Posts in "Vance"

By Matt Cockerill at 11:14AM

Dec 17, 2009

Anti-State and Anti-War

It's obvious that there are some folks who think the anti-war stuff is just "for kicks," or that anti-war bloggers are just being "contrarian for the sake of it."

But for me, it just comes down to a consistent interpretation of classical liberalism, individualism, and natural rights. Individuals are infinitely valuable; our lives mean something and nobody can tell us we don't have a right to them. But the other side of the token is that individuals are responsible for what they do; we don't excuse private crime because of bad circumstances like poor families-- so just because the troops were deceived doesn't excuse them unjustifiably killing people.

Either it's OK to maim Afghani toddlers to pursue the state's interests or it isn't. Feel free to take your stand, but don't sidetrack with the patriotism/nationalism stuff. The state loves to see its subjects "unite" on war and resort to those silly platitudes, but deep down, we all know well how irrational they are.

As for hating the troops? Puhlease. That would imply a hatred of the guy who got most of us into this movement.

Torturing the Rule of Law

From Ron Paul comes a new, brief discussion of torture:

“Enhanced interrogation” as some prefer to call it, has been used throughout history, usually by despotic governments, to cruelly punish or to extract politically useful statements from prisoners. Governments that do these things invariably bring shame on themselves. In addition, information obtained under duress is incredibly unreliable, which is why it is not admissible in a court of law.

Vance on the Morality of Torture

Laurence Vance, a man who has shaped my faith possibly more so than CS Lewis, writes another great lewrockwell.com piece that attacks the sacred cow of Christians blind allegiance to the military, it’s wars and…it’s use of torture.

Vance writes extensively on the subject, but the case he makes here is an interesting one: situational ethics.

Waterboard an A-rab for Jesus

Laurence Vance comments on the many problems with Christian -- let alone American -- support for torture. Large percentages of American Christians find torture justified under certain circumstances, and it is statistically likely that at least some of the government employees who have engaged in torture in recent years would call themselves Christians. Vance asks:

Can a Christian waterboard an A-rab for Jesus? For the Christian, there is no other way to do it. The Bible says: "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him" (Colossians 3:17). It also says that whatsoever we do, we should "do it heartily, as to the Lord" (Colossians 3:23). We should do everything "to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31). Can a Christian smash someone against a wall in the name of the Lord Jesus? Can a Christian heartily lock someone in a dark box for hours at a time? Can a Christian deprive someone of sleep to the glory of God? Can a Christian give thanks to God while he hangs someone from the ceiling? Sure he can, but not without violating the whole tenor of the New Testament.

Vance argues that part of the evangelical community's acceptance of torture is brought about by its devotion to the Republican Party as the "party of God," as it were. He devotes less attention to the implied relativism or even hegelian historicism found in applying the phrase "advanced interrogation technique" to waterboarding when we do it and calling it torture when anyone else is responsible, but I would argue that this is just as significant a commentary on modern American Christianity, as well as those who simply consider themselves conservatives interested in truth and justice. Read the rest here.

Posted in: