Awhile back I pooh-poohed the idea that going to church makes anybody MORE likely to support torture. The problem, instead, is that the church's power to PREVENT people from supporting torture--or to shape their political/social/ethical beliefs in any particular way--is far more limited than we often like to think. Or as Dave put it in the comments, "I WISH churches exerted that kind of influence ... then we could stop torture from the pulpits."
Sarah Sentilles goes in a different direction, exploring the ways Christian theology/ies can in fact, in often subtle ways, nurture a tolerance for torture. It's a fairly compelling argument, based on the starting point that religion's power over people's thinking is not only or even primarily about explicit teaching.
Still, it's interesting that evangelical leaders--who are presumably more immersed in religion than the average layperson and thus even more susceptible to its subconscious influence, good or bad--have been pretty bold in opposing torture. Why the disconnect between the leadership and those in-the-pews-at-least-once-a-week? I don't think it's because their theology is different to such a degree that it pushes them in opposite directions on such an enormously important question.
I still think it's because, as David Neff hinted at recently without coming out and saying it, many white evangelicals are Republicans first and Christians second.
And yes, certainly many liberal Christians are Democrats first, as I said in my previous post. And anyway the problem is not that a lot of Christians are Republicans. The problem is that a lot of Christians' faith-based ethical commitments seem unable to match the power of political loyalties in their lives, whatever those loyalties. This is bad for everybody except the political powers so adept at manipulating people of faith to their own purposes. The GOP mainstream seems committed to defending--not denying or downplaying--U.S. torture practices. Sadly, I fear that this alone does more than any other factor to produce the sobering sorts of findings we saw from Pew.
The prison writings of Alexei Navalny
19 hours ago
Most of us who...
ReplyDeleteWhat is the use. You are right, its all about politics for the religious left. I've read your blog and the others in your "blogs I know" section for the last 6 months and haven't found anything even close to as biased on the right. Especially the evil religious right. They are actually pretty good at criticizing their own when they feel someone is wrong. Not so on these "religious" left blogs. I've come to the belief the religous left uses religion only to give themselves some sort of credibility as a different kind of lefty.
Anyhow, why should I justify my feelings about the enhanced interrogation techniques to a person/group who supports legalized infanticide.
I'll take torturing terrorists over killing innocent babies anyday.
Mike, I don't even know where to begin to respond to most of your comment. Not even sure who it's aimed at with its totalizing claims--me? my friends and acquaintances in my blogroll, who certainly do not offer a good sample of the religious left? Religious liberals generally?
ReplyDeleteBut I do want to respond to your last sentence: I would take the argument you make there seriously, though I still wouldn't agree, if
- we were talking about actual terrorists (it's been demonstrated that there's very little evidence against most of our detainees--they're mostly people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time)
- there was a need to choose between opposing abortion and opposing torture. This isn't general election; it's not about which party is better. This is about holding our leaders accountable, not voting.
I'm afraid were not going to find much common ground here.
In other words... or more familiar...
ReplyDeleteThe leftier your ideals, regardless of your
religous affiliation, the more you love abortion.
I think I was pretty clear who I was referring to. Perhaps you are just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Truth is, you aren't looking for common ground with most Christians (that would be Christians without a hyphenated qualifier). From reading your posts and comments here and theolog.org it seems you've attached negative motives to most everything they do. I can't even imagine how one comes to the conclusion that advertising to college students and maybe getting more of them into a church is a bad thing?
I'm sorry Steve.
ReplyDeleteI've been quite harsh with my words.
I guess what trips my trigger is when people assume the motives of people they disagree with to be impure. My words and thoughts recently have shown me guilty of the same.
Sickened, saddened, ashamed; all of these and more describe my feelings about the brand of Christianity I choose to follow when discussing this topic. I understand the gut-reaction of anger and a'need' to retaliate against those who have harmed me or someone I know. But to somehow equate that to Christianity is inexcusable. I remember my feelings on September 11 and I remember talking to a friend who is a Vietnam veteran who said he would have no problem "putting two in the head of Osama Bin Laden." We discussed how this fit into his Christian beliefs and at least he admitted it was truly his flesh that cried out for retribution. While I could empathize with my friend, I could never agree with him that revenge, retribution or torture could ever be Christian. Torture is torture.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand. your link to Sarah Sentilles post is truly disturbing. Her implication that somehow a belief in the salvific part of Christ's life and death leads people like myself to believe in torture is repugnant. When folks make these accusations and implications from either side it merely creates another roadblock to open discussion. Surely you don't believe that somehow Christ's death and resurrection lead directly or indirectly to torture.
Lastly, I would love to know your thoughts on Nancy Pelosi and her latest attempts to claim she did not know what was going on in Abu Ghraib. Methinks she doth protest too much.
Phil,
ReplyDeleteFirst, my link to Sentilles' piece was to another point I think is valid and interesting, not to one I wholeheartedly agree with--in fact, the impetus for my writing a second post on this was the fact that I disagree with Sentilles' interpretation of the Pew data.
Second, as to why I think her piece is valid and interesting: Absolutely I do not believe that Christ's death and resurrection lead directly or indirectly to torture. But that isn't what she says. She says that a particular version of atonement theology--one that stresses the violent, torturous details of the crucifixion as crucial, even glorifying them--can have destructive consequences, such as creating space for normalizing torture.
The theology she criticizes has been a dominant one in certain places and times in Christian history, but it's only one of many ways to understand the cross--and it's not just modern liberals who reject it. (You won't find it in the peace church tradition or in any familiar form in the Eastern Orthodox church, or, for that matter, in the gospel of Luke.)
I agree with her general analysis: I think an atonement theology that fixates on blood and guts and physical pain is dangerous. But I believe that Christ's death and resurrection are the only thing powerful enough to overcome the evils of the world, torture among them--quite the opposite of CAUSING such evils. This belief of mine does not require me to believe also that the torture Jesus experienced is theologically critical. What's important is Jesus' faithfulness even till death, not the sadism of those who killed him.
Sentilles' point is to critique a strain of Christian theology, not the cross itself. And the point of my post is to say that I don't agree that any of this goes all that far in explaining the Pew findings, as I explain above.
As for Pelosi, I have to admit I've been to busy to follow the story closely. From what I have heard, I'll say only this: it's not outrageous to say the CIA lies to Congress. Congress doesn't want to know what the CIA does--never has--and makes this perfectly clear. The idea that the CIA comes completely clean to Congress has always been a polite fiction.
On the other hand, it doesn't shock me in the least to consider that the Speaker/other Democrats might have known about Abu Ghraib. I don't have much faith in the Democrats, especially not in matters of foreign policy or human rights. (Or, for that matter, drug policy, the death penalty, abortion, or trade.) I vote for them cause I have even less faith in the other guys.
I agree with a lot of what Phil says. This poll however was not about torture for revenge or Abu Ghraib. Thats what I find particularly disturbing about the liberal blogs I've read.
ReplyDeleteThe question asked if the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can be often or sometimes justified.
The respondants to the poll are not saying they approve of torture in general or the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib was all about revenge and lawlessness. It has been condemned by almost everyone. I absolutely believe the poll results would've been different and my answer would be different in the poll if it was about torture for revenge or in the context of condoning the actions at Abu Ghraib.
I've read extensively about the enhanced interrogation techniques and how they were used. I think its a stretch to call most of them torture. Do I love war or these interrogations? No, but I see it as essential in protecting us from those who want to harm us. I will defend them just as I would a soldier we send to fight for our freedom.
My previous comments about the left approving of abortion was my attempt to say liberals love nuance and grey areas yet cannot imagine any nuance or grey areas in this debate. While I have yet to hear a nuanced opinion supporting abortion that I can agree with, I find some of them less troubling than others who defend abortion in all situations.
Steve, I'm not surprised you haven't read much about Pelosi. While its pretty much everywhere, I can find little mention of it in the liberal news/blogs. I really think you need to expand your sources of information.
Is it not sad that there is no political party or group of politicians that we can trust. I suppose this is why we as the people need to stay informed and active, but the truth of your statements about both Pelosi and the CIA is a sad testimony on the state of affairs in our country.
ReplyDeleteAs to your points on the cross-I guess I questioned your link to this post because I felt the implication was there for at least questioning the divinity of Christ. I understand that is not your position now and appreciate you taking the time to clarify your stance and what you believe to be the stance of the writer. The link was ambiguous enough for me that it raised questions and I was hoping for some clarification.
Truly, the use of the blood-and-guts elements of the cross leads to very dangerous places, now and in the past, and many churches do stress this portion of the atonement. I felt, and still feel, that Sentille's piece left open too many questions if , like myself, you had never heard of the person or what they believe. This ambiguity is what led to the question of where the author stands on what is one of the pillars of Christianity. I enjoyed your response and hope to continue to have my horizons broadened by your posts and the links you suggest.
Thanks, Phil. While I don't know anything about Sentilles' own faith commitments, I didn't take her as trying to question the divinity of Christ--she didn't affirm it either; it just wasn't what she was writing about. But I can see how it could be taken that way.
ReplyDeleteMike: I understand the distinction you're making re: different situations for torture, and it's a fair point. I disagree with it: I think torture's a moral absolute, regardless of why it's being done. And even if I didn't start there, still two problems: first, SUSPECTED terrorists. Meaning inevitably some of them aren't going to end up being terrorists. This isn't morally troubling? Second, the research and historical evidence all indicate that torture does nothing to actually help you get important information. Yes, we got some information from people we tortured, as Cheney et al keep telling us. This is not the same thing as saying we couldn't get the same information without torture--that's a huge leap.
Finally, I read widely, left and right. I heard a little about the Pelosi thing because I saw the headlines in my feed reader--the things I read when I have time. I didn't hear much about it cause I've been too busy to click through and read much of anything. If that isn't good enough for you, fine, nothing I can do about that.
I'm glad to hear you aren't limiting your sources of info.
ReplyDeleteIts obvious we have completely different core values which color our view of the information we process.
It seems I have more faith in our armed services and intelligence gathering than to believe we are indiscriminately interrogating just anyone.
My main argument is that pretty much anything can be labeled torture. I wonder what your definition is. You say its a moral absolute, but I don't think its that simple. Some would argue certain types of food, noises, music(I haven't heard this of anything you've done), detention in a prison cell, CNN, Fox News, extended darkness, extended light, temperature changes could all be labeled as torture along with anything else a person is forced to live with or without.
You say we could get the information without torture. Would you allow questioning of the suspected terrorists at all? I'm pretty sure questioning could be considered torture if it lasts more than a certain amount of time. If you allow the questioning, where would you draw the line?
I'm not trying to make light of this serious issue, just saying I've thought about it and have an idea where I draw the line.
I also wonder why Obama and Democrats haven't outlawed the techniques. If the next President or even Obama changes his mind, all it would take is another executive order to reverse the ban.
I'd say that torture is intentionally putting someone into physical or mental distress. Of course there are gray areas, but the question of whether or not loud music (and how loud and for how long) counts as distress seems like a bit of a sideshow when it's an open fact that we've routinely used waterboarding.
ReplyDeleteLegally, I think the ICC definition is sufficient:
"Torture means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions."
But it's true that the treaty from which it comes speaks to a different sort of situation than we're dealing with here--and that the U.S. hasn't signed it. So the U.N. definition will do:
"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
We signed and ratified that one 15 years ago.
Why haven't the Democrats outlawed torture, or rather, better clarified that we are actually going to abide by existing law? They'd probably say they've been a little busy; I'd say they've been more than a little cowardly. I hope you're not implying that as a liberal I must agree with whatever they've done or not done?
The UN definition sounds good Steve.
ReplyDeleteNow we could argue whether all of the banned interrogation techniques or even the ones listed in my last post inflict severe pain or suffering.
I'm pretty sure all of them could fit Websters definition which doesn't include "severe".
Either definition is still very subjective.
Certainly waterboarding would be the most questionable and widely publicized and you no doubt believe it fits the definition. But it also sounds like you would be willing to employ some of the other banned techniques (see attention grasp) and your answer to the Pew poll would change based on the definition of torture used for the purpose of the poll.
I'm not looking to convince anyone that waterboarding is OK. My goal is for people to understand its a difficult issue where noone wins. But its certainly not as black and white as the blogs villifying Christians for their answer in the poll want us to believe.
As is often the case, Mike, you're not actually responding to my main point: The issue is not whether x amount of darkness or x kind of food or x degrees below or above 68 Fahrenheit counts as torture. The issue is that other things regularly done in our name clearly do, by every definition pre-existing the Bush Justice Dept.If the Pew poll asked me ONLY about the gray-area stuff, maybe I'd give a gray answer. It didn't; it asked about torture, which, whatever it does or doesn't encompass on the LESS severe end, definitely includes stuff on the MORE severe end that I found morally despicable in any circumstance. So no, my answer would not change based on the definition of torture used for the poll, unless that definition didn't include the more severe things that everybody AGREES count as torture, which would be a ridiculous and useless definition of torture.
ReplyDeleteOkay, that's it for me on this thread.
Can torture be justified against suspected terrorists to gain key information?
ReplyDeleteOften
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Don't know
Alrightythen. I'm ready to be done with this thread as well.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like your answer to the poll would be never.
Now what do you think would be your answer and the overall poll results if the question was about abortion.
Should a woman be allowed to choose abortion?
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Don't know
Given your latest comment and my understanding of your position (which may be wrong) you would answer Never to this question. Anyone answering rarely, sometimes or often should be interpereted as supporting the most aweful forms of abortion such as late term and partial birth abortions. Procedures which an overwhelming majority of Americans believe are morally indefensible.
I wonder what the results of this poll would be.
I wonder if conservatives would use it to demonize the groups which have a majority vote other than Never as supporting infanticide. I'm pretty sure Coulter and Limbaugh would use it that way.
But I wonder if you'd agree with their interpretation even if you didn't post your approval on your blog.
"Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?"
ReplyDeleteI think it's quite a stretch to say that the "often, sometimes, etc." options could be interpreted as referring to the type/severity of torture, which is by definition severe--it's pretty clear they refer to the situation and what's trying to be accomplished. Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that a survey respondent might go through a thought process something like this: "I don't think that some of the less severe interrogation tactics are really that bad; I wouldn't call them torture. But some people do call them torture, so I'm going to answer the question based on PART of those other people's definition of the word rather than ANY of my own and say 'sometimes.'" That's pretty convoluted.
Linguistically, "torture" and "abortion" are very different words. "Abortion," whatever you think of it, has a more or less concrete definition. "Torture" is, as you say, less clear as to what exactly it includes but clearly connotes something very serious and severe--people mostly agree that it's bad but argue as to what it includes and, as the survey question gets at, whether it's sometimes a necessary evil. I don't buy that anyone hears this question and decides to interpret the word in terms of only those kinds of torture they don't actually think are torture. The question doesn't say "Do you think the use of certain methods of interrogation, which some have called torture..." The question is about whether sometimes you have to use it anyway. I don't think you do, but a majority of churchgoing people do.
Mike, you're exhausting me, and we still aren't talking about the point of my original post: my suggestion that people's character and ethical beliefs are less shaped by their faith than we'd like to think. So the last word's all yours.
Sorry for exhausting you Steve.
ReplyDeleteMy last point was an attempt to sum up the totality of my argument.
I don't think its a stretch for respondants to the poll to be considering the current news cycle and buzz when answering the question.
Abortion does have a concrete definition but as almost all pro choicers will tell you, abortions in the first trimester are much easier to defend than those in the 2nd and 3rd. Its much easier for them to defend giving a girl a pill and having the pregnancy end very similar to something they deal with regularly than having a doctor dismember a healthy baby inside the mothers womb before extraction.
So as I said, given your previous comment, you think a person who answers the question with "sometimes" or "rarely" would be saying a woman should sometimes or rarely be able to choose partial birth abortion. If they don't think a woman should be able to choose partial birth abortion often, sometimes or rarely they should answer Never.
I'm saying the abortion poll would not be interpereted that way except by people looking to demonize the respondants.
If however the respondants said a woman should NEVER be able to choose abortion, I think people would interperet it to cover all kinds of abortion including the 1st trimester kind.
I think the poll question leaves too much for interpretation and I'm arguing with the premise of your point which is based on the belief this poll proves Christians are blood thirsty sadists looking for revenge.