A new survey by Pew Research Center indicates that the more often you attend church in America, the more likely you are to approve of torturing a suspected terrorist to try to gain important information. I'm not surprised, are you? Also not surprising, if it's a white evangelical church you attend, you are even MORE likely than other church-goers to approve the use of torture.
The results of this survey were released a couple weeks ago. I have not written about it because some things are just too easy. How much effort does it take to rail against the rank hypocrisy of many church-goers and the evangelical movement? How much thought does it take to create a bumper sticker asking "Who Would Jesus Torture?"
Here is something that does require thought: Why? What is the connection between church attendance or religious affiliation and the approval of torturing another person?
Here is my humble attempt at understanding, but I am interested in other opinions:
I think this is a symptom of the heart-felt view of God as Judge that is embedded in the dogma of Protestant and Catholic religions. This heart-felt view of God as Judge leads to more frequent, and eventually habitual, judgment of others. When you are being judged constantly, it is natural to become more judgmental.
The inevitable destination of these dogmas is that some life is more valuable than other life (for example, an unborn life is more valuable than a convicted murderer's life). So if you believe that God is judging you as worthy of the everlasting torture of hell (and you're not a terrorist) then suspected terrorists are certainly way worse and temporary torture at our hands is acceptable. The suspect's life is expendable if torturing him will save innocent life.
When I look at what I believe about the life and words of Jesus, there seems to be no justification for torture. So I have to believe that it is the poison of religion that has created the connection between church attendance or religious affiliation and the approval of torturing another person.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
6 comments:
Not being an expert, I nonetheless have an opinion to offer up. I think the link has to do with what the dominant world religions ask people to believe: That I am right and, if you disagree, then you are wrong.
That's a pretty confident stance considering all the uncertainty associated with the belief systems, but adherents to the religions seem to have no trouble accepting lock on truth. Religions, it could be argued, are as much about exclusion of differences than inclusion of similarities. But the statement above actually presses for more from the believer. Here's how: Since what I believe is God-ordained, then if you disagree, not only are you wrong, you are spiritually wrong, morally wrong, even evil.
That being the case, it isn't such a leap to accepting that the evil person needs, deserves or cannot be any worse off than s/he already is if tortured.
As a supplement to my first post, I also think that people who attend church are predisposed to looking to someone besides themselves for what is right. People who attend church more regularly, then, would be more likely to do so. And hardcore evangelicals, well...
If a person leans on an outside guide for direction on what is right, like a pastor, then it makes sense that one would also be more likely to accept the guidance without questioning it, or to overrule one's own leanings if they differed from the guide's.
If that is the case (and I realize that it is a big "if") then it would only take a portion of pro-torture church leaders to influence an exponentially higher number of church followers toward a similar position.
Much like DVD here. I agree that religion is stupid and spirituality is for the weak.
DVD from your post I assume you are and atheist or agnostic, as I am.
Religion is just a glorified brainwashing.
People should look within themselves for guidance and morality and not worry about organize religion. Well put DVD.
Anon, you claim to be both an agnostic and an atheist? Something suspicious about your comment. I prefer straight-talkers. When you're ready to be honest and talk directly, I'll be happy to engage. While you're considering whether you have the wherewithal to truly engage, consider that I speak separately of religion and God. Read throughout this blog and you'll get a better picture.
Ya know when a bunch of people are out to dinner and all of the sudden someone brings up politics or religion and two of the people start to argue or have an open disagreement and when they're done the rest of the group just sits quietly? QED.
Good one, JayEnEff. Throw in Anon's dishonest, passive-aggressive attack and it's practically Thanksgiving Dinner! (I kid, family!)
Sadly, some people that read here tell me they are concerned about what others will think of them for their comments. I understand, because I have had people directly and some anonymously (and selectively) choose parts of my writing and make judgments and express "concerns." I had a recent incident from someone not brave enough to talk to me directly. Sigh. It encourages me though, because I think, "just for a few minutes, whoever that was at least had to THINK about something that disagrees with their beliefs."
Post a Comment