So, Some SBC Theologians think Torture's OK

That title might exaggerate things just a tad, but it gets things just about right. Last week the National Association of Evangelicals came out with a statement condemning torture and decrying US uses of torture in the "War on Terror." According to Bob Allen, at Ethics Daily, writing in support of the Administration policies, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Ethics Professor, Daniel Heimbach, condemns this statement because "it threatens to undermine Christian moral witness in contemporary culture by dividing evangelicals into renouncers and justifiers of nebulous torture--when no one disagrees with rejecting immorality or defends mistreating fellow human beings made in the image of God."

Heinbach calls for the use of reason rather than passion and calls for the application of the "Just War" principles to this issue. I find it difficult to find in Just War theory support for torture, but apparently he does. That torture runs against the agreed upon rules of the Geneva Convention apparently is irrelevant.

But Heinbach isn't alone, Al Mohler is of similar views:

"We live in a fallen world threatened by agents of terror who are changing the reality of war and would end civilization as we know it, killing noncombatants without conscience as a matter of pride," Mohler wrote. "In confronting this new form of evil, we are now forced to rethink many of the most settled questions of morality and the use of force. Nevertheless, we have no choice but to fight this foe and to wage war on those who would use mass murder and terror to sever the fragile bonds of human society. Yet, in fighting this war it is inevitable that we will look down and find dirty hands, even in doing what we would all agree is a lamentable necessity. What we must not do is compound the problem of dirty hands by adopting dirty rules."

Mohler said "under certain circumstances" that "most morally sensitive persons would surely allow interrogators to yell at prisoners and to use psychological intimidation, sleep deprivation, and the removal of creature comforts for purposes of obtaining vital information."

"In increasingly serious cases, most would likely allow some use of pharmaceuticals and more intensive and manipulative psychological techniques," he said. "In the most extreme of conceivable cases, most would also allow the use of far more serious mechanisms of coercion--even what we would all agree should be labeled as torture."

So, why not just bring back the rack?! That would be so retro!