• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

US Christians Profoundly Anti-Christian

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Interesting points to consider after the "Christian" Sarah Palin suggested waterboarding terrorists as a way to baptize them or whatever.

In the best recent polling on the question, 62 percent of white evangelical “Christians” back torture as often or sometimes justified, with only 16 percent holding the orthodox position that it is never justified. Now compare those numbers with Americans who are unaffiliated with any religion: the number in that demographic is 40 percent in favor in some or many cases, and 26 percent against it in all circumstances....support for torture is highest among those who attend church at least weekly and lowest for those who rarely or never go to church. In America, torture is a Christian value.
Click to expand...

This indicates that the less Christian you are, the more likely you are to be against torture. The non Christians are actually more "Christian." wtf? What does this say about the American Christianist movement?


...torture is a far graver evil, even for orthodox theologians, than non-procreative or non-marital sex. And yet today’s Christianists are obsessed about the latter and not just indifferent to the former, but actually in favor of it. It’s this twisted set of priorities, this exquisitely misplaced set of fears, and this utter ignorance of even basic Christian teaching that reveals all that’s so terribly wrong with American Christianity.

Sarah Palin: Anti-Christian « The Dish
Click to expand...

Has Christianity been hijacked by jack-booted thugs? Was it ever any different? Does this make the case for why a truly loving parent would steer their children away from the religious cults out there?
 
Waterboaring isn't torture
 
Well...I guess that settles it. :roll:
 
Organized religion is too weird for me.
 
calamity said:
This indicates that the less Christian you are, the more likely you are to be against torture. The non Christians are actually more "Christian."
Click to expand...

Hasty generalization ftl. :roll:
 
If she heaped as much generalized broad-brush negativism on a race as she just did to a religion... well do I really need to complete that sentence? :roll:
 
Goshin said:
If she heaped as much generalized broad-brush negativism on a race as she just did to a religion... well do I really need to complete that sentence? :roll:
Click to expand...

Only if you can work "jack-booted thugs" into it. :lol:
 
Crovax said:
Waterboaring isn't torture
Click to expand...

Would you agree for it to be used against U.S. citizens? The whole "enhanced interrogation technique" is Bull****.
 
Crovax said:
Waterboaring isn't torture
Click to expand...

The Inquisition which I think we can agree were and ARE THE preeminent and foremost authorities on what constitutes torture would disagree with you. It is among the many of their methods described and further there are several variants of the torture. If the Inquisition says its torture, I tend to believe them on the matter as they are the experts.
 
TheNextEra said:
Would you agree for it to be used against U.S. citizens?
Click to expand...

Sure, if those US citizens are actively engaging in war against the US. Of course we could just use the Obama method of killing them with a drone, so much more humane.
 
Crovax said:
Sure, if those US citizens are actively engaging in war against the US. Of course we could just use the Obama method of killing them with a drone, so much more humane.
Click to expand...

It's not torture, so why can't local law enforcement use it? Unless of course you actually think it is torture to use it against U.s. civilians by local law enforcement.
 
nota bene said:
Hasty generalization ftl. :roll:
Click to expand...

The poll numbers are pretty pronounced. 30% fewer non-Christians favoring torture and over 50% more saying it is unacceptable under any circumstance.
 
TheNextEra said:
It's not torture, so why can't local law enforcement use it? Unless of course you actually think it is torture to use it against U.s. civilians by local law enforcement.
Click to expand...

US citizens held by local law enforcement have 8th amendment rights and even certain non-torture activities fall under the 8th amendment where as those rights are not afforded to enemy combatants even those with US citizenship in some circumstances.
 
1. The OP states "Christians", whereas it's source states White, Evangelical Christians. So the initial argument seems to be built on a bit of a fallacy.

2. Waterboarding as it was applied to the three men in particular does not meet the definition of torture. It is closer, by far, and can become torture if you change how it is applied (for an example, threatening death is considered a violation - each of the three men was assured prior to the procedure that he was in no danger of dying. Had he not been so reassured, you could make the reasonable assumption argument that he or they could have come to the belief that they were.)

3. The New Testament contains precious little on how to go about governing (it wasn't a problem faced by the early church), and nothing whatsoever about "Christian" interrogation techniques. To state that waterboarding is "ant-Christian" is imprecise.
 
cpwill said:
1. The OP states "Christians", whereas it's source states White, Evangelical Christians. So the initial argument seems to be built on a bit of a fallacy.

2. Waterboarding as it was applied to the three men in particular does not meet the definition of torture. It is closer, by far, and can become torture if you change how it is applied (for an example, threatening death is considered a violation - each of the three men was assured prior to the procedure that he was in no danger of dying. Had he not been so reassured, you could make the reasonable assumption argument that he or they could have come to the belief that they were.)

3. The New Testament contains precious little on how to go about governing (it wasn't a problem faced by the early church), and nothing whatsoever about "Christian" interrogation techniques. To state that waterboarding is "ant-Christian" is imprecise.
Click to expand...
1. Correct. Non-white, Catholics may be less prone to torturing people than the white Evangelicals.

2. Hmm...I disagree. Simply put, it's clearly something I would not not want to endure.

3. Do unto to others...?
 
I don't understand how some people think waterboarding is NOT torture? Have they ever had it done to them to know if it is or not?
 
I find it oddly amusing that someone with an unabashed hatred of Christianity claims the authority to define what is or is not “Christian”.
 
calamity said:
1. Correct. Non-white, Catholics may be less prone to torturing people than the white Evangelicals.
Click to expand...

:shrug: they may be less likely to support waterboarding. I wouldn't know about torture.

2. Hmm...I disagree. Simply put, it's clearly something I would not not want to endure.
Click to expand...

So is finding out a spouse has been cheating on you, or being fired from a job you liked with no prospects. Neither your wife nor your boss is guilty of torture simply because you would not want to endure it. Besides which, what I pointed out was that waterboarding as it was applied did not meet the legal definition of torture. That is why, for example, we did it to our own troops when they went through SERE school. Because it wasn't torture.

3. Do unto to others...?
Click to expand...

1. Anti-Christian has two possible meanings. One is "demonstrating characteristics specific to the Anti-Christ", and the other is "having a bias against Christians or Christianity". Waterboarding is neither of these things. You can argue, perhaps, that it is UN-Christian, but not Anti-Christian.

2. Indeed and we should. However, that does not obviate the need for self-defense nor does it require pacifism. A simple blanket legalistic application of the Golden Rule to every single situation would require (for example) that we enable rapists, murderers, terrorists, and dictators who wage war on us, allowing evil to abound rather than seeking to constrain it. Just as Christians can rightfully wage war and wrongfully wage war, depending on the situation, it is not categorically unChristian to waterboard anymore than it is unChristian to kill - the morality of both would be determined by the specifics.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: they may be less likely to support waterboarding. I wouldn't know about torture.



So is finding out a spouse has been cheating on you, or being fired from a job you liked with no prospects. Neither your wife nor your boss is guilty of torture simply because you would not want to endure it. Besides which, what I pointed out was that waterboarding as it was applied did not meet the legal definition of torture. That is why, for example, we did it to our own troops when they went through SERE school. Because it wasn't torture.



1. Anti-Christian has two possible meanings. One is "demonstrating characteristics specific to the Anti-Christ", and the other is "having a bias against Christians or Christianity". Waterboarding is neither of these things. You can argue, perhaps, that it is UN-Christian, but not Anti-Christian.

2. Indeed and we should. However, that does not obviate the need for self-defense nor does it require pacifism. A simple blanket legalistic application of the Golden Rule to every single situation would require (for example) that we enable rapists, murderers, terrorists, and dictators who wage war on us, allowing evil to abound rather than seeking to constrain it. Just as Christians can rightfully wage war and wrongfully wage war, depending on the situation, it is not categorically unChristian to waterboard anymore than it is unChristian to kill - the morality of both would be determined by the specifics.
Click to expand...
Anti-Christian versus unChristian, I never gave the differences there much thought. Thanks.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I find it oddly amusing that someone with an unabashed hatred of Christianity claims the authority to define what is or is not “Christian”.
Click to expand...
It's the consistent hypocrisy of the fundie Christian that makes me shake my head. We all know the "Christian" ideals: love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, do unto others, etc. Repeatedly seeing them denied by those who profess to be his followers is at the heart of that distaste.
 
calamity said:
It's the consistent hypocrisy of the fundie Christian that makes me shake my head. We all know the "Christian" ideals: love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, do unto others, etc. Repeatedly seeing them denied by those who profess to be his followers is at the heart of that distaste.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I find it interesting the number of people who aren't Christian themselves who nonetheless feel qualified to lecture those who are about what it is.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: I find it interesting the number of people who aren't Christian themselves who nonetheless feel qualified to lecture those who are about what it is.
Click to expand...

Consider it an objective outsider's viewpoint.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: I find it interesting the number of people who aren't Christian themselves who nonetheless feel qualified to lecture those who are about what it is.
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that the number of those who are Christian don't qualify to lecture others about what it is or isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom