Interesting. If you want support for torture, go to church. . .
 

(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?

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.

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.

God, I couldn't help myself...


...

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.
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.

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.......

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

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.
I challenge you to find these circumstances.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Now you're just being silly.

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.

Sure. Below are central conservative standpoints and i'll provide Biblical accounts which run counter to each standpoint:

Economics:
Pro-property (Luke 14:33, Matthew 6:19-33)
Self-centeric (Mark 9:35, James 3:16)
Pro-rich/Anti-poor (Matthew 19:16-30/Mark 10:21-25/Luke 18:18-30)

Society:
Materialism (Matthew 19:16-30/Mark 10:21-25/Luke 18:18-30)
Exclusion (Mark 2:13-17/Matthew 9:9-13/Luke 5:27-32)
Economic class divergence (John 13:12-17)

Government:
Proportional response doctrine (Matthew 5:39)

Wasn’t Jesus A Liberal?

The Biblical Jesus would absolutely be liberal by modern standards.

with the exception of the loving your enemies part (unless they're the conservative kind of course), none of that even comes close to describing the standards of liberalism today. I do understand that's how you like to see yourselves, but it's just not the case.

As a neoconservative Bush apologist I'm sure your opinion of liberalism is totally objective.

On Faith Panelists Blog: Why the Faithful Approve of Torture - On Faith at washingtonpost.com

this goes to a kinda lame column in the washington post about this poll: the author is one of a no doubt huge range of christians who do not see this question in the way protestant evangelicals might...the interpretation in the column culminates in the last paragraph--but the commentary is interesting, though, and raises many of the questions that seem obvious (for example whether there is a correlation between religious practices and support for torture that makes sense independently of political viewpoint--in other words, the argument is that one might be conservative politically and have supported the bush people and their rationales for torture usage independently of religious affiliation....or it could be the case that (for example) evangelical protestant churches are effectively conservative political organizations (which i am inclined to see them as being, and which i personally think should cost alot of these churches their tax exempt status--but that'll never happen)...

there's a link at the start of the column to some more extensive information about the poll as well.
the question of representativeness really should have been addressed with respect to this particular poll--but instead you find a generic page about methologies. i looked around a bit on the pew website but didn't find anything that would speak to psychodad's objections about sample.

what's obvious is that there are many types of christianity, a bunch of demoninations, and it isn't at all clear that it makes sense to talk about christianity in general, or only particular types of christianity---methodists aren't particularly like evangelical baptists aren't particularly like catholics, etc. but that would have made for less meme-friendly results.

Missed my hint, huh? It wasn't that subtle.

What does that have to do with a reluctance to force others into this mindset? How does this show opposition to notions of property rights?

Where in this passage is it indicated that the government should incentivise this edict or penalize those who wouldn't follow it?

How do you go from "you should behave this way" to "the government should penalize those who don't behave this way"?

What?

Should I give your other cites a chance, or do you repeat your mistake in those as well?

So long as you ignore the socially conservative aspects of his teachings, and so long as you imagine a political bent that simply isn't there.

How does Jesus telling people to not store earthly possessions show opposition to property? Really?
What was it you said above? "Now you're just being silly". You should meet the same standards you require in others, lest you become a hypocrite.
I don't. The particular flavor of free market capitalism that modern conservatives support mean that you primarily serve yourself and yourself alone. As we have seen, this leads to class divergence. Compare that to the idea that no one person is better than anyone else and that you should serve others regardless of their place in society.
The only mistake is in your reading of what I posted. Unfortunately, I can only make my posts so clear, eventually the responsibility of comprehension falls to you, the reader.
Your post is a little light on Biblical references. Maybe you'd like to make an attempt to support your not so subtle point?

No, not really. How does it show opposition to property rights?

Now you're just being dodgy. I'll put it another way: where in that passage does it indicate that conservatives are wrong to keep matters of charity voluntary?

But as I pointed out, you're comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing what Jesus says people should do to what modern conservatives believe people should be allowed to do. If you aren't making the jump from one to the other, what are you doing? Exactly what kind of contradiction do you see here?

I read your post with the assumptions that (1) you appreciate the difference between "do this" and "make others do this", and (2) you were aiming to give me irreconcilable differences between conservative politics and the teachings of Jesus. Let me know which assumption was unwarranted.

You claimed contradictions. Burden's yours.

Fortunately, I don't have to demonstrate that at all, as I never made mention of property rights, but simply property. Remember? "Pro-property"? Besides, liberals aren't anti-property rights, they simply don't have materialism built as strongly into their/our economic models. We're okay having a little less so that others can have a little more.
This isn't speaking to the ideology I was referencing, though. When I was talking about class divergence, I was talking about being okay with some people being incredibly poor and some people being incredibly rich, but moreover the fact that conservatives prop up the rich as if they are better than everyone else, not having to pay their share of taxes, not being prosecuted for serious crimes, getting away with more than any poor person ever could hope to. When, in the passage (John 13:12-17, iirc), Jesus was washing their feet, he was symbolizing the fact that even those in the most laudable positions in society are still servants of that society and they are not truly greater than any "servant", or poorer person. That kind of equality is better represented by the left today than it is by the right.
No, most conservatives I know believe that everyone should behave in that way in order for the free market to work correctly. If some people are pushing for the government to help the poor more or for more socialized programs, they, according to what I understand to be a conservative mindset, are hindering the market. So it is, in fact, what one "should" do when discussing conservatism.
I said I was flabbergasted. I still am. I've met the burden to convince myself.

You really can't list anything?

I honestly don't get this absolutism that many on the left start parroting when it comes to torture... they sound just like the Christians they criticize.

I can think of plenty of scenarios where torture would be the moral thing to do, perhaps even when the chance of receiving reliable information is miniscule... they might not all be likely, but definitely possible.

Perhaps torture is mostly ineffective and unreliable (anyone have some good solid studies that attest to this?) .. but it may be extremely effective and very reliable in certain situations, with certain people.... or the stakes might be so high that even a slight chance to receive truthful information would render it justified.

What's not to get? It sounds like you don't really understand what you're talking about. Did you know that many Christians on the left are absolutely opposed to torture? Or that absolutism isn't always bad?

So you just, like, sit around and fantasize about situations where torture was morally justified? That can't be good for your mental health.

This is ridiculous. This has nothing to do with the kind of torture that was the standard operating procedure of the previous administration. You're talking about some sort of fictional fantasy world. In Real Life people were tortured when there wasn't really anything at stake, when they didn't have any useful information- that's how torture happens In Real Life, when people decide that some sort of abstract notion of personal safety is more important than a commitment to human rights.

That's what this whole torture thing is really about- making people who are fundamentally insecure feel secure.

This Jack Bauer bullshit needs to die.

And I'm pretty sure that you won't find any studies concerning the effectiveness of torture because any scientist who attached his/her name to the study would be stripped of their credentials and compared to the nazis.

OK. Tell them to us. Not generalizations like you already did, but specific examples. Bear in mind that "the chance of receiving reliable information is minuscule" is a meaningless statement. Since torture is known to extract unreliable information, even if the person you torture gives you reliable information, you won't know that it's reliable.



I'm especially interested to know when you think torture would be /moral/ and why.

I think you need to define this 'pro-property' thing you attribute exclusively to conservatives so that I can see how it doesn't apply to... just about anyone at all.

You need to bring this down to earth. Are there any intrinsically conservative policies that you can point to and say, "Jesus hates this"? Can you point to something a little more universal than the corruption of some conservatives? Or are you just saying that conservatives have some bad attitudes?

And if that happens to be it, could you be less flabbergasted by the idea that Christians might vote for those who hold similar policy goals and dissimilar mindsets?

Barring an incredibly poor amount of anecdotal experience on your part, that's not really what you mean. Conservatives don't insist on selfishness from everyone in order to maintain the free market - yeesh, even Ayn Rand didn't do that - they insist on the government holding a neutral position toward selfishness.

You're still making - without stating - the jump from "people should do this" to "the government should compel assistance in doing this". Jesus wants charity. Conservatives want charity to stay voluntary. That's not a contradiction, no matter how many times and ways you try to shroud the leap from "do this" to "make others do this".

Again: Jesus clearly wanted charity. He did not, in any remotely clear way, want forced charity.

Implying contradictions. If you meant to make a baseless statement, then sure, you've met the burden.

List what? All the places where Jesus doesn't contradict conservative policies?

That really isn't how the burden of proof works.

geez, fta, you'd think this would be obvious--but given that xtian denominations position themselves against each other by generating differing amalgamations of interpretations of biblical texts--and so different priorities, different combinations--so evangelicals who happen as a denominational matter to also be reactionary tend to generate these strange analgamations of old and new testament texts in that selective-to-arbitrary reading kinda way that apparently is authorized by the descent of the holy spirit or whatever that emphasize the more martial aspects of the old testament processed through collages of prophetic texts--you know, revelations/apocalypse isiah, ezeliek about the end time that in turn get laid over the gospels in order to create the version of jesus that best suits their politics. so alot of evangelicals fancy themselves like the jesuits did in the 17th century, the army of jesus engaged in trench war against satan and his minions, holding down whatever they imagine themselves to be holding down until that dramatic moment when the Giant Vacuum gets turned on and the Righteous get hoovered into the Bag of Heaven and then the Shit Will Hit The Fan. the evangelical message--the conversion narratives--emphasis the peace love and understanding aspects--helping you or i to join the InCrowd and pitch ourselves toward various moments of Recognitions like you see in that fabulous film "freaks"--you're one of us, you're one of us....which presumably is then confirmed in a wholesale breakdown of musical taste and sudden affection for that particularly nasty strata of mediocre pop they call "christian music""---but in the stories that concern the relation of the Faitful to the evil fallen world, it's entirely adversarial.

you could connect this relation inside/outside to the interpretation of the bible to the reactionary politics to the relatively heightened support for torture.
fact is alot of evanglicals at the level of doctrine formal and informal already spend alot of time imagining themselves persecuted and take that persecution as an Index of their Monumental Faith.

but i suspect you know all this.

it's also self-evident that this is far from the only interpretation of the bible, far from the only collage, that is possible--and that different denominations emphasize different versions. connecting collage to organization to politics is an easy peasy way to position in the same generally xtian grid unitarian univeralists or quakers to catholics to methodists to southern baptist evangelicals.

it isn't rocket science.

so it's not exactly a cohrent way to proceed to abstract the gospels from everything else and pretend that what's at stake are different takes on the bromides jesus is supposed to have issued as if they're free standing---it's more accurate to see in the bromides and frame stories elements that are situated in broader readings/relations to the bible which are symmterical with committments that are outside the text.

the problem with the poll--and with it in more detailed form--is simply that it make no particular differentiations amongst xtians, treating them as a bloc--but that's methodologically a pretty suspect move, if you think about it---but whatever, i don't have an iron in that fire so don't particularly care about it. nor did i find the poll particularly interesting, but for the same reason. suspect method leads to suspect results. happens every day.

I did not present my position to convince anyone, therefore there is no burden of proof. The burden of proof is about shifting the assumed conclusion from yourself to an opponent or opponents, but in this I established no opponent or opponents, I simply stated an opinion. Read it again:
I was making a statement of fact about my own opinion, not a challenge to anyone's assumptions. The fact that you responded to this as if I'd laid out an objective truth in order to convince people tells me you ignored the syntax completely and were just looking for confrontation. The only logical opposition to my statement would be if you believed that my opinion wasn't that the Jesus character was liberal. Since me stating my own opinion truthfully is naturally assumed, the burden has been met.

Everything after that was me explaining my own opinion. Here's a question for you: if you're trying to change my opinion, who does the burden fall on? I'll give you a hint, it's you.

Fair enough.

Past that point, I asked you to explain your opinion. To an extent, you complied, but not very well. I pointed out that your listed contradictions weren't actually contradictions.

That's where we're at. What, if anything, is next? Do you have any good examples of why you're flabbergasted?

How would you propose I do that if I don't have an understanding of your opinion's basis? You gave me some examples, but they didn't help me to understand your opinion because they didn't support it.

If I were to say that I was flabbergasted that followers of Jesus could be political liberals, could you point out to me the passages where Jesus advocated liberal government? And for the love of that neocon-hating God, if you do, could you please do so without conflating liberal government and liberal behavior?

You want a list of examples where Jesus doesn't hate political conservatism? Take a Bible that puts the words of Jesus in red. Those words in red are my tentative list. I invite you to poke holes in that list.

And you're welcome to that opinion. I disagree, but not strongly enough to do anything about it.

Perhaps. But what if that killer presented me with a child, and said, "Here... Sexually molest this child while I watch, or I will press the button on this device that will detonate the bomb your wife and your own child are strapped to." Would I molest the child? No way. I would not compromise my principles on this, even it means my wife and my own child will die.

Indeed, that scenario was ridiculous. And so was mine.

Then again, some people (myself included) believe that torture is among those evils that should never be committed, no matter what the circumstances.

Examples of a reasonable form of absolutism are pretty lacking, in my opinion.

Not really... but questions regarding the ethics of torture should raise those kinds of thoughts, at least a little bit, if one is to claim they have actually given the issue due consideration.

Well, I wanst really commenting on torture as implemented by the previous administration.. but in general, there are possible situations where torture would be moral. I'm sure that any scenario I could posit to you, would be immediately dismissed as a "Jack Bauer" fantasy, but whatever.

If you can imagine a sliding scale, where the morality of an act of coercion is proportional with the severity of the risks involved with failing to acquire information necessary to prevent some disaster, you should be able to understand how I feel about it. On the low end of the scale, you might have a typical police interrogation... on the high end of the scale you might have more advanced torture techniques. On one hand though, I do think there is probably an upper limit on the type of torture that could be realistically ethically used, but I don't think waterboarding gets there... nor naked human pyramids.

If say, a million lives are at stake, and the best possibility to save them was through an act of torture, I think it would be morally questionable not to go through with it. Heck even if 9/11 could have been prevented with an act of torture...

This has nothing to do with me trying to feel "secure"... its about coming to a reasonable conclusion about the ethics of torture. I don't think the anti-torture absolutists have proven their case, that I have seen. I don't think I would really advocate that we actually permit torture as a matter of public policy... but I would be all for letting someone off the hook if they used torture reasonably.

Then why is there such confidence behind the claims that torture is unreliable? Do we have good scientific information to corroborate these claims, or can we dismiss them as unsubstantiated?

This assumes there aren't better, more effective, more efficient methods of extracting information. There are in any and all circumstances better, more effective, more efficient methods of extracting information, according to the foremost experts on the issue, therefore torture is never the moral thing to do. Unless you assume that you understand torture (or any questioning methods) better than the foremost experts in the world, you must then conclude, as I have, that torture has no place.

That's all moot, because there's no chance, not even a minuscule chance, of extracting reliable information via torture. You might get information, you may even get information that ends up correct, but only a fool would think it to be reliable. Torture does not yield reliable results.

Well, in any situation where there was an equally effective or more effective alternative to torture that was less morally treacherous, I would claim that torture is not justified.

What if the information needed was trivial to verify? Honestly, I don't have my mind closed to arguments of its effectiveness from either side... but one thing in favor of those who would permit torture in some conditions, is the fact that it does have quite a historical precedent.

Can you elaborate? If we're torturing someone, wouldn't the information be important enough to verify? We don't exactly torture for unimportant information. At least I hope we don't.
So does astrology. Historical precedent does not equate effectiveness, in fact it often speaks to a thing's outdatedness. But in all seriousness, don't ignore the massive evidence that torture doesn't work. Don't ignore numerous interviews with the most qualified people alive on the subject. Don't ignore FBI documents from Guantanamo that detail how torture hindered, not helped, their questioning of detainees. Don't ignore the fact that torturing Zarqawi not only yielded no demonstrable results, but the administration had to lie about it working (and were later caught in that lie).

Does it strike you as odd that you are absolutely opposed to absolutism?

I guess. Though to tell you the truth, I didn't have to do a lot of soul searching or thought experiments to come to the conclusion that rape is wrong. And whenever I have the opportunity to reiterate the claim that rape is wrong, I never feel the need to qualify it with a statement about how I can imagine that it would be okay in some instances.

Even then, torture in the abstract isn't the problem here. The problem here is how torture typically plays out in real life: inefficient as a means of gathering quality information and with little regard for human rights.

Because it probably would be Jack Bauer fantasy. Jack Bauer fantasies are the standard response when one is attempting to justify torture.

But why would there be an upper limit on the type of torture used? Is it possible that your problems with the "absolutist" perspective is that it sets a much lower upper limit on the types of ethical torture than you?

I understand where you're coming from and I don't necessarily disagree with your math. I just think that the the odds of such a situation occurring are vanishingly small and that discussion of such situations tends to obscure how torture plays out in reality.

Of course it's about feeling secure, the circumstances you are describing are at their core about maintaining some sense of security.

As for proving cases, your case isn't particularly compelling either. Do you know of any instances where Jack Bauer tactics have directly contributed to the prevention of mass murder? Have there been any rigorous scientific studies about the effectiveness of torture at preventing mass murder?

I think that the lack of confidence in the effectiveness of torture at providing reliable information is based on statements made by people whose job it is to know how effective torture is at providing reliable information. Willravel could probably tell you more.

In any case, I would hope that you begin applying your rigorous scientific standards to your own perspective. You might find that there is little scientific evidence corroborating the claim that torture is effective.

This is kind of a moot post now. If one pastor of any denomination said something that makes his or his church look horrible then it must be believed by every church no matter what. It seems that people just want to paint all Christians as hypocrites ( which is admittedly true ) and find any excuse they can grasp at to not believe that they may, one day, be held responsible.
People may actually have to come to the understanding that if there is no higher power and we are just dust, then life in really not relevant. That if we are just dust or dirt then life is of little consequence and killing is simply speeding up the decomposition process and nothing more. People will always find excuses to not believe and will never realize that humans are imperfect and are mostly horrible examples of God no matter their religious beliefs. Anyway just my two cents.