Let Him Who Is Without Sin

[Winstonm]

April 30th, 2009

Churchgoers more likely to back torture, survey finds

Posted: 01:55 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new analysis.

 

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

 

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than 6 in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only 4 in 10 of them did.

 

The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants, and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small

 

 

Who said the Inquisition was dead?

[jdonn]

I have no idea why you find this shocking or noteworthy...

[PassedOut]

Did Jesus say, "Torture thine enemies?"

 

Only in a very watered-down form of Christianity. Or maybe these folks believe that Jesus would never have said what he did say had he known the problems that would confront the US today.

 

One or the other.

[Lobowolf]

Surely, the moral and/or intellectual superiority of non-churchgoers, non-religious people, non-theists, and/or non-Christians as compared to their counterparts has been well enough established in the WC, through diligent effort, to make a thread such as this akin to one proclaiming the inferiority of 2♦ Mini-Roman.

[PassedOut]

Surely, the moral and/or intellectual superiority of non-churchgoers, non-religious people, non-theists, and/or non-Christians as compared to their counterparts has been well enough established

Actually, committed Christians who really understand their religion would never approve of torture. Most Christians in the world, I think, do have a strong moral sense.

 

For example, both Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are Christians. Neither would permit torture on his watch. Those who did permit torture are CINOs.

[Winstonm]

Surely, the moral and/or intellectual superiority of non-churchgoers, non-religious people, non-theists, and/or non-Christians as compared to their counterparts has been well enough established in the WC, through diligent effort, to make a thread such as this akin to one proclaiming the inferiority of 2♦ Mini-Roman.

These Christian-coalition types are the same people who helped usher in George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Boltan, Richard Perle, and assorted other neo-nuts who led us into illegal war, accepted torture as policy, and virtually destroyed civil rights - they cannot be ridiculed enough.

 

The more this group is marginalized and their true beliefs are known the less dangerous they become.

[Lobowolf]

they cannot be ridiculed enough.

 

The more this group is marginalized and their true beliefs are known the less dangerous they become.

So, roughly, from the percentages in the article, from a group of 7 people who attend church once a week and a group of 7 people who don't, 6 of them are the same in each group -- the 3 who support torture, and the 3 who don't -- completely irrespective of their religious beliefs. But for the sake of that 7th guy, who thinks it's 'sometimes justified' (per the survey question; in the article, that's "supports" or "backs," in the same way that pro-life propagandists suggest that if you're pro-choice, you must think abortions are great, and everyone should have 2 or 3), the group (85% similar to the other group) should be marginalized and "cannot be ridiculed enough."

 

I like the choice for the thread's title. Darned amusing.

[PassedOut]

These Christian-coalition types are the same people who helped usher in George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Boltan, Richard Perle, and assorted other neo-nuts who led us into illegal war, accepted torture as policy, and virtually destroyed civil rights - they cannot be ridiculed enough.

I don't agree that all of these people deserve ridicule. Many of the regular people who hold these beliefs are themselves victims of poor education and poor economic circumstances.

 

The political and "religious" leaders who exploit these folks deserve the ridicule.

[Winstonm]

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified — more than 6 in 10 supported it.

 

White evangelical Protestants - the Moral Majority led by the likes of Pat Robertson.

 

They usually do a great job of looking ridiculous without need for outside ridicule.

As long as the Republican party mirrors these ideas, the Republican party will marginalize itself and go the way of the Whigs.

 

Many of the regular people who hold these beliefs are themselves victims of poor education and poor economic circumstances.

 

I've found most of these right-wing evangelicals to be ignorant by choice - the car radio blares Rush's pseudo-wisdom, which most can recite by heart, and at home the T.V. spews Pentagon-approved propaganda via Fox News, while Bill O'Reilly's mantra of "Turn off his mike!" is lauded as a triumph of free speech and democracy.

[PassedOut]

Many of the regular people who hold these beliefs are themselves victims of poor education and poor economic circumstances.

 

I've found most of these right-wing evangelicals to be ignorant by choice - the car radio blares Rush's pseudo-wisdom, which most can recite by heart, and at home the T.V. spews Pentagon-approved propaganda via Fox News, while Bill O'Reilly's mantra of "Turn off his mike!" is lauded as a triumph of free speech and democracy.

I've heard Limbaugh. On the radio where I live, the propaganda spewed by him and others like him is about all you get. The folks I talk to here who buy what these guys sell fit pretty much into the categories I mentioned.

 

I've never heard Bill O'Reilly, though.

[Winstonm]

Many of the regular people who hold these beliefs are themselves victims of poor education and poor economic circumstances.

 

I've found most of these right-wing evangelicals to be ignorant by choice - the car radio blares Rush's pseudo-wisdom, which most can recite by heart, and at home the T.V. spews Pentagon-approved propaganda via Fox News, while Bill O'Reilly's mantra of "Turn off his mike!" is lauded as a triumph of free speech and democracy.

I've heard Limbaugh. On the radio where I live, the propaganda spewed by him and others like him is about all you get. The folks I talk to here who buy what these guys sell fit pretty much into the categories I mentioned.

 

I've never heard Bill O'Reilly, though.

This should come with a Surgeon General's warning that it will turn the stomach:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDpIAqfWR2g...rom=PL&index=59

 

Bill O'Reilly at his finest - one of Rupert Murdoch's talking heads on Fox News.

[JLOL]

Just out of curiosity is "seldom" a horrible answer? Perhaps I have been watching too much 24, but if some situation arose where someone had information that could DIRECTLY save like a million lives, I would think it was justified.

 

That being said, it is a completely artificial situation where it might occur, and obviously the Bush administration crossed that line wayyyy before it could even be considered legit, and they are criminals in my eyes.

[Winstonm]

Just out of curiosity is "seldom" a horrible answer? Perhaps I have been watching too much 24, but if some situation arose where someone had information that could DIRECTLY save like a million lives, I would think it was justified.

 

Justin,

 

No, I don't think "seldom" is a horrible answer, and I further believe the manner in which you framed the question shows the legitimate self-doubt that is at the heart of real open-mindedness.

 

The trick to realize is that your question cannot ever be answered, so musing about a "ticking bomb" scenario is really only a thought-experiment.

 

The experts in interrogation state that torture works to get someone to talk, but what they have to say is as likely to be made up as true, anything to get the torture to stop, so you end up with useless information.

 

The U.S. used SERE reverse-engineered totrue methods that came from the Korean War era and had been used by the Communists to elicit from captured Americans false confessions that could be used as propaganda.

 

Edit: This helps understand U.S. torture policy:

 

The Senate also reported CIA and Pentagon torture techniques were adopted from torture methods North Korea used in the 1950’s to compel American prisoners to confess to lies about germ warfare.

 

In fact, North Korea learned its torture techniques from Soviet KGB instructors. KGB’s favorite tortures in the 1930’s and 40’s were merciless beatings, confinement in refrigerated cells, week-long sleep deprivation, and endless interrogations. 

 

The CIA and US military copied these North Korean/Soviet torture methods, but also added contorted positions, and nakedness and humiliation, techniques learned from Israeli interrogators who used them to blackmail Palestinian prisoners into becoming informers. Hence all the naked photos from Abu Ghraib prison.

 

American doctors and medical personnel supervised torture and devised and supervised techniques to mentally incapacitate prisoners through isolation, terrifying sensory deprivation, and injections of potent psychotropic drugs.

 

Torture was authorized by President George W. Bush, VP Dick Cheney, Secretaries Don Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice, and carried out by CIA chief George Tenet and the Pentagon’s secretive Special Operations Command.

 

Now, simply add to this picture the fact that Cheney/Rumsfeld were desperate to get confirmation of an Iraq/al-Qaeda connection to justify their pre-planned war and you understand why the question of a "ticking bomb" is moot - the reason for the torture was to obtain confirmation of an already held belief, not to obtain new information.

[luke warm]

Now, simply add to this picture the fact that Cheney/Rumsfeld were desperate to get confirmation of an Iraq/al-Qaeda connection to justify their pre-planned war and you understand why the question of a "ticking bomb" is moot - the reason for the torture was to obtain confirmation of an already held belief, not to obtain new information.

you seem to be saying that the reasons used to justify the torture, and the actual techniques used (i.e. non-north korean) determines whether or not it should be used... true?

[hrothgar]

Just out of curiosity is "seldom" a horrible answer? Perhaps I have been watching too much 24, but if some situation arose where someone had information that could DIRECTLY save like a million lives, I would think it was justified.

 

That being said, it is a completely artificial situation where it might occur, and obviously the Bush administration crossed that line wayyyy before it could even be considered legit, and they are criminals in my eyes.

Hi Justin:

 

For what its worth, here's how I tend to approach the hypothetical "ticking bomb" scenario... (Some might argue that this is compartmentalization)

 

I think that torture - and I most certainly include waterboarding as torture - should be illegal under any and all circumstances.

 

If there is a "ticking bomb" scenario, the powers that be always have the option to break said law. If they do choose to break the law, they then need to explain why they believed it necessary to do so...

 

There is ample precedent for this type of behaviour. Lincoln's decision to violate Habeas Corpus during the Civil War is probably the classic example. Lincoln made a concious decision to violate the protections gaurunteed by the Constitution. The precise language was

 

Whereas, It has become necessary to call into service, not only volunteers, but also portions of the militia of the States by draft, in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure, and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection. Now, therefore, be it ordered, that during the existing insurrection, and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and comfort to the rebels against the authority of the United States, shall be subject to martial law, and liable to trial and punishment by courts-martial or military commission.

 

Second: That the writ of habeas corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prisons, or other place of confinement, by any military authority, or by the sentence of any court-martial or military commission.

 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this Twenty-fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-seventh.

 

Lincoln did this in an open, accountable, and public manner.

 

In a similar vein, if we ever run into an actual "ticking bomb" scenario and the professionals who are present make a determination that torture is the only way to go... they should do what they think is right. However, they should do so knowing that their decision will be subject to strict public scrutiny after the fact.

[JLOL]

Thanks, that makess sense.

[onoway]

In spy novels they have developed "truth" drugs which basically force people to reply to questions..seems as though this should be something that could be developed if we have technology that can create virtual invisibility (albeit on a very small scale yet) and other such wonders. That would of course negate any rationale whatsoever for any sort of torture.

Certainly already there are drugs which have people babbling on happilly without a lot of inhibitions about what they say, so it couldn't be a very long stretch, and I would imagine the info would be at least as valid as that gained by waterboarding or other torture. Not nearly so satisfying to thugs in uniforms or suits though.

[P_Marlowe]

Did Jesus say, "Torture thine enemies?"

 

Only in a very watered-down form of Christianity. Or maybe these folks believe that Jesus would never have said what he did say had he known the problems that would confront the US today.

 

One or the other.

Christianity is not a simple religion.

 

Lots of people forget the god of the old testament, and look only at the

"Sermon on the Mount", some look only at the old testament forgetting the

"Sermon on the Mount".

 

Besides "Let him who is without sin" you also give "Ceasar what belongs

to Cesars, and give the Lord, what belongs to the Lord.",

and you also have an "eye for an eye" law and other rules of the old testament,

and I am pretty sure, that you dont find a indication, that Jesus ever said,

those rules lost their right of existence.

 

Bonhoeffer (a german priest) once said, if you read the new testament, you

should always keep the old testament in your mind.

 

But of course I agree, that torture is not someting, which gets endorsed by

Christianity, but it may well be, that it belongs in the area of Cesar.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe (who is against tortue, and does not believe, that weapons ever

solve problems)

[blackshoe]

Lincoln did what he did for what he felt was good reason. So, I think, did Bush. Doesn't make either of them right.

[PassedOut]

Christianity is not a simple religion.

 

Lots of people forget the god of the old testament, and look only at the "Sermon on the Mount", some look only at the old testament forgetting the "Sermon on the Mount".

 

Besides "Let him who is without sin" you also give "Ceasar what belongs to Cesars, and give the Lord, what belongs to the Lord.", and you also have an "eye for an eye" law and other rules of the old testament, and I am pretty sure, that you dont find a indication, that Jesus ever said,

those rules lost their right of existence.

It certainly is true that by taking selected passages from the Christian bible you can rationalize many things that we now know to be immoral.

[Winstonm]

Lincoln did what he did for what he felt was good reason. So, I think, did Bush. Doesn't make either of them right.

Virtually every great atrocity has been unleashed by men who were convinced of the rightness of their principles.

 

Lincoln was wrong; so was Bush.

[mycroft]

Without doing the investigation myself (which I have no interest in), I prefer to listen to the people who have.

 

Terry Karney, 16 years in the US Army as an interrogator, 14 as an instructor as well.

Sure, it's from a group called Human Rights First, but read both the principles and the authors' credentials.

 

If the people whose job is to get the *right* information tell me, repeatedly and with their own guilty conscience forward (Mr. Karney once explained his job as "using mere talk to convince people to betray their friends so my friends could kill them." - see entry 57 here) that among other things, using torture pollutes the data trail, making it simply *harder* to find the right information, then I do tend to believe them.

 

Of course, if what you want to get is the politically *useful* information - torture's very good for that. Another Karney quote: "given enough time; and no restraints, I can get anyone,to confess; to anything."

[OleBerg]

Just out of curiosity is "seldom" a horrible answer? Perhaps I have been watching too much 24, but if some situation arose where someone had information that could DIRECTLY save like a million lives, I would think it was justified.

 

That being said, it is a completely artificial situation where it might occur, and obviously the Bush administration crossed that line wayyyy before it could even be considered legit, and they are criminals in my eyes.

Nice to see that I am not the only non-fundementaslist in the world.

[mycroft]

Yes, Justin, "seldom" is a horrible answer. Of course, it may very well be the right one. I happen to hope not, because I would rather die than torture, and in fact in another place written my epitaph (with fount) in case that happens.

 

There's a reason I'm not in politics. Apart from everything else, there are times when the best answer is a horrible, soul-destroying one. I don't want to know if I have the courage to implement one of those - I certainly don't want to know what would happen if I did implement one of those, and it turned out to be either unnecessary or not the best answer.

 

Please note, saying that it is a horrible answer is not saying you're a horrible person. I think it should be clear, but I have been unintentionally obscure before.

[luke warm]

There's a reason I'm not in politics.

me too, which is why imo justin's answer isn't horrible at all... anyone who truly believes that the end does not justify the means has no business in politics, especially at the higher levels, because sooner or later ones ideals will run counter to what must (or probably should) be done in the nat'l interest