Interesting. If you want support for torture, go to church. . . - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

shakran · 04-30-2009, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by "Excerpt'

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 six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.

(full article is here: Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful - CNN.com)

I just read this about 2 minutes ago and am still not entirely sure what to make of it. The instant reaction, of course is "well, yeah, a lot of religious people are hypocritical, and so it's natural that they'd go to church every Sunday and talk about turning the other cheek, and loving thy neighbor, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and judge not lest ye be judged, and then applaud sending violent electric shocks through someone's genitals while making them think they're drowning the other six days of the week." And I suspect that may be the reaction I stay with. Chime in with your own while I mull it over?

snowy · 04-30-2009, 04:56 PM

The church I work at (Methodist) is absolutely against torture, as are many of the other mainline Protestant faith communities in my town. My church has committed itself to campaigning against torture; we have a sign that says "Stop Torture Now" in front of the church, as do many of the other mainline Protestant churches here, as we're all part of the Campaign Against Torture endorsed by the Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon.

I don't think I could work there if they supported torture, but obviously the Methodists are a peace-lovin' group.

Willravel · 04-30-2009, 05:14 PM

Some Christians use Jesus as a weapon and others use Jesus as a model. The former are likely to endorse torture, the latter are likely to rally against it. I'm constantly flabbergasted by followers of Jesus being conservative.

Plan9 · 04-30-2009, 05:18 PM

God, I couldn't help myself...

YouTube - The Spanish Inquisition

...

Funny. Yeah, research has also shown that US states that typically identify themselves as "conservative" or "religious" (Utah, for example) have more online pornography site subscriptions than "liberal" states. I often say to myself, Religion: it's like a tampon for your brain.

Strange Famous · 05-01-2009, 11:35 AM

"sometimes" is a very loose term. Are there many people who could not imagine some circmstances in which torture could be justified? I think not.

If a killer had left someone you loved strapped to a time bomb, and under police custody there was a black and white question "if he is tortured he will give the location and your loved one will be saved / if he is not your loved one will die" - every one of us would torture him with our bare hands I suspect.

Now, that scenario may be ridiculous, but I only use it to state that in moral terms there are very very very few real living human beings who do not believe that in some circumstances it may be necessary to tolerate necessary evil.

This doesnt mean that if in full possession of the facts that they would support the use of torture against 18 year old Muslim lads who know fuck all other than they are angry with the West...

I think what I am trying to say is that surveys like this tell us very little about what people feel or mean, just which banner they place themselves under when asked to make a choice by a market researcher when they neither consider what their position really means or what it really costs.

Baraka_Guru · 05-01-2009, 12:03 PM

Support of torture under any circumstance must be done within the confines of a moral lapse of judgement.

This reminds me of the oxymoron "holy war."

Strange Famous · 05-01-2009, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Support of torture under any circumstance must be done within the confines of a moral lapse of judgement.

This reminds me of the oxymoron "holy war."

Really?

Say in WWII a German General with full knowledge of the defensive plans was captured on the eve of D Day. You would not, if it was your decision, have used ANY possible means to extract information from him?

Ideals are what define us, but how could they be worth, say, 20000 allied boys bodies lying dead on your conscience?

shakran · 05-01-2009, 01:40 PM

No, I would not have. Because torture has been proven to yield unreliable information. It doesn't help me if I shove bamboo up his fingernails to get him to tell me lies about the German defenses.

Strange Famous · 05-01-2009, 02:02 PM

Would be a lot of weight to carry though, wouldnt it? Every year when all the dead were remembered you could tell yourself using torture would surely have just solicitied unrealiable info anyway.

Like someone saying they'd do 40 seconds of water boarding for 40 long ones, these kind of things are easy to answer when you dont have to face the reaility, and dont have to carry the weight of whichever decision you make. I dont think many people would say in a neutral situation that torture is a good thing. I dont think many people would find it so clear cut if they had to live through a worst case scenario.

Baraka_Guru · 05-01-2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

Say in WWII a German General with full knowledge of the defensive plans was captured on the eve of D Day. You would not, if it was your decision, have used ANY possible means to extract information from him?

Ideals are what define us, but how could they be worth, say, 20000 allied boys bodies lying dead on your conscience?

My choice on this is of no consequence (as is whether the method is reliable)---"extracting" the information using torture requires a moral lapse of judgement.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima are prime examples of another.

matthew330 · 05-01-2009, 02:39 PM

"No, I would not have. Because torture has been proven to yield unreliable information. It doesn't help me if I shove bamboo up his fingernails to get him to tell me lies about the German defenses."

Because shoving bamboo up someone's fingernails will more than likely yield a false confession, does not mean (and lets make the distinction here rather than a feeble effort at comparisons) enhanced interrogations the US employed will always yeild false information. Though I appreciate you finally, though inadvertantly, recognizing what real torture is.

My larger point however is: How do you reconcile this philosophy with what was described in the recently released memo's. Shakran takes the position that is a known fact that torture yields unreliable information, and not so subtly suggests that bamboo under fingernails and waterboarding (not indiscriminate I might add) are one and the same. If this is a proven fact, than you must think that those responsible for obtaining this information were aware of this right? So why did they do it? You either have to think that you're smarter than them and know more than them about what interrogations practices are most effective, or that these interrogators were doing it for pure enjoyment. Which one is it? or please give me a third alternative that I'm not seeing. (edited to highlight what I'd really like answered)

Meanwhile, I don't see anyone insisting on the memo's describing what was obtained by these interrogations being released. Why not?

But to the point of this thread, Shakrans leap between bamboo and what we did, which "churchgoers" support over "nonchurchgoers" and not by a large margin, is essential in a favorite liberal past-time of demonizing those whose faith is not liberalism:

"yes, it's been decided the US enjoys torture - there is no more discussion, and looky - christians support it. They're so hypocritical".

I wonder why no one insists on the memo's Cheney suggested being released, are released? "Nothing upsets people more than the truth" comes to mind. I do like how Clinton when asked about this said "it'll come to no surprise to anyone that I don't considered Cheney a reliable source of information". As an aside, between Obama's ridiculing teaparties and the constant public references to the previous what they think the previous administration did wrong, and the "we inherited it" when their at a loss for words, and Obama's "man boobs" being passed off as buff while liberal women swoon, this administration and the liberal world has fuckin lost it.

Strange Famous · 05-01-2009, 02:48 PM

This may be shooting off in different directions, but I have to say

There are people who - when given the chance - would use torture for sadistic pleasure, but very very few. When these things are abused (and when torture is an option it is always abused) it has far more to do with power and fear than it does to do with sadism. The people who are waterboarding Pakistani teenagers in god forsaken hell holes are not doing it because they are sexual perverts, I think we can broadly be sure of that.

Psycho Dad · 05-01-2009, 03:59 PM

I doubt this particular survey, like most other surveys the media presents these days is worth a fart in a whirlwind. Depending on how it is presented, similar results are going to be found in every church. temple, synagogue, mosque or titty bar in the world.

Different people view torture differently. To say that white Protestants are more tolerant of torture is of no more use than to say Arab Muslims are in favor of flying airplanes into buildings. I have little to no use for organized religion as a whole, but even less use of media manipulation of opinions based on "research" done via polls or surveys.

Willravel · 05-01-2009, 04:06 PM

Why do you doubt it, Psycho_Dad? Religious people are more likely to be conservative and conservative people are more likely to support conservative politicians. And only about half of those polled supported it. How is this doubtful?

Psycho Dad · 05-01-2009, 05:01 PM

Well Will, I gues I'm just assuming that a survey of 742 American adults conducted over the span of one week last month and reported by CNN may be flawed.

Willravel · 05-01-2009, 06:58 PM

Of course it's not perfect, it's barely scientific, but it gives an indication of what may be a trend.

Also, I know plenty of churchy people that do support torture. I suspect you might, too.

matthew330 · 05-01-2009, 07:52 PM

Sure, because churchy people that support torture run rampant in your parts. And when you say that, do you mean the Nick Berg sorta torture, or the caterpillar on your leg sorta torture? (and just to be perfectly accurate, the caterpillar on your leg with doctors present sorta torture)

---------- Post added at 03:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 AM ----------

A final thought.......in light of how put off liberals were at how the term "terrorist" was being thrown around (ya know, when it was used to describe people that liked to blow themselves up in crowded public places, as opposed to people that hijacked planes) , I think you'd be a little more careful in your own usage of the word "torture", and at least acknowledge the clear distinction between what we have done and what has been done to our captured military.

Willravel · 05-01-2009, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

Sure, because churchy people that support torture run rampant in your parts. And when you say that, do you mean the Nick Berg sorta torture, or the caterpillar on your leg sorta torture? (and just to be perfectly accurate, the caterpillar on your leg with doctors present sorta torture)

They run rampant where there are churches. There are churches here. And I mean torture, as in the thing that conservative apologists try to grey the definition of in order to try and excuse an inexcusable position. But you know all about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

A final thought.......in light of how put off liberals were at how the term "terrorist" was being thrown around (ya know, when it was used to describe people that liked to blow themselves up in crowded public places, as opposed to people that hijacked planes) , I think you'd be a little more careful in your own usage of the word "torture", and at least acknowledge the clear distinction between what we have done and what has been done to our captured military.

Terrorist means one that uses the tactic of terrorism. It's not an organization. It's not something you can go to war with. Those that say "war on terrorism" or "war on terrorists" aren't actually saying anything meaningful. It's meaningless.

Torture is not meaningless and has been committed.

matthew330 · 05-01-2009, 08:13 PM

but didn't you recently comment about how you don't get a chance to debate much with conservatives (=church folk), and now all of a sudden you know quite a few of them. Just an observation...anyway, there is no grey area Will. As I said before, there is a clear distinction between what we did as described in those memo's and what they do. It's black and white. That you can't see that is disturbing. That you try to lump them together is sickening. That liberals think that way in the face of all this, is where the accusation of being "anti-american" comes from, it had nothing to do with protesting/disagreeing with the previous administration.

Willravel · 05-01-2009, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

but didn't you recently comment about how you don't get a chance to debate much with conservatives (=church folk), and now all of a sudden you know quite a few of them.

There aren't as many religious conservatives in San Jose as there are in, say, Provo, Utah, but there are religious people here and considering how many showed up at the Tea Party, there are certainly conservatives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

anyway, there is no grey area Will. As I said before, there is a clear distinction between what we did as described in those memo's and what they do. It's black and white. That you can't see that is disturbing. That you try to lump them together is sickening. That liberals think that way in the face of all this, is where the accusation of being "anti-american" comes from, it had nothing to do with protesting/disagreeing with the previous administration.

There's no such thing as anti-American. It's a nonsense term.

Any torture is torture, mattew. Our torture is less severe than, say, genital mutilation, but it's still torture. Your playing a relativistic game with torture speaks in volumes of your apologism.

matthew330 · 05-01-2009, 08:46 PM

Anti-"fill in the blank" is the backbone of your ideology, so i find your position on this very very ironic. Okay.

Let's elaborate on "our torture" and theirs. I'm sure you read the memo's, so we don't need to go into what we did and the levels of approval/efforts to ensure no physical harm was done, but off the top of my head what they have done:

-sawing people's heads off (nothing new)
-tying their hands together with a rope and pulling them backwards over a door....(btw - doing this naked, I know this by itself is torture in your eyes)
-do I really need to continue........you know what they do...

so now ask yourself, why did they do it (Sharia law, instill fear in the population, etc) and why did we do it? I'll let you answer that, that's what I wanted an answer to in my first post.

Do you really think that I'm just being apologetic? No way dude. My take on this is not guided by my political persuasion, but I think you're grasping at straws trying to defend your position. You're just wrong.

---------- Post added at 04:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 AM ----------

.....and cute reference to "utah". Not only are churchgoers in support of kicking healthy people off 3 story buildings and cutting heads off people, because remember their is no grey area, we can also assume that they are porn loving perverts. Presumably infant porn, as soon as you've had enough time to make that kevin bacon connection.

Science is only convenient when it's convenient, in the meantime.......

Willravel · 05-01-2009, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

Let's elaborate on "our torture" and theirs. I'm sure you read the memo's, so we don't need to go into what we did and the levels of approval/efforts to ensure no physical harm was done, but off the top of my head what they have done:

-sawing people's heads off (nothing new)
-tying their hands together with a rope and pulling them backwards over a door....(btw - doing this naked, I know this by itself is torture in your eyes)
-do I really need to continue........you know what they do...

so now ask yourself, why did they do it (Sharia law, instill fear in the population, etc) and why did we do it? I'll let you answer that, that's what I wanted an answer to in my first post.

We do it for the exact same reasons they do: desperation, confusion, anger, and ignorance. BTW, have you had the opportunity to be waterboarded yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

Do you really think that I'm just being apologetic? No way dude. My take on this is not guided by my political persuasion, but I think you're grasping at straws trying to defend your position. You're just wrong.

You're trying to create a scale of torture, on one end is the bad stuff (torture committed by other people, of course) and the other end is the not as bad stuff (torture committed by the US). Of course you're being apologetic. Even you can see that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

.....and cute reference to "utah". Not only are churchgoers in support of kicking healthy people off 3 story buildings and cutting heads off people, because remember their is no grey area, we can also assume that they are porn loving perverts. Presumably infant porn, as soon as you've had enough time to make that kevin bacon connection.

Provo Utah is the most conservative city, based on this study. That's why I referenced it.

matthew330 · 05-01-2009, 09:20 PM

Not much more to be said really. Thanks for the late nate Saturday convo.
FRIDAY...can't get anything right on the first try.

Locobot · 05-01-2009, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Some Christians use Jesus as a weapon and others use Jesus as a model. The former are likely to endorse torture, the latter are likely to rally against it. I'm constantly flabbergasted by followers of Jesus being conservative.

Paraphrasing Ghandi - Christianity's a beautiful religion, it's too bad no one's tried it.

Psycho Dad · 05-02-2009, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Also, I know plenty of churchy people that do support torture. I suspect you might, too.

Is it because I appear churchy to you or because I've not posted paragraphs of righteous indignation over the topic?

Willravel · 05-02-2009, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho Dad

Is it because I appear churchy to you or because I've not posted paragraphs of righteous indignation over the topic?

I'm the least churchy person around and I know plenty of church people. I'd be very surprised if there was no one in your life that attended church at took it seriously. Have you asked him, her, or them?

Strange Famous · 05-02-2009, 08:36 AM

There are cases when torture is justified. Anyone who denies that is lying to themselves quite simply.

I say again, if your loved one was tied to the time bomb, and slapping around the person who knew where they were would save your loved ones life, you would do it. I do not believe that any person would allow their child or lover to die so that they might take a moral position.

And it is also true that when you except that torture can in some circumstances be justified, you will nearly always end in a position where torture is misused and people are brutalised without justification.

Unfortunatly black and white positions like "torture is wrong and should never be used" dont work very well in the real world. I'm sure some people will reply to my comments with many examples of grusome and disgusting torture... and the point is that I am not saying these things are not wrong, but I am saying they are inevitable.

The fact that a random survey of some churches found more people who face up to this reality in some places then others does not tell me anything meaningful.

genuinegirly · 05-02-2009, 08:39 AM

A survey of 742 adults and they're bothering to report on it? Come on. This is BS and you know it.

Willravel · 05-02-2009, 08:41 AM

It doesn't even have to be as simple as a moral argument: as roachboy, myself, and many others have pointed out, there's a perfectly valid utility argument. It doesn't do what it's meant to do. You're just as likely to get wrong information that will cost lives as you are to get the right information. Why the hell would you want to put more lives in danger? Vengeance, of course. Torture is great for enacting vengeance. That's all it really does, though. Jack Bauer isn't going to get the launch codes by torturing the Arab "terrorist" just in the nick of time, he's likely to alienate the tortured man or push him to the point where he says anything to end the torture. He might not even know the answer to the questions he's getting.

Strange Famous · 05-02-2009, 09:03 AM

Without wishing to repeat myself... there are many valid points that you make: but since I am only arguing that there are some possible circumstances when torture is justified, I think I can make the scenario I choose.

I say again - choose between the death of your loved one, or beating up someone who has information that can save their lives.

I do not ask if in the majority of cases another method of interogation may be more or less effective, I ask everyone to consider for themselves if they have a choice between the death of a love one or torturing the man who threatens their life - which will they choose?

No one will answer that they choose to allow their loved one to die, because no one can honestly give such an answer. There are circumstances (whether you choose to argue they are unlikely or not) when torture is justified. There is no black and white moral position on this matter which people who live in the real world can afford.

FoolThemAll · 05-02-2009, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I'm constantly flabbergasted by followers of Jesus being conservative.

No good reason to be. I'd guess that it's due to excessively narrow definitions of both conservativism and Jesus on your part. I'll say it again: Jesus is whatever you want him to be.

Strange Famous · 05-02-2009, 09:28 AM

I think that, while I can take that point that people who take all kinds of political views can see things in Jesus (or what was recorded about Jesus after his death that we read today) that supports them... but there is really no way you can look at Jesus - whether you believe him to be a man, or a God, or a false prophet, or a myth - and not see the most incendary revolutionary figure in recorded human history.

Willravel · 05-02-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

Without wishing to repeat myself... there are many valid points that you make: but since I am only arguing that there are some possible circumstances when torture is justified, I think I can make the scenario I choose.

If you make a scenario in which torture yields reliable results, you're changing the universe to prove your point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

I say again - choose between the death of your loved one, or beating up someone who has information that can save their lives.

Let's say that's happened. Some psychopath has kidnapped your family, has them strapped to a bomb, you have them in custody, the police are allowing you to interrogate the man, and you know that he's aware of where your family is. Let's say all of that is happening. Still, even with all of those unlikely facts, torture isn't necessarily going to get you anything but the gratification of vengeance after your family explodes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

I do not ask if in the majority of cases another method of interogation may be more or less effective, I ask everyone to consider for themselves if they have a choice between the death of a love one or torturing the man who threatens their life - which will they choose?

My question is why bother to use an ineffective method when so many proven effective methods could be employed? You don't think the police have had experience with prisoner interrogation? Or the military? Or MI6/CIA? There's a good reason that everyone in this situation but the chicken hawks are saying the same thing: "torture didn't work". What if, instead of wasting time hurting the person for no good reason, you employed the best available tactic for saving your family? What if, instead of wasting those ticking seconds on your hypothetical clock, you utilized them in the best way possible?

I'm saying not only does torture not work in such a ticking bomb scenario, but there are better options available. In fact, torture is so reliably unreliable, it was employed to fabricate a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. What does that tell you?

---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

No good reason to be. I'd guess that it's due to excessively narrow definitions of both conservativism and Jesus on your part. I'll say it again: Jesus is whatever you want him to be.

Not at all, actually. Because there's a generally agreed upon source of all information on his adventures, the Gospel, the messages are perfectly clear. Sure, the character was very pious compared to modern standards in some ways, talking about how divorce and remarriage are adultery for example, but he was very clear about things like inclusion, caring for the poor, and community. He dined with the dregs of society. He spoke about how it's easier for a camel to go through the head of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven. He fed the poor without asking anything in return. He healed the sick asking nothing in return but the remission of sins. The Jesus character was extremely progressive for the time, and even would be a progressive today.

I don't ever remember Jesus saying "God helps those that help themselves" or "I'd like to heal you, but your HMO doesn't cover leprosy." To conservatives reading this: what about Jesus would fit with modern conservatism? What if Jesus were to get in a debate with John McCain or Dick Cheney? Would he agree with them on policy or disagree with them?

Strange Famous · 05-02-2009, 10:29 AM

Seems a pretty elaborate way to go about not answering the question Will.

Do you really believe that there are NO circumstances where torture is not the most effective way of obtaining information?

Because, thats the only point I am making. I'm not saying torture is the best way to get information, I am saying there circumstances which a mind as limited as mine can visualize where torture is justified. If you deny that in my opinion you are ignoring reality. If you accept it, as I do, then you accept that Pandora's box is open.

And torture does not, and does not need to, involve hurting people. It is the application of force.

Oh, and Jesus also forbade divorce and stated that he agreed with Mosiac law... so you can look at it either way really.

Willravel · 05-02-2009, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

Seems a pretty elaborate way to go about not answering the question Will.

Do you really believe that there are NO circumstances where torture is not the most effective way of obtaining information?

There are NO circumstances in which torture is the most effective way of obtaining information, unless your goal is the obtaining of unreliable or even false confessions. Anyone with even an iota of demonstrable knowledge or experience on the issue are totally clear. If you want to ignore these people, that's your business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

Because, thats the only point I am making. I'm not saying torture is the best way to get information, I am saying there circumstances which a mind as limited as mine can visualize where torture is justified. If you deny that in my opinion you are ignoring reality. If you accept it, as I do, then you accept that Pandora's box is open.

I challenge you to find these circumstances.

powerclown · 05-02-2009, 12:26 PM

I found it curious that Obama, in his 100 days televised speech this past week, tacitly implied that torture works. He said that he disapproves of torture not because it doesn't work, but because "it's not who we are." It works, but its morally objectionable. Or something. All very parsed, and nuanced.

Quote:

OBAMA: What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices.

I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do, not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

I wonder what other ways of intelligence gathering he's talking about.

Strange Famous · 05-02-2009, 12:44 PM

The state SHOULD deny torture. Society deserves to be protected from the shame of these practices... the least they can do is hide them from us.

powerclown · 05-02-2009, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

The state SHOULD deny torture. Society deserves to be protected from the shame of these practices... the least they can do is hide them from us.

I agree with you. I think they should lie about one of life's dirty little secrets. Lets just not delude ourselves that international intelligence-gathering excludes torture. By everyone.

He went on to say some interesting things about Churchill and his stance on the matter.

Psycho Dad · 05-02-2009, 06:31 PM

I'm still trying to get my head around the idea that the answers of 742 people to a question like this means anything in regards to the opinions of millions.

FoolThemAll · 05-03-2009, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Sure, the character was very pious compared to modern standards in some ways, talking about how divorce and remarriage are adultery for example, but he was very clear about things like inclusion, caring for the poor, and community.

Sure. But he wasn't at all clear about indirectly and directly forcing others to be inclusive, compassionate, and socially responsible under penalty of earthly law.

Quote:

The Jesus character was extremely progressive for the time, and even would be a progressive today.

It's not clear that he'd be the least bit politically inclined.

Quote:

I don't ever remember Jesus saying "God helps those that help themselves" or "I'd like to heal you, but your HMO doesn't cover leprosy."

Now you're just being silly.

Quote:

To conservatives reading this: what about Jesus would fit with modern conservatism? What if Jesus were to get in a debate with John McCain or Dick Cheney? Would he agree with them on policy or disagree with them?

Better idea: you point out the conservative ideas that Jesus hates and the Biblical evidence of this.

There's probably some, but not nearly as many as you suggest. I don't see, for instance, Jesus insisting upon tax-funded universal health care, because while he said 'render under Caesar', it was frickin' CAESAR - indicating that Jesus wasn't all that concerned about the content of the government you were rendering unto.

04-30-2009, 04:56 PM	#2 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	The church I work at (Methodist) is absolutely against torture, as are many of the other mainline Protestant faith communities in my town. My church has committed itself to campaigning against torture; we have a sign that says "Stop Torture Now" in front of the church, as do many of the other mainline Protestant churches here, as we're all part of the Campaign Against Torture endorsed by the Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon. I don't think I could work there if they supported torture, but obviously the Methodists are a peace-lovin' group. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

05-01-2009, 11:35 AM	#5 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	"sometimes" is a very loose term. Are there many people who could not imagine some circmstances in which torture could be justified? I think not. If a killer had left someone you loved strapped to a time bomb, and under police custody there was a black and white question "if he is tortured he will give the location and your loved one will be saved / if he is not your loved one will die" - every one of us would torture him with our bare hands I suspect. Now, that scenario may be ridiculous, but I only use it to state that in moral terms there are very very very few real living human beings who do not believe that in some circumstances it may be necessary to tolerate necessary evil. This doesnt mean that if in full possession of the facts that they would support the use of torture against 18 year old Muslim lads who know fuck all other than they are angry with the West... I think what I am trying to say is that surveys like this tell us very little about what people feel or mean, just which banner they place themselves under when asked to make a choice by a market researcher when they neither consider what their position really means or what it really costs. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

05-01-2009, 12:03 PM	#6 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Support of torture under any circumstance must be done within the confines of a moral lapse of judgement. This reminds me of the oxymoron "holy war." __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

05-01-2009, 02:02 PM	#9 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Would be a lot of weight to carry though, wouldnt it? Every year when all the dead were remembered you could tell yourself using torture would surely have just solicitied unrealiable info anyway. Like someone saying they'd do 40 seconds of water boarding for 40 long ones, these kind of things are easy to answer when you dont have to face the reaility, and dont have to carry the weight of whichever decision you make. I dont think many people would say in a neutral situation that torture is a good thing. I dont think many people would find it so clear cut if they had to live through a worst case scenario. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

05-01-2009, 02:39 PM	#11 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	"No, I would not have. Because torture has been proven to yield unreliable information. It doesn't help me if I shove bamboo up his fingernails to get him to tell me lies about the German defenses." Because shoving bamboo up someone's fingernails will more than likely yield a false confession, does not mean (and lets make the distinction here rather than a feeble effort at comparisons) enhanced interrogations the US employed will always yeild false information. Though I appreciate you finally, though inadvertantly, recognizing what real torture is. My larger point however is: How do you reconcile this philosophy with what was described in the recently released memo's. Shakran takes the position that is a known fact that torture yields unreliable information, and not so subtly suggests that bamboo under fingernails and waterboarding (not indiscriminate I might add) are one and the same. If this is a proven fact, than you must think that those responsible for obtaining this information were aware of this right? So why did they do it? You either have to think that you're smarter than them and know more than them about what interrogations practices are most effective, or that these interrogators were doing it for pure enjoyment. Which one is it? or please give me a third alternative that I'm not seeing. (edited to highlight what I'd really like answered) Meanwhile, I don't see anyone insisting on the memo's describing what was obtained by these interrogations being released. Why not? But to the point of this thread, Shakrans leap between bamboo and what we did, which "churchgoers" support over "nonchurchgoers" and not by a large margin, is essential in a favorite liberal past-time of demonizing those whose faith is not liberalism: "yes, it's been decided the US enjoys torture - there is no more discussion, and looky - christians support it. They're so hypocritical". I wonder why no one insists on the memo's Cheney suggested being released, are released? "Nothing upsets people more than the truth" comes to mind. I do like how Clinton when asked about this said "it'll come to no surprise to anyone that I don't considered Cheney a reliable source of information". As an aside, between Obama's ridiculing teaparties and the constant public references to the previous what they think the previous administration did wrong, and the "we inherited it" when their at a loss for words, and Obama's "man boobs" being passed off as buff while liberal women swoon, this administration and the liberal world has fuckin lost it. Last edited by matthew330; 05-01-2009 at 02:49 PM..

04-30-2009, 05:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Some Christians use Jesus as a weapon and others use Jesus as a model. The former are likely to endorse torture, the latter are likely to rally against it. I'm constantly flabbergasted by followers of Jesus being conservative.

05-01-2009, 01:40 PM	#8 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	No, I would not have. Because torture has been proven to yield unreliable information. It doesn't help me if I shove bamboo up his fingernails to get him to tell me lies about the German defenses.

05-01-2009, 02:48 PM	#12 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	This may be shooting off in different directions, but I have to say There are people who - when given the chance - would use torture for sadistic pleasure, but very very few. When these things are abused (and when torture is an option it is always abused) it has far more to do with power and fear than it does to do with sadism. The people who are waterboarding Pakistani teenagers in god forsaken hell holes are not doing it because they are sexual perverts, I think we can broadly be sure of that. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

05-01-2009, 03:59 PM	#13 (permalink)
Psycho Dad Mulletproof Location: Some nucking fut house.	I doubt this particular survey, like most other surveys the media presents these days is worth a fart in a whirlwind. Depending on how it is presented, similar results are going to be found in every church. temple, synagogue, mosque or titty bar in the world. Different people view torture differently. To say that white Protestants are more tolerant of torture is of no more use than to say Arab Muslims are in favor of flying airplanes into buildings. I have little to no use for organized religion as a whole, but even less use of media manipulation of opinions based on "research" done via polls or surveys. __________________ Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

05-01-2009, 04:06 PM	#14 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Why do you doubt it, Psycho_Dad? Religious people are more likely to be conservative and conservative people are more likely to support conservative politicians. And only about half of those polled supported it. How is this doubtful?

05-01-2009, 05:01 PM	#15 (permalink)
Psycho Dad Mulletproof Location: Some nucking fut house.	Well Will, I gues I'm just assuming that a survey of 742 American adults conducted over the span of one week last month and reported by CNN may be flawed. __________________ Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

05-01-2009, 06:58 PM	#16 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Of course it's not perfect, it's barely scientific, but it gives an indication of what may be a trend. Also, I know plenty of churchy people that do support torture. I suspect you might, too.

05-01-2009, 07:52 PM	#17 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	Sure, because churchy people that support torture run rampant in your parts. And when you say that, do you mean the Nick Berg sorta torture, or the caterpillar on your leg sorta torture? (and just to be perfectly accurate, the caterpillar on your leg with doctors present sorta torture) ---------- Post added at 03:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 AM ---------- A final thought.......in light of how put off liberals were at how the term "terrorist" was being thrown around (ya know, when it was used to describe people that liked to blow themselves up in crowded public places, as opposed to people that hijacked planes) , I think you'd be a little more careful in your own usage of the word "torture", and at least acknowledge the clear distinction between what we have done and what has been done to our captured military. Last edited by matthew330; 05-01-2009 at 07:33 PM..

05-01-2009, 08:13 PM	#19 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	but didn't you recently comment about how you don't get a chance to debate much with conservatives (=church folk), and now all of a sudden you know quite a few of them. Just an observation...anyway, there is no grey area Will. As I said before, there is a clear distinction between what we did as described in those memo's and what they do. It's black and white. That you can't see that is disturbing. That you try to lump them together is sickening. That liberals think that way in the face of all this, is where the accusation of being "anti-american" comes from, it had nothing to do with protesting/disagreeing with the previous administration.

05-01-2009, 08:46 PM	#21 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	Anti-"fill in the blank" is the backbone of your ideology, so i find your position on this very very ironic. Okay. Let's elaborate on "our torture" and theirs. I'm sure you read the memo's, so we don't need to go into what we did and the levels of approval/efforts to ensure no physical harm was done, but off the top of my head what they have done: -sawing people's heads off (nothing new) -tying their hands together with a rope and pulling them backwards over a door....(btw - doing this naked, I know this by itself is torture in your eyes) -do I really need to continue........you know what they do... so now ask yourself, why did they do it (Sharia law, instill fear in the population, etc) and why did we do it? I'll let you answer that, that's what I wanted an answer to in my first post. Do you really think that I'm just being apologetic? No way dude. My take on this is not guided by my political persuasion, but I think you're grasping at straws trying to defend your position. You're just wrong. ---------- Post added at 04:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 AM ---------- .....and cute reference to "utah". Not only are churchgoers in support of kicking healthy people off 3 story buildings and cutting heads off people, because remember their is no grey area, we can also assume that they are porn loving perverts. Presumably infant porn, as soon as you've had enough time to make that kevin bacon connection. Science is only convenient when it's convenient, in the meantime....... Last edited by matthew330; 05-01-2009 at 08:36 PM..

05-01-2009, 09:20 PM	#23 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	Not much more to be said really. Thanks for the late nate Saturday convo. FRIDAY...can't get anything right on the first try.

05-02-2009, 08:36 AM	#27 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	There are cases when torture is justified. Anyone who denies that is lying to themselves quite simply. I say again, if your loved one was tied to the time bomb, and slapping around the person who knew where they were would save your loved ones life, you would do it. I do not believe that any person would allow their child or lover to die so that they might take a moral position. And it is also true that when you except that torture can in some circumstances be justified, you will nearly always end in a position where torture is misused and people are brutalised without justification. Unfortunatly black and white positions like "torture is wrong and should never be used" dont work very well in the real world. I'm sure some people will reply to my comments with many examples of grusome and disgusting torture... and the point is that I am not saying these things are not wrong, but I am saying they are inevitable. The fact that a random survey of some churches found more people who face up to this reality in some places then others does not tell me anything meaningful. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

05-02-2009, 08:39 AM	#28 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	A survey of 742 adults and they're bothering to report on it? Come on. This is BS and you know it. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

05-02-2009, 08:41 AM	#29 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It doesn't even have to be as simple as a moral argument: as roachboy, myself, and many others have pointed out, there's a perfectly valid utility argument. It doesn't do what it's meant to do. You're just as likely to get wrong information that will cost lives as you are to get the right information. Why the hell would you want to put more lives in danger? Vengeance, of course. Torture is great for enacting vengeance. That's all it really does, though. Jack Bauer isn't going to get the launch codes by torturing the Arab "terrorist" just in the nick of time, he's likely to alienate the tortured man or push him to the point where he says anything to end the torture. He might not even know the answer to the questions he's getting.

05-02-2009, 09:03 AM	#30 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Without wishing to repeat myself... there are many valid points that you make: but since I am only arguing that there are some possible circumstances when torture is justified, I think I can make the scenario I choose. I say again - choose between the death of your loved one, or beating up someone who has information that can save their lives. I do not ask if in the majority of cases another method of interogation may be more or less effective, I ask everyone to consider for themselves if they have a choice between the death of a love one or torturing the man who threatens their life - which will they choose? No one will answer that they choose to allow their loved one to die, because no one can honestly give such an answer. There are circumstances (whether you choose to argue they are unlikely or not) when torture is justified. There is no black and white moral position on this matter which people who live in the real world can afford. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

05-02-2009, 09:28 AM	#32 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I think that, while I can take that point that people who take all kinds of political views can see things in Jesus (or what was recorded about Jesus after his death that we read today) that supports them... but there is really no way you can look at Jesus - whether you believe him to be a man, or a God, or a false prophet, or a myth - and not see the most incendary revolutionary figure in recorded human history. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

05-02-2009, 10:29 AM	#34 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Seems a pretty elaborate way to go about not answering the question Will. Do you really believe that there are NO circumstances where torture is not the most effective way of obtaining information? Because, thats the only point I am making. I'm not saying torture is the best way to get information, I am saying there circumstances which a mind as limited as mine can visualize where torture is justified. If you deny that in my opinion you are ignoring reality. If you accept it, as I do, then you accept that Pandora's box is open. And torture does not, and does not need to, involve hurting people. It is the application of force. Oh, and Jesus also forbade divorce and stated that he agreed with Mosiac law... so you can look at it either way really. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

05-02-2009, 12:44 PM	#37 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	The state SHOULD deny torture. Society deserves to be protected from the shame of these practices... the least they can do is hide them from us. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

05-02-2009, 06:31 PM	#39 (permalink)
Psycho Dad Mulletproof Location: Some nucking fut house.	I'm still trying to get my head around the idea that the answers of 742 people to a question like this means anything in regards to the opinions of millions. __________________ Don't always trust the opinions of experts.