Why the Faithful Approve of Torture

Some people say morality is reducible to obeying God's commands. But, Greek Plato and others have pointed out, even if we figure out what God's command's are, from among the scores of conflicting religions on the planet, there remains one dilemma.

Does God command a law because it is good, or is a law good because God commands it?

Ms Thistlewaite takes a bad survey and uses it to malign evangelical Christians. How very surprising.

Evangelical Christians tend to be conservative politically - but not always. Is it the political conservativism or the evangelical Christian-ness that lends support to torture under some circumstance? A well designed study could have ferreted this out. As it is, the most likely is that we have the very much non-interesting result that Evangelicals tend be conservative. But with such a result, Ms Thistlewaite couldn't slur Christians.

There is an H-bomb hidden somewhere in New York. It is going off in 12 hours. One of the terrorists is caught. The terrorist has a terrible aversion to fingernails on a chalk board. The FBI sets up 118 chalkboards and conducts a symphony of screeching. Terrorist confesses. Bomb found and dismantled. Would the liberal lefty Thistlewaite object?

All blanket statements are wrong!

Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than being in your garage makes you a car.

I believe the poll reflects political affilation and is a good reason why religions like Catholicism should not focus on one issue over all others.

susan, while i agree with you generally, you said,

"I think it is impossible, yes, impossible, if you read the Gospels, to make the case that God wanted Jesus tortured for the sins of humanity."

how 'bout luke 24:45-47:

45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

now, it doesn't say "suffer torture" but it does say "suffer" then goes on to describe his being tortured.

CHRISTIANITY AND TORTURE:

What else could you possibly expect from a religion whose central focus is all about torture and death?

Saturate minds with any theme and those minds will project that theme back into the outer world.

The Religion of the Tormented Jew has not been good for the world.

Madame, your theological question is quite interesting. Some would suggest that the torture and death of Jesus is actually a major justification for peace theory.

Essentially, when Christ was crucified He took upon himself all violence, and He conquered death in the process. Thus to enact violence on others would be a form of idolatry because it suggests that the death of Christ was not enough. Thus the cycle of violence is actually a failure to submit to the work of Christ on the Cross. This theological position is neither contradictory nor the same as your own, however it comes to a similar conclusion: that torture and violence is never permissible under the new covenant.

Though I would like to address the idea that Jesus Himself explains which is that those who share in His kingdom will face opposition and consequently will share in His suffering. This is not a support of violence but it does explain why Christians will experience persecution and violence though they should not be perpetuating it.

The real reason that so many "Christians" have adopted the pain and torture is OK is because they have been intentionally lied to by politicians (Bush,Cheney, "religious right" types) who said they blieved in Jesus Christ, while willfully following, and teaching others to do the same, the ways and methods of paganism, whose master is Satan.

Jesus told Pilate, his Roman captor who asked him why his disciples had not attempted to rescue Him, "My Kingdom is NOT of this world. Were it of this world, My followers would join armies and fight." Some versions say "My followers would fight." Either way, fighting to defend onesself or his friends is condemned by Jesus Christ.

What Christ has invited people to do is have faith in Him and His ability to defend them until He decides that their work on earth is finished. Then, He promises it is homeward bound.

He said, "If you love Me, keep the Commandments." That means the Ten Commandments, which are NOT Jewish, but Judeo-Christian. Christianity was, and is, the opening of up the blessings that flow to all who become heirs to the promises God made to their father, Abraham.

"Christians" who think fighting, which almost always leads to torture, is ever "justified," have no faith in Christ at all. That is what He said.

This almost unbelievable sad finding shows how far religion has gone astray from the most basic ethical principles. That clergy do nothing to bring the "faithful" back on track, is sad beyond understanding. That no religion rose in condemnation of torture, when it was widely known it was happening, has disqualified religion from even pretending to be a "moral guide" for anybody. Sad, very sad.

god should have known that we'd still be here today, and should have known that we'd have refrigerators and so on in 2009 a.d.

so, if god were truly all-knowing etc...those prohibitions from the old testament would have said something like "for the next 3000 years, until you invent refrigeration, don't eat pork."

alternatively, if he's still up there watching, he could just reveal himself to some rabbi or something and update us.

jmounadi,
abortion is truly horrible - but i don't think you can base opposition to it on religious grounds. here's something from a paper i'm writing called "saving the world."

Is God “pro-life”? Though He makes no specific statements about “abortion,” in Exodus 21:20 we get a rare, almost accidental, glimpse into what He thought about fetuses. While describing penalties for various transgressions, He says,

“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.”

In those days a “premature” baby was a dead baby. The fine was remuneration for causing the miscarriage. It’s just a fine. If God considered the fetus a human life, the penalty would have been death. In the next verse, God goes on to say,

“But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

God was talking about serious injury to the woman, not the baby.

We can surmise that God would probably be in favor of abortion (and murder) if the mother has other Gods. Surely some of Joshua’s victims were pregnant and in Hosea 13:16, God warned unbelievers in Samaria that they would have their “little ones dashed to the ground and pregnant women ripped open.” True, they were infidels, but it’s not very fetus-friendly. Later Jesus warned specifically of woe unto unbelieving expectant mothers at the tribulations (Mt24:19).

Julianoone writes: Judaism, for example, asks us to accept that there are foods that are "unclean" for no apparent reason other than the whim of God. What about pork is much different than, say, beef or chicken?

The reason swine was banned in religious circles was mainly due to basic reasons of cleanliness such as pigs weren't kept in segregated farms as they are today. A pigs nature is to roost in its own excrement.

In those times we didn't have anti-biotics to clear bacterial infections the way we do today. Chickens and cows don't roost in their own excrements.

In India pigs are used as an effective means to clean up rubbish from the streets because that is in their nature. Try using an outdoor bathroom stall where a bucket sits outside of the stall underneath the toilet (in India). If a pig or wild pig is near by, then it will go right under the stall and start eating the fresh dung you just released. Don't believe me? Try it.

That is why it was implemented into religious code of conduct for foods. That is why God makes things so simple for us. We just have to open our minds AND our eyes to see the beauty God gives us.

Seperate pearls from swine. It's as basic as this.

Enemyofthestate, you make some silly points about Christianity. Are you going to tell me that the death penalty does not play a role in punishment? I bet you are the one that believes a woman has the right to an abortion.

And you're the type that will always use the most dramatic excuses of why abortion should be legal. Such as rape, detection of birth defection (as if that's a reason to abort a human life)and other percentages that never come close to matching the amount of times abortion is simply used to exterminate life simply out of inconvenience.

Slashing tax dollars for the poor is a bit extreme in a nation that doesn't truly taste poverty compared to nations with true poverty. Granted there are many single-mother families that need assistance, but not at the level we are being gauged for.

You skew the argument to attack Christianity, because like most people, you don't want to be held accountable for your actions. Kill a man, then you deserve to be killed as well (unless it was self-defense).

Since it is common thinking outside of Christianity to accept the murdering of helpeless lives (unborn children), but not capital punishment for a murderer. Then I'll take Christianity over secular-atheism any day.

judeochrislam requires the exaltation of god above man. or, thought of another way - the devaluation of humans. we can use fancy words like "salvation" and "redemption" to get around this, but it's a basic judeochrislamic value.

the belief in heaven further devalues fellow humans because our lives here on earth are just not THAT important, given the anticipated eternal life after death.

consider the story of abraham and isaac - a story much revered by all judeochrislamics. (muslims tweak the story by claiming it was ishmael instead of isaac, but the "lesson" is still the same.) abraham is REVERED because he was willing to kill his own son because god wanted him to.

my point is that exaltation of god and the promise of heaven DEVALUES human life here on earth. judeochrislamic scripture is very clear that no amount of good deeds here on earth will get you into heaven. it's got to be allegiance to this or that god/scripture, which is filled with horrible cruelty to fellow humans being justified as being god's will.

It's disappointing but not surprising that such a high percentage of Christians support torture. Many also have no problem with the death penalty, slashing government programs for the poor and waging war for reasons other than defense.

I don't know how they rationalize it. I gave up trying to understand Christianity a long time ago.

Yes. It is the abuse of grief that is so harmful.

Religion is illogical. If a religion asks us to accept a given claim, that claim should make good sense and be backed up by real reasons other than "God wills it." For such a simple criterion, an astonishing number of religions fail this one. Judaism, for example, asks us to accept that there are foods that are "unclean" for no apparent reason other than the whim of God. What about pork is much different than, say, beef or chicken? Why did God create some animals and then arbitrarily decree them to be forbidden? Christianity, too, fails this test on multiple counts. Christians believe that, rather than simply granting forgiveness to those who sincerely ask, God was unable to absolve humanity without violently killing an innocent man who happened to be part of him as a sacrifice to another part of him, except that he didn't really die anyway. The absurdities of this doctrine are too numerous to list. A true religion, by contrast, would not contain such bizarre and illogical ideas, but rather a coherent and sensible set of rules. If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, nothing can happen without his full knowledge and consent. If he is omnibenevolent, he will never allow pointless suffering. If he is an all-wise entity, he has real purposes for everything he does. A true religion would not ignore these simple facts.

Can I get a loud "Amen!" for ClearBlackSky? (post 11:14 p.m.) He is right on target with his observation that religious folk are fearful. They believe in heaven but are afraid to die. They believe in Jesus but are afraid to follow his teachings. They believe in God but use secular power to impose their beliefs on others.

As a regular church goer, Catholic by the way, I don't see how anyone can condone torture. I'm sure most of those 54% that agree to torture others also agree to kill convicted criminals. I think it's a package deal- inhumanity to man while all the while sitting in their pews thinking they are good, God fearing people wishing for conservative legislators to pass laws codefying their values for all to follow. I'm sure there is nothing that makes the devil laugh harder than when these blind hypocrits preach their hate and do it in the name of God!

Would Jesus have approved of US involvement in WWII?

Would Jesus approve of you using deadly force to defend yourself?

I am not sure.

Lets do an easy one. Should I take your kid and hook a device up to them that will kill them unless you can enter the code. What if I will not give you the code?

Can you yell at me?

Can you keep me awake if I want a nap?

Can you slap me?

Can you choke me?

Can you put a spider on me?

What if you have two minutes left?

What are you going to do?

Tell me now. I want an answer.

Please come down from you ivory tower and tell me.

Hey, that's what has always gotten me about the evangelical right who support the GOP and torture: whatever happened to do unto others?

I think a lot of people here are missing the real lesson of this study.

First of all, they're not saying ALL U.S. Christians approve of torture, they're saying 52 percent do. So those of you commenting as Christians, outraged because you're all being painted with the same broad brush, relax.

But still... Christianity at its core teaches that we are not only to love our neighbor, but love our ENEMIES. That would include al Qaeda, wouldn't it? And in that case, you really have to admit that 52 percent is a surprisingly high number. I could see it if maybe 10-20 percent just didn't happen to hear the sermon that particular Sunday, but still, an actual MAJORITY think torture is okay?

By the way, that's TORTURE, not interrogation. TORTURE. The two words are not synonyms.

So, yes, I think 52 percent of a group supposedly taught to "turn the other cheek" still supporting torture might be considered a surprising statistic, and Susan can be forgiven for trying to think of reasons for this paradox. And while she's casting about for possible reasons, it's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that maybe Christians are somewhat desensitized to the heinous nature of torture because it is so central in the stories of their Savior. She's not saying that's the only conclusion, but it certainly merits further discussion and study.

We hear so much about how so many American students (and presumably their parents) can't even identify their own country on a world map. So maybe it's not surprising at all that so many Christian Americans have so little idea what their religion is actually telling them to do, and so little curiosity to find out.

Another scripture many Christians are not aware of is that not all those who say "Lord, Lord" will get into heaven. So all those who only call themselves Christians so they can get their "Get out of hell free" card, probably ain't gonna get one.

Religious folks are a fearful bunch. It's probably as simple as that.

Evangelicals want to torture someone, let them do it to themselves. Like the Shia Moslems lash themselves on Ashura.

But why should this extend to others. Evangelicals have to ignore major parts of the New Testiment to approve of torture. On the other hand, we're not talking about a majority of deep thinking people.

Fate1posted:

“JackDixon wrote: "Prior to the 1960’s there was virtually no tolerance for pornography, prostitution, promiscuity, teen-age pregnancies, and illegal use of drugs to mention a few problems which are now everyday events.."

“My teenage neighbor became pregnant.”

Did you live in a deviant neighborhood? A sample of one is no sample. What about your knowledge of those who lived outside your neighborhood?

Did your local high school have special classes for pregnant students”

---

‘Just where do you think all the drugs in the 60s came from?”

I know Eisenhower wasn’t responsible.

---

“Promiscuity was as rampant as today.”

You certainly must have lived in a deviant neighborhood.

---

“And no prostitution?”

Nothing like what you will find today on craigslist or dozens of other internet sites. And you obviously aren’t aware of those who publicly advocate legalizing prostitution.

Did you now live in a cocoon?

---

Why do you think Rock Hudson had a fake marriage?

Hudson had a fake marriage because he was a fake.

---

“Oh my oh my. Guess you never read about Chicago during the 30s, or mothers leaving babies on doorsteps, the ones who were found”

Oh my oh my. Oh dear me. I heard about mothers who could not feed their babies during the Great Depression. But I never heard about mothers leaving their babies in trash bags or in dumpsters simply because the babies weren’t wanted.

---

“And since how did AIDS get into your list? Its a disease not a moral issue.”

AIDS got on the list because it was first detected in San Francisco bath houses which did involve a moral issue.

---

“But you can find the condoning of slavery. “

The abolition of slavery didn’t begin with the 1960’s.

The abolition of slavery began in this country in the 1830’s.

---

“Look, since you hate the America…”

Whoa!

I am a combat veteran who sees America going down a slippery slope. I don’t like to think that I put my life on the line to see the country devolve into the America that you espouse.

You don’t appear to know what morality is about.

this is proof once more that religion is a total scam!!

I've never understood the Christian tendency to focus on the pain of Christ. The tenet of our faith should be the resurrection, as this is what guarantees our salvation--not the suffering. You do not possess the human capacity to understand His suffering anyway.

I never understood that movie, the Passion of the Christ. Jesus came for the purpose of being resurrected, and in order for that to happen, the crucifixion was necessary.

I've never understood anti-Semitism. The Jews were simply fulfilling prophecy and in doing so, enabled the provision of salvation. Without them, there would be no resurrection. They performed a critical and necessary role.

The death of Christ wasn't a bad thing...for God's sake, it saved your ignorant soul. Through death came life.

Christians who perpetuate these ignorant themes are bizarre, and clearly don't understand their own faith.

Interesting how the other- or non-religious have such preconceptions about what Christians should believe and how faith should influence one's views of non-religious issues.

To me, this shows that traditional faiths has simply been replaced by another set of beliefs not any more rational than the first - in many ways a much more intolerant and imposing one - "Morally correct progressiveness".

The separation of Church and State - at the very foundation of our country - allowed the Western world to develop where all States that did not separate the two did not.

My fear is that the new "moral state" that "progressives" are trying to impose are so founded in ideological beliefs that they blind people to facts, reality and dangers. It is just another form of self serving, feel good & very intolerant "faith" that refutes the others' right to think differently.

"Progressiveness" is simply the new Elmer Gantry in our society! Heaven help us all!

Isn't it great how the smiling faces at the masthead of this forum want to talk about faith? And isn't it remarkable how often they invite someone from the Center for American Progress to regularly bash Christians? All you have to do is say she used to go to seminary and instantly she's qualified as an expert and someone to be taken seriously. "People who go to church regularly approve of torture." That is a less-than-eighth-grade observation, whether it's coming from Pew, the C.A.P or this clown and if you think she or Meacham or Quinn give a rat's behind about your faith, think again. This forum is meant to be a propaganda piece against organized religion, particularly Christianity, and to promote "progressivism". Read the comments to see how easily the readers are led. The woman can't contain herself, either, going off on Mel Gibson and the 'previous administration'. Is beating dead horses torture?

Christianity was founded on a concept of a justified crucifixion of Christ supported by established religion. It should not surprise us that established religion, which is often more interested in maintaining power and wealth would want to stop that which they perceive as a threat. Natural human tendencies allow fear of the unknown to be a great motivator to justify the otherwise unjustified.

This should never be confused with faith that would trust that God is in Control--even of terrorist threats after all most Americans subscribe to the Pray like Hell-- But Row to Shore philosophy.

I guess as an intellectual you have to think about stuff and come up with explanations for why things are. But, jeez, do you think all these right wing folks are thinking THAT deeply about the their religion that they could come up with the convoluted explanation for accepting torture that you have developed.

If these people were that good at critical or logical thinking they'd have figured out a long time ago how much the Republican party was putting the wood to them and using them. The whole reason they are that die-hard in accepting such strict articles of faith is because they DON'T want to think.

Have a glass of wine and take another shot at it.

We don't owe our freedoms and civilized society to the church. Those that brought us into an age of enlightenment were rational humanists. Our social progress is due to the untangling of the church from government. It is true that many of these progressive reformers were men of the cloth and religious women, but they were generally from the liberal and unorthodox sects lacking temporal power. We shall only retain our liberty if we resist the forces of unreasonable dogmatism from reasserting their control over government. Those professed Christians who approve of torture are kindred spirits of the Taliban, and this is ironic as they are the most vociferous critics of Muslim extremism and Islam as a whole; it seems there opposition is not really based on an aversion to the despicable acts committed by Muslim fanatics, but, instead, on the creed they profess. History shows that Christianity is no stranger to encouraging martyrdom and holy war in the defense and expansion of its beliefs. There are many who would repeat the same persecutions and outrages of the Middle Ages if the conditions allow. As proved in Germany, Christ's ministry of love has a tenuous hold on the descendents of the hordes of pagans converted at the point of the sword, with neither they nor the coercive proselytizers truly understanding the teaching of the Master. "Many cry Lord, Lord, but few are saved."

The most tortured thing about these so called Christians is there thinking or lack therof. This may be best illustrated by looking at the Bybee memo or the whole doctrine of indulgences. Their creed seems to be that most folks are going to hell and that we should give them a preview while still on earth.

Do the american citizens understand the word Torture or still remain in the infancy of Christain faith.America is an amalgam of immigrants, not just Europe but also other parts of the world. They have witnessed even heinous tortures. We, still are hiding or refusing the fact that there are many forms of tortures at issue.America is humane enough to exclude torture used by very many in the world.The torture used in islamic countries on women and children.We are trying to emulate them by adapting the SHARIA laws un USA- in the name religious practice, the modern Islamic women american citizens are subject to the same sharia laws-cruel punishment-OH!! I ment to say TORTURE,in the cities of Detroit,New York, they are willingly accepting religious torutre imposed by Mullahs-hiding them behind the DARK CLOAK-like magicians wear. What a farce- State and religious separation. When do we wake up, call these religious torture- same thing practices in Saudi Arabia,Iran and Pakistan.These religious bigots do not follow any of the same privileges we all enjoy, particularly in USA

Of COURSE Christians support torture! Their very act of belief requires that they torture logic!

The Bible forbids false testimonies. Torture often leads to false testimonies. Therefore, torture is not a Biblical or Christian method of inquisition. Yet many Christian churches throughout the history had used torture. There are many sections in the Bible that many Christians just don't follow.

Torture is NOT condoned by Democrats OR Republicans. McCain dissapproved, Linsey Graham dissaporved, the military has NEVER approved of torture until 2002 - ever since President Goerge Washington, the military has a stict rules of engagement against torture. It was the republican President Eisenhower who signed up tot he Geneva Convention.

I am shocked that over 50% of churchgoeres and also 43% of secular people poled by Pew pol approved of torture!!!!

Torture is like slavery- it comes back to haunt you and your children and further generations.

Torture does not produce reliable evidence either anyway. The most reliable evidence achieved during the last 10 years was from a man captured after the Kenyan embassy bombing- he was given a choice of being interrogated by either the Keyan government with a lawyer or the US military without a lawyer- he ran to the US military- they got a lot of good info-- they did not use torture.

hard to say what is worse: one of our soldiers getting tortured because we have tortured others or being asked to torture yourself.

Torture is totally UNACCEPTABLE to the US government---

Under Clinton the CIA did renditions which is also a cowardly thing to do and totally illegal and under Bush redition went on and actual torture -SHAME!!!!!

Just now I watched a C-Span program from February 2005 a panel discussed their book: "the Torture papers and the Road to Abu Ghraib".

Many good books are out there to inform us- let us correct the last administrations errors in proceeding down this nasty and stupid road.

Unfortunately Ms.Thistlethwaite assumes that people who go to church a lot understand the gospels.

Mostly these are people who prefer not to think but rather be told what to do. Certainly more qualified to interpret the latest Britney Spears panty "no show" than church history. Rome wasn't conquered because Christians all owned guns as a second ammendment right. It became Christian through martyrdom.

Do you really think they have a clue?

John1263 posts:

“If you are a Christian, the message is clear. Rome was evil. Torture is evil.”

Rome was evil. Torture is evil. But Rome was just doing what it had been doing for hundreds of years.

What is more evil is the fact that Jesus was a victim of religious persecution.

Jesus was handed over to the Romans because what he was teaching was considered blasphemy by the religious leaders of the time.

But his teaching prevailed.

The teaching of Jesus has been preached throughout the world -- just as he said it would.

Matthew 26:13 NIV

“I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

That doesn’t mean the world became a utopia.

Evil will always be around.

Matthew 24:5 NIV

“For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many.”

Now it must be said that Gibbon does indeed find in Tertullian support for the author's thesis:

The condemnation of the wisest and most virtuous of the Pagans, on account of their ignorance or disbelief of the divine truth, seems to offend the reason and the humanity of the present age. But the primitive church, whose faith was of a much firmer consistence, delivered over, without hesitation, to eternal torture, the far greater part of the human species. A charitable hope might perhaps be indulged in favor of Socrates, or some other sages of antiquity, who had consulted the light of reason before that of the gospel had arisen. 71 But it was unanimously affirmed, that those who, since the birth or the death of Christ, had obstinately persisted in the worship of the daemons, neither deserved nor could expect a pardon from the irritated justice of the Deity. These rigid sentiments, which had been unknown to the ancient world, appear to have infused a spirit of bitterness into a system of love and harmony. The ties of blood and friendship were frequently torn asunder by the difference of religious faith; and the Christians, who, in this world, found themselves oppressed by the power of the Pagans, were sometimes seduced by resentment and spiritual pride to delight in the prospect of their future triumph. "You are fond of spectacles," exclaims the stern Tertullian; "expect the greatest of all spectacles, the last and eternal judgment of the universe. How shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs, so many fancied gods, groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates, who persecuted the name of the Lord, liquefying in fiercer fires than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sage philosophers blushing in red-hot flames with their deluded scholars; so many celebrated poets trembling before the tribunal, not of Minos, but of Christ; so many tragedians, more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers."

Lemme see if I have this right ...

A history of bobbing for witches and burning for heretics and we are supposed to be surprised that churchgoers approve of torture?

Not really news here, is there?

Jesus has got to be one bummed out dude these days. His teachings have been so perverted and misused by the religious right. So it turns out that the same people who led the cheers for a war based on deception now support torture. In the name of the Prince of Peace. Very sad.

The Religious Right have always twisted the teaching of Jesus. "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." and "true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth." This is the true church of Jesus. I heard the Word of God, back in June of 1985. Had a vision, while driving eastbound on the old Davison Freeway, at the border of Highland Park and the eastside of Detroit, Michigan. Without going into all the details, hear is what I heard. "You are a good man." "All men have purpose." "You have purpose." "White man help the black man." "Organize."
It is a sad refection on 'Christians' when they support torture, IMHO.

JackDixon wrote: "Prior to the 1960’s there was virtually no tolerance for pornography, prostitution, promiscuity, teen-age pregnancies, and illegal use of drugs to mention a few problems which are now everyday events.."

Wow, where were you before 1960? It was everywhere, just not in public. My teenage neighbor became pregnant. Just where do you think all the drugs in the 60s came from? People just invented them? Pornography could be bought. And promiscuity was as rampant as today. And no prostitution? Are you kidding me? It was institutionalized in the houses! What you mistake for no tolerance was actually the impression people tried to make of themselves to certain others, like neighbors or those they worked with. The perfect conformists. Why do you think Rock Hudson had a fake marriage? Rock was never fired even though everyone he worked with knew he was gay. People back then knew to keep the secrets of friends.

JackDixon wrote: "There was virtually no pedophilia, hate crimes. street gangs killing children, bath-house sodomy, AIDS, infanticide by young mothers, rampant abortions, euthanasia, and other crimes which have become commonplace since the 1950’s."

Oh my oh my. Guess you never read about Chicago during the 30s, or mothers leaving babies on doorsteps, the ones who were found, or the KKK. Where did all the white and black neighborhoods come from? A coincidnce? And since how did AIDS get into your list? Its a disease not a moral issue.

JackDixon wrote: "I find nothing in the New Testament that condones the immorality of our present culture. What has evolved over the past 50 years is an abomination that would make our Founding Fathers vomit."

But you can find the condoning of slavery. Look, since you hate the America you find yourself in I suggest you check out a nation that today proclaims little crime, a high rate of religious membership, no homosexuals and religion is so important that religious elders oversee all government action. Iran is waiting to welcome people like you. Of course, your neighbors may feel worried about having a neighbor like you who has a religion they don't follow. But that would just make it more to the pre-60s morality you seem to want. You'll feel right at home as your neighbors let you know you are different, not welcome and they would like you out of their neighborhood ASAP. When that happens America will still be here, open, awaiting you or anyone to come and live freely as long as you obey our laws and don't harm anyone else. You don't need to pretend to be something you are not.

I am Iranian and canadian, I be almost over 5 month homeless in Canada close to Christianity organization like to have homeless?, and I do not understand why Canada do such this to us, racism, keep us poor out of the job, discrminiation and ignore.life is so difficalt here, I was hops United nation pass a law to protect us ..because we born in Moslems country, and how we can educate canadian to love and respect all nation? I love Jesus same as Mohammad, and if he torture by his enemy may because in are world all ways Innocent people live or die like this, with pain..why one human go kill or torture another's ..is came from wild side of the human....and God promising to keep them in haven for all pain they did to help others and protect poor ....

Susan....you sure are out of your brain. Maybe they ought to torture you and see how that feels. You are saying that the faithful approve of torture, am I right? I am a devout Catholic and the university I went to require 48 units of theology before we can graduate. I hated theology. The higher I get taking theo, the more confused I become of my faith. So I try to frame my brain back to Dogma...one God, Three Divine person...period. God in the First Testament is intolerant of the errors of human so chastisement was His answer. But then, God realize he was too harsh in giving those judgement(s) so He amended His own mistake by sending his only Son, Jesus to the world and have Him undergo the human capacity of pain and agony. I bet Jesus, the Lord, did not approve of the torture he received from His fellow "men" but he accepted his fate being tortured as due "obedience" to the Father. But if Jesus has a choice, he ran away from it. Jesus knew what he will undergo, and during His prayer sweated blood asking the Father not to let Him be tortured but the Father has spoken and so it was done. In my theological education I believe that the problem of the middle east of today is their faith in God, written in the Koran, (First Testament to us Christians) "a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye" - dang! this sound like REVENGE. The Islamic Faith does not have the Second Testament, the life of Jesus Christ the Lord...where the Lord had re-phrased what God truly meant...that is "love thy neightbor as thyself."
In the bible Christ has said "I DO NOT NEED SACRIFICES" nor "DO I NEED OFFERINGS" Torture is not what I would say the faithful would condone. Torture actually is what I would say the faithful would abhor.
Susan, I do not know your theological philosophy but if you must interpret torture in line with theology, Jesus Christ did not want to go thru that torture in totality.

It's hardly surprising that people who consider themselves "good Christians" are, in fact, just people ruled by fear, who mouth off about the Bible but in fact, practice nothing that it says, and do no spiritual work.

They are overwhelmingly Republicans, these church-going, torture-loving Americans, and appear to take their guidance from a fat oxycontin addict with an AM radio show more frequently than they any religious source.

In other words, they are hypocrites.

Thise folks sort of miss the point. It was the ROMANS torturing JESUS. If you are a Christian, the message is clear. Rome was evil. Torture is evil. Jesus taught us that the RIGHTEOUS turn the other cheek, or more simply DO NOT TORTURE BACK. The caps are because if you are so dim that you miss such a simple message then maybe the key points need to be emphaisized.

You're attributing to these people a view that you think is "impossible", and (here, at least) largely on the basis of the popularity of a single movie. Charity might suggest that if the view is so unreasonable, maybe they actually hold some other view that you don't understand. Instead, you are so sure of your interpretation of them that you are prepared to conclude they are unreasonable and/or wicked. So perhaps you lack the humility and curiosity needed to understand any opinion other than your own.

Or perhaps you lack the imagination to even conceive of any opinion rather than your own. For example, it's also possible that the churchgoers have a carefully reasoned and deep view of how the world is put together, one sufficiently persuasive and satisfying to answer the needs of billions of people for thousands of years. And it's possible that this worldview explains that we live in a sometimes chaotic world full of terrible problems and occasionally deliberate evil, and that thus morality is not always as clear as we might hope or think. Perhaps they have some idea of the difficulties of establishing a perfect world, wherein hard choices never emerge, because they know too well their own failings and temptations, and cannot imagine being rid of them, and believe these weaknesses are the common lot of mankind that will always interrupt any perfection. In the midst of these imperfections, perhaps they imagine that while they have grave duties to a prisoner, those innocents threatened by a conspirator's silence might also have some claim on their duties as well.

Those are all _possible_ ideas of what churchgoers believe; and if those possibilities were realized, we might begin to understand their willingness to accept the occasional morality of deeds that at first blush seem appalling. It took me all of five minutes to think of how they might come to such a conclusion without embracing suffering as a central component of redemption, and I'm not even a professional theologian. I bet I might even be able to imagine a theology of the necessity of suffering that wasn't divorce its believers from their very humanity.

I'm not convinced you even understand the opinions you criticize, and if you don't, I dare say you don't even understand your own opinions.

Posted by: Fate1:

“JackDixon wrote: "Is there censorship going on here?"

"Do you think censorship is bad? If so then if torture is okay why is censorship bad?"

What’s your problem?

I don’t advocate either one.

Also, should credence should be given definitions produced by the UN and other international organizations comprising representatives of generally unsavory governments? The head of State of The Sudan seems quite happy, notwithstanding his ICC indictment.

It is not surprising that religious groups find torture an acceptable form of interrogation. The concept of an eye for an eye has been central to the teachings of the bible. What fails is the concept of an eye for an eye, leaves the world blind.

JackDixon wrote: "I tried to respond to the post by erickaba | May 3, 2009 2:39 PM. My response didn’t post. Is there censorship going on here?"

Do you think censorship is bad? If so then if torture is okay why is censorship bad?

"I don't think that theologically you could make the connection between the torture of christ and the approval of torture - if people are making that connection"

You can't make a connection theologically.

It's a political connection.

The neocons (primarily non-christians) are not theologically motivated by Christ's teaching.

Far from it.

It's all about their politics and empire-building.

This finally is proof that while the so-called true believers may be spiritually enlightened (at least in their own minds) they are morally bankrupt.

Perhaps these guardians of the faith should ask themselves: As the American interrogators waterboarded at least one of their prisoners for the one hundred and fiftieth time was God approvingly gazing from the heavens and saying, "This is good".

Frankly my definition of sin is that those that commit it go straight to hell and there is no greater sin than torture. So, believers, go to hell.

Easy is picking out a pair of numbers and becoming horrified. Harder is looking at them to see if they really make a difference. If you take a look at the percents who believe torture is either always or sometimes justified, you get 54% of those who attend services most often, 51% of those who attend services sometimes, and 41% of those who hardly ever or never attend services saying torture is in either or the most torture favorable categories. These differences can be explained by sampling error. Poisson regression yields: people who only moderately attend Church have a rate of choosing the two torture categories that is anywhere from 0.74 to 1.18 times the rate of the very religious; for the non-religious to the very religious comparison the possibilities range from 0.59 to 1.03. Sometimes sermons are such that congregants who cannot fall asleep feel that torture is part of God's plan; this does not imply that they like it.

Remember the Inquistion? If one believes that a non-Christian is damned to hell unless they accept Christ as their savior then what lengths are impermissable to go to convert them?

Isn't some suffering on earth worth avoiding an eternity of suffering after death?

This is the paradox of Christianity. It seems many Christians also believe that making others suffer in the pursuit of temporary safety here on earth is also permissable. Once you've put a condition on making another suffer (to save their soul, to protect our country) then there is no act that is impermissable. It's only a matter of making the justification fit the condition.

The US was no safer on Sept 10th than it was on Sept 12th. Americans have grown complacent and prefer to send others to fight for them. They don't mind visting suffering on some in order to secure a false safety. Those who earned our country for us understood courage and that as Americans, as humans, we are never safe. We must realize that torture will not prevent the next determined terrorist.

It's a fact of life. We are always in danger. You are in more danger of dying in a car accident or of a heart attack than of dying at the hands of terrorist. Therefore, it's important that we live our lives courageously and with decency and integrity.

Hi Susan,

I don't think that theologically you could make the connection between the torture of christ and the approval of torture - if people are making that connection, I think it is most likely to be the suppression of cognitive dissonance due to their political opinions. What I mean by that is that they have a set political opinion (they follow the GOP), they see that the GOP supported torture and the democrats don't, and THEN they try and justify it theologically so as to avoid any cognitive dissonance. I don't think it works the other way, that they see torture as morally OK because of the torture of christ, I don't know how anyone could get that interpretation from the gospel.

erickaba says:

“JACKDIXON, most well meaning and truly God-believing Americans thank Him that America has swayed from the “values of pre-1960s’ America”. I know this is your worst nightmare.”

The “values of pre-1960s’ in the United States can best summarized by the values of President Eisenhower. For example, Eisenhower disavowed foreign entanglements in the Middle East.

Read up on the Suez and Lebanese crises and the positions Eisenhower took.

In the years before Roe v. Wade, Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren to the bench, expecting him to reflect the conservative values Eisenhower espoused. Warren didn’t. Eisenhower bitterly regretted his decision.

Prior to the 1960’s there was virtually no tolerance for pornography, prostitution, promiscuity, teen-age pregnancies, and illegal use of drugs to mention a few problems which are now everyday events..

There was virtually no pedophilia, hate crimes. street gangs killing children, bath-house sodomy, AIDS, infanticide by young mothers, rampant abortions, euthanasia, and other crimes which have become commonplace since the 1950’s.

I find nothing in the New Testament that condones the immorality of our present culture. What has evolved over the past 50 years is an abomination that would make our Founding Fathers vomit.

erickaba says:

“You see people, there is only one substantive and true difference between people like JACKDIXON and the Talibans. “

Right.

There is ONE substantive and true difference.

The Taliban would agree with erickaba .

I don’t.

Keep in mind that the Taliban were our friends up to the time we invaded Afghanistan.

The Taliban would likely agree that US foreign policy in their part of the world since the 1960’s is a result of the decline in our morality. The country has become empire-seeking to its detriment.

(to be continued)

Christians probably accept the recent tortures because it is Muslims who are being tortured. They still have missionaries in other countries to convert people to Christianity.

Also, if it's something they support then they they thank God for it. If it's something they don't like then its man-made and an affront to God.

I wish America would evolve as many of our founding fathers did and set religion to the side and replace it with Deism or Humanism or Freethinking.

erickaba says”

3. A little black boy can no longer be lynched or otherwise tortured and killed for, say, whistling at a white woman.”

Yes, but not because morality in the country improved.

It came about because blacks started to vote, and that came about because John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson saw the value of the black vote and got the civil rights bill passed.

---

“This is just a very short list of the ‘horrendously evil’ things that have transpired in JACKDIXON 's America since the 1960s that make this degenerate minded person unable to recognize and tolerate the USA of today vis-à-vis the one he knew before the 1960s and thought would last forever.“

This short list of ericaba is indicative of a total lack of historical knowledge.

(to be continued)

erickaba says”

“2. Women have the right to participate in the democratic process of this nation - meaning they have the right of suffrage.”

Wrong again.

The right of suffrage occurred long before the 1960’s.

Women gained the right of suffrage in 1919 via the Nineteenth Amendment passed by Congress on June 4, 1919 and ratified on August 18, 1920.

(to be continued)

The “faithful” believe very strongly that they are the only correct believers. They believe in torture as it provides a very powerful mechanism to extract false confessions in order to eliminate “vermin” from their masses. Through torture they can identify true vermin: true “non believers” and folks that are unpopular. The Roman Catholic Church polished the art during the Medieval Inquisitions, Spanish Inquisitions, and other fun activities, to purify their masses from contamination from “other” influences. The truly “faithful” also believe in genocide. The French created Madame "La Guillotine" for the center of attraction of a festive event during their "Reign of Terror".

pvilso24 wrote: This author corrects cites the UN Convention Against Torture defines torture as "any act by which SEVERE pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..."
None of the techniques INCLUDING the harshest "waterboarding" meets the SEVERE test. If you disagree than you haven't READ the memos"

Pvil, have you ever been waterboarded? Are you so sure it doesn't meet the criteria for mental suffering? Especially when done 183 times on one man?

In my opinion, being a person who values freedom of choice and liberty, being locked up at Gitmo for what may be a lifetime, without the ability to defend against the charges against me is severe mental suffering.

Remember the last time you were stuck in airplane on the tarmac with no way to get off the plane, no voice, no freedom of movement, not even the right to go to bathroom when you wanted to? We Americans can't even back out of our driveways without a cell phone jacked into our ears. Imagine having no contact with your family for what could potentially be the rest of your life.

You armchair warriors are something else.

Susan Thistlethwaite is right to find the Pew report on the percentage of religious people who approve of torture disturbing. However, her suggestion that such approval stems from the penal theory of the Christian doctrine of atonement, while it may have some validity, is probably not the root reason, but rather itself a product of the real reasons, which lie much deeper and further back.

People of real religious conviction have always had the potential for justifying violence, though most have been able to resist the temptation. Religion touches what is deepest in us, and one's concept of God is much more influential on behavior than particular doctrinal theories. The same God who is envisioned as ordering genocide against the Caananites in the Old Testament, is also the God who would demand the torturous death of Jesus as a propitiatory sacrifice.

Happily, there are millions of Christians and Jews who find that picture of God critiqued within the scriptures of both faiths. So in a real way, how a particular religious community reads its scriptures is probably a clearer indicator of whether or not they would justify torturing others in some circumstances.

C.S. Lewis once said, "Horrible peoples have horrible gods." Within all religious traditions, as well as among non-religious peoples, there are horrible gods, whose worshippers perpetrate horrible deeds. Jesus said, "By their fruits, you shall know them." By extension, you will also know their gods.

Larry Kalajainen

I’ll try to post to see what is being censored.

---

erickaba says”

“Let's look at a very short list of some of the things that have transpired since the 1960s:

“1. Women have equal rights with men so that, for example, they can be paid the same compensation as men for equal work.”

Poor example.

Before the 1960’s most women did NOT work outside the home. Most of those who did work were significantly less experienced than men who did work at the time. Women with less experience received less pay the same as men with less experience.

After they entered the workforce in numbers it was corrected, but not because of a change in morality. It came about because women voted for change.

(to be continued)

"This is called the "penal theory of the atonement"--that is, the way Jesus paid for our sins is by this extreme torture inflicted on him."
--------------------------------------
Having had some experience with evangelical Christians, I can tell you exactly what this theory means to them. As long as they get together once, twice, 14 times a week; flail their arms around and mumble incoherently for a few hours "In the name of Jesus," this justifies treating any and all people who do not engage in the same precise behavior any way they please.

I do not regard these people as Christians, no matter how loudly they proclaim to be.

I tried to respond to the post by erickaba | May 3, 2009 2:39 PM

My response didn’t post

I'll try again.

I tried to respond to the post by erickaba | May 3, 2009 2:39 PM

My response didn’t post.

Is there censorship going on here?

Not all who pose as Christians are Christians. Some are just Neo-Cons looking for friends, trying to absolve themselves for their sins, and avoid hell.

To say that Christians approve of torture because the suffering of Christ is central to their faith is nothing more than conjecture. Before publishing garbage such as this, the Washington Post ought to require some hard evidence.

"For Christian conservatives, severe pain and suffering are central to their theology."

Yes, once while channel-clicking I saw Jerry Falwell promoting a video on the life of Jesus; and the example scene they showed to promote it consisted mostly of Jesus being whipped by Roman guards for two minutes.

A Christian conservative is someone who thinks that Jesus' most important parable is the sheep and the goats. Seeing one's enemies gnash their teeth is one of the things that's possible with God.

The linkage is specious.

The correct linkage is that conservatives (most of whoem are Christian) happen to have faith in the Bush Admin.,the Justice Dept which APPROVED the techniques, and the Congressional leaders who reviewed and sanctioned same (including Nancy Pelosi).

It is also true many Conservatives have chosen to listen to Obama critics, who point out the techniques were NOT torture, and should NOT have been released due to the harm to national security.

This author corrects cites the UN Convention Against Torture defines torture as "any act by which SEVERE pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..."

None of the techniques INCLUDING the harshest "waterboarding" meets the SEVERE test. If you disagree than you haven't READ the memos.

The memos on CIA interrogation reveal a cautious Justice Department advising a CIA about staying within the law. -- the memos detail the actual techniques used and the many measures taken to ensure that interrogations did NOT cause SEVERE pain or degradation. (remember the Geneva "torture" description above ? )

Interrogations were to be "continuously monitored" and "the interrogation team will stop the use of particular techniques or the interrogation altogether if the detainee's medical or psychological conditions indicates that the detainee might suffer SIGNIFICANT physical or mental harm." (remember the Geneva "torture" description above ? )

People really need to READ the Justice Dept memos. Memos online at:
http://documents.nytimes.com/bush-administration-terrorism-memos#p=1

When are we as a society going to refrain from labeling those with whom we disagree with as "lefties", "liberals", "Evangelical Christians". etc, as if these are pejorative philosophies, particularly when such labels infer stereotypical, presumptive judgements of people who have complex attitudes? Such name calling is a non-intellectual device that serves no purpose other than to attempt to shut down useful and insightful dialogue and
reasoned introspection.

Please judge morality not by political or religious affiliation, but by the thoughts (and especially) the actions of individuals who exhibit compassion for their fellow human beings, and realize that true strength arises not from "torture" or reactionary violence at the first hint of strife.

The early Christians were sacrificed to gladiators and animal predators in the Roman circuses, yet that empire was ultimately transformed into a Christian entity. Was the "turning of the other cheek" by those doomed souls a sign of weakness?

In order to dispel anyone's preconception, this poster is not a church-going, diligent Christian, nor do I unconditionally accept the existence of God. However, I do believe that a moral life is can be independent, and in spite of, of religion or secularism.

When are we as a society going to refrain from labeling those with whom we disagree with as "lefties", "liberals", "Evangelical Christians". etc, as if these are pejorative philosophies, particularly when such labels infer stereotypical, presumptive judgements of people who have complex attitudes? Such name calling is a non-intellectual device that serves no purpose other than to attempt to shut down useful and insightful dialogue and
reasoned introspection.

Please judge morality not by political or religious affiliation, but by the thoughts (and especially) the actions of individuals who exhibit compassion for their fellow human beings, and realize that true strength arises not from "torture" or reactionary violence at the first hint of strife.

The early Christians were sacrificed to gladiators and animal predators in the Roman circuses, yet that empire was ultimately transformed into a Christian entity. Was the "turning of the other cheek" by those doomed souls a sign of weakness?

In order to dispel anyone's preconception, this poster is not a church-going, diligent Christian, nor do I unconditionally accept the existence of God. However, I do believe that a moral life is can be independent, and in spite of, of religion or secularism.

this just goes to show that everyone who calls themselves a "Christian" or "goes to some church" is not in fact a Christian. All true people of faith ( those who have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are true, blue born again believers ) understand that all people no matter who they are, were created in the image of God and under no circumstances would torture be acceptable.

I didn't read all the comments so perhaps I am being redundant; anyway, here goes:

Perhaps some deep psychological connection exists between the idea of torture (as exemplified by Christ) and how those who responded favorably to using torture. That is: WWJD. These respondents are constantly looking to relate their own lives to the words and deeds of JC; however, the rubber does not meet the road so easily. The modern world offers so many possibilities for Christians to follow in JC's footsteps yet these are seldom taken: serving lunch at a homeless shelter, working with abused and battered women and children, hospice, etc, etc, etc! In the same way that our current issues with the financial elite are being portrayed nationally in bold print (i.e., I am better than everyone else because I make the engines of finance, and therefore industry, run), these religious adherents are cocooned in their same hypocrisy. I saw a "Wordle" illustration of the Bible and one of the largest, most prominent words was "justice." Christ and his early followers spoke of justice because they lived at the hand of the Romans (not a bad system given the alternative, but not what Jews of that time wanted). When your entire population sits at the bottom (economically, socially, judicially) you begin to form a pretty bleak social view. Most US Christians are middle class and very far removed from the exact things for which Christ should be remembered.

This bridge was torture on the Eyes!

http://www.somdnews.com/stories/04292009/entetop131421_32243.shtml

Jamed David Whitall II

What shocked and dismayed me about this article wasn't that 54% of Christians believe torture is justifiable. It is that 42% of the others felt the same way! Also, estimating that there may have been a plus or minus 3% error rate (or greater) makes the whole picture significantly less black and white. All the Pew Forum data says is that around one half of Americans believe torture is sometimes justified, slightly more in the Christian community, slightly less for others. These statistics don't condemn evangelicals but rather in my opinion it makes a pretty sad statement about Americans in general. If almost half of us feel torture may sometimes be justified, is it any surprise what happened?

Isn't it possible that it's not a belief in religion that leads to an acquiescence to torture, but the fact that conservatives (of any nationality), who often tend towareds relgiion, also believe in forture (for reasons unrelated to religion)? Attitudes towards torture at the moment may be colored by political beliefs in a different way than they were in years past. While those who administered the Spanish Inquistion okayed torture since it was for a rieghteous cause, so did Japanese warlords, for very different reasons. The U.S. used to oppose torture on moral grounds (especially when it was used against our troops, such as in World War II), but now many equivocate.

Thou shalt not kill?

I am afraid it is much more simple than a theology that stresses the pain of Christ. Though this is certainly present, you don't see many white evangelicals nailing themselves to crosses tearing their knees to shreds crawling over sharp stones in a Cathedral square.

Though certainly pre-existing, the current incarnation of white evangelicalism experienced its large growth after main line protestants supported integration.

Most white evangelicals practice an essentially tribal faith that is focused on differentiating in group and out group actors.

They support torture on terrorist suspects because they don't believe that out group actors deserve any rights whether they be black, gay, Muslim or what have you.

Ms. Thistlethwaite's connection between church goers and torture is rather silly. It is specious to make the connection between these two variables. Yet the shear number of people who would condone torture is sad enough. Of course one does have to consider the way the question or questions were worded.

Not trying to become philosophical here but:

To paraphrase the golden rule: "Treat others only in ways that you're willing to be treated in the same exact situation." To apply it, you'd imagine yourself in the exact place of the other person on the receiving end of the action.

If you act in a given way toward another, and yet are unwilling to be treated that way in the same circumstances, then you violate the rule.

All those who believe there should be instances where torture is used, need to consider our troops who we put into harms way in all circumstances. Where even civil enemies would feel compelled to use torture if they felt the ends justified the means.

To show otherwise, demonstrates your lack of consideration for our US troops abroad.

I just looked at the statistics and those who attend mainline Protestant churches are those who disappprove of torture under any circumstances at 31% of the group. This is the highest number in any group for those who NEVER approve of torture, which is supposedly the policy of our government. (But everybody should know Tony Po, the crazy guy characterized in Apolcalypse now received awards not long before his death, just a few years ago and he was known for having paid for people to cut the ears off of suspected communists. He horrified the staff at the embassy when a poor secretary opened a box of degraded ears from the US Embassy that Tony sent to that office. Tony finally quit that practice when he saw a little boy at an airport who had no ears and asked him what happened to his ears and he told Tony his father had sold them. And the CIA awarded this guy medals long after he retired and it wasn't that long ago.

Our government, particularly the CIA has been torturing people long before George Bush arrived on the scene and most every other country if not all of them knew it. But when we made it official policy, the gig was up. The Geneva Conventions and the Convention against torture REQUIRE us to prosecute those who tortured or approved of torture. But it's not going to happen in this country I'm afraid unless the people are slowly led to the truth. But at least those who engaged in it and especially those who approved of it or like Condi Rice, passed on the orders are unable to travel freely and will have the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads for life and will the life of the man in Poe's "The Pit and the Pendulum" forever. I'd like to see the rope broken so we can stop these horrid practices and at least give us back some of our moral standing in the world.

Maybe I'm too easy on the CIA agents who did it under orders. I understand why at least some of them did it. But we've got to fix the CIA before we can fix the government, unless the CIA and another group are the government, which I sometimes believe is the real truth about this country.

Billw3 wrote: "A blanket statement approving or disapproving torture is ridiculous. Each case should be decided on whether the offending party is intent on harm and may have information that would cause harm to people undeserving of harm."

So is torture appropriate for street crime? Kidnapping? And who makes the decision that torture should or should not be used and will it be on that person's head if torture is not used and something happens? Once you allow torture it is the first thing to be used as exemplified by KSM being waterboarded 183 times before non-torture methods were tried.

If you want torture to be a last resort you can ONLY do that by making illegal. Only then would it be applied by those willing to suffer the consequences. And when stakes are that high, it might be appropriate on a case by case basis. But once it is legal, it will be the first method used. That should be obvious.

As for christians supporting torture, well, it just shows the Golden Rule, one of mankind's earliest moral lessons, is dead and buried by those who believe they are on a moral high ground.

Christians are showing their depravity, Muslims have shown theirs, Jews have shown there's. We're suppose to learn from these mistakes, not justify them after-the-fact.

It appears that those who go to religious services on the sabbath feel they get a free-pass the rest of the week to be complete and utter demagogues.

I am against to the torture, and the death penalty, I consider it a sin, however to approved the abortion is a sin bigger than torture. Maybe the people tortured are criminal guilty of killing innocent people by power, but when somebody make an abortion is killing the most innocent human in the world (a Child).

All this does is push non-religious people further away from organized religion.

Said much better here:

http://progressnotcongress.org/blog/?p=629

No back-handed compliment here: Perhaps anyone dumb enough to buy the nonsense that is Christian theology will buy any crappola that comes their way. Like it's ok to torture.

jmounadi you're adulation for Western countries is troubling. Do yourself a favor and read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.

Also, you wrote "Usually the faithless end up living reckless lives, and have no regards for others except in a manner they think is "good" enough. No faith equals no foundation for the rules you live by."

In my experience, the faithless are more generous and less self-centered. Religious people rarely volunteer for the Peace Corps, they don't give to charities as often, and they generally don't serve their communities except within their own congregations. The two biggest philanthropists right now, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, are agnostics. As were most of the scientists that have made our civilization possible.

not so suprising really. i mean after all, don't most devout christians spend most of their lives mentally torturing themselves as an act of contrition in order to reserve a spot in the endless line queing up to the pearly gates? what is even less suprising is the level of anger and downright mean and viscious attitudes the so-called "chosen" can exhibit during the week against those of questionable faith. but not to worry: thats what sunday is for. repent and cleanse thyself of all acts of sin commited against the "heathens". all is righteous and good, don't you know. even torture when properly applied---as applied by the catholic popes in such fun little carnival-like atmoshperes as the inquisition--is good for the soul. small wonder that only those who fear life itself continue to hang tenaciously to their dark ages form of evangelical faith-based ignorance. but their numbers are quickly shrinking. have dissapeared due to some imperceptable rapture-like event? i would pray so--either way.

I am truly amazed at all these comments and especially the lack of knowledge of most of the people. Seems to me people in the US need to learn a little more about everything.

As an atheist I can only speculate on what goes on in the head of a Christian, especially fundamentalist Protestant, believer. However, my best guess is that the basic motivation is a perfectly non-religious desire for vengeance which is not canceled by religious belief but instead reinforced by the conviction that those who profess a different religion, such as Islam, are doomed to eternal torment in hell anyhow. So, what's a little torture in a good cause now anyhow?

The terrorists probably have their own version of this same logic.

I think it is unremarkable that taking seriously a religion that places torture at the center of its worship, and that places an instrument of torture, the cross, at the center of its places of worship, would cause followers to more comfortable with torture generally.

How can you not "get comfortable with torture" if you are Christian? Torture is the very act that has made your salvation possible.

Christian violence (e.g. the Crusades, the Inquisition, various holy wars, and modern American imperialism) is an old story. You can say "oh they weren't real Christians" to which I would reply "whatever dude"... they were waving crosses and burning our villages... that's real enough for me.

Can a religion"cause" behavior? Well, we should hope so, shouldn't we? What happens to people who wear little torture devices (crosses) around their necks as symbols of holiness? It is objectively the most obscene religious symbol ever created - an instrument of torture designed to remind people of God. Fine... you like it? That's your cross to bear, but as far as I'm concerned people who can make their peace with worshiping in front of a torture instrument, a Cross, can probably worship in front of a rack, a tiny human cage or a gas chamber too. These are all places of abominable inhuman suffering. If you think anything good can come out of that kind of pain, then you are well on your way to believing George W. Bush when he tells you that we got some good information, even World Saving information, from the modern day equivalents of the cross.

No offense intended of course, although between ourselves I'm viscerally offended every time I see one of those little torture instruments dangling from someone's neck. Intellectually I understand that they mean something else, something involving love, but in my heart I see them as victims of a violent ideology and symbolic architecture that has normalized violence in the depth of their souls.

The reported survey suggests that this is true.

Historian1, and you seem to have missed the point also. It is not nearly as shocking that Muslims may wish to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth as it is that Christians approve of torturing the beings that God created. I assume you understand irony.

It is very troubling that many profess this to be a Christian nation and then take the Christianty named after Christ and approve of torture. It is something many of us would not expect. After all, wasn't it Christ who said "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the sons of God."?

A poll that tells me what I already know is pointless. A poll that tells me something this troubling tells me alot about America.

JackJernigan wrote: Ask those of us who are serving or have served in the military how we feel about torture. As a twenty-two year veteran from a military family I oppose the use of torture on a number of grounds."

As a veteran of 24 years I could not agree more.

A blanket statement approving or disapproving torture is ridiculous. Each case should be decided on whether the offending party is intent on harm and may have information that would cause harm to people undeserving of harm.
.

The explanation for the astounding poll that indicated that 54% of church-going people approved of torture must begin with that age-old observation "So many Christians, so few followers of Christ."

The poll results also reflect the fact that many regular Church-goers are probably more authoritarian than none church-goers.

To suggest that it might stem from Christ's torture at the hands of Roman soldiers, as Dean Thistlethwaite does, is over the top. Does she really think the Church-going Christians mentioned in the poll identify themselves with the Roman Soldiers and the terrorist suspects with Christ?

I am also puzzled by her repeated contention that Christ's torture (which seems to me to include the crucifixion) was not part of God's plan for redemption. The New Testament states this view repeatedly. I thought it was a belief shared by all Christians. Can she share with us her basis for such a creative view"

arancia12

Hi. Thanks for the feedback. You of course missed the point, which is that many factions feel very comfortable bringing up all kinds of uncomfortable items about those who profess faith yet would NEVER say anything comparable or critical about the groups I mentioned in my comment. To answer your question about the 42% of the rest who approved of torture - now, that really doesn't make me feel good either. We have a problem in America with this and we need to talk about it - but going after those who profess faith while allowing the more enlightened "tolerant" left who also approve of torture a pass is not the route of discussion we should travel. r/ Historian

Historian1 wrote: Now, Ms. Thistlewaite, let's change a few words in your statement. What if you had said,
"The less white you are, the more you approve of torture." How about, "The more often you go to mosque, the more you approve of driving Israel into the sea."

The problem is, Historian1, the study didn't say these things. The issue at hand is torture, not Israel, and the study didn't ask about white vs black.

Run your own poll if you disagree, think the data is faulty or just generally are whining about how the hypocrisy of the religious is exposed.

Look at it this way. A whopping 42% of those who don't attend church think torture is acceptable. That pretty much smears the entire American public. Feel better?

Water boarding, sensory deprivation or other forms of torture did not emerge from religion. The acceptance of torture and the infliction of pain transcends religion and is a cultural issue that arises from us being constantly bombarded with violence in sports and the sports slogan: no pain, no gain, drive-by shootings, battered spouses and girlfriends, gang beat downs, home invasions and the glorification of torture in the movies and in TV shows like 24 or the Unit. After being exposed to so much violence in everyday life, in sports and in the media, irrespective of your religious affiliation you become desensitized to it. And therein lies the bigger problem because whether it's the reality of the Inquisition, the Salem or Senator McCarthy witch hunts or the historical fiction of LA Confidential, it becomes difficult to tell the difference between the so-called forces of good and the forces of evil.

Indeed, Jesus Christ was a trouble maker and terrorist and was punished accordingly. It is natural then for white protestants to approve of toture and assorted remedies.

Wow, what a interesting backhanded way for liberals to bash those who profess faith. Now, Ms. Thistlewaite, let's change a few words in your statement. What if you had said,
"The less white you are, the more you approve of torture." How about, "The more often you go to mosque, the more you approve of driving Israel into the sea." How about, "The more you voted for a Democratic candidate, the more you believe in hateful, slanderous things about the United States." I think you get my point by this time. I'll bet your team of lefty advisors was thrilled to be able to publish these "findings". I'm sure you feel better about yourself as well. I look forward to a column exposing the bad thoughts of those who profess faith in other non-Christian religions. Hmmh - bet I'll wait a long time before I see a column like that from you. r/ Historian

carter0311's commented:
I always marvel at those who wrap themselves in the flag, holding their bible on high in one hand and their plastic sword at the ready in the other, who never dared to do the dirty work of this country in its military yet are so gung ho to send others to war and gleefully embrace barbaric acts couched in terms such as “enhanced interrogation”.

That reminded me of what the late C.E. Montague (soldier First World War, author, journalist) said: "War hath no fury like a noncombatant."

Think of the draft dodgers who conned the nation into the unjustifiable war against Iraq.

lcarter0311 wrote: "God and Jesus are the same. Most Christians know that Jesus is God in human form. When you have some time, research the Deity of Jesus Christ."

Then you'll have to explain a few things, like the gospels talking about Jesus praying to God. Was he praying to himself? On the cross Jesus asked why God has forsaken him. That makes little sense if Jesus is God as does Jesus sitting at God's right hand, unless God keeps a mirror to his right. But the twisted explanations of christians to explain their actions has always amused. About as amusing as listening to the explanations of just when the soul infuses the embryo and how a twin's soul splits. But hey, making stuff up that seemingly would be in keeping with the bible's teachings has been a work of art for 2000 years. For example, war and capital punishment being ok by christians. Jesus would spin in his grave had he stayed there.

Maybe it's because many Christians feel they are already going to heaven, so they get to do whatever they want here.

I remember in church that Jesus said that you get to heaven through him, but it was always taught to me that you had to behave like him, you had to earn it through your behavior.

You can't just say you believe in him.

It sure doesn't make sense that any Christian would condone torture.

Christians are so in favor of torture because they're so used it! I mean, Christ, have you ever had to sit through one of those interminable worship services. At least with waterboarding you're not falling asleep.

Christianity is so dead dead dead. It has been dead for so long. So very very dead.
Self-concerned, self-aggrandizing, state religion, BS. Sounds like the GOP doesn't it? Please Jesus, smite them both!

A conservative friend answered my question on faith and torture with this flippant response: no pain, no gain. By which she means other people's pain, not her own. Jesus is said to have suffered pain, so why should they be treated any better? Unbelievable.

First, there must be a division point in this torture issue. I believe the survey numbers would look a lot different, if you phrase the question like this : . .
. . . . . . . "If we caught a terrorist that we were reasonably sure knew where a nuclear bomb was hidden in one of our major cities waiting to go off, WOULD YOU BE WILLING FOR OUR GOVERNMENT TO USE TORTURE?" --- heck yes.

But the real question is, "do you believe in torturing people wholesale to find out for sure if they are a terrorist and what they know?"

That of course is what Bush did. It is said that he routinely had hundreds if not thousands of people tortured just for that purpose. . . . . . . . . Then the results of your survey would be entirely different.

Furthermore, evangelical Christians have their greatest numbers of believers in the deep south. . . . . . Folks in the deep south were born to fight. During WWII Mississippi had more Congressional Medal of Honor winners than any other state with eight, followed by Louisiana, Alabama, and Georgia with six. These are small states compared to New York, Pennselvania, Illionois, California, etc. So you have to look at the general mind set. They see torture as just a way of soldier's life. . . . . But even they would probably be only about 40% for torture, if you could make them realize that Bush did not just torture a handful of bad guys, but that indeed he tortured wholesale, and many of them innoscent.

I'm disappointed but not surprised by the survey. And even if only 1% approved of torture, in my mind it is wrong. It goes against what the USA is all about. And if Cheney, et al believe that using torture (er, I mean "enhanced interrogation methods") will force someone to tell all, doesn't the same apply to any American soldiers who are captured? Wouldn't they cave as well? And if soldiers are exposed to these methods as part of their training, wouldn't soldiers in other countries be exposed as well...does the truth really come from torture? It's doubtful...someone being tortured might "confess"...or give a false name so that the torture stops. And don't we think "barbaric" and "primitive" when we hear/read about torture methods being used in other countries? There are some very mean church-going people out there!!!

The flogging scene in Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" (released in 2004, not 2002) doesn't last for "fully 40 minutes," as the author states here. It's actually less than half that. Of course, it's very intense, so it probably feels longer.

I think the author has made an excellent point, however, a more direct relationship between religion and political affiliation should be explored, before the above statement can be accepted as something beyond an idea or opinion.

As a Nichiren Buddhist, I feel compelled to point out I know Christians that are appalled towards the attitude of torture, and perhaps the first comment of political affiliation is more direct. Whether the Christians are white, southern, conservatives, I have not asked them that specifically their choices.

Perhaps considering white, conservative, Christians, endorse torture might be a more correct statement than the original statement made by the author is adequate, as political attitudes are more at work here rather than religious attitudes.

I can not imagine any religion that endorses torture as a form of enlightenment or happiness or source of joy, unless you consider the Marque De Sade as a religion or religious leader.

Patrick

LucyLou1 | May 3, 2009 2:06

“Let's face it, you can either follow Christ or you can follow the Old Testament, but you can't do both. My point is that fundamentalist Christians try phenomenally hard to rationalize the Old and New Testaments, which can't be done by anyone smarter than celery.”

---

The Old Covenant of ‘an eye for an eye’ was replaced by Jesus and the New Covenant.

Jesus replaced the Law of the Old Testament with the Law of the Testament. Unfortunately, many preachers with a microphone and a TV camera find the Old Testament can scare the hell (and more money) out of their listeners.

Preaching exactly what Jesus taught, such as the Beatitudes, doesn’t scare up much money.

So, please don’t confuse those who really believe in the New Covenant with cowardly ‘religious’ politicians who cater to fear-mongering and the dupes who follow them.

For those ‘not smarter than celery‘ ---

Jeremiah 31:31 NIV
"The time is coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Hebrews 8:8 NIV
But God found fault with the people and said: "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Hebrews 8:13 NIV
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Hebrews 9:15 NIV
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Luke 22:20 NIV
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

1 Corinthians 11:25 NIV
In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

2 Corinthians 2:12 NIV
[Ministers of the New Covenant] Now when I went to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ and found that the Lord had opened a door for me,

2 Corinthians 3:6 NIV
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/search/?type=bible&keyword=new%20covenant&translation=niv

This is not a completely correct article. The mainline Protestant churches tend not to condone torture nearly to the extent that fundamentalists and evangelicals do nor to the extent the non religious do. It's the fundamentalists and evangelacals who are the problem. No wonder they delight in telling people not of their belief what's going to happen to them in hell if they don't convert. Hot coals, brimstones, basically eternal torture for those who don't become like they are in their hideous thought processes. They'll never become truly Jesus like unless they abandon this form or evangelism.

My wife found an article which not only described the statistics in detail, but described the statistical methods and the questions used to come to the conclusion, but darn it, she lost the link.

Atheists came in second after the UCCer's, the Episcopals, the Lutherans, the Disciples of Christ, Methodists and American Baptists and the Unitarians (but not the Southern Baptists) ;and a few other denominations who I can't name because I lost the link to the article. These denominations did not condone torture and were the highest ranked groups in being against torture.

But I abhor articles that submit statistics without providing a link to the statistical methods used and the questions asked in a survey.

Jesus would not torture. Jimmy Carter will have to explain the Southern Baptist problem. I think that's his denomination and I'm absolutely sure he's a real Christian who would do what Jesus would do. Condone torture and attempt to prevent it in every way possible. George Bush will have to explain Methodism, unless he's a Southern Methodists, which belonged to the same group as the fundies, evangelicals, and Southern Baptists.

My own conclusion is that those who proselytize by promising eternal torture for those who don't convert can look to that method as the root of their problem.

Susan has pointed out one of the big paradoxes of our time. When Jesus said to "Love your enemies." He gave no exceptions. When one does not torture, there are no regrets and no downsides. Expert opinion seems to support the notion that torture is not necessary to get relevant and good information. Also, it would seem to be easier to release a prisoner who has not been tortured than one who has been. I wonder how many enemies we have created because of our torture policy.

Christians should be as opposed to torture as they are to abortion.

I take issue with the writer that Christians "promoted" the 2002 Mel Gibson movie. In fact, some evangelicals, such as movie and social critic Michael Medved, criticized it precisely because it did contain gratuitous violence that could be interpreted by some as a wrong portrayal of the Christian faith.

That said, however, I agree with most of the rest of what the author wrote. Unfortunately, we live in a society that makes it chic for some people simply to go to church. Most of these people are the very ones Jesus refers to in the New Testament as hypocrites who would be better off praying silently in anonymity. But because some people misinterpret religiosity with faith, we often consider those who are most active in the church today to be the primary authorities on how the Christian faith should be interpreted.

Praying in public and doing good deeds is not evidence of one's faith. That is made clear in the Bible. And yes, suffering and pain were central to Jesus's ministry. But that suffering was so that others in the future would not have to suffer and, adding to that the uncertainty and doubt of who it is we are considering inflicting pain on, it cannot be condoned from a moral perspective.

It is especially this doubt that our Founding Fathers were adamant about when assigning guilt to anyone charged with a crime. And those Americans who negotiated and ratified the original ban on torture understood the moral hazards for any country to inflict on captured prisoners, as well as the ambiuity of information derived from its use.

Well, it's clear that religious people who see individual human life as a neglectible event in the view of the divine design are not so much against torture than agnostic humanist who believe that each human life is the treasure of the universe. The same is certainly true with respect to death penalty. In fact religions as well as hard communism have no respect for indivudual life, non religious people have much more as there is nothing else in their view of the universe.

Well, it's clear that religious people who see individual human life as a neglectible event in the view of the divine design are not so much against torture than agnostic humanist who believe that each human life is the treasure of the universe. The same is certainly true with respect to death penalty. In fact religions as well as hard communism have no respect for indivudual life, non religious people have much more as there is nothing else in their view of the universe.

Spidermean said:

"Here is a plain fact. True Evangelical Christians are peace loving people. Peace and prosperity will govern this earth in what is known as the millenium period --1000 years of peace and prosperity.

"That can only become possible when liberalism, gay marriage, Darwinian evolution, communism, humanism, etc. will all be wiped out off the face of the earth MAINLY DUE TO THEIR OWN MAKING caused by their own stupidity."

How would this "due to their own making occur"?

I can't be the only person who sees the irony of a "peace-loving" person acting as a cheering section for a cosmic "final solution."

This is exactly the sort of Christian who is poisoning Christianity.

As a Christian believer, I hate to say it, but the depiction of God/Yahweh in the bible is of a sexist, sadistic monster. It seems the more someone believes in the bible literally, the more one would tend to believe it's OKAY to believe and act like a sexist, sadistic monster.

God/Yahweh pushed the ancient Jews around like ants at a picnic, sold them into slavery, forced them to fight senseless wars against their neighbors, treated their sexuality like His/Its private property, and generally acted like a spoiled youngster.

Jesus taught peace, compassion, and love - - and was tortured to death for his trouble. The so-called "Fathers of the Church" acted like they were taking personal revenge against the Roman Empire, and rarely if ever referred to Jesus's teachings themselves.

Now come the so-called "Fundamentalist Protestants", whose specialty is to ignore Jesus's teachings and rely instead on some modern political ideologue.

The wonder to me is not that the people who go to church most often are apologists for torture, but that anyone is surprised at this. Kind of like being surprised that someone who spent their entire childhood having their knuckles rapped by Sister Mary Elephant would have issues about it later in life.

I appreciate all the thoughtful comments made. As a pastor in a local church, it occurs to me that there would be people in my congregation that would agree with torture and those who would not. For most of those who would, they are probably thinking of water boarding and not sure if it's torture or not - pressed on it, I think most would finally come down against it. As for us being violence mongers or blood thirsty, reveling in pain - let me assure you that is not the teaching of our congregation. We do believe that Jesus calls us to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us. We can do that while still believing in a just and holy God who took flesh upon himself and suffered in our place for our rebellion. The "poor Jesus" crowd and those who wonder why God was "so mean and hateful to Jesus" have entirely missed the point by a lack of solid trinitarian and incarnational theology. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself..." say the scriptures. God wasn't "punishing Jesus" - He was taking on human flesh and choosing to suffer in his own person the worst of who we are. Jesus, God in human form, declared that no man could take his life, he laid it down of his own accord in order that as Romans declares he might be just and the justifier of those who have faith in Him. (Romans 3) The watering down of the gospel to turn God into Santa Clause and Jesus into a fine moral example will do precious little to help those who face an encounter someday with the living God. In the meantime, for me - I'm grateful that He provided the means for my account with him to be cleared by Christ's action on my behalf and that I enjoy a relationship with Him not rooted in fear but in peace and a growing expression of His character. Hopefully, prayerfully, it will render me kinder and more generous as my days go on.

Well just look at their history. Torture is just the christianly thing to do.

Notnowmooky wrote: "Here is a completely different take on this: the people who condone torture do so because they are afraid. They are willing to do anything to stay safe, even torture another person. I posit that people who feel the need to attend church at least once per week also do so because they are afraid. They find strength NOT in the teachings of the church, but in the community of like minded people."

You nailed it!!..but I would also add that these people you describe also feel safety in obeying authority with like-minded people (going to church, not eating meat on Fridays, tithing, etc) out of fear of punishment by church or God for transgressions.

There are Christians and there are Churchians. Many Churchians believe in torture, the death penalty and euthanasia, and yet they become like a howling mob over abortion.
I wonder what the Christians think?

Why does everyone conveniently forget that Jesus 1) condemned people who did not believe him to eternal hellfire; 2) routinely called his "enemies" names; 3) told everyone you needed to hate your mother and father otherwise you couldn't follow him; 4) said he brought a sword, not peace; 5) showed contempt for non-Jews ('do not case to the dogs what belongs to the children'); 6) grew angry with his own mother at a wedding in Cana?

The point? The endless invocation of Jesus as a perfect man, or asking what he would do or if torture is an action he would condone is like the debate on torture itself: ludicrous and irrelevant. Either we want to torture or we don't. But remember: our enemies won't applaud us for stopping. Invoking a 2,000-year old torture victim accomplishes nothing.

I think the author is stretching quite a bit to find theological meaning in the suffering of Jesus as rationale for Torture. Having said that, one of the most obvious points to be made about torture and religion is this: very religious people of all faiths appear to be statistically more likely to approve of torture than agnostics, atheists, or those of only nominal faith. This is a very troubling correlation, and should be of concern to all people of faith.

JackJernigan writes: We have crawled into the gutter with our enemies and can no longer claim the moral high ground. As a result the rest of the world views us with disgust and disdain. Moreover, and much worse, by abandoning our humane treatment of prisoners our enemies believe that they now have blanket license to torture Americans and other westerners that they take captive as we have given credibility to their view of us and handed them propaganda to use against us.

Get a grip. We have never had the "higher" moral ground. We just live by better standards than most. To say we have "higher" moral grounds is like saying America is altruistic. No one can be in this life. That is why Christ died for us.

The world only looks at us with disdain because they are jealous of our successes in this world, and not because we used necessary means to obtain information that has obviously helped prevent any further terrorist actions.

And please remember that our soldiers have been beaten, abused and murdered long before we used methods against Islamic fanatics. We have always been targets with extra sensitivity due to our strength in this world. Not because of your ridiculous claims.

Mr. Bush and his people are Republicans and not Christians.

It was all a big fraud.

and we all know it.

Why weren't the Christians speaking out against the War for Oil in Iraq?

Anyone who reads a World History book soon discovers that Christians have been killing themselves in the name of Jesus for many, many centuries...

Catholics kill Protestants, Protestants kill Catholics - both groups in the name of Jesus... and both religions really took it out on the non-christians!!!!

How can anyone who claims to be a good christian support torture is beyond me...

Christian conservatives who are big Bible readers are the biggest hypocrites of both christian groups....

The one thing Jesus preached over and over again was LOVE....not war, not hate, not torture...

Christian conservatives really miss the whole idea of Easter and Gods message to the Human race!!!

I think any reasonable person can agree: an advocate for torture (under any circumstances) cannot call themselves a follower of Jesus.

As I've said before, if Christians want to be taken seriously as followers of Jesus, they have a lot of house cleaning to do. We expect Muslims to reject and cast out their violent and hateful elements. Decent Jews reject the radical-Zionist worldview of the racist West-Bank settlers. Decent Christians need to identify, criticize and if necessary, cast out these advocates of hatred and death who are calling themselves christians.

It's up to you, Christians. If you want your religion's public face to be the pro-torture, anti-gay, pro-war, anti-choice, radical bigot, then keep letting things go the way they have been. But if you don't want that, then you need to do something about it. You need to decide whether or not your religion really worships a loving god or a hateful one.

Response to JackDixon who wrote a post lamenting post-1960s' USA:

Ok! Let's look at a very short list of some of the things that have transpired since the 1960s:

1. Women have equal rights with men so that, for example, they can be paid the same compensation as men for equal work.

2. Women have the right to participate in the democratic process of this nation - meaning they have the right of suffrage.

3. A little black boy can no longer be lynched or otherwise tortured and killed for, say, whistling at a white woman.

4. Black people no longer have to sit at the back of the bus or at the rear sitting areas of restaurants, etc.

5. Ah ha! A black man is the President of the USA and by consequence a black family currently occupies the White House, a house built by slaves - I mean black slaves!

This is just a very short list of the ‘horrendously evil’ things that have transpired in JACKDIXON 's America since the 1960s that make this degenerate minded person unable to recognize and tolerate the USA of today vis-à-vis the one he knew before the 1960s and thought would last forever.

You see people, there is only one substantive and true difference between people like JACKDIXON and the Talibans: The Talibans live in areas where there is not even a semblance of democracy. They (the Talibans) can impose their will on everybody that has the "misfortune" of being a citizen or dweller of the areas that are controlled by them. JACKDIXON and people of his kind would do exactly the same things the Talibans are doing today (if not worse) had the USA been like Afghanistan or the SWAT valley areas of Pakistan. They would have black people as slaves, still, and every living and able body person in this country would not only be required to belong to the religion of JACKDIXON 's prescription but would be required to pray to God in the way JACKDIXON prescribed. Any deviation would be blasphemy and would be punishable by lynching and/or death by other heinous and inhumane means.

JACKDIXON, most well meaning and truly God-believing Americans thank Him that America has swayed from the “values of pre-1960s’ America”. I know this is your worst nightmare. May we all pray that you and people of your leaning and orientation not be around much longer to endure this nightmare? AMEN!

The argument presented in this article (i.e. Jesus was tortured, therefore evangelicals approve of torture) feels very unconvincing. It is a sad state of affairs in the US when prominent and influential theologians associated with historic institutions propose arguments that are this superficial. From the comments, though, it appears that any old argument will do for people who want to bash traditional Christian convictions. In fact this is just the kind of pseudo intellectual garbage that people love today. Maybe we can think of some more similar arguments: John the Baptist and Jesus speak of God judging the world with fire, so evangelicals think burning forests down is a good thing. Or, in the Bible, Satan is sometimes represented as a serpent, therefore evangelicals are attempting to massacre all snakes.

julianoone | May 3, 2009 2:11 PM Furthermore, why did God hate Jesus so much that he sent the poor thing to "die for our sins"? Why not skip the whole Passion/Crucifixion/Lamb of God bit? Why not simply say "I forgive you" and let Jesus live in peace?
____________________________________________
Juliannoone

God and Jesus are the same. Most Christians know that Jesus is God in human form. When you have some time, research the Deity of Jesus Christ.

So, who recognizes either 'Republicans' or 'Christians' today.

Having grownup in large,extended midwest communities of evangelical families...which were both,
let me bet they'd not recognize, let alone subscribe to the
uglies who carry those names today.

Having escaped, perhpas. the screaming uglies of the media,. which have been neither in the interveneing time.

Give nothing more to the poor or needy, it's "socialism"?

Israel's barbariety in Gaza was just fine?

Don't forgive or forget the slightest waver from the GOD "litmus test"? (which only we know, and you're going to hell).

Make your own list.
But I for one, would like those strong, kindly,
decent Americans back.

There are many Christians who do not know the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament and choose to live through one testament or the other, as opposed to understanding what both testaments of the bible represent.

The Old Testament was written as God's *Old Covenant* with his people, the Jews. It was written as a commitment between God and is chosen people to fulfill. Unfortunately, they could not fulfill the covenant; therefore, God offered a *New Covenant*, the New Testament.

People of Christian faith need to be educated on the Old and New Covenant and what they both represent.

Ask those of us who are serving or have served in the military how we feel about torture. As a twenty-two year veteran from a military family I oppose the use of torture on a number of grounds.

We have crawled into the gutter with our enemies and can no longer claim the moral high ground. As a result the rest of the world views us with disgust and disdain. Moreover, and much worse, by abandoning our humane treatment of prisoners our enemies believe that they now have blanket license to torture Americans and other westerners that they take captive as we have given credibility to their view of us and handed them propaganda to use against us.

I always marvel at those who wrap themselves in the flag, holding their bible on high in one hand and their plastic sword at the ready in the other, who never dared to do the dirty work of this country in its military yet are so gung ho to send others to war and gleefully embrace barbaric acts couched in terms such as “enhanced interrogation”. Then again history has proven again and again that organized religion has organized armies to kill those who didn't share their faith in the name of their gods.

Here is a completely different take on this: the people who condone torture do so because they are afraid. They are willing to do anything to stay safe, even torture another person. I posit that people who feel the need to attend church at least once per week also do so because they are afraid. They find strength NOT in the teachings of the church, but in the community of like minded people. Reference "Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits, Douglas R. Oxley, Kevin B. Smith, et al"

jmounadi wrote: "I agree with your assessment. But you still make the twist that somehow Christianity followed in its true manner leads to potential monstrosity. The Nazi regime did not believe in God. You cannot serve two master's so the comparison is wrong."

I agree. But belief is what drove the Nazi's to extremes or accept extremes. Today I hear those who profess a belief in God talk about the necessity of torture. Not because their religion allows it, quite the contrary. But I have yet to find anyone who wants it used on Americans in day to day police activity. Why?

jmounadi wrote: "Hitler and his zeal became their god. Jesus was lost along the way due to ego and demagougary."

People did not stop going to church in Germany. But, in church they did not hear any sermons against what the government was doing. In fact they heard the government was doing well. There was tacit approval. Hearing today that christians approve of torture and preemptive war because a leader they considered "one of them" approved of it is not at all surprising. I would just echo that christians today who approve of torture that the teachings of Jesus were lost along the way due to ego and demagougary."

jmounadi wrote: "You act is if battling evil requires no violent recourse in this world. This is not to happen. Certain methods are necessary. Blindly lumping people who believe that self-defense and the extraction of vital information to save lives with that of a Nazi is naive."

I find it hard to believe that Jesus could have uttered those words. When did he say "torture the prisoners"?

"The faithful" justify torture like they justify anything else that is convenient for them. Like Cheney and Nixon believed they had the moral imperative to be above the law because they were superior to others, "The faithful," in their righteous might are specially chosen by their god and tell us we should "do as they say, not as they do" They rant about gays and abortion but conveniently justify capital punishment, torture and hiding pedophile priests. The commandments are not for them - they are for their lowly followers. In their self-righteous minds, "non-believers" should be tortured into compliance with their dictates.

Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their black leather book bags and pointy hats wide, their SUVs big and black, and the tassels on their garments long. They love the place of honor at banquets, talk shows, political conventions and the chief seats in the synagogues and churches, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Dr., Reverend, Pastor, or Rabbi by men. (with apologies to Matthew 23)

God of the Bible supports torture for the sake of torture, not even to procure information, according to Genesis 3:16, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 13:41-42, Matthew 13:49-50, Mark 16:16, et al. The first of these is the etiological myth to explain why childbirth causes physical pain for mothers. The rest are passages which put forth the doctrine of hell, which claims that those who fail to worship the creator as he commands will, upon their death, be cast into a realm of agonizing, never-ending suffering. Absdurdly, the same book insists that a merciful and loving god created such a place and desires to send some people there. The good news is that many Christians today are progressive reformers opposed to torture. I like these Christians better than their own God.

Furthermore, why did God hate Jesus so much that he sent the poor thing to "die for our sins"? Why not skip the whole Passion/Crucifixion/Lamb of God bit? Why not simply say "I forgive you" and let Jesus live in peace?

Lembark writes: Perhaps the proper follup would be to examine a similar cross-section of the Christian population about their feelings about foreign governments torturing US airmen or islamist extremists torturing American missionarys.
You would probably find that the tolerance for torture went to near zero.
Net result: Christians do not object to torture, just being tortured.

This is getting rich. First of all, US servicemen don't get tortured in Islamic nations, they get beheaded. Missionaries don't just get tortured. That is merely the prelude to death in an Islamic nation.

Christians don't oppose torture, but being tortured? What kind of mean-spirited statement is this?

Have you ever gone to church for more than three services? Only an idiot who has NEVER truly tried attending church can make such sad statements about Christianity.

I, without a doubt, believe that one day you will personally find despair, and the person that helps you through it will be a Christian. That will be God's way of helping you to find the truth about Christianity. It is filled with love, and not torture and death.

Among the two possible reasons that Thistlewaite supposes, the first one is right. I write as someone who has been an evangelical for 25 years. I also have a master's in theology. There is a great overlap among those who tend toward conservative politics and those who go to evangelical church. But as I and many evangelicals believe, there is nothing in evangelical theology that by itself would move one toward today's conservative politics rather than liberal, much less toward approving torture. But the Republican party has learned to co-opt much of the evangelica vote as is well known.

I have been engaging in a Facebook argument with a fellow "white male evangelical" over this very torture issue, and he has come across like a stereotype, ill-informed, paranoid, and unwilling to learn anything beyond what conservative news sources will tell him.

I promise the world, there is no Biblical support for torturing one's enemies, much less unindicted suspects. It is precious hard to find support for any kind of violence at all: "Love your enemies," the master taught. "Turn the other cheek." "If someone forces you to travel with them for one mile, travel with them for two."

Posted by: jmounadi | May 3, 2009 1:38 PM
If you say that you would NOT condone torture to saved a loved one, then you are lying.
___________________________________________
Knowing who I am and also knowing what Jesus represents, no I would not condone it.

But, my life and beliefs have nothing do with who you are as a person, or your beliefs. I am not you, nor do I believe what you believe, nor have you lived my life.

I have already suffered emotionally from other many facets in life, but it has not caused me to become bitter, full of hate, and anger. The teachings of Jesus have brought me understanding and insight into life's mysteries, but more importantly a peace that you will never understand.

In other words, I have not allowed my suffering to cause me to become a *victim* of the evils of mankind.

Therefore, don't be angry at me for not being you, or for not taking sides with what you believe in. I live for Jesus and not for man.

Let's face it, you can either follow Christ or you can follow the Old Testament, but you can't do both. You can either turn the other cheek, or you can seek an eye for an eye at every turn. Not both. God is either color blind and loves all his followers equally, or he is a racist warrior and real-estate broker hell bent giving his Chosen People land and power. Not both. Christ either died for trying to call a lost people to God, or he died for nothing more than to fulfill an old fable. Probably not both. My point is that fundamentalist Christians try phenomenally hard to rationalize the Old and New Testaments, which can't be done by anyone smarter than celery. Although I must admit, they will spent the next 10,000,000 Sundays and 4,365 lifetimes trying. Hence the sick, arrogant and pathetic justifications of torture by some very intelligence-challenged (non) Christians.

jmounadi wrote: "Democracy can only thrive under a rule of law. Rule of law does not exist within an Islamic nation, or can it thrive in a nation without a sense of faith. Why do you think all western nations (belief in Christ), and not nations like China, Cuba, or Nazi Germany, thrive."

Oh my, you think China is not thriving. I guess you haven't been there recently. And Cuba is very christian but under an American economic embargo. And the Nazi's thrived to the point where Americans were looking to them as an example of how to get our of the depression were were still in but the Germans were not. In other words, your examples are pretty bad. Also, Islamic nations and nations that do not believe in Christ do have laws. Saying they do not is just nonsense.

jmounadi wrote: "Go sell your anit-religion to someone else. Because without faith in God, then I can just take what I want. Like Hitler, and not like a true believer. Learn the difference and you will know the differeince between someone who will do you true harm and someone who won't."

So China and other Asian "buddist" nations are nations full of people who just take what they want? Could you give me an example of a nation where people feel they are free morally to take what they want or hurt you as they please? The only place I have felt unsafe was on the streets of Rome as thugs on the subway harassed those who looked like tourists. And Italy is a nation I assume you would call christian. But hey, if YOU can only be moral by believing in God, then please continue your belief. God help us if you stop believing and go on a rampage.

"This generalization is meaningless without operation definition of church attendance and what is meant by torture."

Errr, yes. The article references a study n=742 that correlated attendance at "Christian" church services (segregated by Protestant, Non Mexican Catholics, "Baptist, etc.) and approval of torture. Same test question for everyone which was quite moderate. That's what all the fuss is about dude, the results were dismal. People who regularly attend "Christian" church services are more likely than the general population to approve of torture. Additionally I also noted that the study design excluded Muslims and Jewish persons. I bet the results there would have been dramatic.

Fate1 writes: Just remember, many in the Nazi party were christians and believed in God. Its possible to be religious and a monster at the same time. The question is whether one can recognize it. If you doubt this just visit your local prison and talk to the christians there.

I agree with your assessment. But you still make the twist that somehow Christianity followed in its true manner leads to potential monstrosity. The Nazi regime did not believe in God. You cannot serve two master's so the comparison is wrong.

Hitler and his zeal became their god. Jesus was lost along the way due to ego and demagougary.

You act is if battling evil requires no violent recourse in this world. This is not to happen. Certain methods are necessary. Blindly lumping people who believe that self-defense and the extraction of vital information to save lives with that of a Nazi is naive.

The more you go to church, the more you approve of torture reads like a hypothesis of a sociology professor. This generalization is meaningless without operation definition of church attendance and what is meant by torture. A junior high school student would not get away with publishing something like this article. Some of the readers’ comments are interesting. If you define church attendance as worshipping God in spirit and truth, then you believe with all your heart that Jesus Christ died for our sins to defeat the prince of death and overcome the world so we can be redeem to God and have life eternal by the power and kingdom of God.

Christians have a long, rich, well-documented history of exacting torture from non-christians, especially non-white ones.

Perhaps the proper follup would be to examine a similar cross-section of the Christian population about their feelings about foreign governments torturing US airmen or islamist extremists torturing American missionarys.

You would probably find that the tolerance for torture went to near zero.

Net result: Christians do not object to torture, just being tortured.

The more you go to church, the more you approve of torture reads like a hypothesis of a sociology professor. This generalization is meaningless without operation definition of church attendance and what is meant by torture. A junior high school student would not get away with publishing something like this article.

Some of the readers’ comments are interesting. If you define church attendance as worshipping God in spirit and truth, then you believe with all your heart that Jesus Christ died for our sins to defeat the prince of death and overcome the world so we can be redeem to God (we live in him and he live in us) and have life eternal by the power and kingdom of God.

"Liberal gibberish. We have to do what is necessary to protect our citizens. We don't micromanage the professionals who do the work in that protection, just as they don't micromanage liberal columnists. We can't be nicey-poo to baked-in-the-cake sociopathic killers,"

"Baked in the cake sociopathic killers." Sounds like you ought to know. Wow. You would have made a perfect Nazi. "Doing what is necessary." If you are young maybe you could have even been a member of the SA or the SD. You have real potential. I think you've been cheated. When will we drop all this "liberal gibberish" and let you strive to your true barbaric potential? Maybe you can eclipse Carl Yaeger. If your intelligent enough maybe you could rank right up there with Heidrich. Ah, the banality of evil.

jmounadi wrote: "Once again, if I kidnap your wife/husband or child and state that I want nothing in return (no ransom) and that they will die unless the police find and stop me. Would you then deny the interrogation process of potential torture of someone who could potentially be associated with me in regards to my activity of kidnapping and inevitable murder of a loved one? If you say that you would NOT condone torture to saved a loved one, then you are lying."

Would you vote to allow torture whenever the police feel it many help in any case they feel a life may be in danger? Do you think the police will strictly adhere to those rules?

Children and spouses go missing every day. The parents and police usually have suspects and people to question almost immediately and they know they have 24 hours before the statistics tell them a good outcome is not going to happen. If it was your child that was kidnapped, the police usually look at the parents first. Would you be willing to be tortured to remove yourself from the suspect list? If your neighbor's wife or children disappeared, would you help the police tie the neighbor down to waterboard him?

jmounadi wrote: "But what else is new. The ones who attack Christianity, and have no faith to begin with are the biggest hypocrites of all.

Those who feel torture should be used obviously have no faith in anything, just fear. Turning the other cheek becomes a sign of weakness. First strikes become a necessity. Spying on thy neighbor becomes a good thing and if anyone protests they must have something to hide. Just remember, many in the Nazi party were christians and believed in God. Its possible to be religious and a monster at the same time. The question is whether one can recognize it. If you doubt this just visit your local prison and talk to the christians there.

jhadv writes: Be very careful here as it is not as funny as you presume. Adolph Hilter's first official act as Chancellor was to outlaw abortion. Next he sought to erase the liberal, imoral, Weimar culture. Next he replaced all that with the idolitry of worshiping the Volk.

I don't have to be careful, because the person I referred to, as yourself as well, confuse what faith and religion stand for. Democracy can only thrive under a rule of law. Rule of law does not exist within an Islamic nation, or can it thrive in a nation without a sense of faith. Why do you think all western nations (belief in Christ), and not nations like China, Cuba, or Nazi Germany, thrive. And please don't go into a diatribe of western nations thriving solely on stealing from others. History will show you that all races of people have stolen from each other. America and Europe (due to its faith) are the nations that have done the most to make for its sins.

Go sell your anit-religion to someone else. Because without faith in God, then I can just take what I want. Like Hitler, and not like a true believer. Learn the difference and you will know the differeince between someone who will do you true harm and someone who won't.

The study is very troubling, but it does not deeper into the issue of what is really going on. If you actually read, and I mean read, the teachings of Christ...he did not believe in torture. In Christianity, Christ was on earth to show the true nature of God, since he is called the "Son of God". He came in human form to show who God really is. He died for the sins of humanity (actions of humanity that goes against the love and justice we are supposed to show one another), so that we do not have to endure so much of that pain and suffering. His torture does not say anything about us having to go through that...it was done so that we can be free from that. Man (humankind) have rejected those teachings, therefore, you see so many of torturing and inflicting pain on others. What you may see in that poll are Christians who are going against the Word of God, which teaches us to love God more than anything, because when you love God, then you love human beings, which he created. Then the second thing is to "love they neighbor" as we love ourselves. If you don't love your neighbor, then you do not love yourself. If you do not love you. We are even taught to love our enemies. That does not mean that we should not understand what is wrong or right, but we are not in any way supposed to hate people.

The misinterpretations of the Gospel from some Christians, and the comments I see here, suggest that there are people who just don't know the Gospel and are ignorant to the true message. Jesus is the center of Christianity, therefore, every Christian is to follow his example. If we did that, then you will see little to no poverty, you will see a great deal more compassion, you will see more people willing to forgive our enemies, and you will see a people that rises above any horrific acts of torture. That is true Christianity. It is not about the sufferings of Christ, it is about the Risen Christ. The Risen Christ releases us from the hate....a hate that believes in torture. So, before you start to judge, read the bible and the life of Jesus more carefully.

I'm disappointed but not surprised by the survey. And even if only 1% approved of torture, in my mind it is wrong. It goes against what the USA is all about. And if Cheney, et al believe that using torture (er, I mean "enhanced interrogation methods") will force someone to tell all, doesn't the same apply to any American soldiers who are captured? Wouldn't they cave as well? And if soldiers are exposed to these methods as part of their training, wouldn't soldiers in other countries be exposed as well...does the truth really come from torture? It's doubtful...someone being tortured might "confess"...or give a false name so that the torture stops. And don't we thinkg "barbaric" and "primitive" when we hear/read about torture methods being used in other countries? There are some very mean church-going people out there!!!

Religions are all the same except for the Idols(aka Gods) they worship!!!!

I'm disappointed but not surprised by the survey. And even if only 1% approved of torture, in my mind it is wrong. It goes against what the USA is all about. And if Cheney, et al believe that using torture (er, I mean "enhanced interrogation methods") will force someone to tell all, doesn't the same apply to any American soldiers who are captured? Wouldn't they cave as well? And if soldiers are exposed to these methods as part of their training, wouldn't soldiers in other countries be exposed as well...does the truth really come from torture? It's doubtful...someone being tortured might "confess"...or give a false name so that the torture stops. And don't we thinkg "barbaric" and "primitive" when we hear/read about torture methods being used in other countries? There are some very mean church-going people out there!!!

This has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with those who are on the right of the spectrum philosophically. Much more revealing would be a poll of these people to determine their level of racism and sexism. I think you would find a posiive correlation between the desire to torture and the level of authoritarianism, racism, and sexism. You will also find that people who approve of torture are more comfortable with the Old Testament than the New Testament. That's because the God in the Old Testament is a punishing God. This fits their view of the world better than the loving God of the New Testatment.

Liberal gibberish. We have to do what is necessary to protect our citizens. We don't micromanage the professionals who do the work in that protection, just as they don't micromanage liberal columnists. We can't be nicey-poo to baked-in-the-cake sociopathic killers, because that makes us more vulnerable. In summary, if we are naive, our country is at risk, and we have enough problems as it is. Remember September 11, 2001.

wilsonj1 wrote: "All a smokescreen for the left. Why don't you talk about the one and one half million tortured deaths that Democrats approve of in abortions each year? Torture that a vast majority of Christians, Catholics and Protestants speak out against, only to be mocked by the WAPO and your ilk."

Hmmm, moral relativism. You justify torture with something else you consider torture? You seemingly do not understand the difference between state sponsored torture and the torture you consider which is not state sponsored. When the state starts taking pregnant women and forcing abortions, then you will have an argument. Next time think. I know its hard for many of the religious, but give it a try anyway. You might just find out you have morals you never thought you had.

Lcarter03011 writes: What Bible are Christian Conservatives teaching from? Is it not the same Bible that Christians of other faiths teach from?

Once again, another person who sees the article for it's worth. Ammo to attack the conservative party and religion itself.

Once again, if I kidnap your wife/husband or child and state that I want nothing in return (no ransom) and that they will die unless the police find and stop me. Would you then deny the interrogation process of potential torture of someone who could potentially be associated with me in regards to my activity of kidnapping and inevitable murder of a loved one? If you say that you would NOT condone torture to saved a loved one, then you are lying.

But what else is new. The ones who attack Christianity, and have no faith to begin with are the biggest hypocrites of all.

The article by Brooks is nonsensical and simplistic. Regular church goers are more likely to be Republicans and in agreement with GWB policies. Moreover, regular church goers (particularly my Catholic brothers and sisters) are more likely to be blind to the hypocritical behavior of the Church. A woman gets excommunicated for letting her raped 9 year old daughter get an abortion, but the rapist can still take communion. etc....

G

Someone wrote: "Yes my fuhrer. Aipac, you have convinced me to drop my religious faith to join your "patriotic" annihilation of religious zealots.
It would be better served to join your faithless cause and destroy such congregations."

Be very careful here as it is not as funny as you presume. Adolph Hilter's first official act as Chancellor was to outlaw abortion. Next he sought to erase the liberal, imoral, Weimar culture. Next he replaced all that with the idolitry of worshiping the Volk.

We could easily fall into the same trap. Look how this population whent for the premise of lassie fare economics! Which premise basically says every person should act in their own narrow self interest without regard to others or society and the "invisible hand" will do the rest. Translation, if everyone does it, avarice (or anything else for that matter) is no longer a sin. In fact when everyone does it avarice becomes a virtue. This population fell for that hook line and sinker and are now seeing the inevitible results with the banks. They could easily be persuaded to fall for a bigger less benign perversion. It's actually kind of scary right now. Too many idiots.

What does Jesus's suffering and crucifixion have to do with man torturing and abusing other people. Did Jesus not die for the sins of man (torturing and abusing one another), so that man could one day transform himself into being more Christ *like*.

What Bible are Christian Conservatives teaching from? Is it not the same Bible that Christians of other faiths teach from? The Gospels including the other Books of the New Testament teaches Christian's how to become more like Christ, so that they can learn to stop abusing each other and people in general.

It is obvious that there are many Christians running around that are not learning anything from the teachings of Jesus. I do not recall reading anything in the New Testament where Jesus teaches Christians to abuse and torture people of Muslim descent, or those that do not practice any religion, or to hate and despise those of a different race, sexual orientation, poor people, et al.

Therefore, I am little confused as to how Jesus's suffering and death can be translated into Christians going out and torturing other people, when it was God who sent is only begotten son to suffer & die on a cross for the sins of man, and not for Christians to beat mankind senseless in the name of Jesus suffering. Sounds a little conflicted to me.

Islamistic nut jobs blow themselves up and there are like 100 million of them

crazy christian fundementalists, 100 million of them too, are criminally hypocritical and will allow other people to perpetrate their crimes vicariously thru torture... whats the difference? oh yeah we are suppose to be civilized

What else could you possibly expect from a religion whose central focus is all about torture and death?

Saturate minds with any theme and those minds will project that theme into the outer world.

The Religion of the Tormented Jew has not been good for the world.

Jesus told us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, not "support their torture because I was beaten and slain for your sins so that makes it all okay guys."

I'm not surprised by these findings though. Christianity in this country is in need of a revival back to the Source of everything: Jesus.

Anyone who supports the torture of other human beings is not a Christian, regardless of how loud you scream that you are.

Personally I find it incredible, that the practices that the United States recently used were patterned after the failed practices of the communists in the Korean War and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. These methods are the ones that had wrung false confessions from captured American soldiers and 14,000 Khmer Rouge “victims in S-21. Is our nation like many others that rationalize the use of torture?

In June 1982 Pope John Paul II, before the International Committee of the Red Cross, in Geneva, said:

“The thought of Jesus being stripped, beaten, and derided until his final agony on the cross should prompt Christians to protest against similar treatment of their fellow human beings. Of their own accord, disciples of Christ will reject torture, which nothing can justify, which causes humiliation and suffering to the victim and degrades the tormentor.”

Religion is into pain and suffering.

This is news?

It is arguable that evangelical church leaders who constantly preach the frighting message that every single person in the world will be forever damned and spend eternity in hell if they are not "born again" are guilty of practicing mental torture according to the UN definition of torture.

And don't forget their theology of "spare the rod, and spoil the child".

So this PEW finding is not a great surprise to me. Torture is part of the deal.

The most troubling aspect of the finding, however, is that almost half of all Americans seem to buy into torture irrespective of their religious persuasion.

Ouch!

Ronn
Seattle

Aipaciswar writes: None of these pseudo religious robots knows a thing about any god or gods or powers beyond us. Shaking off these ignorant people and identifying them as cultists is our patriotic duty.

Yes my fuhrer. Aipac, you have convinced me to drop my religious faith to join your "patriotic" annihilation of religious zealots. Who do these Christians think they are to congregate freely with the purpose of fellowship and vying to be missionaries in the name of God.

It would be better served to join your faithless cause and destroy such congregations. When and where do we sign up...

I believe that so called conservative christians-the likes of those that would support torture as official policy need to introspect deeply and revisit their faith. The essence of christianity is love and the sacrifice that Jesus made for us. The conservative christians are behaving like the pharisees that Jesus condemned so much. That is, "believing" with their minds rather than heart and soul.

It makes sense to me that that Christians would be more likely than others to support torture. From what I have seen practiced by Christians as their religious principles, christianity appears to be a buffet style religion. All that is needed is an affiliation with some denomination and one is free to select those parts that fits in with his lifestyles and social values(including racial and gender prejudices)and political philosophy.

it is for this reason that although the abortion issue at least for a short time drew out those who wanted to use it to push their political agenda, none of these folks was heard to complain when innocent persons imprisoned for an offence that could see their lives taken by the state, made a single argument about the sanctity of those lives. In fact the bulk of christains do not even want to hear about those cases. I can provide dozens of similar examples, but I will not be breaking new ground.

There is no doubt that there are christians who try to live their lives, according to the teachings of Christ, but this section is so small and voiceless that it can be, and is often dismissed by their brethren as a fringe group.

Unfortunately, christianity as a religion will continue to be a very mysterious to an increasing number of the citenzenry.

Someone also wrote: "I bet if the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life performed the same survey in a Muslim country their finding would be compatible"

Yes this was a very carefully crafed study so I never mentioned that. I suspect the only religous group that could rival the Muslims in their zest for enemy blood would be Jewish persons. If you asked Isrealis and American Jews if it was aceptible to torture a Palestinian to prevent a bus bombing I bet the yes answer rate would be well above 90%.

First, not that 54% Christians who approve of torture, a slight majority, so this can not be used to brand all or even most--only slightly over half who were polled.

That segment who approve seem to believe that the wages of sin are PAIN. Christ paid for our sins with his pain. Similarly, they believe the terrorists earned their pain as wages for their sins. This is not an uncommon way of thinking and can be seen in any number of cultures/religions where suffering and sacrifice are offered to appease God.

This mindset informs any number of common attitudes from spanking children to executing criminals. In fact, I think this is why many oppose abortion. They care less about "life" than they do about making sure that the woman has to suffer the consequences of her "sin".

If you believe that suffering can compensate for "sin", torture makes sense--the bigger the sin, the greater the suffering.

I bet if the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life performed the same survey in a Muslim country their finding would be compatible; the more faithful would accept and justify some torture(of the crusaders, for example).
I find no support for torture in the Christian and the Muslim faith, for Jesus and Mohammad never condoned the practice; it is some of their followers that did.
We should not label the recent US torture on Christianity neither should we associate the action of 911 with Islam. Osama’s atrocities are not faithful and neither are Adolf’s.

You have to be limited in mind to be an evangelical to begin with, so it is no surprise at all the torture argument of the Krapphammers and Goldbergs flies with these people of small mind.

None of these pseudo religious robots knows a thing about any god or gods or powers beyond us. Shaking off these ignorant people and identifying them as cultists is our patriotic duty.

The words "You can find anything you want, in the New Testament" (sung to the tune of Arlo Guthrie's 'Alice's Restaurant') sum up the problem, in spite of the good professor's protest to the contrary. Why? Unfortunately, there are more than enough small minded people and people of bad will to distort even the most important of human documents, such as, for example, the Bible and the US Constitution.

Yes, the English church at least did oppose anesthesia for childbirth ("in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children"), until Queen Victoria used it and thereby ended the argument.

Most people who follow religion are dirty little monkeys, cruel, selfish, and authoritarian, and rely upon religion to make them act a little less like thugs. Some of them know this about themselves and some of them do not.

Our public education has so trivialized liberal arts subjects -- e.g., history, government, philosophy, and the arts -- that we shouldn't be surprised that a significant group of anybodies would favor torture. They are totally unaware of what inspired our basic documents -- the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution -- and what they guarantee. The Founders weep!

I've always wondered about the peculiar fascination with pain and suffering so evident within the Christian death cult. Seems like a serious disconnect to me but then, these same folks brought us the flagellants and Inquisition, remember?

I will try to add these data to the data base that I have assembling. So far what I have is state by state and such data require caution in reaching conclusions. To date, I have nice correlations showing that the most religious states are also uneducated, poor, racist and Republican. The approval of torture seems to fit right in.

Someone said, "It really is amazing how many evangelicals value every single life until it is born."

Not really. Many "Christians" are actually Gnostics. The meaning of the words shift over time. Some Gnostic preacher declares himself "Christian" makes a lot of money, other would be pastors imitate him and before long people think people preaching Gnosticism are "Christians" becasue that's what they call themselves. The American Catholic bishops are not helping things either right now. Seeing strains of Gnosticism infect the Bishoprick of the American Catholic church that should know better is disturbing. John Paul was kind of a conservative a$& and his bishops show it. At least Benedict had the good sense to indefinitely shelve his beatification. He is a questionable candidate in light of the way he used extraordinary medical means to elongate his life near the end. The man had no compunction telling a woman that a natural process (pregnancy) imposed upon her by rape or incest should go uninterupted becasuse it was God's will but when it came to his own person and death, another example of a natural process and God's will, he displayed a different standard for himself. Not exactly saintly in my humble opinion. In my estimation Mother Theresa is the ony modern person deserving of beatification that I am familiar with.

The whole idea that Republican = Christian is a smack in the face to the Democratic party in general and black people (who by and large vote Democrat although I do not) in particular.

The idea that Conservatives' faith in Jesus is the reason they believe in torture is quite laughable.

Jesus was bruised for our iniquities and died on the cross for our sins so that we can live. Not so that we can torture others. The bible makes this quite clear when Jesus said "Ye without sin cast the first stone", and when he admonished the disciples to forgive 70x7 times instead of following the principles of an 'eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'.

Don't confuse the religion with the people who distort it. No different that Muslims who distort their religion to wage holy wars or Jews who distort their religion to run concentration camps full of Palestinians.

All a smokescreen for the left. Why don't you talk about the one and one half million tortured deaths that Democrats approve of in abortions each year? Torture that a vast majority of Christians, Catholics and Protestants speak out against, only to be mocked by the WAPO and your ilk.

You are so far off the mark, you are not even crediable.

jmounadi

Bush was not elected twice. He was elected once and selected in round two. Evangelicals are the scum of America, please contract cancer and die.

isildur1 writes: I think it's more likely that religious people simply tend to be more fearful, less secure, and they think they'll be safer if torture is allowed.

You are absolutely wrong. My belief in Christ and that I will share the peace of heaven with Him and all those who believe has me facing adversity in a much better light. Death is my beginning, when that time comes.

For you death is the end. The truth is most people who have no faith usually find it when faced with adversity. Trying times usually brings us more in tune with facing the crossroads of whether we will ever believe in God or not.

I feel sad for the people who never find faith beyond what they can see and touch. Usually the faithless end up living reckless lives, and have no regards for others except in a manner they think is "good" enough. No faith equals no foundation for the rules you live by.

Isildur1, your comment has been the silliest of the day and helps me find focus on how lost many people are.

Well Jesus is a myth, but in general yes, the dogmatic fools who attend the church of their choice will, obviously, buy into other dogma that feels right to them.

So what is new?

These are people who think it's only good and proper to throw people who don't believe what they read in the Bible to eternal punishment - putting them in a Hieronymus Bosch like cavern where you get boiled, whipped, dismembered, impaled and sexually abused by reptilian demons.

Oh, and this boiling, whipping, dismemberment, impaling and sexual abuse by reptilian demons continues for all ETERNITY - because God really, really, really loves us.

Bigbeachbum writes: The likes of Adolf Hitler, and George Bush used religious dogma and the obvious ignorance of their adherents to support their power hungry ambitions.

The above is a stupid comparison. Bush was elected, TWICE, and never needed economic deprevation to be elected. Not only that, but Hitler abolished any references to Christ and banned all religious activites in fear of faith possibily inspiring the people to resist his dictatorship.

You really must read your history and stop relying ANSWER.org for your ammo. Read the book "The White Rose" for more enlightenment of how vastly different Hitler and Bush were. Not to mention the nations they ran and how they led them.

Truly silly comparison.

Why the surprise?

I think it's more likely that religious people simply tend to be more fearful, less secure, and they think they'll be safer if torture is allowed.

I'm disappointed but not surprised by the survey. And even if only 1% approved of torture, in my mind it is wrong. It goes against what the USA is all about. And if Cheney, et al believe that using torture (er, I mean "enhanced interrogation methods") will force someone to tell all, doesn't the same apply to any American soldiers who are captured? Wouldn't they cave as well? And if soldiers are exposed to these methods as part of their training, wouldn't soldiers in other countries be exposed as well...does the truth really come from torture? It's doubtful...someone being tortured might "confess"...or give a false name so that the torture stops. And don't we thinkg "barbaric" and "primitive" when we hear/read about torture methods being used in other countries? There are some very mean church-going people out there!!!

It really is amazing how many evangelicals value every single life until it is born. Once actually born, however, somehow torture and the death penalty are compatible with a 'culture of life.'

The failure to understand the central teachings of Jesus is profound, it is a disgrace to try and us Christianity to defend inflicting pain and suffering on your fellow humans. To paraphrase Matthew 22:37-40, First love God and second love thy neighbor, on these two commandments hang all the law.

If there is a day of reckoning, torture is not going to be smiled upon.

Christianity is one of the most diverse cultures to have ever appeared on the face of the earth. At issue here is the fact that many sects use the torture, suffering, and crucifiction of Jesus as their focus and prism into human existence. It is a culture of death! Other groups empahsize and emulate his resurrection....a much more optimistic and hopeful path. Yet others do the same with Jesus's life of love and charity....the most effective path of the three in my opinion. Most major religions have their sects of this type....most notably today is Islam. There is a path of light and love in Islam, exemplified by the Sufi tradition, which is today greatly overshawdod by those troubled souls focussing on destruction. But as humanity matures and gets a little wiser, we will shed those faith systems which look upon our race as evil sinners saved only by suffering, and those viewing existence thru the frameworks of love and life will finally be ascendant. We are in a passing phase....have patience and do whatever you can to sow the seeds of divine love into the hearts of those who idolize death.

Correlation is not causation...but it is correlation. When this happens, it can be helpful to look for an underlying influence that may be causative (or at least predisposing) for both phenomena.

In this case, there would seem to be a tendency in certain types of church-goers to approve of torture. While Thistlethwaite's conjecture is interesting, it's not very persuasive to me, and would need a lot more evidence to be so. But I agree with the commenters who suggest that an underlying acceptance of authoritarian prescriptions for life's many and varied trials might account for both the regularity of church-going (which in many cases provides from the pulpit ready-made answers to deep problems) and the correlated willingness to accept political authority even when it flatly contradicts the religious teaching. The deeper source of this dissonance is fear, which if amplified by clever and unscrupulous leaders (read Dick Cheney and Karl Rove here, with the echo chamber of Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, etc.) can drown out any glimmer of critical thinking or the rational consideration of risks and benefits, let alone moral questions.

This sort of response is also evident in the panic-reaction to same-sex marriage. I have yet to hear any coherent explanation of the claim that allowing homosexuals to marry will destroy traditional marriage. All I hear is overwhelming fear...the kind that makes little children seek the comfort of a mother's arms. Even if in this case the mother's purposes are suspect.

To put it plainly, Jesus wept.

Wow, she must have waterboarded and beaten that twisted bit of tortured logic. the central point of Christianity his hope, faith and love. For Christian conservatives, severe pain and suffering are central to their theology..... as long as it's severe pain and suffering of others, the shallow twisted Christian conservative claiming "ditto head" using Jesus name to sell their brew of fear, hate and power over others. that is all they posses.

the person who wrote this article would be the same person who would justify just about anything perverse in religion...

It isn't that regular church-goers approve of torture. Torturers just go to church regularly.
Seriously, people lacking respect for their fellow human beings, among them torturers and persons approving of torture, seem to have belief systems that make them likely to be strongly religious. It's probably the same reason that fervent Christians on either side of the Reformation struggle were uninhibited about torturing and slaughtering other Christians. The most "righteous" and doctrinaire people I have met in life were also the least able to consider points of view other than their own.
Some organized religions including Christianity and Judaism apparently attract some believers who are truly immoral people.
Buddhism, anyone?

jmounadi asks, "If I kidnapped any of your children and stated that the police have exactly 24 hours to find your child or they die. Would you oppose torture of a potential accomplice of mine if it could get your child back? If you say yes, does that make you an athiest, because you denied torturing that potential source of information known to have ties to my whereabout? Of course not."

This is a wonderful example of the kind of simpleton logic that allows people to rationalize barbarism. You don't even consider that your initial premise has merit, which is that torture is an effective means by which to obtain critical information. It is not. You then proceed to base your support for torture on a fantasy scenario straight from a fictional television show. If you think that makes for a compelling argument then you are emblematic of the problem - devoid of empathy, afraid of phantoms, unable to apply critical thinking, and thoroughly bigoted against thsoe who are not like you.

Flatlander12 is on the right track, in my opinion.
What is missing from the analysis is that torture is, in fact, illegal. Thus, it is an act of civil disobedience. Ethical civil disobedience, unlike simple criminal behavior, carries with it the willingness to accept the punishment.
In that context, the hypothetical case of torturing the person about to detonate an atomic bomb in a major city becomes a heroic act. The torturer is willing to sacrifice his or her own well being by willingly breaking the law and exposing him or herself to the consequences (especially if wrong about the guilt of the tortured person or the facts of the case) for the common good.
Sadly, this is not what we have seen.
Our folks wanted the get out of jail free card in advance. The information we know about that they got via torture turned out largely to be false and to be used (in part) to justify the invasion of Iraq which has cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, men women and children, and thousands of brave American soldiers their lives. The torture has also besmirched the honor of our country, as you point out.
I think what the right wingers are onto is escaping blame.

The problem here is that the editors at the WP see similarities between crucifixion and water-boarding. The press could never understand the popularity of the Passion of the Christ—either the movie or the actual event. The press panned the movie and like with the teabag protests ridiculed the participants. This article shows that they still don’t understand.

If you read the gospel or watch the movie you will see torture. From the scourging with the "flagrum" or "flagellum" to nailing the victim to the cross until he died; everything was done to insure the maximum amount of pain.

All that is quite different from squirting water up someone’s nose. Ask any of the U.S. vets who were water-boarded during training.

I wonder what intelligence about the Popular Front for the Liberation of Judea the Romans got out of Yeshua bar Yosef. Who knows what made up stuff he told Pilates thugs? Perhaps he thought they wanted him to tell them he was the son of God.

Saying that these are people of faith because they claim to be, or because they attend church is a huge leap. Very few of the people I know who attend church would I a call people of faith. With true faith comes an understanding of the power of peace, a real understanding of Jesus' message. Most Evangelical Protestants view those who demonstrate this power of peace as being feeble and weak. Most self proclaimed people of faith are simply too insecure not to be - that's why most of them are also so pro-gun.

What's a shame is that the so-called Christian leaderhsip has allowed Christianity to be soiled so. There are many people who would benefit from finding the message today, but they won't because the message has been turned into one of hate by those who've been charged with keeping it.

Makes sense. Probably members of the same churchgoing group sports WWJD button. Hypocrisy comes in all colors. It is the
mixing of politics and religion that is
bothersome.

It would not be surprising to find that the
infamous six who wrote legal brief justifying torture for Bush and Cheney are
devout who regularly worship. God, if he is
up there, must have given up in disgust.

"It's a racist response to "them", those not like us. And racism and religion, though they do not go hand in hand, are certainly associated. Religion teaches how people should be kept apart, how one is different from another and how another is the same. It creates divides and allows a Muslim to be seen as different from the person sitting next to you in church. One may be tortured for a crime while the other is to be forgiven." Fate1

I agree with Fate1. I think the reason that those who attended church more often were more in favor of torture was because they view Muslims at the "other," sub-human and not of their own faith. We frequently hear those who embrace a radical view of Christianity saying that those who don't believe like they do will go to hell. They don't believe in the "love the sinner, hate the sin" idea that they pretend to do. They actually hate those who they perceive are sinners and they most certainly perceive that Muslims are sinners because they are non-believers in Jesus.

I published a post on my blog about this Pew poll and suggested that if this Pew question about torture were re-framed from the perspective of the Iraq government torturing Christian terrorists that the results would sadly be very different.

I think our churches have a lot of work to do to help their congregations overcome the misguided view that condoning torture is ever a valid position to hold.

http://democracity.blogspot.com/2009/05/stunning-pew-poll-on-religion-torture.html

As with most of the social pressure points, the pro and anti torture sides are polarised.

I will declare my position. I am anti-torture. However with regards to the narrow question of the treatement of death-cult terrorists, I think the conservatives (pro) probably have the stronger position. The Geneva convention is based more on a deal - you don't torture ours and we won't torture yours - than on moral purity. The terrorists accept no such deal.

Liberal anti-torture sentiment follows two connected lines of thought. The first, and it is strongly held, is that torture is morally wrong under all circumstances. That can certainly be disputed and it doesn't take long to produce moral thought experiments which would lead most of us to break such a commandment.

The more thoughtful objection though, concerns the affect on society. By this reasoning, torture of only those known to be evil, soon leads to torture of those suspected of being evil, and then to those who may have useful information, and then to unfortunates who are caught up in the investigation. It will have a corrupting effect. Police and military forces will be likely to become more violent, generally, and to indulge in secrecy & dishonesty, especially where they have tortured someone who turns out to be innocent. As has been demonstrated through Gtmo, torture destroys the 'brand' of a democratic country and its justice system.

I think American conservatives basically reject these arguments. They believe that torture can remain targetted correctly at the bad guys; they have faith in institutions such as the Police and Military; and they don't care what anyone else thinks.

I am responding to FRAUDOBAMA's post in which he decried the changes that have taken place in the USA since the 1960s that he suggests have swayed the nation away from its traditional values.

Ok! Let's look at a very short list of some of the things that have transpired since the 1960s:

1. Women have equal rights with men so that, for example, they can be paid the same compensation as men for equal work.

2. Women have the right to participate in the democratic process of this nation - meaning they have the right of suffrage.

3. A little black boy can no longer be lynched or otherwise tortured and killed for, say, whistling at a white woman.

4. Black people no longer have to sit at the back of the bus or at the rear sitting areas of restaurants, etc.

5. Ah ha! A black man is the President of the USA and by consequence a black family currently occupies the White House, a house built by slaves, I mean black slaves!

This is just a very short list of the ‘horrendously evil’ things that have transpired in FRAUDOBAMA's America since the 1960s that make this degenerate minded person unable to recognize the USA of today and the one he knew before the 1960s and thought would last forever.

You see people, there is only one substantive and true difference between people like FRAUDOBAMA and the Talibans: The Talibans live in areas where there is not even a semblance of democracy. They (the Talibans) can impose their will on everybody that has the "misfortune" of being a citizen or dweller of the areas that are controlled by the them. FRAUDOBAMA and people of his kind would do exactly the same things the Talibans are doing today (if not worse) had the USA been like Afghanistan or the SWAT valley areas of Pakistan. They would have black people as slaves still and every living and able body person living in this country would not only be required to belong to the religion of FRAUDOBAMA's prescription but would be required to pray to God in the way FRAUDOBAMA prescribed. Any deviation would be blasphemy and would be punishable by lynching and/or death by other heinous and inhumane means.

FRAUDOBAMA, most well-meaning and truly God-believing Americans thank Him that America has swayed from the “values of pre-1960s America”. I know this is your worst nightmare. May we all pray that you and people of your leaning and orientation not be around much longer to endure this nightmare. AMEN!

All religions have one unifying premise: "Do what my invisible friend says, or I'll kill you!" (and keep making those offerings)

Let's see. If we define torture only as severing someone's head slowly with a nail file then...THIS WAS NOT TORTURE!
Never mind the treaties, international law, our own past prosecutions, etc., etc., THIS WAS NOT TORTURE.
Give it a rest, apologists.
Tell it to the judge.
You've been busted.

The day the Washington Post goes out of business will be a great day for America! Perhaps the church going public is smart enough not to believe the atheistic media's slander that putting a terrorist in a room with a harmless insect or making a terrorist do a lot of push ups really is "torture."

I can't think of any reason why anyone would be surprised to see factual evidence of a positive correlation between church attendance and approval of torture. Not only have events throughout the history of most major world religions demonstrated a close association between religious devotion and willingness to either perpetrate or endure torture for religious reasons, but the accounts of the character of God which worshipers occasionally read about in their sacred books and which are preached at them regularly by the most enthusiastic spokesmen for God portray God as willingly and eagerly torturing people eternally. A good question for research might be why people actually worship the worst possible EVIL as God? When its result is to see the pathos of bereaved mourners (especially at the death of small children) feeling compelled by their religious faith to say unbelievably horribly pitiful things like, "We know that God would not do something like this without a purpose," we can only cringe in pity for them. But when they support the actual deliberate physical torture of others whether by ecclesiastical (as frequently in the past) or by governmental (as more recently) authorities or by non-governmental unofficial entrepreneurs of violence in league with extremist religious leaders (as currently by the most successful torturing murderers, the jihadists) it hardly seems to matter WHICH religion they come from. Clearly they worship EVIL and call it God.

If 'torture' of Jesus was symbolic of torture of sins of humanity, then we must admit that Jesus symbolized those sins just as those radical Islamists symbolized all that is bad about their thinking. That would be an absurd interpretation. But then, most of religious teachings are not sustainable under rational scrutiny.

First, many of the people who responded in favor of torture are not Christians. They are much more in tune with the Old Testament than the new. They believe in an all powerful, all knowing God who is quite arbitrary and vicious. They worship this God. Think about why they would do that.
Second, they are people who tend, even prefer, to see things in black and white. It never occurs to them that many of the people they will have tortured are not guilty.
Third, they are cowardly. They do this out of fear, willing to sacrifice their nation's honor bought with the blood of brave men and women for their security.
Fourth, they are hypocrites. It comes naturally and they don't even see their own hypocrisy. Torturing folks who are not guilty just as Jesus was tortured and murdered, for the sake of public safety and order. Never occurred to them.
That's a large part of the story of Jesus, that WE killed him because that's the way WE are. That's not the way WE are supposed to be, according to Jesus.

This writer is a great case study in how reporters often fail to understand causality, something a basic statistics course would teach. But why let intellectual reason get in the way of a sensationally written article, especially one that takes another hit at what is becoming American media's favorite punching bag, christians.

The Christian right is not condoning torture in an absolute sense; it has no qualms about torturing Islamic radicals. Middle and Southern America is still beset with crusade mindset. Or so it seems.

And the more one goes to church the more one disapproves of killing babies in the womb. The idea is that there is an enormous difference between good and evil. And liberals continue to frame the issue as if the US had employed the rack- interfering with the sleep of a terrorist and waterboarding are not torture- they inflict no permanent damage- unlike car bombs as an example or blowing up a crowded airliner.

From reading the comments here, it is obvious that some people have been far too comfortable for far too long.

In order to defeat Hitler and the Japanese in WWII, the US dropped napalm on hundreds of thousands of civilians in Dresden and Tokyo, dropped nuclear weapons on Japan, and put the entire Japanese population of the US in internment camps.

According to the dimwits here, we should have instead turned the other cheek and let Hitler take over the world.

But OMG, those awful caterpillars they used to scare 9/11 terrorists - the horror - the horror.

“The more you go to church, the more you approve of torture?”
Yep! It is the credo of the hypochristians, born with faulty brains (if they have them at all), and twisted morality.
Now, if on top of that, the moron is alcoholic and a coke snorter, the problem is compounded. Let’s not forget the KKK justifies its crimes and cross-burning with Bible in hand.
They all should be waterboarded and walled.

Apparently this rag believes in Torture. This article certainly provides a Torturous read. My guess is that those that read the Koran have more of a leaning towards REAL torture in this day and age. How about this Torturous Rag devoting some time the honesty of that!

Most of what is published today makes it obvious the main stream media is anti-Christian through its innuendo, speculation and conjecture.

Why is nothing written on why this is so?

“Why the Faithful Approve of Torture”

This title provides a nice running start here for Christian hate-mongers. The rest is gratuitously provided by these hate-mongers who gleefully come out of the woodwork.

For 200 years after the founding of the country, Christian morality predominated. This subject would never have seen the light of day during that period.

Why?

Why not write about what has transpired since the 1960’s to cause the decline in our culture to the point where atrocities such as torture are tolerated or even considered?

What is behind the decline in our moral standards?

It isn’t Christianity.

The Pew Survey is a statistical account in survey form of what is a historical fact: Christianity, Judaism and Islam are religions in which violence in the name of the Almighty has always been a way of life. Theistic religion without spilling blood in the name of the holy is an exception, a venture outside the norm. There is not any way to explain away this type of violence based on context of custom. Members of these traditions have always justified violence which is rooted in their ignorance, greed and selfishness.

It is irresponsible and untrue to say that "the faithful approve of torture," and to say that "the more you go to church, the more you approve of torture." To say such things is to judge the whole of Christianity worldwide on the basis of poll figures taken from many different people who call themselves "Christian" in a single country, the USA. It is not only irresponsible, it is absurd -- and the Washington Post should be ashamed of itself.

There have been times when a majority of, say, Chinese Communist Party members would, if polled, have advocated capitalism. Using the Post's logic as inflicted upon Christianity, the Post could use such data to report the patent absurdity "the more Communist you are, the more you advocate capitalism." Human alligiances are fleeting and often seriously misrepresent beliefs, because humans are frail and stray from their beliefs, sometimes for moments, sometimes for days or even whole eras.

Shape up, WaPo. You are just confusing people who don't know what Christianity is by telling them it is what it ain't. It ain't what people say *they* are -- it's what Christ did, what He is, and what we are invited into: sacrificial love, to the end, even to the death.

I'm with notsofastmyfriend - the approval of torture against *those people* who are not *with us* is a feature of authoritarianism. I think it has little do with fetishizing Christ's suffering on the cross (a few fringe loonies notwithstanding, like Mel Gibson). Read Altemeyer on the subject:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

I agree with these points made by chtraywick: “This was not factual, scholarly or thoughtful. Sad to see a person with such a large soapbox miss an opportunity to engender some real discussion about a very complex and morally perplexing problem that we, as a society as a whole, face."

Making meaning of human social behavior needs context: I STRONGLY recommend Phyllis Tickle's book "THE GREAT EMERGENCE: How Christianity Is Changing and Why." 2008; www.bakerbooks.com.

The Pew findings really beg the question: What comes first, ideology or theology? Are conservative Christians using Christianity to justify their ultra-conservative ideology, or is ultra-conservative Christianity driving their ideology?

I've often suspected it's the former. Far too many conservative Christian friends of mine simply do not know their Bible, much less understand what it says. They rely very heavily on preachers (often espousing an ahistorical and unbiblical theology) rather than the Bible. (Whatever happened to Martin Luther's cry, "Sola scriptura!" [scripture alone] -- the great cry of the Reformation which aimed at destroying the influence of "interpreters" of the Bible in favor of faith and Scripture alone?) In discussions about faith and politics, I rarely hear appeals to faith and almost exclusively hear appeals to ideology.

I liken this to the way racist Southerners in the antebellum South used to justify slavery by pointing to the Bible. Take away the slavery, and suddenly the "Biblical teachings" went away, too. (Who today argues that the Bible condones slavery? Which of these fundamentalist preachers adopts that position today?)

Sadly, it is because people who say that they are "practicing Christians" and believe in torture are just "practicing" but have not learned the lessons that Jesus taught. "Love your neighbor, do good to them that hate you, Bless them that curse you and pray for them which despitefully use you---to him that smites you on the right cheek, offer also the other". The churches have failed those that believe in torture.

Evangelicals = neocons = kooks. They are not conservatives. They like torture and war and are led by Mossad (Israeli intelligence). True conservatives like Ron Paul want less war less government and no torture. Ron Paul 2012!

To attribute white evangelicals' approval of torture to their political conservatism is classic question begging. It's reasoning is circular.

To attribute it to a misinterpretation of Christ's suffering is to use a rationalization as a rationalization. Susan seems to concede as much, when she rightly condemns the convenience of twisted thinking.

Why not consider that people, who hold to ancient beliefs, discredited by common sense, should be expected to be the least inclined to care about others.

The fact that Jesus spent his lifetime trying to change that suggests he understood a perennial problem caused by religion, which functioned, then as now, to justify cruelty and scapegoating.

I despair the obvious will forever be buried in the service of keeping religions in business.

Does anyone exercise ANY editorial judgment over what appears in this column? This piece is transparently tendentious and illogical.
I'm about at the point where it is no longer worth even 2 minutes of my time to even read this section.

Dear Mrs. Thistlethwaite,

I think you'll find the same contradiction in the interpretation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill". In some interpretations it's "thou shalt not murder", but in any case, it's hard to imagine the biblical Jesus condoning killing OR murder, yet how many American Christians have served in the military in combat and broken the commandment?

It appears to me that there's simply a gap in logic where the concept of Christianity is interpreted as something like an unattainable ideal, whereas real life requires a more pragmatic approach, and the twin concepts are kept at "arms length".

Religion is full of inconsistencies on this order that are rarely given much consideration by the devout.

These numbers may be a bit misleading It seems they used top two box to arrive at 54% without a breakdown of the spread. I actually might answer that question "sometimes", e.g.. cases of immediate danger to national security when the captive is known knowledge of imminent events. Sometimes is a very vague word and can mean a lot of things to different people. But, generally I am absolute in my opposition to torture. Even John McCain acknowledges that there are situations that require enhanced interrogation.

Yes, these same people claim to be pro-life, but they want war, want torture, condemn other people who are different than them like people who don't speak English, love the death penalty. I can't take religious people seriously, because they are not honest with themselves about how they are not following their faith. The teachings of Jesus are in direct contradiction to the Christian faith today. They really should not be called Christians.

Mr Rev. Asburyjer sir. You slam me with half an ear and half understanding as do most bible thumpers. When I said I tore the pages out of A bible leaving only the red letter pages and calling it a WOW Bible I ment just that, for me. As far as torture goes is there any other group more guilty then so called christians? Are there any other groups of organized people who are so disorganized about the bible?

Christians who go to church are not religious people they are hypocrites. They go there for social interactions and political interactions. Pretending to worship, they are looking at others spouses for nonreligious entertainment. The preachers of the right wing churches are politicians and child molesters. The approval of torture by these folks have nothing to do with church going, they are just disgusting people who will do anything in the name of religion.

Jesus taught "Love your enemies, and be good to those who persecute you" - this statistic might be a snapshot of a group of people's attitudes today, but it's not the teachings of Christ, which are deeply compassionate.

One of the first things they teach in statistics is that 'correlation is not causation'.

"Most people in Virginia die on non rainy days" is correlation, not causation although i suspect many reporters would immediately provide profound sounding reasons why it is so.

Many qualities and conditions would overwhelm Church attendance as a reason people believe torture is justified - Church attendance is very unlikely to be the cause.

Just another reason for thinking people to ignore the fundamentalist religious sects.

Sad but not surprising.

People who are willing to believe something is true that they cannot know is true can be convinced to believe anything. And people who can be convinced to believe anything can be convinced to do anything.

Religious faith in its classic form is believing things to be true that one cannot know are true. Such faith feeds a dynamic that guarantees people will support and take part in acts of violence, including torture.

To the extent that anyone believes that they know something of what God is and what God "wants," they tend to be sure that their belief is right and that those who differ must be wrong. Human history clearly shows that the effects of such attitudes often lead to and justify violence. Such is the evil and failure of religious faith.

If people had more humility in the face of an unknowable God and could accept that God is a infinite mystery to the finite human mind, we would be more inclined to realize how much we really do not and cannot know. I believe such an attitude would make us more tentative in our treatment of each other and far less violent and less accepting of violence.

Instead of engaging in the false certainties of faith that reflect believing things that we cannot know are true, let's acknowledge that "we don't know" and back away from trying to impose our beliefs on others. For the love of God, let's stop killing each other with kindness....

I think you're stretching Susan. These same people approved of interring Japanese Americans in WW2 but not German Americans. And none are approving of torture of Americans who commit crime. How many kidnappings become ticking time bomb scenarios yet there is no call for waterboarding suspects.

Its a racist response to "them", those not like us. And racism and religion, though they do not go hand in hand, are certainly associated. Religion teaches how people should be kept apart, how one is different from another and how another is the same. It creates divides and allows a Muslim to be seen as different from the person sitting next to you in church. One may be tortured for a crime while the other is to be forgiven. Christ saw that all men were God's children. But what I find is that more religious one is, the more entitled that person feels to judge others and separate themselves from others.

Add to that the republican promises of promoting their theology through government and questioning the acts of those officials doesn't even begin.

If you drink water and whiskey you get drunk, if you drink water and vodka you get drunk. Water is the common element. Drinking water therefore causes you to get drunk. Association is not causality. Going to church does not cause you to approve torture. Academically incompetant argument attempting to show that Christians going to church approve torture in greater numbers than those who do not go to church.

I disagree with the writer. I don't think many people make an active link between torture done allegedly to protect our country and Christ's suffering on the cross. Instead, I think one reason that a good number of devout Catholics and Evangelicals are so strong in their faith because have a deep need for strong authority in their lives to replace or supplement the strong authority their parents or others had over them and their faith and adherence to it's obligations provides that,so maybe that's one reason for the support of torture (and they may not even realize it!).

Also, maybe a good number of Catholics and Evangelicals (Southerners in particular) have been on the receiving end of physical punishment often in their upbringing, more so than others, so maybe they have realized (most likely subconsciously) that if a few belt whippings across a bare butt worked to keep them in line while growing up, maybe a little waterboarding may do the same in extracting intel from the likes of KSM and the others.

Is it any wonder that people are deserting the pews of churches all over the world? Look. I grew up in the Bible Belt of northeastern Kentucky. But, one of the things I learned early was that much of what is learned in Church and Sunday School has little relevance to what Jesus actually taught. I have said many times that Jesus is the very representative of the things conservative repoublicans seem to hate the most--he has long hair and a beard, speaks in chants and parables, wears a robe and sandals, and talks of love, peace and the brotherhood of man. Anyone who has paid even the most modest attention to conservative talk radio knows how that crowd feels about such subjects and the people who preach upon them.

Tearing the pages out of a history book to learn about history would be stupid. Tearing pages out of an extra bible and leaving just the words of Jesus that are in red makes for A WOW BIBLE. Bible thumpers can twist that book to say anything they want or justify. Jesus left one last command before he died, "Love one another as I have loved you" RED LETTERS. One question to Asburyjer, who was the recording secretary in genesis?

pkhenry writes: "The author equates the 9/11 terrorists with Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

Entirely appropriate, given that Jesus Christ equates 9/11 terrorists with Jesus Christ. "Insofar as you do this to the least of my bretheren, YOU DO THIS TO ME"

The teachings of Jesus Christ are not easy to live by. They are hard. They go against our baser instincts. One of those instincts is to give a good whoopin' (waterboarding, even) to those we don't like, don't agree with, or are threatening us.

So, yes, we are called to see the face of Christ in ALL people, even those who elicit our deepest revulsion.

Torture is a fear-based reaction to an uncomfortably abstract threat.

So is attending church with great regularity.

Church does not cause torture any more than torture causes church. It is observable, but not causal.

It is great that people are finally realizing the perversions of life and reason that religion and/or belief in some god(s) cause mankind. Let's put these superstitions behind us and move on to a better world.

I find this premise to be a huge stretch. I doubt torture-supporting Christians have any thoughts of an Islamic person's atonement through suffering - they just want revenge and punishment. You should have stuck with the cultural element - that is, evangelical Christians and even Protestants by and large are conservative, xenophobic, and hostile to other religions. I think a large part of the support of torture is the fact that the tortured are Islamic. Just as in WWII, when Americans saw Japanese as sub-humans to be wiped out, while not holding such extreme views of the German or Italian enemy. If the terrorists were whites from Denmark, or Texas, I think the calls for torture would not be as strong.

"The more often you go to church, the more you approve of torture" is no surprise. Church in America has become a political institution hijacked by right-wing Catholics and evangelicals.

This happened when demagogues figured out they could make a lot of money rallying their flocks around hating others (right of of Hitler and Rove's playbooks) by cherry-picking scripture for their agendas instead of teaching the love of Jesus.

Religion and politics are now one in the same in America and, thanks to the tele-evangelists, it has become a dividing force for hateful moral erosion including torture.

Why do you find it surprising? Isn't the history of torture intertwined with that of religion? Wasn't the Spanish Inquisition the highest expression of accepted torture? People who fear empathy seek comfort in rituals, as suggested by the far-right's reaction to Obama's statement about the requisite qualifications for Justice Souter's replacement.

In the "Big Picture of Theology" Jesus was tortured and killed to show how much love God has if he is willing to suffer the misery and pain created by mankind behaving at its most wicked level.

I hardly think that justifies repeating the wickedness of torture and hypocrisy.

In fact, it shows the presence of Jesus Christ among those who are tortured.

Posted by: eaglehawkaroundsince1937:

One day a few years back I was so frustrated with the bible and all it's confusion that I tore all the pages out of it except I left all the Red letter pages in. Now, Thats one WOW BIBLE.

----------------

One day I was so frustrated with my history book that I tore out all the pages that I didn't agree with, and left in all the one's I liked. Now, that's one WOW HISTORY.

Your revisionist theology simply doesn't work, because without the rest of the story, Jesus doesn't make sense, you are left to reduce his teachings to a few philosophical principles, which rapes the true message of Jesus which is about the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God and the reconciliation of humanity back to God as made possible through the Life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

This really shouldn't come as a surprise. Remember the southern protestant traditions (Evangelicals, Southern Baptists) managed to reconcile slavery and later, Jim Crow, within their special brand of Christianity. The same group of "Christians" that are now wasting their energies protesting against illegal immigration and gay marriag come from the same stock of people, who shouted "segregation now and forever" a generation earlier.

So what is new? The Christian establishment has historically been violent.Witness the Inquisiton, the brutality of the Papacy at times, the violence by the Church of England against the Catholics, Corwall's violence against the English religious establishment and the treatment of supposed witches by the New England Protestants. None were based on theology but upon the desire and need to control people's lives. So what is new?

"Bible beieving" Christians are the problem. Instead of taking the Sermon on the Mount to heart,The admonition to "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us". They forsake the true spirit of cristianity for the minutiae of rules. It's a lot like the zero tolerance movement, no thought or discretion needed. The rule is more important than justice to these people (conservatives).

People who believe the Bible is the "inerant word of god" are nothing more than idolators,worshipping the symbol, instead of the real thing (god). They are moral pygmies who have never progressed beyond the moral reasoning of a four year old. This torture belief is just another reason to loathe them and the damage they're doing to our society.

This is a stupid article by someone with a political agenda and with no research to support the author's opinion.

I live in the "bible belt" in rural North Carolina. I have never seen more narrow minded, prejudiced, and bigoted people in my life....they go to church every Sunday.

It is a little concerning to me that the author holds such prominent positions and seems to have little understanding of opinion surveys . First regarding the data she uses, she omits the crucial data regarding PARTY AFFLIATION. The Pew data (found here http://people-press.org/report/510/public-remains-divided-over-use-of-torture) shows that 64% of Republicans (15% often, 49% sometimes) approve of torture. This is higher than the 62% quoted for white evangelicals. The issue then is one of causality. DO PEOPLE APPROVE OF TORTURE BECAUSE THEY ARE EVANGELICALS OR BECAUSE THEY ARE REPUBLICANS? She notes this point but seems to discount it even though the data strongly supports it. The only way to truly find out the answer to the question would be to poll evangelicals who are Democrats and see how many support torture. Unfortunately Pew did not do this so there isn't this data.

Unfortunately it seems the Pew data also causes the author to come to some somewhat strange conclusions about Jesus' death. The Bible seems clear that pain and suffering only exist because we humans have broken our relationship with God. Jesus' life, death and resurrection enable that relationship to be restored. So while the how of Jesus' death has some importance (i.e. that it was a criminals death) the WHY of Jesus death is far far more important. Only Jesus, the God-man was perfect, and only a perfect sacrifice could act as a substitute for us and bring us back into relationship with God.

(Written by an evangelical, white, 26 year old, democrat who beleives torture is never acceptable)

Listen folks: Evangelical simply means that you want to share your faith with others so that they too might be saved. The term Evangelical has nothing at all to do with whether or not you support or oppose torture. I am an staunchly Evangelical United Methodist pastor. I think many make the mistake in thinking that Evangelical is equal to Fundamentalist, which I would still reject as a notion to support torture.

The answer lies in those Christians who bought into the nationalistic lie sold to them by the GOP over the past 30 years; that the GOP is God's party and everything they do is to honor the glory of God.

The author equates the 9/11 terrorists with Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

In 5th grade someone put a scary "stinging" caterpillar in my desk, and he think he also went to church. This proves the author's point.

A couple of things were not spelled out in this article:
1: What, in the author's view, is a Christian?
2: What is the exact text of the survey and how and who were selected for the survey?
3: What is the definition of torture?

4: If a terrorist is captured on the battlefield and they are known and it is known what major terrorist organizations they affilate with, it is approproaite to interrorgate people to prevent attacks at all?

5: How does it help our debate as a society when the author paints, with an extremely broad brush, millions upon millons of Americans saying that the majority of Christians approve of torture?

6: This was an extremely harsh and vitrolic article aimed at demonizing a large group of people to advance the authors personal agenda.

This was not factual, scholoraly or thoughtful.

Sad to see a person with such a large soapbox miss an opportunity to engeneder some real discussion about a very complex and morally perplexing problem that we, as a society as a whole, face.

The naviette of the liberal left and intellectual academics is stunning.

Posted by: James10:

When I used to read the New Testament, I was struck at how little time Jesus spent in the synagogue. In the gospels when Jesus was in the place of worship he was flipping over tables tossing people out.

You know how many times Jesus flipped tables? Do you really? I dare you to count them. BTW, I'll save you time...the answer is 1 time. And he was driving out those who were making profit off those who came to give their sacrifices the "den of theives" as he called it, but instead the Temple was to be a house of prayer. 1 time. Once.

Matthew, Mark and Luke record this account just after Jesus enters Jerusalem for the final time. John records this event near the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. Once...that's it, so stop making it sound like every time he walked into a synagogue he wrecked the place because that's simply untrue.

JohnnyGee, "...hatred of Bush for his religion..." Remember South Carolina primary in 2000. Before the vote, John McCain told Bob Jones University that their interracial dating ban was wrong. Bush waited until after the vote to denounce the ban. Bush campaign machine under the guise of surveys called South Carolinians and asked, "Would your opinion of John McCain change if you knew that he had fathered a black baby out of wedlock?" Not saying he did but only planting a seed of doubt.

I'm pretty sure Jesus would not approve. Bush put politics above right and wrong. Bush should not wrap himself in the bible as he gives proper Christians a bad name.

This conservatism is the number one reason I left the "Christian" church years ago. Then I found real Christians who exemplify the real Christ through His love. Yep. Most of them are considered "commies" and "lefties" by the traditional "Christians" But I find them warm, open and affirming of God's love far more than I ever found in the conservative Evangelical movement. They truly live up to His word by helping those who are less fortunate and abhor the Bush administration's treatment of our Muslim brethren.

Our president, Barack Obama is one of us. The United Church of Christ. And "No!" for the prejudiced "Christians" out there, I am not black. I am pale beyond pale with blue eyes and blond hair. I love all colors, hues, cultures and people of God's glorious rainbow!

I would also like to add to this idea:

"When I used to read the New Testament, I was struck at how little time Jesus spent in the synagogue. In the gospels when Jesus was in the place of worship he was flipping over tables tossing people out."
Posted by: James10 | May 3, 2009 7:27 AM

The people who owned the tables that Jesus flipped over were religious leaders making a profit off of organized religion.

When I used to read the New Testament, I was struck by just how much Jesus loved sinners and just how much Jesus hated hypocrites.

Those who call themselves Christians and call for the torture of their enemies are hypocrites.

Jesus hates them.

"The more often you go to church, the more you approve of torture." This is a horrible interpretation of the data, because that's not what the data says, but instead that 54% of those who attend church regularly support torture, this does not say that going to church more increases your willingness to support torture, what a preposterous conclusion to draw from the data!

I am a pastor and I have attended church just about every Sunday for the past 15 years (since I came to faith), and I deplore torture! By your opening statement that colors the rest of your article I should then actively support torture, which is complete and utter garbage. What's more is that I'm white and live in Kentucky and attend and lead church every Sunday so by all of your prejudicial conclusions I should be waving the banner for torture in this country, and yet I openly support and welcome criminal charges for those who torture anyone!

Stop letting your anti-church bias color your interpretations because its really insulting to those of us who strive to follow the narrow way that Christ called us to in "Loving the Lord our God with all our hearts, minds and strength...and loving our neighbors as ourselves." Not to mention the Jesus who commanded his disciples to "love our enemies."

The more you become a disciple of Jesus Christ the less you will condone torture.

"But I think it is possible, even likely, that this finding has a theological root. The UN Convention Against Torture defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..." White Evangelical theology bases its view of Christian salvation on the severe pain and suffering undergone by Jesus in his flogging and crucifixion by the Romans."

It is unlikely that ANY human spiritual activity or brain interconnectivity associated with spirituality is based on inflicting pain and suffering (torture). "White Evangelical theology" based on torture? All Christianity was doing is describing a sociopathic NORM of
Jerusalem during the Jesus era and that humanity should move away from such routine cruelty, which most Christians did.

That so-called survey reports data concerning the MIDDLE of the data (54% to 42%) and anybody can play with that.

Gosh, this is some of the most twisted logic I've ever read. Because Jesus was tortured for pissing off the greedy national political leaders, the greedy national business leaders, and the greedy national religious leaders... therefore, Christians approve of torture on their enemies.

Christians are suppose to practice Jesus's teachings: don't worry about death, don't worry about taxes, don't judge other people... LOVE YOUR ENEMIES!

No, the problem with today's Christians is that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney become their god. Bush told them to be afraid of death, be afraid of taxes, judge everyone, and HATE YOUR ENEMIES.

And they listened to Bush instead of listening to Jesus.

Please don't try to whitewash their sick choice by believing that Loyal Bushies think for themselves, or care about anyone BUT themselves.

Posted by: JohnnyGee

Turn the clock back to the year 1999 and ask people if "Clinton has a choice: waterboard or let 3000 Americans die" most would say "waterboard". Add Bush, get skewed results.
----------
And suppose the person was a cute little 8 year old girl you had to torture?

Better yet, let's look at the reality. There wasn't any torture committed to save 3,000 lives. There was torture to get information that would show there was a relationship between AQ and Iraq.

BTW. The waterboard comparisons between hazing and GITMO are absurd. You might as well say a gang rape is equivalent to having a little rough sex.

You give the evangelicals way too much credit. Most of them never get to that level of logic on torture. They just support it because it's the Republican way and they blindly support anything Republicans support. And it's the easy way out. It actually takes thought process to come to the conclusion that torture doesn't work and most evangelicals are not capable of that.

Please, Dr. Thistlewaite, tell us your view of the purpose of Jesus' death.

And while you are at it please explain what makes you qualified to run a seminary of distinction. How many pastors have you molded in you image and how many are presiding over dying churches, bereft in a belief in anything of importance?

I think this says little. Maybe more conservative church goers are better read, and have decided that waterboarding isn't torture. Tough? Yes. Needed at times? Yes. And it may be that the more ignorant secularist are too busy not participating in society, and only jump on the word "torture" unaware that the debate is being led by those who hated George Bush. Conservatives like me saw prior to 9/11 a deep hatred of Bush for his religion, even among liberal Christians, and am wary of articles like this. Turn the clock back to the year 1999 and ask people if "Clinton has a choice: waterboard or let 3000 Americans die" most would say "waterboard". Add Bush, get skewed results.

It's time to survey the ministers and ask them what they're teaching from the pulpit.

They're either teaching their flock that torture is ok or they're miserable failures at teaching the word of Christ.

When I used to read the New Testament, I was struck at how little time Jesus spent in the synagogue. In the gospels when Jesus was in the place of worship he was flipping over tables tossing people out.

I guess Xians are Pro Torture..

Look at what they fawn voer every day..

A person Nailed to a Cross..

THE CRUSIFIX...!!!!

AND Xians still want vicious revenge.

Fei Hu

A quick addendum on Adam Hamilton:

The real reason that I read about the decline in membership with dismay is that he is a mega-church pastor who stresses letting an individual decide these hot-button issues (abortion, homosexuality, death penalty, etc) for themselves.

As a member of the (apparently) Christian minority, I can't help but quote 1 John 4:20-21 -- "If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother."

Evangelicals need to stop thumping their Bibles and start reading them.

Chip_M writes:
"Religion, especially of the Evangelical variety, requires blind faith in authority, so it's not surprising really that many Christians would assume that their leaders wouldn't torture if the unjustly."

I suspect this is true. I remember the story of Adam Hamilton's megachurch in Kansas. His membership suffered a large dip when, one Sunday, he admitted that he had difficulty taking a definitive stand on a controversial issue. It's almost as though his congregation was disappointed that he couldn't spoon-feed them theology, or be a cheerleader for all of their hot-button issues.

jmounadi writes:
"Not to mention that all of you self-anointed non-Christians who hypocritically attack the process of obtaining information in dangerous times through harsh means would, without out a doubt support torture under the circumstances I just presented above. If you say you wouldn't, then you are lying or are insane."

If I agreed to violate my Christian principles in your example, that doesn't make the action right - it just means that, as a human, I have flaws. Every day, I pray that I won't succumb to "the ends justify the means". Also - noticing that coming up with a single, unlikely and improbable scenario as the sole basis for your argument is quite weak, logically.

I open-mindedly read these articles and whether I approve or disapprove they all tend to be enlightening and interesting. However, to connect the dots between Jesus dying on the cross and approval of torture is rediculous.

"For Christian conservatives, severe pain and suffering are central to their theology."

But for others, not themselves. Christina conservatives like it when the poor suffer, the nonbelievers, and the dissenters.

I continue to be grateful to my parents for not allowing me to be brainwashed by religion. However, my mother was big on the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you), and that has always worked just fine for me.

As already written before..so called Christians have nothing to do with Jesus except exploit his name for their crooked theology.

They started writing/manipulating bibles according to their ideology and interpret according to the circumstances.

Jesus is the most abused figure ever.

While Jesus wouldnt give a sword to Peter, todays republican Jesus would gladly sell 12 AK47's to any old nutter at a gun show to either start up a militia, cult or flog off to Mexican cartels to butcher womem and children. I think it clearly displays that Jesus clearly was not a Republican.

This really is the hypocrisy of the current evangelical movement. Basically anything can be justified by the bible in their eyes unless u r gay.

Juliannoone:
I too have never understood the whole "Jesus died for our sins" thing. It doesnt make sense.

Hichamchehab:
"Rom 5:10 We were God's enemies, but he made us his friends through the death of his Son"

What a lovely god. One that kills his son, charming. Worthy of bowing down and submitting yourself unquestioningly to. Sadaam butchers people and he is a dictatorial psycho but God does it and he's a loving caring figure.

You know how I know god doesnt exist? Two words: Pope mobile.

Christians, by a wide margin, support capital punishment. I ask myself: Would Jesus Christ pull the trap, close the switch, push the button? The answer is obviously No. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT KILLED JESUS! Why would he support it? He simply wouldn't. Ever. No, not abortion either. He would say all life was God's to give and take. It's absurd to think otherwise. Not my Jesus. Not the Jesus I learned of in Sunday school. As Paul said: Love is all you need to know of the law.

Religions, especially the three Abrahamic religions, would not exist today but for the reason they were created in the first place. All three were concocted as a support for their current power structure, that is why they are patriarchal.
The bronze age tribal leaders of the Jordan River area used the pagan mythes and moses stories to support their wars. Early religious leaders like St. Augustine, and later Muhammad, knew that dynasties could be built on the shoulders of fanatical adherents. Emperors and Kings knew that to hold on to their dynasties they needed the support of the current mythical guardian.
The likes of Adolf Hitler, and George Bush used religious dogma and the obvious ignorance of their adherents to support their power hungry ambitions.
The Taliban and al-Qa'ida could have been taken down in days if not for the oil and Iraqi relation to it. Why the hell was Dick Cheney even considered for Vise President? Where did he even come from back in 2000? The religious right supported the war in Iraq, twice, Afghanistan, Homeland Security and they would have supported anything else George and company had told them to; torture, religious intolerance or bigotry, and xenophobia. These people ask a preacher about matters of science. The refuse to think for themselves.

St. Paul is clear on this in Romans:

Rom 5:8 But God has shown us how much he loves us---it was while we were still sinners that Christ died for us!
Rom 5:9 By his blood we are now put right with God; how much more, then, will we be saved by him from God's anger!
Rom 5:10 We were God's enemies, but he made us his friends through the death of his Son. Now that we are God's friends, how much more will we be saved by Christ's life!
Rom 5:11 But that is not all; we rejoice because of what God has done through our Lord Jesus Christ, who has now made us God's friends.

The author's reasoning here is significantly flawed. She somehow mistakes Christianity’s focus on Jesus’ suffering with an acceptance of the methods by which he suffered. Implicitly, the sympathy of the Christian is with the sufferer not his tormenters. I agree with the author’s assertion that “for Christian conservatives, severe pain and suffering are central to their theology.” For the Christian must accept that Jesus suffered greatly (and undeservedly) for man’s sins. Yet, the author concludes that this somehow manifests itself into Christianity’s acceptance of torture. This is baseless and wrong. The message Christianity extrapolates from the image of Christ’s suffering is his willingness to sacrifice for man’s sins; not solidarity with his torturers.

The more logical explanation for the Pew study’s findings is more closely associated with the author’s first point – its political. I would posit that if the question were asked to Christian conservatives 10 years ago, a vast majority of them would have flatly disapproved of torture. The reality is that times have changed. Christian conservatives now have a lot at stake in the social discourse of our times, and many find it feasible to accept these practices in spite of their religious beliefs. It would have been interesting if the study questioned how Christians were able to reconcile their belief in Christ with their acceptance of torture. I offer that most could not.

This study is more indicative of how religion and politics are increasing intertwined in our social perceptions. Individuals no longer isolate one’s religious principles from their political principles. It seems that today, those who don’t agree with one’s political ideas, are not just wrong politically, but morally. We live in a society where people are now morally condemned for voting one way or the other. So, in my opinion it’s increasingly easier for one to blur their political ideology with their religious beliefs – to consider them one and the same in terms of their morality. Essentially, the surveyed weren't arguing that “Jesus would accept torturing people.” Instead they were saying, “Torture is more justifiable than abortion.” I believe that to those Christians who accepted torture, this moral question became a question of who's side they were on in the political debate -they chose Repulican.

Hopefully, we’ll get to the point when religion is no longer politicized and politics is no longer an issue of faith. Both religion and politics would be better off for it.

Yes God condoned the torture of his Son, and the torturers themselves faced the worst wrath of all.

If those said Christians want torture, I hope they realize that the side they pick MATTERS.

This is something that is completely incomprehensible to me: I always hear about the suffering of Jesus, and that He "died on the cross for us" and that because He suffered, we have eternal life. You know, the basic tenets of Christianity. But HOW is this supposed to work? What are the physics of Him absorbing other people's sins? There is no denying that crucifixion is a bad way to go. But, compared to say Bone Marrow Cancer, it is relatively swift. So, nobody can tell me that Jesus suffered MORE than a bone marrow cancer patient. Yet, the cancer patient's suffering doesn't remove the sins of other people. So, clearly it wasn't the suffering part that did it. So, it must just be some kind of magic. He magically removes all of the sins of all humans. But, if it is simply magic then why all the drama and the suffering? I just genuinely cannot get the logic of this whole thing. Yet, millions and millions of people accept it wholeheartedly. People act like Jesus did us all a great big favor by suffering as he did. But, this suffering was completely unnecessary since it was a feat of magic, and not the act of suffering that absolves people of their sins. Are their any Christian people out there who a) can explain to me how this whole thing is supposed to work and b) who have actually seriously questioned the logic (or lack thereof) of this whole scenario?

One day a few years back I was so frustrated with the bible and all it's confusion that I tore all the pages out of it except I left all the Red letter pages in. Now, Thats one WOW BIBLE.

Well, since it is more than plausible that 54% of alleged Christians would likely kill Jesus as a goody two shoes, Leftist rabble-rouser, what is the surprise that a majority of good, God fearing Christians would torture another human being.

The only question I have is, "you did not expect it?"

The many versions and interpretations of the Bible, now that is pain. I am 71 and could have had a much easier time with life had all this stuff been kept from me and let God talk to me alone. Which He does and has despite religion.

I wonder what the ratio of true Christians is to say those who merely bend the knee to belong to the community and be able to sprout selected exerps of the bible to justify their sinful opinions and deeds? I would hazard a guess that it would likely resemble the ratio of torture supporters against those who rejected such barbarism.

Wait, what?

The way you construct your arguments has some real issues. Let's walk through a few of them:
1. Your conjectures imply fearmongering. So conservative Christians are all about stabbing themselves? Inflicting pain on others? What exactly is the connection, other than your attempt to link "conservative Christianity" and "insanity" in the minds of liberal Christians and non-Christians alike?

Passion of the Christ showed brutality to powerfully communicate the punishment Jesus endured for mankind. This doesn't mean that Christians have to suffer in the same way. If you read the Bible like a conservative Christian would, what it would tell you is to endure any suffering you may encounter for the sake of Christ. That's hardly the link that you so torturously describe.

2. If you're going to insult conservative Christians, do it honestly. If you read the NIV or the NASB or any standard Protestant translation, Jesus had to die for our sins. There's no question about that. It's even covered in the Old Testament - Isaiah 53:5 ESV: "But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed." There's no way - it is IMPOSSIBLE, as you write - to read it any other way. A literal reading would give you that Jesus was tortured and crucified, that he knew it was coming, even that he asked for God to prevent suffering and yet obeyed in the end.

If the version of the Bible you read is a completely different version from, say, the NIV or the NASB, then perhaps you've got an argument, but it's still a disingenuous one. Your fundamental issue is that you disagree because the text you read is different, which means the implications you draw out are different, too. Make that the core of your writing instead of "I can't believe how ridiculous these idiots are, saying there was a man named Jesus. How absurd."

This phenomenon is entirely cultural, and is the result of a combination of weak minds and powerful outside influences (thanks, Fox News). This has nothing to do with the Bible itself - it has to do with people that forget history and are convinced to sin for a right result (see your colleague John Mark Reynolds). Whether torture is valid or not is an argument within conservative Christianity itself, not a policy that everyone has adopted. See how the National Association of Evangelicals hasn't commented on the matter? See how there's a large percentage of people that thought torture was wrong? That means there's a lack of consensus. It really shouldn't be an argument worth having. But we're having it because people are stupid.

Thistwhistle writes: I think it is impossible, yes, impossible, if you read the Gospels, to make the case that God wanted Jesus tortured for the sins of humanity.

God doesn't want any of us to hurt. God couldn't just make Jesus sacrifice be confined to some easy form of death. He was left to the cruelty of the Romans at that time of history. Your stupid accusation that the movie Passion was too violent obvioulsy forgets the fact of how cruel the Romans were. Why do you think Paul wrote Ephesians. Many of these rules were to hopefully implement sanity amongst the barbaric soldiers of that time.

If you think the Nazi's were cruel in their time less than 100 years ago. Then how do you suppose the Romans treated a prisoner, without guns and the tools of a quick death? Especially someone being accused of being a false king.

You really must examine your position,and most importantly history,before you just blurt out silly attacks against Christianity. Your article makes you look like an angry 12th grader who must attack a religion based on accountability.

Most commentators and the author of this article have created one of the silliest arguments to blatantly attack Christianity.

Polls such as this one are obviously being taken out of context, and trying to state that Christians support torture. Blatantly accusing Christians of somehow being less humane than the very terrorists trying to kill us and your family members with no impunity is a pathetic attempt to somehow make ones self better than a Christian.

All of you are hypocrites in this instance. If I kidnapped any of your children and stated that the police have exactly 24 hours to find your child or they die. Would you oppose torture of a potential accomplice of mine if it could get your child back? If you say yes, does that make you an athiest, because you denied torturing that potential source of information known to have ties to my whereabout? Of course not. That is why this article and poll is full of crap.

Not to mention that all of you self-anointed non-Christians who hypocritically attack the process of obtaining information in dangerous times through harsh means would, without out a doubt support torture under the circumstances I just presented above. If you say you wouldn't, then you are lying or are insane. Or in the case of people like Thistwhistle, you are both.

I find it entirely unsurprising that the more religious among us would consider torture to be an acceptable practice. Anyone prone to such compliant behavior as to be led to believe in the personification of the universe, is likely to believe anything. If asked for proof of their various assertions, they invariably find affirmation in the mystery of that which they cannot prove, and condescendingly and simultaneously pity and condemn the “Doubting Thomas’” among us. Their ability to demonize those of different belief or unbelief knows no bounds. Add to the mix the stereotyping, labeling, and dehumanizing of those in proximity to those whom we perceive to be our enemies, by our political and religious leaders, it’s not all that difficult for those so averse to critical thought to be led blindly to the acceptance of cruelty as a evil of necessity.

The underlying and disturbing truth revealed by the Pew Trust poll is that close to 50% of US residents polled support torture. Let us remember that our US heritage is littered with human rights abuses. From knowingly passing out smallpox infected blankets to native Americans to the purposeful cultural genocide symbolized by the infamous trail of tears, the internment of Japanese American citizens during WW II, Joe McCarthy and his American inquisition, "America love it or leave it," the hypocrisy of Americans incensed with illegal immigrants whom they hire by the millions, the Ku Klux Clan, the churches they have burned and the Americans they have murdered with the full support of the "law," the "American" Nazi Party, the plethora of pejorative words and phrases Americans use to describe their fellow citizens, the simple fact that until 100 years AFTER the civil war and almost 200 years AFTER the birth of the US Constitution that American citizens of African descent were denied the right to vote and forced to ride at the back of the bus, the contemporary sneers at Americans who wear turbans, the fact that our government and by extension the American body politic support through their inaction human rights abuses in our own police agencies, in China, Egypt and and so many more and on and on and on. What is truly amazing and hopeful is that out of this sad and sordid history that continues into the present with 50% of Americans supporting water boarding, outsourcing torture abroad and indefinite detainment with no legal recourse at Gitmo and Bagram is that there are the other 50% who do not support these heinous acts against humanity. We must teach our children the shareholders in our planet's future to rise above hate born out of irrational fear and embrace with understanding and positive action the principles and ideals inherent in our very own bill of human rights.

I am not sure if there is anymore support for Thistlethwaite's assertion that pain and suffering are central to the Christian faith than her own political prejudices.

What I think has more support than opponents of "torture" would care to admit is the fact that just as we recognize in the law levels of culpability, so also are the distinctions of torture. Would the sadistic torture of a soldier, like that of John McCain when he was shot down over Vietnam be the same as measured steps of torture applied with the purpose of extracting vital information in order to save many innocent citizens?

As a general rule it is not moral or right to torture, however if an unlawful enemy combatant has information that would save many lives, would those opposed to torture absolutely uphold that standard thus relinquishing those lives?

Almost eight years after 9/11 it would appear that memories have faded, and that it may take another such attack to reawaken and convince at last a majority of Americans that we either take the fight to the enemy, or we essentially concede defeat. It is moral and ethical to defend innocent life from the likes of those that truly tortured and then murdered Daniel Pearl.

This article is one of the most rubbish-filled, intellectually offensive, dishonest pieces I have ever read!

Only religionists could concoct an oxymoron like 'theology' -- meaning the study of something that isn't there -- award themselves a doctorate in such, and then openly 'theorize' why most white Christians prefer violence over peace by introducing such a fantastically illogical supposition as: "penal theory of the atonement."

It is so sad but so plainly obvious: religionists are largely thoughtless, fearful, superstitious, arrogant, hate-mongers who find it uncomfortable to live their special little lives in any sort of peaceful context -- they need their conflict-riddled, evil-filled *reality* to be reinforced at every turn -- whether in a church or in the WaPo.

I, like most people I know, are all for peaceful coexistence with the extreme idealists among us, but the insidious invasion of such horrifically stupid reasoning into our society is making many angry -- because such stupidity is not only harmful, it's dangerous.

Please keep away from my children!

Please look at how few people were surveyed to come up with this poll:
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=156

The survey shows that 49% of the total population say torture can be justified sometimes or often. (742 people were surveyed).
46% of "White mainline protestants" say it can be justified. And 53% say it can be used rarely or not at all. Here the sample size drops to just 150. The commentary did not commend this group for their position, instead took a negative view on the group with the largest percentage to favor torture, often or sometimes.
Sixty-two percent of white Evangelical Protestants (174 were questioned) say torture can be justified sometimes or often.
On an issue as important as this,the number of people questioned should be larger and be consistent. Also the facts concerning the survey should be passed on to the reader in the body of the commentary.

1: the author gives these people too much credit for actively considering the consistency of their beliefs. If you asked them how they reconcile the two beliefs theological they could not tell you. They just watch too much 24 and think torture works and that "terrorist" are not really people. If you ask them if it was ok for another government to water-board and American they would all say no.

2: This is the same religion that gave us the Crusades and the Inquisition. the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" has always come with the implied caveat (...people who agree with you) they all vote for capital punishment too. remember first it was first pagan Romans fed Christians to the lions then christian Romans fed pagans to the same damn lions.

The reason why the acceptance of torture is highest amongst church going christians can be summed up in one word. Tribalism.

Religion, like nationalism, ethnocentralism, and other isms, encourages tribalism. The religious christians tolerate torture of these individuals because they are muslims, and not part of their group. I suspect that if the government were practicing waterboarding on anti abortion evangelical christian zealots plotting to bomb some abortion clinic, their tolerance of these practices would probably be less than it is.

This is not a condemnation of Christianity specifically, rather an indictment on all religions generally. I suspect if you did a survey of the Muslim community around the world, you would probably find that those who attender Mosque services more frequently, would also probably be more likely to be in favor of suicide bombings against the "infidels". Its just tribalism pure and simple.

It is clear that those who are very rigid in their beliefs can easily use religion to absolve themselves of responsibility for what is happening: God is all knowing and we can not know his plan; Everything happens for the best; They aren't like us, they are evil. Without religion, each of us becomes responsible for what we do or what we allow to happen. In a universe that is without a plan there is nothing to use to fall back upon. Let us look to the possible beauty and goodness of each of us.

hdc77494 is concerned about "mainstream" thought. Remember, Jesus said that is it the few who will enter the Kingdom. Mainstream is by Jesus's reckoning WRONG.

While I find the Pew survey a bit of a surprise, I find your interpretation bizarre. Maybe it is as simple as this: some folks don't believe you can "talk" terrorists into giving up what they know of plots to destroy us. Maybe those surveyed have a more realistic understanding of how human beings behave, rather than the "one-worlders" who believe talking will change one's foes into one's friends: If we only admit how evil, stupid, and ignorant we Americans, and especially conservative Christians are, then Islamic terrorists will change their minds about destroying us. Perhaps the folks in the survey just don't buy that load of crap. Perhaps it has not one damned thing to do with Jesus's suffering.

Just remember, readers, the interpretation is Thistlewaite's, and it says much more about her than the people she speculates about. Thistlewaite is brilliant? I think twisted is more like it.

I read where an evangelical pastor stated that the death penalty didn't really jive with the Bible, but that revenge just felt good! It's difficult to argue with people who don't want to apply the lessons of Christ to their daily lives and government.

How many people did Jesus waterboard?

Really, religion is getting more disgusting every time I turn around.

My interpretation could be wrong but the so call Christians are more often true believers who thinks they know what's right or wrong unquestioningly. When they know what is right, it's a lot easier to punish those who are obviously wrong.

Another characteristics is that they have long ago abandoned the teachings of Christ for their own versions of religion. Jesus says not to pray out loud so our churches today has enshrined praying out loud. Jesus says not to judge so churches today indict people, policies and even lifestyles. Jesus says not to have hierarchies so our churches today have priests, ministers, deacons and the like. Jesus says it is not what you say but what you do so churches say as long as you accept Jesus you are saved regardless of your behavior.

You are now wondering why church going christians are going against the life and teachings of Christ on torture??? Is this some kind of a joke or you really can't see a pattern.

Conservatives who believe in personal responsibility are most likely to allow others to live any way they choose, as long as they are willing to face the consequences of their choices.

Posted by: hdc77494

Yeah, riiiigghhtt.

Sooo, you wouldn't have a problem with those who authorized and committed torture to be prosecuted for their crimes, correct? Due to the choices they made? Because it's ALL about personal responsibility?

You wear your hypocrisy well.

Torture and terrorism ARE THE SAME THING!! You may justify it all you like, it does not change that fact.

What I was taught was Jesus death (free of sin) is what paid our way to heaven. While I agree that religion has killed millions, the primary lesson of the churches was each of us are personally accountable for our actions. Liberals seem to take the approach that mistakes, alpses in ethics and mistakes are usually someone else's fault. If people believe in personal responsibility, they are very likely to expect terrorists to be held accountable for their acts, and yes, condoning harsh treatment to get necessary information. 20 seconds of having water poured on your head repeated as often as possible in twenty minutes, and limited to five days in 30 doesn't really constitute torture, especially for the man who bragged about how much fun it was to slowly cut off David Pearl's head with a butcher knife. There will always be pacifists that believe in remaining passive to the point of subjugation or death, but those are not mainstream thoughts. If everone in the west felt that way we would already be subjugated to some other more ruthless leader. I find it interesting that people who refuse to act to protect themselves are the very ones most likely to attempt to force others to live by their rules. Conservatives who believe in personal responsibility are most likely to allow others to live any way they choose, as long as they are willing to face the consequences of their choices.

Religion, especially of the Evangelical variety, requires blind faith in authority, so it's not surprising really that many Christians would assume that their leaders wouldn't torture if the unjustly. There's an automatic assumption of guilt and a non-critical trust in authority. Dogmatism doesn't lend itself to nuance or critical thinking. If the torture in question had been against Christians I'm sure the results would have skewed strongly in the other direction.

Tribalism is ugly, whether it's religious or jingoistic, and much of Christianity is extremely tribal. The poll that came out last year that showed that Christians view atheists as less likely to be moral and less trustworthy is another shining example of this simplistic us versus them thinking at work.

I'm far more surprised that the support for torture is so high among the unaffiliated. Surprised and deeply saddened. We need to worry not just about the barbarians at the gates, but the millions who are inside them.

I made a fatal mistake on my way to securing a sane life. I wrote a comment on this web page and it is the Washington Post that caused me to see a psychiatrist. If I do not get a sanity clearance from my psychiatrist I will sue you so fast you won't know what hit you. I got a paltry settlement for years of unnecessary torture in Washington and I will settle for it if I am not declared insane which I know I am not. The average reader will not know what this is about but my tormentors at the Post know what I mean.

This is most important. GOD made everything, evertone. Only GOD knows the plan. Love your enemy, words of Jesus. Satan, who never gets much thought anymore when it comes to Christians, tells me something..maybe..Satan has invaded the Churches of Christ? We will all be judged. Regardless of one's belief, we will all be judged, by the most powerful judge, GOD.

I have gone to church for the last 12 years and I've been tortured for the past 12 years. Hmmm I never made the connection until now.

I have said this in other forums. These so called republican conservatives christians (and I deliberately spelt christians with a lower case 'c' so as not to confuse them with real Christians)call themselves the party of God and whilst being the party of torture and hypocritically skillful enough to reconcile both. They are indeed the party of unabashed hypocrites. The Lord said you shall know them by their actions. They find ways to justify torture, and unnecessary/unprovoked war the same way a pedophile can rationalize violating an infant, and then they go to church and thank God for giving them the ability and wherewithall to do it. They are a bunch of sadists with a depraved heart with no loyalty for justice over injustice or right over wrong which by definition would be loyalty to God, but instead their loyalty lies with party.

So who's surprised by this? Most of religious belief, and certainly Christianity, is irrational to start with. Inherent to many religions, and particularly for Christianity, is a huge amount of rationalization to make one's own situation seem correct no matter how illogical. The obvious example is that God allows innocent children to suffer from disease and injury and die "because it is part of his plan" - with this type of rationalization being so easy, rationalizing something like torture is next to trivial, if it seems to help with one's situation and belief system.

Perhaps those who approve of torture need to ask themselves this question: "What would Jesus do?"

It's an interesting finding, but I think the anlysis is too kind. As a non-church going skeptic, I think it's due to a different kind of cultural shift.

Church goers, particularly evangelicals, are largely followers. They take comfort in being in an orderly group of people similar to themselves, and think their orderly society is superior to that of "other people". They are least likely to question the wisdom of their leaders, or to identify with the un-believers who were tortured under the Bush administration.

Non-church going people are more likely to see the essential humanity in everyone, rather than just in the members of their church. We tend to be more doubting of dogma. I don't believe in God, but I do believe that the Stanford Prison Experiment teaches important lessons about the darker side of human nature.

Anyone who has read about the Spanish Inquisition, knows that religous zealots are capable of great cruelty. It's not just the Islamic nut jobs, but the christian, jewish and probably amish, coptic and hindu nut jobs as well...

"I think it is impossible, yes, impossible, if you read the Gospels, to make the case that God wanted Jesus tortured for the sins of humanity."

Come off it.

What theme is stronger through the Gospel stories and the Bible generally than that God sent his son to be CRUCIFIED for the saving of mankind.

I'm not surprised to learn that there is a high correlation between faith and willingness to torture. It seems to me that a central tenet amongst the faithful is that man is inherently and hopelessly wicked, and that only God's mercy, not our own efforts will be enough to save us from damnation. Little wonder people have trouble upholding their oaths and promises when that is what they think of other people generally.

what is up with postings in news venues using non-sentences as sentences?

"But, not so in America today."

another common trend is for writers to switch between tenses when referring to the same writing.

these are gimmicks used in lieu of good writing.

I follow what Confucius said about how people should treat each other. He said that we should treat each other like we would want them to treat us. Many Christians like to claim this expression as the "Golden Rule" but obviously many of them don't follow it.
It doesn't surprise me that those who claim to be religious would support the use of torture. Organized religion practically invented torture.

That's quite an extrapolation from limited data. It makes no sense that identification with Christ's suffering translates to acceptance of suffering inflicted upon al Qaeda members. Why fairly argue, and then discard, the much more coherent cultural reason for rather modest findings?
And the theology seems off: Jesus knew he was to suffer and die, as that was what was foretold by the prophets. It's certainly reasonable to believe, if we are Christians, that this suffering is what God planned and "wanted".
Former Seminary Presidents make broad unsupportable generalizations, based on the information I have in front me. Where in these findings does it say that people think torture is "more than okay"? It's a so's your momma argument, and there's no sustained thought behind it.

I believe the purpose of the torture that was inflicted on orders from our elected leaders was vengeance and retribution. Of course, our elected leaders insisted that they simply were doing their jobs, which entail keeping Americans safe from foreign attackers. With the most expensive defensive forces in the world, one might have incorrectly concluded that 9/11/2001 was destined to be another ordinary day in America. Taken unawares, the right wing leadership, none-too-stable to begin with, spun off their axes and went berserk. Is it because they are psychologically tied to religious orthodoxy? Probably so.

Conformity does not equal transformation.

We have a problem when we have people who say they follow Christ, when what they really follow is the crowd they're with -- whether that crowd is liberal or conservative.

We have a problem when we have self-proclaiming Christians who have no intention whatsoever of following Jesus at all, when Jesus asks us to let go of what we love -- even if what we love is hatred and revenge.

Conformity to your religious peers does not equal spiritual transformation that has the power to change the world with love.

I agree with Weylguy, that the support for torture among evangelicals reflects nothing more profound than cruelty. Political conservatism seems inseparable from hate, and while the target shifts every few generations, there always is a target. Hate is the medium in which conservatism grows.

I find it appalling that 42% of the unaffiliated are okay with torturing suspected terrorists "sometimes or often." Christian conservatives may be getting a deserved lashing for their majority stance, but there are an awful lot of the unaffiliated who aren't any better. Isn't the real issue that so many people in this country feel torture is justifiable? This mindset goes against everything our country represents. The religious difference seems a distraction to me.

I'm not suprised. Look at what Christians did to Jews for centuries. Look at what they did to those they accused of being witches. Look at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs. They decided about 15 people in the Springs were witches, harrassed them to sell their homes, and move away.

Evangelicals are opposed to science, progress reproductive freedom, and a liberal arts education. Look at Liberty, Regent, Oral Roberts and Patrick Henry universities. They teach people to be Christofascists.

Michelle Bachmann is a graduate of Oral Roberts. Hagee called for a military strike on Iran. Hagee also told his congregation that Hitler was Jewish, and Jews control the monetary system.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

I disagree with the author's observation that conservative Christians justify modern-day torture because pain and suffering are somehow demanded by their faith. I believe it has more to do with a combination of vengeance, heartless arrogance and an inherent, simmering cruelty that always arises when one feels threatened or wronged by an outsider.

Conservative Christians who feel torture is justified under any circumstances are not Christians; they are just sick, inhuman cowards who deserve neither grace nor salvation.

Good lord! Or maybe not ...

I'm not buying your interpretation that the torture of Jesus Christ makes severe pain and suffering a central theme for many evangelicals who then in turn justify its uses for torturing supposed terrorists. The problem with your comparison is that in one instance Jesus is the subject being tortured while today it is the terrorist who is being tortured. Since their interpretation (not yours) is that God had his only son suffer pain for our atonement then Jesus was in essence engaging in a holy act. If Jesus was subjected to this torture for our salvation, how can this translate into acceptance of a terrorist being tortured? It would debase the purifying notion of torture.
I would argue that among many evangelical Christians there is a duality in their perception of the world: It is us, the exceptional God-favored Country against Evil (Islamic fundamentalists). With such a duality in place, any sort of treatment is ok-we are the exceptional ones and they are the depraved dogs (not my view). Thus, torture away! They are pure evil and do not deserve any sort of mercy.

As a life-long church-going and (dare I say it) bible-believing Christian, I find torture abhorrent and wrong. The fact that my savior was unjustly tortured to death by people who believed they were doing the right thing, who believed they were acting within the bounds of law and appropriate ethical behavior-- that fact alone renders me suspicious of violent "justice" in all its forms. I don't know what studies the column writer referred to, or how they were conducted, but I would just like to speak up as a (non)representative sample of one to say that this Christian believes that torture is wrong. I believe that Christ's example is very clear: that torture fails in the end always, because it destroys the fabric of the torturer's heart and undermines the civilization the torturer believes he is defending.

As always - thanks for the brilliant article

This is an extremely important finding and comment.

When anesthesia was first invented in the 19th century, didn't many clergy oppose it as a frustration of God's will to send pain?