Richard Land is on record as opposing torture. Below are a couple examples:

On Faith - (A Newsweek/Washington Post blog), February 27, 2007

We adamently oppose torture and denounce it. However, I must add the caveat that terrorists who are not in uniform and are observing none of the rules of the Geneva Convention are not accorded all the protections of the Geneva Convention, which would entitle us to only ask for name, rank and serial number. We ought to at least to be able to interrogate terrorists as vigourously as we would interrogate a murder suspect in a New York or Chicago police station where we will certainly seek to ask for more than name, rank and serial number. However, lest I be misunderstood, I condemn torture and physical abuse of prisoners, no matter how heinous their crimes. We must never sink to the level of our enemies often barbarous behavior. (Emphasis added.)

The Tennessean, February 20, 2005

Land also said he believes the government is doing all it can to make sure there is no further abuse of prisoners in American custody. Torture, he said, is always wrong. He believes, however, it is permissible to inflict discomfort to gain information that will save lives, as long as it doesn’t cause permanent damage. One U.S. policy Land opposes is ‘’extraordinary rendition,’’ the practice of flying prisoners to other countries to be tortured. ‘’I have expressed my concern about that, and I told them I thought it was wrong,’’ he said.

Thank you for watching the CSPAN segment and for taking the time to communicate with us.

(NOTE: These links are ‘live’ at the time of this post.)

It’s not a hypothetical question. Jesus was in the presence of two other individuals who were dying torturous deaths as He hung on the cross. And, amazingly, Jesus did not take the opportunity to go on the record in regards to capital punishment or torture. He had some very important things to say on the cross, but He did not, as Jo Ann assumes He would, speak out against the form of his torture and death.

(continued in next post)

Jo Ann seems to indicate that the words of Christ (the ones in red) are more Scripture than the rest of God’s word. Not so. All Scripture is God’s word and should be viewed as such, as there is no inconsistency in the black and red words.

Finally, let me ask the practical question: If we have the option of strenuously interviewing an enemy of this country who was intercepted while on a mission to die and kill for his religion of peace or allowing countless numbers of innocents be slaughtered, what principle should guide us? We should do the Scriptural thing and consider the potential victims as we would like to be treated and do what we can to learn about future attacks and stop them.  That is the Christian thing to do (and maybe the Repub. thing, too).