• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Religious tend to support torture more often

The only thing that preserves my honor and my morality is, to borrow from Cyrano, three feet of steel.
Poor you.
Therein lies the error of your philosophy. The civil restraints men of honor impose upon their conflicts are not the preservative of honor and morality, but are rather preserved by the conjoined honor and morality of every adversary; they are the conclusion, not the predicate. When even one adversary lays aside that honor and morality, and shreds the civil restraints previously maintained, that adversary invites upon himself the same unrestrained horrors he visits upon others. Against such an adversary, to refuse him the horrors he craves would a most ungentlemanly act.
This is incorrect. If one acts in such away he becomes as bad as his opponent and such a way of thinking is often hard to stop from spreading. Such morality and honour is as much for yourself as your opponent.

It not only easily moves towards the horrors of war, the honorable man accelerates their movement. The honorable man does not shrink from the task at hand, regardless of how unpleasant or distasteful it may be.
He knows that their must always be restraint lest all such rules dissolve and endanger what he seeks to defend. Your anything goes attitude is despicable, no society can function with it, it corrupts the very bonds of society itself.

You imply above that you even accept the idea that taking an enemies children hostage and killing them is okay. Perhaps you simply did not read this but it is not a position worthy of a man who would call himself civilised.


There is no victory in sacrificing friends, family, or countrymen for the sake of benighted principle. Dead kin are a disgrace when strength and fortitude might have saved them.
Rubbish. To save them when it takes betraying the very principle and honour they have instilled in you is the creed of a savage. It turns them a lot of what they are and mean to nothing, simply the most animal of bonds.
 
Last edited:
You imply above that you even accept the idea that taking an enemies children hostage and killing them is okay. Perhaps you simply did not read this but it is not a position worthy of a man who would call himself civilised.
Your pardon, I did not mean to imply. I should have stated explicitly:

If a man wages war on my family, I will hunt him, his family, his children, his friends, and any he holds dear. If a man confines his conflict to me, I shall happily confine my conflict to him, and shall happily provide him with a decent burial to salute his honorable death.

If that makes me uncivilized in your eyes, then I shall proudly call myself uncivilized.
 
Your pardon, I did not mean to imply. I should have stated explicitly:

If a man wages war on my family, I will hunt him, his family, his children, his friends, and any he holds dear. If a man confines his conflict to me, I shall happily confine my conflict to him, and shall happily provide him with a decent burial to salute his honorable death.

If that makes me uncivilized in your eyes, then I shall proudly call myself uncivilized.
You are uncivilised.

This Jacobin-esque barbarism will destroy the last of what remains of civilisation, society and freedom.
 
Last edited:
Your pardon, I did not mean to imply. I should have stated explicitly:

If a man wages war on my family, I will hunt him, his family, his children, his friends, and any he holds dear. If a man confines his conflict to me, I shall happily confine my conflict to him, and shall happily provide him with a decent burial to salute his honorable death.

If that makes me uncivilized in your eyes, then I shall proudly call myself uncivilized.
It's called the right to Life.
 
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?

Well quite simply, we can justify it.

I think it's reasonable to assume that in the absence of religion one has a more muddied ethical sense and would tend to err on the side of caution.

With a clear ethical sense that religion typically brings, the boundaries are more easily defined and the overbearence of caution isn't necessary.
 
Well quite simply, we can justify it.

I think it's reasonable to assume that in the absence of religion one has a more muddied ethical sense and would tend to err on the side of caution.

With a clear ethical sense that religion typically brings, the boundaries are more easily defined and the overbearence of caution isn't necessary.

I find the premise that absence of religion causes a muddied ethical sense absurd. The further premise that religion typically brings clear ethical sense evokes deep deep belly laughter.
 
I find the premise that absence of religion causes a muddied ethical sense absurd. The further premise that religion typically brings clear ethical sense evokes deep deep belly laughter.

Perhaps if you offered a counter argument there would be something for us to debate.
 
Actually, you made the assertion so the onus is on you to prove it.

Prove what? That that's what I think? Well just read my post and you have proof that that's what I think.

I didn't claim that my opinion was in fact objectively true, it's just my knee jerk opinion on the matter.

Care to discuss?
 
Perhaps if you offered a counter argument there would be something for us to debate.

My counter argument - though I'm sure it's futile - is that many great atrocities have been committed irrationally in the name of both one and a great many God(s).

I'd also put forth that one of the greatest most common signs and symptoms of mental instability and psychological failings often is an obsession with religion. Now that's not to say religious folks in general are insane but most always the insane are deeply religious. :mrgreen:
 
Care to discuss?

You said, "it's reasonable to assume," and then continued on to present not one but two highly debatable premises that most nobody would agree are reasonable to assume unless all logic and reason are tossed out the window at step one.
 
My counter argument - though I'm sure it's futile - is that many great atrocities have been committed irrationally in the name of both one and a great many God(s).

I'd also put forth that one of the greatest most common signs and symptoms of mental instability and psychological failings often is an obsession with religion. Now that's not to say religious folks in general are insane but most always the insane are deeply religious. :mrgreen:

You point out "obsession with religion" and the "deeply religious", indicating that extremists often use any justification for their actions.

I agree, I just don't think religion is the common denominator.

Being an extremist is.

Of course if you are someone who assumes that all torture is extreme, then we part ways right there.

I not only support justifiable torture, but justifiable homicide (even justifiable abortion).

Extremists will make just whatever excuse they can, but an excuse is not a valid justification.
 
Last edited:
You point out "obsession with religion" and the "deeply religious", indicating that extremists often use any justification for their actions.

I agree, I just don't think religion is the common denominator.

Being an extremist is.

Sure, I agree. But still, religious delusions and mental illness have a long history of going hand in hand.

Example:

BACKGROUND: Religious delusions are clinically important because they may be associated with selfharm and poorer outcomes from treatment. They have not been extensively researched. This study sought to investigate the prevalence of religious delusions in a sample of patients admitted to hospital with schizophrenia, to describe these delusions and to compare the characteristics of the patients with religious delusions with schizophrenia patients with all other types of delusion. METHOD: A cross-sectional investigation was carried out. The prevalence of religious delusions was assessed and comparisons were made between religiously deluded patients and a control group on demographic, symptom, functioning and religious variables. One hundred and ninety-three subjects were examined of whom 24% had religious delusions. RESULTS: Patients with religious delusions had higher symptom scores (as measured by the PANSS), they were functioning less well (as measured by the GAF) and they were prescribed more medication than those patients with schizophrenia who had other types of delusion. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that religious delusions are commonly found in schizophrenia and that by comparison with other patients who have schizophrenia, those patients with religious delusions appear to be more severely ill. This warrants further investigation.

Religious delusions in patients admitted to hospit...[Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2002] - PubMed Result
 
Sure, I agree. But still, religious delusions and mental illness have a long history of going hand in hand.

Example:

Religious delusions in patients admitted to hospit...[Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2002] - PubMed Result

So it's your assertion that your typical religious voter who support a slightly greater degree of torture than your typical non-religious voter is obviously suffering from 'religious delusions' which exacerbates their pre-existing schizophrenia?
 
Well quite simply, we can justify it.

I think it's reasonable to assume that in the absence of religion one has a more muddied ethical sense and would tend to err on the side of caution.

With a clear ethical sense that religion typically brings, the boundaries are more easily defined and the overbearence of caution isn't necessary.

Since an ethical sense has nothing to do with religion, it is the presence of religion that muddies the ethical sense, and the false confidence in its certainty that causes people to ignore common sense and caution. Or perhaps you were being ironic?
 
So it's your assertion that your typical religious voter who support a slightly greater degree of torture than your typical non-religious voter is obviously suffering from 'religious delusions' which exacerbates their pre-existing schizophrenia?

No my assertion is that it is obnoxious to assert that religion makes one more ethical and non-religion makes one's ethical sense muddied. My further assertion is that taken to the extreme it's a proven fact that the opposite is true and that extreme religious obsession goes hand in hand with mental illness such as schizophrenia.

As for your average religious folks I don't think they are any more or less sane or any more or less ethical than their non-religious counterparts and while there's evidence that religious obsession can lead to mental instability there is no evidence that religious moderation produces more of a sound ethical mind when compared to a non-religious peer.
 
Last edited:
Since an ethical sense has nothing to do with religion, it is the presence of religion that muddies the ethical sense, and the false confidence in its certainty that causes people to ignore common sense and caution. Or perhaps you were being ironic?

Oh goodie. Any chance at reasonable discussion just went out the window with It's arrival...
 
Since an ethical sense has nothing to do with religion...

Go no further, we disagree on basic highschool lebvel sociology and untill that is resolved we will not likly be able to debate the issue.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agents_of_Socialization]Socialization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Primary socialization occurs when a child learns the attitudes, values, and actions appropriate to individuals as members of a particular culture. For example if a child saw his/her mother expressing a discriminatory opinion about a minority group, then that child may think this behavior is acceptable and could continue to have this opinion about minority groups.
Secondary socialization

Secondary socialization refers to the process of learning what is appropriate behavior as a member of a smaller group within the larger society. It is usually associated with teenagers and adults, and involves smaller changes than those occurring in primary socialization. eg. entering a new profession, relocating to a new environment or society
.

Agents of socialization are the people and groups that influence our self-concept, emotions, attitudes, and behavior.

The Family. Family is responsible for, among other things, determining one's attitudes toward religion and establishing career goals.

Education. Education is the agency responsible for socializing groups of young people in particular skills and values in society.

Peer groups. Peers refer to people who are roughly the same age and/or who share other social characteristics (e.g., students in a college class).

The Mass Media.

Other Agents: Religion, Work Place, The State
.
 
Go no further, we disagree on basic highschool lebvel sociology and untill that is resolved we will not likly be able to debate the issue.

Socialization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing there supports your view.

You can be religious and teach your child to love thy neighbor while I'm irreligious and teach my kiddo the same thing.

Morals are passed down through generations regardless of adherence to religious dogma. I'm willing to bet that despite my faith I teach my kids many of the same values and morals that my very religious sister teaches my nephew. I just do it without God, without promise of heaven, or threat of hell. Being good for the sake of being good can be a matter of pride even in the absence of a master, a reward, a punishment. I consider any of my thoughts on God or Gods or Alien beings to be completely extraneous in so far as raising my kids to be beautiful people.
 
Last edited:
No my assertion is that it is obnoxious to assert that religion makes one more ethical and non-religion makes one's ethical sense muddied. My further assertion is that taken to the extreme it's a proven fact that the opposite is true and that extreme religious obsession goes hand in hand with mental illness such as schizophrenia.

Your source did not support that claim.

Religious delusions were one of many possible complications on top of pre-existing schizophrenia.

You are saying that they go hand in hand when your link doesn't say that.

How many of the 742 people polled by CNN (of all sources) suffered from schizophrenia?

As for your average religious folks I don't think they are any more or less sane or any more or less ethical than their non-religious counterparts and while there's evidence that religious obsession can lead to mental instability there is no evidence that religious moderation produces more of a sound ethical mind when compared to a non-religious peer.

Since 42% of non-religious people also supported torture, there is only a 12% polarization of public opinion on torture here; not 54% as the article and your argument would lead the casual reader to believe.

Your first attempt to explain this 12% difference in opinion was to call religious peoples insane. Since your link did not support your claim, I see no reason to agree with it.

Also, the article itself says the sample was to small, so we can toss out the entire poll right now.

Additionaly, the question is flawed.
"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?"

This leaves the definition of "important information" entierly up to the indivigual. That is compleatly unacceptable.
 
Back
Top Bottom