Is torture ever justified? The answer is clear to American believers – but for some that answer is clearly “yes,” for others it is definitely “no.” And that stark moral divide is shaping a debate that is growing more intense even years after the first revelations of prisoner abuse.
The arguments are fueled in part by the Obama administration’s release of graphic Bush-era documents related to what some called “enhanced interrogation,” and also by the lobbying of religious groups and others who are demanding a national accounting of what they say was government-sanctioned torture.
Others say the tactics were not torture, while still another camp argues that even if the abuse was inappropriate or amounted to torture, pursuing the issue will only divide the nation further.
The questions are manifold: What constitutes torture? What do faith traditions say? And how should the nation deal with the legacy of abuse? Criminal trials? Congressional inquiries? Reconciliation commissions?
The religious dimension of the furor is set out in a new Pew Forum survey showing that nearly half of Americans (49 percent) agree that torture can often or sometimes be justified to gain information from suspected terrorists. And the more often people attend church, the more likely they are to say that torture can be justified. Among those who attend at least once a week, 54 percent say it is often or sometimes justified. And the rate is highest among white evangelical Protestants, with 62 percent saying it is sometimes or often justified. In a follow-up analysis, Pew researchers noted that religion is just one of several factors influencing views on torture. The political divide–64 percent of Republicans say torture can be often or sometimes justified, compared with 36 percent of Democrats–is wider than any religious split, for example.
Still, the findings present an interesting dichotomy: Church leaders across the spectrum reject the use of torture as “morally intolerable,” in the words of U.S. Catholic bishops. Theologians in various denominations – from Martin Marty, a Lutheran and pre-eminent religion commentator, to David Gushee, a Baptist professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University – have bemoaned the survey’s findings.
The National Religious Campaign Against Torture has a long list of like-minded clergy, including mainline Protestants, Jews and Muslims. And the activist group Evangelicals for Human Rights in 2006 issued “An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture.” The statement was endorsed in 2007 by the board of the National Association of Evangelicals.
This month, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, a leading Christian conservative and a supporter of former President George W. Bush, said that waterboarding – one of the most controversial tactics – is torture, and he condemned it and all forms of torture. But Land also said that President Barack Obama’s decision to release some Bush-era documents authorizing the techniques was wrong because it could lead to investigations that could “rip the country apart.”
Yet for many Christians in the pews (there are no statistically useful surveys of Jews and Muslims), torture is acceptable in some circumstances. As commentators have pointed out, white evangelicals are also disproportionately Republican, and they were among Bush’s most ardent supporters, even as he and Vice President Dick Cheney called for the use of harsh interrogation techniques.
To some, the issue is basic: The shadow of Sept. 11, 2001, still looms large in the public imagination, and support for torture may reflect an ongoing desire to defend the country from another attack. Some even point to the popularity of television shows like Fox’s 24, featuring the agent Jack Bauer, who regularly uses torture to extract useful information – which experts say does not correspond to real-world results.
But theologians and ethicists are apt to probe deeper. Is this a case where situational ethics and principled moral guidelines collide? Are evangelicals dualists who see the world careening between good and evil? Or have church members simply confused patriotism with faith? All these are powerful questions to explore.
Resources
The National Religious Campaign Against Torture is sponsoring an effort to establish an independent torture commission.
Leaders of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which lobbies for a progressive social justice agenda, issued a statement on May 6, 2009, calling on Obama to support an independent torture commission.
Faithful America is an online community of religious social justice advocates that was started in 2004 to raise money for an advertisement on Arabic-language satellite television expressing regret to Muslims for the Abu Ghraib abuses. Faithful America has since expanded its agenda. On May 7, 2009, the National Day of Prayer, the group launched a Web page, Torture Lament, to unite believers in a prayer of confession and repentance.
Read a May 11, 2009, “Sightings” column by Martin Marty that follows up on his earlier essay on torture and churchgoers; it includes a response from David Neff of Christianity Today.
Read a May 6, 2009, Religion News Service story, “War can be justified. What about torture?”
Read a May 5, 2009, Religion News Service story (posted at the Pew Forum site), “Southern Baptists’ top ethicist calls waterboarding ‘torture,’ “ about Richard Land’s statements.
Read a May 1, 2009, National Catholic Reporter story about a rally of human rights activists in Washington, D.C., to support a criminal inquiry.
ReligionLink editions
An October 2007 ReligionLink edition on the torture debate will help you find experts in your area and a wealth of online resources to explore.
A September 2007 ReligionLink edition, “The science of evil: ‘bad barrels’ or ‘bad apples’?” also has resources and experts to address the topic.
