The Ends Justify the Means

May 13, 2009 @ adminView Comments

I hear that mindset a lot lately. We’ve seen the mentality all too brutally clear over the last six or so years. And it is absolute nonsense if you are a disciple of Jesus.

Because of former Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent and continuous media parade defending the Bush administration’s enhanced interrogation methods, cable news shows are spending a lot of time interviewing people who land on both sides of the discussion. That discussion? Whether or not the enhanced interrogation techniques used to gain valuable national security information is in fact torture, which would be both illegal and nothing short of evil.

I listened closely to one interview in particular today on Hardball. Steve McMahon, Democratic strategist, sits on the side of calling what occurred under Bush’s watch (including water boarding) torture. Ron Christie, former Dick Cheney aid, sits on the side of calling them legal enhanced interrogation techniques. Ron very intently and quickly moved the discussion to the information gained by these tactics, and the level of safety the United States incurred during this time. Early on Steve stuck to his guns and focused on the torture itself. But as the discussion continued even he began to get wrapped up in Ron’s “the ends justify the means” mentality. Even the host (not Chris Matthews today by the way) threw in a question having to do with how Democrats will deal with the idea that eliminating the torture will make the US more vulnerable.

Whether an act is legal or not has no direct bearing on whether that act is evil or righteous. The ends do not justify the means. Because our military personnel were able to obtain information that helped stopped another possible 9/11 attack (not sure if that is the case, but there was mention of stopping other attacks on US soil) does not justify the use of torture to obtain that information. Torture is a crime. Torture is an act of evil. Remember the Spanish Inquisition. Remember the Crusades. Remember the horrible years in Reformation England under Henry VIII, Mary Tudor, Elizabeth I.

My hope is that those who call themselves disciples and followers of Jesus the Christ do not entrap themselves. Politics can have a very strong effect on people. I do not think anyone is truly immune. But who would dare stand amid other Christians and declare that torture is okay or justified? To do so would be to bring shame to the name and work and teachings of Jesus. To say what went on was not torture? Well that would be to blind yourself by your political leanings. Then you have the problem of serving two masters.

And choosing who you will serve is what this all boils down to. For example, take the average conservative evangelical who voted for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney twice, supported their work against abortion, supported the rise in faith-based initiatives during the 2000′s, and in general liked having the moral, Biblical standards return to the oval office. If they denounce torture they would have to admit that former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, and the leaders of the administration (including Rice, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, and so forth), committed grave atrocities against other human beings who were created in God’s image. And if they either accept torture as something of a justifiable act or even find Scriptural support for it, or if they deny the existence of torture at all and side with the euphemism enhanced interrogation, then how can they in any way be serving and following Jesus period?

The ends do not justify the means. There is no justification for torturing another human being. And no Christian can ever support such activity. I believe as these interviews and investigations continue we will soon hear news that torture was in fact perpetrated, and the members of the former Bush administration will begin to see charges filed against individuals. I also believe far too many Christians will have their political blinders on and continue in either their denial or their abject support for the Bush administration’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques. And all to the detriment of the name of Jesus.

Your comments are entirely welcome and sought after. I want the dialogue to continue within the Christian community. Hopefully we can grow and learn from each other, and then have that extend to our local communities.

  • admin
    Mary, thank you so much for leaving your thoughts.

    Hopefully you've also taken a few minutes to fill out the Christians and Torture survey: http://bit.ly/TrY68

    I, as a Christian, believe that our government has the right to employ tactics, even enhanced interrogation techniques, that will allow it to fulfill its obligations under the Constitution to the people it governs and that the Bible according to Romans 13 establishes that right.


    I have to disagree. The torture or enhanced interrogation was illegal and, in the eyes of any Christian (at least I don't see yet how Christians could say differently), a reprehensible way to treat other humans created in God's image. Paul gave no such indication in his letter to the Romans that torturing people was alright. That's not how far the sword extended.
  • Mary
    I believe God has given governments the right to use the sword ( Romans 13:1-7) for His purposes to bring justice to the nations and to defend the weak. If that sword is used to extract information that might save a nation from terrorism then so be it.

    "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established...
    But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." Romans 13:4

    Whether or not the US is a Christian nation is of no real importance according to Romans 13. It is instituted by God and for this time is also the superpower on the planet. Praise God it is still concerned with justice for the most part.
    We are an instrument of justice and a defender of those who cannot defend themselves. The US government's main job according to the preamble of the Constitution is
    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    Establish Justice
    justice
    1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
    2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
    3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
    4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
    5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
    6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
    7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.
    8. a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate.
    9. (initial capital letter) Also called Justice Department. the Department of Justice.
    —Idioms
    10. bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds: The murderer was brought to justice.
    11. do justice,
    a. to act or treat justly or fairly.
    b. to appreciate properly: We must see this play again to do it justice.
    c. to acquit in accordance with one's abilities or potentialities: He finally got a role in which he could do himself justice as an actor.

    I believe that enemy nations can be brought to justice as well as individuals.


    Insure Domestic Tranquility: (according to http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html)
    One of the concerns of the Framers was that the government prior to that under the Constitution was unable, by force or persuasion, to quell rebellion or quarrels amongst the states. The government watched in horror as Shay's Rebellion transpired just before the Convention, and some states had very nearly gone to war with each other over territory (such as between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over Wilkes-Barre). One of the main goals of the Convention, then, was to ensure the federal government had powers to squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states.

    Me: I'll bet it could be said that it also includes the rights of the governed to be defended against terrorist attacks.


    Provide for the common defense pretty much says that the government is responsible for defending its citizens against enemies foreign and domestic.

    I, as a Christian, believe that our government has the right to employ tactics, even enhanced interrogation techniques, that will allow it to fulfill its obligations under the Constitution to the people it governs and that the Bible according to Romans 13 establishes that right.

    Sincerely,
    Mary.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Latest News Stream

© 2010 Schleitheim.