Christians and torture shocker

Sadly, as someone who assists with religious education in my parish, as well as with CCD, I'm not surprised. As someone living in a region which is predominantly Evangelical, I also believe that Evangelicals are worse on torture than Catholics. Not that we're that great, either.

This is a huge beam we Christians need to get out of our eye if we are to have any credibility at all. Unfortunately, when it comes to issues of war, justice, and incarceration, I think too many of us are essentially unreconstructed pagans (of the Roman type) and not very Christian at all. Gospodi pomilui.

Oh, also--brace for the spate of "Why can't Christians support torture of those $#@! terrorists!" posts.

I think this is just following the party line. We live in a "if you're not with me, you're against me" world. Church goers are republicans, by and large, and supported the president by larger margins than the rest of America. Bush's "enemies" were "liberals" so anything his critics said had to be dismissed.

Church going Catholiccs supported the invasion of Iraq when it was criticized by their own pope. It's not surprising that they don't mind torture.

The RC jettisoned its past and 'traditional' people look for guidance. These 'traditional' people tried the RCC first and didn't get much so they ended up looking to the secular world, i.e. the Republican party, for guidance. Now they don't know the difference between where the GOP ends and the RCC begins.

Look at all of the criticism heaped on Mark Shea but his fellow Catholics.

Larry: Also recall that one of Jesus' disciples, Simon the Zealot, was what we'd now call a terrorist! Can you imagine what people would say about that these days?

That is the main point, the church is supposed to be different from the surrounding culture, to be a witness to it, to challenge it, not to be worse, even if only slightly, than the culture.

Christians are the culture in this country. Most non-religious are still outliers, and many of them are on the left, so I'm just not shocked by the numbers. If we were talking double digits, I'd be a bit more impressed.

Cheney probably wouldn't have thought crucifixion was torture if doctors were present and the person was pulled off before he died.

Yeah, yeah, Cheney is Satan incarnate.

Look, I opposed the policy right after 9/11. I thought it was wrong to make this a legal policy, but some of this hand-wringing is getting ridiculous. In 2002, the U.S. had almost no knowledge of what might be coming our way. Bad decisions were definitely made, but this wasn't a replay of Torquemada, and you have the Obama Administration admitting that the previous administration did get useful information. Michael Scheuer, no fan of Bush/Cheney, has said the waterboarding and other rough tactics saved lives. None of this justifies torture in itself. There are other objections, which I share, but let's do remember a bit of the context, too.

Rod, you should read *Fundamentalism and American Culture* by Marsden if you haven't already. It does a good job of tracing how our current configuration came about.

Does anyone here know enough about statistics to say which of the results are statistically significant? The sample size strikes me as a bit on the smallish size, but I don't know the relevant formulae.

you really do have to read results like this carefully before jumping to conclusions. First of all, it is measuring hispanic catholics not all catholics, this would scew results significantly. Most social scientists actually will exclude Hispanic Catholics from studies about religious attitudes because Hispanic Catholics are demographically so different from the rest of the Catholics.

The survey size is also pretty small although Pew is a very reputable survey organization.

Finaly, the differences among groups and versus the rest of the population dont look that significant and please note that the responses are not "yeah - go torture them" but rather "torture is sometimes justified, often justified" etc.

I would not jump to a conclusion that Christians are really into torture from this study. I am inclined however to agrre with those who have posted about the consequences of aligning oneself with a political agenda and confuaing that with religious conviction.

In my experience, devout Christians are much more authoritarian than the average American. Maybe that's what draws them to Christianity, the appeal of an authority higher than man? I'm not sure. Christians also seem to be more afraid of people than the average person I know.

I'm not sure that my experience of Christians are generalizeable, but given that experience I'm not personally surprised to see the higher acceptance rate of torture among Christians. Scared of people who might want to kill us, and accepting of the notion of the nation's leaders as authorities, doesn't seem too much of a stretch to think they'd be comfortable investing those leaders with whatever powers the leaders tell us they need to keep us safe.

This disgusts me, but sadly, does not really surprise me. I taught an adult Sunday School class at our last church (Protestant and evangelical) for about 2 years and two of the most difficult conversations I had during that time were 1) trying to convince folks that torture was inherently evil because it attacks and degrades the person and thus the image of God in the person, and 2) trying to convince certain people that while some Christian thinkers believe war may sometimes be necessary (just war theory), no Christian believe it is a good.

Never heard a sermon touch on either of these topics the whole time we were there. We have since moved on and are looking for another church. Having a hard time finding one that actually teaches what's in the Bible. Sad.

Having experienced a wide range of Christian traditions, two possible (and interlinked) explanations occur to me.

First, the shallow theology of the Evangelical mainstream, where virtue becomes closely associated not with taking up one's cross and turning the other cheek, but with the extent of one's adherence to socially conservative middle-class respectability. In particular ideas like the imago dei and human dignity are poorly explored in popular Evangelicalism, except where rhetorically useful in pro-life debates.

Second, the creeping culture of emotivism and utilitarianism, which infects nearly all Christian groups, though they apply it in peculiar ways. "Strict" Evangelicals anathematise abortion and ESCR but not so much divorce and various other "middle-class" sins (like gossip, covetousness, greed etc.) while liberals are fine with abortion, euthanasia etc. but are absolutely opposed to torture.

We rely on feelings when it suits us!

I am disgusted and dismayed.

I have written two columns on our church website over the last week in which I describe the torutre policies of the US and denounce them, and I'll be doing it (again) in a sermon this Sunday.

Some of us are trying to fight this total betrayal of Christian and American values.

Interesting point, Me. I wonder though... one thing Christians do seem to be rather comfortable in drawing absolute lines around (rather than using situational ethics) are things related to sex. If CIA folks raped the terrorists as an effective means of getting them to give up useful information, would Christians be okay with that? I have a hard time believing they would. So, why are some forms of torture (that threaten death in addition to degrading a person's dignity and humanity) ok and some forms (that use sex to degrade dignity) not?

I've known this for a while ( regular reading of OneNewsNow and CNSNews clues you in to the audience ) and it's why I've never taken seriously socons bemoaning moral relativism arising from secularism. The old testament Christians really enjoy the idea of hell and eternal damnation, yet Jesus and the New Testament are all about forgiveness. I hope this will change, but I expect it not.

Please don't take this as an apology for torture, but I think one reason many Christians (especially Evangelicals) don't have as much of a problem with torture when it involves terrorists is because Christians (including myself) truly believe evil exists in the world. The logic of the argument follows that you can't reason or bargain with evil. Instead, you have to use whatever means necessary, including torture, to prevent more acts being perpetrated by evil people. I don't agree with this argument, but I think the motives of many that hold this view are not completely unreasonable.

I think you're probably onto something here. I think more conservative Christians have a more accurate sense of the kind of evil jihadists represent, not only because they (conservative Christians) believe in the reality of actual evil, but also because they appreciate in their bones the power of religion as a motivator for human action. Unfortunately, it would appear that they do not sufficiently grasp the power of even well-meaning people to carry out evil in pursuit of good ends.

There's nothing shocking about this...Christians are in general the most self-protective, self-defensive people in America.

I agree with Joel. Republican ideas, especially if endorsed by Limbaugh or Hannity, definitely comes before nay sense of truely Biblical values. I go to a conservative evangelical church, I sometimes call the First Church of Republican Hypocrisy, as almost everyone there are republicans first, and- "christian" second. However in their own minds, they are now one and the same.

In particular ideas like the imago dei and human dignity are poorly explored in popular Evangelicalism

Question:

How do you think the apostle Paul would have responded to the assertion that human dignity absolutely forbids Caesar from using rack or scourge -- even against brigands known with moral certainty to be actively conspiring to kidnap or murder, who refuse to disclose their plots?

How would Augustine have responded?

How would Aquinas have responded? (Actually, we know how he would have responded).

How would Jesus have responded? (Doesn't this throw some light on the question?)

Humans do have God-given dignity. The Bible recognizes that dignity, and so do early and medieval Christian thinkers.

But they would be astonished by the assertion that human dignity absolutely forbids use of coercive measures against unrepentant murderers and kidnappers.

Rick: I mean, honestly: If one accepts as just that a fornicator or adulterer or other ordinary sinner can be subjected to eternal torment in Hell for all eternity, why should one recoil at the waterboarding of a monster like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for a few minutes?

Not all Christians believe this. Even if one believes in a Hell, this doesn't necessarily give grounds for supporting torture. In a sense, God "kills" many more people than any human (accidents, disease, etc.), but that doesn't give us license to murder, does it? However, this is a rather perverse way of looking at things.

Cultural Conservative: I think you make a pretty good point, which rings true to my experience.

Your Name at 7:58 PM: Anybody here remember "love your neighbor?" That starts with protecting his life if need be. No wonder a lot of Christians who think torture works are in favor of using it.

Do you remember "Love your enemy, bless those who curse you, do good to those who spitefully use you, pray for those who oppress you"? (Luke 6:27-28)? Or Proverbs 25:21-22? Or Romans 12:17-21? Just to list a few. I got into this a few threads back, and I repeat what I said then: show me anywhere in Scripture where protecting the innocent is given as warrant for torture or any other such behavior. As is very clear from statements by Christ himself and from the praxis of the first four centuries of the Church, the ideal was seen as complete nonviolence, no exceptions.

I am not a pacifist, and think that in the fallen world in which we live that force and violence are sometimes sadly necessary; but to that extent I fall short of the Christian ideal. Moreover, torture used on someone who may or may not have information which may or may not lead to the saving of innocent lives which may or may not otherwise have been in danger, is different from, say, shooting someone who is actively attacking an innocent.

AFL: You know as well as I do that the issue here is waterboarding (186 times in one case) and other things much worse than what you describe here.

Steve F.: Sounds about right. Personally I think that if one's concept of Christianity sounds too much like the GOP or Democratic platform, or sounds too right-wing or left-wing, one might need to give his faith a lot of careful consideration and see if he's following Christ as much as he thinks he is.

Turmarion,

Just a minor quibble: to love one's enemies does not rule out physical coercion. St. Augustine laid out some pretty convicning (to me) reasoning on that point in his famous "Commentaries on the Epistles of St. John". Simply put, he argues that if a father can love his child whom he physically disciplines, then use of force is not always incompatible with love, provided that it seeks the correction of the malefactor as well as the good of society.

None of that, in my view, justifies waterboarding or even more severe torture.

Hector: Excellent post. I'd also point out that there is another area where the Benthamite/utilitarian view is problematic. Once this system reduces "good" to "pleasure" and "evil" to "pain", it proceeds to quantify them. If X produces 10 units of pain to each of five people, but 20 units of pleasure to each of five, then the greater "good" to the second five outweighs the lesser "evil" to the first five, so we should do X. That is perfectly logical, given the premises, and perfectly abominable.

Everyone in this discussion ought to read Ursula K. LeGuin's short story, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas"--it would give everyone something to think about in terms of what price we wish to pay to maintain our way of life.

Turmarion,

There is no general license to murder, of course. But in fact Christian thinkers have grounded Caesar's right to execute in Casaer's status as God's delegate. This goes back to St. Paul in Romans 13: "...if you do evil, be afraid, for [civil authority] does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer."

Perhaps too many Christians sit through gutwrenching sermons or abominable musical liturgy, which at times can seem like torture. It can even be a very effective form of penance for many of us.

1. I don't think any of these interrogators have the love for the enemy combatants that a decent father has for his child or else they wouldn't be waterboarding them in the first place.

2. Catholics have found their niche in this society and have arrived to the point where there is little that distinguishes us from Joe Evangelical next door. We even think the same. The Catholic Church is place we visit for 45 mins a week because we have to or because we kind of sort of think of ourselves as being Catholic even though we have no idea what that means.

3. 40 years of bad catechesis has got us here. It's going to take the kind of concerted effort that the bishops have spent on abortion in the past couple of years to bring folks around to understanding that the catechism says torture is wrong and that waterboarding is torture. Just as with abortion, we will have groups calling themselves "Catholic Conservatives" or "Catholics for America" dissenting against the Church.

I love the folks on this thread saying that the anti-torture crowd is self-righteous. Since when have Evangelicals showed humility about issues like homosexuality or partial birth abortion in which the mother is endangered?
Some pro-torture folks mock our moral clarity on this issue. I think any reasonable person that saw pictures from Abu Ghraib, and knows that the CIA destroyed nearly a hundred tapes of "enhanced interrogations" (most likely because they were so horrible) would at least question what's going on, even if they don't have moral clarity on it.
Personally, I think Evangelical blood-lust is the force of anti-Christ.

Turmarion,

Great post.

I would add though that LeGuin's short story (and the passages in Dostoyevsky on which it is based) are not a perfect analogy. The question "Is it right to kill, torture, or oppress innocent people so that good may come of it down the road?" is at the heart of Alyosha's argument, and LeGuin's. That's why Dostoyevsky and LeGuin picked _children_ for their hypothetical victims. And it's not hard to come to the answer "No", whether you're a Christian or not. But sophisticated and sensitive people, for all that time, have been able to construct defenses of state violence (hanging, beheading, shooting, flogging, and bombing) by denying the premise, and saying essentially, "But our victims are not innocent."

That's a much harder question to answer, and one that takes more thought. I still have to say 'No' to waterboarding, but I can't say that I think all use of force, against the guilty, is always wrong. And let's remeber, all of us, that legally speaking, _we don't know_ if these men are guilty or not.

What on earth are these Christians hearing at church?

I would be very interested to know the answer to this question. Seriously, I'd be interested in seeing even a highly unscientific survey from your site visitors, one Sunday afternoon, on "the topic of today's sermon at my church" -- especially if it was divided up by denomination and/or region.

I am astonished and appalled at e.g. John's experience (@7:16) -- in my naivete I assumed that these things were at least being talked about.

Have the Catholics among you heard sermons about just war doctrine or about how torture violates the sanctity of the person? If you have, do they make the "seamless garment" connection between being anti-war/anti-torture and being pro-life?

This is what happens when you conflate a political platform with a particular religion or religious sect. It's one reason Jesus was so careful to compartmentalize between Caesar's things and God's things, and why he would not permit violence on his behalf, and why he was so leary of any kind of support from the power system of his day, even if this power system was in favor of Judaic Law. Power corrupts. Jesus' gospel was all about turning the world's system on its head, it was about overcoming evil not with power, but with weakness, until he comes again.

This stance is not unique to Jesus, other prophets had taught caring for the poor and orphans before. He simply brought these teachings to fruition. Muslims echo this sentiment as well, "There is no power and no salvation save in God," is one part of the call to prayer which echoes through a Muslim city.

Unfortunately, they've not figured out that anyone claiming to finally be establishing Islamic Rule on Earth likely only has their own interests in mind. It took us in the West a while to learn to doubt political powers claiming to be mouthpieces of God. Indeed, in light of recent events in our own country, it seems this lesson needs re-learning.

Do you remember "Love your enemy, bless those who curse you, do good to those who spitefully use you, pray for those who oppress you"? (Luke 6:27-28)? Or Proverbs 25:21-22? Or Romans 12:17-21?

Yes, Tumarion, those all have to be taken with the greatest seriousness. As do Biblical injunctions to protect the innocent. I'm not arguing for torture. I'm arguing that for the Christian the issue is NOT simple.

From Eugene Peterson's devotional on the Revelation, "Reversed Thunder":
"Killing the opposition is the beast's way of solving problems. It is not ours. Ours is endurance and faith."

Here's a shocker: a new Pew poll finds that Christians support torture more than non-believers do.

Honestly Rod, one might get the idea that you really believe that Christians in America are a marginalized, persecuted minority with ideas that are distinct from the rest of the nation instead of making up more than 80% of the population.

Also, note that the group most likely to support torture is the same group that is most likely to be part of the Republican base.

Hector: Just a minor quibble: to love one's enemies does not rule out physical coercion. St. Augustine laid out some pretty convincing (to me) reasoning on that point in his famous "Commentaries on the Epistles of St. John".

True, but I'd be extremely careful with Augustine. He also argued (for the first time in Christian history, in fact) that the state had the right to forcibly suppress heresy (the Donatists, specifically). Using force against an enemy always requires very careful consideration, and the risks are greater than I think Augustine was willing to concede.

Also, thatk you for your kind words; your posts are excellent and thoughtful, as well. I realize the LeGuin story is an imperfect analogy, but I think it makes two strong points: One, we should look at the things we justify as "necessary" for our society honestly without dissembling. If it's torture, call it that. Two, if we choose to stay in Omelas, be honest in realizing that we accept, by our actions, the atrocity (of whatever kind) as the price of civilization. In other words, those who think that the torture we're talking about here was acceptible, say it loud and proud: "Yeah, we need to torture sometimes for our nation's safety--what of it?" Of course, that means we don't get to claim to be the "good guys" any more, since we're condoning the same methods used by despots. And I agree with you that a certain amount of force used in the proper context against the guilty, is acceptable. As you point out, we don't know if some of these people are guilty; and I think anything that rises to the level of torture (e.g. waterboarding) is right out.

Rick: How do you think the apostle Paul would have responded to the assertion that human dignity absolutely forbids Caesar from using rack or scourge -- even against brigands known with moral certainty to be actively conspiring to kidnap or murder, who refuse to disclose their plots?

I'd be interested in seeing where Paul addresses such issues at all--I don't claim to know what he'd have said.

if you do evil, be afraid, for [civil authority] does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.

Paul here seems to be talking about capital punishment, not torture. However, it's interesting that the civil authority here is the Roman empire, not known as a respecter of human rights! At the time Paul wrote, the "powers that be" were all pagan, and since the return of Christ was thought to be imminent, Paul probably never had the concept of a Christian state. It is interesting to speculate whether he would have seen things the same way for a Christian, as opposed to pagan, civil authority. In any case, it's also interesting to note that, Paul or no Paul, all available evidence indicates that the Church for the first three centuries was absolutely pacifist. I posted a link on the history of this concept a few threads back--I don't have time to find it again, but it can be Googled. The compromise with brutal reality that the Church gradually made from the time of Constantine onward may have been a sad necessity, but I believe nonviolence is still the ideal, and should still inform our discussions on how far we can go in inflicting violence even on those known to be "evil", if you will.

How would Augustine have responded?

As I pointed out above, Augustine is problematic, to say the least.

How would Aquinas have responded?

In the linked excerpt, Aquinas seems to think maiming for lesser crimes is OK, too. So we can cut off hands for theft, right? Oops, wrong religion--that's Shari'a law! Even the Church doesn't say St. Thomas always got it right.

How would Jesus have responded?...Doesn't [Luke 12:47] throw some light on the question?

Not necessarily. 1. This statement is in the context of a parable. 2. Lashes are more a punishment for malfeasance than torture. The closer modern analogy to lashes would be hard labor in jail for a criminal, not torture of a captive to get information. 3. Finally, this is what is called "proof-texting", selecting a quote to make a point without looking at the overall picture in Scripture and Tradition. One could, for example, use Matthew 18:8-9 to argue that Jesus says we should amputate hands or feet, or gouge out eyes, if they are causing us to sin. No one, of course, takes these admonitions literally.

If you look at the big picture--the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels as a whole and properly contextualized, the rest of the New Testament, and the witness of the primitive Church (which presumably, being closer to the time of the Apostles, had a clearer idea of what they taught), I think it is quite clear that violence is never advocated as a viable option for Christians. As time passed and Christianity became the majority religion, things changed and a certain compromise was struck with the violent tactics of worldly governments. Still, there has always been a strong pacifist streak throughout Christian history. Even for those of us who are not pacifist, I think the burden of proof should always be on those advocating any kind of war or violence, and the default should always be the nonviolent approach. That doesn't mean violence or war is never appropriate, but if we took our values as seriously as we ought, war and violence should both be much less prevalent.

jim r: It seems you have drawn the line in one spot, and decided that anyone who disagrees has gone too far, in your opinion.

The uniform witness of the church of the first four centuries, the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, and the last two Popes have all condemned torture as intrinsic evil That's not something I concocted as "my" opinion; and I think there's more wisdom there than I have.

Your Name at 10:05 PM: [Love your enemies, etc.] all have to be taken with the greatest seriousness. As do Biblical injunctions to protect the innocent.

Give me some New Testament quotes (especially from the Gospels) on the use of violence and torture to protect innocents, and please explain how you square them with the clear injunctions not to resist evil, that vengeance is the Lord's, not ous, and that we are to overcome evil with good, to say nothing of the uniform practice of the early Church, both East and West.

I'm not arguing for torture. I'm arguing that for the Christian the issue is NOT simple.

Nobody ever said morality was simple; but I think on some things, it actually is simpler than we'd like. As G. K. Chesterton memorably said, "Morality is always dreadfully complicated to a man who has lost all his principles." I'm afraid that we Christians are in danger of losing our principles the more we want to argue in favor of violent solutions that don't seem even to be working that well, anyway.

Steve, New Age Cowboy, elmo, AnotherBeliever: Excellent posts!

I'm disgusted by the findings but not at all surprised. I live in the dark heart of evangelicalism and the blood lust is utterly amazing. If I weren't a Christian and saw and read what is regularly expressed by professing Christians, I would be virulently anti-Christian, and with good reason. It is true that scripture is not "pacifist" since God reserves the right to do holy violence to the wicked, but the New Covenant ethic seems to lead to a type of Covenantal pacifism which leaves vengeance to God. I think that's why we see the early church acting the way it did. It was the advent of the Constantinian era that saw Christians become more comfortable with the sword of the state instead of the sword of the spirit. We still haven't gotten over that particular temptation. BTW, I am really impressed with the range of discourse among these comments on this thread. Bravo!

If it had been left up to Gandhi, Hitler would have taken over the entire world...

This indicates the sickness of much of today's conservative religion. Listen to any 'christian' radio station, it's mostly Jesus-flavored Republicanism, not at all speaking truth to power (unless it's liberal power). Rod is always going on about persecution by the gays, the secularists, etc. I say, bring it on. The church needs to be cleansed of the insincere culture warriors. Let the church be Christian.

I don't approve of the hard-core stuff, like beheading (I wish we could hear, even once, a leftist condemn islamic beheading) and tearing off fingernails, etc. But I really don't care if they sleep-deprive a guy or put underwear on his head. But that's just me.

War is hell.

"Unfortunately, that's what you get when the "culture war" is internalized to mean party affiliation and Rovian talking points are part of Christian faith."

So Celtic all these people were white going Chruch going Republicans taking their gospel From Rove?

Funny ti seems Pelosi had not problems with it at tfirst as we know she was briefed.

Wow. I attend a presbyterian church. Have for years. I am pretty low on the presbyterian national leadership these days (and am no longer an 'official' member), but my pres. church friends here in Seattle are awesome christian people. I guess the Pres. church is 'evangelical'? But guess what, people? I never, ever hear them judgmentally 'going off' about all those 'horrible' orthodox, catholic etc. christians and what LOSERS they all are. Not once. Do you hear yourselves??? Could these 'horrible' loathsome presbyterians and similar unwashed other denominations not like yours be actually LESS judgmental than Y'ALL are?? Sure sounds like it here.

Turmarion,

I _don't_ think that Jesus would have us be pacifists, and I don't even believe that's the ideal. Those injunctions about turning the other cheek were meant to forbid personal vengeance in response to personal slights. They weren't intended to apply at the level of the state or similar institutions, and they weren't meant to apply in extreme situations. Notice what Jesus did _not_ say: he didn't say "If a man rapes one of your daughters, give him another one", and he didn't say, "If the Nabateans kill one of your neighbors, let them kill the other one too." Now, in terms of the argument from Tradition you're on stronger ground and I can't argue with you there except to note that only a hundred years after Constantine made Christianity the state religion, Augustine was already making arguments that the old prohibitions on violence needed to be reinterpreted.

I agree with you about waterboarding, and torture during interrogations in general, but I can't agree with you on pacifism as a general ideal. Christianity is the faith of the knight as well as the monk (in this it is set apart from religions like Buddhism or, in its day, Manichaeanism, which were pacifist.)

Michele and Jon W.,

Don't be ridiculous. Who here is defending abortion? And who here is a knee jerk liberal? Certainly not me.

Doctor Science - my experience is that priests tend to address hot topics in subtle ways. We got a "just war" sermon when the invasion of Iraq was about to start - but the priest was careful to state the doctrine and not mention Iraq. He left it up to us to figure out this war was not going to conform to that doctrine. I recall as a teen hearing the same type of sermon re: the Vietnam war.

On the torture issue - last Sunday during this prayer petition that we do during the mass - there was a petition that was to the effect of helping all americans to learn compassion for those they see as enemies and to restore America to a standing of moral leadership which again was a subtle reference to the torture issue. I believe that since we are used to hearing them bring up hot topics in these sort of subtle ways that their meaning is pretty clear to people.

In my diocese papal encyclicals are often read in summary form in lieu of a homily and are always printed in the diocesan newspaper. So the RC Church's position on issues like war and torture are articulated and made available. It was made known that the Pope was clearly opposed to the Iraq invasion several times in my parish by our priests. I think it may depend on the diocese and geographic region just how activist a parish might be.

My experience has been that the issues you will hear most often and most vehemently expressed from the pulpit have to do with bigotry and neglect of the poor. One will also get the annual homily ( and subsequent collection) to help people in the Third World. Opposition to capital punishment is also an annual topic.

Well, I'm having trouble seeing how this could have been a 'shock' beyond the initial obvious rooted in what we once saw as the Biblical concept of 'Christian'. It was hardly a secret that the 'religious Right' elected George Bush. Twice. That administration is the one whose tactics are here questioned. Do that math, meaning 2 pus 2 + 4.

Again broad popular culture. If then or even now you watched so-called Christian TV...Christian Broadcast Network, Daystar, which both have deeply Evangelical fundamentalist roots, you'd know that what YOU thought you were voting 'for' differs from what you see and hear on the 'Joni' talk show or several very political 'news' shows thereon. Where other religions are so demonized that it is not 'humans' that are being tortured but rather anti-God-and-good infidel threats to Jesus/America which are seen as one of the same.

Roger Williams' hedge between church and the State was designed more to protect the church than the State. In many ways, the Republican Party has basically merged with evangelical Christianity, corrupting both.

There is a difference between using your faith to guide your vote and trying to turn the government into an arm of your church. One risk of the latter is that sometimes the government ends up turning your church into an arm of the government.

Re: think one reason many Christians (especially Evangelicals) don't have as much of a problem with torture when it involves terrorists is because Christians (including myself) truly believe evil exists in the world.

I certainly believe that evil exists in the world, but I fail to see how that leads to a belief that the proper response is to support more evil in response to it.

The Christian nationalists here who suggest that Jesus would be a cheerleader for torture are making Buddhism a very appealing alternative right now. Frankly, I don't want to be in a Christianity that looks like yours, folks. Sandals...dust...shake...I'm commending you to God's care, because I can't deal with you anymore.

Wait up, LutheranChik! I'm coming with you . . . . 8-(

Sigaliris:

I was physically disciplined as a child, and intend to physically discipline my own children if necessary. I am also completely opposed to torture.

Torture is not a kind of physical punishment. It is completely different from, and much worse than, physical punishment (within either a judicial or family context). And before we get into the whole hysterical argument about abuse etc., when I talk about physical punishment of children, I am not talking about regular spanking or abuse or striking out in anger. I am talking about occasional loving chastisement where that is the appropriate option. It does not mean teaching kids that "you should solve your problems through violence" any more than the police using force to arrest suspects does. Imprisonment is not the same as abduction, and the occasional smack is not the same as solving problems through violence.

I believe 'evil exists in the world' too, and it rears it's ugly head in torture, and in the unctuous piety of those who support it.

Is it really a 'shocker' that the group of people who believe they have access to absolute morality would be more likely to be corrupted, absolutely?

Another shock: there's gambling going on at Rick's place in Casablanca!

"I wish we could hear, even once, a leftist condemn islamic beheading"

Are you kidding me? You must never talk to any liberal - I am one, as are many of my friends, and NOT A ONE of us "supports" or "fails to condemn" islamic's that behead people. I get that you hate us and think we're immoral, but good lord, tone down the hyperbole.

Not to mention that some of our own were the ones being beheaded... the "rightists" are not the only ones who suffer the costs of terrorism. Some of us just don't think that sinking closer to their level allows us to defeat them.

But ok, here it is, since you claim to have never heard it "I, a 'leftist", condemn islamic beheading". I hope seeing in print is enough for you.

Sheesh.

Mark Bowden, in his Atlantic Monthly article "The Dark Art of Interrogation," tells the true story of a German kidnapper who buried a boy, Jakob von Metzler, alive while demanding ransom from his father.

The police caught the kidnapper. They were morally certain he was the kidnapper. They knew Jakob had been buried alive, but did not know where he was. The kidnapper refused to tell.

The ranking police offer threatened to have the kidnapper beaten if he did not disclose the boy's whereabouts. The kidnapper cracked. The boy was found — though tragically he had already suffocated.

I understand that many here judge the policeman to have acted in an intrinsically evil, consequentialist manner -- probably due to his own harsh upbringing (right, Sig?). That the imago dei in the kidnapper is so sacred that he is immune from any coercion -- even as he peacefully allows a boy he has buried alive to torturously draw his last breaths.

What I don't understand is how one derives this view from the Bible.

If the media really cared to inform us about this issue, they would ask more explicit questions.

Mr. Christian, do you think it is acceptable to keep someone up past their bedtime while interrogating them?

Mr. Secularist, do you think it is acceptable to drown someone until they see a bright light at the end of a tunnel while interrogating them?

And so on. Anyone who thinks this poll is meaningful in any real way is simply being led by the nose by a duplicitous media.

Christians need to stay out of politics, period! Christians also supported Hitler and the Nazis. The question is when are we ever going to learn? The answer - when Jesus Christ returns to give a big spanking which we totally deserve.

I think combining this post with the post about Catholics supporting Obama's ND invite would help capture a lot of the dynamics of contemporary Catholicism. A lot of the reasoning in support of Obama speaking at the ND commencement is pretty pathetic. It's a lot of vague statements about forgiving people, loving sinners, being open, etc., ignoring the fact that in Catholic teaching, loving sinners never entails honoring them and that forgiveness happens in specified ways. In essence, the position entails being so open-minded that there's little reason to even be Catholic any more. This position first gained influence in the 1960s and I grew up in the reaction to it. The reaction (neoconservative, broadly speaking)--spurred especially by the bishops' critique of the US's stance in the Cold War (see their letters on nuclear war and economic justice)--stressed avoiding moral equivalence, taking firm stands and moral principles. So, growing up in an environment that focused on those concerns, when issues of war and struggle came up, we put a priority on avoiding weakness and standing firm. So, issues like torture were minimalized and it's tough for a lot of Catholics who claim to be conservative to start taking it seriously (witness how long it has taken First Things to say anything about it).

Wasn't Jesus tortured?

Marc,

The entire program -- and it must be viewed in its entirety -- is torture. The exposure to cold, the forced nakedness, confinement in small places, use of bugs or dogs to create terror, slapping and slamming, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and actions to degrade and dehumanize the captives (many of whom appear to have been innocent) -- is torture. Again, if these things were done to Americans the same people who support this conduct with frothing at the mouth in rage. It is nationalistic moral relativity that is going on here.

I follow Rod enought to know that he is against toture.

His point is probably that there is so much hatered toward Christians that they will turn desperately to anyone who claims to be on there side.

Therefore, they end up supporting someone like Adolf Hitler or George Bush.

Many many people are confused about the point of keeping religion and government separate.

It's not to protect governments. Governments, in general, can protect themselves. (And, frankly, attempting protect 'the government' from the people is stupid and undemocratic.)

The most important reason to separate church and state is to protect church. Because parts of the state have every reason in the world to attempt to subvert a religion to their own end, to gain more power within the state.

See, the terrible secret about most religions, the secret that no one wants to talk about, is that maybe 5% of followers of that religion actually sit down and reason what they should do based on that religion's actual holy teachings.

The rest, the other 95%, are informed by the people who teach them the religion.

Which means that people with enough secular power, like, for example, someone in the government, or well funded people, can come in and subvert the religion by changing the message people receive. Sometimes they can do it by 'buying off' spokespeople for that religion, sometimes they have to create their own organization outside the control of a church like the Moral Majority.

And this is exactly what has happened with the Republican party and various parts of Christianity.

I have a lot of trouble trying to convince my fellow lefties (When we're not busy cheering people being beheaded on TV, apparently.), that the problem isn't the Christian Right's influence on the Republicans, that's nearly nonexistence, despite what the CR thinks....it's the Republican's influence on the church that's created the 'Christian Right' in the first place.

At first this control was used only to influence things that could, plausibly, be correct Christian teachings. Aka, against abortion, homosexuality, both of which churches in general (Although not the Catholic who generally opposed them from the start.) didn't start freaking out until the Republicans started pushing.

..and pushing and pushing, more and more things, and at this point are pushing things that are flatly blatantly unchristian, like torture, and their control is so good that they've got people going along with it.

Just to be clear: I am not defending torture. I am only saying that this poll is only a "SHOCKER!!!" if one believes that the press is entirely unbiased and that the average guy on the street is thinking "Why, yes, I do think placing electical wires on someone's scrotum is valid." I find it hard to believe that secularists OR Christians would affirm such a clearly stated question.

Marc,

And Republicans are anti-Democrat. Point?

You want the polls to define torture, but how should that be defined? You think sleep deprivation is a gray area, but that simply shows ignorance on your part as to what sleep deprivation means and what it does to the human body and mind. Sleep deprivation is not "keeping someone up past their bedtime." Characterizing it that way is not attempting to establish moral ambiguity; rather, you're clearly trying to dismiss any concerns about it.

But let's say that the polls explicitly defined torture in a way that's acceptable to you, and that every respondent agreed wholeheartedly with that definition. How exactly would that change the results? The poll didn't gauge support for Bush or for waterboarding. It wasn't about methods, it was about attitudes.

For that matter, if the poll did define torture the way you want, support for it would go down, because there's a not-insignificant number of torture apologists like you busily demolishing straw men arguments about "keeping people up past their bedtime." If no one in this country thought that the media was hyping the issue, less people would be willing to support it. But people like you have managed to deceive others with your silly and irrelevant arguments.

And good grief, if you think the media is trying "to throw everything against the GWB wall in hopes that something sticks," then we live on different planets.

Marc,

I am a secular Democrat -- I will admit that -- but I was vehemently against torture for my entire adult life, not because GWB and his administration chose to embrace it. Indeed, at the risk of sounding naive, I was actually shocked at the revelation. Really, deeply, truly amazed that the United States would take such actions. Because oddly enough, despite our many demonstrable flaws as a society, I did think we were above this sort of thing. But, sadly, no, as they say.

I am pretty amazed at the moral relativism evident in the comments here. I thought that was the province of us heathens. I thought that true Christians believed in turning the other cheek, in not degrading fellow humans, and were willing, if necessary, to die in order not to soil their faith. But in the end, I see we have authoritarians who are comfortable with violence and torture, and rationalizers, who will do everything but face the issue head on, and insist that the poll was flawed or that this wasn't really torture, or it was mild torture done in extremis.

No. It was torture, it was done in our names, and it is illegal and immoral. Again, if the guy being sleep deprived for days on end, or chained naked in the cold, or waterboarded, was a nice Christian American instead of a Muslim, you folks would be beside yourselves with righteous anger. I don't think Jesus had American exceptionalism in mind when he instructed his flock.

Don't miss (good Christian) Dennis Prager's love letter to torture:

Um, I don't know how to break this to you, but Dennis Prager is a devout Jew.

Ah! My mistake. I knew he was devout. Thanks, Rod!

Well,
i'll try one more time to explain what I mean. I am merely saying that most people are answering this poll in the same way that Nancy Pelosi answered it. She was for it when it was wanted and against it when it was a Republican issue.

I don't think Joe Evangelical is really saying "I favor torture" so much as he is saying "I support the war on terror, GWB, and I don't trust the MSM in what they are telling me about what's been done". Likewise, I don't think Joe Secularist is saying "I am firmly against doing evil so that good may come of it" so much as he is saying "I hate GWB, and I don't trust what he told me about the war on terror, so I am going to register my disapproval in the way I answer this poll question. Remember, the people answering this poll are the same people on "Jaywalking".

I mean, come on. The majority of Democrats and/or secularists are perfectly fine with situational ethics in any other context. Now you're going to tell me that on this one issue, they have bright moral boundaries that they will not cross even under threat of annihilation? I don't buy it.

I'll say it again. This poll is bogus. Anyone who finds it to be a SHOCKER!!! is naive.

Your Name at 11:11 PM: Turmarion, this tells me how to treat people who wrong _me_. I don't see how it trumps the injunction to love my neighbor, which necessarily begins with defending him.

I notice you gave no quotes, which is what I expected. Also, who is my neighbor? When Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan, the audience certainly didn't think Samaritans were neighbors. Perhaps everyone, to a degree, is our neighbor, including the one we're considering torturing. And I don't say there isn't some duty to defend one's neighbor, but the question is, at what cost? I don't think defense of the innocent can be construed to allow and and all means. Finally, as I said before, there's a difference in level of abstraction between fighting off an attacker and torturing a captive who may or may not have usable information.

Hector: Now, in terms of the argument from Tradition you're on stronger ground and I can't argue with you there except to note that only a hundred years after Constantine made Christianity the state religion, Augustine was already making arguments that the old prohibitions on violence needed to be reinterpreted.

From your posts, I think we actually agree more than we disagree. As to arguing from Tradition, there's the rub, isn't it? It depends on the authority with which you invest Tradition, and the extent to which you think later alterations in doctrine (e.g. those of Augustine) on this and several other issues) were wrong-headed departures from Tradition.

Michelle: Pacifism? Jesus was no limp-wristed pacifist when he used a WHIP to angrily throw out the money-changers from his father's house!

St. Francis, among others, was a pacifist, but certainly not "limp-wristed"! Also, not everything that Jesus did was necessarily meant as a an example for Christians--unless you think we should beat people who buy all the tacky religious stuff in church gift stands or Christian bookstores. Hey, wait--that might be a good idea....

Jon W.: Jon W: Yeah, the Evangelicals have drunk some serious Republican Kool-Aid...you do notice, don't you, that their moral stands are generally opposite those of the cultural powers-that-be, and all your moral stands are completely in accordance with the cultural powers-that-be?

I don't think this is necessarily fair. Many of us are in agreement with Evangelicals and in opposition to the "cultural powers-that-be" on many issues such as abortion, obscenity, etc. As Rod pointed out, that is no reason not to hold them accountable in their areas of blindness. Ditto any other group. Also, many of us here were raised in Evangelical backgrounds, and have very negative experiences from it (as do many raised Catholic, or anything else, for that matter). It's hard not to let that color our perceptions, at times. Nevertheless, we are all on the same team, as it were, and need to fraternally correct each other when necessary.

David TC: Great post!

I've heard terrorism and our reaction of fear addressed very well from an Episcopal church here. The basic statement was that we have very little control over life in general, let alone our security, given that we are mortal and only very precariously alive. It is by God's grace that live at all, and for that reason we should reject fear and embrace him.

There was also something about our enemy, which struck me at the time, but that was two years (and one tour in Iraq) ago, so I can't recall.

As far as sleep deprivation, anyone who's done time in a line unit in the military knows that it's amazing how little sleep you can get by on, but it also screws with your head and takes your judgement and perspective away after a week or so. It's one of the main tactics used in military indoctrination, along with group punishment, weather exposure, forced physical exercises, and mild humiliation/frustration tactics. Disorientation is a result, and it motivates recruits to re-orient themselves to their new lifestyle by compliance. I wouldn't call anything we put a typical military recruit through "torture," though it also isn't very nice treatment. But there are very clear limits in that kind of environment - a recruit cannot be physically struck or restrained unless he is in danger of harming himself or someone else. There is also an understanding that once a recruit has complied and passed certain benchmarks, his conditions will improve.

The problem with our policies towards enemy combatants is that there were no reasonable limits. Or rather, there were reasonable limits, and these were thrown out. We clearly crossed the line. Maybe you think the line too lenient or too strict, but it's there for a reason, to prevent abuses of power. We cross such lines at risk.

salvage,

Unless Rod has converted to the First Church of Dante's Poetry, you don't know the first thing about the very subject you pontificate on and on about.

Read what Apostolic Christian theologians actually say about the Eschaton. Reflect on it.

Christians are one cruelest groups of people that ever lived. Why should anyone be surprised that they'd support torture of prisoners? It goes right along with the "I'm right and you're wrong" philosophy that they live by and judge others by...

Christianity is a torture-based religion, so to speak, so it makes sense. The God of the Old Testament regularly inflicts pain and suffering on those he doesn't like, in quite gruesome ways. He threatens us all with eternal Hell--the ultimate torture chamber. He even required his "only son" to be tortured to death in order to save us from being tortured for all eternity.

Torture is a central theme in Christian dogma, so it's no surprise Christians support torture.

The trouble with the "cultural powers-that-be" line of argument is that it assumes a monoculture, despite the fact that none of us live in one. My university has its own culture; so does my workplace; so does my country; so, inevitably, does my church. All of these give me the poweful necessary support of the collective, helping me to believe in the value of my work and my actions and my thought. All of these give me the powerful dangerous sense of my work and my actions and my thought as valuable in ways I don't have to think about: since "all right-minded people agree". As a Christian, in a church, I am not a lone voice in the wilderness, in the world but not of it. I stand in the context of a two thousand year tradition, and centuries of that tradition consists in the tradition of exclusive political and cultural power. If ever a cultural power-that-be there was...

I'm not saying the church (understood collectively, globally) isn't a place of powerful opposition to (some) cultural powers-that-be. It is, thank God. However, it is a cultural power itself - it offers all the seductions of the collective - and unless each individual Christian and, ideally, each Christian community comes back again and again to the Cross and to Scripture in a spirit of humility and self-interrogation, it will be just another shouting voice selling just another cultural narrative in the marketplace of power. The only way to be in the world but not of it is to found yourself on Christ NOT your church. That means repentance, not pride.

My point is that *is*, of course, deeply arrogant of secular liberals/"progressives" to believe that their particular beliefs are fully identified with "the cultural powers that be" in a way that demonstrates their collective moral superiority over barbaric throwback Christian nutters. It is equally and dangerously arrogant of Christians to believe that our particular beliefs (that is, whatever beliefs the people on Our Side espouse including geopolitical beliefs and economic beliefs and beliefs about the validity of torture) are at odds with "the cultural powers that be" in a way that demonstrates our collective moral superiority. This Them and Us - wicked wordly liberals versus Godly superior Christians - is just, well, I think the technical term is spiritual pride. This isn't a team sport. It isn't a sport.

CG,

Two points [since I think it would be silly for a layperson and an atheist to get into detailed Biblical exegesis in the context of this discussion]:

(1) I don't think of Rowan Williams's statement refers to a "soft version" of Hell. I promise, at least for myself, that the idea of total separation from God and all that God is - love, hope, truth, joy - is the most frightening thing I can think of. The idea that the only way a human soul could find itself in this state is the same way we all find ourselves in that state sometimes, here and now - through anger and fear and the other fun ways in which human free will can express itself - seems to me something that logically follows from everything Christianity teaches about the nature of God and the nature of humanity. Furnaces of fire may be literal or metaphorical - I don't know what God's wisdom requires - but their presence doesn't make things any "harder" than the hardest experience there could be. It does mean, however, that God isn't a torturer; that Hell can only be our creation, not His.

(2) I agree that cuddly care bear Jesus is a lie. We have enough Scriptural evidence of that, including the passages you mention. I disagree that this means that all-loving Jesus is a lie: Scripture, and our ordinary day-to-day experiences of love from those who really love us, both prove that cuddles and endless tolerance do not represent the only love we need. "Torturer" is not the only alternative there is to a comfort-blanket God who would never ever hurt our feelings.

Gwen, Salvage, Franklin,...

Jesus himself had some very violent and intolerant attitudes. Certainly you remember from Sunday School class that He used a whip on the money changers in the temple--so much for "forgiveness" and "turning the other cheek".

Here are some of Jesus' teachings on what to do with non-believers:

"Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man come unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6).

"Think not that I [Jesus] have come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

"...for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 26:52)

"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

“Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. (Matthew 10:21)

"If any man come unto me, and HATE not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

"Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three." (Luke 12:51-2)

"The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and WILL CAST THEM INTO TH FURNACE OF FIRE. THERE WILL BE WAILING AND GNASHING OF TEETH." (Matthew 13:41-42) GWEN...So much for Rowan William's soft version of Hell. Open the bible and actually see what it says about Hell.

In a parable on discipleship, Jesus ends with: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27).

So much for the sweet, soft, all-loving care bear Jesus.

Gwen, Salvage, Franklin,...

Sorry about that extra post of a previous response...browser's been buggy lately.

Hi Gwen,

Don't sweat the atheist thing, I was just being nitpicky.

Are you Eastern Orthodox? I was once. I know all about the differences between the literalist Protestant interpretion versus the Orthodox patristic exegesis. My responses were mostly aimed at the literalist interpretation, since that one is the most prevalent in the US, as well as most relevant to the discussion. I apologize for any misunderstanding on that part.

The "Apostolic tradition", while it certainly has more going for it than the Protestant, offers no reason to see it as absolute and infallible. You're correct, the bible is the product of Orthodox tradition, but who made Orthodox tradition? MAN made Orthodox tradition. To expose the bible for what it is, is to expose the men who invented it--the early apostolic church--for what they were: fallible, confused, violent, hungry for power, sometimes lofty and sublime, mostly boring.

You say: "the source of my religion is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as witnessed by his apostles and in successive generations by His Church and as made present to all of us here and now by the work of God the Holy Spirit." That's just an opinion, a speculation, but you state it as if it were an undeniable fact. If it were a fact, there'd be no reason to refer to it as faith. Faith is believing in that which you cannot prove. There is no objective evidence of the virgin birth, resurrection, ascension, nothing that would stand-up in a real court, except maybe the phony "court" of Lee Strobel, but I digress.

Nobody is under any moral obligation to believe the dogmas of the church, just because the church says so, just as no one is obligated to believe the bible, just because "the bible says so". "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." The church has not provided that evidence.

To be sure, the church has invented some beautiful iconography, solemn liturgies, uplifting homilies, and even some insightful readings of the bible. But dazzling as it all can be, none of it proves anything about the resurrection, the healing power of relics, and all the other hokem the church has dreamt up over the centuries.

As far as the bible goes, you'd think the early apostles could have come up with a more logically coherent form of scripture. If the bible, with all its contradictions, cruelties, injustices and absurdities is the best that apostolic tradition could come up with, then it doesn't say much for apostolic tradition.

Orthodox/Apostolic exegesis, with some exceptions, is more or less the same method as the Protestants'. The bible is to be read in its most plain, literal meaning. The verses I cited above cannot be made "better" by interpreting them "in light of apostolic tradition", "liturgically", "sacramentally", or anything like that. Deuteronomy 13, for example, means what it says: to kill unbelievers; no honest apostolic scholar is going to deny that.

Just because "the majority" of Christians read the bible in this manner doesn't necessarily prove it to be right. The bible still says what it says, and you can't get away from that.

I hope all goes well for you, Gwen.

CG

You have to understand that Christ IS a FACT to a Christian. People forget God is supernatural....people believe someone studies real hard, gathers clues, and makes a best guess.

If you asked God right now...if Jesus Christ really is the one who will save me then I will follow him....well, it become a fact to you as well. God puts that fact into your mind to the point where it is more a fact than your own name. Thats why people who were burned alive did not deny Christ. You see, a real Christian would die for that--not blown themselves and others up for it. A real Christin cannot un-believe. I say a real Christian..not one professing to be for his own reasons.

Also, waterboarding was devised to NOT torture people. I would do it but I understand the pressure the government has to protect the world. And if your so naive as to think that democrats care that we poured water over 3 serial killers heads(one who planned 911 and chopped off someones head on the internet) than I feel sorry you. Democrats dont seem to care that a babies head is crushed by forceps---so dont think for a minute this is not about politics--the need to paint your opposition as evil. Please dont tell me your that stupid.

People are like drones spewing out the party line. No one uses actual wisdom or unbias thinking. Its the "world according to my own personal baseball team". One side says safe..the other says out..when they have both witnessed the same play. Very few want to actually know the truth. They simply want the truth to be what they want it to be. Atheists dont want there to be a God but all the wishing in the world is not gonna destroy the one who created them. They can make their snide remarks in this world as if that somehow will achieve something but they will stand before God speechless in the end.

So dont look for another clue because you dont have a clue. if you did you would see the glory of God through the Universe he has made. Just tear down that wall of arrogance and ask God to give you the truth--that you sincerely want his Love --and it will be Game Over. What...your afraid? Dont be.... Christianity is not what you thought it was and Christ is fulfillment of everything you never saw in a person. Yes...the world will now hate you and make fun of you but when the world is gone..you will be left standing.

Why is this such a shocker? I have always found white evangelical Christians to be among the most evil-minded people you will ever meet. Not all of them obviously, but as a group, they are generally racist and are eager to support any war that kills brown people. The USA executed Japanese soldiers for waterboarding in WWII. While I don't support the death penalty, I consider anyone that participated in waterboarding to be a war criminal, and anyone that supports the actions of these war criminals are traitors to humanity.