Thread: Evangelicalism (American) and torture Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028838
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
Here is the rationalisation of Ameritianity
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
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?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
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.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
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.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
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.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
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.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I wanna see the study. I want to know what the definitions were.
Here is the poll report.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
That puzzled me as well, Alan. Perhaps there are more detailed datasets available on request? (Possibly you have to pay for them?).
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
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.
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
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.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
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?"
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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...
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
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).
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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)
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
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?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
And another survey, from 2008
http://publicreligion.org/research/2008/09/southern-white-evangelicals-on-torture/
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
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.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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?
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
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.
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on
:
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.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
fwiw, I am a pro-life evangelical, and I find torture despicable.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Hey, me too! Though I'm evangelische, not evangelical.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
That's not Constantinianism, it's Reconstructionism.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I just did a 30 second dip into Christianity Today's website and found a bunch of stuff on the subject--see http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/topics/t/torture/ (sorry,computer won't do URL for some reason). Maybe there's more out there and you just haven't seen it?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
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.
Which means they didn't get young evangeliclas (most of whom wouldn't have a land line for the poll takers to call). In my experience, younger evangelicals are vastly different to older evangelicals, particularly on political and social issues. Since I spend my days teaching young evangelicals in an evangelical setting, I think I'm seeing a pretty fair cross section of that population. I wonder, too, how broad the geographic distribution covered by the study might be (evangelicalism in America varies greatly from region to region). Coupled with the exclusion of nonwhite evangelicals, it's really measuring a very narrow skew. Which is fine-- studies can study very specific populations for specific reasons. The problem is the results are being applied to a much larger population, and that's just not accurate or true.
The biggest question is, again, the definition of "evangelical", a word that is so notoriously fluid in it's definition that there has been significant debate among the research community about how one can possibly undertake this sort of study. That doesn't make it a bad study-- just a difficult one. But it does mean that this research, like pretty much all research re: evangelicalism, needs to be bracketed by the definition it's using.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
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?
Every denomination ignores some parts of the Bible, moving things to just the past or just the future or other kinds of explaining away passages they don't like.
quote:
"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 gals in my Bible study believe we are commanded to judge, Paul says kick a wrongdoer out of your group, for example. If God's most widespread, important, and most eternity affecting behavior is judgment (sending most people to hell) and we are to imitate God, then judging is the highest duty!
The enemies you are to love are *Christians* who mistreated you. Not people who have rejected God as proved by such things as their lifestyle or voting habits. quote:
a subset of them want to set off the Rapture by force of arms in the Middle East.
Well, see, you are supposed to want Jesus' return more than anything else, more than you want world peace, which after all is a fake and deceptive peace because only God's peace is real. The way to end all the evil problems of this world is for Jesus to return and judge and condemn all the evil doers so we can be free of them at last, the sooner the better, and if we can help make that happen... Sigh, reminds me of Abraham helping God give him a son.
Some posts upthread have pointed out the common human ability to hold two opposing views simultaneously, but I'm talking about a very consistent mindset. Hell proves God is judgmental and punitive, when we judge and punish we join God in God's holy work.
A friend wrote a song that included a line "Jesus forgives us but only if we repent." I said that's not true, Jesus forgave everyone from the cross before anyone repented. She stuck out her jaw and said "that's what the Baptist church teaches."
And there you have it. You are forgiven and loved only if you repent. All the generous verses in the Bible are for only the repentant. Everyone else is unforgiven, which means guilty, which means deserves whatever harsh treatment falls on them.
This had been acted out throughout church history, lots of killing people just for not believing in God "rightly" meant they were "enemies" who "deserved punishment". The Puritans in Massachusetts killed any natives who wouldn't convert. You are one of us or you deserve the worse we can do to you, we represent God in punishing you.
I keep wondering - we use the same book but do we worship the same God?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I just did a 30 second dip into Christianity Today's website and found a bunch of stuff on the subject--see http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/topics/t/torture/ (sorry,computer won't do URL for some reason). Maybe there's more out there and you just haven't seen it?
Possibly. Though I already took a look at CT - there is two or three articles that date back to the time of Abu Gahrib. There is a single article - quoting no one - on the most recent report. The other links are to references to torture occurring in the developing world and China over the last decade or so.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I just did a 30 second dip into Christianity Today's website and found a bunch of stuff on the subject--see http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/topics/t/torture/ (sorry,computer won't do URL for some reason). Maybe there's more out there and you just haven't seen it?
Possibly. Though I already took a look at CT - there is two or three articles that date back to the time of Abu Gahrib. There is a single article - quoting no one - on the most recent report. The other links are to references to torture occurring in the developing world and China over the last decade or so.
But that's what you want. You don't want just a flash-in-pan kneejerk response to the latest media blitz-- here today, gone tomorrow. You want a regular, consistent theme, emphasized repeatedly and applied in different situations/contexts.
CT is a monthly journal. The torture report came out only a week ago. I would prefer they take the time to do a thoughtful, well crafted response than just throw something up on the website fast to capitalize on the latest thing and then move on.
fwiw, I'm a CT subscriber. IMHO they are variable on these things-- some well crafted, thoughtful articles that challenge conventional, comfortable evangelical assumptions, as well as others that are predictable, easy answers. So I'm not saying that next month there'll be a great article that addresses the concerns raised here. I'm just saying it's too soon to say.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But that's what you want. You don't want just a flash-in-pan kneejerk response to the latest media blitz-- here today, gone tomorrow. You want a regular, consistent theme, emphasized repeatedly and applied in different situations/contexts.
I really don't think they are particularly consistent. The other articles were mainly about persecution of religious minorities abroad. The average monthly news magazine (just to compare it with something like The Economist or even Newsweek) had far more articles on Abu Gahrib at the time.
Also, I don't think slicing and dicing the evangelical demographic in an attempt to prove that they are only as bad as the average american
is a winning strategy.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But that's what you want. You don't want just a flash-in-pan kneejerk response to the latest media blitz-- here today, gone tomorrow. You want a regular, consistent theme, emphasized repeatedly and applied in different situations/contexts.
I really don't think they are particularly consistent. The other articles were mainly about persecution of religious minorities abroad. The average monthly news magazine (just to compare it with something like The Economist or even Newsweek) had far more articles on Abu Gahrib at the time.
.
But those are news magazines. CT is not-- it's a religious journal. Not an accurate comparison, really.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Also, I don't think slicing and dicing the evangelical demographic in an attempt to prove that they are only as bad as the average american is a winning strategy.
But it seems rather that the reverse is happening here-- slicing and dicing the evangelical demographic to prove they are worse than the average American. That can't be a winning strategy either.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Also, I don't think slicing and dicing the evangelical demographic in an attempt to prove that they are only as bad as the average american is a winning strategy.
A winning strategy relies on correctly diagnosing the problem. And according to the Washington Post,
it's not just evangelicals.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
You realize that's exactly the same poll cited in the OP, right?
If it's any consolation, white non-evangelical protestants were even more supportive of CIA treatment (75%) than evangelical ones (69%). (Click here and show results by race/religion.)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
You realize that's exactly the same poll cited in the OP, right?
If it's any consolation, white non-evangelical protestants were even more supportive of CIA treatment (75%) than evangelical ones (69%). (Click here and show results by race/religion.)
Yes, I do realize that. That was the point-- that a news source with a different agenda would read the stats differently. It kinda made my point for me.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
You realize that's exactly the same poll cited in the OP, right?
If it's any consolation, white non-evangelical protestants were even more supportive of CIA treatment (75%) than evangelical ones (69%). (Click here and show results by race/religion.)
Yes, I do realize that. That was the point-- that a news source with a different agenda would read the stats differently. It kinda made my point for me.
Well, perhaps - if you think "Nearly everyone approves of torture!" is an effective counter to "Evangelicals approve of torture more than most!"
Somewhat surprisingly, you've found an question in the poll that makes white evangelical Protestants look (relatively) worse than they do in the original question cited in the OP - according to the poll results, they're even more OK with "torture of suspected terrorists" than with "the CIA treatment of suspected terrorists." Perhaps they thought the CIA was too gentle.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
You realize that's exactly the same poll cited in the OP, right?
If it's any consolation, white non-evangelical protestants were even more supportive of CIA treatment (75%) than evangelical ones (69%). (Click here and show results by race/religion.)
Yes, I do realize that. That was the point-- that a news source with a different agenda would read the stats differently. It kinda made my point for me.
Well, perhaps - if you think "Nearly everyone approves of torture!" is an effective counter to "Evangelicals approve of torture more than most!"
As I said, I think correctly identifying the problem is key to finding the solution. As long as non-evangelical Protestants can point fingers at those hypocritical evangelicals, we won't address what's really going on-- which is something much, much broader and more insidious than just bad theology among evangelicals.
But hey, keep feeling good about yourself because you're not one of those nasty, hypocritical evangelicals.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Somewhat surprisingly, you've found an question in the poll that makes white evangelical Protestants look (relatively) worse than they do in the original question cited in the OP - according to the poll results, they're even more OK with "torture of suspected terrorists" than with "the CIA treatment of suspected terrorists." Perhaps they thought the CIA was too gentle.
And why is that surprising? My goal was not to make white evangelicals look better or worse. My goal was to get at what is really the core problem.
[ 19. December 2014, 04:23: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But those are news magazines. CT is not-- it's a religious journal. Not an accurate comparison, really.
Yes, but it is a MORAL ISSUE. So the lack of coverage either suggests that they don't see it as such or don't think their readers would see it as such.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As I said, I think correctly identifying the problem is key to finding the solution. As long as non-evangelical Protestants can point fingers at those hypocritical evangelicals, we won't address what's really going on-- which is something much, much broader and more insidious than just bad theology among evangelicals.
So when we do something good it's down to our niceness and morality, but when we do something bad it's down to cultural captivity ..
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Somewhat surprisingly, you've found an question in the poll that makes white evangelical Protestants look (relatively) worse than they do in the original question cited in the OP - according to the poll results, they're even more OK with "torture of suspected terrorists" than with "the CIA treatment of suspected terrorists." Perhaps they thought the CIA was too gentle.
And why is that surprising? My goal was not to make white evangelicals look better or worse. My goal was to get at what is really the core problem.
Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that I was surprised that you had found a more damning stat, nor that it had to do with white evangelical Protestants, specifically.
I was surprised that it existed - that there is a class of people who are more approving of "torture" than of "CIA treatment".
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
...
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.
...
Sorry, no, you can't make that leap without evidence.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
On a different tack entirely, I have sometimes wondered about the impact of the hugely popular '24' on people's perceptions. Jack Bauer's combination of courage and heroism, clear moral compass, patriotism and preparedness to use extreme violence in interrogations gave out the message of "horrible but may be necessary" so far as violent interrogations went.
Easy to believe when watching the series, which I still reckon had exceptional power to grip. The based-on-fact "Zero Dark 30" had a similar coded message re torture.
Yet the evidence is clear that violent interrogation is not effective as a way of getting at reliable information, though it is a reliable way of getting people to say almost anything they think will cause the torture to stop.
In '1984' there is an appalling scene in which O'Brien is torturing Winston Smith about the answer to the question "what is 2+2?". In extremis, Winston Smith cries out "four, five, anything you like, only please STOP". That's from memory. Although fiction, it makes the point which the report bears out.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But those are news magazines. CT is not-- it's a religious journal. Not an accurate comparison, really.
Yes, but it is a MORAL ISSUE. So the lack of coverage either suggests that they don't see it as such or don't think their readers would see it as such.
I agree it's a moral issue-- those are the exact words I used. But there isn't a "lack of coverage"-- we presented evidence of coverage. The coverage just wasn't at the same level as the two news magazines you mentioned. I don't think comparing the coverage in a news magazine to that in a theological journal is an apt comparison.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As I said, I think correctly identifying the problem is key to finding the solution. As long as non-evangelical Protestants can point fingers at those hypocritical evangelicals, we won't address what's really going on-- which is something much, much broader and more insidious than just bad theology among evangelicals.
So when we do something good it's down to our niceness and morality, but when we do something bad it's down to cultural captivity ..
At this point, we haven't identified the "why" because we're srill arguing over the "who". Every attempt at addressing the "why" so far has been addressed specifically at evangelicals-- we're looking at "what's wrong with evangelicals" that this could happen. But a closer look at the data shows this is not an "evangelical" problem. This is (at least) an American problem. (Actually, a religious problem-- atheists were one of the few groups that did fairly well on this issue). So whatever the solution that is suggested might be, it needs to begin by recognizing this is a problem that is common to virtually all religious Americans. That's helpful data. Comparing those few groups that didn't have the same problematic result with those who did is helpful data-- what's different about them, how do they discuss/teach/reflect on moral issues-- that will be helpful. But only if we first correctly identify who is in which group.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I agree it's a moral issue-- those are the exact words I used. But there isn't a "lack of coverage"-- we presented evidence of coverage. The coverage just wasn't at the same level as the two news magazines you mentioned. I don't think comparing the coverage in a news magazine to that in a theological journal is an apt comparison.
No. I would think that on moral issues, Christian magazines would have even more to say than news magazines that are merely reporting the facts, ma'am. We have three articles (some dating back years) dealing with the specific case of the US torturing prisoners, all the rest were on the 'persecuted church' that trope beloved of evangelicals everywhere.
You are welcome to search for some of the dead horse issues on the CT site - most of which have reams of articles associated with them.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I agree it's a moral issue-- those are the exact words I used. But there isn't a "lack of coverage"-- we presented evidence of coverage. The coverage just wasn't at the same level as the two news magazines you mentioned. I don't think comparing the coverage in a news magazine to that in a theological journal is an apt comparison.
No. I would think that on moral issues, Christian magazines would have even more to say than news magazines that are merely reporting the facts, ma'am. We have three articles (some dating back years) dealing with the specific case of the US torturing prisoners, all the rest were on the 'persecuted church' that trope beloved of evangelicals everywhere.
You are welcome to search for some of the dead horse issues on the CT site - most of which have reams of articles associated with them.
*shrug* I think you're comparing apples with solar panels.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think you're comparing apples with solar panels.
I think the underlying issue is the imago dei, and our respect or lack of respect for it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think you're comparing apples with solar panels.
I think the underlying issue is the imago dei, and our respect or lack of respect for it.
Agreed. Although I fail to see how that follows from my comment about comparing different sorts of media.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think you're comparing apples with solar panels.
I think the underlying issue is the imago dei, and our respect or lack of respect for it.
Agreed. Although I fail to see how that follows from my comment about comparing different sorts of media.
Apologies. I assumed you were calling them different forms of issues.
Assuming you are not, my last paragraph still stands. Compare the number of articles written on torture to the number of articles written on any number of dead horse issues in the CT.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I think you're comparing apples with solar panels.
I think the underlying issue is the imago dei, and our respect or lack of respect for it.
Agreed. Although I fail to see how that follows from my comment about comparing different sorts of media.
Apologies. I assumed you were calling them different forms of issues.
Assuming you are not, my last paragraph still stands. Compare the number of articles written on torture to the number of articles written on any number of dead horse issues in the CT.
Oh, I see your point. Not enough for me to get outraged about, but yeah, I get what you're saying. I wasn't following before.
Just out of curiosity: have you actually counted the number of times CT ran an article re any one particular dead horse issue (as compared to torture)?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Just out of curiosity: have you actually counted the number of times CT ran an article re any one particular dead horse issue (as compared to torture)?
I did. They are all handily tagged up - and someone who has a CT online sub was kind enough to check that the search results were identical in each case.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Was the dead horse issue abortion? That would indeed be ironic-- and sad.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Was the dead horse issue abortion?
That was the first thing I looked at, yes. There were others also.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Pro-life is a partial expression of the deeper belief "you deserve the consequences of your actions".
...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? .
Underneath the surface question of how the labels ("pro-life", "justice") are used and mis-used, seems to me that the underlying mindset that you're describing is that of Islaamic terrorism. It is revealed religion's Dark Side.
Dark Side religion taps into the worst impulses of the human psyche - the urge to hate, to torture, to kill - and seeks to harness them to the service of the religious movement.
Whether the label that you torture for is "Christian America", "Islamic State", or "Catholic Spain", the same Dark logic is in play.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
So it would appear that the "no religion" group have a better understanding of the teachings of Jesus than do the Christians, despite their not having had formal religious teaching.
This would appear to indicate that, at least on this issue, Christian teaching has a negative effect rather than a positive one.
Would there be any chance that asking a question of the form "Given that torture has been proven ineffective in getting useful information, do you think torture is justified in all/some/no cases?" would give a different overall result?
Or is torture seen principally as a form of punishing people who are Not Like Us?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Imperialism justifies torture against those viewed as a threat to Imperialistic ambition. Ancient, and not so ancient, cultures justified it for entertainment, although the victim would usually have to be someone disapproved of for some reason.
Torture is, as Russ, says a product the Dark Side. What makes it all the more disturbing is just how easily that dark side can be tapped into. Induced fear is the really big player for this process to happen.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So it would appear that the "no religion" group have a better understanding of the teachings of Jesus than do the Christians, despite their not having had formal religious teaching.
This would appear to indicate that, at least on this issue, Christian teaching has a negative effect rather than a positive one.
Think these are actually alternative explanations rather than one following from the other.
Of the two, I favour the first. Those in America (as in other western countries) who do not self-identify as Christian, who neither pray nor study the Bible, nor attend church on Sundays, nonetheless are the heirs of more than a millennium of Christian tradition. Whether they have formally rejected the practice of religion, or simply absorbed from the culture the idea that religion is about pre-scientific ways of thinking whereas we are modern humans who seek to understand the world through cause-and-effect relationships susceptible to scientific inquiry, their ideas of what is good are a mix of Christian ideas and the ideas of thinkers familiar with and critical of the Christian tradition.
I suggest that contrary to evangelical myth, many of the unchurched are not waiting in ignorance for someone to bring them the good news, but rather looking down on Christianity as something superseded,
The "no religion" group have a heritage of Christian thought without the baggage of folk-religion, and so may indeed see more clearly the wrongness of torture.
(By a small margin, on average, etc - people vary within each group)
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
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.
As an additional irony, they tend to regard it as an argument against Roman Catholicism that "the Office of the Inquisition still exists."
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0