Answers About Torture Often Oversimplify
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
|
Below is an excerpt from "On Faith," an Internet feature sponsored by The Washington Post and Newsweek. Each week, more than 50 figures from the world of faith engage in a conversation about an aspect of religion. This week's question: The U.N. Convention Against Torture states that torture should be abolished because it violates "human dignity." From your perspective, what is wrong with torture? Should perpetrators be prosecuted? What does your faith tradition have to say about torture?
It's easy to say that torture is wrong and that whatever tradition we hold dear forbids it. I wish it were that simple. Imagine for a moment that you knew the life of someone you loved, your child for example, would be saved by information extracted by torture. Are you really certain that you might not suddenly find some justification that allowed it "just this once"? Anyone answering "no" too quickly is either kidding themselves or doesn't know the meaning of loving someone close to themselves.
None of which is to suggest that I am in favor of torture. But I am more concerned about the endless moralizing around tough issues that makes them seem too easy too fast. In fact, that's the style of argument that typifies those who defend the use of torture.
Their arguments pose the question about saving a life as if we could know with certainty beforehand that the torture for which they advocate would save a life in immediate danger. I wish it were that simple, but it rarely if ever is.
My experience is that any decision about issues that involve taking another life, or even threatening to, leaves you haunted even under the best of circumstances. I would hope that whatever answer people offer to this question leaves them feeling so, at least a little.
-- Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, president of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership
To read the complete essay and see more "On Faith" commentary, hosted by Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn, go to http:/
