Torture

[zone]

So, are you saying, with "Rev." Jeremiah Wright, "God damn America!"?
America is not the Kingdom of God, and it is not the Church that Jesus Christ founded.
That does not mean it is not blessed and anointed of God. Every nation that has at least a remnant of true Christians is blessed and anointed of God. We have so many Christians here with competing traditions all living in peace with each other. That doesn't happen in many other places. In Israel it's even considered illegal by the Jewish authorities to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
PS: By the way, not all the people we nuked in Japan were innocent. Some were fighting against the United States. Hiroshima and Nagasaki would never have happened if Japan hadn't attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tragedies, but who can judge what we did but God? We saved millions of Japanese lives which would have been lost if we had used conventional weapons. The nukes brought the war to a just and fair end. Failing to use them would have meant we would have killed more innocent people, and that would have been worse than what we actually did. Relatively few people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hitler and Stalin killed many more innocent people than the USA did in Japan.

what???

we go by civilian casualty numbers?
japan had already surrendered.
and those were CATHOLIC cities.
pearl harbour was A FALSE FLAG just like stupid 9-11.

stop the propaganda scott - it's the worst of all choices. jonathan is right.

~

We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that one way or another.

-J. Robert Oppenheimer

Julius Robert Oppenheimer[note 1] (April 22, 1904 – February 18, 1967)[1] was an American theoretical physicist and professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley. He is often called the "father of the atomic bomb" for his role in the Manhattan Project, the World War II project that developed the first nuclear weapons.[2] The first atomic bomb was detonated on July 16, 1945 in the Trinity test in New Mexico; Oppenheimer remarked later that it brought to mind words from the Bhagavad Gita: "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."[note 2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer

 

[jonathanbchristian]

So, are you saying, with "Rev." Jeremiah Wright, "God damn America!"?
America is not the Kingdom of God, and it is not the Church that Jesus Christ founded.
That does not mean it is not blessed and anointed of God. Every nation that has at least a remnant of true Christians is blessed and anointed of God. We have so many Christians here with competing traditions all living in peace with each other. That doesn't happen in many other places. In Israel it's even considered illegal by the Jewish authorities to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
PS: By the way, not all the people we nuked in Japan were innocent. Some were fighting against the United States. Hiroshima and Nagasaki would never have happened if Japan hadn't attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tragedies, but who can judge what we did but God? We saved millions of Japanese lives which would have been lost if we had used conventional weapons. The nukes brought the war to a just and fair end. Failing to use them would have meant we would have killed more innocent people, and that would have been worse than what we actually did. Relatively few people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hitler and Stalin killed many more innocent people than the USA did in Japan.

I don't think you understand that we killed civilians. No I don't say God dawn America, but I am sick of all these Self-righteous TV shows about saving civilians and the American way as the saviour of the World. We did something like Stalin and Hitler and people don't understand that we could do that again. We could honestly be living in the same society as people who did the worst thing in History. Without people who keep nukes from being used, we are the most dangerous country in the World, to civilian people. Women and children and everyday people were killed in a horrible way and we celebrate the end of WW2 like we are heros. For the record Japan bombed a military target. We bombed two cities! We say we don't kill innocient people but we did! Bombing those cities is bigger than 9/11. For the record I don't believe the people who made the decision to nuke were Christians at all! I don't believe that President was really born again or any of the people who gave the "go-ahead". We as Christians should realize we are not here to do war with people we are here to do spiritual warfare.

 

[Elizabeth619]

If someone has already posted these scriptures, sorry.

"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also... You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, Matthew 5:38-39, 43-44


In other words....let God handle it.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Hmmm. Sometimes I would say it is necessary, but the type of torture ultimately decides if it's justified or not. Causing temporary discomfort by waterboarding or some other method may be morally permissible in certain situations, but things like the medieval rack wouldn't.

This seems in stark contradiction with what the United States Council of Catholic Bishops seems to say based on a document I found.

Quote:
Today, “the Church's position on interrogational torture is absolute: It may never again be used,” Jesuit Father John Perry wrote in a February 2006 article published by Catholic News Service. While the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it clear that torture is a grave sin which violates the Fifth Commandment (No. 2297), Father Perry noted that “sadly, our current position does not reflect a long, robust tradition against torture.” He said that “for centuries the Inquisition used torture in the course of interrogations when judicial inconsistencies existed,” and some 17th century writers on moral issues “devoted many pages in their treatises on torture to discussion of procedural questions,"
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/TortureIsA...StudyGuide.pdf <--- click

So who is wrong?

 

[jimmydiggs]

So, are you saying, with "Rev." Jeremiah Wright, "God damn America!"?

Dunno whether God has or hasn't, but would you object if God did?

Are we letting our nationalism supercede Christ?

 

[SantoSubito]

I don't know what the USCCB would consider torture, so I can not say. Do they mean literal torture? Or do they include things like scaring prisoners by having attack dogs bark and snarl at them? Do they include solitary confinement and sleep deprivation as torture?

 

[jimmydiggs]

I don't know what the USCCB would consider torture, so I can not say. Do they mean literal torture? Or do they include things like scaring prisoners by having attack dogs bark and snarl at them? Do they include solitary confinement and sleep deprivation as torture?

I believe this would be the relevant portion of the Artical.

Torture is much discussed and debated today in the media and in the courts. Questions have been raised, even in cartoons, as to how to define torture, and what constitutes torture. Some argue over what constitutes &#8220;cruel and inhumane,&#8221; while others say, &#8220;I&#8217;ll know it when I see it.&#8221; And some, who might have dismissed a given practice as torture, have quickly changed their minds when it was done to them.
The 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture defines torture as &#8220;any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person&#8221; to obtain information or a confession, and where such an act is allowed by a public official. The International Red Cross defines torture as &#8220;existence of a specific purpose plus intentional infliction of severe suffering or pain.&#8221; Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits that prisoners of war be subjected to &#8220;violence to life and person, in particular &#8230; mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, . . .outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.&#8221; But what does our faith say about torture?
Catholic social teaching today opposes torture in the treatment of any detained or imprisoned person. For the Church is convinced that every human person bears a God-given dignity; respect for that dignity must always be present. The Church also is careful to point out that torture is illegal, prohibited under international law.
Pope Benedict XVI talked about this in September 2007, when he addressed an international congress of Catholic prison ministers. &#8220;Means of punishment or correction that either undermine or debase the human dignity of prisoners&#8221; must be eschewed by public authorities, he said. Immediately he added the following statement, which incorporates a quote taken from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church: &#8220;The prohibition against torture &#8216;cannot be contravened under any circumstances&#8217;&#8221; (No. 404).

Also, do you condemn or condone any past actions initiated by the RCC which induced torture? Such as the Spanish Iniqusition?

EDIT: Instead of condone, promote/justify. Obviously you can't condone past events that you would have been much too young to partake in.

.............

Before long complaints of grievous abuses reached Rome, and were only too well founded. In a Brief of Sixtus IV of 29 January 1482, they were blamed for having, upon the alleged authority of papal Briefs, unjustlyimprisoned many people, subjected them to cruel tortures, declared them false believers, and sequestrated the property of the executed. They were at first admonished to act only in conjunction with the bishops, and finally were threatened with deposition, and would indeed have been deposed had not Their Majesties interceded for them.


..................


The procedure, on the other hand, was substantially the same as that already described. Here, too, a "term of grace" of thirty to forty days was invariably granted, and was often prolonged. Imprisonment resulted only when unanimity had been arrived at, or the offence had been proved. Examination of the accused could take place only in the presence of two disinterested priests, whose obligation it was to restrain any arbitrary act in their presence the protocol had to be read out twice to the accused. The defence lay always in the hands of a lawyer. The witnesses, although unknown to the accused, were sworn, and very severe punishment, even death, awaited falsewitnesses, (cf. Brief of Leo X of 14 December, 1518). Torture was applied only too frequently and too cruelly, but certainly not more cruelly than under Charles V's system of judicial torture in Germany.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Inquisition <--- click

No wishy-washy answers plox.

 

[needmesomejesus]

I don't believe torture is ever justified. The Bible does not directly talk about torture. All I know for government issues its up to the Government which is why we need to pray for our government officials to make the right decisions. As for torture for people who have wronged us. Let God take care of them. Deuteronomy 32:35 I will take revenge; I will pay them back. In due time their feet will slip. Their day of disaster will arrive, and their destiny will overtake them.'

 

[Katy-follower]

Hebrews 7:25-27: &#8220;Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people&#8217;s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself&#8221;


[FONT=&quot]In other words, Jesus is the high priest we need. He is holy and innocent and faultless, and not at all like us sinners. Jesus is honored above all beings in heaven, and he is better than any other high priest. Jesus doesn't need to offer sacrifices each day for his own sins and then for the sins of the people. He offered a sacrifice once for all, when he gave himself.[/FONT]

 

[Dude653]

Just make them watch Barny................

 

[Megatron]

By July 1945, the Allies were ready to put the kibosh on the war in Japan. So they issued the Potsdam Declaration, demanding the unconditional surrender of Japan and threatening "utter destruction." Then the Allies waited like a sixth-grader waiting for his first "Do you like me?" response.

Aw, isn't that so sweet?​

Unsurprisingly, Japanese reporters were pretty eager to find out what the official government response was going to be, and consequently they bugged Japanese Premier Kantaro Suzuki nonstop for a statement. Eventually, Suzuki caved in, called a news conference and said the equivalent of, "No comment. We're still thinking about it." The reporters had to go back unsatisfied, the Japanese government eventually came to a decision and told the U.S., and everything worked out fine.

​

As you may have guessed, that isn't what happened, and it's all because Suzuki used the word "mokusatsu" as his "no comment" response. The problem is, "mokusatsu" can also mean "we're ignoring it in contempt," and that translation was what was relayed back to the American government. After the steam stopped coming out of Harry Truman's ears, the U.S. revealed the real reason it issued the Potsdam Declaration by dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima 10 days after Suzuki's comment, and then again on Nagasaki three days later.

Via Wikimedia Commons​

America doesn't sweat the details.​

It's worth noting that if Suzuki had just fully explained himself and said, "Let me get back with you on that," none of this would have happened. But whether it's a politician's poor word choice or a translator's failure to read down to the alternate definitions of a word, the only translation the Americans got was, "Japan has just issued the most ill-advised 'Bring it on' ever made."

 

[jimmydiggs]

By July 1945, the Allies were ready to put the kibosh on the war in Japan. So they issued the Potsdam Declaration, demanding the unconditional surrender of Japan and threatening "utter destruction." Then the Allies waited like a sixth-grader waiting for his first "Do you like me?" response.

Aw, isn't that so sweet?​

Unsurprisingly, Japanese reporters were pretty eager to find out what the official government response was going to be, and consequently they bugged Japanese Premier Kantaro Suzuki nonstop for a statement. Eventually, Suzuki caved in, called a news conference and said the equivalent of, "No comment. We're still thinking about it." The reporters had to go back unsatisfied, the Japanese government eventually came to a decision and told the U.S., and everything worked out fine.


As you may have guessed, that isn't what happened, and it's all because Suzuki used the word "mokusatsu" as his "no comment" response. The problem is, "mokusatsu" can also mean "we're ignoring it in contempt," and that translation was what was relayed back to the American government. After the steam stopped coming out of Harry Truman's ears, the U.S. revealed the real reason it issued the Potsdam Declaration by dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima 10 days after Suzuki's comment, and then again on Nagasaki three days later.

Via Wikimedia Commons​

​

America doesn't sweat the details.​

It's worth noting that if Suzuki had just fully explained himself and said, "Let me get back with you on that," none of this would have happened. But whether it's a politician's poor word choice or a translator's failure to read down to the alternate definitions of a word, the only translation the Americans got was, "Japan has just issued the most ill-advised 'Bring it on' ever made."

(copypasta imported from: http://www.cracked.com/article_19120_6-mistranslations-that-changed-world_p2.html)

Scripture por favor.

 

[_Centurion_]

Imagine the same scenario, terrorist/nuclear bomb, but instead of torture insert instead adultery, abortion, blasphemy, worship pagan gods, homosexualily, etc, etc.

In short, torture is never justified, this why we in the west have totally lost our way - if you compromise what your defending youve already lost.

Let justice be done tho the world perish.

When you can denounce Christ to save some american lives, perhaps I'll concede you a have the moral depth and perspective to forward such an arguement as opposed to considering you an immoral sadist.
At the end of the day morality isnt some conditional, your either for or against, if your for in my opinion your part of the problem not the solution. Morality thats conditional is nothing more than an opinion.

C.

PS Ive no idea why "muslims" have been singled out in the thread, is it just that theyre subhuman scum who arent really people or something, meh.

If torture could reveal the location of a hidden nuclear bomb that a terrorist was hiding, would you forbid torturing a Muslim terrorist, and risk the lives of thousands or millions of innocent human beings in New York City or other places where a Muslim terrorist might try to detonate a nuclear device? Would you try to be nice and kind to a Muslim terrorist who is intent on murdering millions of innocent Americans (Russians, Israelis, Italians, etc.)?
Is torture absolute forbidden under all circumstances? Do not human lives matter?
Is the right of the terrorist not to suffer torture more important than the rights of millions of American citizens not to be killed in a nuclear explosion?
Scripture neither forbids nor commands torture. Common sense says we should not try to protect a terrorist who is going to explode a nuclear bomb and not torture him because his feelings might be hurt. Short of killing him, torture is in this circumstance totally justified.

 

[jimmydiggs]

I don't know what the USCCB would consider torture, so I can not say. Do they mean literal torture? Or do they include things like scaring prisoners by having attack dogs bark and snarl at them? Do they include solitary confinement and sleep deprivation as torture?

I believe this would be the relevant portion of the Artical.

Torture is much discussed and debated today in the media and in the courts. Questions have been raised, even in cartoons, as to how to define torture, and what constitutes torture. Some argue over what constitutes &#8220;cruel and inhumane,&#8221; while others say, &#8220;I&#8217;ll know it when I see it.&#8221; And some, who might have dismissed a given practice as torture, have quickly changed their minds when it was done to them.
The 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture defines torture as &#8220;any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person&#8221; to obtain information or a confession, and where such an act is allowed by a public official. The International Red Cross defines torture as &#8220;existence of a specific purpose plus intentional infliction of severe suffering or pain.&#8221; Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits that prisoners of war be subjected to &#8220;violence to life and person, in particular &#8230; mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, . . .outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.&#8221; But what does our faith say about torture?
Catholic social teaching today opposes torture in the treatment of any detained or imprisoned person. For the Church is convinced that every human person bears a God-given dignity; respect for that dignity must always be present. The Church also is careful to point out that torture is illegal, prohibited under international law.
Pope Benedict XVI talked about this in September 2007, when he addressed an international congress of Catholic prison ministers. &#8220;Means of punishment or correction that either undermine or debase the human dignity of prisoners&#8221; must be eschewed by public authorities, he said. Immediately he added the following statement, which incorporates a quote taken from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church: &#8220;The prohibition against torture &#8216;cannot be contravened under any circumstances&#8217;&#8221; (No. 404).

Also, do you condemn or condone any past actions initiated by the RCC which induced torture? Such as the Spanish Iniqusition?

EDIT: Instead of condone, promote/justify. Obviously you can't condone past events that you would have been much too young to partake in.

.............

Before long complaints of grievous abuses reached Rome, and were only too well founded. In a Brief of Sixtus IV of 29 January 1482, they were blamed for having, upon the alleged authority of papal Briefs, unjustlyimprisoned many people, subjected them to cruel tortures, declared them false believers, and sequestrated the property of the executed. They were at first admonished to act only in conjunction with the bishops, and finally were threatened with deposition, and would indeed have been deposed had not Their Majesties interceded for them.


..................


The procedure, on the other hand, was substantially the same as that already described. Here, too, a "term of grace" of thirty to forty days was invariably granted, and was often prolonged. Imprisonment resulted only when unanimity had been arrived at, or the offence had been proved. Examination of the accused could take place only in the presence of two disinterested priests, whose obligation it was to restrain any arbitrary act in their presence the protocol had to be read out twice to the accused. The defence lay always in the hands of a lawyer. The witnesses, although unknown to the accused, were sworn, and very severe punishment, even death, awaited falsewitnesses, (cf. Brief of Leo X of 14 December, 1518). Torture was applied only too frequently and too cruelly, but certainly not more cruelly than under Charles V's system of judicial torture in Germany.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Inquisition <--- click

No wishy-washy answers plox.

 

[wwjd_kilden]

If you agree to torture another human being you do an act of evil, meaning you sin, meaning if you claim to be a christian, you should not support it, no matter what

You SAVIOUR was tortured to death!! Do you really think he supports the use of it?

 

[Strangelove]

If torture could reveal the location of a hidden nuclear bomb that a terrorist was hiding, would you forbid torturing a Muslim terrorist, and risk the lives of thousands or millions of innocent human beings in New York City or other places where a Muslim terrorist might try to detonate a nuclear device? Would you try to be nice and kind to a Muslim terrorist who is intent on murdering millions of innocent Americans (Russians, Israelis, Italians, etc.)?
Is torture absolute forbidden under all circumstances? Do not human lives matter?
Is the right of the terrorist not to suffer torture more important than the rights of millions of American citizens not to be killed in a nuclear explosion?
Scripture neither forbids nor commands torture. Common sense says we should not try to protect a terrorist who is going to explode a nuclear bomb and not torture him because his feelings might be hurt. Short of killing him, torture is in this circumstance totally justified.

Someones been watchin' too much 24.

 

[zone]

Someones been watchin' too much 24.

that's why they call it programming.

 

[Scotth1960]

torturing a Muslim terrorist
innocent human beings in New York City
other places where a Muslim terrorist
detonate a nuclear device

Would you try to be nice and kind to a Muslim terrorist
who is intent on murdering millions of innocent Americans (Russians, Israelis, Italians, etc.)?

Common sense
not try to protect a terrorist
torture him
torture is in this circumstance totally justified.

~

how can anyone believe this?
zone:muslims didn't do 9-11.
srh: False. 19 Muslim terrorists did 9-11-01.


zone:arabs are being dehumanized and demonized.
srh: Muslims who approve of violence are dehumanizing and demonizing non-Muslims. They are doing killing in the name of Islam.
Not all Muslims do this; but some actually do do this crime against humanity. Just as not all Germans were Nazis, not all Arabs are Muslim terrorists. But a too large minority of Muslims are doing the killing "in the name of allah and muhammad".




if we don't care about them why should anyone care about you?

the torture chamber is FOR YOU. dont you get it?

STOP IT.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
​

First they came for the non-Muslims, and I didn't speak out, because I believed that no Muslims whatsoever were doing any killing in the name of Islam.

 

[Abiding]

small amounts of torture wont kill anyone

 

[Scotth1960]

I don't think you understand that we killed civilians. No I don't say God dawn America, but I am sick of all these Self-righteous TV shows about saving civilians and the American way as the saviour of the World. We did something like Stalin and Hitler and people don't understand that we could do that again.
srh: Truman/America killed a few thousand Japanese citizens in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; it was nothing whatsoever at all like "Hitler and Stalin". Hitler killed at least 20 million, and Stalin killed at least 60 million. Did America ever murder millions of innocent people? No!
Too many people hate America, and love liberalism more than they love Jesus Christ.


We could honestly be living in the same society as people who did the worst thing in History. Without people who keep nukes from being used, we are the most dangerous country in the World, to civilian people. Women and children and everyday people were killed in a horrible way and we celebrate the end of WW2 like we are heros. For the record Japan bombed a military target. We bombed two cities! We say we don't kill innocient people but we did! Bombing those cities is bigger than 9/11. For the record I don't believe the people who made the decision to nuke were Christians at all! I don't believe that President was really born again or any of the people who gave the "go-ahead". We as Christians should realize we are not here to do war with people we are here to do spiritual warfare.

Don't forget what JAPAN did at PEARL HARBOR! The Japanese people should have risen up and overthrown their fascist government!
The Japanese people were hardly totally innocent!
If it's okay to hold the South culpable for slavery in America, they it is perfectly okay to hold the Japanese people culpable for what the Japanese military did at Pearl Harbor!