Do you think this country has a right to torture a citizen because we think he might have information that might stop a plot to kill Americans?
Most people I know would not hesitate to say yes to the first question, but those same people would not find it easy to give approval to the second. Does that mean they support torture, since they said yes to question 1? The way the questions are asked is everything in these cases. These two questions are extremes, but they show that the wording of the questions is critical and some people trust the government more than others.

Get A Clue

May 23, 2009 - 10:01 am EDT

wreck86,
You've unwittingly pointed out one of the major weaknesses of all organized religions' creeds: it looks good on paper, sounds good in a hymn, but when the going gets tough...the hell with it. (pun intended) Torture, rape, pillage, kill...anything to save a good fill-in-your-religion-here's soul or eradicate a soul that stands in "His" way.
There's no catch to your creed or anyone else's. Does your Bible have an asterisk next to each of the Ten Commandments? I'd always been taught the Bible was the unerring direct word of God. So either "Thou shalt not kill," or thou shalt do as thou damn well pleases so long as thou can invent twisted reasoning and convince enough voters via hate and fear-mongering that torture, rape, pillaging and murder are "ok under this very limited, specific set of circumstances which just happens to see things our way."
Life is full of messy choices. Deal.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search