rodheadlee Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) I heard something about it but didn't know he quit the churchhttp://seattletimes....7_bishop19.htmlThat article does not say he quit the Church or his calling.edited to add a friendly CFR that he quit the Church or his calling. Edited October 27, 2012 by rodheadlee
The Nehor Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 Would God have known about it? Why would He make such a calling if He knew about it?Yes. I do not know why God does many things. I could see him calling someone who needs to repent to help them repent or to bring the misdeeds to the attention of those who need to know. 1
volgadon Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 That article does not say he quit the Church or his calling.edited to add a friendly CFR that he quit the Church or his calling.I think Duncan might have taken the title and OP of the thread to mean "quit the church."
The Nehor Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 Maybe he weighed the lives saved against the short term discomfort of a few terrorists.I hate this kind of thinking. Torture is not short-term discomfort. It is a psychological assault with long-term effects. In some cases it destroys or violently alters personalities. I can see cases where it is necessary but we should show it proper respect. It is not a utilitarian thing that myou use and no real harm done. It is a kind of psychological rape with effects very similar to. Actual rape. 3
volgadon Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 I hate this kind of thinking. Torture is not short-term discomfort. It is a psychological assault with long-term effects. In some cases it destroys or violently alters personalities. I can see cases where it is necessary but we should show it proper respect. It is not a utilitarian thing that myou use and no real harm done. It is a kind of psychological rape with effects very similar to. Actual rape.Very well said. I also find it a far worse assault on free agency than socialised medicine.
ERayR Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 What I find interesting and repugnant is the way that some who have not been the recipients of the pain and horror of a terrorist attack. Those who had no family or friends in the 9-11 attacks nor who have not had children blown up by bombs can sit here and condemn those who find it their lot to fight on the front lines of that battle. How can you plop your backsides in a soft chair in a comfortable, safe home and write condemnation to those who have kept the horrors of terror from your doors. Come out of your nirvana, open your eyes and see the world around you. 3
Mark Beesley Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 Maybe he weighed the lives saved against the short term discomfort of a few terrorists.Sure. It's always better to trust in the arm of flesh than in God. I could be mistaken, but I am reasonably certain that the Lord would never condone the use of torture for any purpose. Period. 2
Mark Beesley Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 What I find interesting and repugnant is the way that some who have not been the recipients of the pain and horror of a terrorist attack. Those who had no family or friends in the 9-11 attacks nor who have not had children blown up by bombs can sit here and condemn those who find it their lot to fight on the front lines of that battle. How can you plop your backsides in a soft chair in a comfortable, safe home and write condemnation to those who have kept the horrors of terror from your doors. Come out of your nirvana, open your eyes and see the world around you. It is better to lose your life than to lose your soul. 1
DH Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) Maybe he weighed the lives saved against the short term discomfort of a few terrorists.(1) As others have pointed out, it's not just "short-term discomfort," and (2) It's not a reliable source of information, anyway. Edited October 27, 2012 by DH
DH Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 Would God have known about it? Why would He make such a calling if He knew about it?Why would God give us the law of common consent?
ERayR Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 I hate this kind of thinking. Torture is not short-term discomfort. It is a psychological assault with long-term effects. In some cases it destroys or violently alters personalities. I can see cases where it is necessary but we should show it proper respect. It is not a utilitarian thing that myou use and no real harm done. It is a kind of psychological rape with effects very similar to. Actual rape.Nether is the losses of 9-11, the Beirut bombings, the murder of ambassador Stevens and three others and the many other terrorist horrors. I have almost drowned twice in my life so I know what water boarding is like. It is not nearly so permanent as killings and bombing. 2
volgadon Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 What I find interesting and repugnant is the way that some who have not been the recipients of the pain and horror of a terrorist attack. Those who had no family or friends in the 9-11 attacks nor who have not had children blown up by bombs can sit here and condemn those who find it their lot to fight on the front lines of that battle. How can you plop your backsides in a soft chair in a comfortable, safe home and write condemnation to those who have kept the horrors of terror from your doors. Come out of your nirvana, open your eyes and see the world around you.I've seen a bus blown up before my very eyes. One of the survivors was my neighbour, only a couple of years older than me. When I was growing up, terrorist attacks were almost a weekly occurence. if only I could close my eyes and find a Nirvana. If only. 1
ERayR Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 It is better to lose your life than to lose your soul.Would you just keep that in mind when a terrorist blows up a school bus with your children on board or when one fly's an airplane into a tall building when you are on the upper floors.
ERayR Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) I've seen a bus blown up before my very eyes. One of the survivors was my neighbour, only a couple of years older than me. When I was growing up, terrorist attacks were almost a weekly occurence. if only I could close my eyes and find a Nirvana. If only.What would you give to have had someone provide intelligence that would have prevented that so you would not have to relive those horrors? Is it better for you to suffer those memories or that the perpetrators suffer the memories of a near drowning? Edited October 27, 2012 by ERayR
volgadon Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 What would you give to have had someone provide intelligence that would have prevented that so you would not have to relive those horrors?Not for torture, no. 2
thesometimesaint Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) What I find interesting and repugnant is the way that some who have not been the recipients of the pain and horror of a terrorist attack. Those who had no family or friends in the 9-11 attacks nor who have not had children blown up by bombs can sit here and condemn those who find it their lot to fight on the front lines of that battle. How can you plop your backsides in a soft chair in a comfortable, safe home and write condemnation to those who have kept the horrors of terror from your doors. Come out of your nirvana, open your eyes and see the world around you.wWater boarding is a crime anywhere in the world punishable by up to and including the death sentence. The US executed German and Japanese soldiers and their superior officers who engaged in/ordered water boarding or other forms of torture. The US Court marshaled and put US soldiers in prison who water boarded in Vietnam. There is NEVER ANY EXCUSE to permit, engage in, or give sanction to water boarding. It demeans our cause and us as a people. It puts our own soldiers at risk. Edited October 27, 2012 by thesometimesaint 2
ERayR Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 Not for torture, no.I respect your perspective but as for me, I support that one who has chosen to commit these atrocities be the ones to suffer rather than my grandchildren or any other child suffer.
Mark Beesley Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 Would you just keep that in mind when a terrorist blows up a school bus with your children on board or when one fly's an airplane into a tall building when you are on the upper floors.So, can I assume from your response to the statement I made, which was that it is better to lose your life than to lose your soul, that you believe that there are circumstances where it is better to lose your soul?Death is not permanent.
Duncan Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 I think Duncan might have taken the title and OP of the thread to mean "quit the church."I say he quit the church or his calling because the OP says he did so and I was going along those lines. I have no idea if he actually did any of those things!
cdowis Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 This guy was the attorney who devised the legal justification for waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" as part of the Bush admin.I think it is good he stepped down.I know many here will disagree with me but as I stated on the board that must not be named:One who can justify the the orchestration and systematic inflictment of human suffering is not suited to act as a pastor who's calling is to comfort and heal.Just my opinion. Probably worth about $.02Please tell us your feelings about :A scientist who designs weapons of war -- guns, bombs, missiles, etc. A pilot who drops bombs which injures and kills both civilians and military. Basically how do feel about war, since waterboarding is specifically a military action.A general in the Army systematically orchestrates suffering with his decisions, physically and psychological, on both sides of the conflict. I doubt we will agree on this, but just wondering about where you thought process leads you. Perhaps general authorities to "step down" as a result of their leadership roles in the military, for example.Just curious.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 I would add that these techniques have saved the lives of who knows how many.That is a frequently made claim, particularly by former vice president Cheney, and it is false. The best interrogators have declared that such torture techniques result in false confessions of all sorts and do not give good intel.
rpn Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 Bishops are approved at church headquarters. When the press, however, makes past military service an issue for a bishop, it has the potential of interfering with the work. And it can also affect security clearances and national security. I get why he would be honorably released.What I don't get is people here saying they wouldn't sustain him because they don't like what he did in the course of his duties, none of which have gotten him any church discipline, or prevented his being called? Does that mean we get to refuse sustain leaders who don't do their share of the laundry, or who use corporal punishment with their children, or who run companies that we think damage the environment? 2
cursor Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 I would add that these techniques have saved the lives of who knows how many.Article of Faith 12 — Torture, including waterboarding, is against international law.http://lawreview.wus...ing-is-illegal/Additionally, Artilce of Faith 13. 1
ERayR Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 (1) As others have pointed out, it's not just "short-term discomfort," and (2) It's not a reliable source of information, anyway.(1) Neither is death or the pain and suffering from terrorist activities. (2) From what I have heard it is quite reliable and has helped avert many attacks. I have no way of knowing for sure one way or the other.
cdowis Posted October 27, 2012 Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) wWater boarding is a crime anywhere in the world punishable by up to and including the death sentence. The US executed German and Japanese soldiers and their superior officers who engaged in/ordered water boarding or other forms of torture. The US Court marshaled and put US soldiers in prison who water boarded in Vietnam. There is NEVER ANY EXCUSE to permit, engage in, or give sanction to water boarding. It demeans our cause and us as a people. It puts our own soldiers at risk.They also put them into prison for killing people. Villiages are destroyed, and it's another day at the office, other times they are imprisoned for the same action. It depends on the rules of engagement, the protocols set in place whether an action is "excused".Refusing to gather critical information in a timely manner also puts our troops at risk-- perhaps thousands of them.Killing enemy soldiers puts our soldiers at risk. Sending troops to foreign soil puts them at risk. It demeans us as a country to go to war. War is a messy business, and "demeaning" is not the issue where life and freedom is at stake. But we can agree that *laws* are necessary when conducting war, and that is where the lawyers and lawmakers come into play. The rules of engagement flow from both laws and protocols.Putting your conclusion in CAPS merely emphasizes that your logic is flawed. Edited October 27, 2012 by cdowis
Recommended Posts