|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Evangelicalism (American) and torture
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I had been under the impression that Jesus was not the kind of person who would torture another human. That the Commandment about "loving your Neighbour" was expanded by Jesus to include "loving your enemy"
So why are certain groups of Christians so keen to support torture of other humans?
This is actual polling, not just some post-evangelical person grumbling because he was kicked out of the church for being a heretic.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Here is the rationalisation of Ameritianity
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
This is the same bunch that fight to save blastocysts at the price of inflicting death and disablement on millions of their fellow citizens, while being content to leave yet further millions of children in poverty.
So yeah. Dogma rules the day, dogma that proclaims America has a manifest destiny. Is it any surprise that a spot of torture gets a pass with a wave of Old Glory?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
This is the same part of the church that has given us TV evangelists and wonky worship songs. Inflicting pain on others is part of their heritage.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Come now.
On the basis of a single article about a single poll, where we have no idea how terms were defined (if indeed they were defined at all), we're going to smear a whole branch of Christianity?
I wanna see the study. I want to know what the definitions were. In particular, I want to know if they defined the word "torture," as I am aware that a great many people take their mental parameters for that word from medieval rack and burning-at-the-stake type images.
I want to know if they took any trouble at all to get rid of confounding variables (such as geographical region of the US, political party, education, etc. etc. etc.) Not to mention the confounding issue of "people who like to spout off to telephone pollsters" vs "people who'd rather not answer these questions posed in this way right now."
I'll buy you doughnuts if they did.
Seriously, people who are pro-life and call themselves evangelical are therefore okay with torture? That's not the evangelicals I know. I think we've got some bullshit going.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped, in imposing their beliefs on the rest of the nation, the evangelical mainline set back stem cell research by over a decade, leaving millions to endured untreated terminal illnesses and severe disabilitie.
Ask the families who've watched their loved one devoured by Alzheimer's or ALS, or the C1 quad imprisoned in their own body, whether the religious right are capable of supporting torture, and you'll get an answer far stronger than anything I'd post up here.
Do all evangelicals think like this? Of course not, I don't tar all with the same brush. The majority, however, have either given their voice to this agenda, or refused to speak out against what's done in their name. If this poll doesn't represent them, let the majority speak out now.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Here is the rationalisation of Ameritianity
As a foreigner, who can't always read US humour, is that a genuine site or is it satire of the blunderbuss variety? It's very difficult to tell.
It would be even more disturbing if there really were people who look at life that way.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Lamb Chopped, in imposing their beliefs on the rest of the nation, the evangelical mainline ...
I don't tar all with the same brush. The majority, however, ...
Not all, just the majority.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
...the evangelical mainline set back stem cell research by over a decade, leaving millions to endured untreated terminal illnesses and severe disabilitie.
I'm all in favour of stem cell research, but this is exaggeration. We are not currently set to be curing millions of terminal illnesses with stem cell research in the next few years, but the ban was lifted in the US 3/4yrs back and the rest of the world carried on with the research regardless. It's valuable research, but its going to take time and the sort of direct benefit you describe is some way off. Anyone who died of Alzheimer's in the last few years (or the next few years) would have died with or without the ban.
Also to lay this on evangelical Christianity when the RCC is just as strongly against is a bit much.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
we're going to smear a whole branch of Christianity?
They're doing a pretty good job of smearing themselves.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I wanna see the study. I want to know what the definitions were.
Here is the poll report.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Granted that questions 20-28 are not reported, but the other questions do not (on a quick read through) ask about religious affiliation. And, that report only gives the percentage of respondants who gave particular answers to particular questions, with no attempt to see if there are any correlations between responses. So, on the basis of that data there's no support for the assertions of the report linked to in the OP.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
That puzzled me as well, Alan. Perhaps there are more detailed datasets available on request? (Possibly you have to pay for them?).
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
At the risk of making a "no true scottsman" argument, I think it really is a reflection of "civil religion" rather than evangelicalism per se. There is a tendency among all groups, not just American evangelicals, to adopt certain labels, identify w/ various belief systems, w/o really thinking thru critically and thoughtfully the implications of those beliefs and whether or not they are consistent with other areas of your life (e.g. religion and politics). George W Bush was particularly adept, for example, at holding incongruous, dissonant beliefs w/o seeming to find any need to reconcile them.
So the study shows that there is a large segment of America that self-identifies as "evangelical Christian" and also as "conservative Republican". I don't think there's any real surprise there. The fact that those American evangelical Republicans don't always think through the dissonance between those two beliefs is also not news, and also not particularly unique to American evangelicals, although (as a left-wing evangelical) it can be fun to point out.
The way *I* would define "evangelical" (more historic understandings) would probably exclude a lot of those who responded to the survey. But that's my definition. Because of my political positions, they would probably define "evangelical" in a way that excludes me. So, as Lamb Chopped indicated, it all comes down to terms. Which is why a lot of the younger, more progressive evangelicals (by my definition) no longer self-identify as evangelical.
Really, what the study highlights to me is simply these two questions:
1. Is the historic sense of the term "evangelical" worth reclaiming, or is it time to just give up and let it become a Republican buzzword and coin a new term for those who reflect the more historic (Bebbington quadrilateral) understanding of the term?
2. How can we encourage all of us to be more thoughtful and consistent in integrating our core beliefs into every area of life, recognizing areas of cognitive dissonance and engaging in thoughtful re-examination.
[ 17. December 2014, 14:00: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
A comment in the OP link rings a bell but I hear it's ring differently than it seems at face value because I've spent years in a Bible study group of people are pro-life and pro death penalty and pro torture etc.
quote:
"What is the one common trait uniting all of that 69 percent of white evangelicals applauding CIA torture? They’re “pro-life,” of course.
"Pro-life" in this group doesn't mean valuing everyone's life. The other side of this pro-life coin is believing an eternal hell of torment beyond human imagining is right and holy and just. Pro-life is a partial expression of the deeper belief "you deserve the consequences of your actions".
Pro-life is the consequence the innocent deserve, un-born and babies haven't done anything so there should be no consequences.
A woman who had sex deserves the consequences of her actions - not that sex is always wrong, but if you are going to have sex you should accept whatever the consequences are, whether the joy of motherhood or death if that's what the pregnancy will do to her.
A prisoner obviously did wrong or he wouldn't be in prison, so whatever abuse he gets there (and more!) is just the consequences of his behavior, if he doesn't like it he shouldn't have done the crime. Capital punishment is the appropriate consequence for really evil deeds.
"We" (Christians, Americans) are by definition good and so the consequences we deserve are only good. America was founded by God, don't you know. Anyone who opposes "us" deserves hell. If he gets tortured now, (shrug) he deserves it.
When Shrub started his post 911 wars some local preachers were suggesting he was a "prophet of God," actively endorsing war and torture in sermons, calling for more wars, USA should force other countries (those evil countries) to adopt our ways, whoever gets hurt in the process - women and children, taxi drivers mistaken for enemy operatives, deserves the pain because as one church elder said to me "they are dirty people."
And that is what "pro-life" means to a loud subset of Christians. Pro *innocent* lives, not pro all lives. The non-innocent - including all non-Christians but most actively anyone who opposes USA, capitalism, or Christians - deserve to be hurt as hard and as often as anyone cares to inflict. It's what is right. It's justice. It's the just consequence of their behavior.
That's what I hear when I read "pro-life" in that kind of article or setting. It's taken me a long time to understand why "pro-life" means "pro-death penalty." To the gals in that Bible study, there is no contradiction, it's all about justice, God wants us to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
Love is subordinate to justice. God does not love and welcome sinners, they get justice. We should imitate God.
And isn't that the conclusion you have to come to if you believe God sends most of humanity to eternal torture? If God so hates his enemies he treats them with utter viciousness, then "love your enemies" doesn't mean what it sounds like to childish ears. It actually means imitate God by giving them the punishment they deserve.
Maybe if they suffer enough the consequences of their actions they'll repent of their evil ways and turn to God and escape hell? I heard that once, I don't know if it mainstream for the "pro-life" people.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
That's what I hear when I read "pro-life" in that kind of article or setting. It's taken me a long time to understand why "pro-life" means "pro-death penalty." To the gals in that Bible study, there is no contradiction, it's all about justice, God wants us to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
Love is subordinate to justice. God does not love and welcome sinners, they get justice. We should imitate God.
And isn't that the conclusion you have to come to if you believe God sends most of humanity to eternal torture? If God so hates his enemies he treats them with utter viciousness, then "love your enemies" doesn't mean what it sounds like to childish ears. It actually means imitate God by giving them the punishment they deserve.
Yes, that's my observation as well-- although I would caution that the group may be smaller, older, and more geographically isolated than they appear. They are, as you note, LOUD which makes them appear more dominant than they are.
Where I would differ is that I don't think these are "natural conclusions" of their belief systems. I think they are quite the opposite of the natural conclusions of essential core evangelical beliefs (Bebbington quadrilateral). These dissonant beliefs are demonstrative, I suspect, not of any thoughtful reasoned process, but of the reverse. They come from listening to a hodge-podge of religious and political leaders (with apparently equal authority) and adopting a cafeteria plan of politicly and socially expedient beliefs without careful examination of mutually exclusive tenets. It is precisely the sort of biforcated belief system the Shrub demonstrated-- each of these beliefs are kept in a mutually self-contained box without ever considering one in light of the other.
Again, I don't think this tendency to hold dissonant, unreflected, biforcated belief systems is unique to American evangelicals, but it does seem to have particularly odd results among my brethren.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Bear in mind, when the term "Evangalical" is used with respect to Christianity in the US, it includes a host of beliefs/practices and is strongly aligned with far right of center political positions. Pro death penalty, anti-abortion, Climate Change denial, Creationism (Young Earth or other)... American Exceptionalism is usually a part of that as well, as they see the US as God's Chosen Nation.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Here is the rationalisation of Ameritianity
As a foreigner, who can't always read US humour, is that a genuine site or is it satire of the blunderbuss variety? It's very difficult to tell.
It would be even more disturbing if there really were people who look at life that way.
Sadly, that's not a satire site.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
A prisoner obviously did wrong or he wouldn't be in prison, so whatever abuse he gets there (and more!) is just the consequences of his behavior, if he doesn't like it he shouldn't have done the crime.
This brings to mind an episode of a certain true-crime TV show popular over here, which featured a certain Arizona county sheriff known for his ultra-right-wing views and demeaning and humiliating treatment of prisoners.
The episode showed the sheriff mingling with prison inmates and asking them questions about the "treatment" they were receiving. The jail, known locally as Tent City, consists of non-air-conditioned tents erected in the middle of the desert, where summer temperatures regularly hover around 110 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. Food (for which prisoners are charged money, by the way) consists primarily of sandwiches made from slightly spoiled luncheon meat.
The sheriff asked one particular inmate, who complained about the food and temperature of the cell, if he had ever been jailed elsewhere. The inmate replied that yes, he had been jailed in Kansas City. "Did you like the way you were treated there?" the sheriff asked him. "Yes," the inmate replied. "Well, then," said the sheriff, "why don't you go back to Kansas City and commit your crimes there?"
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Here is the rationalisation of Ameritianity
As a foreigner, who can't always read US humour, is that a genuine site or is it satire of the blunderbuss variety? It's very difficult to tell.
It would be even more disturbing if there really were people who look at life that way.
Sadly, that's not a satire site.
Yup, deadly serious, including (from that link) quote:
"We owe the Bush Administration tremendous gratitude for keeping the USA safe from more attacks. Even in doing so, those interrogated still have their heads, their eyes, their limbs, and their lives. We've had enough of the Obama pretentious "moral high ground". We expect our elected leaders to do all that is needed to keep America safe and free.
Note the insistence more attacks would have happened if Bushy had not declared war on countries that had done USA no harm. The denial that anyone "interrogated" suffered any permanent injury or death, in spite of widespread news reports otherwise. The disdain for morality. It's about us vs them, and anything we do to help us is fair including things we believe utterly wrong if others do it to us.
I hear views like these expressed regularly in casual conversation.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Granted that questions 20-28 are not reported, but the other questions do not (on a quick read through) ask about religious affiliation. And, that report only gives the percentage of respondants who gave particular answers to particular questions, with no attempt to see if there are any correlations between responses. So, on the basis of that data there's no support for the assertions of the report linked to in the OP.
Thanks, Alan. You've pointed out just what I would have said, and done it far better.
It's frustrating not having the breakdown of correlations.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Bear in mind, when the term "Evangalical" is used with respect to Christianity in the US, it includes a host of beliefs/practices and is strongly aligned with far right of center political positions. Pro death penalty, anti-abortion, Climate Change denial, Creationism (Young Earth or other)... American Exceptionalism is usually a part of that as well, as they see the US as God's Chosen Nation.
Evangelicalism is much more of a mish-mash than that. At least it was when I went to school with a ton of them.
The folks I went to school with would never have condoned torture in any way. Nor were they into American Exceptionalism (heck, a lot of them were immigrants). They were certainly pro-life, and a lot of that went into helping poor people, single mothers, etc. In short, they were do-gooders and very tenderhearted with it.
I refuse to believe that all of Evangelicalism outside of So. California is completely different.
And judging by televangelists, etc. has long been a dangerous sport if you want to know what the real people of that church body are like. Getting into the media seems to rot people's brains, no matter which branch of Christianity they claim.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Cliffdweller, I don't know what's ahead for the word "evangelical," but its history is even more complicated, as it is the original designation of the now-called Lutheran church. And a shedload of us all still use it in our churches' formal names (e.g. St. Peter Evangelical Lutheran Church). To the point that if you ask a Lutheran if he or she is evangelical, you're very likely to get a long, long pause, as he/she works out exactly how to answer you...
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Come now.
On the basis of a single article about a single poll, where we have no idea how terms were defined (if indeed they were defined at all), we're going to smear a whole branch of Christianity?
Well, you can take a look at the Pew Study a few years ago if you want something with a lot more data and definitions behind it:
http://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/29/the-religious-dimensions-of-the-torture-debate/
It comes to much the same conclusion.
quote:
Seriously, people who are pro-life and call themselves evangelical are therefore okay with torture? That's not the evangelicals I know. I think we've got some bullshit going.
I think there are a fair number of evangelicals who have inconsistencies in their belief. To pick another example; the evangelicals who speak against homosexual acts will rarely if ever speak about the absolute epidemic of rape that exists in US prisons (except to joke about it).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Cliffdweller, I don't know what's ahead for the word "evangelical," but its history is even more complicated, as it is the original designation of the now-called Lutheran church. And a shedload of us all still use it in our churches' formal names (e.g. St. Peter Evangelical Lutheran Church). To the point that if you ask a Lutheran if he or she is evangelical, you're very likely to get a long, long pause, as he/she works out exactly how to answer you...
Yes, exactly. Most academics will quote you the Bebbington quadrilateral as the definition of "evangelical", but most self-identified American evangelicals wouldn't recognize it if they tripped over it.
I teach in one of the larger evangelical colleges-- I've seen huge shifts in evangelicalism in the last 10 years. The big debate now is whether to try to reclaim the name or abandon it altogether, with many younger evangelicals (by the Bebbington definition) referring to themselves as post-evangelical or neo-evangelical, if they use the term at all.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Chris Stiles, that's a heckuva small sample size (174 white evangelicals? Where are the nonwhites? They do exist) and if you look at "can often be justified," the Roman Catholics come out worse at 19%. And in fact, all the religious groups listed come out within a few points of each other ("can often be justified" ranges from 12 to 19, with RC in the lead; "can sometimes" is 25 to 44, with white evangelicals in the lead; etc. etc.)
What I'm getting at is that smearing a group of people that has to be in the millions because of this poll (small sample; confounding factors--seriously, white evangelical?; broadly similar results with other Christians; respondents probably self-identified without guidance from polltaker)...
to smear a whole group is just plain nasty. And wrong. And to then dive into their presumed reasons for being nasty and wrong (pro-life? hateful?) is just piling more insult on injury.
Seriously, I'd feel this way if the group we were all piling on was the Mormons, instead of the evangelicals. And I hold no brief for the LDS church.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Cliffdweller, I had to go look up the quadrilateral and it's a pretty good reason why the Lutherans will go "er, um" when you ask them if they are evangelicals. The conversionism bit is the biggest stumbling block, but they would also want to qualify the other stuff in various ways (for example, crucicentrism will trigger a long debate about the proper role of the Resurrection in faith and life). But thanks for the pointer, it's interesting to see it all laid out that way. LC/doesn't get out much ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Chris Stiles, that's a heckuva small sample size (174 white evangelicals? Where are the nonwhites? They do exist)
Well, the whole point of polling is to pick a representative sample - if you have a beef with their methodology direct your critiques that way.
Besides - where are the dissenting evangelical voices?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Chris Stiles
I think there are a fair number of evangelicals who have inconsistencies in their belief.
Inconsistent according to what ? Different people have different moral frameworks so surely two issues that are linked by a common principle for you may not be for someone else.
I am ambivalent what I think about torture. The fact that I have a fairly clear opinion about abortion and the death penalty hasn't automatically led me to any definite position.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Let's try a different set of figures. Between 2002 and 2012, 15,462 women were killed by their "intimate partners" (who one assumes were usually male), according to one respectable study. Another, Bureau of Justice, study shows 10,470 women killed by partners between 2002 and 2010. So, either 1550 or 1310 women killed per year, say as a mean 1430, or almost exactly 3.5 per day.
Given the "Christian" nature of the US, and the indication that Christians have behaviours barely distinguishable from "the rest", one gets at least 2 women each day, killed by their intimate partner who is Christian.
In most cases these women have been tortured to the breaking point before the execution happens - escape is usually the trigger for slaughter.
But these Christians are theoretically bound by the OT commandment about "not doing murder", let alone by the usually-forgotten commandment from Jesus to "love one another".
The number of victims exceeds the total of all deaths of Americans in the various acts of war that have followed 9/11.
(And I am sure that similar figures show up in many other countries, even the "Christian" ones)
So, yes, doing torture and murder is quite acceptable for Christians, so acceptable that most churches say nothing at all about it.
Oh, sorry, forgot to add: source: Politifact
[ 17. December 2014, 20:45: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
quote:
originally posted by Chris Stiles
I think there are a fair number of evangelicals who have inconsistencies in their belief.
Inconsistent according to what ? Different people have different moral frameworks so surely two issues that are linked by a common principle for you may not be for someone else.
That can happen, especially when you allow for the fact that pretty much every case has at least 2 principles at work and there may be doubt as well.
But at the same time the principles do matter, if you claim (and the stronger you claim) the principle, you claim the principle and there are some things that just aren't consistent.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Chris Stiles, that's a heckuva small sample size (174 white evangelicals? Where are the nonwhites? They do exist)
In fact, nonwhite evangelicals are the majority in the world, and even probably in the US. (Of course, as noted above, how one defines "evangelical" is slippery).
But that's probably the point of the survey-- it does feel like it was taken to promote an agenda (not the best of research designs, of course)-- that conservative white evangelicals are hypocritical. And there's some truth to that, as the study shows. But it's also not particularly news. A better research design would have yielded more interesting data that would have dug a bit deeper as to why these disparities exist, and what they look like within other groups.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Cliffdweller, I had to go look up the quadrilateral and it's a pretty good reason why the Lutherans will go "er, um" when you ask them if they are evangelicals. The conversionism bit is the biggest stumbling block, but they would also want to qualify the other stuff in various ways (for example, crucicentrism will trigger a long debate about the proper role of the Resurrection in faith and life). But thanks for the pointer, it's interesting to see it all laid out that way. LC/doesn't get out much
Yes, Lutherans are not usually included by academics among those defined as "evangelical", even though there are Lutheran denoms with "evangelical" in their name. It's a slippery term, with various meanings at different points in time and in different cultural contexts, which is why research on "evangelicals" tends to be all over the map, because defining the term is so difficult.
[ 17. December 2014, 22:10: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm all in favour of stem cell research, but this is exaggeration. We are not currently set to be curing millions of terminal illnesses with stem cell research in the next few years, but the ban was lifted in the US 3/4yrs back and the rest of the world carried on with the research regardless. It's valuable research, but its going to take time and the sort of direct benefit you describe is some way off. Anyone who died of Alzheimer's in the last few years (or the next few years) would have died with or without the ban.
Also to lay this on evangelical Christianity when the RCC is just as strongly against is a bit much.
If the thread were about the Catholic Church, I'd say the exact same thing. It isn't, so I didn't.
Lifting the funding ban doesn't undo the damage of a decade of retardation. Scientists who would've done regenerative work have gone elsewhere. In some cases, funding never recovered. A single whack job Senator blocked the Christoper and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act 'cause he thought he was a conspiracy to fund embryonic stem cell research on the Q.T. In consequence, the proposed clinical trial network was never founded.
We don't know how quickly research would've reached patients. We do know that it moves a helluva lot faster with funding, and without clinical trials, it'll never reach patients. The preliminary successes in the trials now underway suggest it's a lot closer than we might think. That could've started over a decade ago, and thanks to the religious right, it didn't.
Even if there'd have been no progress, they were willing for others to suffer for their beliefs.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Let's try a different set of figures. Between 2002 and 2012, 15,462 women were killed by their "intimate partners" (who one assumes were usually male), according to one respectable study. Another, Bureau of Justice, study shows 10,470 women killed by partners between 2002 and 2010. So, either 1550 or 1310 women killed per year, say as a mean 1430, or almost exactly 3.5 per day.
Given the "Christian" nature of the US, and the indication that Christians have behaviours barely distinguishable from "the rest", one gets at least 2 women each day, killed by their intimate partner who is Christian.
[/URL]
*huge, completely unsubstantiated leap there*. Hellishly so, actually. There's a gap between para 1 and 2 you could drive a whole fleet of Mack trucks through.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
quote:
originally posted by Chris Stiles
I think there are a fair number of evangelicals who have inconsistencies in their belief.
Inconsistent according to what ? Different people have different moral frameworks so surely two issues that are linked by a common principle for you may not be for someone else.
That can happen, especially when you allow for the fact that pretty much every case has at least 2 principles at work and there may be doubt as well.
But at the same time the principles do matter, if you claim (and the stronger you claim) the principle, you claim the principle and there are some things that just aren't consistent.
I agree. And I think it's a real moral problem. I'm just not sure it's a real moral problem that is unique to American evangelicals. This particular example might be unique to American evangelicals, but the problem of unreflectively holding inconsistent and mutually exclusive moral & religious principles is not IMHO unique. So what can we do about it?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
That can happen, especially when you allow for the fact that pretty much every case has at least 2 principles at work and there may be doubt as well.
But at the same time the principles do matter, if you claim (and the stronger you claim) the principle, you claim the principle and there are some things that just aren't consistent.
I agree. And I think it's a real moral problem. I'm just not sure it's a real moral problem that is unique to American evangelicals. This particular example might be unique to American evangelicals, but the problem of unreflectively holding inconsistent and mutually exclusive moral & religious principles is not IMHO unique. So what can we do about it?
Not sure.
The first thing (I'm trying to work towards) is to not be part of the problem.
If something doesn't fit nicely to try and note it. Not to dance back to the position as soon as no-ones looking (and definitely not to do so cynically). If you have to spin the facts, stop.
The second thing is probably to try and engage with people, again as sincerely as possible. Partly in the hope that they'll point out where I'm wrong, or where things sincerely disagree. Partly for the occasions where you see it clearly in others. You learn what you might be doing elsewhere, and maybe you can force them to notice.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
As for whether evangelicalism's incidental, and this is driven, as cliffdweller says, by civil religion, I think a common thread links both creeds: dogmatic thinking. Such thinking tramples over people for the sake of an ideal.
U.S. civil religion preaches manifest destiny and American exceptionalism, both embraced by those evangelicals who believe that God has set America apart. It's a thread that goes right back to the City on a Hill puritans in Massachusetts Bay.
Belle Ringer hits a crucial point: in hell, evangelicalism already countenances torture of a severity and duration that even Dick Cheney would balk at. That belief, combined with jingoism, can so easily tip over into dehumanizing anyone beyond your borders. If they're not you, they're against you.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
A better research design would have yielded more interesting data that would have dug a bit deeper as to why these disparities exist, and what they look like within other groups.
I don't think it is - I think it is an entirely fair question to ask in isolation given the particular electoral calculus of american voting patterns.
quote:
Originally posted by: Byron
U.S. civil religion preaches manifest destiny and American exceptionalism, both embraced by those evangelicals who believe that God has set America apart. It's a thread that goes right back to the City on a Hill puritans in Massachusetts Bay.
Absolutely, the issue is though that American evangelicals of a certain stripe have chosen to buy into this in greater numbers than the general population.
quote:
Belle Ringer hits a crucial point: in hell, evangelicalism already countenances torture of a severity and duration that even Dick Cheney would balk at. That belief, combined with jingoism, can so easily tip over into dehumanizing anyone beyond your borders. If they're not you, they're against you.
I think this is true if one has a view of hell that allows for a certain sense of personal vengeance - which is probably where things go wrong. There is nothing necessarily incompatible between viewing hell as a divine judgement and yet at the same time being against torture because of a belief in the imago dei. This is the line various catholic thinkers have taken as an example.
[ 17. December 2014, 23:48: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Why is it that the groups that make the loudest noise about "Bible-centric" tend to be the ones that don't actually read any of the bits that most of us think are pretty central?
"Judge not lest ye be judged" was stated by a Person who had some claim to authority in that Bible, but judgment seems to be the highest duty of the anti-gays, the anti-blacks, the anti-Obama', the anti-Democrats, the "pro-lifes"*...
Any suggestion of loving one's neighbour is shouted down when that neighbour happens to have the wrong skin, or costume.
"Let he who is without sin" is vigorously opposed on the grounds that it wasn't really in the Bible in the first place!
and on, and on. Hell, I'm not a Christian, I'm only a cradle Anglican!
It would be relatively OK if they just ran their own lives that way, although I still have pity for their wives and kids, but they also insist on evangelising everyone up to the Pope.
And a subset of them want to set off the Rapture by force of arms in the Middle East. Why do they assume they have that right?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Chris Stiles, that's a heckuva small sample size (174 white evangelicals? Where are the nonwhites? They do exist)
Well, the whole point of polling is to pick a representative sample - if you have a beef with their methodology direct your critiques that way.
Besides - where are the dissenting evangelical voices?
I AM directing it their way. You didn't think I was holding you personally responsible, did you?
As for where the dissenting voices are--they're out there, oh yes, but there are very few on the Ship, if that's what you're asking. We seem to have lost almost all of our evangelicals. Which is why I'm here mouthing off instead of a better representative.
If you mean "Why aren't they in the news?" it's the old thing of extremism being more newsworthy than moderation. You'd have to go trawling through Christian magazines etc to find them, as they aren't likely to make it to primetime. Seriously, where's the news editor who's going to run a story like "Majority of white evangelicals find torture rarely if ever allowable"? Which, unless I've done my mental math wrong, is precisely the story we have with this poll here--just refocused in a less inflammatory way.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
fwiw, I am a pro-life evangelical, and I find torture despicable.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There are times when someone says something about American civic religion, especially some of the bizzare things a minority of evangelicals believe as part of that civic religion, that I think maybe Steve Langton is onto something.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
That's not Constantinianism, it's Reconstructionism.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I AM directing it their way. You didn't think I was holding you personally responsible, did you?
I meant that it isn't sufficient to just pick up a small sample size - you need to show why you feel it is unrepresentative and/or why the difference would be within the range explainable by the margin of error caused by a small sample.
quote:
If you mean "Why aren't they in the news?" it's the old thing of extremism being more newsworthy than moderation. You'd have to go trawling through Christian magazines etc to find them
Yes, but I'm an evangelical. I am trawling through christian magazines and the US evangelical blogosphere and finding very little.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm sorry to hear that. My suspicions are the same as those mentioned before, namely, that the editors don't find it newsworthy.
As for why the sample is improper--come on, it's 173 white evangelicals standing in the place of a population variously estimated to be between 26 and 39 percent of US adults. They'd never do it for a presidential election (well, yes, they would, they're always desperate for soundbites, but that doesn't make it proper statistics).
Now look at the skew. Not only has the nonwhite dimension apparently dropped out (at least it's not being considered under total evangelicals), but the sample is further skewed by the fact that the only people who are counted in that sample are people with the patience to get more than halfway into a phone poll that is ca. 30 minutes long, judging by the script I read. Seriously, who does that except the political diehards and people with an overdeveloped sense of poll responsibility? The form of the poll probably rules out most ordinary people (parents of small children, for instance) by its very length--and that required not at a time of their own choosing.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm sorry to hear that. My suspicions are the same as those mentioned before, namely, that the editors don't find it newsworthy.
Which is entirely the point - it's a moral issue, but apparently evangelical leaders and publications either can't see that or don't want to address it.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
