Response to Rhodes: The legitimacy of torture

by Blake Bozarth

While I truly respect the efforts of passionate Christians to remind believers that our commitment is to Christ before it is to our President or even our nation, I am strongly opposed to and disturbed by the specific critique levied by Mr. Rhodes in the February 21 edition of The Bagpipe. In his article “Waterboarding on a Clean Conscience,” Mr. Rhodes faults Christians for “blindly supporting” “Dubya” in his efforts to keep certain “enhanced interrogation techniques” (admittedly, torture) available under restricted conditions to the people who are charged with protecting our nation.

He suggests that torture is always wrong, no matter the circumstances. He gives two arguments in support of this universal statement: one, Christians are supposed to love others more than we do ourselves, and two, we should remember that all people are made in the image of God. While true, it is my opinion that these arguments provide very little support to the aforementioned universal claim, instead lending their support to a just use of torture.

For those who oppose torture under any circumstances, do you believe in the biblical principle of just war? Do you believe the killings and the horrific injuries caused in a just war to be morally permissible? Perhaps more applicable, do you support the biblical principle of the death penalty for guilty murderers? Assuming you answer yes to any of these questions, you have acknowledged that circumstances exist in which harm to others (who bear God’s image) is morally justified – i.e. hurting men who kill innocents.

To be clear, this is not meant to legitimize torture under any circumstance, and a Machiavellian approach could conceivably justify torture to achieve any good end which is certainly not biblically sound. So, can torture be used immorally (i.e. on people whose guilt is unsure)? Absolutely. Can war be waged immorally? Absolutely. Does this mean we as Christians should be universally opposed to war? Of course not. Rather, the knowledge that war and torture can be misused should simply cause us to be ever so careful in determining their just application.

Instead of being overly critical of certain American Christians for their patriotism, I think emphasis should be placed on encouraging believers to develop a deeper understanding of what it means to love others and to respect the image of God found in all persons. When the lives of innocent Americans (the people our government is obligated to protect) depend on information held only by a captured terrorist, it is nonsense to declare it immoral for our protectors to cause said person pain in order to obtain it. And rather than it being in violation of Christian love to harm a terrorist for the purpose of protecting innocent people (be they American or not), I argue that it is a morally permissible demonstration of love to value the well-being of others (who also happen to be made in the image of God) by frustrating the plans of wicked men to do them harm.