Jew/Muslim/Christians TORTURE. Point, set, match.

War is not the answer. Next question.

What's at play is an inordinate number of people who seem to treat their Christianity as a label that has no relation to their personal lives except as a oblique justification for their fears.

The Gospels suggested that spirituality was something meant to be in your heart and mind "in secret," and not to be worn as a label you display to the world in order to feel righteous.

These days, it seems like there are many people who do precisely the opposite.

It's the respondents to said "can often be justified" that make me sad.

If you aren't for prosecuting it, you support it.

Those are exactly the data that I would have expected. I don't get what you don't get.

Maybe you missed the memo from 25 years back when this bunch got going with Pat Robertson. They aren't good Christians. They don't practice Christianity.

Come on people, grow up. Is what is taught in the Taliban madrases just another flavor of Islam? Is it consistent with their holy texts? Have we ever treated it as such? So what's the diff. with the evangelicals? There is no scriptural or tradition to support their behavior. It is good old fashioned, power elite politcs, that uses religion to hide the viciousness of their agenda, and to avoid paying taxes. Anyone that "respects their religious views as a personal choice" is just dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, and a sucker.

Now, you want a meaningful question? Why the hell do you subsidize them? Not just taxes. Throw the label of religion on it and you don't have to pay unemployment tax, follow workplace safety regs....the list goes on.

Reread this Bo post . His is par for the course. Now, would you be surprised if he condoned torture? I guess so. JVW makes a comment later in the thread about "is this great irony". So I guess the take home lesson is that after 25 years, you really don't know how your opposition thinks, do you?

As a statistician, I think there's some sampling bias, though. The survey is very poorly constructed. The word "justified" is overloaded for evangelical christianity. Not being particularly bright and quick to conform, many will quickly answer "yes!", to any question with the word justified in it. It is the core assumption they make. They are always justified. That makes anything they want justified, because justified people don't want unjustified things. So any fraud, any abuse of their children, any torture, supporting a war criminal...is all justified. When TEK and his buddies just killed Chrysler, that was justified, because they are justified. Is this beginning to sink in?

General flame: Oh, and QED. You have been ignoring all the dissenting posts for years. This has been hashed over again and again...but not by "the Party faithful"...so it's news! There's a lot of reasonable people that post here, if you could get past how it's presented. They don't post as a service. If they're going to have to educate you, then let them have something back, like a moment to vent, without automatically disregarding everything that isn't said the way you would. Was there something in Karol's post on father-daughter vows that didn't cover how the religious right want to hurt you and hurt you bad if you act contrary to their dictates? Reread what people relate and tell me that you'd be surprised that the folks described are in favor of torture. Or did those people relate those very personal, painful experiences, to no end whatsoever?

Sorry, but most people knew this. Hearing that the opposition party is completely unaware of it, is not exactly comforting.

"For if you believe in your heart and profess on your lips that Jesus the Christ is Lord, then...you can do whatever the hell you like!" - Paul of Tarsus, Head Marketer, Jezus, Inc., from a correspondence to the head office in Rome.

How can ANYONE be unaware that Catholic grade school is torture, in every sense of the word, designed as such? Was the inquisition a fluke? Who supports corporal punishment in schools? Conservative Christianity has a long tradition of torture. Il Papa understates. This is a matter of not knowing history. How embarrassing.

Jeff, what about Communist Atheists ? Do they believe in torture? What about cross dressers?

I can understand why it might seem counterintuitive on its face, but it doesn't seem so counterintuitive when you take into account the politicization of evangelical Christianity since the 1970s. At this point -- this time and place -- many who call themselves evangelical Christians view their religion as inextricably intertwined with their politics. There are certainly signs that this is changing, especially amongst younger evangelicals, but it will take a while to disentangle. IMO, if the burgeoning signs continue into solid trends, it will be good for evangelical Christianity, good for Republicans, good for democracy in the U.S., and certainly very good for the church/state separation doctrine.

Meanwhile, isnt it long past time BlueOregon looked honestly at the torture mess and the Democratic Party's complicity in it? Or is just a little introspection, and smidgen of self-criticism too much to expect? You might, for once, try cleaning up your own house before tearing down someone else's. It's become increasing difficult to take anything here seriously when the cheerleading just gets louder and louder as the Obama administration cover-ups, backpedaling, and corporate giveaways ratchet up ever higher.

Watch Jesus Camp.

Evangelical Christianity, generally speaking, is tied up with a whole host of political issues that have about one thing in common: deference to what they consider legitimate authority (deference to authority is also a hallmark of a conservative mindset if you believe George Lakoff, Jonathan Haidt, etc.). This is ironic considering that the independent sects of Christianity first emerged because of their opposition to Catholicism as a legitimate centralized authority. Conservative politics are all tied up with God and it muddies up the emotions.

Plus, if you literally believe in evil and think that 9-11 perpetrators are evil-doers, it makes sense that you would be justified in treating them as inhuman, at least in some cases. It's like asking someone whether the Geneva Conventions apply to Satan. Combine this with the tendency of human beings to rally against the outsider.

Either way, I think the difference is that conservatives have had a long time to seed their message about torture being limited and effective. The real question we should be asking as the facts come out is whether the Bush Administration was justified in using torture.

As George Lakoff made clear, people choose their religion based on their politics, not the other way around. So, torture is just another manifestation of the "strict father" paradigm that conservatives subscribe to.

BTW, if you're one who literally interprets the Bible, then the only place in it where the teachings of Christ can be found is in the books of John, Luke, Mark and Matthew. Everything else in the bible, literally, is not Christianity. Have you ever noticed that the more conservative a Christian is, the more they quote from the non-christian portion of the Bible?

Mike Austin hits on the the nose. Conservative tendency toward 'If you are in a detention camp, you deserve it because you must have disobeyed authority and you don't get the protections.'

Realize that the statistics are somewhere in the middle, which is good. I'm extremely turned off by torture and I don't know if I would ever fully disclose on the possibility of using it to get info. It would be a really, really weird case, though. So at least our citizens are mostly willing to deal with the ambiguity of life. But the stats do reveal a slight conservative lean on this issue--and slight means it could be purely a matter of framing and message efficiency.

"Have you ever noticed that the more conservative a Christian is, the more they quote from the non-christian portion of the Bible?"

Mike, I haven't noticed this. Have you done a study? How many people are in your sample? What are their demographics? On what scale do you measure how conservative or liberal they are? How did you construct the scale?

Please share. Your scientific mind fascinates me! Thank you for sharing that provative post!

Many evangelical "Christians" take the "our way or the highway to hell" approach to life, which allows them to approve of any treatment, no matter how reprehensible, of those who don't agree with them. Either you are a believer and thus worthy of joining them in heaven or you are a non-believer who is going to hell and thus it doesn't matter how you are treated....after all,you're a heathen and deserve all the misery and pain you get in this life because GOD is PUNISHING YOU for your non-belief.

These stats are not surprising in the least.

Yeah, torture's a stretch for out and out killers. Question they think they're justified? Check out our very own

Mike,

One more thing:

You may want to take a look at Acts and Revelation. These books contain Christ's comments as well.

And Mike, please get your facts straight next time.

Scott J:

It's not a "fact" that anything contains Christ's comments. Works may contain what purport to be Christ's comments and actions, but those have been no more verified than claims of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Inconsistency in the gospels leads me to think that either he wasn't a real person, or he was a real person and people made stuff up. These are clearly inferences, but your assertion that Christ's comments exist are an inference as well.

Another factor that leads to believe that it is mythical is that miracles don't happen.

Nick C,

Why don't you tell that to Mike. He is the one who said comments of Jesus could be found in Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.

Nick, that is why it is called a person's "faith", or what you "believe". I don't call Christianity my "proof" I call it my "faith".

By the way: do you want to see the difference between Christians and Muslims? Here is a test...

Make a statement abough Mohammed, calling him a fraud and a fairy tale, and then post you name, address and where you work.

Have a nice weekend.

I wonder how much of the views expressed in the survey reflect views towards arabs/muslims, rather than true views on torture. The question involves use of torture against "suspected terrorists", which will cause almost every American to immediately picture a middle eastern muslim male. If the question were framed differently, would you get a materially different answer? "If an American was caught spying for another country that was potentially plotting a terrorist attack, would you support the use of torture to gain additional information?"

If the views are based more on nationality/religion, that might explain the differences. Evangelicals may be more likely to view "middle-easterners" through a religious frame, as infidels who have persecuted Christians through the centuries. The unaffiliated might be less inclined to view them that way.

This reminds me of a story of a Jewish friend of mine. Good guy, very liberal, very ethical. In the late 90s we were discussing Clinton's cruise missile attacks on alleged Iraqi missile sites that could potentially be used to attack Israel. I was saying how dismayed I was that civilians had died, and he said matter-of-factly "I'd rather that innocent Iraqis die than innocent Israelis." The racism inherent in his statement was absolutely shocking to an atheist such as myself. But whereas I had no more connection to an innocent Israeli than I did to an innocent Iraqi, he had a strong cultural/religious connection. He's still wrong, of course, but it helped to explain how an otherwise good person could hold such a warped view.

Well religion justifies murder, hate and torture right in their "holy" books, so who can be suprised.

I wish the sample sizes were larger. Reading the details of the survey I see that the margin of error varies between 4 and 8%. Nevertheless, I am troubled by the portion of people who believe torture is justified often, sometimes, or even rarely.

The fact is TJ, you and I both know that nobody will post their name, address and an attack on Mohammed the person on this web page or anywhere else. The odds of a violent attack are much higher than anyone wants to admit. Just ask the editors of Dutch newspapers or the many European newspapers editors that won't allow critical or cutting editorials or editorial cartoons. US papers won't even reprint for fear of reprisal.

In contrast, mockings of Christ happen openly in the public, and have since his public mocking on the cross.

Good try, but the facts aren't on your side.

You know one thing I don't believe? It's when Bush and Cheney-types say they torture to save American lives. I think the sick bastards were drawn to it because they liked it. They enjoyed the idea of taking someone into a little room and inflicting pain. It suited their personalities.

Have you ever heard Cheney say, "We hated the notion of doing this. It was abhorrent to every cell of our bodies, but we were stuck. It simply had to be done"? Of course not. Deciding to torture detainees was one of the most gratifying decisions Bush and Cheney ever made. They couldn't wait.

 Knowing they could torture prisoners made them feel better about themselves. Pretending you're tough is a lot easier when you have lots of power - and power's why they went into government in the first place.

Oh TJ, you've gone and done it now. I can hear the fatwah's calling for your death off in the distance. Watch your back.

Fanatic Christians and Muslim are in a holy war. Certainly during times of war it is human nature to dehumanize the opponent so that what might appear outrageous behavior is otherwise tolerated; even encouraged.

Case in point - FDR's decision and whole hearted support for fire bombing civilian men, women and children in the waning days of World War II. His personally ordered fire bombing missions over the major cities of Japan intentionally switch from boms to incendiaries due to the high concentration of wooden structures. Over 100,000 civilians were torched alive.

TJ swipes at Jesus, Muhammad, and Jack Bog in one short comment. Bravery or folly?

Without getting to mean-spirited, here's the question: isn't this counter-intuitive? Wouldn't you expect Christians to be at least as opposed to torture as non-affiliated respondents?

Not really. Christians or, more precisely, people claiming to be Christians are like any other large group of people. You will find the best and worst of people among them with most somewhere in between. The word "Christian," like "liberal," "conservative" and many others, has taken on so many meanings it has been renered almost meaningless.

Ah, what the hell. Torture? Sure, I'll take some.

"Mohammed person"? What kind of ignoramus are you? Mohammad instituted a tremendous literacy campaign, paid women's dowries to release them from unbeliever husbands if the women wanted to come live among them; and did not badger them to PROVE they were Muslim, indeed, allowed it to be between them and their Creator.

A "mohammad person"? Would that I were such a person, in the most original sense of the word.

Oy.

Have a look at Joe Bageant's book Deer Hunting With Jesus for pertinent discussion of the cultural background behind fundamentalism. It's fundamentalists who are the big proponents of the death penalty and torture, not Christians generically. There are all different flavors of Christians.

By the way, regarding caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, those Danish caricatures that elicited such hostility a few years ago were reproduced in a Harper's essay by Art Spiegelman on the politics of caricature. (The essay included a number of Spiegelman's own drawings and various other historical examples.) I never heard anything about Spiegelman or the staff of Harper's receiving threats. Maybe the difference between this and the problems in Europe has to do with the fact that American Muslims are generally much better integrated into the "host" culture than are European Muslims (excluding, of course, the Balkans, where the Muslims are not recent immigrants).

One thing for perspective. These are armchair survey answers. Kind of like asking if one could ever take another human life. Most folks don't really have a clue what they would do or condone until they are personally faced with an actual event or circumstance. It says much for the mindset, but little about reality in the end. Education and information is the key, not condemnation of the ill informed.

"The inability of so many people (both Republicans and Obama-loyal Democrats) to view the need for prosecutions independent of political considerations is a potent sign of how sick our political culture has become." (Democratic complicity and what "politicizing justice" really means)

With thanks to Michael M., who speaks for me and for all true progressives.

As much as I wouldn't mind going on an anti-religion tirade, I don't think the numbers are dissimilar enough to warrant any strong conclusions. The "oftens" only range from 12%-18% across all groups and the "nevers" only range from 16 to 31 (and the white, mainline Protestants best the unaffiliated in this by five points). Considering the fact that the most pro-torture group has a huge overlap with conservatism/Republicanism, I think a lot of these differences can be explained by political affiliation rather than religion. I think there are some conclusions to be drawn, but suggesting causation (religion causes one to condone torture) is probably not the best conclusion. Also, what about Americans of other religions? What do they think?

Thanks for the link,Harry; although, one or more regulars at BO will probably write Glenn Greenwald off as another anti-American kook.

Bill - I don't think you are anti-American. I wonder where you are getting that. Only the non-Dems who post here would accuse you of something stupid like that. FOlks might feel you are awfully angry, or your vision fairly reliably truncated.... but un-American? I find it impossible to point to any poster on BO who is not a plant or visiting conservative reactionary that would even drag something like that up on a bad day of diarhhea and hairballs!

Indeed, I'm about to start posting Fact Watch on Obama to see if anyone here wants to fact check from reality instead of from perception. I am in disagreement with this administration's early moves on the wars. But glad that they changed up their tune on torture again: I was afraid they were going to sweep it behind us instead of cleaning up around.

Bill - I don't think you are anti-American

Thank you, rw. In that case, I'm going to take the liberty of giving you credit for more intelligence than Stevie Boy had during his rant on an earlier thread.

Bill Bodden--No problem whatsoever in linking to Greenwald for me. Glenn Greenwald writes a very interesting column and does a helluva good job of "speaking truth to power", as Kershner might phrase it. (Greenwald also manages to do this without insisting that he is ethically and morally superior to the rest of us.)

About the so-called "mainline" or "mainstream" Protestant denominations in the US: the terminology is all screwed up. A salient fact of modern American society is that it is evangelical/fundamentalist Christians who dominate amongst Protestants, while the "mainline" churches are a shrinking minority.

Chris Lowe: I am completely with you that there are things about the US that drive me to distraction, or cause me shame, or alienate me. I was saddened to read that so many people do not reject torture out of hand, but I am not surprised. Nor would I be surprised if similar attitudes can be found in other cultures, other countries.

I wonder if, in thinking about torture, it might be helpful to also think about societal attitudes towards crime and punishment. One think that has always struck me is that in the US, at least, death-penalty supporters blur the line between justice and vengeance--or perhaps they don't even agree that such a line exists. I would suggest that those who justify torture may similarly view torture as vengeance or "rough justice".

TJ swipes at Jesus, Muhammad, and Jack Bog in one short comment. Bravery or folly?

Bwahahaha!

Re: "'speaking truth to power', as Kershner might phrase it":

I've never used that phrase on BO or anywhere else. The reason is simple: POWER ALREADY KNOWS THE TRUTH.

The ones who need the truth, such as the fact that most Americans' positions on the issues are far to the left of both the DP and the RP, are the ordinary citizens who are regularly derided by BO participants as being too stupid to engage in a democracy.

...the ordinary citizens who are regularly derided by BO participants as being too stupid to engage in a democracy.

Who exactly is deriding "ordinary citizens" as "being too stupid", Mr. Kershner? Citations, please. Who? Which thread? When?

Hmmm. Kershner derides me and blesses me by never addressing me.

Walls: You quoted me, as others have done in the past, incorrectly. I corrected the record. I am not lying when I say that ordinary people are regularly dissed on BO by those with elite educations. Do the research yourself.

You and your psychotic supporters will be glad to hear one thing: I will not be posting to BO any longer.

To the few true progressives who post to BO: Good luck at turning the DP back from its rightward movement. I have lost all hope.

What worthwhile data could possibly be derived from asking a question about torture without defining what the hell torture is? Did they say waterboarding? Loud music? Lack of privacy? Tearing up your bible? Barking dogs? Ass pyramids?

Please define what YOU mean by torture in your posts, that way we can get an idea of just how off the wall you might be personally. The only thing CLOSE to torture above is waterboarding, and that is debatable. Does real torture include lasting physical damage or any physical damage? Please make your lists. Personally, torture was listening to Teddy K. on Saturday.

Kershner departs stage Left.

Joel and Harry, you boys need to hug and shake hands. The threads on this blog go nasty on a reliable basis. Every thread devolves to monkeys doing what they do best: smearing shit on the walls, flinging it at each other.

That's blogging. Kershner, you've been in there swinging your stick since four and more years ago when I started skulking around this place. Everyone on this blog derides all and sundry for their lack of intellectual prowess - hard to think of anyone who has not stooped to it at least once, tho perhaps Petegorsky has resisted the urge mightily, and Civiletti abandoned to it with glee.

It would be nicer without Harry around. He's just so... murderously angry! But really, fellas, you are both being disingenuous if you think derision of another's faculties is not a regular feature of life up here, eh?

Sincerely, your old grey auntie

<h2>It's a nice and informative chart. You have done the great job by making this. Arithmetical study that concurrently inspects association between observations on torture, 70-271 dumps devotion, philosophy and demographic variables (such as including religion, education, competition, etc.) discovers that social gathering and philosophy are much-improved predictors of views on torture than are religion and the majority of other demographic factors. Obviously religion itself is recognized as a strong aspect shaping individuals' partisanship and political ideology. 640-721 dumps Feelings about torture are possibly to replicate both ethical conclusion and political considerations.</h2>