Gotta love that American Christianism.

Bob Altemeyer wrote a book that explores in depth this sort of twisted thinking, available free online: The Authoritarians.

That is, if you're actually interested in getting inside their heads. Ain't pretty.

Ahh, but how do they feel about sexual torture?

Didn't think of that, did they?

Yeah, well. The notion that torture is always a bad thing is quite recent, theologically speaking.

It's all about right/wrong and drawing clear lines. People who want the rules laid out so they don't have to think about them -- they use the Bible as a rulebook, not as a guide to further reflection.

A person is good or bad -- not a fallible human being who sometimes does good and sometimes does bad and has the potential at any moment to go either way. So if you're one of the 'good' people you can do anything you want to the 'bad' people.

A 'suspected' terrorist is as good (or as bad) as a terrorist. So no problem torturing. You can kill an animal, you have dominion over lesser creatures.

I'm guessing this is the thesis of "The Authoritarians" though I haven't read it.

I wonder where the Catholic Church, in particular, is on all of this . I do know they are spending millions to short circuit a law pending in NYS to open a one year window to allow adults who were raped by priests/nuns to sue now that the statute of limitations has elapsed. My guess is that ,because the Pope hasn't come out with a strongly worded piece of dogma, that the church thinks it's ok to torture detainees and rape kids without affording them their day in court (in both cases) but think homosexuals are going to hell.

Me thinks the Pope is going to be very surprised when he and his more ardent followers face their ultimate judgement.

Dante's 9th circle, for those who betray, is awaiting. What fun.

Speaking as a Christian divinity student, I cannot understand this. I am so very sorry.

It just boggles my mind that some Christians, whose God was tortured to death, would be so willing to accept it's use on their neighbor.

It makes more sense if one thinks of their professed christianity not as a religion but as a tribe.

Sex is bad, when other people have it. (corallary of IOKIYAR?)
Torture is ok, when its done to others. See the old studies about the electrical punishment.

Whats new here? That we haven't evolved much in 8000 years?

Too many of these "godly" assholes use religion to justify being assholes. Who they are doesn't flow from their "religious beliefs" It's the other way around.

You would think that cognitive dissonance would do 'em in.

Like the "Palestinian hanging" stress technique that resulted in at least one detainee death at the hands of US forces.

It has the same physiological effect as crucifixion. (The 'nails' add pain, but don't do the killing, it's asphyxiation from the stress position that kills)

So let's see, foreign invader in middle east country kills a swarthy local troublemaker by prolonged stress position/crucifixion. Sound familiar?

Seems pretty consistent to me. They want bad things to happen to "bad" people. It's rather childish, but it's not inconsistent.

Gee, what a surprise. People with strong religious beliefs hold absurd and contradictory viewpoints that don't make any sense to the rest of us. It's because they aren't confined by logic.

It's a personal perspective. Evengelicals know that they personally could be tempted by lust, but they don't see themselves as potential victims of torture (at least while they hang out in their suburban megachurches), and they "know" that we only torture bad people who want to harm them.

God so loved the world that he gave his only son but those who say they love him use him name to start wars, murdering his children, and to justify merciless torture of mere suspects that usually look different. They use their theology to exclude rather than include; to hate and marginalize rather than to love; to justify destruction of the planet for their profit rather than being good stewards of God's gifts. Well done, fake Christians!! God will be proud. Now, tell me again who the devil is here?

I guess if you sit in church every week staring at a bleeding guy nailed to a cross you kind of get inured to the idea of torture.

This is easy. I think abortion is wrong. However, not everything that is wrong should be illegal.

I got tired a long time ago of the Catholic Bishops telling me that I had to support a raise in the minimum wage or a nuclear freeze or oppose the death penalty; positions that are celebrated by the left but don't merit derision for crossing the line into religion being imposed on policy.

So, I decided to leave my faith at home and support pragmatic policy. If KSM gave it up for torture, then so be it.

This should go to show you: when it comes to cruelty to their fellow human beings, Muslims are pikers in comparison to Christians.

-Z

Stevio, to answer your question, the Catholic Church considers torture an intrinsic evil, and Pope Benedict has written that it is "never justified, under any circumstances."

What's the big surprise? If you don't believe in Jesus when you die, He will torture you forever.

One wonders whether northern evangelicals might have a less favorable view of torture than their southern counterparts. In other words, I think this is as much geographical as denominational, in that southerners of all faiths are more prone to support torture because of southern culture.

Yep. Same folks who said Bill Clinton was a criminal and impeached him for lying about a consensual sexual encounter in the White House -- but worshipped Bush and Cheney when they lied and tortured us into a war that killed thousands of young Americans and innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children. Sociopaths, one and all.

So, I decided to leave my faith at home and support pragmatic policy. If KSM gave it up for torture, then so be it.

Posted by: Jim on May 1, 2009 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK
****************************************************

That's a big 'IF' jimbo, and the answer to the hypothetical happens to be false. Look up what you are spewing before putting out false garbage, troll. In a February 9, 2006, White House press briefing, Bu$h homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend noted that Mohammed was not captured until more than a year AFTER the individuals planning the Library Tower attacks had concluded that the plot had been "canceled." Further note that a May 23, 2007, Bush administration fact sheet stated that the administration "broke up" the Library Tower plot "in 2002" -- before Mohammed was even captured.

Dude, you are a true bottom-dwelling putz; please, go crawl back in your hole. And c'mon, get real!

As a weekly church-goer, for me the message isn't don't go to church, but find the right church.

Adam Serwer's concerns were very much in line with my own: "[T]here is a large number of people committed to preventing consenting adults from having sex or getting married because of their sexual orientation who nevertheless think it's okay to beat or waterboard people and shove them in tiny boxes."
==========

The word "nevertheless" at the pivot point of the sentence above indicates that there is a contradiction between the hateful stuff before it and the hateful stuff after it.

What's the contradiction?

I frankly don't think this has anything to do with theology; it's sociological. Torture has become, alas, a partisan issue, and the more Republican the social group, the more likely it is to support torture. I'm Presbyterian, and I can definitely say that pro-torture Christians would be scarce in my [pretty liberal]congregation--but then so would Republicans. I might be wrong, but the cross-tabs would be telling. In any case, I chalk it up to yet another pernicious consequence for the faith of the Religious Right's corrupt bargain.

I wonder if their opinions would change if Jesus had been waterboarded instead of crucified?

"Land of the free, home of the international torturers."
The United States, where the Bill of Rights prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments, "for me but not for thee!"

This is what we've come to? These are American values? You torture apologists are pissing all over our most cherished values. That is profoundly UNAmerican, as are you. What the hell is the matter with you people?

Speaking as a Christian divinity student, I cannot understand this. I am so very sorry.

I suspect that a disproportionate number of "Christians" watch FOX News and get a very pro torture message beat into their heads. Just a guess, but when you're primary source of information is a filter of Republican talking point crap, you begin to agree, you're sense of morals notwithstanding. Torture is a purely Neocon message, taught in the church pews of FOX News.

This doesn't have much to do with their religious beliefs. Conservatives are disproportionately represented in church pews on a weekly basis. Conservatives are more likely to support the Bush/Cheney torture policies. However, it is scary that their religion doesn't better inform their moral outlook. IIRC, Jesus taught that we should do unto others as we would do unto Him.

Shorter Jim
I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and my personal savior, however, I reserve the right to reject the words and teaching of Christ.

Get real.

Reading comprehension WILL be on the final. Note that the use of "if" means that I am agnostic on whether KSM gave it up for torture or not. I am more convinced by arguments that even if torture is tactically useful, then it is not STRATEGICALLY useful.

Note, you did not address my explanation of a policy analysis that eschews my personal religious views for more pragmatic ones.

Note also that you did not address my observation that both left and right have contradictory policy stances regarding religion, economics, and science. One of my personal faves is genetically modified foods (I'm for). Most on the left (I'm generalizing for sure; but certainly the crunchy green left) hate it. I call it part of the left's war on science.

"bottom dwelling putz" My aren't we the gifted rhetoritician?

"So, I decided to leave my faith at home and support pragmatic policy. If KSM gave it up for torture, then so be it."

Jim, what torture advocates/apologists like you seem incapable of understanding is that a nation that approves or encourages its government's torture of non-citizens will inevitably, inexorably, eventually be tortured itself by that same government. If you think that a broad social consensus in favor of torture won't eventually result in its common use at home, you're an ignorant fool. If people like you determine policy on this issue, you are guaranteed that your daughter, or your grandson, or your great-grandchildren, will be in direct danger of being tortured by the United States government for crimes that are no more serious than opposition to the government. And those descendants of yours who are being waterboarded will damn your name and piss on your grave.

Yes, support runs high for torture at our local Sanctimonious & Monogamous Baptist & Deacons church.

Christianity is less a religion than a tribalism for many of these folks. It's a team thing.

Reading comprehension WILL be on the final.

You should probably have someone double-check your writing before you do that, because the sentence that you wrote says that you support pragmatic policy, so therefore you supported the torture of KSM, implying that you find torture to be a pragmatic policy even if you find it morally repulsive.

You may not have meant to say that, but that's how the way you structured your sentence makes it read.

Bluestatedon, the thought of my progeny micturating on my grave gives me pause. Torture is bad; you're right, I'm wrong. JK!

However, France in Algeria used coercive interrogation against the Algerians. I don't remember hearing about third or fourth generations of Frenchmen (women) living in fear of torture.

Again, my original comment was to explain why Evangelicals might have policy positions that were at odds with personal religious beliefs. The explanation is that we have been told, again and again, that religious beliefs are not legitimate bases for policy decisions.

Note, you did not address my explanation of a policy analysis that eschews my personal religious views for more pragmatic ones..."bottom dwelling putz" My aren't we the gifted rhetoritician?********************************

Jim, Proving that you are a pompous, arrogant asshole was really not necessary. Now, torture apologist, please "eschew" being such a blowhard, and do a little "policy analysis" on the a) increased level of danger that US torture policy poses to our civilians and servicepeople overseas, as well as b) the increased recruitment of extremists willing to do us harm as a result of the brutal torturing of their brothers and sisters, most of whom were innocent. Since you obviously so brilliant and scholarly, you may submit your abstract and references here for a thorough and fair critique. Putz.

Mnemosyne,
There are two conditions. IF KSM did not give it up for torture, then I support trying something else the next time we capture a foriegn national we suspect is plotting to commit acts of terror on US soil.
On the other hand, if KSM did give it up for torture, then the next time we capture a foreign national we suspect is plotting co commit acts of terror on US soil, grab the towels and a bucket and SURF"S UP!

I haven't read The Authoritarians (yet) or John Dean's book which references that guy, but I highly recommend cognitive linguist George Lakoff's book Moral Politics - How Liberals and Conservatives Think. It deals in generalizations and is perhaps only one way of looking at this stuff, but I found his thinking VERY useful. He divides people into those into the Strict Father model and the Nuturant Parent model. Those "Christians" [and although not a believer, I am always bothered the fact that all Christians get tarred by the right wing American Christian wing(nuts)] who think torture is OK obviously fall into the Strict Father model. And those are the same assholes who believe in capital punishment and probably beat their kids (which I personally believe is child abuse....OK I'm thinking George would put me in the Nurturant Parent category). Anyway, your local public library has the book. Check it out.

Bob Altemeyer’s work on authoritarian personalities really does explain the seeming contradiction between traditional Christian values, broadly defined, and the values of the modern American right. The key idea here is that authoritarian personalities are in constant defense of a particular cultural orthodoxy. In the name of the purity of this orthodoxy- it can be any ideology or religion- they are prepared to use extreme violence and oppression. The orthodoxies are swallowed whole without considering contradictions. Just think of the divide between Jesus’ teachings about wealth and the Republican dream of a society dedicated to nothing but wealth accumulation. By claiming the orthodoxy is under threat right-wing leaders (they are often sociopaths) can gain political power.

Authoritarianism in politics is nationalism. The race, or the people, or the ingroup become the central organizing principle of the state. Deviants, foreigners, political opponents- all the groups that threaten the purity are co-conspirators in an existential struggle against the true people of virtue. Rights only belong to the people of the ingroup. Everyone else- inferior races, terrorists, criminals, communists, even the poor, get arbitrary executive coercion. This is of course just what the American Republic with its inalienable rights and balance of power is set up against.

And Christianity is set up against political power of any kind, and indeed this world altogether. The teachings of Jesus guide us to give up our worldly life, to turn the other cheek, and to dwell on kingdom that is in heaven. It was Machiavelli, that ancient enemy of Christian virtue, who counseled princes to use every bloody-minded tactic to maintain power and achieve glory for the state. He is regarded as the first real modern secularist. The American right is nothing if not Machiavellian. It is an anti-Christian, anti-Enlightenment nationalistic power cult. Perhaps it is by no mistake that the American south seems more prone to authoritarian traditionalism. Ronald Inglehart’s World Values Survey suggests that authoritarianism is also a social trait. The poorer, less secure a society is the more “traditionalistic� it will be.

Get Real,
You're not a very good winner. I'm saying you won. I'm not trying to impose my religious views on anyone. Its been a couple of decades but I DO remember my Dewey's continuum of ends and means. If torture works do it; if not try something else. Note, no invocation of my personal views on a diety are imposed at all. Further note, I said that torture may be tactically useful but not strategically useful. But, overall the word is "useful," not good or bad.

I'll repeat it. Many Evangelicals have learned never to impose personal religious beliefs on policy decisions. We got it. You won. Happy?

I am more convinced by arguments that even if torture is tactically useful, then it is not STRATEGICALLY useful.

This phrase implies that you think the short term gains which could be gathered by torture aren't worth the long-term downsides of radicalizing the populace we're ostensibly trying to free? Or at least I'm guessing that's what you're saying, since tactic and strategy are synonyms.

OK, so putting aside the argument that torture is morally and ethically wrong, the argument that it's ineffective has been documented many, many times, often by interrogators themselves. A person will say anything to get the torture to stop, whether it's true or not, and often gives a large amount of false information that leaves our troops and operatives less effective by making them chase rabbit trails.

There's a great article about how the "Quiet men", America's interrogators in WW2, broke down hardcore SS military men by talking to them and playing ping-pong. Take a look: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html

Ahh, but how do they feel about sexual torture?

They believe it's OK. Unless the victim enjoys it. Then it's evil.

Ah, never mind; I see you've clarified your position.

Who knew there were so many Pontius Pilates amongst Christians?

One would rightly believe that Christians, would more identify with Jesus -- the tortured -- than Pontius Pilate -- the torturer -- given how the torture inflicted on Jesus by order of Pontius Pilate (flogging, crown of thorns, carrying your death-by-torture crucifixion device). But hey -- why let historical details muddy the waters?

I sayeth unto yee; wheresoever there are two sadistic hypocrites watching Fox News together, there also is the American Christian church.

Oddly, I find a more Christian outlook amongst the agnostics and irreligious by far these days.

Who would Jesus torture?

Well, as it turns out, if you read the Book of Revelation, quite a few people.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Fundamentalism is NOT Christian, any more than it is Jewish, Muslim or Hindu. Fundamentalism is its own religion, celebrating ignorance, bigotry, racial supremacy, war, the domination of women. Fundamentalism is the religious equivalent of fascism. Calling anyone who is a Fundamentalist a "Christian," "Muslim," "Jew" or "Hindu" is an insult to that religious tradition.

...they know not what they do...

Ahh, but how do they feel about sexual torture?

That depends on the number of wetsuits involved.

"Yeah, well. The notion that torture is always a bad thing is quite recent, theologically speaking." (MattF)

Well, not really. One of the first who spoke out against torture - and under extremely dangerous circumstances, was Friedrich Spee, a jesuit livin in the early 17th century. For details see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Spee

But then again: he always was an outsider in his church. They might canonize the last Pius, but this guy surely never is in danger of this.

I'm not a statistician, but some of the sample sizes in this study seem awfully small.

For instance, when measuring the attitude of the total population, the sample size is 742, but there are only:

122 White, non-Hispanic Catholics
150 White Mainline Protestants
174 White evangelical Protestants

(What aren't the opi nions of non-white churchgoers of any interest???)

It seems a bit suspect to measure the opinion of more than 66 million Catholics in this country based upon a sample of only 122.

I think it's pretty simple what this is about: racism and religious bigotry, two things which have been part and parcel of American Christianity since the nation's inception. Lynching was once a popular after-church affair. White evangelicals also aren't that exercised by routine police abuse of blacks and other minorities. They're resolutely for the death penalty as well, so it's really not that surprising that they've managed to fit torturing a few Muslims into their "moral" worldview and justify it by suggesting that "it saves innocent lives."

Of course the problem with focusing on all that "innocent" life is that it leaves so much other guilty life out there that is worthy of torture and death.

I'm a newbie here, so please tell me to choke it off if long posts in search of nuance are verboten. Or links or long quotes with some light (by MY lights, at least) in them.

Re torture: All this talk about torture this, and torture that, and discourse on whether it is effective, or in-, or “wrong� or what-ever. Torture is one or several people in a room with usually one powerless “subject,� looking with their eyes and maybe even their own miserable souls at what they are doing to another human being, with the electrical wires or the water tap or any of the other thingies that certain humans are so clever at devising. Very little talk about WHY individual humans torture other humans, person-to-person, so to speak. Here's one small place where some of that is thought over: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002387

"Reed College Professor Darius Rejali is one of the world’s leading thinkers and writers on the subject of torture and the consequences of its use for modern society.

“Torture is a sign that a government either does not enjoy the trust of the people it governs or cannot recruit informers for a surveillance system. In both cases, torture to obtain information is a sign of institutional decay and desperation, and torture accelerates this process, destroying the bonds of loyalty, respect and trust that keep information flowing. As any remaining sources of intelligence dry up, governments have to torture even more….

“Torture involves giving absolute power by one individual over another. Our founders knew that absolute power corrupts absolutely and that we shouldn’t even trust ourselves with absolute power. That is why they promoted limited government in politics, toleration of minorities in social life, and dignity in our relations with strangers. The history of slavery teaches us that this kind of power corrupts society, and history of torture shows how badly it damages states. Thomas Hobbes, whose national security credentials are impeccable, says it quite clearly in The Leviathan: “Accusations upon torture, are not to be reputed as testimonies� for what each prisoner confesses “tendeth to the ease of him that is tortured, not to the informing of the torturers.� People will say anything under torture to ease pain, says Hobbes, and this as far as he concerned, corrupted the judicial process and made all of us unsafe….

“Torture also gives a fake sensation of power to the executioner, [a] fact that has a positive feedback that further fuels more violence. “Psychological torture has persisted not because it necessarily works, but because of an institutional history of the practice. The interrogators themselves tend to believe in its efficacy, and no matter what you do, you can’t stop them once they start….�

“Torture may be compatible with democracy, but it is not compatible with liberalism, and we live in liberal democracies today. What I document in Torture and Democracy, is how modern liberal democratic states try to get around violating the dignity of others by becoming hypocrites. To this end, they use a lot of techniques that are physically painful, but don’t leave marks. A prisoner who doesn’t have marks is simply not credible when he makes the accusation of torture. So now they can say, “There was no torture see? So go home now.� Instead of embracing the ideals of dignity and freedom, states become cleverer in methods of oppression and deception. As John Locke said brilliantly in his Letter Concerning Toleration, a state that tortures is always a state of hypocrites….�

Hello, Jim:

"So, I decided to leave my faith at home and support pragmatic policy. If KSM gave it up for torture, then so be it."

Hmmm. Then it is not really faith, is it?

Granted, I completely accept the right that you have to reach a different conclusion than the Catholic bishops. However, that is not what you said. "I decided to leave my FAITH at home."

Not possible. You don't turn faith on and off that way. If you have faith, it is part of the total gestalt of who you are. You cannot turn it on or off.

Which means either you don't really have faith. You are just someone who pays lip service thinking it is enough. Or, you do in fact have faith, and your faith allows you to commit to acts of torture. That could well be the case.

Keep in mind, a person can have faith and still to horrible, horrible things. I think after WWII, we cannot deny that. Faith does not make you perfect, merely opens you to being transformed by the One you have faith IN. However, again, that is not how you phrased it. If you can so easily set your faith aside, you are a liar and a hypocrite. At least have the courage to say, "I am a Christian, a follower of the Crucified Christ, and I think we should torture KSM."

Now, as for personal faith being a basis for policy decisions, I would agree. Which is where you see the separation of the eschatological claims of a just society and the actual practice of good conservatives. However, I would think any liberal would realize that personal viewpoints are always going to shape how lawmakers develop and implement policy. I would say that actual justification of policy and law has to be more than "the Bible said so." We live in a pluralistic and secular society. Now, if following the law is a violation of the faith you are committed to, and you feel called to not follow the law, fine. Go for it. Realize that the consequences are not mitigated by your stand. However, it can be an important path to social change. It is not working with the pro-life crowd because the solidarity they are standing with are not the people most affected by their actions. They stand for the fetus. The fetus does not know or care what they do, so they cannot participate. The ones that actually can do something about this question are the ones doing it, and they have chosen to keep health care options available to all women.

Thus spake the divinity student...

Instant bumper-strip:

WHO WOULD JESUS TORTURE?

I want a dozen. WANT.

I call it part of the left's war on science.

Like being against the teaching of evolution in schools, and saying climate change isn't real, and that gays choose their orientation.

Oh, wait a minute...

I wonder if the people who it was planned to torture were named Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols would it still be just 'fine'? So far it seems torture is primarily restricted to 'foreigners' particularly those with Muslim sounding names. Those are the people that are guilty anyway. And if America tortures it's fine, because we don't make mistakes and we're always on the side of 'good'. Right. Yuk.

For what it's worth, I hope readers of this blog do realize that there are many Christians who abhor torture, unjust wars and the lies used to justify them. I'm saddened that so many Christians do accept or rationalize such evils, but certainly not all of us do. And the core of Christianity really is peace, forgiveness, and love, regardless of how many Christians have perverted or ignored those teachings. It is pretty typical, in fact, of human beings to twist ideals of democracy or freedom or brotherhood into their practical opposites.

Anyone who's seen (or read the reviews of) Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" already knew this about the hard-core Christianists.

"It just boggles my mind that some Christians, whose God was tortured to death, would be so willing to accept it's use on their neighbor." Posted by: Wapiti on May 1, 2009 at 9:35 AM

This is exactly why it's ok. If it was good enough for sinless Jesus, it's absolutely required for evildoers.

"A 'suspected' terrorist is as good (or as bad) as a terrorist. So no problem torturing." Posted by: zmulls on May 1, 2009 at 9:31 AM

To a reichwinger, the phrase "suspected terrorist" is the grammatical equivalent of "white rabbit." Accordingly, there is no such thing as an "innocent suspect;" the term itself is an oxymoron. Reagan's Attorney General, Ed Meese, said this explicitly:

"You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect." -- U.S. News and World Report, 10/14/85

Apologies to those who made any of these points before (and probably better). I'm short on time, and posted before reading the whole thread.

Ob snark:

Steve, if you too had to endure the torture of attending at least once-weekly church service, you too might be inured to torture.