Christians for torture
Andrew Sullivan posts on a disturbing poll indicating that U.S. Christians generally favor torturing suspected terrorists. Catholics, it turns out, are most hospitible to the idea:
Twenty-one percent of Catholics surveyed said it is “often” justified and 35 percent said it is “sometimes” justified. Another 16 percent said it is “rarely” justified, meaning that nearly three of four Catholics justify it under some circumstances. Four percent of Catholics “didn’t know” or refused to answer and only 26 percent said it is “never” justified, which is the official teaching of the church.
What group is least supportive of torture? White Evangelicals? Nope. White Protestants? Wrong again. Those who self-identify as secular are most opposed to using torture against suspected terrorists. Just 10 percent of secular respondents say torture is permissible “often,” and 41 percent say “never.” “In other words,” as Andrew puts it, “if you are an American Christian, you are more likely to support torture than if you are an atheist or agnostic. Christians for torture: it’s a new constituency. Another part of the Bush legacy.”
How did this happen? U.S. Catholic bishops have been anything but silent on the issue. Thanks especially to work of Bishop John H. Ricard, several well-crafted statements are on the record. But something has gone haywire on the receiving end. This is a teaching moment that must be seized.
Sadly it is has been clear for a while that many humanists are so much more charitable than Christians. Appropos of this study a non-scientific poll on AOL shows that at least 50% agree with Sgt. Michael J Smith who is not sorry he tortured prisoners of war. Likewise half the respondents felt the sentence of six months in prison was “too harsh.” Ever since the fourth century Christians have been quoting the OT to justify violence and war. Our Lady’s Warriors in their infamous bad Catholic list as one of the crimes of one of the named that he supports Pax Christi. Bush had a lot to feed on.
This example is a good illustration that sometimes we Christians, whether the clergy or the pew-rabble, can learn a thing or two from our secular neighbors.
In this case the clerical leadership among Catholics are out in front of their flock. In the case of recognising the dignity of homosexuals (LGBT) and how that translates into behaviour, the clergy are clearly fighting a rear-guard action.
It is little wonder we pay scant attention to those who claim to speak on behalf of God.
I attended Catholic schools through the 1950′s, before being expelled for asking questions about the Faith. What I recall most clearly is that everything we were taught was referenced to authority. That was the test of truth. If authority sanctioned something, then it was true.
Civil authority, like religious authority, came from God, we were taught. It was sinful to disobey, and it was licit to trust the moral judgement of civil authority over our own. Their authority, after all, came from God.
Using these doctrines, our teachers justified the activities of the Nazi military during World War II. It should come as no surprise that Catholics would agree that torture, as sanctioned by civil athority, was morally permissable.
One of the questions for which I was punished, was this: In the age of democracy where does authority lie?
First, having conducted polls of Catholics, I can say that even random sampling of Catholics yields highly suspect results because Catholics are much more likely to identify themselves as Catholics even if they haven’t darkened the door of a church for 20 years. Protestants tend not to do this.
Second, similar polls show that “Catholics” support abortion at a similar rate as the general population. So, why should we be shocked by this.
Its a simple equation boys and girs. If you there is not right to life, then you can’t make an intellectually coherent argument that there is a right to a dignified life.
Any conservative who supports torture ought to be ashamed of himself and repent. But at the same time, any liberal who has not been passionately crusading for an end to abortion for the last 30 years had better look at the beam in his own eye before criticizing anybody else. This is your legacy.
Greg Popcack’s attempt to lay blame for and to tie acceptance of abortion to acceptance of torture is pure nonsense. If he is truly a taker of polls he would know that one is not necessarity a colloquary of the other nor is one a cause of the other. His perspective is consistent however with the myths perpetuated by the anti-abortion forces who try to link a “contraceptive mentality” with abortion, euthansia, feminism, IVF, stem-cell research, aacceptance of homosexuality and so forth.
Perhaps it would be more enlightening to see where Catholics stand vis-a-vis their Protestant and secular counterparts on such issues as the death penalty, universal healthcare insurance or environmental regulations.
Well, John. I’ll happily cop to throwing a bomb to see who gets lit up, but “nonsense” and “myth”? I’m afraid you’ll have to do better than that.
Kindly back up your statement. Show your math.
You may not like it, but you have to admit that there is at least intellectual/philosophical symetry to the argument I am proposing. I am asserting that the Catholic argument against torture, most elegantly illustrated in Evangelium Vitae, is dependent upon the notion that the person has a God-given right to life and that each life has a dignity regardless of its convenience or social value because it has an innate dignity given by God.
In the model I am proposing, the reason that torture (or the death penalty, or abortion, or yes, even chemical contraception in particular) is wrong is because they all violate the notion that God gives life and God is the source of the dignity that life has, so all life is sacred no matter how inconvenient it is to society.
In this model the right to food, shelter, safety, healthcare, etc, is depended first upon the right to life. If I don’t have a right to life, then all I have to do to “solve” poverty, or homelessness, or national security is to define who is worthy of receiving benefits. Its entirely subjective, but it works. That’s what you’re seeing now in Gitmo. Those lives don’t count as much as red-blooded American’s lives, so we can be free to do what we want with those lives that don’t count as much.
This is almost exactly the same language the pro-abortion lobby is using. “Sure its bad. Heck it may even be murder! But the mother’s life is more worthy.”
And you say that’s a myth?
I’ll repeat my challenge. Show your math.
It’s very disheartening to think that Catholics, or anyone who proclaims a belief in Christ, would believe torture is ever justified. I thought Catholic Christians were in the business of following Jesus…remember ..the one who said to “resist no evil…turn the other cheek…I desire mercy, not sacrifice…”
I would take issue with “anything but silent.” They haven’t been silent, but they’ve been speaking pretty softly.
I live in Massachusetts, and I’ve been doing a ton of research on torture and specifically “rendition.”
I understand that if you believe the church’s teaching on the beginning of life, abortion is still a worse crisis, in terms of the numbers of people harmed, than torture. I understand it being a far higher priority. But what I find unforgivable is the relative attention to torture and gay marriage. Believe me–they aren’t sending school children around with petitions in support of Rep. Markey’s efforts to ban rendition. Oh no. I would say it’s maybe a 100-1 effort on opposing gay marriage, gay adoption, and all things gay, versus opposing torture. The actual number is pulled out of thin air, but I’d say it’s about that order of magnitude. And no one could doubt 10-1.
I hate to mention this but is it not true that for a long time the Catholic Church sanctioned, and many Catholic governments in good standing, following Roman law, practised, torture in criminal investigations, including investigations of the “crime” of heresy.? As I recall, Galileo was threatened with torture. It appears that now the “church”, if not all Catholics, thinks otherwise. This is another signal instance of a180 on a moral issue. Remember the monstrous crime of charging interest on a loan? What next?