Why Are Frequent Churchgoers More Likely To Support Torture?
YouTube - Why Are Frequent Churchgoers More Likely To Support Torture?
|
Why Are Frequent Churchgoers More Likely To Support Torture?
YouTube - Why Are Frequent Churchgoers More Likely To Support Torture?
I don't know any churchgoer who supports "torture" . If you ask me why I approved of the enhanced interrogation techniques that went beyond tea and crumpets questioning then I would tell you that I think the country is worth defending .
I recognize that the methods employed do not come even close to the barbarity that is torture that the enemy regularly employs. It is a huge leap to equate making someone think they are drowning ;with slowly cutting their heads off with a dull knife ;with drilling holes in their victims with a power drill;or other maiming practices they regularly employ. I don't understand why the non-church goer would make the equivalence .
I just can't make the leap . To me this is torture..
http://patdollard.com/wp-content/upl...er11zg3yf1.jpg
If that makes me a hypocrite then... well... it is not the worse sin in the world .
I don't know either, but I bet most of them don't view the techniques we used as "torture." I wonder why no one ever points out that a majority of Democrats and independents can justify the use of "torture" on occasion also.
http://people-press.org/reports/images/510-2.gif
We could always stick to bombing villages with drones somewhat indiscriminately to kill suspected terrorists instead of throwing them up against false walls if that would help soothe minds "tortured" over "torture."
Hello Lev:Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviston
I don't know. Maybe because the god they worship is a pretty mean mofo - with all that hellfire and brimstone and stuff.
excon
So let me get this straight your line of reasoning here is if they do so can we.What would be the difference between us and them.A civilized society is suppose to act like one.If you don't think simulating drowning is not torture, then try doing it on yourself you will have loads of fun.Religions teaches peace, but the most violent are the one who claim to be religious.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
This is not suppose to be democrat, republican issue, nice try though.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Ex
Aren't you Jewish? Ever read Judges or Joshua?
---------------------------------------------------
Pew: Church-Goers Like Torture More - The Atlantic Politics Channel
I question the methodology and thus the conclusions that can be implied by this study.
Look at the sample size of this poll
Less than 200 in each sub group
And the sample in the White Evangelical Protestant and the weekly attenders are about twice that of the unaffiliated or never / seldom attend. Is the "p value" significant? The chances of sampling error are to high.
Even those among those "unaffiliated," with religion - 15% vs 18-19% can "often" justify torture.
The US population is about 300,000,000, to say that less than 1000 can be representative of about 75,000,000 is false.
Religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
----------------------------------------------------
Romans 12:17-21
Micah 6:8
1 John 3
1 John 4
John 8
Galatians 5: 14-15
All do not support torture.
G&P
Perhaps they love their freedom of religion and want a strong government that will protect their rights.
Perhaps they understand the difference between being at war and prisoners of war and a prisoner in jail for a crime.
Perhaps they know the difference in questioning methods that are done to our our agents in training and real torture.
Perhaps they don't believe all the media hype calling questioning methods as torture.
Perhaps they have sat though one of my sermons and know what real torture is.
Your question is too loaded with preconceptions to be answered without of modifying it.
As has been pointed out, what kind of stats are you relying on for this preposteros claim?
And I, for one, don't define torture the way you apparently do. Having to hold your breath for 20 seconds doesn't seem too hard.
And finally, you ask what the difference is between "them" and "us".
I can tell you what it WILL be if we don't take steps to protect our country. "They" will win and "us" will die.
The facts are that, in regimes that try to eliminate religion, mankinds worst genocides have occurred:Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviston
Stalin
Mao
Pol Pot
Hitler
They were also Communist and /or Socialist
G&P
They said that some of our military goes through water boarding as training.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviston
Yeah I am with you we should just reason with them and then believe we made peace and see what they do to us next.
Also from what I heard many of the Democrats that are so opposed to it and claim they didn't know anything about it actually gave the okay for it at the time. That is why I heard they aren't going after the Republicans that approved it because it might eventually come back on them.
Maybe they are not Christians so you think its okay to torture themQuote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Maybe they don't look like you and you think its okay to torture people who don't look like you
Maybe they are not Americans and its okay to torture other since they are not really human beings
Maybe the priests have been feeding them garbage, and as they say garbage in garbage out
Maybe you need to take a good hard look at the facts
Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
So you are saying the sample size is not a true representation of the population.DO you know how scientific pools are conducted,Do you even know what a p value is.
As I said if water boarding is not torture try doing it on yourself, heck have the kids and the wife join in too, it will be a family affair.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
What you just did was put words in my mouth. If you don't see the difference between what we did and what they did then perhaps it is your moral compass that's out of wack. Too much relativism if you ask me.Quote:
So let me get this straight your line of reasoning here is if they do so can we.What would be the difference between us and them.A civilized society is suppose to act like one.If you don't think simulating drowning is not torture, then try doing it on yourself you will have loads of fun.Religions teaches peace, but the most violent are the one who claim to be religious.
You say water boarding is not torture, and my moral compass is out of wack! Nice
I get what it was supposed to be which is why it needed a perspective that never gets told.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviston
Yep put words in FR_chucks mouth too it seems.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't hear anybody crying over the civilians (ours or theirs) that the terrorists beheaded.
I don't hear the bleeding hearts getting anywhere with sitting down and reasoning with them.
I don't hear the bleeding hearts crying that ONE soldiers death is one too many so we need to get out of the war NOW.
How things change simply because their man is President.
Alan Keyes is the only one that I think really gets it about ANYTHING political!
Hello again:
Yeah, the deniers don't torture. They engage in torture "light", and torture "light" is just fine.
For sure if 41 seconds of waterboarding is torture, then 39 seconds is torture light. If banging a guy into a wall is torture, hanging on to his collar when you do it is only torture light.
But, of course, they are in denial... They see ONE act, and don't think it's torture, so ALL the acts put together couldn't be torture if any one act isn't... But, of course, they are in denial...
I guess they think being hung from a ceiling by handcuffs when it's time to sleep is OK... But, when they take you down, they don't let you sleep... Nope, they take you in for your morning waterboard... After your waterboard, they put you in a little tiny box with bugs... Then its time for your NEXT waterboard... After your morning waterboard, you're hung up again in your cell... By the way, the temp in your cell is freezing... Then it's time for some wall banging, maybe a head slap or two, and then your before lunch waterboard...
Yup, they're in denial... And, I have no idea why churchgoers are in the forefront of it. Kind of makes you NEVER want to go to church, doesn't it?
excon
Is 742 people a true representation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviston
Actually he seems to be quite categorical in his moral judgements. If anyone is invoking relativism here, it is those that are in favour of torture, RELATIVE to the situation at hand. Before you start throwing around moral terms, it is always good to have some idea of what they actually mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No relativism involved here since we believe that the treatment involved is not immoral.But equating a cold room ,loud music,pushing someone against a fake wall, or making someone think they are going to drown... with torture is the worst kind of moral relativism.What you guys are doing is dumbing down torture to any method of interrogation technique that gets someone the say something they did not intend to reveal willingly .
I have asked before and have not gotten a satisfactory answer from the people who condemn these techniques. Beyond tea and crumpets... what interrogation methods would you permit on someone like KSM who was a key planner in AQ attacks?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I have answered. You just don't like my answer. Our law doesn't call for special treatment for the really bad guys. Our law doesn't even SEE WHO the bad guys are. Our justice, is blind.
You, on the other hand, want to list certain people, or offenses, who are exceptionally bad... In fact, SO bad, that our law shouldn't apply to them, because, well THEY'RE BAD.
That isn't how our laws work here.
excon
PS> I'm not an interrogator, but I don't think tea and crumpets are served.
PPS> You never did answer question #35, did you?
Interesting question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviston
First of all, the question used in the poll (according to what Cafferty reported) was regarding support for "enhanced interrogation techniques". The word "torture" seems to not have been used in the poll. I wonder what the results of the poll would have been if the word "torture" had been used instead.
Secondly, the number of people who support enhanced interrogation matches very closely the number that doesn't... 49% to 47% I think the report said. So the country is evenly split on the issue. Also, the issue splits along party lines... Republicans favor it, while Democrats do not.
I wonder what the demographics are for churchgoers... what percentage are Dems vs. Reps. If, as I suspect, most frequent churchgoers are Republicans, then the issue of enhanced interrogation has nothing to do with whether they go to church, but rather is a function of their conservative leanings. It just so happens that people with conservative leanings tend to go to church more often.
It's sort of like asking why more people with Southern accents drink mint juleps than those with Northern accents. It just so happens that a mint julep is a regional drink based in the south. More Southerners drink it. Therefore, most of the people who drink it will have a Southern accent. The fact of an accent is not the determining factor over who drinks mint juleps. The accent is a function of region, and region is the deciding factor on who drinks mint juleps.
Similarly, churchgoing is not the deciding factor on who supports enhanced interrogation techniques. Political affiliation is the deciding factor, and it just so happens that Conservatives are the political group that is more likely to go to church regularly.
In other words, there is no cause and effect relationship between churchgoing and support of enhanced interrogations. There IS a relationship between CONSERVATISM and support of enhanced interrogations.
I'm not going to get into the question of whether the enhanced interrogations constitute "torture" or not, because that is beyond the scope of the question.
Hope this answers your question.
Elliot
But this isn't law enforcement . It is war.Quote:
Our law doesn't call for special treatment for the really bad guys. Our law doesn't even SEE WHO the bad guys are. Our justice, is blind.
#35 you exaggeration The Red Cross confirmed that .They were waterboarded fewer than 15 times in all, according to the Red Cross, which has spoken to them.The large number the MSM ran with is the number of times water was poured on them, with each pour lasting only seconds. Abu Zubaida lasted 35 seconds.Quote:
You never did answer question #35, did you?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't know. I thought there were laws that govern our conduct in war. Yes, as I recall, there definitely are. Those are the ones I'm talking about.
excon
PS> Notice how I said laws that govern OUR conduct in war... I said that, because those laws don't make any exceptions for how we treat the really bad guy, either.
How about Monty Python's Big Comfey Couch from the Spanish Inquisition skit ?Quote:
PS> I'm not an interrogator, but I don't think tea and crumpets are served
Yes; and Justice Dept lawyers used those guidelines in drafting the memos.Quote:
laws that govern our conduct in war
Have you ever seen a Star Trek: The Original Series episode called "The Savage Curtain"? (It's the one with Lincoln and Surak.) The basic lesson of the episode is that there is no difference between how "good" fights and how "evil" fights. The difference is not in the methods by which they fight, but rather what it is they are fighting for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviston
Historically, this lesson is true. The methods used by the Allies to combat the Axis Powers in WWII were no different from those used by the Axis Powers. Tanks, planes, bombs, grenades, guns, strategies, tactics, hand-to-hand techniques, training methods, INTERROGATIONS OF POWs, etc. were relatively the same on both sides. The difference is in what they were fighting for. One side fought for world domination and oppression, the other for freedom.
So when you ask "What would be the difference between us (the USA) and them (the terrorists)?" my answer is there is no difference in technique or method. The difference is in what we are fighting for. They are fighting for oppression and forced conversion to Islam, while we are fighting for freedom and the protection of innocent civillians.
As for whether I think simulated drowning is torture or not, I would like to see what our former colleague on this website, KINDJ, would say about it. You see, as a former SEAL, he went through SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) school as part of his training. SERE training is the part of special warfare training that teaches operatives how to resist torture when captured. During SERE training, operatives are "tortured" with simulated drowning, tight confinement, sleep deprivation, positional stress positions, beatings, cold, heat, exposure, and all the other methods used on the terrorists at Gitmo. So we have a colleague who has been through this stuff and has a working knowledge of what these techniques entail and how effective they are.
(I don't want to answer for him, but in conversations that I have had with him in the past, he told me that those techniques, while very unpleasant, leave no lasting damage or harm. Therefore, under the LEGAL definition of "torture" these techniques do not constitute torture. Nevertheless, we should ask him directly for his response.)
The word "torture" is being redefined in a way that has never been applied before in our history to a military setting. We have used similar (and worse) techniques to interrogate POWs since the beginning of our existence as a nation. In every war, we have used "harsh interrogation techniques" to obtain information necessary to defeat the enemy and disrupt his plans. This idea that "torture" is something new for the CIA or military interrogators is completely false. We have ALWAYS used these techniques to get the information we need. Again the difference between us and the enemy is not in the methods we use to fight, but rather in what we are fighting for.
Elliot
Except when a little empathy is needed?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
And, that same Justice Department recommended disciplinary action against these very lawyers, including reprimands and disbarment.
You don't get disbarred for writing bad law. You get disbarred because you did something illegal or unethical...
The entire house of cards is coming down. Bybee will be impeached. Yoo will be fired. And, the other guy will never find work.
excon
Tee hee hee... ;) ( I think ex is going to ignore that comment)Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Nice one!! :D :D :D :D :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Makes me wonder how many freezing days there are annually in Cuba:=?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello gal:Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Yup, waterboarding isn't torture because they can hold their breath for 40 seconds. Besides that, they don't have air conditioning in Cuba.
You epitomize denial.
excon
I'm not one of those who think that what went on at gitmo qualifies as torture.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I think I could get a lot of information out of these terrorists using nothing more than a handful of lard or a piece of bacon.
Would that be torture?
Now I know you don't know what you're talking about... and everyone else who has read the "torture memos" and the accounts of what occurred in the interrogations knows it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You clearly have not read the "torture memos". You also clearly have not read actual accounts of what occurred. Your own description of the "events" makes that clear.
There were no "morning and afternoon waterboardings". It was not permisable to do a waterboarding session more than twice a week, and never twice in the same day. People were never hung up by handcuffs. You made it up. Perhaps based on movies you've seen, perhaps based on stories you've heard about REAL torture. But it is not the reality of what occurred.
On the other hand, your position makes sense now. IF you assume that your description is accurate, then sure, I can understand why you would be against that sort of thing.
But since that is NOT what occurred, but rather only your own imagination at work, we cannot base decisions of national security on your fantasies.
Elliot
May I respectfully suggest you try about 4 squares of Ex Lax?:)Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Yes... no prosecution because they could find nothing to justify it. Instead they will be remanded to liberal state bars to do their own versions of kangaroo justice. LololololQuote:
And, that same Justice Department recommended disciplinary action against these very lawyers, including reprimands and disbarment.
I expect a slew of resignations from the Obama justice dept .because they are clearly politicizing giving legal advice to an administration. Why would Obama justice dept attys think that they will be protected when the next administration comes in ?
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
They'd be protected the same way you and I are protected - by obeying the law. I don't know why that's so hard for you supposed law and order people to grasp.
excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:50 PM. |