All Comments (96)

To: Willis Elliiott

The Geneva Conventions define torture. This is to spell it out, for people who want to engage in the practice of torture but have all kinds of explanations for why they are not really practicing torture. For people who are already comfortable with a ban on toture, it is not necessary to spell it out, with a legal definition. Here is the definition that I have researched:

"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

In this whole discussion, you are focussed on the word "severe." Isn't that really a digression, and hair-splitting? It is an aside; they could have just as easily left out the adjective "severe." Its inclusion is somewhat arbitrary. Someone on the "committee" must have suggested that the definition would be better to include the word "severe." THAT word "severe" is really irrelavant to the discussion of torture, I think. But that is what you have focussed on. That is the point of our misunderstanding.

If you think the word "severe" has great meaning, so that it must be discussed at length, then that is your opinion, and right. But to me, it is a long, long discussion about nothing very important; and you have therefore missed an opportunity to give your opinions about the nature and morality of torture.

Rev,
Your words:
"Implicitly, international law says that pain-infliction is permissible as long as the pain is not SEVERE. I agree here with international law, and reject the arguments of those who say that no inflicting of pain can be justified."

Leaving the immorality of deliberately inflicting pain for the sake of inflicting pain out of it for a moment (although that alone rellay should be sufficient), let's go back to the definition of severe.
Who defines "severe"? And is "severe" the same for everyone?
Suppose I had hyperesthesia (extremely sensitive nerve endings) - a paper cut could be excruciating.
Suppose I had a nerological deficit that made me hypoesthetic (decreased senstivity in my nerve endings). I know one person with this condition. He once accidentally burned himself with a cigarette and didn't feel it. Would that make it ok to brand him, since there would be no "severe" pain for him as a result? Would it be ok to go to whatever extreme measures it took to make him feel pain?

And, oh, yeah. do I really need to say,

"Don't chicken out."

I'd say that, only you tell yourself that the 'home of the brave' is a 'kingdom of submission,' ...not a land of the free.

You may dismiss us as Utopians, but that's just one more thing you *don't* understand about America.

We always have been. Whatever the odds.

If not, the flag you want to wrap yourself in was never more than a rag in the first place.

And just in case you're wondering, Reverend, why we harp on your insistence that we're Unamerican, while denying you are saying that, at the same time as you defend the assertion, ...it's precisely about that.

You espouse the belief that the principles of America come from your form of your religion, and can be taken away or conditionally-applied by such.

That's not America.

And if the Founding Fathers meant what *you* want them to have meant, then it's a damn good job they didn't make it clear.

Cause this is our country, too. And America is not like you say. America is not America at the sufferance of Fundie preachers.

You are the kind of Fundie preacher you are cause America *allows that, too.*

Could be that to us Liberty is a Goddess as *well* as a neoclassical ideal, but the founding Fathers put *everything,* including their own personal beliefs on the line, *for* that ideal.

You think that if you can convince enough people that the Bible gave us Liberty, then the Bible can take liberty away, as you lot see fit to judge.

Fortunately, that was never up to you.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't get that fact.

As for Liberty, Pagans, and America, well, I assure you. If we didn't believe in her, you wouldn't know we were even here, never mind it being up to *us* to try and get the people who claim the power to suspend habeas corpus and torture people... when they feel divinely inspired to like Bush says....

Say we're Unamerican.

Could be the Bible was involved in the history of America.. not an unreasonable assertion.

But as someone in power tried to lecture us in Catholic school when some things were near to coming out,

"You know the difference, ladies, between involvement and commitment? It's like a ham and egg breakfast. The chicken is involved...

The pig is committed."

We didn't take it as intended.

We took it as one of the Founding Fathers did:

"If we don't all hang together, we will surely hang separately."

*That's* America, Reverend. And if you don't understand why we Pagans take umbrage at the insults you keep making, and keep denying, consider the pig.

And, yes, Bgone, I know they let Coventry get firebombed in order to not-reveal that the Enigma code was broken. *That* was (possibly unn ecessarily, it turns out,) a decision that was made in order to protect plans for the bigger picture that relied upon the Nazis not knowing the code was broken.

Of course, the fact is that this 'war' has nothing to do with such technologies, but that tends to mean no one knows nothing.

What seems most efficacious is actually to have Muslim clergy who haven't got the 'Terror is OK' idea in their heads, to go in and, not convert these guys to Christianity, or get frat-boy on em if they won't give it up, ...but to actually talk to them.

Fairly, even.

Heck, said clergy have enough 'faith' to say they're willing to come around to the other side if the detainee wins the argument, but, like most Fundies, these terrorists actually not that well-educated in the whole of what they're sworn to kill for.

And unlike torturers, these guys get *results.*

They make *friends,* not *broken victims.*

I think if we Americans can't see reason on this issue, then, ....let's have a little faith.

We got this far by not torturing people.

Where we'd get by doing so, ...I for one do not want to go.

And to scroll up a bit, I'l comment on something Bgone said:

"Your frustration has a firm foundation in a thing known as 'state secrets'. If only the world would do without them. Think we should go first and set a good example? Will we be around or an example of what happens to those without state secrets?"

State secrets are one thing. State unaccountability is the kind of thing that America is supposed to be the *opposite* of.

"Battles are won on information more than blood and guts. Blood and guts is all the average person ever sees in war. How would WW2 have turned out if the Japanese knew we had broken their code? How about the enigma code? What if Germany had known it was compromised?"

I will point out that we didn't get these codes through *torture.*

In the case of the Enigma code, we captured their machine and codebook during a *rescue* operation.

Not torture.

Dr. willis writes:

"I smile at your claimed knowledge of my religion. (1) YOU know what Christianity is, but we “modern” Christians don’t; (2) YOU know what following Jesus means, but we either don’t, or do & are failing to follow him."

Can you explain your (what appears to be on the surface) blatant hypocrisy then? if Christianity has 'moved on' from the message of Christ or whatever, could you at least explain it a little better than to tell me that you it makes you smile when I point out that your values are not those of Jesus? Forgive me if I'm too naive. I just want to know why the message of Jesus is not relevant to the Christian view point.

Hee, Priver. :)

Ohhh, but I could tell stories. :)

Same deal as those who think they can make you pray cause they can make you stand and move your lips, so it is with those who think torture works.

Maybe on some level they *have* to think that, cause the whole belief system is based on this idea that 'torture when you're in the right makes it right and holy.' I mean, these guys get *real* upset when you say they're doing us wrong, cause they need to feel too 'righteous' to ever have done that wrong in the first place.

Try to say, 'This is abusive and unjust,' they say, 'Christ suffered more than you, so I could ...do horrible things to you for no real reason.'

Or "I'm not doing this thing I'm doing cause I'm not that kind of people."

Yah, yah, yah.

"..I shudder to think what he taught *about* other people's religions, giving his apparent utter inability to speak *to* people of other religions."

You're not the only one. And we wonder why there is so much misinformation out there?

"They taught courses in 'world religions' in Catholic school, too. Wasn't exactly *true..,* mind you. I went through high school walking with the Goddess and thinking Wicca was a sect of the Hare Krishnas. :)"

LoL- (Sorry but I can't help being so happy I was raised Jewish..) my schooling was all secular except for the few years I went to Sunday School.

During the rest of the week I had to stand up in class and give an example of 'what it's like to be Jewish' complete with Science Fair Style Diorama in the name of 'cultural diversity'. For most of elementary school I was the only one doing this.

Combine that with the fact that whatever we didn't get for Hanukkah we got for Christmas and finding out that my dad 'wasn't Christian he was Catholic'.. no wonder I grew up thinking there were only two religions.

I also got tossed out of a church for thinking God's name was Harold (Harold be thy name)..

And, hey, Priver, the good Reverend says:

"If my experience of others’ religions were limited "(as you claim) to what they tell me, why would the University of Hawaii have hired me to teach EVERYBODY’s religion (i.e., “The World’s Great Religions”)?"

...I shudder to think what he taught *about* other people's religions, giving his apparent utter inability to speak *to* people of other religions.

They taught courses in 'world religions' in Catholic school, too. Wasn't exactly *true..,* mind you. I went through high school walking with the Goddess and thinking Wicca was a sect of the Hare Krishnas. :)

Not that they got Hinduism or Buddhism or Shinto, or, well, much of anything right, either.

Why would the University hire *you,* Reverend?

Ask again when there isn't a major hue and cry whenever someone finds out a Pagan is teaching *anything.*

"Falsely, you claim that I called you “unamerican.” I have never called ANYBODY unAmerican! In the context of that entry, I defined “American” as affirming “the American mind,” which I described as the mind of America’s founders—a mind inclusive of “Bible + Enlightenment.” Paganism is unAmerican (I said) in having another mind."

Just cause you deny it in the same breath as doing it, Reverend, doesn't mean you aren't doing it.

I notice you never seem to comment when I say that *America* says that human rights are *unalienable,* ...even by those who claim to speak for 'God.'

"If my experience of others’ religions were limited "(as you claim) to what they tell me, why would the University of Hawaii have hired me to teach EVERYBODY’s religion (i.e., “The World’s Great Religions”)?"

Seeing as how what you call the 'world's great religions' are automatically limited to those who rely on some sort of sacred scripture, you leave a LOT out. And base at least some on BAD information. Besides, I neither know nor care why they hired you. Just because you hire someone to do a job, doesn't necessarily mean they are qualified to teach it. Truth is, there is much that you do not know. And are not qualified to teach.

Would you attempt to teach a class on what it means to live as a black American in this country? To stand in front of a group of African Americans and tell them what their experience in this country in this day and age is?

"You missed my distinction between trying to be OUR best (which Jesus approves) & trying to be THE best (meaning better than anybody else—which Jesus disapproves)."

Again, hiding behind shades of meaning does nothing but obfuscate. Do you want people to be the best they can be or not? It's not about being better than anyone else, a concept that seems lost on you. You hide behind your 'letters' and the fact that some university hired you.

Why would you read my comments? Obviously you haven't read or thought enough about anything anyone has written in order to effect a response that makes any kind of sense.

You say that you are not 'defining' me or my belief system, yet you hold it up for ridicule to others without my permission or participation and call it 'teaching'. Another double standard.

"Yes, you hate the Bible."

Um.. nope. Got a few in my house, too. Another attempt to define and label what you do not understand. I don't hate anyone or anything. I actually admire those people who find inspiration there. I just see it differently than some. Just because I don't follow it doesn't mean I can't respect it as a work of literature that has some inspiration in there, and some that is no longer appropriate in this day and age. Why do you presume to know me, or my mind and tell me how I feel? Seeing as how you've been wrong on so many other things?

Besides, the Goddess stories abound in the Bible. Lilith, Inanna, and Amenophis have very similar life stories to your Jesus. And they're just a few. Migration of people across time carries stories from one place to another. Someone gets ahold of the stories and spins female to male.. and presto! Instant Jesus.

You say that the bible hates the Goddess.. which doesn't matter because if it wasn't for her, for this earth, there wouldn't have been a bible in the first place because there wouldn't have been people to write it. Ultimately, it's not my book, therefore that's not my problem.

"Paganism is unAmerican (I said) in having another mind."

And you're wrong. Again. We are as American as it gets. The Natives were here first. We had a whole lot of growing to do long before we really could figure out what real 'religious freedom' meant. We've still got a long way to go as a country. But we're here. Exercising our right to practice as we will, harming NONE, even if it bothers you. And our numbers are growing. Like it or not.

The founding fathers were Deist, not Christian. And many had copies of other sacred scriptures around at the time too.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Willis E. Elliott

DAVID

I believe you when you say “I am merely seeking clarity.” If that is so, I think I can help. If, however, you are seeking a simplicity where only complexity is available in reality, I cannot help.

You are so right that “the issue at hand” is “torture.” Through what I said, people (naturally) crawled into my head to try to figure out what was going on there. My mind is like a wheel whose point of tangency with other minds is—for those who don’t otherwise know me—only what I write. Not much chance there of experiencing “a meeting of minds.” Some chance. Worth the effort.

How we use our minds is partly coincident with how we earn our living. I don’t know how you earn your living. I’ve earned my living chiefly by trying to help people—especially ministerial students & clergy—THINK BETTER so as to live better & better help others. Even at age 90 (in about two months), I continue to mentor clergy, converse (mainly by internet) with professional theologians, & write in religion-&-life (after 38 years as a NEWSWEEK religion consultant).

....& I occasionally still teach Sunday school: I’m not out of touch with how Christians who are not professional thinkers think.

Now to what you told me.

You said you couldn’t understand what I was “trying to say.” I was saying that I agree with the international protocols which (1) DEFINE torture as inflicting “severe” pain & suffering & (2) CONDEMN it. Did you not get that? I re-read my 2nd & 3rd paragraphs, & can’t see how I could be more clear about this. Do YOU see how I could have been?

What you call my “legalistic knowledge” (why “legalistic”?) as a professional thinker is of course superior to your lay knowledge, but that should motivate you to learn rather than turning you off. I avoid unexplained technical terms, & my thinking expressed at the “On Faith” level should be within your reach.

I’m puzzled by your puzzlement at my title—“How Much Pain Is ‘Severe’?” Isn’t it precisely what comes to mind when the protocols define torture as the infliction of “severe” pain & suffering? (In the same paragraph, you speak of the “On Faith” blog as “specifically Christian”: it is not.)

Your next two paragraphs reject any effort—such as the Geneva Conventions—to define torture, then go on to give your own definition, then say Jesus is against it! I’ve no objection to your being off doing you own thing, but using Jesus against how some others do their thing is another matter....

....but your implicit arrogance appears in the first sentence of your next paragraph: “I know how human beings ought to treat each other.” You then judge everybody, no matter their public responsibilities, by your personal standard. You condemn Christian who “support torture” according to your definition of torture, & accuse them of letting fear swamp their faith. Bush & Cheney are in “neurotic distress.”

In your comment, what I found most unChristian & offensive was your deChristianizing Bush for living by terrorist fear rather than Christian faith & “assurance.” You say you have “an inner assurance of things to come.” Bush hasn’t? Don’t all Christians have it?

You are erroneously simple-minded in believing that a straight line can be drawn from what our Lord says about INDIVIDUAL behavior & SOCIETAL responsibility.
Bush failed to be as fearful as he should have been after Islamists set off a truck-bomb in the basement of the Twin Towers & the Muslim cleric who planned to destroy the Towers was imprisoned. As a Christian, he trusted God too much: God refuses to accept responsibility we put on him for behaving in ways we want him to & he doesn’t want to.

Daniel, you say you are “merely seeking clarity.” Clearly, you are trying to impose your views with an (unaware) arrogance which condemns those whose opinions differ from yours.

Now, how about giving my entry one more read?

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Willis E. Elliott 11.13.07

In case some of you wonder why I continue conversing with you, it’s because my opinion of you is not as low as you think.

PRIVER

You speak of what I “define as ‘severe’ pain,” but I’ve never defined it. My entry’s title raises the question I’m too ignorant to define: “How Much Pain is ‘Severe’?”

Obviously, the question existed for those who formulated international protocol when they defined torture as the infliction of “severe” pain & suffering. I agree with their definition of torture, & some of you are sort-of torturing me for agreeing with them.

You missed my distinction between trying to be OUR best (which Jesus approves) & trying to be THE best (meaning better than anybody else—which Jesus disapproves).

If my experience of others’ religions were limited (as you claim) to what they tell me, why would the University of Hawaii have hired me to teach EVERYBODY’s religion (i.e., “The World’s Great Religions”)?

Your comment disproves your claim that I don’t want to “listen” to what you have to say. If that were so, why would I read your comments (twice, at that)? Btw, how many other panelists have proved, by comments on your comments, that THEY want to listen to you?

Of course I’m not interested in trying (as you claim I am) to “define or control” you! My religion requires me to love you, & that includes trying to improve your thinking & conversing. As for ego, how resistant it is to being grateful for others’ efforts to improve it!

Yes, you hate the Bible. If you think not, you know too little of it to have become aware that you hate it in the sense of reacting negatively to its negation of some major opinions of yours as expressed in your comments to my entries. E.g., as I said in at least one previous entry, the Bible hates the Goddess.

Falsely, you claim that I called you “unamerican.” I have never called ANYBODY unAmerican! In the context of that entry, I defined “American” as affirming “the American mind,” which I described as the mind of America’s founders—a mind inclusive of “Bible + Enlightenment.” Paganism is unAmerican (I said) in having another mind.

As for neighbor-love, this comment is an effort to love you, my present “neighbor.” Sometimes, it’s hard to recognized love when you see it.

HENRY JAMES

“Torture can NEVER be justified.” In a comment, I said “my entry clearly rejects torture.” Since those statements of mine weren’t clear enough for you, could you suggest clearer wordings?

As for the complexity of my thinking, it corresponds with the complexity of religion-in-life-&-thought. Beware of those who make the complex simple, as simple as a spear-point!

TERRA

My turn to yell “Hair-splitting!” Instead of being satisfied with using my RELIGION against me, you make the arrogant claim that you know my deity so well that you can use GOD aganist me! Then you top off your attack by claiming to know, beyond my religion’s words, its spirit.

Pious arrogance, Terra. But of course it may have been only tongue-in-cheek, for all I know.

MAD LOVE

You say “modern Christianity espouses...an anti-Christian philosophy....I thought what Jesus wanted was for men to follow his example, no?”

I smile at your claimed knowledge of my religion. (1) YOU know what Christianity is, but we “modern” Christians don’t; (2) YOU know what following Jesus means, but we either don’t, or do & are failing to follow him.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Willis E. Elliott 11.13.07

In case some of you wonder why I continue conversing with you, it’s because my opinion of you is not as low as you think.

PRIVER

You speak of what I “define as ‘severe’ pain,” but I’ve never defined it. My entry’s title raises the question I’m too ignorant to define: “How Much Pain is ‘Severe’?”

Obviously, the question existed for those who formulated international protocol when they defined torture as the infliction of “severe” pain & suffering. I agree with their definition of torture, & some of you are sort-of torturing me for agreeing with them.

You missed my distinction between trying to be OUR best (which Jesus approves) & trying to be THE best (meaning better than anybody else—which Jesus disapproves).

If my experience of others’ religions were limited (as you claim) to what they tell me, why would the University of Hawaii have hired me to teach EVERYBODY’s religion (i.e., “The World’s Great Religions”)?

Your comment disproves your claim that I don’t want to “listen” to what you have to say. If that were so, why would I read your comments (twice, at that)? Btw, how many other panelists have proved, by comments on your comments, that THEY want to listen to you?

Of course I’m not interested in trying (as you claim I am) to “define or control” you! My religion requires me to love you, & that includes trying to improve your thinking & conversing. As for ego, how resistant it is to being grateful for others’ efforts to improve it!

Yes, you hate the Bible. If you think not, you know too little of it to have become aware that you hate it in the sense of reacting negatively to its negation of some major opinions of yours as expressed in your comments to my entries. E.g., as I said in at least one previous entry, the Bible hates the Goddess.

Falsely, you claim that I called you “unamerican.” I have never called ANYBODY unAmerican! In the context of that entry, I defined “American” as affirming “the American mind,” which I described as the mind of America’s founders—a mind inclusive of “Bible + Enlightenment.” Paganism is unAmerican (I said) in having another mind.

As for neighbor-love, this comment is an effort to love you, my present “neighbor.” Sometimes, it’s hard to recognized love when you see it.

HENRY JAMES

“Torture can NEVER be justified.” In a comment, I said “my entry clearly rejects torture.” Since those statements of mine weren’t clear enough for you, could you suggest clearer wordings?

As for the complexity of my thinking, it corresponds with the complexity of religion-in-life-&-thought. Beware of those who make the complex simple, as simple as a spear-point!

TERRA

My turn to yell “Hair-splitting!” Instead of being satisfied with using my RELIGION against me, you make the arrogant claim that you know my deity so well that you can use GOD aganist me! Then you top off your attack by claiming to know, beyond my religion’s words, its spirit.

Pious arrogance, Terra. But of course it may have been only tongue-in-cheek, for all I know.

MAD LOVE

You say “modern Christianity espouses...an anti-Christian philosophy....I thought what Jesus wanted was for men to follow his example, no?”

I smile at your claimed knowledge of my religion. (1) YOU know what Christianity is, but we “modern” Christians don’t; (2) YOU know what following Jesus means, but we either don’t, or do & are failing to follow him.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Willis E. Elliott 11.13.07

In case some of you wonder why I continue conversing with you, it’s because my opinion of you is not as low as you think.

PRIVER

You speak of what I “define as ‘severe’ pain,” but I’ve never defined it. My entry’s title raises the question I’m too ignorant to define: “How Much Pain is ‘Severe’?”

Obviously, the question existed for those who formulated international protocol when they defined torture as the infliction of “severe” pain & suffering. I agree with their definition of torture, & some of you are sort-of torturing me for agreeing with them.

You missed my distinction between trying to be OUR best (which Jesus approves) & trying to be THE best (meaning better than anybody else—which Jesus disapproves).

If my experience of others’ religions were limited (as you claim) to what they tell me, why would the University of Hawaii have hired me to teach EVERYBODY’s religion (i.e., “The World’s Great Religions”)?

Your comment disproves your claim that I don’t want to “listen” to what you have to say. If that were so, why would I read your comments (twice, at that)? Btw, how many other panelists have proved, by comments on your comments, that THEY want to listen to you?

Of course I’m not interested in trying (as you claim I am) to “define or control” you! My religion requires me to love you, & that includes trying to improve your thinking & conversing. As for ego, how resistant it is to being grateful for others’ efforts to improve it!

Yes, you hate the Bible. If you think not, you know too little of it to have become aware that you hate it in the sense of reacting negatively to its negation of some major opinions of yours as expressed in your comments to my entries. E.g., as I said in at least one previous entry, the Bible hates the Goddess.

Falsely, you claim that I called you “unamerican.” I have never called ANYBODY unAmerican! In the context of that entry, I defined “American” as affirming “the American mind,” which I described as the mind of America’s founders—a mind inclusive of “Bible + Enlightenment.” Paganism is unAmerican (I said) in having another mind.

As for neighbor-love, this comment is an effort to love you, my present “neighbor.” Sometimes, it’s hard to recognized love when you see it.

HENRY JAMES

“Torture can NEVER be justified.” In a comment, I said “my entry clearly rejects torture.” Since those statements of mine weren’t clear enough for you, could you suggest clearer wordings?

As for the complexity of my thinking, it corresponds with the complexity of religion-in-life-&-thought. Beware of those who make the complex simple, as simple as a spear-point!

TERRA

My turn to yell “Hair-splitting!” Instead of being satisfied with using my RELIGION against me, you make the arrogant claim that you know my deity so well that you can use GOD aganist me! Then you top off your attack by claiming to know, beyond my religion’s words, its spirit.

Pious arrogance, Terra. But of course it may have been only tongue-in-cheek, for all I know.

MAD LOVE

You say “modern Christianity espouses...an anti-Christian philosophy....I thought what Jesus wanted was for men to follow his example, no?”

I smile at your claimed knowledge of my religion. (1) YOU know what Christianity is, but we “modern” Christians don’t; (2) YOU know what following Jesus means, but we either don’t, or do & are failing to follow him.

To: Willis Elliott

You commented to me:

"DANIEL

My heart goes out to you, a brother Christian. You are having trouble getting into my head & coming out again with a simple answer. As my head is complex (as is that of any advanced thinker in any field), you can have little hope of a simple answer. It’s similar to the old two-liner: (1) Tell me in one sentence what your painting means; (2) If I could have done that, I wouldn’t have painted it.

But let me demonstrate. You say you’re opposed to torture: “It’s not such a hard thing for me to say. How about you?” Immediately, I think of five ways to respond to your question (&, here, must not spell them out!). Did you notice that I said this: “So defined, torture can NEVER be justified.” My answer was straightforward & in line with international protocols against torture. But you were not satisfied with my achieved-simple answer: you want an unachieved-simple YES or NO. Your demand, being impossible, is innocent or unkind. I take it to be innocent, & suggest you study my entry further to remove your innocence, for I have no suspicion that you intend unkindness."

I went back and re-read your "essay." You had a lot more than one sentence to "tell me what your painting means." Yet, still I could not understand what you were trying to say. I am not trying to get inside your head to find out what you think; I am trying to find out what you think by reading your thoughts as you have written them.

Here we are discussing you, and the insides of your head, and the clarity or unclarity of your writing, instead of the issue at hand: torture.

Your Christian heritage seems very, very different than mine. You seem to have access to a great store of legalistic knowledge, which I have never heard of, and know nothing about. Therefore your reference to it, and your reliance upon it, in making your arguments, can have very little meaning for a person such as myself.

Even the title of your essay, "How much pain is severe..."? is a mystery, and a puzzle to me. Why on earth would you, or anyone, interpret the question of torture so as to write such a strangely titled essay, especially in a relgious, specifically Christian, forum?

When I think of the question of torture, I do not appeal to the Geneva Conventions, nor to American law, no, not even to any law, nor to the legal status of the prisoners, nor how much pain is too much, nor the behavior or practices of our enemies, nor any of those things.

And I don't debate and hair-split over what constitutes torture; is it flicking your finger against the back of the head? is chopping off a finger? is sticking a knitting needle in someone's eye? how about choking? drowning? starvation? stripping naked? all are meaninglessly legalistic. Every one wants an excuse to smack someone else; well, just go ahead and smack away, but don't have any illusions that Jesus would give you a pass and a stamp of approval.

I know how human beings ought to treat each other. I know what is good and moral behavior and what is not. Under the American ethos, torture has always been tabooed, and forbidden. We never had any problems with this before, not until now. Why are we having problems with it now?

Among the vocal Christians on this forum, there is a distinct and disturbing disconnect. They are Christians and believe in God, Jesus, the resurrection of the soul, and Heaven. Yet they also support torture, which is against God, against Jesus, against all normal and standard morality that I have been taught or that I have even ever heard of.

And they are afraid. They are afraid of what may happen next. Their belief in God, in Jesus, in the ressurection of the soul, and in Heavan is all for naught, empty and hollow beliefs, if they cannot find even a tiny ounce of assurance and courage in these beliefs, that they can live moral and upright lives, in the hope of a happy future, without devolving into torture.

When I say I am opposed to torture, I am speaking, in general, as a principle of life.
When the fearful people speak out in favor of torture, they do not talk about principle; they give precise and exact examples. But they are all imaginary examples of what might happen, or what could happen; they are all hypothetical "what-if's."

Belief in God, and belief in Jesus goes alot farther and alot deeper, than the mere establishment of a code of standard operating procedure to guard against all the many unlikely "what-if's."

What-if ... what-if ... what-if ... ??

That is a paralyzing game that could go on forever, until you are so twisted up in fear that you cannot do anything. That is a symptom of mental distress, more than a principle of life.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney both suffer from this neurotic distress, that anything bad could happen at any moment, and we should all be always very afraid of our imagined, yet unmade futures.

If President Bush is a Christian, as he claims, then it seems that he should get some sort of assurance from his belief in God and Jesus, but he does not seem to. Christians who live in perpetual fear of terrorism are not getting the assurance from their faith in Jesus, that they claim. There is something wrong here.

I take this position, not because I hate America and pray for the victory of the enemy, but because I have an inner assurance of things to come.

I do not think I am demanding a simple answer; I am merely seeking clarity.

I'd say, Reverend, that claiming that what you say isn't what you say... doesn't change how it's heard by those who believe in your idea of a Bible-waving Christian state.

Torturing people for information, even if you feel you're uniquely-qualified to judge what's 'acceptably-severe' *never works* *because* it *so rarely works,* that you can't tell.

It may extract a true confession once in a while, but it extracts them whether they are true or not.

If you torture someone past coherence, you *don't get coherent intel.*

You get more people to torture the 'Truth' out of... This is why this kind of thing never ends, and why America long ago swore off it. Even if the 'cost' is feeling a little 'less' secure.

That security is illusory.

The real motivation is a *sense of power* that's both illusion, and whose *real* cost is the very moral authority you claim for yourself.

We Pagans speak a lot about our rather demanding ethics. I've even, on occasion, compromised them, and, yes, in doing so, did help someone.

And I was in fact, willing to take the hits for it.

But there came another day, when I had to make *another* call, one that in retrospect should have been straightforward: and I *didn't trust myself.* And some other people not even involved in the first instance, got hurt.

I think this happens on the torture issue: as long as someone'll keep it out of your sight, while denying it's happening, while saying it's justifiable, anyway, and, no, you can't see,

...then people live with it.

But the real cost is America's ability to even *hold* our government accountable in the future, because that would mean looking at what was previously-justified, what people *did* support, out of fear and facile justifications.

This is how Big Lies work... Not because people really believe them, but because they *have* to, if they don't want to face up to the original deception.

If you say, 'I'll turn a blind eye to torture,' once, it gets *real* hard to say 'No,' or even 'No Further' because that would involve taking accountability for having let it happen in the first place.

Makes it so much easier to believe the lie-and-deny, to try and take it out on minorities or people 'not having enough faith in Bible-wavers who promise it's all to the good, and who are you to question, anyway...'

If you want to say, 'Oh, well, it's not 'severe,' ....well, I suspect you never been through it.

Never looked at the face of someone who was doing it to *you.*

It's not like you say.

You say this:

"You are close to the truth when you say “If your savior guy had anything to say, it was, ‘This hurt ends with me’.” We Christians believe that in taking humanity’s sins upon himself, Jesus did indeed potentially lift from human life the pains-“hurts” of humanity. But this lifting is optional: nobody need access this salvation which Jesus offers."

Do you really not have any ripple of understanding or conscience about the fact that what too many Christians hear when you say this is, 'It's OK to hurt, torture, abuse, or even rape, non-Christians?'

*America* says that this 'lifting' is *not* optional.

It's *an unalienable human right.*
*Self-evident,* not in your back pocket to dole out as you choose.

And if your Bible tells you you can't live in a secular society without hurting non-Christians as much as you can, while claiming the same 'Ultimate Authority' gives you wriggle-room on how much power to torture you arrogate to yourself, then *you're* the one who has something to learn about what it means to be American.

Reverend.

Bingo Terra.

Seriously Dr., why is it that modern Christianity espouses such an anti-Christian philosophy these days? Because the message of Jesus is seen as too 'Utopian' and 'simple minded' for such a complex world? Why use the term Christian at all? It all appears so hypocritical from the outside. Your Jesus is just a fetish, a mascot. You just pat him on the head, kind of like rubbing the Buddha's belly for luck at a Chinese restaurant. All you have to do is cry "Lord, Lord" and you're saved from the eternity burning in hell that the rest of us are threatened with? I thought what Jesus wanted was for men to follow his example, no?

Mr. Elliot,

I did not use your religion against you...I used the words of your God. Was it against you? Then you should be living closer to what was not only the letter of those words...but the spirit of them.

terra

Render unto Torquemada that which is Torquemada's.

Like Jesus, Torquemada invites us to repent.

Praise Torquemada, who unlike Jesus is pragmatic enough to realize that simple minded Christian principles are too Utopian and unrealistic for such a complex world.

Praise Torquemada!

Who Would Jesus Torture?

(Charles Colson?)

Would "semi-severe" pain be his cup of tea?

The Good Doctor writes

"most put me in the “torturer” category even though my entry clearly rejects torture."

With all due respect,Doctor, you have hardly ever been clear about anything in all of your columns here, and certainly not on this one.

Love and Kisses

Henry

You play games with other people's well being by saying that inflicting 'some' pain is ok, as long as it's not what YOU define as 'severe'. By so doing you devalue all humanity, including your own. It makes you no better than they are.

And why shouldn't we strive to be the best? I thought that's what your Jesus was supposed to be about. Have you suddenly switched gears and are now in the 'lets just be a little better than we used to' phase?

"Yes, I tell other people about their religion..."

Why? Seeing as how you know nothing about another person's experiences and most personal beliefs, beyond what they *choose* to tell you, you attempt to define others' beliefs in the context of your own assumptions, which are downright flawed. Yet you get upset when others do it to you. You don't get to define us. Period.

We'd be more inclined to tell you what our beliefs were if you had any actual curiosity and willingness to let your assumptions be challenged. But you don't want real debate, do you? You just seem to want to hide behind 'degrees' of pain infliction and your assumed superiority because of the letters after your name. Based on your postings, you enjoy telling people they're wrong/misdirected without even bothering to listen to what they have to say. The egotism at work in your postings is unbelievable.

When we have tried to tell you that maybe we see the world differently than you, and that you don't get to define or control us, the best you can do is to say how much somebody 'hates' your book. You make assumptions about us that are patently false and then tell all the readers here about how we're 'unamerican'. And we're supposed to stand for that?

It's intellectual dishonesty, at best, and at worst is your attempt to justify hurting other people just a little bit in the name of your religion. And by so doing, you call it 'loving your neighbor as yourself'. And even those calling themselves Christians are taking you to task on that. As well they should.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Willis E. Elliott

Preliminary observations:

1 Some words, including “torture,” so blow minds that few can deal with any nuancing. Few comments on my entry credit me with supporting the international protocols against torture; most put me in the “torturer” category even though my entry clearly rejects torture.

2 Another word so mindblowingly resistant to nuance is “pain.” Ability to feel pain correlates with the feeling dimensions of each particular living thing. Being the most complex creature, the human being has the greatest number of ways of feeling pain. But most commenters on my entry have taken the word to mean PHYSICAL pain. Since my entry is mainly about NONphysical pain, its reading will be tortured (i.e., “twisted”) if the reader reads my title—“How Much Pain Is ‘Severe’?”—as PHYSICAL pain.

PAGANPLACE 11.9 / 2:54a

You’re up to the old trick of applying to an opponent a lower view that s/he holds. My God does NOT think “partnership and religion both need a ‘zero tolerance’ policy.”

TERRA

Because “torture defiles the source of life” (as you say), you & I--& the international protocols I cited—are against it. But here’s the difference: the protocols & I are REALISTICALLY against it—recognizing the universal use of discomfort & rejecting “severe” pain. UTOPIANLY, you denounce as “torture” all forms of discomfort.

As you doubtless know, “u-topia” is Greek for “no-where,” an idealism out of the ballpark of reality. Biblically (including Jesus), human beings, as sinful, are incapable of doing what you ask them to do when you begin worship: “Come...with clean hands and heart....” Contrast Jesus’ words of invitation (Gospel of Mark 1:15): “...repent and believe the good news.” REPENT!
That’s realism about human nature, humanity as we know it. (Your statement that Jesus “sends” us to the pre-Christian statement in Ps.24.3-4 is, on your part, a confusion of the Bible’s two religions. In worship, we Christians use it only in connection with the confessions of sin & faith.) Jesus’ further realism was in refusing to believe that the better world we need is within our potential: it is not, but God wants to GIVE it to us, on condition of our repentance and return to him—but it is ours only to receive, not to achieve. And he was realistic about what one can expect as a result of violating social expectations: persecution, not praise. And he was realistic about punishment, human & divine: to show remedial punishment, he asked a criminal to “sin no more” after he stopped (only once in his ministry) a jurisprudential procedure (Gospel of John 7:53-8:11). / “An eye for an eye” was an Old Testament law against excessive punishment, viz. TWO eyes for one. Of course it’s not said in the Beautitudes—but there, the unmerciful need not expect God to be merciful to them: only “the merciful” “obtain mercy”—as in Mt.6:15 God forgives only the forgiving.

I note that you are trying to use my religion against me. I have never tried to use Paganism against Pagans.

PRIVER

I “play games with other peoples’ well-being”? You provide no context, so I don’t catch your reference. What games? What well-being?

Yes, I tell other people about their religion, as others tell me about mine. Indeed, I’m eager for the latter: it gives me opportunity to correct people’s wrong impressions of my religion. Please note the last paragraph in my comment to Terra: “I have never tried to use Paganism against Pagans,” though Pagans have tried to use Christianity against me (as, indeed, Terra did in her comment preceding mine).

My impression is the same as yours, viz. that “torture doesn’t...work most of the time.” Your sentence implicitly affirms that torture sometimes works. If it didn’t, torture-for-information would not exist.

But you’re assuming that I’m pro-torture. My entry is anti-torture as defined by the international protocols.

Utopianly, you assume that “loving your neighbor” excludes all pain-infliction, not just “severe” pain. That’s blue sky with no earth. To absolutists like you, such realistic compromises as exist in protocols like the Geneva Conventions are evil, “signifiying...nothing.” Politics is the art of the possible, not of the ideal; & absolutists are in danger of betraying the better by demanding the best. Of course I want to have my cake & eat it too! That is the nature of ALL compromise. And as politics is the art of the possible, it is the art of compromise.

VIE...

You put it clearly. Your have “a hard time” taking “seriously” any who use “any religious or humanistic justification for torture.” You admit that you have a problem, that it is difficult for you. Me too, so—like you—I reject “torture.” But unlike you, the international protocols & I define torture as the inflicting of “severe” pain (not just any pain). Implicitly, you rule out the religious & humanistic reasoning in my entry. To differ is your privilege--& even to be unfair to me.

MAD LOVE

“It couldn’t be simpler” that you here are unnecessarily simple-minded about a complex subject: your mind does not fit the matter at hand, so the distinctions realistic minds make appear to you to be “hair-splitting.”

“Hooking the suspect’s genitals to car batteries”—the only instance of pain-infliction you mention—is, as “severe” pain, ruled out by the Geneva Conventions & me. You comment is “mad” in its being falsely addressed to me, to whom it does not apply.

PAGANPLACE

In implicitly claiming that torture-for-information NEVER works, four of your paragraphs are nonsense. For you to have said that it SELDOM works would have made sense.

The human capacity for self-deception: yes, a vital factor. Witch trials often yielded accurate information—which the examiners disbelieved.

In saying “Chinese water torture is not “severe” pain,” you show that you are (as my entry did NOT) limiting “pain” to a PHYSICAL experience. But we human beings can be pained in every dimension of our sensitivities. Chinese water torture entails such severe mental-spiritual pain that some are demented for life: their sanity has been destroyed.

“Christians torturing people”? I rule that out as unChristian. As for what you say about “queer people and non-Christians and extra-marital sex,” you say I am “stringent” about all this? The only possible application of “stringent” to all this is that I believe in the ideal of virginal marraige.

I’m “willing to demonize countless others if someone tells” me “It will ‘save’” me? Closer to the truth would be your saying that I believe demonizing ANYBODY would damn me!

You are close to the truth when you say “If your savior guy had anything to say, it was, ‘This hurt ends with me’.” We Christians believe that in taking humanity’s sins upon himself, Jesus did indeed potentially lift from human life the pains-“hurts” of humanity. But this lifting is optional: nobody need access this salvation which Jesus offers.

“Profound ironies,” yes. But you seem to exclude from this the Christian doctrine that humanity is “fallen”—whereas we Christians see the “fall” as
the source of most of the ironies.

Nothing you say here about masochism & sadism qualifies-critiques anything I said about these phenomena.

Your Christian MISeducation astonishes me. Only God is fit to judge, as Jesus says—so only God is to be “feared” (in the sense the founder of Pennsylvania, Wm. Penn, meant when he said “Men who do not fear God will fear tyrants”).

As for judging how much pain is “severe,” the difficulty of that is precisely in my entry’s title: “How much pain is ‘severe’?” But it’s illogical to conclude that nothing difficult should be done: in this case, NO pain of any kind should be inflicted, since it’s too hard to determine when the pain becomes severe. Quaker Wm. Penn was of a church which believed that ripping criminals out of their normal life of family/work/friends & putting them in isolated boxes (yes, prisons as “penitentiaries” are a Quaker invention) would not be inflicting excessive pain. But the pain certainly is excessive, “severe,” in the cases of prisoners who go “stir-crazy.”

You speak of “the right wing Christian line” as though it applies to me. It doesn’t, so I accept your statement as mere ventilating rather than saying something to my entry or me. As for “bamboo splints under people’s fingernails,” that’s such “severe” pain as to be ruled out by Christianity, the Geneva Conventions, & me—so, again, why mention it?

Have to say this, though, Terra... Ever get the feeling someone made you a priestess while you wren't paing attention, yet, you know you must have said 'Yes' at some point?

Aaa! Bright Lady! This is so..... Tacky!'

But, here we are.

Gods, Lady.

(I'll explicitly note that in my arrangement with the Lady on certain historical experiences, I'm *expresssly* allowed to complain. Internet wasn't even a thing, then, but I'm allowed to complain. Lookit this. Gaaaah!)

Ahem.

Anyway, of course we gotta be all priestessly. :)

Whooof, Terra.

I was kinda hoping that on certain things it *wasn't* me against the world. :)

There was a time Lady indulged my wish to 'go down fighting,' ...may yet happen. Better than what the likely effect of poor health care is, but I've since gathered that's not supposed to be the point. :)

Help, 'Virtuous people?'
What you waiting for?

No, really, you so used to people doing it for you, you expect it all to happen while you're spectators? :)

PaganPlace,

...One thing that Pagan's have are strong women. It's specially wonderful when they can express their strength as you do.

Namaste,
terra

I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, Reverend, but I got this wild idea that if you got this 'Absolutely Moral' God who'll say that it's sometimes OK to stick bamboo splints under people's fingernails, it's just possible that God really doesn't demand you take more-routine civil rights away from queers and Pagans and other Americans you don't happen to want to acknowledge right now.

Go figure.

But ain't that just the right-wing Christian line...

"No amount of suffering and privation is too much... for others... to suffer for my faith."

Phhhhbt.

Look at what you speak to justify.

Look.

And if you really think it's justified, don't defend those who hide it.

*You look at it.*

*You watch every single instance of it.*

*Demand to.*

And if you can live with that, well..

Maybe you already could, but, we could cease from these illusions of it 'saving lives.'

But, let's go back to *your* start, here, Reverend.

"Let’s start with you. If you twist your arm slowly, soon it will begin to hurt, and the pain will keep increasing until it becomes SEVERE. If you enjoy the pain, you’re a masochist."

Actually, my experience of talking to masochists (yes, you could do this) is that the physical pain is a relief from the *phychological pain* they live under the rest of the time that results from people *telling them they deserve to be in pain.*

"If you so twist the arm of someone else, you’re a sadist. And if your job is to inflict such pain, you’re a torturer (the root meaning of the word torture is “twisting”).*

This is less clear to me, save that it's clear other human instincts will say to some kinds of people that inflicting pain on others somehow vindicates them, or is pleasure.

I don't get it, really, but this was the constant message of my Christian education, 'People hurt others cause it's fun and pleasurable,' they say. 'They do this because they are too selfish to fear the God of those that justifies hurting others. '

The real mesage being, 'Hurting others is pleasurable, if you don't get punished or can be 'forgiven' by dressing your abuses in a Christian veneer.'

My general response to this was...

What?

We get down to the assertion of "Only (my kind) of Christian is morally-qualified to judge if, when, and to what degree torture is justified."

To this, I say, "Exactly what in our previous mutual experience leads you to believe I think you're *not the last kind of people* qualified to judge *how much pain you people are allowed to inflict and call it 'good?'

Seriously.

You compare my disenfranchisement in what is *supposed* to be modern America to the 'unimaginable tortures of Hell' you try and make people imagine, ...so you can sleep at night while demanding injustice, ....and you want me to let you decide how much *pain* you get to inflict on others in my name?

Nah,-uh, Reverend.

Just, No.

Cause one thing's for sure, there's profound ironies involved here, particularly if you're one who subscribes to the particular historical agenda you so often here espouse, Reverend.

One thing I know from experience, though, is, once recognizing irony is off the table, pretty bad things are given to happen.

You might think of that before you speak on 'fallen' humanity.

Oh, Reverend, I was thinking of you and your base premises while having a little, *ahem* discussion with one of our resident Fundie trolls on the thread by a Mr. Gabriel Salguero, here.

Just in terms of the fruits your preaching bears, and maybe even why some of us get testy about what you say.

It's not that you don't think *enough* or can't come up with sophisticated thoughts.. It's your base premises.

It's the effects of what you say.

Comes out, too often, in the abuse our society calls 'Normal,' never mind how much the 'Righteous' can't seem to let the poor, or the queer, or the non-Christian have health benefits or human dignity, while demanding carte-blanche to perpetrate horrors without being even called on it.

Really, even, how you can be *so frightened* by the *violence* you talk so piously about ever happening to *you* that you're willing to dehumanize countless others if someone tells you that will 'save' you.

It doesn't save you.

If I were a Christian, I'd say it 'damns' you.

But things aren't that simple.

Just more hurt.

If your savior guy had anything to say, it was, 'This hurt ends with me.'

Wouldn't it be an irony if Pagans got that point before Christians did?

Anyway, take a look.

It's about what you say.

I would say that pragmatism doesn't enter into the torture 'debate,' Reverend, because it simply doesn't *work* in the 'life-saving' fantasy so often used to 'justify' torture as a policy.

You may call the rest of us 'Utopians' (again, unqualified to even say 'This is wrong' because we're not Christians, or Christians of *your* stripe, or any such.

Even if it weren't utterly offensive to the 'morals' you say we don't have, well, the sheer pragmatism of it is, it *doen't work* for anything but enforcing terror and letting the torturer (or armchair torturer) feel powerful.

It may 'work' to enforce repressive religion by psychologically-damaging the victims, and terrorizing would-be-dissenters, but it doesn't yield good intel, as the experience of witch-trials should amply demonstrate: in fact, such trials can be shown to mostly a) convince people to conform, lest they be tortured themselves, and b) force those complicit in the torture to believe that the people that were tortured must indeed be horrible and dangerous, or else they'd be horrible people for being terrorized into supporting it... thus terrorizing the populace whose authorities torture by forcing them to believe that they are in fact being protected from something far worse.

Part of the human mind actually can't tell the difference between what it sees happening to others and is happening to one's self.

This goes for all levels of abuse and torture.

All 'severities' of pain.

Chinese water torture is not *severe* pain, but it has the same damaging and dehumanizing effects.

You may think it's 'unrealistic' to behave as though we could completely-eliminate torture from the world.

That doesn't mean we have to do it.

It's funny how you apply far-less stringent standards to Christians torturing people than you do to the fact that, say, queer people and non-Christians and extramarital sex *exist.*

Torture is a crime against humanity, and it should never again be called anything else but such.

Well honestly Dr. Willis, if we are to dumb to get your hair splitting what make you think that the people hooking the suspects genitals to car batteries are any smarter? I have read the New Testament and think I am smart enough to have understood the message of the Christ. If his message is not pragmatic enough for you, why pretend to be his follower? As fuzzy and convoluted as you want to make it all appear, it couldn't be simpler.

Willis, you are starting to sound a bit too much like Jozevz. Certainly no worse an insult than your saying that your critics are starting to sound like Hitler.

Frankly, I have a hard time taking anyone who claims there is any religious or humanistic justification for torture seriously.

"I love you despite your hot-tempered explosion against me—that (among other things) I belong on “the intellectual trash heap.”

If you actually read the posts up there, I was agreeing with the person who said it.

I was told that those who abused me in the past did so out of 'love' too.. but you would torture me 'just a little bit' to see if 'MAYBE' I had any information you were looking for. According to you, 'some pain' is ok, as long as it isn't 'severe'. Nice. I know what unconditional love truly is, finally, and smug condescension isn't it.

Exactly what part of 'loving your neighbor as yourself' are you following?

The problem here is that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have it both ways. On the one hand you seem to want to define torture by your own standard and say that inflicting 'some' pain is ok while not getting 'severe'. On the other you don't want to appear completely heartless and cruel so you say that by definitions put in place as per the Geneva Conventions torture is never justified.

Again, sound and fury signifying.. nothing. May you never be in a position where people's lives are in your hands.

"I love you despite your hot-tempered explosion against me—that (among other things) I belong on “the intellectual trash heap.”

If you actually read the posts up there, I was agreeing with the person who said it.

I was told that those who abused me in the past did so out of 'love' too.. but you would torture me 'just a little bit' to see if 'MAYBE' I had any information you were looking for. According to you, 'some pain' is ok, as long as it isn't 'severe'. Nice.

Exactly what part of 'loving your neighbor as yourself are you following?'

Nuance is fine in debates about religion, but when it comes to hurting other people, that's where it should stop. If people don't understand you it's because you are willing to play games with other people's well being. And that is repugnant.

"You (most of you) are not of my religion, but tell me what my religion teaches."

Interesting. You don't like others to tell you about your religion, do you? but when it's Pagans you're talking about, you do exactly that. I would never claim to know what Christianity is- I would ask someone who says they are Christian what their faith is for them. And yet we're supposed to sit back and take it when you tell us what WE'RE about? Nice double standard, that.

If you were truly 'pragmatic', you'd know that most experts who have researched this stuff know that torture DOESN'T even work most of the time. People will say anything to get the pain to stop.

Beware of war mongers who rant and rave. It sure as hell wasn't us who got us into Iraq, was it?
This war would have been avoided if more of us were speaking out. If America had enlisted the help of other countries instead of being the big bully telling other countries how to live.

"I’m perplexed as to which you understand less: my religion, or me"

I wonder why.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN Willis E. Elliott 11.10,07, continued

One of you wondered whether I read all the comments on my entry. Yes, TWICE. I want to be fair to you, so I allow a bit of time to think about what you’ve said before I re-read.

Before I respond to comments I feel I must respond to, a few preliminary remarks:

1 Many comments (on this & other “On Faith” questions) are extra-categorical, not sticking to the question’s category. (“Categorical error” is the technical term for this.) Easy enough to explain. Each commenter (including me) is most interested in some particular category, so naturally tends to torture (root meaning, “twist”) questions in other categories into one’s particular category.
“On Faith” is itself categorical: