The longer I live, the more I recognize how few people think through their beliefs and actions. It’s as if folks have so compartmentalized their own knowledge, values, and behaviors that it’s quite okay if there’s a complete disconnect between them. In a reasonable culture one would expect a congruency flowing from affirmation to action. More often than not I find inconsistency.
Take for example Christians, the born again types who think that government sponsored torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) is perfectly acceptable. Generally, evangelicals uphold faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. They tend to affirm the authority of the Bible and especially the teachings of Christ. How can these same Christians endorse the use of torture against our enemies? God says love, bless, pray for, and do good to your enemies. Torture is in direct opposition to God’s explicit word, yet, if (conservative) government says it’s okay, evangelicals loudly voice their approval. Isn’t there an inconsistency here?
I think the problem may be with how Christians view law. There are basically two camps regarding what does and does not constitute law in our nation. On the one hand there’s the natural rights theory of law. Advocates of this view confess that our Creator invested each human being with the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. The role of law is to protect the natural rights of man. According this theory the only responsibility of government is to pass and execute laws that protect natural rights and judge between men with fairness in this regard. This was the perspective of our Founding Fathers, as is evident in an honest reading of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
The other camp is called legal positivism. This view says that law is whatever the government decides it will be. In other words, people who are elected to, placed in, or attain by force a position of authority have the right to decide what is and is not law. This is the prevailing understanding of law in America today. It’s easy to see the flaw of legal positivism. Authority could actually (and does) pass laws which deprive people of life, liberty, and property and a legal positivist would have to affirm that it’s just no matter the context. It is this pragmatic view of law that opened the door for acceptance of torture.
Let’s think about this for a second. Which perspective on law would a rational person expect Christians to adopt? Natural rights would be my guess. How then do we make sense of evangelicals saying torture is right when the (conservative) government says its okay? It’s nothing less than the affirmation of legal positivism, which Christians abhor when such legal decisions flow from a liberal administration. If it’s okay for Bush to order the torture of terrorist suspects though it violates God’s clear commands, why not affirm Obama’s advocacy of abortion rights and stem cell research though such practices violate God’s word too? Do you see the inconsistency? I conclude that in the minds of many born again Christians God’s word and the GOP’s word are the same.
I started thinking about this after hearing the comments of Jesse “The Body” Ventura on Fox and Friends. He expressed opposition to torture more eloquently than I have yet heard it conveyed. He reasoned that we’re a nation under law and that we’re better than the terrorists and should not use their techniques. I wholeheartedly agreed with Jesse on his points. I don’t think 9/11 was an inside job as he hinted, but his comments on torture hit the nail on the head. Ventura brings a much needed libertarian opinion to the table. He believes that the natural rights of man exclude a government from inflicting torture.
As the program continued, however, Jesse let slip a perspective that I not only disagreed with, but felt conflicts with a libertarian view of natural rights theory. Somehow the conversation turned to the dreaded Swine Flu. At this point, Jesse seized an opportunity to call evolution deniers idiots because the current strain of influenza “proves” evolutionary theory.
He’s wrong of course. For the most part a virus is a chunk of protein. When new strains arise it is evidence of mutation, not evolution. A new species has not resulted from a previously existing species. It’s questionable whether a virus can even be classified as “alive.” They do not respire (breathe) or consume water and nutrients like true organisms. They do reproduce but only by binding with the genetic material of host cells. Viral change is more akin to the tweaking of a strand of protein than evolution of a species as scientists typically describe it.
Not only did Jesse reveal a misunderstanding of science and a dislike for people of faith, but also a glaring inconstancy in his worldview. If he affirms evolutionary theory, how can he simultaneously maintain a libertarian political ideology? Libertarians promote law based on natural rights. There must be a Creator if natural rights are anything more than a human construct. Evolution and creation are incompatible theories. Evolutionary theory says that blind, random, undirected, natural processes over eons of time produced life as we know it on this planet. Creationism says that a purposeful God directed the formation of the universe, the existence of living things on Earth, and the creation of mankind in His image. Natural law flows logically from a creationist perspective. Legal positivism arises more easily from an evolutionary paradigm.
For Jesse to be consistent with his confession of evolution and hatred for creation he should reject natural rights and libertarianism. The torture which he rightly abhors fits nicely into an evolutionary perspective. After all, the stronger, smarter, well-adapted creatures survive in his chosen scheme. In this case, the evolutionarily superior Americans should torture and eliminate inferior ethnic and religious groups from which terrorists arise. Isn’t that survival of the fittest? Domination by the powerful is the logical outworking of evolution, not natural rights.
I find libertarianism to be extremely consistent with a Christian worldview. I can affirm natural rights because I believe we were all created in God’s image. The Bible tells me to love my neighbor and love my enemies. Libertarianism promotes the same agenda in political and economic spheres. The scriptures say that mankind is inherently sinful. Libertarians insist that free markets without the constraints of government intervention provide the best means for sinners to interact with and serve one another outside of a religious faith. A nation governed by natural rights theory of law would ensure that Christians (along with people of any faith) be able to live a quiet life, love and serve their neighbors, worship their God, and proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ without “lording it over” unbelievers through legislation.
Jesse “The Body,” I admire your political views, wrestling skills, and acting ability (“I ain’t got time to bleed” was a classic!), but your inconsistent philosophy needs some work.
2 comments:
I see no inconsistency between being a Christian and affirming the government's right to use methods of interrogation such as torture. Allow me to elaborate.
We find that the Old and New testaments are written with vastly different directions, and I believe this explains the mode by which Christ openly contradicts some of the Old Testament laws (the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth principle) and yet also gives us the statement that not one jot of the law will be revoked, ever.
When reading the Bible, you'll notice that the Old Testament is addressed to the Israelite theocracy, its laws were addressed to the government of the nation of Israel and were largely enforced and monitored by its rulers. The New Testament, on the other hand, is addressed to the individual Christian, providing instruction for the body of Christ as to how to live in an unfriendly world.
The major distinction is this: historically God has given Law more power than Man, as Law is a force greater than Man; Law is the great leveler of Men. The upholders of the Law (i.e. government) have been granted the power to act in the name of the law, because the law is formless, it cannot arbitrate itself. Therefore the men who are granted the power to carry out the law have the right to uphold its punishments, including the death penalty.
If an individual were to kill someone (in any situation other than self defense), that would be murder. The individual man is not granted the power of the law, and he is not granted the power to take liberties reserved for a higher entity than man. The New Testament's commandments of love and peace are wonderful guidance for the individual, but if a government were to behave in such a manner it would be destroyed.
Nowhere in history has a nation governed by the ideals of the New Testament existed (or if one did, it didn't last long enough to be recorded), not even in ancient Israel. In fact, there were times throughout the Old Testament that God punished Israel for NOT eradicating their enemies.
Sadly, unlike the battle between good and evil, the wars of nations are not as clearly black and white. It can be hard to say sometimes who is truly wrong and who is truly right, for often it is not merely that simple. However, what I think can be established is that, in the face of disaster, if the suffering or death of one can save the lives of many, be it administered by the proper powers, I believe it can be justified.
Thanks for your thoughtful post. Here's my take ...
Landon: “The New Testament, on the other hand, is addressed to the individual Christian, providing instruction for the body of Christ as to how to live in an unfriendly world.”
Generally speaking this is true. However, Romans 13 grants the government the authority to punish evildoers and reward the righteous. Nowhere is government authorized to torture. Nor do we see God advocate it use at any point in the Bible.
He does command justice on the part of rulers. This includes the death penalty for murder, punishment for crime, and restitution for victims when possible. Torture of war captives does not fit within this prescribed role.
Landon: “I see no inconsistency between being a Christian and affirming the government's right to use methods of interrogation such as torture.”
Personally, I can’t understand how a Christian could ever support torture under any circumstances. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” seems to me to leave no wiggle room for the believer. If we are to love our enemy as God loves those who hate Him, how could we ever advocate government’s use of torture against another human being?
Landon: “However, what I think can be established is that, in the face of disaster, if the suffering or death of one can save the lives of many, be it administered by the proper powers, I believe it can be justified.”
How can it be established? Did the torture of the two Arabs actually save lives? No. It accomplished nothing. Torture victims say whatever they think will appease their victimizers to stop the pain. Has the use of torture ever genuinely resulted in saved lives? It’s more of an excuse to brutalize other human beings.
What if we apply the same logic to our enemies? We invaded Vietnam. They captured and tortured our soldiers. Using the logic above the Vietcong, the ruling authority in the area, was perfectly justified in mutilating our men to save the lives of their own people.
The frightful thing about this perspective is that it gives government carte blanche to use whatever means necessary to “protect” us. The problem with this line of thinking is that inherently sinful men are given the power to make such decisions. What they view as for the good of the people inevitably oppresses the certain other people. Hitler said that the extermination of the Jews was to protect and purify the German race. He’s an extreme example, but that’s the slippery slope your argument is headed down.
In addition to the above points, I challenge you to reassess who or what constitutes the authority of the United States. The government is not our nation’s highest authority. The Constitution is the highest authority of law. Amendment 8 of that document states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Torture, enhanced interrogation techniques, or whatever the powers that be want to call it clearly violates the highest authority of law in our nation.
The argument might be made that war captives do not have the rights of citizens, but this would be an error. According to the Declaration of Independence, another authoritative document: “… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The purpose of the Constitution is not to grant rights, but to protect the God-given rights of all individuals. It prohibits the government from inflicting “cruel and unusual punishments.” In other words, all men have a God-given right (or natural right to take the supernatural out) not to be tortured.
Post a Comment