Religious tend to support torture more often

Dude, in this entire thread there are several leftists doing their best to characterize Christianity in general, and evangelicals in particular, as bloodly-minded ghouls who would be glad to torture infidels to bloody rags until they convert, confess, or whatever.

I think some one has us confused with Islamic extremists. I've heard people making that very comparison often enough to be tired of it. Militant atheists act like we want to institute theocracy and burn heretics at the stake if we dare suggest that maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't hurt anyone to allow a voluntary bible study class in public schools?

I'm tired of having to point out that there's a huge difference between Christian "fundamentalists", whose worst "offenses" are they oppose gay marriage and abortion; and Islamic fundamentalists, who spawn dozens of suicide bombers and worse every year.

So the US waterboarded some known terrorists. We also waterboard our own soldiers in SERE training. This is not the same "torture" as that word typically evokes, images of saws and blades, knives and severed body parts.

G.

MrVicchio said:

Whenever you get a group of humans together, the side with the most power/people/authority/money whatever, tends to be the most likely to be assholes.

If you get 100 people, and 51 beleive in X and 49 That believe in Y folks and put them in a room and clearly announce that the minorty is the Y believers...

The X folks are more likely to be jerks.

That's just human nature.

You see it in daily life, you see it in churches. If you get a bunch of holy rollers and toss in an athiest, you can bet the athiest is gonna have a hard time, reverse the situation, and the holy roller will be miserable, and marginalized.


Both sides of the relgion divide have nice, caring good people that won't act like jerks, and they have those who wear their arrogance on their shirts.

I can ignore atheist, I feel sorry for them. When a self proclaimed Christian (of any flavor) starts touting how great they are because they believe, I get annoyed.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I get rather tired of my fellow atheists and agnostics acting like total jerks and then claiming that it's the religious (always focusing on Christians and forgetting that word includes Buddhists and even obscure sects like Kabbalists) who have the monopoly on ignorant bigotry and irrational hatred, and then go so far as to justify it with either alleged "right" of puerile retaliation or by laying down the victim trump. It's funny, in a way — if idiocy amuses you — to see in them a mirror image of the religious believers they cry foul at.

Part of the reason I don't really involve myself with them any more than I do with religious people: people are likely to be jerks, either in general or under in certain situations.

The silenced majority said:

I wonder what percentage of homosexuals in this country support torture? Seeing as how their's is the only demographic that seems to matter anymore...

Click to expand...

What? How did that have anything to do with the topic at hand? Anything? No, didn't think so.

Wessexman said:

The Jacobins rivaled the inquisition in a few years and it was not the inquisition that did most of the killing, the secular authorities did that. The inquisitions death tolls over centuries in many countries is only in the tens of thousands I think.

Click to expand...

Again, I was speaking of the numbers that the Inquisition tortured, not the killings. Obviously, history's mass murderers outrank the Catholic Church in body count.

Hatuey said:

But nobody goes to church for any number of years and then get to claim they don't believe in God while still going to that church.

Click to expand...

Why not? Uniterians do it all the time. :shrug:

Orius said:

This was a pretty interesting read.

Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful - CNN.com

The statistics show that the more often you attend church... the more likely to support torture. When I read this I found it interesting but not surprising. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Interesting. And believable. A majority of Americans used to attend church. Now I think it's down to a regimented few. I have a theory Republicans are more regimented and Democrats are more laid back. So maybe not as many Democrats go to church any more as GOP'rs do.

I think we just oughta "man-up" and put this torture crap to rest.

Did we torture these guys? Damn right we did.

Is it the image we want to portray to the world as the "American way?" Probably not. But on the other hand, it might be.

It was once said, "Walk softly and carry a big stick."

When it's not enough to be the breadbasket of the world, donating huge portions of our tax dollars to foreign humanitarian causes, leading the globe in civilized negotiations and arbitrations, and still a faction of humanity thinks we deserve to have thousands of our people burning and falling out of high rise buildings and from the skies, I say "screw them."

Waterboarding? Wah, wah, wah......

If it will save one American life, I got no problem with them pulling their fingernails out or staking them to a Texas anthill.

I'd prefer to be the country everybody loves and respects. I think as far as global benevolency goes, we do ok. But money can't buy you love. So, if all the "peace, love and understanding (and money:roll " approach don't work then whip out the big stick.

I know that the stats are against me on this one. There are a lot of valid arguments and facts that go against "enhanced" intelligence gathering. Even my brother, who is in the business, says torture is counter productive.

But still, I can't muster any sympathy for these "detainees." I guess I'm the odd man out on this one. I could care less if they diced them, sliced them, and julianne fried them.

I'll work on it.

Oh yes.....

I am not a church-go-er in the slightest. Don't hang ths on the religious nuts.

Just man up and say", "Hell yeah we did it! And we're gonna do it again, you smelly bastards, if we have to!"

I could live with that.

Wessexman said:

The Jacobins rivaled the inquisition in a few years and it was not the inquisition that did most of the killing, the secular authorities did that. The inquisitions death tolls over centuries in many countries is only in the tens of thousands I think.

Click to expand...

Again, I was speaking of the numbers that the Inquisition tortured over a period of 600 years, not the people they killed. Obviously, history's mass murderers outrank the Catholic Church in body count.

Captain America said:

Just man up and say", "Hell yeah we did it! And we're gonna do it again, you smelly bastards, if we have to!"

I could live with that.

Click to expand...

I would hope this country is better than the ignorant bravado of some yahoos suggests. Half of Teddy Roosevelt's advice is to "walk softly"...I don't see any suggestion of that here.

WillRockwell said:

I would hope this country is better than the ignorant bravado of some yahoos suggests. Half of Teddy Roosevelt's advice is to "walk softly"...I don't see any suggestion of that here.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't pay them too much mind, since according to all polls conducted over the past year the hawks are in flight, so to speak. Of course, I'm sure many of them probably want to pull out for practical but non-dovish reasons (I would like to find some hard data to support or refute this theory of mine), so it could very well be that we Americans are a rather warlike society in general.

Guess that's what happens when you're not getting your borders overrun periodically, though you'd think that sometimes reason can take supplant the role of learning the hard way.

jallman said:

Why not? Uniterians do it all the time. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Uniterians aren't real people. They are the ptsdkids of our world. Religious trolls if you'd like.

The peaciniks will reign until the next big terror attack and people start asking "could we have stopped this?" There you go, a class action lawsuit against Obama and Co. because they failed to use enhanced interrogation to save lives.

MrVicchio said:

The peaciniks will reign until the next big terror attack and people start asking "could we have stopped this?" There you go, a class action lawsuit against Obama and Co. because they failed to use enhanced interrogation to save lives.

Click to expand...

When was the last time suing the Federal Government actually worked?

chevydriver1123 said:

When was the last time suing the Federal Government actually worked?

Click to expand...

Can't get blood out of a turnip. :mrgreen:

MrVicchio said:

The peaciniks will reign until the next big terror attack and people start asking "could we have stopped this?" There you go, a class action lawsuit against Obama and Co. because they failed to use enhanced interrogation to save lives.

Click to expand...

You mean, kinda like how the (mostly conservative) hawks in this country failed to see how decades of disastrously — and cruelly unjust — hegemonic American foreign policy could have fueled the desperate hatred and desire for retaliation that lay at the roots of the 9/11 attacks?

chevydriver1123 said:

When was the last time suing the Federal Government actually worked?

Click to expand...

Was merely making half hearted jokingly funny speculations. I'd have suggested a congressional committee investigate the failures.. but I realized that would be REALLY far fetched

It's torture enough to sit through a sermon...

:lol:

Sanitas said:

It's torture enough to sit through a sermon...

:lol:

Click to expand...

So far in my church-going experience, it's the Mormon ones that are the longest and most boring ones to attend.

Nigga NoCa$h said:

You mean, kinda like how the (mostly conservative) hawks in this country failed to see how decades of disastrously — and cruelly unjust — hegemonic American foreign policy could have fueled the desperate hatred and desire for retaliation that lay at the roots of the 9/11 attacks?

Click to expand...

I see you are labeled "very liberal". That's accurate. You're practically a walking cliche.

If you think that arabic countries, with Muslim governments and law, living under sharia, are morally equivalent to the USA, then go live in one for a year and tell us how you enjoyed it.

Take the whole family! Your womenfolks can know the joy of not being able to go outdoors without wearing a tent-dress and a veil; of not being allowed to speak to any man they aren't related to without their husband present; in some countries, of being stoned to death for the crime of learning to read.

Tell them about the joys of atheism! I'm sure they'll be facinated, and you can tell us how they respected your right to free speech... assuming they don't cut off your head.

(/irony)

All nations and cultures are NOT morally equal. Has the US made some foreign policy blunders in the mideast over the past several decades? Sure. That doesn't earn us the label of "as bad or worse than the terrorists" that Leftists have been trying to hang on us for years.


G.

Goshin said:

I see you are labeled "very liberal". That's accurate. You're practically a walking cliche.

Click to expand...

Now, now. Let's not be insensitive. He could be a cliche in a wheel chair.

Goshin said:

I see you are labeled "very liberal". That's accurate. You're practically a walking cliche.

If you think that arabic countries, with Muslim governments and law, living under sharia, are morally equivalent to the USA, then go live in one for a year and tell us how you enjoyed it.

Take the whole family! Your womenfolks can know the joy of not being able to go outdoors without wearing a tent-dress and a veil; of not being allowed to speak to any man they aren't related to without their husband present; in some countries, of being stoned to death for the crime of learning to read.

Tell them about the joys of atheism! I'm sure they'll be facinated, and you can tell us how they respected your right to free speech... assuming they don't cut off your head.

(/irony)

All nations and cultures are NOT morally equal. Has the US made some foreign policy blunders in the mideast over the past several decades? Sure. That doesn't earn us the label of "as bad or worse than the terrorists" that Leftists have been trying to hang on us for years.


G.

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything I said?

That is what we students of logic call a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man"]straw man[/ame], because you are bringing up something entirely different and placing into the argument and attacking it, rather than actually refuting my assertion.

And, what does being socially or politically liberal or conservative have to do with acknowledging foreign policy blunders?

Nigga NoCa$h said:

What does that have to do with anything I said?

That is what we students of logic call a straw man argument or fallacy, because you are bringing up something entirely different and placing into the argument and attacking it, rather than actually refuting my assertion.

And, what does being socially or politically liberal or conservative have to do with acknowledging foreign policy blunders?

Click to expand...

I'm perfectly aware of what a straw man argument is. My point is that this "we brought it on ourselves" argument begins with an assumption of moral equivalency for all nations and cultures. An assumption that our actions in the mideast were equivalent to terrorist actions against the US, and with it the fundamental assumption that "we're no better than they are", and that US policy justified the 9/11 attacks.

"We brought it on ourselves" is typically a far-left argument.

Granted, we made some mistakes. Supporting the Shah of Iran was probably one, but I doubt the Ayatolla Khomeini would have been a US ally even if we'd helped him with his coup. They're just too radical.
Others who make that argument above often cite our support for Israel as sufficient cause for them to attack us. That's another argument I don't accept; it makes it sound like we should treat an ally and someone who hates us as one and the same.

The Islamofascists such as Al-Q and Achmadinijahd of Iran have stated their goal many times; it is "to put the entire world under the Caliphate and Sharia." We're non-Islamic and powerful...we would have been in their line of fire sooner or later.

Anyway, this has wandered way off topic... later.

G.

joko104 said:

I suspect who has tortured and mass murdered more people were atheists such as Stalin, Mao, Hitler...

nice try at supporting religious bigotry though.

Click to expand...

Actually, Hitler was not an atheist. More of a cultist than anything else. He hardly ever gave a speech without quoting scripture. The Nazi regime is a perfect example of what a totalitarian regime can do with religion as a tool to manipulate the masses.

Stalin was definitely an atheist. Mao more or less believed himself to be a god like figure.

Religious people are statistically more likely to support torture because evangelicals tend to be conservative and nationalist. Nationalists are much more apt to support the actions of their government when its deemed necessary for defense.

Goshin said:

I'm perfectly aware of what a straw man argument is. My point is that this "we brought it on ourselves" argument begins with an assumption of moral equivalency for all nations and cultures. An assumption that our actions in the mideast were equivalent to terrorist actions against the US, and with it the fundamental assumption that "we're no better than they are", and that US policy justified the 9/11 attacks.

"We brought it on ourselves" is typically a far-left argument.

Granted, we made some mistakes. Supporting the Shah of Iran was probably one, but I doubt the Ayatolla Khomeini would have been a US ally even if we'd helped him with his coup. They're just too radical.
Others who make that argument above often cite our support for Israel as sufficient cause for them to attack us. That's another argument I don't accept; it makes it sound like we should treat an ally and someone who hates us as one and the same.

The Islamofascists such as Al-Q and Achmadinijahd of Iran have stated their goal many times; it is "to put the entire world under the Caliphate and Sharia." We're non-Islamic and powerful...we would have been in their line of fire sooner or later.

Anyway, this has wandered way off topic... later.

G.

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, and I myself find much of the mores in that part of the world to be horrifyingly barbaric and loathsome, but I'm merely talking about cause-and-effect and am not out to be another person with a rubber yardstick going around measuring everyone's so-called moral standing.

Besides, I hardly see the ethical standards of a country being a reasonable factor in determining the viability and rationality of my foreign policy, say excusing me to engage in counterproductive and self-defeating foreign policy decisions that cause a lot of misery and bloodshed with a tribe of cannibals and with an enlightened nation of peace-loving and culturally sophisticated librarians and scholars engage in a foreign policy based on respect and cooperation and mutual benefit?

That certainly makes no sense. Nor does it seem to be particularly consistent or even self-serving.