I find it strange to even have to pose the question, but William Dembski said something on his blog today that would seem to imply that he is OK with the use of torture:
n writing this, Gore no doubt is thinking about protecting his views on global warming and the environment from criticism. But I expect his intolerance of any attacks on reason, as he understands reason, will apply as well against intelligent design. From the Time Magazine excerpt, Gore comes across as an Enlightenment rationalist who, in the best Jacobin style, won’t tolerate any challenge to his conception of reason.
Gore seems to miss the irony in all this. He bemoans Bush’s intolerance of terrorism and Bush’s willingness to use torture to bring terrorists to heel, and yet is ready to be intolerant of anyone who violates his “rule of reason.” Question: Which would you rather live under: intolerance of terrorism or intolerance of the rule of reason?
Is the the use of torture morally acceptable, Bill? Or is there some other way of reading the above text that I’m not seeing?
Also, I see no inherent difficulty in being intolerant of terrorism without adopting the tools of terrorism. In fact, I would think it obvious that once one has adopted the tools of terrorism, one cannot be said to be intolerant of what one is actually practicing.